• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents[W:76]

Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

We're looking for the exact field manual or law. A link would be nice.

The Untied States military cannot use auto-fire on US civilians unless Martial Law is declared, or in the case of state police - they can't use auto unless they have reasonable suspicion/cause that it may be used against them (pretty much self defense).
 
Yes, stealing is risky. Do thieves place the value of what they're stealing above their lives? Well, they're pretty quick to drop it and run when the occasion calls for it.

Now, that stereo...did the life of the owner and his family depend on that stereo? Really? When someone is stealing such a piece of equipment, is it really your contention that it's OK to kill them to protect the stereo, and yet you're not placing the value of property over the value of life?

The stereo owner who shot the thief in the back must value the stereo more than freedom, as he is extremely lucky not to have been thrown in jail for a very long time on a second degree murder charge. Shooting people in the back while they're running away is not justifiable homicide anywhere in the USA.

But, it might be acceptable in Iran, I'm not sure.

I dont know how the stereo owner felt about his property and you certainly dont know how thieves feel about their lives...you are assuming (incorrectly) that many/most drop stuff? My claim is based on the FACT that they choose to risk their lives for property.

I would not shoot someone for a stereo but obviously the law, even in a liberal area, recognizes a person's right to protect their property using lethal force.

So you keep trying to be all judgemental here, but it seems baseless. It is your opinion. Cool. And you get to live accordingly. No one is forcing you to kill people who take your stuff. But aside from the judgementalism, do you have a point?
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

The cops are the real criminals - they're a bunch of yahoos, and I have seen their tyranny and laziness first hand.... Hell, my dad just won $150,000 in a lawsuit because the storm troopers invaded his home without a warrant and tased him for no damn reason (oh and it's also a viral video to boot)...

I have no respect for those tyrannical monsters, I wont even talk to them.

Anyone who refers to others as "bad guys" either has the mentality of a child or has some sort of complex....

I'm glad that your father held them accountable and won. What was the punishment for the officers?

Your blanket assessments about cops are very wrong however. Most cops are nothing like that and dont act like that, nor desire to.
 
I would not shoot someone for a stereo but obviously the law, even in a liberal area, recognizes a person's right to protect their property using lethal force.

Not in NY. If I shot someone and told the police I did it to stop him from swiping my stereo I'd be staring at a murder 2 charge. lethal force can only be used in defense of life. If someone breaks into my home I have to shoot him because I reasonably believed my life was in danger, not because he's taking my property.
 
Not in NY. If I shot someone and told the police I did it to stop him from swiping my stereo I'd be staring at a murder 2 charge. lethal force can only be used in defense of life. If someone breaks into my home I have to shoot him because I reasonably believed my life was in danger, not because he's taking my property.

That's pretty much the law here....but not how it all played out in the stereo case. It was pretty surprising.

Here's an article I found on it. It was a stereo speaker, not stereo. It explains the circumstances that obviously the charging court and the jury took into consideration.

A year later, man charged in deadly car prowler shooting | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

He said he only meant to scare or wound.

He was charged with manslaughter (I'm not positive that was the final charge) but he got off with time served.

Still a pretty surprising outcome IMO.
 
Last edited:
Gaius, is any action, in New York state, taken to prevent theft a violation of law? Could there be double indictments? One for prevention of theft and the other for theft?
 
Last edited:
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

I'm glad that your father held them accountable and won. What was the punishment for the officers?

Your blanket assessments about cops are very wrong however. Most cops are nothing like that and dont act like that, nor desire to.

The bitch that tased my dad had her taser taken away and was placed on desk duty and the rest of the "officers" were also placed on desk duty indefinitely - they're no longer on the streets and they won't be doing anymore tactical work anytime soon.

BTW, the mentally disabled female cop that shot my dad was a rookie and shot 4 more people after him in a span of 6 months - she is is big trouble.

There is also a confidentiality agreement - but I'm not part of it so I can talk and say and post what I want.

I just saw what I saw...
 
Last edited:
Gaius, is any action, in New York state, taken to prevent theft a violation of law? Could there be double indictments? One for prevention of theft and the other for theft?

The New York use of force statutes give justifications only for self defense; not for defense of property. That's not to say that you can't try to detain someone who's stealing your stuff but if things get out of control who knows what might happen afterward. SOP in the city seems to be to arrest people even in legitimate use of force situations and let the judge figure it out.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

The bitch that tased my dad had her taser taken away and was placed on desk duty and the rest of the "officers" were also placed on desk duty indefinitely - they're no longer on the streets and they won't be doing anymore tactical work anytime soon.

