When in Doubt, the Police Should Take the Bullet, not the Citizens.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 23, 2015 1:23 PM GMT
    http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-los-feliz-shooting-20150623-story.html

    Here we go again: Los Angeles police shoot man in head; man had a towel in his hand.

    This is where we're getting a crux of the problem wrong:

    I pay the police (they are not conscripted, they are being remunerated under a free contract) to get injured... instead of me, personally, getting injured. That is, instead of ME getting shot by a "suspect"...the police get shot by the suspect. That's tragic, but that's why I am paying them.

    I am NOT paying them to shoot my fellow citizens, in the head, who are waving towels, innocent children, or doing anything else that "isn't against the law."

    But we have now turned that contract upside down: I am paying the police to shoot innocent me, so that they don't get hurt: And that is NOT the "deal".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 2:05 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-los-feliz-shooting-20150623-story.html

    Here we go again: Los Angeles police shoot man in head; man had a towel in his hand.

    This is where we're getting a crux of the problem wrong:

    I pay the police (they are not conscripted, they are being remunerated under a free contract) to get injured... instead of me, personally, getting injured. That is, instead of ME getting shot by a "suspect"...the police get shot by the suspect. That's tragic, but that's why I am paying them.

    I am NOT paying them to shoot my fellow citizens, in the head, who are waving towels, innocent children, or doing anything else that "isn't against the law."

    But we have now turned that contract upside down: I am paying the police to shoot innocent me, so that they don't get hurt: And that is NOT the "deal".

    Good point. Tell that to US Conservatives, who, while working to shrink or eliminate government agencies that help taxpaying citizens, want to fund and enlarge local police into an occupying military force. That shoots first, and asks questions later, without fear of accountability.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 23, 2015 4:07 PM GMT
    From the article the man had a towel over one hand, then:

    ".... officers were stopped in traffic along a congested section of Los Feliz Boulevard on Friday evening when DeLeon approached their patrol car. The officers got out of their car and the man drew his hands together and pointed at them, police said. Fearing that DeLeon had a gun, police said, the officers ordered him to drop the weapon. When he didn't respond, one officer opened fire..... "

    And then this by the OP......

    "I pay the police (they are not conscripted, they are being remunerated under a free contract) to get injured... instead of me, personally, getting injured."

    You better talk to law enforcement officers about this. They are not paid to get injured/killed. They are not paid to forfeit their lives to be a bodyguard to you or anyone.

    If in fact DeLeon (on foot) approached the police car stopped in traffic with a towel concealing his hand - then put his hands together in a firing stance - then did not put his hands down when ordered the officers fired to protect themselves from a potential threat.

    Quotes:
    "Try and put yourself in the officers' shoes. This is about what happened pre-shooting, not after the shooting," he said. "Let's find out the facts, just like every other shooting."

    And this one puts a different light on the situation...

    "Earlier in the day, LAPD officers wounded an assault suspect who led them on a two-hour chase that ended in El Monte. Police said that man got out of his vehicle covered in a blanket. At some point, police said, the man dropped the blanket and pointed a gun at the officers, prompting them to open fire."








  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 5:03 PM GMT
    The Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have the duty to protect any individual.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0

    "WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 5:33 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-los-feliz-shooting-20150623-story.html

    Here we go again: Los Angeles police shoot man in head; man had a towel in his hand.

    This is where we're getting a crux of the problem wrong:

    I pay the police (they are not conscripted, they are being remunerated under a free contract) to get injured... instead of me, personally, getting injured. That is, instead of ME getting shot by a "suspect"...the police get shot by the suspect. That's tragic, but that's why I am paying them.

    I am NOT paying them to shoot my fellow citizens, in the head, who are waving towels, innocent children, or doing anything else that "isn't against the law."

    But we have now turned that contract upside down: I am paying the police to shoot innocent me, so that they don't get hurt: And that is NOT the "deal".

    Good point. Tell that to US Conservatives, who, while working to shrink or eliminate government agencies that help taxpaying citizens, want to fund and enlarge local police into an occupying military force. That shoots first, and asks questions later, without fear of accountability.

    No offense but you strike me as someone who calls the police five times a week because your neighbors are being too loud or a kid is riding his tricycle on your driveway. Why would you oppose funding for local police?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 6:20 PM GMT
    DefensiveEnd said
    No offense but you strike me as someone who calls the police five times a week because your neighbors are being too loud or a kid is riding his tricycle on your driveway. Why would you oppose funding for local police?

    Actually I never call the police. I called 911 once for the ambulance when my husband had a stroke, and that's about it.

    So your assumption is incorrect. I was an Army Military Police Officer for over 20 years, when we had more of a law enforcement role than MPs have today, which is now mostly combat related. I think I know when to call the police, and when to let it go.

    So no, I don't call the police "five times a week". I haven't called them once in over 5 years. Your assumption is rather presumptious & offensive. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 6:40 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    DefensiveEnd said
    No offense but you strike me as someone who calls the police five times a week because your neighbors are being too loud or a kid is riding his tricycle on your driveway. Why would you oppose funding for local police?

    Actually I never call the police. I called 911 once for the ambulance when my husband had a stroke, and that's about it.

    So your assumption is incorrect. I was an Army Military Police Officer for over 20 years, when we had more of a law enforcement role than MPs have today, which is now mostly combat related. I think I know when to call the police, and when to let it go.

    So no, I don't call the police "five times a week". I haven't called them once in over 5 years. Your assumption is rather presumptious & offensive. icon_razz.gif

    Why are you offended when I said "no offense"? You certainly like to call the waaaaambulance here so it was a logical conclusion.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 25, 2015 1:15 AM GMT
    rkyjockdn saidThe Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have the duty to protect any individual.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0

    "WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."


    You've missed the point, entirely? It's not that they have no constitutional duty to "protect" anyone, (in the U.S. we have a right to self-defense which, for example, you do not have in Britain), but that certainly doesn't mean they DO have a "right" to HARM an innocent person?

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 25, 2015 1:18 AM GMT
    bobbobbob saidFrom the article the man had a towel over one hand, then:

    ".... officers were stopped in traffic along a congested section of Los Feliz Boulevard on Friday evening when DeLeon approached their patrol car. The officers got out of their car and the man drew his hands together and pointed at them, police said. Fearing that DeLeon had a gun, police said, the officers ordered him to drop the weapon. When he didn't respond, one officer opened fire..... "

    And then this by the OP......

    "I pay the police (they are not conscripted, they are being remunerated under a free contract) to get injured... instead of me, personally, getting injured."

    You better talk to law enforcement officers about this. They are not paid to get injured/killed. They are not paid to forfeit their lives to be a bodyguard to you or anyone.

    If in fact DeLeon (on foot) approached the police car stopped in traffic with a towel concealing his hand - then put his hands together in a firing stance - then did not put his hands down when ordered the officers fired to protect themselves from a potential threat.

    Quotes:
    "Try and put yourself in the officers' shoes. This is about what happened pre-shooting, not after the shooting," he said. "Let's find out the facts, just like every other shooting."

    And this one puts a different light on the situation...

    "Earlier in the day, LAPD officers wounded an assault suspect who led them on a two-hour chase that ended in El Monte. Police said that man got out of his vehicle covered in a blanket. At some point, police said, the man dropped the blanket and pointed a gun at the officers, prompting them to open fire."










    And you're missing the point, too. This is exactly what they are "paid for", that is, to be shot INSTEAD OF shooting the innocent, "in my name". Where you're getting the misdirected "bodyguard" argument from is beyond me.