Cop in "fear for his safety" shoots fellow officer

Oh horse shit. DId the dead guy "fit the description" too?


"A 36-year-old white male officer did not recognize the off duty officer. He told city police investigators he feared for his safety. He fired a shot, hitting the off duty officer in the arm."

What the fuck was he afraid of? The situation was presumably no longer "hot". The off duty guy had complied and every other cop there wasn't treating him as a threat.

If this guy was in fear for his life, he's either a paranoid schizophrenic or having an acid flashback.

Knowing the situation?

He's rolling up on a scene where gun fire has just been exchanged and he sees a person carrying a gun. He doesn't see that person is a police officer since that person has no identifying items on him. He does see he's carrying a gun.

This is why police departments have very specific rules about off duty and undercover police when there is a situation going on. Those policies exist to prevent something like this happening because it has happened in the past to officers.

You assumed the officers told this guy to get on the ground, than let him up, and than shot him anyway.

So no we aren't agreeing on anything. You're wrong. As usual.

that's a clever rereading of the facts as presented... It's clearly stated the officers on scene had let the guy get back up.

every plainclothes cop in the city should be worried with uniformed guys like this around.

That wasn't directed at you. It was in response to the other posts in the thread.

This. The initial summary made it sound like that's what happened.

This is a recurring theme with stories like this. The description of events is "simplified" to the point that either makes events inexplicable or the participants extremely malevolent. To me, it was the former. To those chomping at the bit to find a racial politics angle in this, it's the latter.

As near as I can tell, race should not even have been reported in the story, although the lawyer's comments make it inevitable that it would be. But there's nothing to indicate a racial angle here.

my computer messed up. It's been crashing every hour or so. I think it's on it's last legs.

yet the only counter to that thus far is Zombie's wishful supposition...
Show me something besides that explaining how this is an oversimplification of events? I mean, sure, there's more details to any story, but I'd think any significant omission would be at least worth linking to a source for

maybe a sensor on the guns (law enforcement guns only of course or the Chicago gun violence rate would plummet) so that guns won't fire if they are pointed at darker pigmented people.
That would eliminate any racial angle entirely.

Whatever.

When Dayton can do quote tags better than you, you've got a serious mental defect.

I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. If I hit the "reply" button on the lower right I get the entire quote history. Maybe I don't want to quote the whole history with several different posters' length long. I only want to quote one sentence. So, I copy onlythat sentence, and credit that sentence to the person who said it. I don't know why things come out distorted on your end.

You can separate quotes. Copy the member's name, the post and [/quote] then post your reply. Then do that for everyone you want to quote. Or, use the quote button next to the smiley's backspace, type in member's name, copy and paste their post, followed by [/quote] then post your response. It's a pain in the ass to do either on your phone though. In that case, I just use the @ function to who I want to respond.

Oldfella...look at the following.

(Pretend everywhere you see the word KWOAT that it really says QUOTE.)

[KWOAT="shootER, post: 2967616, member: 31"][KWOAT="oldfella1962, post: 2967609, member: 558"][KWOAT="shootER, post: 2967584, member: 31"][KWOAT="Paladin, post: 2967581, member: 92"]
Paladin said this.[/KWOAT]
Then shootER said this.[/KWOAT]
Then oldfella said this.[/KWOAT]
Then shootER said this.[/KWOAT]

Every [KWOAT] has a matching [/KWOAT]. If you just want to quote the last thing shootER said, edit the lines as follows....

[KWOAT="shootER, post: 2967616, member: 31"][KWOAT="oldfella1962, post: 2967609, member: 558"][KWOAT="shootER, post: 2967584, member: 31"][KWOAT="Paladin, post: 2967581, member: 92"]
Paladin said this.[/KWOAT]
Then shootER said this.[/KWOAT]
Then oldfella said this.[/KWOAT]
Then shootER said this.[/KWOAT]

Which leaves you with this...

[KWOAT="shootER, post: 2967616, member: 31"]
Then shootER said this.[/KWOAT]

If you want to quote the last thing you said as well as the last thing shootER said, edit the lines like this...

[KWOAT="shootER, post: 2967616, member: 31"][KWOAT="oldfella1962, post: 2967609, member: 558"][KWOAT="shootER, post: 2967584, member: 31"][KWOAT="Paladin, post: 2967581, member: 92"]
Paladin said this.[/KWOAT]
Then shootER said this.[/KWOAT]
Then oldfella said this.[/KWOAT]
Then shootER said this.[/KWOAT]

That's all there is to it.

Yes, it can get complicated if you want to respond to several points in a post, but let's try it. Here's a sample post from me that you want to respond to...

[KWOAT="Paladin"]
Point #1
Point #2
Point #3
[/KWOAT]

Here's how you edit it to make your responses...

[KWOAT="Paladin"]
Point #1[/KWOAT]
This is oldfella's response to Point #1
[KWOAT]
Point #2[/KWOAT]
This is oldfella's response to Point #2
[KWOAT]
Point #3
[/KWOAT]
This is oldfella's response to Point #3

Give it a try!

Woosh.

then post your reply. Then do that for everyone you want to quote. Or, use the quote button next to the smiley's backspace, type in member's name, copy and paste their post, followed by [/quote] then post your response. It's a pain in the ass to do either on your phone though. In that case, I just use the @ function to who I want to respond.[/quote]

wow that is a lot of steps. I think I just won't quote anymore if I keep messing it up!

then post your response. It's a pain in the ass to do either on your phone though. In that case, I just use the @ function to who I want to respond.[/quote]

wow that is a lot of steps. I think I just won't quote anymore if I keep messing it up![/quote]
You just did mess it up.

@oldfella1962 You really are old/Archie. Just use the @ function, it's easier. Like I just did. Press @followed by the user name. So, @oldfella1962 . Like that.

well there you go! That's the way my mind is wired - either I get something right off the bat, or I never get it at all.

Wait, no one's mentioned the paradox this represents.

Now, if a cop shoots a regular person, they always get off Scott free.

But, if a regular person shoots a cop, even if by accident, even if they just graze them, they get turned to goo by Gatling guns, blown up with missiles, and then the remaining chunks are sprayed with napalm.
And the cops that perform the execution get off Scott free.

If a cop shoots a cop....what happens, do they both die, or both get off free?
Or, do they go into some weird quantum middle state where they both simultaneously live and die?

How dare you try and bring this discussion back to the OP.

Cop on cop violence...

So presumably he fails to see the other officers no longer concerned about the off-duty officer with a gun?