Internal Affairs and maybe a Grand Jury and/or the FBI.

 

How effective do you think internal affairs' offices in general are at determining this? Do you think they tend to side with their guys or be overly vindictive? What sorts of scenarios would lead to a grand jury or for the FBI to get involved?

 

Last question, I promise, how would you feel about some sort of independent body that handled investigations like these? Maybe some kind of statewide deal, maybe appointed with half LEOs/former LEOs and half not with some type of investigative powers and staff.

How effective do you think internal affairs' offices in general are at determining this? Do you think they tend to side with their guys or be overly vindictive? What sorts of scenarios would lead to a grand jury or for the FBI to get involved?

 

Last question, I promise, how would you feel about some sort of independent body that handled investigations like these? Maybe some kind of statewide deal, maybe appointed with half LEOs/former LEOs and half not with some type of investigative powers and staff.

I don't know about all departments but in nearly all cases the rank and file officers are not big fans of Internal Affairs officers. If they just white washed everything I don't think IA would have as bad a perception from officers as they do.

My neighbors alarm goes off, I walk outside (legally carrying) and see two individuals across the street with weapons drawn and pointed at me. The individuals are cops, but don't announce that they're LE. If I shoot one, am I justified in your opinion?

 

In the USA the police have the duty/responsibility/authority to respond to and investigate crimes and that is exactly what they would be doing in your scenario. Although you have the right to carry a weapon and the right to walk out of your house you have no authority to involve yourself in this investigation and would potentially be seen as a threat by the police. And since you have no authority your rights to "defend" yourself against the police would be very limited in my opinion and you would probably end up being charged with a crime if you survived because the second officer would do everything in his power to stop you and numerous on duty officers would respond to the scene to capture/stop you.

 

In short, you probably would not be justified.

 

The major difference between your scenario and what happened (best we know) is that in both cases the police have the legal authority and duty to do what they were doing and you and the deceased had no legal authority to involve yourself in the potential felony investigation.

 

In the USA the police have the duty/responsibility/authority to respond to and investigate crimes and that is exactly what they would be doing in your scenario. Although you have the right to carry a weapon and the right to walk out of your house you have no authority to involve yourself in this investigation and would potentially be seen as a threat by the police. And since you have no authority your rights to "defend" yourself against the police would be very limited in my opinion and you would probably end up being charged with a crime if you survived because the second officer would do everything in his power to stop you and numerous on duty officers would respond to the scene to capture/stop you.

 

In short, you probably would not be justified.

 

The major difference between your scenario and what happened (best we know) is that in both cases the police have the legal authority and duty to do what they were doing and you and the deceased had no legal authority to involve yourself in the potential felony investigation.

 

Not to mention police are generally easy to spot considering they're wearing uniforms and driving marker cruisers.

I guess what confuses me about what's been brought up in this thread, is that is completely contradictory to what is brought up in threads when discussing gun control.

 

I agree if a person KNOWS they're facing a cop, they don't point a gun.

 

HOWEVER, and not specific to this incident, it seems to me that what is being said in this thread relative to a person NOT knowing that who he's facing is a cop, he STILL should disarm himself.

 

In the gun control issue discussion, it's been brought up over and over that one owns a gun for protection. I can't understand why a man who (at this point hypothetically) didn't know he was facing police is stupid for pointing his gun at people who were pointing guns at him. I also don't understand how the police can be absolved simply because they are police. It's my understanding that we (additionally) want to potentially protect ourselves from government tyranny.

 

This whole thread has brought up so many contradictions in my view.

Not to mention police are generally easy to spot considering they're wearing uniforms and driving marker cruisers.

 

 

But if it's dark, they're not right near you, and their cruisers are not in view and they arrived without sirens?

I guess what confuses me about what's been brought up in this thread, is that is completely contradictory to what is brought up in threads when discussing gun control.

 

I agree if a person KNOWS they're facing a cop, they don't point a gun.

 

HOWEVER, and not specific to this incident, it seems to me that what is being said in this thread relative to a person NOT knowing that who he's facing is a cop, he STILL should disarm himself.

 

In the gun control issue discussion, it's been brought up over and over that one owns a gun for protection. I can't understand why a man who (at this point hypothetically) didn't know he was facing police is stupid for pointing his gun at people who were pointing guns at him. I also don't understand how the police can be absolved simply because they are police. It's my understanding that we (additionally) want to potentially protect ourselves from government tyranny.

 

This whole thread has brought up so many contradictions in my view.

 

Any chance you want to start a new thread to hash out the contradictions? I am interested in learning about them.

How effective do you think internal affairs' offices in general are at determining this? Do you think they tend to side with their guys or be overly vindictive? What sorts of scenarios would lead to a grand jury or for the FBI to get involved?

 

Last question, I promise, how would you feel about some sort of independent body that handled investigations like these? Maybe some kind of statewide deal, maybe appointed with half LEOs/former LEOs and half not with some type of investigative powers and staff.

 

In general terms I think IA is very effective judging by most officers dislike for IA (as Jumper said). And if I had to chose, I would say more vindictive than siding with the guys but I don't care for either characterization.

 

Pretty simple with a Grand Jury, when either the prosecutors feel there is more than enough evidence to indict the officer or the officer's representatives feel there isn't nearly enough evidence to indict they will take it to the Grand Jury to put it to rest forever.

 

On the FBI, I suppose whenever they want but I would guess when either department asks for help, comes under a lot of fire for appearing to be a homer, or it is politically/racially charged case.

 

I have mixed feelings on the independent body, it sounds great in theory but I am not sure it is needed everywhere. Some departments have civilian review boards and you can find pros and cons if you google it.

Any chance you want to start a new thread to hash out the contradictions? I am interested in learning about them.

 

 

Nahh...I seem to be the only one confused. A new thread wouldn't end well for me. :lol:

I guess what confuses me about what's been brought up in this thread, is that is completely contradictory to what is brought up in threads when discussing gun control.

 

I agree if a person KNOWS they're facing a cop, they don't point a gun.

 

HOWEVER, and not specific to this incident, it seems to me that what is being said in this thread relative to a person NOT knowing that who he's facing is a cop, he STILL should disarm himself.

 

In the gun control issue discussion, it's been brought up over and over that one owns a gun for protection. I can't understand why a man who (at this point hypothetically) didn't know he was facing police is stupid for pointing his gun at people who were pointing guns at him. I also don't understand how the police can be absolved simply because they are police. It's my understanding that we (additionally) want to potentially protect ourselves from government tyranny.

 

This whole thread has brought up so many contradictions in my view.

 

No one is excusing the police because they are the police. Saying so is absolutely false and I challenge you to find a post where someone has done so. If its in this thread I haven't seen it.

 

The police are hired and tasked with responding to calls like this. A neighbor is not. While he wasn't really doing anything illegal, he did put himself in a bad position. The police showed up and, according to the statement from one officer, were met by this guy pointing a gun at them. How else would you expect anyone to respond?

 

But if it's dark, they're not right near you, and their cruisers are not in view and they arrived without sirens?

 

If he can't see who he's looking at why on earth would he point a gun at them?

e. It's my understanding that we (additionally) want to potentially protect ourselves from government tyranny.

 

This whole thread has brought up so many contradictions in my view.

that is a scary thought if people think they need to arm themselves because of some made up tyranny thing. This isn't the wild west.

 

If he can't see who he's looking at why on earth would he point a gun at them?

 

Well, it seems in this case the police had the advantage of flashlights.

 

Well, it seems in this case the police had the advantage of flashlights.

 

I'm not sure how that changes anything.

I'm not sure how that changes anything.

I guess Rockmom was there. Funny how someone is so quick to jump to conclusions as long as the conclusion is against anyone in authority.