• 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

OK I was gone from the board for 2 weeks and thus I haven't seen all the posts regarding Ferguson. However, as far as I can tell, in all the posts on DP about all the things that happened in Ferguson no one has posted even a word about the officers who went home after their duty shift and baked batches of cookies and handed them out to protesters the next day.

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for this?
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

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.

NGR 500 specifically states what conditions must exist to authorize deadly force.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

NGR 500 specifically states what conditions must exist to authorize deadly force.
Where?
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for this?

Na, man. I was just jiving everybody. I certainly don't have a source because it probably never happened.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Chapter 4
I read both sections of chapter 4, it's not there. You refrenced a section 4-6 but there is no section 4-6. See my previous link.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

I read both sections of chapter 4, it's not there. You refrenced a section 4-6 but there is no section 4-6. See my previous link.

We're looking at two different NGR 500's. That's why you can't find what I'm referring to.

www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/.../ngr5

Edit: the link won't work. :(
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

We're looking at two different NGR 500's. That's why you can't find what I'm referring to.

www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/.../ngr5

Edit: the link won't work. :(

vBulliten forum software inserts an elipsis into very long URLs, often rendering the link inert.
 
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?

So, the law allows you to kill in defense of your property? Really? You mentioned Texas, so maybe they have passed laws making property more valuable than human life, but I'm not so sure even there it's legal to kill a thief who is running away.

Yes, of course I have a point. The point is a human life is more important than a stereo, even that of a thief.

Yes, I understand that you and the Taliban don't agree with that, but I'm fairly certain that the law is on my side here in the USA.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

We're looking at two different NGR 500's. That's why you can't find what I'm referring to.

www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/.../ngr5

Edit: the link won't work. :(
Having read the entirety of http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf and http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/atp3_39x33.pdf , I was unable to find anything specific to automatic fire. However, the overarching theme of the use-of-force doctrine is deploying lethal force only in self defense or to prevent the certain loss of a critical asset. Civilians are never to be attacked with lethal force, as they can be with non-lethal weapons to, say, disperse a crowd or deny entry into a broad open area (offensive use of teargas to clear streets, for example, is perfectly acceptable). Additionally, throughout both documents the insistence of involving JAG in creating any use-of-force matrix, with ongoing incident review with JAG, is persistent. A JAG order to disable select-fire is consistent with the defensive theme since select-fire and certainly full-auto fire are primarily offensive tools used to attack and kill the enemy, not merely self-defense.
 
Last edited:
So, the law allows you to kill in defense of your property? Really? You mentioned Texas, so maybe they have passed laws making property more valuable than human life, but I'm not so sure even there it's legal to kill a thief who is running away.

Yes, of course I have a point. The point is a human life is more important than a stereo, even that of a thief.

Yes, I understand that you and the Taliban don't agree with that, but I'm fairly certain that the law is on my side here in the USA.
The law allows the military to kill you in defense of property, too, and the military assisting LEOs in a civil disturbance are under the most restrictive rules.
 
So, the law allows you to kill in defense of your property? Really? You mentioned Texas, so maybe they have passed laws making property more valuable than human life, but I'm not so sure even there it's legal to kill a thief who is running away.

Yes, of course I have a point. The point is a human life is more important than a stereo, even that of a thief.

Yes, I understand that you and the Taliban don't agree with that, but I'm fairly certain that the law is on my side here in the USA.

What about tools, or equipment that one uses to make a living? Too feed one's family? Do I have the right to protect that?
 
Please know your law. A few thoughts from this soldier....
~Posse Comitatus only ever applied to Title-10 USC Federal Armed Forces. National Guard assisting police in civil disturbances are activated under Title-32 USC and are "state employees", not Federal "Armed Forces", and thus Posse Comitatus does not apply.
~Soldiers are only allowed to use lethal force strictly in self defense, or if the certain loss of a critical asset is imminent. We soldiers are never, ever authorized to attack civilians with machine-guns. An order to spray down civilians is an unlawful order and both the soldier giving the order and the solder pulling the trigger will go to prison.
~Civilian law enforcement remains in control of National Guard assets at all times. Any decision to place snipers was approved by the local police, who likely have their own SWAT snipers deployed already.
~At all times and in all things, the least amount of force required is all that is authorized. A riot scenario has to escalate well beyond what teargas and batons can control for snipers to start shooting instigators.
~We are not mindless robots. We are people too. We have children and families and jobs just like everyone else.
 
So, the law allows you to kill in defense of your property? Really? You mentioned Texas, so maybe they have passed laws making property more valuable than human life, but I'm not so sure even there it's legal to kill a thief who is running away.

Yes, of course I have a point. The point is a human life is more important than a stereo, even that of a thief.

Yes, I understand that you and the Taliban don't agree with that, but I'm fairly certain that the law is on my side here in the USA.

Yes, the law in TX allows you to use lethal force to protect property. I have told you that from the beginning.

And it is your opinion that human life is more important than a stereo, even that of a thief.

I didnt say I disagreed with it....I didnt give my opinion...I explained the law.
 
What about tools, or equipment that one uses to make a living? Too feed one's family? Do I have the right to protect that?

In New York - my home state and the state whose laws I am most familiar with - you do not. Deadly physical force is only authorized in if one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is about to be used against them and has no means to safely escape. The escape part applies in your home as well btw. I'd guess many states are similar.
 
In New York - my home state and the state whose laws I am most familiar with - you do not. Deadly physical force is only authorized in if one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is about to be used against them and has no means to safely escape. The escape part applies in your home as well btw. I'd guess many states are similar.
19 states have a Duty To Retreat either by statute or precedent: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Hawaii and Wyoming. Most states do not require you to try to flee before using deadly force in your home or car. Most of the legal grey area exists while you are in a public space.
 
19 states have a Duty To Retreat either by statute or precedent: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Hawaii and Wyoming. Most states do not require you to try to flee before using deadly force in your home or car. Most of the legal grey area exists while you are in a public space.

As a practical matter trying to flee in one's own home can be difficult, especially at night when someone comes in through the front door. The floor plan for my house makes it impossible in most circumstances.
 
As a practical matter trying to flee in one's own home can be difficult, especially at night when someone comes in through the front door. The floor plan for my house makes it impossible in most circumstances.
And yet the law of your state requires you to just 'figure it out' or go to prison. That's why imo Duty To Retreat laws are downright draconian.
 
In New York - my home state and the state whose laws I am most familiar with - you do not. Deadly physical force is only authorized in if one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is about to be used against them and has no means to safely escape. The escape part applies in your home as well btw. I'd guess many states are similar.

Very few states support that. Almost all have Castle Law or a similar provision. I thought only Iowa still demanded that you retreat even in your own home.

Sad.
 
Very few states support that. Almost all have Castle Law or a similar provision. I thought only Iowa still demanded that you retreat even in your own home.

Sad.
In Ohio, for example, you have a Duty To Retreat while in public, but no Duty To Retreat while in your home or car. But in New York you have to flee regardless, and that's what's called "common sense gun control", that you should flee your own home.
 
In New York - my home state and the state whose laws I am most familiar with - you do not. Deadly physical force is only authorized in if one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is about to be used against them and has no means to safely escape. The escape part applies in your home as well btw. I'd guess many states are similar.

That's why New York is a **** hope.
 
That's why New York is a **** hope.

Yup. There are some good things about living here though. Trying to remember what they are.......

If it wasn't for the fact that I hate moving and I've 20 years in the same job and a pension coming to me I think we'd seriously consider relocating to somewhere more civilized.
 
Yup. There are some good things about living here though. Trying to remember what they are.......

If it wasn't for the fact that I hate moving and I've 20 years in the same job and a pension coming to me I think we'd seriously consider relocating to somewhere more civilized.

It's beautiful country, but man!...it seems like everything is illegal there!
 
The law allows the military to kill you in defense of property, too, and the military assisting LEOs in a civil disturbance are under the most restrictive rules.

Really? So, the military could go into Ferguson and kill the people damaging property, and it would all be perfectly legal?

I don't think so.
 
What about tools, or equipment that one uses to make a living? Too feed one's family? Do I have the right to protect that?

You bet you do.

By having it insured against theft, loss, fire, etc.

And, you should.
 
Back
Top Bottom