How many cops does it take to stop a car? 23

[ChrisB2]

This was a group of cops killing two men bad guys.

FIFY

 

[Unrepresented]

FIFY

This was a case of police killing two citizens who are entitled to the full rights of all citizens even if they've broken laws, same as you or I.

 

[ChrisB2]

This was a case of police killing two citizens who are entitled to the full rights of all citizens even if they've broken laws, same as you or I.

Disagree. You and I have the right to walk down the sidewalk unimpeded. A person suspected of a crime does not; he is stopped by law enforcement. There is a difference between bad guys and law-abiding citizens.

Bad guys have the right to due process IF they comply with that process. If they choose to resist, they face the consequences.

Remember; they are Bad Guys.

 

[Jim Campbell]

This was a case of police killing two citizens who are entitled to the full rights of all citizens even if they've broken laws, same as you or I.

that is way too over simplified.....they fled from the cops,the cops had reason to believe they were armed....they appeared to make no attempt to surrender peacefully.....those rights are for the court room,not a firefight......the perps are the architects of their own destruction....they had lots of opportunity to exercise their rights,but gave them up in an attempt to escape lawful custody...

 

[Unrepresented]

Disagree. You and I have the right to walk down the sidewalk unimpeded. A person suspected of a crime does not; he is stopped by law enforcement. There is a difference between bad guys and law-abiding citizens.

Bad guys have the right to due process IF they comply with that process. If they choose to resist, they face the consequences.

Remember; they are Bad Guys.

Again, the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a juvenile way of categorizing our world.

It's also relatively hard to comply with someone when they've fired hundreds of rounds into and at you.

that is way too over simplified.....they fled from the cops,the cops had reason to believe they were armed....they appeared to make no attempt to surrender peacefully.....those rights are for the court room,not a firefight......the perps are the architects of their own destruction....they had lots of opportunity to exercise their rights,but gave them up in an attempt to escape lawful custody...

They were in a firefight because the cops started a firefight. It's hard to start a firefight unarmed.

 

[Jim Campbell]

Again, the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a juvenile way of categorizing our world.

It's also relatively hard to comply with someone when they've fired hundreds of rounds into and at you.

They were in a firefight because the cops started a firefight. It's hard to start a firefight unarmed.

the shooting did not start until ample time was given for them to give it up....if they wouldn't show their hands the cops have every right to assume there's a weapon in them.....especially after a chase.....there's a time and place for abstract discussions about points of law,but the end of a chase is not one of them.....they could have avoided the whole affair by,not fleeing,and even after that they still could have surrendered.....

 

[Unrepresented]

the shooting did not start until ample time was given for them to give it up....if they wouldn't show their hands the cops have every right to assume there's a weapon in them.....especially after a chase.....there's a time and place for abstract discussions about points of law,but the end of a chase is not one of them.....they could have avoided the whole affair by,not fleeing,and even after that they still could have surrendered.....

Not showing your hands after a police chase isn't wise, but it shouldn't be grounds for being summarily executed.

 

[kanonfodr]

The 9 millimeter pistol that is so popular is because it holds a lot of rounds, not because it's an overly powerful round. Plenty enough to kill you, certainly, but doesn't pack the punch/have the penetration of a .45 or any "magnum" type round (.357, .44, etc.).

Our military changed it's issue to the 9 mil. from the old .45's because it holds twice as many rounds and has less recoil. It's supposed to be a "last resort" short range weapon, just to send out a lot of lead to get yourself out of immediate harms way. Not really a "offensive" weapon.

.40 caliber Glocks are pretty popular with law enforcement as well. I'm not familiar with those. A semi-educated guess would say they're sort of an "in-between". The old .45's could knock down just about anything but the semi-auto's still only held 7, maybe 8 rounds and had a lot of recoil. High recoil means more time between shots while maintaining accuracy. The .40 holds a decent amount of rounds, maybe 10, and would still have better knock down power than the 9 mil. More recoil as well but not as much as the .45. Cost would be a consideration as well as a lot of cops buy and carry their own sidearms. A 9 millimeter Beretta is one expensive handgun (Italian).

