"It would have been pretty difficult to prosecute the entire shoe wearing population of the United States for constructive possession of a machine gun. :lol:"

Exactly what I was thinking before I got to that part of the page.

ps, Cool. I was wondering about a simple way to get my Ruger to repeat-fire (in case I needed to).
(Print Screen)

 

The painted tips are done locally on the imported toys.

That was specifically WHY they were not in compliance. The tips should be "Blaze Orange" BEFORE they enter any level of commerce in the US, Before they are transported in the US, before they are purchased...

The intent of the law is that the manufacturer of the gun applies the "blaze orange" tip or that the tip is correct before it is imported.

Normally a "free Trade Zone" is not considered to be within US commerce (pre-customs). I assume the importer must have found a facility within a Free Trade Zone where they could be treated.

 

@nsaspook I suppose the moronic actions of the DEA agent, seizing toy weapons, could have been influenced by political pressure from above. We both know how the critters can influence superiors, as merit based promotions end at some level when you must be "approved" by the Senate.

@GopherT who is to say the child or someone else didn't remove the Orange Tip? I don't know of many adults or children who read the U.S. Code or Code of Federal Regulations. Those that are aware of such rules and regulations are those whose job is dependent on knowing them.

 

That wasn't "unimaginable", his training kicked in. "Aim to kill and keep shooting until the threat (of survival) is neutralized."

Maybe the lady was in "black face" theatrical makeup.

 

@nsaspook I suppose the moronic actions of the DEA agent, seizing toy weapons, could have been influenced by political pressure from above. We both know how the critters can influence superiors, as merit based promotions end at some level when you must be "approved" by the Senate.

@GopherT who is to say the child or someone else didn't remove the Orange Tip? I don't know of many adults or children who read the U.S. Code or Code of Federal Regulations. Those that are aware of such rules and regulations are those whose job is dependent on knowing them.

You didn't read the story? They were confiscated by the ATF, not the DEA and they were taken before any consumer purchased them, not from some kid.

So to answer your "who is to say..." question, everyone involved with the event will claim a kid didn't take it off.

 

Normally a "free Trade Zone" is not considered to be within US commerce (pre-customs). I assume the importer must have found a facility within a Free Trade Zone where they could be treated.

I agree and IRT the conversion of toys to weapons of war maybe now people might understand why the gun nuts don't want to grant the ATF more power. They have a history of moronic statements in gun related decisions and lies to decision makers.

 

They have a history of moronic statements ...

That's pretty much the definition of "bureaucrat", someone that has the freedom to be a moron on the job. The rest of us get bounced out.

 

The cop didn't know the gun had a live round. So she shot a second time!/

I thought the cop was a he, and where did you learn he shot twice? (Not starting an argument, just wondering.)

Lots of wrongdoing here, and none of it by the victim. Cop should be charged with negligent manslaughter and should do time.

ETA: It just occurred to me that if I had been in the lady's role in the training, I would have insisted on seeing the revolver with the cylinder open and the chambers empty. Of course, she couldn't have been expected to know that. I have been handling guns for so many years that I don't let anyone point a real gun at me for any reason...and I don't really like to have a toy gun aimed my way (even though I did do that as a kid.)

 

It's part of their training to neutralize the threat. As long as a threat exists, their ROE escalates until the threat is subdued.

Now, in this instance with the woman being shot, it was negligence. If their training showed the officer was trained to ensure there were no live rounds in their weapon while in training and they failed to do so, the officer was negligent. The city and PD did their part, and the officer needs to be terminated and charged. However, the LEO's pockets are not as deep as the City's, so the city is named in the suit.

You can bet the training protocol will now have the instructors to inspect each officers weapon, clips, and surrounding area is clear of live ammo prior to them loading the simulated ammo. Every Police Officer's word is tarnished by the idiotic actions of the few.

 

I thought the cop was a he, and where did you learn he shot twice? (Not starting an argument, just wondering.)

Lots of wrongdoing here, and none of it by the victim. Cop should be charged with negligent manslaughter and should do time.

ETA: It just occurred to me that if I had been in the lady's role in the training, I would have insisted on seeing the revolver with the cylinder open and the chambers empty. Of course, she couldn't have been expected to know that. I have been handling guns for so many years that I don't let anyone point a real gun at me for any reason...and I don't really like to have a toy gun aimed my way (even though I did do that as a kid.)

As I understand it, the woman was playing the cop (with the intent of teaching the difficulty of the role (shoot/no shoot)), the cop was playing the criminal. As the criminal, there was no reason for the cop (him) to pull a trigger in this simulation.

It turns out that the cop was pushed out of a previous position at Miramar, FL for not completing (Failing?) a field training course.

He was also investigated for several reasons - published elsewhere.

I wonder if this guy is just pushing the limit to see how much damage he can inflict on a community without getting punished. He may not be stupid, just pathological.

 

He may not be stupid, just pathological.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

 

Those are not mutually exclusive.

Agree. I was just saying that all of the talk of being stupid may (possibly) discount one scenario.

 

The scales could swing too far in the opposite direction as well. A good officer, acting in good faith, could become a victim of injustice.

The officers will say as long as they are within the department guidelines, the officer acted in good faith. It is incumbent on the department to have the proper guidelines. Common sense may or may not come into play. After all, if the department uses the guidelines from that testing service, as the city of New London CT did, the discriminating factors changes and the most educated are cast aside.

 

Opinions.

 

Does the training manual have to say, "Don't kill little old ladys in a training scenario." before the LEO is expected to know that?
Seems like a pretty low standard to expect from a highly trained professional with years of experience who makes, "split second decisions" about killing people.

 

I thought the cop was a he, and where did you learn he shot twice?

Conflicting reports:
When the officer fired, live ammunition hit Knowlton — several times.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-accidentally-kill-librarian/

The gun the officer used mistakenly had a live round in it, Lewis said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/us/punta-gorda-police-academy-fatal-shooting/

 

Here are a couple more training manual deficits from today's news.

Training manual did not say, "Don't sodomize people in public for a broken headlight."
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/taillight-strip-search-innocent-woman/

Training manual did not say, "Don't rape 6 year old girls."
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/deputy-year-charged-raping-three-girls/

For some unknown reason I expect LEOs to know these things. What am I missing?
Do I need to adjust my beliefs?

What I'm saying here is that, "It wasn't in the training manual." isn't a legal defense. As any cop will tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse (if you're not a police officer).

 

What I'm saying here is that, "It wasn't in the training manual." isn't a legal defense. As any cop will tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse (if you're not a police officer).

Ok. But maybe he was just following orders?

 

Ok. But maybe he was just following orders?

I'm sure the chief said, "we have a war on retired librarians. They keep invading us from the Midwest and we're going to discourage all future librarians from coming to florida by asking officer Coel to show them what we do to outsider librarians."

Oh, by the way, the defense of "superior's orders" is not a defense for war crimes, why do you expect it to apply to Mr Coel?

 

Oh, by the way, the defense of "superior's orders" is not a defense for war crimes, why do you expect it to apply to Mr Coel?

Sarcasm, dude.