Newspaper Lead of the Month: “Orange County deputies will now be trained to weigh the risk to the public before opening fire.”

Great news from the Orlando Sentinel: Cops in Orange County, Florida, will be trained to think before firing 130 rounds in the parking lot of an apartment complex, as they did in January 2010 while trying to apprehend/obliterate car-jacking suspect Torey Breedlove after he rammed into a police cruiser: 

The public-safety recommendation, several on the nine-member [Citizens Advisoriy Committee] said, stemmed from the Breedlove case. Deputies fired more than 130 bullets at Breedlove, a car-theft suspect, in the parking lot of the Alta Westgate apartment complex Jan. 5, 2010.

Deputies' bullets didn't just hit their target, but also sprayed across the area, striking an occupied apartment building.

"That is not going to happen anymore," said committee member Andrew J. Jarrell. "The bad publicity of that was extremely bad" for the Sheriff's Office and the gunfire dangerous for the public, he said.

The new policy instructs deputies, when considering using force, to think about "the risk to the public, including but not limited to, whether the deputy's use of force creates a substantial risk to the safety of the public, exceeding the danger" created by allowing the suspect to "remain at large."

Other recommendations instruct deputies to "use reasonable means" to apprehend suspects before they get behind the wheel and to consider firing at a vehicle only "as a last resort to protect the deputy or another from an imminent threat."

Bad publicity indeed!

The hasty adoption of the committee’s recommendation coincides with the Orange County Sheriff Department’s fight against the creation of an independent review board with subpoena power (such as that wielded by Miami's Civilian Investigative Panel). Currently the Citizens Advisory Committee can only review cases that the OC Sheriff's office instructs it to review. A new proposal would create a permanent and independent committee that could review whatever it wanted: 

The Sheriff's Office opposes the proposal, arguing that it is redundant and could potentially be expensive for taxpayers.

The measure has been recommended by local attorney and charter-board member Earnest DeLoach, who argues that the Sheriff's Office should be reviewed by an entity that's completely independent.

"By all accounts, [the CAC] appears to be doing exactly what it is that [Demings] said it will do," DeLoach said. But the board can only review what the sheriff asks it to review.

"It's a little disturbing that the sheriff gets to choose what they'll review," DeLoach said. He argues the proposed Citizen Review Board, if adopted into the county charter, would be more permanent — and less subject to the whims of future sheriffs.

Fun fact from Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell's 2010 reporting on the Breedlove case: All nine deputies involved in the killing of Breedlove had fired on suspects before. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • protefeed||

    All nine deputies involved in the shooting incident had fired on suspects before.

    Wow. The majority of cops never fire their pistol even once while on duty (except on a firing range for training purposes) over their entire career.

  • fish||

    Shit Prote...what's the point of lugging this thing around if we can't make noise with it once and awhile?

  • ||

    Maybe pro can help us out on this. But isn't Orange County Orlando? Isn't that the magic kingdom? It is not exactly like they are paroling Compton. Just who the hell were they shooting at?

  • ||

    Orlando has several million people in it. Even some of the ones who don't work for the Mouse are thieves and scum.

  • ||

    But they're STILL less spooky.

  • Festus||

  • ||

    As of 2010 U.S. Census, the county had a population of 1,145,956. The Greater Orlando area is just over two million but that's spread over five counties.

    The City of Orlando itself has about 240,000.

    Pine Hills is partly within the city and partly in the unincorporated area to the west of the city limits.

    Disney is big but but the part of it that lies within Orange County is only a tiny portion of the county.

  • ||

    Since the OCSD is the one involved rather than OPD in this, I'm assuming that it was in unincorporated Orange County.

  • ||

    I defend my statement. I think of Orlando as everything on the eastern half of the state isn't beachfront between Daytona and Jupiter.

  • ||

    Actually you're going a little far south. Palm Beach County (and environs) has a different demographic going than the counties of Greater O-town. I'm not sure why they don't include Brevard County (Cape Canaveral etc), though.

  • ||

    I'm from Tallahassee. Once you get south and east of about I-75, everything is either Jacksonville, Daytona, Orlando, or Miami.

