The DPD Chief announces new rules of engagement for officers.
http://kdvr.com/2015/06/09/new-polic...-against-them/
Is this good or bad ? My take on this is: As long as you don't have a gun and are not engaged in firing at DPD officers, feel free to run them over without having to worry about getting shot at...
Bad for officers, good for the dirtbags....
That seems unreasonable to me. If there should be a restriction on when to not use deadly force, it should be when your life is not in danger. If you're life is in danger, use appropriate force.
I think it's messed up, Bob.
Kinder, gentler, and dead is what DPD is now expecting for their officers I guess.
But hey....if you think criminals currently in the act of "doing wrong in society" either while, or shortly before getting behind the wheel of a vehicle......then stuff is all good for the shit bag now. It'll be really good when officers can no longer shoot at a moving/fleeing criminal........rapist.....murderer....robber....e tc.... who is on foot either.
Too often across the country can you see cops heroically diving in front of moving cars and then shooting the driver to death because they were concerned for their safety.
It would seem that the DPD is trying to do this in advance to gain some public approval.
Here is an example where this happened, and a pastor was killed as a result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vwMFehlmsQ
That is pure horseshit, guess what every criminal is going to do now.
IMHO they went too far but there was/is a point to it. In the video above (grainy as it is) the cop should not be shooting. On the other hand if a person is actively trying to hit a cop, they should be able to defend themselves. The Rambo BS with cops PUTTING their lives in danger(as in the video) has no place in policing. It is dangerous enough as is. That does not mean that if a cop is in an alley and some young stupid girl is flooring it, with nowhere to get to safety, aiming at a cop, they should not be able to defend themselves. Just as any civillian would, so should the cops. There has to be a middle ground. Sounds like that is not the case. Anybody here have the 'actual' wording of this policy. All I have is what they described on the evening news. I would like to know what it really states.
It's not like taking off in a car gives the criminal immunity from the police. They can still be fired upon if there is a threat. I think it's more to stop things like the video above, where the cop puts themselves in danger and then the citizen pays for it.
Dpd's new motto.. ' stop! Or I'll say stop again!'
Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.
Their own safety or the safety of the public who they are supposed to be protecting? If they heroically do as you wrote, then good for them for doing their job, if stopping that moving vehicle is warranted. If they are just looking to kill people, then they are murderers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
It's not like changing a policy changes the law. If an officer has to break policy to save his life, he might get fired but at least he wont go to jail (if found reasonable, etc.)
Maybe.....just maybe if little dirtbags didn't steal cars and then try to run over the police....
.....there would be no need to fire at them.
Jus sayin.
So a 4000# vehicle is no longer considered a "weapon"? An ice cream scoop is not considered a "weapon" either.
Until it is used as one.
The inmates are running the asylum.
Burt..... Have you been watching Riddick movies again? "Cuz...next I'm gonna kill ya with my teacup!" ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
For those of you employed in law enforcement; considering this and other things this looks like a real good time to get out of law enforcement ... or at least find a nice rural deputy position out in the boonies.
Then you just would have to deal with whack jobs in armored bulldozers now and then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
http://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA
[ROFL1]
Looks like DPD can still defend themselves from attacks by vehicles. I don't think much had changed overall.
+1. If I were married to a DPD cop, I'd be demanding a job search to a safer destination...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Granby is still amazing to watch or even start to comprehend. I am guessing the DPD would be ok with shooting THAT vehicle[Coffee].
I feel like shooting at an armored bulldozer would put you and others in more danger than notshooting at a bulldozer.
Not sure why HipReggie decided to jump in on this post and take it off topic. Not even going to comment on your view of how you think "we" are and will react to your blatant post to try and cause confrontation. Mods I vote for this topic being locked to avoid any further confrontation, no need to start a political battle here. [Beer]
My two cents
No need to lock the thread. Just 86 the liberal d-bag.
Denver ...never ceases to amaze me.
My general feeling is Denver is doing everything in its power to become Ferguson. By the way the Denver Post reports stories they cannot wait for some kind of police brutality to set this city on fire and the police commish is just enabling it now.
Police should be able to protect themselves by whatever means necessary whenever they feel like their lives are in danger.
This is probably a response to the shooting where that girl who stole a car tried to run over a cop who shot her and her family made a big stink about it. (Sorry if thats already been said)
Denver needs to pass a law stating that it is illegal to run over cops, then I am sure this will all stop.
/sarcasm
...that is the level of stupid that Denver has become.
I guess I'm confused what changed from before. Can someone break it down for me?
Listen to the statement from DPD's chief of police in the video I linked in the original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
he basically states that " under the new policy, unless officers are being shot at from the vehicle accelerating at them, the officers are no longer allowed to shoot at the vehicle."
I did not listen to the video, but from what I read, it seemed like an officer in fear of their life could still shoot at a moving vehicle. That seemed to be pretty much the same as before. I get that they are trying to appear proactive, but none of this really makes sense to me. An officer is in danger or is not in danger, and the responsibility to articulate as much after the fact rests on the officer. I don't understand how the presence of a vehicle changes that. I guess since I'm not DPD, I don't really have to lose any sleep over it; just like I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I WERE DPD.
More bending over backwards and putting LEO into impossible situations for those in society that fail to obey because they know there will be support for their lawlessness and bad choices.
There's a reason I stay outside Denver unless I absolutely have to go there. As far as I'm concerned, we could build a wall around the city (making sure it encloses the DP) and let them all rot together. The Post is making its own bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jhirsh5280
Just another example of how liberals are clueless.
So we can get rid of that whole crime of "vehicular assault," right?