In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
cops kills cop
JnRockwall
Member Posts: 16,350 ✭✭✭
Comments
Probably was afraid of getting the poop beat out of him in jail.
I think offering him the oppty to turn himself in might have saved his life.
Sheesh!
More dumb police work. Why did they feel the need to go arrest him while he was on duty, carrying his weapon and manning a DUI checkpoint?? Why couldn't they wait till he came back to the station to report off and grab him while he was changing or checking out for the night? Stupid. [:(!]
You didn't read the article. It says the suspect was intimidating witnesses and had to be detained immediately.
quote:Originally posted by CS8161
More dumb police work. Why did they feel the need to go arrest him while he was on duty, carrying his weapon and manning a DUI checkpoint?? Why couldn't they wait till he came back to the station to report off and grab him while he was changing or checking out for the night? Stupid. [:(!]
You didn't read the article. It says the suspect was intimidating witnesses and had to be detained immediately.
yeah, I did read the article, they did not have to rush out there and make the arrest right away. He was not intimidating witnesses while manning a DUI checkpoint.
Actually, it sounds like a cop doing suicide by cop.
Probably was afraid of getting the poop beat out of him in jail.
was my first thought also.
There are times when you cant leave someone out and take them later. This fellow was dangerous and was required to be taken into custody. Not only it is a legal thing, it can be an ethical thing as well. I am all for taking someone unawares, however knowingly letting someone that is a danger to the public puts everyone at risk, legally and civially. In NC its called compounding a felony, which is a felony in and of its self. By not acting in good faith to take a subject that has committed a felony. A lot of other legalese, but its basically avoiding or failing to act on a felony. I have had a fellow that was "State wanted" which means wanted whereever he turns up, I saw him in a locked factory. If I had just waited til later, and he went out and killed someone, Someone else would be sitting in my chair watching my tv. Not always easy to do the hard thing, but its often the only way to go. Its still going to haunt the cops involved in the shooting for the rest of thier lives.
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by CS8161
More dumb police work. Why did they feel the need to go arrest him while he was on duty, carrying his weapon and manning a DUI checkpoint?? Why couldn't they wait till he came back to the station to report off and grab him while he was changing or checking out for the night? Stupid. [:(!]
You didn't read the article. It says the suspect was intimidating witnesses and had to be detained immediately.
yeah, I did read the article, they did not have to rush out there and make the arrest right away. He was not intimidating witnesses while manning a DUI checkpoint.
Of course he could not intimidate or harm anyone. He of course had no contact nor communication with anyone, no weapon and no transportation! [V] [xx(] [:(!]
And if they had not intervened and he had killed or harmed anyone, we'd be reading on here from the same people that the LEOs just look-out for one another and that if they were dedicated to the Public, that they would have arrested him immediately where ever he had been!
Get real! [V] [xx(] [:(!]
With his response to fellow officers, I kinda sorta doubt that he'd have had much of any qualms about following through with his threats.
If it had been family or friends of mine that he had attempted to intimidate, I'd be thrilled that the LEOs confronted the threat. With none of my family or friends involved, I just have kudos for the officers that took care of business. I am glad that no innocents were killed or maimed. [^]
He had free choice all along the way, he played the cards that he had dealt himself. [:0] [:(] [B)]
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by CS8161
More dumb police work. Why did they feel the need to go arrest him while he was on duty, carrying his weapon and manning a DUI checkpoint?? Why couldn't they wait till he came back to the station to report off and grab him while he was changing or checking out for the night? Stupid. [:(!]
You didn't read the article. It says the suspect was intimidating witnesses and had to be detained immediately.
yeah, I did read the article, they did not have to rush out there and make the arrest right away. He was not intimidating witnesses while manning a DUI checkpoint.
The article says they had to arrest him immediately. Appearently they knew something about the case that you dont know.
The article says they had to arrest him immediately. Appearently they knew something about the case that you dont know.
Appearently???? WTH is that? Don
Sounds like he was not wearing his body armor. One round to the chest and DOA.
Or the Cops are using the "Cop Killer Bullets". Don
Sounds like he was not wearing his body armor. One round to the chest and DOA.
