5 Dead 1 Wounded In N.j.

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by PAPA G, Apr 10, 2002.

  1. PAPA G

    PAPA G G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    on Cnn this morning, a police officer in seaside heights killed 5 neighbors and seriously wounded his boss, the chief of police, in his home. the shooter was found later dead in his car. they haven't said why he went on this rampage, too soon yet. this brings to mind who protects us from our protectors??? if some one shot him before he went further, what would happen?? having lived most of my life there i know what. the headline would scream 'Neighbor kills cop" with the rest of the story hidden in newspeak gobbldygook!!! and that citizen would be hauled through the court system for ending things at the start! NJ has no right of self defense, because they allowed the politicians lead them down the slippery slope. of gun control and no rights!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

    SPOCAHP ANAR G&G Enthusiast

    I heard about this

    Again PAPA you seem to be on the money. Now couple this news fact with "Why do citezens need guns when we have the cops to protect us?"
    Hard to come back from that.

  3. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    Very hard to come back from that!
    I have a real compassion for most cops, because most are darn good cops and darn good people!
    But we DO NEED the right to defend ourselves from anyone!!!
    A Policeman is not obligated to put his life at risk to save yours!
    So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the undeniable right to defend ourselves by any means necessary!!! or thats what it should mean.

    Shouldn't matter one bit who it is trying to kill you, you should be able to defend yourself!!

    Sheepdip to the media - if you did have to defend yourself against an officer and you survived, your right, the media would eat it up but you would be alive!
  4. JohnD

    JohnD Guest

    The cops are never going to be there when you need them never not anywhere. In canada Lots of people get killed with knives and baseball bats even after they called the cops. Two sisters were stabed to death buy a person that had a restraining order. They called 911 and the cops showed up and they said he was hanging aroud there but they did not belive them. They called 911 five times and the cops never showed up. The 911 people said they did not sound scared and were very calm. Half hour after the first call they made to 911 they were dead.

    Good thing our gun control worked and the guy did not have a gun eh???
  5. oneastrix

    oneastrix G&G Newbie

    TX Police Officer here.... You do have the right to protect yourself from an officer who is using unreasonable or unnecessary force against you or a third person. The The Bill of Rights guarentees you that. We are all protected from illegal searches and siezures. Killing someone is the ultimate "seizure of property." That's the U.S. Supreme Court speaking, guys. You are also protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Killing you or harming you for an undue reason is considered "cuel and unusual." Again U.S.Sup. Crt interpretation.

    Cops can't always be there. There are 1 million+ citizens in my city, and only 2,000 sworn to protect. Those 2,000 have to be stretched over a period of 24 hours. You do the math.... If you want us there all the time, JohnD, get a hold of your local legislatures. Tell them that you need more cops....... But, you'll pay for it in tax money (at least that's the American way!) It's a never ending cycle, and you and I (the god guys) lose.

    I'm only speaking for America. I have no knowledge of Canadian law.
  6. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    If only there had been an adult (and cop) proof safety lock . . .
  7. I make it a point to know some facts regarding something before I respond. I read the posts here and I sense some cop slamming.

    First, the cop in NJ was a bad apple. Period. He was one that got by someone...!!! But, BUT, what would we do if we had 'justice' stuck up our behind? That is simply a question and I don't defend or condone what he did.

    But, how many times have we all said to ourselves, or perhaps to others, that if justice didn't take care of it we would. He had a family member sexually assaulted and the guy got off. Like I said, I don't condone taking the law into his own hands and taking out someone in the family, or an innocent bystander, and calling it even.

    Where is the fault here? I don't know......no Physchologist on staff caught it...he never eluded to what he intented to do. Could anyone have prevent it? Probably not...he did that as a single person, secretively, and was not, and cannot not, be the indicator of any other policeman's actions or beliefs.

    One thing that irritates me is that some people...some in here....will quickly comment badly when a cop goes bad but how many of us gun owners want to be lumped into something when a gun user goes beserk? I take offense to those who want to crucify a cop when they themselves want to THINK the law applys differently to them..

    The next time a gun owner goes nuts (and I don't want that to happen but, in time it will happen) think of how you are going to feel if suddenly you are associated with the incident since, you too, possess guns....all I'm saying.....'nuff from me, lol.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2002
  8. BenP

    BenP Guest

    Cops are humans. Humans make mistakes. Cops are held to a higher standard, thus more scrutiny. When an individual cop makes a mistake, it highlights the limits of our social order. This causes distress, as we expect certain standards to be maintained. If more cops made mistakes, our sensitivity to this would be diminished. However, society would find that condition unacceptable, and laws would be established to change things (Bobbies don't carry guns).

    It's not cops who are the issue here, it's the apparent flaw in our system being pointed out that is the concern. Our society will never tolerate more than a minimal police force. That condition dictates how our law enforcement agencies will function, both from a departmental policy perspective and as individuals. Most of the time law enforcement cannot be on the scene to prevent a crime, but must respond ex post facto to ensure that the perpetrators are apprehended and evidence of their crime is secured for the punitive process. This is an unavoidable, yet much more desirable condition than the alternatives.

