It doesn't pay to kill police officers

[Shuckins]

As Maverick said, the police were under no obligation to allow him to fire first.  In point of fact, the perp had already fired the first shot...the one which killed the officer.  After that, their only obligation was to prevent him from killing anyone else.

He could have surrendered.  He chose not to.  It doesn't say much for his intelligence that he chose to stand up to a bunch of righteously angry deputies.

The perp bears the full responsibility for his own death.

[Neubob]

This time, justice was served. Probably.

Next time, with the facts just an iota different, with just a bit more uncertainty, with the police officers angry over one of their own, slain in cold blood, justice will again be served. Swiftly, and efficiently.

The next time, with the facts different still, with images of another dead officer in the papers, justice will, yet again, be served.

Eventually we won't need the court system anymore. Your justice will be administered by lynch mobs with badges and automatic weapons, who single handedly distribute retribution and deterence.

This is not political correctness. This is just me not willing to admit that everything in this case was as clear and certain as some of you make it out to be. I read three articles about this incident. They say the investigation will go on for months. Seems like such a waste of time, when based on just a couple of paragraphs, there are people to whom the facts, and the outcome, are as clear as day from the very first time they skimmed the headline. No judge, no jury, just a guy at his computer who is as sure of this as he is that the sky is blue. A guy that will be just as sure next time he reads a headline about a shooting involving police.

There is a reason why the law has various branches. There is a reason that punishment is not legally served by an group of enraged men with guns. This time, probably, there was justice. The guy made his own bed, gave the cops a choice between risking themselves and firing first. They made a choice that was, probably, more logical and reasonable than emotional. Next time, when anger and emotion turns a group of public servants into a mob bent on revenge, and the facts aren't quite as clear, the totality of the response will nevertheless be just as swift and efficient. So maybe the unthinkable didn't happen here. Which one of you is willing to explain how this sort of mentality is going to prevent the unthinkable from happening when this 'perp' wasn't so clearly guilty. Anger, they say, is a poor advisor, but it's more than sufficient to pull the trigger. The bullets will fly just like they did in this case.

Of course, the police will still be just in their actions. Cops don't make mistakes. Never have. Especially when they're grieving for a fallen friend.

[JMFJ]

Originally posted by Eagler
EXACTLY!!
Lakeland FL is a rural/close community. Some dirt bag drug dealer from Miami gets pulled over, shoots two cops and the K-9. The  dog and one office dies and some of you are concerned how many times they shot the bad guy????
How about his family, his wife and children the officer left behind? Any concern there?
Your concern for the scumbag is what is wrong with todays diluted justice system which allowed the creep with a rap sheet longer than his corn rows the freedom to kill...
guess what, he ain't able to shoot anyone ever again.
I hope the cop that shot the scum get a medal and a promotion


R.I.P.

JMFJ

[Skuzzy]

Neubob, next time the world will be hit by a rogue Comet.  It pisses me off too!  So I will do what I can to get people worked up over something that has not happened yet.

No offense, but that is what your post sounds like.  This nutjob killed, was caught, did not give up, and got killed.  Saved the tax payers a ton of money.  Good all around, except for the families of the officers who lost thier lives doing one of the most thankless jobs in existence.

Cops are people and they will make mistakes, but this is not one of them.

[lasersailor184]

t's not a matter of how many bullets. It's a matter of justice over vigilantiism.

God forbid the government loses some power and control over the people.  

[Elfie]

Shooting a perp 68 times seems to be excessive to me. While killing the perp did save the system money in terms of not having to house him for the rest of his live, not having to administer a trial. The justice system should have been used if all all possible.

Even those who are guilty are guaranteed their day in court in this country. The job of police in this country is to enforce the law, not act as executioners. There are other options available other than just blowing the guy away.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Shuckins
As Maverick said, the police were under no obligation to allow him to fire first.  

This dude more than qualified for the "fleeing felon" rule, which give police officers the green light, legally, to shoot him in the back if necessary. He's an obvious danger to the community, and desperate, allowing him to escape is no longer an option... its assumed he'll kill again, stopping him is seen as saving a life.

He was smarter than the average common street dude, he hunkered down under an Oak tree which hides his heat signature from the air, and was lying in wait behind concealment to ambush the officers looking for him.

The media loves to count the # of rounds, I'll bet the officers only stopped firing when they believed the threat to have been stopped and probably had no idea how many times they fired.

Shootings like this are over in a matter of seconds, the noise, smoke, ringing ears and slow motion thinking all hit at once.. then just as fast its over, there's no time to count the # of rounds...

[Neubob]

The world getting hit by a rogue comet and a cop, or a group of cops, being overtaken by emotion and anger are not the same thing. The former has yet to happen during the age of humanity. The latter is known as police brutality.

I've agreed that this case, most likely, is not an example of a mistake(it is futile, but I will again point out that in this land, men are innocent until proven guilty). My point is in principal. The police should not be playing the role of judge jury and executioner. A dead cop is not something I, or anyone here, takes lightly. It is tragic. His family has lost. I've lost suddenly and unexpectadly too, and I know how it feels. And I do feel for them as well.

Nevertheless, summary judgement outside in a forest is a value this nation needs to set aside, no matter how awful the crime and how clearly guilty the criminal. The .001% chance that the next guy is innocent, to me, is too high a probability.

Instead of lighting the torches and marching along, you men should understand what I am trying to get at. Forget Freeland. Imagine the prospect of this sort of behavior growing more and more common, with the standard of certainty required for a summary judgment of 'guilty' growing more and more flexible.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I'll tell you what, you people who are *****ing about the cops in this case can carry your tulips out and aprehend the next armed suspected cop killer that gets cornered. I'm betting we get no takers. You know what job one for a cop is? Go home to your family when your shift is over. A cop has NO obligation to take a chance on getting shot while taking a scumbag known to shoot cops into custody.

[Squire]

You have yet to provide any evidence that there was any summary judgement, or that they let their anger get the better of them, or that they did anything improper, other than the Sherrif making a politically incorrect comment at some point afterwards to a reporter who overheard him.

Its you who have rushed to "judge".

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Tarmac
The number of bullets is irrelevant, it's the initial one, plus any that may have been fired after he was no longer a threat, that should be questioned.

Hey!  Those bullets cost the taxpayer money.  

[Maverick]

I'll be happy to reimburse the county for the ammo. That's far more than those who have done nothing more than criticize for a situation they have not nor would ever face themselves.

[Neubob]

You know, criticising the way others do their jobs is something we're all guilty of, to a certain extent. Whether they're doctors, lawyers, engineers, truck drivers, politicians or teachers, we've all taken a swipe at somebody. For some reason, police officers hold a special place in the hearts of many.

Here's a list of dangerous jobs:

Most dangerous occupations

No, these guys don't all face scum for a living (or spend the vast majority of their time writing traffic tickets, either), but they do die at a rate that eclipses that of any American law-enforcement officers. And yet, I don't see the same sort of fanatical support I see regularly for the actions of police officers.

The world, and specifically, our society, benefits greatly from all these occupations. Yet this status of infallibility seems to be reserved for only one group. It's not this Freeland case that I'm talking about anymore, it's the vast majority of cases that took place under questionable/contraversial circumstances. Mention a cop and say he was in the wrong, and you get the requisite 'Well, it's more than you've ever done to fight crime....', or 'if you don't like it, do it yourself....' or, my favorite 'It's his job to get home alive.' I thought it was his job to protect and serve. If it's not, why isn't he doing data entry or carpentry? He'd have a much greater chance of accomplishing his 'job' in either of those two positions.

Why should I? They chose their jobs. From what I understand, most of them like what they do. Careers aren't made under duress, afterall. I firmly believe, and am all ears to evidence to the contrary, that they do their work with a passion. And they should. They took on the responsiblity. I give them respect when I encoutner them and I pay my $100 a year to the charities that support them and their families.

But when a doctor does something questionable, or worse yet, a lawyer or an engineer, I'm just not seeing the same sort of solidarity. With cops, before you say ANYTHING about their conduct, you must preface it with 'of, course, I have utmost respect for their work'--as if they're some sort of protected class. What about the same respect for everyone else with a hard, dangerous job? Where is it? Furthermore, why don't they pursue any and every murder suspect with this same passion? Is the murder of a plain and simple civilian not worthy of a swat team and 110 rounds fired, 68 of which met their mark?

[lasersailor184]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/


Lol!  Is it bad if I've had 5 of those jobs at one time or another?