OR I'll bet that some LEOs know about body armor and might can place their shots for best effect? [:0]
quote:Originally posted by Laredo Lefty
The article says they had to arrest him immediately. Appearently they knew something about the case that you dont know.
Appearently???? WTH is that? Don
I'll bet that you can figure out the intent? [;)]
Oh wait, I guess law enforcement actually does prosecute their own after all.
quote:Originally posted by Laredo Lefty
Sounds like he was not wearing his body armor. One round to the chest and DOA.
OR I'll bet that some LEOs know about body armor and might can place their shots for best effect? [:0]
That or he was shot with a rifle.
quote:Originally posted by Alan Rushing
quote:Originally posted by Laredo Lefty
Sounds like he was not wearing his body armor. One round to the chest and DOA.
OR I'll bet that some LEOs know about body armor and might can place their shots for best effect? [:0]
That or he was shot with a rifle.
A rifle shot, definitely a true possibility.
It is also probable that he had very recently threatened a witness, someone that had knowledge or information. Somebody "up the chain", made the right call on the notion that he was an immediate threat.
No doubt it may well have been a tough call ... but apparently the correct or best call to protect public safety ... ie. lives of others. [^]
Better the perp bite the bullet, than an innocent. [^] ( Even if he'd not take himself out. ) [:(]
He was about to spill the beans about Elvis, and Kennedy.
Sheesh!
Or maybe he was the Devil himself, or maybe he was Jesus and they thought killing him would prevent the end of the world. or maybe, or maybe, or maybe..... Or maybe the armchair accusers ought to stop trying to interject their fantasies on everything like your suggesting, and shut their less than knowledgeable traps
OTOH, a no-knock warrant executed at the wrong location at night is prima facie evidence of incompetence.
Neal
I conduct IAs on a regular basis, and I have to coordinate terminating officers. It is difficult to anticipate how someone will react to loosing their livelihood, and reputation and being able to secure their weapon. Anytime we do it, it is a tense moment securing their weapon, because you never know how someone will react. There is really no practical way of doing it without the subject of the investigation not suspecting it is coming. Especially when they know they are guilty, and most likely going to prison! For many Police Officers it is not just a job, it is apart of their identity, when you threaten to take that away it can be devastating.
To be honest I am surprised this type reaction doesn't happen more often, and I would bet some of the officers I've been involved in terminating have probably had thoughts like this go through their mind.
I'm glad none of the other Officers got hurt. BTW the Police didn't choose to escalate force, the suspect made that decision.
I accepted an issued weapon grudgingly, because I had no choice. If the PD wants it back, all they have to do is ask for it. When I had to surrender it after a little incident, I was immediately issued a temporary replacement. When my gun came back from the DPS lab, I gave back the loaner gun.
Likewise, if I were to be terminated or suspended, the PD can demand their pistol returned, and I would do so agreeably.
Now, the sidearm I carried before this one was mine, and I wouldn't have given it up so easily. The second gun I carry concealed when working is also mine, so if the brass decides to take my service pistol, they still have not disarmed me.
My stuff is my stuff, and I prefer to use my stuff when working. If you need it for evidence, fine, give me a receipt, but otherwise, hands off.
quote:...and being able to secure their weapon. Anytime we do it, it is a tense moment securing their weapon, because you never know how someone will react
I accepted an issued weapon grudgingly, because I had no choice. If the PD wants it back, all they have to do is ask for it. The one I carried before this one was mine, and I wouldn't have given it up so easily. The second gun I carry concealed when working is also mine, so if the brass decides to take my service pistol, they still have not disarmed me.
My stuff is my stuff. If you want it, show me a court order or be ready to beat me senseless for it.
I am not talking about taking anyones personal property. I am referring specifically to Department issued equipment. In region of of the Country where I work, typically the primary Duty Weapon is Department issued. And of course there is always the possibility that an employee may have a personally owned back up weapon on their person, which under our policy is allowed.
And with roles reversed, I am not going to surrender my personally owned firearm either unless dictated by a court order.
