Nice safe world we live in...

[BoarSpear]

"you used to have gumption--Boring"

Yeah thats the neg rep some little pussy left for this thread, of course the little baddass didnt have the balls to sign it.

S'all right though, we all know who the biggest pussy on the board is.

[BoarSpear]

By the way, if it makes anyone feel safer, a group of cops fired 43 rounds at an unarmed man and hit him only twice - once in the leg and once in the hand. But they did mange to hit one of their own in the belly.

From my observation of police shootings, just stand still...they cant hit what their aiming at but if you move they might accidentally hit you.

[gregimotis]

You're right on all counts, Uke.

The time to act when somebody has a gun is right now. I've thought about it and one good response might have been: step through the doorway into my cinder block and stucco apt, grab my whoopin stick as I go by and smash the first thing that comes through the door (meanwhile calling 911).

(One could argue that another good response might have been noticing two strangers walking up behind you, but it's easy in hindsight)

Here's another story that didn't happen to me, but did happen recently in town:

The paper reported it this way on day one:

Cops rolled up on a guy they had dealt with before (drugs etc.). He grabbed a gun and fired at officers, several shots were fired both ways before he drove away and attempted to run down an officer as he left. Cops chased him up the street where he got stuck in traffic. More gunfire exchanged, one officer was shot in the vest - cops fired 43 rounds including shotgun.

Day two: Officer struck in the vest may have been hit with friendly fire. Police are searching the area of the shootout for the suspects weapon.

Day three: No weapon has been found, all casings at the scene belong to police issue weapons. (!)

Day four: One of the first cops on the scene saw the suspect lean forward in the seat of his car and shouted over the radio that he was going for a gun. At that point the cops began shooting, and the suspect tore out of there in car (may or may not have tried to hit officer). Cops opened fire on suspect later in traffic because they believed he was a threat to civilians in the area. Suspect never had a weapon, police did all the firing.

Day five through twenty-five: Funny, doesn't seem to have made the news lately.


By the way, if it makes anyone feel safer, a group of cops fired 43 rounds at an unarmed man and hit him only twice - once in the leg and once in the hand. But they did mange to hit one of their own in the belly.

[Uke]

That actually happened to me last year.

I had come home from work, unlocked and opened my front door - then I noticed someone had come through my gate behind me. I turned around and the guy has a gun out, pointing it at my feet and ordering me onto the ground.

He was three or four feet from me, I had a knife in my pocket, and a hefty stick just inside the door. I think I must have realized he was a cop on some level because my response was to smart off: "Who the **** are you?" At which point he identified as the sheriff and we figured out that the guy he and his partner were looking for were in the next house over - they had the wrong address you see. 'Right then, we'll just be sauntering on, no hard feelings and all that.'


Well there are some hard feelings. Just as you say, any of the responses I've trained for that situation would have forced his partner to shoot me.

Great post based just on the personal experience and insight. Thanks for sharing that, gregimotis. Without that experience, you like many other people would probably believe that the scenario I wrote about is extreme and would probably never happen to you.

The core of the post really is "What if you hadn't hesitated? Its ashamed that if you had decided to follow through you would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, even though you had to request that the officer state his affiliation instead of him following protocol.

Also, what if the man had been a mugger? That hesitation could have cost you your life. You can thank you lucky stars that your hunch was right, but had it been wrong you might have been SOL. Also, not every criminal out there is stupid. Some pretend to be cops. Some use fake but authentic badges to gain entry. Had that man wanted to just get inside, you probably would have let him in with no protest because you were relieved to have the gun taken out of your face and happy that it was a case of mistaken identity.

Thanks again for the reply.

[gregimotis]

That actually happened to me last year.

I had come home from work, unlocked and opened my front door - then I noticed someone had come through my gate behind me. I turned around and the guy has a gun out, pointing it at my feet and ordering me onto the ground.

He was three or four feet from me, I had a knife in my pocket, and a hefty stick just inside the door. I think I must have realized he was a cop on some level because my response was to smart off: "Who the **** are you?" At which point he identified as the sheriff and we figured out that the guy he and his partner were looking for were in the next house over - they had the wrong address you see. 'Right then, we'll just be sauntering on, no hard feelings and all that.'


Well there are some hard feelings. Just as you say, any of the responses I've trained for that situation would have forced his partner to shoot me.

[Uke]

yes, i realize this, which is why i said i would do my best. but the laws instituted by a government have nothing to do with what is right, good, fair, honorable etc. they are to keep order. often, these goals are in line with each other e.g. it is illegal to steal. stealing is wrong, but let there be no doubt in your mind, the government couldn't give a crap if it is wrong or right. at the core of it, stealing is illegal because if not, there would be chaos.
consideration for the law has absolutely zero place in the making of moral judgements.

Another excellent reply, Judo_Jibboo. What I've come to realize is that we as citizens are so conditioned to the force that the uniform represents that most will hesitate even when the time to act is right smack in front of them. This isn't always the case. When people fight back when they see injustice, the media just labels them rioters and gangs.

There have been plenty of cases where police misuse their authority, but the law AND the media will spin it so that the people always look crazy, on drugs or just out for trouble. In Indiana, police brutality had reached an unbearable level just a few years ago. The people finally had enough and fought back to a level where the police department could not contain the situation. The National Guard had to be called in.

They spun that story as if it were about looting and violence.

Here's another scenario, Judo_Jibboo.

What do you do when plain clothes cops pull out guns and don't identify themselves right away? This is a very distinct possibility and a very important side of urban combat as the police do this quite often in major cities. Do you run? Do you fight? Wouldn't you treat it like any other self defense situation especially in light of the fact that you don't know they're officers? In those situations, your reaction usually comes about within the first 3 seconds following your becoming aware of the fact that your being accosted.

In New York there is a case like that going on right now concerning the Sean Bell shooting. He left a bar with two of his friends, got in his car and attempted to drive off when men in street clothes produced guns and began shouting. When Bell panicked and tried to drive off after seeing guns produced, he collided with an unmarked police minivan, prompting the officers to fire multiple rounds into the car. No weapons or drugs were found in the car or on the passenger's person.

Anyone notice how every time the cops murder someone the victim's priors come into play and are plastered all over the media?

Anyway, what would you do in that situation? By the way the law would have us conditioned, we would allow carjackers to walk right up to us and shoot us because we weren't certain if they were undercover cops or not. And whether or not they identify themselves is a moot point unless the whole incident is videotaped with sound. If there is no evidence, the cops will ALWAYS say that they did identify themselves.

So in this scenario, where a man in street clothes approaches you, produces a firearm and points it at you all without identifying himself as a law enforcement officer, what would you do? Do you let your training kick in and disarm him and proceed to stomp him out ... which would inevitably lead to a savage beating for you if it turned out to be a cop, and an assault charge. You can't prove that he didn't identify himself, so what do you do, knowing that if he isn't a cop that you're putting your neck on the chopping block?

[Tom Yum]

Naw, I've just got a big brain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taXkvGakRfs

[gregimotis]

Sounds like you've been hanging out in the law discussion forums...lol

Naw, I've just got a big brain.

[Tom Yum]

And then, the cops would kill you. Which is not to say that you're action would be wrong, it's just a fact.

This is another invisible line: In legal reality, the cops are justified beating your (hypothetical) wife until proven otherwise in court - In legal reality, if you jump to your wife's defense, the cops are justified in shooting you regardless of why they are assaulting your wife.
1)The cops attacked an unarmed woman, this may or may not be illegal.
2) You assaulted police officers with intent to kill, this is justification of deadly force on their part, de facto.
3)The two issues are separate and would be tried separately - evidence from the first may or may not be allowed in the second - in fact the second trial may never take place at all since the cops acted in self defense (you did assault them, after all).


Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a dollar that's how a case like that would shake out in the real world.

Sounds like you've been hanging out in the law discussion forums...lol.

So you want to know how a case would shake out in the real world? Good lord I never watch the real world...I hate reality tv

[gregimotis]

...the government couldn't give a crap if it is wrong or right. at the core of it, stealing is illegal because if not, there would be chaos.
Consideration for the law has absolutely zero place in the making of moral judgments.

