Off Duty Officer shot in the Line of Duty

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/28/off....ap/index.html

Quote:

---

A woman called 911 from White Castle, and Hernandez -- with his gun drawn -- ran into the parking lot after his assailants, Bloomberg said.

He apparently subdued one of the suspects, and when a patrol car arrived, was pointing his gun at a man on the ground.

One of the two officers in the car, apparently believing Hernandez was about to shoot, opened fire, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

---

This is truly a pity. They need a better way to recognize these guys when they are off duty.

I agree....what a shocker.

Hope he survives.

Very unfortunate.

But for recognition maybe they could realise not everybody besides them with a gun is automatically a bad guy.

Crazed Rabbit

Officers often tell good intentioned people to stay out of the fray so backup doesn't come and start hosing down the good samaritans. It's a pity this happened, but as an off-duty cop he should have known the other police would have no way of knowing him from Jack. He's lucky he wasn't shot 47 times. Hope he pulls through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Very unfortunate.

But for recognition maybe they could realise not everybody besides them with a gun is automatically a bad guy.

Crazed Rabbit

---

I think they should take a good close look at what procedures the police followed before opening fire- it sounds to me like they screwed up here.

Which State was it that recently stopped its off-duty officers from carrying guns , because of incidents like this ?

Now then , for those who belong to the "I want a gun to defend myself against attackers" posse .
What are your thoughts when a law abiding citizen gets shot by the police for pointing a gun at a mugger ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which State was it that recently stopped its off-duty officers from carrying guns , because of incidents like this ?

---

I don't think police should get automatic off-duty carry priveledges. Once they're off duty, they should be entitled to the same protections as everyone else- no more, no less. If they want to carry, they can get a permit.

Quote:

---

Now then , for those who belong to the "I want a gun to defend myself against attackers" posse .
What are your thoughts when a law abiding citizen gets shot by the police for pointing a gun at a mugger ?

---

See my previous post.

Once they're off duty, they should be entitled to the same protections as everyone else- no more, no less. If they want to carry, they can get a permit.

yep , its just strange as my cousins husband always carries and complies with the "plain sight" requirements , yet he was car jacked in a parkinglot and they not only took his truck they took his gun as well .
Being a police officer and visibly having a gun didn't stop the criminals , as it is hard to use a gun when one hand is carrying groceries and the other is trying to get the door open when you get a gun shoved in your face .
Its just one more crime statistic and one more gun in the hands of criminals.:shrug:

BTW I think it was R.I. that passed the no carry provisions for its officers .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But for recognition maybe they could realise not everybody besides them with a gun is automatically a bad guy.

---

One of the rare occasions I agree with you :2thumbsup:

Of course, like Xiahou pointed out, they should have followed procedure, which I assume would include shouting "Drop the gun !".

Wouldn't happen in the UK...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

yep , its just strange as my cousins husband always carries and complies with the "plain sight" requirements , yet he was car jacked in a parkinglot and they not only took his truck they took his gun as well .
Being a police officer and visibly having a gun didn't stop the criminals , as it is hard to use a gun when one hand is carrying groceries and the other is trying to get the door open when you get a gun shoved in your face .
Its just one more crime statistic and one more gun in the hands of criminals.:shrug:

---

I think open carry is a stupid idea under most circumstances- certainly if you're in a crowded area and your hands are full.

Guns Are bad M-Kay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Wouldn't happen in the UK...

~:smoking:

---

Well put Rory...

I do hope everyone realises why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Well put Rory...

I do hope everyone realises why.

---

They've certainly shot innocents before though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

They've certainly shot innocents before though.

---

An argument for less guns, surely? :idea2:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

An argument for less guns, surely? :idea2:

~:smoking:

---

You guys can try to ban all weapons for all I care- it doesnt effect me. It's clear that it won't stop violent crime, or even gun violence for that matter though- both are still on the rise there no?

The more Guns Othere Idiots Have The more they loose. The more they loose The more that end up here.

So stop giving idiots Guns,
They wont loose em.

And gun crime wont be on the rize here,

Sadly gun crime is rising - but no where near America's levels. Probably because we can get rid of what we find, whereas you lot sell them at supermarkets. haeven forbid they are regulated as that might infringe on a criminal's rights...

Where next? Land mines? Grenades? I'm sure if all good honest people can get hold of them it'd be safer.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Sadly gun crime is rising - but no where near America's levels. Probably because we can get rid of what we find, whereas you lot sell them at supermarkets. haeven forbid they are regulated as that might infringe on a criminal's rights...

Where next? Land mines? Grenades? I'm sure if all good honest people can get hold of them it'd be safer.

~:smoking:

---

Make sense when you post. We do not sell that at supermarket's and the reason why they are legal because of the second amendment in our Consitution which gives all the citzens the legal right to bear arms. Sorry if we want to be different from the country we seperated from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Wouldn't happen in the UK...

~:smoking:

---

Quote:

---

Hernandez had been in line at a White Castle restaurant in the Bronx shortly before 5 a.m. when he was assaulted by a half-dozen men, Bloomberg said.

---

Nah you're right it wouldn't have. The 6 men assaulted him would have beaten him to a pulp, possibly killing me, and then robbed him dry. So, yes, you are abosolutely right.

For our foreign friends, it is practically impossible for an ordinary person to get a permit to carry a gun in NYC.

Quote:

---

yep , its just strange as my cousins husband always carries and complies with the "plain sight" requirements , yet he was car jacked in a parkinglot and they not only took his truck they took his gun as well .
Being a police officer and visibly having a gun didn't stop the criminals , as it is hard to use a gun when one hand is carrying groceries and the other is trying to get the door open when you get a gun shoved in your face .
Its just one more crime statistic and one more gun in the hands of criminals

---

It sounds like he wasn't paying attention to his situation. BTW, what are the laws regarding firearms in Ireland?

Crazed Rabbit

Yeah, I read the 2nd amendment. Not that hard to do with google... I know why they are currently legal - what's your point?

So have wall mart stopped selling guns? They used to.

And so a beating is worse than shooting someone? Of course - only the undeserving get shot / carry guns :inquisitive:

One piece of hearsay doesn't do away with the number of people that get show in the USA every year.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Sorry if we want to be different from the country we seperated from.

---

I'm pretty sure that a lot of British people on the frontier had guns anyway and that the people who wrote the constitution had loftier aims than a heavily armed populace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Yeah, I read the 2nd amendment. Not that hard to do with google... I know why they are currently legal - what's your point?

So have wall mart stopped selling guns? They used to.

And so a beating is worse than shooting someone? Of course - only the undeserving get shot / carry guns :inquisitive:

One piece of hearsay doesn't do away with the number of people that get show in the USA every year.

~:smoking:

---

My point with the second amendment was that it is in our Constitution that you are allowed to have a gun. Owning a gun is one of the principles this country was founded on, so we aren't just going to change it because a couple of people have a hissy fit over it. There are both pros and cons of allowing guns.

You can just stroll into walmart and buy a gun. They have to a do background screening on you and it usually takes several days. I'm almost postive.

My point was, that if the cop hadn't been carrying the gun, he would have most likely got his ass kicked and materials stolen from him. The presence of the gun most likely saved his life from the assaulters.

Banning guns will not reduce crime, all it will do is make criminals find other ingenous ways of getting the job done.

I thought the right to bear arms was as part of a well regulated miltia for the security of the state... the modern equivalent being police and national guard.

I assume well regulated means that they have a recognisable uniform?

Or is that a requirement for regulars?

Mixing the regulated vs regulars here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I thought the right to bear arms was as part of a well regulated miltia for the security of the state... the modern equivalent being police and national guard.

---

With all due respect, that's an absurd interpretation. Why on earth would the government need to spell out, in the Bill of Rights the obvious fact that the government has the ability to arm it's military and police? Further, the Bill of Rights deals almost exclusively with protecting individual rights- the notion that this wasn't the idea behind the 2nd seems like an attempt at clever revisionism.

Well doesn't the bill of rights state that they have to be members of a well regulated militia that is for the security of the state... its modern equivalent being police and/or national guard.

BTW not all the worlds police are armed... the job police do is what the military/militia used to do.

I'll give you that if anyone is stupid enough regardless of colour, creed or occupation to go up against 6 drunken pieces of scum deserves a Darwin Award :laugh4:

Banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but it does make it less deadly as there is not the arms race going along I'd rather be knocked out by a criminal than shot

Call me a pedant, but can an amendment be part of the founding of the country? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Well doesn't the bill of rights state that they have to be members of a well regulated militia that is for the security of the state... its modern equivalent being police and/or national guard.

BTW not all the worlds police are armed... the job police do is what the military/militia used to do.

---

The US had police before the Bill of Rights was passed.

The 2nd Amendment does say that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state and it also says the right of the people(not the government) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, it doesnt pass the smell test to argue that there intention was to protect the rights of the government. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit government power.

Quote:

---

Call me a pedant, but can an amendment be part of the founding of the country? :inquisitive:

---

The ratification of the Constitution was dependant on the addition of a Bill of Rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I'll give you that if anyone is stupid enough regardless of colour, creed or occupation to go up against 6 drunken pieces of scum deserves a Darwin Award :laugh4:

Banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but it does make it less deadly as there is not the arms race going along I'd rather be knocked out by a criminal than shot

Call me a pedant, but can an amendment be part of the founding of the country? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

---

He had two options:defend himself or surrender. Due to the fact that he had superior firepower, He chose to defend himself.

It doesn't make it any less deadly. If a criminal wants a gun, he will still get one or find an alternative method of killing.