Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 30, 2013 16:01:22 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, there IS a procedure in place for the panicked swimmer. Unfortunately, what must be done is to disengage said swimmer from around your neck by pushing up on his elbow and down on his hand/wrist. You then push said swimmer away from you. The swimmer either calms himself and does as he is told or he drowns.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on May 30, 2013 16:11:21 GMT -5
Scottsdale AZ police officer has shot seven people, killing six over the last ten years. His last victim was an fifty year old grandfather holding his two year old grandson. He was unarmed and was setting his grandson down when the officer shot him in the head. The police officer is now on medical retirement at $4600. a month. Something is really wrong with this.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on May 30, 2013 16:14:49 GMT -5
Scottsdale AZ police officer has shot seven people, killing six over the last ten years. His last victim was an fifty year old grandfather holding his two year old grandson. He was unarmed and was setting his grandson down when the officer shot him in the head. The police officer is now on medical retirement at $4600. a month. Something is really wrong with this. Do you have a source you can link to please? I'd like to know a bit more of the background.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 30, 2013 16:17:00 GMT -5
We could start posting links to the number of police officers killed by criminals, but one situation has nothing to do with the other.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 30, 2013 16:44:30 GMT -5
He's hauled off the couch in the middle of the night by police, and he can't breathe. I hope you'll forgive him if he was panicking, trying to breathe. There is nothing, even in the family's reports, to indicate that was the case, Virgil. The family stated he couldn't lie on his stomach because he couldn't breathe that way. The family didn't state he was unable to breathe while he was being hauled off the couch. Did he panic? I don't know, and neither do you? What he didn't do was comply with the officers' orders. I've had asthmatics in the hospital who have trouble breathing in supine or prone positions. Sometimes, one of our procedures will require one of those positions. The patient needs to cooperate while the procedure is being performed and they can do so. They don't just automatically get up on their elbows and die. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif) Well I'm confused, then, because according to GEL this whole thing took place over 4.2 seconds and the police had no time to process what the man's screaming family was screaming about, and according to you, the police had time to wake the man up and explain the situation to him so that he could calmly cooperate with their procedure. At least one of these two viewpoints has to be dead wrong. And for the fourth time: I presented the case in the OP as a hypothetical "let's assume the family account is provably true". Debating whether we know enough to indict the police officers is pointless if there aren't even meaningful consequences for officers found guilty, and as far as I know, police can get away with darn near anything under the fog of war with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Also as far as I know, most people agree with that status quo. That's why I posed this question in the hypothetical. If the officers could be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you charge them with negligent homicide? If your answer is "Yes, but only if the events transpired over a period of at least a few minutes and the man was actually wheezing.", qualified answers are fine too. At least they aren't a cop out.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on May 30, 2013 16:46:32 GMT -5
FBI agent kill terrorist suspect when he was attached with a knife. The FBI agent and two Mass. officers were question the suspect when he was shot multiple times in the torso and one shot to the back of the head. OH by the way, It appears the suspect did not have a knife!
What if the headline read Terrorist suspect dies while be interrogated by the KGB. what would you think then?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 30, 2013 17:16:13 GMT -5
Give it up, Virgil. Neither of us said anything even remotely like that, and I'm not about to play childish games with you over it. I'm outa here.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 30, 2013 17:17:49 GMT -5
FBI agent kill terrorist suspect when he was attached with a knife. The FBI agent and two Mass. officers were question the suspect when he was shot multiple times in the torso and one shot to the back of the head. OH by the way, It appears the suspect did not have a knife! What if the headline read Terrorist suspect dies while be interrogated by the KGB. what would you think then? Same thing I think now. Just because I read something somewhere doesn't mean I know enough to decide whether it's accurate, or not.
|
|
zdaddy
Established Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 295
|
Post by zdaddy on May 30, 2013 17:22:23 GMT -5
I will say this - there have been a major uptick in the number of questionable deaths happening while police are making what should have been a routine arrest. For example, there was the recent case in Bakersfield Cali where a drunk guy died from multiple baton blows. Witnesses said the man was not resisting in any way and begged for his life while 9 officers wailed away on him. latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/05/16/defenseless-man-beaten-to-death-by-cops-witnesses-said/IMHO, it seems absurd that 9 officers couldn't find a less violent way to bring a drunken and half-asleep suspect into custody. It also doesn't help that the cops confiscated all the cellphones of the witnesses, in clear violation of their first amendment rights.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 30, 2013 20:21:37 GMT -5
GEL never said anything of the sort. If you are going to get all pissy and stompy-footy about someone disagreeing with you, at least be pissy and stompy-footy honestly. I have no time for people who can't take a bit of disagreement without acting like a baby. This is not the first time, even in this thread, where you have deliberately misrepresented what I have posted. I say "deliberately" because the only other possibility is that you have a severe reading comprehension problem, which I don't think is true. While I genuinely appreciate and admire your intelligence and commitment to the things you believe in, I am weary of these immature responses in retaliation for a person having the nerve to disagree with you. You ask for civil debate in your opening post. Practice what you preach.
I am sincerely sorry that I did not answer in the way you deem appropriate. Is this where you take your ball and go home?
Peace out.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 30, 2013 20:50:25 GMT -5
You should have asked me, Miss M. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
But then, I doubt my response would have been clear, seeing as how I evidently have a limited vocabulary and am writing-challenged, making it nearly impossible to understand what I am saying.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:43:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 21:00:18 GMT -5
And for the fourth time: I presented the case in the OP as a hypothetical "let's assume the family account is provably true". Debating whether we know enough to indict the police officers is pointless if there aren't even meaningful consequences for officers found guilty, and as far as I know, police can get away with darn near anything under the fog of war with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Also as far as I know, most people agree with that status quo. That's why I posed this question in the hypothetical. If the officers could be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you charge them with negligent homicide?
If your answer is "Yes, but only if the events transpired over a period of at least a few minutes and the man was actually wheezing.", qualified answers are fine too. At least they aren't a cop out.
The only circumstance i can think of where i would be willing to indict for something that severe are.....
He was already cuffed and on the ground when they repeatedly used the taser on him ( his wheezing is not even in the calculation)
Sorry...but a perp with medical issues is not the priority going in.....it just cant be
I also want to know how long it took to secure the scene.....5-10 mins should be max
If they were still screwing around a half hour later....they need to face "other" charges but not homicide
The problem that the police face, is a lot of the time, they have no idea really what to expect in these cases
Some go down so easy, and others are severe gun battles
Executing a drug warrant is one of those really tricky items...and to add to the issues, there were 7-8 people in the house?
That is a lot of people to secure in a VERY short time
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on May 30, 2013 23:22:15 GMT -5
Honesty and ethics in law in enforcement. Where is it ?? Something goes down, out comes the police spokesman with the details. Mostly lies. Example, Tucson AZ. Jose Guerena had got home from 12 hr. grave yard shift at the mine. Goes to bed.A short time later his wife is getting their 4 yo. dressed when she see's armed intruders in her back yard. She screams at Jose, he tells her to grab the baby and get into the closet. Jose grabs his AR15 and runs into the hall only to run into a hail of bullets from a swat team. they fired 71 rounds hitting Jose 22 times. his wife pleads for help on 911 unaware that the swat team just shot her husband.
then out comes the story, Jose had started shooting at them, bullets bouncing of their shields, splitting the door frame. the officer retreat to their armored truck. they talk about did you see how he came around the corner. Not one officer states that they see a weapon.one hour and 15 minutes the let him bleed to death. Only one problem, the two tour of Iraq marine never fired his weapon! Then more stories, The Sheriff state that Jose was part of a drug gang, he was part of an invasion crew, part of a murder, had police uniforms and body armor. The police uniform was a Border patrol hat and the body armor was from the Marines. There were no drugs, Jose had zero drugs in his system. Sheriff Dupnik to this day is trying to associate Jose with his family who may have been involved in drugs.link
I probably messed up the link.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on May 31, 2013 1:04:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I have to say that cops are getting out of control lately. Here is another example: ![](http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/funny-yogi-bear-police-picnic-basket-pics.jpg) I'm sure that dude got tazed but the camera was taken away by the fuzz before anybody could bear witness.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2013 2:49:51 GMT -5
How does a single use of hyperbole constitute "all pissy and stompy-footy"? My statement was rhetorical. It was neither immature, nor "stompy-footy", nor uncivil. Let me restate without the hyperbole. We have in Reply #45, your comment: "Secondly, I'd guess the officers were not aware of his health problems and relatives screaming it out during the execution of a search warrant doesn't cut it." Thus we must consider: Under what circumstances would 'screaming it out during a search warrant' be insufficient to communicate a message to police? Suppose the initial takedown and tasing took five minutes. Can you tell me under what circumstances seven people could not communicate a message to police in five minutes? Can you tell me under what circumstances seven people could not communicate a message to police in two minutes? I can't think of any. The only circumstances I can think of where seven people desperately trying to warn police wouldn't "cut it" is if the events transpired over an extremely short, extremely chaotic interval. I used "4.2 seconds" as an exaggeration. At the same time, we have mmhmm stating in Reply #48: "If the man had simply gotten on his stomach long enough for the police to handcuff him, it's very, very, VERY unlikely he'd have died. If he was that close to death due to his condition, he'd have been in the hospital, not on the couch. In short, if he'd done what he