Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Laquan McDonald Video Not Dispositive of Police Criminal Misconduct

Their duty to protect ends when they are in danger or fear.

Some go above and beyond their duty.

All I was trying to convey was the fact military folks have even less constraints than cops do. Just an observation. As to the cops not protecting us as part of their duty, well I guess I just learned something new. No big deal, I do'n rely on them anyway

" No big deal, I do'n rely on them anyway [/quote]"

I've never sent for one, myself.

As far as equating cops to the military, that's at the heart of L.E. abuses.

I know that YOU know that in the military, the mission is paramount. And there is an espirit de corp among elite units that allows them to put their own well being behind accomplishing the mission.

This is appropriate in a war where killing people and taking territory is the way the mission is accomplished.

When you give the same equipment, and employ the same tactics,to a group of civilians [COPS ARE CIVILIANS, YOU KNOW], and make individual safety paramount, rather than the mission, you are bound to wind up with what we have....Bureaucrats with badges and guns in search of an ENEMY.

They've found one.... and it is us.

Just FYI, I just saw an interview in that Colorado mess of where the officer (ette) said their first duty was the safety of the public. And as far as the enemy (Planned Parenthood notwithstanding) I would view perps as the enemy. Then again, I'm no LEO.

Good eye opener!

Their "duty" to protect is interpreted the same as your "duty" to protect.

Meaning, you can't be prosecuted for the failure to do so.




Travis

Yep.

The difference is that the folks hire the police to protect them. The Supreme Court decision in question nullifies the police end of that relationship.

Regarding the Tueller drill, it may or may not have started out with the defender's weapon holstered, but IMO it does not make a difference,

Even with the pistol drawn, it is extremely hard to react quickly enough when a perp is that close. Some of you may recall the videos of convicts inside prisons practicing how to get to a defender before he can react. The way shown was to do a somersault roll and come up from below. I am sure that you can find it if you are computer-savvy. The point was that they could defeat the defender almost every time.

Surely many LEOs are well aware of this and I am surprised that it has not come up in this discussion.

My view is that the video here can be quite misleading. The perp had been committing crimes, he was reported to be on PCP (and almost all Chicago police know well what that means) and his conduct, in flipping open his knife and moving erratically could be seen as deceptive.

That is the way I would read it, He was a danger and one or two 9s or more likely 40s might well have not been enough to immobilize him. Chicago police handling that part of town know this.

Was 16 shots too much? I could not say either way, not having been there. However, I understand that PCP turns pencil-necked geeks into gorillas. I have also seen reports that more than 16 was not enough in some cases.

This would appear to be a case where the officer needs an expert witness to bring up such points in his defense.

You're an absolute moron.



Travis

And he should tell that to the family of the slain officer who just died in Colorado whilst "not" protecting civilians...

Deflave, in the end, the police actually do not have a duty to any "one" particular citizen. The Supreme court decision reflected that while the women calling for help were certainly in need of police protection, the police weren't required to respond to their request over other calls in progress. The cops were exonerated and the victims were out in the cold. The court held that the cops have a duty to the citizenry at large, but that an individual did not have the right to "expect" the police to come to "their" aid independent of other calls, regardless the emergency nature of the calls. Most departments have a protocol that they follow, but the cops have a lot of leeway in this regard, that keeps them from having to defend themselves against that kind of complaint.

It was used in St. Louis some years back when a person had been robbed and a police Lt. drove right past them as they attempted to flag him down. He was on his way to another call (he said.)

what i was taught back in the dark ages, somebody coming at you with a knife, shoot them, same for somebody showing you how good they are with kung foo.
They had to present a threat, 21feet, somebody waving a knife at 20yards isn't a threat at that point.
You could only use that force needed to remove the threat, otherwise you were dealing with excessive force.
Translated the first couple of shots might be righteous, but if he is laying on the ground bleeding out, not so.

That ruling was undoubtedly held in order to immunize police and cities from a multitude of lawsuits. I believe that most officers take their duty to protect and serve quite seriously.

Of course, it depends on the situation. Back in 1984(?) when Laurie Dann was holed up after shooting up a school in Winnetka and leaving poisoned juice around town (including directly across the street from me), the police opted to wait her out, assuming she would kill herself. They were right.

Dan, I have read your books and enjoyed them greatly.

May I take that to mean you disagree?

There is no duty to protect, this is repeated ad nauseam by gun control nuts to convince the ignorant that they don't need guns to protect themselves.

lmao

Exactly, "You don't need a gun because protecting you is what we hire police for."

Anjin, No doubt the majority of police take their duties very seriously. I carried various law enforcement credentials for close to 25 years. I don't bash cops in general, but don't hesitate to bash certain ones in particular.

Thanks for the compliment on the books. I always enjoy hearing that.