Nope. I think cop's having a different set of rules allowing them a "license to kill" as you state, is the equivalent of the Gestapo. No one should have the right to kill anyone in my opinion. And that, is the difference between you and me.
Kenny Stills answer to taking the knee
- Thread starter ESPiam
- Start date
Nope. I think cop's having a different set of rules allowing them a "license to kill" as you state, is the equivalent of the Gestapo. No one should have the right to kill anyone in my opinion. And that, is the difference between you and me.
So each cop, individually, has their own set of parameters? Or do you install a chip in their brain? So does self preservation take precedence over "protect and serve?" If so, why do we need them?
If it is not okay for a civilian... ever, then you as a civilian are not allowed to defend yourself or your property... Right? That means a reasonable law abiding citizen can't determine whether or not to defend their homes or persons from assault. Only the cops can do that... You can live in that world if you want. I have. It's called prison.
Easy WNAS...I wouldn't say police officers have a "License to Kill". That is implying that every time an officer pulls his weapon or uses his weapon, it's to KILL the person they are having to use that force against. In the law enforcement training I got in the military, and the use of force training we get yearly at my current job, I have NEVER ONCE been told that deadly force is used to KILL the person you are using it against. It's simply a level of force that is intended to STOP THE THREAT. Now using deadly force no doubt comes with the knowledge that it's a level of force that can cause death. But death or "killing" the person IS NOT is primary goal.
Medic007
Sooner starter
Thank you BillyRay, a thousand times. What the idiot media and race baiters fail to include is that officers are trained to stop the threat, not to kill.
I'm interested in knowing who would be at fault if A)officers didn't react and he managed to get a gun from his vehicle and kill three cops, and then drove away and ended up killing two civilians, or B)officers didn't react and he was able to get into his SUV and flee police and ended up crashing into a minivan and killed a family of five.
Serious question.
You're clearly correct. But the fact remains, law enforcement act w/ authority, they can & do kill and carry guns to do so. Terms of 'neutralized', 'Stop the Threat', and other PC terminology makes for better presentation when a killing takes place.
Stop the threat = police
Shoot to kill = military
Same targets, same bottle. Head and heart are more points...
Police protect and serve
Military defends the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic...
When police start being like the military, there are serious issues... Oh yeah, we have some serious issues already...
I've never viewed it that way in all the years I've gone thru Use of Force training. If law enforcement actually did think it was to kill the individual, then they would include taking head shots, or shooting until the subject stops moving, or shooting until the subject stops breathing, etc. But that is NOT what they teach. I have never been taught ANYTHING other than you shoot center mass (since it's the largest and least moveable part of the body), and you shoot to stop the subject from performing the action that brought about deadly force to begin with. And that DOES NOT include walking up and blowing someone away after they have been rendered incapacitated. To do otherwise would be more of having a "License to Kill".
But the police force does have to evolve as new, different, and more capable/destructive threats arise do they not?? If they don't, then they would be less capable of protecting the public.
Case in point, the Hollywood bank robbery shootout in the late 90s. Up till that point, cops still had shotguns in their patrol vehicles and most cops still carried revolvers for sidearms. The armed men that they cops had to fight wore body armor and had AR15s and AK47s. The rounds fired from officers had literally zero effect and they were completely ineffective. I remember many of the officers had to get AR15s from a local gun store to finally take the robbers down. And since then, nearly every patrol vehicle in the country has an AR15 type weapon. Wouldn't you classify that as "being like the military" since the AR15 is viewed by many as a military style weapon??
And nowadays the domestic police force is having to deal with terrorist threats and bombings just like our military personal have to deal with overseas. Why can't police officers adopt military style training and equipment to not only better protect themselves, but it better protects the public as well?? Hell, look no further than the incident with the Dallas PD a few months ago as a perfect example.
Weapons are one thing. Tactics are another. By definition, the police and military are not the same. I've never viewed an AR-15 as a military style weapon. I don't consider it an assault weapon, either. To me, it is a weapon. It is not capable of doing anything on it's own.
Cops are not there to be the executioner. I'm very aware that there are times when they do have to shoot people. In order to stop the threat, it is usually going to be a shot or shots that kill. I don't have an issue with cops doing their jobs. Most of them do, and get little credit. Their objective is not of a military sort, and should never be, in my opinion.
The military is a different story. There is a different mindset and different objectives. And, of course, those change according to the whims of spineless leaders...
