Christopher Dorner EX-LAPD out for vengence

[quote name='dafoomie']5am. Still dark outside. You're guarding the house of a police captain who is considered a highly likely target. You hear on your radio that a truck matching Dorner's description is heading your way. The truck is driving with its lights off, slowly down the center of the street. You hear gunshots (another officer opened fire down the street, but you don't know that) and the truck accelerates towards you and the other officers. What do you do?

I would want to know why two things happened. Why was incorrect information given to the officers (couldn't make out the truck too well in the dark with its lights off?), and why did the officer by himself further down the street open fire. That officer made a serious mistake (did he see the driver holding a newspaper out the window in the darkness and think it was a gun?). The actions of the other officers were not at all unreasonable given those circumstances.[/QUOTE]

How do the cops apprehend anyone who matches a description of a violent criminal? With guns drawn, in the safest place possible, and issuing commands. Why don't all cops start firing at cars that match descriptions? As for the excuse that another officer was firing rounds off...there's dipshit #1. If dipshit #1's actions led dipshit #2 to act improperly, it was still dependent on incompetant asshats. This isn't a couple of hillbillies shooting at moving objects from a porch rocking chair, it's trained LEO's.

So what do I do? Nothing, I probably run like hell and take cover. What should the LAPD do? How's about confirm their fucking target before shooting at innocent people. I don't think that's too much to expect out of our police officers.
 
[quote name='berzirk']How do the cops apprehend anyone who matches a description of a violent criminal? With guns drawn, in the safest place possible, and issuing commands.[/quote]
The victims stated that they did not hear commands but I haven't heard that they never attempted to give any.

[quote name='berzirk']Why don't all cops start firing at cars that match descriptions? As for the excuse that another officer was firing rounds off...there's dipshit #1. If dipshit #1's actions led dipshit #2 to act improperly, it was still dependent on incompetant asshats. This isn't a couple of hillbillies shooting at moving objects from a porch rocking chair, it's trained LEO's. [/quote]
Once shots are fired all bets are off. The other officers, some distance away, would not know who fired at who, there would certainly be no way to know that there was a mistake made. Shots are fired, truck is accelerating towards you, at that point you're defending yourself. The first officer to fire was completely wrong, he is responsible for the entire chain of events.
 
[quote name='CaptainJoel']Maybe because there's not enough evidence over what he allegedly did? I would have much preferred to have seen a trial here and it's shameful that the police didn't take him alive.[/QUOTE]
The pursuit involved a running gun battle in which he carjacked a vehicle, killed a sheriff's deputy, wounded another, and fired on two game wardens. What would you have them do?

Do you even attempt to understand the events which led to the outcome or would that get in the way of your anti police crusade?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The pursuit involved a running gun battle in which he carjacked a vehicle, killed a sheriff's deputy, wounded another, and fired on two game wardens. What would you have them do?

Do you even attempt to understand the events which led to the outcome or would that get in the way of your anti police crusade?[/QUOTE]
I guess innocent before proven guilty doesn't fit in your right wing agenda but assuming he was guilty I'm glad he ate a bullet instead of this bullshit martyr internet dummies are making him to be.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Once shots are fired all bets are off. The other officers, some distance away, would not know who fired at who, there would certainly be no way to know that there was a mistake made. Shots are fired, truck is accelerating towards you, at that point you're defending yourself. The first officer to fire was completely wrong, he is responsible for the entire chain of events.[/QUOTE]

You're defending yourself from something you have not visually identified, that matches a vague description of a criminal's vehicle. You are a professional law enforcement officer. If you didn't take proper precautions to ensure that you are not trying to kill the wrong, innocent people, then it's time for you to choose a job with less responsibility...shrimp de-veiner.

There is no logical explanation for what happened. I'm not trying to keep hammering on you, but to even try to create an excuse, explanation, or mild justification, shows a lack of understanding of the law enforcement profession, the law, and common sense. It's absolutely insane to think that this could happen by trained professionals. It was an unbelievable fuck-up by all officers involved.
 
I don't think anyone in this thread is defending Dorner or his actions in any way. I saw some of that on Reddit, but that's a different story. The guy was gonna die no matter what because if they had taken him into custody he would have been given the death penalty, no question.

My position has been, and will be, that I would have preferred he taken into custody rather than the LAPD taking actions which effectively amounted to shoot on sight orders. I don't want police to operate that way, ever. Dorner wasn't a martyr, he wasn't a hero, he was (likely) a murderer of innocent people. It's not an all or nothing affair though, just because it was the LAPD pursuing a despicable human being doesn't mean they're the "hero" either. That police agency has had a long history of corruption and impropriety. This entire ordeal was a tragedy, no 2 ways about it. It was a tragedy because of the innocent lives he took. The only good that I can hope comes from this is that federal authorities take a good long look at the LAPD.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You're defending yourself from something you have not visually identified, that matches a vague description of a criminal's vehicle. You are a professional law enforcement officer. If you didn't take proper precautions to ensure that you are not trying to kill the wrong, innocent people, then it's time for you to choose a job with less responsibility...shrimp de-veiner.

There is no logical explanation for what happened. I'm not trying to keep hammering on you, but to even try to create an excuse, explanation, or mild justification, shows a lack of understanding of the law enforcement profession, the law, and common sense. It's absolutely insane to think that this could happen by trained professionals. It was an unbelievable fuck-up by all officers involved.[/QUOTE]
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. As a police officer, even if you knew it was another officer firing and not the driver, why would you assume that the other officer was not justified in firing? I think you're also ignoring that the truck accelerated directly at the other officers. Obviously the driver would not have seen them, as her lights were off. Should I break it down again for you?

It is 5am. It is dark.
We have been notified that a truck matching the description of the murder suspect is in the area.
The truck has its lights off and is headed towards the home of a person targeted by the suspect, which we are guarding.
We should stop and investigate the truck.

Are you with me so far? Then, it becomes:

Someone has opened fire and the truck is accelerating directly at us at a high rate of speed.

The situation for the group of officers down the street has changed at that point. They now have reason to believe the driver is armed by virtue of the gunshots and is now trying to run them over, or bypass them and reach the man they are protecting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dafoomie']I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. As a police officer, even if you knew it was another officer firing and not the driver, why would you assume that the other officer was not justified in firing? I think you're also ignoring that the truck accelerated directly at the other officers. Obviously the driver would not have seen them, as her lights were off. Should I break it down again for you?

It is 5am. It is dark.
We have been notified that a truck matching the description of the murder suspect is in the area.
The truck has its lights off and is headed towards the home of a person targeted by the suspect, which we are guarding.
We should stop and investigate the truck.

Are you with me so far? Then, it becomes:

Someone has opened fire and the truck is accelerating directly at us at a high rate of speed.

The situation for the group of officers down the street has changed at that point. They now have reason to believe the driver is armed by virtue of the gunshots and is now trying to run them over, or bypass them and reach the man they are protecting.[/QUOTE]

Hmm so if you were fired upon while in your car, wouldn't the first instinct be to gun the car and drive the fark out of there?

Now if trying to evade being shot at by driving away fast, makes you even more suspicious and more of a reason to fire more bullets at you.......

Seems like a lose/lose situation... :booty: Wow those cops sure have it good, having people who can justify such irrationality
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The pursuit involved a running gun battle in which he carjacked a vehicle, killed a sheriff's deputy, wounded another, and fired on two game wardens. What would you have them do?

