What does it mean to “think” someone has a gun?
2 Likes
It means substituting fantasy for assessment.
5 Likes
Excellent question, and one that deserves a codified answer. Something like “Regarding unarmed victims, police officers will be permitted one non-fatal shooting for every ten years of service or one fatal shooting per career. Any shooting beyond these stipulations will result in immediate dismissal and possible criminal penalties.”
At what point am I justified in shooting you (stabbing, choking, whatever) if I “think” you have a gun?
If I accidentally step on a cop’s toe, well, I KNOW he’s armed. I can see it sitting there on his belt. At that point, since I don’t know how he’ll react, am I justified in shooting him?
This man clearly should not be a cop. He is obviously incapable of dealing with the issues that cops are expected to address every day. This disaster began long before he even pulled out his gun. It began with his attitude, his demeanor, and his entire approach to a car full of people. It would be interesting to know why he pulled them over of initiated the contact, but it’s clear he’s prepared to make this happen from the moment he arrived.
2 Likes
More importantly, he had brown skin in Montana and he was on drugs.
And am I the only one who doesn’t believe the ‘breakdown’ conveniently in front of the dashcam banging the hood with his fist yelling “why?!” It reminded me of the now famous Darth Vader scene at the end of episode 3. “NOOOOOOOO!”. Except slightly less believable.
Edit: PS. Can you define One Percent Doctrine Tactics? I’m not sure I follow what you mean.
Sounds an awful lot like a hunting license…
2 Likes
Maybe I should have read all the way down before posting something very similar. I’m with you on that.
It appears we have found the George Zimmerman of cops.
1 Like
I disagree. Cops now kill dogs every single day (which was not the case when I was growing up) and cops regularly shoot and kill people with pocket knives, kids with things like a wii controller (in Euharlee, Georgia), jewelers screwdrivers ( a restrained schizophrenic teen here in NC in a horrible incident) and it goes on and on.
If every civilian gun were to vanish, the police shootings would still continue unabated, because they are trained that we are all threats to be shown dominance and force, and also because they have near total carte blanche no matter what the circumstance. No other non military profession in America allows lethal mistakes to go unpunished or unaddressed (and for all their protestation that they are not “civilians”…police are not military. They are, in fact, civilians)
4 Likes
Not to mention that if some accident were to happen where a bunch of civilians were shot on a military base (because he thought they were terrorists reaching for bombs or something equivalent), that soldier would be arrested, tried, and kicked out of the military. So it is the only profession in America, military or non-military, where fatal mistakes are tolerated.
1 Like
If there’s going to be a gunfight, I don’t think police ought to be starting it…
Training should include a strong emphasis on de-escalation and conflict avoidance. If you pull a car over that you suspect may contain dangerous/drugged/armed individuals, then how about using that handy-dandy loudspeaker and perform all commands from behind your cruiser’s door? “PASSENGER, PLACE YOUR HANDS OUTSIDE THE WINDOW,” that sort of thing. Why approach the passenger with gun drawn - a massive escalation of “traffic stop” to “one-mistake-and-you’re-dead”?
4 Likes
There were four people in the car.
you can fire a gun through the car door too, though. And depending on caliber, which is impossible to tell without seeing the firearm, it can easily pass through the door and LEO. I’m just saying, as a LEO, they shouldn’t have to wait until they actually see the gun, the gun can be concealed behind the door and still cause serious morbidity or mortality. even threatening movements can be reasonably misconstrued as threat to life. Which is why any rational citizen doesn’t agitate or threaten a LEO. I’m not a cop apologist, quite the contrary. the problems here are much deeper than out-of-control cops, though. i think you hit on a very important point…the concealed carry laws are way idiotic.
Should have shot all four then? Certainly the other three weren’t completely still.
LOL. And in some police departments, the union has negotiated for rollover of unused non-fatal shootings into the next decade or exchange of two decades without shootings for an additional fatal shooting per career. Management by numbers works. Always.
2 Likes
I’m saying he was scared. He should’ve returned to his cruiser and waited for back up. Do you really think I was suggesting he should’ve shot all four of them or are you just being an asshole?
2 Likes
Depends on the person’s last name. The victim had one of them messican names, so he deserved to die. If he had gone back to his own country, none of this would have happened.
1 Like
Don’t know. You’re the one suggesting that there being four people, apparently, made it acceptable for him to open fire. Four people who are essentially incapable of moving and without any sort of cover that would stop a bullet.
I wonder if it occurred to officer Morrison that Mr. Ramirez could have been attempting to unbuckle his seat belt? I watched the video of the first shooting, can’t see much, but officer Morrison sounded the same. He sounded hyped up, cussed, and seemed to fire his gun when he was not obeyed immediately. This cop should be behind a desk or fired. It seems officer Morrison does not handle stressful situations well.
1 Like
Really? Where exactly did I suggest that it was acceptable for him to open fire?