Goodness Billy, I never said the police is authorized to walk up to anyone and shoot. But the fact is, they also do not have to call to seek permission to shoot. Hence, while this may indeed be their last resort, LEO are licensed to kill.
KMFDM - Kein Mittleid Fur Die Mehrheit (No Sympathy for the Majority)
War and slavery
Exploitation
The common basis of a Western nation
Official version
A falsified story
The truth lies buried in a shroud of glory
Influential people aren't serving time for being involved in organized crime
But stashed away in beautiful mansions
Guess who provides for their generous pensions?
Oppression
Ignorance
Censorship rule
Education is more that what's taught in school
Forced in a mold
Held down by threats
Decisions are made over our heads
But there is a way to refuse and resist
We don't need to be ruled with the iron fist
We are the people
We are strong
Let's make up our minds and prove 'em wrong
Religion and TV
We're under the thumb
Prone to believe 'cause we're already numb!
Black man
White man
Yellow man
Black man
White man
Rip the system
War and slavery
Exploitation
The common basis of a Western nation
Official version
A falsified story
The truth lies buried in a shroud of glory
Influential people aren't serving time for being involved in organized crime
But stashed away in beautiful mansions
Guess who provides for their generous pensions?
Oppression
Ignorance
Censorship rule
Education is more that what's taught in school
Forced in a mold
Held down by threats
Decisions are made over our heads
But there is a way to refuse and resist
We don't need to be ruled with the iron fist
We are the people
We are strong
Let's make up our minds and prove 'em wrong
Religion and TV
We're under the thumb
Prone to believe 'cause we're already numb!
Black man
White man
Yellow man
Black man
White man
Rip the system
So then what's the difference from a normal civilian who has a carry permit and they are in a situation where they have to defend themselves with deadly force?? Does that mean that carry permit gives them a "License to Kill"??
And really, the Use of Force model that dictates what level of force is appropriate for any given situation applies to law enforcement AND ALSO civilians who are using weapons to defend themselves.
Look at the Jerome Ersland case. He shot a kid trying to rob his store and the kid went to the ground. He then got another pistol and walked back over and unloaded that gun into that kid that no longer posed a threat. WNAS are you trying to say a police officer with a "License to Kill" would have been allowed to do what Ersland did? The law regarding the use of deadly force applied equally to Ersland and police officers in that situation, as in ALL situations where deadly force is authorized. So how does being a police officer give them a "License to Kill" when they have to follow the same law and Use of Force model that civilians have to follow? And Ersland did NOT have to seek permission to use deadly force to protect himself either.
Being authorized to use deadly force, whether it be in the confines of doing your job or whether you are simply defending yourself, is a level of force that you use knowing it's capable of causing death. No more, no less. It is NOT with the goal of killing the person you are using it against. And that applies to regular civilians and police officers alike.
You can walk in my yard and though trespassing, I can't legally cut you, shoot you, or assault you in any way. The moment you pick up something belonging to me, and I feel that my property is at risk of being stolen or damaged... I can legally use whatever force I see necessary to protect and secure it. Walk into my house uninvited... Well, that's up to you...
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
It's laughable the Gestapo reference is being used.
You have read about what they did, right?
Not even a close comparison.
You have read about what they did, right?
Not even a close comparison.
I don't compare cops in America to the Gestapo. I said giving them a "license to kill" is as good as having the Gestapo as the police here. I've not just read it. I've heard it from people who were there.
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Betty Shelby just indicted for 1st degree manslaughter.
Tulsa Crutcher shooting.
Tulsa Crutcher shooting.
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
I don't see that.
A few things.
A good lawyer.
Female always helps.
Tulsa law and order jury.
Acquital isn't impossible.
Not surprising in this case since Crutcher was not armed. You can't use deadly force because you THINK he MIGHT be reaching for a weapon.
Yep. You gotta wait til they pull a gun and shoot and even then in today's political world you're most likely screwed professionally speaking.
Turned herself in last night. Released last night on $50,000.00 bond. That means that $5,000.00 gets you out... Is that common for 1st degree felonies in Oklahoma? I've had larger bonds for state jail felonies in Texas, the equivalent of a 4th degree felony... Pretty cheap...
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Yep, I don't know enough to be an expert but 10% will spring you out unless there aggravating circumstances, like flight risk.
10% is the norm, I'm just curious about the amount. Would a civilian get that low of a bond for a similar charge?
Medic007
Sooner starter
Medic007
Sooner starter
No problem.
First degree manslaughter in OK is the same as voluntary manslaughter in other states. Voluntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide usually have a presumptive bond of $50k, depending on criminal history, etc of course. Involuntary manslaughter is usually half of that.
The various tapes which provide views from several different angles (including "hindsight") provide probable cause that a crime was committed, but don't come close to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Leftists should prepare themselves for either acquittal or deadlocked jury, possibly conviction on a lesser charge.
If that happens, then Tulsa better watch carefully what is happening out in North Carolina right now....cuz it will be coming to Tulsa.
I just watched a video of Keith Scott's wife shot on her phone. The cops told him 6 times, "drop the gun"... the wife, yelled, three times, "Keith don't do it. He steps out w/ a gun and he's shot.
BR, Tulsa is only the 'up next' as it's evident that no matter what happens, how it happens, if a black person is shot by cops, there will be major issues. Yet, when a balck gang banger killls an innocent black woman walking her newborn in a stroller via a drive by shooting, nothing. Nothing happens. Nobody defends her. Nobody riots, Nobody protests. The media doesn't follow up. It doesn't fit anyone's narrative or agenda.
BR, Tulsa is only the 'up next' as it's evident that no matter what happens, how it happens, if a black person is shot by cops, there will be major issues. Yet, when a balck gang banger killls an innocent black woman walking her newborn in a stroller via a drive by shooting, nothing. Nothing happens. Nobody defends her. Nobody riots, Nobody protests. The media doesn't follow up. It doesn't fit anyone's narrative or agenda.
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Billy, Tulsa people aren't like that.
If something ugly goes down here, it will be the Soros funded thugs that are burning Charlotte, NC.
Funny, 70% of those arrested there had out of state IDs
Talked to my brother this morning. He says Tulsa shooting... bad shooting. Possibly reflex shooting when he got tazered.
He also cautioned, don't assume that the officers on the ground can hear the "he needs to be tazed" by the officer in the helicopter. Most likely, they can't.
I asked him if it was justified. His answer was, "definitely not."
So was it murder? "Definitely not."
He was absolute with his answers. He also wasn't aware of the charges against officer Shelby. He was surprised by the quickness of indictment, not of the charge though.
As for Charlotte, he hadn't seen any video, but did offer this... "cop tells you to drop the weapon, gun, screwdriver, etc... you drop whatever you have in your hands, or, you might be dead, soon."
He was a cop for over 20 years, trained officers for more than 12. He was very adamant about one thing... Shelby shouldn't have had her finger on the trigger at the point when Terence Crutcher fell. That surprised me...
I watched a few different clips. CNN was where I found this one... You can't see anything. You hear her yelling. You hear, "drop the gun" over and over. You never see what happens. You don't see whether he had a gun or not. Doesn't matter what she says. Did he have a gun or not? If he didn't, did he have what officers perceived to be a gun? The black police chief says a gun was recovered. I'd like to see the cops video.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/us/charlotte-keith-lamont-scott-shooting-wife-video/
Medic007
Sooner starter
It may be a bad shoot. If so, she'll face the consequences. The bullshit narrative advanced by his family that he was broken down on the side of the road and was treated poorly and shot because he's black is still complete bullshit. His actions led officers to react to him the way they did.
The continuous race baiting should stop. It isn't helpful. Police officers and white folks in this country are not the only ones with problems that need to be addressed.
Agree with everything you say here.
They hurt their own cause with the bullsh!t... Same in Charlotte... Black cop shoots black man with weapon, says black police chief... Then again, they hear a narrative from MSM and the spineless leaders... Saul Alinsky should be proud...
Well, I never thought this thread would last this long....
Link to some comedy and the truth. Be sure to hit this guy's other posts. He's hilarious..........
http://awdude.com/2016/09/dallas-police-shoot-unarmed-white-man-white-texans-protest-going-work-2/
Link to some comedy and the truth. Be sure to hit this guy's other posts. He's hilarious..........
http://awdude.com/2016/09/dallas-police-shoot-unarmed-white-man-white-texans-protest-going-work-2/
Medic007
Sooner starter
True story. Sympathetic folks like me start tuning these things out when the truth isn't regarded as an option. I'm all for police reforms that reduce deaths.
After being involved in an in-custody death, I vowed to never have one in Norman again. It's been more than 6 years since the last one. A collaborative effort to change the police response from one of a law enforcement emergency to a medical emergency was difficult, but we made it happen and Norman has been the beneficiary of the improvement.
