Another Nut With A Gun Goes On A Rampage

[Babagounj]

If cops were required to leave their weapons at the police station , thus they would be easier targets for thugs to kill while commuting to & from work.
Nothing increases a thug's street creed like being a cop killer.

 

[The Other Side]

If cops were required to leave their weapons at the police station , thus they would be easier targets for thugs to kill while commuting to & from work.
Nothing increases a thug's street creed like being a cop killer.

Cite a case where a "killer" killed an off duty policeman specifically because he didnt have his issued service weapon on him and the "killer" knew it.

Ima go with , you cant. As Usual.

Peace.

 

[moreluck]

Cite a case where a "killer" killed an off duty policeman specifically because he didnt have his issued service weapon on him and the "killer" knew it.

Ima go with , you cant. As Usual.

Peace.

Quit ordering people around.......

 

[cachsux]

Do you really believe that thugs consider for a moment who might be and how many off-duty cops are on the streets at any given time?

The area I live in is referred to as coptown, yes like the movie. At one time the city required its officers to live in city limits and where we`re at was on the edge of that requirement. We have city cops, sheriffs police and staties all within a one mile radius. Do you know how much crime we`ve had in the 18+ years I lived here? None. No break ins, theft, vandalism, nothing. Loud parties don`t get out of hand, domestic disturbances get talked out before they get out of hand. "Troublemakers" from outside the area stay out.

So yea I do think the wrong type of people consider if cops are around at any given time. You cant throw a rock in any direction and not hit a cops house and our crime rate reflects that.

And as far as the comment about requiring cops to leave the service weapons at the station, they being legal citizens, have every right to own firearms privately. So if one were to "go postal" what difference would it make on which gun was used?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Rent "Lakeview Terrace" and you'll see that having a cop living next door may not always be a good thing.

 

[Lue C Fur]

Rent "Lakeview Terrace" and you'll see that having a cop living next door may not always be a good thing.

That movie was whack....good entertainment...but was only a movie with lots of BS.

 

[cachsux]

Rent "Lakeview Terrace" and you'll see that having a cop living next door may not always be a good thing.

As soon as Samuel L Jackson moves in I`ll give you a call

But on that subject they police their own. That`s why it`s appealing. No one has to call the cops because they will walk over and settle things down before it gets that far out of hand.

 

[The Other Side]

Quit ordering people around.......

Ok, ill do that if you promise to have a thought.

Peace.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

That movie was whack....good entertainment...but was only a movie with lots of BS.

Well, yeah...would you want to watch a movie where the "cop next door" rescued cats stuck in trees?

 

[The Other Side]

So if one were to "go postal" what difference would it make on which gun was used?

Man, are you serious? Its called "CIVIL LIABILITY". You said it in your own post "they being legal citizens, have every right to own firearms privately"

If a police officer uses his own "personally obtained" firearm in a crime, and he's off duty, then ANY victim would be unable to "SUE" the agency who employed him.

If he uses a Agency issued, or city issued weapon, and he is off the clock and commitd a crime, he has possibly placed the agency, city and maybe county at financial risk.

Let me use an example that even Gladis Kravitz could understand and spread around the neighboorhood honestly.

Lets say an off duty LA Police Officer was driving his official police vehicle during his off time (off the clock) and he was drunk. While driving drunk, this cop crashes into a family at an intersection and kills three out of four passengers, the cop survives.

Who would be liable for damages in this case?? The cop? Who's insurance would the victims approach?

Any city official or officer who is "issued" property of a police department would have to take great care when using this property during off time.

Driving drunk in an official vehicle places the liabilty on the agency who issued it.

If they abuse the priviledge, then the city, agency or county would be held responsible for any and all damages.

This just happened recently in Riverside California where the chief of police driving a unmarked police vehicle, drove drunk off duty and crashed causing injuries.

The city of riverside is now being sued for all damages related to the accident. The Chief has since resigned.

The same applies to weapons. Any officer issued a weapon for employment as a police officer has the obligation to use the weapon only in the line of duty.

If its used on OFF TIME, to commit a crime, then the weapon is being "mis-used" and liability transfers to the department or agency who issued it.

Lets say a cop while in his off time catches his girlfriend cheating on him, the cop takes out the handgun issued by his department and cranks off 2 rounds into his "now" ex girlfriend and in addition, sees her cheating friend running away.

While the guy is running away, the cop cranks off 9 more shots trying to hit the guy and in the process, he hits 3 bystanders. The cop then fires one shot into his own mouth and takes his life.

Who would be finanically responsible for his actions? Who would the innocent bystanders "sue" for their injuries?

Had it not been for the issuance of the weapon in the first place and the allowance of that weapon to be in possession of the cop during his off time, the equiptment involved would have not been mis used.

It makes a huge difference which gun is used. Understanding that may give you a different perspective.

My argument is only with liability, as I agree that private persons (like cops) most likely have personal guns that they could carry with them.

What i reject is the notion that taking an issued weapon away from a police officer would make them "bigger targets". This is plain ridiculous.

Peace.

 

[moreluck]

That movie was whack....good entertainment...but was only a movie with lots of BS.

Kurt Russell was also not a good cop in Unlawful Entry.

 

[over9five]

Devils Advocate.

Many, MANY times off duty cops stop crimes by displaying/using their department issued pistols. Now who gets the blame if an off duty cop could have prevented a rape/murder/robbery if only he was allowed to carry that gun off duty?

I fully understand and agree that there is a city liability issue, but IMO, the lives saved by allowing LEOs to have their department issued pistols off-duty far outweigh the occasional nutcase.

Also, if that off-duty cop were carrying their own gun, would he be disinclined to use it to prevent a crime knowing that any mistake (miss, richochet, etc) that may injure a bystander will not be backed up by the city lawyers?

 

[moreluck]

It's like damned if you do & damned if you don't !!

 

[bbsam]

It's like living life on a Hollywood movie screen in your own mind.

 

[moreluck]

It's like living life on a Hollywood movie screen in your own mind.

What the hell is that suppose to mean?

 

[trplnkl]

Man, are you serious? Its called "CIVIL LIABILITY". You said it in your own post "they being legal citizens, have every right to own firearms privately"

If a police officer uses his own "personally obtained" firearm in a crime, and he's off duty, then ANY victim would be unable to "SUE" the agency who employed him.

If he uses a Agency issued, or city issued weapon, and he is off the clock and commitd a crime, he has possibly placed the agency, city and maybe county at financial risk.

Let me use an example that even Gladis Kravitz could understand and spread around the neighboorhood honestly.



The same applies to weapons. Any officer issued a weapon for employment as a police officer has the obligation to use the weapon only in the line of duty.

If its used on OFF TIME, to commit a crime, then the weapon is being "mis-used" and liability transfers to the department or agency who issued it.

Lets say a cop while in his off time catches his girlfriend cheating on him, the cop takes out the handgun issued by his department and cranks off 2 rounds into his "now" ex girlfriend and in addition, sees her cheating friend running away.

While the guy is running away, the cop cranks off 9 more shots trying to hit the guy and in the process, he hits 3 bystanders. The cop then fires one shot into his own mouth and takes his life.

Who would be finanically responsible for his actions? Who would the innocent bystanders "sue" for their injuries?

Had it not been for the issuance of the weapon in the first place and the allowance of that weapon to be in possession of the cop during his off time, the equiptment involved would have not been mis used.

It makes a huge difference which gun is used. Understanding that may give you a different perspective.

My argument is only with liability, as I agree that private persons (like cops) most likely have personal guns that they could carry with them.

What i reject is the notion that taking an issued weapon away from a police officer would make them "bigger targets". This is plain ridiculous.

Peace.

Many years ago our city in conjunction with the chief of police adopted a different hand gun for officers to carry. The majority of policemen were pissed because they would have to buy (out of their pockets) new service weapons. During the debate about this, it came out that most major cities across the country did not supply the officer's guns but did require them own specific models and caliber of guns. The cities supplied the ammo and holsters but the individual officers supplied the guns. Since then they have adopted new weapon models two more times and the debate gets rerun every time. How accurate the claim of "most major cities" is, I don't know.

 

[trplnkl]

What the hell is that suppose to mean?

Maybe it means he is really Kurt Russell

 

[steward71]

I live in the city this young woman was killed in and she worked across the street from building I work my full time job at. She was a very freindly person. There are a lot of facts that have not come out of this story. We knew this lady in passing walking in the parking lots and saying HI or How are you today. She did wait on our group many times when we had luch or dinner at where she worked. The sad part of it is the officer-boyfreind was chasing her down the road over 25 miles. The call did go the home site 911 but the big boss of the officer put a stop to the call out to the other local police Departments which would be Roanoke City Police and Roanoke County Police. These two Depatments where less then 3 miles away from she was killed. This lady knew he was goiing to kill her she got out of the car and was shot five times. This woman may have been saved if the Big Boss would have let the call go out to all 911 but he stop it. The sad part is she could not have gotten a Protective Order for her self if she wanted to in the state of VA because she was not living with him and the law will not change unitl after July 1 of this year. The big part to all this is the 12 yr old who saw her father pull a gun out and kill her mother in front of her young eyes. She has that burned into her mind the rest of life. After her mother drop to the ground a brave person did run up the car and pull that little girl from the car. The people in the lot are now are saying he turned to look into the car to see if the girl was in the car, they feel like he was going to kill her. At this very second the State Troopers did come off the road he then got into his car and speed off. The Troopers in this area are very good people and they are brave and wanted to get his man before he could kill her. All I know is my blessing go to this little girl to keep her safe and let her live her life with peace and with her loving family that she is with now. I can say to Trop TT good job and hope you are back to work and see you in JD.

 

[cachsux]

Unfortunately the mental switch that has to be in place for someone to cross the line of taking a life is in their head irregardless of whether the use a gun, knife,poison, vehicle or shovel. It`s either in there or it isn`t.

 

[grgrcr88]

Your right no one can because they all carry their weapons!

I guarantee if criminals knew that there is a chance of somone other than them carrying a gun they will think twice about commiting a crime in that place. In my opinion every person that has been trained should be allowed to carry a gun visible to all!!