BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A jury at a coroner's inquest determined Wednesday that a Montana police officer was justified in shooting and killing an unarmed man high on methamphetamine during a traffic stop.
The ruling came after Billings Police Officer Grant Morrison testified he feared for his life when he fired the three shots that killed 38-year-old Richard Ramirez.
The five-year police veteran said he became convinced that Ramirez had a gun after the man reached for his waistband during their 30-second encounter last April in a high-crime area of Montana's most populous city.
"I knew in that moment, which later was determined to be untrue, but I knew in that moment that he was reaching for a gun," Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."
The seven-person jury deliberated about an hour before delivering its decision.
Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said he does not expect to file any charges given the jury's decision.
Coroner's inquests are mandatory under Montana law whenever someone is killed by law enforcement or dies in custody.
The inquest was held as police killings of unarmed suspects in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City have heightened scrutiny of law enforcement nationwide.
Ramirez family members said they were disappointed by the ruling and intend to file a lawsuit against Morrison and the Billings Police Department alleging excessive use of force, said Julie Ramirez, a sister of Richard Ramirez.
Billings Police Chief Rich St. John said it was the fifth officer-involved shooting in his eight years as head of the department. Each shooting was ruled to be justified, he said.
"That tells us we're doing the right thing in the right way," St. John said.
Police video showed Morrison repeatedly ordered Ramirez and other occupants of the vehicle to raise their hands. Ramirez's actions were largely obscured in the video. But Morrison said Ramirez dropped his left hand to his side — out of the officer's view — and "started to jiggle it up and down" just before he was shot.
Morrison shot and killed another man in 2013. He was cleared of any wrongdoing in that case.
Ramirez's family wanted criminal charges against the officer and said Ramirez was a victim of racial profiling.
Another sister, Renee Ramirez, criticized the inquest as one-sided. She said testimony that her brother was a drug user was irrelevant.
All but three of the 15 people called to testify during the two-day inquest were from law enforcement. Several police officers spoke at length about their prior dealings with Ramirez and others in his family.
"I don't care what things my brother did in the past," Renee Ramirez said. "What does that have to do with shooting my brother?"
Billings Police Detective Brad Tucker, who investigated the case, testified Tuesday that Ramirez might have been trying to stash something when he was shot. A small amount of methamphetamine and a syringe were later found near Ramirez's seat.
An autopsy determined Ramirez had enough methamphetamine in his bloodstream at the time of the shooting to kill a person not accustomed to the drug, forensic pathologist Tom Bennett testified.
Twito defended the proceedings as a fair presentation of the facts.
"The videos speak for themselves," he said.
Morrison was placed on paid administrative leave immediately after the shooting and has since been assigned to a task force investigating prescription drug crimes, St. John said.
A bit creepy that the victim has the same name as the LA Nightstalker.
" Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."
Ergh! If that's the way he feels then perhaps he should consider a different occupation, before he kills more people. I personally don't think the whole "He 'might' have had a weapon" is good enough. There are far too many stories of police "jumping the gun" as it were. I think police who shoot unarmed people should go to jail. Saying "I thought he had a weapon" is about as compelling as "Oh, I thought weed was legal?" -- You thought wrong.
Yes it's dangerous and scary to show restraint, but if someone isn't able to to do that, and prefers to err on the side of 'shooting unarmed civilians', then perhaps that person shouldn't be a police officer.
" Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."
Ergh! If that's the way he feels then perhaps he should consider a different occupation, before he kills more people. I personally don't think the whole "He 'might' have had a weapon" is good enough. There are far too many stories of police "jumping the gun" as it were. I think police who shoot unarmed people should go to jail. Saying "I thought he had a weapon" is about as compelling as "Oh, I thought weed was legal?" -- You thought wrong.
Yes it's dangerous and scary to show restraint, but if someone isn't able to to do that, and prefers to err on the side of 'shooting unarmed civilians', then perhaps that person shouldn't be a police officer.
" Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."
Ergh! If that's the way he feels then perhaps he should consider a different occupation, before he kills more people. I personally don't think the whole "He 'might' have had a weapon" is good enough. There are far too many stories of police "jumping the gun" as it were. I think police who shoot unarmed people should go to jail. Saying "I thought he had a weapon" is about as compelling as "Oh, I thought weed was legal?" -- You thought wrong.
Yes it's dangerous and scary to show restraint, but if someone isn't able to to do that, and prefers to err on the side of 'shooting unarmed civilians', then perhaps that person shouldn't be a police officer.
I suggest you watch this:
I really applaud his willingness to undergo that experience. I mean seriously, that was huge of him to do that.
djones520 wrote: I really applaud his willingness to undergo that experience. I mean seriously, that was huge of him to do that.
I guess it was, but there's stuff about even his behavior that bothered me. Maybe it's a cultural thing. But there seemed to be too much gun involved in all three scenarios.I would have thought someone who was against the use of unnecessary force would have tried a bit harder.
The first scenario seemed to be pretty much unwinnable. The last two scenarios are encountered by British police all the time, and they manage fine without guns.
djones520 wrote: I really applaud his willingness to undergo that experience. I mean seriously, that was huge of him to do that.
I guess it was, but there's stuff about even his behavior that bothered me. Maybe it's a cultural thing. But there seemed to be too much gun involved in all three scenarios.I would have thought someone who was against the use of unnecessary force would have tried a bit harder.
The first scenario seemed to be pretty much unwinnable. The last two scenarios are encountered by British police all the time, and they manage fine without guns.
Or maybe you should take from it that until you are in that position, you don't really know how you will react.
Maybe some take a Caucasian getting killed granted? Don't do Meth? Legalize Meth?
Train LEO to adhere to a ROE
Skirt the issue its a militarization training?
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you should take from it that until you are in that position, you don't really know how you will react.
I know that if I didn't have a gun then I certainly couldn't react by shooting. Which means I would have done just as well as the two guys in the video, if not better, since I wouldn't have been able to shoot the unarmed man in scenario two.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you should take from it that until you are in that position, you don't really know how you will react.
I know that if I didn't have a gun then I certainly couldn't react by shooting. Which means I would have done just as well as the two guys in the video, if not better, since I wouldn't have been able to shoot the unarmed man in scenario two.
I'll point out that you are looking at scenario two with that famous 20/20 hindsight to know the guy is unarmed. I'll also point out unarmed folks can do a lot of damage and (surprise) have even been known to kill folks.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you should take from it that until you are in that position, you don't really know how you will react.
I know that if I didn't have a gun then I certainly couldn't react by shooting. Which means I would have done just as well as the two guys in the video, if not better, since I wouldn't have been able to shoot the unarmed man in scenario two.
I'll point out that you are looking at scenario two with that famous 20/20 hindsight to know the guy is unarmed. I'll also point out unarmed folks can do a lot of damage and (surprise) have even been known to kill folks.
Dronze wrote: Unless that officer can verify, or at least have reasonable grounds to assume, that this individual was armed, why is he breaking leather?
Dronze wrote: Unless that officer can verify, or at least have reasonable grounds to assume, that this individual was armed, why is he breaking leather?
Because your line of thinking would just result in more dead police officers.
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you should take from it that until you are in that position, you don't really know how you will react.
I know that if I didn't have a gun then I certainly couldn't react by shooting. Which means I would have done just as well as the two guys in the video, if not better, since I wouldn't have been able to shoot the unarmed man in scenario two.
I'll point out that you are looking at scenario two with that famous 20/20 hindsight to know the guy is unarmed. I'll also point out unarmed folks can do a lot of damage and (surprise) have even been known to kill folks.
Don't bother. He'll continue to find excuses.
If by 'excuses' you mean holes in your argument then, yes, I will. As I have already pointed out UK police don't carry guns, and they probably encounter aggressive people all the time. The gun did nothing in scenario 2 except make the situation more dangerous for everyone involved. Police should really be in pairs, and deploying pepper spray or a batton would have been an appropriate amount of force in that scenario. The gun being drawn actually became a liability. Neither guy appeared to want to use it, but the situation was rapidly escalating into "use it or lose it".
Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?
(not all cops have a partner....)
Automatically Appended Next Post: A very good and relevant book:
It covers why truncheons/night stick use is frowned upon by many US LE agencies.
Dronze wrote: Unless that officer can verify, or at least have reasonable grounds to assume, that this individual was armed, why is he breaking leather?
Because your line of thinking would just result in more dead police officers.
and notably fewer civilian deaths. Let's face it, cops aren't long on being granted trust, and rightly so, given the long list of abuses of power that seem to be racking up.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way. Scenario setup to give no options. Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
While they typically have a bullet vest on most cops don't wear a stab plate as it's very restrictive to their movement during standard duties. I've worn a stab plate and they are incredibly annoying and uncomfortable to use for an extended period. A lot of police also don't carry batons here, they get in and out of patrol cars all day long and they become an issue. Officers can injure themselves entering or leaving vehicles. Some departments allow for extendable spring loaded batons, but many don't given how brutal of an effect they have on people compared to a standard wooden baton or billy club. In the US they are also seen a lot more negatively as it's a symbol of oppression especially with minorities. (Rodney King incident)
Most cops in the suburbs are typically one per car. In the cities they may have two cops per car or per street beat. This can create a lot of potential stresses in a situation where you are faced with multiple individuals, you have to wait for additional back up and if you are physically challenged before other officers arrive you can quickly find yourself in a situation where you need to draw your gun.
If you confront somebody in situation two where he's aggressive and outweighs and outsizes you by a considerable amount and not standing down I think most would resort to drawing a weapon. While many people like to think that somebody without a knife or a gun is "unarmed", fists and feet are a serious weapon and can in fact kill somebody quite easily. Even against an untrained fighter all it takes is for somebody to land a lucky blow that knocks you out or just renders you senseless enough they can easily strangle you, stab you, shoot you, or whatever else they need to do to make sure you die and you are defenseless.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?
(not all cops have a partner....)
So it's a procedural problem then. ?
A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.
Population density is a huge factor. Suburbs are quite spread out and most have a much lower rate of violent crime than the major cities so it makes a lot of sense to spread the available police out as the majority of their duties they don't need a second officer for. Most of their shifts are spent writing tickets, responding to low level non-threatening calls. When they have something like a accident, fight, or domestic disturbance they usually show up with several cars and officers together.
Jihadin wrote: Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.
Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?
I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner
Jihadin wrote: Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.
Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?
I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner
Meth is freakin scary... I've heard stories of Methheads taking multiple bullets, and not even being phased.
Jihadin wrote: Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.
Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?
I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner
The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.
Jihadin wrote: Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO At stake the 2nd Amendment Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.
Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?
I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner
The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.
It's not the location... seriously, you can make meths in a small can.
I saw a meth head fight off eight cops then run almost an entire city block all while he had a compound fracture in his leg and the bone was sticking clear out of his thigh. It didn't even phase him which was pretty scary. He ran into the street and was hit by an oncoming car which finally stopped him, he didn't die but was seriously messed up and still kept fighting with the police and EMTs until they injected him with something to knock him out.
Jihadin wrote: Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.
Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?
I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner
The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.
It's not the location... seriously, you can make meths in a small can.
It's procuring the ingredients.
Are your Sudafeds behind the counter?
You can make it in a small can but that's not very efficient. You could make a personal stash like that but enough to supply a major drug problem in a town/city? Not likely. The chemicals are harder to come by here than in the US. Plus you need people who are actually semi-qualified in chemistry to make it if you want it to be any good. Then we've already got easy access to alternatives, like cocaine. So we never really built a market for meth.
Jihadin wrote: Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.
Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?
I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner
The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.
It's not the location... seriously, you can make meths in a small can.
It's procuring the ingredients.
Are your Sudafeds behind the counter?
You can make it in a small can but that's not very efficient. You could make a personal stash like that but enough to supply a major drug problem in a town/city? Not likely. The chemicals are harder to come by here than in the US. Plus you need people who are actually semi-qualified in chemistry to make it if you want it to be any good. Then we've already got easy access to alternatives, like cocaine. So we never really built a market for meth.
Meth doesn't need to be made in some remote area, most of it is cooked in people's basements, living rooms, or sheds in some areas it's so prolific that in order to rent out apartments it's required by the county that they undergo a set of chemical tests to make sure there's no toxic reside from former renters.
In rural areas it's particularly hard to spot because they just go to remote stretches of roads or into farm fields where they can see any potential cops miles away. People in those areas are also a lot more tight knit than people in the city so it's much harder to get the drop on the cooks as its obvious when there's somebody from outside the group.
I'm... not sure what that is, but something makes me feel like it's something that cannot be properly evaluated by the scientific method.
Ignore it
On topic
Just an example for the UKer's and pray this damn thing DOESN'T hits your street. I saw some around Ft Bragg, Ft Campbell, Ft Drum, well Hell quite a few places (users or suspected users)
Just an example for the UKer's and pray this damn thing DOESN'T hits your street. I saw some around Ft Bragg, Ft Campbell, Ft Drum, well Hell quite a few places (users or suspected users)
Edit
Missed a word
a
I don't know what you think your seeing, but the thing on the right is a zombie, and not one of the easy to kill shambling slow ones. OH GOD IS IT STILL AROUND?! YOU NEED FIRE!
I'm... not sure what that is, but something makes me feel like it's something that cannot be properly evaluated by the scientific method.
It's the theory that a single drop of black blood makes a person black, so even if your entire family is white, if your great great great great great great great great great grandfather is black, then you're black. It was used to judge whether a person qualified as black for the purposes of Jim Crow laws and other such thingss
I'm... not sure what that is, but something makes me feel like it's something that cannot be properly evaluated by the scientific method.
It's the theory that a single drop of black blood makes a person black, so even if your entire family is white, if your great great great great great great great great great grandfather is black, then you're black. It was used to judge whether a person qualified as black for the purposes of Jim Crow laws and other such thingss
Episode of MASH centered on that way the hell back
Dronze wrote: Unless that officer can verify, or at least have reasonable grounds to assume, that this individual was armed, why is he breaking leather?
Because your line of thinking would just result in more dead police officers.
and notably fewer civilian deaths. Let's face it, cops aren't long on being granted trust, and rightly so, given the long list of abuses of power that seem to be racking up.
daedalus wrote: Must have been during the "Sissy boy Alan Alda" days...
Was actually one of the earlier episodes with Trapper and Henry Blake. Wounded soldier didn't want "dark" blood. So they dye his skin darker as he sleeps then pretend they gave him "dark" blood.
Before hitting him right in the racism with the story (though not true, is an urban myth) that a doctor who helped develop the method of storing blood plasma bled to death because he was refused treatment in a segregated hospital because he was black.
NOTE: I am unsure of the spelling of Ginger’s last name. Hawkeye said it at the end of “Dear Dad” and the closed captioning on the DVD gave the spelling as Ballis while other sources use Bayliss.
During the first two seasons, Ginger was one of the most recognizable faces in the background scenes of M*A*S*H. Odessa Cleveland is credited in eleven episodes of Season One and eight episodes of Season Two, plus one additional episode in Season Three. At the end of “M*A*S*H – The Pilot,” when the P.A. announces that “the following personnel are assigned to the 4077th surgical hospital,” Odessa Cleveland’s name is listed. And at the end of “Dear Dad,” Hawkeye wishes his father a Merry Christmas from everyone at the camp, including Ginger. However, her role was never as significant as other supporting characters of the early years.
She was seen dancing with Spearchucker at the raffle party in “M*A*S*H – The Pilot” and a game of strip dominoes between her and Spearchucker in “Chief Surgeon Who?” is interrupted by General Barker, who asks her if everybody at the 4077th is crazy. Her response? “Everybody who’s sane is, sir.” Hawkeye asked her to check on a patient in “Bananas, Crackers, and Nuts” because he is worried about the patient’s breathing. She is shocked to discover that the patient is a dog.
In “Major Fred C. Dobbs,” Frank erupts at Ginger, calling her useless and an incompetent bungler. His harsh words reduce her to tears. After surgery, Hawkeye and Trapper comfort her and then proceed to prank Frank without mercy. She assists Henry during surgery in “5 O’Clock Charlie” and he asks what number of yards she has down for 5 O’Clock Charlie that day. When she replies thirty-two and a half, he laughs, and refuses to disclose his own number. It is a very nice scene between the two.
Donnie has written in to explain that in “5 O’Clock Charlie,” Henry does not refer to Ginger as Richardson, he is asking her for a Richardson retractor, a surgical instrument that comes in two different sizes. Because Henry doesn’t specify the size he wants, Ginger asks “Big or little?”
Perhaps her finest moment came in “Dear Dad… Three.” Early in the episode, after Hawkeye sends her for more plasma, a soldier asks Hawkeye to make sure he doesn’t get “darkie” blood. Later, Hawkeye and Trapper paint the soldier’s face and hands with tincture of iodine. When Ginger goes to check on him, she compliments him on passing for white, which prompts him to start yelling at her. She yells right back, declaring that she is a lieutenant and he had better watch his mouth. After Hawkeye and Trapper tell the soldier about the man who discovered plasma dying because a whites only hospital wouldn’t let him in (the story is false) the remorseful soldier thanks Hawkeye for giving him a lot to think about, and then salutes Ginger.
She was yelled at by Margaret in “Hot Lips and Empty Arms,” but by that time her role was reduced to a scene or two in the O.R. and after the Season Three episode “O.R.” the character was never seen again.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
While they typically have a bullet vest on most cops don't wear a stab plate as it's very restrictive to their movement during standard duties. I've worn a stab plate and they are incredibly annoying and uncomfortable to use for an extended period. A lot of police also don't carry batons here, they get in and out of patrol cars all day long and they become an issue. Officers can injure themselves entering or leaving vehicles. Some departments allow for extendable spring loaded batons, but many don't given how brutal of an effect they have on people compared to a standard wooden baton or billy club. In the US they are also seen a lot more negatively as it's a symbol of oppression especially with minorities. (Rodney King incident)
Most cops in the suburbs are typically one per car. In the cities they may have two cops per car or per street beat. This can create a lot of potential stresses in a situation where you are faced with multiple individuals, you have to wait for additional back up and if you are physically challenged before other officers arrive you can quickly find yourself in a situation where you need to draw your gun.
If you confront somebody in situation two where he's aggressive and outweighs and outsizes you by a considerable amount and not standing down I think most would resort to drawing a weapon. While many people like to think that somebody without a knife or a gun is "unarmed", fists and feet are a serious weapon and can in fact kill somebody quite easily. Even against an untrained fighter all it takes is for somebody to land a lucky blow that knocks you out or just renders you senseless enough they can easily strangle you, stab you, shoot you, or whatever else they need to do to make sure you die and you are defenseless.
The answer to at least one of those scenarios:
I hear what you're saying, but as someone with a background dealing with these situations it seems like the scenarios were stacked heavily. Give someone a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. If all you give the guy is a handgun, he's probably going to use it to protect himself. Less-than-lethal is very popular these days for good reason. The trick is getting these meatheaded morons to use the systems properly.
Tasers aren't a magic solution. Aside from not always working on certain people, they can also kill. We still get incidents here in australia of tasers killing people.
This is before you start putting drugs (and i'm thinking meth and pcp here) into the equation. I would not trust a taser to protect me in that situation.
I'm not against tasers, but as stated, they do have disadvantages. In addition to what Torga_DW mentioned, depending on the model, some of them have a very short range (even shorter than that of pistols), only one shot, and take longer to reload.
If you're up against multiple assailants, particularly if you are on your own, a taser is not ideal.
All depends on what the LEO feels the situation warrants what tool to meet the threat. By the time the situation resolves its already to late. The LEO made the call which to him/her is the right call. What's question is the action by the "individual" to justify the use of whatever force the LEO decides. In this case the Meth Head made a move indicating a reaction of "OH CRAP HE'S GOT A GUN" and LEO responded to the possible threat. Humans react to actions that are threatening and will adjust their posture
Jihadin wrote: All depends on what the LEO feels the situation warrants what tool to meet the threat. By the time the situation resolves its already to late. The LEO made the call which to him/her is the right call. What's question is the action by the "individual" to justify the use of whatever force the LEO decides. In this case the Meth Head made a move indicating a reaction of "OH CRAP HE'S GOT A GUN" and LEO responded to the possible threat. Humans react to actions that are threatening and will adjust their posture
I agree.
What I find perplexing is that this in many ways is a mirror of the situation with the 12 year old kid who was shot. Both were reaching into their waistband out of view of the officer, forcing the officer to make a very quick judgement call on very limited information and in a situation what they perceived it as life threatening action. Cop that shot the kid gets raked over the coals by the media, yet cop that shoots a hispanic/mexican methhead isn't met with the same outrage.
In the scenario with the kid the officers entered into the situation with information (incorrectly) suggesting that the suspect was armed, and the kid did have what appeared to be a weapon. This guy was also shot but without any reports or sightings of a weapon, the cop responded to the movements that he saw as reaching for a weapon, much like the kids movements. One cop is upheld as making the right call the other is vilified because of the age and race of the victim.
It doesn't matter that one was a kid and one was an adult, bullets kill the same regardless of the shooters age.
Tasers are certainly not a one size fits all option. Tasers have killed people, there are reliability issues with them, they are often defeated by the clothing of the target. Even at short range can be very inaccurate. If you have only one shot with a taser there's a high likelyhood that if you miss with that shot your target will be able to close that distance before you can draw a pistol or baton. If you are drawing a back up weapon at least one hand is occupied leaving you at a distinct disadvantage when defending yourself from a punch or being tackled etc. People armed with a knife can close a distance of 10-15ft and inflict a lethal wound faster than the time it takes to unholster and train weapon. That 10-15ft distance is what tasers typically function at, and you would not have proper time to react when switching out for a secondary weapon.
If a police officer has his weapon out, if you haven't realized it before that moment, it's time to start complying immediately. "Hands up" or "hands on the dash" or "get on the ground" or whatever the officer says doesn't mean "reach for your waistband."
I've done check points in Iraq. I want to see all hands of everybody in the vehicle as I approach. If I see hands go down then I back off and half raise my weapon yelling hands up.
All three scenarios that were presented in the video could be said to have the officer exposed to potential lethal force. The gun and knife are most certainly lethal so using a taser in either of those situations puts the officer at a disadvantage. The situation with the two unarmed men can go either way, against two individuals a single shot taser puts the officer at a distinct disadvantage assuming he successfully downs the first target with the taser he needs to deal with the second target potentially unarmed if he decides to attack the officer. In a worst case scenario the taser doesn't work right and he has to now fight two potential targets unarmed.
People also don't respect tasers the way they do with guns, that can be a major turning point in a confrontation. They have better odds of surviving a failed rush at a guy with a taser than a failed rush at somebody with a gun. That would prompt some to take that risk against a taser, where they'd back off if confronted with a gun.
stanman wrote: All three scenarios that were presented in the video could be said to have the officer exposed to potential lethal force. The gun and knife are most certainly lethal so using a taser in either of those situations puts the officer at a disadvantage. The situation with the two unarmed men can go either way, against two individuals a single shot taser puts the officer at a distinct disadvantage assuming he successfully downs the first target with the taser he needs to deal with the second target potentially unarmed if he decides to attack the officer. In a worst case scenario the taser doesn't work right and he has to now fight two potential targets unarmed.
People also don't respect tasers the way they do with guns, that can be a major turning point in a confrontation. They have better odds of surviving a failed rush at a guy with a taser than a failed rush at somebody with a gun. That would prompt some to take that risk against a taser, where they'd back off if confronted with a gun.
And for all the people who talk about "unarmed", in two of those three scenarios the suspect fully appeared unarmed, yet in one it took literally half a second to draw a weapon and the officer would be dead in real life. Claiming that the officer should have acted differently because the suspect was unarmed is monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. Until the suspect has been thoroughly searched, it's impossible to determine if the suspect is armed or not. Well, I guess if they were naked or something...
DarkLink wrote: Until the suspect has been thoroughly searched, it's impossible to determine if the suspect is armed or not.
So better to shoot them -- just in case?
This is probably going to sound meaner than I intend it to, but if that's really, truly, what you took from that, you probably need to try engaging your brain a bit more before posting. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be snarky, in this case it's coming across as foolishness.
Hordini wrote: This is probably going to sound meaner than I intend it to, but if that's really, truly, what you took from that, you probably need to try engaging your brain a bit more before posting. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be snarky, in this case it's coming across as foolishness.
One of the things I have noticed on the OT is that regardless of how long I spend constructing a well thought out post, people usually reply with this kind of "foolishness". The usual things like:
"So by your logic... [insert something stupid that has nothing to do with what I said]"
I find that I have to work much harder to make points than I need to, when I also have to rebuke these kind of reducto absurdums. This is what I have learned in the OT. Personally, I would rather make you guys do the heavy lifting. It only sounds foolish to you because you love guns and disagree with me, but really it's a craftily constructed laser guided missile of a post, designed to undermine your argument, by reducing it to something absurd -- which is what it is.
EDIT: If you like I could PM you everytime someone on the gun side of the gun debate does it to me.
Hordini wrote: This is probably going to sound meaner than I intend it to, but if that's really, truly, what you took from that, you probably need to try engaging your brain a bit more before posting. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be snarky, in this case it's coming across as foolishness.
One of the things I have noticed on the OT is that regardless of how long I spend constructing a well thought out post, people usually reply with this kind of "foolishness". The usual things like:
"So by your logic... [insert something stupid that has nothing to do with what I said]"
I find that I have to work much harder to make points than I need to, when I also have to rebuke these kind of reducto absurdums. This is what I have learned in the OT. Personally, I would rather make you guys do the heavy lifting. It only sounds foolish to you because you love guns and disagree with me, but really it's a craftily constructed laser guided missile of a post, designed to undermine your argument, by reducing it to something absurd -- which is what it is.
EDIT:
If you like I could PM you everytime someone on the gun side of the gun debate does it to me.
So, someone else does a foolish thing, and that excuses you from doing something foolish as well? Except in this case I'm pretty sure you're the only one posting something ridiculous. I don't think there was anything that absurd about what DarkLink posted, no matter how you might feel about firearms. He makes a post about the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking, and how scenarios involving use of force are complex, rapidly changing things, and your take-away was basically "so shoot everyone just in case, lol."
If you feel like someone "on the gun side of the gun debate" is posting something that is an absurd, unfair characterization of your posts then go ahead and PM me and we can try to figure out where the disconnect is.
Something something I don't actually know anything about firearms in the US but I'm going to post an ignorant opinion about it anyway because of "feelings."
Hordini wrote: Something something I don't actually know anything about firearms in the US but I'm going to post an ignorant opinion about it anyway because of "feelings."
Instantly manning the barricades, are we?
Where did I post something that matches your description ITT?
Hordini wrote: Something something I don't actually know anything about firearms in the US but I'm going to post an ignorant opinion about it anyway because of "feelings."
Instantly manning the barricades, are we?
Where did I post something that matches your description ITT?
I'm not just thinking of this thread. And why so defensive? You're the one who mentioned a gun clique without any prompting or context.
stanman wrote: Black people feel entitled to riot when a scumbag is shot by a white cop. White cop shoots a non-black hispanic/mexican and where are the riots?
Maybe he was one of those elusive "White Hispanics".
stanman wrote: Black people feel entitled to riot when a scumbag is shot by a white cop. White cop shoots a non-black hispanic/mexican and where are the riots?
Maybe he was one of those elusive "White Hispanics".
It was in response to the post above mine. There is a not-insignificant and very tight-knit community here in favour of guns, a clique if you will, as evident in various threads. The result is not something I would call bullying the opposition, but it can get... heated, and with unpleasant undertones. An 'us and them' mentality that only serves to reinforce existing generalisations.
Perhaps I am going off-topic, as this is more a meta post than one referencing the topic itself. I'll be quiet about it now, and we can take it to PMs should you wish to continue on this.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?
(not all cops have a partner....)
So it's a procedural problem then. ?
A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?
(not all cops have a partner....)
So it's a procedural problem then. ?
A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.
So money matters more than people then?
*rolls eyes*
If the world ran on farts and dreams, we'd all be living in a chocolate candy land.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?
(not all cops have a partner....)
So it's a procedural problem then. ?
A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.
The theme in these shootings is that the cop shot someone who was not co-operating and presented a perceived threat.
The simple solution? Do what the man with the gun tells you to do.
If you have been wronged, you can take it up in court later. Priority 1 is surviving to make it to your court date.
Comply with police direction. It's not a difficult concept.
As for the inquiry about his partner, he likely didn't have one. Outside of major cities, officers are usually alone, and it is absolutely a budgeting issue. A town near me recently lost its only Policeman. Now they have to wait for officers from neighboring towns to respond to calls because people didn't want to pay the taxes to keep the department running. My nearest police post is 20 miles away, we've never had one in our town.