Do you even attempt to understand the events which led to the outcome or would that get in the way of your anti police crusade?[/QUOTE]
I can understand a running gun battle since he likely knew that they would shoot to kill on sight of him since they opened fire on vehicles that looked like his. In my eyes this could really go either way and with the far less than stellar record of the LAPD I could easily see him being right (not saying he absolutely is, just that things look more than a little suspect). No reason to be a douche and accuse me of being on an anti-police crusade (certainly not what I'm on at all), I have plenty of friends that are cops and for the most part I like them (hell, I seriously considered being a cop before finally deciding on teaching). I just think that it's a real shame that they didn't seem to make any sort of attempt to apprehend him.
 
I don't think they had many viable options other than what they did. They were in a prolonged battle with the guy, already with one fatality, they fired tear gas into the cabin and he killed himself. Another course of action could've put more police officers in danger.

EDIT: Wait, what? I misread the first sentence of your post. You understand why he became involved in a running battle with police? You understand why he attacked police? And you're not anti police? His stated purpose was to kill police officers! He killed the daughter of a police captain and fucking called him and taunted him about it.

I'm sure that GAME WARDEN he attacked en route to the cabin was out to do him harm and was completely justifiable... Give me a break. Real Nazis, that California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Hmm so if you were fired upon while in your car, wouldn't the first instinct be to gun the car and drive the fark out of there?[/quote]
As I stated, yes, and as I stated, the driver had her lights off so she could not see the officers she was driving straight into. However, how could this not be interpreted as a threat by the officers? THEY DON'T KNOW the first officer was unjustified in firing his weapon nor do they necessarily know if it was him or the driver who fired.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. As a police officer, even if you knew it was another officer firing and not the driver, why would you assume that the other officer was not justified in firing? I think you're also ignoring that the truck accelerated directly at the other officers. Obviously the driver would not have seen them, as her lights were off. Should I break it down again for you?

It is 5am. It is dark.
We have been notified that a truck matching the description of the murder suspect is in the area.
The truck has its lights off and is headed towards the home of a person targeted by the suspect, which we are guarding.
We should stop and investigate the truck.

Are you with me so far? Then, it becomes:

Someone has opened fire and the truck is accelerating directly at us at a high rate of speed.

The situation for the group of officers down the street has changed at that point. They now have reason to believe the driver is armed by virtue of the gunshots and is now trying to run them over, or bypass them and reach the man they are protecting.[/QUOTE]

I think you don't understand the responsibility and the training that officers are subject to, so as to not endanger the public, while trying to keep them safe.

We're talking about lethal force. You don't assume, and hope you're right. You need to be damn sure that when you're using lethal force, that it is justified, and that you have the ability to carry it out. Clearly they had the ability to carry it out, but also, clearly it was not justified.

It's part of the officer's duty to put themselves in harm's way to protect the public. If they are unable to do that, they need different careers. Officers had no way to disable the vehicle? How bout the dude down the road that shot at them, could he not call ahead and say "take cover and get ready to defend?" This was completely botched by trained professionals. If you're this lax with the duties and failure to perform those duties, from the police here, then I wonder what professions you do hold to a normal standard (it's not a high standard to assume a trained LEO would not open fire on innocent people due to a mistake). It's baffling.

I truly hope you never plan on getting in to law enforcement. Apparently we could all be in danger if you did.
 
What bothers me the most about this is the complete and utter lack of due process: Shooting at at a truck that looked like Dorner's, setting fire to a cabin without knowing all the facts (if it was even him inside, if there were any other people inside), sicking drones on him, pushing him back inside when he tried to run out instead of apprehending him. No attempt at all was made to try and capture him alive.

This case just really puts a spotlight on everything wrong with the LAPD and law enforcement as a whole in this country.
 
