# Police defend fatal shooting of UW student



## Archangel M (Jan 7, 2009)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28471710/#storyContinued



> SEATTLE - Calling it a tragedy, Seattle Police on Friday defended their fatal shooting of an armed University of Washington student...
> 
> Murphy was University of Washington honor student and musician. He was a history buff who often wore vintage uniforms and collected WWII memorabilia, including a vintage German infantry rifle.
> 
> ...


 
Now this is a tragedy no matter how you look at it, the kid had blanks in the gun, but the cops just see a man pointing a rifle at them. The thing that irritates me every time I see one of these stories in the press is this little bit.



> Friends also believe the situation Thursday morning could have been handled much differently.
> 
> *"He was shot several times and I don&#8217;t see why &#8230; why so many times? Why not use a taser or why not a non-fatal area,"* said Lopriore.
> 
> "I know they were drinking and it&#8217;s New Year&#8217;s Eve and I think it could have been handled differently," said Shepherd.


 
I dont know which is more exasperating, having to explain how the real world works when people are pointing rifles at you or the media having to print that boilerplate bit each and every time a person is shot under these circumstances. Are there really people out there who believe that a rifle wielder should be tasered? Are there people out there who still think that police are trained to "shoot to wound"? Would they be willing to gamble their lives on the chances of a pistol shot "wounding" someone effectively enough to keep him from killing you?

I know that loved ones will say and think these things, I guess I wonder why the media has to keep grinding the mill on the "why so many shots?" "why not shoot to wound?" "Why not taser?".

If the guy was tasered and died then we all know what the resulting media attention would be focused on.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 7, 2009)

people are stupid


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2009)

Maybe UW needs to raise their admissions standards so they can attract students with enough analytical skills to understand 

"firearm pointed at another human being "  =  "death threat"


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 7, 2009)

We had a case over here where the police shot dead someone who was holding a replica gun. The clamour in the press was that the police should have known it was 'just' a replica and not a real one!  The guy was brandishing a gun at people and wouldn't, like this case, put it down when asked firstly then told and warned.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 7, 2009)

There was another factor here, one cited in some of the articles as "large amounts of alcohol."


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 7, 2009)

I have no issues with the actions of police in this matter.  

I mean, it's not like they cuffed him on a train platform, rolled him over, kneeled on his back and one of them stood up and shot him in the head and murdered him in front of dozens of witnesses and several cameras. 

*ahem* sorry, different story.

If someone was pointing a gun at me, I'd do the same thing... and I'd expect it done to me if I pointed one at someone else.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 7, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> I have no issues with the actions of police in this matter.
> 
> I mean, it's not like they cuffed him on a train platform, rolled him over, kneeled on his back and one of them stood up and shot him in the head and murdered him in front of dozens of witnesses and several cameras.
> 
> ...


 

If you're referring to what I think you are, then that's not the facts of the story.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 7, 2009)

Either the kid was too drunk to reason or just too stupid to be in college.

Cop+backup cops+drawn weapons+shouted commands not to move and drop weapon= UNIVERSAL SIGN LANGUAGE for "you are screwing up, stop it".

My only sympathy is for the kid's family. The kid himself, he BOUGHT this, I'm sorry.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 7, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> We had a case over here where the police shot dead someone who was holding a replica gun. The clamour in the press was that the police should have known it was 'just' a replica and not a real one! The guy was brandishing a gun at people and wouldn't, like this case, put it down when asked firstly then told and warned.


 
We seriously need to make use-of-force continuum a subject in school. For real.


----------



## grydth (Jan 7, 2009)

To me, based on the facts we have, this was an entirely justified shooting by the police. They had no way of knowing the rifle had blanks in it, and were faced by an erraticly behaving individual. In fact, it appears the LEO's went as far as anyone reasonably could to get him to drop the Mauser.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 7, 2009)

What bugs me is that the police have to "defend" their actions.  WHAT?  People always want to use hindsight into their judgement of police actions.

Let's look at what the police KNOW.

1)  Shots fired call on New Year's Eve on/near college campus.
2)  Rifle pointed at them when they challenge the suspect
3)  Suspect refuses to put it down and points it at them again

Now, we get the media talking about how he was an honor student and a history buff with his vintage WWII rifle that he collected, AND it was only loaded with blanks.  I don't know about the rest of the LEO's on board, but I have NEVER gotten or heard over the scanner a shot's fired call that told us to slow up, that it was only blanks.  Blanks go "boom" and sound like the real thing.

Chris Rock should do another video on "How Not to Get Shot by the Police".  RULE #1  "Don't break the law",  RULE #2 "Do what the police tell you to do".  It's not rocket science here. 

 Really, how drunk do you have to be when armed men are pointing guns at you and telling you to put yours down, that you think  "I think I'm just gonna point this here rifle at them for kicks and grins, cuz it'll be funny"  ?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 7, 2009)

Blanks will still kill, just ask Jon-Erik Hexum. Point a gun at a cop, or, btw, anyone else with a gun, be prepared, you're gonna die.


----------



## Drac (Jan 7, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> I don't know about the rest of the LEO's on board, but I have NEVER gotten or heard over the scanner a shot's fired call that told us to slow up, that it was only blanks.


 
Nor have I Bro.





punisher73 said:


> Really, how drunk do you have to be when armed men are pointing guns at you and telling you to put yours down, that you think "I think I'm just gonna point this here rifle at them for kicks and grins, cuz it'll be funny" ?


 
Pretty drunk and a little bit mental...


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> What bugs me is that the police have to "defend" their actions.



The barrel of the gun was pointed at a police officer.  

Do you think the level of outcry would be the same he barrel of a gun was pointed at a more politically correct minority, such a civilian that was a black woman or a gay man?   I think there would be less outcry in the latter case, and that bothers me deeply.

A death threat is a death threat, and a human being is a human being...regardless of whether one likes the person (or the type of person) that is on the receiving end of the threat.


----------



## Drac (Jan 7, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Do you think the level of outcry would be the same he barrel of a gun was pointed at a more politically correct minority, such a civilian that was a black woman or a gay man? I think there would be less outcry in the latter case, and that bothers me deeply.


 
Rest assured that somone would have turned it into a racial issue...



Carol Kaur said:


> A death threat is a death threat, and a human being is a human being...regardless of whether one likes the person (or the type of person) that is on the receiving end of the threat.


 
If more people thought like you LEO's would have less problems after a shoot..


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 7, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> If you're referring to what I think you are, then that's not the facts of the story.


 

I think it could be this incident, *Tez* rather than the one both of us seem to initially thought was being referred to:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71550


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 7, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Either the kid was too drunk to reason or just too stupid to be in college.
> 
> Cop+backup cops+drawn weapons+shouted commands not to move and drop weapon= UNIVERSAL SIGN LANGUAGE for "you are screwing up, stop it".
> 
> My only sympathy is for the kid's family. The kid himself, he BOUGHT this, I'm sorry.


The kid was an honor student but having high grades and the intelligence to obtain them goes right out the window when you soak that brain in alcohol. 

Cops, even university cops who often times are passed through a regular Police Academy and are in some cases actual officers themselves, tell you to put the gun down (real, fake, dis-armed--no firing pin, replica, whatever), *PUT THE GUN DOWN! *

But then he was too drunk to listen.

As to why so many times. In this forum it's been repeatedly said that one shot just won't always do it.


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Maybe UW needs to raise their admissions standards so they can attract students with enough analytical skills to understand
> 
> "firearm pointed at another human being " = "death threat"


Or, at the very, very, very least, "firearm pointed at cop" = "death wish"

It's a very sad story, but I can't fault the police in this case.


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Or, at the very, very, very least, "firearm pointed at cop" = "death wish"
> 
> It's a very sad story, but I can't fault the police in this case.



I do feel for the family of the young man, as well as for the University community.   Its horrible for a parent to bury a child.  Its terrible to lose a friend, and it must be devastating for a professor to hear that one of their students lost their life.  

Sometimes people say things they don't really mean when they are grieving, and I certainly understand how some folks in the UW community are deservedly in shock.   

I just really really really hope that the UW community can walk away from this understanding that the young man died because he was drunk and negligent, not because the police were bad.


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I do feel for the family of the young man, as well as for the University community. Its horrible for a parent to bury a child. Its terrible to lose a friend, and it must be devastating for a professor to hear that one of their students lost their life.
> 
> Sometimes people say things they don't really mean when they are grieving, and I certainly understand how some folks in the UW community are deservedly in shock.
> 
> I just really really really hope that the UW community can walk away from this understanding that the young man died because he was drunk and negligent, not because the police were bad.


What they don't mention in this story is that this same guy had the SAME incident occur 2 years ago, the police had confiscated the weapon, the dad argued for it to be returned and GAVE IT BACK TO HIS SON! 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008583971_webshooting02m.html


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 7, 2009)

What's amazing is that people want the police to use a taser against deadly force. There are no words....ridiculous...ludicrous...outrageous... none that describe how utterly non-sensical that line of thinking is. 

All this is just a case of natural selection in action. Put the idiot down for a Darwin Award, pat the police on the back, and move on.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 7, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> What bugs me is that the police have to "defend" their actions.  WHAT?  People always want to use hindsight into their judgement of police actions.
> 
> Let's look at what the police KNOW.
> 
> ...


Gun or gun-like object, refusing to comply...  And the person gets a high-velocity introduction to small chunks of lead.  

I don't care what it's loaded with, because if I give the person the time to show me -- if it's got "real" bullets, I'm dead!  (And, if things go wrong in the right way, blanks can get me dead, too... or blinded, giving the bad guy access to my gun with real bullets!)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> We seriously need to make use-of-force continuum a subject in school. For real.


