Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hard to watch

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arff312
    replied
    I dont know about deadly force but I definetly taser in that case.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by Charger
    The thing is, there IS no black or white when it comes to force scenarios.. It's always a grey area... You make some valid points, that deadly force probably wouldn't have been the best FIRST choice, but on the other hand the points about her size vs. his, intensity of his attack, etc are also valid, because similar points have been used to clear people in the past in self-defense cases. So as you said, we can debate it all day long... But in the end it would be up to the courts to decide if the situation was bad enough to warrant deadly force..

    Personal opinion? From just seeing the video, I probably wouldn't have gone for deadly force. Even though his size gave him the potential to cause serious injury, she got up right away.. Which proves once again that when you're intoxicated you're not as much of a billy [email protected]## as you think you are.. If I were a responding Officer and walked in on this, I'd probably taser him. OC would be a second choice, but would affect the other patrons as well, so I'd rather just take him down.

    I wonder... If he had a history of this behavior already, and had just recently been cleared to return to duty... What do you think the department is going to say about the docs who cleared him?
    You know, you bring up another really good point. She did, in fact got up without no issues. Also, if you notice before he "went off" she darn near knocked him on his arse, and thats when he "went off".

    As far as the gray area.. you summed up in better detail what I was saying in regards to the DA's office.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charger
    replied
    Originally posted by BadBoynMD
    Why do you think there is such a thing as training? If we all went and conducted our security duties with the thinking of regular Joe Citizen.. The Johnny Cochran's of the world would be loving life even more. We train, well most of us train so we don't think and react as ordinary human beings. Security officers practically mirror most duties of police officers, therefore while everyone is running away from the threat, we're running to the threat to stop the threat. Of course, there are some security officers that will be seen running away with the crowd. The ones that are trained, however will be running to it, unless of course you're an unarmed officer and theres a weapon involved.

    Does the actions of this man piss me off, ABSOLUTELY, but is my immediately thought deadly force, absolutely not. It would have only been a good shooting if that was your last resort. However, we can debate this till our fingers fall off, the end decision is up to the wonderful Offfice of the District Attorney. You may not see or understand what I'm saying, but if you ever take a offcer safety and survival class, then you might understand. We all have our opinions and etc, and the use of force continum has been and always will be debated. In the end, as a instructor stated once "It's all in how you write your report".
    The thing is, there IS no black or white when it comes to force scenarios.. It's always a grey area... You make some valid points, that deadly force probably wouldn't have been the best FIRST choice, but on the other hand the points about her size vs. his, intensity of his attack, etc are also valid, because similar points have been used to clear people in the past in self-defense cases. So as you said, we can debate it all day long... But in the end it would be up to the courts to decide if the situation was bad enough to warrant deadly force..

    Personal opinion? From just seeing the video, I probably wouldn't have gone for deadly force. Even though his size gave him the potential to cause serious injury, she got up right away.. Which proves once again that when you're intoxicated you're not as much of a billy [email protected]## as you think you are.. If I were a responding Officer and walked in on this, I'd probably taser him. OC would be a second choice, but would affect the other patrons as well, so I'd rather just take him down.

    I wonder... If he had a history of this behavior already, and had just recently been cleared to return to duty... What do you think the department is going to say about the docs who cleared him?

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by Chucky
    He is on amin leave pending a hearing and has been down this road before whereas him and a few friends kicked the crap out of some guy an the guy died. That case for what ever reason was dismissed. I also read that he was just out of rehab for other problems prior to this fiasco. Some how I don't know how Badboy misconstrewed my opening post as to the fact that I would be the one to shoot him and it is a lack of training that I have.

    "I would have to say that this guy warrants use of deadly force to stop him from killing her."

    My point was that this would be a good shooting in court if there is such a thing as a good shooting as we all know. I think DMS 525 post best sums up my frame of mind yesterday when I saw this clip on TV. Anger and compassion was foremost what I wanted to express as a human being not the training that I do or don't have.
    Why do you think there is such a thing as training? If we all went and conducted our security duties with the thinking of regular Joe Citizen.. The Johnny Cochran's of the world would be loving life even more. We train, well most of us train so we don't think and react as ordinary human beings. Security officers practically mirror most duties of police officers, therefore while everyone is running away from the threat, we're running to the threat to stop the threat. Of course, there are some security officers that will be seen running away with the crowd. The ones that are trained, however will be running to it, unless of course you're an unarmed officer and theres a weapon involved.

