Thursday, December 1, 2011

And Yet........the Police Recommend Using Your Phone, NOT a Gun....

Police advice: move, use your cell phone to call 911; not blast the perps.
From KSTP news:

4 Armed Robberies Overnight in Brooklyn Park

Four armed robberies were reported Sunday night in Brooklyn Park.
All of the robberies happened between 9:19 and 10:18 p.m. while the victims were walking on roadways, sidewalks or into apartment buildings.
Brooklyn Park Police tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS two robberies were reported in the south area of the city, with one near 63rd Ave. and Virginia Ave. and one on the 6200 block of 65th Ave. Two robberies were reported on the city's east side, with one on Brookdale Drive and one in the June Avenue area.
Police say two victims were hit with handguns, but they were not seriously hurt or taken to the hospital. The suspects took personal items like cash and cell phones.
"This serves as a good opportunity to remind people to pay attention to your surroundings when you are walking down the streets. If you see suspcious people approaching you on foot and you don't feel good about it, move yourself from that, walk away, run or call 911 as soon as possible," said Inspector Todd Milburn with the Brooklyn Park Police Department.
All of the victims and suspects are men. Descriptions of the armed robbers led police to believe the same suspects are responsible for each incident.


  1. Then why do the police carry guns in addition to their radios/cell phones?

    Before you say they encounter danger more often than I do, remind yourself that you know nothing about my circumstances.

  2. So in the span of an hour police were not able to respond to these crimes and prevent any of them?

  3. We do know that you're the bravest, most accurate shooter that ever was--even if it's only in your tiny, febrile brain.

    You keep telling us what a positive force for good you are but since we have no idea (other than your being whiny beard) we just don't know how to thank you.

  4. Way to duck the question old man.

  5. Of course the police tell us to dial 911--that's what they're instructed to say. As Anonymous pointed out, they carry guns.

  6. The police are as inadequately trained and screened as you civilian, vigilante macho men.

  7. OK, Let's play a game.

    You have an incident where you use your gun and don't notify the police.

    The police later knock on your door and you find that you are accused with aggravated assault, or worse.

    The side which is going to be the first heard is the victims--not yours.

    And before you scream "but the person was attacking me", you have to realise that, in the eyes of the law, he will have been the victim. He will be the complaining witness.

    And he may have scumbag friends who will say you pulled your gun when he was unarmed.

    You have lost the element of time.

    And the cops are paid to carry the guns--you aren't.

    You're just a bunch of idiot civilians who are more of a danger to yourselves and others than a positive force for society.

  8. Laci the Dog,

    Given the record of police brutality, corruption, and actions against innocent people, I have my doubts about trusting the police. That being said, if I have to use my handgun in self defense, I'll let them know.

  9. Laci,
    Using a gun in self defense and calling the cops in a timely manner are not mutually exclusive. I'm sorry you're so easily confused.

  10. And Laci,
    Why do cops carry guns? Is it because it's the best practical means of protecting oneself? Hmmm, is that why?

    You're basically saying cops are the only ones "professional enough" to carry guns. ROFL

  11. The cops carry guns because it is their profession, for which they are trained in what is and is not a legal act, to interact with criminals, at least some of whom resist lawful arrest.

    It is something they do, in conjunction with their lawful authority.

    I'm guessing that anonymous can't cite the laws under which different kinds of arrests are made.

    Cops, unlike anonymous, have duties to do things like read Miranda rights, among others. They are required to protect the civil rights of both victims and possible criminals.

    They are not executioners; the conviction and sentencing of criminals resides with the courts - unlike those citizens who execute other citizens who they believe may be breaking the law.

    With the duty and responsibility goes the authority, and the lawful force.

    THAT would be the justification for them carrying guns in addition to cell phones and radios. They work in conjunction with supervision, and the cooperation of other members of law enforcement.

    And my personal favorite for justifying law enforcement carrying firearms that differs from Anonymous and other civilians - their employer has insurance and the resources to compensate anyone who they improperly harm.

    I'm guessing that NONE of those criteria apply to you, Anonymous; but that is speculation on my part. Please show me where that is also true of you.

  12. How well are cops trained in gun use?

    On May 5, 2011, a SWAT team kicked open the door of ex-Marine Jose Guerena's home during a drug raid and opened fire. The SWAT officers fired 70 rounds of ammunition at Guerena – 23 of those bullets made contact.

    the other 'anonymous'

  13. "their employer has insurance and the resources to compensate anyone who they improperly harm."

    I thought you basically are not allowed to sue the government, so I doubt you are going to get compensation for any of their mistakes.

  14. When dog gone is wrong she obfuscates and brings up irrelevant topics like insurance.

  15. "their employer has insurance and the resources to compensate anyone who they improperly harm."

    I thought you basically are not allowed to sue the government, so I doubt you are going to get compensation for any of their mistakes.


    Maybe not in your country, but in the US you can.

  16. Anonymous said...

    Then why do the police carry guns in addition to their radios/cell phones?

    Anonymous said...

    When dog gone is wrong she obfuscates and brings up irrelevant topics like insurance.

    While Jim wrote I thought you basically are not allowed to sue the government, so I doubt you are going to get compensation for any of their mistakes.

    Both insurance, and their legal liability are significant issues in why it is preferable for police to be the ones to be armed rather than you guys.

    An example of such law suits is below:

    rongful death lawsuit against Fresno police officer moves forward ...
    Oct 27, 2011 – One family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a Fresno police officer, the city police chief, and the police department. Initially their ...
    Motion Requests Sanctions against Atlanta Police Department in ...
    Motion Requests Sanctions against Atlanta Police Department in Wrongful Death Lawsuit. Sara Dozier, the niece of a 92-year-old woman who was killed in an ...
    Relatives File Wrongful-Death Lawsuit Against Pomona Police In ...
    Nov 1, 2011 – ... filed a wrongful-death claim against the Police Department Tuesday. ... According to the attorney, Avila filed complaints July 27 against the ...
    Notable Civil Rights Cases | James B. Chanin, Esq.
    Subsequently, Mr. Chanin was involved in three other wrongful death cases involving the Richmond Police and many other excessive force cases filed and/or ...
    Police Lawsuits
    Kim Smith, the widow of William Smith, sued the city for wrongful death suit after her ... "When a police department breaks the law, that's especially outrageous." ...
    Police used excess force, lawsuit says
    The lawsuit says the officer, Filipe Carmichael, is shown in a police ... The estate of Troy Davis filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the Police Department. ...
    Los Angeles Police Department Named in Wrongful Death Lawsuit ...

    and those are just some of the wrongful death cases that I pulled up in a google search. Police have a very different legal obligation than civilians - a higher obligation - which is why they are the ones with the guns.

    Anon - I'll let you know if or when I'm losing. If this seems like obfuscation to you, I can only be amazed and amused that such a big word is included in your vocabulary. That there is some guarantee of compensation for mistakes IS an important element of who isarmed and who is not.

    It's not one of the sexy shoot'em up the perps! fantasies you guys obsess over, but it is a responsible adult aspect of having police carry guns - a difference that argues against the rest of you, unless you can prove a similar safeguard in the event of a mistake using a weapon.

  17. Are you aware someone wrongly (or rightly) shot by an individual can file civil suit, and often do? Sounds like there's not a problem here.

    This refers to the US... Not sure about UK where you live.

  18. Anonymous said...

    Are you aware someone wrongly (or rightly) shot by an individual can file civil suit, and often do? Sounds like there's not a problem here.

    And how many people who are reading and commenting here carry insurance for such a mistake? You can sue, but even if you win, there is no guarantee you can collect.

    Perhaps you could post here some of those successful suits where the victim of a civilian shooting collected the full amount awarded?

    Municipalities - towns, counties, etc. - are usually required to have some kind of insurance that covers all their employees, not just law enforcement. Further law enforcement is held to a higher standard than ordinary people in many cases - part of that general duty that Laci wrote about earlier, correcting the erroneous statement about police and protection.

    By all means, if you have sources where it is evident that civilians are as likely to indemnify for a wrongful death or a wounding with a firearm, list them here.

    I don't think you will find anything like as many as I can find evidence of people successfully suing law enforcement and municipalities for bad shootings.

    Now if you pro-gunners would be up for some kind of bond or insurance as a condition of gun ownership, especially for open or concealed carry, which would put some of your skin clearly in the game if you made a mistake? THAT would make me a lot happier about you and your weapons, in public places.

  19. Armed civilians are also held to a higher standard of care. (that's a legal term btw).

  20. Anonymous said...
    Armed civilians are also held to a higher standard of care. (that's a legal term btw).

    Really? Care to explain how armed civilians are held to a higher standard of care?

    Higher standard of care than WHAT? or should I say, higher standard of care than WHOM? Certainly not police.

    And yes, I'm aware that standard of care has a legal definition.

    Police have a general duty to protect; there is no similar duty of which I am aware that applies to civilians.

    But do please elaborate on your comment. I'm sure it will provide my co-blogger Laci with some amusement, given the other mistakes in understanding and interpreting the law he's seen here.

  21. To a higher standard of care than an unarmed individual.

    A lawfully armed individual is walking down the street minding his own business. A random passerby yells an insult at him. The armed person chooses to engage in an argument rather than walk away. If the situation escalates to the point where lethal force is used, the armed individual has lost the mantle of innocence and the shooting may not be justified.

    This is how they are held to a higher standard of care.

    You can educate yourself further by reading "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob.

  22. Laci the Dog just can't catch up with the Supreme Court's recent rulings. He also fails to understand the will of the people as expressed through many state legislatures. All of you peaked with the Assault Weapons Ban. It's been downhill ever since, and that trend continues.

  23. Greg, is a hit for brains and doesn't realise that Heller-McDonald did not:
    --Overrule the Miller Decision
    --Featured a dissent that ellaborated upon the Miller Decision (Stevens')
    --left Miller as good law.
    --illegally amended the constitution.

    I have posted the result from Shepherds which shows that Miller is still good law!

    Unless Greg is capable of demonstrating I'm wrong given the shepherds refernce--He is demonstrating he is a shit for brains when it comes to the law.

    But greg jusssttt looovvvveees to show us what a cretin he is and how much he loves to show his ignorance.

    As to Anonymous's comment:
    about how civilian gun owners are held to a higher standard of care.

    Not really, this is the law. If the pro-gun side is going to claim to be truly law abiding, then they need to realise that they must act within the law.

    I can also add that if a cop were to shoot an unarmed person without justification, they would also be criminally and civilly liable.

    Case in point: Amadou Diallo. The cops in question found themselves up on charges for shooting an unarmed man.

    So, you are courting danger if you carrying a weapon--especially a firearm.

    You have to be truly law abiding.

    And if you are, you will probably find that carrying a weapon is far more of a detriment than an asset.

  24. There is no difference in the "standard of care" required from someone who is armed or unarmed, the force used to counter a threat in self-defence must be reasonable--that is sufficient to counter the force without becomming the aggressor.

    for example, if you shoot an unarmed person, you have used excessive force.

    It could also be considered excessive force if you could have safely left the scene from an armed confrontation, but shot instead.

    The reason for the licence to kill laws is that it makes it easier for someone to shoot and kill someone without culpability where before they could have been charged with a crime.

    That's why the gun lobby wants them.

    But it also makes it easier for criminals to kill and harder to prosecute crimes.

  25. Laci the Dog,

    Heller and McDonald are recent rulings. We'll see in the days to come what gets added and how they're used. As for Miller, I remind you that the defendants in the case weren't even represented, since they ran out of money. They were also gangsters who were trying to get away with crimes. Heller and McDonald are decent citizens who simply want to defend themselves. The Court doesn't tend to side with thugs in Second Amendment cases.

    You said that if we shoot an unarmed person, we've used excessive force. That's not entirely or even nearly true. We have to show a disparity of force. Say, for example, a 6'4" 300 lbs. man threatens the life of an elderly woman. That's a disparity, and the woman would be justified in shooting to defend herself. Other examples like that are also the case. There has to be the reasonable belief that death or serious injury will happen.