True and well said.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

And then, the cops would kill you. Which is not to say that you're action would be wrong, it's just a fact.



This is another invisible line: In legal reality, the cops are justified beating your (hypothetical) wife until proven otherwise in court - In legal reality, if you jump to your wife's defense, the cops are justified in shooting you regardless of why they are assaulting your wife.
1)The cops attacked an unarmed woman, this may or may not be illegal.
2) You assaulted police officers with intent to kill, this is justification of deadly force on their part, de facto.
3)The two issues are separate and would be tried separately - evidence from the first may or may not be allowed in the second - in fact the second trial may never take place at all since the cops acted in self defense (you did assault them, after all).


Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a dollar that's how a case like that would shake out in the real world.

yes, i realize this, which is why i said i would do my best. but the laws instituted by a government have nothing to do with what is right, good, fair, honorable etc. they are to keep order. often, these goals are in line with each other e.g. it is illegal to steal. stealing is wrong, but let there be no doubt in your mind, the government couldn't give a crap if it is wrong or right. at the core of it, stealing is illegal because if not, there would be chaos.
consideration for the law has absolutely zero place in the making of moral judgements.

[gregimotis]

Post number three:


Sorry to Boar and Tom Yum, who are having a separate, but equally interesting discussion on this thread.

[gregimotis]

Waco Texas:

Police have a warrant to arrest the leader of the Branch Dividians, who they believe are stockpiling weapons. Three options:

1) arrest him in town where he regularly is seen.
2) Go up to the compound and knock on the door, serve warrant
3) Crash the compound gate, Fire weapons into the buildings where women and children reside, while shouting demands over loudspeakers.



Police take option three, several agents and several davidians are killed in the firefight, a few weeks later everyone in the compound is dead. Here is the wikipedia sum-up:

"The government's siege on the Branch Davidians ended April 19 when the complex was completely consumed by fire ...killing seventy-six Davidians,..."

"The government conducted an investigation of itself, launching a special inquiry before the Danforth Committee, and during official testimony the FBI denied the use of, or even access to, pyrotechnic devices of any kind. The Danforth Committee issued a report concluding that the fire was started on the inside by Davidians. However, in 1999 the FBI was forced to admit that the testimony they gave before the Danforth Committee was false. The FBI now admits to using Flite-Rite pyrotechnic grenades on the day of the fire...no new government inquiries have been conducted.

The government put some of the survivors on trial ( gregi's note, said survivors had left compound before the fire). All were acquitted of conspiring to murder federal agents but some were convicted of aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter."



Conclusion: If the cops shoot at you and you shoot back, the cops may or may not be guilty of something, but you are absolutely guilty regardless. Self defense is only going to apply one-way.

[gregimotis]

if cops were beating my wife, son, or anyone else i owed those personal debts of love and loyalty to i would do my very best to take the lives of those officers on the spot. If it were happening to a stranger, i am not sure my fury would outweigh my fear in the same way, but i hope it would.

And then, the cops would kill you. Which is not to say that you're action would be wrong, it's just a fact.



This is another invisible line: In legal reality, the cops are justified beating your (hypothetical) wife until proven otherwise in court - In legal reality, if you jump to your wife's defense, the cops are justified in shooting you regardless of why they are assaulting your wife.
1)The cops attacked an unarmed woman, this may or may not be illegal.
2) You assaulted police officers with intent to kill, this is justification of deadly force on their part, de facto.
3)The two issues are separate and would be tried separately - evidence from the first may or may not be allowed in the second - in fact the second trial may never take place at all since the cops acted in self defense (you did assault them, after all).


Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a dollar that's how a case like that would shake out in the real world.

[Uke]

if cops were beating my wife, son, or anyone else i owed those personal debts of love and loyalty to i would do my very best to take the lives of those officers on the spot. If it were happening to a stranger, i am not sure my fury would outweigh my fear in the same way, but i hope it would.

Well, you my friend, have articulated a truth that many would not on most forums. I respect your candor. You'd be surprised at how different other people's answers might be.