If the man didn't commit a crime, and the cops didn't identify themselves I just don't see any other conclusion.

 

What if when the police officers approached the man (who did not realize they were police) pointed his weapon at them not giving them a chance to ID themselves. In that case, I think the police would be justified in using lethal force since they have no clue at that point if the guy is a suspect or not, all they know is someone is pointing a gun at them. We have the benefit of time to think out what to do and what not to do. Often times, police have less than a second to make such a decision.

What if when the police officers approached the man (who did not realize they were police) pointed his weapon at them not giving them a chance to ID themselves. In that case, I think the police would be justified in using lethal force since they have no clue at that point if the guy is a suspect or not, all they know is someone is pointing a gun at them. We have the benefit of time to think out what to do and what not to do. Often times, police have less than a second to make such a decision.

 

A real bad guy will kill you twice in a second...

A real bad guy will kill you twice in a second...

 

 

You may have taken me a little too literally when I used the term "a second" Lol. I just couldn't think of a substitute measurement of time to use to get the point across.

 

The point I am making, while I do realize there are a FEW police officers who are a little too militant/Rambo type who may shoot too soon, I almost always give the benefit of the doubt to police officers due to the the situations they may be in where there simply is not time to ponder the best action to take.

You may have taken me a little too literally when I used the term "a second" Lol. I just couldn't think of a substitute measurement of time to use to get the point across.

 

I think our exchange if a good measuring stick for others that have no clue what is like to be a police officer.

Here's my question: What happens now in a situation like this? Obviously, we are missing too much important information to do much more than speculate. But, we do know the police shot and killed an "innocent" person. Who investigates? Who will determine if this was a proper use of force or if this was trigger-happy negligence? What are the punishments if so?

I think our exchange if a good measuring stick for others that have no clue what is like to be a police officer.

 

No one is saying police don't have a tough job. What biased opinion have I shown ? I have no biased torward police . I just think an innocent man deserves a detailed investigation from a 3rd party. An internal investigation won't do when innocent people are shot . People who wear a badge need to be held to highest standard.

 

Being a former cop serious question . Are you telling police don't have to identify themselves in most situations .

Here's my question: What happens now in a situation like this? Obviously, we are missing too much important information to do much more than speculate. But, we do know the police shot and killed an "innocent" person. Who investigates? Who will determine if this was a proper use of force or if this was trigger-happy negligence? What are the punishments if so?

 

My thoughts exactly. I worded my first post poorly and I apologize to anyone who took offense.

 

My one problem with this statement because I don't totatlly agree. We are emphasizing that some how the police officersl is more important than a law abiding citizen and I don't agree with this.

 

I can see what you're saying here.

 

You are not being objective and I would go as far as to say uninformed on police protocol.

 

Again, with your line of thinking if you were a police officer you would be hurt and/or killed several times over.

 

With all that said, we all need more information.

 

And this is for everyone, don't ever under any circumstance approach a police officer with a gun in your hand.

 

To be fair, it's possible your experience is causing you to not be objective as well.

 

What if when the police officers approached the man (who did not realize they were police) pointed his weapon at them not giving them a chance to ID themselves. In that case, I think the police would be justified in using lethal force since they have no clue at that point if the guy is a suspect or not, all they know is someone is pointing a gun at them. We have the benefit of time to think out what to do and what not to do. Often times, police have less than a second to make such a decision.

 

However, isn't the man justified in pointing his gun at men he doesn't know are police? It's one of the main arguments I hear when discussing gun control issues. If they didn't identify themselves, what else would one expect of him?

 

I think our exchange if a good measuring stick for others that have no clue what is like to be a police officer.

 

Do I have to know what it's like to be a police officer to look at a situation and be "objective"?

Here's my question: What happens now in a situation like this? Obviously' date=' we are missing too much important information to do much more than speculate. But, we do know the police shot and killed an "innocent" person. Who investigates? Who will determine if this was a proper use of force or if this was trigger-happy negligence? What are the punishments if so?[/quote']

 

Great questions.

This is in response to Habib's comment about who investigates, I messed up the quotes.

 

I just took my concealed carry class at the Jeffersontown Police Department. We had to watch a video about the laws regarding concealed carry, self defense, justified use of lethal force, etc.. The one thing mentioned by the KY laws, and this was highlighted by the attorney on the video, was that KY State Law allows room for bad judgement in use of justified lethal force. The example the instructor gave was if you are carrying and some one pulls a gun on you and makes a threatening comment and you draw your weapon and shoot them. If it turns out that the person was trying to be a prankster and actually had an unloaded gun or a fake but real looking gun, the "room for bad judgement" area of the law would say while you in actually were not in danger, a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that you were reasonable in believing you were in danger and were justified in using deadly force. This same "room for bad judgement" I would have to believe applies to police officers also when using deadly force against someone who turn out not to be a real threat.

 

 

Both instructors in my course stressed that if any of us ever are forced to use deadly force for self defense, when they police show up, they will confiscate the weapon and take us to the police station for booking because police are only charged with enforcing laws, they are not allowed to interpret laws (ie determine if someone was justified using deadly force or not). That would be put to the prosecutor to determine if he/she wants to take the matter to trial or drop any charges. My guess is something very similar happens when police accidently shoot the wrong person.

However, isn't the man justified in pointing his gun at men he doesn't know are police? It's one of the main arguments I hear when discussing gun control issues. If they didn't identify themselves, what else would one expect of him?

 

By no means am I implying he was not justified in pointing the gun. But that does not automatically take away he officers' right to defend themselves if they have justified reason to believe they are about to be shot, even if in error. This relates to my post a few minutes ago where KY state laws (and I imagine all state laws) understand that there are times when someone my justifiably believe they are in imminent danger and may legally using lethal force and it turn out, they actually were not in danger. We have to accept the fact that when it comes to bad people doing bad thinkgs, sometime innocent people who are trying to good get hurt or killed in the confusion. How often have American soldiers been killed by friendly fire. While we need to do our best to avoid it, sometimes it does happen.

Do I have to know what it's like to be a police officer to look at a situation and be "objective"?

 

Not necessarily but I have seen a few posts in this thread by posters who I believe are looking at this WAY too simplistic. In some cases, police cannot just announce who they are when they arrive on the scene when reason and logic would say entering the crime scene quietly and trying to catch the suspect(s) off guard will most likely result in the fewest loss of life (or none at all). And some cases, when you have milliseconds (just picking on you Guru) to make a decision, an innocent person with a weapon can be confused as the suspect by even the best trained officer and a review might show that while the officer was mistaken in using deadly force, he was justified in doing so.