Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56780
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Hoboken squat cobbler
x 1624
x 5380

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby jersey cubs fan » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:00 pm



But police now say the off-duty officer was shot by a fellow cop who did not recognize him as an officer, in a separate encounter away from the initial crash.

According to a department summary of the incident released later Thursday, two officers who encountered the armed off-duty officer ordered him to the ground. He complied. When they recognized the off-duty officer, they told him he could stand up and walk toward them.

Another officer just arriving at the scene saw the off-duty officer get up and, not knowing he was an officer, fired his weapon once at the man. He hit the off-duty officer in the arm, the department said.

The Post-Dispatch first reported those details Thursday morning based on police sources with knowledge of the shooting. The department later confirmed them.


But I thought these guys were taught to empty their gun once they start firing
0 x
longhotsummer wrote:I realize now, any opposing viewpoint, will not be tolerated.

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 71208
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6314
x 8307

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Sammy Sofa » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:03 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
You can't do that either. The pension trust is protected assets. Even if you could, the benefits are guaranteed so the trust would have to be replenished by the city/state. If the city/state couldn't fund the trust the benefits would still have to be paid and that burden would be pushed to the federal government (PBGC).


Then from the funding to the departments. However it can be done, it needs to happen, because, as it stands, the city or state ends up paying, but it rarely, if ever, actually impacts the police monetarily since spending more and more on "law & order" is such a cheap gimme for politicians.


Agreed, but that's completely different than saying "go after the pensions."

Everybody should have a pension, and we should be fighting to keep those, not letting or forcing employers to get rid of them.


Seems like pretty simple distinction to me that if you are found liable in the death of another person because of your job it impacts the pension you receive because of that job. That doesn't seem to exactly be opening a real slippery slope; I mean, I guess it would suck for that accountant who killed a client with a thousand papercuts, but hey, that's on him.

I anticipate there will be all kinds of legal argle-bargle about how I'm wrong.
1 x

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56780
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Hoboken squat cobbler
x 1624
x 5380

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby jersey cubs fan » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:05 pm

Not sure I agree with the idea that "everybody" deserves a pension since very few people actually get pensions and cops who murder people don't deserve things.
2 x
longhotsummer wrote:I realize now, any opposing viewpoint, will not be tolerated.

woodchip2153
All-Star
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Madison
x 280
x 70

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby woodchip2153 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:26 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:Not sure I agree with the idea that "everybody" deserves a pension since very few people actually get pensions and cops who murder people don't deserve things.


That was a side tangent. I meant everybody, meaning everybody, not just cops and such.
0 x

woodchip2153
All-Star
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Madison
x 280
x 70

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby woodchip2153 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:33 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Then from the funding to the departments. However it can be done, it needs to happen, because, as it stands, the city or state ends up paying, but it rarely, if ever, actually impacts the police monetarily since spending more and more on "law & order" is such a cheap gimme for politicians.


Agreed, but that's completely different than saying "go after the pensions."

Everybody should have a pension, and we should be fighting to keep those, not letting or forcing employers to get rid of them.


Seems like pretty simple distinction to me that if you are found liable in the death of another person because of your job it impacts the pension you receive because of that job. That doesn't seem to exactly be opening a real slippery slope; I mean, I guess it would suck for that accountant who killed a client with a thousand papercuts, but hey, that's on him.

I anticipate there will be all kinds of legal argle-bargle about how I'm wrong.


The legal argle-bargle is above my pay grade, but I've seen some employers try to use any crack in the law to try and deny benefits to employees. I could see them using some language like yours to deny benefits to a worker who was partially responsible for a accident that kills someone to deny benefits.
0 x

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45935
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 156
x 423

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Stannis » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:35 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:Not sure I agree with the idea that "everybody" deserves a pension since very few people actually get pensions and cops who murder people don't deserve things.


