Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Police Shoot Pastor

I know we've agreed to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes you just have to wonder.


  1. I know we've agreed to give the police the benefit of the doubt

    When did we agree to that? In my opinion law enforcement should be held to the same standards and laws as everyone else. No special treatment or elevated status. That is just an invitation for abuse.

  2. I agree with RuffRidr. I too feel that cops and citizens should be on the same level and held to the same standards.

    Therefore, since the man was on his own property and the cop was unmarked, I would say the benefit of the doubt should be given to the victim and the cop arrested and must prove it was legitimate. The cop should have to prove that it was defensive and all tests of self defense were in place just like any other citizen would have to in his place.

  3. I see this as a perfect example of why police should never be allowed to "go undercover" and arrest someone. The arresting officers should always be in uniform, in a clearly marked car, with multiple officers. The undercover officers should not be allowed to arrest anyone, only provide information as a witness and call in the crime to a waiting marked unit. If the police dept doesn't have enough manpower to do that, then don't do the undercover work.

    Who knows what was happening there, as the pastor may have thought "this guy isn't really a cop" and decided his life was about to be taken.

    I totally agree with RuffRidr and FatWhiteMan about the cops being held to the same standards.

  4. Technically, the cops are held to the same standard. The real issue is that they have protection under soverign immunity for making arrests. If they fuck up, they have more protection than Joe Citizen.

    If Joe Citizen arrests the wrong person or illegally arrests someone, they can be criminally and civilly liable, no matter what the reason.

    Cops also have slightly less liability if they shoot someone during the course of their duties, but they can still be sued.

    If you pop an innocent bystander, you're effed (unless you happen to be in a jurisdiction with a "licence to kill law").

    Interestingly enough, the Real TR was NYPD commissioner for two years. He was reputed for "enforcement of all laws, no matter how unpopular".



  5. So cops are held to the same standard, and yet they aren't.

    Thanks for clearing that up, Laci's beta. Too bad the correct term is Qualified Immunity. Cops aren't our sovereign.

    Oh, and how does this agent's treatment sound as a standard?

  6. The benefit of the doubt I was referring to is the one which prohibits me from concluding the cops are power abusing gangsters when there aren't enough facts to support that.

    It's the same tendency I have when analyzing a DGU. If it's the word of the supposedly legitimate gun owner that he had no choice but to shoot, I always wonder if he's lying.

    When the cops say the guy with a knife was "lunging," I immediately think they're full of shit, they're lying to cover up an unnecessry shooting.

    In this case I agree with FWM, plain-clothed cops on the guy's property were out of line, that's why I posted it in the first place.

  7. Here's what happens seconds after the lunge.

    I agree with Mike, cops, and anybody else who shoots to stop a knife attack, diserve the benefit of the doubt.

  8. Van Dyke, You should have warned me how graphic those pics are. I'm thinking about getting a gun now.

  9. But, you don't need one. That guy is proof. He was knifed "just a little bit." He wasn't killed, so if you did get a gun and used it in a situation like that, someone like yourself would come along and question why you used it.

    Nope, you can't get a gun MikeB. I don't foresee the need for you to have one.