BTW, the mentally disabled female cop that shot my dad was a rookie and shot 4 more people after him in a span of 6 months - she is is big trouble.

I"m really sorry for your dad. I hope he's ok now.

There are ****ty cops, no doubt, and incompetant ones. But not the majority.

But hey, we had an incident here where cops went into a home looking for a suspect. They found a man, asleep in bed, in the basement. Did not identify him, but shot him 16 times. He was not even the suspect. He did survive.

Sooooo many things wrong here, criminally and incompetently.

--didnt identify suspect
--shot an unarmed man who was no threat
--shot him 16 times
--shot him 16 times *and didnt kill him.*
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

I"m really sorry for your dad. I hope he's ok now.

There are ****ty cops, no doubt, and incompetant ones. But not the majority.

But hey, we had an incident here where cops went into a home looking for a suspect. They found a man, asleep in bed, in the basement. Did not identify him, but shot him 16 times. He was not even the suspect. He did survive.

Sooooo many things wrong here, criminally and incompetently.

--didnt identify suspect
--shot an unarmed man who was no threat
--shot him 16 times
--shot him 16 times *and didnt kill him.*

What in heaven's name were those fools thinking?
 
That's pretty much the law here....but not how it all played out in the stereo case. It was pretty surprising.

Here's an article I found on it. It was a stereo speaker, not stereo. It explains the circumstances that obviously the charging court and the jury took into consideration.

A year later, man charged in deadly car prowler shooting | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

He said he only meant to scare or wound.

He was charged with manslaughter (I'm not positive that was the final charge) but he got off with time served.

Still a pretty surprising outcome IMO.

It is. The guy's comment that he only meant to wound or scare tells me he wasn't all that worried - completely aside from the point shooting to sound is pure stupidity.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

The Untied States military cannot use auto-fire on US civilians unless Martial Law is declared, or in the case of state police - they can't use auto unless they have reasonable suspicion/cause that it may be used against them (pretty much self defense).
Please quote the law or FM.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Im going on what the JAG said. Obvioisly a device to restrict automatic fire exists for a reason.
Yes, a reason, but Im trying to discover the range and scope of that reason.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

It seems to me that we now have a Ferguson police force which is too afraid of returning to patrol the neighbourhood during the dark hours and after having been publically spat upon by the whole community.

If anything, they are going to want 4 officers to each cruiser as a safety measure, or they will just refuse to patrol during the night just like what is happening in other large areas of cities across America. For sure, there are going to be a lot of these officers go on sick pay.

The local politicians can't act and just fire them all or transfer them all to other cities because they will look weak and/or the police will react with leaked secrets of these politicians. Nothing happens with a politician which the "security state" apparatus does not know.

That is why the Federal Government is stepping in.

Federal Agents will interview everybody and their dog to find some evidence of "improper" police activity on every officer possible, and then use this to encourage each police officer to seek work elsewhere or pay the cost in legal fees and harassment. Even if found not guilty, the cost to the officer is huge.

The Federal Government will produce an "insider" or an informant.

The main effort is to replace this police force with new faces.

Change only the faces ..... the methods and rules remain the same. There is no need to make changes to the System because it was crafted and approved by our God, and is just perfect the way it is.

And "Can We Just Move On"?

Justice is never done ..... it must only appear to be done.

Calm
 
Last edited:
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Yes, a reason, but Im trying to discover the range and scope of that reason.

Th prevent soldiers from using rock-n-roll on American citizens.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Th prevent soldiers from using rock-n-roll on American citizens.
FM 100-19 appears to be the relevant refrence for domestic operations, with special attention to chapter 3. I was unable to find any rules on the use of force within this FM, however. What material resource were you using at the time?
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

FM 100-19 appears to be the relevant refrence for domestic operations, with special attention to chapter 3. I was unable to find any rules on the use of force within this FM, however. What material resource were you using at the time?

NGR 500, section 4-6, paragraph (2)
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Th prevent soldiers from using rock-n-roll on American citizens.
ATP 3-39.33 is the most recent publication spicific to counter-riot operations. In it's escalation-of-force guidance it does not state a need for the aforementioned blocks.

The best I can guess at this point is that the use of those blocks in your rifles was the Comander's discretion while making the use-of-force matrix for that operation. You would have gon to jail not for using an assult-rifle without a block, but for acting outside of the comander's use-of-force matrix.

It stands to reason that if civilians cannot be shot with select-fire weapons, that police would not be allowed to have those weapons in their inventory at all.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

ATP 3-39.33 is the most recent publication spicific to counter-riot operations. In it's escalation-of-force guidance it does not state a need for the aforementioned blocks.

The best I can guess at this point is that the use of those blocks in your rifles was the Comander's discretion while making the use-of-force matrix for that operation. You would have gon to jail not for using an assult-rifle without a block, but for acting outside of the comander's use-of-force matrix.

It stands to reason that if civilians cannot be shot with select-fire weapons, that police would not be allowed to have those weapons in their inventory at all.

According to NGR 500, only the state AG has that descretion.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

ATP 3-39.33 is the most recent publication spicific to counter-riot operations. In it's escalation-of-force guidance it does not state a need for the aforementioned blocks.

The best I can guess at this point is that the use of those blocks in your rifles was the Comander's discretion while making the use-of-force matrix for that operation. You would have gon to jail not for using an assult-rifle without a block, but for acting outside of the comander's use-of-force matrix.

It stands to reason that if civilians cannot be shot with select-fire weapons, that police would not be allowed to have those weapons in their inventory at all.

Interesting. Thanks for researching it Jerry. And in any case the military rules would not be binding on civilian police. I did speak to my brother - a retired NYPD Seargent. He wasn't ESU (that's NYPD's SWAT team) and retired before the big push to get military gear to police agencies but did tell me that back in his day ESU did in fact have access to fully automatic weapons. They didn't break them out often but they were in their inventory.
 
Taliban considers murder wrong? Oh, the people they beheaded and shot from behind must have been executed huh?
Yes.

It's all dependent on what your culture/government define as unacceptable killing - aka "Murder".

Edit: We, of course, consider them to be sick murdering ****s.

But I'm sure they justify their behavior in some way.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

According to NGR 500, only the state AG has that descretion.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...aFdBiooFgVLDVd90ySo7Q5w&bvm=bv.74649129,d.aWw

....I'm not seeing a section 4-6 at all. 4-1 & 4-2 and then on to section 5.

The reason Im pressing for the exact authority is because every single tome Im out in public in uniform for any length of time I'm always asked if I would fire on civilians if they resisted gun confiscation. Every single time. I plan to keep this document in my uniform to show the next person who asks that we aren't allowed to.

It's not the first FM or publication I've kept on me with spicific citations earmarked.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

It's all dependent on what your culture/government define as unacceptable killing - aka "Murder".

Edit: We, of course, consider them to be sick murdering ****s.

But I'm sure they justify their behavior in some way.

So a group who murders considers murder wrong, that's a new one, how many Taliban have you interviewed to draw that conclusion?
 
So a group who murders considers murder wrong, that's a new one, how many Taliban have you interviewed to draw that conclusion?
None.

I'm basing it on my limited understanding of humans in general - For example some would call "collateral damage" "murder".

But in actuality it's simply acceptable deaths/killing - we accept that if we (edit: By "we" here, I mean the US, although it probably applies to other countries as well) do X (bomb some building, attack some town with troops), there WILL be some civilian causalities - which we call "Collateral damage".

Someone else might look at the same event and say "murder", but so far as I know it's only murder if the laws you operate under consider it such.


I seriously doubt that whatever laws the Taliban operates under consider their actions which kill a bunch of people to be murder - or at least, if they do, it's "acceptable murder", which is effectively not...murder.
 
So a group who murders considers murder wrong, that's a new one, how many Taliban have you interviewed to draw that conclusion?

Want to point out a huge gaping hole in this logic.

Murder is defined as killing that is unlawful. Not all killing is murder. Not all killing is considered "wrong" to all people. In fact, many people have different beliefs as to what kinds of killings should be murder. Some believe that any killing, even during war or for self defense should be murder. Some feel that abortion should be murder. Others feel that it should not be murder to kill a person who has greatly harmed your family (such as killing a daughter's or wife's rapist, even if they are already in custody). And still others feel it is justifiable (aka should not be murder) to kill someone who has brought shame to themself or their family. Yet others still believe certain killing certain people should not be murder because they do not view those people as humans or at least not on the same level they are.

Many different groups have fell into this last category by someone else, African Americans, Jews, women, Native Americans, gays, Kurds, Christians, mentally or physically disabled, and many, many others throughout history. The vast majority of those who have killed other groups or types of people in history for one of those things I mentioned, those doing the killing have justified it as "necessary" and most of the time, it is not "murder" in the place where it is being done because it was generally state sanctioned in some way, or at least state supported.

However, these same groups that would kill others for just those mentioned characteristics, also have had laws against killing other people who did not have those characteristics.
 
Back
Top Bottom