Harley "tries" to outrun cops

[ponyfool]

You will NEVER find me defending bad cops and bad choices. I will however, as mentioned before, bring up things that I think need to be brought up.

Jestal. Yes, when I got hired, I knew there were risks. I took this job knowing those risks. If the time comes and I need to sacrifice my life for someone else's, I entered into this job knowing that could be the case. But I did not enter into this job accepting that anyone who wants to do me in should be entitled to because I accepted the risks. I have the absolute right to defend myself so that I can fulfill my commitment to my wife and kids, as well as to myself and the community.

When you imply that it's part of the job, that is the same as me saying, "If someone cuts you off in traffic while on your motorcycle, you shouldn't even bother to take evasive action, just ride right into him and accept the outcome because you knew the risks of motorcycling before you ever got on one."

I have my own issues with undercover officers, but I also accept that it is a necessary evil in policing. I agree that the majority of circumstances where there are questionable shootings (at least publicly questioned) are those involving undercover officers.

It does appear that the NY shooting is questionable. Not so much because they were unarmed (I do consider a vehicle a weapon, especially when it is ramming), but because their policy clearly prohibits shooting at a moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only threat. I don't see how they can over come that.

As for your assertion that 92 year old grandmothers don't hang out in drug houses, well, that's where IMO, you are naive. If you had any idea how frequently the elderly are victimized by criminals who use their homes, vehicles, etc, you would probably understand that this is one of those things that is a sad reality in our country.

Finally, as to your assertion that anyone that breaks into a house is deserving of bullets, what would your solution be to search warrants? I see you still haven't answered that one. I execute search warrants all the time (albeit in uniform), and we announce ourselves as police loudly and clearly. Does this mean I am deserving of bullets??

 

[jestal]

Finally, as to your assertion that anyone that breaks into a house is deserving of bullets, what would your solution be to search warrants? I see you still haven't answered that one. I execute search warrants all the time (albeit in uniform), and we announce ourselves as police loudly and clearly. Does this mean I am deserving of bullets??

Didn't realize an answer was required.... If you are uniformed and presenting a search warrant then certainly there is no need for the occupant of the house to shoot or resist. Ramming the door at 2:00 in the morning on a drug bust is not "presenting a search warrant" in my book. I clearly stated that just knocking the door down unannounced is what deserved a hail of bullets. Not a search warrant served in a civil fashion. If the cops think it is "safer" to just knock the door down in the middle of the night unannounced (seem the common MO) then they might stop to think that someone might try to defend themselves not knowing that it was the cops. It is clearly their job to have the right house and the right suspect, not the citizens job to wait and see who is knocking their door down in the middle of the night.

If you have the right to defend yourself even though you may be forcing the situation then every citizen deserves the equal right to defend themselves against anyone threatening them if they did nothing wrong.....whether they are defending themselves against the cops is the cops responsibility to make sure that they aren't.

Really, Ponyfool, I'm not such a bad guy. I certainly don't support anarchy and realize that police work has it's special demands. So please bear with me while I play the devil's advocate here.....

 

[Warchild]

This thread is a shining example of why we don't allow socio-political threads.

It started off bike-oriented enough... and had we just concentrated on the Hardley-bashing - like they are going to actually outrun *anything* - we would have been fine.

But, noooooooooooo.... that lasted about 2-3 pages before getting all "us-against-them", cops vs public rights, etc, etc, etc.

And, so... we're all done here!

Really, Ponyfool, I'm not such a bad guy.

Oh, yes you are.... you don't approve of synthetic oil, ergo, your a bad guy. Make sense, doesn't it?

Sure, it does... about as much as this thread did..... :lol: