BF2S Forums Young Irish Man Shot And Killed By US Cop

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well that didn't really address what I actually said. I know cops are human and can make mistakes. I said, I give them more latitude in judgment because, they have ruls to play by against people that do not. They are at a disadvantage, and expected to do right ALWAYS. As you point out however, they are human, but they are on the side that protects us.

You are right lowing, they are on the side that protect us and they have a very difficult job but blind faith in any institution is never a good thing; these police officers accept the great responsibility they are taking on when they get that badge and they should understand fully the levels to which they will be scrutinised in their actions...it is this high level of scrutinisation that keeps the police force as a well functioning respectable public service, without it you would end up with the kind of stories you hear about in Russia where the police are totally corrupt and do as they please.

Ok well. THAT isn't what I said either..............I said I give law enforcement more "latitude", that hardly constitutes "blind faith"..........So, you can dispute what I ACTUALLY said if you would like, or just agree with it.

Braddock wrote:

You're right in that regard; it would seem from what people are saying in this thread that US cops are not trained to shoot to immobilise, only to shoot to kill and so the only issue is whether or not the cop was in the right to use his weapon at all. If it turns out that the victim indeed had no weapon and was a reasonable distance away from the officer then one must say it was an unnecessary killing.

I have to say though I would not like to live in a society where the threat of violent, deadly force is so prevalent that a law enforcement official's gut reaction in any situation is to shoot to kill. That mentality just doesn't not exist here in Ireland and I can't think of the last time a cop was killed in action here.

"only to shoot to kill" isn't entirely accurate. They are taught to shoot "center of mass"...the quickest, surest way to end the threat that caused them to pull their gun to begin with. That does not necessarily equate to "shoot to kill".

Two questions for you Braddock:

1. Are cops in Ireland taught to "shoot to immobilize"?

2. Are you feeling OK?

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok well. THAT isn't what I said either..............I said I give law enforcement more "latitude", that hardly constitutes "blind faith"..........So, you can dispute what I ACTUALLY said if you would like, or just agree with it.

Perhaps I am just less trusting of the police service because I grew up in an area notorious for corruption, the cop in this case deserves a fair investigation into the incident. Likewise the mother of the victim deserves a thorough investigation or explanation of what happened.

Hmmmmm, so you will base opinion on EXPERIENCE, and when a cop does so, is he guilty of abusing power, profiling, racism etc.....?? you did not imply this, and this is a bit of a derail, however, it has come up with law enforcement before and how the react toward people in different scenerios. Remember?

Cops can be black, white or any other colour under the sun. An organisation's actions are easier to judge than an entire race because unlike an entire race organisations tend to have united opinions, positions and policies on most things.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-06 09:36:11)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

I said I'm of the opinion that it is more likely.

How the hell can you determine what is and is not likely when you admit you have no information upon which to base any assumptions????????

Do you think this guy deserved to die, without knowing the facts? I think he didn't deserve to die, without knowing the facts. And stand by that.

You go right ahead and stand by an opinion you freely and voluntarily admit is an opinion of ignorance.  I'll simply wait and reserve judgment until we have reliable information upon which to base one.

Deadly force shouldn't be the officers first and last option unless they are under a serious threat themselves. How a drunk guy trying to get home could present such a threat I find hard to imagine.

Obviously you've never dealt with an extremely drunk person before.  At least, one who gets belligerent when he's drunk.  I'm a happy drunk.  A silly drunk.  One who, despite a mentally impaired state, gets "moments of clarity" and can carry on a surprisingly coherent conversation on complex topics like politics and astrophysics (seriously).  I know a few people, however, that I don't like to be around when they're drunk because they get combative, unpredictable, defiant, and (occasionally) assaultive.

I can easily see how a drunk person can present a significant threat, even if you can't.

Even discounting all that, you have no idea whatsoever if deadly force was this officer's "first" option.  However, as I've detailed previously, every application of violence should be the last resort because, if it wasn't, then whoever resorted to the violence didn't resort to enough of it.

That was my point. I don't have a problem with officers defending themselves from a lethal or deadly threat. Did this guy present one? We don't know.

Exactly!  So how the FUCK can you presume to pass judgment on this officer???



edited to clarify quote I attributed to myself.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2008-07-06 17:56:22)

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Braddock wrote:

it would seem from what people are saying in this thread that US cops are not trained to shoot to immobilise, only to shoot to kill

You quote a post where I say we are trained to shoot to stop, then immediately proceed to claim we shoot to kill.

I'm losing my patience with people who either refuse to read, are unable to comprehend, or simply choose to lie about that simple fact.

Jesus, okay..."shoot to stop". I was fucking agreeing with you that the number of shots fired wasn't the issue given the attitude cops are trained to have so what's the difference?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-06 14:16:11)

Braddock wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

What if it is an Irish cop?

He was Mexican...your favourite variety of law enforcement officer.

And Irishness has NOTHING to do with anything. The only significance it has is that it is probably the only reason the story came to my attention.

mexican eh?  maybe he thought it was a border patrol agent.

^ racist