Black off duty cop shot while coming to assistance of fellow officers

[ZiprHead]

This will make Loren's head spin

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/off-duty-st-louis-officer-injured-by-friendly-fire-after/article_761b9cc4-75d1-5023-a38f-c4096f99d114.html

"An off-duty officer was wounded by "friendly fire" as police looked for suspects after a stolen vehicle fled police and crashed late Wednesday."

"Another officer just arriving at the scene saw the off-duty officer get up and, not knowing he was an officer, fired his weapon once at the man. He hit the off-duty officer in the arm, the department said."

 

[LordKiran]

So you're telling me that some American police officers are so skittish and undisciplined that they're now shooting each other? Isn't that great?

 

[barbos]

So you're telling me that some American police officers are so skittish and undisciplined that they're now shooting each other? Isn't that great?

The guy was not in uniform. I hope he will be OK, but that's pretty funny.

 

[dismal]

I'm glad someone started a thread on this important political issue.

I can't wait until the people who support skittish police officers shooting each other show up so I can school them in the errors of that position.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you're just full on trolling at this point, huh?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm glad someone started a thread on this important political issue.

I can't wait until the people who support skittish police officers shooting each other show up so I can school them in the errors of that position.

Might be waiting a bit.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm glad someone started a thread on this important political issue.

I can't wait until the people who support skittish police officers shooting each other show up so I can school them in the errors of that position.

What error would that be?

We(society in general) have already decided that a badge, combined with fear, is a license to kill. If a police officer happens to be the victim, there's no reason to think this would change things.

We need to remember, current policy is whatever was let by, last time. Written laws and statutes have no real bearing, when practice defines policy.

A police officer shooting a citizen, or another police officer, is acceptable, because it's accepted.

 

[starwater]

maybe it's a Darwinism that the scared and stupid kill each other off.

 

[Keith&Co.]

maybe it's a Darwinism that the scared and stupid kill each other off.

That would only work in one of those shootouts where both gunslingers are mortally wounded.
This is just the scared and armed shooting, not necessarily targeting scared and
armed.

 

[dismal]

So you're just full on trolling at this point, huh?

Sure, if "trolling" means decisively taking a relevant position on the thread topic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Somehow I think we aren't getting the whole story but it certainly sounds wrong.

 

[dismal]

I'm glad someone started a thread on this important political issue.

I can't wait until the people who support skittish police officers shooting each other show up so I can school them in the errors of that position.

What error would that be?

We(society in general) have already decided that a badge, combined with fear, is a license to kill. If a police officer happens to be the victim, there's no reason to think this would change things.

We need to remember, current policy is whatever was let by, last time. Written laws and statutes have no real bearing, when practice defines policy.

A police officer shooting a citizen, or another police officer, is acceptable, because it's accepted.

Not sure I follow your logic here.

Even if one grants the premise "we have granted police officers a license to kill" (which seems a bit of a stretch) how does it then follow that we want them to be skittishly shooting at each other?

 

[LordKiran]

What error would that be?

We(society in general) have already decided that a badge, combined with fear, is a license to kill. If a police officer happens to be the victim, there's no reason to think this would change things.

We need to remember, current policy is whatever was let by, last time. Written laws and statutes have no real bearing, when practice defines policy.

A police officer shooting a citizen, or another police officer, is acceptable, because it's accepted.

Not sure I follow your logic here.

Even if one grants the premise "we have granted police officers a license to kill" (which seems a bit of a stretch) how does it then follow that we want them to be skittishly shooting at each other?

Laws work on precedent and enforcement. If a law is in place but not enforced, then the precedent set is that the law is effectively defunct.

 

[dismal]

Laws work on precedent and enforcement. If a law is in place but not enforced, then the precedent set is that the law is effectively defunct.

....and therefore we want skittish police officers shooting at each other?

 

[LordKiran]

Laws work on precedent and enforcement. If a law is in place but not enforced, then the precedent set is that the law is effectively defunct.

....and therefore we want skittish police officers shooting at each other?

No, but you (Or more specifically, people who think like you) enable situations like these with the policies you/they support and don't support. If juries continue to let men like this not be held accountable, then they will continue to act as if they aren't held accountable. Until we establish a precedent that law enforcement must be punished when they wrongly kill
or injure someone, they will continue to sometimes wrongly kill and injure people and go unpunished for it.

 

[dismal]

....and therefore we want skittish police officers shooting at each other?

No, but you (Or more specifically, people who think like you) enable situations like these with the policies you/they support and don't support. If juries continue to let men like this not be held accountable, then they will continue to act as if they aren't held accountable. Until we establish a precedent that law enforcement must be punished when they wrongly kill
or injure someone, they will continue to sometimes wrongly kill and injure people and go unpunished for it.

You are mistaken.

I came out decisively against skittish policemen shooting each other.

 

[LordKiran]

No, but you (Or more specifically, people who think like you) enable situations like these with the policies you/they support and don't support. If juries continue to let men like this not be held accountable, then they will continue to act as if they aren't held accountable. Until we establish a precedent that law enforcement must be punished when they wrongly kill
or injure someone, they will continue to sometimes wrongly kill and injure people and go unpunished for it.

You are mistaken.

I came out decisively against skittish policemen shooting each other.

Then your positions on policy and law enforcement in general should reflect this stance. Actions speak louder than words. Votes speak louder still.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are mistaken.

I came out decisively against skittish policemen shooting each other.

Then your positions on policy and law enforcement in general should reflect this stance.

It does. dismal never said anything about being against skittish police officers shooting people in general, just other officers.

 

[ksen]

I'm glad someone started a thread on this important political issue.

I can't wait until the people who support skittish police officers shooting each other show up so I can school them in the errors of that position.

Might be waiting a bit.

I doubt it.

- - - Updated - - -

Somehow I think we aren't getting the whole story but it certainly sounds wrong.

See? just 2 hours and 12 minutes later. That's not too long.

 

[Toni]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-1255pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.5e8d6ff5e8c8

What I find absolutely the most damning thing about this whole incident--and our nation as a whole is the following:

But Rufus Tate Jr., the black officer’s attorney, took issue with that claim, saying his client complied with the other officers’ commands and was never a threat.

“In the police report, you have so far, there is no description of threat he received,” he told St. Louis Fox-affiliate KTVI. “So we have a real problem with that. But this has been a national discussion for the past two years. There is this perception that a black man is automatically feared.”


Tate said the incident was a case of “a black professional, in law enforcement, himself being shot and treated as an ordinary black guy on the street. This is a real problem.”

I am appalled at the entire incident but especially appalled at the bolded part.

This is the world we live in? One where we decide that someone is a threat because of the color of their skin? And that the appalling part is that belonging to part of the power structure: a police officer, is what it takes to clothe a black man in sufficient respectability that he is not feared and shot on sight by another police office- only so long as he's in uniform.

WTF, America? Seriously: WTF?