First we'll start with the initial unsubstantiated story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/03/police-involved-in-capitol-shooting-unpaid-due-to-partial-shutdown/?intcmp=HPBucket
As I am sitting here at work at on a 12 hours shift knowing that I will only be sitting here watching tv due to weather, now a civilian under contract with the army, wondering if I am going to get paid in two weeks, I've been pondering a few things in regard to this country. A country that I personally believe to have been God blessed and God inspired.
As I am sure you all remember the uproar when what's-his-bucket, a wannabe cop was acquitted of killing the wannabe thug. From my point of view, he was an unpaid member of society who used deadly force in protecting his neighborhood. The question that a jury answered was that he was justified.
Now in relation to that story, we have a story of unpaid capitol police (degraded to neighborhood watch) killing a woman who was driving her car in a manner which could be construed as "irresponsible". On one hand, I can see the gallantry and self sacrifice made by these men, to continue to work in defense of their nation, even though they are not getting paid for it. But on the other hand, I have to ask...what is the difference between them and the Florida neighborhood watch guy.....except that they were pretty sure that if they stayed out of the way of the moving vehicle, they were not in mortal danger in any way. In this case, they might have been certifiable police officers...but they were not being paid, which means that they were not on duty. Whether or not they were in uniform is irrelevant. They took it upon themselves to act in an official capacity. They were volunteers, thus lethal force is not authorized unless there is actual life threatening danger to themselves or others. (even when on duty that is the case) But the application of lethal force needs a grand jury when applied by "civilians (volunteers)"....and as we saw in the Florida case, the persons involved should be incarcerated until said grand jury makes that decision, or they post bail.
I noticed in the story that "shots were fired" but it never says that the woman fired shots. It is obvious that shots were fired...by the neighborhood watch patrol!
I think the police should be commended for working without pay. But watching a video of the incident, I am trying to figure out what the rational was for shooting the woman? The barriers at both the White House and Capitol will stop a Mac truck, let alone a small sedan. More importantly, doesn't D.C. have laws against people having guns, let alone carrying them in the open? Will the Justice Department show us another double standard?
I raise those questions because in our current society there are huge limits placed on people, because of the Department of Labor and their union handlers. Every police union, has in its contracts, that a police officer must be paid if he is to be considered "on duty." This raises the question of whether or not these police officers were legal to be carrying pistols in the District of Columbia....which unlawfully forbids American Citizens from doing so. As well as were they on duty or not? It looks like there are multiple laws being broken. Who will be accountable for that?
7 comments:
Personally, i doubt those officers were there without being paid. Keep in mind they are (Federal Officers) who's responsibility is to protect the capital building and members of congress. They (are not) regular police officers who patrol DC's streets.
As for what they can, and can not do while on or off duty, that is mandated by federal law, not by any union. As for their actions yesterday, personally, i think they went a bit overboard. The threat to them personally was there, but, they could have easily avoided any personal injury to themselves.
But, keep in mind this is the nations capital, the #1 target of all the worlds terrorists. There are literally (thousands) of heavily-armed local and federal agents there with (one) mission. To protect the capital of govt. (at all costs). The majority of those agents are "authorized to use deadly force if and when needed." That means, they can and will kill your ass if you pose (what they believe is) any kind of a threat to the govt..
This from their website:
Retirement:
Participation in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), eligible for retirement with 20 years service at age 50 or 25 years at any age.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and 13 weeks at the USCP Training academy.
Still, a Shit load of lead. one hit
I don't know THAT they did overreact.
If you look at the video, at one pint there were FIVE armed officers within arms reach of her, who did NOT shoot her. And, by the timeline, it wasn't until AFTER she struck a car and ran down an officer on foot, that they shot her.
Many of us have been in these split second situations, and it's really easy to second guess yourself after the fact. Easier still, to second guess 'the other guys' actions. And given the state of the world terrorism network, to ass-u-me that a woman with a kid couldn't or wouldn't become a bomber carrying a dirty bomb or a full on nuke, seems like a HELL of a stretch to me.
__________________________________
On a side tangent...
Suppose this had been, 6 heavily armed people, in a stolen armored car..or a dump truck full of explosives, fitted out TO attack and blow up the WH or the Congressional offices, with an honest to Pete, American Revolutionary Army strike at the gub'ment.
Would even an UN-successful attack, push that silly man in the WH to ask for, and probably get, emergency powers, making him the Emergency Emperor of the Universe? Would Obama's asking limit for power, make GWB's push to get the Patriot Act passed, look like class elections at your local high school comparatively?
Personally, I think there were people in D.C., standing around going, "...OH, goody, goody, goody, goody, goody...GOODY!"
And not just on the Left either mind you. I think there are people on the Right who WANT a break down, so they can make power grabs.
According to the video that we've been shown, we first see her trapped against those black iron stanchions with a police car behind her, and several officers, guns drawn, surrounding the car. They most likely didn't fire at that point because they may have seen the kid in the car, even though, by her wild actions which could have caused serious injury to those officers, they were (IMO) clear to fire.
Once she (wildly) escaped that spot and went flying down the street toward the capital, she hit another police car and also hit an officer. At that point, that vehicle became a (deadly weapon) which gave them the green light to fire. The second group of officers, the ones that fired, most likely didn't know the kid was in there which "may have" stopped them from firing. Maybe.
Now, as is usually the case, you can bet the family is already lining up lawyers and wondering where they'll keep all the cash they're going to get. The MSM is already portraying her as "the victim".
They don't call them PIGS for nothing.
Such dislike for the police. Did you get another speeding ticket Bunky? Hmm...?
Look you Weinee Tot. I just got out of Angola. after 22 years for wasting a couple of Pigs. Right now all I want to do is to do it all over again
Post a Comment