quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
^^^^^^^^^^^Waste of time. I’m guessing this was a talking point in his group at the last “No Kings” rally.

Cmon man……you’re better than that. A discussion has nothing to do with political beliefs. I thought this was a place for healthy discussion and debate sometimes. I’ve seen some disturbing attacks (several to my email) , most deleted. I guess they had second thoughts when they read it over again.

C’mon man? Who else used that? Wasn’t it a guy who hated guns, hated cops, and advised everyone to fire a double barrel shotgun in the air. You got a friend named Corn Pop?

What I wrote and edited was largely because you aren’t worth the sarcasm. Your opinion is shameful enough. Almost as bad as your pop psychology that somehow saying “I am better than that” is going to cause me to somehow waiver the truth that self defense is a fundamental Right. People that believe that you are sorta kinda have Rights sometimes believe that the Second Amendment is somehow about hunting.

You aren’t worth the trolling, frankly. You no more wanted “healthy discussion” when you posted this. By your own admission you knew that your warped ideas would be unpopular. Cop or no cop. The justification of your scenario does not change. The fact that somehow you believe that being charged by someone is ok is on you. Luckily, except for those who get their opinions from “The View”, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Please, please, please. Put me on that jury.

Enjoy sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “no no no”

Every goddamn thing...



I will stand with him, never a second thought.

@cajunmuscle
Your position is as wrong as two boys fucking every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Maybe you should type "Reddit" into you search bar.

Those are busy boys

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
Here’s one example. I think this officer belongs in jail. She was cleared and promoted.

I'm guessing you believe Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood by Officer Darren Wilson.

When a question like the one originally posed is asked, the most common reaction is to consider it in some sort of reasonable context, and not respond as if it was limited to artificial specifics.

A DV call comes in. As the officer arrives at the home a woman with blood-soaked blouse comes out screaming and running out toward the officer with her hands in the air. The officer believes he is in mortal danger and shoots her.

An active killing situation is reported at a school. As the first officer arrives, a group of 10-year-old children fleeing the school with empty hands see him and run in his direction. He opens fire and kills all four.

An officer sees an altercation outside a bar in which a woman is being beaten by a man twice her size. She sees the officer, breaks away from the man and runs toward the officer. The officer kills her while ignoring the man who runs back into the bar.

If you’re not just trolling and genuinely believe that anyone who seriously answered yes to the original question would have argued that the officer’s action in each of the above scenarios was justified, then you are a mental defective who shouldn’t be allowed to walk the streets without a keeper to prevent you from eating the dog feces on the sidewalk.

I could easily come up with many other scenarios in which an officer would not be justified in shooting someone who was running at him. On the other hand there are countless situations in which deadly force would be justified under the circumstances. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

As many have posted, any law enforcement decision, just like any other decision in life, should be based on everything we reasonably know and the totality of the circumstances. If someone doesn’t believe that women should be police officers, then fine: Just say it and good luck to you during the next performance review with the woman chief.

In my lifetime it was still not uncommon for the primary basis for hiring officers to be their size and strength. There was often little to literally no training and no worry about someone’s ability to write a valid warrant request, there was no need to understand when a rights warning was needed or not, and if they were taught to shoot, it was while holding a revolver at an arm’s length bull’s-eye stance with the other hand tucked in his pocket.

Anyone who believes that those were the good old days of law enforcement should keep in mind that unless you were a privileged soul like the mayor’s son or member of the city council that you had better be just as respectful of the man with the hickory stick as the black guy who worked at the feed lot.

quote:

I could easily come up with many other scenarios in which an officer would not be justified in shooting someone who was running at him. On the other hand there are countless situations in which deadly force would be justified under the circumstances. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

Yep, sigfreund, good post.
Every situation is judged on the totality of the circumstances.

And you're also right about "it was still not uncommon for the primary basis for hiring officers to be their size and strength."
Women often don't have the advantage of size and strength. That doesn't mean women can't be good cops, just that they are less likely to give a beat-down as an alternative method of stopping a threat.

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
EXACTLY…. All these tough guys with the “I’d just shoot em” comments are funny.

Where are you seeing those comments? I found one post in this thread before your post where the poster said he would shoot anyone that ran at his wife, kids, grandkids. This is the opposite of a tough guy stance. A tough guy would go mano a mano; come to think of it, who's advocating for that in this thread? The non-tough guy stops the threat in the most expedient way.

The rest of the posts are well reasoned maybes, or recognition that a person escalating an encounter with a police officer increase that person's chances of getting shot.

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
I’ll just say utilizing deadly force on individuals running at them unarmed is asking for trouble.

Ignoring an officer's commands and instead running at the officer is not asking for trouble? You said you've seen a lot of videos, but posted only one to support your position. You have yet to explain why you think the officer should be in jail after the guy ran at her, she tazed him knocking him down for 20 seconds, he got up, and ran at her again before she shot h1im.

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
I don’t think women really belong as street cops. There, I said it.

And now we find out the true reason for your initial post. You should have started here instead of trying to be clever. Looking at the video you linked, I doesn't make a difference to me that the officer was a woman; my opinion is still that the shooting was justified. The assailant may have made a different choice had the officer been a man, but even that depends on the size of the officer.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I could easily come up with many other scenarios in which an officer would not be justified in shooting someone who was running at him. On the other hand there are countless situations in which deadly force would be justified under the circumstances. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

Yep, sigfreund, good post.
Every situation is judged on the totality of the circumstances.

And you're also right about "it was still not uncommon for the primary basis for hiring officers to be their size and strength."
Women often don't have the advantage of size and strength.

How about this one.

Four weeks ago, a group of officers go to look for a low level parolee who had absconded. As they are going about their business, a man charges the group. He is “unarmed”. At the last minute, he produced a knife and stabs a female officer in the side. She draws her gun and shoots him once. Another officer draws his gun and shoots him once. He dies.

A group of like minded individuals with Cajunmuscle protest demanding “justice”. He was “unarmed”. They were “At the wrong house” blah blah blah. Same line of crap we are being fed here.

Thing is that the deceased wasn’t the target of their investigation. The deceased didn’t live at the house they were at. He didn’t even live in the neighborhood. He just really wanted to kill a cop. He told his boss so. The officer is recovering. 24 years old. A couple inches higher and it would have been fatal.

And people still want YOU to be a victim before YOU can defend yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

Four weeks ago, a group of officers go to look for a low level parolee who had absconded. As they are going about their business, a man charges the group. He is “unarmed”. At the last minute, he produced a knife and stabs a female officer in the side. She draws her gun and shoots him once. Another officer draws his gun and shoots him once. He dies.
.

So the policy should be "Anyone who has not been searched for weapons should immediately be shot if they run at or fight with an officer"? It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for the officers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jupiter,

I will sum it up:

Running/charging a police officer or a civilian might not be a good reason to get shot but it is a good start.

Intent, as in the intent to do harm and inflict serious physical injury.

Weapons: they may or may not have a weapon on them but there is at least one weapon on scene. Also, I do believe the human body can be considered a weapon, especially when there is a disparity of size, so back to that pesky totality of circumstances.

Females in Law Enforcement: Just like males, some are great, some are good, and some are useless. That is where hiring/training/retention comes in. With limited numbers applying for police work, they are lowering standards, which shows up in the first year or two. My department has hired 3 straight out of the academy (2 males and a female) in the almost 3 years since I retired....all 3 were fired during their probation period, and rightly so. The current Chief and Command Staff were smart to get rid of problems now than risking the potential liability.

As for Woke aka Soro's sponsored Prosecutors, they will try their hardest to charge officers no matter how righteous and justified the shooting is. We had Weasel Bell sit on an officer involved shooting that was completely captured perfectly on clear dash camera for 18 months. Everyone knew it was a justified shooting within the first 20 minutes. BTW, these same Woke Prosecutors will charge you if you punch or kick that poor person charging you as you did not deescalate the situation.

Is it justiifed everytime someone runs at a cop? Nope but it all depends on the totality of the circumstances. In reference, to the video that the OP posted a couple pages back, I believe that the female officer was justified. She is the lone police officer on scene, tried TASER which didn't work, suspect fought through a bystander to charge her as she is aiming her pistol at him. Obvious intent to do harm to her and get her pistol (circumstantial yes but it would be bolstered by what suspect was saying at the time since that video did not have audio). You have an obvious bias against females in Law Enforcement; therefore, the incident justifies your narrative. May I suggest the 1957 film "12 Angry Men" and pay close attention to Lee J Cobb's character and Ed Begley's characters for the effects of personal bias.

