Dial 911 and Die?
Spimby
- - From the Associated Press...1/16/96
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A man who stood in his doorway with a shotgun
after calling 911 for help was shot in the chest by a sheriff's
deputy responding to the call.
``I started to holler, `You shot me! I'm the one who called
911!''' Dale Morris, 30, said Sunday from his hospital bed. ``I was
scared of dying.''
A nursing supervisor said Monday that Morris had been released.
Morris called 911 Saturday afternoon and told the dispatcher he
needed protection from two men who beat him and ransacked his home.
Deputy Jeff Gibson fired when Morris appeared with the gun.
``Gibson goes there and doesn't know what to expect or what it
could be,'' said Jack Espinosa, spokesman for the Hillsborough
County sheriff. ``When he gets to the gate, the guy comes to the
door with a shotgun ... and points at the deputy.''
Morris denied pointing the gun. He said he had it because his
brother-in-law and another man attacked him and threaten to kill
him.
Police believe Morris was threatened, but not attacked.
Careful out there...
Spimby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBMPwVw528KlPUz6rFAQFI+AMAohOEdNJIkQnMJN7zyvrXBZVDO2jdeM61
/VvXCFgCbFSeh5X5okmLCYvxUdY6kkIacoBZINuu3Yfyct9YlKnrdsjffzdRSiyY
/EVJHFjSNYTVwrHpb4DLoYyTls46uA0t
=S8Wb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve D. Fischer
Francis A. Ney, Jr. <cro...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>
>In article <an168742-160...@slip-44-4.ots.utexas.edu> an16...@anon.penet.fi writes:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> - - From the Associated Press...1/16/96
>>
>>
>> TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A man who stood in his doorway with a shotgun
>> after calling 911 for help was shot in the chest by a sheriff's
>> deputy responding to the call.
>> ``I started to holler, `You shot me! I'm the one who called
>> 911!''' Dale Morris, 30, said Sunday from his hospital bed. ``I was
>> scared of dying.''
>> A nursing supervisor said Monday that Morris had been released.
>> Morris called 911 Saturday afternoon and told the dispatcher he
>> needed protection from two men who beat him and ransacked his home.
>> Deputy Jeff Gibson fired when Morris appeared with the gun.
>> ``Gibson goes there and doesn't know what to expect or what it
>> could be,'' said Jack Espinosa, spokesman for the Hillsborough
>> County sheriff. ``When he gets to the gate, the guy comes to the
>> brother-in-law and another man attacked him and threaten to kill
>> him.
>> Police believe Morris was threatened, but not attacked.
>>
>> Careful out there...
>>
>> Spimby
>>
>
>Why bother calling the cops? They're not obligated to do jack, anyway.
This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes
than cops. Private citizens witness hostile acts and react accordingly. The
cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast at the first sign of
danger.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> - - From the Associated Press...1/16/96
>
>
> TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A man who stood in his doorway with a shotgun
> after calling 911 for help was shot in the chest by a sheriff's
> deputy responding to the call.
> ``I started to holler, `You shot me! I'm the one who called
> 911!''' Dale Morris, 30, said Sunday from his hospital bed. ``I was
> scared of dying.''
> A nursing supervisor said Monday that Morris had been released.
> Morris called 911 Saturday afternoon and told the dispatcher he
> needed protection from two men who beat him and ransacked his home.
> Deputy Jeff Gibson fired when Morris appeared with the gun.
> ``Gibson goes there and doesn't know what to expect or what it
> could be,'' said Jack Espinosa, spokesman for the Hillsborough
> County sheriff. ``When he gets to the gate, the guy comes to the
> door with a shotgun ... and points [it] at the deputy.''
> Morris denied pointing the gun. He said he had it because his
> brother-in-law and another man attacked him and threaten to kill
> him.
> Police believe Morris was threatened, but not attacked.
>
> Careful out there...
>
> Spimby
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQB1AwUBMPwVw528KlPUz6rFAQFI+AMAohOEdNJIkQnMJN7zyvrXBZVDO2jdeM61
> /VvXCFgCbFSeh5X5okmLCYvxUdY6kkIacoBZINuu3Yfyct9YlKnrdsjffzdRSiyY
> /EVJHFjSNYTVwrHpb4DLoYyTls46uA0t
> =S8Wb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Once again, gun = bad guy = shoot to kill.
Why bother calling the cops? They're not obligated to do jack, anyway.
---
Frank Ney EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA LEAA JPFO 'M-O-U-S-E'
Sponsor, BATF Abuse Page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
"A wise man once pointed out that the American eagle eats carrion, never picks
on anything its own size and will soon be extinct. That being so, perhaps
Americans ought to select a symbol more in keeping with their current
condition, like a milked cow, a sheared sheep, a plucked chicken, or a
slaughtered steer."
- L. Neil Smith, speaking as W.W. Curringer, _Pallas_
Earl Faubion
>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>mistakes than cops.
Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
If some one points a shotgun at you are you going to question his motives or
just stand there and die?
>The cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast at the first
>sign of danger.
A shotgun pointed at your chest is more than just a "sign" of danger.
Dean L Scoville
writes:
>>Once again, gun = bad guy = shoot to kill.
>>
>>Why bother calling the cops? They're not obligated to do jack,
anyway.
>
> This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have
been
>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
mistakes
>than cops. Private citizens witness hostile acts and react
accordingly. The
>cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast at the first
sign of
>danger.
>
>
I'd question the intellect - if not the motives - of a man who calls
the cops and answers their response gun-in-hand. Having been met by
weapon-wielding informants, I can say it's very disconcerting. Thus
far, I haven't shot one of them, though. If the informant was going to
arm himself pending the police response, he should have indicated such
to the dispatcher. The dispatcher could have kept him on the line and
advised the man when the cop arrived outside his home, or, the officer,
upon arriving, could have had his desk call the man back and then
communicated his arrival to him. If the man did alert the dispatcher
to this fact, then shame on the Department; if not, shame on the man.
In light of the call's nature, coupled with the man's own apparent
anticipation that the two suspects had shown up and he needed the
shotgun to confront them, is it unreasonable that the cop might have
made the inference that the person greeting him with a gun may be one
of the assailants who might have arrived at the location before him?
Under the circumstances, it's hard to play twenty questions when you're
under the gun. Twice in the past year, cops have been shot and killed
while checking the welfare of persons whose actions/requests
precipitated their response; any manner of call can be initiated by
someone idiot intent on killing an officer. These are valid concerns
of any cop wanting to finish his shift. These concerns are only a few
a cop has to deliberate in half a second before taking some kind of
decisive action. Sometimes, the half-second is too long, and the cop
gets killed. The fact remains that it was foolish for the man to do
what he did. In using the scenario above, I could take any critic
herein and make him look foolish, either by playing the scene out so
that he shoots the "innocent informant", or gets shot by an
"assailant." The fact remains that no one that has commented on this
shooting - including myself - was there. We don't know if the
informant's gun was pointed or not. We don't know if the shooting
affected the officer or not (it sure as hell did the informant). I
don't labor under the delusion that I'll change any of the profession's
critics herein, but I'll not suffer fools silently, either. Boy, I
would love to see how some of you Monday-morning Q.B's would do out
there...
Guy E Wheelock
Also; someone in the chain of events screwed up. Either the homeowner didn't
tell 911 that there was an ARMED HOWEOWNER at the scene or 911 didn't pass
the info on to the cop... (This is a VERY important data item in any call
for police assistance - a life & [almost] death one in this case)
Steve D. Fischer
>> his is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>>mistakes than cops. Private citizens witness hostile acts and react
>>accordingly. The cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast
>>at the first sign of danger.
>I'd question the intellect - if not the motives - of a man who calls
>the cops and answers their response gun-in-hand.
Sometimes you have no choice. What if you're holding a burglar for
the police?
> Having been met by
>weapon-wielding informants, I can say it's very disconcerting. Thus
>far, I haven't shot one of them, though. If the informant was going to
>arm himself pending the police response, he should have indicated such
>to the dispatcher. The dispatcher could have kept him on the line and
>advised the man when the cop arrived outside his home, or, the officer,
>upon arriving, could have had his desk call the man back and then
>communicated his arrival to him. If the man did alert the dispatcher
>to this fact, then shame on the Department; if not, shame on the man.
True, I'd definitely call in a description of myself and what weapon
I was holding and insist that the dispatcher give that description to
the officers on the scene. I don't think I'd be standing in a doorway
either.
I would have at least tried to ask the man who he was (from behind
cover) before I started shooting.
P. J.!!!
>> him.
>> Police believe Morris was threatened, but not attacked.
>>
>> Careful out there...
>>
>> Spimby
>>
>> Version: 2.6.2
>>
>> iQB1AwUBMPwVw528KlPUz6rFAQFI+AMAohOEdNJIkQnMJN7zyvrXBZVDO2jdeM61
>> /VvXCFgCbFSeh5X5okmLCYvxUdY6kkIacoBZINuu3Yfyct9YlKnrdsjffzdRSiyY
>> /EVJHFjSNYTVwrHpb4DLoYyTls46uA0t
>> =S8Wb
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>Why bother calling the cops? They're not obligated to do jack,
anyway.
>
>
>Frank Ney EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA LEAA JPFO 'M-O-U-S-E'
>Sponsor, BATF Abuse Page
http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
>"A wise man once pointed out that the American eagle eats carrion,
never picks
>on anything its own size and will soon be extinct. That being so,
perhaps
>Americans ought to select a symbol more in keeping with their current
>condition, like a milked cow, a sheared sheep, a plucked chicken, or a
>slaughtered steer."
> - L. Neil Smith, speaking as W.W. Curringer, _Pallas_
>
What he should have done was shot the cop first!! and then plant the
gun on a nigger
Fred Willms
[ butt smooching the boys in blue deleted ]
: Boy, I would love to see how some of you Monday-morning Q.B's would do out
: there...
If I understand you correctly, you postulate that you can find
a way to defend the cop's actions regardless of circumstances?
Hmmmm. I wonder why you aren't willing to expend the same
effort for the citizen.
Seems to me the cop should have fully ascertained the situation
before firing (you would expect that of the citizen, no?).
Give a person a badge and a gun and they think they are something
special. Personally, if I passed a cop burning up in a fire I don't
think I'd take the time to stop and piss on 'em to put it out.
Think I have a bad attitude? Let me help you understand why:
"You're just going to have to learn to live with it . . ."
Bob Sobba - current Idaho CLEO and former police chief of Caldwell
commenting on gang activity and vandalism in my former neighborhood.
"Yeh, you and everybody else in town would like that."
Bob Sobba - current Idaho CLEO and former police chief of Caldwell
commenting on my request for extra patrols in the neighborhood.
"Looks like someone hit it with a baseball bat."
City police officer commenting on a destroyed mailbox - until I
pointed the powder burns out to him.
"I'm going to have to confiscate this assault weapon."
ISP officer to an aquaintance while confiscating a ruger 10/22 as part
of a traffic stop for a moving violation. Did I mention that he
cycled the action with the muzzle directed inside the passenger
compartment of the vehicle? Oh, did I forget to mention
he forgot to remove the fully loaded magazine before cycling the action?
Did I mention that they dropped all charges providing no lawsuit would
be brought against the ISP (I knew blowing cigar smoke in the guy's
face would piss him off, but Jeff's kind of like that - some BS about
delaying and obstructing)?
Cops -- We'd probably be better off without them. I'm sure there
are some good one's out there, but I wouldn't bet my life on one
of them showing up when I needed them (and I don't :{)>).
--
Fred Willms
My opinions are strictly my own.
abusus non tollit usum
(misuse does not invalidate proper use)
P. J.!!!
>
> This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have
been
>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
mistakes
>than cops. Private citizens witness hostile acts and react
accordingly. The
>cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast at the first
sign of
>danger.
>
>
people feel rich! 90% of todays middle aged people HATE the police,
look at the corruption. the crimes police do, and the hypocrisy,,its
time for a change and W.A.R. is coming to a city near y0ou
visit us at
http://www.geopages.com/capitolhill/1896
and see what YOU can do to make the Movie premier near YOU!!!
Scout
>
>In article <4dmoub$7...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com says...
>
>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>>mistakes than cops.
>
Sorry, but the training the police are required to have, is actually
quite minimal. I would say a lot more private gun owners are better
qualified than the police.
It could also be that private citizens are usually less likely to fire
on anything other than a clearly threating target.
It could also be that police are require to confront criminals and
attempt to make them obey the law.
Most likely, it's some of all of these.
>If some one points a shotgun at you are you going to question his motives or
>just stand there and die?
Excuse me. The original post was unclear if the shotgun was pointed
at the cop. Personally, I would find it unlikely, but possible. The
fact is, that no clear evidence exists.
>>The cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast at the first
>>sign of danger.
>
>A shotgun pointed at your chest is more than just a "sign" of danger.
>
It is. However the original post, was inconclusive about if the shotgun
was actually pointed at the officer in question. It still doesn't
answer why the 'highly trained professional' chose to fire first, rather
than duck behind cover and scream for the man to drop the weapon.
Earl Faubion
>>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
>Sorry, but the training the police are required to have, is actually
>quite minimal.
Excuse me? I AM a police and the training is quite stringent. Twice a year
requal with the sidearm and at least once a year with the shotgun regardless
whether we carry one or not. No qualify, no ride the streets, period. Now,
what are your qualifications?
>I would say a lot more private gun owners are better
>qualified than the police.
Better qualified to do what? Any idiot can squeeze a trigger... gangs are
proof of that. The real training comes in knowing when to shoot and when to
not.
>It could also be that private citizens are usually less likely to fire
>on anything other than a clearly threating target.
And they're dead. End of story.
Let me tell you a little story... a true one. A few years ago my department
invited any and all takers to take a whirl at our FireArms Training
Simulator (FATS) and several local reporters accepted the challenge. Some of
them were quite handy with a firearm. To make a long story short, each and
every one was killed, but not before they blew away a record number of good
guys and children. No or little training equals disaster, pure and simple.
>It could also be that police are require to confront criminals and
>attempt to make them obey the law.
Survival is paramount. Your lack of training is really beginning to show.
>Excuse me. The original post was unclear if the shotgun was pointed
>at the cop.
No, you don't understand. YOU are there, a gun is pointed at you. Are you
going to worry about what the bad guy tells the press later or are you going
to try and avert an early funeral for yourself. I dare say in the same
situaton we'd be reading about you in the obits.
>It is. However the original post, was inconclusive about if the shotgun
>was actually pointed at the officer in question.
Why would the officer fire if it wasn't?
>It still doesn't
>answer why the 'highly trained professional' chose to fire first, rather
>than duck behind cover and scream for the man to drop the weapon.
Let me point a shotgun at you and see what you do. You shoot me first or
you die.
>
Earl Faubion
>I would have at least tried to ask the man who he was (from behind
>cover) before I started shooting.
BOOM.... you're dead.
Next?
Earl Faubion
>>BOOM.... you're dead.
>He's behind cover, not concealment.
He was THINKING about getting behind cover when he should have been
shooting. He's dead.
Julius Chang
efau...@ionet.net (Earl Faubion) wrote:
>In article <4dok17$o...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com says...
>
>>cover) before I started shooting.
>
He's behind cover, not concealment.
-Julius
Keith Wood
[>>Once again, gun = bad guy = shoot to kill.
[>>
[>>Why bother calling the cops? They're not obligated to do jack,
[>>anyway.
[
[> his is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
[>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
[>mistakes than cops. Private citizens witness hostile acts and react
[>accordingly. The cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast
[>at the first sign of danger.
[
[
[I'd question the intellect - if not the motives - of a man who calls
[the cops and answers their response gun-in-hand.
I question the intellect of a cop who opens fire when he sees someone holding a
gun. This is how undercover cops get killed.
[ Having been met by
[weapon-wielding informants, I can say it's very disconcerting.
Why? Should informants be disconcerted by weapon-wielding cops?
[> Thus
[>far, I haven't shot one of them, though. If the informant was going to
[>arm himself pending the police response, he should have indicated such
[>to the dispatcher.
AGREED!
[>The fact remains that no one that has commented on this
[>shooting - including myself - was there. We don't know if the
[>informant's gun was pointed or not.
But you're going to automatically assume that the cop was justified in shooting
the man he was supposed to be coming to the defense of.
[>I don't labor under the delusion that I'll change any of the profession's
[>critics herein, but I'll not suffer fools silently, either.
Are you saying that there is no room for criticism of cops?
[>Boy, I
[>would love to see how some of you Monday-morning Q.B's would do out
[>there...
Some of us understand complicated phrases like "behind cover" and "be sure of
your target." Some of us can identify the difference between a doe and a young
"spike" buck at 100 yards, knowing that there's only a second to decide whether
to take the shot or not.
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
===============================================================
Scout
>
>In article <4dphnk$s...@news1.mnsinc.com>, sc...@sma.com says...
>
>>>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
>
>>Sorry, but the training the police are required to have, is actually
>>quite minimal.
>
>Excuse me? I AM a police and the training is quite stringent. Twice a year
>requal with the sidearm and at least once a year with the shotgun regardless
>whether we carry one or not. No qualify, no ride the streets, period. Now,
>what are your qualifications?
NRA Certifided, Handgun 50-100 rounds per month. Rifle about
20-40 rounds per month, Shotgun about once every other month Skeet
and trap (shotgun shells shot vary widely)
How many rounds are you required to fire, and what percentage do you
have to achieve with those rounds?
I'm not saying that any particular officer isn't gualified, just
that the standards set are in virtually all localities I'm aware of
are in my opinion quite minimal. Not all officers by any means limit
themselves to just meeting these standards, but on the other hand
many do. I think the police reguirements should require range time
each month, with combat shooting courses at least once a year.
>>I would say a lot more private gun owners are better
>>qualified than the police.
>
>Better qualified to do what? Any idiot can squeeze a trigger... gangs are
>proof of that. The real training comes in knowing when to shoot and when to
>not.
Which it seems the private citizen is better qualified to do than the
police. Fewer cases of wrongful self defense shootings with a
greater population of people. QED. However, the police do have
different conditions placed upon them as a part of their job. It would
be wrong to forget that.
>>It could also be that private citizens are usually less likely to fire
>>on anything other than a clearly threating target.
>
>And they're dead. End of story.
Sometimes. However the law that governs self defense shooting requires
that a clear and immediate threat exist. Are the police governed by
less demanding standards, despite your claim of greater training?
I would think that having had such trainging would demand, if anything,
higher standards to be set for the police.
To help prevent cases such as occured in this instance.
>Let me tell you a little story... a true one. A few years ago my department
>invited any and all takers to take a whirl at our FireArms Training
>Simulator (FATS) and several local reporters accepted the challenge. Some of
>them were quite handy with a firearm. To make a long story short, each and
>every one was killed, but not before they blew away a record number of good
>guys and children. No or little training equals disaster, pure and simple.
Agreed. I would assume that the conditions recreated law enforcement
situtations rather than self defense conditions. How many officers
who take this test for the first time record similar numbers? Despite
their training?
>>It could also be that police are require to confront criminals and
>>attempt to make them obey the law.
>
>Survival is paramount. Your lack of training is really beginning to show.
Agreed, however that is followed very closely with protecting the
innocent. That is also why I included this in the conditions that
would give police a higher rate of wrongful shootings. Becuase they
are required to go into situations that most people would have the
sense to avoid, if possible. Since people do tend to consider survival
highly, in such situations wrongful shootings are more likely to
occur. Do you contest this?
>>Excuse me. The original post was unclear if the shotgun was pointed
>>at the cop.
>
>No, you don't understand. YOU are there, a gun is pointed at you. Are you
>going to worry about what the bad guy tells the press later or are you going
>to try and avert an early funeral for yourself. I dare say in the same
>situaton we'd be reading about you in the obits.
or the gun was never pointed, and you have a cop trying to dig his
way out of a wrongful shooting. The point remains we don't KNOW.
We have two people saying two different things, without additional
witnesses or outside evidence it's just one person's word against
another's. To support either person without further evidence is
a mistake. Either could be as likely to be telling the truth as
lying. It's also possible that both think they're right in their claims
due to the situation. We don't know, and without further evidence we
may never know.
>>It is. However the original post, was inconclusive about if the shotgun
>>was actually pointed at the officer in question.
>
>Why would the officer fire if it wasn't?
Stress, wrongful reaction to the sight of the shotgun, ect. We
don't know. We have only the word of the officer doing the
shooting that the shotgun was pointed at him. This isn't enough
to declare him inncent or guilty of a wrongful shooting. Until
further evidence is developed, I can't accept the bare word of either
party.
>>It still doesn't
>>answer why the 'highly trained professional' chose to fire first, rather
>>than duck behind cover and scream for the man to drop the weapon.
>
>Let me point a shotgun at you and see what you do. You shoot me first or
>you die.
>
Accepted, however with paintball guns instead. When and where. I assume
identical conditions as the officer in question faced. In fact to make
it fair, you will attempt to shoot me when I appear. Assume shot gun at
port quarters.
A Traveler of the Orion Spiral Arm
>In article <4dmoub$7...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com says...
>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>>mistakes than cops.
>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
A) Who said it had anything to do with training? Part of it
has to do with the fact that the police usually show up
in the middle of things instead of at the beginning, and
hence may not have as good an idea of what's going on.
B) Most American firearm owners are quite knowledgeable about
their weapons, at least as much as the police.
C) Whatever the cause may be...can't argue with results!
>If some one points a shotgun at you are you going to question his motives or
>just stand there and die?
>A shotgun pointed at your chest is more than just a "sign" of danger.
Earl, let me refresh your memory. The police say the homeowner
pointed the shotgun. The homeowner says he did not. We don't really
know which is true. But it's interesting how you assume the police
must be the ones telling the truth.
JD
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in
peace. We seek not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the
hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
Dean L Scoville
fwillms@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Fred Willms) writes:
>
>Dean L Scoville (comi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>[ butt smooching the boys in blue deleted ]
Quaint intro. Inapplicable, but catching....
>
>: Boy, I would love to see how some of you Monday-morning Q.B's would
do out
>: there...
>
>If I understand you correctly,
You don't...
>you postulate that you can find
>a way to defend the cop's actions regardless of circumstances?
>
Ergo, this non-sequitur provokes little more than hostility.
>Hmmmm. I wonder why you aren't willing to expend the same
>effort for the citizen.
More imbecility. Hopefully, repetition will help the reading-impaired:
"If he did (say that he was waiting with a gun), shame on the
department...") Yes, I did say that in my initial post. Yep, it's
there. No doubt about it. So, another non-sequitur.
>
>Seems to me the cop should have fully ascertained the situation
>before firing (you would expect that of the citizen, no?).
>
In the time alloted, he may have. Kind of like you should have
carefully read my post in the considerable time alloted before going
off half-cocked...
>Give a person a badge and a gun and they think they are something
>special.
>Personally, if I passed a cop burning up in a fire I don't
>think I'd take the time to stop and piss on 'em to put it out.
>
Well, at least we know where you'r coming from - and going to (better
save some of that piss for yourself)
>Think I have a bad attitude? Let me help you understand why:
>
More illuminating reflections on cops geographically
near-but-not-so-dear to Fred's life. Tell you what, Fred. If I held
every transgression ever made against me against people mirroring the
transgressor in terms of sex, race, religious-sexual-political
affiliation, there'd be damn few people I'd like, either. Fortunately,
I try to save my animus for idiots that go out of their way to earn it.
People such as yourself. Whatever your reservations re: Bob Sobba,
they have no pertinence to this topic. Unless one day you happen to
one dial 911 and Bob picks up the phone, then they'll probably be lots
o' relevancy...
>Cops -- We'd probably be better off without them.
Sounds like a good campaign slogan. Like, "Orange Juice: It's not just
for breakfast anymore" However, it's a point we arguably agree upon.
I would happilly exchange my vocation for peace of mind and the
knowledge that I may walk down any street at any hour without
reservation. But until that day comes, I'll continue to be that
penultimate necessary evil...
>--
>Fred Willms
>
> My opinions are strictly my own.
God, were it only true...
Nosy
< What he should have done was shot the cop first!! and then plant the
< gun on a nigger
Well, well, well, well.
Our little resident cop-hating moron is also a racist.
Gosh, *what* a surprise that is.
firebug
Earl Faubion <efau...@ionet.net> wrote:
>In article <4dmoub$7...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com says...
>
>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>>mistakes than cops.
>
>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
Why do you always refuse to argue with facts, logic, and the relevant
information?
Police shoot the wrong person more often because they rarely witness the
entire incident. A man being mugged knows damn well who to shoot. An officer
who drives by and sees two men pointing guns at each other doesn't know who
to shoot.
When did training come into this?
>If some one points a shotgun at you are you going to question his motives or
>just stand there and die?
We do not know whether he was pointing the shotgun at police. They claim he
was, he claims he wasn't.
>>The cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast at the first
>>sign of danger.
>
>A shotgun pointed at your chest is more than just a "sign" of danger.
Do you always blindly believe with the police's claims?
Nosy
<In article <4dok17$o...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com says...
<>I would have at least tried to ask the man who he was (from behind
<>cover) before I started shooting.
<BOOM.... you're dead.
He wrote "cover" not "concealment" and the guy had a shotgun,
not an anti-tank rifle.
<Next?
Faubion seems to be having a bit of trouble, here...
Nosy
< -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
< - - From the Associated Press...1/16/96
< TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A man who stood in his doorway with a shotgun
< after calling 911 for help was shot in the chest by a sheriff's
< deputy responding to the call.
< ``I started to holler, `You shot me! I'm the one who called
< 911!''' Dale Morris, 30, said Sunday from his hospital bed. ``I was
< scared of dying.''
< A nursing supervisor said Monday that Morris had been released.
< Morris called 911 Saturday afternoon and told the dispatcher he
< needed protection from two men who beat him and ransacked his home.
< Deputy Jeff Gibson fired when Morris appeared with the gun.
< ``Gibson goes there and doesn't know what to expect or what it
< could be,'' said Jack Espinosa, spokesman for the Hillsborough
< County sheriff. ``When he gets to the gate, the guy comes to the
< door with a shotgun ... and points at the deputy.''
< Morris denied pointing the gun. He said he had it because his
< brother-in-law and another man attacked him and threaten to kill
< him.
< Police believe Morris was threatened, but not attacked.
< Careful out there...
This may be a classic "oops" shooting, or it may be
carelessness on the part of the deputy. Or both. The
information is too sparse to reach a conclusion.
Morris should have described himself to the dispatcher,
included the fact that he was armed with a shotgun,
and sat tight in a secured location; this is part
of "having a plan for a bad situation".
The deputy may have charged into the situation too fast,
might have waited for backup, might have been startled
by Morris suddenly appearing. Then again, we don't know
how the situation was described by the dispatcher.
It is good that Morris survived, regardless.
Nosy
< > TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A man who stood in his doorway with a shotgun
< > after calling 911 for help was shot in the chest by a sheriff's
< > deputy responding to the call.
[snip]
< Once again, gun = bad guy = shoot to kill.
Obviously not the case; Morris survived, didn't he?
< Why bother calling the cops?
Sooner or later they are going to be involved. If someone
were threatening me, I'd call them early and often if
for no other reason than to build up a clear record
of "who started this" for future use in court.
Ayoob wrote a column in a recent "American Handgunner"
about mistakes that can put one in jail; not reporting
harassment in one case led to a bad result after a self
defense shooting.
< They're not obligated to do jack, anyway.
True enough, but if they wind up being called to the scene
to do the "crime janitor" job, it would be prudent to
tell them what you look like so they don't mistake you for
one of the bad guys...
Larry Bolin
writes:
>
>In article <4ds6u6$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
>
>>>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have
been
>>>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer
shooting
>>>>mistakes than cops.
>
>>>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
>
>>Why do you always refuse to argue with facts, logic, and the relevant
>>information?
>
>Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you
insinuate less
>training is better. Why?
>
>>Police shoot the wrong person more often because they rarely witness
the
>>entire incident.
>
RIGHT
>people?
>
>
I hope we can bring a little civility to this dialogue on both sides of
the issue.
In my memory, I remember when police were called peace officers, not
law ENFORCEMENT officers.
I can remember when there was a politeness that was extended to peace
officers and inturn politeness was extended to the bosses of peace
officers - We the People.
Now there seems to be a military squint to the police throughout the
country. For instance, where I live a Sherriff's department has been
awarded "The Best in Tactical Operations". Doesn't this send like a
military operation?
Further in my state, all public officials who occupy an office for
honor or profit are required to swear an oath to uphold the united
States Constitution and the Georgia Constitution, "so help me God!".
In the state constitution there is a clause under Article I; section
II; paragraph V which reads, "Legislative acts in violation of this
Constitution or the Constitution of the United States are void," Now
if public officials in your state has a clause similar to my state how
can a law that does not harm or injure or defraud another of his life,
liberty, or pursuit of happiness be LAWFULLY enforced and an oath be
upheld?
Nosy
< In article <4ds6u6$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
< >>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
< >>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
< >>>mistakes than cops.
< >>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
< >Why do you always refuse to argue with facts, logic, and the relevant
< >information?
< Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cop."
An accurate statement, by the way.
< Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you insinuate less
< training is better.
Faubion ASSUMES that the "problem" to be "solved" by police
officers is the same "problem" that citizens must "solve".
Is that assumption justified?
< >Police shoot the wrong person more often because they rarely witness the
< >entire incident.
< Oh, this is wonderful.
Really? I don't think so.
< I guess the gang bangers are shooting the RIGHT people?
Non sequitur, but it is interesting that Faubion appears
to lump lawbreakers and the law abiding into one big
category.
I wonder if Faubion can explain this to us?
Nosy
< comi...@ix.netcom.com(Dean L Scoville ) wrote:
<>I'd question the intellect - if not the motives - of a man who calls
<>the cops and answers their response gun-in-hand.
Clearly Morris (the complainant) didn't have a plan. If he
truly was in fear of his life, it is understandable that
he would be armed before the cops arrived; it is also
clear *why* the police wind up shooting more innocent
people than non-police, because they often arrive on the
scene when it is not clear who is doing what to whom.
I would hesitate to question Morris's motives, though.
<>Having been met by
<>weapon-wielding informants, I can say it's very disconcerting. Thus
< You're right. I remember the local news broadcast on this.
< Apparently the guy called 911, said he needed police, then hung up!
< That was the extent of that man's call.
A very foolish thing to do. Morris should have described
himself to the dispatcher, including the information that
he was armed, and sat tight in a secure place.
<When the officer responded to the trailer home he found the door open
<and no one around. When he turned the corner, there was an armed man
<pointing a rifle at him!
Rifle or shotgun, please? Let's keep our facts straight...
Nosy
< In article <4dmoub$7...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com says...
<
< >This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
< >saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
< >mistakes than cops.
< Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
I doubt it very much that he means that.
Officers usually arrive on the scene after the crime has
played out; they don't know who is the attacker and who
is the defender for a while, so it is possible for them
to make a mistake.
A woman walking out of a rest area bathroom on the highway,
confronted with a man who says "Oohh, we're gonna have a PARTY"
as he pulls a rope from his pocket knows who the attacker and
who the defender is. Let's say she produces a firearm and
screams "STOP!" and he freezes in his tracks...at that instant
a highway patrol officer steps around the corner. Is he looking
at a thwarted rape, or armed robbery? He cannot know for sure
for a while, now can he?
<If some one points a shotgun at you are you going to question his motives or
<just stand there and die?
The question is irrelevent to Stratos point.
But I note that Faubion is assuming that the officer in question
is telling the truth, and that the non-officer is lying.
That is interesting, and somewhat depressing.
For what it is worth, I cannot say who is right in this case;
it is possible that both persons believe what they are saying,
and I'm glad that Morris survived, I am equally glad the
officer was not injured.
Dean L Scoville
upon a keyboard and committed the following misdemeanor:
>[
>[I'd question the intellect - if not the motives - of a man who calls
>[the cops and answers their response gun-in-hand.
>
>I question the intellect of a cop who opens fire when he sees someone
holding a
>gun. This is how undercover cops get killed.
>
So long as we're sticking with rhetorics, I might question the
intellect of a cop who wouldn't shoot, based upon the circumstances
described in the initial post. In re-defining the scenario for a more
convenient, though specious, argument, you are making blanket
assumptions about officer-involved shootings wherein someone is
wielding a gun. I've made numerous arrests involving firearms; been
present at several shootings. Never once shot an undercover cop.
Never. Nope. Uh-huh. Did it happen here? No, I don't believe our
resident brain surgeon was a Reserve, even...
I have never shot anyone in 14 years with Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department (for whom I do not speak - I am merely using anecdotal
evidence to support my posture). There have been several times I or
fellow deputies could have, though, and been justified in doing so, but
one of us was able to end such incidents quietly - diverting the
gun-wielder's attention while the another disarmed him, or talking the
suspect into dropping the gun, etc.
What I resent are the people who automatically assume that cops want to
go out and kill people, or are such notoriously poor-practitioners of
their profession that their every call comes to an unseemly end.
Believe me, on any given day a cop can orchestrate a scenario to kill
someone if he wanted to. I like to think we don't live for such ends.
I place a high premium on life, and believe a majority of my peers do,
too.
Because I also take pride in my vocation, and exception to the
arbitrary mud-slinging of some of it's critics, I tend to speak out now
and then. For many, culpability equals silence. Sometimes, we in L.E.
take too long in answering legitimate questions. In the absence of
such answers, people tend to infer their own, less favorable
suppositions. A generous benefactor confirmed my suspicions about the
call with which this thread obstensively concerns itself. He posted
that the man had dialed 911 and said "send the cops" before hanging up.
This, then, was what the desk and the officer had to go on. Deprived
of any pertinent information such as a purpose for the police response,
this generally tends to raise one's anxiety: It's a popular M.O. used
by people intent on ambushing cops. In somehow defying gravity and
logic, and making the impertinent leap that this is how cops shoot
undercover cops, Mr. Wood has contributed a non-sequitur. For this, we
are indebted.
>[ Having been met by
>[weapon-wielding informants, I can say it's very disconcerting.
>
>Why? Should informants be disconcerted by weapon-wielding cops?
>
No, because gun-wielding cops comes with the territory: As a citizen,
I'd be more concerned if a cop showed up without his gun. Postal
workers carry mail, doctors wear stethoscopes; you carry on, and your
arguments wear thin. As an officer, I would hope the citizen might
greet me as he would the postal worker. Oops. Damn, there might not
be any difference after all (apologies to the postal workers, an
obvious bid for levity).
The average law-abiding citizen, when endowed with the intelligence and
common sense God and Mother Nature normally apportions a member of the
species, recognizes it a bad policy to point guns at cops; it generally
precipitates a bad end. Even the youngest gang-banger will usually
tend to disassociate himself from his AK-47 given the opportunity.
>[> Thus
>[>far, I haven't shot one of them, though. If the informant was going
to
>[>arm himself pending the police response, he should have indicated
such
>[>to the dispatcher.
>
>AGREED!
Then we really shouldn't be spanking the dead horse, should we?
>
>[>The fact remains that no one that has commented on this
>[>shooting - including myself - was there. We don't know if the
>[>informant's gun was pointed or not.
>
>But you're going to automatically assume that the cop was justified in
shooting
>the man he was supposed to be coming to the defense of.
>
I did not assume anything, nimrod, and resent the inference I did. I
said I'd be suspicious of....or, hell. Forget it. When dealing with
neanderthals, toss fruit (here's a banana).
>[>I don't labor under the delusion that I'll change any of the
profession's
>[>critics herein, but I'll not suffer fools silently, either.
>
>Are you saying that there is no room for criticism of cops?
>
(Again imposed to spell things out) No, I was refering to the posts
concerning this thread that preceded mine. I clarified this point by
defining such critics as the "fools" ..."herein."
>[>Boy, I
>[>would love to see how some of you Monday-morning Q.B's would do out
>[>there...
>
>Some of us understand complicated phrases like "behind cover" and "be
sure of
>your target."
Then I suggest you'd start practicing them, because your fallacious
entreaties have provoke appropriate rebuttal. As for me, Mr. Kevin
Wood, let me assure you, I am sure of my target here.
>Some of us can identify the difference between a doe and a young
>"spike" buck at 100 yards, knowing that there's only a second to
decide whether
>to take the shot or not.
I'm impressed Mighty Hunter. Doubtlessly, you should be able to
provide yourself nourishment. If your analogy meant to convey that we
should discern differences between objects, let me remind you I can
tell the difference between a shotgun and a AK-47, it doesn't mean I
favor being shot by either.
Your signature suggests some employ as a news anchor, no? Despite the
considerable banes given we in law enforcement by many capable
controverts within your vocation, I have not suggested that it is part
of a general television news aganda to "stir things up" to boost
ratings. No, I attribute no malice at all. Please extend the same
courtesy, and they may yet be returned to you.
Steve D. Fischer
KevinM179 <kevi...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4dr4v5$o...@whidbey.whidbey.com>, jch...@whidbey.net (Julius
>Chang) writes:
>
>>>>I would have at least tried to ask the man who he was (from behind
>>>>cover) before I started shooting.
>>>
>>>BOOM.... you're dead.
>>
>
>us who actually do police work don't have that luxury.
>
>Perhaps he should have just shot the gun out of his hands.
I don't know about you, but most Atlanta cops wear protective vests.
That'll protect them against MOST of the vermin they generally run into.
If you don't have that kind of protection available to you, that's too bad.
You should have it.
My understanding was that the cop saw the guy in the doorway from his
car. I call that concealment. I call that cover. If I misread the
account, I'm sorry. Press accounts are always so sketchy.
If I were convinced the guy was the bad guy and was out to kill me,
I'd shoot the gun out of his hands by way of his chest, with as many shots
as I could pump out of my gun.
firebug
Earl Faubion <efau...@ionet.net> wrote:
>In article <4ds6u6$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
>
>>>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>>>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>>>>mistakes than cops.
>
>>>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
>
>>information?
>
Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true. Nobody
mentioned training, I don't know where you got that from. We're talking
about shooting in self defense here.
Police are more than 5x as likely to shoot the wrong person than a civilian.
That has nothing to do with training. It has to do with the civilian
knowing who his attacker is.
>>Police shoot the wrong person more often because they rarely witness the
>>entire incident.
>
>Oh, this is wonderful. I guess the gang bangers are shooting the RIGHT
>people?
What the hell are you talking about?
KevinM179
writes:
>I question the intellect of a cop who opens fire when he sees someone
holding
>a
>gun. This is how undercover cops get killed.
Undercover cops are trained to comply with a uniformed officers commands.
I have a feeling that this homeowner thought he shouldn't have to put his
gun down because he called the police. Well, the sign over his head that
said that must have been burned out.
"Some of us understand complicated phrases like "behind cover" and "be
sure of
your target." Some of us can identify the difference between a doe and a
young
"spike" buck at 100 yards, knowing that there's only a second to decide
whether
to take the shot or not."
It's ridiculous for you to compare the problem of dealing with armed
complainants to hunting for animals. It's easy to identify a doe and a
young buck. Add to that the deer is likely not about to threaten you and
you can take time for your shot. If a hunter screws up and shoots the
wrong animal, what can happen? A fine, at the most. I think he would sleep
that night. An officer who accidentally shoots a complainant, he won't be
so lucky. Yes, officers have consciences. Most would be upset at shooting
an innocent. An officer does not always have the luxury of "cover".
KevinM179
>>A shotgun pointed at your chest is more than just a "sign" of danger.
>
>Do you always blindly believe with the police's claims?
>
>
Firebug, maybe Earl can find a reason to believe this officer's story
because he himself has been there? I have come across armed complainants
and, although I did not shoot, it could only take a split secopnd to have
a different ending. My beef is that too many people here are quick to
believe the cop's wrong although in similiar circumstances they would have
done the same thing.
steve hix
:zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes...
:>Earl Faubion (efau...@ionet.net) wrote:
:>: Excuse me? I AM a police and the training is quite stringent. Twice a
: >: year requal with the sidearm and at least once a year with the shotgun rega
:>: what are your qualifications?
:
:>And how many rounds do you fire in that 6 months for target practice?
:
:>The cops I see at the range come in only the week before qualification
:>and bring only 2-3 boxes of shells with them.
:
:>The gun owners I see at the range come in weekly and bring 1-2 boxes of
:>shells PER GUN with them.
:
:The gun owners I know don't touch their guns.
Most gun owners I know, I know from meeting them at one of the local
ranges.
: If you hang out at the range
:to get an idea of what the average gun owner is like, you are being
:misinformed. There are more than 200,000,000 firearms in this country.
Given that the average owner has, what, 3.5 guns each, you're not talking
about anywhere near 200M shooters.
A Weatherby Magnum isn't going to be fired as often as a .22 rifle at any
one time, etc.
:I don't think (50 shells* 50 weeks * 200M guns) 500 billion shells are fired
:every year.
Sales of .22LR ammuntion is somewhere between 2 and 4 Billion rounds per
year in the U.S. That's a lot of plinking.
Smaller amounts of centerfire ammunition are expended, not counting the
reloaders, naturally.
:>Over 6 months, those gun owners will have fired 10-15 times as many shots
:>as the cops for target practice. And it shows on the paper.
:
:Only those that go to the range. One in two people own a firearm, not that
:many go to ranges on a weekly basis.
Roughly one in two *households* contain at least one firearm. This is *not*
the same as saying that half the population owns a firearm.
Judging from comments from my friend who runs the local county range
for Sheriffs and correctional officers, most of his clients don't go to the
range except when required to or lose income.
There are exceptions, of course.
Earl Faubion
>How many rounds are you required to fire, and what percentage do you
>have to achieve with those rounds?
The requirement varies depending on one's position within the
department. The absolute minimum is around 100 rounds per year which
is what is required to pass two requals on the first attempt. This
does not include shotgun requals. For those in tranisition from
revolver to automatic it is an additional 900 rounds. The percentage
translates to around 72% if I'm not mistaken. The scores are
recorded only as pass or fail. To fail means one retry before being
sent back to a one day school. Failing that means no job or a
meaningless job away from the public. Officers are encouraged to
practice monthly using city or their own ammo. This is optional and
most of us take advantage of it.
>Not all officers by any means limit
>themselves to just meeting these standards, but on the other hand
>many do. I think the police reguirements should require range time
>each month, with combat shooting courses at least once a year.
Does your course include shoot/don't shoot scenarios?
>Which it seems the private citizen is better qualified to do than the
>police.
Like the store clerk in Omaha who chased down the beer bandits,
killing one and wounding the other... 150 yards from the store? And
some people are calling him a hero. Now what do you think public
opinion would be if instead of a clerk it had been a cop? I realize
that is an "isolated" incident but it is still real and I find it
interesting to sample public opinion on that deal. That incident was
featured on a recent Dateline TV segment.
>Fewer cases of wrongful self defense shootings with a
>greater population of people. QED. However, the police do have
>different conditions placed upon them as a part of their job. It would
>be wrong to forget that.
True. The cop must be a jack of all trades. Firearms training is
only one part of the overall picture.
>>>It could also be that private citizens are usually less likely to fire
>>>on anything other than a clearly threating target.
>>
>>And they're dead. End of story.
>Sometimes.
It only takes once.
> However the law that governs self defense shooting requires
>that a clear and immediate threat exist. Are the police governed by
>less demanding standards, despite your claim of greater training?
We are governed by much higher standards than is the general public.
If I shoot an intruder in my own home you can bet it'll generate a
lot more controversy than if my neighbor does the same thing.
>I would think that having had such trainging would demand, if anything,
>higher standards to be set for the police.
They already are.
>>Let me tell you a little story... a true one. A few years ago my department
>>invited any and all takers to take a whirl at our FireArms Training
>>Simulator (FATS) and several local reporters accepted the challenge. Some of
>>them were quite handy with a firearm. To make a long story short, each and
>>every one was killed, but not before they blew away a record number of good
>>guys and children. No or little training equals disaster, pure and simple.
>Agreed. I would assume that the conditions recreated law enforcement
>situtations rather than self defense conditions.
Both.
>How many officers
>who take this test for the first time record similar numbers? Despite
>their training?
The classroom session prior to FATS generally makes them better
prepared but they do make a number of mistakes initially. Those who
don't improve soon wash out.
>Agreed, however that is followed very closely with protecting the
>innocent.
If a suspect has a gun and is pointing it at you he isn't innocent. :)
>That is also why I included this in the conditions that
>would give police a higher rate of wrongful shootings. Becuase they
>are required to go into situations that most people would have the
>sense to avoid, if possible. Since people do tend to consider survival
>highly, in such situations wrongful shootings are more likely to
>occur. Do you contest this?
I see what you're driving at. If you are right, then the earlier
comparison is one of apples and oranges and invalid.
>or the gun was never pointed, and you have a cop trying to dig his
>way out of a wrongful shooting.
No no! I'm not talking about the newspaper article.. the gun IS
pointed at you and your hesitation just made you dead. That's
reality. We had an officer involved shooting here a few years ago
that was very similar. Another suspect witnessed it (and verified the
story) as well as another officer. Without going into great detail,
the outcome was that an officer survived certain death or injury by
acting instead of thinking... and it's the acting that can be
practiced and practiced until one does it automatically. Those who
stop and *think* ,lose.
>Stress, wrongful reaction to the sight of the shotgun, ect.
What is the "right" reaction to a shotgun pointed at you?
>Accepted, however with paintball guns instead.
Nope. For realism it'll be the real thing. <g>
>When and where. I assume
>identical conditions as the officer in question faced. In fact to make
>it fair, you will attempt to shoot me when I appear. Assume shot gun at
>port quarters.
No. Assume shotgun pointed at me. You're dead. You keep referring
to the newspaper article that started this thread. I'm talking about
a man with a shotgun pointed at you. No ifs ands or buts.... it IS
pointed at you and so far all you've done is bleed and die. Forget
that article... that's not the issue here.
With the right kind of training you would have survived that
encounter.
Earl Faubion
> Faubion seems to be having a bit of trouble, here...
Not at all. I survived.
no one of consequence
]ata...@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wrote:
]
]> Faubion seems to be having a bit of trouble, here...
]
]Not at all. I survived.
*lunacy on*
<1812 Overture> You have... forgotten something.
*CLANG*
{Hey, if you wish to warp the scenario to your own ends, well.. Why can't
I have some fun? You are paste now.}
*lunacy off*
Oh btw, the poster you "killed" in the gun battle you "survived" said he
would try to talk it out from behind cover, not try to get under cover.
*hand on the lunacy switch*
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com|
|Member Lovely Angels Fan Club/Fire Support Team/Cleanup Crew |
|"Weep for the future, Na'Toth. Weep for us all..." G'Kar, "Revelations"|
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article....|
Earl Faubion
>Earl's a pig. More precisely, an Oklahoma City traffic cop.
I see you DO remember me Matt. I'm flattered.
And your bruises are still showing.
Michael Zarlenga
: Excuse me? I AM a police and the training is quite stringent. Twice a year
: whether we carry one or not. No qualify, no ride the streets, period. Now,
: what are your qualifications?
And how many rounds do you fire in that 6 months for target practice?
The cops I see at the range come in only the week before qualification
and bring only 2-3 boxes of shells with them.
The gun owners I see at the range come in weekly and bring 1-2 boxes of
shells PER GUN with them.
Over 6 months, those gun owners will have fired 10-15 times as many shots
as the cops for target practice. And it shows on the paper.
: Better qualified to do what? Any idiot can squeeze a trigger... gangs are
: proof of that. The real training comes in knowing when to shoot and when to
: not.
So why do cops shoot the wrong person 5 times as often as citizens?
: And they're dead. End of story.
True. We don't enjoy the "shoot now, ask questions later" attitude that
the public seems to allow cops to have.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
-- e-mail: zarl...@ids.net
Clinton/Gore
Gone in 4
Dean L Scoville
writes:
The manner in which you edited your post makes this conflicting
statement appear to be of my hand. I protest. I did not write this
statement. Thank you.
KevinM179
J.!!! ) writes:
>What he should have done was shot the cop first!! and then plant the
>gun on a nigger
>
>
Brilliant advice, PJ. It just serves to further invalidate any ideas
stated by you.
KevinM179
(David Pinero) writes:
>You're right. I remember the local news broadcast on this.
>Apparently the guy called 911, said he needed police, then hung up!
>That was the extent of that man's call.
>
>When the officer responded to the trailer home he found the door open
>and no one around. When he turned the corner, there was an armed man
>pointing a rifle at him!
Stories like these help the gun grabbers. Gun owners had better start
using common sense before they become fodder for HCI.
Nosy
<fir...@iag.net (firebug) wrote:
<>>Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cops."
<>>Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you insinuate less
<>>training is better. Why?
<>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true.
<Wow, that's neat.
Personally, I don't think so; accidental shootings of
any kind are not "neat", whether by misidentification
or any other means.
<Let's hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners!
Faubion seems to have a problem reading and understanding
simple sentences; this remark is a total non sequitur.
For the benefit of Faubion and others, here is a bit
of text discussing that not-very-complex subject
alluded to in the first line of this posting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ruth Silver & Don B. Kates, Jr., "Gun Control and the Subway Class,"
Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1985
The study was conducted by Kates at the St. Louis University School of
Law. Some of the findings:
o Police were successful in shooting or driving off criminals 68% of
the time; Citizens succeeded 83% of the time.
o 11% of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to
be innocents misidentified as criminals; In civilian shootings, the
figure was 2%. (Here's where the 5x figure comes from.)
o Private citizens in urban areas encounter and kill up to three times
as many criminals as do law enforcement authorities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As has been noted often on t.p.g, the higher mistaken identity rate of
police officers is most likely due to their arrival on the scene after
the fact and without the improved perspective available to citizens who
are present at the time of the incident.
I hope this is clear to Faubion, now?
KevinM179
steve hix
:fir...@iag.net (firebug) wrote:
:
:>>Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cops."
:>>Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you insinuate less
:>>training is better. Why?
:
:>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true.
:
Non sequitur.
You do this alot.
:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You crack me up!
:
:*twit filter on*
Which turns you into a twit?
Most people wouldn't want to have one, and most of the remainder
wouldn't advertise using it.
You have courage. Sort of.
Steve D. Fischer
KevinM179 <kevi...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <wheel004....@maroon.tc.umn.edu>,
>whee...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Guy E Wheelock) writes:
>
>>Also; someone in the chain of events screwed up. Either the homeowner
>didn't
>>tell 911 that there was an ARMED HOWEOWNER at the scene or 911 didn't
>pass
>>the info on to the cop... (This is a VERY important data item in any call
>>for police assistance - a life & [almost] death one in this case)
>
>This is bound to happen where I work. All too often our operators hang up
>after a caller advises of an incident. We often have to get them to call
>back and get descriptions of the suspects, victims, and if any weapons are
>involved. Yes, we have complained ut nothing has been done about it.
There are two ways to approach this problem. Use both the carrot and the
stick. Raise the pay level for the job in order to attract more skilled
people. Then make them legally responsible for their negligent conduct.
steve hix
:
:>In article <4dmoub$7...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com says...
:>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
:>>mistakes than cops.
:
:>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
Who says that they're necessarily getting (or, more to the point, taking)
less training.
As it happens, 11% of those shot by police officers turn out to be
mid-identified innocents. Civilians make the same mistake about
2.5% of the time. (And there are a *lot* more civilians than officers
out there.)
The fact above has nothing to do with ill-will on the part of police
officers (as far as I know), it's one of the outcomes of the job they
have to do. One of the problems being a tendency to come into hostile
situations with imperfect information: they don't necessarily know who
initiated the exchange, nor who is at fault.
As far as training goes, a *lot* of civilians voluntarily engage in more
training than most police officers: they do it for fun, the officers often
do it because it's a job requirement.
(And not all departments require twice-yearly quals, as in your example.)
Steve D. Fischer
KevinM179 <kevi...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4dp0nq$6...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com>,
>fwillms@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Fred Willms) writes:
>
>>If I understand you correctly, you postulate that you can find
>>a way to defend the cop's actions regardless of circumstances?
>
>Fred, sounds like you can find a way to attack the cop, no matter what the
>circumstances are.
>
>"Give a person a badge and a gun and they think they are something
>special. Personally, if I passed a cop burning up in a fire I don't
>think I'd take the time to stop and piss on 'em to put it out."
>
>Well, quite an enlightened attitude. I've read your "examples". Do they
>really call for wishing the death of another? Because you have an idiot of
>a police chief? Do you honestly believe they represent the majority of
>officers?
>
>Let me cite an example. A squad of detectives in the robbery division at
>the New Orleans Police Dept. had identified two suspects in a series of
>robberies of pedestrians. As typical the suspects were becoming more
>bolder at each robbery. Eventually, a pedestrian was bound to be hurt or
>killed. The solution was a stakeout of the suspects'
>neighborhood in hopes of locating them. They were surprised to learn that
>all overtime was cut off and they were not allowed to shift their time to
>cover the entire time needed for the stakeout. These detectives did the
>stakeout on their own time and were able to apprehend the suspects. I
>believe that many other incidents can be cited to far outweigh any horror
>stories that you can come up with.
I think most people would like to believe in their cops. It gets
hard, though, when you hear stories about cops who routinely lie for
each other, either to make a case or to protect another cop from being
punished for stepping outside the bounds of the law.
Recently, here in Atlanta, two cops were arrested for executing
suspects who were unarmed and pleading for their lives. Had that not
been witnesseed by credible people with no axe to grind, the case would
not have even been investigated.
Before that, a substantial fraction of the cops at a local precinct
were arrested for drug dealing.
When I lived in the DC metro area, I had a good friend who decided
that he wanted to be a cop. When he became one, I got to know several
other cops through him. Gradually, he began to take on their very hard
attitude towards people and he developed an "Us vs Them" attitude with
regard to the public. Within a couple of years I could barely recognize
the guy, he had changed so much. He was a swaggering bully. He drank
more than he used to. Eventually, I couldn't stand being around him.
I could easily see he beating someone with his club who gave him the least
amount of "lip."
steve hix
:In article <4ds6u6$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
:
:>>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
:>>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
:>>>mistakes than cops.
:
:>>Do you mean to say LESS training makes perfect?
:>Why do you always refuse to argue with facts, logic, and the relevant
:>information?
:
:Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cop."
Well, they. About 2.5% vs 11%.
:Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you insinuate less
:training is better. Why?
:
:>Police shoot the wrong person more often because they rarely witness the
:>entire incident.
:
:Oh, this is wonderful. I guess the gang bangers are shooting the RIGHT
:people?
non sequitur. Unless you're completely lost as regards the topic of
conversation, try to stick with the topic, OK?
Or do you really believe that "gang bangers" are indistinguishable from
the "average citizen"? One certainly hopes not.
no one of consequence
]> is telling the truth, and that the non-officer is lying.
]The assumption is that a shotgun or rifle is being pointed at you and
]that is NOT the time for talk. You shoot or you die.
]
]Somehow you have gotten the newspaper story confused with the scenario
]I'm discussing. I'm not passing judgement on that deal one way or the
]other... what I AM doing is discussing what one would do when faced
]with the threat of a firearm pointed at them.
Even if the one pointing the firearm has a nice shiny piece of metal
pinned to his or her shirt?
Michael Zarlenga
: Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cop."
: Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you insinuate less
: training is better. Why?
Not less training, less information about the current situation and, if
you're any indication, more of the "shoot now, ask questions later"
training that you've received is what's behind the problem of cops shoot-
ing the wrong people.
: >Police shoot the wrong person more often because they rarely witness the
: >entire incident.
: Oh, this is wonderful. I guess the gang bangers are shooting the RIGHT
: people?
Oh this is wonderful. I guess we should all be grateful that there are
TWO groups of people out there likely to kill us by accident. The one
that roams the streets after dark and the one that we call for protect-
tion from the one that roams the streets after dark.
KevinM179
Orion Spiral Arm) writes:
>A) Who said it had anything to do with training? Part of it
> has to do with the fact that the police usually show up
> in the middle of things instead of at the beginning, and
> hence may not have as good an idea of what's going on.
It's really difficult to show up before an incident happens. But when the
officer did show up an immediate problem occurred, he was confronted by an
armed man who refused to put his weapon down.
"B) Most American firearm owners are quite knowledgeable about
their weapons, at least as much as the police."
My expierience has not shown that to be true.
"Earl, let me refresh your memory. The police say the homeowner
pointed the shotgun. The homeowner says he did not. We don't really
know which is true. But it's interesting how you assume the police
must be the ones telling the truth."
It's interesting how you assume that the police are not telling the truth.
KevinM179
KevinM179
>Sometimes. However the law that governs self defense shooting requires
>that a clear and immediate threat exist. Are the police governed by
>less demanding standards, despite your claim of greater training?
>I would think that having had such trainging would demand, if anything,
>higher standards to be set for the police.
>To help prevent cases such as occured in this instance.
>
>
The self-defense law requires only a reasonable fear. This covers police
and civilians. Police do have greater training and, thus, are given less
leeway then any average civilian. In a local town, a civilian tried to
stop a car thief by firing his gun at the vehicle at a crowded
intersection. He hit just about every car there except the stolen one. No
charges. A cop would have had his butt light up and rightly so. The chief
refused to charge the guy because the public thought this was a great act.
firebug
Earl Faubion <efau...@ionet.net> wrote:
>fir...@iag.net (firebug) wrote:
>
>>>Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cops."
>>>training is better. Why?
>
>
>Wow, that's neat. Let's hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners!
>
What the hell are you talking about? Do you even remember what this thread
is about? When did I say anything about handing Uzis out to kindergarteners?
It is simply a fact that private citizens shoot the right person more often
than cops do. Just read what I'm writing and try to stay on topic.
>*twit filter on*
So now you'll ignore everything I say and not follow up to it, as opposed to
before when you were ignoring everything I say but following up to it
anyway. On behalf of all of Usenet, I thank you.
steve hix
:sc...@sma.com (Scout) wrote:
:
:>How many rounds are you required to fire, and what percentage do you
:>have to achieve with those rounds?
:
:The requirement varies depending on one's position within the
:department. The absolute minimum is around 100 rounds per year which
:is what is required to pass two requals on the first attempt.
That's a slow morning for my daughter.
: This
:does not include shotgun requals. For those in tranisition from
:revolver to automatic it is an additional 900 rounds.
One-time requirements, no?
: The percentage
:translates to around 72% if I'm not mistaken. The scores are
:recorded only as pass or fail. To fail means one retry before being
:sent back to a one day school. Failing that means no job or a
:meaningless job away from the public. Officers are encouraged to
:practice monthly using city or their own ammo. This is optional and
:most of us take advantage of it.
Good. (Not all departments' officers do that, and they should.)
:>Which it seems the private citizen is better qualified to do than the
:>police.
:
:Like the store clerk in Omaha who chased down the beer bandits,
:killing one and wounding the other... 150 yards from the store?
And some LEOs in the south worked with the KKK after hours....
so what? Anecdotal bits hardly equate to all of reality.
Earl Faubion
>>Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cops."
>>Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you insinuate less
>>training is better. Why?
>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true.
Wow, that's neat. Let's hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You crack me up!
*twit filter on*
Steve D. Fischer
You hear about enough cops lying and you begin to wonder how widespread
it is. The worst thing a cop can do is rat on another cop - even if he's
dirty. Doesn't tend to build confidence in the public.
Gumby
>Earl Faubion (efau...@ionet.net) wrote:
>: Excuse me? I AM a police and the training is quite stringent. Twice a
year
>: requal with the sidearm and at least once a year with the shotgun rega
>: whether we carry one or not. No qualify, no ride the streets, period. Now,
>: what are your qualifications?
>And how many rounds do you fire in that 6 months for target practice?
>The cops I see at the range come in only the week before qualification
>and bring only 2-3 boxes of shells with them.
>The gun owners I see at the range come in weekly and bring 1-2 boxes of
>shells PER GUN with them.
The gun owners I know don't touch their guns. If you hang out at the range
to get an idea of what the average gun owner is like, you are being
misinformed. There are more than 200,000,000 firearms in this country.
I don't think (50 shells* 50 weeks * 200M guns) 500 billion shells are fired
every year. Could someone out there please enlighten me on the number of
shells produced, and and an estimated number of reloads?
>Over 6 months, those gun owners will have fired 10-15 times as many shots
>as the cops for target practice. And it shows on the paper.
Only those that go to the range. One in two people own a firearm, not that
many go to ranges on a weekly basis.
Marc
KevinM179
writes:
>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
mistakes
>than cops. Private citizens witness hostile acts and react accordingly.
The
>cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast at the first sign
of
>danger.
>
>
Either he didn't tell the operator that he had a gun or the operator
didn't relay the information. I don't have a problem with someone taking a
gun to defend himself but when the cops get there, put it away and give
them a chance to do their job. I would hate it to accidentally kill an
innocent. But unless there's more to this story, the cop was right.
KevinM179
Matthew T. Russotto
}In article <4ds7u1$r...@ionews.ionet.net>,
}Earl Faubion <efau...@ionet.net> wrote:
}>In article <4ds6u6$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
}>
}>>>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
}>>>>mistakes than cops.
}>
}>
}>>Why do you always refuse to argue with facts, logic, and the relevant
}>>information?
}>
}>training is better. Why?
}
}mentioned training, I don't know where you got that from. We're talking
}about shooting in self defense here.
}
}Police are more than 5x as likely to shoot the wrong person than a civilian.
}That has nothing to do with training. It has to do with the civilian
}knowing who his attacker is.
}
}>>Police shoot the wrong person more often because they rarely witness the
}>>entire incident.
}>
}>Oh, this is wonderful. I guess the gang bangers are shooting the RIGHT
}>people?
}
Earl's a pig. More precisely, an Oklahoma City traffic cop. Which means he's
frustrated by the absense of the opportunity for serious corruption
netting him (personally) tens of thousands of dollars. He takes this out on
ordinary non-porcine citizens both on traffic stops and on Usenet.
Furhermore, Earl, like most pigs, sees all non-porcine non-military
people the same -- a "gang banger" doing a drive by shooting is no
different to him than a person using a gun to defend himself against
an attacker.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Tony Ingenoso
I think you just made the man's point...
I shoot a combat course twice a *MONTH*, rotate my carry ammo at least
once every 6 months, and check my load and weapon's condition every
day before I walk out the door.
How may officers in your department can claim this kind of diligence?
BTW, have you ever read Pierce Brook's book "...officer down, code three."?
Tony
KevinM179
>I'm not saying that any particular officer isn't gualified, just
>that the standards set are in virtually all localities I'm aware of
>are in my opinion quite minimal. Not all officers by any means limit
>themselves to just meeting these standards, but on the other hand
>many do. I think the police reguirements should require range time
>each month, with combat shooting courses at least once a year.
>
>
Scout, I agree. But many more civilians don't have any range time. One
thing they teach in academies is, that if an officer is off-duty and/or in
plain clothes and is confronted by another officer, to put your weapon
down and obey the commands of the uniformed officer.
Earl Faubion
Keith Wood
kevi...@aol.com (KevinM179) wrote:
["B) Most American firearm owners are quite knowledgeable about
[ their weapons, at least as much as the police."
[
[My expierience has not shown that to be true.
Then your experience is limited. Most cops know little more about their guns
than they do about their radios, and most cops are ATROCIOUS shots.
Colonel Jeff Cooper related to a bunch of us how he had once said that NYPD had
an 11% hit rate -- that is, for each 100 rounds fired in earnest, only 11 of
them hit the intended target. He got back a nastygram from NYPD bragging that
they had a _16%_ hit rate!
I don't consider 84 wild shots out of each 100 fired to be "quite
knowledgable."
[It's interesting how you assume that the police are not telling the truth.
It's interesting how you assume that the police are telling the truth, simply
because they're police. Haven't you ever heard what Bill Parker (LAPD chief)
said? "Cops can never be perfect -- we have to get them from the human race."
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor (Camp Verde AZ)
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
===============================================================
Keith Wood
kevi...@aol.com (KevinM179) wrote:
[In article <4dUAxwUN...@bctv.com>, kei...@bctv.com (Keith Wood)
[writes:
[
[>I question the intellect of a cop who opens fire when he sees someone
[holding
[>a
[>gun. This is how undercover cops get killed.
[
[Undercover cops are trained to comply with a uniformed officers commands.
Yep. And cops with buck fever still shoot at them, because they're adrenaline
charged. Hell, cops in the simulators shoot the cop targets, because all they
see is the gun in the target's hand.
[I have a feeling that this homeowner thought he shouldn't have to put his
[gun down because he called the police. Well, the sign over his head that
[said that must have been burned out.
I have a feeling that this homeowner didn't live across the street from the
police station, so he knew that there might be a delay between his call and the
arrival of the PD. They arrived sooner than he expected.
["Some of us understand complicated phrases like "behind cover" and "be
[sure of
[your target." Some of us can identify the difference between a doe and a
[young
["spike" buck at 100 yards, knowing that there's only a second to decide
[whether
[to take the shot or not."
[
[It's ridiculous for you to compare the problem of dealing with armed
[complainants to hunting for animals.
Yep. One of them you're supposed to shoot, the other two you're not. But
complainants and does still get shot.
[It's easy to identify a doe and a young buck.
Spoken like a true city boy who has never taken a hunter safety course. Your
statement is no more true than "It's easy to identify the Good Guys and the Bad
Guys."
[ Add to that the deer is likely not about to threaten you and
[you can take time for your shot.
I need to go hunting where you do your hunting. Out here in rural Arizona, the
animals don't just stand there while you sight in . . .
[If a hunter screws up and shoots the
[wrong animal, what can happen? A fine, at the most.
Shooting the wrong deer can win you a HEFTY fine, seizure of your rifle, loss
of hunting privs for several years, and the possibility of Federal charges.
[I think he would sleep that night.
Maybe -- maybe not.
[An officer who accidentally shoots a complainant, he won't be
[so lucky. Yes, officers have consciences. Most would be upset at shooting
[an innocent. An officer does not always have the luxury of "cover".
Agreed -- but those instances are pretty rare. When you think about cover, you
can usually find it. When you go in like John Wayne, counting on your Kevlar
skivvies to save you, you get into trouble.
x
>Earl Faubion (efau...@ionet.net (Earl Faubion)) wrote:
>>If some one points a shotgun at you are you going to question his motives or
>>just stand there and die?
>>A shotgun pointed at your chest is more than just a "sign" of danger.
> Earl, let me refresh your memory. The police say the homeowner
>pointed the shotgun. The homeowner says he did not. We don't really
>know which is true. But it's interesting how you assume the police
>must be the ones telling the truth.
Analysis of the scene:
1) Homeowner, with shotgun in hand, seeing police arrive would have to be
damn stupid to point gun at arriving police, but it's possible. Since he would
have the excuse of claiming he was so out of it that he forgot which way it
was pointing, the probability of his needing to lie about it is rather low.
2) Arriving police, seeing armed man and opening fire, would be open to
civil and criminal liability if it later turns out that they shot the good guy
without a damned good excuse. The probability of their needing to lie about it
to cover their own butts is rather high.
We probably will never know which side is actually giving the correct facts.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Leone (bobl...@pond.com)
"The information superhighway is a revolution that in years to come will
transcend newspapers, radio, and television as an information source.
Therefore, I think this is the time to put some restrictions on it." -
--- U.S. Senator James Exon -
Steve D. Fischer
KevinM179 <kevi...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4dmoub$7...@crl12.crl.com>, str...@crl.com (Steve D. Fischer)
>writes:
>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>>mistakes than cops. Private citizens witness hostile acts and react
>>accordingly. The cops show up late, not knowing who did what, and blast
>>at the first sign of danger.
>Either he didn't tell the operator that he had a gun or the operator
>didn't relay the information. I don't have a problem with someone taking a
>gun to defend himself but when the cops get there, put it away and give
>them a chance to do their job. I would hate it to accidentally kill an
>innocent. But unless there's more to this story, the cop was right.
That wasn't my point. My point is that citizens make fewer mistakes
because they are generally on the scene and witness who did what. Anti-
gunners are always saying that only cops should have guns because
private citizens make too many mistakes. The facts show quite the opposite.
I'm just trying to explain the facts, not defend the citizen who should have
told the cops he was armed.
Earl Faubion
>Oh btw, the poster you "killed" in the gun battle you "survived" said he
>would try to talk it out from behind cover, not try to get under cover.
The scenario of which I write is based on a real life experience, not
some wannabe's Hollywood version of same. There was no cover. He
talked when he shoulda been shooting and now he's dead.
Earl Faubion
>Bruises? Sorry, Earl, I've never been in Oklahoma City and thus have
>never met the business end of your baton.
The pen, not the baton. Read all the message next time.
> Must have been a different Matthew Russotto
Yeah, right. So tell us Matt... how did you know where I worked if
not from Askacop? Hehehe.... you haven't changed a bit have you.
> -- I hope he sues you and your city for all they are worth.
Running and hiding now are we? That's okay Matt.... those who know
you understand completely and we don't blame you.
Have a nice day and watch those curves!
Robert P. Firriolo
'kevi...@aol.com (KevinM179)' wrote:
>In article <4duke5$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net (firebug) writes:
>
>>Police are more than 5x as likely to shoot the wrong person than a
>>civilian.
>>That has nothing to do with training. It has to do with the civilian
>>knowing who his attacker is.
>
>unknowingly. I'd like to know your sources for your stats though.
This is not a flame, but I would like to know _your_ source for this
assertion.
From what I have read, there have been lots of cops shot by other cops.
Are we to believe that civilians point guns at people they do not recognize
to be cops more often than other cops do?
--
Robert P. Firriolo
*************************************************************
Don't Tread on Me!
"The best we can hope for concerning the
people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
**************************************************************
Scout
Agreed, and I would think most average people would do likewise. That's
part of the problem I have with this event. Was the officer truely
threatened, and did he order the man to drop the shotgun? Even if it was
only as he was going for his own weapon? The articles I've seen aren't
clear about this. Granted, things happen fast, and the man may not have
had a chance to respond to shouted commands, as the officer drew. There's
just too much that we don't know at this point to make any kind of
informed responsible decisions about.
steve hix
:In article <4duke5$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net (firebug) writes:
:
:>Police are more than 5x as likely to shoot the wrong person than a civilian.
Reference:
Cramer C and Kopel D. Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun
permit laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17,
1994.
About 11% of
police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing
an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.[See above]
Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.[see
above] We can explain why the citizen record is better than the police (the
police usually come upon a scene in progress where it may not be clear who is
attacker and who is defender; also, the police, unlike defenders, must close to
handcuff the arrestee), but the simple truth remains: citizens have an excellent
record of protecting themselves, their families, and their communities.
:>That has nothing to do with training. It has to do with the civilian
:>knowing who his attacker is.
:
:Civilians are more likely to turn and point the gun at the officer
:unknowingly.
Provide the source for *your* "fact", please.
Nosy
< fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) wrote:
< >Well, they. About 2.5% vs 11%.
< Apples and oranges.
No, it's comparing "oops, shot the wrong guy" with "oops,
shot the wrong guy".
< Civilians have the option of running away.
Applause. Faubion is starting to catch on.
Julius Chang
situations from the civilian point of view, check out
Mas Ayoob's concept of the three rings of safety.
-Julius
Michael Zarlenga
: Apples and oranges. Civilians have the option of running away.
So do cops. Think back to the LA riots.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
-- e-mail: zarl...@ids.net
Clinton/Gore
Gone in 4
steve hix
:fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) wrote:
:>:>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true.
:>:
:>:Wow, that's neat. Let's hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners!
:
:>Non sequitur.
:
:More like touche'. <g>
non sequitur: Logic. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from
established premises or evidence.
In this case, Earl's apparent confusion between the established fact that
civilians, on a percentage of self defense shootings, are less likely to shoot
the wrong person than are trained police officers.
(To all real LEO's reading this: This is no way assumes that the difference
is due to any animus on the part of the LEO's involved; they have a very
tough job, and the realities of that job make it much harder for them to
absolutely verify who is the goblin every time.)
So Earl's response to "hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners" is a non
sequitur.
It's quite evident that he doesn't understand the argument at several
levels.
Ivan Matchaszoff
apposed to WHITES? and is it racist,, to hold your purse,briefcase when
a black walks by???
THEN WHY DO YOU DO IT???
firebug
Earl Faubion <efau...@ionet.net> wrote:
>fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) wrote:
>
>>Well, they. About 2.5% vs 11%.
>
The data is simply to show that a higher portion of police than civilians
shoot an innocent person. That is all. How does the option of running away
make that data any less valid in supporting that statement?
>>Or do you really believe that "gang bangers" are indistinguishable from
>>the "average citizen"? One certainly hopes not.
>
>Please try and stick with the topic, OK?
Funny that you of all people would say that to someone.
Earl Faubion
>Well, they. About 2.5% vs 11%.
Apples and oranges. Civilians have the option of running away.
>non sequitur. Unless you're completely lost as regards the topic of
>conversation, try to stick with the topic, OK?
Gee... nice dodge.
Earl Faubion
>:>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true.
>:
>:Wow, that's neat. Let's hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners!
>Non sequitur.
More like touche'. <g>
>You do this alot.
People like you make it so easy. Thanks!
Ya' know, I'm really glad you are not representative of us good folks
who oppose gun control. We have enough problems as it is.
Earl Faubion
>As it happens, 11% of those shot by police officers turn out to be
>mid-identified innocents. Civilians make the same mistake about
>2.5% of the time. (And there are a *lot* more civilians than officers
>out there.)
Now let's compare the number of police calls you've taken and compare.
Hmmmm..........
Not meaning to sound mean but that makes a world of difference. This
is a lot like comparing the number of 'innocents' killed by Marines in
battle and comparing them with the number of innocents killed by the
local college ROTC.
>The fact above has nothing to do with ill-will on the part of police
>officers (as far as I know), it's one of the outcomes of the job they
>have to do.
Correct.
Matthew T. Russotto
}russ...@wanda.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
}
}
}
}And your bruises are still showing.
Bruises? Sorry, Earl, I've never been in Oklahoma City and thus have
never met the business end of your baton. Must have been a different
Matthew Russotto -- I hope he sues you and your city for all they are
worth.
David T. Hardy
kei...@bctv.com (Keith Wood) writes:
> Most cops know little more about their guns
> than they do about their radios, and most cops are ATROCIOUS shots.
>
> Colonel Jeff Cooper related to a bunch of us how he had once said that NYPD had
> an 11% hit rate -- that is, for each 100 rounds fired in earnest, only 11 of
> them hit the intended target. He got back a nastygram from NYPD bragging that
> they had a _16%_ hit rate!
>
> I don't consider 84 wild shots out of each 100 fired to be "quite
> knowledgable."
For shooting under fire, 16% is actually rather impressive.... I
believe the figure in WWII was 10,000 rounds fired for every casualty
produced. Despite the improvement in weaponry, not a great improvement
over the 18th century when it "took a man's weight in bullets to hit
him." [Once read a calculation of rounds fired by colonists and Brits
in that first running battle after Concord Bridge.... indeed, it worked
out to something over a hundred pounds of musket balls fired per person
hit). I'd wager that Jeff Cooper, or the late Elmer Keith, etc. would
be hitting pretty close to one shot one hit, but the average guy
(including those in uniform) isn't anywhere in that ballpark.
_____________________________________________________________________
"Sometimes it is said that man ) dha...@indirect.com <David T. Hardy>
cannot be trusted with the gov-) http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy
ernment of himself. Can he then)____________________________________
be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels to
govern him?" Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address (1801).
Nosy
< fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) wrote:
< >:>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true.
< >:
< >:Wow, that's neat. Let's hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners!
< >Non sequitur.
< More like touche'. <g>
Only if there is such a term which applies to seppuku.
Earl Faubion
>Analysis of the scene:
If you've been reading my messages then you know my comments do not
directly related to the published incident that started this thread.
I'm not sure how many times I have to say this. The fictional
scenario is you encounter a man who has a shotgun pointed at YOU and
so far everyone wants to talk and in the real world they are dead.
Forget the newspaper article, that is NOT what this is about. It's
about action or inaction.
Pyotr Filipivich
|zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes...
|>Earl Faubion (efau...@ionet.net) wrote:
|>: Excuse me? I AM a police and the training is quite stringent. Twice a
| year
|>: requal with the sidearm and at least once a year with the shotgun rega
| less
|>: whether we carry one or not. No qualify, no ride the streets, period. Now,
|>: what are your qualifications?
|>And how many rounds do you fire in that 6 months for target practice?
|>The cops I see at the range come in only the week before qualification
|>and bring only 2-3 boxes of shells with them.
|>The gun owners I see at the range come in weekly and bring 1-2 boxes of
|>shells PER GUN with them.
|The gun owners I know don't touch their guns. If you hang out at the range
|to get an idea of what the average gun owner is like, you are being
|misinformed. There are more than 200,000,000 firearms in this country.
|I don't think (50 shells* 50 weeks * 200M guns) 500 billion shells are fired
|every year. Could someone out there please enlighten me on the number of
|shells produced, and and an estimated number of reloads?
|>Over 6 months, those gun owners will have fired 10-15 times as many shots
|>as the cops for target practice. And it shows on the paper.
|Only those that go to the range. One in two people own a firearm, not that
|many go to ranges on a weekly basis.
I've had the rifle for quite a while, haven't fired it once. What this
does for the stats I don't know. Useta fire regular, but that was
muzzle loader. Now there's a challenge. But I digress.
My bro used to go through a box a month in pistol ammo to stay proficient,
but that was for the USN. What he does these days, I don't ask. :-)
I don't want to think of the amount my dad put through his garand,
suffice is to say, some thirty years later, he split the string w/ the
first round from the 22 rifle. Then he tells of his father doing a
similar thing when _he_ was a boy.
Go figure.
tschus
pyotr
--
py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich, amongst others.
When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too.
We called it "Being held back a year"
Earl Faubion
>So Earl's response to "hand out Uzi's to all our kindergartners" is a non
>sequitur.
>It's quite evident that he doesn't understand the argument at several
>levels.
I understand the arugment perfectly. You contend less training is
best and the kindergarten thing takes it to a comedic extreme which
evidently touched your hot button and to which YOU keep returning. As
long as such responses continue to hit home they will be used.
Steve D. Fischer
>In article <4ds7u1$r...@ionews.ionet.net>,
>Earl Faubion <efau...@ionet.net> wrote:
>>In article <4ds6u6$9...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
>>
>>>>>This is a classic ..... classic example of what gun owners have been
>>>>>saying for years - namely, that private citizens make fewer shooting
>>>>>mistakes than cops.
>>
>>
>>>Why do you always refuse to argue with facts, logic, and the relevant
>>>information?
>>
>>Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cop."
>>Since cops receive more training than the average citizen you insinuate less
>>training is better. Why?
>
>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true. Nobody
>mentioned training, I don't know where you got that from. We're talking
>about shooting in self defense here.
>
>Police are more than 5x as likely to shoot the wrong person than a civilian.
>That has nothing to do with training. It has to do with the civilian
>knowing who his attacker is.
>
>>>entire incident.
>>
>>Oh, this is wonderful. I guess the gang bangers are shooting the RIGHT
>>people?
>
>What the hell are you talking about?
Don't even bother trying to figure that person out. He/she is grasping
at straws - clouding the issue - which is, that when private citizens
justifiably shoot their weapons at a bad guy, they correctly identify the
bad guy 5 times more often than the cops do.
steve hix
:fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) wrote:
:
:>mid-identified innocents. Civilians make the same mistake about
:>2.5% of the time. (And there are a *lot* more civilians than officers
:>out there.)
:
:Now let's compare the number of police calls you've taken and compare.
:Hmmmm..........
:
:Not meaning to sound mean but that makes a world of difference. This
:is a lot like comparing the number of 'innocents' killed by Marines in
:battle and comparing them with the number of innocents killed by the
:local college ROTC.
Yes, the situations are different.
At the same time, it is *still* correct that it is more likely *on a percentage
basis* that a police officer is nearly five times as likely as a civilian engaged
in self defense to shoot the "wrong" person.
The argument that civilians are somehow inherently more dangerous than
police officers because of differences in training (or that police are invariably
better trained) is clearly bogus.
:>The fact above has nothing to do with ill-will on the part of police
:>officers (as far as I know), it's one of the outcomes of the job they
:>have to do.
:
:Correct.
Well, we agree on that much, anyway.
steve hix
:fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) wrote:
:
:
:Apples and oranges. Civilians have the option of running away.
So do police, Earl. Remember the L.A. riots?
(Fortunately, that event is most remarkable by its very rarity.)
Not that your comment has anything useful to do with the percentage
comparison between police and civilian error rates.
The fact remains, Earl, that a higher percentage of police shootings are
of the "wrong" person than of civilian self defense shootings.
Whether or not someone may choose to run away instead has no
bearing on the issue.
:>non sequitur. Unless you're completely lost as regards the topic of
:>conversation, try to stick with the topic, OK?
:
:Gee... nice dodge.
Note that Early neatly clips the context, which is that he seems to have
difficulty differentiating between criminals ("gang bangers") and
law-abiding citizens acting in self defense.
:>Or do you really believe that "gang bangers" are indistinguishable from
:>the "average citizen"? One certainly hopes not.
:
:Please try and stick with the topic, OK?
Earl really seems to have lost the context.
I suspect he's not representative of law enforcement personnel in a number
of respects. I surely do hope not.
Scout
>
>In article <4drh20$5...@news.bu.edu>, jdwe...@bu.edu (A Traveler of the
>It's really difficult to show up before an incident happens. But when the
>officer did show up an immediate problem occurred, he was confronted by an
>armed man who refused to put his weapon down.
Hmmmm. I must have missed this bit of information. What is your source?
>"Earl, let me refresh your memory. The police say the homeowner
>pointed the shotgun. The homeowner says he did not. We don't really
>know which is true. But it's interesting how you assume the police
>must be the ones telling the truth."
>
>It's interesting how you assume that the police are not telling the truth.
>
Why should we assume anything? Is this proper law enforcement? I'm
interested in facts not guesswork. Is it a fact that the homeowner pointed
the gun at the cop or is it just a claim made by the officer in question?
Scout
>
>In article <4drcvc$e...@news1.mnsinc.com>, sc...@sma.com (Scout) writes:
>
>>that a clear and immediate threat exist. Are the police governed by
>>less demanding standards, despite your claim of greater training?
>>I would think that having had such trainging would demand, if anything,
>>higher standards to be set for the police.
>>To help prevent cases such as occured in this instance.
>>
>>
>
>The self-defense law requires only a reasonable fear.
Which results from and requires the clear and immediate threat.
I can have a reasonable fear that a particular person may try to
harm me, but I can't do a thing about it (as far as force) until
the threat is actual.
>This covers police
>and civilians. Police do have greater training and, thus, are given less
>leeway then any average civilian. In a local town, a civilian tried to
>stop a car thief by firing his gun at the vehicle at a crowded
>intersection.
Doesn't sound like a proper self defense situation to me. Unless the
man had a resonable idea that the thief would injure someone with his
shown reckless driving, and even then I think that would be touch and
go as far as the law is concerned. It certainly shows, IMO, bad judgement
on the part of the shooter.
> He hit just about every car there except the stolen one. No
>charges. A cop would have had his butt light up and rightly so. The chief
>refused to charge the guy because the public thought this was a great act.
-----------------------------------
Seems you imply the real reason that the guy wasn't charged wasn't
the nature of his actions, but the public opinion of those actions.
If the public opinion had been different, would charges have been
brought? Say reckless endangerment?
KevinM179
>Police are more than 5x as likely to shoot the wrong person than a
civilian.
>That has nothing to do with training. It has to do with the civilian
>knowing who his attacker is.
Civilians are more likely to turn and point the gun at the officer
Steve D. Fischer
Earl Faubion <efau...@ionet.net> wrote:
>fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) wrote:
>
>>Well, they. About 2.5% vs 11%.
>
>Apples and oranges. Civilians have the option of running away.
That is totally irrelevant to the question of MIS-IDENTIFYING the
bad guy when there *IS* a shooting.
kev...@cc.usu.edu
> fir...@iag.net (firebug) wrote:
>
>>>Your words = "private citizens make fewer shooting mistakes than cops."
>>>training is better. Why?
>
>>Not my words actually, but I agree with them because they're true.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You crack me up!
>
> *twit filter on*
>
Having attempted to follow this thread for two days, and seeing that
your arguments are no more coherent now than they were two days ago,
I can safely conclude that you are an idiot.
Kevin M. Okleberry
KevinM179
Bolin) writes:
>I can remember when there was a politeness that was extended to peace
>officers and inturn politeness was extended to the bosses of peace
>officers - We the People.
>
>Now there seems to be a military squint to the police throughout the
>country. For instance, where I live a Sherriff's department has been
>awarded "The Best in Tactical Operations". Doesn't this send like a
>military operation?
>
>
Larry, most police know they work for the people. However, times are
different then ten to twenty years ago. I was raised that to murder is
simply wrong. Kids nowadays are taught that it can be excused. On the
news, kids are shown as they are led to the lock up to be charged with
capital murder. Innocent or guilty, I would be severely traumatized
by this development. These kids are smiling and laughing. To them, it's a
badge of honor.
A white guy was shot dead because he called the suspect a "nigger". The
jury acquitted the suspect. In the early days of law enforcement, most
criminals would never have considered killing anyone, much less a cop. Not
so anymore. They don't care about their own life, much less yours.
Years ago, a police raid consisted of several detectives, in windbreakers
with POLICE on the back. They were usually armed with snub-nosed revolvers
and one shotgun. They would walk up to the door and knock. If they were
not shot then and no one answered, one detective would kick the door while
the "shotgun" would follow. In many cases, officers and suspects died.
Tactics change with changing times.
Up until 1975, the New Orleans Police Dept. had no tactical team. That
changed with the Howard Johnson sniper in 1973. Because no division was
trained to deal with the situation, the scene was swarmed by several
divisions, some of whom could not communicate with each other, and four
other agencies, which had no jurisdiction. The result was officers
shooting at the hotel while other officers attempted to enter it. A deputy
chief led one charge which resulted in his death.
Police departments must practice combat tactics, not to deal with the
average citizen, but to deal with the occassional screwball. I wish
officers didn't have to wear bulletproof vests or Kevlar helmets, carry
MP5's or use APC's but times have changed. They must face heavier arsenals
carried by those willing to use them. I hope we never see the day
when an officer answers a barking dog complaint, wearing a flak jacket and
helmet. I also wish we see the day when kids are raised to never consider
killing another human being over a pair of tennis shoes or his right to
sell crack on a certain corner.
KevinM179
Faubion) writes:
>Like the store clerk in Omaha who chased down the beer bandits,
>killing one and wounding the other... 150 yards from the store? And
>some people are calling him a hero. Now what do you think public
>opinion would be if instead of a clerk it had been a cop?
In New Orleans, a truck owner heard a noise outside. he stepped out and
saw a man leaning in his truck. The owner retrieved a gun and fired at the
guy from his doorway. The truck was 25 to 30 ft. away. No warning. People
are calling him a hero. Contrast this to the tirade by Freak and PJ about
the police who killed a man attacking him with a knife! Shall we say the H
word? HYPOCRITS.
KevinM179
Faubion) writes:
>Somehow you have gotten the newspaper story confused with the scenario
>I'm discussing. I'm not passing judgement on that deal one way or the
>other... what I AM doing is discussing what one would do when faced
>with the threat of a firearm pointed at them.
Earl, they are not going to respond to your scenario. They know that to do
so would make them out to be hypocrits or liars.