Florida has a gun culture which is a part of their gun violence problem. Florida is one of those states with incidents most often appearing on this blog.
Last month was, among other things, domestic violence awareness month. I wrote about the unique problems with gun violence and domestic abuse committed by law enforcement. For those of you who did not read it here then, the romantic partners and families of law enforcement are 40% more likely to be victims of domestic violence abuse by the law enforcement members of their family than the civilian population. Firearms, and threats involving firearms, either privately owned or their service weapon, frequently are part of such threats. Further, their fellow law enforcement officers do NOT investigate or pursue such domestic abuse crimes the way they would members of the general public.
While details are still uncertain in this specific case, the fact that this law enforcement officer was shooting at a female law enforcement officer, in view of these statistics, certainly suggests that this might have been some kind of romance gone bad. That the officer shot AND MISSED is an additional concern; if law enforcement, where proficiency is a requirement, miss their targets - and they often DO miss - then how much LESS should we be comfortable with the skills and proficiency of the private citizen who is NOT obligated to train or demonstrate their proficiency regularly as a condition of their use?
And what does it tell us about the psychological state of this officer that after trying to kill someone.......he blithely ordered pizza? It speaks much more favorably of the woman officer he targeted that she turned this over to a SWAT team to subdue the offending officer, rather than engaging in some kind of defensive shootout with him. That is the kind of shooting that most of our gun loons here would advocate should happen. They wet themselves thinking about it.
The bullet missed the intended victim — a female colleague whose name is not being released.
According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel, the shooting took place by Inverry Boulevard and NW 56 Ave. in Lauderhill at about 7:30 p.m. on Saturday.
A report in the Miami Herald said Bieger then drove to a Publix shopping center near the corner of Griffin and Volunteer roads, where he entered Donato’s Ristorante and ordered two slices of pizza.
Donato DeLio, 60, owner of the restaurant, told the newspaper: "He was just a regular customer...The guy was not threatening nobody."
The report said Bieger walked outside to the parking lot, appearing agitated, while waiting for his order.
“We were in the back for two hours,” DeLio told the newspaper. “Then the SWAT team came in through our back door.”
Police said in an email that Bieger was arrested and booked in the Broward County Main Jail around 11 a.m. Sunday.
Bieger has been with the City of Lauderhill since 2006. He has been suspended without pay.
Lauderhill police wouldn't comment on the nature of the incident, or why it happened, or the nature of the relationship between Bieger and his intended victim.
Based on your typical line of reasoning, what you jsut told us indicates that the police should not be allowed the use of firearms.
ReplyDeleteNo, what I wrote was that there is a problem with some - certainly not all, not even a majority - of law enforcement officers who abuse their guns, particularly in the context of domestic violence or romantic relationships.
ReplyDeleteThis was an example.
Just as in many respects, law enforcement is held more accountable, not less, for how they use their authority, including weapons, they should be held more accountable, not less so, for violations of law in shooting or threatening others. They are not currently, and that needs to change.
Being part of a guns-solve-your-problems culture, where you shoot those who you believe have wronged you or challenged your authority in some way is UNHEALTHY.
I would be surprised if there were not red flags suggesting this cop had some problems well before this event. Maybe he shouldn't have had a gun OFF the job, and maybe his superiors and co-workers should have been stressing to him the need for alternatives to gun violence MORE.
But clearly, you have a problem with reading for comprehension.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with reading comprehension. My problem is that I disagree with you. That's a grevious sin, I know.
What you said about there being a problem with only some, not all and not even a majority, of officers is true about private citizens with guns and with carry licenses.
By the way, I don't believe in shooting someone who has challenged my authority or wronged me. I've said before that I understand the limits of self defense--lethal force is only justified in defense of self or another innocent.
Who has reading comprehension problems?
But you all believe the police should dole out gun privileges to the lessor citizenry.
ReplyDeleteFatWhiteMan said...
ReplyDeleteBut you all believe the police should dole out gun privileges to the lessor citizenry.
I believe that police who batter or threaten, or worse, try to kill other people shouldn't have guns. They should be required to get help, if they remain police officers, to correct and change their behavior.
I do believe that police should be the ones who issue gun permits, yes. I think that works quite well. But no, I don't want to see anyone prohibited from gun ownership that is not already prohibited by virtue of felony conviction, dangerous mental illness, etc. -- the people who would be denied by existing federal law, if the NCIS worked. It doesn't work, because the NRA sabotaged the NCIS.
I would like to see requirements for stricter safer gun storage - gun safes, trigger guards, etc. And some kind of requirement for a bond or an insurance rider to cover any property or liability losses. I don't wish to deny hunters, or people who enjoy shooting sports the opportunity to do so. Half the people in starbucks with guns and holsters.....not so much.
GC wrote "By the way, I don't believe in shooting someone who has challenged my authority or wronged me. I've said before that I understand the limits of self defense--lethal force is only justified in defense of self or another innocent."
ReplyDeleteBut you do advocate shooting someone over a minor issue, you advocate shooting someone who is attempting to leave / flee.
Not legal, not justified.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYour argument has been that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with firearms because they often do bad things with them. You admit that some police officers also do bad things with firearms. We can toss numbers ad nauseum, but aren't the two arguments effectively the same? Doesn't this article offer the same kind of evidence to say that the police can't be trusted with guns?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, if someone offers me the choice of my money or my life, I'm going to choose a third option.
Greg has a point about the police. I say they need to be screened and trained far better than they are today. Probably half of them need to go or be assigned to desk jobs. More properly screened recruits would need to take their place.
ReplyDelete"By the way, I don't believe in shooting someone who has challenged my authority or wronged me. I've said before that I understand the limits of self defense--lethal force is only justified in defense of self or another innocent."
ReplyDeleteThat's a lie. That is a direct contradiction of comments that you have made previously, on this blog.
Conflating the incident that is the subject of this post with your fethisistic need for teh gunz is both stupid and disingenuous.
Mikeb302000 and dog gone are both correct. The fact that some LEO's are just as big morons as other gunzloonz is not a surpise, it's just a demographic. Police should certainly be subject to stringent regulation and should be required to undergo extensive training in both firearms safety and the appropriate use of firearms in their role as a public safety officer. I not only agree with this, I think that both the training and regulations should be far more professional and focused than they seem to be in some departments.
Considering the level of stress that is a constant in most LEOs' lives it is not surprising that a number of them act inappropritately, with or without, drawing their weapons.
An unacceptable level of corruption, retaliatory violence and other criminal activity amongst the ranks of LEO's is troubling and requires that PD's be more professionally administered.
To conflate any of that with your nonsensical wetdream of arming the entire population to ensure that we have a safe, civil society is, at best, intellectually dishonest. I prefer to think of it as to the bone stupid.
While we're on the subject of police and weapons.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp has stated, several times, in his comments that he would be perfectly fine with shooting someone for being scary or messin' with his shit.
Cops, in general, deal with assholes on a daily basis. They deal with thieves, spousal abusers, paedophiles, rapists, murderers (including cop killers), mentally unbalanced people and a host of other potentially or actually dangerous people. They don't shoot MOST of them. They rarely shoot any of them. Rare does not mean one or two or seven hundred a week. It means that as a statistic, police shootings pale in comparison to police confronting/being confronted by people who are engaging in criminal/dangerous activity.
This table:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl14.xls
shows 387 justifiable homicides by LEO's in 2010.
This table:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
shows 278 justifiable homicides by private citizens in 2010.
The homicides by police officers in 2010 were investigated, or they wouldn't be in the report. Those police officers involved were in many, if not all, cases, required to undergo debriefing. They were likely all questioned by IAD or some other in-house or extra departmental agency to determine whether their actions were justified. They were probably placed on administrative leave or restricted duty for some period of time. They were also probably required to have a psychiatric assessment/counselling sessions to determine their mental state and suitability for return to normal duties.
Few if any of the things I just mentioned are likely to be required or even suggested to a private citizen who bags a perp.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to call me a liar, I suggest that you back up your words with evidence.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteYou are a liar. You have made comments in the last week that indicate that you would kill someone for the money in your pocket. If you don't like being called a liar I'd suggest you stop lying.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI said that if someone is threatening my life, for whatever reason, I would have the right to use equivalent force to stop the threat. That generally means lethal force. I didn't say that I go around shooting the homeless man who just holds a cardboard sign.
You said you would shoot someone for the money that you had in your pocket. If you can't even remember what you say in previous comments that would be a problem, for you.
ReplyDeleteGreg says, "I would have the right to use equivalent force to stop the threat. That generally means lethal force."
ReplyDeleteIt sure would mean lethal force, since any aggressive move in your direction could mean they want to kill you.
Have you had a chance to try that out yet?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteYes, I did say what you quote. Let's think, if someone wants my money, how is that person going to get it without the threat of injuring or killing me? If a robber says, "Please give me your money, or I'll ask for it again," that's not as effective, no? Since I have to spell everything out for you, I'm talking about the situation in which a thug is using force to rob me.
Mikeb302000,
We're talking about what a reasonable person would believe. Is the person visibly stronger or larger than I am? Is there more than one? Does the person have a weapon--bat, knife, gun, etc.?
Do you believe that human beings are able to make rational judgements?
"Yes, I did say what you quote. Let's think, if someone wants my money, how is that person going to get it without the threat of injuring or killing me? If a robber says, "Please give me your money, or I'll ask for it again," that's not as effective, no? Since I have to spell everything out for you, I'm talking about the situation in which a thug is using force to rob me."
ReplyDeleteYour clarification doesn't make your position any more laudable or, in likelihood, anymore legal.
If you pull a gun on someone and he continues to attack you, you have the right to defend yourself. If you kill him in the process, particularly if you shoot him after he's down and helpless or while he's running away, you're a killer, perhaps a murderer.
I get that you don't give a fuck if somebody gets killed over the $1M or the $16.23 that's in your wallet, as long as you get to shoot them, you're cool with that.
Oh, and btw; yes, you were lying when you said that you didn't say that earlier.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteIf you claim that I am lying, show me the comment to which you refer. Unlike a communist state, here, you don't get to use accusation as proof.
You're dangerous Greg. I'm glad my family doesn't live in your neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI'm dangerous? You can't name a single person who has suffered harm from my guns, and I don't even have a pool--too much work, not enough gain. Just how is it that I'm dangerous? Oh, your family might find out that someone in this world disagrees with you. If that's how I'm dangerous, you have to know that the world is full of people like me.
You're dangerous Greg because of your own description of how and when you would use lethal force to protect yourself. Over the course of your life, if you have a few opportunities to do it, you're sure to kill someone who doesn't need killing.
ReplyDeleteWhen you take a large group of guys like you, a certain percentage of you have alcohol, drug, rage, mental health and marital problems to the point of being unfit. For the most part those dangerous ones are indistinguishable from the rest.