18 yr old shoots at off-duty St. Louis cop, gets killed

[Rhodisia]

So people should feel sympathy for a thug that attacked an officer of the law? That's ridiculous. Might does not make right, and this asshole paid with his life to learn that lesson.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Cops don't have a great track record when it comes to this, so I honestly don't have a very good reason to believe the cop's story right now.

I am getting really tired of the anti-police sentiment because there are a very few men who give the force a bad name. Because clearly, if a few officers were dishonest and committed an unfortunate act, it is logical to assume every cop is just as likely to do the same thing.

[The Sotoan Union]

It simply isn't. A police force still looks bad if an off-duty officer kills someone for no good reason, because they accepted that person into the force in the first place. What does it say about their ability to keep killers off the streets if they gave this hypothetical killer a badge and a gun? How can we trust police officers if they cannot identify a murderer in their own ranks? Were warning signs overlooked or ignored? And other talking points of that nature.

He wasn't just off-duty, either. He was working as a private security contractor. The question of whether or not he was allowed to have his service weapon on him while holding another job or if he was allowed to conduct searches on a public street while working in that capacity.

We can look that up can't we?

[Mavorpen]

Cops don't have a great track record when it comes to this, so I honestly don't have a very good reason to believe the cop's story right now.

I am getting really tired of the anti-police sentiment because there are a very few men who give the force a bad name. Because clearly, if a few officers were dishonest and committed an unfortunate act, it is logical to assume every cop is just as likely to do the same thing.

That's nice. I'll wait for you to post something relevant to me.

[Laerod]

Cops don't have a great track record when it comes to this, so I honestly don't have a very good reason to believe the cop's story right now.

I am getting really tired of the anti-police sentiment because there are a very few men who give the force a bad name. Because clearly, if a few officers were dishonest and committed an unfortunate act, it is logical to assume every cop is just as likely to do the same thing.

Yes, it very much is logical. Just because one fox in my neighborhood might be rabid I do have to treat them all as such because I will be the one paying the price if I end up being too trusting. And American cops have a "Do as I say or I'll fuck you up" attitude that they openly admit to.

[Threlizdun]

So people should feel sympathy for a thug that attacked an officer of the law? That's ridiculous. Might does not make right, and this asshole paid with his life to learn that lesson.

We don't know if he attacked the officer, but yes, we should try to understand the situation he was in. If you are fearing for your life, violence is understandable, even if it isn't right.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The only problem is I fail to see how the evidence can be any more than the cop's word against the eye witnesses word, unless a camera caught it.

Nothing I've read seems to indicate any witnesses present contradicting the cop's story.

No. This is simply dishonest.

The blue code of silence is a sort of brotherhood. Whether he's off-duty or not isn't likely to matter because the issue is he's a cop, a fellow brother in law enforcement.

Again, planting evidence and framing people is a far cry away from just silence.

[The Sotoan Union]

I am getting really tired of the anti-police sentiment because there are a very few men who give the force a bad name. Because clearly, if a few officers were dishonest and committed an unfortunate act, it is logical to assume every cop is just as likely to do the same thing.

Yes, it very much is logical. Just because one fox in my neighborhood might be rabid I do have to treat them all as such because I will be the one paying the price if I end up being too trusting. And American cops have a "Do as I say or I'll fuck you up" attitude that they openly admit to.

The views presented here are his own and do not represent the LAPD or CTU.

This article outright claims that the beliefs of the individual do not apply to the group. That is the complete opposite of saying that it is logical to apply the actions of a few police officers to every police officer.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

No. This is simply dishonest.

It simply isn't. A police force still looks bad if an off-duty officer kills someone for no good reason, because they accepted that person into the force in the first place. What does it say about their ability to keep killers off the streets if they gave this hypothetical killer a badge and a gun? How can we trust police officers if they cannot identify a murderer in their own ranks? Were warning signs overlooked or ignored? And other talking points of that nature.

Still not as important as covering up for on duty cops, which was my point.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I am just going to withdraw from this topic. It is too personal for me, seeing as how someone recently vandalized my dad's car because he is a member of the force. Not thinking very clearly. So, sorry if I seemed too heated.

[Ifreann]

It simply isn't. A police force still looks bad if an off-duty officer kills someone for no good reason, because they accepted that person into the force in the first place. What does it say about their ability to keep killers off the streets if they gave this hypothetical killer a badge and a gun? How can we trust police officers if they cannot identify a murderer in their own ranks? Were warning signs overlooked or ignored? And other talking points of that nature.

He wasn't just off-duty, either. He was working as a private security contractor. The question of whether or not he was allowed to have his service weapon on him while holding another job or if he was allowed to conduct searches on a public street while working in that capacity.

I wasn't talking about this case, just pointing out that kinds of things that would be said if it were to come out that an off-duty officer had murdered someone. But yes, the fact that this officer was moonlighting may well prove relevant to the legality of his actions.

---

So people should feel sympathy for a thug that attacked an officer of the law? That's ridiculous. Might does not make right, and this asshole paid with his life to learn that lesson.

The person who was shot to death was wrong, thus proving that might does not make right.

Yup, seems legit.

---

Cops don't have a great track record when it comes to this, so I honestly don't have a very good reason to believe the cop's story right now.

I am getting really tired of the anti-police sentiment because there are a very few men who give the force a bad name. Because clearly, if a few officers were dishonest and committed an unfortunate act, it is logical to assume every cop is just as likely to do the same thing.

If I'm spending all my working day around other police officers and managing to get away with any kind of inappropriate behaviour then that rather does speak ill of the force.

[Laerod]

Nothing I've read seems to indicate any witnesses present contradicting the cop's story.

The blue code of silence is a sort of brotherhood. Whether he's off-duty or not isn't likely to matter because the issue is he's a cop, a fellow brother in law enforcement.

Again, planting evidence and framing people is a far cry away from just silence.

Failure to investigate a cover up is not.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

It simply isn't. A police force still looks bad if an off-duty officer kills someone for no good reason, because they accepted that person into the force in the first place. What does it say about their ability to keep killers off the streets if they gave this hypothetical killer a badge and a gun? How can we trust police officers if they cannot identify a murderer in their own ranks? Were warning signs overlooked or ignored? And other talking points of that nature.

He wasn't just off-duty, either. He was working as a private security contractor. The question of whether or not he was allowed to have his service weapon on him while holding another job or if he was allowed to conduct searches on a public street while working in that capacity.

What sources I've seen thus far do not mention whether or not he was carrying or using his service weapon OR conducting a search. Common sense would say that he isn't allowed to search people while off-duty. Chasing people in public is not doing anything illegal, however, even for a regular civilian.

[Jamzmania]

I am getting really tired of the anti-police sentiment because there are a very few men who give the force a bad name. Because clearly, if a few officers were dishonest and committed an unfortunate act, it is logical to assume every cop is just as likely to do the same thing.

Yes, it very much is logical. Just because one fox in my neighborhood might be rabid I do have to treat them all as such because I will be the one paying the price if I end up being too trusting. And American cops have a "Do as I say or I'll fuck you up" attitude that they openly admit to.

Same logic applies with Muslims and terrorists, as well as blacks and criminals.

[Laerod]

Yes, it very much is logical. Just because one fox in my neighborhood might be rabid I do have to treat them all as such because I will be the one paying the price if I end up being too trusting. And American cops have a "Do as I say or I'll fuck you up" attitude that they openly admit to.

The views presented here are his own and do not represent the LAPD or CTU.

This article outright claims that the beliefs of the individual do not apply to the group. That is the complete opposite of saying that it is logical to apply the actions of a few police officers to every police officer.

Uh, that's a liability and PR clause.

[Laerod]

Yes, it very much is logical. Just because one fox in my neighborhood might be rabid I do have to treat them all as such because I will be the one paying the price if I end up being too trusting. And American cops have a "Do as I say or I'll fuck you up" attitude that they openly admit to.

Same logic applies with Muslims and terrorists, as well as blacks and criminals.

Muslims and blacks aren't routinely armed and given the authority to fuck you up. Nor has it been my experience that they pull you over, investigate you, or do anything else like that.

[Jamzmania]

This article outright claims that the beliefs of the individual do not apply to the group. That is the complete opposite of saying that it is logical to apply the actions of a few police officers to every police officer.

Uh, that's a liability and PR clause.

That doesn't make it any less true.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, it very much is logical. Just because one fox in my neighborhood might be rabid I do have to treat them all as such because I will be the one paying the price if I end up being too trusting. And American cops have a "Do as I say or I'll fuck you up" attitude that they openly admit to.

Same logic applies with Muslims and terrorists, as well as blacks and criminals.

If you don't hold cops to a higher standard than the average person, then sure.

And frankly, I find it really odd if you don't.

[Mavorpen]

Same logic applies with Muslims and terrorists, as well as blacks and criminals.

Muslims and blacks aren't routinely armed and given the authority to fuck you up. Nor has it been my experience that they pull you over, investigate you, or do anything else like that.

Though admittedly, sometimes I wish I could pull some people over when they're doing dangerous shit because they know a cop isn't around.

[The Sotoan Union]

This article outright claims that the beliefs of the individual do not apply to the group. That is the complete opposite of saying that it is logical to apply the actions of a few police officers to every police officer.

Uh, that's a liability and PR clause.

No. It means that his views are his own and are not representative of the LAPD, or all American police officers as you were stating.

I mean that's such an absolute statement. Hundreds of thousands of police in America, and you're saying they act like this because one person acts like this.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Again, planting evidence and framing people is a far cry away from just silence.

Failure to investigate a cover up is not.

Now you're implying this off-duty cop had the necessary resources, initiative and forethought to single-handedly (or perhaps helped by other off duty cop friends?) plant a gun and empty cases, possibly also fire "fake shots" for bullets to later come up as if the alleged assailant had fired "their" weapon, and also possibly plant fake fingerprints on the planted gun, all the while avoiding contamination with his own fingerprints, and all under the eyes and ears of by-passers. Pretty far-fetched, don't you think?

[Laerod]

Uh, that's a liability and PR clause.

That doesn't make it any less true.

Yeah, actually it does. It's in no way proof that this position is uncommon. Dutta is explaining to people why they should have more sympathy for cops and manages to unmask just how fucked up a number of cops see the world. That he, as a professor of law enforcement, feels comfortable in openly admitting all of this shows just how widespread and accepted the mentality is among his peers. The statement that his editorial is his own opinion is going to go on there regardless of what he says and how well it lines up with official policy. He could be plagiarizing the public relations manual and they'd still put the disclaimer on, ergo it has no bearing towards what you are claiming.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

This would never have happened if the cop had a sandwich.

[Rhodisia]

This would never have happened if the cop had a sandwich.

Or donuts and coffee.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Muslims and blacks aren't routinely armed and given the authority to fuck you up. Nor has it been my experience that they pull you over, investigate you, or do anything else like that.

Though admittedly, sometimes I wish I could pull some people over when they're doing dangerous shit because they know a cop isn't around.

There is such thing as civilian arrest, although I don't think this has ever been used to pull cars over. If you can prove the legitimacy of the civilian arrest in a court of law, this will form a defense against stuff like false imprisonment on your part, and they will most probably be held liable for any damages/injuries they cause if and when they attempt to escape you, and in many cases, this standard may not even be needed. For example, if someone is stopped in a car, you can always place yourself in front or on top of the car. If they do something stupid like try to run you over they'll most probably be held liable regardless of whether or not you prove they were doing or had just done a crime.