The 9 mil. Berettas they issued us in the Army had very little recoil, you could fire off a lot of rounds in a short time while staying accurate. But, somebody could still keep coming at after being hit if it wasn't a kill shot. With the old .45's, basically, if you just hit them somewhere, they were falling backwards.

*Buzzer* Wrong on sooooo many levels. Namely Newton's Second Law. If any bullet strike had the power to knock a human flat, the firer would be on their butt as well. Artillery has that kind of power, and every time we had outgoing my CHU shook - and the gun pit was 400 meters from there.

US Forces adopted the 9mm Beretta as the primary sidearm for one reason: all of our allies were using 9mm and ammo interoptability (our ability to use their rounds) means a lot when forces from many nations are on the same team in a conflict. Same reason most NATO countries adopted service rifles chambered in 5.56mm, we had great success with the round and were producing a bunch of it, so we all work together. It's the same reason the AK-47 is the most plentiful firearm in the world - cheap to procure, lots of ammo, works every time.

Law Enforcement agencies like 9mm because it's cheap, has effective stopping power, and has much less recoil than .45 ACP while carrying more rounds in the firearm. Lots of agencies like .40 S&W because of the above, but it carries a bit more power with the round.

Here's some reading material for you:

http://gundata.org/blog/post/fbi-handgun-ballistics/

Invalid Link Removed

The mission wasn't accomplished because justice want served. That is a product of the justice system, jury of peers, access to an attorney, all those Amendments you probably have encountered in a civics class at some point.

This was a group of cops killing two men. That's more akin to a lynch mob than justice.

Keep armchair quarterbacking, sport. It's easy to do when you aren't the one in the kill zone. The suspect in this incident had already killed one police officer in an earlier altercation - he made his decision. Additionally, pretty much every police agency in the country has a codified Use Of Force policy that all officer are required to comply with - they are vetted by lawyers and have been challenged in court numerous times. I know because we had the same thing in Iraq, and we were briefed on that policy before each of my 60+ combat missions. The ending was always the same - all US Service Members have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves, other US Forces, Contractors, and Government Property from harm.

Additionally, it's most police agency's policy to put any officer involved in a Deadly Force incident on Administrative Leave while the investigation into the incident is conducted. That usually involved a lot of paperwork, repeating the details multiple times over, and psychiatric evaluations/counselings.

Agreed.

The guy reportedly shot a cop, so it instantly turns from apprehension to assasination with high-fives all around and a bunch of hoo-rah in the locker room. Lots of butt slapping and peepee rubbing.

See above.

Disagree. You and I have the right to walk down the sidewalk unimpeded. A person suspected of a crime does not; he is stopped by law enforcement. There is a difference between bad guys and law-abiding citizens.

Bad guys have the right to due process IF they comply with that process. If they choose to resist, they face the consequences.

Remember; they are Bad Guys.

Bingo.

Peace,
Greg

 

[Unrepresented]

Keep armchair quarterbacking, sport. It's easy to do when you aren't the one in the kill zone.

It'd be a death knell to TBOT if we outlawed armchair quarterbacking.:|

 

[will33]

*Buzzer* Wrong on sooooo many levels. Namely Newton's Second Law. If any bullet strike had the power to knock a human flat, the firer would be on their butt as well. Artillery has that kind of power, and every time we had outgoing my CHU shook - and the gun pit was 400 meters from there.

US Forces adopted the 9mm Beretta as the primary sidearm for one reason: all of our allies were using 9mm and ammo interoptability (our ability to use their rounds) means a lot when forces from many nations are on the same team in a conflict. Same reason most NATO countries adopted service rifles chambered in 5.56mm, we had great success with the round and were producing a bunch of it, so we all work together. It's the same reason the AK-47 is the most plentiful firearm in the world - cheap to procure, lots of ammo, works every time.

Law Enforcement agencies like 9mm because it's cheap, has effective stopping power, and has much less recoil than .45 ACP while carrying more rounds in the firearm. Lots of agencies like .40 S&W because of the above, but it carries a bit more power with the round.

Here's some reading material for you:

http://gundata.org/blog/post/fbi-handgun-ballistics/

Invalid Link Removed



Keep armchair quarterbacking, sport. It's easy to do when you aren't the one in the kill zone. The suspect in this incident had already killed one police officer in an earlier altercation - he made his decision. Additionally, pretty much every police agency in the country has a codified Use Of Force policy that all officer are required to comply with - they are vetted by lawyers and have been challenged in court numerous times. I know because we had the same thing in Iraq, and we were briefed on that policy before each of my 60+ combat missions. The ending was always the same - all US Service Members have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves, other US Forces, Contractors, and Government Property from harm.

Additionally, it's most police agency's policy to put any officer involved in a Deadly Force incident on Administrative Leave while the investigation into the incident is conducted. That usually involved a lot of paperwork, repeating the details multiple times over, and psychiatric evaluations/counselings.



See above.


Bingo.

Peace,
Greg

Umm.....A 9 mil. does not have the knockdown power a .45 does....sorry. I'm assuming you've fired both...then you know this.

Points for the interchangability of the NATO family of rounds.

In addition, thank you for your service. With respect, military SOP in a combat zone has nothing to do with civilian police service....at least it shouldn't.

 

[kanonfodr]

Umm.....A 9 mil. does not have the knockdown power a .45 does....sorry. I'm assuming you've fired both...then you know this.

Points for the interchangability of the NATO family of rounds.

In addition, thank you for your service. With respect, military SOP in a combat zone has nothing to do with civilian police service....at least it shouldn't.

You are correct, a 9mm doesn't carry the same impact energy of a .45 ACP (avg 350 lb-ft of energy vs about 400 for the .45) but neither of them is going to put a human on the ground from sheer impact energy - unless you are capping a 5 year old. It's a combination of factors that puts a human on the ground from a gunshot, and most of it deals with massive trauma to the central nervous system.

As far as Military SOP in a combat zone vs police agency Use Of Force policies, later into the Iraq war (and the 'Stan from what I understand of it - never been there but heard some great stories) we became less of an offensive military force and more of a peacekeeping/ police role so we modeled our tactics and procedures more on what police agencies are using - down to the zip cuffs that most line soldiers carried.

And thank you for your support .

Peace,
Greg

 

[ChrisB2]

Again, the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a juvenile way of categorizing our world.

Of course. I started using the terms only in response to your insistent denial of the distinction. Sometimes you have to go back to the basics. I find it quite amusing that you want to pretend that we're all the same. Yes, those terms are juvenile but even little kids understand them. It seems there really is no difference in your mind between a kind, humble gentleman and a murderous thug...

It's also relatively hard to comply with someone when they've fired hundreds of rounds into and at you.

You conveniently ignore the FACT that this event occurred over the span of several hours. The suspects had hundreds of opportunities to comply. The police had every reason to believe they were armed as they had already shot one officer earlier and stolen his patrol car.

They asked for it. They got it. Why do you insist on denying them their freedom to choose their fate?

 

[Unrepresented]

Of course. I started using the terms only in response to your insistent denial of the distinction.

:|

Sometimes you have to go back to the basics. I find it quite amusing that you want to pretend that we're all the same. Yes, those terms are juvenile but even little kids understand them. It seems there really is no difference in your mind between a kind, humble gentleman and a murderous thug...

I tolerate both humble gentlemen and murderous thugs in TBOT. I try and distribute my "likes" accordingly, however.

And while I appreciate that you want our world to be simple enough for even children to easily discern, it's not. That's why they don't get to vote, or join the military, or get married, or get a credit card, or find redeeming qualities in Garrison Keillor. We live in a complex world, and to approach it in a simplistic manner is naive.

