DaveTN

Sure, different departments are going to use different weapons. But most forward thinking Police Departments are going to require the Officers within that department (especially street cops) to use the same ammo and weapons that use the same magazines. There is no need for the military (or a Police Department) to have duty weapons that are incompatible with each other. (With the exception of special ops) Someone in THP made the decision to go with the .357Sig. That doesn’t mean it was good decision.

Darn, just when I thought I pretty much had everything covered. Guess I'll need to try one out. http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/2016/01/15/smith-wessons-new-sw22-an-add-on-sales-victory/

The biggest part of self-defense training is training your mind to know when to act and what to do. In my 40’s I figured out I’m not 10 foot tall and bulletproof anymore. By 60 I figured out I’m not able to go hands on with anyone anymore. Situational awareness. Will you see a threat progress? At what point are you justified in pulling a weapon on a person? Do you have quick access to a weapon you are willing to trust your life to? Do you practice for that scenario at the range? Can you do a mag dump at 7 or 15 yards into a silhouette without using sights and have effective hits? Can you put your hand on a weapon without pulling it that is ready to fire? Have you thought about what you will do when the perp has the drop on you? We tend to underestimate thugs. Todd you probably won’t see coming. Fred you might, but he could be an ex-special forces operator with PTSD that is far better trained than you. You may find yourself in a situation where going for your gun will do nothing but get you killed. As cops we learned from the mistakes of other Officers that lost their lives. We looked at the situation in-depth to see what could have been done differently. And unfortunately sometimes there is nothing that could have been done and the good guy dies. Training your body is very important. But when your body starts slowing down your mind is still capable of getting/keeping you out of trouble.

Looks pretty cool. Adjustable sights, Bull barrel, stainless Anyone tried one yet? http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_804153_-1_757752_757751_image

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/16/texas-cop-pepper-sprays-bikers-gets-suspended/ there is no way a six year patrolman makes that.

Well my feelings on it are this… I don’t think anyone here likes a thug government. You also don’t have a right unless it is acknowledged by the state and all citizens of the state have that right. If all citizens don’t have a right to carry, I respect the right of the business to post. They shouldn’t have to approach people carrying guns to determine who is committing a crime and who is not. Many people simply hate guns and don’t want them in their business: I respect that. Many business owners post because they know that if someone gets shot in their business; they are the deep pockets and the attorneys will be going after them for a payday. I believe that if the state wants to tell a business people can carry in there; then the business should have absolute immunity from liability; they can’t even be named in a civil suit and don’t have any legal costs. An attorney would need to answer, but I’m not sure that immunity could even be legal. It is a crime in this state to carry a loaded gun in public. Most state and Federal office buildings do not allow firearms. Yet the state thinks they are going to beat business owners into submission? I can’t get onboard with that in any way shape or form. Now if the state wants to recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual’s right to both keep and bear arms; that’s a different story. But let’s say that happens… where do you draw the line? Does your boss have to allow you to carry at work? It’s never going to happen. We are at a time when states are trying everything they can to get businesses to move into the state. Telling them you have to allow people to carry guns on their property would be a significant factor for any large business. A law with no teeth is useless. Right now you risk a “fine only” of $500 and possible impact to your permit if you walk past a sign. On this forum I have yet to see a single person cited for carrying past a sign. One person posted that a friend of theirs got arrested for it, but he also said the guy went to court and got probation. That tells me he was likely arrested for carrying without a permit. It’s just my opinion that too much time and energy is spent on something that just doesn’t happen. Channel that towards something more important; like Constitutional carry. We have a lot of gun privileges in this state. Sure, we have to buy them, but we have them. I don’t want to see business pitted against carry; I doubt that would end well for us.

I didn’t have to, if I thought mine was getting low or I had it for a while I would go to the armory and they would take my old one and give me a new one. No explanations needed. If we maced someone we put it in the arrest report.

I would pick Constitutional carry. We as a “special group” can have all the carry permits we want but we will never be able to drive it down the throats of business owners. The state can try, but the courts won’t uphold it. You have more of a chance of carrying in government owned buildings if it’s a recognized right.

We went through a lot of medical problems with our Dobie; so I feel for you. 3 is young. I would spend the money if it would help him and I could afford it. I also would look around for a different Doctor. When our Dobie had cancer and needed surgery I thought it would be in the thousands; it wasn’t, it was very reasonable. I have recommended him to many people.

If they aren’t ditching the lame 9mm why do they need to change?

Doesn’t matter. I’m sure you have seen the recent cases of people that are now in prison using that defense. (Even while shouting it while on the phone with the Police) Generally the test is would a reasonable person be in fear of death or great bodily harm. Jurors (or a Judge) will consider themselves reasonable and decide what they would have done. If they decide your claimed fear was unreasonable; you may be hosed. Staying out of jail is as important as self-defense. At least to me it is.

Still not a reason for what he did. I can’t think of any reason for him to do that, that would not include him pulling off that traffic stop and going after them. Be interesting to hear what he has to say; if we ever do.

Most “move over” laws only require you to move over if you can do so safely. If that’s why he did that; he has big problems. Being fired would be the least of his worries he could be arrested. There is nothing in that video to show why he would have done what he did. I guess we will wait and see what happens.

I drop it into my hand, I know it is in my hand because I have feeling in my hand and I can feel it.

I’m not very familiar with the Army, so someone fill me in. I keep seeing that most troops don’t carry a handgun. Yet according to that article they are going to buy at least 307,000 handguns. According to a story in Army Times the strength of the Army now is 498,642. So it sounds like over half would be carrying handguns? Out of that 498,642 remove all the stateside personnel and office personnel that don’t carry guns and it sounds to me like they could give a handgun to everyone that is deployed? A handgun might not be their primary weapon but I will take a WAG and say there are a lot of servicemen alive today because they had a handgun. (But that's just a guess)

As I have explained to my kids; court is not held on the street. If there is a hearing on whether or not there was probable cause or whether or not the guy was drunk, that will be done in a courtroom; not on the street. You ask if he was under arrest or was being detained. Based on the story of a Police Officer pointing a gun at him and yelling for him to stop; yes, he was being detained, No, he was not free to leave. But it appears (from the story) the guy was drunk and the Officer was trying to deal with multiple arrests. I don’t really care if he was drunk or not; be was detained and he was not free to leave. I also don’t care whether the cop jumped in back because he had nowhere else to go or he just jumped in the back when pursuing the guy; does not matter. He was in the bed of a truck attempting to capture a fleeing suspect. The Officers situation met the requirements for the use of deadly force. He was in danger of death or great bodily harm, he ordered the suspect to stop multiple times (according to the stories) and then he shot him. He didn’t get a death sentence for DUI. It has escalated far beyond that; the suspect escalated it. The suspect made bad choices and he paid for them with his life. I hope the cop will be okay. I have been a Police Officer, I respect Police Officers, but I can’t for the life of me see who would want to be a cop in the climate we have today. Soon no one will want this job and we will have the bottom of the barrel as Police Officers. Sad.

Yes, he was being detained, he was not free to leave and he was disobeying a lawful order to stop, especially when the Officers life was in danger.

Of course not. What does that have to do with this case?

This isn’t much different than the cop that hopped on the hood of the car on a traffic stop in Nashville as the guy was trying to run over him. The cop shot him. Clean shoot. We don’t know from that little story, maybe the cop ended up in the back because he had nowhere else to go. We just don’t know. So I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the cop. But my opinion will have no impact on the case. When you do stupid things the results can be bad. As for BAC, if they guy was trying to run over him that doesn’t matter, but they will know his BAC when they do the autopsy. I doubt this incident will impact anyone’s feelings about trusting cops.

  There could have been more stolen property in the closet than just the gun. But that's just a WAG.

This case isn’t about liability; it’s about an Officer acting on what he apparently thought was such a great danger that he put his own life at risk to stop him. Some cops would have done what he did; some would not. A drunk who ran is dead. The cop and the people around him are okay. I know some will have an issue with that; I don’t. And I hope the DA doesn’t. I’m not defending the cop saying it was a good idea. I’m saying that the drunk was given every opportunity to stop. If people think that because they are “simply” running and they are putting others’ lives in danger doing it they won’t get shot; they are wrong. This quit being about DUI and became something much more when he ran and put lives at risk.

They were also ruling on the complaint that the Police didn’t go looking for the suspect; not that they didn’t act on a crime being committed in their presence. Apples and oranges to this case. Just as many would say the drunk probably wouldn’t kill anyone; a father that took his kids probably wouldn’t hurt them. But that one killed his kids. This case could go either way; it’s a discretionary call on the part of the DA and what he thinks a jury would buy.

The Supreme Court said they can’t be held liable for not being able to protect; not that they shouldn’t protect. It’s their job.

A DUI driver is putting you and your family in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. This wasn’t just about fleeing. Will the cop be okay on this? It depends on whether or not his department and the DA support him. I don’t think I would have jumped in the back of that truck (but I wasn’t there and don’t know the circumstances). But had he pulled on onto the road and killed a family in a head on collision; many would be screaming that the cop should have done something to stop him. Based on the limited amount of info in that story the good guys are okay and the criminals aren’t; so I’m okay with it. We will now see if the powers that matter are.

That’s not possible.