What police are being forced to do now is SICK
This is what we’ve come to.
With all the politically-correct activism against supposedly rampant police brutality against citizens, where every action law enforcement takes under stress when every second counts is under scrutiny, we now have the most ludicrous and dangerous recommendation from an activist police commission as to what police should do when confronting someone armed.
And tragically, this is not a joke.
From the official blog of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, If a police officer is confronted by a suspect with a weapon, those entrusted to set policies for the Police Department believe officers should run away.
That’s the recent finding from the Los Angeles Police Commission which has turned Monday morning quarterbacking into a weekly agenda item at the three-ring circus they preside over every Tuesday morning. In the Commission’s most recent decision on an officer-involved shooting, in which a suspect charged at two officers swinging an 8 to 9-inch knife, they faulted the officer for not “redeploying” to “create distance.” In plain English: the officer didn’t run away.
The key facts in this case are not in dispute. A female suspect, armed with an 8 to 9-inch knife, charged at officers, repeatedly ignored commands to stop, and was recorded yelling “shoot me” as she swung her knife from side to side.
The armed suspect quickly closed the gap between her knife and the police officers from 70 feet to less than 5 feet in under 10 seconds. That is when the first officer discharged his service weapon. The second officer involved had only three seconds to respond to the imminent threat. Even the Commission stated that “It was reasonable for Officer C to believe, in the moment when the use of force occurred, that the subject would imminently assault him with the knife.”
So where’s the beef?
The officers didn’t run away.
Suspect charging from the front. Vehicles on either side. Where do you “redeploy?” Run backwards. This is absurd and it’s dangerous. What happens if the officer loses his footing with a charging suspect? What happens if the suspect runs into a nearby home or store and confronts its occupants with her weapon? What if the suspect also had a concealed gun?
What is created when an officer turns tail and runs away is a large target. It’s called a back. The officer would put their lives in further jeopardy by running away if the suspect had a gun. At this close range, running away would create a self-caused danger to the officers and the public.
It sure must be easy to talk about “redeploying” an officer’s position while sipping a Diet Coke or bottled water while sitting in a police-guarded, air-conditioned room, in a cushy office chair, watching the events unfold in slow motion on a big-screen TV.
The message the Los Angeles Police Commission is sending to officers confronted with a violent and dangerous suspect is clear: You can save your life or save your job, but you cannot do both.
Liberalism is neutering our law enforcement. It has already neutered our military – literally and figuratively, as transgender troops are welcomed and Rules of Engagement are made so stringent, warriors like Clint Lorance end up in jail for actually killing the enemy.
The inmates are running the asylum and already criminals are owning the streets. Not surprisingly, police recruitment is struggling and morale is plummeting. In Chicago for example, police stops are down by 90 percent as violent crime skyrockets.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160331/bronzeville/chicago-police-stops-down-by-90-percent-as-gun-violence-skyrockets So far this year, 3,182 people have been shot in the Windy City, 494 fatally. Only eight of those killed were officer-involved shootings. That’s just 1.6 percent – hardly an epidemic, but you’d never know that from reading the liberal media.
Nobody volunteers to become a police officer if the job description includes “sitting duck,” “target” and “impotent.”
No wonder gun sales to private citizens are skyrocketing across the nation. Who’s going to protect us if the people who are supposed to are told they cannot?
This is absolutely insane.[Note: This article was written by Michele Hickford]