I think it's just that deep down, most people would have no problem with mob justice. Or at least they think they wouldn't until it was them being hunted down. I think some people watch westerns and salivate at the idea of a posse just rounding up a suspect and putting them to death without any sort of trial or process.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think it's just that deep down, most people would have no problem with mob justice. Or at least they think they wouldn't until it was them being hunted down. I think some people watch westerns and salivate at the idea of a posse just rounding up a suspect and putting them to death without any sort of trial or process.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if I would go that far. How many times have you heard a large population question the death and details, around an accused "cop killer". I mean, this was the poster child for insidious, evil, of the evil, sort of actions based on reports of what he did. Executing police officer's families, hunting them down and taunting them afterwards. Instead, some are calling this guy a martyr, a victim. The fact that there are so many strange questions surrounding this one in particular, I think makes it easier to not go mob justice on it.

The one a while back where a dad walked in to see a family friend molesting his daughter and accidentally beat the guy to death, evokes a very different reaction for me. THAT guy is a hero in my book. I'm not sure enough of the circumstances to call the LAPD "heroes" with this one, especially the innocent people shot, and the countless weird details.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']I doubt heroes would be ones who would be caught on record for calling for "burn the Fker out"[/QUOTE]

To bad that coward had already taken his own life
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't know if I would go that far. How many times have you heard a large population question the death and details, around an accused "cop killer". I mean, this was the poster child for insidious, evil, of the evil, sort of actions based on reports of what he did. Executing police officer's families, hunting them down and taunting them afterwards. Instead, some are calling this guy a martyr, a victim. The fact that there are so many strange questions surrounding this one in particular, I think makes it easier to not go mob justice on it.[/quote]
Or...you know...he could be all those things...even at the same time...

The one a while back where a dad walked in to see a family friend molesting his daughter and accidentally beat the guy to death, evokes a very different reaction for me. THAT guy is a hero in my book. I'm not sure enough of the circumstances to call the LAPD "heroes" with this one, especially the innocent people shot, and the countless weird details.
Click to expand...
Ugh...not this can of worms again. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if people also attached the label of "murderer" as well. I suppose that would make things too complicated for most people and I would hope that you wouldn't be in that category.
 
I'm one of the "don't ever kill the fucker there are always other options" guys on this board but know it would be incredibly difficult to not beat the guy to death that was molesting my child.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']
I can't fault Dorner for fighting even tho it was his last stand, better to die fighting then die being a victim.[/QUOTE]Yikes, talk about posting on hard mode. Arguing that Dorner is any kind of victim so he had to fight is something I wouldn't even touch! Good luck, friend.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Or...you know...he could be all those things...even at the same time...[/QUOTE]

You're right, entirely possible. I really hadn't been following it all that closely until towards the end. I've got some friends who are raving lunatic, tinfoil on head conspiracy theorists, some who are redneck good ole boys, so I get the full spectrum, but not to the point where I'd be willing to average the opinions and assume I've got a good picture. Things that seem clear to me, he felt wrong by the force, maybe validly so. He very likely killed some people as a result. He was on the run, although not sure where. His goal was to expose police corruption. So I'd say he was all of those things, and had varynig levels of success for good and for bad. I won't pretend to have intimate knowlege, it's more me trying to piece together a story based on a few minutes of reading articles here and there.


Ugh...not this can of worms again. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if people also attached the label of "murderer" as well. I suppose that would make things too complicated for most people and I would hope that you wouldn't be in that category.
Click to expand...

I still feel that being a parent heavily shapes your opinion and likely gives you a more emotional response to crimes against children. You dedicate your life to protecting and raising a child, then you hear/see acts that are so viciously against that natural, and basic purpose, and it's hard, if not impossible, to have an emotional response to it. I don't recall the legal defintion for murder, but perhaps the dad's case was/is justifiable homicide? Again, legally speaking, no idea if that exists, or how people who kill another person under circumstances that a jury would find acceptable, get labeled. My label for a person who immediately stops a clear molestation with any level of violence, is "hero". Definitely happy to agree to disagree philosophically on this topic.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Yikes, talk about posting on hard mode. Arguing that Dorner is any kind of victim so he had to fight is something I wouldn't even touch! Good luck, friend.[/QUOTE]

No I am basically saying once you made yourself as the enemy of the state, there is really no peaceful surrenders.

Chances of peaceful surrender is close to none, he saw how cops shot up innocent people just to get him, do you think any rational person would assume a safe surrender.

So he was basically dead already, and you can choose two ways fight till your last breath or accept being put down..

Its no different then people on death row, pretty much p**sies who walk the long walk to their death.. These are hardened killers, rapist, yet they walk to their death without a fight.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']When did you get the autopsy report before us :roll:[/QUOTE]

It's almost safe to assume that he shot himself before hand, who the fuck would want to be burned alive willingly?
 
[quote name='berzirk']I think you don't understand the responsibility and the training that officers are subject to, so as to not endanger the public, while trying to keep them safe.

We're talking about lethal force. You don't assume, and hope you're right. You need to be damn sure that when you're using lethal force, that it is justified, and that you have the ability to carry it out. Clearly they had the ability to carry it out, but also, clearly it was not justified.

It's part of the officer's duty to put themselves in harm's way to protect the public. If they are unable to do that, they need different careers. Officers had no way to disable the vehicle? How bout the dude down the road that shot at them, could he not call ahead and say "take cover and get ready to defend?" This was completely botched by trained professionals. If you're this lax with the duties and failure to perform those duties, from the police here, then I wonder what professions you do hold to a normal standard (it's not a high standard to assume a trained LEO would not open fire on innocent people due to a mistake). It's baffling.

I truly hope you never plan on getting in to law enforcement. Apparently we could all be in danger if you did.[/QUOTE]
Police are not Superman and they're not Judge Dredd, they're human beings. What you are asking them to do is not reasonable. They didn't assume shots were fired, there were. They didn't assume the truck was rapidly accelerating at them, it was. They didn't assume there was a highly trained murderer trying to kill police officers guarding the targets on his hit list, there was, and he had done so only hours earlier. They had every reason to believe they were in mortal danger. The situation they were placed in should have never, ever, ever happened but once it did you can not ignore the errors by other officers that got them there.
 
The day's light was fading when the SWAT officers decided they could wait no longer for Christopher Dorner to surrender.

Dorner, the fired Los Angeles cop suspected of killing four people in a campaign of revenge, had been holed up in a cabin near Big Bear Lake for hours, trading gunfire with San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies. Repeated calls over a loudspeaker for him to surrender went ignored. Attempts to flush him out with tear gas led nowhere.

Wanting to end the standoff before nightfall, members of the sheriff's SWAT unit enacted a plan they had devised for a final assault on the cabin, according to law enforcement sources.

Multiple sources, who were at the scene and asked that their names not be used because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said the decision to use the incendiary gas canisters came amid mounting concern that time and options were running out.

Dorner, they said, had not communicated with police at any point during the siege and had continued to fire off rounds at them with high-caliber weapons. "Any time they moved, this guy was shooting," one source said. Bringing large floodlights into the area was deemed too dangerous and police worried Dorner might have night-vision goggles that would soon give him an advantage.

When they eventually moved in with the demolition vehicle and began to get glimpses into the cabin as the walls were torn down, Dorner's whereabouts and condition were unknown. On the radio transmission, one officer describes seeing blood splattered inside the cabin and then another reports hearing a single gunshot being fired, raising the possibility that Dorner may have killed himself before the fire engulfed the cabin.

Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha, was critical of the decision to use the "burner" tear gas canisters.

"It's true, he was firing at them. But he was cornered. He was trapped. At that point, there was no rush in the sense that he was barricaded. The standard rules on barricade situations are that you can wait the person out," Walker said. "To use a known incendiary device raises some very serious questions in my mind."

Other law enforcement experts interviewed by The Times, however, said the move was justified. Even though SWAT officers were certain to have known a fire was a strong possibility, the use of the gas was reasonable in the face of the deadly threat Dorner presented, they said. Allowing the standoff to carry on into the night, they emphasized, would have added an unpredictable element to the drama that officials were smart to avoid.

"What difference does it make if one of the officers puts a … round in his head, drives the armored vehicle over his body when they are knocking the building down, or he dies in a conflagration?" said David Klinger, a use-of-force expert at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and a former LAPD officer. "If he is trying to surrender you can't do any of those things … But if he is actively trying to murder people, there's no doubt that deadly force is appropriate and it doesn't matter what method is used to deliver it."

Geoffery Alpert, a professor at the University of South Carolina who also specializes in police tactics, agreed.

"I don't understand what the big deal is," Alpert said. "This man had already shot two officers and was suspected of murdering other people. He wasn't responding in a rational manner. The actions you take have to remove the threat and if it requires extreme measures, then so be it."
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dorner-fire-20130215,0,5831477.story
 
The fact that that last quote comes from a professor and expert on police use of force is disappointing to me - the last sentence in particular. That's the same kind of approach that led to the MOVE bombing (yes, bombing) in Philadelphia in the mid-1980's.

Justifying use of force after the fact is too easy to do, anyone can bold quotes from a news article to support their view. The only rational argument in the article above is to try to end the standoff before nightfall - but that's not a very well-formed argument, to be fair. Reminds me of the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, TX, many decades ago.
 
Hey guys take a read at this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/legal-loophole-1m-dorner-reward-paid/story?id=18506414

Apparently this is why I do not trust cops or the legal system to be keep their word.

They pull this same shit with the Osama thing too

Apparently if people need to be paid before reporting a criminal, we as a society basically have no morals or standards.

OH YEA AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY THE COPS/GOV'T KILL THE GUY INSTEAD....
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Police are not Superman and they're not Judge Dredd, they're human beings. What you are asking them to do is not reasonable. They didn't assume shots were fired, there were. They didn't assume the truck was rapidly accelerating at them, it was. They didn't assume there was a highly trained murderer trying to kill police officers guarding the targets on his hit list, there was, and he had done so only hours earlier. They had every reason to believe they were in mortal danger. The situation they were placed in should have never, ever, ever happened but once it did you can not ignore the errors by other officers that got them there.[/QUOTE]

Again, I think you know nothing of law enforcement. It doesn't take Superman to do your job and protect the safety of citizens. It takes a trained LEO. If anyone else started shooting first and asked questions last, they would be in jail right now. Since they're cops, we just call it an honest mistake, tell the victims "sorry our guys almost killed you, let's be friends" and move on. It's naive, it's uninformed, and it lowers expectations for all professionals in every industry.

Police caused the initial situation (shots fired) and then caused the follow up (shooting at a car full of innocent people trying to get away from a madman in a uniform shooting at them).
 
[quote name='berzirk']Again, I think you know nothing of law enforcement. It doesn't take Superman to do your job and protect the safety of citizens. It takes a trained LEO. If anyone else started shooting first and asked questions last, they would be in jail right now. Since they're cops, we just call it an honest mistake, tell the victims "sorry our guys almost killed you, let's be friends" and move on. It's naive, it's uninformed, and it lowers expectations for all professionals in every industry.

Police caused the initial situation (shots fired) and then caused the follow up (shooting at a car full of innocent people trying to get away from a madman in a uniform shooting at them).[/QUOTE]
So essentially what you're saying is that trained law enforcement officers should never trust the judgement of other trained law enforcement officers when they have determined that lethal force is necessary? If you knew anything about law enforcement you'd understand the extraordinary circumstances required for an officer to ever discharge his weapon.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Pretty much what I said all along...

Self Inflicted[/QUOTE]

It only counts as "I told you so" if people disagree with what you say.

I saw no disagreement, but I did see a lot of people who said "let's wait to get more info."

But, sure, pat yourself on the back for what everybody else already thought was the case anyway. I wake up every morning jumping up and down, telling my wife "THE SUN CAME UP! THE SUN CAME UP! TOLD YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!"
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Pretty much what I said all along...

Self Inflicted[/QUOTE]

At the point one believes (for better or worse) that Dorner was some kind of anti-hero and that the conspiracy was really that deep... why would anyone believe what the Sheriff or any other government official says about the outcome of the case?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']At the point one believes (for better or worse) that Dorner was some kind of anti-hero and that the conspiracy was really that deep... why would anyone believe what the Sheriff or any other government official says about the outcome of the case?[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't get that either. Especially if one believes the cabin was set on fire intentionally.
 
I think it was that department store shooting thread where this was last discussed, but this weekend I again saw this town using police as security for businesses. Once was the police out patrolling and walking Wal-Mart's parking lot, which I've seen lots of times. The other was at the local theater, they had three in uniform police inside the local theater, and one was tearing fucking tickets for people while the theater guy went to the bathroom.

Wtf is this shit? I'm helping to pay for these places to have in uniform police security now? fucking bullshit.
 
Not necessarily. Businesses can hire off-duty police if they need additional security. You don't think taxpayers are on the hook for all the officers on duty at a pro sports game, do you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not necessarily. Businesses can hire off-duty police if they need additional security. You don't think taxpayers are on the hook for all the officers on duty at a pro sports game, do you?[/QUOTE]
At least in the case of Wal-Mart, they're in their police cars. Granted they could be off duty, but that raises the other question of why they're in their police cars. I'd also assume that if they're in full uniform (like at the theater) they'd be on duty, but I could be wrong about that. Seems like it would be misrepresenting what they're doing though.

But no, I'm well aware that police moon light as security some times, but I don't think they're allowed to use the city's resources in the process.
 
Probably be better served checking with your local officials on that one than asking random folks on CAG. Varies by city (unsure if there are any state-wide laws regarding this). Not at all uncommon for municipalities to allow officers to wear their uniform while "off duty" (generally, officers are never truly "off duty" and still have the rights and authority of an officer even while "off the clock"). Additionally, and again, this varies by municipality, officers are allowed to use the squad car as a personal vehicle while "off the clock" - and different municipalities have different rules regarding paying for mileage/wear-and-tear/gas.

I'd be interested in hearing what you find out about your city officers if you do look into it.
 
That's precisely how my city does it, Bob. As long as you're within the city, the fuel is on the city. The trade off of having more police visible, especially at the high crime areas that usually pay the off duty officers, is a bonus deterrent to bad guys. Our fire dept gives city "take home" cars to chiefs and certain officers also. Some of them live a good hour or more away from our city. It comes to a huge cost for the city, especially with the rising gas prices.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']So essentially what you're saying is that trained law enforcement officers should never trust the judgement of other trained law enforcement officers when they have determined that lethal force is necessary? If you knew anything about law enforcement you'd understand the extraordinary circumstances required for an officer to ever discharge his weapon.[/QUOTE]

If the cops instructions were to shoot at any vehicle that matched the description, then yes, they would have followed a dumb-ass order.

Clearly you have watched too many movies, read a couple of Tom Clancy books, or some other fantasy work, because you still don't understand the level of responsibility these guys have, the fact that their job description is unique in that in the course of duty, killing a person can be what they are expected to do, and conversely, not killing people is also a reasonable expectation.

I'm fairly well-informed with respect to local and federal law enforcement practices and training. I've never heard from training and officers that they are supposed to shoot at cars because they think a dangerous bad guy might be in them. They aren't trained to shoot at what might happen, they're trained to shoot at what is happening. That's why they put their lives at risk to protect the general public. It's clear that I'm debating this point with someone who is woefully unaware, so feel free to have the last word on it, I won't offer a rebuttal, and you can keep thinking that cops shooting at innocent people cause they thought they were bad guys is acceptable.

Just hope you're not the "innocent people" someday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top