If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   The MBTA Transit Police officer that was shot by the Boston terrorists was actually shot by other cops. Oops   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 229
    More: Followup, friendly fire  
•       •       •

15785 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2013 at 1:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



229 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 01:45:47 PM  
Glad the Fark legal team has chimed in with the "pulled them out of my butt laws"
 
2013-05-07 01:46:23 PM  

Dr Dreidel: brewswane: the cops did NOT  do a good job!  9000 cops and locking down an entire city looking for a 19 year old kid.  illegal search and seizure
they could have got the dogs after him

WTF kind of lockdown lets citizens leave their homes as they please and requires cops to get consent to enter a house?

// oooooh, the city canceled classes and most businesses closed - voluntarily - for the day
// but that didn't stop people from driving into the office
// source


They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:29 PM  
Charlie's wife arrested for throwing a suspicious package onto the train daily at 2:15.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:33 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?

Trained to do what? Panic, close your eyes, and pull the trigger until the "bang" noise stops happening?


Evidently...yes.

www.brown-watch.com
 
2013-05-07 01:47:29 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Charlie's wife arrested for throwing a suspicious package onto the train daily at 2:15.


So he never returned?
 
2013-05-07 01:47:39 PM  

Warlordtrooper: insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

This logic is absurd,  If said innocent civilian wasn't at that place at that time, he or she wouldn't have been shot, so therefore they should also be charged....  This is the logic that the felony murder rule uses.


Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you actually not know the difference between "unarmed person being somewhere" and "armed person who starts a firefight"?
 
2013-05-07 01:48:27 PM  
The authorities are the only ones we should trust with firearms, because they are by nature more careful and competent in their use.
 
2013-05-07 01:48:39 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Dr Dreidel: brewswane: the cops did NOT  do a good job!  9000 cops and locking down an entire city looking for a 19 year old kid.  illegal search and seizure
they could have got the dogs after him

WTF kind of lockdown lets citizens leave their homes as they please and requires cops to get consent to enter a house?

// oooooh, the city canceled classes and most businesses closed - voluntarily - for the day
// but that didn't stop people from driving into the office
// source

They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.


In the vast majority of entries, they did. Some few officers did not in a few situations. Learn2complex reality.
 
2013-05-07 01:49:10 PM  
He was Pat Tillman-ed.
 
2013-05-07 01:49:57 PM  
If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work

"Hey, Cletus! No matter what, they get charged! Let's light it up, yee-haw!"

 
2013-05-07 01:50:09 PM  

Wellon Dowd: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun shooting another good guy with a gun.


Man, it sure took long enough for someone to post this! When seconds count, Wellon Dowd is minutes away... from his keyboard ;-)

/ long-winded way of saying I was going to post this
 
2013-05-07 01:51:00 PM  

doyner: I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.



Remember this guy?  He didn't die of a heart attack while banging a hooker in Cleveland...
media1.policymic.com
 
2013-05-07 01:53:54 PM  
Ultimately this is the fault of Obama and the Democrats.  The only way to become better at shooting is to shoot but they refuse to buy the ammo need.  I can hardly wait for Republicans to jump on this
 
2013-05-07 01:55:17 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.


The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum to pass the frighteningly basic tests. A guy who carries has several key differences from the police. They made a decision to carry, and know that requires a lot of responsibility. They like guns, and use them whenever possible. They don't have any guaranteed immunity (even stand your ground laws tend to not be as protective as they are made out to be), so they tend to know the applicable laws, and they also tend to be fairly careful about opening fire. If you look at the statistics between police and average joe when it comes to accuracy, target identification and if a shooting was justified (there's a legal term for that but I'm drawing a blank on it), average joe blows the police out of the water. You can't even chalk that up to police having more contact with criminals, as those are rates of failure not total numbers.

It's really no surprise, if you think about it. If you tell one group of people that if they screw up the slightest amount then they are going to be farked for life, then give another group almost complete immunity for even the largest of failures, which do you think is going to get sloppy?
 
2013-05-07 01:55:32 PM  
JK47  However, given the fact that cops were already engaging the terrorists, gun wielding bystanders, no matter how well-intentioned, won't be helpful and could make a chaotic situation much more confusing than it already is.

Did you see the video that was taken that night?  You know, the one from about 30 ft. away directly above the shooters in a much better vantage point than any cop could dream of having?  Because I know several people with deer rifles - hell I know several people with compound bows - that have taken that shot successfully every fall since they were about twelve years old.  But yeah, let's disarm civilians because all cops have remarkable marksmanship skills and never miss.
 
2013-05-07 01:57:14 PM  
Lets see,

Hate coworker, mass man hunt, profit?
 
2013-05-07 01:57:31 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice


And your evidence for this is......?
 
2013-05-07 01:57:59 PM  

monoski: Glad the Fark legal team has chimed in with the "pulled them out of my butt laws"


It's a case of a little education making someone dangerous. Yes, there is such a thing as the felony murder doctrine. No, it doesn't apply in this case, because the victim is still breathing.
 
2013-05-07 01:58:27 PM  

Warlordtrooper: They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.


[citation needed]

See, the other guy provided a source. Why didn't you?
 
2013-05-07 01:58:37 PM  

doyner: The Muthaship: Felony murder.

sentex: Wrong.  Felony Murder Rule

FTFA: "Donahue is doing fine."

I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.


Ding ding ding!

Yep. I only have a GED in law, but I'm unaware of anything like felony-murder which can be applied here.
 
2013-05-07 01:59:09 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum to pass the frighteningly basic tests.


lol
 
2013-05-07 01:59:18 PM  
You can color me unimpressed.  Three hundred outgoing rounds in an attempt to kill a couple of idiots - and they only manage to partially succeed because one kid runs over the other as he drives away.  Throw in shooting your own guy and I'd say that was a pretty big failure overall.  Plus, another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast) that has one unarmed teenager inside, and they still failed to kill him.  That's five hundred bullets spent trying to kill two morons and only managing to kill one by luck.  I am truly amazed they didn't manage to kill any other Boston residents.  This inept, bumbling execution squad behavior we've seen here and with Dorner is really starting to get old.
 
2013-05-07 01:59:25 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum to pass the frighteningly basic tests.


I'ma gonna stop you right here. There is NO WAY that the average gun owner has more training and practice than your average cop. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but you'd have to provide real data to back it up.

Also, gun owners are not "farked for life" for the slightest screw up. A dude shot his goddamned neighbor's kid and there won't be any charges, for example.
 
2013-05-07 02:00:03 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?

A "trained" beat cop who draws his service weapon might as well be a hand grenade, considering their statistical accuracy.

Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.


Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do.

Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?
 
2013-05-07 02:01:15 PM  

FilmBELOH20: Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?


Because you have no sense of subtlety, and assume everything has to be taken to the extreme?
 
2013-05-07 02:01:23 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: If you look at the statistics between police and average joe when it comes to accuracy, target identification and if a shooting was justified (there's a legal term for that but I'm drawing a blank on it), average joe blows the police out of the water.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-05-07 02:03:11 PM  

VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)


On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.
 
2013-05-07 02:03:44 PM  

FilmBELOH20: Did you see the video that was taken that night?  You know, the one from about 30 ft. away directly above the shooters in a much better vantage point than any cop could dream of having?  Because I know several people with deer rifles - hell I know several people with compound bows - that have taken that shot successfully every fall since they were about twelve years old.  But yeah, let's disarm civilians because all cops have remarkable marksmanship skills and never miss.



Shooting on a range or firing from concealment while hunting is a bit different than firing a weapon during an unexpected confrontation with an armed assailant.  The deer don't normally pose a threat that would cause you to rush to (and fire from) cover.  These are two vastly different scenarios and comparing them is pointless.

In addition, unless armed civilians have a way of identifying friend from foe, advocating their participation in a confrontation like this is ludicrous.  After all, an innocent Saudi was tackled while (reasonably) running away from the bombing simply because he was an Arab man running away from a bombing.  Similar logic would no doubt be employed if armed civilians decided to pitch in (to say nothing about how police officers will react trying to sort out who is a threat and who is not).
 
2013-05-07 02:03:58 PM  

FilmBELOH20: Wolf_Blitzer: PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?

A "trained" beat cop who draws his service weapon might as well be a hand grenade, considering their statistical accuracy.

Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.

Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do.

Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?


Schroedinger's Cops
 
2013-05-07 02:04:02 PM  

FilmBELOH20: Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do.

Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?


Are they legally required to have that range time? No.

That's like trusting a pilot to fly a plane because he "looks like an alright guy".
 
2013-05-07 02:04:58 PM  

doyner: murder requires a death to occur


they did kill that poor unarmed boat
 
2013-05-07 02:05:33 PM  

Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.


Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.
 
2013-05-07 02:05:43 PM  

FilmBELOH20: Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-05-07 02:08:08 PM  

The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.


Aarontology: The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.

Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.


In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. He can still be changed with attempting to shoot cops. The punishment is most likely the same. If you intentionally shoot at someone, whether you hit them makes less of a difference than whether you kill them or not.

Felony murder logic does not apply here for criminal liability. But it would apply more readily in a civil law context. If the cop were to sue Tsarnaev for the cost of his injuries, Tsarnaev could probably be liable for creating the situation in the first place even though he didn't inflict the injury. I don't do civil law, so I don't even know if such a claim exists (but I am inclined to say it does not).
 
2013-05-07 02:09:04 PM  

Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.


A while ago two news helicopters crashed while following a car chase and the cops were looking at whether they could add on four charges of Felony Murder.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/07/ne ws _chopper_down.html

I can't find a followup on whether they went through with it or not though.
 
2013-05-07 02:09:13 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: That's like trusting a pilot to fly a plane because he "looks like an alright guy".


Or like handing over the pilot's seat to a kid with 10 yours in MS Flight Simulator...
 
2013-05-07 02:09:20 PM  

monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.


That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.
 
2013-05-07 02:10:10 PM  

maddogdelta: Wolf_Blitzer: That's like trusting a pilot to fly a plane because he "looks like an alright guy".

Or like handing over the pilot's seat to a kid with 10 yoursHOURS in MS Flight Simulator...


dammit
 
2013-05-07 02:11:47 PM  

99sportster: They DID shoot a "random university campus cop for no apparent reason".  THIS is not THAT cop.


They were trying to steal his gun. After they killed him, they couldn't figure out how to get the gun out of the retention holster.
 
2013-05-07 02:12:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Warlordtrooper: They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.

[citation needed]

See, the other guy provided a source. Why didn't you?


S/He didn't read the source I provided; what makes you think s/he'd find one of his own?

// from my link: "as far as I can tell, compliance with the shutdown was pretty much entirely voluntary" (says Megan McArdle)
// here's another source - "The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you," says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School
// find a more concrete source or STFU
// and no, RONPAUL's website is not a "primary source"
 
2013-05-07 02:13:52 PM  

LasersHurt: There is NO WAY that the average gun owner has more training and practice than your average cop.


They sure as fark do when it comes to their guns. I've seen the shooting requirements for several forces, and they aren't shiat. There's a hell of a lot more training and practice that police get that practically nobody else gets, but it's not really applicable to what most people need, which is 1) Identify the guy shooting at you 2) Identify the innocent people around the threat 3) Shoot the threat, not the innocents. It doesn't take much to do that, and time and again the police have been proven to be worse at this.

Wolf_Blitzer: imgs.xkcd.com


Nope. It's not hard to find, if you care to find it. I doubt you do, and I'm too lazy today to do it for you.
 
2013-05-07 02:14:47 PM  
So therefore we should arm untrained citizens and they will defend everybody and no one except criminals will get hurt.
 
2013-05-07 02:15:00 PM  

insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.


sentex: Same situation if you rob a bank with a partner and the partner kills someone, you too can be charge with murder.  Even if you only robbed the bank.


So what if I rob a bank, and the bank president gets so upset he kills his wife? Since I created the situation which led to him getting upset, am I on the hook for her murder as well?
 
2013-05-07 02:16:21 PM  
Are you guys still eating this stuff up? You all sound fat now. Too bad y'all wouldn't know a duck if you heard it talking or saw it walking, because duck is pretty tasty too.
 
2013-05-07 02:17:27 PM  

insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.


Also if your partner gets shot and killed you are on the hook for murder.

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


No because once you also start shooting the cops are probably going to start shooting at you also and kill you.
 
2013-05-07 02:17:39 PM  

FilmBELOH20: JK47  However, given the fact that cops were already engaging the terrorists, gun wielding bystanders, no matter how well-intentioned, won't be helpful and could make a chaotic situation much more confusing than it already is.

Did you see the video that was taken that night?  You know, the one from about 30 ft. away directly above the shooters in a much better vantage point than any cop could dream of having?  Because I know several people with deer rifles - hell I know several people with compound bows - that have taken that shot successfully every fall since they were about twelve years old.  But yeah, let's disarm civilians because all cops have remarkable marksmanship skills and never miss.


That sounds great in theory. But if you take that shot and miss, and it ricochets into the house across the street and kills some poor shmuck hiding in his living room, you have a big problem. Likewise if it bounces and hits a cop sneaking up from the side.

So if someone wants to take it upon themselves and try to help, they better be willing to face a negligent manslaughter charge as well. I honestly can't say whether in this situation that was an acceptable risk from someone to take.
 
2013-05-07 02:18:33 PM  

PiperArrow: 99sportster: They DID shoot a "random university campus cop for no apparent reason".  THIS is not THAT cop.

They were trying to steal his gun. After they killed him, they couldn't figure out how to get the gun out of the retention holster.



www.blackhawk.com
Push the tab near the bottom. You're welcome criminals. Now please send me a portion of your future gains in the form of TF subscriptions .
 
2013-05-07 02:19:50 PM  

MythDragon: insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

sentex: Same situation if you rob a bank with a partner and the partner kills someone, you too can be charge with murder.  Even if you only robbed the bank.

So what if I rob a bank, and the bank president gets so upset he kills his wife? Since I created the situation which led to him getting upset, am I on the hook for her murder as well?


Nope: (i) although you're a direct cause, you're not the proximate cause - i.e. it's not a reasonable and foreseeable result of robbing a bank; and (ii) (in many states) felony murder must be a killing done in furtherance of the crime, like killing a guard, cop, or a cashier.
 
2013-05-07 02:20:32 PM  

Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.


yep and rightfully charged with Murder One, because if someone dies as a direct consequence of your action while you are in the commission of a Felony, thanks to the Felony Murder Rule, it's exactly the same legally as if you intentionally killed them yourself
 
2013-05-07 02:20:53 PM  
It doesn't matter how much time the cops spend on the range.

What matters is how and how often they're trained in the *practical* use of firearms in various situations.

Hearing a gunshot does not mean every officer who hears the bang is to unload his entire stash of ammo in the general direction of the sound. If you don't know what's going on, don't shoot a gun. If you don't have an authorized target, don't shoot a gun. Make it clear who is in command and who authorizes, under what conditions, for multiple officers to open fire.
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report