But, if you are terminating or suspending an officer, and are concerned that he might become "emotional," what then?
you will have to be more specific. Are you asking how will it be handled if the officer engages in behavior that would lead a reasonable person to believe they may hurt themselves or others?
If that is what your asking, then we would respond the sameway we respond to any other citizen that is emotionally disturbed presenting those issues. If they are armed then we will have to resolve the situation in the same manner, hence the reason it is tense during an especially emotional termination, with weapons present.
The scenario seemed to be reversed in this case, letting the suspect escalate while the cops lagged to match force. Where are the pro-escalation-of-force cops on this one?
If I ever become arrested I hope that I get this same special treatment is all I'm saying.
"We had no choice," Macagni said in video of an afternoon news conference posted by KCOY-TV. He said investigators had evidence "that demanded that we go out and take this officer off the street immediately."
Supervising officers were sent to make a felony arrest, but he struggled with them when they arrived, first putting up a physical fight, then firing his gun but hitting no one, Macagni said.
Some may read but have little or no comphrehnsion or common sense, which may come with age...but even that, is looking rather doubtful.
Witness intimidation was only one of SEVERAL reasons the arrest was taking place when it did.
quote:I think offering him the oppty to turn himself in might have saved his life.
[:D] Really?
As with the lack of comphrension, it's very evident that a lack of simple reasoning before speaking runs rampant here also.
I reckon being a cop himself...he had a fair to middlin' idea that he could have given himself up when he heard the news from IA, if he was so inclined, resulting in a safe, simple, rather mundane arrest for himself.
Mind you now, this is just a crazy WAG on my part, but I think when HE chose to FIGHT/RESIST/FIRE HIS WEAPON, that he MIGHT have had a teenie-weenie idea it would/could have a rather bad ending for him...[;)]
quote:The officer, a four-year Santa Maria department veteran, had just learned of the internal investigation of an alleged sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl, and it became necessary to arrest him immediately, Macagni said.
"We had no choice," Macagni said in video of an afternoon news conference posted by KCOY-TV. He said investigators had evidence "that demanded that we go out and take this officer off the street immediately."
Supervising officers were sent to make a felony arrest, but he struggled with them when they arrived, first putting up a physical fight, then firing his gun but hitting no one, Macagni said.
Some may read but have little or no comphrehnsion or common sense, which may come with age...but even that, is looking rather doubtful.
Witness intimidation was only one of SEVERAL reasons the arrest was taking place when it did.
quote:I think offering him the oppty to turn himself in might have saved his life.
[:D] Really?
As with the lack of comphrension, it's very evident that a lack of simple reasoning before speaking runs rampant here also.
I reckon being a cop himself...he had a fair to middlin' idea that he could have given himself up when he heard the news from IA, if he was so inclined, resulting in a safe, simple, rather mundane arrest for himself.
Mind you now, this is just a crazy WAG on my part, but I think when HE chose to FIGHT/RESIST/FIRE HIS WEAPON, that he MIGHT have had a teenie-weenie idea it would/could have a rather bad ending for him...[;)]
goin out on a limb ain't ya [;)]
California
The age of consent is 18, with a misdemeanor if the minor has 3 or fewer years of difference with the major, and potentially a felony if the major is more than 3 years older. It is worth emphasizing that unlike most other states, the close-in-age rule in California (3 years) do not provide an exception nor provide any defense; it merely lowers the crime to a misdemeanor. Under this law, two minors of the same age could both be prosecuted. Penalties increase if the minor is under 16 and the major is above 21 or if the minor is more than 3 years younger.
FWIW, in Texas, 17 is good to go. Maybe not, if you are the girl's father, though. On the other hand, an improper relationship between educator and student has no age limit, and is a second-degree felony.
I see where it said she was 17... I am certainly no expert but I thought 17 was legal in all but one state and that was arkansas where the age of consent is 12. or is it 16?
If I recall correctly, most states waive the age of consent rule if there is an "authority figure" involved.
I remember there being a case that involved a teacher having an affair with an 18 year old student......that teacher was arrested due to being an authority figure....even though the "victim" was legally an adult.