was told when he was told to do so, he'd not have been tazed and this whole thing wouldn't have happened." And in Reply #67: "I've had asthmatics in the hospital who have trouble breathing in supine or prone positions. Sometimes, one of our procedures will require one of those positions. The patient needs to cooperate while the procedure is being performed and they can do so. They don't just automatically get up on their elbows and die." To me, these statements imply that mmhmm believes the man wasn't in a panicked state of mind; that he was capable of complying with police. I interpret them thusly because they have no relevance if mmhmm believes this man was in a panicked state of mind. "The patient needs to cooperate while the procedure is being performed and they can do so." implies that the patient has the capacity to cooperate. In the same reply, mmhmm clearly states "No, the man would not automatically forfeit his life if he complied with police." and justifies this viewpoint by explaining that he'd have been fine if he'd cooperated with the procedure. How does the victim not automatically forfeit his life? He cooperates. How does the victim cooperate when he's panicked and struggling to breathe? He can't. Ergo, if his life isn't automatically forfeit, he isn't panicked. How does he not panic when he's pulled off the couch in the middle of the night and things are so chaotic--per your viewpoint--that seven people cannot communicate a message to police? I have no idea. The takedown was either quick, chaotic and the man panicked, or it was protracted, under control, and the victim could possibly have had the presence of mind to cooperate. My point in Reply #76 was that you can't have it both ways. The abrupt tone of #76 is because I can't simultaneously argue against two completely incompatible theories as to why the victim's death wasn't the police's fault. I apologize for causing offense with the hyperbole, but this was--and is--a legitimate grievance. And if rhetoric now constitutes "all pissy and stompy-footy", might I point out that the sarcasm and eye rolling started in Reply #67. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/slaps.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:43:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2013 8:26:38 GMT -5
Honesty and ethics in law in enforcement. Where is it ?? Something goes down, out comes the police spokesman with the details. Mostly lies. Example, Tucson AZ. Jose Guerena had got home from 12 hr. grave yard shift at the mine. Goes to bed.A short time later his wife is getting their 4 yo. dressed when she see's armed intruders in her back yard. She screams at Jose, he tells her to grab the baby and get into the closet. Jose grabs his AR15 and runs into the hall only to run into a hail of bullets from a swat team. they fired 71 rounds hitting Jose 22 times. his wife pleads for help on 911 unaware that the swat team just shot her husband.
then out comes the story, Jose had started shooting at them, bullets bouncing of their shields, splitting the door frame. the officer retreat to their armored truck. they talk about did you see how he came around the corner. Not one officer states that they see a weapon.one hour and 15 minutes the let him bleed to death. Only one problem, the two tour of Iraq marine never fired his weapon! Then more stories, The Sheriff state that Jose was part of a drug gang, he was part of an invasion crew, part of a murder, had police uniforms and body armor. The police uniform was a Border patrol hat and the body armor was from the Marines. There were no drugs, Jose had zero drugs in his system. Sheriff Dupnik to this day is trying to associate Jose with his family who may have been involved in drugs.link
I probably messed up the link.
oldcoyote no one on here is saying police are perfect.....they are far from it the force is made up from the human population, and even with all the new stuff they use, a few bad ones always get through the process the idea is to weed them out as fast as possible there are good shootings...and bad shootings....and there is usually a special unit assigned just for that reason to determine if warranted no system is perfect.....and i am probably biased in the fact a buddy is a dc cop....but "most" are good people they have a tough job...and try to do it the best they can on a daily basis only difference is...when they have a bad day...someone gets hurt or dead..... it is a job not many will do....and even less are actually cut out for
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:43:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2013 8:33:29 GMT -5
gdgyva, it is a job not many will do....and even less are actually cut out for ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/thumbsup.png)
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 31, 2013 9:25:12 GMT -5
Under NO circumstances can we consider it communicative to have 5 people screaming at the police during the execution of a search warrant. The difference, Virgil, between you and I in this case is that I have actually been present during one. It is a chaotic scene. While homework is done, the officers can never know exactly what to expect when they enter the home. You can surveil the residence for hours or day before and still not know who is in there. People are generally screaming, running, trying to dispose of whatever it is they have that they shouldn't have. The very first thing officers must do is secure the place. There could be weapons laying around, one person in residence can grab a child as a hostage...all kinds of things can go wrong. There is no shame, Virgil, in not being an expert on every subject. There is shame, however, in trying to tell those who are how to do their jobs.
I can't "suppose" that, Virgil, because it's highly unlikely that it took five minutes. Again, even if it did, 5 people yelling at the police is not going to (and should not) alter their course of action in trying to secure the scene. They could have had the guy cuffed and rolled over on his side in 60 seconds. Had he done what he was told and allowed himself to be handcuffed, it's probable the police would have allowed him on his side. Again, Virgil....criminals lie. If the police listened to every single person who said they had a health issue and altered their procedures because someone is screaming, "I can't breathe", there would be a lot more dead police officers.
I can see why you think that. Because you have no idea what transpires in this situation. If I'm the officer in that situation, they can scream till their larynx pops out. But until I have the scene secured and there is no danger to me, my fellow officers and the other people in residence, I'm carrying on with my duty.
It makes me very sad when a life is ended early. And if the police in this situation are found to have acted contrary to procedure, they should be punished accordingly by facing whatever charges the State thinks appropriate. I don't know for sure what happened in this house. They may very well have been totally in the wrong. They might not have been. Somebody died but that doesn't mean someone committed a crime. It could mean that and, hopefully, we'll find out.
You can continue to argue until you are blue in the face. I'm not crucifying anyone till I know the facts and unless I have a clue what I'm talking about.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on May 31, 2013 9:42:43 GMT -5
The problem that I have is everything I do I'm responsible for. I carry insurance for this and that. Business licences. police and law enforcement are covered by Qualified immunity, meaning that they are not responsible for their actions. because they no personal responsibility and have done something wrong we sue the taxpayer. so why do the police spokesman lie when making a report ? An example, FBI shot terrorist suspect while interrogating him. First story, he had a knife and tried to stab the agent. Second story, It was not a knife but was like a pipe, third story, he turned over a table. They know in minutes after he was shot if he had a knife or a pipe. So why does did take days for the actual facts to come out? Why can't they just say, He tried to grab the pipe that we were using to beat the confession out of him, ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 31, 2013 9:59:12 GMT -5
I'm certainly not saying there aren't bad cops, oldcoyote. I work with them every day. I know there are bad apples. I also know that good people screw up badly. As I said before, if these officers are found to have screwed up, they should be punished.
And the "qualified immunity" you are speak of does not mean law enforcement officers are not responsible for their actions. Qualified immunity means just that....it is qualified. Qualified immunity protects public officials from damages for civil liability so long as they did not violate an individual's "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights. It does not mean they can't be prosecuted for crimes or disciplined on the job.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2013 10:05:10 GMT -5
given the fact that we can no longer collect facts from one of those two, the truth will likely NEVER be known. So what are you saying, dj. You are saying whole system is corrupt. I was using that sentence as figure speech. And it's truth in a sense. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) no, i don't think the system is totally corrupt, but i think there are strong corrupting influences. the private prison system is one of them.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 31, 2013 10:36:08 GMT -5
Oh, no, you don't!
The "sarcasm and eye rolling" was in response to the hyperbole that began in Reply #29, Virgil, wherein you stated the man was handcuffed. We don't know that. For all we know the police were trying to get cuffs on the guy and had been unable to do so because he would not allow it (whether paniced, or not - I imagine most people about to be arrested are in a bit of a panic). Reply #29 was followed by posts indicating those who don't agree with you in this matter advocate the systematic murder of all asthmatics being arrested by the police, and the "fact" that this particular asthmatic was wheezing. The first accusation is downright ludicrous, and the statement of "fact" is more hyperbole, since we don't know whether the man was wheezing, or not. That sort of garbage will, indeed, bring forth (from me) an eye-roll. Yep. Just about every time.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2013 11:20:45 GMT -5
You're confusing hyperbole with unproven assumptions. Hyperbole is a literary device. By construction, hyperbolic statements are so exaggerated that they can't be taken literally.
My only use of hyperbole is '4.2 seconds' in #76, with a bit of sarcasm thrown in for 'calmly cooperate with their procedure'. My claim about the cuffs was a misunderstanding, which @gdgyva cleared up way back on page 2. The wheezing is an unproven assumption, but it isn't unrealistic. And my point here is that you started with the sarcasm in #67.
I don't mind sarcasm. It's an effective tool in debate. But if you dish it out, don't blame me for reciprocating.
I've seen countless videos of police raids. They take place over a matter of seconds for the very reason you describe.
I have no problem believing that this man was woken up in the midst of chaos. But if we accept this to be the case, then we must accept the fact that he was almost certainly panicked and incapable of complying with police.