  • ||

    Palm Beach is more Miami than it is Orlando.

  • ||

    You're probably right. Other than an occasional visit to my brother who has lived and worked in the greater Orlando metropolitan area for the last decade, I stay the fuck away from that part of the state.

  • ||

    Just as I stay away from your part of the state as a rule. :)

  • ||

    But, your general point is correct.

    Disney World may be in Orange County but it is not the only thing in Orange County.

  • ||

    John, this stuff didn't happen at the Magic Kingdom, it happened in Pine Hills, AKA Crime Hills, Slime Hills etc.

    Orlando has a number of high crime areas which can compete with any neighborhood in the nation for infamy.

    Disney World is miles away on the other side of the county. In fact much of it is in another county altogether. It also has its own police force (there are two incorporated cities on the property each with fully empowered officers) neither Orange nor Osceola County deputies enter the property on any kind of regular basis.

  • ||

    That supposedly used to be true. It seems to be less and less so.

  • protefeed||

    One of my brother-in-laws is a cop. He says it is still true. He's never unholstered his service pistol on duty despite decades on the job.

    So, 9 out of 9 cops on the scene who have fired their guns seems reeeeally questionable.

  • ||

    There's nothing questionable about it. It was a bunch of hyperactive degenerates that decided emptying their magazines into an apartment building was an acceptable thing to do.

  • ||

    again, what are the stats?

    are you that much of a fucking fool that you really on what one person tells you vs. actually researching?

    what is the police use of deadly force per

    citizen contact?
    per time in service etc.?

    what is it now

    what was it 10 yrs ago?

    20
    30?
    is it trending up?

    down?

    does it ROUGHLY trend with violent crime (part II) crime?

    iow, do police shooting rates roughly track violent crime rates in general (which have been going down for decades)

    again, you have no fucking idea.

    yet another critic of something he admittedly has no data on

    just a tool of the media, eg. you read about it on reason, and that'sall you need

  • Rod Flash||

    So, what ARE the facts? The police departments across the country are the ones who would have this sort of information. It should be readily available, but some quick Googling isn't turning anything up. I agree with you, we need to know the facts before making up our minds. But most police departments seem to deplore the idea of transparency.

    Still, 9 out of 9 seems pretty extreme.

  • Tonio||

    Start with the US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    yet another critic of something he admittedly has no data on

    just a tool of the media, eg. you read about it on reason, and that'sall you need

    Dunphy, I have to take exception with you regarding this line of reasoning. First, this is a general interest website, so very few of the commenters will be an expert in any field that is the subject of a particular article. If we were to keep our comments to fields we were experts in, I could only comment on real estate articles, you could only comment on LEO articles, and Hugh Akston could only comment on IT articles. That would be stupid, huh?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Second, there does seem to be a dearth of data available on the internet. This article from Force Science explains some of the challenges LE researchers have accessing data. Since professional researchers complain about the difficulty of finding and interpreting LEO involved shooting statistics, I think it is disingenuous for you to demand we find and interpret that same data.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Third, what is most frustrating about you admonishing us to get our data is that many LE agencies purposely hide that data from the public. Thanks to the internet, I can access a complete table of statistics for the 1954 Cleveland Browns season. I can find data tracking monthly production of home furnishings in US$ for the last eighty-five years. But with some pretty involved Googling, I have yet to find national statistics on UOF. Let alone trending data for 5, 10, or 30 years. In short, your stance that we just don't have data and that is why we are ignorant, just comes off as smarmy.

  • Hugh Akston||

    2012 version: The majority of cops never fire more than 100 rounds at a mentally handicapped jaywalker. They usually stop once their barrels have deformed from heat buildup.

  • ||

    Heat buildup? Don't be ridiculous. They wait until the gun explodes or melts, then retire early due to injury and claim $100,000 in pensions and benefits annually for the rest of their lives.

  • ||

    classic epi.

    but at least this times he admits he is an ignorant fool spouting on stuff without any knowledge.

    do officers these days fire more or less often ?

    epi has no idea

    what is the rate of shootings NOW by metrics such as

    uses of deadly force per time frame, per citizen contact, etc.

    vs. 10, 20, 30 yrs ago?

    has it gone up, down, etc.

    again, epi has NO idea but IT SEEMS to have changed to him.

    does he have evidence? no.

    classic tool of the media

    here's a hint.

    first, get data, then you can spout from a position of knowledge, but at least you admit your critiques of cop comes from ignorance

    good on ya

  • ||

    Classic dunphy...being a cop tool apologist. Also, learn how to capitalize. Seriously.

  • ||

    i didn't apologize for anything

    but of course you can't refute what i said. in a rare moment of honesty, you admit you are a fucking tool of the media

    you have NO idea what police shooting rates are, whether they have gone up or down, etc but you clearly think it SEEMS to have changed and instead of researching, you just spout from ignorance
    an intelligent person, a person who is not a bigot relies on data to draw conclusions

    you rely on ignorance, as you refreshingly admit

    why don't you, for once in your sad life, actually do some research

    again, epi? are police shooting people more or less now vs. 10, 20 , 30 yrs ago?

    how often DO police use deadly force?

    how has that changed? better ? worse?

    does it track part I crime rates? part II crime rates?

    is it independent of them?

    etc.

    people who aren't fucking fools get data before drawing conclusions

  • Joe M||

    One thing we know for sure is that 100% of cops don't fire their weapons. So whatever the number is, 9 out of 9 is high.

  • ||

    OK, Jack, Are police shooting people more or less? How often do police use deadly force?

  • sarcasmic||

    Remember that story not to long back about the cop who capped granddad for brandishing his grandkid?

    It was the seventh time the officer had used his weapon, and the sixth person he had killed.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think it's one of those things where once they get away with killing someone for disobeying them, it becomes a habit.

  • ||

    you "think" for loose definition of think and of course yet again, with no data/stats etc.

    i've posted stats on how astoundingly rare police use of deadly force is before

    it's really quite simple for the ignorati here to get actual data on how often police use deadly force on average and what the rates are now vs. 10, 20, 30 yrs ago

    it's also easy to to see that (fwiw) police use of force and deadly force has roughly tracked overall violent crime / homicide stats

    iow, in periods where murder and violent crime are more common, police UOF and shootings are more common

  • ||

    hardly surprising

    furthermore, police UOF on specific demographics (not to mention terry stop rate etc.) almost exactly matches those demographics offender rates AS REPORTED BY CRIME VICTIMS (not by cops, but by actual victims of crime)

    iow, the rate of force, to include deadly force very closely matches the rates of force a given demographic uses in society.

    cops shoot women vs. men at roughly the disparate rate women vs. men commit violent crimes as reported by victims

    this is generally true across demographics, whether it's age, race, gender, etc.

    it would actually be an easy metric to at least suggest racial, etc. bias in UOF. which of course is never used, because when one looks at the stats, one sees that cops use force against people at roughly the rates those people commit crimes AS REPORTED BY CRIME VICTIMS

    heather mcdonald reported on this extensively at city journal

  • ||

    i've posted stats on how astoundingly rare police use of deadly force is before.

    That being the case why are you avoiding the original point: what is the probability that all nine officers who used deadly force in a single incident would have all used it in the past. Feel free to disemble about the demographics of the neighborhood.

  • sarcasmic||

    Stats != examples.

    I want examples of officers charged with crimes and losing their jobs for excessive force.

    If police departments are so keen on discipline as you say, then there should be plenty of examples.

    Or are they just retrained and sent off to another department.

  • Brandon||

    You won't get them. Dunphy has become more of a driveby troll.

  • ||

    I want examples of officers charged with crimes and losing their jobs for excessive force.

    But that pre-supposes that there are indeed officers who are actually guilty, as opposed to the virtuous, falsely-accused officers who always prevail in our fair and inerrant courts.

  • sarcasmic||

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."


    -Usually attributed to Mark Twain.

  • ||

    ah, you apologize for your own ignorance

    when it comes to issues where the stats are on your side, iow where you can support your position with data ... you use it

    when data runs contrary to your position, it's just "damned lies" those darned statistics.

    nice facile way to reinforce your bigotry

    it's cognitive dissonance PERFECTLY displayed

    again, there is a mountain of stats recorded by the DOJ that could actually give you ammo (so to speak) for conclusions

    you could actually be EDUCATED about police UOF

    or you can remain an ignorant tool

    nice to see you choose the latter

  • sarcasmic||

    Show me the stories of all these police who lose their jobs for excessive use of force.

    Show me, dunphy.

    I have failed to find the information on my own, though not for a lack of looking.

  • anon||

    Show me the stories of all these police who lose their jobs for excessive use of force.

    I will say (like I've said before) that most cops are honestly trying to do a good job. I think it's based largely on my specific location though.

    I've seen the cops deal with belligerent drunks trying to stab them with no more than disarming and detaining the suspect, right in front of me. The suspect was even black, which I think for a lot of southern counties automatically warrants UOF.

    That said, I only have an a priori argument to offer. No statistical data to back this up.

  • anon||

    Also, I knew that particular cop and know he was an ex-navy seal, and knew his life was never in danger from a drunk

  • jerryskids||

    it's really quite simple for the ignorati here to get actual data

    Bullshit.

    The DOJ *tried* establishing a database of UOF incidents in 1999 - but they gave up on the idea because so many law enforcement agencies refused to cooperate or to use standardized reporting systems. The DOJ simply does not have any comprehensive data.

    The FBI collects only certain types of information and that is mostly self-reported data unless an agency is being investigated and under court order to compile data.

    Other sources of data - such as law enforcement associations - are at best suspect.

    And heather mcdonald reported on this extensively at city journal? One repoerter at one paper in one city?

    Isn't that like being just a tool of the media, eg. you read about it on reason, and that'sall you need?

  • zz||

    If you can appreciate the beauty in both men and women and find yourself attracted to the person regardless of their gender, then Datebi*cO'M is the site for you. Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.fdjlkkj

  • ||

    That is not going to happen anymore," said committee member Andrew J. Jarrell. "The bad publicity of that was extremely bad" for the Sheriff's Office and the gunfire dangerous for the public, he said.

    Well first things first. Good thing he has his priorities straight there.

  • Mainer||

    "The Sheriff's Office opposes the proposal"

    Do tell

  • ||

    While its changed a little, Florida's Constitution vests a lot of power in Counties, especially their Sheriffs. County Commissions tend to approve the actions of the Sheriff pretty routinely.

  • ||

    That is not going to happen anymore

    I got $20 that says it does.

    Policy adopted =/= change in behavior. That only occurs when violation of policy is observed to lead to Very Bad Things happening to employees.

  • Hugh Akston||

    They probably feel really bad. y'know, for bringing all that negative publicity on the department.

  • ||

    it's a little late.

    model UOF policies already consider firing at moving vehicles a last resort policy?

    why? it's generally ineffective, among other reasons.

    glass is prettty good at deflecting rounds, actually, it's hard to hit the driver, and even if you do, it often doesn't stop the car itself, which is usually why you are shooting at it in the first place.

  • ||

    It is nearly impossible to hit a moving human. Your chances of hitting a moving vehicle at all, let alone hitting the driver is nearly zero. And since most cops carry .40 glocks or something equivalent, there is little or no chance of disabling the car.

    Shooting at a moving car ought to be de facto negligence and unlawful use of force.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but it works in the movies!

  • ||

    which is often how many, including reasonoids, get their bogus reasons for protesting many aspects of police shootings in the first place, and police UOF in general.

    that's why i love "citizen's academies" which are free, and give the average joe an opp to get a shortened police academy type training

    lots of people who go to them, comment to me about how they now have a much better understanding of police decision processes, UOF, etc.

    i suggest people give a citizen's academy a try. they are fun, educational, etc.

  • fish||

    ....and it looks so cool! Hey...was that Bruce Willis?

  • ||

    But it's so satisfying, John.

  • NoVAHockey||

    "And since most cops carry .40 glocks or something equivalent, there is little or no chance of disabling the car."

    this is just evidence of the police being ill equipped.

  • WTF||

    Clearly they need RPGs.

  • ||

    i suggest you contact your town council and make this proposal. sounds like fun.

    how do they work on dogs?

  • WTF||

    how do they work on dogs?

    Kind of messy, I would guess.

  • WTF||

    how do they work on dogs?

    A bit messy, I would imagine.

  • WTF||

    fucking squirrels

  • NoVAHockey||

    RPGs work for those as well

  • ||

    not if you want to cook them afterwards.

    totally makes the meat taste like vietnam

    in a bad way, not in a tasty lemongrass way

  • fish||

    What about soup?

  • Brandon||

    You changed the wording and posted 3 minutes later. How do you blame the squirrels for that?

  • anon||

    It is nearly impossible to hit a moving human.

    Depends, women and children move slower.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I wonder what model OUF policies say about dealing with officers who have amply demonstrated that they are trigger-happy thugs who endanger the public?

  • ||

    Immediate dismissal would be a good start.

  • ||

    yawn

    troll-o-meter: .01

  • ||

    You're shitting me, right? You honestly don't think doing what they did warrants dismissal?

  • sarcasmic||

    Dude, nothing warrants dismissal.

    Once you've become trained to use violence in response to any situation, you are unfit to function as anything other than a tool of the state.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I guess that explains the policy of PDs recruiting the biggest tools they can find in the first place.

  • ||

    derp derp derp

    cause cops never get dismissed for UOF

    yup, never happens

  • sarcasmic||

    Really dunphy? Tell me about cops being dismissed for UOF.

    Be sure to include linky links.

    Because I've tried to do the research on my own and have come up empty.

  • ||

    you have just admitted earlier in this thread that stats are just "damned lies", etc.

    i've posted stats left, right and upside down in thread after thread.

    sorry, it gets old

    i've posted UOF stats, and you and epi still admit you have no fucking idea how often cops shoot, etc.

    cops are routinely fired for UOF. i've given countless examples

    many are unjustified even, and cops get their jobs back

    i've given countless examples

    many cops are prosecuted.

    countless examples

    etc. etc.

  • sarcasmic||

    cops are routinely fired for UOF. i've given countless examples

    I've seen you give one. Just one. And you repeated it until someone asked you if you had any others. T

    he crickets were deafening.

  • anon||

    Dude, UOF warrants promotions, not dismissal. Try to keep up.

  • ||

    cops are routinely fired for UOF. i've given countless examples

    Wait a sec. I thought deadly force was "incredibly rare".

    Which would bring us back to the odd observation that all 9 of the officers involved had used that incredibly rare deadly force.

  • ||

    "The Sheriff's Office opposes the proposal, arguing that it is redundant and could potentially be expensive for taxpayers."

    LOL.

    What a mishmash of walking, trigger-happy turds. Free-firing over a hundred rounds at a fucking car thief? Fire the fuckers and prohibit them from ever working in the public sector, ever again. Ever.

  • ||

    ah, note the critical elements RPA ignores as usual.

    car thief was the reason for the stop. it was not the reason for the subequent shoot

    yet again, the same canards, over and over again.

  • ||

    Exactly, dunphy: you are presenting your same bullshit excuse canards over and over again. It's good that you're recognizing this...oh wait, no you're not.

  • ||

    you've already admitted (how refreshing) in this thread that you know nothing about actual stats vis a vis police shooting yet you have formed opinions based on air.

    typical.

    i've also made no excuses regarding THIS shooting whatsoever

    please point out where i even said this shooting was justifiable.

    hint: i didnt

  • ||

    Hey, duncey, thanks for showing up and making H&R a dumber, shittier, more cop apologist place. Your contributions are truly appreciated.

  • ||

    Yes, you did. You directly implied that it was this case specifically upon which you based your objections to everything me and the others raised. All of your statements until THIS one were entirely referential to THIS case. Why are you trying to wriggle your way out of this?

  • ||

    i didn't directly imply shit

    you are just such a fucking bigot you read what you want to read.

    again, what i post is on the record

    support your claims with my posts:

    do it here:

    you are such a fucking liar.

    i never said this shooting was justified. and you fucking know it

    god , it's just ignorance and lies down the line.

    amazing

    i'm not wriggling shit.

    YOU are.

    again, the nice thing about this thread is how epi has already clearly demonstrated he has drawn conclusions about police UOF while having NO fucking clue if the data supports it or not and the data is readily available

    i fucking love the honesty.

  • ||

    Read below, limpdick.

  • ||

    What critical elements? I'm honestly open to discussing this. Go ahead. What critical elements?

  • ||

    they didn't shoot him FOR BEING A CAR THIEF

    that was the reason for the stop

    what did they shoot him for?

    hint: it wasn't being an auto thief

  • ||

    1) So what was it for? I want to hear it from you, since I'm not debating this with a fucking news article -- I'm debating it with you.

    2) How the fuck is that a relevant aspect of this incident? I don't give a single shit if the guy was a serial killer. The issue at hand is the negligence with which they did what they did. How do you not understand this?

  • ||

    nice evasions.

    again, the article, numerous articles say why they shot at him
    it's not indispute

    i am not responsible for educating you about everything

    the fact that he was in possession of a stolen vehicle was a reason for the detention, it was NOT a reason for the shootingm, and under tenn v. garner it would not have been justified if it was

    this is just your typical bullshit

    i've arrested at least a couple of hundred people for auto theft, none of whom i shot. same is true of many officers.

    again, why did they shoot him RPA? RTFA!

  • ||

    Here, you obfuscatory sack of shit:

    "The Sheriff's Office said deputies were following Breedlove, who was driving a stolen car and had a history of criminal activity, when he pulled into the apartment complex. When confronted, he took aim at deputies with his car, leaving them with no choice but to start firing, according to Demings."

    When he was made aware that the cops were following him, he reportedly started targeting them with the car he was driving itself. His fucking car. Nine armed, uniformed police officers had to free-fire into a populated apartment complex because a fucking car thief fucking chased them with his fucking car?

  • ||

    My fat uncle can dodge a truckcharging at him on a fucking highway, but nine trained, certified agents of government, empowered with discretionary powers in the application of deadly force under the color of law, decided it was appropriate to start throwing lead around... because a petty crook "took aim" at them with his mother-fucking car.

    You're such a lowly, degenerate mother-fucker. You've never stooped this fucking low just to throw around your favorite word, "canard", and dribble generic thematic venom at critics of your stalwart bullshit. Go fuck yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    RPA - they shot at him because he rammed their vehicle.

    When a member of the public rams a policeman's car it is considered attempted murder of a public servant, and the cops may now save the public the cost and trouble of a trial by summarily executing the "suspect".

  • Tman||

    “Orange County deputies will now be trained to weigh the risk to the public before opening fire.”

    What in the hell do you mean "NOW"?

    This was NOT trained previously?

    Good lord that is a dumb statement.

  • ||

    Glad the po-po will finally have the same level of training as civilians who want to renew their hunting licenses in FL. At least the hunter's safety class that I had to attend focused on things like being aware of your environment and what was behind/around your target.

  • ||

    Of the dozens upon dozens of regular carriers, gun enthusiasts, hunters, recreational shooters, and mixtures of all of the aforementioned I know, not one is negligent in this regard. Being careful about your surroundings and even how and where you point an unloaded gun is probably at a level pushing paranoia, and most of those guys don't have any formal hunting or shooting training at all (the exception being the licensed hunters). How the fuck is it acceptable for law enforcement not to be careful on this?

  • sarcasmic||

    How the fuck is it acceptable for law enforcement not to be careful on this?

    Who's going to charge them with a crime?

  • ||

    not the prosecutors office. that NEVER happens.

    it would be unpossible for that to happen

    i've never even heard of a cop getting charged with a crime

  • ||

    There are politicians who rightly have their careers ended by criminal or civil prosecution. Therefore, political corruption and things like despotism are not a problem.

    You're not stupid, Dunphy, which means nobody whose mental faculties are worth half a shit is going to take that argument seriously from you. Try not to be disingenuous.

  • ||

    and there are those who DON't have their careers ended

    depends on the crime.

    just like with cops.

    DUI is, for example, a crime that gets officer a 2-5 day unpaid suspension in my agency for first offense.

    it is not career ending (first offense)

    nor was it for the chancellor of UCSB when i went to school there. nor was it career ending for a WA supreme court justice recently (she also did a hit and run)

    ime, DUI's are not career ending for most politicians. in some cases , they might affect chances of reelection. that's up to voters. cops aren't elected, so that's irrelevant

    generally speaking, DUI's aren't career ending for politicians and cops

    that is true

    it is not a crime of dishonesty, for example, which often is.

  • ||

    1) And what's the average punishment for non-LEOs for DUI? Let's take your state as an example.

    2) We're not talking about DUI.

  • sarcasmic||

    i've never even heard of a cop getting charged with a crime

    Me neither. Not while on duty anyway. Recently round here a state trooper got busted for OUI. He got a plea deal and a demotion after a long paid vacation.

    Big fucking whoop.

  • ||

    happens all the time that cops get charged with a crime for on duty acts. i've given scores of examples

    look em up.

    was the state trooper's plea deal CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OTHER FIRST OFFENDERS GET FOR OUI?

    if so, then it was fair

    equal punishment, equal crime

    i work with several officers who have had DUI's

    they got THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE that other first offenders get: deferred prosecution, mandatory alcohol classes and a fine

    that's what people get for first offense in WA state.

    do you think cops should get harsher treatment or the same treatment for the same crime?

    i go with the latter

    which is what they get , ime, for off duty crimes USUALLY. in rare cases, they get more lenient treatment, and in rare cases harsher treatment. i've givne examples of both

  • sarcasmic||

    happens all the time that cops get charged with a crime for on duty acts. i've given scores of examples

    I've seen you give one.

    I want names. I want links.

    look em up.

    I have. Tried and failed.

    If there are scores of examples and the information is so easy to come by, then you should have no problem providing it to me.

  • omnibot||

    dunphy has told us before he's not "into" backing up his statements and that we just need to trust him.

  • sarcasmic||

    we just need to trust him

    The last person I'm going to trust is a cop.

  • ||

    The last person I'm going to trust is a cop.

    eh, I'd still trust a cop before a politician. still the bottom of the trust list though.

  • anon||

    How the fuck do his posts take up an entire page with the 900 char limit? Damned system abuser.

  • ||

    How the fuck do his posts take up an entire page with the 900 char limit? Damned system abuser.

    Should be a law against it, so a cop could shoot him.

  • Joe||

    Numerous police abuses that go unpunished = isolated incidents

    One or two example of pigs getting prosecuted = pure and unequivocal refutation of prosecutors turning a blind eye to police abuse

  • NoVAHockey||

    Isn't "know your target and what's beyond it" rule 4?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Target: Any civilian who disrespects your authoritah.

    Beyond it: Two week suspension, with pay.

  • ||

    In my experience, it's something anybody who's ever used or owned a gun talks about more often than the weather, but it's somehow permissible for people who make a living in law enforcement to be this fucking negligent?

  • anon||

    In my experience, it's something anybody who's ever used or owned a gun talks about more often than the weather,

    Yeah, even at the firing range it's not uncommon for someone to give another person shit for doing something even slightly negligent, such as setting down a loaded firearm.

  • ||

    Or pointing the gun down too low when you're done firing and getting OMG'd at by the other people at the range because your foot is in danger of being shot.

  • anon||

    That one doesn't really bug me, but people waving their firearms around does. This happens frequently at the handgun range I usually go to; even though I know they're unloaded, it annoys the shit out of me.

  • NoVAHockey||

    "even though I know they're unloaded, it annoys the shit out of me."

    you're right to be annoyed -- angry even. rule 1: treat all guns as if they are loaded.

  • ||

    This is why I go to the public range at daybreak on weekdays where I live now. (We have a private range, but they require me to join the NRA to be a member, and I have no desire to do so. Their range, their rules, but I won't join.) If you go after about 9am on a weekend its the wild fucking west on that range compared to other places I've shot. While 'hot' and 'cold' range is observed rigorously, there is far too little muzzle discipline for my liking out there.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Brett, you're probably talking about the Apalachicola National Forest range. Going at daybreak is probably a good idea. I'll have to do that next time. Last time I was there, my brother had to yell at a guy for accidentally pointing a loaded gun at us.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Some pertinent details: he did it multiple times before we decided to yell at him, and he was a fat college kid wearing a beret who looked like he probably owned several Che Guevara t-shirts.

  • ||

    Yeah. Is that one out south of the airport? Its definitely in a state or national park. I learned that trick from a friend, so I've only been out once or twice on a weekend and during the day, but it was unsettling.

  • ||

    I hear they're going to open an indoor range on Capitol Circle NW at some point, but its been coming soon for 3-4 months now. I'd really like a range with the motorized target deals where I don't have to walk out onto the firing line to set up targets.

  • Atanarjuat||

    That's the one. Apparently other national forests have them too. We were joking about what would happen if a deer accidentally walked by. I think I saw a sign for the Capital Circle indoor range, just south of Tennessee St.

  • Atanarjuat||

    My brother and I used to meet up there once a week. It seemed like the numbnut quotient really increased after noon, though they sometimes brought hot chicks with them. One time a young guy came in with a shotgun while we were shooting and aimed for everyone else's targets. We were using those expensive ones that change color to sight in my brother's rifle scope and were so pissed we left right then.

  • ||

    Tangent:

    Hunters, especially "big game" hunters (deer, elk, that size) know exactly what a bullet does to a body. I suspect that is a large part of the reason they are so fanatical about safety.

    A shooter who has never done anything but qualify by punching holes in paper probably doesn't have this gut-level understanding of how big that decision to pull a trigger really is.

    There is no substitute for seeing a six-inch exit wound, or fishing shatter rib-cage out of semi-liqhefied internal organs while field dressing.

    This is why I am not blithely certain I could actually shoot a human being, even in self-defense.

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. That cop who killed that granddad for brandishing his grandson had five human kills under his belt already.

    He knew what would happen when he put a bullet through the old man's head.

  • ||

    He may be the exception that proves the rule.

  • R||

    Sociopaths are generally a completely different breed of people. What affects them vs. what affects normal people is quite different.

  • Paul||

    A shooter who has never done anything but qualify by punching holes in paper probably doesn't have this gut-level understanding of how big that decision to pull a trigger really is.

    I'm not sure I buy that. I've never shot at anything but paper targets (and cans and bottles) and background is always our first consideration.

    Admittedly, we're punching through paper targets in the wild, not in a concrete and ventillated shooting range, but still.

  • ||

    But if they hold their fire, nobody will take them seriously!

  • ||

    "Have you ever tried going mad without power? Nobody takes you seriously!"

  • ||

    The bad publicity of that was extremely bad

    but, was it bad?

  • anon||

    This is worse than the atheism thread from the weekend.

  • omnibot||

    This is worse than the Breitbart thread from the weekend

  • anon||

    I still don't think both combined beat the abortion threads though.

  • ||

    You remind me of one of those wind-up drumming monkeys, Fosdick.

  • Sparky||

    So the short story is, shootings like this will continue to happen but now they'll be against policy. That certainly will put some teeth into the punishments.

  • ||

    Threats were weighed.

    Shots were fired.

  • Nipplemancer||

    I just saw this on Balko's facebook feed.

    In his report, also released this week, Associate Medical Examiner Glen Axelson wrote that, based on video from the night Eric died, the youth waited seven hours for officers to do anything to help him. “This considerable time delay prevented Mr. Perez from receiving prompt medical attention and treatment,” Axelson wrote.


    The 18 year old died covered in his own filth after some 'rough horseplay' with the guards.

  • ||

    But of course, "procedure was followed" and these guys will be held accountable. Just ask Dumb-fy. He'll set ya straight.

  • Paul||

    Jesus H Christ. When was it not standard training for police officers to ask, shout, verify or warn, "Check your background" before pulling the trigger?

    I remember a story about a campus police officer at NMSU, way back in the 70s who was sitting in her cruiser and got shot in the face by some sociopath. Blinded, she drew her gun and stuck it out the window, but then pulled it back in and didn't fire "in fear that she might hit passers-by".

    This is now considered novel?

  • ||

    that officer clearly wasn't concerned enough about her own safety.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement