A police involved shooting is under investigation after an officer wounded a man who turned out to be uninvolved in the crime in question.Yeah, no kidding, Chief."This was a very unfortunate incident," Suffolk County Police Chief Dominic Varrone said. [More]
I just wonder how much more unfortunate it would be if it had been the citizen who panicked and accidentally shot your unidentified "Only One."
[Via FFFW]
19 comments:
What was that again, Ms. Brady? Cops are the only ones capable of handling guns, you say, when they are five times more likely than the average Joe who carries, to shoot the wrong guy?
I believe this officer was justified by his actions, my reasoning behind this is, the officer thought he had the suspects, who where armed and dangerous, and was gaining control of the situation. The guy who got out of the car to talk to the officer should have stayed in his car with his hands up, and the guy in the back seat shouldn't have moved his hands between his knees. That just made the officer think he had a weapon. In that intense situation the officer acted according to his training, in protecting his own life and the live of the civilians in the area. Failing to follow the instructions of a police officer, in this situation, is a dangerous trail to go down
www.Gunsellers.com
Mr. or Mrs. www.Gunsellers.com,
Law abiding, taxpaying citizens have no duty to obey unlawful orders from a panic stricken idiot with a badge and gun.
This "Blue Coward" shot an innocent American citizen. This is attempted murder and if the roles were reversed, that is EXACTLY what the shooter would have been charged with.
I hope the family of the man shot sues and turns this state sponosored domestic terrorist cops life upside down as well as take EVERYTHING he owns.
Somehow I think cops would be FAR less anxious to shoot 1st and ask questions later if their immunity was removed, their retirements, and personal assest were fair game for civil litigation and forfeiture.
What this idiot with a gun and badge has in effect done is to set precident to shoot police officers in self defense.
An American citizen's life is worth NOTHING less than a cop's life. In fact, the cops is there to protect the life of the citizen and their property. Risk of injury and death is part of the job of being a cop. Those who cannot deal with it or are cowardly and panic under stress or fire, have NO BUSINESS being law enforcement officers.
I will make it a point to tell EVERYONE I know or who will listen to boycott your website. I refuse to give my business to Constitutional traitors and cop butt kissers.
As is the usual case......Oath Keepers is deafeningly silent on yet another police terrorism attrocity.
Gunseller,
One of the most basic of all gun safety rules is to IDENTIFY your target. This cop did not know what he was shooting at. He should be charged with attempted murder, lose his pension and all benefits, and spend many long years in the gen pop of the state's max security prison.
Defiant, you had me nodding right up until the unwarranted attack on Oath Keepers. I love how just because they don't embrace YOUR mission they deserve to be publicly dissed in your eyes.
They can't be everything to everyone, and their function is not to provide "The Only Ones" files. Others want to destroy them because they aren't making anti-war activism their centerpiece. And still others because they won't embrace anti-Semitism...
If I sound like I'm taking this personally, let me just say that there's a reason i did not post over the weekend. Friday night, after getting picked up from the airport, OK founder Stewart Rhodes, Cdr Gillie and the two Ohio chapter leaders came to my house for dinner. I put Stewart and David up for the weekend in my guest room as they were here for the Great Lakes conference. After traveling all day they were up until late prepping for the next day's conference--we left my house at 9:00 am and were there by 11:00 am, and after a full day's presentations did not leave until around 10:00 pm, getting home before midnight. And then the next day there was a power outage at Cleveland airport necessitating a scramble to reschedule and then their having to go to Pittsburgh to get flights out and not getting home until late that night. So here was an entire weekend with almost solid work and travel for the cause--I hope you don't think anyone was getting an hourly wage or anything. And they'll do it again today and tomorrow and the day after--putting their own names and reputations on the line and taking both personal and professional risks you know nothing about.
Stewart's discipline and ability to stay on mission is producing great things, as you'd know had you attended the event and seen how the movement is growing, how good people are coming to the fore, how alliances are being forged. And CDR Gillie is truly someone of remarkable intelligence, dedication and accomplishment. I considered myself privileged and honored to be in the presence of these great patriots.
You should be so lucky. And you should be grateful for their sacrifices, instead of sniping at them anonymously and thinking you have enough information to call the plays from the sidelines.
How many hours did you put in this weekend for the Republic? How many people did you inspire?
Whether you're willing to admit it or not, you owe them an apology.
"...the cops (sic) is there to protect the life of the citizen..." No he or she isn't. Learn a little law. The cop is there to enforce the law when a crime has been committed not to prevent crimes or protect citizens. That is a Supreme Court case decision and therefore the law. Anything else is wishful thinking. In this case, it appears that the driver made a mistake, the passenger made a mistake and the cop made a mistake. The difference is the cop's mistake could have killed somebody. If a person is going to use a gun he or she must be held to a higher standard of behavior. In general, cops aren't and that is wrong.
Although, I do still keep waiting for an Oath Keeper to make the news for refusal to obey the illegal orders they surely run against every day on the job as a LEO or while executing one of the unconstitutional wars across the globe.
"I just wonder how much more unfortunate it would be if it had been the citizen who panicked and accidentally shot your unidentified "Only One."
Uh, there wasn't anything "accidental" about this shooting. Stupid, maybe, ill-advised maybe, and I say maybe because I am not automaically disposed to believe the passenger reached between his knees just because the cop said he did. Sounds an awful lot like all those "he made a move toward his waist" stories we have seen disproven many times.
Officer Friendly A. Confident is on patrol another night in the city. Its war out there...
Call comes in on a robbery at a local Taco Hell. Officer Confident spies the get away car and stops the bad guys using only the force of his personality.
"I am Officer Friendly Confident of the Municipal Poe-Leece Department. I hereby declare thee to be the guilty party! Do exactly as you are told and I may refrain from shooting you! Now, kindly submit and make no sound, so I can cuff you and take you to jail!"
"Oh! So that's how it is, is it?"
Sounds of gun fire are heard.
"Take THAT Mr. Bad Guy!"
Officer Friendly A. Confident smiles to himself for another job well done.
------------------------
Of course most Cops are super duper good guys. That is why the silence of condemnation is so deafening.
I wasn’t there and wasn’t wearing the officer’s shoes. I very well understand that the average citizen has no idea how to conduct himself when stopped by a police officer. I also understand that the average citizen doesn’t realize that a traffic stop is one of the most dangerous contacts an officer can make. The officer rarely ever knows who he has stopped or what activities that individual may have been involved in just prior to the stop.
After saying all that; I was involved in more traffic stops, felony stops included, than I can remember. There were times when the driver of the vehicle looked around and stared up the barrel of my sidearm or shotgun. When I sincerely believed I was making a felony stop I took proper procedures to protect myself as well as the citizen(s) I stopped.
I was always aware of the fact that I may have stopped an innocent person and often, that was the case.
I get the feeling that the officer in this case did not take into consideration that he may have detained people who were not involved in criminal activity, and that he let his emotions control his actions.
I learned early on that emotions will often cause an individual to react in an inappropriate manner.
Sad thing – once the trigger is pressed there’s no way to stop the bullet.
[W-III]
WWW,
You have it wrong. The cops don't know how to conduct themselves when stopping citizens.
David,
My closing comment is NOT an unwarranted or otherwise attack on Oath Keepers. I see it as a concerned reminder of a missed opportunity. I used to be an Oath Keeper until I became aware of the large numbers of LEO's who were joining. NEVER ONCE have I heard another LEO or Oath Keeper leader speak out about police domestic terrorism and abuse.
Next time you see CDR Gillie, you might ask why he VERY wisely addressed his remarks in his speech to exempt LEO's? You might also ask CDR Gillie about the duty a commisioned officer has when he or she witnesses another commissioned officer or NCO commiting a crime or engaged in unprofessional or unbecoming conduct. Being a retired military officer myself, I suspect CDR Gillie will tell you that he would have a DUTY to either make an "on the spot correction" or take some course of administrative action that may be anything from a verbal counseling to intiation of an Article 32 Investitgation.
Law Enforcement Officers as a professional group are loath and adamnant to criticize, discipline, or in any way take effective action to police and clean up their ranks nationwide. This has become a nationwide cancer.
I don't expect Oath Keepers to take up the "Holy Grail" against police domestic terrorism and abuse, BUT I DO expect some kind of public expression of their disapproval and affirmation that they do not support or allow in their ranks LEO's who violate their oath or engage in police domestic terrorism and abuse.
I realize that LEO's are human beings just like the rest of us and we ALL make mistakes. Just seems like the rest of us pay for our mistakes and the "ONLY ONES" get a free pass.
Those who insist upon "talking the talk" have a DUTY to "walk the walk."
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
It was my impression that whether or not you are a LEO, you are only allowed to react to what is an actual threat, not a perceived potential of threat. A homeowner is not permitted to shoot the paperboy on the porch just because the homeowner believes that the paperboy might be there to break into the home. Likewise, all vehicles in the vicinity of the robbery with three people may be stopped by officers and checked with caution, but the number of people in the vehicle is only a coincidence for all vehicles except for the vehicle containing the robbers. Not being able to see the hands of all the vehicle occupants is not sufficient cause to shoot. The vehicle occupants not being in 100% immediate compliance to the officer's instructions is not cause to shoot either.
"Defiant, you had me nodding right up until the unwarranted attack on Oath Keepers. I love how just because they don't embrace YOUR mission they deserve to be publicly dissed in your eyes."
I have a different complaint than the choice of priorities in the OK strategy. It sounds like Stewart Rhodes is one of the rare, 1 in 5,000 politicians who honestly desires to serve and protect the people. Which makes him a nationalistic Socialist craving to impose his policies at gunpoint on unwilling victims, just like every other politician. The only difference is, he wants to make his serfs happy instead of slaughter them. Wow, yeah, I'd rather have my taxes used to repair road potholes than to put black drug users in concentration camps -- but that is not an argument in favor of taxation. You can't get past the lack of consent by showing the slaves a pickin' and a grinnin' on the porch are HAPPY. Slavery is still slavery, even when Thomas Jefferson loved the woman he owned. I know the difference between slavery and liberty. Do you?
Stewart Rhodes is not a politician, nor is he a socialist of any sort. He doesn't want to impose anything on anyone at gunpoint. I have my qualms about Oath Keepers, but Stewart's involvement and his motivation in forming the organization are certainly not among them. He can share my fire any day.
Hi Kent, I am completely unable to follow how you came to your conclusions. Rhodes to me seems to be honestly working the small government thing in the spirit in which it is advertised, but as we both know it produces entirely different results than the advertised ones. He's asking people to refresh their oaths to forcibly impose a concept and vision of government. Right? He's not asking them to resign, desert, or act like peace officers while on patrol. If a medical doctor wants to treat your illness by bleeding you with slugs, because they honestly believe that treatment is best...they're still a hazard to be avoided. High-minded motivations don't reduce their hazard much. And these doctors want to hold you down so you can't escape treatment. I define anyone seeking to get thousands of voters to vote their way to be a politician, whether they receive a government paycheck yet or not.
I have come to my conclusions through dealing with Stewart online for a long time, although he probably doesn't remember me or know who I am because of my alias.
He is not "asking people to refresh their oaths to forcibly impose a concept and vision of government", but is asking them to renew their oaths as a wake-up exercise against forcibly imposing anything of the sort, no matter what their orders may be. Oath Keepers is not about "force" or "imposing" but is about refusing to use force or imposing anything.
My "complaint", besides being no fan of the Constitution, is that I have yet to see any real refusal on the part of individual Oath Keepers to actually refuse to follow orders that use force to "impose a concept and vision of government", but that is all the group is about: Non-action (when the action is "unconstitutional") instead of action. Non-action is not force.
If even I can't tell this from the movement's observable behavior, why should I expect anyone else to? Ron Paul might be a secret ninja anarchist who has prevented a thousand worse disasters, but can never accept credit for it. So might Alan Greenspan. Or Ollie North. Or Nixon. Or maybe JFK and RFK towards the end. It'd make a fine movie plot.
I categorically reject any strategy that requires lying to the public more overt than keeping your mouth shut. A republic cannot function, even within its own broken theory, without an informed electorate. Without contrary evidence, all we have is William F. Buckley saying 'trust me that we need this domestic totalitarianism to fight communism'. Riiiight. That's also what the Bad People say.
Given the facts I have available to me, Occam says I should conclude Stewart Rhodes is a small government Republican politician, not a secret ninja anarchist. Evidence to the contrary should be placed on wikileaks, where we can all review it in the open.
'I have a secret plan to end war in Vietnam...but first you have to elect me. And now let me tell you how my children like playing fetch with my illegal campaign contribution.'
Come on.
Post a Comment