    Does the actions of this man piss me off, ABSOLUTELY, but is my immediately thought deadly force, absolutely not. It would have only been a good shooting if that was your last resort. However, we can debate this till our fingers fall off, the end decision is up to the wonderful Offfice of the District Attorney. You may not see or understand what I'm saying, but if you ever take a offcer safety and survival class, then you might understand. We all have our opinions and etc, and the use of force continum has been and always will be debated. In the end, as a instructor stated once "It's all in how you write your report".

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    Originally posted by Squidly
    Does anyone know if he still has a job???
    Deadly Force.... in line with the liquor act and criminal code here, the key words is reasonible force. Yes this idiot hit up on a female (sumonary offence here) but to blow him away or flog him with a baseball bat would be deemed excessive force and we would be minimum charge for excessive force and grieves harm let alone lose our security licence.
    He is on amin leave pending a hearing and has been down this road before whereas him and a few friends kicked the crap out of some guy an the guy died. That case for what ever reason was dismissed. I also read that he was just out of rehab for other problems prior to this fiasco. Some how I don't know how Badboy misconstrewed my opening post as to the fact that I would be the one to shoot him and it is a lack of training that I have.

    "I would have to say that this guy warrants use of deadly force to stop him from killing her."

    My point was that this would be a good shooting in court if there is such a thing as a good shooting as we all know. I think DMS 525 post best sums up my frame of mind yesterday when I saw this clip on TV. Anger and compassion was foremost what I wanted to express as a human being not the training that I do or don't have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squidly
    replied
    Does anyone know if he still has a job???
    Deadly Force.... in line with the liquor act and criminal code here, the key words is reasonible force. Yes this idiot hit up on a female (sumonary offence here) but to blow him away or flog him with a baseball bat would be deemed excessive force and we would be minimum charge for excessive force and grieves harm let alone lose our security licence.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by DMS 525
    I say someone should have gone up and thrown a bucket of ice cold water in the face of that SOB, then bent that bucket over his head!!! What a jerk.

    It really sickens me, that arrogant, aggressive assholes like this guy get jobs as police officers. Is Chicago that hard up?

    As sad as it is... some idiots slip through the cracks and get hired on.

    Leave a comment:


  • DMS 525
    replied
    I say someone should have gone up and thrown a bucket of ice cold water in the face of that SOB, then bent that bucket over his head!!! What a jerk.

    It really sickens me, that arrogant, aggressive assholes like this guy get jobs as police officers. Is Chicago that hard up?

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Not to mention that in most states, if not all, a citizen has the same "authority" to use deadly force as a law enforcement officer. Only because they can use deadly force to protect the life of themselves or another, or to stop a felon in flight (very few states allow this anymore for police, but may allow it for citizens who aren't bound by 4th Amendment rules...)
    I'm only saying as a last resort only, not the first option.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadly
    replied
    I see several victim/offender subject factors here.

    1) Male Vs Female
    2) Size
    3) Special Abilities
    4) Weapons (Plenty of Glass Bottles)

    My opinion, Deadly Force would've been Justified, in protection of the Bartender.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    What Chucky said is actually correct. A guy don't have to have an AK-47 for you to use Deadly Force. A guy that big beating someone that small can kill easily, and you can use deadly force to protect the 3rd person in that case.

