Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people

No offense here bro, but that innocent bystanders death isn't the fault of the police officer. It's the fault of the mass shooter that the police officer had to respond to and engage. The police cannot be expected to hit their target 100% of the time. But the fact remains that the police had to discharge their weapons because of an active Mass shooter. That makes any casualties that occurred that day the fault of that mass shooter and not the police. Yes it's tragic that an innocent bystander died, but again that's not the fault of the police.

If some a****** didn't decide to go reenact Columbine that day, that woman would still be with us.
Boot licking can be offensive. Good call there.
It must be nice to have this blank check any time things get real. Congratulations on being part of the problem. 👍
 
Last edited:
This.

Many states transfer these charges to the instigator, and honestly all states should as long as there's not egregious action. You shoot the next school killer, over pen and bag Mr. Garrison behind them, mentally that's on you, morally that should be on the shooter all day long.
Cool. So then when something goes down, the cops have a blank check to just open fire or do anything? If some innocent bystanders get it well that’s unfortunate?
These free passes continue to happen because of people like you. Congratulations on being part of the problem.
Of course they have other options but as we know officer, safety is paramount, so we better choose the one least dangerous for us and open fire. Of course, it’s the one that’s most dangerous for the public but they don’t care.
 
Last edited:
"Officers located the suspect, and an officer-involved shooting occurred."

My agency taught us to never use passive voice. How damn hard is it to just say, "...and they shot him"?

Passive voice always deflects responsibility.
You answered your own question, which I assume was intended.

"Mistakes Were Made."
 
Cool. So then when something goes down, the cops have a blank check to just open fire or do anything? If some innocent bystanders get it well that’s unfortunate?
These free passes continue to happen because of people like you. Congratulations on being part of the problem.
Of course they have other options but as we know officer, safety is paramount, so we better choose the one least dangerous for us and open fire. Of course, it’s the one that’s most dangerous for the public but they don’t care.
Listen to Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defense channel.
The self-defense actions must be objectively reasonable to burden shift to the perpetrator.
This doctrine serves both regular citizens and the police alike.
The difference is that police enjoy qualified Immunity and a rebuttable assumption that their use of force to apprehend a suspect is reasonable.

If one of us stops an active shooter but also incurrs collateral damage in doing so we would get the same legal protection as long as our actions were reasonable.
A pass through injuring a third-party would objectively be reasonable in an active shooting - you hit your target and time to move to get a better backstop is unlikely to be safely available in such situations.
Being shown on video running away while firing one handed behind you would very likely not be found reasonable.
 
Boot licking can be offensive. Good call there.
It must be nice to have this blank check any time things get real. Congratulations on being part of the problem. 👍


If you want to criticize how the police do their job, feel free to put on the uniform, pick up a weapon, and start working a patrol.

Until then, you would do well to not judge their actions with hindsight being 20/20 and the standard being perfection when under fire.
 
Last edited:
Not seeing much mass shooting or under fires in some of these examples
 
So whose life is more important in that moment? The girl or the cop?
To who? To the girl, her life. To the cop, his life. I carry a gun because my life is important to me.
Let's replace that cop with yourself or someone in your family who isn't a cop, you think if the result were the same you wouldn't be doing time?

The cop was justified in shooting at the perp. He either missed one or it went through and hit the girl. Tragic but what benefit is there to society to lock someone up for an accident?

Him being a Cop is irrelevant, nobody should get locked up for that kind of bullshit.
 
If you want to criticize how the police do their job, feel free to put on the uniform, pick up a weapon, and start working a patrol.

Until then, you would do well to not judge their actions with hindsight being 20/20 and the standard being perfection when under fire.
I've never shot a movie, but I know that if Adam Sandler stars in it, it sucks.
 
If you want to criticize how the police do their job, feel free to put on the uniform, pick up a weapon, and start working a patrol.

Until then, you would do well to not judge their actions with hindsight being 20/20 and the standard being perfection when under fire.

This is the most idiotic bullshit argument.

Now do climate scientists. And teachers. And ATF agents. And the IRS. And doctors. And carpenters. And auto mechanics.

I absolutely can judge the way a cop does his/her job, just like I can judge my mechanic, or doctor, or lawyer, even though I've never been any of those.


If you think otherwise, you should never speak about every vocation that you haven't personally participated in. Don't forget important differences like "in a big city" is different than "in a small town", and "cabinet making" is different than "framing" After all, if you've never done those jobs, you can't possibly know if they're being done well.
 
This is the most idiotic bullshit argument.

Now do climate scientists. And teachers. And ATF agents. And the IRS. And doctors. And carpenters. And auto mechanics.

I absolutely can judge the way a cop does his/her job, just like I can judge my mechanic, or doctor, or lawyer, even though I've never been any of those.


If you think otherwise, you should never speak about every vocation that you haven't personally participated in. Don't forget important differences like "in a big city" is different than "in a small town", and "cabinet making" is different than "framing" After all, if you've never done those jobs, you can't possibly know if they're being done well.


Your post lacks all merit and your comparisons are completely off base. You cannot compare cabinet making to being a police officer under fire during a mass shooting event. To even try to justify that comparison is pure lunacy and only serves to highlight the egregious and obvious weakness of your position.

Stray bullets that harm or kill innocent bystanders are not the fault of the police officers engaging the mass shooter. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the shooter. But if you think you're up to the challenge I'll be happy to throw some rounds at you from my AR air soft or a paintball gun while you see if you can stay on target with 100% accuracy. I bet you dont... now imagine having real rounds thrown at you.

You armchair quarterbacks are comical.
 
Last edited:
Stray bullets that harm or kill innocent bystanders are not the fault of the police officers
i-started-blasting-so-anyway-i-started-blasting.gif
 
I find it comical that most people here probably wouldn't be able to get 50% of their shots in a standard police silhouette at 20 yards under ideal range conditions are criticizing police officers who miss their target while under fire from a mass shooter armed with a semi-automatic rifle.
 
You lost any credibility you may have had when you said that nobody can judge or criticize the cops until they put on a uniform themselves.
 
Stray bullets that harm or kill innocent bystanders are not the fault of the police officers engaging the mass shooter. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the shooter.
This statement is simply wrong.
A defenders actions are only transferable if those actions are objectively reasonable.
A large number of police responses are not objectively reasonable and would result in a non-LEO defender being charged and convicted. However LEO hides behind qualified Immunity so the question of objective reasonableness doesn't even get asked.
It's not hard to find video of police sending poorly or completely unaimed volleys of fire downrange like they are using suppressive fire on the front line of a major military battle. And in pretty much all of those events the police suffer no serious consequences for their negligence and recklessness.
 
I find it comical that most people here probably wouldn't be able to get 50% of their shots in a standard police silhouette at 20 yards under ideal range conditions are criticizing police officers who miss their target while under fire from a mass shooter armed with a semi-automatic rifle.

I agree. It's absurd that a cop would be responsible for shooting 6 bystanders when faced with the imminent thread of a mass shooter who's gun is mere feet away!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJuF8UQuNm4

 
This statement is simply wrong.
A defenders actions are only transferable if those actions are objectively reasonable.
A large number of police responses are not objectively reasonable and would result in a non-LEO defender being charged and convicted. However LEO hides behind qualified Immunity so the question of objective reasonableness doesn't even get asked.
It's not hard to find video of police sending poorly or completely unaimed volleys of fire downrange like they are using suppressive fire on the front line of a major military battle. And in pretty much all of those events the police suffer no serious consequences for their negligence and recklessness.


The California Department of Justice said the evidence in their investigation "does not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer involved acted without the intent to defend himself and others from what he reasonably believed to be imminent death or serious bodily injury."

What about that strikes you as being unreasonable?
 
I agree. It's absurd that a cop would be responsible for shooting 6 bystanders when faced with the imminent thread of a mass shooter who's gun is mere feet away!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJuF8UQuNm4



Okay, congratulations. All you've proved is that if you scour the internet on a mission, you can find the outlier cases that align with your position. But as those cases are outliers, and do not in represent how police behave in totality, they lend no support to your argument.

I can find examples of bad practitioners of any trade too. That doesn't mean most or all are bad at their job.

Bad doctors kill people everyday. Is that going to keep you from going to the emergency room if you break your leg? I very much doubt it.
 
This statement is simply wrong.
A defenders actions are only transferable if those actions are objectively reasonable.
A large number of police responses are not objectively reasonable and would result in a non-LEO defender being charged and convicted. However LEO hides behind qualified Immunity so the question of objective reasonableness doesn't even get asked.

Please stop blaming qualified immunity for shitty behavior. That's only the last part of a much larger problem.

Qualified immunity only comes into play after the rest of the criminal system has let them off the hook. It's the unions and absurdly generous contracts that give cops all sorts of get-out-of-jail-free cards even before the victims can sue.

Cops don't have to answer questions until they get their story straight, they literally can coordinate their statements.
Cops don't have to justify shooting anyone if they can, even in the remotest way, claim they were in danger.
Cops are given *EVERY* benefit of doubt, at every point.

Qualified immunity is only about civil lawsuits, not about criminal behavior.
 
I find it comical that most people here probably wouldn't be able to get 50% of their shots in a standard police silhouette at 20 yards under ideal range conditions are criticizing police officers who miss their target while under fire from a mass shooter armed with a semi-automatic rifle.

Are you kidding? Have you seen cops shoot? Most of them absolutely suck, because there's no incentive to stay in practice other than the annual qualification. When I see cops show up to action shooting events, they start out all cocky and confident, until they realize they're close to the worst shooters there.
 
Your post lacks all merit and your comparisons are completely off base. You cannot compare cabinet making to being a police officer under fire during a mass shooting event. To even try to justify that comparison is pure lunacy and only serves to highlight the egregious and obvious weakness of your position.

You don't read so well, do you?

You're right that cabinetmaking and being a cop are not the same.

You're absolutely wrong that you need to be, or have been an "X", to fairly evaluate or judge someone who is an "X".

We can all recognize bad teachers, cabinetmakers, mechanics, doctors, etc, without having been one.

I don't even train that much, and I'm pretty sure I still understand "know your target and what is beyond it". I can hit steel plates on a Texas star, and I can do it without spraying bullets into the floor.



Stray bullets that harm or kill innocent bystanders are not the fault of the police officers engaging the mass shooter. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the shooter. But if you think you're up to the challenge I'll be happy to throw some rounds at you from my AR air soft or a paintball gun while you see if you can stay on target with 100% accuracy. I bet you dont... now imagine having real rounds thrown at you.

You really don't read well. There were NO BULLETS. Nobody was shooting at anyone... except the cop. The cop was the only one with a gun.

The "bad person" had a bicycle lock.

You know, like a club. Not really a range weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom