Last edited by Diamondback; 08-29-21 at 17:07.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
They took Byrd aside and laid out his retirement package, they put the icing on his cake, so he knew the deal and took reponcability.
No Court, no charges, just an address in Florida.
Essentially they showed him how to take one for the team one last time and he agreed to the deal.
Even an LE pub is not backing the guy. Via their
“USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
Did it meet that standard? Any LEOs able to comment on that? Originally, some here were saying shooter was not Capital Police, but some similar to SS, who'd likley have a different ROE. I was unclear at the time is as BS at it was, it was allowed under their ROE. But, it was a Capital cop, their ROE is outlined above, and seems a hard pull on reality to claim taking that shot justified under their ROE.
It was obviously a dynamic situation:
“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side. I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are."
“But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”
But, his claims have also been shown to be false, so hard to take him seriously. He, nor anyone in the building were under "immediate danger of serious physical injury" at that time. Does one take the shot on the assumption if that pack is a bomb and takes out the building, worth the risk of being wrong? Maybe that's the ROE the SS can get away with, but the Capital Police?
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...hat-clear-him/
Last edited by WillBrink; 08-31-21 at 09:40.
- Will
General Performance/Fitness Advice for all
www.BrinkZone.com
LE/Mil specific info:
https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/
“Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”
What if this whole crusade's a charade?
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…
- Will
General Performance/Fitness Advice for all
www.BrinkZone.com
LE/Mil specific info:
https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/
“Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”
Hindsight is 20/20. What's relevant from a UoF Policy perspective is what the officer thought at the time that the force was applied, not what is later learned to be true.
To be clear, I'm not condoning the officer's actions. You are correct that lawful and "good" are not synonyms.
Bookmarks