    For this reason, the public is, more or less, given the freedom currently to defend themselves. This does not imply that law abiding citizens who must do so will not be scrutinized. To the contrary, a thorough evaluation will be made in court to determine that the defense was justifiable and necessary. Some jurisdictions have higher standards than others, and in almost all cases, the costs in court for defending yourself can be quite high.

    Ultimately, we as private law abiding citizens must decide if the cost of defending ourselves in court is worth the costs of defending ourselves (and our loved ones and our property) from physical threats. Obviously, and for whatever reason, the Chief in the above case failed to recognize the threat before he could respond to it. On that matter he is no different than the rest of us. Despite the media hype, there are very few of us who I believe would have cause to fear an unprovoked attack from any law enforcement agent.

    The point here is that Law enforcement in it's present form is not capable of protecting the general public from the initial attacks of the public enemy. They can, given time, respond to a threat effectively and diligently. This is a limit we impose on them. Ultimately, it is our responsibility as law abiding citizens to protect ourselves from unanticipated and unsolicited attacks. I think most of us on this forum subscribe to that philosphy. I also think that our Country has operated under that policy for as long as it has existed.
  9. Klaus

    Klaus Guest

    Taking the Law into your own hands is not a problem if the Law allows you to defend yourself. If you live in a communist state, you have problems.
  10. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    Thanks oneastrix for the clarification and the education.
    You men are very few and cannot be everywhere at the same time. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication!!!
    Most times it probably seems that most of us don't give you men the appreciation you deserve, but us law abiders do apperciate you men!!

    Dale, as always you are on the money.

    my 2 cents.
  11. All of the preceding comments underscore why it is false to have a "lowest bidder" mentality when it comes to law enforcement. We need to attract and keep quality people, give them the best possible training on an ongoing basis, provide a supervisory system that doesn't exacerbate a stressful work environment, and encourage a sense of pride amoing the officers. I don't think there is a magic formula to do this, only hard work, dedication, and common sense on the part of government officials.
  12. oneastrix

    oneastrix G&G Newbie

    Until I became a police officer I too was quick to jump on the band wagon and bash a cop verbally. That all changed when I started working the streets and realized that things differ greatly from an officers stand point. My suburbanite upbringing could not compare to the harsh reality that is crime in America. On duty, an officer does not deal with the "good" people of the world in general. We simply deal with the lowest of the low.

    As for Dale, he's got widom that comes from experience. The "bad apple" statement was right on the money. In my town, we just had eight officer sentenced to federal prison for protecting cocaine shipments as they came throught town. EIGHT of our "finest!" But you have to understaned, we have over two thousand sworn officers. You figure out the percentage of "bad apples." It's an embarrassment to us all, but it's a smal, small number as a whole.
  13. PAPA G

    PAPA G G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    in no way was my original posting a slam against LEO's. they are a fine bunch of people. but we have come to unreasonible expect them to be every where and perfect. any group from the lowest to the highest has its bad apples but when that pedistal tips over a bit the fall out encompass's the good with the bad unfortunatly. my point was to slam NJ and their draconian gun laws, and self-defense in general. NJ treats self defense more like a crime than a neccessary right.
  14. oneastrix

    oneastrix G&G Newbie

    Papa G, no offense taken. You got a heck of a good topic started! I just saw a chace to clarify some things. Never forget, you do have the right to defend yourself against unreasonable use of force by an officer. You may have to explain it in court, but those cases have gone to the Supreme Court more than once.
  15. Papa,

    In rereading my post perhaps I was a bit misleading. I was not necessarily relating to your post. When I mentioned cop slamming I was also referring to other posts in the past...some going back to the old site (yes, I know.....the past is the past...let the sleeping dog lie, etc. etc.). Although when I first read the first few posts I did read into it some 'digs'. And, that's my fault if I read more into...I apologize for that.

    I'm a firm believer that the 'bad apples' need to be weeded out. I'm not sure just how an agency can be proactive enough to pin point who they may be before he or she goes off the deep end.

    Our department had the periodic urinalysis screening, on-going background investigations, Psychologist interviews, etc. But they are useless in many cases since the undesirables become undesirables when they do their first stupid thing.

    I always was miffed when we were held to a higher standard of conduct, both professionally and in our personal life, (which we should be) but the idiot politicians we elect (or the upper departmental eschelan protected by those politicians) could get mud all over them and still come out of it cleaner that Mr. Clean.

    It would also upset me when the local news media would focus on some cop that has gone astray and nail him or her to a public media cross LONG before they collect the facts yet, when one of their own got in a cross fire then it was entirely different....hypocritical.....almost justifiable in the media world and that's what I was referring to in my earlier post about getting the facts before I posted. For the most part, Officers would receive discipline or adverse actions just to appease the media and to prevent a barrage against the department by the media.

    I'm sorry if I came across the wrong way Papa...didn't mean to.
    I have always, and will always in the future, value your opinion as well as others. If we should happen to disagree.....we disagree.....that's normal and expected.

    I will strive to be more clear from now onw.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2002