"as long as an individual is in possession of a gun, he poses an imminent threat"

[IronSight]

Since this is an opinion piece I didn't list it under "News".

Considering the recent shooting in Philadelphia that's raising eyebrows and the pretty good chance at this point the shooting wasn't justified (I'm still reserving final judgement, however), I found it in shockingly bad taste for Philly.com to post this opinion piece right next to the recent articles.

This is the recent shooting I'm referring to, for those of you who haven't seen it yet.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...cmpid=94910784

And here's the opinion piece:

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion...unt=3#comments

Philadelphia police officer gives his view of a shooting

By JONATHAN D. JOSEY II
ITHINK the article "North Philly Neighbors Angry after Police Shot Man" cries out for a response.

The Daily News has managed once again to ferret out individuals who claim to have witnessed an officer-involved shooting. It's become commonplace that, after every shooting in which a suspect is killed or injured, witnesses come out of the woodwork in defense of the individual shot by police.

These witnesses always seem to possess the superpowers to see around corners, through walls and over cars and say, with exacting specificity, what occurred and what was said.

But where are these upstanding witnesses when all of the other murders, shootings and robberies occur in this city?

Answer: Nowhere to be found.

Why? Because in their minds there's nothing to be gained by being a good witness in these incidents. But when the police shoot someone, people see dollars signs and hope to get a little something in their coffers for being a great witness when the bad guys sue the city.

In the latest incident of an officer-involved shooting, the one that occurred on April 14, Philadelphia Highway Patrol officers were working in an area that is a grittier part of the city.

One of the officers engaged a male later identified as Kwende Williams in a foot pursuit, and, during this pursuit, Williams escalated the situation by producing a Smith & Wesson .38-caliber revolver.

Therein lies the problem - what was Williams doing with a firearm on the streets of our great city?

After Williams fled from police and at some point produced the gun, the pursuing officer exercised his right - and duty - to use deadly force due to the threat presented. Some people think an individual running from police with a firearm isn't a threat. But as long as an individual is in possession of a gun, he poses an imminent threat, not only to police, but to any innocent party who happens to be in his path.

One witness alleged that the pursuing officer said: "Throw the gun down or I'm gonna shoot your a- up."

Well, at least he was afforded that courtesy. Officers don't have to give warnings before firing their weapons when there is an imminent threat. Please stop watching "CSI: Miami" and judging what REAL officers have to do against what the TV cops do.

Another upstanding witness stated, "After he threw the gun, the cops shot him three times in the back. Never once did he turn around and look." I see that her superpowers kicked in and she saw and heard what happened with exacting specificity: "The cops were behind him. I knew he was wrong for carrying a gun, but he never pointed the gun at the cops."

Police work is not a track and field event where police have to wait until the "gun" goes off to start.

Once again, an individual in possession of a firearm poses an imminent threat not only to police, but to anyone who happens to be in his path. An individual with a gun being pursued by police and doesn't IMMEDIATELY discard it must deal with the consequences of his actions.

It seems that people are more outraged by the actions of the officers than by the actions of Williams.

When communities complain about the actions of police operating within the scope of their duties, they are in essence condoning the behavior of the criminal element.

Police officers daily place themselves in the line of fire to ensure the safety of all citizens in this city. When Williams decided on that day to "pack heat," he knew what the possible repercussions would be if he were to be confronted by police. The question remains, "What was he carrying the handgun for anyway?"

There is no doubt in my mind that had Williams been approached by an adversary, he would not have hesitated to use that firearm.

Would the community have been angry with Williams if he'd shot someone? Would they have been as angry if Williams had shot the officer pursuing him?

This entire chain of events was set in motion by Williams. He now lies in a hospital paralyzed from the waist down because of HIS own actions. I resent the implications that the officer involved is responsible for his using a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

I hope that when this case makes its way through our judicial system that Williams is given the maximum sentence, and while he is rolling around one of the many state correctional facilities in his wheelchair, he has enough time to contemplate the repercussions of his actions.

And I'm sure he'll have no problem finding a lawyer to represent him as he tries to sue the city or state because his cell may not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

May God bless the men and women in blue who go out every day and attempt to keep this great city safe.

Jonathan D. Josey II is a 17-year veteran of Philadelphia law enforcement.

Notice what I've emphasized above, apparently the problem isn't that Williams choose to threatens officers with a firearm, no. According to our veteran Philadelphia cop here it was the mere fact that he had a firearm in the first place that was an issue.

Frankly, I haven't looked into the other details of the incident referenced, but those details are tangential to the point that I'm highlighting. That point is the prevalent attitude that it is the gun itself that is highlighted as the issue, not the threats made with it or the criminal misconduct.

What Jonathan Josey forgets is that it's the recidivist criminals that threaten police with firearms, not regular citizens, that the ownership and carrying of a gun in and of itself is NOT a threat to others, and that it's not simply officer-involved shootings that get scrutiny from the public. Just ask Gerald Ung and others who've had to shoot in self-defense if their actions went unscrutinized and if they received the benefit of the doubt in their actions.

I'm considering writing a full response piece to this, but I need to research the specific shooting he's referencing more first. Just thought I would post this here for others to see, this is the mindset (both by cops and citizens) we face off against in Philadelphia.

[God's Country]

Lately I've been considering pulling up stakes and just moving the hell out of Pa. It's just a matter of time before this mindset metastasizes throughout the state. In 15 or 20 years I don’t think I’ll recognize Pa anymore.

[camper]

If that is the attitude of a 17 year veteran of the force--that the police are always right--then it's well beyond the time to tighten the leash of the dog who has no issue with biting the hands of its master if it gets close enough to do so.

It's almost as if they think they have this on their car:



Instead of this:



It's getting to be very difficult to support the police when attitudes like this officer sound to be getting more commonplace.

camper

[acosenza2]

What a jackwagon. When he says that "an individual in possession of a gun is an imminent threat", he means anyone that is not a police officer. However, with the PPD's track record, we know that when an officer is in possession of a gun, the public is in danger, especially the gun carrying public.

[Adam-12]

Almost every line of the editorial is insulting BS. Witnesses are hoping someone will pay them? Police have a dangerous job? Bah.

Police work is more dangerous then accounting, sure--but it's less dangerous than logging, commercial fishing, cab driving, trash collecting, farming and truck driving. It's only twice as dangerous as the national average for all jobs, and the national average is "not very." Playing up the danger is just another form of propaganda to keep the sheeple terrified: it sends the message that cops are risking their lives "to protect us"; and it suggests that without cops "protecting us," we'd all be slaughtered by the Mad Max hordes out there. It's pure bullshit.

[streaker69]

Almost every line of the editorial is insulting BS. Witnesses are hoping someone will pay them? Police have a dangerous job? Bah.

Police work is more dangerous then accounting, sure--but it's less dangerous than logging, commercial fishing, cab driving, trash collecting, farming and truck driving. It's only twice as dangerous as the national average for all jobs, and the national average is "not very." Playing up the danger is just another form of propaganda to keep the sheeple terrified: it sends the message that cops are risking their lives "to protect us"; and it suggests that without cops "protecting us," we'd all be slaughtered by the Mad Max hordes out there. It's pure bullshit.

...and if you recall, there was a former cop amongst the Road Warrior hordes.

[anonymouse]

Here's the original article:

http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-1...hot-claim-cops

[IronSight]

Here's the original article:

http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-1...hot-claim-cops

Wow.

I can't find any other history on Williams, and just as I wonder about his record I also wonder if the officers involved have a history of filed complaints against them, or if their "records" in that regard were clean.

There's absolutely no way to judge what really happened with just that article alone, not at all.

[Kodiak]

This cop is a complete d'bag.

17 years on the force and I bet he cant hit the broadside of a barn with a handful of sand.

Oh look what I found....apparently Jonathan D. Josey II has written letters before:

Here's a letter to the editor of THE PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS which appears to be from a fellow officer:

FOR THE fourth time in 10 months, another one of my brothers and sisters in blue has been taken away from us at the hands of some maniacal deviant who had been allowed to skate through the judicial portion of our so-called criminal-justice system. As law-enforcement officers, we are held accountable for every thing that we do, from issuing a traffic ticket to arresting someone for murder.

But who is going to hold the judges accountable for allowing these "monsters" back on the street?
The monster who shot Sgt. Liczbinski had an extensive record, the monster who killed Officer Nazario was well on his way to a life of gangsterdom, the monster who shot and killed Officer Pat McDonald had a history of violence.

I ask, Philadelphia, when does it stop?
As police officers, Internal Affairs monitors our behavior to ensure we are operating within the letter of the law. Who is monitoring the judges?
There are statistics accumulated on every arrest, every vehicle and pedestrian investigation, every accusation of brutality.

Who is collecting and monitoring the stats on how many defendants are given a slap on the wrist when we all know they should be serving hard time breaking rocks and making license plates? What agency monitors a judge's conviction rate and sentencing lapses? After 15 years of battling on these mean streets and seeing far too many of my brothers and sisters in blue fall at the hands of these menaces, it's time for the citizens of Philadelphia to get fed up. The average citizen must ponder the thought that "My God, if they'll kill a cop, what would they do to little ol' me?"

But had Officer McDonald gotten the upper hand on Mr. Giddings, there would have been an uproar throughout North Philadelphia. There would be makeshift memorials to celebrate and commemorate the life of an animal.
Have we become so desensitized that the life of a piece of garbage is worth more than the lives of the 6,800 men and women of the Philadelphia Police Department who go out there every day and selflessly protect individuals whom they will probably never know?

Philadelphia, we should be outraged that our streets are running red with the blood of the heroes who protect you and me. If you're not outraged, you should be. Hold these judges accountable for putting these animals back on the street to re-offend. Your loved one could be their next victim.
Godspeed, P/O Nazario, P/O McDonald, Sgt. Liczbinski, P/O Cassidy, P/O Skerski and all the other fallen officers in this city.
Jonathan D. Josey II, Philadelphia

Link

[Evil One]

Maybe it should be read in the context of what was written.
As in... the text surrounding it.

Once again, an individual in possession of a firearm poses an imminent threat not only to police, but to anyone who happens to be in his path. An individual with a gun being pursued by police and doesn't IMMEDIATELY discard it must deal with the consequences of his actions.

Do you disagree that a person who is fleeing the police with a gun in their hand is a threat?
If this was made as a blanket statement that all people with guns were a threat, then I would agree that he was wrong.
However, if I am an officer persuing a suspect... and he pulls out a gun, there is a VERY good chance he will be perforated if he doesnt drop it.


Jim