Detroit Cop Suspended for Pointing His Gun

http://detnews.com/article/20111203/METRO01/112030344/-1/rss29">The Detroit News reports on the off-duty cop who resorted to using his gun during a fight at a party.



Maybe the so-called victim was really the offender and if not for Officer Fox's timely intervention, people would have been hurt. I know that's what the gun-rights folks will say, they always find a way to excuse the actions of the gun owner, as long as he's a lawful and legitimate gun owner like a cop obvioulsy is.

I don't buy it. I think gun owners need to be held to a high standard and part of that is they need to be held accountable for their actions. Suspended and facing serious felony charges sounds about right in this case.

One thing this story proves is the futility of carrying a concealed weapon. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/07/big-dgu-question.html">The likelihood that you'll need it to save your life is minimal. But, if an argument or fight erupts, how are you going to not use your gun. How are you not going to do what Officer Fox did? http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/12/likelihood-of-lethal-threat.html">The perceptive and circumspect gun owner will quickly see lethal threat in any confrontation. He'd be obligated to act with force himself.

It's a loser for everybody.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Officer Fox had the only gun. It wasn't concealed. Nobody else seemed to have had one. Based on the investigation, one can probably reasonably assume the victim presented no reasonable threat.

With a reasonable apprehension of a design, etc. If you have one, you can indeed use a firearm to protect yourself. That condition does not appear to have been met in this case.

That's the bar. There is no other. Quit making up shit.

Many cops are not gun owners. The gun is often the property of police department. Just like the M-16 I have carried at times was not mine, it was property of US Air Force (or US Army, depending on the year).
The internal affairs investigation will find what it finds, could be different than the news report says, and different whatever speculation you come up with.

We can guess that the officer reported the guy he pointed the gun at as committing a felony, and this claim being rejected by the investigators - this explains the "false report of a felony" charge. This could be real - the guy making stuff up to justify overreacting and pulling a gun - or it could be that no one wanted to testify and it's the cop's word against everyone else, or something in between, or something else.

I do wonder what he would have done if he hadn't had the gun, and why.

I would think -- justifiably so. fucking idiot.

Simple, you just walk away even if it makes you look like a coward.

If an individual is not threatening you in a manner that would lead to you being seriously injured or killed, lethal force is not appropriate. I don't view someone arguing with me as a serious threat. He might turn into one if I continue the argument. Since I have no desire to shoot anyone, I just stop the argument and leave the scene.

I was far more likely to get into a fight before I started carrying a legal concealed weapon. Now I am a far more polite individual. Obviously I didn't get into fights before I got my permit or it would have been denied. But before I got the permit, I wouldn't have backed down as easily if confronted.

From your posts you seem to have a lot of misconceptions about those who legally carry concealed. Since you now live in Italy, you probably form your opinions from Hollywood movies and TV shows. Often people who live in areas where concealed carry is uncommon such as Chicago or New York City have the same false views. Those who have carry permits are rarely aggressive or violent individuals. The background check to obtain a permit eliminates such people.

all gun owners are criminals and firearms are useless for defense.

You really need to work on that one....