You conveniently ignore the FACT that this event occurred over the span of several hours. The suspects had hundreds of opportunities to comply. The police had every reason to believe they were armed as they had already shot one officer earlier and stolen his patrol car.

I'm not in any way suggesting that these were model citizens. I don't expect criminals to be. I do have much higher expectations for people who are trained and paid to uphold the law.

They asked for it. They got it. Why do you insist on denying them their freedom to choose their fate?

Them choosing their own fate isn't justice.

 

[ChrisB2]

And while I appreciate that you want our world to be simple enough for even children to easily discern, it's not.

This case IS simple:

Bad guy hurt innocent people.

Police say stop.

Bad guy not stop.

Bad guy shoot police.

Police shoot bad guy.

Got it? Geez...

Them choosing their own fate isn't justice.

Yes it is.

 

[Unrepresented]

This case IS simple:

Bad guy hurt innocent people.

Police say stop.

Bad guy not stop.

Bad guy shoot police.

Police shoot bad guy.

Got it? Geez...

I understood that narrative. It's an oversimplified one that ignores important things like police procedures and whether they make us safer. Yes, this time it ended in the death of a "bad guy" but it isn't going to always provide those results. Cops can kill innocents just as easily as "bad guys."

Yes it is.

Justice is determined by society not the criminal.

 

[will33]

You are correct, a 9mm doesn't carry the same impact energy of a .45 ACP (avg 350 lb-ft of energy vs about 400 for the .45) but neither of them is going to put a human on the ground from sheer impact energy - unless you are capping a 5 year old. It's a combination of factors that puts a human on the ground from a gunshot, and most of it deals with massive trauma to the central nervous system.

As far as Military SOP in a combat zone vs police agency Use Of Force policies, later into the Iraq war (and the 'Stan from what I understand of it - never been there but heard some great stories) we became less of an offensive military force and more of a peacekeeping/ police role so we modeled our tactics and procedures more on what police agencies are using - down to the zip cuffs that most line soldiers carried.

And thank you for your support .

Peace,
Greg

We might be talking about similair things from different angles.

I'm going by, a heavier mass (.45) hitting at a slower speed, does more physical carnage. Even snipers will say this....their rounds cause more damage at longer distances, because the round has had a chance to slow down some. Still plenty of kinetic energy, but it gets more of the impact of the mass. Kinda like being opened up with a new scalpel or an old knife. The shotgun deer slug is a good example of this.

Although, with technological advances, and studies of the nervous system, smaller high velocity rounds have advantages. Not only in effectiveness of the round, but the user being able to carry more rounds with less fatigue, send lots of lead downrange, etc., so, points for your understanding of that deeper than mine.

The 9 mil. is a lopsided balance, favoring high capacity/low recoil/shooting lots of lead quickly over pure brute force. I assume, and can agree to a point, this better serves the needs as they are now.

With respect to the rest: thanks for your support, man. A lot of people don't even comprehend, (well, none of us really comprehend but some more than others), what you guys do so the rest of us can sit here and bicker about such things.

With respect to the other, that is a problem for me. Soldiers should be soldiers and cops should be cops and never the 'twain shall meet. We shouldn't have soldiers forced to play the worlds policeman just like we shouldn't have civilian cops playing soldier. One deals with our foreign enemies while the other deals with our citizens here at home, which are two entirely different things.

TLDR;

Soldiers good. Cops good. Copified soldiers bad. Militarized cops bad.

 

[BawanaRik]

Justice is determined by society not the criminal.

This makes me feel so much better. Well it would if I never read any history.

 

[kanonfodr]

With respect to the other, that is a problem for me. Soldiers should be soldiers and cops should be cops and never the 'twain shall meet. We shouldn't have soldiers forced to play the worlds policeman just like we shouldn't have civilian cops playing soldier. One deals with our foreign enemies while the other deals with our citizens here at home, which are two entirely different things.

Correct in theory, but not in reality. In Iraq, the "enemy" quickly shifted from Force on Force contact (Squads and Platoons engaging Squads and Platoons) to using guerilla tactics: roadside bombs, Hit and Run strikes, and using Human Shields (one shooter in the midst of 100 civilians), and barricaded shooters. That's the kind of problems police forces run into all the time, so we learn from the folks who have been effectively handling these situations. That includes investigating crime scenes, understanding insurgent force structures, and building cases against individuals who are orchestrating attacks on the civilian populace and military forces. Because whenever we capture an Enemy Prisoner of War, just like a cop who books a murderer, we have to fill out a bunch of paperwork on why they were apprehended, what we think they are guilty of, and then hand them off to a Iraqi civilian court to be tried in a judicial manner.

In the meantime, here in the USA we've got crime gangs arming themselves with AK-47s, fortifying structures with defensive measures, and structuring themselves like a military force with Squads, Platoons, Companies and Battalions. Military forces train to fight other military forces, and we've got a lot of experience in doing so. So they learn from us how to handle a Near Ambush vs a Far Ambush, use Fire and Maneuver tactics, Conduct an Assault, and utilize Close Quarters Combat and MOUT (Military operations in Urban Terrain) techniques to pacify some pretty evil people right here in the homeland. Look at the recent history: the bad guys were carrying AK-47s and using them for about 5 years before cops were allowed to carry AR-15s in their cruisers.

Peace,
Greg

 

[will33]

Correct in theory, but not in reality. In Iraq, the "enemy" quickly shifted from Force on Force contact (Squads and Platoons engaging Squads and Platoons) to using guerilla tactics: roadside bombs, Hit and Run strikes, and using Human Shields (one shooter in the midst of 100 civilians), and barricaded shooters. That's the kind of problems police forces run into all the time, so we learn from the folks who have been effectively handling these situations. That includes investigating crime scenes, understanding insurgent force structures, and building cases against individuals who are orchestrating attacks on the civilian populace and military forces. Because whenever we capture an Enemy Prisoner of War, just like a cop who books a murderer, we have to fill out a bunch of paperwork on why they were apprehended, what we think they are guilty of, and then hand them off to a Iraqi civilian court to be tried in a judicial manner.

In the meantime, here in the USA we've got crime gangs arming themselves with AK-47s, fortifying structures with defensive measures, and structuring themselves like a military force with Squads, Platoons, Companies and Battalions. Military forces train to fight other military forces, and we've got a lot of experience in doing so. So they learn from us how to handle a Near Ambush vs a Far Ambush, use Fire and Maneuver tactics, Conduct an Assault, and utilize Close Quarters Combat and MOUT (Military operations in Urban Terrain) techniques to pacify some pretty evil people right here in the homeland. Look at the recent history: the bad guys were carrying AK-47s and using them for about 5 years before cops were allowed to carry AR-15s in their cruisers.

Peace,
Greg

Man, you got too many intelligent points to argue with.

I just don't like seeing our cops becoming more and more militarized. Miss the days of the good citizen cop who treated folks with respect and was respected as well.

Just seems to me cops are trained more to act as if everybody is some armed nutjob, instead of showing citizens respect and trust until given a reason to think otherwise. I remeber when I'd get pulled over in the '80's you could just get out of the car, walk over to the cop car and talk about it. Now they're all approaching from the blindspot with hand on sidearm and would probably freak if you just got out of the car and start walking towards them.

 

[Bass_Pounder]

I remeber when I'd get pulled over in the '80's you could just get out of the car, walk over to the cop car and talk about it. Now they're all approaching from the blindspot with hand on sidearm and would probably freak if you just got out of the car and start walking towards them.

Regular old "car stops" are one of the most dangerous things an officer does.

Pretty sure it is the leading event in officer's killed in the line of duty.