Recognize that you have a problem and do some research besides your little Reddit subgroup.

example of how you never know if someone is armed or not by looking at them. Seemingly normal 50+ year old male, looks unarmed, walks into a store and just starts stabbing a customer sitting in a chair.

See how quickly this can turn.....

https://x.com/Mrgunsngear/status/2046953483643797984

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
If someone keeps charging forward after a TASER hit, he probably just wants a hug. It’s like the guy rolling around on the ground with an officer while trying to take her gun away from her. He’s no doubt just curious about the gun and wants a closer look at it: “Hey, I’ve been thinking of getting a Glock. What do you think about them?”
Happens all the time—or would if the police weren’t so paranoid about everything.

You're absolutely right!
When it happens to me , and some mental (oops, can't say THAT word anymore according to the in-service training I received yesterday!) charges me, I generally refer them to THIS thread:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0601935/m/5941074751

It automatically answers all of their questions, and quickly de-escalates the situation!

"Is Just Running At The Police Enough to Get Shot?"

Justifiably?
* The threat of death or great bodily harm. *
"What would a REASONABLE person think?

That's a standard somewhere. 9 people in funny black robes came up with that. As a matter of fact, those 9 people in the funny black robes come up with a lot of legal standards.

There's a few other things to think about:
Disparity of Force-
Multiple Assailants, Size & Strength Difference, Age & Physical Ability, Combat Skill and Position of Disadvantage.

Now it also depends on where you're at, as in City / State / County or Municipality.
Chicago, San Francisco, NYC, and other liberal bastions? You're kinda fucked even if the shooting is 100% justified.

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
EXACTLY…. All these tough guys with the “I’d just shoot em” comments are funny. I’ll just say utilizing deadly force on individuals running at them unarmed is asking for trouble. The cops and the attorneys here know the truth. There’s a pattern here. I don’t think women really belong as street cops. There, I said it.

Okay…I don’t think women make good FireFighters either but here we are.

If someone is running at you, with intent to do harm, you are already under attack.
In my state, attacking a police officer is a felony.
One that will get you shot dead.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

* The threat of death or great bodily harm. *
"What would a REASONABLE person think?
.

One small change - what would a reasonable Officer think.

I know you know this but it’s worthy of some clarification to the non LEO members of the forum. Graham vs. Connor is very clear not only about objective reasonableness but also at the insistence that there can be no 20/20 hindsight applied.

I personally love the video I saw on YouTube of a reporter attending some simunition training with a local law enforcement agency. The reporter shot a role player under circumstances that just about any cop would have realized was not justified. The look of shock on his face when he realized what he had done combined with his inability to articulate why it was a justified shoot was priceless. He ate quite a bit of humble pie and made one of the best cases I’ve ever seen the media make in support of the Graham factors and why it’s nearly impossible to get things perfect under such quick time constraints.

The cops here are telling the truth. And the OP keeps screeching “no no no” because it’s not the answer that supports his narrative.

quote:

Is Just Running At The Police Enough to Get Shot?

There's no one single, one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on why the person is running at them. A disheveled and distressed woman running toward the officer for help with a guy with a butcher knife and a hard-on chasing her is handled differently than being charged at obviously bent on harm, possibly to snatch the officer's weapon (this was the situation with Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO). He could also have a hidden knife or other weapon, not seen until near contact distance, or even just bare hands. Only a double amputee should be considered "unarmed."

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

Saved and printed out for a range target. (Along with several others.) Having to use 8.5x11 paper makes it more challenging.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
I'm guessing you believe Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood by Officer Darren Wilson.

Yeah, Michael Brown was "unarmed". Cajunmuscle needs to answer this one, but I will wager that he won't.



.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
I'm guessing you believe Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood by Officer Darren Wilson.

Yeah, Michael Brown was "unarmed". Cajunmuscle needs to answer this one, but I will wager that he won't.


.

Wasn't Michael Brown 6'4" 300 lbs. and trying to take the officers weapon? In that case, I would have done the same thing.