Jihadin wrote: Some of us in the "Gun Clique" have actually been in situations similar to LEO
I pray I never have to be, but if I'm ever confronted with a meth head who starts fumbling around his waistband you bet your ass I'll be reaching for my gun too.
loki old fart wrote: That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.
Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?
(not all cops have a partner....)
So it's a procedural problem then. ?
A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.
Jihadin wrote: Some of us in the "Gun Clique" have actually been in situations similar to LEO
I had a situation once where some a-holes were looking for a fight. I was in the group that they were picking at. Dummies didn't know half of us were packing, I had a pair of .410 derringers with 00 buck, Three balls, no waiting. One of us was my friend Arthur, who is gay and for some reason worried about gay bashers traveling in packs, who had a pair of .45 1911 series on him along with a Thunder Five and a real slick revolver that took .45 ACP in these half moon clips that stayed on the cartridges. Another guy had a .32 auto-loader of some cheep foreign design and the last had a .25 ACP, just in case a rabid mouse attacked us.
Anyhow, the guys were looking for trouble but instead of drawing down and ending them we talked therm down. The reason we talked was we didn't want to kill someone for being stupid. Having the ability to end the fight decisively actually made us think more about avoiding the fight to begin with. Had we been unarmed and the stakes lower we may have acted differently.
Hordini wrote: I don't think there was anything that absurd about what DarkLink posted, no matter how you might feel about firearms. He makes a post about the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking, and how scenarios involving use of force are complex, rapidly changing things, and your take-away was basically "so shoot everyone just in case, lol."
Really it's just the counterpart of "So you think cops should just let criminals shoot them? (lol)", which, if it hasn't already raised its head in this thread, certainly cropped up a lot in the Tamir Rice topic.
The point is, there is a lot of middle-ground between police wearing targets, and police shooting all suspects 'just in case' they have guns. Though when a cop shoots an unarmed man, because he 'thought' he was reaching for a gun, and essentially shot him on the 'just in case' bases, then you have to wonder where on that line America is right now.
I would be more than happy to engage with you on a completely non-snarky level, and address everything you write in good faith, if you would be willing to pay me the same courtesy. I would prefer conversations to go down that way, but a unfortunately a lot of people on here are purposefully rude and belittling when they hear something they disagree with.
So I'll start:
Police in the UKprove that 60 million people and huge metropolitan areas can be effectively policed by a force that does not routinely carry guns. In the last 10 years only 4 police officers in the UK have been killed by firearms. One of those was actually part of an armed response unit, so he shouldn't really count against the concept. While two were intentionally murdered by a criminal who lured them into a trap to 'get back' at the police. One officer died from being stabbed during that same period.
So that is my first point: police do not need guns.
Now it's easy to say that America is not the UK, and in America police do need guns. I would be inclined to agree with that to some extent. But then it is worth looking at why and how it is different.
It seems cops in the USA are jumpy as hell, (too jumpy, is what I am arguing). This is obviously rooted in their fear of being shot, which is a real danger in the US. That actually bring us back to my second point: The US has a gun problem. If the US didn't have a gun problem, then maybe the police wouldn't be so paranoid about getting shot, and they wouldn't feel the need to open fire on unarmed people and 12 year olds, without hesitation. I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
Police in the UKprove that 60 million people and huge metropolitan areas can be effectively policed by a force that does not routinely carry guns. In the last 10 years only 4 police officers in the UK have been killed by firearms. One of those was actually part of an armed response unit, so he shouldn't really count against the concept. While two were intentionally murdered by a criminal who lured them into a trap to 'get back' at the police. One officer died from being stabbed during that same period.
So that is my first point: police do not need guns.
Now it's easy to say that America is not the UK, and in America police do need guns. I would be inclined to agree with that to some extent. But then it is worth looking at why and how it is different.
It seems cops in the USA are jumpy as hell, (too jumpy, is what I am arguing). This is obviously rooted in their fear of being shot, which is a real danger in the US. That actually bring us back to my second point: The US has a gun problem. If the US didn't have a gun problem, then maybe the police wouldn't be so paranoid about getting shot, and they wouldn't feel the need to open fire on unarmed people and 12 year olds, without hesitation. I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
1. In the UK.... I make that distinction that you're "proving" 60 million people can be policed largely without firearms, in your country, because as you know, in the US we've had a "gun problem" (for those who view it as such) since 1776. Having an absolute Right to own and carry firearms changes the playing field.
Personally, I half agree with you, however I think that I've seen too many instances on local news where a "simple" stop or "simple" call turned violent quickly. All it takes is one cop or one person to ask "hey man, what are you up to?" and they'll freak out because "they're on to me!" (they have a guilty conscience) and so they draw and start shooting. In one of the other threads, there was that traffic stop for speeding in Oregon where the driver just started shooting.
I am short on time here, but there really is more I'd like to put up here...
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Do what the cops tell you is fine. Until they shoot you without warning, such as in the case of John Crawford III.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Actually, the only right that you guys seem to have a problem about is the right to bear arms, other rights that are arguably much more important (such as the right to privacy or due process), have been wildly reduced in the name of "safety" in your country and no one gives a flying feth about it.
But this discussion is pointless and always will be.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Actually, the only right that you guys seem to have a problem about is the right to bear arms, other rights that are arguably much more important (such as the right to privacy or due process), have been wildly reduced in the name of "safety" in your country and no one gives a flying feth about it.
But this discussion is pointless and always will be.
You're so very wrong. Many of us who are strong advocates of 2nd amendment rights are also advocates of less gov't involvement and intrusion in all aspects of our lives. Many of us think the gov't, especially at the federal level, is very much involved in things they have no business being involved in, and this results in reduced individual rights. We do give a flying feth about it, and speak out against it, vote for and support candidates that promise to address it, and so on.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Actually, the only right that you guys seem to have a problem about is the right to bear arms, other rights that are arguably much more important (such as the right to privacy or due process), have been wildly reduced in the name of "safety" in your country and no one gives a flying feth about it.
But this discussion is pointless and always will be.
Since 9-11-2001 especially, there have been MANY things that I find disturbing with regard to infringement upon individual liberty introduced. However, as it is law I will follow it as any good citizen should, and seek to change things through peaceable means. If a SWAT team got the wrong house and bust through my door in a warrantless search and seizure, I'm not going to resist. I will do whatever the feth they tell me to and seek recompense afterward. Just because people follow bad laws doesn't mean they agree with them.
The fact that infringements (both real and proposed) on the second amendment get a lot more limelight than other injustices does not equate to apathy on other issues.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.
when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
That's good for you. Great thing for you is that you live in Britain, where you don't have to worry about this "issue". The rest of us here in America will continue on living our lives, not worrying about this "issue" because there is not an issue.
Dronze wrote: Unless that officer can verify, or at least have reasonable grounds to assume, that this individual was armed, why is he breaking leather?
You are a police officer in the US, you have reasonable grounds to assume the individual is armed.
If you are a police officer in a country where guns aren't so prevalent, you do not.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.
when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.
I'm not commenting on the majority of your post, primarily because I'd rather not argue about the way people feel, but in the two specific cases you mentioned, the actions of police were justifiable. Note, when I say justifiable, I do not mean they resulted in good or happy outcomes, merely that the actions were permissible given the situations.
The shooting of the 12 year old (I assume you mean Tamir Rice?) was unfortunate, but understandable, given the information that officers had; they (the officers) rolled up on the child, the child pointed the replication firearm (BB gun, I think) at them and they fired, thinking that the firearm was real. For all they knew that firearm was indeed real and, like any other person in the United States, they were within their rights to defend themselves from the 'threat'. Its incredibly sad, but understandable. The fellow in New York died from a heart attack, not the choke hold, and even so most certainly resisted arrest. In the video you can see that he repeatedly slaps away the arms of the officers and attempts to manhandle them. It's also important to note that the man had been arrested multiple times and suffered from a large number of health issues.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.
The kid with the BB Gun? He didn't do what the police said and proceeded to point the gun at them.
The guy who was "choked" failed to comply and resisted arrest.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.
when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.
I'm not commenting on the majority of your post, primarily because I'd rather not argue about the way people feel, but in the two specific cases you mentioned, the actions of police were justifiable. Note, when I say justifiable, I do not mean they resulted in good or happy outcomes, merely that the actions were permissible given the situations.
The shooting of the 12 year old (I assume you mean Tamir Rice?) was unfortunate, but understandable, given the information that officers had; they (the officers) rolled up on the child, the child pointed the replication firearm (BB gun, I think) at them and they fired, thinking that the firearm was real. For all they knew that firearm was indeed real and, like any other person in the United States, they were within their rights to defend themselves from the 'threat'. Its incredibly sad, but understandable. The fellow in New York died from a heart attack, not the choke hold, and even so most certainly resisted arrest. In the video you can see that he repeatedly slaps away the arms of the officers and attempts to manhandle them. It's also important to note that the man had been arrested multiple times and suffered from a large number of health issues.
Ummm, do you know something about these cases that I do not know? Because last I knew the 12 year old did not even draw his weapon and the man in New York was still killed by an illegal hold.
Smacks wrote: I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).
There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".
As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.
Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.
when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.
I'm not commenting on the majority of your post, primarily because I'd rather not argue about the way people feel, but in the two specific cases you mentioned, the actions of police were justifiable. Note, when I say justifiable, I do not mean they resulted in good or happy outcomes, merely that the actions were permissible given the situations.
The shooting of the 12 year old (I assume you mean Tamir Rice?) was unfortunate, but understandable, given the information that officers had; they (the officers) rolled up on the child, the child pointed the replication firearm (BB gun, I think) at them and they fired, thinking that the firearm was real. For all they knew that firearm was indeed real and, like any other person in the United States, they were within their rights to defend themselves from the 'threat'. Its incredibly sad, but understandable. The fellow in New York died from a heart attack, not the choke hold, and even so most certainly resisted arrest. In the video you can see that he repeatedly slaps away the arms of the officers and attempts to manhandle them. It's also important to note that the man had been arrested multiple times and suffered from a large number of health issues.
Ummm, do you know something about these cases that I do not know? Because last I knew the 12 year old did not even draw his weapon and the man in New York was still killed by an illegal hold.
Some television media sources were (and continue to be) somewhat iffy on the details, so without some reading you just might have missed them. The 12 year was told to raise his hands above his head by the two officers and, as he did that, he pulled to BB gun out of his waistband. They saw the gun being drawn, and one of the officers fired, hitting the kid twice. So the kid did draw the gun, but I was mistaken when I said he pointed it at the police because he apparently didn't point it at them. Still understandably that the police acted as they did. As for the New York man, he didn't die on the scene (wasn't choked to death), but died of a heart attack later on, on his way to the hospital.
Stonebeard wrote: Some television media sources were (and continue to be) somewhat iffy on the details, so without some reading you just might have missed them. The 12 year was told to raise his hands above his head by the two officers and, as he did that, he pulled to BB gun out of his waistband. They saw the gun being drawn, and one of the officers fired, hitting the kid twice. So the kid did draw the gun, but I was mistaken when I said he pointed it at the police because he apparently didn't point it at them. Still understandably that the police acted as they did. As for the New York man, he didn't die on the scene (wasn't choked to death), but died of a heart attack later on, on his way to the hospital.
As for the 12 year old, I have seen the video. Multiple times. Those Officers were in danger because of their own mishandling of the situation, for the most part it was how they approached the situation. This death could have been avoided if the Officers had been given all of the information available and if they hadn't rolled up like they were in an action movie.
As far as the New York man, he died of a heart attack caused by stress from the choke hold. So really, this could have been avoided if the officer had not broken the law.
I disagree with you. Both of these incidents were handled improperly and it led to the death of civilians. Neither of these were justifiable deaths and the parties involved should be held accountable, just as a civilian would be in this circumstance.
Basically what I have learned from the people in this thread is that if I do not do whatever the police tell me to do, they are justified in killing me.
They were told that the witness on the ground believed the weapon to be a BB gun? Because, that is not what the recordings I have heard have said.
Thats not "information", that's baseless speculation. Speculation that would get people killed if it was wrong.
So, you are telling me that a witness on the ground who observed the kid with the weapon for a few minutes is baseless speculation? The man eventually just left, because there was no threat. Well, there was no threat until the police rolled up. Then people got killed.
You know what, you are right. That information was ridiculous and would have led to deaths. I am so happy we avoided a casualty here.
They were told that the witness on the ground believed the weapon to be a BB gun? Because, that is not what the recordings I have heard have said.
Thats not "information", that's baseless speculation. Speculation that would get people killed if it was wrong.
odd, because the speculation that a child, at 12 years old, had a live firearm -did- get someone killed. The video i saw shows no attempt to get the kid to surrender the object in question, either.
Grey Templar wrote: If the caller really believed that the gun wasn't real, he wouldn't have made the 911 call to report it.
Ultimately, you always treat a gun as real until its proven to not be real. You don't draw if officers are telling you to keep your hands up.
The kid did a stupid thing and got himself killed. End of story. No if's, and's, or but's.
Or he could have called because he was worried the child would get hurt for waving around the fake weapon. I can use baseless speculation like you can!
As far as treating it like a real gun, does that mean you pull your car as close as physically possible to the suspect, giving him no time to react to your orders before you shoot him?
The cops did a stupid thing and killed an innocent child. End of story. No if's, and's, or but's.
I am making no baseless speculation. Nor did the cops. A call of a guy waving a gun at people was reported. Past experience and logical reasoning says that the probability of the gun being real is very high. And even if it was low you still must treat it as real, because the consequences of assuming its not real are far worse than assuming it is.
The cops did absolutely nothing wrong. The idea they did do something wrong is moronic.
Grey Templar wrote: If the caller really believed that the gun wasn't real, he wouldn't have made the 911 call to report it.
But, you did right here! The caller says that he believed that the weapon was a BB gun and was not acting hysterical at all. Nor was he seeking cover. Probably because he thought it was a BB gun.
As far as the cops doing absolutely nothing wrong, do cops usually pull up as close as possible to a gunman, pinning the passenger between a possible deadly weapon and a car he has to either crawl through or run around to reach safety? (Note: After shooting the kid, the Officer had to run around the car the seek safety.)
These cops did everything wrong. Thanks for throwing the insult at me though, I think I am going to take the high road here and just say you are wrong without insulting you.
It's an uncomfortable situation, and I have a hard time deciding how I feel about it. I had unsupervised access to bb guns when I was that age, and it's insane to think that having one could get you killed. Of course, I never took mine out of the backyard, and I sure as hell never pointed it at people.
The NY guy, well, I can say I'm pretty sure I think that the police acted very poorly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.