That was a side tangent. I meant everybody, meaning everybody, not just cops and such.


cops who murder people don't deserve a pension. cops who protect cops who murder people don't deserve a pension, either. departments full of cops who would support murderers deserve to at least have their slice of the pie threatened.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 71208
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6314
x 8307

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Sammy Sofa » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:37 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Agreed, but that's completely different than saying "go after the pensions."

Everybody should have a pension, and we should be fighting to keep those, not letting or forcing employers to get rid of them.


Seems like pretty simple distinction to me that if you are found liable in the death of another person because of your job it impacts the pension you receive because of that job. That doesn't seem to exactly be opening a real slippery slope; I mean, I guess it would suck for that accountant who killed a client with a thousand papercuts, but hey, that's on him.

I anticipate there will be all kinds of legal argle-bargle about how I'm wrong.


The legal argle-bargle is above my pay grade, but I've seen some employers try to use any crack in the law to try and deny benefits to employees. I could see them using some language like yours to deny benefits to a worker who was partially responsible for a accident that kills someone to deny benefits.


Can't say I'd really be opposed to that. I mean, when we're talking liable for a DEATH...
0 x

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45935
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 156
x 423

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Stannis » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:41 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
You can't do that either. The pension trust is protected assets. Even if you could, the benefits are guaranteed so the trust would have to be replenished by the city/state. If the city/state couldn't fund the trust the benefits would still have to be paid and that burden would be pushed to the federal government (PBGC).


Then from the funding to the departments. However it can be done, it needs to happen, because, as it stands, the city or state ends up paying, but it rarely, if ever, actually impacts the police monetarily since spending more and more on "law & order" is such a cheap gimme for politicians.


Agreed, but that's completely different than saying "go after the pensions."

Everybody should have a pension, and we should be fighting to keep those, not letting or forcing employers to get rid of them.


I don't think that the idea is to force anyone to get rid of pensions. However, it should be used for leverage in breaking the silence and punishing the guilty.
Last edited by Stannis on Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45935
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 156
x 423

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Stannis » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:46 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Seems like pretty simple distinction to me that if you are found liable in the death of another person because of your job it impacts the pension you receive because of that job. That doesn't seem to exactly be opening a real slippery slope; I mean, I guess it would suck for that accountant who killed a client with a thousand papercuts, but hey, that's on him.

I anticipate there will be all kinds of legal argle-bargle about how I'm wrong.


The legal argle-bargle is above my pay grade, but I've seen some employers try to use any crack in the law to try and deny benefits to employees. I could see them using some language like yours to deny benefits to a worker who was partially responsible for a accident that kills someone to deny benefits.


Can't say I'd really be opposed to that. I mean, when we're talking liable for a DEATH...


yeah, that's not really exploiting a crack in the law so much as doing the right thing.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

woodchip2153
All-Star
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Madison
x 280
x 70

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby woodchip2153 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:52 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Seems like pretty simple distinction to me that if you are found liable in the death of another person because of your job it impacts the pension you receive because of that job. That doesn't seem to exactly be opening a real slippery slope; I mean, I guess it would suck for that accountant who killed a client with a thousand papercuts, but hey, that's on him.

I anticipate there will be all kinds of legal argle-bargle about how I'm wrong.


The legal argle-bargle is above my pay grade, but I've seen some employers try to use any crack in the law to try and deny benefits to employees. I could see them using some language like yours to deny benefits to a worker who was partially responsible for a accident that kills someone to deny benefits.


Can't say I'd really be opposed to that. I mean, when we're talking liable for a DEATH...


Hypothetical: I know next to nothing about manufacturing, so don't nitpick my scenario.

I work for a manufacturing company with a pension plan. I'm forced to work long hours, and during the end of these long hours I get a little sloppy one night, somehow through some weird chain of events and the factory not having proper safety measures in place, so there is a death, possibly my own. I don't think the company should be able to deny me or my spouse the pension benefits they accrued.

Or, the company I used to work for, didn't have a sprinkler system installed. If I'd plugged one too many items into an outlet causing a fire, which caused a death, because there wasn't a sprinkler system, should they be able to deny my benefits?
0 x

woodchip2153
All-Star
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Madison
x 280
x 70

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby woodchip2153 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:59 pm

Stannis wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Then from the funding to the departments. However it can be done, it needs to happen, because, as it stands, the city or state ends up paying, but it rarely, if ever, actually impacts the police monetarily since spending more and more on "law & order" is such a cheap gimme for politicians.


Agreed, but that's completely different than saying "go after the pensions."

Everybody should have a pension, and we should be fighting to keep those, not letting or forcing employers to get rid of them.


I don't think that the idea is to force anyone to get rid of pensions. However, it should be used for leverage in breaking the silence and punishing the guilty.


I know. My original point was that by going after the Trust isn't legal and is basically the same as going after the City or the Police Department financially.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a solution that doesn't ultimately put the burden on the tax payers, I just wanted to point out, going after the Trust would just be another way of having the public pay for these horsefeathers being horsefeathers.
0 x

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45935
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 156
x 423

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Stannis » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:00 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
The legal argle-bargle is above my pay grade, but I've seen some employers try to use any crack in the law to try and deny benefits to employees. I could see them using some language like yours to deny benefits to a worker who was partially responsible for a accident that kills someone to deny benefits.


Can't say I'd really be opposed to that. I mean, when we're talking liable for a DEATH...


Hypothetical: I know next to nothing about manufacturing, so don't nitpick my scenario.

I work for a manufacturing company with a pension plan. I'm forced to work long hours, and during the end of these long hours I get a little sloppy one night, somehow through some weird chain of events and the factory not having proper safety measures in place, so there is a death, possibly my own. I don't think the company should be able to deny me or my spouse the pension benefits they accrued.

Or, the company I used to work for, didn't have a sprinkler system installed. If I'd plugged one too many items into an outlet causing a fire, which caused a death, because there wasn't a sprinkler system, should they be able to deny my benefits?


What are the safety measures and was the sprinkler system recommended and neglected? Were you trained and certified on the safety measures? Was a sprinkler system deemed necessary?

These things all make a difference. if you were farting around with dangerous machinery that you were trained on properly and understood the risk of operating, there's culpability there.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45935
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 156
x 423

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Stannis » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:03 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Agreed, but that's completely different than saying "go after the pensions."

Everybody should have a pension, and we should be fighting to keep those, not letting or forcing employers to get rid of them.


I don't think that the idea is to force anyone to get rid of pensions. However, it should be used for leverage in breaking the silence and punishing the guilty.


I know. My original point was that by going after the Trust isn't legal and is basically the same as going after the City or the Police Department financially.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a solution that doesn't ultimately put the burden on the tax payers, I just wanted to point out, going after the Trust would just be another way of having the public pay for these horsefeathers being horsefeathers.


you put the precinct itself as responsible. once its pension is gone, you don't replace it with public funds.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

woodchip2153
All-Star
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Madison
x 280
x 70

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby woodchip2153 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:08 pm

Stannis wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Can't say I'd really be opposed to that. I mean, when we're talking liable for a DEATH...


Hypothetical: I know next to nothing about manufacturing, so don't nitpick my scenario.

I work for a manufacturing company with a pension plan. I'm forced to work long hours, and during the end of these long hours I get a little sloppy one night, somehow through some weird chain of events and the factory not having proper safety measures in place, so there is a death, possibly my own. I don't think the company should be able to deny me or my spouse the pension benefits they accrued.

Or, the company I used to work for, didn't have a sprinkler system installed. If I'd plugged one too many items into an outlet causing a fire, which caused a death, because there wasn't a sprinkler system, should they be able to deny my benefits?


What are the safety measures and was the sprinkler system recommended and neglected? Were you trained and certified on the safety measures? Was a sprinkler system deemed necessary?

These things all make a difference. if you were farting around with dangerous machinery that you were trained on properly and understood the risk of operating, there's culpability there.


Yea, we've gotten way off track. The overall point, that these horsefeathers need to pay, is correct.

I'm sorry I mentioned that going after the pensions wouldn't be as easy as it sounds, and probably not even possible under the current law.
0 x

woodchip2153
All-Star
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Madison
x 280
x 70

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby woodchip2153 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:10 pm

Stannis wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
I don't think that the idea is to force anyone to get rid of pensions. However, it should be used for leverage in breaking the silence and punishing the guilty.


I know. My original point was that by going after the Trust isn't legal and is basically the same as going after the City or the Police Department financially.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a solution that doesn't ultimately put the burden on the tax payers, I just wanted to point out, going after the Trust would just be another way of having the public pay for these horsefeathers being horsefeathers.


you put the precinct itself as responsible. once its pension is gone, you don't replace it with public funds.


That's what I'm trying to say. That's not how it works.
0 x

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 1234
x 389

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:02 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
I know. My original point was that by going after the Trust isn't legal and is basically the same as going after the City or the Police Department financially.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a solution that doesn't ultimately put the burden on the tax payers, I just wanted to point out, going after the Trust would just be another way of having the public pay for these horsefeathers being horsefeathers.


you put the precinct itself as responsible. once its pension is gone, you don't replace it with public funds.


That's what I'm trying to say. That's not how it works.

Yea, I'm a little confused by the train of thought here. Pension funding is complex and it isn't like a 401k where the benefit is a direct result of the funding until it's gone. If the pension fund is dry because of underfunding, unexpected beneficiary forecasting, and a economic downturn, then suddenly one incident of liability dries it up completely, the pension funds are taken away permantly for the trust?
0 x
Image

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45935
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 156
x 423

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Stannis » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:24 pm

WrigleyField 22 wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
you put the precinct itself as responsible. once its pension is gone, you don't replace it with public funds.


That's what I'm trying to say. That's not how it works.

Yea, I'm a little confused by the train of thought here. Pension funding is complex and it isn't like a 401k where the benefit is a direct result of the funding until it's gone. If the pension fund is dry because of underfunding, unexpected beneficiary forecasting, and a economic downturn, then suddenly one incident of liability dries it up completely, the pension funds are taken away permantly for the trust?


If one incident of liability dries it up completely, then you turn it into a series of 401ks.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 1234
x 389

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:35 pm

I don't know if there's rules preventing this, but it seems like regular old liability in a civil suit where that officer's pension they are eligible to receive otherwise is garnished to provide any shortfall in that civil liability makes about 1000% more sense that whatever mess of an idea was just collectively created here.

Even in your scenario where pensions are otherwise required to be 100% funded and the first liability claim comes out... Are they like forever 95% (or whatever) funded at that point, but the current beneficiaries still get 100% eligible benefits? Do current beneficiaries see an immediate impact? Do current payers pay for it later when they collect? Or future payees continue to pay full for a bill they know may never be able to be funded...
0 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 71208
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6314
x 8307

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Sammy Sofa » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:57 pm

woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
The legal argle-bargle is above my pay grade, but I've seen some employers try to use any crack in the law to try and deny benefits to employees. I could see them using some language like yours to deny benefits to a worker who was partially responsible for a accident that kills someone to deny benefits.


Can't say I'd really be opposed to that. I mean, when we're talking liable for a DEATH...


Hypothetical: I know next to nothing about manufacturing, so don't nitpick my scenario.

I work for a manufacturing company with a pension plan. I'm forced to work long hours, and during the end of these long hours I get a little sloppy one night, somehow through some weird chain of events and the factory not having proper safety measures in place, so there is a death, possibly my own. I don't think the company should be able to deny me or my spouse the pension benefits they accrued.

Or, the company I used to work for, didn't have a sprinkler system installed. If I'd plugged one too many items into an outlet causing a fire, which caused a death, because there wasn't a sprinkler system, should they be able to deny my benefits?


If you're found liable to have hurt or killed someone because of your job, yeah, the pension takes a hit. I'm not saying hit the entire pension; one civil case would probably clear out most of a department' entire pension. But, at the very least, the officer or officers found liable should have their pensions impacted.
0 x

woodchip2153
All-Star
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Madison
x 280
x 70

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby woodchip2153 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:06 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Can't say I'd really be opposed to that. I mean, when we're talking liable for a DEATH...


Hypothetical: I know next to nothing about manufacturing, so don't nitpick my scenario.

I work for a manufacturing company with a pension plan. I'm forced to work long hours, and during the end of these long hours I get a little sloppy one night, somehow through some weird chain of events and the factory not having proper safety measures in place, so there is a death, possibly my own. I don't think the company should be able to deny me or my spouse the pension benefits they accrued.

Or, the company I used to work for, didn't have a sprinkler system installed. If I'd plugged one too many items into an outlet causing a fire, which caused a death, because there wasn't a sprinkler system, should they be able to deny my benefits?


If you're found liable to have hurt or killed someone because of your job, yeah, the pension takes a hit. I'm not saying hit the entire pension; one civil case would probably clear out most of a department' entire pension. But, at the very least, the officer or officers found liable should have their pensions impacted.


We can't even get a cop found guilty when he blatantly murders someone on camera, how are we going to change the laws to decrease the pensions.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 71208
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6314
x 8307

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:14 am

woodchip2153 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
woodchip2153 wrote:
Hypothetical: I know next to nothing about manufacturing, so don't nitpick my scenario.

I work for a manufacturing company with a pension plan. I'm forced to work long hours, and during the end of these long hours I get a little sloppy one night, somehow through some weird chain of events and the factory not having proper safety measures in place, so there is a death, possibly my own. I don't think the company should be able to deny me or my spouse the pension benefits they accrued.

Or, the company I used to work for, didn't have a sprinkler system installed. If I'd plugged one too many items into an outlet causing a fire, which caused a death, because there wasn't a sprinkler system, should they be able to deny my benefits?


If you're found liable to have hurt or killed someone because of your job, yeah, the pension takes a hit. I'm not saying hit the entire pension; one civil case would probably clear out most of a department' entire pension. But, at the very least, the officer or officers found liable should have their pensions impacted.


We can't even get a cop found guilty when he blatantly murders someone on camera, how are we going to change the laws to decrease the pensions.


Beats the hell out of me. I was just wish-listing.
1 x

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45935
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 156
x 423

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Stannis » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:47 am

Right, no one thinks it's gonna happen.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
All-Star
Posts: 4854
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 51
x 756

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:06 am

0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 71208
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6314
x 8307

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:23 pm

http://www.theroot.com/l-a-county-sheri ... 1796361099

Officials say Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies accidentally shot and killed a 17-year-old boy in Palmdale, Calif., early Thursday morning after their bullets ricocheted off the ground when they opened fire at an aggressive dog.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the teen was hit in the chest by at least one “skip” round several yards away from where the deputies stood as they fired multiple shots at a charging dog, identified as a pit bull, just after 3:40 a.m., officials said. Investigators believe that the officers did not notice the teen in the dark, the sheriff’s department added.

The dog had bitten one of the deputies just before the shooting, and the teen, identified by family as Armando Garcia-Muro, went to restrain the animal so it would not attack again, authorities said. The deputy who was bitten did not fire his service weapon, but was hit in his right leg by the fragment of a bullet that bounced off the ground after being fired by a fellow deputy.


Why do they bother giving cops these days anything besides their gun? It's not like they're even going to bother trying to use any of it.

But sure, blah-blah-blah, "THEY HAD TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM THE DOG!!!" Sorry, the guys who chose to protect and serve can take a few chomps if it means someone doesn't needlessly end up dead.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 71208
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6314
x 8307

Re: Guess what an idiot with a badge did this time...

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:25 pm

CyHawk_Cub wrote:


Boy, check out the "trained professional" holding his gun sideways all gangsta and horsefeathers.

FFS.
0 x


Return to “Social”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest