View Full Version : What would you do?
GratefulCitizen
10-07-2007, 18:09
Another disturbing event:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/10/07/2007-10-07_woman_fights_for_life_after_psycho_goes_.html
It made me think.
In NYC, most of us don't have the option of carrying a firearm.
If I saw someone stabbing a 67 year-old woman wearing a neckbrace and walking with a cane, I'd have to do something about it.
From a tactical point of view, what would be the best course of action?
The Reaper
10-07-2007, 18:23
You would think that the value of a good CCW program would be clear from this.
Lacking that, OC the SOB, and put the boot to him once he was on the ground. A cane is another viable option against a knife attack.
A little look into the number of nutjobs like this walking the streets of the city would also be another concern. Why is this asshole not incarcerated or committed?
TR
82ndtrooper
10-07-2007, 18:42
A Louisville Slugger to the back of the head sounds pretty good to me. :munchin
Maybe a an ASP baton, hickory stick, some steel toed boots, piano wire around the neck from behind, take your pick.
In all seriousness NYC has a big problem. Most people do not want to get involved, and most won't even cooperate with law enforcement if they have witnessed anything.
I'm just glad that I enjoy living in a state with legislators that recognize the dangers in infringing the right to bear arms for personal safety. If it's in Kentucky then I'm going to approach, check my back drop, and then squeeze two between the running lights of the SOB. In NYC, it's a whole new game with the use of deadly force.
CoLawman
10-07-2007, 20:01
You would think that the value of a good CCW program would be clear from this.
Lacking that, OC the SOB, and put the boot to him once he was on the ground. A cane is another viable option against a knife attack.
A little look into the number of nutjobs like this walking the streets of the city would also be another concern. Why is this asshole not incarcerated or committed?
TR
The systematic deinstitutionalization of this country's severely mentally disturbed over the past thirty years is the cause. Time and time again we see nuts like this creating havoc in our society. The politically correct and human rights watchers rarely examine the result of their asinine advocacy.
Our streets are littered with homeless. They are made up, by a large percentage, of nuts that in previous decades would have been institutionalized. Most require medication, which the do gooders failed to consider prior to opening the gates of the Cuckoo's Nest.
These same do gooders were the ones blaming the increase in homelessness on Reaganomics. Geez I detest these individuals who place individuals rights above a society's, regardless of the consequences.
I lay may head down upon my pillow every night praying that they will start eating their young.
Plutarch
10-07-2007, 20:19
Geraldo Rivera came to fame for his reports on the conditions at the Willowbrook State School for the Mentally Ill. Instead of cleaning up the institutions and providing better care, the State of New York basically just released mental patients onto the streets. The result has been people pushed in front of subway trains, random stabbings , and the general public having to tolerate lice ridden smelly people in public places like libraries.
When I have had to travel to NY City, I made sure to take OC/Mace and steel toed boots.
These same do gooders were the ones blaming the increase in homelessness on Reaganomics. Geez I detest these individuals who place individuals rights above a society's, regardless of the consequences.
It has little to do with "do gooders" and much more to do with funding. Simply put, unless your family is independently wealthy (and I'm talking in the millions here), then they cannot afford the bill of your being institutionalized and treated for a lifetime.
Insurance won't cover that kind of long term care, and at best the modern HMO pays for a short eval/stabilization period, the prescrition of new meds, and then the patient is forced back onto the street and told to check in with their shrink for a follow up. Like the paranoid schizo type is really going to do that...
Most families aren't mentally, physically, or financially capable of caring for a seriously mentally ill person. As a result, they end up homeless.
And though I am a fan of Reagan in many aspects, I believe in calling it like I see it. Reagonomics did result in the closure/defunding of an outrageous number of state/public mental institutions. The large number of mentally ill people on the streets today is a direct result of his shutting down and cutting the budgets of public mental institutions.
We should all just fall down and thank the deity of our chosing that we don't have a seriously mentally ill person in our immediate family. It tears the family apart, bankrupts them, and often results in the ill person being out on the streets to fend for themselves.
Like I said, unless you have a couple million laying around for private treatment, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. I work with the public mental health system and the mentally ill on a daily basis, and it is an underfunded, skeleton operation. The costs to treat these individuals properly is astronomical, and most insurance plans either cap the costs or opt for outpatient treatment.
And for the record, our country is founded on the core concept that an individuals' rights are above those of the state or society in general. I don't think thats a bad thing.
Defender968
10-07-2007, 23:07
Personally I would have drawn my 40 cal back up weapon, ordered him to drop the knives as the off duty NY transit Cop did (and good on him) and then put 2 in his chest and 1 in his head when he took the first step towards me, and if he didn't stop I'd keep shooting until my pistol went dry or until he dropped. But thanks to the Police officers protection act I can carry my duty weapon or my back up pretty much anywhere in the country even communist.... er I mean liberal states like NY, not everyone has that luxury.
As for the non armed civilian who happens upon this scene, obviously the first decision is whether to engage the threat or not and that's a personal choice. I personally couldn't stand by and do nothing as someone was being brutally attacked. I'd look for something heavy, and preferably long, bat, 2x4, chair, tire iron, crow bar, mag light, large brick, whatever is close and could be used accurately as a devastating weapon. I would seek to "neutralize" the suspect as quickly as possible from behind. That's my nice way of saying I'd try to crush his head like a f&%$ing melon to make sure A. he doesn't continue his attack on the current victim, and B isn't capable of trying to attack me.
My biggest issue with this whole debacle is the mandatory breathalizer they made the off duty cop take after the incident. WTF!!!
So if he had a beer with his meal would he have been punished for interveneing? He obvioulsy wasn't wasted, what the hell!?
This is new policy is outrageous.
Defender968
10-08-2007, 12:37
My biggest issue with this whole debacle is the mandatory breathalizer they made the off duty cop take after the incident. WTF!!!
So if he had a beer with his meal would he have been punished for interveneing? He obvioulsy wasn't wasted, what the hell!?
This is new policy is outrageous.
That's actually standard after any shooting in my department, including shooting a deer who was hit by a car, it's kind of stupid but it's pretty standard.
My thought, were I his chief, and he blew a .10 but still managed to shoot and/or kill the bad guy while off duty, would be to pull him into my office, tell him not to drink before shooting any more wackos and send him out. The flip side is however, if he had one beer was completely good to go but in the same situation and hit the victim for whatever reason he'd be screwed.
That's just part of the job, I don't think it's right but it's just the way things are.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/nypd.shooting.police.2.245161.html
http://www.policeone.com/news/1360320/
http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Undercover_rule_draws_hostility/9127.html
I think that this policy is an ill conceived, knee jerk reaction to an incident in which officers acted appropriately and were then hung out to dry by their department.
Now, having said that my opinion on this matter doesn't carry much weight being as I am neither a police officer, nor would I ever consider working for the NYPD. But since I am pursuing a career in LE I like to keep current on events that affect this community. This isn't meant to argue with any LEO's, its just some of the research that I've done on this topic that lead me to form my non-expert opinion.
Oh and the NYPD removed their offical press release on this policy from their public site or I would've linked to that as well.
The policy is pretty standard among all PDs. You shoot someone, you have to take a piss test and/or breathalyzer. It's part of the job, you know it going in. Like it or not, we (LE) are held to a higher standard than Joe Citizen when it comes to an off duty shooting..... once again, you know that going in. If you are going out to drink with the boys, don't take your weapon. If you are going to dinner with the family and have your piece, then don't drink. Simple as that. Alcohol and weapons don't mix..... ever.
The reason for the breathalyzer/piss test isn't always to jam the officer up. If and when you get into LE, you will see that every (and I mean every) shooting results in a wrongful death lawsuit by the douche bag's family. It happens every single time. In 99% of the breath/piss tests, the results 0.0%, which protects both the dept and Officer from some dickhead attorney who plans to imply that the officer was impaired or under the influence. It's all about CYA and limiting liability in this day and age.
Once again, you know this going in. Big boy rules.
If having to pee in a cup after capping someone upsets you that much, then I would suggest another line of work........ IAD investigations and being forced to take polygraph's at the Chief's whim aren't going to be your cup of tea.
Defender968
10-08-2007, 19:42
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/nypd.shooting.police.2.245161.html
http://www.policeone.com/news/1360320/
http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Undercover_rule_draws_hostility/9127.html
I think that this policy is an ill conceived, knee jerk reaction to an incident in which officers acted appropriately and were then hung out to dry by their department.
I understand what you’re thinking here Tubbs but as Mdb23 said this type of policy is pretty standard and you just need to know it going in, you also need to realize that in our litigious society you will be sued in this type of situation or any situation you have to shoot someone no matter how much the dirt bag deserves it, and the department will try to protect itself, and hopefully the officer as well. Unfortunately in today’s society many departments do not stand by their officers, and that is also something you need to understand and take into mind when entering this profession. The reality is it's often dangerous work, with high liability, working crappy hours, for low pay, and you may or may not have a dept that will back you if a situation goes really bad, and often it’s boring as hell, but on the up side there is a sense of helping people every so often, there are some adrenaline rushes from time to time (hopefully you don’t get hurt or hurt someone else during them) and on occasion you get to catch the bad guy. Realize going in that this is how it is and make an informed decision on your career choice it’s not like cops where it’s nonstop action, and it’s not like the old days where a police officer was always right.
I'd keep shooting until my pistol went dry or until he dropped..
What happens if your pistol goes dry, and he ain't dropped!?:eek:
What happens if your pistol goes dry, and he ain't dropped!?:eek:
Think about going to the range and work on your marksmanship. :D
The Reaper
10-09-2007, 09:54
What happens if your pistol goes dry, and he ain't dropped!?:eek:
Conduct a speed reload and continue to engage, focusing on the front sight and a clean break.
TR
CoLawman
10-09-2007, 20:47
Sorry, late in responding as I was enjoying the mountains!
Most families aren't mentally, physically, or financially capable of caring for a seriously mentally ill person. As a result, they end up homeless.
I agree with you, institutionalize them then.
And though I am a fan of Reagan in many aspects, I believe in calling it like I see it. Reagonomics did result in the closure/defunding of an outrageous number of state/public mental institutions. The large number of mentally ill people on the streets today is a direct result of his shutting down and cutting the budgets of public mental institutions.
The deinstitutionization of the mentally ill occurred long before President Reagan was in office. The deinstitution of the mentally ill began with President Kennedy and became part of President Johnson's Great Society. The idea was to remove the care of the mentally ill from the state institutions and develop community based out patient treatment. In 1955 there were 1/2 million people in state mental hospitals. Today there are fewer than 100,000.
The do-gooders failed to think through their obviously predestined failure. They did not consider that the severely mentally disabled would be unable or unwilling to be treated in an out patient manner. I believe you make my argument by mentioning that these individuals cannot be expected to seek treatment on their own.
The state mental hospitals were a casualty of the Great Society.....Reaganomics was several years away. President Reagan did defund some programs..........but the proof is in the pudding. Prior to the Great Society, states were footing 98 percent of the bill for treating the mentally disabled. Today the Federal Government pays 67 percent of the bill. Reagan tried to move some of the costs back to the states.........which he should have.
The mentally ill not only receive medicaid they also receive social security disability checks on a monthly basis. So I am very confused about your complaint about families having to pay the bills. I am not talking about children, I am talking about the adults that litter our streets and pose a risk to us and to themselves.
We are spending per patient far more today than we have in our nations history. And it is money that is spent ineffectively. Under Reagan the programs were not defunded. He asked that the state pay their fair share since social security and medicaid was already picking up the tab.
Like I said, unless you have a couple million laying around for private treatment, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. I work with the public mental health system and the mentally ill on a daily basis, and it is an underfunded, skeleton operation. The costs to treat these individuals properly is astronomical, and most insurance plans either cap the costs or opt for outpatient treatment.
My statements are in regards to severely mentally disabled. I am not talking about persons who suffer from depression. I agree it is expensive and insurance puts cap on treatments. I have personal experience in this regard,and trust me your "millions" comment is way out of wack. 60 day in house treatment for depression costs $50,000 and a very top facility.
And for the record, our country is founded on the core concept that an individuals' rights are above those of the state or society in general. I don't think thats a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
And would you please cite where in the constitution this can be found!?! If you can find it, I am sure there are numerous people who would be interested in using it to fight eminent domain.
82ndtrooper
10-09-2007, 20:59
Those patients are simply referred to as "non compliant"
If an sane man refuses to take his insulin, then how would one think that mentally ill or unstable patients would take to out patient treatment ? Even the most capable men and women sometimes cancel their appointments with the shrink just do to boredom, frustration and denial.
I don't know about the Reagan thing, but this certainly puts socialized medicine into a new relm. While Hillary is thinking of children and those without health care, why doesn't she start addressing this problem. Guess that's too hard to consider. :rolleyes:
Great post Lawman.
We should all just fall down and thank the deity of our chosing that we don't have a seriously mentally ill person in our immediate family. It tears the family apart, bankrupts them, and often results in the ill person being out on the streets to fend for themselves.
My wife said if she ever had a severely Retarded child she wold hope it died at birth. If not, she would kill it her self. I said WTF at first until she told me about her cousin's. These two cousins were sisters and had a Mentally Retarded brother. She said this one child who shouldn't of lived anyway. Ended the two lives of the Parents and took away any hope of a normal life for the Sisters the day he was born.
The Sisters never received the care or attention they deserved. They never had friends. Once the Kid reached his teens the very few relatives that did ever visit, also stopped. The Mother was sentenced to caring for this child until she died. Never returned to School, traveled or pursued a career she put on hold to have a third Child. The Fathers only retreat was work until he to had to help the Mother. They were never the same.
Once the sisters got out and went to college it really dawned on them that their Parents lives were over the day this child was born. Theirs would never be normal. Both Parents have passed on. The younger Retarded Brother is institutionalized.
Because it was other family members who helped out with the Money to get them out of that House and into College. They started to reconnect with everyone. They learned of many serious talks of ending the Kids life. Even thou the parents agreed, they could never bring themselves to do it. Or expect someone else to. They just wanted the two Daughters out as soon as possible.
The two sisters confessed to having these same talks amongst themselves. They were only 12 and 13 years old when they first talked about ending his life. The saddest part is when they left for School in another State. The Mother and Farther told them they would understand if they never returned and blamed themselves for it all.
Your absolutely right. If a Family do's not have the means to institutionalize a retarded child. They will spend their life caring for this child and nothing else. Made me think of the family who lived on the Block I grew up on. They had a Retarded Daughter. Even thou they had two normal Kids. No one ever saw them outside. I think I would have to finish what Nature failed to do in this case.
I agree with you, institutionalize them then.
Agreed. Who's paying for it?
The state mental hospitals were a casualty of the Great Society.....Reaganomics was several years away. President Reagan did defund some programs.......... Reagan tried to move some of the costs back to the states.........which he should have.
We agree. Reagan defunded mental institutions, resulting in their closure. Look at the stats regarding the number of mentally ill homeless during his reign. It might surprise you.
The mentally ill not only receive medicaid they also receive social security disability checks on a monthly basis. So I am very confused about your complaint about families having to pay the bills. I am not talking about children, I am talking about the adults that litter our streets and pose a risk to us and to themselves.
If you work in this system, I am little surprised at this one........ so a mentally ill adult gets $600 a month due to his schizophrenia.... now he has to pay rent, for food, clothes, you name it......how much money do you think is left over to pay the copays on meds, shrink visits, and the constant bloodwork needed to keep the med levels correct? Forced to chose between food and shelter and meds, what do you think they choose? They end up off their meds and out of control. Medicaid won't pay for institutionalization, and families can't afford to pay the bill themselves. See how they end up homeless? Families aren't legally obligated to pay the bills, but many do to keep their adult children off of the street.
We are spending per patient far more today than we have in our nations history. And it is money that is spent ineffectively. Under Reagan the programs were not defunded. He asked that the state pay their fair share since social security and medicaid was already picking up the tab.
How is cutting federal funding for programs and institutions -not- considered defunding? Because he told the states "hey, you pay for it?" We are spending more per patient because the bills for healthcare are higher than ever before, not because they are receiving more or better treatment.
My statements are in regards to severely mentally disabled. I am not talking about persons who suffer from depression. I agree it is expensive and insurance puts cap on treatments. I have personal experience in this regard,and trust me your "millions" comment is way out of wack. 60 day in house treatment for depression costs $50,000 and a very top facility.
Ok, so 50K for 60 days..... that's 300K a year. So you have a severly mentally ill kid that needs constant care to keep from breaking his own fingers (or biting them off) and mutilating his arms with a knife.... he's 19, and could live to be 75. The HMOs/Medicaid only want to treat him as an outpatient, but you opt for residential treatment...... 300K a year for 56 years. Still think I am way out of whack? You have no idea how many calls per week I get where a mentally ill person is out of control. We show up, and a couple in their 70s have called because their 45 year old son is hallucinating and has become self injurious or violent. We take them in, the hospital shoots them up with meds (turning them into a zombie), and releases them right back to the elderly parents. The parents, who should be enjoying the last years of their lives, are forced to choose between putting their flesh and blood out on the street or trying to care for them in their home. It's horrible, but I see it every single day. Medicaid doesn't pay for crap in regard to residential care.
[/QUOTE]
And would you please cite where in the constitution this can be found!?! If you can find it, I am sure there are numerous people who would be interested in using it to fight eminent domain.
The Bill of Rights. We have certain rights that cannot be taken away, regardless of whether or not it would be in the "best interest of society." Doesn't work that way. I can't search someone's home, take away their freedom of speech, or right to a trial and then cite "the greater good."
Defender968
10-10-2007, 21:01
Conduct a speed reload and continue to engage, focusing on the front sight and a clean break.
TR
I'd be in trouble as I'm not in the habit of carrying extra ammo when I'm carrying off duty, I pray I'll never have to use it, but if I run into a threat that's going to require more than 1 mag to neutralize I'm probably going to seriously weigh my options before engaging. i.e. multiple bad guys and just me and my one mag.
In this scenario if I emptied my weapon and he didn't go down I'm going to be thinking body armor which is why I'd be shooting 2+1, if that doesn't work then I'm going to suspect I've encountered a zombie or superman, and in either case I would recommend a tactical retrograde, followed by pinching myself to wake up from the bad dream I'm having. :eek:
Defender, I'd like to provide you some food for thought. Magazines are one of the least reliable parts in a semi-auto pistol. If you only carry the one magazine loaded in your pistol, and for whatever reason it malfunctions on you after your first shot, wouldn't it be helpful to have a second magazine with which to replace it? I used to think that I only needed 10+ rounds to solve any civilian self-defense problem I had, too, until someone much smarter than I pointed out the above scenario involving a bad magazine. I now carry two magazines, just in case.
My wife said if she ever had a severely Retarded child she wold hope it died at birth. If not, she would kill it her self. I said WTF at first until she told me about her cousin's. These two cousins were sisters and had a Mentally Retarded brother. She said this one child who shouldn't of lived anyway. Ended the two lives of the Parents and took away any hope of a normal life for the Sisters the day he was born.
The Sisters never received the care or attention they deserved. They never had friends. Once the Kid reached his teens the very few relatives that did ever visit, also stopped. The Mother was sentenced to caring for this child until she died. Never returned to School, traveled or pursued a career she put on hold to have a third Child. The Fathers only retreat was work until he to had to help the Mother. They were never the same.
Once the sisters got out and went to college it really dawned on them that their Parents lives were over the day this child was born. Theirs would never be normal. Both Parents have passed on. The younger Retarded Brother is institutionalized.
Because it was other family members who helped out with the Money to get them out of that House and into College. They started to reconnect with everyone. They learned of many serious talks of ending the Kids life. Even thou the parents agreed, they could never bring themselves to do it. Or expect someone else to. They just wanted the two Daughters out as soon as possible.
The two sisters confessed to having these same talks amongst themselves. They were only 12 and 13 years old when they first talked about ending his life. The saddest part is when they left for School in another State. The Mother and Farther told them they would understand if they never returned and blamed themselves for it all.
Your absolutely right. If a Family do's not have the means to institutionalize a retarded child. They will spend their life caring for this child and nothing else. Made me think of the family who lived on the Block I grew up on. They had a Retarded Daughter. Even thou they had two normal Kids. No one ever saw them outside. I think I would have to finish what Nature failed to do in this case.
kgoerz Sir,
Just wanted to add another side to this, and hope that is okay.
That is a very unfortunate situation. My heart goes out to that family.
Speaking from personal experience, I agree it is a challenge to care for a mentally and physically disabled family member, and it is very hard. Personally, my attitude is that, well, life is hard. This is the hand dealt, and I just suck it up and drive on.
But every situation is different.
I have to think that I am helping someone who cannot help themselves, and would otherwise suffer under "Institutional Care". Those places can be horrific.
True, it is a lifelong commitment, but joy can be found in knowing a life is being made better by my actions.
Again, I know every situation is different, this just happens to be something close to my heart.
Holly
Okay, back to the thread topic...
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order" (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).
This is from a court case that invovled a victims family suing a state mental health facility over releasing the patient who then murdered the aforementined vicitm. This is currently legal precident. I couldn't find any newer laws superceeding this decision.
Mdb23 and Defender968. You missed the point of my post entirely. It is not the policy that I am against. It is why the policy was conceived and more importantly how the policy was implimented that I disagree with.
I'm all about having as much covearge for my ass as possible.
I understand that "Cops" is not an accurate representation of police work. My brother in law was a Detroit Police Officer for ten years, survived being shot in the face and went back to work. I have several other friends and family that work for both local, state and Federal LE agencies. I also volunteer at the local Department.
Defender 968,
When I was on-duty or off-duty I carried a handgun every time. When I was on-duty I carried a G34 and averaged around 51 extra rounds in three Glock mags and occasionally more. Off-duty I carried the exact same number of rounds in mags. I always felt extremely comfortable carrying that much ammo especially off the clock. The reason being if I were to ever get backed up into a corner with no place to go, I would have selected the best solid cover I could, get my mags and knives ready (yes, I carried a few of them too), and prepare myself for my Alamo. I just told myself that I WASN'T GOING TO DIE TODAY and that some other(s) would most likely, but not I.
Even today being retired and qualified now under H.B.218, and swithced over to a 1911A1, I am carrying an extra 30 rounds.
The reason being was that I made a few enemies while working as I am sure every LEO here knows. I have been followed home at least 4 times that I can remember at this moment. All were inmates at one time while I worked in the Jail Division. One of which actually had my 34 in his ear. He just wanted to say hi and see how I was doing according to him. He had just finished doing time for assualting a Deputy Sheriff. That Deputy was me. Nope don't think so pal.
I guess what I am trying to to tell you here is that ANYTHING can happen and that in your career you will run into these criminals that you yourself arrested out in the street. Be Prepared and always have a plan.
No excuse in not having one, PERIOD!:)
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order" (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).
This is from a court case that invovled a victims family suing a state mental health facility over releasing the patient who then murdered the aforementined vicitm. This is currently legal precident. I couldn't find any newer laws superceeding this decision.
Mdb23 and Defender968. You missed the point of my post entirely. It is not the policy that I am against. It is why the policy was conceived and more importantly how the policy was implimented that I disagree with.
I'm all about having as much covearge for my ass as possible.
I understand that "Cops" is not an accurate representation of police work. My brother in law was a Detroit Police Officer for ten years, survived being shot in the face and went back to work. I have several other friends and family that work for both local, state and Federal LE agencies. I also volunteer at the local Department.
I don't understand what you are trying to say with the lawsuit. The precedent set by said suit is merely that you can't sue the govt for failing to protect you if you are the victim of a crime. I don't see what the issue is there.
Regarding the policy, considering that nearly every dept across the country already has it in place (as well as random UA drops for no reason at all), I would say that NYPD was simply catching up with the rest of the country. Unfortunately, it took a tragic event (drunk cop popping rounds after bachelor party) to spark this change, but I honestly don't see what's wrong with a dept saying (as a condition of employment) that you have to drop urine or take a breath test after you kill somebody in the line of duty. Seems like a pretty reasonable request. Like I said, sometimes it takes a tragedy to spark change. This seems to be one of those times.
I'm sorry for your brother's injury, and I thank him for his service.
The Bowers v. Devito case had nothing to do with the NYC breathalyzer policy. It was in response your statement of
"...for the record, our country is founded on the core concept that an individuals' rights are above those of the state or society in general. I don't think thats a bad thing."
And then CoLawman asking where that was in the constitution. Obviously not in the constitution, but a legal precident involving that train of thought.
I just couldn't figure out how to set that up with both your quotes so I posted it by itself. Didn't mean for it to be confusing, sorry.
Also the case had several similarities to the issue that we are discussing. It involved a mentally ill person outside of Chicago (another area were the right to self defense is severely restricted) stabbing a woman to death after he was released from a state mental health facility.
I agree with pretty much everything else you have to say. I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that as I stated in my original post, my question wasn't so much with the policy. My question was, had the officer consumed alcohal while off duty, been at or below the legal limit, but was not intoxicated or impared would he have been punished for interveneing in a situtation where it was obviously warrented?
The Bowers v. Devito case had nothing to do with the NYC breathalyzer policy. It was in response your statement of
"...for the record, our country is founded on the core concept that an individuals' rights are above those of the state or society in general. I don't think thats a bad thing."
I agree with pretty much everything else you have to say. I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that as I stated in my original post, my question wasn't so much with the policy. My question was, had the officer consumed alcohal while off duty, been at or below the legal limit, but was not intoxicated or impared would he have been punished for interveneing in a situtation where it was obviously warrented?
I am still confused how that case contradicts my statement about individual liberties. It basically says that the fact that we have PDs, Jails, and LE does not constiutute an actionable guarantee of safety on the part of the govt. In other words, you can't sue the govt for failing to protect you if someone steals your car.
In regard to your second question, the answer depends on the policy of the PD. For example, if the policy of the dept is that you cannot drink alcohol while carrying your weapon, then he would get dinged for having any alcohol in his system. Not criminally, mind you, but administratively by the dept.
A guy at my PD interrupted a robbery in progress at a grocery store (off duty), and he shot the bad guy dead in his tracks. Guess what, he was carrying a non department approved weapon as his carry piece (we are only allowed to carry certain weapons off duty). So even though it was a good shoot, the dept gave him suspension days for carrying a non dept approved weapon.
Same thing can happen with the drinking.... no criminal pros, but a ding from the dept for violating policy. But like I said, you know the rules going in, so do whatever you are man enough to own up to.
I am still confused how that case contradicts my statement about individual liberties.
No, no I was agreeing with you. That's why I posted it. I probobly should've put it in two seperates posts to avoid confusion.
GratefulCitizen
10-14-2007, 13:59
You would think that the value of a good CCW program would be clear from this.
Lacking that, OC the SOB, and put the boot to him once he was on the ground. A cane is another viable option against a knife attack.
A little look into the number of nutjobs like this walking the streets of the city would also be another concern. Why is this asshole not incarcerated or committed?
TR
Third party intervention is an argument rarely used in promoting CCW.
The usual line from gun-grabbers is whether a criminal will take a gun from the lawful carrier or irrational fear of shoot-outs stemming from road rage.
The pro-gunners argue that criminals are deterred by not knowing who is armed.
In the case of a densely populated area, third party intervention is probably the best argument for shall-issue CCW.
If, in a given area, the actual carry rate made it to 2% (between off-duty LEO and licensed non-LEO), here's what the probabilities are:
In a crowd of 35: better than 50/50 that someone is carrying. (.5069)
In a crowd of 150: better than 95% that someone is carrying. (.9517)
It doesn't very many sheepdogs to protect a tightly packed herd.