It might have even been an AR-15 assault bb gun. No one should have to take those risks.
I hate to side with grey Templar here, but if there is a possibility of a gun being real, you treat it as such, lets play what if
what if it had been real, what if the police didn't treat it as such, what if the police didn't react to the stupid kid pulling a "real" gun, what if the kid shot the policeman dead.
this conversation would not even be taking place as no one cares about a policeman getting shot in the news, they just want to stir the racial pot and try to claim it was somehow a race related issue.
Grey Templar wrote: I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.
And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.
Then you believe wrong, because that was never said in the conversation. Maybe you should listen to it again.
So, you are saying they should have been cautious based on what they were told? Why did they pull up like they did. Will you stop avoiding that part of my argument?
Formosa wrote: I hate to side with grey Templar here, but if there is a possibility of a gun being real, you treat it as such, lets play what if
what if it had been real, what if the police didn't treat it as such, what if the police didn't react to the stupid kid pulling a "real" gun, what if the kid shot the policeman dead.
this conversation would not even be taking place as no one cares about a policeman getting shot in the news, they just want to stir the racial pot and try to claim it was somehow a race related issue.
Actually, I believe the family attempted to avoid the race issue as much as possible. Even saying they did not believe it was racially related.
this conversation would not even be taking place as no one cares about a policeman getting shot in the news, they just want to stir the racial pot and try to claim it was somehow a race related issue.
I disagree with that. Your cynicism doesn't take into account the chance to turn it into an anti-gun gak fest when a 12 year old shot a cop with an unsupervised weapon. It'd be a win win either way for the 24/7 news types.
Grey Templar wrote: I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.
And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.
you're missing the point, Templar. There was no attempt to peacefully defuse the situation. There is rarely an attempt to peacefully defuse such situations anymore. The present culture of law enforcement seems to be one of just getting your gun off when you can feasibly get away with it . a gun is meant to be a final resort, not a go-to response, especially in cases such as dealing with a child. Physical altercation, as well, generally meant to be resorted to when other avenues have failed, not as a primary means of gaining compliance from a suspect or bystander.
above and beyond this, the justice system needs a better means of calling these people into account when they screw up, and better training to keep them from doing so as frequently as they do now.
That was a seat belt hold take down. they taught that in NYPD academy. As they were on the ground the officer that applied the hold moved his right arm back behind Garner right shoulder blade. They tried to pin the death on the officer who went for the seat belt take down.
What bothers me is Garner saying he can't breathe. I can see why LEO would not move him upright and I can also see why they wouldn't move him upright.
As for the Rice case (12 year old) that entire situation was F'ed up from the floor up. I blame everyone in that one including Rice parents
Edit
Also have to remember Rice was pointing what would be a real fire arm at people
Jihadin wrote: That was a seat belt hold take down. they taught that in NYPD academy. As they were on the ground the officer that applied the hold moved his right arm back behind Garner right shoulder blade. They tried to pin the death on the officer who went for the seat belt take down.
What bothers me is Garner saying he can't breathe. I can see why LEO would not move him upright and I can also see why they wouldn't move him upright.
As for the Rice case (12 year old) that entire situation was F'ed up from the floor up. I blame everyone in that one including Rice parents
Edit
Also have to remember Rice was pointing what would be a real fire arm at people
I agree, by no means was Rice in the clear. But the Officers did not act correctly.
As far as Garner, can I get a link to the hold and such? All I have read is the choke hold take down. New information would be great.
Grey Templar wrote: I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.
And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.
you're missing the point, Templar. There was no attempt to peacefully defuse the situation. There is rarely an attempt to peacefully defuse such situations anymore. The present culture of law enforcement seems to be one of just getting your gun off when you can feasibly get away with it . a gun is meant to be a final resort, not a go-to response, especially in cases such as dealing with a child. Physical altercation, as well, generally meant to be resorted to when other avenues have failed, not as a primary means of gaining compliance from a suspect or bystander.
above and beyond this, the justice system needs a better means of calling these people into account when they screw up, and better training to keep them from doing so as frequently as they do now.
Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.
I clearly stated the news, not the family, the family can say what it wants and it will make less difference than what the main stream media is spinning.
Deadalus: people call it cynicism when people are realistic, its not cynical, its the truth, the media for better or worse is no longer a purely informative service (if it ever was) but is another form of entertainment, American media especially, and as such they (rather stupidly) stir up problems to promote whatever point they are trying to make at the time.
that's not cynicism, that's entertainment.
now what I think of the subject is that
A: where the bloody hell were the kids parents
B: why did the kid remove the part of the gun that indicates a replica or toy????
C: why did the kid pull the "weapon" ??
we will never know what was going through his mind, but seriously, why go to pull a "weapon" when the police are aiming real weapons at you?
Sorry, I was trying to suggest that you were being cynical for assuming that no one would care about a police officer getting shot, and then turning around and trying to be moreso by suggesting that they'd make an entertaining spectacle about it no matter which way it turned out. It was an attempt at being a little humorous. However, I don't disagree with your point.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.
That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?
I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.
Formosa wrote: I clearly stated the news, not the family, the family can say what it wants and it will make less difference than what the main stream media is spinning.
Deadalus: people call it cynicism when people are realistic, its not cynical, its the truth, the media for better or worse is no longer a purely informative service (if it ever was) but is another form of entertainment, American media especially, and as such they (rather stupidly) stir up problems to promote whatever point they are trying to make at the time.
that's not cynicism, that's entertainment.
now what I think of the subject is that
A: where the bloody hell were the kids parents
B: why did the kid remove the part of the gun that indicates a replica or toy????
C: why did the kid pull the "weapon" ??
we will never know what was going through his mind, but seriously, why go to pull a "weapon" when the police are aiming real weapons at you?
Well, I heard that the family did not believe this was racially motivated. Where did I hear that? I think it was on the News. Yeah, it was probably on the News. You know, where you hear most of these things.....
Why I hate to think the Brown shooting might have factored in with Rice. Seeing it on the news and hearing his parents talk about it might have influence Rice into thinking the LEO were going to kill him anyway.
As for Garner
I can see why death by choke hold didn't stick but I can also see the pressure applied. If Garner gone unconscious during that hold then I seeing it stick.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.
That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?
I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.
Yes, demanding compliance from a suspect is a peaceful option. If the kid had complied, and not attempted to draw a gun on the officers, he would still be alive and it would have been nothing more than a learning moment for him.
You'll also note that the officer behind him is considerably shorter which makes it much more difficult to apply a choke hold than if you are of equal height or taller. For a proper cutting off of air ideally you want to be slightly above so that you can lift in addition to pulling back as that little bit of motion puts a lot more pressure on the hold and increases the effectiveness. He is not holding him in a closed choke, nor did he lose conciousness from the hold, he didn't pass out until he was on the ground at which point he was being piled on by the officers. There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.
Grey Templar wrote: Ultimately, you always treat a gun as real until its proven to not be real.
I understand where you are coming from, the shooting can be justified, but I think there is still a much deeper problem with the attitude of the police that is being glossed over. For example, compare the following two videos:
You may have seen this one. This is a lot of British police, versus a man with a machete. (The guy didn't respond to pepper spray). At first it might seem silly, but ultimately they apprehend the man without hurting anyone. It turns out the man was mentally ill.
This is how (also quite a lot) of American police deal with a much smaller mentally ill man, carrying a much smaller knife.
You can't deny there is a vast difference in attitude here, with regard to their own and public safety. The British police are heroes here, they put themselves at not insignificant risk to apprehend this guy alive. Even though they might have been justified in calling in an armed response unit, instead they employ riot gear and imagination. I'm sure the mentally ill man's family were very grateful that he survived.
In the American video they don't even try to bring him in alive. Not even a wounding shot (which in this rare example actually would have been possible). Instead they just gun the man down, because they know that as soon as he displays a weapon, they are justified in killing him. That just sucks.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.
That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?
I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.
Yes, demanding compliance from a suspect is a peaceful option. If the kid had complied, and not attempted to draw a gun on the officers, he would still be alive and it would have been nothing more than a learning moment for him.
Wait, what? Did you read what I said? Are you saying that you should always shoot before a person has time to react to your demands?
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.
That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?
I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.
Yes, demanding compliance from a suspect is a peaceful option. If the kid had complied, and not attempted to draw a gun on the officers, he would still be alive and it would have been nothing more than a learning moment for him.
Wait, what? Did you read what I said? Are you saying that you should always shoot before a person has time to react to your demands?
But then again, we only have the word of an unreliable officer, caught lying to superiors in the past, and his partner that any commands were issued.
The video does not, in my opinion, give them enough time to issue a command in a clear manner and for the kid to hear and react to it before they open fire.
so, in your opinion, where would he have had the time to comply?
You seem under the impression that you need a lot of time to comply.
It takes less than a half second to raise your hands. he had all the time in the world. Its definitely less time than it takes to reach for the gun in your waistband.
As soon as he seen the patrol car heading for him. The fact "Crap I am in trrrrooouuubbblllleeeeee" did not occur to Rice at all but proceeded to draw the weapon 4-5 ft from Loehman door. Think we need to bring up the Rice thread and everyone can go back over it again and keep posting that incident on that one
One thing to point out is that most security cameras use either half frame rates or quarter frame rates in order to conserve storage space, so each second you see on screen is actually 2-4 seconds of real time action. If you aren't used to watching security footage it can make the actions seem to take place much faster and it can cause very fast actions to be quite difficult to pick up. It's also why there's not audio on a lot of security cameras as it requires a lot of additional storage space and because audio needs to be recorded real time it doesn't sync up correctly when played back with half rate footage.
What people see on the video as being 2-3 seconds is likely between a 4 second to 12 second real time event which dramatically alters what can be understood as proper warning and reaction times. 9 extra seconds may not seem like a big deal but in a high stress situation like this it's almost a lifetime. Somebody can draw a gun in under a second and empty and an entire magazine in in 2-3 seconds let alone if they are given 9 seconds.
Stonebeard wrote: Could you post the audio which seems to refute the above? I can only find two, the 911 call and the dispatch, neither of which seem to do that.
I don't need to refute the above, it seems fairly obvious from the speed that people are walking that the video is not playing at double speed. Where is your evidence that it is fast? Other than because you want it to be?
stanman wrote: One thing to point out is that most security cameras use either half frame rates or quarter frame rates in order to conserve storage space, so each second you see on screen is actually 2-4 seconds of real time action. If you aren't used to watching security footage it can make the actions seem to take place much faster and it can cause very fast actions to be quite difficult to pick up. It's also why there's not audio on a lot of security cameras as it requires a lot of additional storage space and because audio needs to be recorded real time it doesn't sync up correctly when played back with half rate footage.
What people see on the video as being 2-3 seconds is likely between a 4 second to 12 second real time event which dramatically alters what can be understood as proper warning and reaction times. 9 extra seconds may not seem like a big deal but in a high stress situation like this it's almost a lifetime. Somebody can draw a gun in under a second and empty and an entire magazine in in 2-3 seconds let alone if they are given 9 seconds.
Jihadin wrote: Some need to re read what Stanman post here.
Okay I have reread it. In his post he is talking about 2-3 seconds becoming 12 seconds (he even dwells on the 9 second gap). That would mean the video is playing at 4-6 times speed, which it clearly isn't, that would be really obvious fast forward speed. The video does have a low frame rate but it appears to be running very close to real time. Everyone is milling about quite slowly (as opposed to sped up), the car door swinging shut looks about right, which makes me doubtful that it is even the low end 1.25X speed. Are you really that desperate that you need to clutch at this straw? Maybe it is you who needs to take a long hard look at what you're arguing here. If you have to resort to pretending the video is sped up 6 times faster than reality to make your argument stand up, then maybe it is time for a new argument.
Jihadin wrote: Quiet Stanman
That sort of information doesn't fit some people agenda's
It also doesn't fit with the audio track...
Smacks wrote:
CptJake wrote: There is no audio track of the incident, just the security cam capture.
There is an audio track from the police radios.
Smacks wrote:
Stonebeard wrote: Could you post the audio which seems to refute the above? I can only find two, the 911 call and the dispatch, neither of which seem to do that.
I don't need to refute the above, it seems fairly obvious from the speed that people are walking that the video is not playing at double speed. Where is your evidence that it is fast? Other than because you want it to be?
Well you seemed to make the claim that there was audio which refuted the the claim that the camera which took the recording was recording at increased speed, so yes, you should probably be able to back that claim up. Saying "it's obvious" doesn't exactly cut it. Why is it obvious? Could you explain WHY you think that? Better yet, could you explain why you think that AND provide the recording that you claim refutes said argument? You made a claim, so back it up. If you don't than you're just blowing hot air. Also, if you'll go back and check I'm pretty sure you will find that I never made any claims or voiced any opinion on the validity of the frame rate argument. All I did was ask you to provide the audio evidence that you claim exists. That being said, I would like to say something on that.
That puts it beyond all doubt. The video is not fast.
Stonebeard wrote: You made a claim, so back it up. If you don't than you're just blowing hot air. Also, if you'll go back and check I'm pretty sure you will find that I never made any claims or voiced any opinion on the validity of the frame rate argument. All I did was ask you to provide the audio evidence that you claim exists.
Please accept my apologies. I just didn't want to inadvertently dignify the idea that the video was playing fast by accepting that I need to refute it for it to be false, the burden of proof was on the claimant. However, I hope it is beyond question now.
That puts it beyond all doubt. The video is not fast.
.
I know 40k is all about forging a narrative but the idea that someone needs to try and essentially lie their way into pretending a video showing a shooting happen within 1.5 seconds of an officer arrive was actually as long as 12 seconds long, in furtherance of justifying a police shooting of a 12 year old armed with a toy gun, displays almost a sociopathic disregard for reality.
We could decrease most of the gun violence and a good amount of the reason police have such a bad reputation with the African American community if we ended the War on Drugs. We'd also stop most of the bad warrant searches and a good number of the dead bodies that give the impression of a too violent police force.
And your response to the whole 2 or so seconds = 12 seconds being full of gak is?
Especially considering it is clearly part of someone's agenda... maybe you should tell people posting the video with timestamps to be quiet as it doesn't fit his agenda...
When you watch the video the reduced frame rate is what causes it to be slightly choppy. The video indicates to me that it's a very slow frame rate. As the image shifts aproximately once per second when viewing. I've watched thousands of hours worth of this type of video as my previous job entailed reviewing security tapes for court cases. When you watch reduced rate video it still plays at a similar speed as standard film despite being compressed, but the number of images that are actually captured are reduced which causes the motion to appear jumpy. (even a standard 24fps recording isn't perfect real time) If you watch for the minor motions you'll see very few actual footsteps, both the kids and officers legs alternate between up and down positions with very few transition frames in between, which at a higher fps would show their feet raising and lowering normally. That's a typical effect of half frame footage. It's not a perfect real time recording system, there are slightly buggy elements that can make the timing off by fractional amounts that becomes an issue when dealing with an event that's only seconds long.
This is also an issue that frequently complicates security footage in store robberies, the reduced number of pictures plus cruddy equipment often makes it difficult to capture all of the movements and action that is occurring, plus getting a clear image of the people is far more difficult due to having significantly fewer images to work with. Reduced frame rates also increase instances of pixelization and motion blur. It can cause the camera to completely miss fractionsof a second details, like the mid swing of a thrown punch, or muzzle flash from a gun shot.
I can't say for certain what frame rate the footage was taken at as I don't physically have the film to review, although I'm sure that the police and review panel that presided over the case would have been notified of such information and it would have been considered in any of their judgments. But we're all online experts so lets all pretend we're forensic scientists and know much better than the professionals that reviewed the case, they're clearly a bunch of idiots and those of us without any formal training can certainly do their jobs better and wouldn't bring any of our personal bias into things, right?
We can also trust all the news sources implicitly as they never make mistakes or under report aspects in order to promote the spin they want on things. Look at the press images of Travon Martin and Micheal Brown, cute smiling 12 year old boys that somehow reporters couldn't find a single photo taken at any point within the last 6 years? Publishing their 17-18 year old selves would ruin the narration of boyish innocence, and maintaining the narration is far more important than the truth. Truth doesn't secure ratings, narration does.
MrDwhitey wrote: I like how your post does nothing to address your claim the video is possibly 12 seconds long when it's only 2 or so.
And before you respond with "I said 4 to 12", you argued from the point of view of an extra 9 seconds, which would admittedly be a huge difference.
It *could* potentially be that long depending on the how the equipment is set (half vs quarter speed, even 8th speed, some old systems take as few as 1 frame per second) there are fractional amounts of time that are chopped out on films of all speeds, the slower the frame rate the more real time you lose. There are also time differences that occur depending on if they are using analog and digital recordings. It's surprising how old a lot of security equipment is, many of them are still using vcr tapes. How you transfer the recording between media formats can impact frame rates as well, in most situations the playback being off by a couple seconds isn't an issue, it's only when you are pouring over things in agonizing detail that it becomes a factor.
Even 2-3 second window is a lot of time for weapons fire or fast physical action. To give some perspective it takes less than half a second to swing a punch or draw a pistol. A trained shooter can empty the entire magazine of a glock in under 3 seconds. (it may not be very accurate but they can put out a lot of rounds in that time)
stanman wrote: There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.
Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.
You also need to consider the possibility that the 12 year old boy was bitten by a radioactive spider, which gave him reflexes far, far in excess of our frail mortal bodies. In that situation, not only would the boy have had the equivalent of 30 or maybe even 40 human minutes, as we perceive them. Had the officer not sprayed him with bullets, he might have gone on a citywide rampage, throwing buses everywhere, and so forth, and if you consider that very real possibility, shooting him repeatedly was actually the most reasonable thing to do.
It *could* potentially be that long depending on the how the equipment is set (half vs quarter speed, even 8th speed, some old systems take as few as 1 frame per second) there are fractional amounts of time that are chopped out on films of all speeds, the slower the frame rate the more real time you lose.
stanman wrote: There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.
Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.
This, 100x this. If you think that once a person is released from a choke hold they are out of danger, you need to learn a little bit more about the human body.
Also, this thread went off the rails when Stanman claimed the video wasn't in real time. People be throwing all sorts of "agendas" about in here.
stanman wrote: There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.
Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.
And that's not even considering the damage constricting the major blood vessels either side of the neck, will do to someone.
The fact that he was over weight would mean his heart was working overtime already.
stanman wrote: There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.
Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.
The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.
EDIT: For the record, AGAIN, the time between the police officers pulling up and firing was between 1.5s and 2.0s. Why is this still an issue?
stanman wrote: There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.
Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.
The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.
EDIT: For the record, AGAIN, the time between the police officers pulling up and firing was between 1.5s and 2.0s. Why is this still an issue?
because people are *ahem* and like not liking the police.
The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.
The constriction of arterial blood flow in the neck can still be referred to as a choke hold or, more properly, as a blood choke. I only referenced the windpipe specifically as Stanman did as much, and because it appears to me that the trachea was at least partially obstructed.
relevent. found this on deviant art so buckets of salt.
Spoiler:
An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.
The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.
The constriction of arterial blood flow in the neck can still be referred to as a choke hold or, more properly, as a blood choke. I only referenced the windpipe specifically as Stanman did as much, and because it appears to me that the trachea was at least partially obstructed.
I'm not really sure if that's true or not in the vernacular, I'm just going off how the NYPD defined the two.
Fair enough, but I don't believe the NYPD has ever formally defined "submission hold", that's merely what other people have referred to this action as.
Grey Templar wrote: I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.
And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.
you're missing the point, Templar. There was no attempt to peacefully defuse the situation. There is rarely an attempt to peacefully defuse such situations anymore. The present culture of law enforcement seems to be one of just getting your gun off when you can feasibly get away with it . a gun is meant to be a final resort, not a go-to response, especially in cases such as dealing with a child. Physical altercation, as well, generally meant to be resorted to when other avenues have failed, not as a primary means of gaining compliance from a suspect or bystander.
above and beyond this, the justice system needs a better means of calling these people into account when they screw up, and better training to keep them from doing so as frequently as they do now.
Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.
However they can't scream that at the same time they are shooting at the kid (or immediately open fire in an unreasonable amount of time) or if the kid is complying.
Kid's age is irrelevant. A 12 year completely coated up with hood is indeterminate age, and the 911 call thought he was a a teenager (IIRC).
You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.
That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.
I just have no sympathy for him.
Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.
Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.
Hindsight always has 20/20 vision. It doesn't help when something is taking place, though.
I am not sure how that is relevant. Just because we can look back and understand that the person made a mistake, is not a valid reason to not punish a person.
The officer made a bad judgement call and it ended in the worst way possible, with the death of a civilian. But lets not punish him for messing up royally. Lets rub his back, tell him he is not a criminal, then give him a gun and put him back out there. He is one of the good guys!
You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.
That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.
I just have no sympathy for him.
Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.
Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.
An action being justified does not necessarily mean the situation was just or that justice was done, depending on perspective.
On one hand you have an officer who did everything, seemingly anyway, by the book and in accordance with police protocol. He did not go in to this situation with malicious intent, wanting to harm someone just for the sake of harming them. He didn't go into that situation wanting to shoot that man. Indeed, from what we can see of his reaction, he was horrified by it and distraught. He took an innocent man's life, and he seemed to feel an immense amount of sadness for it. That being said, the officer also did everything as he was instructed to do, taught to do. Yes, the man who died was no threat; however, the officer did not know he wasn't reaching for a gun. The officer warned the man multiple times to step away from the car and to get his hands up, but the man refused and continued to reach into the vehicle. What if it was a rifle? Should he let it be drawn, risk no only his life but the lives of others. Its a tough call, one I would never want to make, but it would seem his training told him to fire, so his action was justified. That does not, however, mean justice was done. It wasn't: the officer was put in an impossible situation which lead to him being at least pushed to take the life of an innocent man, something that he has to live with the rest of his life. Not showing at least some degree of sympathy for the officer here seems a bit callous to me.
For the man who died? No. He was unarmed and his death was needless. Situations, some beyond his control, many entirely within, led to him being killed when he certainly didn't deserve it. He didn't need to die, but he did. Justice wasn't done by him, but throwing an innocent, and the police officer is innocent in that he did everything by the book and he had no malicious intent, in jail for his death isn't justice either.
Sometimes you just have gakky situations. It's just how it goes.
Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
Car doors do not make good shields from bullets, unless they are kevlar reinforced.
A moment longer?
That is a great point, and probably applies to everything in life, at least before an event is actually occurring. How many 'moments' should he have to keep adding in the hope that 'One more and he may finally comply'?
I blame hollywood for spreading the idea that you can use a car door as a shield.
That's 5.56 but in reality even a 22 will go through a car door as if it's not there, unless it hits the lock mechanism it's just 2 sheets of thin sheet metal and some plastic.
Some police departs do have ballistic plates in the doors as CptJake said but I think that's pretty damn rare.
I think the "biggest" benefit, and I use that lightly, of hiding behind a door is to make it just a little bit harder for someone to actually aim at you. But if the bad guy "sprays & prays" that really doesn't make any difference at all.
Car doors do not make good shields from bullets, unless they are kevlar reinforced.
A moment longer?
That is a great point, and probably applies to everything in life, at least before an event is actually occurring. How many 'moments' should he have to keep adding in the hope that 'One more and he may finally comply'?
Oh right, car doors as a shield are a terrible choice. I have never been linked a video on this forum where a police officer uses a car door as a shield. Absolutely no benefit to this, they might as well stand in the open. It has never saved lives. Those cops on those videos should probably be taught proper police tactics.
Also, yes a moment longer. Give the person the benefit of the doubt. As for how many moments, it should probably be as many as it takes to make sure the person is a threat and to handle the situation so that it does not put an entire car full of people at risk of being shot by the police officer. Can you explain to me how he made the right decision by endangering the lives of the other people in the car by shooting a man that he only suspected of having a weapon?
Why is it that when a cop is presented with a situation where a person is not following directions and acting strange, they do not fall back and call for backup. Instead, we "justify" them pulling a weapon and shooting a civilian?
AduroT wrote: Even if he Does pull a gun, give him another few moments to make sure it's not just some realistic toy.
Not sure if serious or not...
I played this game once already
In compliance with Federal Laws
Of course we military) have this issue to
Actual weapons
Its not like your the one rolling the dice on your life to take time to see if its real or not. Another factor was "Meth Head" so he might have the crazed look.
You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.
That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.
I just have no sympathy for him.
Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.
Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.
An action being justified does not necessarily mean the situation was just or that justice was done, depending on perspective.
On one hand you have an officer who did everything, seemingly anyway, by the book and in accordance with police protocol. He did not go in to this situation with malicious intent, wanting to harm someone just for the sake of harming them. He didn't go into that situation wanting to shoot that man. Indeed, from what we can see of his reaction, he was horrified by it and distraught. He took an innocent man's life, and he seemed to feel an immense amount of sadness for it. That being said, the officer also did everything as he was instructed to do, taught to do. Yes, the man who died was no threat; however, the officer did not know he wasn't reaching for a gun. The officer warned the man multiple times to step away from the car and to get his hands up, but the man refused and continued to reach into the vehicle. What if it was a rifle? Should he let it be drawn, risk no only his life but the lives of others. Its a tough call, one I would never want to make, but it would seem his training told him to fire, so his action was justified. That does not, however, mean justice was done. It wasn't: the officer was put in an impossible situation which lead to him being at least pushed to take the life of an innocent man, something that he has to live with the rest of his life. Not showing at least some degree of sympathy for the officer here seems a bit callous to me.
For the man who died? No. He was unarmed and his death was needless. Situations, some beyond his control, many entirely within, led to him being killed when he certainly didn't deserve it. He didn't need to die, but he did. Justice wasn't done by him, but throwing an innocent, and the police officer is innocent in that he did everything by the book and he had no malicious intent, in jail for his death isn't justice either.
Sometimes you just have gakky situations. It's just how it goes.
I agree with Stonebeard here....
Unfortunately there definitely seem to be a few people who take a "feth the police" stance, no matter what the situation is, if a cop kills an "innocent" person. Wasn't there a blurb in the OP about how the autopsy showed certain drugs in the dude's system? Clearly, if he's on drugs (even if the police don't know it at the time) that creates a volatile situation that is only made worse by actions that run contrary to police orders.
CptJake wrote: He did call for backup. That is why backup arrives so quickly.
But don't let things like facts color your opinion.
Oh yeah, can you point me to this information? Because in the original article it doesn't even mention calling for backup. Do you have information I do not have? Did he attempt to call reinforcements before he opened fire on the vehicle full of unarmed civilians?
Could you at least address some of the points I am making and maybe follow up with some sources for the information you are giving out? Let us see these facts you speak of.
Dreadwinter wrote: Oh right, car doors as a shield are a terrible choice. I have never been linked a video on this forum where a police officer uses a car door as a shield. Absolutely no benefit to this, they might as well stand in the open. It has never saved lives. Those cops on those videos should probably be taught proper police tactics.
But to what end would that matter as far as prosecuting the officer goes? Whether or not the car door is good or bad cover is immaterial (though I would say that it would be better than air), what matters as far as leading to a prosecution is whether or not he (the officer) acted in a criminal fashion. Now, you concede that he at least did not have criminal intent. If you now concede, which you seem to be doing, that his training was a fault, how can we the government, or us for that matter, reasonably punish him? That's the crux of the matter. The government cannot reasonably punish a man who meant no harm and who did as said government instructed them to do. It wouldn't be, as previously pointed out, justice.
Also, yes a moment longer. Give the person the benefit of the doubt. As for how many moments, it should probably be as many as it takes to make sure the person is a threat and to handle the situation so that it does not put an entire car full of people at risk of being shot by the police officer. Can you explain to me how he made the right decision by endangering the lives of the other people in the car by shooting a man that he only suspected of having a weapon?
I might have missed it, but can you point out where it says the can was full of people. I'm not trying to be condescending here, I actually would like to see it if it exists.
Why is it that when a cop is presented with a situation where a person is not following directions and acting strange, they do not fall back and call for backup. Instead, we "justify" them pulling a weapon and shooting a civilian?
I think that, in this situation anyway, it's somewhat more complex. The officer is charged with defending the populace as a whole and himself more than any singular individual, so, if the man was indeed reaching for a weapon, falling back would present itself with problems. If the man does reach for a gun, doesn't matter much what type, in falling back the officer has given that man full reign to get just as much cover as him, potentially starting a firefight in a populated area. What if he gets killed? What if a stray shot hits a child? A mother? A father? What if, after backup is called (which we know happened at some point), a different officer is shot and killed? What if he is killed and the man is now mobile? There are a huge number of issues for the officer to consider. Considering the circumstances (the man being considered likely to be armed, chemically dependent, unresponsive to police demands and reaching into a location that the officer cannot see), the officers action were understandable, and probably justified. Of course, that doesn't mean that the man deserved death any less, but it also doesn't mean that the officers life should be ruined either. Perhaps instead of throwing blame onto a single person we look at the wider issues and try to solve those, whatever they might be?
Dreadwinter wrote: Oh right, car doors as a shield are a terrible choice. I have never been linked a video on this forum where a police officer uses a car door as a shield. Absolutely no benefit to this, they might as well stand in the open. It has never saved lives. Those cops on those videos should probably be taught proper police tactics.
But to what end would that matter as far as prosecuting the officer goes? Whether or not the car door is good or bad cover is immaterial (though I would say that it would be better than air), what matters as far as leading to a prosecution is whether or not he (the officer) acted in a criminal fashion. Now, you concede that he at least did not have criminal intent. If you now concede, which you seem to be doing, that his training was a fault, how can we the government, or us for that matter, reasonably punish him? That's the crux of the matter. The government cannot reasonably punish a man who meant no harm and who did as said government instructed them to do. It wouldn't be, as previously pointed out, justice.
It would have mattered in that he could have found a peaceful end to the situation. Thus never having to even be put in to this situation. But alas, he made his choice. He wanted to make it home to his kid and these nonviolent people were standing between him and his son. As far as his police training, he already made it clear in the article that his motivation was pure fear. Fear that he would not make it home to his family. Which lead to the death of an innocent man.
From Article wrote:"I knew in that moment, which later was determined to be untrue, but I knew in that moment that he was reaching for a gun," Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."
Dreadwinter wrote: Also, yes a moment longer. Give the person the benefit of the doubt. As for how many moments, it should probably be as many as it takes to make sure the person is a threat and to handle the situation so that it does not put an entire car full of people at risk of being shot by the police officer. Can you explain to me how he made the right decision by endangering the lives of the other people in the car by shooting a man that he only suspected of having a weapon?
I might have missed it, but can you point out where it says the can was full of people. I'm not trying to be condescending here, I actually would like to see it if it exists.
Sure thing. No problems providing information. Here is the video of the shooting, it was annoying to find through all of the videos of the breakdown. You can clearly see multiple people in the vehicle.
From Article wrote:Police video showed Morrison repeatedly ordered Ramirez and other occupants of the vehicle to raise their hands. Ramirez's actions were largely obscured in the video. But Morrison said Ramirez dropped his left hand to his side — out of the officer's view — and "started to jiggle it up and down" just before he was shot.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why is it that when a cop is presented with a situation where a person is not following directions and acting strange, they do not fall back and call for backup. Instead, we "justify" them pulling a weapon and shooting a civilian?
I think that, in this situation anyway, it's somewhat more complex. The officer is charged with defending the populace as a whole and himself more than any singular individual, so, if the man was indeed reaching for a weapon, falling back would present itself with problems. If the man does reach for a gun, doesn't matter much what type, in falling back the officer has given that man full reign to get just as much cover as him, potentially starting a firefight in a populated area. What if he gets killed? What if a stray shot hits a child? A mother? A father? What if, after backup is called (which we know happened at some point), a different officer is shot and killed? What if he is killed and the man is now mobile? There are a huge number of issues for the officer to consider. Considering the circumstances (the man being considered likely to be armed, chemically dependent, unresponsive to police demands and reaching into a location that the officer cannot see), the officers action were understandable, and probably justified. Of course, that doesn't mean that the man deserved death any less, but it also doesn't mean that the officers life should be ruined either. Perhaps instead of throwing blame onto a single person we look at the wider issues and try to solve those, whatever they might be?
As posted earlier, his motivations were not the safety of others, but instead his own selfishness. If I were to guess, that is probably the reason he shot and killed the other innocent man in 2013. A man who was unarmed, outnumbered, and had been tazered. This man is no hero. He does not deserve to be on the streets. He does not protect people.
CptJake wrote: Watch the video of the shooting, back up comes in before the video ends (and the video is only about 4:26 long).
Fair enough, in the video he had called backup and they were clearly moments away. Sadly he did not move back and wait for the backup that was coming.
I'm glad to see, though, that in your expert hindsight you can attest that he should have backed away.
Please, elaborate. I would like your explanation.
What explanation is needed? Dude was hardly an "innocent." High as balls on meth and he didn't comply with the LEOs orders to put his hands up. And you especially don't reach for your waistband.
But again, I am enjoying all your armchair hindsight explanations and rationalizations.
I'm glad to see, though, that in your expert hindsight you can attest that he should have backed away.
Please, elaborate. I would like your explanation.
What explanation is needed? Dude was hardly an "innocent." High as balls on meth and he didn't comply with the LEOs orders to put his hands up. And you especially don't reach for your waistband.
But again, I am enjoying all your armchair hindsight explanations and rationalizations.
I dunno, an explanation on your reasoning as to why this person was deserving of being shot. Despite making no aggressive moves towards the officer and having no weapon in which to harm him with.
You do not have to explain yourself. That would be on par for how this thread is going.
I dunno, an explanation on your reasoning as to why this person was deserving of being shot.
Well I never made that claim, now did I? I said he wasn't innocent. Which he wasn't.
Despite making no aggressive moves towards the officer and having no weapon in which to harm him with.
Reaching for your waist after the LEO instructs you to put your hands up is considered an aggressive move. It's lovely to have the hindsight in which to judge the fact that he didn't have a weapon.
You do not have to explain yourself. That would be on par for how this thread is going.
Despite your rather demanding comments, I'm fully aware that I don't.
I dunno, an explanation on your reasoning as to why this person was deserving of being shot.
Well I never made that claim, now did I? I said he wasn't innocent. Which he wasn't.
Why are you trying to argue that? The claim of innocence was over his deserving to be shot or not. Of course he was not innocent, he had drugs on him and had been pulled over for one reason or another. Please, stop trying to derail this argument in to something that was never implied.
Dreadwinter wrote: Despite making no aggressive moves towards the officer and having no weapon in which to harm him with.
Reaching for your waist after the LEO instructs you to put your hands up is considered an aggressive move. It's lovely to have the hindsight in which to judge the fact that he didn't have a weapon.
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever. You are implying that because I am looking back on a situation that I have no right to question whether or not it was handled correctly. If that is how this is going, we need to stop arguing over Obamacare. The law was passed and we need to stop using our hindsight on it. Armchair politicians and such. Who needs opinions?
It would have mattered in that he could have found a peaceful end to the situation. Thus never having to even be put in to this situation. But alas, he made his choice. He wanted to make it home to his kid and these nonviolent people were standing between him and his son. As far as his police training, he already made it clear in the article that his motivation was pure fear. Fear that he would not make it home to his family. Which lead to the death of an innocent man.
You're right. It wasn't implied. You said it directly.
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever. You are implying that because I am looking back on a situation that I have no right to question whether or not it was handled correctly. If that is how this is going, we need to stop arguing over Obamacare. The law was passed and we need to stop using our hindsight on it. Armchair politicians and such. Who needs opinions?
.
I'm saying you're wrong and that it was handled correctly, for the situation at hand. In the moment, snap decisions have to be made. He made an appropriate decision given the situation. The jury agreed. Comparing this to Obamacare, or any piece of legislation is, quite frankly, a little silly.
I know, right? I even said please when I asked you to explain your reasoning. I am a monster.
I'd have gone with a different word, but If that's what you prefer, then sure.
It would have mattered in that he could have found a peaceful end to the situation. Thus never having to even be put in to this situation. But alas, he made his choice. He wanted to make it home to his kid and these nonviolent people were standing between him and his son. As far as his police training, he already made it clear in the article that his motivation was pure fear. Fear that he would not make it home to his family. Which lead to the death of an innocent man.
You're right. It wasn't implied. You said it directly.
How does that go? Innocent until proven guilty? Or we just fine with going Judge Dredd these days?
After all of that, you throw that out as your last resort argument?
I actually referred to him as a civilian instead of an innocent for most of my time posting in here because I expected this sort of reaction. Thanks for not letting me down!
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever. You are implying that because I am looking back on a situation that I have no right to question whether or not it was handled correctly. If that is how this is going, we need to stop arguing over Obamacare. The law was passed and we need to stop using our hindsight on it. Armchair politicians and such. Who needs opinions?
.
I'm saying you're wrong and that it was handled correctly, for the situation at hand. In the moment, snap decisions have to be made. He made an appropriate decision given the situation. The jury agreed. Comparing this to Obamacare, or any piece of legislation is, quite frankly, a little silly.
Good thing I did not do that! Instead I compared your argument for how hindsight is a terrible thing. Reading comprehension for the win!
How does that go? Innocent until proven guilty? Or we just fine with going Judge Dredd these days?
He was guilty of being a POS meth head who was high to such an extent that the ME said the amount of it in his system would have killed all but the heaviest users.
He was guilty of not complying with the LEO when he told him, on multiple occasions, to put his hands up. It's important to note that the other occupants of the car DID comply.
He was guilty of making an aggressive action by reaching towards his pants while failing to comply with the LEO that directly led to him being shot.
After all of that, you throw that out as your last resort argument?
Hardly a last resort. I think your argument as a whole is full of hindsight judgement that makes it really easy for you to armchair quarterback the situation. The reality is that the LEO simply did not have that luxury in real time in the field. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that is curious to me.
I actually referred to him as a civilian instead of an innocent for most of my time posting in here because I expected this sort of reaction. Thanks for not letting me down!
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever.
You're wrong here. The jury is specifically told to not use hindsight and the cop's lawyer has to show the cop AT THE TIME had reason to believe he was in danger and the use of force was in his mind justified. Or more accurately, the prosecutor had to prove that was not the case.
Dreadwinter wrote: Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
The Officer had options. He chose the wrong one.
The person who had options and consistently chose the wrong ones was the dude who got shot. That dude chose to do drugs and get high. That dude chose not to comply with the officer's instructions, fidget and mess with his waistband instead of putting his hands up. That dude made enough bad choices that it cost him his life.
The fact that he was unarmed doesn't matter. Being unarmed doesn't mean you're not dangerous and doesn't mean you can't be lawfully shot. I, as a civilian, can legally defend myself with lethal force against an unarmed man. The noncompliance and suspicious/dangerous movements created a reasonable fear of imminent harm and justified the officer's action of shooting him. If the legal requirements are met that make it a lawful shoot then it's a lawful shoot regardless of personal opinions.
Circumstances matter, laws matter. If the media took the time to actually explain what happened and what the laws are that govern those scenarios there would be less confusion and fewer people pushing emotional arguments that have no bearing on the legal process. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc. each time the media, politicians and people with an agenda hype the emotional narrative while ignoring the important fact that when people die as a result of lawful actions there's no reason to prosecute somebody for it because no laws were broken.
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever.
You're wrong here. The jury is specifically told to not use hindsight and the cop's lawyer has to show the cop AT THE TIME had reason to believe he was in danger and the use of force was in his mind justified. Or more accurately, the prosecutor had to prove that was not the case.
So, looking in to the past at this situation, how is that not hindsight? Also, how do you tell somebody not to use hindsight when looking in to a situation in the past. That just seems absurd.
Dreadwinter wrote: Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
The Officer had options. He chose the wrong one.
The person who had options and consistently chose the wrong ones was the dude who got shot. That dude chose to do drugs and get high. That dude chose not to comply with the officer's instructions, fidget and mess with his waistband instead of putting his hands up. That dude made enough bad choices that it cost him his life.
The fact that he was unarmed doesn't matter. Being unarmed doesn't mean you're not dangerous and doesn't mean you can't be lawfully shot. I, as a civilian, can legally defend myself with lethal force against an unarmed man. The noncompliance and suspicious/dangerous movements created a reasonable fear of imminent harm and justified the officer's action of shooting him. If the legal requirements are met that make it a lawful shoot then it's a lawful shoot regardless of personal opinions.
Circumstances matter, laws matter. If the media took the time to actually explain what happened and what the laws are that govern those scenarios there would be less confusion and fewer people pushing emotional arguments that have no bearing on the legal process. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc. each time the media, politicians and people with an agenda hype the emotional narrative while ignoring the important fact that when people die as a result of lawful actions there's no reason to prosecute somebody for it because no laws were broken.
Oh boy, I can almost copy and paste parts of your past to refute your claims.
First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.
As far as circumstances and laws, I decided to ask my friend who works for St. Louis Metro as to how these high intensity situations are handled. I have shown him the video and his first reaction was "Wow, this officer has jumped the gun." According to him, it goes against pretty much everything you are told as an officer to shoot before you verify a threat. To verify a perceived threat, it is heavily implied that an officer needs to see a weapon before he may open fire on a target. To quote him, "You have to see the weapon, unless you are a derp." Even more so, he said that firing in to a car of 4 people is incredibly reckless and dangerous and he was shocked the man had a job after the first shooting he was involved with. But hey, the man was on drugs. He deserved it, right?
Dreadwinter wrote: Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
The Officer had options. He chose the wrong one.
Prestor Jon wrote: [The person who had options and consistently chose the wrong ones was the dude who got shot. That dude chose to do drugs and get high. That dude chose not to comply with the officer's instructions, fidget and mess with his waistband instead of putting his hands up. That dude made enough bad choices that it cost him his life.
The fact that he was unarmed doesn't matter. Being unarmed doesn't mean you're not dangerous and doesn't mean you can't be lawfully shot. I, as a civilian, can legally defend myself with lethal force against an unarmed man. The noncompliance and suspicious/dangerous movements created a reasonable fear of imminent harm and justified the officer's action of shooting him. If the legal requirements are met that make it a lawful shoot then it's a lawful shoot regardless of personal opinions.
Circumstances matter, laws matter. If the media took the time to actually explain what happened and what the laws are that govern those scenarios there would be less confusion and fewer people pushing emotional arguments that have no bearing on the legal process. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc. each time the media, politicians and people with an agenda hype the emotional narrative while ignoring the important fact that when people die as a result of lawful actions there's no reason to prosecute somebody for it because no laws were broken.
Dreadwinter wrote: Oh boy, I can almost copy and paste parts of your past to refute your claims.
First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.
As far as circumstances and laws, I decided to ask my friend who works for St. Louis Metro as to how these high intensity situations are handled. I have shown him the video and his first reaction was "Wow, this officer has jumped the gun." According to him, it goes against pretty much everything you are told as an officer to shoot before you verify a threat. To verify a perceived threat, it is heavily implied that an officer needs to see a weapon before he may open fire on a target. To quote him, "You have to see the weapon, unless you are a derp." Even more so, he said that firing in to a car of 4 people is incredibly reckless and dangerous and he was shocked the man had a job after the first shooting he was involved with. But hey, the man was on drugs. He deserved it, right?
At what point did I state that the man was dangerous because he was on drugs? I didn't. I said he chose to abuse drugs which is factually supported by the coroner's report and certainly played a role in his inability to adequately process the situation and comply with the officer's instructions.
I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.
First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.
At what point did I state that the man was dangerous because he was on drugs? I didn't. I said he chose to abuse drugs which is factually supported by the coroner's report and certainly played a role in his inability to adequately process the situation and comply with the officer's instructions.
You didn't, you stated the person was shot because of the decisions they made in life. The main reason you brought up was the fact that this person was on drugs. A cop needs to have a perceived threat before he can shoot. Not removing your hand from your pocket when you are at a clear disadvantage against the officer is not a threat. The man is not Clint Eastwood. He cant draw that quickly. Especially while sitting down in a car. So there was no danger for the officer. Where was the threat coming from? A lot of people are blaming it on the fact that the man was on drugs clouding his perception. But, after the fact it is proven he was not dangerous as he had no weapon. But, it was his choice to do drugs in life that led him to being shot. Are you following how ridiculous this argument is yet?
But, lets overlook the fact that the drugs he was on did not actually have any factor on how he was processing the situation, it was the drugs he was hiding that were occupying his time. We could also overlook the fact that the only thing that could be perceived as aggressive towards the officer was he was digging around in his pocket. In the time that he was digging around in his pocket, he produced no weapon to threaten the officer with. An officer who already had a weapon drawn and targeted on the subject and could have fired on him as soon as he saw a weapon being pulled.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.
Can I get a link to that law? I would like to read through that.
Also, can somebody please tell me why it is alright to fire in to a car full of civilians, endangering the lives of the other people in the car? Nobody seems to want to talk about that. Everybody just wants to talk about how the man was shot and that was fine to them. If this officer was looking to protect civilians by killing this man, maybe he shouldn't have fired in to a car full of them.
In 2013, he probably shouldn't have shot an unarmed man who had just been tazered by a different cop. All because "he had a crazed look on his face" just seconds after being hit with surges of electricity. (A cop using non-lethal means to subdue a person, that puts him in danger! Not on his watch!)
So many points people are not arguing.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.
I got bored and looked up the laws for North Carolina. (It says you live there on your profile)
But, lets overlook the fact that the drugs he was on did not actually have any factor on how he was processing the situation
Are you serious?
METH HARM
SHORT-TERM EFFECTS
Loss of appetite
Increased heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature
Dilation of pupils
Disturbed sleep patterns
Nausea
Bizarre, erratic, sometimes violent behavior
Hallucinations, hyperexcitability, irritability
Panic and psychosis Convulsions, seizures and death from high doses
And the guy who had a 'crazed look on his face' after getting tasered by the LEO..... did the LEO just randomly walk up to someone and taser them? Presumably they had a reason for firing the taser in the first place, right?
Maybe the LEO wasn't trained for a Taser. Maybe his training expired and he was waiting for the next class. maybe the guy was wearing some thick clothing.
Loss of appetite
Increased heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature
Dilation of pupils
Disturbed sleep patterns
Nausea
Bizarre, erratic, sometimes violent behavior
Hallucinations, hyperexcitability, irritability
Panic and psychosis Convulsions, seizures and death from high doses
I mean, seriously.
Are you serious? Those do not happen at all times. Not all people react the same way to drugs. How far in was he? How often does he use? Did he use recently? Has he used today? The fact that you can sometimes have violent behavior while on a drug does not mean you are always violent while on the drug. Just like every time you take any other pill with side effects such as the ever popular death or suicide side effect, they do not happen every time. Did you just go look that up and link it assuming that was the winning thing? Lets be honest. The man made absolutely no threatening gestures towards the cop but because he was on drugs suddenly he is irrational, violent, and out of control!
You guys, just amazing.
I also found the website you did a copy/paste of. Which is a very very hilarious website.
First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant.
As per above, are you serious?
Absolutely, why does that come in to a factor when the cop is shooting? Because of a possibility of "short term symptoms" that do not always occur?
Torga_DW wrote: And the guy who had a 'crazed look on his face' after getting tasered by the LEO..... did the LEO just randomly walk up to someone and taser them? Presumably they had a reason for firing the taser in the first place, right?
Little bit overkill to tazer a person and then fatally shoot them.
Torga_DW wrote: And the guy who had a 'crazed look on his face' after getting tasered by the LEO..... did the LEO just randomly walk up to someone and taser them? Presumably they had a reason for firing the taser in the first place, right?
Little bit overkill to tazer a person and then fatally shoot them.
Again, they didn't just randomly go up to someone and taser them. When you have reason to deploy a taser in the first place and the only response from it is a crazed look, it's time to switch tactics. LEO are in a profession where their lives might be at risk, that doesn't mean they should be expected to risk their lives unreasonably. Once the badge is flashed and the gun comes out, its time to comply. If the LEO is doing something wrong, sort it out afterwards. The guy in the OP was high on meth, carrying meth, and after being told to keep his hands visible reached for his waist in a country where every man and his wienerdog can carry guns. He should have put his hands where the LEO could see them like everyone else did, he didn't.
Torga_DW wrote: And the guy who had a 'crazed look on his face' after getting tasered by the LEO..... did the LEO just randomly walk up to someone and taser them? Presumably they had a reason for firing the taser in the first place, right?
Little bit overkill to tazer a person and then fatally shoot them.
Again, they didn't just randomly go up to someone and taser them. When you have reason to deploy a taser in the first place and the only response from it is a crazed look, it's time to switch tactics. LEO are in a profession where their lives might be at risk, that doesn't mean they should be expected to risk their lives unreasonably. Once the badge is flashed and the gun comes out, its time to comply. If the LEO is doing something wrong, sort it out afterwards. The guy in the OP was high on meth, carrying meth, and after being told to keep his hands visible reached for his waist in a country where every man and his wienerdog can carry guns. He should have put his hands where the LEO could see them like everyone else did, he didn't.
He shot him within two seconds after the tazer going off. Did you watch the video? It was also 2v1. But hey, just shoot him, right? Also, just because a person can does not mean they are.
The man was high on meth, he had been fumbling at his side and did not provide a weapon or a reasonable threat to the police officer. Certainly not enough of one to fire in to a vehicle with a person sitting next to your target. Who cares about that collateral damage though?
I'm sure it wont matter to you, but the NIDA website also agrees:
Long-term effects may include:
Addiction
Psychosis, including:
paranoia
hallucinations
repetitive motor activity Changes in brain structure and function
Deficits in thinking and motor skills
Increased distractibility
Memory loss
Aggressive or violent behavior
Mood disturbances Severe dental problems
Weight loss
I mean, you can keep denying it all you want, but those are the facts.
Additionally, as we've pointed out to you MULTIPLE TIMES, failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" by reaching for your waste is a threatening motion.
But you've made it pretty clear that you're very set in your opinion.
It is immediately obvious if a Taser doesn't work. A successful use will immediately disable the target, but if you miss, the voltage isn't sufficient, or something else goes wrong you don't have the Taser as an option. You only get one shot with it. 2 seconds is more than enough time to escalate to lethal force.
Cincy you have some serious patience or one diabolical plan
I must just be trying to get a suspension again. Don't know why I'm bothering.
I see no cause for a suspension from you and neither from Dreadclaw. IMO and experience he made the right call.
Hell we shot up a car who blew through our check point in Iraq for fear it was a VIED
The other platoon shot up a motorcycle who blew through their check point because they were late for class
I drew down on drivers and occupants who did not or were real damn slow showing me both their hands as I or my troops approach the vehicle.
Its gawddamn nerve wracking
I've no sympathy for the meth head who pulled a wrong move making the LEO think he has a possible guy wanting to be a cop killer for revenge of Garner and Brown.
I see no cause for a suspension from you and neither from Dreadclaw.
Yet
It's only a matter of time before I lose my patience, say something condescending, and get flagged for being a big ole meanie pants.
One thing I remember is that this is the internet and d-usa hammered me once with calling me a internet bad a$$ guy or some crap. That got my goat so I responded in kind questioning his work ethics. You know what though. Your all like me but with a different look and out take. I hate these threads because I can see what they could have done and what they could not have done. I'm not in their position to judge their call on escalation of force of justification of force. Its the LEO decision being he/she is one "POINT" every damn day he or she puts on that uniform. I go on "Point" for a year or more but I get to unwind a bit before I am slammed back into that environment. We're use to violence and making decisions because of our EXPERIENCE in a shooting match but we also follow RoE and once all those ROE check boxes get checked then its "Do unto others as they unto you and call in air support if needed"
cincydooley wrote: I'm sure it wont matter to you, but the NIDA website also agrees:
Long-term effects may include:
Addiction
Psychosis, including:
paranoia
hallucinations
repetitive motor activity Changes in brain structure and function
Deficits in thinking and motor skills
Increased distractibility
Memory loss
Aggressive or violent behavior
Mood disturbances Severe dental problems
Weight loss
I mean, you can keep denying it all you want, but those are the facts.
Additionally, as we've pointed out to you MULTIPLE TIMES, failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" by reaching for your waste is a threatening motion.
But you've made it pretty clear that you're very set in your opinion.
It is like you ignored everything I said about symptoms not always being present. I believe I have pointed out how your failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" is not enough for to be considered a threatening motion. In fact, I am pretty sure I talked to an expert on the subject and he informed me that if you shoot before a weapon is presented you have jumped the gun on the situation and your training has failed you. I brought these things up. You have ignored them. Much like my many attempts to bring up the fact that the officer fired in to a vehicle full of people for one person.
You have provided me nothing to prove your point. Plus, Jihadin is bringing up his military career in relation to police work in a non warzone. At this point, I am wondering if you guys are even reading what I say or just frothing at the mouth because I disagree with you.
Grey Templar wrote: It is immediately obvious if a Taser doesn't work. A successful use will immediately disable the target, but if you miss, the voltage isn't sufficient, or something else goes wrong you don't have the Taser as an option. You only get one shot with it. 2 seconds is more than enough time to escalate to lethal force.
So because a tazer does not take a man down, it is alright to use lethal even if you still outnumber him 2 to 1 and could peacefully resolve a situation?
Jihadin wrote:
One thing I remember is that this is the internet and d-usa hammered me once with calling me a internet bad a$$ guy or some crap. That got my goat so I responded in kind questioning his work ethics. You know what though. Your all like me but with a different look and out take. I hate these threads because I can see what they could have done and what they could not have done. I'm not in their position to judge their call on escalation of force of justification of force. Its the LEO decision being he/she is one "POINT" every damn day he or she puts on that uniform. I go on "Point" for a year or more but I get to unwind a bit before I am slammed back into that environment. We're use to violence and making decisions because of our EXPERIENCE in a shooting match but we also follow RoE and once all those ROE check boxes get checked then its "Do unto others as they unto you and call in air support if needed"
It shouldn't take being an internet badass to know that if a guy with the legal right to kill you if they think it might turn out to be a hairy situation happens to have a gun pointed at you, that you need to act carefully. I honestly don't understand the mentality of some people - it's like they think they can't shoot me. Yes, they can. The stupidity defense only works in a courtroom.
Dreadwinter wrote:
It is like you ignored everything I said about symptoms not always being present. I believe I have pointed out how your failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" is not enough for to be considered a threatening motion. In fact, I am pretty sure I talked to an expert on the subject and he informed me that if you shoot before a weapon is presented you have jumped the gun on the situation and your training has failed you. I brought these things up. You have ignored them. Much like my many attempts to bring up the fact that the officer fired in to a vehicle full of people for one person.
You have provided me nothing to prove your point. Plus, Jihadin is bringing up his military career in relation to police work in a non warzone. At this point, I am wondering if you guys are even reading what I say or just frothing at the mouth because I disagree with you.
How exactly do you expect the police officer to know what particular symptom/s the man might have been experiencing at the time?
Dreadwinter wrote:So because a tazer does not take a man down, it is alright to use lethal even if you still outnumber him 2 to 1 and could peacefully resolve a situation?
It takes two sides to resolve a situation peacefully. If it was a 2v1 situation, maybe he should have complied?
How exactly do you expect the police officer to know what particular symptom/s the man might have been experiencing at the time?
Well, the police officer didn't know he was on meth at the time so had no reason to suspect psychosis/hallucinations/other potential side effects linked with meth-amphetamine use.
People claim that it is wrong to use hindsight to evaluate how the situation should have been resolved then use hindsight following the toxicology reports to say that the officer was right to shoot him as he was on meth and so therefore possibly a violent psychotic.
Dreadwinter wrote:So because a tazer does not take a man down, it is alright to use lethal even if you still outnumber him 2 to 1 and could peacefully resolve a situation?
It takes two sides to resolve a situation peacefully. If it was a 2v1 situation, maybe he should have complied?
I assume by peacefully he meant non-lethally in which case, no it doesn't.
First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.
At what point did I state that the man was dangerous because he was on drugs? I didn't. I said he chose to abuse drugs which is factually supported by the coroner's report and certainly played a role in his inability to adequately process the situation and comply with the officer's instructions.
You didn't, you stated the person was shot because of the decisions they made in life. The main reason you brought up was the fact that this person was on drugs. A cop needs to have a perceived threat before he can shoot. Not removing your hand from your pocket when you are at a clear disadvantage against the officer is not a threat. The man is not Clint Eastwood. He cant draw that quickly. Especially while sitting down in a car. So there was no danger for the officer. Where was the threat coming from? A lot of people are blaming it on the fact that the man was on drugs clouding his perception. But, after the fact it is proven he was not dangerous as he had no weapon. But, it was his choice to do drugs in life that led him to being shot. Are you following how ridiculous this argument is yet?
But, lets overlook the fact that the drugs he was on did not actually have any factor on how he was processing the situation, it was the drugs he was hiding that were occupying his time. We could also overlook the fact that the only thing that could be perceived as aggressive towards the officer was he was digging around in his pocket. In the time that he was digging around in his pocket, he produced no weapon to threaten the officer with. An officer who already had a weapon drawn and targeted on the subject and could have fired on him as soon as he saw a weapon being pulled.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.
Can I get a link to that law? I would like to read through that.
Also, can somebody please tell me why it is alright to fire in to a car full of civilians, endangering the lives of the other people in the car? Nobody seems to want to talk about that. Everybody just wants to talk about how the man was shot and that was fine to them. If this officer was looking to protect civilians by killing this man, maybe he shouldn't have fired in to a car full of them.
In 2013, he probably shouldn't have shot an unarmed man who had just been tazered by a different cop. All because "he had a crazed look on his face" just seconds after being hit with surges of electricity. (A cop using non-lethal means to subdue a person, that puts him in danger! Not on his watch!)
So many points people are not arguing.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.
I got bored and looked up the laws for North Carolina. (It says you live there on your profile)
Yes, it reads pretty much exactly how I said it did, I'm not sure what your point of confusion might be. A person needs to have a reasonable belief that the attacker they shoot poses an imminent threat of death or bodily harm. Reasonable belief doesn't require that the aggressor put his/her hands on you or attempt to strike you it simply means that the circumstances were such that it was reasonable to believe that the person posed a direct threat. The aggressor's words, movements, body language, etc. can all make a reasonable person believe that the aggressor is an imminent threat. If somebody gets in my face, aggressively walks up to me, gets loud and verbally aggressive, takes an aggressive stance, things that make the other reasonable people around me start stepping back apprehensively because they can tell that that person intends on trying to beat me up, it's also reasonable for me to believe that person is about to try to hurt me and I can use lethal force to defend myself from that imminent fight/beating/bodily harm.
SG 14-51.2 sections a and b identify that a citizen in his/her home has the right to defend him/herself with lethal force fromsomebody attempting to break into the home. The aggressor does not need to complete the act of breaking into the residence in order for lethal force to be justified. If somebody has chosen to unlawfully attempt to forcibly enter your home then it is reasonable to believe that said person has ill intent and poses a threat of imminent bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.
How exactly do you expect the police officer to know what particular symptom/s the man might have been experiencing at the time?
Well, the police officer didn't know he was on meth at the time so had no reason to suspect psychosis/hallucinations/other potential side effects linked with meth-amphetamine use.
People claim that it is wrong to use hindsight to evaluate how the situation should have been resolved then use hindsight following the toxicology reports to say that the officer was right to shoot him as he was on meth and so therefore possibly a violent psychotic.
True, but his fidgety actions/refusal to comply with the LEO's request to raise his hands are what the LEO did see. A decent cop also would have seen the condition of the guy's face/eyes and suspected drug use. All that would have registered at some level and influenced the cop's decision at the time. Meth addicts are pretty easy to ID, and any cop working an area with meth being used knows what to look for.
If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.
TheCustomLime wrote: If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
North Carolina Stand Your Ground Law wrote:(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.
So actually, you cannot just shoot a man any time he threatens you like we have been led to believe. In fact, it is clearly against the law, according to this, to use deadly force you have to reasonably believe the person is going to do great harm or use deadly force against you. I dunno about you, but I haven't found a lot of people who can kill me through a locked door. Well, except people with guns. Kinda like you in your scenario. Holy crap, maybe I missed it. Were you playing the attacker in your scenario?
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.
All snark aside, I can actually agree with the decision so far. If the guy truly didn't know it was cops on the house then it should count as a justified shooting.
You'd think that the cops would keep on yelling "police department" until someone answered or the house was cleared. I know we would always yell "ambulance" or "fire department" until we made contact just so nobody would shoot us.
My law enforcement experience is this: i've personally seen enough cops behaving badly to know not to give them a reason. It's just common sense. The guy who got shot was doing the wrong thing at every turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Now we can even shoot black cops and still nobody gets arrested!
All snark aside, I can actually agree with the decision so far. If the guy truly didn't know it was cops on the house then it should count as a justified shooting.
You'd think that the cops would keep on yelling "police department" until someone answered or the house was cleared. I know we would always yell "ambulance" or "fire department" until we made contact just so nobody would shoot us.
Down here, yelling any of those 3 runs the risk of bystanders attacking you.
TheCustomLime wrote: If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
That you have and I have yet to hear a compelling reason why an officer should wait until the suspect flashes iron before opening up. If your ideas went into practice then we would end up with a lot more dead cops since it doesn't take much time from when it can be confirmed that the suspect has a gat until the police officer has been capped. Furthermore, what good reason would someone have to reach for a hidden place when an officer is yelling at them to keep their hands in the open? They're either going for a weapon or an idiot for looking like they are going for a weapon. It's not hard to avoid getting shot by the police. Just do what they tell you.
TheCustomLime wrote: If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
North Carolina Stand Your Ground Law wrote:(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.
So actually, you cannot just shoot a man any time he threatens you like we have been led to believe. In fact, it is clearly against the law, according to this, to use deadly force you have to reasonably believe the person is going to do great harm or use deadly force against you. I dunno about you, but I haven't found a lot of people who can kill me through a locked door. Well, except people with guns. Kinda like you in your scenario. Holy crap, maybe I missed it. Were you playing the attacker in your scenario?
§ 14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Home. - A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.
(2) Law enforcement officer. - Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(3) Motor vehicle. - As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23).
(4) Workplace. - A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes.
(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(g) This section is not intended to repeal or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (2011-268, s. 1.)
SG 14-51.2 sections a and b identify that a citizen in his/her home has the right to defend him/herself with lethal force fromsomebody attempting to break into the home. The aggressor does not need to complete the act of breaking into the residence in order for lethal force to be justified. If somebody has chosen to unlawfully attempt to forcibly enter your home then it is reasonable to believe that said person has ill intent and poses a threat of imminent bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.
Again you seem to be under the impression that your narrow interpretation of imminent is the legal interpretation but that is not the case. If somebody is trying to break into your home it is entirely reasonable to believe that person harbors bad intentions and poses an imminent threat to you and any other person in the residence. You can preemptively stop them from hurting you by using lethal force, the only requirement is that it be reasonable to believe that the aggressor is an imminent threat. Doors break, police take time to respond, you have the legal right to shoot somebody through the door before it breaks and that person enters your home and harms you.
It's clearly written in the statute:
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
If a woman flees a spouse or signifcant other that is abusive and the abuser tracks her down and proceeds to try to break into the residence where the woman is located that woman does not have a legal obligation to let an angry, violent abuser physically force his way into the home before she can defend herself with lethal force. The law specifically states that it is reasonable to assume that the person attempting to break in has the intent to hurt you so you have the right to defend yourself from that harm with lethal force.
We do, which is why (at this point) he was let go. He had the right to defend his home and at this point it seems that he has a legitimate claim of "not knowing" he was shooting at cops.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.
hahaha, so wait. You guys tell me I cannot comment on a subject as I have no experience or expertise. So I seek an expert on the subject. I did not misunderstand him. He did not lie to me. I am not telling you a lie. But, thanks for trying to pull that argument out. He also told me that cops are trained to seek cover behind the doors of cop cars to break line of sight with their body and slow the projectile. But you know, doors are terrible shields. What with obstructing view and everything. Get out of here with that bullgak argument.
TheCustomLime wrote: If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
That you have and I have yet to hear a compelling reason why an officer should wait until the suspect flashes iron before opening up. If your ideas went into practice then we would end up with a lot more dead cops since it doesn't take much time from when it can be confirmed that the suspect has a gat until the police officer has been capped. Furthermore, what good reason would someone have to reach for a hidden place when an officer is yelling at them to keep their hands in the open? They're either going for a weapon or an idiot for looking like they are going for a weapon. It's not hard to avoid getting shot by the police. Just do what they tell you.
They are not my ideas. They are police practice, straight from the mouth of an LEO. So, your argument is pretty much over right there. But, the good enough reason for him was to hide his drugs. My compelling reason for why an officer should wait until the suspect flashes iron? To ensure credible threat and prevent a pointless death. Which is what they need. Are you even reading what I type?
SG 14-51.2 sections a and b identify that a citizen in his/her home has the right to defend him/herself with lethal force fromsomebody attempting to break into the home. The aggressor does not need to complete the act of breaking into the residence in order for lethal force to be justified. If somebody has chosen to unlawfully attempt to forcibly enter your home then it is reasonable to believe that said person has ill intent and poses a threat of imminent bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.
Again you seem to be under the impression that your narrow interpretation of imminent is the legal interpretation but that is not the case. If somebody is trying to break into your home it is entirely reasonable to believe that person harbors bad intentions and poses an imminent threat to you and any other person in the residence. You can preemptively stop them from hurting you by using lethal force, the only requirement is that it be reasonable to believe that the aggressor is an imminent threat. Doors break, police take time to respond, you have the legal right to shoot somebody through the door before it breaks and that person enters your home and harms you.
It's clearly written in the statute:
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
If a woman flees a spouse or signifcant other that is abusive and the abuser tracks her down and proceeds to try to break into the residence where the woman is located that woman does not have a legal obligation to let an angry, violent abuser physically force his way into the home before she can defend herself with lethal force. The law specifically states that it is reasonable to assume that the person attempting to break in has the intent to hurt you so you have the right to defend yourself from that harm with lethal force.
Thank you for finally linking the whole law, it appears I did not have the entirety of it. It does say that. Although, I am not sure about your comment about my narrow interpretation considering I was working without all the information. But thanks!
I stand by assertion, you lie or misunderstood, or your expert did. Neither cops nor civilians who are legally carrying are under any legal constraint to wait until a weapon is brandished.
It may be your opinion it is a good idea, and your wish that it was the law, but it isn't. The NC law above is an example of the way these types of laws are written.
Yes, he does not understand the law. Just about every state that has a stand your ground, castle doctrine, etc... none of those require a firearm to be presented before you can defend yourself with deadly force.
All that needs to be present is the threat of deadly force being used against you. This does not mean a weapon needs to be presented against you.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
If a man is pounding your face into a concrete block, but has not exhibited a weapon, you have all the right in the world to pull your weapon out, and create some new breathing holes for the assailant.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
That was never said, but please make up more things to prove your point.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
That was never said, but please make up more things to prove your point.
No, you said that the guy said a weapon had to be presented before someone could draw their own weapon and use it. I was offering scenario's where that is patently false.
Police get involved in dangerous situations as part of their jobs, the idea that they have to wait until their life is just about to be over before reacting is just ludicrous.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
That was never said, but please make up more things to prove your point.
No, you said that the guy said a weapon had to be presented before someone could draw their own weapon and use it. I was offering scenario's where that is patently false.
hahaha, actually, I did not. But nice try!
Dreadwinter wrote:According to him, it goes against pretty much everything you are told as an officer to shoot before you verify a threat. To verify a perceived threat, it is heavily implied that an officer needs to see a weapon before he may open fire on a target.
Nothing is said about when to draw a weapon. Just firing it. But you keep on making up those silly arguments!
djones520 wrote: And USE it. Reading comprehension, it's a thing.
It sure is, I wish you would use it a little bit. :(
This comment was in regard to the video in question. Stop trying to pull this out like I am making a blanket statement for all scenarios. Everything is different.
Now, as far as stand your ground, castle doctrine, other such laws. A weapon does not have to be present, but intent does. The Montana man did not show intent to harm anyone. He did not verbally threaten anybody. He did not make threatening gestures.(digging through your pocket? lololol) But you guys keep telling me the drugs made him violent. But, it is shown that he was not attempting to hurt anybody.(except himself, with the drugs) So this must mean not all drug addicts are violent and crazy, correct?
With the man in the vehicle full of civilians(which you guys still do not want to talk about) he was sitting down. Away from the cop. The cop had a weapon pulled on him already. What kind of threat could the man have posed to him? He was clearly having trouble with whatever was in his pocket. So he was not pulling anything out quickly. The cop already had a weapon drawn, so as soon as he would see a weapon he could pull the trigger. Unless this man can draw a weapon, point it at the cop, then pull the trigger quicker than the cop. If that is the case, I think the cop needs a little better training.
When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Yes, it absolutely is. Who is the expert who pointed it out?
Edit - Oh, I see. You talked to a LEO. Well, if that's actually what he told you, he was wrong, and so are you.
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Yes, it absolutely is. Who is the expert who pointed it out?
Edit - Oh, I see. You talked to a LEO. Well, if that's actually what he told you, he was wrong, and so are you.
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Yes, it absolutely is. Who is the expert who pointed it out?
Edit - Oh, I see. You talked to a LEO. Well, if that's actually what he told you, he was wrong, and so are you.
Thanks for keeping an open mind!
It's not about keeping an open mind. It's about knowing what you are talking about. I'm probably one of the most open-minded people you could hope to meet. I am perfectly capable of considering an idea without accepting it. But when you have multiple people with a hell of a lot more experience than you telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should consider for a moment that it might be you who is mistaken.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
Do you not understand what I just posted? How old are you? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
Do you not understand what I just posted? How old are you? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious.
27 and I understand what you posted. You posted telling me that military personnel and people who have a concealed carry license know more about LEO procedure than an LEO. Is that correct?
Hordini wrote: The point isn't knowing about LEO procedure, the point is knowing about the law.
This law?
45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. wrote:A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It is not reasonable to believe that a person fumbling around in their pocket is likely to cause you death or serious bodily harm. In fact, the LEO that I talked to told me that Police are trained so that they do not think that way. Which is why discussion of police procedure and training are important in this discussion.
On top of all of this, the police officer put more lives at risk when he fired in to a vehicle full of unarmed civilians, when he assumed that one of them had a weapon.
45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. wrote:A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It is not reasonable to believe that a person fumbling around in their pocket is likely to cause you death or serious bodily harm. In fact, the LEO that I talked to told me that Police are trained so that they do not think that way. Which is why discussion of police procedure and training are important in this discussion.
-Uhh... yeah, it is, if you're LEO. If I'm just Joe Schmoe walking down the street, no someone fumbling around their pockets isn't a threat to me.... If someone kicked in the door to my house, starts acting in a violent manner (yelling, etc) and then starts fumbling around in pockets/waistband, yeah he/she is presenting a threat.
-Your LEO friend must live in one hell of a fethed up jurisdiction, because between the 3 or 4 LEOs that I personally know and have maintained contact with over the years (and they are spread over a large area, so there's no geographic similarity in thought) definitely think, and were trained to think differently.
-Yeah, police procedure and training is important for this discussion. It worked perfectly well here.
But hey... I already know you'll make some hamfisted attempt to poke holes in what I just said... But, I'm with all the other reasonable people here, and I'll just sit back and let you waste oxygen and look like a fool.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
Your LEO is fake, a liar or a buffoon. I have 3 LEO friends who all directly contraction your so-called facts... But this is the internet... You can make up all sorts of fake 'experts' to substantiate your claim when all factual documentation on the internet proves you wrong.
Grabbing for 'something' out of sight when you have been told to 'put your hands up and keep them visible' is a threatening action which could get you shot in virtually any police jurisdiction in the US.
