Cops crew member, robbery suspect both shot dead by Nebraska police

I guess some of that depends upon ones lifestyle. Neither myself, nor any member of my family, and not anyone I know or any family member of anyone I know has ever been shot at, shot, or killed by a Cop. All I know otherwise are stories. And they all involve cops doing their jobs, dealing with very dangerous situations. So to me, whether intentional or accidental, it is understandable when someone is injured or killed by an officer in the line of duty. I mean what do you expect? They aren't cotton candy vendors for gosh sakes. They are men and women to whom we give badges and guns and tell them to uphold the law, often amongst the worst and most dangerous of society.

 

I think it boils down to population numbers per square mile, sprinkled with crappy Parents and welfare. Be thankful that you live in the country. It is not that way everywhere.

 

Every day more and more.

 

No. How many cops are punished for killing an innocent person? None that I am aware of - its always the same story, the cop gets a desk job until the public heat wears off, the PD begins a smear campaign against the victims, an internal investigation exonerates the cop, the PD rallies around the cop saying only a cop can judge another cop.

When the LA cops were looking for Dorner, cops saw a blue truck similar to Dorners and opened fire, the problem was the people in the truck were 2 women delivering newspapers. End result - no punishment for the cops (they were actually praised by the LAPD), one women shot, the other injured.

That's the way all these cases go. Case after case after case is available for your review, all you have to do is look.

As a profession, the police system is broken, it places officer safety above all other factors including your life. Cops are given total freedom to kill as long as they can create a story that it involved "officer safety".

 

All you have to do is a little bit of research. Its easy to just say "I'm not buyng it" without taking the time to check into first hand accounts, many with video, many that went to court and were settled out of court.

 

That's incorrect. In urban warfare, there are civilians all over. A bad guy will select an ambush position in a crowded area because he knows US forces will be hampered by non-combatants, and the non-combatants give the bad guy a way to blend in and escape. Civilians try to run away when the shooting starts, that just adds to the confusion and aids the bad guys escape.

Concern over collateral damage is the #1 issue in close air support and fire support. I've seen air support hold off until bad guys shooting at US troops cleared an area with civilian's - even an area with civilian buildings whose occupancy was unknown.

Friendly fire is a mistake, its not the same as intentionally shooting when a civilian who is in the line of fire.

The guy was fleeing when he was shot, there was no reason to shoot the bystander.

 

How do you know? I have put almost nothing about myself on this forum. You don't know where I have lived, whether I have been a crime victim, or a criminal, or a cop, or in the military.

You are the problem. You make excuses for cops, and support the attitude that the cop is more valuable than any other person. That's why so many innocent people are killed by cops.

 

Cops are supposed to be trained to discriminate between the bad guy and the bystander. That ability to isolate and prosecute the bad guy is supposed to be what makes a cop the protector of the community.

Either cops have faulty training, or have a faulty attitude, or both - in either case the cop should not be a cop at all.

Blaming the bad guy for the cop killing a bystander is short sighted and is nothing more than giving cops a license to kill.

Wrong. This is not a simple either-or issue. The choice is not between anarchy or a police state. For decades, cops did what they were supposed to do - protect and serve the community. They were not above the community, they were accountable to the people they served, and to a large extent they were held accountable. People used to see cops as a community resource, not as a threat.

They used to be called "Peace Officers", today they are called "law enforcement officers". There is a world of difference between those labels.

 

^Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Lots of things are settled out of court without one side being guilty.

 

First off, we don't have a police state as you said. Neither can ration or reason dictate that cops must be perfect beings. When one innocent bystander gets hit with one bullet during a shootout between 3 cops and one armed robber, it is not evidence of gross recklessness as you suggest. But is rather the occasional unfortunate byproduct of a society of laws, crime, and enforcement. That's why the perpetrator of the crime is normally charged with the bystanders death. Because were it not for the criminals actions, there would have been no shootout. It has been this way forever, even in the good old days for which you pine. As for peace officers versus law enforcement officers I can only say that 911 wasn't called to rescue a cat from a tree, assist a stranded motorist or lecture a car full of old ladies about proper use of turn signals. They were called to an armed robbery. Can cops overreact? Sure. But that needs to be left to the investigation, and dealt with accordingly But for society to immediately jump up and blame the cops at every turn is premature, judgmental, self righteous, ignorant, reckless and counter productive.

 

It has not been this way forever. Cops used to be held accountable, it was not acceptable for a cop to kill a bystander. There was also a technical reason for cops to be accurate - they used to carry revolvers (6 shot) or a 1911 style 45 (7 shots), not semi-auto's with 17 round magazines.

Today, cops claim they are well trained specifically to discriminate between the bad guy and the bystander, to know when to shoot, and to shoot accurately. It doesn't take any special training for 3 guys to shoot 30+ times at a fleeing bad guy, sending bullets all over the place.

If this was a singular event, or even a rare event, then I would agree. I used to agree with your statement. But these incidents happen every day - literally. 500+ innocent people killed by cops a year. 40,000+ no-knock SWAT raids a year for everything from arresting violent criminals to serving simple regulatory violations, and many of those result in deaths of innocents including children in their beds who were shot by cops (or a baby put in a coma due to a cop tossing a flash-bang in his crib).

A family dog is killed every 98 sec, which you might think is trivial - its just a dog - but each one represents a negative interaction between cops and innocent people. On Facebook, there are many 1,000's of pages (many named "Justice for xxx") of cases where cops went illegally onto someone's property and killed the family dog.

And on dogs, you have to wonder why cops have to kill dogs at the first bark, but the FedEx and UPS guys seem to do just fine.

 

Very tragic; it's most likely going to force various law enforcement agencies to reconsider policies allowing media agencies (including production companies that focus solely on show's such as these) on how close they get in the action when it starts. For the media people producing these shows, its not exactly the safest form of employment but most of them, while recognizing the hazards, seem to accept it as a part of the job.

 

So here is what is wrong in your logic. You use one anecdote to claim that when a cop (any cop) shoots they do so with no thought of collateral damage or innocents at risk. However, you provided no evidence that the cops didn't consider the risks. Further, you apply one anecdote to assume what MAY be true of one officer is representative of all officers.

 

I had four cops come in my house today without knocking! Another two come later... I was sitting on the bed heard something, looked up and there they were! My sister was visiting and she dropped a iced drink in her lap while on the phone. Well she screamed and in the excitement of trying to get the mess up the stupe girl she was talking to called the cops, thinking she was in trouble! Now I shiver to think what would have happened if they had come in a few hours earlier as I was cleaning my firearms including my AR with a banana mag! Some one could of very easily been shot...

Anyway everyone here knows I am anti gun-control and pro second amendment advocate. I do I have cop friends, and I have cop enemies, however I have never had anything good come from calling cops for assistance. Here is a t shirt I designed a few years ago and am going to make again. Its my mantra. The police are getting far too militarized and they act more like warriors than the public servants they are.




yeah! In reality I much prefer a .45 to a nine mil but the logo sounded better with Glock 9mm instead of something like colt .45 ~


reva

 

I am ex mil, but admittedly no expert on police training. However the evidence is THE TRAINED POLICE FIRED THIRTY TIMES! I am sure they go to the gun range from time to time. One or two shots should be all that was needed. Could non lethal force been used? Man, I do not see why anyone who watches the cops TV program can watch them knock the 'perp' to the pavement most of them not fighting, and do things like knee them or use entirely too much non lethal force while yelling commands that are often impossible to execute and not determine the same thing as I do. Another thing they do is taunt drunks! The first thing that goes when drinking is the ability to make sane judgments! They should be ELIMINATING STREET GANGS or something like that. Not pulling some one over to fish.

reva

 

If these types of incidents were rare, you would have a point. But they are not rare, they are systemic.