    It's why smaller women could (theoretically) use deadly force in situations where a larger man couldn't. Same thing with multiple assailents, 3-4-5-6 guys cold beat you to death and take your gun if you are carrying one, so even though none of them are armed, you'd be justifyed in doing what you need to to keep that from happening.
    Not to mention that in most states, if not all, a citizen has the same "authority" to use deadly force as a law enforcement officer. Only because they can use deadly force to protect the life of themselves or another, or to stop a felon in flight (very few states allow this anymore for police, but may allow it for citizens who aren't bound by 4th Amendment rules...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Chucky
    This guy is 1 inch taller (6'1') and only 10 lbs heavier (250) lbs than I am an the girl is like 120 lbs and he kicks the crap out of her because she cut his booze off as he was intoxicated. I don't blame the on lookers for not readily getting involved. I would have to say that this guy warrants use of deadly force to stop him from killing her. Oh! did I mention he is a Chicago cop off duty. This video is hard to watch and I saw it on GMA this morning and still want a piece of this guy. Not a good way to start a day. BTW not anti cop just anti asshole in this case.

    http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=83968
    Goes to show anyone can be stupid. The guy should spend lots of time in jail.

    What gets to me is that this incident if nothing but fodder for the people who are really anti-cop.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by BadBoynMD
    DEADLY force to stop a 6'1" 250 DRUNKEN idiot? Are you SERIOUS? You don't blame the on lookers for not readily getting involved? Wow, that whole statement is just outstanding.
    What Chucky said is actually correct. A guy don't have to have an AK-47 for you to use Deadly Force. A guy that big beating someone that small can kill easily, and you can use deadly force to protect the 3rd person in that case.

    It's why smaller women could (theoretically) use deadly force in situations where a larger man couldn't. Same thing with multiple assailents, 3-4-5-6 guys cold beat you to death and take your gun if you are carrying one, so even though none of them are armed, you'd be justifyed in doing what you need to to keep that from happening.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by kingsman
    Number one...
    This is Chicago, the city and Illinios, the state where they don't let off duty officers have guns. They do not issue CCW to anybody as far as I know.
    Chicago Pd allows Officers to carry off duty , Before 1995, they HAD to carry, now it's a choice. What Chicago won't do is certify Retired PD Officers to carry under HR218 , which has ticked off everyone from FOP to the Boy Scouts lol.

    From the 1st Article:
    Chicago has changed its guidelines to let officers decide themselves whether to carry guns off-duty, and most big-city police forces have similar policies.
    From the 2nd article:
    Retired Chicago Police officers will be getting letters in the mail soon saying the city won't certify them to carry guns -- a move that angers the head of the local Fraternal Order of Police. Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to allow retired and off-duty officers across the country to carry concealed weapons. But the city is worried about the liability of allowing retired cops to carry guns when they haven't gone through refresher training or undergone mental and physical fitness evaluations. The city also is concerned about the lack of a national database of retired officers authorized to carry guns. . . . The letter to retired Chicago cops says "until these areas of concern are addressed by federal legislation, the Department has declined to adopt new procedures for qualifying retired officers to carry a firearm." . . . Under the city's interpretation of the federal law, the city can't bar out-of-town retired officers from carrying guns if they have been certified by agencies outside Chicago. But the city believes the federal government can't force the city to certify retired officers here if it chooses not to
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Originally posted by BadBoynMD
    Um, where did you get your facts on Chicago, IL cops NOT being allowed to possess firearms off-duty? Especially sense police officers (local, state and federal) can carry their duty or authorized firearm ANYwhere in the United States????? However, you are correct as Illinois does not issue carry permits, however citizens must have a firearms owner id card to eve possess a firearm.
    The Law Enforcement Officer's Saefty Act (LEOSA, known as HR218) specifically says an officer can carry off duty anywhere in the United States if the officer's department allows it, which matches what many states do in the same regard (like here in Texas, the law says peace officers can carry off duty, but the officer's department can say "no you can't" and thats that, you can still carry with a CCW license though).

    Some department say "you can carry off duty in this state, but not outside it". If you work for that department and violate that policy by carrying out of state without a CCW, you won't suffer any criminal sanctions for carrying off duty if you're covered by LEOSA, but that Dept. can fire you if they find out, and theres nothing you can do about it.
    Last edited by Black Caesar; 03-23-2007, 12:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    With worldwide media attention now, I'd bet they will not be able to brush this off as "boys will be boys" and take action. Assumption is he will be fired and sued for aggravated battery by the bar lady and the other innocent civilian sucked into this vortex.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X