I don't see these circumstances changing in future raids. The next time police take down an asthmatic man, he'll panic in the same way and meet the same end. If you claim the procedures shouldn't be amended because there's too much risk, I can accept that. I don't agree with you, but I understand your position. But in adopting this position, were are acknowledging a priori that police raids are a likely death sentence for asthmatic men. If police are aware a suspect has asthma, it is better for them to stay at the police station than to raid his house and risk killing him.
Then you've cut off all lines of communication and sentenced anyone not capable of complying with police to being repeatedly shocked and (in this case) killed.
Personally, I'd like to go to a police academy and ask an instructor if it wouldn't in fact be possible to train officers to safely subdue morbidly obese suspects on their sides. Officers might not use it much, but at least raids wouldn't be known death sentences for panicking asthmatics.
|
|
kgb18
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 8:15:23 GMT -5
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by kgb18 on May 31, 2013 11:38:53 GMT -5
As a matter of full disclosure, for posters who do not know, my DH is a police officer.
In the situation in the OP, there are not nearly enough details for me to form an opinion as to whether or not the officers acted irresponsibly or with indifference.
There are good cops and bad cops. Just like there are good teachers and bad teachers, good doctors and bad doctors, good people and bad people, in general. There are good cops who make bad judgement calls.
Bad cops should not be allowed to remain cops. Cops who do not follow procedure or do something unnecessarily violent that involves injury or death should face harsh consequences. But, just like any citizen accused of a crime, they should be afforded due process. It seems to me many people are quick to stand on "innocent until proven guilty" for citizens, but that doesn't apply if the situation involves a police officer who is accused.
My DH had to make a judgement call the other night. They got a call for an armed man trying to break into an apartment in an apartment building. DH said he could hear someone running, heard something hit the floor and rounded the corner to see the guy (who has a lengthy history of drugs, assault and gun charges). The gun was on the ground. DH said the guy paused and then went for the gun. He thinks the guy accidentally dropped it. DH had to make a snap decision. He was fairly close, so he bum-rushed the guy and tackled him before he could get to the gun. Any number of factors could have changed that decision and the outcome of the situation. Things happen fast.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2013 12:21:29 GMT -5
three strikes laws are the private prison system's wet dream come true.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 31, 2013 12:23:07 GMT -5
LOL!! Ok. You win. I bow to your greater knowledge in this matter, coupled with your vast experience. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/rofl.gif)
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 31, 2013 12:26:03 GMT -5
And while you are at it? Maybe a class teaching a way to ask all the other occupants of the residence to please remain seated quietly while you safely subdue the morbidly obese subject. I'm sure they would be more than willing to comply as long as they are asked nicely and if all their complaints are heard and all their special needs are met.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 31, 2013 12:31:15 GMT -5
Goodness, kgb. It's a good thing the suspect didn't suffer from.....like a metal plate in his head....that could have been dislodged while he was being tackled. Cause then your husband would be on the news with people screaming for his incarceration. The more appropriate response would have been "Please, sir. I do not want to physically subdue you because you may have medical issues. Could you please just carefully sit down on the ground and wait for me to get there to gently handcuff you? Thank you for your cooperation."
Seriously, kgb. Thanks to your husband for the part he plays in keeping us safe.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 31, 2013 12:31:36 GMT -5
I don't recall blaming you for using sarcasm, Virgil. Please point that out to me. My disagreement with you has involved hyperbole and imaginings stated as facts.
|
|
zdaddy
Established Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 295
|
Post by zdaddy on May 31, 2013 12:35:42 GMT -5
Kgb, I do agree with you, but in some of these cases part of the problem is the police force seems to have closed ranks and denied the existence of any problem. It also doesn't help when witnesses trying to record police activity in a public place - which the Supreme Court has upheld as legal - get badgered and their cell phones confiscated. It would help immensely if the top brass acknowleged serious charges while also pushing for due process. I'd also like to briefly take on the idea that police work is the most dangerous job in the world, and therefore police need to do whatever it takes to make it home alive. I recognize it's a dangerous and important job, but it's also not as dangerous a job as a host of other jobs from logging to military work to deep sea fishing. Furthermore, police deaths are down significantly in the past few years, and most of the deaths were due to traffic accidents, not shootouts with bad guys: usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16196680-police-deaths-down-23-percent-this-year-across-us?liteWhere am I going with this? I'm not seeing the justification why police handled some of these situations the way they did when the suspects were unarmed. And protection of the public - yes, even suspects - also needs to be a high priority. PS - I'm not trying to besmirch the great work most cops do, and I want to thank KGB's husband for his service. Just trying to put things in perspective.
|
|