Sad Situation

[pacrat]

Very true! A Gun owner and survivalist who sounds a LOT like many members here ambushed and murdered two Pennsylvania State Troopers going home after a shift this last week. I haven't heard a single officer say a single negative towards gun owners or sportsmen. Because they understand this was the act of a single evil individual. Its sad that such logic is pretty rare to find here.

On the flip side, I have never heard a Gun Owner or Sportsman condone or make excuses for an individual that would commit such a horrific crime. We citizen sportsmen and gun owners are just as shocked and pissed off that some wacko did this terrible thing as LE are.

I've never here, or anywhere heard such drivel as "those cops must be bangers or scumbags, did they have Viking Tats like To Tall?" Were they doing a drug deal from property room stash? Did they resist or turn in a threatening manner when contacted by the survivalist? The scumbag who shot them is a criminal and no one from the gun owner, sportsman citizenry is going to make excuses for him. He should be given a speedy trial and a dull needle ASAP.

I've heard many unsubstantiated numbers of what percentage of cops are supposedly "bad". Mostly ranging from 1 to 5 percent. Well here is my own unsubstantiated estimate. I would put the number of cops that screw up at possibly closer to [one tenth of one percent]. Sadly it only takes one, and every BSM dickhead with a microphone and camera is slinging crap on the other 99.99% of hardworking officers that never cross a procedural line or bend a law.

What IrishJoe said is a two sided coin. On the rare ocassion a bad cop does screw up. It needs to be the LE Community at large that quickly, openly, and loudly makes it clear it was the act of "A Single Individual".

"Them v Us" doesn't work out well for anybody but the BSM that cashes in on it with increased inaccurate sound bytes.

[TRICKSTER]

Its a simple question with a very simple answer. But your evasiveness and hostile stance in answering it is a satisfactory answer for me anyways.

Well, since I never stated that and you keep trying to say that I did, tell me why I should even respond to such a dishonest person.
Show me the quote where I supposedly stated that "Distrust of the police = scumbag." and I'll answer your question. If not we will just accept the fact that your lying and playing games just to bait and troll and you can go back to OT where these types of deceptive games are tolerated. I do not believe in rewarding people who lie.

[Garand1911]

With all the cell and POV cams catching a lot of video on police incidents, more and more people are losing trust with the police, when shootings of unarmed people and dogs are seen by everyone.

I respect police, but after having a couple of nothing incidents which were escalated by the cops, and not by me, i no longer trust them as i did.
It used to be that only scumbags had something to worry about with cops, now i believe everyone has to worry when being contacted by the cops.
It seems there is too much "shoot first, and ask questions later", what happened to verbal judo ?

[tyrist]

That's not incompatible with a distrust of police officers in general though. Sure, the majority of police officers "for the most part do it well". What hurts the perception of police officers in my opinion are mainly two things... First, the tremendous power they have over people. Next, that they do not appear to be held accountable, when things go wrong. I am sure that many are... maybe most are. But, it's very unclear and we need that transparency.

Also each time I see something like this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/07/1319862/-Police-fatally-shoot-man-with-air-rifle-in-Walmart-toy-aisle

I am thinking why are these LEOs shooting so quickly? The LEOs here should have ordered the guy to drop his weapon from cover and given him enough time to do so. My feeling is that LEOs need to look at their procedure for contact and engagement. Even if these mistakes are statistically few, they are totally avoidable.

Once again, tremendous power... they have a job that authorizes them to use force all the way to the point where they take a person's life. This power makes it very important that they get it right, every time.

I wasn't at the scene and don't know the comments of the call which can greatly influence the decision making. What I will say though is there is NO cover in walmart from a rifle. Unless they drove an armored car into the store there wasn't anyway to make contact from a position of cover.

[1CavScout]

I work in EMS, we just park our vehicle and get out and do whatever in our neighborhoods until we get a call. We are timely to get wheels rolling (within 2 min) and make response times with great consistency.

I don't see why parking, making small loops out of the vehicle couldn't be promoted and activated as a part of an expected duty during a shift.

Not to make anybody actually get out and walk or anything heh heh.

Seriously, I think most anyone could see the great benefit in neighborhood policing including officers in vehicles supporting officers on walking beats that also have available vehicles in an appropriate proximity. It wouldn't even have to be every day, just irregularly irregular ...

Again, it all comes down to money.

Which IMO is a very sad part about it all. You LEOs have a consistently difficult job to do. I commend you for it. And at the same time wonder what the heck you were thinking.
Just kidding about that part.
Kind of ...

Extending the difficulties in maintaining the safety of the public is the state's decision to disallow persons to have constitutionally appropriate means to protect themselves (CCW?) - given the aforementioned budgetary problems with adequate LE staffing per area/population.
I mean that is always a chief complaint of LE agencies everywhere, isn't it?
When was the last time you heard a Sheriff or Police Chief say, "Nah, we don't need more money, we's flush!" haha!

Just think how much easier it would be for police if you had an entire population, most of which are socially appropriate, non-criminal people - to be able to defend themselves? No more complaints about response times, better deterrence as the criminals will no longer have the advantage of weapons vs law abiding persons?

The thought of a little old lady standing over a thug that tried to take her purse and her sayin' "he pointed that knife at me and said give me your purse! and then ran at me with that knife! Well, there he is, right there on the ground ..."

That is the power of a legally carried handgun.

What are you guys thoughts on this?

I don't think you will find a bigger supporter of carry rights than me. I think it should be like Arizona with Constitutional carry.

As far as Community Oriented Policing and Problems Solving (COPPS), I just don't see the benefit of putting a bunch of people in those positions and taking away from patrol. We had over 25 people at my station working COPPS, which was excessive to me. Put half of those officers in black and whites to take care of the city and handle calls.

I spent most of my time in the worst parts of my beat, and some of that was on foot. I would walk apartment complexes, trailer parks etc... I got to know the hood rats and gangsters pretty well. Even when rolling through in my car, it was windows down and slow. If I saw someone worth talking to I would get out and and make the contact.

You have to be motivated and willing to put in the effort to be a good proactive cop. Luckily at the station I worked at slugs were called out. If someone was a slug in patrol they did not last long. You were expected to either be shagging calls, or if you were clear you needed to be hunting for criminals.

[autoduel]

My 2 cents FWIW.......
Cops are victims of media just as guns are.
Most people don't have much experience with police. But when the read these negative sensationalist stories and seeing videos of police being heavy handed and escalating force. It's hard not to form a negative opinion based on what information you are exposed to.

All my dealings with police on duty have been professional, but I can't discount the bad apples. I am cordial and expect to be treated the same unless I'm a suspect in an investigation. But in the back of my mind, I'm thinking what if. I'm sure the officer is viewing me the same way. He looks like a standup guy, but what if....... so some distrust goes both ways.

Do I trust police, just because of their position? Yes and No. I trust them more than anyone off the street only because their job and livelihood is dependent upon them performing their duties in a professional manner and being held to a higher standard. But then it is also known that accountability for mistakes and bad judgement is lacking in those in position of power over others.

I see calling the police like using your CCW, even if you are in the right, the situation can easily be turned against you and put you in a world of hurt. If the benefits outweigh the potential risks, then call, but only if you have no other options.
The odds of running into a bad apple may be small, but the bad experiences you hear about, do happen and unnecessary contact with the police increases your risk.
Police are there to enforce the laws and look for violations. Police encounter just puts you under scrutiny.
This parallels many of our view of guns for self-defense. You don't know when something bad may happen, but you can take steps to minimize and mitigate the risk.

Maybe if we can shift public opinion of police from "enforcers" back to "protect and serve" it would be a good first step. But with the media sensationalism and DHS militarization, I don't see that happening.

[micro911]

Sometimes, contacts with public can be funny..

One told me that I should go out and catch murderers or robbers. I told him I will do that as soon as I finish writing this ticket.

Another told me that he pays my salary. I told him I appreciate very much for him being so generous. I then asked him if I can have a raise..

In all seriousness, how one starts to contact the public will dictate how it will end. I always told the young ones to start being nice, and if the situation escalates, then he can change accordingly. Once you start being a bad one or tough one, it can rarely be reversed.

[micro911]

This parallels many of our view of guns for self-defense. You don't know when something bad may happen, but you can take steps to minimize and mitigate the risk.

When you are involved in shooting and kill someone, it will be investigated by Homicide detectives. From my experience with them for many years, even if I were a civilian, I will trust their experience and hard investigation. At least the ones with my agency. I don't know about other agencies, but the ones at my agency are very good investigators. Their nickname is Bulldogs.

[IrishJoe3]

Just as one example... there recently was a Latino man walking around with a trowel, clearly upset or somehow not right. Bystanders caught the police officer on camera shoot him. The man was clearly directing the trowel towards the police officer and threatening him with it. But, he was also 10-15 feet away and the police officer was approaching him when he killed the man. The man was by himself, so he was no immediate threat to anyone, not even to the police officer. It seems like he could have used a nonlethal weapon or waited for backup, but he decided to continue to advance and to use lethal force.

This is a major problem with Calguns. People pick and choose what facts to emphasis and which facts to ignore. You're talking about Carlos Mejia, who "broke into a home, threatened to kill a woman and exposed himself, indicating his intent to assault her, and also attempted to strangle her small dog in the backyard". Officers responding to that 9-1-1 call found him. They tried to stop him as he walked towards several business. Officers DID deploy a taser which didn't work. They shot him in self defense when he slashed at them with a pair of garden shears.

[IrishJoe3]

Right. But in the cause of the guy with the air gun, he was not really a threat to anyone. It was a perceived threat, and even then it's a stretch unless they saw him actually pointing the gun at someone. He probably was unaware that anyone even felt threatened. I think that when a person puts on a badge and accepts the rights and responsibilities, it is his or her burden to make certain that it is a real threat.

Do that, and you'll see fewer mistakes.

Fail fail fail fail fail. Go read the penal code and case law surrounding justifiable homicide lethal force in self defense.

So if some dude points an unloaded firearm at me (a fact I wont learn till well after the incident) I would be unable to defend myself from what is (at the immediate moment) every appearance of of a legitimate threat to my life?

That standard exists no where except your imagination. Likewise, at no point is an officer required as a term of employment to sacrifice his basic human right of self defense. (That is the term we hear all over this forum as to why CCWs should be Shall Issue, right??)

How about, don't do anything that a reasonable person would infer as a threat to life, and you won't be shot.

[IrishJoe3]

Okay, that's fair. But if you are in a place that sells rifles, air rifles, and toy rifles, as well as other black plastic items that from a distance could appear to be a rifle... you really don't know if a person is a threat immediately. That needs to be determined. It is not reasonable for a LEO to shoot someone on sight because the LEO sees something that "might" be a gun.

It is never reasonable for law enforcement to shoot anyone on site. Lethal force can ONLY be used in self defense or defense of others.

In this case there is no evidence that he was shot on site. That is purely your speculation.

[TRICKSTER]

I'm a white guy in my fifties. I also grew up in ethnically segregated cities. Further I have relatives that are NYPD and I fully understand that LE get to see everyone during the worst 20 minutes of their lives. So I do get it, and I say yes sir and no ma'am to people that serve me coffee.

All that said, in the last generation I've watched as local PD went from guys I knew by name and said hello to in the morning to an occupying army who see anyone not wearing the uniform as a prey animal. Anyone that fails to instantly comply with any and every command is instantly beaten, tased or worse.

Long story short, unless immanent death is involved, and I've been there, I don't call police, ever. Particularly if there's a person of color involved. I've just seen them and up with the short end of the deal too many times.

As much as I loath the surveillance society post constitutional America has become its hard to argue with results. The city of Rialto California instituted a policy years ago requiring police to wear body cameras at all times. in one year(!) citizen complaints fell over eighty percent and use of force reports fell more than two thirds.

As there seems to, sadly, be no reversing the militarization of police departments. This is one, perhaps singular, way in which the normative reactions of ever present surveillance technology serves all involved.

SFPD an occupying army? Now that is funny.

[micro911]

For the most part, many airguns and airsoft guns look like real guns. When the light is low, or inside of the house, it is hard to determine if the guns pointed at the officers are real or not. To be fair, many gang members paint the tips of their guns in orange color to mislead people to believe it is a "toy gun."

I went to a scene where officers shot and killed a "suspect" with an airsoft AK-47. The rifle had the orange tip painted black. Why would a person do it? I have no clue. The rifle looked like a real firearm at night. Would the officers have to wait until the suspect fire it to see if it is a toy gun when it is pointed at them?

Not all the officer shootings are justified for that matter. One of my old partner shot a man with a knife, and he was terminated from the department. I don't know the details of the case, but it would have been my call, because he was working my car on my day off.

[WyattandDoc]

Yes. It's my perception from what I've read. Our citizens are not a court of law though, we just hear about things and process them the best we can... It's not possible for people to just ignore it and wait until some investigation completes months or years later.
I bought an airgun this year also... I got it as a gift for my best friend's 10 year old son. (Yep, checked with the Mom first) I would very much like the opportunity to place the airgun on the ground before getting shot, should I get engaged by a LEO. As far as I can tell, this young guy did nothing wrong. If that's true, then it could have just as easily been me shot. I have a very real interest in knowing what in the world went wrong.

I can see not ignoring an important issue. But can you explain to me why you can't wait for the investigation to be completed? Wouldn't that make sense to wait for the facts? Wouldn't that allow you to make a mature informed decision? Or would you prefer to react to rumor, innuendo and made up "facts"? I'm confused.

[IrishJoe3]

Did the guy with the airgun point it at the officers?

You're operating under the assumption that he did not. How do you know that he in fact did not point it (intentional or otherwise) at the officers?

-Disclaimer, I agree that IF the officers simply saw the the gun and fired regardless of the threat perceived that its a bad shoot.

You are creating a scenario outside the scope of my post. You definitely do not know if a real gun is loaded. But, if a person sees you and directs his rifle at you, I wouldn't blame the police officer for defending himself in that scenario and never did. .

Good, glad we agree. The next logical step is, what is the difference between a pointed unloaded firearm (incapable of harm) and a toy/BB gun that has every appearance of a threat but is also incapable of harm?

Do you know of a Sheriffs Deputy named Ali Perez from San Diego? That's my cousin. He was shot in a doorway by a rifle while serving a warrant on a child molester. Believe me, the very last thing I want is for LEOs to get hurt. .

I do not, I hope he fully recovered from that! Hopefully with your inside knowledge of a shooting, you understand that individuals involved in a potential self defense shooting situation, (officers, law abiding citizens, etc) have often fractions of a second to asses a rapidly changing scenario and determine the proper and appropriate response.

But I don't want guys purchasing airguns to get hurt either.

No one does, myself included! But see, the guy in Walmart wasn't shot because he "purchased an airgun", now was he?