That might go a long ways toward clearing up some really stupid assumptions people carry around....though even as a young and dumb kid, I instinctively understood that if I pointed a gun at a police officer, he'd shoot me.....what is wrong with those people who fail to understand that point?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> The barrel of the gun was pointed at a police officer.
> 
> Do you think the level of outcry would be the same he barrel of a gun was pointed at a more politically correct minority, such a civilian that was a black woman or a gay man?   I think there would be less outcry in the latter case, and that bothers me deeply.
> 
> A death threat is a death threat, and a human being is a human being...regardless of whether one likes the person (or the type of person) that is on the receiving end of the threat.



More to the point this kid HAD live ammunition.....even if he was firing blanks, the gun was capable of lethal use and he had live ammunition in his apartment.  The rifle in question, the Kar98 carbine, is a battle rifle that fires a full powered rifle round, that was an imminent threat to ANYONE in that apartment complex.  Had he fired a shot, that round was capable of penetrating numerous walls and killing anyone it struck, not just the officers.  

The officers should get a medal and that should be the end of it!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> As to why so many times. In this forum it's been repeatedly said that one shot just won't always do it.


 7 or 8 shots against a man armed with a battle rifle is pretty darned restrained and reasonable considering there were at least two officers firing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> What's amazing is that people want the police to use a taser against deadly force. There are no words....ridiculous...ludicrous...outrageous... none that describe how utterly non-sensical that line of thinking is.
> 
> All this is just a case of natural selection in action. Put the idiot down for a Darwin Award, pat the police on the back, and move on.


 Ignorance is a common disease.  When this comes up in person, I always invite folks to 'Show Me' what they think they'd do in a similar situation......perhaps they have a unique and ingenuous method of dealing with a man armed with a battle rifle.......but usually they just realize they are full of crap!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Gun or gun-like object, refusing to comply...  And the person gets a high-velocity introduction to small chunks of lead.
> 
> I don't care what it's loaded with, because if I give the person the time to show me -- if it's got "real" bullets, I'm dead!  (And, if things go wrong in the right way, blanks can get me dead, too... or blinded, giving the bad guy access to my gun with real bullets!)


 And by many standards a man armed with a Kar98 carbine is better armed than the responding officers.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> What's amazing is that people want the police to use a taser against deadly force. There are no words....ridiculous...ludicrous...outrageous... none that describe how utterly non-sensical that line of thinking is.


 

All together now, class, let us recite our mantra of understanding:

*"A Taser is not a weapon, it is a one-shot restraining tool".*


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 7, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> All together now, class, let us recite our mantra of understanding:
> 
> *"A Taser is not a weapon, it is a one-shot restraining tool".*



Tell that to the State of Illinois who classifies them as a "Deadly Weapon"... at least as far as Civilian Use is concerned.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> All together now, class, let us recite our mantra of understanding:
> 
> *"A Taser is not a weapon, it is a one-shot restraining tool".*


 It is a weapon......just not a lethal one.......certainly not a suitable weapon to use against a man armed with a K98!  I'd reprimand any officer who attempted that and lived!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Tell that to the State of Illinois who classifies them as a "Deadly Weapon"... at least as far as Civilian Use is concerned.


 Wow!  That is truly asinine, even for the State of Illinois.


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2009)

They're just plain illegal in MA (except for LEOs)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> They're just plain illegal in MA (except for LEOs)


 And yet they still let Ted Kennedy drive all these years!


----------



## grydth (Jan 8, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> What they don't mention in this story is that this same guy had the SAME incident occur 2 years ago, the police had confiscated the weapon, the dad argued for it to be returned and GAVE IT BACK TO HIS SON!
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008583971_webshooting02m.html




This article features the mother wanting to know why the police shot her son. If the parents want to know why their son is dead, they should start by looking in their bathroom, just above the sink. 

Why would the police respond in force in a college community when witnesses report guns and loud sounds? Ummm - Virginia Tech, maybe?

After the rifle was confiscated once, persistent dad gets the rifle back - - - did he _even then_ teach junior _anything_ about safe firearms handling? Isn't the answer apparent?

Never mind the place was full of militaria, no parent and no professor apparently ever taught this _honor student _the true terrible meaning behind any of it. Wish I could have shared my Feldpost letters marked," Returned to sender - Addressee fallen for Greater Germany!".... or the volumes of death notices for so many soldiers who (supposedly) "died a hero's death in Russia"...... but they let this kid live a Nazi fantasy dream, never letting him know the fates of the original dreamers and their victims. Unpardonable!

Apartment full of alcohol and guns?! Who should have taught him about what a fatal mix *that *is? Anybody ever teach junior about interacting with the police? Do you have to be post grad, perhaps, to realize what a terminal action pointing a gun at a cop is?

I do feel terrible for two people - the cops who had to deal with this and use their weapons.

The questioners of the police here need at ask some hard questions of themselves.


----------



## Steve (Jan 8, 2009)

grydth said:


> This article features the mother wanting to know why the police shot her son. If the parents want to know why their son is dead, they should start by looking in their bathroom, just above the sink.
> 
> Why would the police respond in force in a college community when witnesses report guns and loud sounds? Ummm - Virginia Tech, maybe?
> 
> ...


I'm glad I'm not the only one.  I found that Seattle Times story and the mention of an almost identical situation a few years ago very telling.


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2009)

grydth said:


> Do you have to be post grad, perhaps, to realize what a terminal action pointing a gun at a cop is?



No.  You need an education that supports the use of analytics, which is sadly failing based on our declining performance in math and science....and you need parents with a freaking backbone that demonstrate actions/results/consequences and instill discipline instead of giving their widdle pwecious schnookums everything he wants just cuz he wanna have it.

Not that I'm opinionated or anything :angel:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 8, 2009)

the parents need a good slap across the back of the head for having the guts to ask WHY thier son is dead.

yeah yeah i know, emotional heartbreak blah blah blah tragedy blah blah blah

he got shot for being STUPID

education begins at home


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 8, 2009)

chlorine in the gene-pool as far as I'm concerned...

From the bit quoted in the OP, he apparently pointed the rifle at them more than once and only on the second time did they shoot him...I think they should have shot him the first time.

As to all the public outcry when this type of thing happens, I agree with most of you about the lack of understanding re. the force continuum.  I also think that most people don't realize how rarely LEOs use deadly force compared to the number of times when they'd be justified in doing so.  During a handgun qual. a while back, one of the firearms instructors from the local PD told me that their officers only use deadly force in 7% of the situations where it would have been justified (of course, to me that means that in 93% of the situations, they unecessarily endangered themselves or someone else by not shooting someone who needed to be shot...).


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 8, 2009)

People with Alcohol will do lots of stupid things. 

They are not thinking or not thinking well ( at best ).


On security one night, the police came into the parking lot and had lite up a car and then waited for more back up. They had the people in the car stay in the car until sufficent back up was present with drawn weapons they got one person out at gun point at a time and on the ground and hand cuffed. (* Stolen vehicle - reported under age drinking as well as weapons (firearms) involved *)

The point here is that I was trying to keep other people from coming into the parking lot with their vehicle. While walking up to one who was already in the parkign lot and just sitting and too close and the police were obviously nervous, I told them to leave. As I did someone pulled in. Two couples. The guys in the front were real drunk. They pulled right up behind the officers. I walked over, and told them to leave. The guy in the driver's seat reached for a gun while he was yelling at me, "oh yeah what you goign to do about it." I stepped back of the car to make it harder for him to bring anything on line, and stated. "Nothing, the police right there are going to shoot you, and as they were already hear when you pulled , I most likely will not even have to any paperwork." An officer turned around and started to come on line with the vehicle and me. I raised my hands, and the driver drove off. The officer smiled, and I stated, I am doing my best to keep the area clear for you. He went back to the bad guys, who were all smart enough to get out of the car and follow directions (* no weapons found *) and not get shot.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2009)

There are a few things that we must accept here:

1.  College students to REALLY stupid things.

2.  College students drink which leads to #1.

3.  Most people don't feel connected with the police and, hence, don't understand the connection between this young man's stupid actions and the officers' needs to terminate the threat.

4.  There will always be people asking 'why.'  This doesn't necessarily make them stupid, it makes them ignorant and yes, the two can be exclusive of each other.

5.  Almost any mother who loses her child in this manner will always ask Why in a public fashion and there Will be an outcry, justified or not.

I pray for his family, because there's a good chance that one day they'll get it.  And I'll pray for the cops who had to do the deed.  It can't be a pleasant thing to have to end a young man's life when he just thought he was having a good time.


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> There are a few things that we must accept here:
> 
> 1.  College students to REALLY stupid things.
> 
> ...



When I was a freshman, my school had (and still has) a very large number of students from Japan.  That year, an extremely popular (and somewhat famous) student committed suicide.  Most people here on MT probably know enough about Asian culture to know how much that devastated the other Japanese students.   The rest of us that weren't Japanese didn't take it too well either.  I don't think there are words to describe the emptiness and pain that comes from an unexpected death - and knowing that it didn't have to happen.  

Many times people cry out when they are in pain and grieving.  It is natural.  But I would hate to see the outcries of grief result in further shackles on the police when the police did not do anything wrong.  Many times it is the thin blue line that prevents us from other deaths that don't have to happen.  I don't want the line to get any thinner.  :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2009)

grydth said:


> This article features the mother wanting to know why the police shot her son. If the parents want to know why their son is dead, they should start by looking in their bathroom, just above the sink.
> 
> Why would the police respond in force in a college community when witnesses report guns and loud sounds? Ummm - Virginia Tech, maybe?
> 
> ...


 Ultimately, the equation was simple......Alcohol + Stupidity often ='s dead!

In this case it involved stupidly displaying a gun.....in many cases kids like this guy die just as violently.....but the mechanism of death is a car, or some other violent negligent death that results when dumb kids drink booze!  

Booze is probably the number one precipitating cause of violent death in America!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> No.  You need an education that supports the use of analytics, which is sadly failing based on our declining performance in math and science....and you need parents with a freaking backbone that demonstrate actions/results/consequences and instill discipline instead of giving their widdle pwecious schnookums everything he wants just cuz he wanna have it.
> 
> Not that I'm opinionated or anything :angel:


 Yeah, apparently our elementary and secondary schools are failing to teach basic cause and effect in this country......there's a lot of folks walking around with some pretty silly notions that actions do not create predictable reactions!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> chlorine in the gene-pool as far as I'm concerned...
> 
> From the bit quoted in the OP, he apparently pointed the rifle at them more than once and only on the second time did they shoot him...I think they should have shot him the first time.
> 
> As to all the public outcry when this type of thing happens, I agree with most of you about the lack of understanding re. the force continuum.  I also think that most people don't realize how rarely LEOs use deadly force compared to the number of times when they'd be justified in doing so.  During a handgun qual. a while back, one of the firearms instructors from the local PD told me that their officers only use deadly force in 7% of the situations where it would have been justified (of course, to me that means that in 93% of the situations, they unecessarily endangered themselves or someone else by not shooting someone who needed to be shot...).


 ALL very excellent and accurate points!  We aren't shooting as many folks as we should be shooting!  That's a dirty little truth that won't make the bleeding heart folks happy.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 9, 2009)

please people, let's put the "u" back in ed-u-cation.  take a moment to educate yourself about dealing with the police.  this helpful video is very instructive.  warning for some language





 
jf


----------



## arnisador (Jan 9, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> chlorine in the gene-pool as far as I'm concerned...



Lots of people do something stupid and dangerous at some point in there lives. That the police were justified doesn't mean this isn't a tragedy. And with a student at the U. of W., the dismissive Dennis Leary line doesn't apply--this kid, acting stupidly while drunk, could've gone on to do very important things. I've worked with some very well-regarded scientists and most of them drank (or more) in college.

The shooting sounds well-justified. When someone drinks and drives and dies, I figure that they should have known better--but I can still empathize with their family, who knew them from childhood and have a much broader view of the whole human being.

Chlorine for the gene pool? Eliminate every physician/surgeon in your town who got drunk in college and choose from what's left. Eliminate every teacher in your schools who smoked weed in college and only let your kids be taught by the remainder. College professors? I didn't drink or do drugs in college. That's one.

People make mistakes. They must live (or die) with the consequences, but your comment is much too harsh.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2009)

Police are the guardians of humanity ... don't lose it; it makes your job less palatable.

:asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> It can't be a pleasant thing to have to end a young man's life when he just thought he was having a good time.


 
I agree with your post. "There but for the grace of god go I" and all.

The thing that makes me wonder about this situation though. "Having A Good Time"..dressed as a WWII German soldier firing a rifle..on college grounds (no rules against weapon possession on campus?)..with a gun that was taken by police in the past and RETURNED BY HIS FATHER???

I think the kid got his decision making ability..sober and intoxicated...via upbringing.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I agree with your post. "There but for the grace of god go I" and all.
> 
> The thing that makes me wonder about this situation though. "Having A Good Time"..dressed as a WWII German soldier firing a rifle..on college grounds (no rules against weapon possession on campus?)..with a gun that was taken by police in the past and RETURNED BY HIS FATHER???
> 
> I think the kid got his decision making ability..sober and intoxicated...via upbringing.



I'm not defending his actions ... nor his parents.  The stupidity factor is undeniable.  But the boy did think he was having a good time ... in that warped, ill-fostered, booze-soaked brain of his.  I'm sure he didn't feel a thing, in fact. If I speak on possibility, I'll anger you and I'll miscommunicate my intent and then the thread will be spun into something else.

The boy ... *sigh* ... should have been shot.  And I'm sure you'll forgive my humanity in lamenting the sadness.  And I'll forgive you if you can't because it would have been your job too.

No beef here, daddyo.  Let's not start one.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 9, 2009)

i'll see if i can simplify here:

boy needed shootin'.

that sucks.

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I'm not defending his actions ... nor his parents. The stupidity factor is undeniable. But the boy did think he was having a good time ... in that warped, ill-fostered, booze-soaked brain of his. I'm sure he didn't feel a thing, in fact. If I speak on possibility, I'll anger you and I'll miscommunicate my intent and then the thread will be spun into something else.
> 
> The boy ... *sigh* ... should have been shot. And I'm sure you'll forgive my humanity in lamenting the sadness. And I'll forgive you if you can't because it would have been your job too.
> 
> No beef here, daddyo. Let's not start one.


 
I didnt say you were. *Sigh* Can I not even agree with you without you thinking Im "dissing" you?

I said from the begining that this is a tragedy, I just tire of the same media crap that you read each and every time these things happen..why did the cops shoot him?..why not taser (unless he was tasered and died...then "why did they taser him")...why not "shoot him in the leg or something?"..."why shoot him so many times?".

I suppose those could be good questions if the shooting was questionable, like in the other shooting being discussed, but in situations like this one they seem like attempts by the media to stir up controversy where its not needed.

Just trying to be conversational.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I didnt say you were. *Sigh* Can I not even agree with you without you thinking Im "dissing" you.
> 
> Just trying to be conversational.



Ho boy. I didn't think you were dissing me.  Mkay?


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 9, 2009)

arnisador said:


> People make mistakes. They must live (or die) with the consequences, but your comment is much too harsh.



I never said I didn't/couldn't empathize with his family for their loss.  However, I have no sympathy for him.  As far as I'm concerned, this was just natural selection at work.  He pointed a gun at the cops, he got shot...just as it should be.
If expecting people to face the consequences of their own actions and not being broken up over results is "too harsh," so be it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 10, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yeah, apparently our elementary and secondary schools are failing to teach basic cause and effect in this country......there's a lot of folks walking around with some pretty silly notions that actions do not create predictable reactions!



Do you expect any less when you win a trophy for showing up, and get an A for answering 1+1=Chair because at least you tried?

Grr.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 10, 2009)

Nevermind.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 11, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Do you expect any less when you win a trophy for showing up, and get an A for answering 1+1=Chair because at least you tried?
> 
> Grr.


 Touche!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 11, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Lots of people do something stupid and dangerous at some point in there lives. That the police were justified doesn't mean this isn't a tragedy. And with a student at the U. of W., the dismissive Dennis Leary line doesn't apply--this kid, acting stupidly while drunk, could've gone on to do very important things. I've worked with some very well-regarded scientists and most of them drank (or more) in college.
> 
> The shooting sounds well-justified. When someone drinks and drives and dies, I figure that they should have known better--but I can still empathize with their family, who knew them from childhood and have a much broader view of the whole human being.
> 
> ...


 A drunk driver who kills them selves in a single vehicle accident......is a POSITIVE in that they didn't manage to kill someone else!

And comments about it are ultimately irrelevant......folks who die of the consequences of their own actions are solely responsible, regardless of what harsh comment is subsequently made.....the comments are meant to add to the object lesson for the LIVING!


----------



## Steve (Jan 11, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Do you expect any less when you win a trophy for showing up, and get an A for answering 1+1=Chair because at least you tried?
> 
> Grr.


Based upon my own experiences with myself and my own kids, I always wonder where the hell this stuff actually happens.  I was really concerned when my kids started school, but now that my two oldest are in the 6th and 7th grades, I can honestly say that they are receiving a much better education than I did 25 years ago.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 11, 2009)

Different topic tho' really.  One worth discussing certainly but not strictly appropriate here.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> And comments about it are ultimately irrelevant......folks who die of the consequences of their own actions are solely responsible, regardless of what harsh comment is subsequently made.....the comments are meant to add to the object lesson for the LIVING!



Some of these comments detract from the lesson by going overboard. It's one thing to say it's fair, but another thing to say it's good. An habitual drunk driver in a single-car accident isn't quite the same as a drunk college kid. In either case, _learning _from the tragedy is beneficial but _celebrating _the death is inappropriate.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Based upon my own experiences with myself and my own kids, I always wonder where the hell this stuff actually happens.  I was really concerned when my kids started school, but now that my two oldest are in the 6th and 7th grades, I can honestly say that they are receiving a much better education than I did 25 years ago.



It's a constructed reality that "everyone knows" is true and no one has bothered to confirm by looking at the data.  See also: crime is lower now, not higher, child kidnapping is incredibly rare and less common now, not more common, etc.


----------



## tellner (Jan 12, 2009)

Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.

Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2009)

tellner said:


> Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.
> 
> Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.


 
And what does that have to do with THIS shoot?


----------



## tellner (Jan 12, 2009)

Just saying that it's not surprising at all that the cops will close ranks and defend it. "Police defend shooting" isn't news. It's absolutely routine. "Police denounce shooting" would be news because it is damn near unheard of. You might as well start a thread saying "Sun rises in East!"


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2009)

How Not to Get Killed by the Police: Be Aware of How You Look

_Today in our *recurring instructional series* __How Not to Get Killed by the Police__, well be looking into the way your appearance affects the mood of the animals in blue.Through exhaustive study we have come to the conclusion that your appearance, i.e. what youre wearing, how you present yourself, etc. have a strong effect on the behaviors of feral hordes of police officers. Certain clothing items and accessories have more profound effects than others._

_There is a common misconception that body piercings and certain haircuts can set off wild police officers, but this is simply not the case. Most police officers are no more than mildly amused by foolish looking jewelry and hair. A vintage Nazi uniform accessorized by what is most likely a functioning Mauser rifle, on the other hand, will most likely send police officers in the area into a shooting frenzy. To significantly increase your chances of being killed in a shooting frenzy by untamed police officers, make sure your Mauser rifle is loaded with blanks and be sure to fire it in the vicinity of any feral police officers you may find._


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> How Not to Get Killed by the Police: Be Aware of How You Look



Anti-hippie filter?  Jesus Christ.  Yet another in a long line of Internet Tough Guys.


----------



## grydth (Jan 12, 2009)

tellner said:


> Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.
> 
> Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.



in all fairness, there are folks on _both _sides who will take one side automatically. The challenge is to look at each instance on its facts.

For many, the police can never get it right. Here, for some, it is why'd you shoot the gunman so quickly; at Virginia Tech, it was why'd you take so long to shoot the gunman?

I think every police shooting needs to be examined, but on its own facts. If we don't examine them, we have a police state where anyone can be shot for any reason - or none at all. However, no indictments of police may also mean the police involved shot really terrible people out of necessity. When the police do respond appropriately, they should be commended as the heroes they are.

Let's not forget something - most victims of guys with guns in Nazi uniform aren't themselves. They are most often some Jewish family at synagogue or some Hispanic man who gets stomped at a county fair. I'm not about to condemn a police officer who risks his life to prevent the Fourth Reich in my country/

"A good shoot" to me sounds like those euphemisms the British would coin in World War I to describe mass slaughters with airy terms. I know an officer who justifiably shot an attacker.... and it haunts him, as I suspect it does many. I doubt he - or the two officers involved here - would say there was anything good about it.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 12, 2009)

grydth said:


> I know an officer who justifiably shot an attacker.... and it haunts him



I believe this, and I think it explains a lot of the default reaction that *tellner* identifies. If one is in a position where one may justifiably shoot someone who, in the end, turns out to have posed no actual danger--well, that's a very hard thing to do psychologically. It's one thing to logically accept that it was justified and necessary and another to live with it, and a hardened attitude is not surprising as a defense mechanism.

As a law-abiding citizen, I appreciate those who protect me at the risk of their physical and mental health. I know both threats are real and serious. But it's also important that citizens ask and asnwer the question: Who watches the watchmen?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2009)

tellner said:


> Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.
> 
> Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.


You're off base with your rant this time.  The drunk idiot pointed a rifle at cops.  Cops rightly dropped his ***.  There is no way to know in any reasonable system if a gun is loaded with blanks or live rounds -- and there's no reason why a cop should have to jeopardize their lives by trying to be certain.

The fact that no cop has been indicted doesn't mean that some cop should have been and wasn't; you can't make that leap on the facts in evidence.  It could simply mean that no cop has had a bad shoot.  Nor does it mean that they are covering up dirty cops because no one has been fired; you don't know who resigned before being fired, or those who were disciplined in some way other than being fired.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 13, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> The drunk idiot pointed a rifle at cops.  Cops rightly dropped his ***.



"The drunken individual pointed a rifle at the officers. The officers were correct to fire in their and others' defense."

It sounds a lot different that way--respectful, rather than insulting. To describe killing a drunken student as having "rightly dropped his ***" makes it sounds as though the LEOs were glad to do it, which I find _highly_ unlikely. If depersonalizing suspects works for you, OK...but it sounds awful from here. I agree that, based on what I've read of the incident here, they made the only reasonable decision. I agree that the individual is ultimately responsible for the actions that led to his demise (assuming he was not so mentally ill he could not be held responsible for his actions). But do we agree that this was a tragedy for all involved?


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm having a serious case of deja vu here.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 13, 2009)

Well if saying it that way makes you feel better. The end result is the same.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 13, 2009)

Not to the other citizens.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> "The drunken individual pointed a rifle at the officers. The officers were correct to fire in their and others' defense."
> 
> It sounds a lot different that way--respectful, rather than insulting. To describe killing a drunken student as having "rightly dropped his ***" makes it sounds as though the LEOs were glad to do it, which I find _highly_ unlikely. If depersonalizing suspects works for you, OK...but it sounds awful from here. I agree that, based on what I've read of the incident here, they made the only reasonable decision. I agree that the individual is ultimately responsible for the actions that led to his demise (assuming he was not so mentally ill he could not be held responsible for his actions). But do we agree that this was a tragedy for all involved?


 
'Drunken ARMED student'.......but whatever way sounds easiest to swallow......it's really just arguing over proper tone at this point.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Lots of people do something stupid and dangerous at some point in there lives. That the police were justified doesn't mean this isn't a tragedy. And with a student at the U. of W., the dismissive Dennis Leary line doesn't apply--this kid, acting stupidly while drunk, could've gone on to do very important things. I've worked with some very well-regarded scientists and most of them drank (or more) in college.
> 
> The shooting sounds well-justified. When someone drinks and drives and dies, I figure that they should have known better--but I can still empathize with their family, who knew them from childhood and have a much broader view of the whole human being.
> 
> ...


 I don't waste time trying to sound suitably deferrent to those who's stupidity gets them killed.....you're welcome to if you like, but he's still a Darwin Award nominee......the lesson should be clearly learned by others, and not sugar coated as a 'tragedy' which makes it sound less like his fault....lets be clear, THIS CLOWN got himself killed.  It is tragic......tragic STUPIDITY!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Some of these comments detract from the lesson by going overboard. It's one thing to say it's fair, but another thing to say it's good. An habitual drunk driver in a single-car accident isn't quite the same as a drunk college kid. In either case, _learning _from the tragedy is beneficial but _celebrating _the death is inappropriate.


 
No they don't.....suicides used to be buried at the crossroads as a message to others.  THAT might be going over board.  

Pointing out that tragic stupidity has consequences, and refusing to de-emphasize the 'stupid' part and emphasizing the 'tragic' part isn't going overboard. 

And a HABITUAL drunk driver in a single-car accident ISN'T the same as a drunk college MORON armed with a gun, who points it at police who show up.....that isn't just a 'drunk college kid'. 

And we aren't 'celebrating' it.....we are ridiculing the stupidity of it.  Ridicule SHOULD be the rational response to terminal stupidity....thus endeth the lesson!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

tellner said:


> Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.
> 
> Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.


 Do you have any comments about THIS particular case, or are you just wanting to ramble vague incoherent anti-cop accusations in general? That's a rhetorical question, I know the answer.



tellner said:


> Just saying that it's not surprising at all that the cops will close ranks and defend it. "Police defend shooting" isn't news. It's absolutely routine. "Police denounce shooting" would be news because it is damn near unheard of. You might as well start a thread saying "Sun rises in East!"


 
And it's not surprising which side your knee-jerk breaks as usual......


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Not to the other citizens.


 To other citizens with a sense of personal accountability it's just fine.....it's a simple lesson most folks get......don't point a rifle at responding police officers......it tends to draw fire.  It's so simple a caveman can get it. 

And when a supposedly intelligent adult FAILS to get it......it's tragic STUPIDITY!  I'm not sure why the rest of us should feel the need to display a suitably contrite attitude in the face of it......if this moron had died in some similarly moronic drunken action, like trying to slide a guide wire with his bare hounds, i'd still be ridiculing the stupidity of it........perhaps someone will get the message.....'Man....I don't want to do something that when I die, people will be saying...WHAT A MORON!'


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 13, 2009)

When you lose your humanity ... it's time to get another job.

If the only way to stay sane on your job is to discard your humanity ... then it might be a job not suited to you.

I am awe-struck and disappointed at the inability to reign in swagger out of respect for the dead.

I'm done.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 13, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> When you lose your humanity ... it's time to get another job.
> 
> If the only way to stay sane on your job is to discard your humanity ... then it might be a job not suited to you.
> 
> ...


 
Ohhh the humanity!

Try working in (or hanging out at) an ER..or at an Ambulance company...or a professional Firefighting company. To name a few other places.

What do you base your professional opinion (or opinion of professions and how you think they should act) on? I think you make many assumptions about people and how you think they perform their jobs based on their opinions as posted on an internet forum...or a joke they find funny.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 13, 2009)

Burnout is very real, however.  So is PTSD.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 13, 2009)

Were making a HUGE leap between what some LEO posts on a web forum and how they act on the street...judging who has "humanity" or who has lost it via these posts? 

Please.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Were making a HUGE leap between what some LEO posts on a web forum and how they act on the street...judging who has "humanity" or who has lost it via these posts?
> 
> Please.


 
I agree, but I also know from experience that my level of empathy starts to recede the more burned out I get. I'm not making any judgement on anyone, I'm just saying that after 12 years and two very high stress jobs, I can feel burnout coming on. When my level of empathy starts running low, I can't do my job as well and then it gets even more stressful.  Anyway, we are really off topic I suppose.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 14, 2009)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS*

*Please keep the conversation polite and respectful, and return to the original topic.

Thank you,
Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Ohhh the humanity!
> 
> Try working in (or hanging out at) an ER..or at an Ambulance company...or a professional Firefighting company. To name a few other places.


 
Well, since I do... I guess you are saying that gives me a right to judge,  and I don't think Shesulsa was far off the mark with her comment.

You would never see me at work go "Oh, that MORON ate too many Cheeseburgers and now he had a Heart Attack and got what he deserved, a trip to the morgue.  Good for him!" But thats because I still have SOME compassion and humanity.  Do I think this guy acted stupidly? Indeed.  I also think the cops acted appropriatley.  (OMG Arc, dont have a heart attack because I didnt hate on Cops)


----------



## grydth (Jan 14, 2009)

Jade Tigress said:


> *ATTENTION ALL USERS*
> 
> *Please keep the conversation polite and respectful, and return to the original topic.
> 
> ...



There are enough arrows flying in general that one can see why you needed to jump in here.

Candidly, though, I think the specific discussion on this thread between arnisador and sgtmac 46 is one of the best I have ever seen here. It is a unique debate in that the harsh language in question is not directed at each other - there was none of that - but about the demise of the gunman in  the incident underlying the thread.  While that discussion may legitimately be considered tangential by moderators, I cannot recall an exchange with points on both sides that has made me reflect as much as this one did.


----------



## teekin (Jan 15, 2009)

Has it not occurred to anyone that as this was the second time the boy did this, and he wasn't a moron, this was the result he wanted? He forced the LEO's hand by pointing and repointing a combat rifle at them, clip in. Just sayin.....
lori


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 15, 2009)

I think drunkenness is just one causation of stupid actions ... but drunk and stupid are not the same.  And even if they are, there's no reason to be calloused other than to soothe one's own ego or placate one's mentality to stay on the job.  

So ... an analogy would be if you were on, say, morphine and escaped the hospital, somehow got your hands on a loaded rifle and levelled it at police - regardless of whatever the hell it was you *thought* you were doing - not once but twice ... that would make you stupid because you did a stupid thing.  Or would it make you under the influence of some chemical alteration?

Does it matter?  Well, some of us clearly think it does.  Stupid is stupid and drunk is drunk.  And yet, no matter, because life was taken.  It had to be, of course ... but that's not an excuse to be cavalier.  No matter how many times anyone argues that it's excusable, it just never can be.

If a person has to be blase about taking life on the job to save his/her sanity then they could at least have the gonads to be honest about it and admit it. That is certainly more respectable that the repeated desecration of a dead young man who chose to drink or a psychotic person who threatens police with a knife, etcetera, etcetera.

You don't have to agree with me.  But it doesn't put cops in a better light than they are because of other bad cops.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> When you lose your humanity ... it's time to get another job.
> 
> If the only way to stay sane on your job is to discard your humanity ... then it might be a job not suited to you.
> 
> ...


 Because the issue doesn't seem to be one of humanity, but false empathy toward stupid action.....not remotely the same thing. 

As to police in general.......the same can be said for the military, but even more so......there seems to be a theme in society of expectations of the police and military, based, I suspect, on movies and TV......that we should be fierce warriors in battle, and 5 minutes later, overcome with emotion, in tears, displaying our humanity for all to see.  It's an unrealistic expectation, utterly and completely.  The fact remains that social workers don't make good cops, and vice versa.  

Situations like this call for men who, under the rules of engagement, have no problem putting accurate rounds on target when justified.......whether they feel suitably sad and contrite about the situation after the fact is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT if they acted properly........but some in society demand that they at least have a good case of PTSD so that everyone can feel better about the situation........it's bogus!  

There are a lot of cops who can shoot another man in a righteous shooting, and still feel perfectly fine about it for the rest of the life, and that's OKAY!  That doesn't make them a bad cop, to the contrary, that often makes them DAMN GOOD COPS!  The key is whether the shooting is justified, not whether he cries in the psychiatrists office after the fact.  Other cops have difficulty living with it, and THAT is okay too!


As to the young man who got himself killed stupidly what do you want me to respect about him?  All we know is that his actions endangered numerous lives, and caused his own death.......what is to respect?  That he's dead?  If one wants to be respected in death, they should live accordingly......by their actions and deeds they are judged.......endangering numerous lives is not a step toward that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, since I do... I guess you are saying that gives me a right to judge, and I don't think Shesulsa was far off the mark with her comment.
> 
> You would never see me at work go "Oh, that MORON ate too many Cheeseburgers and now he had a Heart Attack and got what he deserved, a trip to the morgue. Good for him!" But thats because I still have SOME compassion and humanity. Do I think this guy acted stupidly? Indeed. I also think the cops acted appropriatley. (OMG Arc, dont have a heart attack because I didnt hate on Cops)


  Little children earn my unconditional empathy......all others are judged based on their actions.

As to MORONS eating too many cheeseburgers......that guy didn't intentionally commit an act that put numerous other lives at risk....key difference! 

There comes a point at which you commit certain actions, and society has not only a RIGHT but an OBLIGATION to condemn you and your actions as a whole, alive or dead.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm glad that people can be fine and healthy in the job that is an officer, with the need to shoot under the right conditions.

And as arnisador pointed out - it is one thing to be fine with it, to be justified in it, to be righteous (in fact, one must be).  But it does come across as boastful, braggish and just plain wrong when it sounds or reads that some are celebratory.  There is a line, clearly.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 15, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I think drunkenness is just one causation of stupid actions ... but drunk and stupid are not the same.  And even if they are, there's no reason to be calloused other than to soothe one's own ego or placate one's mentality to stay on the job.
> 
> So ... an analogy would be if you were on, say, morphine and escaped the hospital, somehow got your hands on a loaded rifle and levelled it at police - regardless of whatever the hell it was you *thought* you were doing - not once but twice ... that would make you stupid because you did a stupid thing.  Or would it make you under the influence of some chemical alteration?
> 
> ...


You've got a point; alcohol or drug use is often connected (maybe even causal) of stupid acts, even in people who are normally pretty smart.  But, with the possible exception of hallucinogens, they don't put anything into a personality that isn't there already.  The guy who's a jerk and an ******* while drunk is often simply a less obvious jerk or *** when he's sober.  All the alcohol has done is reduce the inhibitions and controls.

This kid may have been very smart... but he did something incredibly stupid.  On two different occasions.  He got lucky the first time, and lived to repeat the error.  He didn't the second.  Combining alcohol (or drugs) and guns is dumb, no matter what.  But, I bet if you were to get someone to honestly examine his actions -- you'll find other examples of dumb acts, done while sober.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> ....there seems to be a theme in society of expectations of the police and military, based, I suspect, on movies and TV......that *we should be fierce warriors in battle, and 5 minutes later, overcome with emotion, in tears, displaying our humanity for all to see*. It's an unrealistic expectation, utterly and completely...


 


> Situations like this call for men who, under the rules of engagement, have no problem putting accurate rounds on target when justified.......whether they feel suitably sad and contrite about the situation after the fact is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT if they acted properly........*but some in society demand that they at least have a good case of PTSD so that everyone can feel better about the situation*........it's bogus!


 
ABSO-FREAKIN-LOUTELY! There are plenty of good cops out there who are all screwed up because they think they have _lost their humanity_ when they *didnt* feel all broken up after killing someone who deserved it.

I believe someone here has already implied that one is a "bad cop" solely due to making light of killing someone who rightly deserved it...that is my case in point.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> As to the young man who got himself killed stupidly what do you want me to respect about him? All we know is that his actions endangered numerous lives, and caused his own death.......what is to respect? That he's dead? If one wants to be respected in death, they should live accordingly......by their actions and deeds they are judged.......endangering numerous lives is not a step toward that.


 
Perhaps this is a point for another thread but you bring up an interesting point. Somehow death makes everybody worthy of "respect" these days. I always notice that after the latest street killing of some thug, the news portrays him as the "loving father".."student"..."devoted son"...etc. and then they flash up a photograph of him in his thug clothes and bandanna flashing a gang sign. This type of thing seems to be a close cousin to the "become famous by killing a record number of people" thing. Cant seem to find honor in life so go looking for it in death.

Not the same circumstances as here, but an example of the same phenomena IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2009)

There's a certain amount of callousness that should develop if your job description may include taking another's life.  Who can say how it will express itself.  Maybe through humor.  Maybe through cold acceptance.  Maybe through substance abuse.  I think that if you are truly concerned about that, it doesn't help to blame the people for doing their job.  It would help, however, if we focused that energy of developing a society that minimizes the need for such callousness.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> There's a certain amount of callousness that should develop if your job description may include taking another's life. Who can say how it will express itself. Maybe through humor. Maybe through cold acceptance. Maybe through substance abuse. I think that if you are truly concerned about that, it doesn't help to blame the people for doing their job. It would help, however, if we focused that energy of developing a society that minimizes the need for such callousness.


 
I respect your point, but perhaps a society that expects "softness and sensitivity" from its warriors is the one in error eh?

I think Sgtmac makes a good point. Where do people get their opinion of how cops/soldiers are "supposed to feel" after killing? The movies, popular media and their own "feelings" of how they think THEY would react in the same circumstances. To be blunt..what the hell do THEY know about the matter? The fact of the matter is that they are placing unrealistic expectations on the people they pay/expect to do the "ugly work" of society based on their personal/anecdotal "feelings". And some cops pay the price simply because their reactions didnt live up to what society expected of them...like a nice "healthy" case of PTSD.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I respect your point, but perhaps a society that expects "softness and sensitivity" from its warriors is the one in error eh?



True.  On the other hand, I think that a society that depends on its warriors to solve all of its social ills is also in error.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> True. On the other hand, I think that a society that depends on its warriors to solve all of its social ills is also in error.


 
100% agreement. We should be the last resort for solving societies problems. Thats why they call us "emergency" responders.


----------



## thardey (Jan 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Perhaps this is a point for another thread but you bring up an interesting point. Somehow death makes everybody worthy of "respect" these days. I always notice that after the latest street killing of some thug, the news portrays him as the "loving father".."student"..."devoted son"...etc. and then they flash up a photograph of him in his thug clothes and bandanna flashing a gang sign. This type of thing seems to be a close cousin to the "become famous by killing a record number of people" thing. Cant seem to find honor in life so go looking for it in death.
> 
> Not the same circumstances as here, but an example of the same phenomena IMO.


 
Mark Twain had an article about that . . . I don't remember how to find it now, but he pointed out how quickly the "Town Drunk" who is an embarrassment to the community can become a fine, upstanding citizen, even a hero, within a day of his death. It was true 150 years ago, it was true 2000 years ago, it'll be true tomorrow.


----------



## thardey (Jan 15, 2009)

I came in on this late, but I wanted to mention something about the "use of force continuum."

Specifically, about the family of the student (I just can't bring myself to call him a "victim") who wanted to know why the police didn't "just taser him."

Not to blame the always-available hollywood scapegoat, but to make a point, my wife and I watch "24" and I use situations in the show to bring up differents points.

One of the things that really bugs me is the depiction of tasers on the show. About twice a season, somebody gets "tasered" and they magically roll their eyes back in their head and go unconscious. Then they conveniently stay unconscious for the required amount of time needed for the story line. In one case, a security guard stayed unconscious for about 30 minutes. 

When I talked to my wife about it, she assumed that that was how tasers worked. That somehow they knock you out. If there was a weapon that you could point and fire, and guarantee instant unconsciousness for several minutes, with no lasting side-effects, then yeah, police should use that. I would certainly rather have that than a gun! 

Unfortunately, people get upset because they expect police to have an option that doesn't exist. Like "setting your phaser to stun." It's science fiction. When people have this unrealistic expectation, it makes the police's job much harder. Particularly if the stupid people threated the cops expecting to get tasered, or shot with a tranquilizer dart, or something non-lethal. 

It's also the same problem they face with the "why did they have to shoot them so many times" problem. People think getting shot with a gun = instant death, with a tell-tale geyser of blood, and the guy flying backwards from a single 9mm. shot.

And of course the old "shoot to wound" argument.

As long as the public doesn't know how this stuff works, we will continue to get people acting stupid in front of cops, people demanding ridiculous types of rules, and the police presence will become more useless, as people villify and shackle them. In response, the police will bond even tighter together, ensuring that there is no accountability for them, since they will believe that they are already held to an impossible standard, for not using fictional weapons to defend the public.

So, please we can help! When you hear someone talk about "just tasering them" talk to them about what a taser actually is, if you don't know the basics, it's not hard to learn.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 15, 2009)

thardey said:


> I came in on this late, but I wanted to mention something about the "use of force continuum."
> 
> Specifically, about the family of the student (I just can't bring myself to call him a "victim") who wanted to know why the police didn't "just taser him."
> 
> ...


 
Come to think of it, Maunakumu isn't the ONLY one thinking of writing a book..........


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Come to think of it, Maunakumu isn't the ONLY one thinking of writing a book..........



Go for it, Andy!


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

Besides what is probably viewed as mutual friction between some posters, this thread is producing some interesting conversation. I think thardey has a great point about the media/news and common expectations regarding use of force.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2009)

The use of force is ugly, its nasty, and if you have to do it for real, you need to be mentally prepared for it.  As martial artists, we talk about this in our dojos quite a bit.  This is one of the reasons mental training was considered so valuable in certain warrior arts.  Lots of people lampoon the meditation, the breathing exercises, and the visualizations, but, IMO, they are failing to recognize a very important aspect of violence.  You need to actually be able to do it.  If you can't stomach the thought of hurting another person and you are attacked, you are not going to be able to defend yourself as efficiently.  You have to mentally prepare yourself.

For police officers, soldiers, anyone who has got to deal with violence, they've got to prepare their minds for it.  

You know, a really good book about this is the Illiad.  Take a look at how the soldiers depicted mentally prepare themselves for lives of violence.  This book is important, I've read that the military is using it to help soldiers with PTSD.  Basically, they use it to reform their self image away from what society expects and to what has always been expected of warriors.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 15, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> As to police in general.......the same can be said for the military, but even more so......there seems to be a theme in society of expectations of the police and military, based, I suspect, on movies and TV......that we should be fierce warriors in battle, and 5 minutes later, overcome with emotion, in tears, displaying our humanity for all to see.  It's an unrealistic expectation, utterly and completely.  The fact remains that social workers don't make good cops, and vice versa.
> 
> Situations like this call for men who, under the rules of engagement, have no problem putting accurate rounds on target when justified.......whether they feel suitably sad and contrite about the situation after the fact is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT if they acted properly........but some in society demand that they at least have a good case of PTSD so that everyone can feel better about the situation........it's bogus!
> 
> There are a lot of cops who can shoot another man in a righteous shooting, and still feel perfectly fine about it for the rest of the life, and that's OKAY!  That doesn't make them a bad cop, to the contrary, that often makes them DAMN GOOD COPS!  The key is whether the shooting is justified, not whether he cries in the psychiatrists office after the fact.  Other cops have difficulty living with it, and THAT is okay too!



I see this, and it largely makes sense to me. (Not every LEO is the same, but I'm sure this is true for many of them.) It takes a certain degree of detachment, or a certain personality, to preserve one's sanity, and that's a useful defense mechanism against PTSD. _Good_.

But shouldn't the rest of us see the situation from a more middle-of-the-road perspective? Isn't that also appropriate?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I respect your point, but perhaps a society that expects "softness and sensitivity" from its warriors is the one in error eh?



This is often said of the Japanese samurai, though, isn't it? Write a poem, kill a man, paint a picture of a flower? There are cultural issues at play here, including the value they placed on others' lives, but it isn't quite as simple as that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> But shouldn't the rest of us see the situation from a more middle-of-the-road perspective?



What does this perspective look like?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I'm glad that people can be fine and healthy in the job that is an officer, with the need to shoot under the right conditions.
> 
> And as arnisador pointed out - it is one thing to be fine with it, to be justified in it, to be righteous (in fact, one must be).  But it does come across as boastful, braggish and just plain wrong when it sounds or reads that some are celebratory.  There is a line, clearly.


This is a forum where I assume we're discussing reality....do you want honesty or sugar coating?

If you want the sugar coated company line.....SURE, it's an awful tragedy, we regret EVER having to use lethal force against anyone, everyone deserves the right to live, no matter how stupid, or, in some cases evil.

You want reality?  Not specifically in this case, as this kid was just dumb and a victim of his own stupidity.....but some people NEED to be shot, DESERVE to be shot, and we have no problem celebrating the deaths of evil men......likewise, we don't feel the need to feel sorry for folks who's own stupidity killed them.  That's reality.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> ABSO-FREAKIN-LOUTELY! There are plenty of good cops out there who are all screwed up because they think they have _lost their humanity_ when they *didnt* feel all broken up after killing someone who deserved it.
> 
> I believe someone here has already implied that one is a "bad cop" solely due to making light of killing someone who rightly deserved it...that is my case in point.


 Absolutely!  I think it's too much that we require not only that an officer follow the law, precedent and department policy in such situations......but then, when declared perfectly justified in the rest, must adhere to some unwritten societal expectation, usually dreamed up by others with no experience doing what he's done, about how he should 'feel' about it all.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Perhaps this is a point for another thread but you bring up an interesting point. Somehow death makes everybody worthy of "respect" these days. I always notice that after the latest street killing of some thug, the news portrays him as the "loving father".."student"..."devoted son"...etc. and then they flash up a photograph of him in his thug clothes and bandanna flashing a gang sign. This type of thing seems to be a close cousin to the "become famous by killing a record number of people" thing. Cant seem to find honor in life so go looking for it in death.
> 
> Not the same circumstances as here, but an example of the same phenomena IMO.


My point exactly!  There are some deaths and people who die who SHOULD be pointed out as a negative example, even in death.

However, unfortunately, in fact, in our society we not only FAIL to ostracize those we should, we sometimes end up GLORIFYING some in death, to the detriment of society......a prime example, and a topic for another thread, was our treatment of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.....

.......the ENTIRE country has spent YEARS trying to 'Understand' Harris and Klebold......sending the message to other young men (and women) that they somehow did something WORTHY of respect.

I provide as an example of this.......http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990503,00.html

There you have Harris and Klebold, in LARGE COLOR PHOTOS, smiling, CENTER OF ATTENTION........and their victims, in small black and white photographs, merely there as a border, a background, MERE PROPS for Harris and Klebold!

If we were a rational society we'd have never shown Kelbold and Harris' faces.........we'd never discussed their 'motives' (which was to get the attention they received!).  If we were TRULY more rational than empathetic we'd have denied them marked graves, and treated their memory with the SCORN THEY SO MUCH DESERVED!  Refuse to even speak their names, except as a curse. 

Some acts are so evil (again not the dumb college guy who got him self killed i'm speaking of) that those who commit should be EX COMMUNICATED FROM SOCIETY, even in death.


Now what does that tell us about our guy in question with the Mauser?  Well, he's not earned societal ex communication........but he certainly has earned a degree of ridicule for his actions, lest folks get the wrong idea that he is a VICTIM!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> There's a certain amount of callousness that should develop if your job description may include taking another's life.  Who can say how it will express itself.  Maybe through humor.  Maybe through cold acceptance.  Maybe through substance abuse.  I think that if you are truly concerned about that, it doesn't help to blame the people for doing their job.  It would help, however, if we focused that energy of developing a society that minimizes the need for such callousness.



Black humor is common and healthy among not only cops, but firemen (perhaps some of the blackest humor!) and Paramedics, coroners/medical examiners, undertakers, etc..........one CANNOT by hyper-emotional and hyper-empathetic in such jobs for very long.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

thardey said:


> I came in on this late, but I wanted to mention something about the "use of force continuum."
> 
> Specifically, about the family of the student (I just can't bring myself to call him a "victim") who wanted to know why the police didn't "just taser him."
> 
> ...


 Excellent point!

I had to laugh at the image of bringing a Taser to a MAUSER FIGHT! 

:sniper:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I see this, and it largely makes sense to me. (Not every LEO is the same, but I'm sure this is true for many of them.) It takes a certain degree of detachment, or a certain personality, to preserve one's sanity, and that's a useful defense mechanism against PTSD. _Good_.
> 
> But shouldn't the rest of us see the situation from a more middle-of-the-road perspective? Isn't that also appropriate?



Certainly, and I see your point of view.......but the point here is that we're sharing honestly.  I certainly wouldn't sit down with my local newspaper reporter and share these tid-bits because too many folks would NEVER get it........

What is the saying?  If you like effective law enforcement and a good hotdog, don't look too closely at the process of producing either.......

......well I don't entirely think in a free society we should IGNORE how police protection is provided, but we DEFINITELY shouldn't bring extremely naive and unrealistic expectations to the table when we do so.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> The use of force is ugly, its nasty, and if you have to do it for real, you need to be mentally prepared for it.  As martial artists, we talk about this in our dojos quite a bit.  This is one of the reasons mental training was considered so valuable in certain warrior arts.  Lots of people lampoon the meditation, the breathing exercises, and the visualizations, but, IMO, they are failing to recognize a very important aspect of violence.  You need to actually be able to do it.  If you can't stomach the thought of hurting another person and you are attacked, you are not going to be able to defend yourself as efficiently.  You have to mentally prepare yourself.
> 
> For police officers, soldiers, anyone who has got to deal with violence, they've got to prepare their minds for it.
> 
> You know, a really good book about this is the Illiad.  Take a look at how the soldiers depicted mentally prepare themselves for lives of violence.  This book is important, I've read that the military is using it to help soldiers with PTSD.  Basically, they use it to reform their self image away from what society expects and to what has always been expected of warriors.


 Good points.....and to add to this statement 'If you can't stomach the thought of hurting another person and you are attacked, you are not going to defend yourself efficiently'..........and not being able to defend oneself efficiently as an individual is acceptable, there are those who refuse to hurt others no matter what........but we have a word for that as a cop.....'DISQUALIFIED' FOR EMPLOYMENT!


The famous old Portland, Oregon PD entrance exam question consisted as followed.....

'You come upon a large fence that completely surrounds a property, it's too high to climb, you can't go around it, you can't cut through it, you can't go under it.........on the other side of the fence is a cop on the ground, unconscious, and a large man is kicking him in the head......what do you do?'

The appropriate answer is 'I pull out my gun, tell him to stop, if he doesn't I shoot him!'

Anyone who doesn't get that answer right was disqualified for employment........to paraphrase Col. David Grossman, police officers are the only civilian members of society who's job it is, under the appropriate circumstances, to take another human life......they are REQUIRED BY LAW to have the authority and duty to use force, including lethal force, to defend life........society expects it, and demands them to be ready to do so at a moments notice.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> This is often said of the Japanese samurai, though, isn't it? Write a poem, kill a man, paint a picture of a flower? There are cultural issues at play here, including the value they placed on others' lives, but it isn't quite as simple as that.


 Of course it's not simple, because we're human beings.......but ultimately it's as complicated as we make it.

I choose to simplify it in my mind......if your JOB is to defend the lives of others with lethal force, if you are charged with that duty......even beyond defending yourself........then you spend a great deal of time weighing that in your mind, and demanding of yourself that you be physically, mentally and spiritually prepared for that eventuality.......if you're smart, by the time you're called upon to do that thing for real, you've done it THOUSANDS of times in your own mind, experienced it, tried to create what it would feel like, to inoculate yourself to the effects.

Perhaps the trade off IS a degree of humanity.......but I think Nietzsche had it partially wrong......yes, be careful when fighting monsters lest you become one........but also, I think it takes a bit of a monster to fight them.........but so long as we never lose sight of the reason we do what we do in the first place, so long as we keep our HONOR INTACT, the danger is minimal.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Anyone who doesn't get that answer right was disqualified for employment........to paraphrase Col. David Grossman, police officers are the only civilian members of society who's job it is, under the appropriate circumstances, to take another human life......they are REQUIRED BY LAW to have the authority and duty to use force, including lethal force, to defend life........society expects it, and demands them to be ready to do so at a moments notice.


 
IMO, Ive always held an anecdotal opinion that Cops will more often kill people who truly "deserve" it than Soldiers will. Many times a military enemy is just another guy like you or me..he just happens to be on the "other side". Absent political/ideological/national differences we may just have been friends. The "lifer" out on parole who would rather kill you than go back to prison...were he has probably been most of his life...is a different animal.

One can "require killing" and another can "deserve it".. not in the legal sense of course...but in the way the survivor can rationalize it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> IMO, Ive always held an anecdotal opinion that Cops will more often kill people who truly "deserve" it than Soldiers. Many times a military enemy is just another guy like you or me..he just happens to be on the "other side". Absent political/ideological/national differences we may just have been friends. The "lifer" out on parole who would rather kill you than go back to prison...were he has probably been most of his life...is a different animal.
> 
> One can "require killing" and another can "deserve it".. not in the legal sense of course...but in the way the survivor can rationalize it.


 I can see the point.......though i've got no personal frame of reference, having never fired on another soldier in combat, I really can't say for absolutely certain.......one thing does seem to be tree.......the different ROEs grant a lot more individual autonomy and discretion to the average police officer than the average soldier, and necessarily so.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 16, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *arnisador*
> 
> 
> _I see this, and it largely makes sense to me. (Not every LEO is the same, but I'm sure this is true for many of them.) It takes a certain degree of detachment, or a certain personality, to preserve one's sanity, and that's a useful defense mechanism against PTSD. Good.
> ...


 

Im find this a bit confusing. Im reading it as "I understand why you say the things you do but I still expect you to say the things I want you to say."

I dont mean to be combative, I would just like to understand what it is you are trying to say here. Does the "rest of us seeing the situation" mean how you view the shooting or how you are reacting to the way the LEO's here have reacted to the shooting??


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

No, it means that because you are a cop and should expect that someone is going to claim a completely justified shooting was still _your fault_ in some way, and you must not complain about it when it happens. (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im find this a bit confusing. Im reading it as "I understand why you say the things you do but I still expect you to say the things I want you to say."
> 
> I dont mean to be combative, I would just like to understand what it is you are trying to say here. Does the "rest of us seeing the situation" mean how you view the shooting or how you are reacting to the way the LEO's here have reacted to the shooting??


 I actually think it has more to do with the notion that you 'should' feel bad about shooting someone, even if it's justified......and if you don't, then it makes many folks feel uncomfortable.  I say that without sarcasm, as it's very true that it makes 'normal' folks feel uncomfortable if you're able to shoot someone and not feel devastated by it as they feel they would.

What it boils down to, and I do understand what is going on here, is that 'normal' folks feel......'uncomfortable' around killers and even the idea of intentionally killing someone else.....even if that killer has never killed anyone that he wasn't justified in killing......and that statements of remorse and regret about those killings, even if they were completely justified legally, ethically and morally, make them more palatable to 'normal' folks.

At the end of the day, the kind of callousness some of us take as a matter of course in the face of violence and death, is overwhelming, uncomfortable and a bit intimidating, or at least, very unpalatable to normal decent folks.......and as a result they view us askance.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I actually think it has more to do with the notion that you 'should' feel bad about shooting someone, even if it's justified......and if you don't, then it makes many folks feel uncomfortable. I say that without sarcasm, as it's very true that it makes 'normal' folks feel uncomfortable if you're able to shoot someone and not feel devastated by it as they feel they would.
> 
> What it boils down to, and I do understand what is going on here, is that 'normal' folks feel......'uncomfortable' around killers and even the idea of intentionally killing someone else.....even if that killer has never killed anyone that he wasn't justified in killing......and that statements of remorse and regret about those killings, even if they were completely justified legally, ethically and morally, make them more palatable to 'normal' folks.
> 
> At the end of the day, the kind of callousness some of us take as a matter of course in the face of violence and death, is overwhelming, uncomfortable and a bit intimidating, or at least, very unpalatable to normal decent folks.......and as a result they view us askance.


 
Know the feeling--It's always the same, that sudden, imperceptible( So THEY think) change that comes over people near you in conversations at parties when they find out you're either :

A) a current or former cop

B) current or former military( federal/reserve/guard/state guard/whatever

C) any form of gun owner

And gods help you if you're more than one (in my case B and C, only recently been more or less made "former" by political crap like the rest of my unit).


Like you're some kinda dangerous animal slipped his cage and got let out amongst them by mistake when they should feel that everyone is a little SAFER because you are there. No one who does not intend to harm others has absolutely ANYTHING to fear from the vast majority of us but on some subconscious level they do. I blame our current media just exactly as much as I do human nature, however.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 16, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> No, it means that because you are a cop and should expect that someone is going to claim a completely justified shooting was still _your fault_ in some way, and you must not complain about it when it happens. (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek)


I'm not arnisador and I've been trying to drop out of this thread, but this isn't what I expect.

I expect people to be people - good, bad, ugly, nice, respectable, not, whatever.  I really have some great expectations, though, upon my fellow members of the human race as it seems high expectations are placed upon me ... and just about everyone else I know.

I carry words from my elders with me through life and always have.  Tales retold from my grandparents and aunts and uncles and related to me by my parents are things I take into serious consideration and ponderance.  Perhaps I'm the only who does that, I don't know.

My grandfather was a police officer and he constantly lamented his fellow officers who would boast, brag and over-justify their necessary actions.  He felt very strongly about his job and felt a pressing importance to hang on to the understanding that - and these are the words his children repeated to me - "a gun is like God, only without a conscience; most people who wear a badge and carry one forget that they are not God, but the gun is."  He recounted incidents where officers had to take down people because it was their job and then seemed to have no conscience about the taking of life, even if it was necessary.  He pressed that you don't have to spill tears, writhe in agony and be "like a woman" to cope with the taking of life when you must do so.

I've spent a lot of time striving to explain this balance and regardless of my efforts, my words have been yanked into damp hanky status and it has been intimated that people like me want for cops to be sissy boys and hold an Irish wake over every death they must deliver.  I've NEVER indicated that must be the case.  But I refuse to swagger over the taking of life and I refuse to feel comfortable when those who are here to serve and protect do so. There is justification, there is necessity and then there is humanity.

If one must take life, then they must.  We all would likely do better if we can accept that for our officers in law and soldiers at war.  

When one must take life, a price is paid one way or another.  There are good prices and bad prices and things in between.  And we would all do better if we remember that.

I think losing respect for the loss of life is not a good thing.  Lamenting the loss of life, even if death is imminent, necessary or even warranted is not weak, it is not misplaced sympathy, it is not bleeding-heart liberalism.  The necessity to assign it as such indicates something, as far as I'm concerned.  And it is a demarkation of the decline of our society.  And it will prove to increase the gap between those who respect officers and those who don't and why and will continue to affect the scrutiny of law enforcement ... as well it should.

I sincerely wish all you officers who participate in this thread only the best.  I'm out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2009)

I have no problem with an officer taking a life when its justified.  It's something that a police officer must do...and must be mentally prepared to do.  

I DO think that "normal" people need to have a say in the matter, however.  We spend our taxes on training people how to deal with the real animals in our society.  The process it takes to do this changes those who choose to take up that mantle.

What concerns me is the same concern I would have if I were to train dogs for pig hunting.  These dogs have got to be big and mean and aggressive, but just obediant enough to do my bidding and not turn on me.  

I understand the process that needs to happen in order to do violence, but at some point, it needs to be reigned in.  You can't just stand back and let it go or you are going to get tyrrany.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 16, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> And it is a demarkation of the decline of our society.


 
If you think there ever was a "golden age" where this has ever been different I think you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I actually think it has more to do with the notion that you 'should' feel bad about shooting someone, even if it's justified......and if you don't, then it makes many folks feel uncomfortable. I say that without sarcasm, as it's very true that it makes 'normal' folks feel uncomfortable if you're able to shoot someone and not feel devastated by it as they feel they would.
> 
> What it boils down to, and I do understand what is going on here, is that 'normal' folks feel......'uncomfortable' around killers and even the idea of intentionally killing someone else.....even if that killer has never killed anyone that he wasn't justified in killing......and that statements of remorse and regret about those killings, even if they were completely justified legally, ethically and morally, make them more palatable to 'normal' folks.
> 
> At the end of the day, the kind of callousness some of us take as a matter of course in the face of violence and death, is overwhelming, uncomfortable and a bit intimidating, or at least, very unpalatable to normal decent folks.......and as a result they view us askance.


 
I think you are closer to the facts on this matter.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Absolutely!  I think it's too much that we require not only that an officer follow the law, precedent and department policy in such situations......but then, when declared perfectly justified in the rest, must adhere to some unwritten societal expectation, usually dreamed up by others with no experience doing what he's done, about how he should 'feel' about it all.



Eh, it's a 'societal expectation' of civilized behaviour that causes us to make laws and hire LEOs  to enforce them, no?



sgtmac_46 said:


> Black humor is common and healthy among not only cops, but firemen (perhaps some of the blackest humor!) and Paramedics, coroners/medical examiners, undertakers, etc..........one CANNOT by hyper-emotional and hyper-empathetic in such jobs for very long.



This is a fair point. It is common and it is likely healthy--a useful defense mechanism. I recall speaking with a friend when he lost a patient the first time as a brand new intern just out of medical school, and a few months later when he had lost many--it was quite a different perspective, let alone between then and when he was just entering med. school. Black humour was the whole point in M*A*S*H, eh?

But it's pejoratively labeled as 'black' humour for a reason. My friend didn't encourage that attitude in the general populace--who would then want to become a physician?--nor, I imagine, teach it to his children. (I assume he has them by now--we've lost touch.) Distancing oneself from an act that is distasteful but necessary is useful. Convincing oneself that it was never distatseful in the first place can be problematic.



sgtmac_46 said:


> Certainly, and I see your point of view.......but the point here is that we're sharing honestly. I certainly wouldn't sit down with my local newspaper reporter and share these tid-bits because too many folks would NEVER get it........
> 
> What is the saying? If you like effective law enforcement and a good hotdog, don't look too closely at the process of producing either.......
> 
> ......well I don't entirely think in a free society we should IGNORE how police protection is provided, but we DEFINITELY shouldn't bring extremely naive and unrealistic expectations to the table when we do so.



I do appreciate your sharing honestly an insider's perspective, and I understand that you wouldn't spin it this way for the general populace. Thanks for speaking your mind freely on it.

I also understand the frustations of those who naively expect that you can do law enforcement work without hurting people, medical research without animal experimentation, or do away with war by wishing it so. I'm not among them, but those who encourage us to be our best selves serve a purpose even when they're naive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I also understand the frustations of those who naively expect that you can do law enforcement work without hurting people, medical research without animal experimentation, or do away with war by wishing it so. I'm not among them, *but those who encourage us to be our best selves serve a purpose even when they're naive*.


 
Bravo, Arni.  This is why its always better to talk less and listen more.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I have no problem with an officer taking a life when its justified.  It's something that a police officer must do...and must be mentally prepared to do.
> 
> I DO think that "normal" people need to have a say in the matter, however.  We spend our taxes on training people how to deal with the real animals in our society.  The process it takes to do this changes those who choose to take up that mantle.
> 
> ...


 But before you can be the 'master', you have to have the most remote understanding of the job and what it requires.....and that doesn't include getting an understanding for watching TV. 

That is why many normal folks who participate in police training, or utilize a firearms simulator for the first time experience an EPIPHANY!  It's as if lightening strikes....'OH!  NOW I GET IT!'

We police in a democratic society, as it should be......and 'The People' have authority over the government.....BUT WITH that authority comes a RESPONSIBILITY of it's own.....to be EDUCATED AND INTELLIGENT with that command......and not base decisions on faulty assumptions and unrealistic and unreasonable expectations.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If you think there ever was a "golden age" where this has ever been different I think you are sorely mistaken.


 No such 'golden age' did ever exist.......American society is a violent society, and ALWAYS has been a violent society.  We're violent because we are just a few generations removed from a frontier society.....and we hold values that separate us from the rest of the 'Civilized world'......even compared to places like Canada and Australia, two other frontier societies, we are violent.



> * "The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." -D.H. Lawrence*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Eh, it's a 'societal expectation' of civilized behaviour that causes us to make laws and hire LEOs  to enforce them, no?


 There's a vast difference between societal expectations as a whole (which really aren't anti-police) and the unreasonable and often irrational expectations of various interest groups.



arnisador said:


> This is a fair point. It is common and it is likely healthy--a useful defense mechanism. I recall speaking with a friend when he lost a patient the first time as a brand new intern just out of medical school, and a few months later when he had lost many--it was quite a different perspective, let alone between then and when he was just entering med. school. Black humour was the whole point in M*A*S*H, eh?


 It's part of it.



arnisador said:


> But it's pejoratively labeled as 'black' humour for a reason. My friend didn't encourage that attitude in the general populace--who would then want to become a physician?--nor, I imagine, teach it to his children. (I assume he has them by now--we've lost touch.) Distancing oneself from an act that is distasteful but necessary is useful. Convincing oneself that it was never distatseful in the first place can be problematic.


 The issue in this case is in HAMMERING HOME the point that our drunken armed suspect was the fault of his own death, and countering the view that it was simply 'tragic' rather than 'tragic idiocy'.......black humor is a separate issue.



arnisador said:


> I also understand the frustations of those who naively expect that you can do law enforcement work without hurting people, medical research without animal experimentation, or do away with war by wishing it so. I'm not among them, but those who encourage us to be our best selves serve a purpose even when they're naive.


 They may serve a purpose, but they often do more harm than good........much like the 'naive person' who destroys an animal research clinic studying cures for human cancer.

Even beyond my LEO experience, I have to admit that i've always been one who has always been annoyed by irrational idealism......perhaps it's simply my ENTP personality.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> There's a vast difference between societal expectations as a whole (which really aren't anti-police) and the unreasonable and often irrational expectations of various interest groups.
> 
> 
> They may serve a purpose, but they often do more harm than good........much like the 'naive person' who destroys an animal research clinic studying cures for human cancer.
> .


 
I trace our current problems back to, for lack of a better expression , the "hippie movement".

What began as simply a counterculture for an anti war, peace and love type of thing, swung too far along the path. What happened was they tried SO HARD to make life better for their children, that they inadvertently ended up making them WORSE.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2009)

Ok, so how can a normal guy, who has no desire to become a cop, educate himself so that he "gets it" a little better?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 17, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Ok, so how can a normal guy, who has no desire to become a cop, educate himself so that he "gets it" a little better?


Contact your local police department.  There are probably a couple of options available.  You might be able to do a ride-along, where you spend a shift riding as an observer with an officer.  This'll give you a chance to see what a cop's day is really like.  You might also be able to do a citizen's academy.  These are programs where you'll attend something like one class a week, and they'll have presenters from different parts of the police department tell you about what they do.  K9 might come in, and do a demo one night, patrol tell you about their job another, detectives another night, and so on.  It's a glimpse into the different parts of the police department, and often shows you some of what goes on behind the scenes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Contact your local police department. There are probably a couple of options available. You might be able to do a ride-along, where you spend a shift riding as an observer with an officer. This'll give you a chance to see what a cop's day is really like. You might also be able to do a citizen's academy. These are programs where you'll attend something like one class a week, and they'll have presenters from different parts of the police department tell you about what they do. K9 might come in, and do a demo one night, patrol tell you about their job another, detectives another night, and so on. It's a glimpse into the different parts of the police department, and often shows you some of what goes on behind the scenes.


 
That actually sounds like fun.  Thanks for the recommendations!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I trace our current problems back to, for lack of a better expression , the "hippie movement".
> 
> What began as simply a counterculture for an anti war, peace and love type of thing, swung too far along the path. What happened was they tried SO HARD to make life better for their children, that they inadvertently ended up making them WORSE.


 Read the book 'Lila: An Inquiry into Morals' by Robert Pirsig.....he has an excellent commentary on that very topic.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Ok, so how can a normal guy, who has no desire to become a cop, educate himself so that he "gets it" a little better?


 Sign up for the citizens police academies that many agencies run, where they educate the public on various aspects of police work, usually one night a week......bonus, most folks have a blast doing it!

And the ride alongs, which folks ALMOST ALWAYS get a kick out of doing.......be careful, though, many find it addicting.......and end up leaving their normal life forever!  BE WARNED!


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Sign up for the citizens police academies that many agencies run, where they educate the public on various aspects of police work, usually one night a week......bonus, most folks have a blast doing it!
> 
> And the ride alongs, which folks ALMOST ALWAYS get a kick out of doing.......be careful, though, many find it addicting.......and end up leaving their normal life forever! BE WARNED!


 
Thats how I wound up here. Hes right. And thank god for it... I still look forward to going to work.


----------

