• 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!

A black off-duty cop tried to help stop a crime. Another officer shot him.

BWG said:
These are excerpts from posts in this thread. Assumptions out of thin air. No report has said the officer was brandishing a weapon.

You use the word presumption, I think more like conjecture. (yes I know they are supposed to be synonyms, but there is a slight difference in their definitions)

conjecture
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

I don't 'got' anything, never said or insinuated that I did. That was my point NOBODY knows! It hasn't been reported yet.
Click to expand...
Presumption, conjecture, I'm fine with either.

I wholly disagree there is no evidence. The evidence is clear, even if partially circumstantial. The article did state that he grabbed his gun and headed to the scene. The other points I mentioned are in line with his profession and training. All of this, if it were a crime and random Joe Schmoe were accused of robbing a bank, would be sufficient evidence to continue an investigation. So, there IS evidence, even sufficient evidence when taken together, but you can say there is no proof.

I would agree that some of those random statements do seem over-the-top.
 
Deuce said:
A visibly armed person triggers a threat response far easier than someone who is not visibility armed and this really isn't hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what I don't really get is we've got a right to carry a firearm, but if we carry a firearm, cops have the right to shoot us for really any reason. The shooter perceived a threat here from a fellow cop who was doing as ordered by other cops.
 
radcen said:
Someone would be along to analyze it frame-by-frame and say how an involuntary twitch of the left pinkie finger was somehow an aggressive move.
Click to expand...

... or a Threatening Fart from the Aggressive Criminal's Direction :lamo

There's way too many Barney Fife's in this world. They should just give these cowards a whistle.
 
apdst said:
The article says he grabbed his pistol, but doesn't say anything about grabbing his badge.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't make a damn bit of difference - badge or not, cop or not. He was acting lawfully and obeying the commands of officers on the scene. There is just NO excuse or justification for the 4th cop arriving on the scene and shooting him - trying to KILL the guy.
 
JasperL said:
Sure, but what I don't really get is we've got a right to carry a firearm, but if we carry a firearm, cops have the right to shoot us for really any reason. The shooter perceived a threat here from a fellow cop who was doing as ordered by other cops.
Click to expand...

Right? A lot of times when there are mass shootings, we see here people arguing that it could have been stopped if someone in the crowd had a firearm. Now who the heck is going to want to stand up and shoot the shooter when if the cops arrive and see that or right after that, they have a good chance of being shot themselves?

Because the same people arguing for more "good" people to arm themselves against the "bad" people are now arguing the cops have a right to shoot the good person. Crazy logic there.
 
radcen said:
Presumption, conjecture, I'm fine with either.

I wholly disagree there is no evidence. The evidence is clear, even if partially circumstantial. The article did state that he grabbed his gun and headed to the scene.
Click to expand...
The article said he grabbed his gun and the gun was never mentioned again. How did the shooter know or think the wounded officer had a weapon? I'm positive he didn't read the article before the shooting.

The police report in the OP said the wounded officer "heard the commotion and responded outside, armed with his department-issued weapon". That's it! As I said before the weapon was never mentioned again. In a police report when an officer shoots someone don't they try to justify it by claiming they saw a weapon/object in his hand or was reaching for a weapon/object? The police report mentioned neither.

radcen said:
The other points I mentioned are in line with his profession and training. All of this, if it were a crime and random Joe Schmoe were accused of robbing a bank, would be sufficient evidence to continue an investigation. So, there IS evidence, even sufficient evidence when taken together, but you can say there is no proof.
Click to expand...
IF there was proof why wasn't it put in the police report to justify the shooting?

radcen said:
I would agree that some of those random statements do seem over-the-top.
Click to expand...
That's my whole point. Some posters saying a weapon was displayed as justification for the shoot. The police report didn't even try to do that.


By the way I don't think he shot the officer because he is black. I just think it was a shooting by someone who shouldn't have been a police officer in the first place.

And I agree with Jaspert about a citizen carrying a weapon. That is but one reason I would never open carry.

I meant to comment that the police report stated the late arriving officer observed the off-duty officer walking towards the other officers and "fearing for his safety" and "apparently not recognizing the off-duty officer, discharged a shot".

No mention of a visible weapon.
 
Last edited:
So it's OK now for police to arrive on the scene guns blazing?


Dude was following the other officers orders.

And was shot because of it. Suspend the shooter, at least till after the investigation is concluded, and likely, fire him.
 
This is why you never mess with the cops, and when you are forced to deal with them you pray to not get murdered. It so happened in this case the man himself was a police officer, he thought he was safe. You are not safe from the police, and if you have to talk to them, do exactly what they say, volunteer nothing and otherwise be quiet and polite and hope you don't die.
 
JasperL said:
Shouldn't make a damn bit of difference - badge or not, cop or not. He was acting lawfully and obeying the commands of officers on the scene. There is just NO excuse or justification for the 4th cop arriving on the scene and shooting him - trying to KILL the guy.
Click to expand...

How would you have handled it? Based on all of your law enforcement experience, that is.
 
boredatwork said:
This is why you never mess with the cops, and when you are forced to deal with them you pray to not get murdered. It so happened in this case the man himself was a police officer, he thought he was safe. You are not safe from the police, and if you have to talk to them, do exactly what they say, volunteer nothing and otherwise be quiet and polite and hope you don't die.
Click to expand...
Yep, any time you interact with one the possible outcomes are numerous, including a beating, electrocution, being kidnapped and held for ransom (bail) Having noxious chemicals discharged in your face, having a dog sicced on you. If you are fortunate, you just get to ease on down the road.
 
apdst said:
How would you have handled it? Based on all of your law enforcement experience, that is.
Click to expand...

Typical apdst red herring, moving of the goal posts. Pass.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Yep, any time you interact with one the possible outcomes are numerous, including a beating, electrocution, being kidnapped and held for ransom (bail) Having noxious chemicals discharged in your face, having a dog sicced on you. If you are fortunate, you just get to ease on down the road.
Click to expand...

Now that my friend is fweedumb.
 
JasperL said:
Typical apdst red herring, moving of the goal posts. Pass.
Click to expand...

Typical Jasper. Gets challenged then get all pissy about it.

It's easy to armchair quarterback these scenarios, when it's not your life on the line.
 
apdst said:
Typical Jasper. Gets challenged then get all pissy about it.

It's easy to armchair quarterback these scenarios, when it's not your life on the line.
Click to expand...

Not really - it just gets very old when I make a comment, you ignore it entirely, then move the goal posts. If you want to have a conversation, then don't ignore what people say in response to your posts. If not, that's fine, but I'm not chasing you around from topic to topic.

FWIW, it's also easy to armchair quarterback when you're not the innocent guy following police orders when another cop, rushing to the scene, shoots and tries to KILL you. And it should not matter whether or not he had his badge or was a cop. A civilian responding to the scene and trying to help, who was following police orders, should not be killed by another idiot cop while in the process of following police orders. If this innocent civilian is shot and/or killed, it's the shooter's fault, not the innocent person's. Very simple, and seems obvious.
 
JasperL said:
Not really - it just gets very old when I make a comment, you ignore it entirely, then move the goal posts. If you want to have a conversation, then don't ignore what people say in response to your posts. If not, that's fine, but I'm not chasing you around from topic to topic.

FWIW, it's also easy to armchair quarterback when you're not the innocent guy following police orders when another cop, rushing to the scene, shoots and tries to KILL you. And it should not matter whether or not he had his badge or was a cop. A civilian responding to the scene and trying to help, who was following police orders, should not be killed by another idiot cop while in the process of following police orders. If this innocent civilian is shot and/or killed, it's the shooter's fault, not the innocent person's. Very simple, and seems obvious.
Click to expand...

I didn't move the goalposts. I simply asked you to put yourself in the officers's shoes and tell us honestly what you would have done differently.

If I had been the off duty cop, I would have walked up showing my badge saying, "I'm an officer. Can I help?". By law, a cop has to identify himself immediately when dealing with a civillian. It should be second nature, especially when confronting other officers knowing they're already on the defensive.
 
apdst said:
I didn't move the goalposts. I simply asked you to put yourself in the officers's shoes and tell us honestly what you would have done differently.

If I had been the off duty cop, I would have walked up showing my badge saying, "I'm an officer. Can I help?".
Click to expand...

OK, for sake of argument, our off duty guy didn't do this. The two already there get him to the ground and then recognise him and tell him to get up. But tell me, why would that have prevented any new cops arriving from shooting someone already established by other police to be "a good guy?"

apdst said:
By law, a cop has to identify himself immediately when dealing with a civillian. It should be second nature, especially when confronting other officers knowing they're already on the defensive.
Click to expand...

So by your law, did the third cop to arrive identified himself or just arrived shooting? Did he break the law you just said every cop should obey?
 
apdst said:
I didn't move the goalposts. I simply asked you to put yourself in the officers's shoes and tell us honestly what you would have done differently.
Click to expand...

You ignored my comment entirely, then took the conversation in another direction. That is the definition of moving the goal post.

If I had been the off duty cop, I would have walked up showing my badge saying, "I'm an officer. Can I help?". By law, a cop has to identify himself immediately when dealing with a civillian. It should be second nature, especially when confronting other officers knowing they're already on the defensive.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. It's the heat of the moment, and armed bad guys are running around. There's no time to do that, or you can't assume that opportunity was there. Furthermore, when he was shot, he HAD identified himself as an officer, the other officers recognized him as a police officer, and the cop who was shot, when he was shot, was FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE POLICE ON THE SCENE!

You're trying to blame the victim here and it's nonsense, bull****. It's the same thing in most of these cop shootings. The burden is on the person getting shot or killed to behave FLAWLESSLY. And what's incredible here is the officer shot was doing exactly what the others on the scene told him to do. What else can you expect?

And, again, if the person shot was a civilian, trying to be a good samaritan, then what is your excuse? He was behaving lawfully at the time he was shot because when he was asked to get on the ground, he did, and when he was told to get up and walk toward the police on the scene, that is what he did. There is just NO excuse for the moron who arrived late to shoot to kill this innocent person following orders of the officers on the scene.
 
apdst said:
I didn't move the goalposts. I simply asked you to put yourself in the officers's shoes and tell us honestly what you would have done differently.

If I had been the off duty cop, I would have walked up showing my badge saying, "I'm an officer. Can I help?". By law, a cop has to identify himself immediately when dealing with a civillian. It should be second nature, especially when confronting other officers knowing they're already on the defensive.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what you did. You pre-qualified, and pre-dismissed, his response by including the implication that his response wouldn't be valid because he doesn't have LE experience.

And yet, here you are doing exactly the same thing, offering your non-experienced opinion. Classic hypocrisy.
 
apdst said:
I didn't move the goalposts. I simply asked you to put yourself in the officers's shoes and tell us honestly what you would have done differently.

If I had been the off duty cop, I would have walked up showing my badge saying, "I'm an officer. Can I help?". By law, a cop has to identify himself immediately when dealing with a civillian. It should be second nature, especially when confronting other officers knowing they're already on the defensive.
Click to expand...

No. This is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions. Your question repeats one that is often asked, as people for some reason assume that dishonesty by a police officer should always lead to a dismissal. It is only police tactics that could deprive you of some constitutional right that will lead to suppression of evidence and a subsequent dismissal.

Read more: Do Cops Have to Tell You They're a Cop?
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook
Click to expand...

Are You a Cop?

View attachment 67219226



There is the real world, and then there is apdst.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
OK, for sake of argument, our off duty guy didn't do this. The two already there get him to the ground and then recognise him and tell him to get up. But tell me, why would that have prevented any new cops arriving from shooting someone already established by other police to be "a good guy?"
Click to expand...

If you keep making it impossible for the officers to know who the guy was and what he was doing, then it's nothing but an unavoidable mistake. There's no chance at finding a solution to prevent this from happening again. I choose not to take that route.



So by your law, did the third cop to arrive identified himself or just arrived shooting? Did he break the law you just said every cop should obey?
Click to expand...

Was the cop that fired the shots in a police unit, wearing a uniform? If he was, guess what.

When I mentioned that law, I was referring to plain clothed officers.

If you were the off duty cop, would you do everything you could think of to identify yourself and avoid confusion? Or, are you just going to roll in and hope you don't get shot?

Me? I'm going to make damn sure they know I'm a cop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom