Shoot back at LEOs

[snorri]

So, back to the OP, can we shoot at LEOs who are driving recklessly, speeding, running red lights, and eschewing their turn signals?

If you want suicide by cop go ahead.

The way some of them drive, you would think they have a death wish.

[dac1842]

per the Penal Code LEO's are exempt from the speed law. You might not like it, but it is the law, so get over it. Next, I normally do not respond to hypothetical posts, we can all sit around and what if something to death. But when I saw this one, I had to chime in.

In the very unlikely event you are being shot at by LEO's for no reason, I strongly suggest you simply put your weapon on the ground, back away and lay down on the ground. It will be much easier to explain to the officers why you think they were wrong. Otherwise the only side that will be heard is theirs. I have been out of LE since 1993. We had our motto back then that stated " in case of shots fired, ensure only one side gets to the Grand Jury".

[goose]

per the Penal Code LEO's are exempt from the speed law. You might not like it, but it is the law, so get over it.

LEOs are exempt from speed laws??? Gigag04 could have posted that a long time ago. He posted statues telling us how they might be exempt in certain situations. Can you post statutes telling us how they are exempt? Or are you saying "blue curtain" exempt? If it's blue curtain exempt maybe I still have a shot at getting my 1% disapproval approved. Come on Gig, am I allowed to be even mildly disappointed yet?

Next, I normally do not respond to hypothetical posts, we can all sit around and what if something to death. But when I saw this one, I had to chime in.

In the very unlikely event you are being shot at by LEO's for no reason, I strongly suggest you simply put your weapon on the ground, back away and lay down on the ground. It will be much easier to explain to the officers why you think they were wrong. Otherwise the only side that will be heard is theirs. I have been out of LE since 1993. We had our motto back then that stated " in case of shots fired, ensure only one side gets to the Grand Jury".

The ladies in the truck in LA didn't really have a chance to back away or put anything down. I guess they were incredibly lucky that they both survived and will get a grand jury. Those officers failed your motto. I thought it was still a good discussion and several people posted valid reasons with valid results for shooting back. What is meant by only allowing one side to get a grand jury? As an LEO, keep shooting until the witnesses stop moving? That part confussed me.

Besides, huge parts of what we talk about here are "what ifs." I think that it helps us keep our minds sharp and it helps us explore new angles and new ways of thinking about things.

[A-R]

per the Penal Code LEO's are exempt from the speed law. You might not like it, but it is the law, so get over it.

LEOs are exempt from speed laws??? Gigag04 could have posted that a long time ago. He posted statues telling us how they might be exempt in certain situations. Can you post statutes telling us how they are exempt? Or are you saying "blue curtain" exempt? If it's blue curtain exempt maybe I still have a shot at getting my 1% disapproval approved. Come on Gig, am I allowed to be even mildly disappointed yet?

Sec. 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:
(1) park or stand, irrespective of another provision of this subtitle;
(2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, after slowing as necessary for safe operation;
(3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the operator does not endanger life or property; and
(4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

All of the above is also dependent upon department policy, local ordinances, etc. Feel free to read all of the laws regarding emergency vehicle operation, duty of care, etc. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.546.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next, I normally do not respond to hypothetical posts, we can all sit around and what if something to death. But when I saw this one, I had to chime in.

In the very unlikely event you are being shot at by LEO's for no reason, I strongly suggest you simply put your weapon on the ground, back away and lay down on the ground. It will be much easier to explain to the officers why you think they were wrong. Otherwise the only side that will be heard is theirs. I have been out of LE since 1993. We had our motto back then that stated " in case of shots fired, ensure only one side gets to the Grand Jury".

The ladies in the truck in LA didn't really have a chance to back away or put anything down. I guess they were incredibly lucky that they both survived and will get a grand jury. Those officers failed your motto. I thought it was still a good discussion and several people posted valid reasons with valid results for shooting back. What is meant by only allowing one side to get a grand jury? As an LEO, keep shooting until the witnesses stop moving? That part confussed me.

Besides, huge parts of what we talk about here are "what ifs." I think that it helps us keep our minds sharp and it helps us explore new angles and new ways of thinking about things.

As I alluded to previously, using one or two horrible examples of police abusing power is a cheap way to make your point. It's the same cheap stunt used by anti-gunners to make a point that no one "needs" an "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine clip".

Does a single law enforcement officer agree with those cops shooting that truck? I seriously doubt it.
Does a single law enforcement officer agree with cops speeding and blowing through red lights to get to the donut shop? I seriously doubt it (even those who do it, likely know it's not "right").

Frankly, I read much of this thread as just useless LEO bashing. Rational/reasoned discussion of the particular LA shooting incident or the multiple improper "running code" instances are worthwhile, and even your OP (while misguided, IMHO) is a legitimate discussion point. But as often happens with such threads, this one has quickly devolved into LEO bashing, baiting, and arguing over the semantics of what one person posted or another person retorted.

To summarize

• shooting at an innocent's vehicle, horribly mistaking it for a supsect = BAD
• running code to get to the donut shop = BAD
• running code (with or without lights & sirens) for reasons YOU can't possibly determine from the side of the road = OK if within procedure (unless you KNOW otherwise)

What more is there to discuss? Unless bashing and baiting truly is the point now.

[goose]

Frankly, I read much of this thread as just useless LEO bashing.

Where did the bashing happen? The moderators should have shut that down pronto. Did anyone say that LEO were horrible people? Gigag04 and I had an, admittedly, huge digression because he apparently took issue with my 1% disapproval of LEO. I am also realizing that maybe he just wanted to give a PSA and neither one of us to articulate that well.

To summarize

• shooting at an innocent's vehicle, horribly mistaking it for a supsect = BAD
• running code to get to the donut shop = BAD
• running code (with or without lights & sirens) for reasons YOU can't possibly determine from the side of the road = OK if within procedure (unless you KNOW otherwise)

I will try to be even less disappointed than I already am. I admit to being human. Also LEO have admitted to speeding right here in this thread but I guess that still doesn't allow for even a modicum of good natured ribbing.

What more is there to discuss? Unless bashing and baiting truly is the point now.

1) where was the bashing?
2) where was the baiting?
3) LEO are only allowed to comment and we get to sit silently and read? That is more of the LEO persona that Gigag04 and I also talked about. I'll be quiet and compliant from here on out.

[Purplehood]

per the Penal Code LEO's are exempt from the speed law. You might not like it, but it is the law, so get over it. Next, I normally do not respond to hypothetical posts, we can all sit around and what if something to death. But when I saw this one, I had to chime in.

In the very unlikely event you are being shot at by LEO's for no reason, I strongly suggest you simply put your weapon on the ground, back away and lay down on the ground. It will be much easier to explain to the officers why you think they were wrong. Otherwise the only side that will be heard is theirs. I have been out of LE since 1993. We had our motto back then that stated " in case of shots fired, ensure only one side gets to the Grand Jury".

Ah, that is quite joyous to hear...fortunately I like to believe that the majority of our LEO's do not subscribe to that particular creed.

[brainman]

per the Penal Code LEO's are exempt from the speed law. You might not like it, but it is the law, so get over it.

LEOs are exempt from speed laws??? Gigag04 could have posted that a long time ago. He posted statues telling us how they might be exempt in certain situations. Can you post statutes telling us how they are exempt? Or are you saying "blue curtain" exempt? If it's blue curtain exempt maybe I still have a shot at getting my 1% disapproval approved. Come on Gig, am I allowed to be even mildly disappointed yet?

Sec. 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:
(1) park or stand, irrespective of another provision of this subtitle;
(2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, after slowing as necessary for safe operation;
(3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the operator does not endanger life or property; and
(4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

All of the above is also dependent upon department policy, local ordinances, etc. Feel free to read all of the laws regarding emergency vehicle operation, duty of care, etc. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.546.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dude, you left out a sort of important section of that penal code:

Sec. 546.002. WHEN CONDUCT PERMISSIBLE. (a) In this section, "police escort" means facilitating the movement of a funeral, oversized or hazardous load, or other traffic disruption for public safety purposes by a peace officer described by Articles 2.12(1)-(4), (8), and (22), Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) Section 546.001 applies only when the operator is:
(1) responding to an emergency call;
(2) pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law;
(3) responding to but not returning from a fire alarm;
(4) directing or diverting traffic for public safety purposes; or
(5) conducting a police escort.

It seems pretty clear that LEO are not exempt from speed laws, but are instead only allowed to ignore them in certain situations. I don't think anyone here was suggesting that LEO shouldn't be able to speed when they are actually involved in a LE action, and the discussion was really about whether LEO can (or do) ignore traffic laws when they're headed to lunch. However, Dac1842 made the blanket statement that LEO are exempt from speed laws; not that they are exempt in certain situations.

[brainman]

I try my hardest to be as best prepared as possible in performing my duties, whether on patrol, preparing a case, or off duty. We might be discussing an interesting topic here or there for many members, but with some of the conversations on here - it is what I do daily. I love what I do, and try as best I can to be the best at it. (iIn may, when I start my engineering career and leave full time LE, it will be a bittersweet moment.) Regarding feeling like you can't win, generally speaking, LEOs are confrontational people who are used to having their life's work scrutinized by supervisors, strangers, media, and attorneys on both sides. This is not unique to LE, but it is very prevalent so it's our reality. I believe that is largely responsible for that persona that so many if us create. It's also a source of safety for some. Sure there are plenty of jerks that do it wrong. I know many.

In practice many are surprised to find out I hardly ever write moving violations (besides no insurance). I can think of 4 I wrote in 2012, including a semi blowing a light and almost killing me.

I think you're probably right, Gig, about the confrontational attitude and I'm pretty sure I'd have the same attitude were I in your position. You have a job that puts you in the middle of some pretty angry forces on both sides. While you are correct that there are plenty of jerks that do it wrong, IMO you have displayed a good attitude on this board and while you often take heat, you almost always respond quite reasonably. I commend you for that. I have both agreed and disagreed with your positions at times, but I do respect your opinions (except for the one where you already have planned out 3 ways to kill me ).

[baldeagle]

I have one comment about all of this hullabaloo. Last time I checked cops were human beings, subject to all the faults and failures of every human being.

[A-R]

per the Penal Code LEO's are exempt from the speed law. You might not like it, but it is the law, so get over it.

LEOs are exempt from speed laws??? Gigag04 could have posted that a long time ago. He posted statues telling us how they might be exempt in certain situations. Can you post statutes telling us how they are exempt? Or are you saying "blue curtain" exempt? If it's blue curtain exempt maybe I still have a shot at getting my 1% disapproval approved. Come on Gig, am I allowed to be even mildly disappointed yet?

Sec. 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:
(1) park or stand, irrespective of another provision of this subtitle;
(2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, after slowing as necessary for safe operation;
(3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the operator does not endanger life or property; and
(4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

All of the above is also dependent upon department policy, local ordinances, etc. Feel free to read all of the laws regarding emergency vehicle operation, duty of care, etc. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.546.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dude, you left out a sort of important section of that penal code:

Sec. 546.002. WHEN CONDUCT PERMISSIBLE. (a) In this section, "police escort" means facilitating the movement of a funeral, oversized or hazardous load, or other traffic disruption for public safety purposes by a peace officer described by Articles 2.12(1)-(4), (8), and (22), Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) Section 546.001 applies only when the operator is:
(1) responding to an emergency call;
(2) pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law;
(3) responding to but not returning from a fire alarm;
(4) directing or diverting traffic for public safety purposes; or
(5) conducting a police escort.

It seems pretty clear that LEO are not exempt from speed laws, but are instead only allowed to ignore them in certain situations. I don't think anyone here was suggesting that LEO shouldn't be able to speed when they are actually involved in a LE action, and the discussion was really about whether LEO can (or do) ignore traffic laws when they're headed to lunch. However, Dac1842 made the blanket statement that LEO are exempt from speed laws; not that they are exempt in certain situations.

You're correct, I didn't post the word-for-word "when conduct permissible" portion because that wasn't the question. One poster said "exempt" another poster responded asking for statutes stating they were exempt. The portion I posted said they were exempt. I then posted link to the rest of TTC 546 stating the member could read further the caveats, etc., to the stated exemptions.

Again, this has all devolved into "gotcha" tit-for-tats over semantics and slightly imprecise use of words.

Sometimes emergency vehicle operators are exempt from certain aspects of traffic law. Sometimes they're not. Other than the obvious (seeing a cop pull into donut shop after running a red light), none of us can tell from casual spectator observation whether the EV operator is in fact exempt or not in the given situation. And that was the whole point.

Some people don't like LEOs. Some people don't like bad LEOs. Put me (and most reasonable people) in the second category and it's easy to see why blanket broad LEO bashing is offensive, while calling out specific officers for specific misconduct is reasonable. This is also how the RULES of this forum are written. To quote (so I don't get accused again of only quoting part of something):

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10341" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

[goose]

9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

Alright, I lied about being compliant. Blatant, global, or rampant? Where in the world did you read that in this thread? Can you please send examples to the moderators. I do not approve of bashing of any person or group and I would not want to be a party to bashing LEO. I thought a 1% voice of disappointment was as far from bashing as I could get while not saying that I see them as perfect.

Of note, I have also sent Gigag04 a PM hoping that I did not disrespect him. Was not a goal, is not a goal, and I state that here publicly.

[A-R]

Frankly, I read much of this thread as just useless LEO bashing.

Where did the bashing happen? The moderators should have shut that down pronto. Did anyone say that LEO were horrible people?

What more is there to discuss? Unless bashing and baiting truly is the point now.

1) where was the bashing?
2) where was the baiting?
3) LEO are only allowed to comment and we get to sit silently and read? That is more of the LEO persona that Gigag04 and I also talked about. I'll be quiet and compliant from here on out.

So far, none of this has risen to the level where a mod would/should shut it down (and they will if it does). When I said "I read much of this ... as bashing" I mean just that, IMHO it's basically useless LEO bashing. That doesn't mean it rises to the level of LEO bashing that gets the thread locked down, and I never implied that it did.

But the bashing includes all the insinuations about cops running code without lights being improper (it's not, as has been proven by multiple citations of statutes), about cops improperly running code being rampant - 1%, 0.5%, who knows and who cares? Some cops - just like some non-LEO citizens - don't always do things the "right" way. Belaboring the point that some cops run code improperly is just as useless as saying some citizens exceed the speed limit. Seriously, when was the last time you went an entire day, week, month without exceeding the post speed limit by even 1 mph? And please don't respond with an apples/oranges complaint - it was just the first example that popped into my head. As previous post stated, we're all human. But belaboring what some cops do, is useless bashing IMHO unless you're discussing the specific cop and specific incident (and what was, wasn't, should be done about it).

The baiting includes the multiple times that members have jumped on one phrase or sentence (perhaps poorly worded, or stated in frustration, or even as joke) from a multiple-sentence post and used it as a launching pad for more bashing ... along the lines of, "oh well if you believe that ..."

So maybe GigAg once exceeded the speed limit to get to the restroom. But because some citizens may have been ticketed for doing the same, this is proof that LEOs abuse their powers? Another member made a flippant remark about "only one side will speak to the DA" (or something like that) ... and it was immediately pounced on. No one took the time to consider that these statements may simply be examples of the practicality of what - to be nice - is a highly emotionally charged set of proposed questions. "Only one side will speak to the DA" is another way of saying Yes, you can try to shoot back at LEOs, but since many are trained to stop the threat - even if you're RIGHT, you may be dead right - thus, what is the point of firing back at LEOs? And an LEO who admits to speeding to get to the bathroom, might just be more apt to let YOU off with a warning if you do the same thing.

Why don't you take my three bullet points, read them over, see if you (or anyone else here) disagree[s] with them, and then ask yourself if there's really anything left to discuss in terms of when LEO can/can't/should/shouldn't be able to do something?

Anyway, just a suggestion to ease the tension that has been slowly building in this thread.

[goose]

Frankly, I read much of this thread as just useless LEO bashing.

Where did the bashing happen? The moderators should have shut that down pronto. Did anyone say that LEO were horrible people?

What more is there to discuss? Unless bashing and baiting truly is the point now.

1) where was the bashing?
2) where was the baiting?
3) LEO are only allowed to comment and we get to sit silently and read? That is more of the LEO persona that Gigag04 and I also talked about. I'll be quiet and compliant from here on out.

So far, none of this has risen to the level where a mod would/should shut it down (and they will if it does). When I said "I read much of this ... as bashing" I mean just that, IMHO it's basically useless LEO bashing. That doesn't mean it rises to the level of LEO bashing that gets the thread locked down, and I never implied that it did.

But the bashing includes all the insinuations about cops running code without lights being improper (it's not, as has been proven by multiple citations of statutes), about cops improperly running code being rampant - 1%, 0.5%, who knows and who cares?

Using a quote with the words blatant and global and rampant implies something big and ominous. At least to me. And 1% or a half percent is an implied "rampant?" I have not read anyone saying it is/was rampant. I have typed myself, and read others saying it isn't fun to watch from the outside looking in.

Some cops - just like some non-LEO citizens - don't always do things the "right" way. Belaboring the point that some cops run code improperly is just as useless as saying some citizens exceed the speed limit. Seriously, when was the last time you went an entire day, week, month without exceeding the post speed limit by even 1 mph? And please don't respond with an apples/oranges complaint - it was just the first example that popped into my head. As previous post stated, we're all human. But belaboring what some cops do, is useless bashing IMHO unless you're discussing the specific cop and specific incident (and what was, wasn't, should be done about it).

It was only belabored because Gigag04 and I had a mutual discussion until we both got down to where we agreed that it happens. We had parted (I assume) amicably. I believe that I am allowed to be disappointed at a very small level because I have no readily available method of writing a ticket in return. No apple to orange challenges. We are in fact all human. We all in fact do make mistakes. I bet LEO are 1% disappointed in crazy stuff us civilians do. Maybe not. They may see us as saints in which case I do feel like I have been unjust. As it is, I am comfortable with their 1% disdain for me because I am comfortable that I mess stuff up.

The baiting includes the multiple times that members have jumped on one phrase or sentence (perhaps poorly worded, or stated in frustration, or even as joke) from a multiple-sentence post and used it as a launching pad for more bashing ... along the lines of, "oh well if you believe that ..."

The only person/LEO that appeared to have been baited was dac1842. I still don't understand his response or his motto. Reading it entirely, in context, with no slimming down of his text, I still don't get it. Some folks, myself included, called him on it. Why is that wrong or considered bashing for people to challenge him?

So maybe GigAg once exceeded the speed limit to get to the restroom. But because some citizens may have been ticketed for doing the same, this is proof that LEOs abuse their powers? Another member made a flippant remark about "only one side will speak to the DA" (or something like that) ... and it was immediately pounced on. No one took the time to consider that these statements may simply be examples of the practicality of what - to be nice - is a highly emotionally charged set of proposed questions. "Only one side will speak to the DA" is another way of saying Yes, you can try to shoot back at LEOs, but since many are trained to stop the threat - even if you're RIGHT, you may be dead right - thus, what is the point of firing back at LEOs? And an LEO who admits to speeding to get to the bathroom, might just be more apt to let YOU off with a warning if you do the same thing.

Your explanation of me probably losing that fire fight is valid. I agree completely. It was still a productive discussion I think. The way dac1842's motto reads implied to me and others that he wasn't speaking of a disparity of training but a disparity of mindset. I am open to clarification. Your taking issue with people calling him on it without him providing clarification could be argued as you not taking the time to consider our feelings about the words he typed. (tit-for-tat and only meant as a humorous nod to the art of debate.)

I have had a warming given to me instead of a ticket. I appreciated it greatly. I appreciate our LEO men and women every single day. Does that mean I am not allowed to state a 1% unhappiness and then defend that statement when it appeared to be challenged by an LEO? And now by you? I agree that it digressed to an asinine level but Gigag04 and I had dropped it yesterday.

Why don't you take my three bullet points, read them over, see if you (or anyone else here) disagree[s] with them, and then ask yourself if there's really anything left to discuss in terms of when LEO can/can't/should/shouldn't be able to do something?

Anyway, just a suggestion to ease the tension that has been slowly building in this thread.

I have already agreed with your three bullet points. I have not implied or expressed a disagreement with any of those concepts. There is obviously something left to discuss because we're burning up typed bytes by the truckload. :-) I honestly didn't feel a bit of tension until dac1842 posted his motto and then you introduced the "bashing." No one is being bashed. No one is being disparaged.

[anygunanywhere]

Allow me.



Anygunanywhere

[gigag04]

Afaik, the penal code makes no exemptions from the speed requirement, but TC does, and maybe CCP.