Cops and abuse

The BBQ Pit
1

I just saw on TV that a man who was convicted of domestic violence had 30 some guns.

It has nothing to do with my question but it seems he held off police at gunpoint. Thats how they found the guns.

It is a federal law that he cannot own guns because of his domestic abuse conviction. That I can understand only if he used one in his abuse.

I’m sure someone will take exception to that statement. And I welcome that.

My question is more of a if he does why don’t they.

If police use violence in arresting someone they don’t lose their right to own guns.

This is a armed trained person that gets rough with a most of the time unarmed person. Sure sometimes they put up a struggle. And I see why and agree with them getting rough in those situations.

I sometimes watch Cops on TV. It really pises me off at the way they handle most of the arrestees. Usually they are thrown to the ground and very roughly handcuffed.Sometimes they are then roughly pulled ,pushed ,shoved or thrown into the cop car.And they were in handcuffs.

I also understand the adrenaline rush they go through. So much more of a reason to be held responsible.

So why shouldn’t they lose their gun rights if they are charged and convicted of abuse?

2

This sounds like a topic begging to be a “Great Debate” but will leave it here for now…

3

OK Jill
Welcome back

4

A good question 'Wannano.

The quick-and-easy answer is, they were doing it- whatever it was- in the line of duty.

Yes, police officers do occasionally step over the line (Rampart, Diallo) in which case they are typically charged similiarly to what a “civillian” would be charged with under the same circumstances.

Like it or not, however, there’s a big difference between “us” and “them”.

Put it this way- if I shot some guy 41 times because I thought he was reaching for a gun, do you think I’d be sitting here typing this right now?

But the three officers who shot a guy 41 times for reaching for his wallet are still walking the streets as free men right now, and may indeed still be active, paid police officers.

Now doesn’t THAT make you think.

That having been said, I too have watched the occasional episode of COPS. And yes, one can see cases where “suspects” are treated roughly. More often, I see the officers handling the individual with, well, let’s say more care than I’d have bothered with. :smiley:

Let’s face it, we don’t want the action of being arrested to be a walk in the park for some of these guys, okay? Here, let me get you a comfy chair. Would you like some snacks while we wait for the limousine to arrive to take you to our four-star precinct/casino?

Okay, that’s a little facetious. :smiley:

I’d say I’d draw the line at actively sluggung the perp, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to make him happy and comfortable. Especially if I’d just chased him through three neighborhoods and watched him crash his stolen car into a streetlight.

5

If the officer is convicted of a felony for excessive violence, he will lose his right to own a gun.

6

My husband loves COPS, so I frequently see portions of it. One thing that I’ve noticed is that they show a lot of chase scenes. (I also notice that the cops ALWAYS catch the suspect.) Now, chase scenes are great in movies, but I imagine that the cop involved does NOT enjoy this as part of his job. I, too, marvel at their self-restraint, though quite possibly realizing that a camera is catching every move they make gives them incentive to hold back. Remember, the cop has no idea as to whether his suspect will just give up quietly when he’s finally captured, or if the suspect will try to go out in a blaze of glory, or something in between. The cop also doesn’t know if the suspect is high on something which will make him (the suspect) irrational and unpredictable.

To get back to the OP, if a cop is involved in domestic violence, he does lose his right to carry a gun. At least, he does here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I’m not sure if he’s put on desk duty or fired, but I do remember reading a couple of cases in the local paper where a cop found himself in this situation. And if a cop uses excessive force, he’ll be disciplined or fired.

It’s a tough job, and I’m grateful that OTHER people are willing to do it.

7

Just remember, the police are the “good guys”. They are on our side.

Their job is to catch the “bad guys”. This is their goal, to achieve the goal, they must often use physical force. Physical force is used to communicate to the suspect that the police are in control of the situation.

On the downside, as with all forms of communication, humans don’t always get it exactly right. Police sometimes don’t get it exactly right, and thankfully, there are systems in place to deal with problems. Yes, the systems may be imperfect, but they are there and they do work.

Please try to put yourself in their shoes, if it were your immediate goal to catch and control a person in an unpredictable situation, how much physical force would you use?

8

Thanks for the replys

The point I was trying,probably badly,to make is that the home abuser does not have to even have a gun to lose his right to own one.
The police have weapons on their person.
I guess I really don’t know what is considered spousal abuse.
The bruise from a hand that grabbed a wrist?
A black eye?
Broken bone?
Worse?
or does there have to be a pattern?

9

[hijack]
This reminds me of a case I read about some time ago. A man who was accused of domestic abuse challenged the legality of a law forbidding him to own or carry weapons. This was supposedly a case that bode to end up in the US Supreme Court, to decide whether or not the Second Amendment gave any private individual the right to own weapons. I haven’t heard anything new about it. Anyone?
[/hijack]

10

Actually, that isn’t true. Even if no weapon is used in the abuse, federal law takes away that person’s right to possess firearms (just as it does for any felony conviction)

The right to own guns isn’t taken away for any act of violence: only felonies and domestic violence convictions. Since what you are discussing is neither, the officers don’t lose that right.

And don’t think that cops were exempted from these laws. When the law was passed which took away gun rights for domestic violence convictions, many cops across the nation either lost their jobs, were reassigned to jobs that don’t require being armed, or had to go to court to get their rights restored (which any other person can do as well).

11

What may constitute spousal abuse or domestic violence varies from state to state. In Washington State, something as little as a light push can get you convicted of domestic violence.

12

Badge
Quote

Even if no weapon is used in the abuse, federal law takes away that person’s right to possess firearms (just as it does for any felony conviction)

And

What may constitute spousal abuse or domestic violence varies from state to state. In Washington State, something as little as a light push can get you convicted of domestic violence.

Looks like someone forgot to level the playing floor

Quote lynn

My husband loves COPS, so I frequently see portions of it. One thing that I’ve noticed is that they show a lot of chase scenes. (I also notice that the cops ALWAYS catch the suspect.) Now, chase scenes are great in movies, but I imagine that the cop involved does NOT enjoy this as part of his job. I, too, marvel at their self-restraint, though quite possibly realizing that a camera is catching every move they make gives them incentive to hold back

My wife is taking a criminal justice course at the local jc.
Interestingly her instructor said that if you don’t want to get beat up you’d be better off jumping out of the car and running.
It seems that the adrenilin rush from the car chase causes a lot of cops to exert (ahem) a lot more force than is necessary. If they run they work off some of that adrenalin

13

<small hijack>

Usually, but not always. There was one on just the other night where the police failed to catch a fleeing suspect. He ran into a housing development and disappeared. The officers tried to surround the development (it was one of those collections of big featureless apartment boxes), but they were ultimately unable to apprehend the runner. They had a clip afterwards where the cops were discussing and rationalizing this: “We’ve got his friend [caught at the very beginning of the chase], we’ll get what we need out of him,” or something to that effect. So yes, usually, but not always.

</hijack>

14

Of course, if you pull over immediately so that there is no chase, you might not encounter a cop with high levels of adrenaline to begin with.

15

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the crime of domestic violence being defined differently from state to state is unfair, or that losing the right to gun ownership should be dependent on the type of felony a person is convicted of?

To my mind, a person that can’t keep himself from hitting a spouse or child (in even the slightest way) when he knows that act constitutes a felony is a perfect example of someone who shouldn’t be trusted to carry a deadly weapon without using it in some improper (and possibly lethal) way. I’m sure you’re aware that a lot of illegal gun deaths are caused by someone who picks the thing up without thinking. I prefer that those who have proved to the world that they act without thought not have a gun within reach the next time their cerebrum shuts off.

Now, I suppose this will go to GD. Sorry about that.

16

Saltire

My point is if the law understands adrenilin rush in cops and doesn’t punish it then takes a mans gun away when in the heat of a domestic battle he does little more than ,as badge wrote, gives a little push there is something awry.

17

Remember, as icarus said, the cops are on duty and doing their jobs. Yes, it is unfortunate when excessive force enters in, but too many cops have been blown away just stopping someone for a minor violation. It happened here in my small town with the officer’s first child two months away from being born. Consider too that the officers DO have some training in restraint.

So what ‘restraint’ do abusers have? What ‘duty’ or ‘job’ are they performing when they start abusing? The women that stay in abusive relationships often do so because the abuser usually convinces them that it’s their own fault. With power comes more power, until…? At least with cops, the job is over after the arrest, to some extent. When is the abuser’s ‘job’ over? At what point will he stop?

IMHO, I would feel much safer if they did not have access to a gun.

18

justwannano, you seem to think that cops are immune from a felony charge. I agree with you (and most here probably do as well) that cops should be charged and punished if they commit a felony. However, you need to give some thought to what a felony is.

If a police officer uses force equivalent to 4th degree assault, it is often handled within the department, using their own disciplinary procedures. Some may agree with that and others may not. But 4th degree assault is not a felony.

In many jurisdictions (such as Washington state, where Badge and I live), domestic violence is considered a felony. Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t.

But still, you can’t confuse a legal felony (domestic violence) with a legal misdemenor (4th degree assault). You can’t expect the law to treat them the same.

One of the penalties for committing a felony is the loss of the right to own a gun. Anyone, cop or otherwise, that is convicted of a felony bears that penalty. No one, cop or otherwise, that is convicted of a misdemenor needs worry about it.

19

No I don’t think they are immune.
I wouldn’t want to be a cop today. But I do understand what it is like to stand in front of an out of control female and have to listen to her scream every concievable insult at you and nearly,it would have taken just one more word,strike her.My fist was doubled up when she realised she had gone too far.
There was no thought of escalating the arguement on my part and the thought of losing my gun rights,well that would have been wrong. I was nearly out of control but not so much that I would have used a gun.

Very very different from what a cop does. We expect them to be in control at all times. That is their job. I can understand the adrenalin thing but they should be able to control that too. It is their job.

This is probably a good time to point out that car chases are not a good thing. You have the criminal,probably in fright flight mode and a cop with a high adrenalin rush.Who is protecting the public now.

20

OK, let’s review the history of this thread. The OP starts off with a rant against cops and gun laws. Other posters try valiently to steer the question more towards GQ, or at least, GD. OP returns several times, and continues to rant. Sorry, guys, but I have to move this. Catch, Lynn!