It would go a LONG way to smoothing over race relations if like this weren't becoming so damned commonplace. The video on Yahoo's site has news commentary included. I linked a Youtube video which has only the raw feed plus subtitles.
Helping autistic man, black therapist shot by Florida police: media
(Reuters) - A video emerged online on Wednesday showing the moments before an unarmed black Florida man was shot by police as he lay in a street with his hands up next to an autistic patient whom he was trying to help, media reported.
Behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey was hospitalized after he was shot three times in the leg by a North Miami police officer during an incident on Monday, media said.
The incident comes at a time when racial tension is high in the United States. Protests have erupted in major U.S. cities during the past year and a half, as widely viewed videos of police shootings of black men drew attention to long-standing issues of race, policing and lack of accountability for officers.
Kinsey told WSVN-TV in Miami that he was trying to calm an autistic patient who had just ran away from an area group home. Kinsey said he found the patient sitting in a street playing with a toy truck.
A video that accompanied the news station’s online story showed a black man in a T-shirt and shorts lying on his back with his hands up next to a man, who appears to have an object in his hand.
“All he has is a truck. A toy truck. I’m a behavior therapist at a group home,” a man is heard saying in the cell phone video as police officers are seen with their weapons drawn.
The North Miami Police Department said in a statement that officers responded to a call of an armed suspect threatening suicide. Officers arrived at the scene and found an autistic man and an employee with an assist living facility.
At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers fired his weapon, striking the employee, police said.
The moment of the shooting was not captured on the video and it is unclear why the officer fired his weapon.
An officer has been placed under administrative leave. An investigation is ongoing with the assistance of the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office, the department said.
"At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers fired his weapon, striking the employee, police said. "
Kick him off the force, strip him off his 2nd amendment rights and pass an act of congress that bans him from ever being able to own anything more dangerous than a carrot!
That's the only cure for this level of stupidity...
I am sympathetic to gun owners, my comment history backs this up, but God almighty, idiots like this should be exiled to Alaska to guard an igloo for the rest of their lives...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: "At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers fired his weapon, striking the employee, police said. "
Kick him off the force, strip him off his 2nd amendment rights and pass an act of congress that bans him from ever being able to own anything more dangerous than a carrot!
That's the only cure for this level of stupidity...
I am sympathetic to gun owners, my comment history backs this up, but God almighty, idiots like this should be exiled to Alaska to guard an igloo for the rest of their lives...
I would agree with you if this story is accurate, but seeing as they literally edited out a GIANT chunk of what happened I say we wait until the facts are in, I know, crazy to actually wait for evidence when we can instead just yell racist cops, but I guess I am old fashioned like that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: "At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers fired his weapon, striking the employee, police said. "
Kick him off the force, strip him off his 2nd amendment rights and pass an act of congress that bans him from ever being able to own anything more dangerous than a carrot!
That's the only cure for this level of stupidity...
I am sympathetic to gun owners, my comment history backs this up, but God almighty, idiots like this should be exiled to Alaska to guard an igloo for the rest of their lives...
I would agree with you if this story is accurate, but seeing as they literally edited out a GIANT chunk of what happened I say we wait until the facts are in, I know, crazy to actually wait for evidence when we can instead just yell racist cops, but I guess I am old fashioned like that.
Normally I would agree with you, and I'd be the last person to jump to knee-jerk reactions, but Cops in America must be aware of the current climate, and yet, this happens.
Even from that footage, it is clear that neither of those men is a threat.
I would agree with you if this story is accurate, but seeing as they literally edited out a GIANT chunk of what happened I say we wait until the facts are in, I know, crazy to actually wait for evidence when we can instead just yell racist cops, but I guess I am old fashioned like that.
I can't think of anything to explain why the cop would feel the need to shoot at an unarmed man trying to explain what's going on whilst laying on the ground with his hands visible.
Do blacks need to start carrying large print cards explaining what they are doing and asking not to be shot?
As usual, I really can't see the outcome being the same if he was white.
I would agree with you if this story is accurate, but seeing as they literally edited out a GIANT chunk of what happened I say we wait until the facts are in, I know, crazy to actually wait for evidence when we can instead just yell racist cops, but I guess I am old fashioned like that.
I can't think of anything to explain why the cop would feel the need to shoot at an unarmed man trying to explain what's going on whilst laying on the ground with his hands visible.
Do blacks need to start carrying large print cards explaining what they are doing and asking not to be shot?
As usual, I really can't see the outcome being the same if he was white.
If he'd been white, the autistic guy would have been shot, most likely.
It might not be their intention, but US police do a damn fine job of looking like they wish to kill all non-whites.
NORTH MIAMI, FLA. (WSVN) - A therapist who works with people with disabilities is telling his story after he said police shot him while he was trying to help his patient with autism.
Cellphone video was released Wednesday afternoon showing Charles Kinsey lying on the ground with his hands in the air, telling officers that weapons are not necessary. “When I went to the ground, I’m going to the ground just like this here with my hands up,” Kinsey said, “and I am laying down here just like this, and I’m telling them again, ‘Sir, there is no need for firearms. I’m unarmed, he’s an autistic guy. He got a toy truck in his hand.”
In his hospital bed, Kinsey said, he was attempting to calm an autistic patient who ran away from a group home. Kinsey could be heard in the video saying, “All he has is a toy truck. A toy truck. I am a behavior therapist at a group home.”
He is also heard asking his patient to calm down. “Rinaldo, please be still, Rinaldo. Sit down, Rinaldo. Lay on your stomach.”
The ordeal went on for a few minutes before Kinsey said one of the officers shot him. “I’m like this right here, and when he shot me, it was so surprising,” Kinsey said. “It was like a mosquito bite, and when it hit me, I’m like, ‘I still got my hands in the air, and I said, ‘No I just got shot! And I’m saying, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ and his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.'”
North Miami Police said the incident began, Monday, when someone called 911 and said there was a man walking around with a gun threatening suicide. Kinsey said the man was his patient and the alleged gun was a toy truck, which he said was clearly visible to police. “I was really more worried about him than myself. I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking, they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong.”
Kinsey was then shot in the leg. The shooting was not captured on camera but Kinsey said he had his hands up the entire time.
The therapist said police then rushed him, patted him down and put him in handcuffs. Kinsey said what police did after the shooting is what upsets him the most. “They flipped me over, and I’m faced down in the ground, with cuffs on, waiting on the rescue squad to come. I’d say about 20, about 20 minutes it took the rescue squad to get there. And I was like, bleeding — I mean bleeding and I was like, ‘Wow.'”
Despite everything that’s happened, Kinsey is happy to be alive. Standing by his bedside, his wife said, “Right now, I am just grateful that he is alive, and he is able to tell his story.”
Kinsey only wants to help people and is perplexed as to why officers fired. “My life flashed in front of me,” he said. “When he hit me, my first thing I’m thinking, I’m thinking about my family.”
Around 6 p.m. Wednesday, a group called the Circle of Brotherhood stood outside the North Miami Police Department, requesting that police answer questions about what happened and if the officer responsible for shooting will face charges.
The organization, which Kinsey is a part, of works to solve problems in the community.
Kinsey’s lawyer, Hilton Napoleon, is outraged. “There’s no justification for shooting an unarmed person who’s talking to you and telling you that they don’t have a gun, and that they’re a mental health counselor,” Napoleon said.
North Miami Police have not released the officer’s name or an update on their investigation. However, they did say that the State Attorney is now involved with the investigation.
Copyright 2016 Sunbeam Television Corp. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
US police never do de-escalation. Their solution is either: white guy gets handcuffs, or somebody has to be shot.
None of the above is true.
You are seeing some disgusting incidents. They are rare when you consider we are a nation of 350 million. But they shouldn't happen at all. Those responsible should be punished.
However, please refrain from such broad strokes before I remind you that
All English people drink tea. All English people have Princess Diana commemorative plates hanging in their living room. All English people are Manchester United fans. All English people think the EU is a bag of dicks.
The story clearly says there is nothing that indicates why the shooting took place.
So... can we please wait for some facts to come around before judgement happens.
You'd think the 8+ dead police officers in the last 10 days would have people thinking twice about jumping off the emotional bridge the second they hear news about something.
The ordeal went on for a few minutes before Kinsey said one of the officers shot him. “I’m like this right here, and when he shot me, it was so surprising,” Kinsey said. “It was like a mosquito bite, and when it hit me, I’m like, ‘I still got my hands in the air, and I said, ‘No I just got shot! And I’m saying, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ and his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.'”
If true, take his gun. Read him his rights. Put him in a cell.
> Guy explaining himself, complying with cops, hands up
> Cop shoots him, bc lol > Cop doesn't konw why he shot the guy
> Another cop shoots the guy for a second time, because bleeding is resisting arrest
An earlier poster said that we shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, and they were right. Now we have that evidence, I repeat my earlier comment.
Kick this officer of the force, strip them of their 2nd amendment rights, make them guard an igloo in Alaska for the rest of their lives, and give them cutlery made from rubber, because clearly they cannot be trusted with something as lethal as a firearm...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An earlier poster said that we shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, and they were right. Now we have that evidence, I repeat my earlier comment.
Kick this officer of the force, strip them of their 2nd amendment rights, make them guard an igloo in Alaska for the rest of their lives, and give them cutlery made from rubber, because clearly they cannot be trusted with something as lethal as a firearm...
No. convict that officer of a felony, like anyone else would be.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An earlier poster said that we shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, and they were right. Now we have that evidence, I repeat my earlier comment.
Kick this officer of the force, strip them of their 2nd amendment rights, make them guard an igloo in Alaska for the rest of their lives, and give them cutlery made from rubber, because clearly they cannot be trusted with something as lethal as a firearm...
Or, try them in a court of law and punish him justly, if/when convicted.
The more I see things like this happening, the more I wonder if the officers involved are former military. I do not mean that as a slam on those who have served in the armed forces as they and their families sacrifice a great deal to provide our safety, and there are obviously a great number of traits about the military that align well with police work. However, in the modern professional US military, soldiers are trained to kill as a reflex and not as a conscious thought because most humans, when they think about it, are loathe to shoot another human being with the intent to kill. This is a bad trait in a soldier, so the training often focuses on short-circuiting the "do not kill humans" instinct by making it a non-thought action.
While that obviously makes them better soldiers, it makes them awful police officers in a threatening situation. With how stressful those situations inevitably are, their reflexes will kick in and their reflex is to kill because that's what we (meaning society) spent a lot of time and energy making it be. The officer's reported comment of "I don't know" to why he shot the man aligns with that theory. He doesn't know because his brain didn't actually make that choice; his earlier training made that choice for him (if he's former military).
Now, people can also just be hateful people and/or flat-out make mistakes. However, I do see a great deal of overlap between the military and the police in terms of personnel, and I wonder if that's a hidden cause.
Krinsath wrote: The more I see things like this happening, the more I wonder if the officers involved are former military. I do not mean that as a slam on those who have served in the armed forces as they and their families sacrifice a great deal to provide our safety, and there are obviously a great number of traits about the military that align well with police work. However, in the modern professional US military, soldiers are trained to kill as a reflex and not as a conscious thought because most humans, when they think about it, are loathe to shoot another human being with the intent to kill. This is a bad trait in a soldier, so the training often focuses on short-circuiting the "do not kill humans" instinct by making it a non-thought action.
.
The military has Rules of Engagement that are faaaaaaar stricter than what cops deal with. If cops followed the RoE the way we expect our military to then this would never happen, and if it did he would be in prison very soon.
Kronk, some points of mine in response to your comment.
In no particular order:
If you're familiar with my comment history you'll know I'm sympathetic and supportive of the rights of Americans to keep guns.
Hell, in the new black panther thread, I was arguing in favour of African Americans to exercise their right to open carry.
In the vast majority of cases, our everyday police in the UK don't walk around armed, and we're largely an unarmed society, so you can't argue that the cops would still be armed if there were no guns on the streets.
I brought the 2nd into this for the following reason: clearly this man should not be trusted with a gun because he is a danger to himself and society at large, cop or no cop...
He has clearly demonstrated that his 2nd amendment rights should be suspended indefinitely...
Carrying a firearm is a fundamental right for Americans, but responsibility has to go hand in hand with that. Guns are not toys...
He has clearly demonstrated that his 2nd amendment rights should be suspended indefinitely...
Carrying a firearm is a fundamental right for Americans, but responsibility has to go hand in hand with that. Guns are not toys...
I agree with you 100% that this guy should be in prison and nowhere near a gun. However, I am just having a hard time where the 2nd amendment comes in, even with your explanation.
As a cop, he'll have a gun on him, whether we had the 2nd amendment or not. I guess I'm still confused by your approach to it, but fair enough. I'll drop some of the snark above...
I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
I'd like to see the dashcam or body cam footage for that missing part, though.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An earlier poster said that we shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, and they were right. Now we have that evidence, I repeat my earlier comment.
Kick this officer of the force, strip them of their 2nd amendment rights, make them guard an igloo in Alaska for the rest of their lives, and give them cutlery made from rubber, because clearly they cannot be trusted with something as lethal as a firearm...
Or, try them in a court of law and punish him justly, if/when convicted.
Far too rational. We need to immediately use the incident to somehow prove that there is a national epidemic of racial police shootings (not just more/selective reporting) and jump to conclusions and avoid all due process. Because that should turn out well.
jmurph wrote: Far too rational. We need to immediately use the incident to somehow prove that there is a national epidemic of racial police shootings (not just more/selective reporting) and jump to conclusions and avoid all due process. Because that should turn out well.
I know it's fun to blame the meeeeeeedia for all of our problems, but the number of police officers charged with murder tripled in 2015. With the advent of bodycams, dashcams, and ominpresent cell phone videos, it's getting harder to pretend there isn't an actual real problem with policing in the US - from the methods that policing takes, to the disinclination of good cops to report bad cops, and to the public for failing to indict what are sometimes readily apparent bad actors.
Krinsath wrote: The more I see things like this happening, the more I wonder if the officers involved are former military. I do not mean that as a slam on those who have served in the armed forces as they and their families sacrifice a great deal to provide our safety, and there are obviously a great number of traits about the military that align well with police work. However, in the modern professional US military, soldiers are trained to kill as a reflex and not as a conscious thought because most humans, when they think about it, are loathe to shoot another human being with the intent to kill. This is a bad trait in a soldier, so the training often focuses on short-circuiting the "do not kill humans" instinct by making it a non-thought action.
.
The military has Rules of Engagement that are faaaaaaar stricter than what cops deal with. If cops followed the RoE the way we expect our military to then this would never happen, and if it did he would be in prison very soon.
We've seen quite a bit of footage over the years of the RoEs being ignored as well; sometimes with no consequence if it was in a combat zone and just a mistake. Also the military tends to not operate in as small of numbers as the police do; typically an officer of some sort will be present that they have been conditioned to obey, and they can draw some calmness from the fact that there's 6 or 7 other guys there (or more). Many of these police shootings occur when they're out on their own with their partner, and those smaller numbers of course increase the anxiety/stress and likelihood to fall back on trained reflexes. This video seemed to show at least 3 officers though it's hard to tell where the shooter might have been in relation to others.
Again, it's just a theory that perhaps that conditioning is playing a role. Many other things play into that like the numbers as mentioned, and race can still be a factor as "you don't look like me" elevates people's wariness at a instinctual level. Very likely a huge number of factors combining badly and uniquely in each case, but I doubt that the problem is just "racist cops" as that seems far too simplistic to be reality.
If you're familiar with my comment history you'll know I'm sympathetic and supportive of the rights of Americans to keep guns.
Hell, in the new black panther thread, I was arguing in favour of African Americans to exercise their right to open carry.
In the vast majority of cases, our everyday police in the UK don't walk around armed, and we're largely an unarmed society, so you can't argue that the cops would still be armed if there were no guns on the streets.
I brought the 2nd into this for the following reason: clearly this man should not be trusted with a gun because he is a danger to himself and society at large, cop or no cop...
He has clearly demonstrated that his 2nd amendment rights should be suspended indefinitely...
Carrying a firearm is a fundamental right for Americans, but responsibility has to go hand in hand with that. Guns are not toys...
Ouze wrote: I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
Clearly in the seconds between the videos when the shooting happened, the truck was being modified into a makeshift firearm, and the Therapist began charging the officers while using the patient as a human shield and was non compliance... being on the ground with his hands up before and after is just fake to 'fit the narrative'.
We should wait for the true evidence, once the police tell us what it is and show us as they have no reason to lie or cover up.
Ouze wrote: I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
Maybe the police were trying to shoot out the tires of the toy truck and save the boy, but being that they never practice they missed, badly?
Ouze wrote: I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
nkelsch wrote: We should wait for the true evidence, once the police tell us what it is and show us as they have no reason to lie or cover up.
Indeed, I can't make any decisions until the police department has had time to look through the victim's social media for whatever pictures might cast them in the worst possible light. It would be irresponsible not to wait until then.
Frazzled wrote: ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ and his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.'”
Maybe make entry into the police a tad bit harder? Or better more regular evaluation to determine if they should be trusted with a gun, a taser or be better off carrying around a pool noodle.
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
Clearly bla bla bla islamic state... bla bla bla Nice.... bla bla bla murica save the day!
He was probably being loud or upset about something and thus drew their attention. Though here at least if someone is put into a group home like that and isn't considered safe enough on their own, if they were to escape and run away the police would be sent to find them which could be another possibility if he was involuntary and needed to remain under supervision for his own safety.
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
Reportedly the police were summoned to an armed man looking to attempt suicide. It's a fair question as to why they didn't realize there was no need to have guns drawn, but they thought they had been called to a far more dangerous situation than what they encountered. If I was told that I'd be going into an area where someone was armed, I'd likely go in with weapon drawn as well.
Whether or not that's true is a different question, but going at face value it's more of "why do the police never put their guns away once they're drawn?"
I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.
I think at this point a very healthy wariness of any interaction would be the most prudent course.
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
Maybe the police were trying to shoot out the tires of the toy truck and save the boy, but being that they never practice they missed, badly?
The "boy", Rinaldo, was a grown autistic man who lived in a group home.
You can see Rinaldo on the right, sitting up. Purportedly while the therapist was lying down, he tried to get Rinaldo to lie down as well and Rinaldo was telling him to "shut up".
In any regards, this officer needs to be fired immediately and charged with attempted murder. There was NO reason for guns to be drawn in this situation, reports of an armed person attempting suicide or not.
Krinsath wrote: The more I see things like this happening, the more I wonder if the officers involved are former military. I do not mean that as a slam on those who have served in the armed forces as they and their families sacrifice a great deal to provide our safety, and there are obviously a great number of traits about the military that align well with police work. However, in the modern professional US military, soldiers are trained to kill as a reflex and not as a conscious thought because most humans, when they think about it, are loathe to shoot another human being with the intent to kill. This is a bad trait in a soldier, so the training often focuses on short-circuiting the "do not kill humans" instinct by making it a non-thought action.
While that obviously makes them better soldiers, it makes them awful police officers in a threatening situation. With how stressful those situations inevitably are, their reflexes will kick in and their reflex is to kill because that's what we (meaning society) spent a lot of time and energy making it be. The officer's reported comment of "I don't know" to why he shot the man aligns with that theory. He doesn't know because his brain didn't actually make that choice; his earlier training made that choice for him (if he's former military).
Now, people can also just be hateful people and/or flat-out make mistakes. However, I do see a great deal of overlap between the military and the police in terms of personnel, and I wonder if that's a hidden cause.
This is all kinds of insulting and ignorant. First off no Soldier is trained to shoot an unarmed person. Second off if he had been former military, this could have happened had he been what we call soft skills. They hold a weapon once per year at most. If he had been military and been a combat arms then he would have been comfortable with his weapon, confident in his ability to utilize it, and not negligently shot a human being. This is simply incompetence in a police officer and I agree that he should be locked up. He didn't just make a mistake, he negligently fired his weapon, intentional or not. I haven't even finished reading the thread, but I had to address this.
Edit, Oh and at no point is any Soldier or policeperson is taught to shoot someone in the leg, so if he had been military, he would have shot him center mass. Hitting him in the leg seems like an unaimed shot to me. If it was unaimed, then it was negligent. Same thing applies, arrest him, arraign him and put him on trial.
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
Reportedly the police were summoned to an armed man looking to attempt suicide. It's a fair question as to why they didn't realize there was no need to have guns drawn, but they thought they had been called to a far more dangerous situation than what they encountered. If I was told that I'd be going into an area where someone was armed, I'd likely go in with weapon drawn as well.
Whether or not that's true is a different question, but going at face value it's more of "why do the police never put their guns away once they're drawn?"
True.
How much time elapsed form them attending the scene to the shooting.
Another thought, if you are told, by despatchers, that there may be a danger in the form of a weapon are your senses then distorted when you can see there is none? There must be reluctance to lower your own defence?
This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.
What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?
Maybe the police were trying to shoot out the tires of the toy truck and save the boy, but being that they never practice they missed, badly?
The "boy", Rinaldo, was a grown autistic man who lived in a group home.
You can see Rinaldo on the right, sitting up. Purportedly while the therapist was lying down, he tried to get Rinaldo to lie down as well and Rinaldo was telling him to "shut up".
In any regards, this officer needs to be fired immediately and charged with attempted murder. There was NO reason for guns to be drawn in this situation, reports of an armed person attempting suicide or not.
Its also a case where training is lacking in areas of mental health and welfare?
Its also a case where training is lacking in areas of mental health and welfare?
It's not as lacking as you might think. There is training in place, nationwide, that is to be used as templates by police departments for training their employees in dealing with the mentally ill and deescalating situations.
What is lacking is a lack of enforcement of that training or proper acceptance of that training. There's a stigma attached to that training within law enforcement itself; some officers feel that it makes them look less like a "police officer" and more like a "social worker". It's also worth mentioning that the training itself isn't something you can learn once or twice and never use; it's something you'll actually have to keep working with and keeping abreast of developments in the field of mental illness.
This is all kinds of insulting and ignorant. First off no Soldier is trained to shoot an unarmed person. Second off if he had been former military, this could have happened had he been what we call soft skills. They hold a weapon once per year at most. If he had been military and been a combat arms then he would have been comfortable with his weapon, confident in his ability to utilize it, and not negligently shot a human being. This is simply incompetence in a police officer and I agree that he should be locked up. He didn't just make a mistake, he negligently fired his weapon, intentional or not. I haven't even finished reading the thread, but I had to address this.
Soldiers are trained that when in danger, shoot to kill. In a perfect world, soldiers are only in "engagement" mode when they are faced with enemies/under fire and thus there are not unarmed people in the way. Sadly, there's ample evidence of civilian causalities in pretty much every conflict that shows that under stress, bad things happen and that reflexive conditioning takes over. We kind of accept that in a war though, because war is an ugly business even if sometimes necessary.
The officer in question could have no military training whatsoever, and could have simply panicked. However, we've seen a disturbing trend of these things happening and I don't think it's just the media paying more attention or police becoming more brazen racists who think they should execute people. As a society, we need to figure out why these things keep happening and how we can address the problem. No cow should be held as sacred in trying to defuse why innocent people are being shot.
This is all kinds of insulting and ignorant. First off no Soldier is trained to shoot an unarmed person. Second off if he had been former military, this could have happened had he been what we call soft skills. They hold a weapon once per year at most. If he had been military and been a combat arms then he would have been comfortable with his weapon, confident in his ability to utilize it, and not negligently shot a human being. This is simply incompetence in a police officer and I agree that he should be locked up. He didn't just make a mistake, he negligently fired his weapon, intentional or not. I haven't even finished reading the thread, but I had to address this.
Soldiers are trained that when in danger, shoot to kill. In a perfect world, soldiers are only in "engagement" mode when they are faced with enemies/under fire and thus there are not unarmed people in the way. Sadly, there's ample evidence of civilian causalities in pretty much every conflict that shows that under stress, bad things happen and that reflexive conditioning takes over. We kind of accept that in a war though, because war is an ugly business even if sometimes necessary.
The officer in question could have no military training whatsoever, and could have simply panicked. However, we've seen a disturbing trend of these things happening and I don't think it's just the media paying more attention or police becoming more brazen racists who think they should execute people. As a society, we need to figure out why these things keep happening and how we can address the problem. No cow should be held as sacred in trying to defuse why innocent people are being shot.
Have you ever been a Soldier? I am trained to eliminate an enemy, not shoot when I am in danger, there is a difference. Police are not Soldiers, and should not be placed in the same level, simply because police are not as well trained. Its a sad, but obvious fact. Casualties of war happen, but has nothing to do with this situation, as he was not an innocent bystander caught in a crossfire.
The officer in question failed to follow procedure, regardless of his background, But Ill bet one months base pay at my enlisted rate with housing allowance that he was not a veteran who had been in combat. Yes we need to figure out why these things are happening, but don't lump bad cops in the same category as Soldiers, because nothing about this situation screams Soldier. I know I am one, and many of the posters here were also, so I am sure they can help illuminate you if you need help understanding the difference.
Ouze wrote: I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
I'm glad you were able to find 3 convictions out of the thousand or so police shootings that happen yearly.
So this is the part where you supply evidence that prove when police were verifiably in the wrong they are always cleared? No?
Those are just 3 that came up in recent times with a bit of googling. I just get sick of hearing offhand inflammatory statements about how the police are always corrupt and always victimising the populace. If you have some actual evidence instead of inflammatory moaning then maybe we can actually have a discussion.
It seems on the surface that this is a case of the cop doing the wrong thing. Bad gak happens from time to time, hopefully the cop gets dealt with and the injured party compensated appropriately.
Have you ever been a Soldier? I am trained to eliminate an enemy, not shoot when I am in danger, there is a difference. Police are not Soldiers, and should not be placed in the same level, simply because police are not as well trained. Its a sad, but obvious fact. Casualties of war happen, but has nothing to do with this situation, as he was not an innocent bystander caught in a crossfire.
The officer in question failed to follow procedure, regardless of his background, But Ill bet one months base pay at my enlisted rate with housing allowance that he was not a veteran who had been in combat. Yes we need to figure out why these things are happening, but don't lump bad cops in the same category as Soldiers, because nothing about this situation screams Soldier. I know I am one, and many of the posters here were also, so I am sure they can help illuminate you if you need help understanding the difference.
There is a difference, but your own post illustrates that there are large swathes of the military where your statements are not true because they are not trained as well as front-line soldiers and, to use your tiering, are more police-grade in their training. It was not an accusation that all former military turned police are ticking time-bombs as you seem to be reacting to but a question that is that a possible common thread in these "how in the hell did someone thinking shooting was a good idea?" Perhaps that hypothesis will not bear out and you are correct that military training is of no concern in the field of police work, especially given the numerous obvious benefits it provides.
I do not disagree that the officer in question didn't follow procedure and in that sense it doesn't matter if he's a Medal of Honor recipient or someone who struggled to get through the Police Academy and never set foot on a military base; he screwed up badly. However, he's a portion of a much larger national trend where these things keep happening. It could be utterly random and there's no unifying cause and this is how things are with the state of accountability and funding that police have, but it would behoove us to look into anything that could be a factor, no? If a hypothesis is proven false, we know we can disregard it. If it's never examined, then we never know.
Frazz, I ain't trolling, and this point I'm making is for Kronk as well.
In both our societies, people obviously drive cars, and they have a duty to drive safely, maintain their car, and if they get caught drunk driving, they can be banned and or imprisoned, because cars can be lethal if things go wrong. We accept that.
We also accept that accidents happen. That's life, and often there is mitigating circumstances. I nearly got killed in a car crash once because some idiot didn't look before pulling out at a junction and ended up smacking into my car
If this officer in question had accidently shot himself, or slipped on something and shot a person, it's obviously bad, but that's life.
None the less, despite the 2nd being a fundamental right for American citizens, with great power comes great responsibility, because ultimately, guns are lethal things...
So when you have this officer who pulls out a gun, aims that gun, fires that gun, and doesn't know why he fired, he has gone beyond the social contract of rights and responsibilities.
Cop or no cop, he has clearly demonstrated that it would be irresponsible for him to be able to own a gun.
If he was a car owner, he'd be banned and nobody would complain. Suspending or banning his 2nd rights, is a fair measure in my book.
Have you ever been a Soldier? I am trained to eliminate an enemy, not shoot when I am in danger, there is a difference. Police are not Soldiers, and should not be placed in the same level, simply because police are not as well trained. Its a sad, but obvious fact. Casualties of war happen, but has nothing to do with this situation, as he was not an innocent bystander caught in a crossfire.
The officer in question failed to follow procedure, regardless of his background, But Ill bet one months base pay at my enlisted rate with housing allowance that he was not a veteran who had been in combat. Yes we need to figure out why these things are happening, but don't lump bad cops in the same category as Soldiers, because nothing about this situation screams Soldier. I know I am one, and many of the posters here were also, so I am sure they can help illuminate you if you need help understanding the difference.
There is a difference, but your own post illustrates that there are large swathes of the military where your statements are not true because they are not trained as well as front-line soldiers and, to use your tiering, are more police-grade in their training. It was not an accusation that all former military turned police are ticking time-bombs as you seem to be reacting to but a question that is that a possible common thread in these "how in the hell did someone thinking shooting was a good idea?" Perhaps that hypothesis will not bear out and you are correct that military training is of no concern in the field of police work, especially given the numerous obvious benefits it provides.
I do not disagree that the officer in question didn't follow procedure and in that sense it doesn't matter if he's a Medal of Honor recipient or someone who struggled to get through the Police Academy and never set foot on a military base; he screwed up badly. However, he's a portion of a much larger national trend where these things keep happening. It could be utterly random and there's no unifying cause and this is how things are with the state of accountability and funding that police have, but it would behoove us to look into anything that could be a factor, no? If a hypothesis is proven false, we know we can disregard it. If it's never examined, then we never know.
I think we can come to an agreement that the trend causing this should be studied. I don't think the link is the military though. Another aspect is, in the military there is very much a brotherhood and we learn to judge those by actions not color of skin. There are always exceptions, humans are humans with flaws.
It seemed like yet another attack Sodliers because they all have non-functioning PTSD and only know how to kill argument. But military training or not, he did go to a police academy, which IMO are all subpar in weapons immersion. We sleep with ours, eat with ours, shower with it not out of arms reach. So even the REMF's(google it, I don't wanna get slapped by a mod) probably have decent weapons discipline(usually, there are always exceptions. I have corrected some horrible infractions).
Either way, I think we definitely agree this was negligence. Causes for the seeming trend though I would wait and see some scientific type data. Horrible as these incidents are, they are still rare if you think of the thousands of interactions the police have with citizens daily across the country. It does not make it ok, and we should always seek to better ourselves and our country. Unfortunately fox, cnn, msnbc don't like to do the good will stories about how helpful LEOs can be.
Cop or no cop, he has clearly demonstrated that it would be irresponsible for him to be able to own a gun.
You're missing the point. If he's convicted of a felony he won't be permitted a firearm again, even assuming he can now. As a police officer he is not subject to laws concerning the Second Amendment in the first place.
There is zero valid excuse that can be used in this situation to justify any kind of shot from the officer(s).
Whatever happened to talking to people?
Whatever happened to verifying what someone is telling you?
Did none of these cops think to ask the guy "What group home do you work at?" and then use a cell phone to call and verify his identity? (or have dispatch call)
It seems like police do not have enough critical thinking training.
I think we can come to an agreement that the trend causing this should be studied. I don't think the link is the military though. Another aspect is, in the military there is very much a brotherhood and we learn to judge those by actions not color of skin. There are always exceptions, humans are humans with flaws.
It seemed like yet another attack Sodliers because they all have non-functioning PTSD and only know how to kill argument. But military training or not, he did go to a police academy, which IMO are all subpar in weapons immersion. We sleep with ours, eat with ours, shower with it not out of arms reach. So even the REMF's(google it, I don't wanna get slapped by a mod) probably have decent weapons discipline(usually, there are always exceptions. I have corrected some horrible infractions).
Either way, I think we definitely agree this was negligence. Causes for the seeming trend though I would wait and see some scientific type data. Horrible as these incidents are, they are still rare if you think of the thousands of interactions the police have with citizens daily across the country. It does not make it ok, and we should always seek to better ourselves and our country. Unfortunately fox, cnn, msnbc don't like to do the good will stories about how helpful LEOs can be.
I agree, and I do hope that it's no connection to military service is ever found given that my own background is heavily influenced by the military. However, the military is exceedingly good at psychology and thus it seems an avenue worth exploring as the military as an organization is not typically concerned beyond its own needs (as many people quip "If the military wanted you to have a family they'd have issued you one"). Those two things taken together are mainly what give me pause, not the soldiers themselves.
The main thing that is saddening about this is like military service, being a LEO should be an honorable thing. Both of them are far more likely to help you as a citizen than hurt you. However, when the incidents with LEOs keep repeating, it breeds the kind of mistrust that ensures that incidents like this are going to continue to happen while simultaneously diminishing the LEOs ability to actually help (ask any LEO about how much fun it is to get witnesses to violent crimes in poor neighborhoods).
Cop or no cop, he has clearly demonstrated that it would be irresponsible for him to be able to own a gun.
You're missing the point. If he's convicted of a felony he won't be permitted a firearm again, even assuming he can now. As a police officer he is not subject to laws concerning the Second Amendment in the first place.
Do I Not Like That might not be aware that felons cannot legally purchase firearms. So, if this cop is convicted of a felony and not killed in prison, we won't legally be able to purchase a gun again.
Cop or no cop, he has clearly demonstrated that it would be irresponsible for him to be able to own a gun.
You're missing the point. If he's convicted of a felony he won't be permitted a firearm again, even assuming he can now. As a police officer he is not subject to laws concerning the Second Amendment in the first place.
Do I Not Like That might not be aware that felons cannot legally purchase firearms. So, if this cop is convicted of a felony and not killed in prison, we won't legally be able to purchase a gun again.
That last part is exactly why I don't understand why LEOs keep towing the line, and then crossing it, seeing as how when you get to prison, you are probably not gonna have a very good experience, relatively speaking of course.
Juries are reluctant to even send a guilty cop to jail for that reason.
Anecdotal, I know, but I was on a jury that convicted a cop of a crime (not going into it here). Even with all 12 members agreeing he did it, 3 of them dug in and said they'd never send him to jail. We spent more time on deliberating the punishment than the guilty verdict.
Edit: I googled that guy recently. He killed himself last year.
What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.
curran12 wrote: What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.
And people wonder why it is hard to trust police.
Because, as soon as you say "Hey, I don't shoot people. I am usually very successful at coming to peaceful resolutions, and I understand that law enforcement is not all about arrest figures", you get responses like:
"So, what, you want us to applaud you for doing your job? Where were you to stop these kinds of shootings, d**khead?"
curran12 wrote: What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.
And people wonder why it is hard to trust police.
That is actually a really good point. There have been a few out there spreading the word but once again, this is not the story the media wants to tell on a national level. It is relegated to local news at best. However I would like to see more reporting from both sides. It helps with the sense that there is no agenda being pushed by anyone, when it clearly looks that way.
What I would really like to see is both movements talking together, supporting each other, and moving forward together. There has been some coverage of this, but not as widespread.
curran12 wrote: What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.
And people wonder why it is hard to trust police.
NO GROUP effectively polices itself. This is not limited to police, or lawyers, or real estate agents, or politicians.
Basically evidence which would convict virtually anyone else becomes nullified due to people who always believe police and victim character assassination on the stand which makes them say 'well he was technicality wrong but the victim had it coming as he was a criminal even though he was unarmed and fleeing'
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: None the less, despite the 2nd being a fundamental right for American citizens, with great power comes great responsibility, because ultimately, guns are lethal things...
Please stop conflating 2nd Amendment rights with police issued firearms. The 2nd Amendment covers ownership by private individuals, i.e., civilians. Police are issued their firearms under separate authority granted them by the State/Federal governments and have specific rules and regulations that accompany them. This authority is no different than what other countries, including the United Kingdom, give their police. Gun ownership as a civil right is not part of the equation here and is really way off topic.
Back on topic: Here is a link to a Yahoo article that has a video interview with the victim in the hospital.
As for charges, depending on the statute Attempted Murder might be difficult to prove here, but yes I also believe the officer needs to be fired and charged with some sort of felony for shooting an innocent, unarmed man who was laying on the ground trying to protect this autistic man. I certainly hope Florida law doesn't prevent this guy from suing.
I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.
I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.
My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.
Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.
More bad training of cops leading to cops fear biting people causing harm to innocents. In far too many of these shootings the police are the most dangerous people at the scene and there's no acceptable excuse for it.
If the police were told that the therapist helping the autistic man holding the toy truck was a suicidal man holding a gun then that could explain why the cops approached the scene with guns drawn. However, IMHO approaching the scene with guns drawn without first verifying that any threat exists is a bad policy and dangerous safety violation. In too many situations we see officers approaching the scene with guns drawn and behaving in a manner that appears fearful and focussed on preemptively shooting to end any preceived threat at the slightest provocation. Evidence of this can be seen in departments across the country.
In New York two rookie officers were patrolling a housing development and since the section of stairwell they were in had broken lights one officer was using his flashlight and also drew his gun (just because it was dark apparently) and then that officer accidently shot an unarmed innocent man when he and his girlfriend entered the stairwell and their appearance surprised the officer. The officer was convicted of manslaughter but the charge was downgraded and he avoided any prison time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Akai_Gurley
Then there's the LAPD that saw negligent discharges more than double from 2012 to 2014 because of poor training. The LAPD used to issue Berettas, partly because they had a 12-15lb trigger pull (the harder pull supposedly makes it safer since officers have to exert more effort to fire a round) but then they taught officers to keep a finger on the trigger specifically to compensate for the extra time and effort required by a heavier trigger. One of the largest police departments in the country was teaching officers to violate one of the fundamental rules of firearm safety. When the department switched to issuing pistols with a lighter trigger pull that required safer handling by leaving your finger off the trigger until you needed to shoot the old bad habit of keeping a finger on the trigger caused a sharp increase in negligent discharges.
L.A. County sheriff's deputies learning to shoot the Beretta were taught to rest a finger on the trigger as soon as they took aim. The mantra was "on target, on trigger."
With M&Ps and Glocks, the trigger finger should stay on the side of the gun until the last moment.
These instances just offer insight as to a possible explanation for this particular shooting. Officer believes he's approaching a scene with a possibly suicida/deranged person armed with a gun so he has his gun out. He may also have his finger on the trigger already so that he can shoot quickly without hesitation because he may be confronting an armed person. Since his finger is on the trigger it would only take one little accident like a stumble to cause an involuntary reaction of clenching his hand and discharging a round which could lead to instinctive follow up shots. Or since his gun was drawn and if his finger was on the trigger it would only take a brief moment of mistaking the toy truck for a gun, maybe the sunlight glinted on it or the man held in a manner resembling pistol grip, whatever, to cause the officer to instinctively fire in preemptive self preservation. That's similar to what happened in the infamous Diallo shooting.
Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.
At best. Its still a felony.
Also-anything on how many times the victim was shot? One is a potential misfire (still a felony in my book) three is damn intentional especially with a crappy Glock 7lb trigger pull.
Ouze wrote: I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
I'm glad you were able to find 3 convictions out of the thousand or so police shootings that happen yearly.
So this is the part where you supply evidence that prove when police were verifiably in the wrong they are always cleared? No?
Those are just 3 that came up in recent times with a bit of googling. I just get sick of hearing offhand inflammatory statements about how the police are always corrupt and always victimising the populace. If you have some actual evidence instead of inflammatory moaning then maybe we can actually have a discussion.
It seems on the surface that this is a case of the cop doing the wrong thing. Bad gak happens from time to time, hopefully the cop gets dealt with and the injured party compensated appropriately.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.
I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.
My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.
Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.
Yeah, and when you consider that the VAST MAJORITY of firearm crimes are committed by people who are felons, aka unable to possess a firearm... you might start to understand the crux of the issue when so many people slam on folks proposing "new laws". They aren't following the laws that are already there, what will new laws do?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.
I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.
My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.
Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.
Voting Traveling abroad The right to bear arms or own guns Jury service Employment in certain fields Public social benefits and housing Parental benefits
Public social benefits In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent. In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.
There seems to be a serious issue that is causing these cops to go from 0-100% real quick. It's just not just shooting black men either, despite the fact that it is generating the most news coverage.
There has to be some serious issues with the training that is going on with current police officers, as well as whatever escalation of force policies they are following.
Some serious evaluation needs to start going on Nationwide.
I'm also inclined to believe that there needs to be special prosecutors assigned to police killing cases, as most DAs are not going to try very hard to convict Cops. It also puts a strain on the working relationship between the DA and police.
SickSix wrote: This sounds like a simple case of a cop unfit for duty. No greater conspiracy or malice to be found.
The conspiracy and malice will occur when nothing is done. If someone digs up an article a year from now showing he went to the state penitentiary for a felony I will eat my words, but we know that isn't going to happen.
"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.
“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”
jmurph wrote: Far too rational. We need to immediately use the incident to somehow prove that there is a national epidemic of racial police shootings (not just more/selective reporting) and jump to conclusions and avoid all due process. Because that should turn out well.
I know it's fun to blame the meeeeeeedia for all of our problems, but the number of police officers charged with murder tripled in 2015. With the advent of bodycams, dashcams, and ominpresent cell phone videos, it's getting harder to pretend there isn't an actual real problem with policing in the US - from the methods that policing takes, to the disinclination of good cops to report bad cops, and to the public for failing to indict what are sometimes readily apparent bad actors.
Wait, so the number charged tripled indicating that there is greater accountability. And more cameras indicates more agencies documenting problems- which is a good thing. But how does this indicate an epidemic of racial shootings again? OP posted this in context of "race relations". My point was this is not really a racial issue at all, not that there aren't issues. It is an area where there is greater awareness in directly addressing the issue of unnecessary use of force. And that we have due process for a reason and knee jerk reactions trying to skirt that usually leads to unintended consequences.
Perhaps there is more to the story (though it is hard to imagine what). If not, I am sure Florida has appropriate penalties for such behavior. Assault with a deadly weapon would seem appropriate. I would imagine there is civil liability for the incident as well.
As to saying police don't speak out against such behavior, that is pretty asinine. You do realize agencies routinely speak out against brutality and community initiatives are all over the place. However, "police" are not one group, but divided agencies all over the nation! Why would an officer in Kentucky even be aware of what's going on in Nevada? That is the same stupid anti-logic that dictates that all Muslims are bad because they don't speak out against extremist terrorists or all white people are essentially the KKK.
As to juries not indicting, convicting, oh well. So long as we cling to a jury based system where we pick 12 people who are ignorant of what's going on by design, don't be surprised. The system is basically setup to fail to convict for all kinds of silly reasons.
"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.
“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”
Still sticking with it. From a Lawyer POV. That's more cash cow he/she can hit up.
Lack of Training
Improper Training
Lack of Visual Confirmation
Lack of Motive to Draw Weapons
Negligent Discharge causing injuries
Shooter trigger control
etc etc etc
Three shots fired ... either negligent discharge or some kind of psychological/neurological episode. This story is getting a lot of attention but does not really fit the "systematic racism" argument lobbyists and pundits have been constructing.
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.
“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”
I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.
Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.
We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me.
All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.
skyth wrote: As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.
"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.
“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”
Still sticking with it. From a Lawyer POV. That's more cash cow he/she can hit up.
Lack of Training
Improper Training
Lack of Visual Confirmation
Lack of Motive to Draw Weapons
Negligent Discharge causing injuries
Shooter trigger control
etc etc etc
This is a rare instance me and you see eye to eye Jihadin. My guess, one negligent discharge, another followed suit. No POS ID of a weapon, aggressive posture unnecessary and poor weapons handling. negligence all around.
redleger wrote: should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned
Murder has an intent component. If it is not present then it would be unethical for the prosecutor to bring that charge. As usual, all the key details are missing.
Take that answer on its face value - it indicates a mistake.
Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)
Then why put the victim of a Negligent Discharge in handcuffs and fail to render aid? There was no crime to justify being shot, and if the shot was a mistake, there is still no crime. If he didn't intend to shoot, then he wouldn't need to cuff and let the victim bleed unnecessarily.
Shooting then denying aid, further aggravating the victim via cuffing and letting him bleed like an animal shows intent to shoot and no remorse or behavior to indicate it was an unintended discharge.
Take that answer on its face value - it indicates a mistake.
Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)
Then why put the victim of a Negligent Discharge in handcuffs and fail to render aid? There was no crime to justify being shot, and if the shot was a mistake, there is still no crime. If he didn't intend to shoot, then he wouldn't need to cuff and let the victim bleed unnecessarily.
Shooting then denying aid, further aggravating the victim via cuffing and letting him bleed like an animal shows intent to shoot and no remorse or behavior to indicate it was an unintended discharge.
I don't think it would have mattered either way. Once that shot was fired they steered onto a course that they felt the need at the time to see through. Thats another reason I think they didn't render aid. I know Im fitting in pieces of an incomplete puzzle here, but they do fit in. I am not the cops are bad kind of person, but in this situation, I can see no other options. I guarantee that the man laying on the ground didn't get up and charge the officers. He had no weapon. So either an ND or intentional unjustified shooting. Either way is attempted murder or aggravated assault. Im not smart on judicial system, but whichever charge fits either scenario once the "truth" comes out.
"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.
“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”
I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.
Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.
We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me. All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.
Rifles, I didn't even see that. That feels even more stupid. Police will typically cuff the shoootee on the theory they are bad guys; are under arrest; and could conceivably fight or flight. I find your argument probably holds merit in some circumstances.
Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.
The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....
redleger wrote: should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned
Murder has an intent component. If it is not present then it would be unethical for the prosecutor to bring that charge. As usual, all the key details are missing.
One can he argue he had the intent to shoot his ass as reflected by the fact he (or they) shot his ass three times. Thats an excellent indicator of intent to a jury.
redleger wrote: Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)
Yeah I think this is the most likely explanation. But we've got papers to sell!
If it were a courtoom and a noncivilian claimed it, he would still get convicted on attempted manslaughter.
He intentionally pointed a weapon at an unarmed man who presented no threat. Whether or not he intended to squeeze the trigger he can't beat a felony. The fact he put TWO more into the guy kind of blows the unintentional right out.
Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.
The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....
Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?
Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.
The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....
Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?
"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.
“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”
I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.
Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.
We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me.
All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.
I think it is standard police to cuff a dangerous suspect even after the suspect was shot and to withold first aid to avoid any opportunity where the suspect even in a wounded state could attempt to harm officers and for officers to avoid contact with blood/fluids that could be diseased. I think once the man was shot the cops went ahead and treated the shooting as justified by default and therefore treated the man as if he was a dangerous suspect that warranted the shooting.
It's also possible that the first shot was an ND and the second and third shots were follow up shots from sympathetic fire not realizing the first shot was an ND. It's even possible that the one cop fired all 3 shots and didn't even realize he had fired the initial ND when the gunshot triggered his own trained response of follow up shots. The cop could have been approaching with his finger on the trigger, stumbled or freaked for whatever reason and BANG! has an ND without realzing it, gets spooked by his own shot not realizing in that instant that it was an ND and pops off 2 quick rounds at the man in a panic assuming the worst before realizing what had happened.
Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.
The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....
Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?
1) not banning them from a whole host of other things that mean that people have no access to work, money or housing
2) not banning convicted fellons from voting ever, only whilst they are in prison. In the UK they are aloud to vote as soon as they leave prison.
I didn't realise the US had so much they banned people from after a conviction. It really is no surprise your reoffending rates are so high. They have nothing to lose and no other choice.
"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.
“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”
I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.
Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.
We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me. All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.
I think it is standard police to cuff a dangerous suspect even after the suspect was shot and to withold first aid to avoid any opportunity where the suspect even in a wounded state could attempt to harm officers and for officers to avoid contact with blood/fluids that could be diseased. I think once the man was shot the cops went ahead and treated the shooting as justified by default and therefore treated the man as if he was a dangerous suspect that warranted the shooting.
It's also possible that the first shot was an ND and the second and third shots were follow up shots from sympathetic fire not realizing the first shot was an ND. It's even possible that the one cop fired all 3 shots and didn't even realize he had fired the initial ND when the gunshot triggered his own trained response of follow up shots. The cop could have been approaching with his finger on the trigger, stumbled or freaked for whatever reason and BANG! has an ND without realzing it, gets spooked by his own shot not realizing in that instant that it was an ND and pops off 2 quick rounds at the man in a panic assuming the worst before realizing what had happened.
Excellent. Now convict him of felony voluntary manslaughter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote:
1) not banning them from a whole host of other things that mean that people have no access to work, money or housing
2) not banning convicted fellons from voting ever, only whilst they are in prison. In the UK they are aloud to vote as soon as they leave prison.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. I don't see the point in not allowing them to vote, etc. etc. modified for what their former crimes were (no government housing near children for child rapists etc.)
Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.
The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....
Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?
1) not banning them from a whole host of other things that mean that people have no access to work, money or housing
2) not banning convicted fellons from voting ever, only whilst they are in prison. In the UK they are aloud to vote as soon as they leave prison.
I didn't realise the US had so much they banned people from after a conviction. It really is no surprise your reoffending rates are so high. They have nothing to lose and no other choice.
Politicians love to pander to voters by being "tough on crime" which pretty much always means passing even more laws making more stuff illegal or already illegal stuff be extra double/triple illegal and treating anyone convicted of a crime as the worst subhuman scum imaginable. It's an incredibly counter productive vicious cycle. Prison here is really just warehousing people for a "timeout" before releasing them back into the public domain in a manner wherein they are significantly worse off than they were before they committed whatever crime they did. Most convicts end up getting released at some point especially with our overcrowded prisons but very few prisoners ever get any kind of programs or training to help them be better citizens once they're released. The problems with the system are clearly self evident yet nobody in power ever seems to want to do anything to change it.
skyth wrote: As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.
But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?
Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?
I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.
@Frazzled - the prosecutor would need intent to kill, not intent to fire the weapon and, while three shots could support an inference of intent to fire (or even kill) for the sake of charging the officer with attempted murder, the prosecutor would be a long, long way from a conviction - just on the facts, or lack of facts, we presently know, I would be shocked to see the officer charged with attempted murder; I could see attempted manslaughter but more likely some kind of criminal negligence, if anything at all; it's basically impossible to say without a more complete fact pattern ... as to whether there was a threat, it doesn't add up just based on the victim's account - there is literally no basis on which to conclude that the officer intended, in the ordinary sense of that word, to fire his weapon at the victim
skyth wrote: As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.
But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?
Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?
I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.
I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.
skyth wrote: As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.
But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?
Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?
I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.
I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?
But first of all, the prosecutor should make sure a crime was committed.
skyth wrote: But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?
No reason to believe otherwise TBH, at least on the available facts.
I'd proffer its about as self evident that a crime has been committed as could possibly be. There is no legal excuse under the law for shooting an unarmed man who laying down and thus posing no threat, indeed involved in no criminal activity and was trying to prevent harm. The extent of the crime (as you note, the appropriate charging) is the only thing at issue.
skyth wrote: As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.
But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?
Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?
I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.
I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?
Pobably. Like was said previously when people want to get the cops to show up quickly they often exaggerate the circumstances to make it sound more dangerous so the cops prioritize it higher. There's also the possibility that whoever called it in really did mistake the toy truck for a gun from a distance. There's also the more insidious possibility that whoever called it in was a local resident that didn't like living in a neighborhood with a group home for people with mental disabilities so they called the police and said there was a gun present in order to make trouble for the group home.
skyth wrote: As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.
But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?
Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?
I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.
I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?
Pobably. Like was said previously when people want to get the cops to show up quickly they often exaggerate the circumstances to make it sound more dangerous so the cops prioritize it higher. There's also the possibility that whoever called it in really did mistake the toy truck for a gun from a distance. There's also the more insidious possibility that whoever called it in was a local resident that didn't like living in a neighborhood with a group home for people with mental disabilities so they called the police and said there was a gun present in order to make trouble for the group home.
And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.
I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.
My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.
Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.
Voting
Traveling abroad
The right to bear arms or own guns
Jury service
Employment in certain fields
Public social benefits and housing
Parental benefits
Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.
Li'l bit harsh....
In the UK, criminal record details expire after 10 years, so long as they cease to be necessary information (such as resulting in a sentence of more than 10 years).
skyth wrote: As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.
There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)
Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.
But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?
Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?
I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.
I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?
Pobably. Like was said previously when people want to get the cops to show up quickly they often exaggerate the circumstances to make it sound more dangerous so the cops prioritize it higher. There's also the possibility that whoever called it in really did mistake the toy truck for a gun from a distance. There's also the more insidious possibility that whoever called it in was a local resident that didn't like living in a neighborhood with a group home for people with mental disabilities so they called the police and said there was a gun present in order to make trouble for the group home.
And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.
Good luck proving anything. How do you prove that they lied? Maybe they thought they saw a weapon. Can you prove that they didn't?
And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.
Good luck proving anything. How do you prove that they lied? Maybe they thought they saw a weapon. Can you prove that they didn't?
History of calls/complaints from the individual would actually go a long way towards proving motive for falsifying a police report. Objections or complaints to the city about the presence of the group home would be another way to prove motive for falsifying a police report.
You don't actually have to prove that they lied; only that they had a motive to lie.
And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.
Good luck proving anything. How do you prove that they lied? Maybe they thought they saw a weapon. Can you prove that they didn't?
History of calls/complaints from the individual would actually go a long way towards proving motive for falsifying a police report. Objections or complaints to the city about the presence of the group home would be another way to prove motive for falsifying a police report.
You don't actually have to prove that they lied; only that they had a motive to lie.
They do keep track of calls. LEO also know there is a Mental Health Facility there. For the life of me. I cannot imagine a reason of pointing my weapons in the directions of the two let alone lock and load. Hell I would have "NOC" the the Autistic hand to ensure it was a truck. Other then that I (my troops to) would have stayed our distance and not engage in ANYWAY being we have no idea what the trigger for the Autistic (poor choice of words) to whack out.
And now for something completely different, Police Union officials say the cop was aiming at the autistic patient and hit the therapist by accident. Words escape me...
So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.
Ouze wrote: I know it's fun to blame the meeeeeeedia for all of our problems, but the number of police officers charged with murder tripled in 2015. With the advent of bodycams, dashcams, and ominpresent cell phone videos, it's getting harder to pretend there isn't an actual real problem with policing in the US - from the methods that policing takes, to the disinclination of good cops to report bad cops, and to the public for failing to indict what are sometimes readily apparent bad actors.
The primary thing there is the advent of bodycams and cell phones. Actual shootings continue to decline year on year. What has changed is the recorded evidence, that lets us see how many shootings were bad, or in some cases like this, absolutely ridiculously terrible.
We shouldn't think the sudden influx of evidence of bad shootings means things are getting worse. They are continuing to get better, it's just that we're now seeing evidence of how bad they have been.
The number of these back to back is sickening, but it seems like the problem is getting better in the fact that video evidence is holding greater accountability/awareness.
d-usa wrote: So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.
And then double down on the mistake by having another officer shoot him.
But first of all, the prosecutor should make sure a crime was committed.
skyth wrote: But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?
No reason to believe otherwise TBH, at least on the available facts.
I'd proffer its about as self evident that a crime has been committed as could possibly be. There is no legal excuse under the law for shooting an unarmed man who laying down and thus posing no threat, indeed involved in no criminal activity and was trying to prevent harm. The extent of the crime (as you note, the appropriate charging) is the only thing at issue.
Exactly. If I'd done it, there'd be no problems finding something to convict me of. Police officers should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to behaviour and gun use, since they are supposedly well trained professionals.
Politicians love to pander to voters by being "tough on crime" which pretty much always means passing even more laws making more stuff illegal or already illegal stuff be extra double/triple illegal and treating anyone convicted of a crime as the worst subhuman scum imaginable. It's an incredibly counter productive vicious cycle. Prison here is really just warehousing people for a "timeout" before releasing them back into the public domain in a manner wherein they are significantly worse off than they were before they committed whatever crime they did. Most convicts end up getting released at some point especially with our overcrowded prisons but very few prisoners ever get any kind of programs or training to help them be better citizens once they're released. The problems with the system are clearly self evident yet nobody in power ever seems to want to do anything to change it.
I wonder what extend private prisons play in it? Why would you try and reduce the re-offending rate if you make a profit from locking people up ?
Politicians love to pander to voters by being "tough on crime" which pretty much always means passing even more laws making more stuff illegal or already illegal stuff be extra double/triple illegal and treating anyone convicted of a crime as the worst subhuman scum imaginable. It's an incredibly counter productive vicious cycle. Prison here is really just warehousing people for a "timeout" before releasing them back into the public domain in a manner wherein they are significantly worse off than they were before they committed whatever crime they did. Most convicts end up getting released at some point especially with our overcrowded prisons but very few prisoners ever get any kind of programs or training to help them be better citizens once they're released. The problems with the system are clearly self evident yet nobody in power ever seems to want to do anything to change it.
I wonder what extend private prisons play in it? Why would you try and reduce the re-offending rate if you make a profit from locking people up ?
John Oliver had an interesting segment where they showed leaked promotion powerpoint slides from a for-profit prison company talking to investors. The slides actually mentioned "high recidivism" of criminals as a positive business trait because of the steady flow of income.
But first of all, the prosecutor should make sure a crime was committed.
skyth wrote: But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?
No reason to believe otherwise TBH, at least on the available facts.
A few years ago, cops were called on a friend of mine, reported as walking down the street with a sword. They screetched up in the car, jumped out with batons ready (they don't carry guns here), realised that the suspect was dressed as a pirate, going to a fancy dress party, with a $5 plastic cutlass, burst out laughing and then went over to talk to him.
Why the story? It's an example of a fairly well respected police force identifying that a situation isn't serious and de-escalating their response instead of charging on. It should have been blatantly obvious to any observer that there was no threat, at which point the offers should have de-escalated (not even holstering guns, but just taking finger off the trigger and pointing at the ground) until they feel the need to re-escalate. Are US cops so paranoid that they'll genuinely keep a chambered, finger-on-trigger gun pointing at someone who clearly isn't a threat? Or are they so paranoid about being attacked that they genuinely don't register that there's no threat?
There's definitely a cultural problem here, and to outsiders it's bordering on ridiculous, and views them the same as a lot of the 3rd world. I genuinely can't comprehend the idea of being shot by a cop for doing anything short of actually attacking a cop.
I don't know if the problem is with cop culture or society at large. Sure, cops are pretty heavy handed and bordering on criminally negligent, but is a lot of that due to genuine paranoia about cops being at huge risk of attack from anyone in the ublic?
BigWaaagh wrote: And now for something completely different, Police Union officials say the cop was aiming at the autistic patient and hit the therapist by accident. Words escape me...
One way the police might approach making individual officers more likely to report/restrain/arrest their brother officers when they behave in such an appalling way is to start looking to prosecute them for 'joint enterprise'
in the same way that police/prosecutors seem to like charging a whole group of young men when one of them spontaneously decides to grab something from a store even when it's pretty clear there was no preplanning of the incident, even the ones who never even make it into the store and stayed outside or in the car.
The rational often seem to be that the 'ought' to have know there was a crime coming and to have stayed away.... similarly I'm sure most police will know who are trigger happy, racist or incompetent (or all 3) and stay away (or report and keep them off the streets) from them
BigWaaagh wrote: And now for something completely different, Police Union officials say the cop was aiming at the autistic patient and hit the therapist by accident. Words escape me...
d-usa wrote: So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.
It's as bad as that, yes...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Reading that article, looks like the police have buttoned up. Won't even release the officer's name? How is that legal?
With modern video showing this stuff now, Dallas and Baton Rouge are just the beginning.
It might just be me, but you would think with the current climate, somebody might step back and say, maybe we should take things easy for a while, be less heavy handed than usual, just til things calm down...
There has to be a police chief out there somewhere who's thinking this...
That reminds me of the Freddie Gray case. I've been told by cops that noncompliance = resisting arrest. When Gray was telling officers he didn't want to go to jail and was standing there not being cooperative he was technically resisting arrest and cops, for whatever reason, never seem to have the patience to deal with noncompliance in a better manner than just escalating it to physically forcing compliance. Same with that woman in the link, cop tells her to get out of the car, she doesn't get out fast enough so her noncompliance/defiance is considered "resistance" so the cop gets physical. It's really not needed and is more bully behavior than protecting and serving but it's not necessarily illegal action by the cop either.
SickSix wrote: Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.
I completely agree. I'm just explaining why it happens because passive noncompliance is technically no different from active phsyical resistance so cops can technically treat it the same. Doesn't mean they should but it explains why they can.
d-usa wrote: So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.
I think the shooter was actually too far away to hear the conversation, being a marksman set up on a car hood, but in radio contact with the cop that was talking to them. One of the front cops said something over the radio that he took as a threat and the marksman shot who he thought was the risk.
It's still epically stupid, but it seems it's a bit more complicated that a single cop being so incompetent. It at least explains why the first cop said "I don't know" when the guy asked why he was shot; he didn't know as he didn't authorize or shoot. Maybe be negligently discharged and then the marksman shot.
SickSix wrote: Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.
The majority of the police aren't good guys. Some of them are heroes, some of them are monsters, and the majority of them are just doing a job and punching a clock. This whole simplistic thing of casting people as "good guys" and "bad guys" is part of the problem we have with how police officers who do stuff they shouldn't rarely face significant consequences.
SickSix wrote: Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.
The second the 'organization' covers up, lies, defends these bad cops, they instantly BECOME bad cops. They are all guilty the second they begin the cover up or blue wall.
So the story is an obvious lie or exposure of gross incompetence.
*They say they were talking with the two men, then claim 'they couldn't hear them'
*They say people were at risk, but yet the officers were far away behind vehicles and no one else around.
*They were armed with SWAT gear but apparently no way to use binoculars to actually 'see' what they were shooting at clearly.
*They say the target was the 'non-compliant man with a gun', they shoot the other person who is complying and instead of 'rescuing' the innocent man they wounded with intentional friendly fire, they cuff him and let him bleed like an animal and render no aid and deny him his right to attempt to save his own life by applying pressure to his own wound.
*They say they can't 'hear them' to hear that there is no weapon and no threat... But when asked 'why did you shoot me' they can hear that and respond 'I don't know...'
*If he *DID* know he was shooting to 'save' the man from the violent armed offender, when you respond you say 'we were targeting a non-compliant armed person.'
*The Autistic man who probably lacks the ability to comply with orders is still in jail for no reason probably having his rights abused as we speak.
There is no way if this went to a jury where it could be vetted by cross-examination and the actual evidence, the lies would never stand up. But because the police as a whole are leaking lies to fill in the 'wait for the true facts' crowd, there will never be an indictment and the name of the officer will never be released.
*THIS* is the problem. Racist/bigot/violent cops CAUSE isolated bad stops which lead to excessive force... but the entire organization becomes involved when the coverup happens and the lies and fake evidence start being released. And the 'wait for the true facts' crowd only want the police story and then they are satiated and ready to acquit every time. All I want is a day in court as there is always enough to indite these cases.
This officer was better off being 'I panicked, it was a mistake'. Now he is a lying shitbag, dirty cop in a corrupt department.
d-usa wrote: So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.
I think the shooter was actually too far away to hear the conversation, being a marksman set up on a car hood, but in radio contact with the cop that was talking to them. One of the front cops said something over the radio that he took as a threat and the marksman shot who he thought was the risk.
It's still epically stupid, but it seems it's a bit more complicated that a single cop being so incompetent. It at least explains why the first cop said "I don't know" when the guy asked why he was shot; he didn't know as he didn't authorize or shoot. Maybe be negligently discharged and then the marksman shot.
It also nicely sets up intended murder. We now have intent people.
SickSix wrote: Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.
The majority of the police aren't good guys. Some of them are heroes, some of them are monsters, and the majority of them are just doing a job and punching a clock. This whole simplistic thing of casting people as "good guys" and "bad guys" is part of the problem we have with how police officers who do stuff they shouldn't rarely face significant consequences.
Indeed, with very few career exceptions most people follow the bell curve. Obviously Nazis, cat lovers, and your local tax office are the exception.
d-usa wrote: So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.
I think the shooter was actually too far away to hear the conversation, being a marksman set up on a car hood, but in radio contact with the cop that was talking to them. One of the front cops said something over the radio that he took as a threat and the marksman shot who he thought was the risk.
It's still epically stupid, but it seems it's a bit more complicated that a single cop being so incompetent. It at least explains why the first cop said "I don't know" when the guy asked why he was shot; he didn't know as he didn't authorize or shoot. Maybe be negligently discharged and then the marksman shot.
*I'm not arguing at you just addressing the information you have provided.*
If they placed themselves in such a situation were their job was to deescalate but were too far away and fired on a "suspect" they couldn't hear, then every officer on the scene should be charged with criminal negligence. How could we hear the man from a cellphone microphone from inside a house across the street but the officers could not? Only real answers are that they could and are outright lying or from the start absolutely failed in their job.
If the "marksmen" missed his shot then criminal negligence. If he intentionally made the call to shoot an unarmed compliant man with incomplete information then attempted murder. Then again three shots at a unarmed compliant man by a marksman in a "non-lethal" area indicates intent to use bullets to solve problems. As if the officer marksmen choose to shoot the man in the leg as a form of punishment or a free "kill". As inevitably the thin blue line would shield him from repercussions.
This information doesn't really make things more complicated. It just says every officer involved was criminally negligent at the minimum. The officers and their boss should all be relieved of duty and fired. If it were the military the commander even when not present is accountable to the actions of their troops. Maybe if police leaders were accountable to the actions of their officiers a greater standard would take place.
What this situation does illustrate to the black community in the US, is that even complying with police (a common agruement against) still will result in being shot if not potentially being killed.
SickSix wrote: Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.
The second the 'organization' covers up, lies, defends these bad cops, they instantly BECOME bad cops. They are all guilty the second they begin the cover up or blue wall.
So the story is an obvious lie or exposure of gross incompetence.
*They say they were talking with the two men, then claim 'they couldn't hear them'
*They say people were at risk, but yet the officers were far away behind vehicles and no one else around.
*They were armed with SWAT gear but apparently no way to use binoculars to actually 'see' what they were shooting at clearly.
*They say the target was the 'non-compliant man with a gun', they shoot the other person who is complying and instead of 'rescuing' the innocent man they wounded with intentional friendly fire, they cuff him and let him bleed like an animal and render no aid and deny him his right to attempt to save his own life by applying pressure to his own wound.
*They say they can't 'hear them' to hear that there is no weapon and no threat... But when asked 'why did you shoot me' they can hear that and respond 'I don't know...'
*If he *DID* know he was shooting to 'save' the man from the violent armed offender, when you respond you say 'we were targeting a non-compliant armed person.'
*The Autistic man who probably lacks the ability to comply with orders is still in jail for no reason probably having his rights abused as we speak.
There is no way if this went to a jury where it could be vetted by cross-examination and the actual evidence, the lies would never stand up. But because the police as a whole are leaking lies to fill in the 'wait for the true facts' crowd, there will never be an indictment and the name of the officer will never be released.
*THIS* is the problem. Racist/bigot/violent cops CAUSE isolated bad stops which lead to excessive force... but the entire organization becomes involved when the coverup happens and the lies and fake evidence start being released. And the 'wait for the true facts' crowd only want the police story and then they are satiated and ready to acquit every time. All I want is a day in court as there is always enough to indite these cases.
This officer was better off being 'I panicked, it was a mistake'. Now he is a lying shitbag, dirty cop in a corrupt department.
Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.
Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.
Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.
So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.
Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.
Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.
So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.
What clearly established statutory or constitional right did the cop violate in this instance? IF the cop fired because he thought or was told there was a gun/threat and the only reason the victim was shot was because the officer has bad aim that is matter of incompetence during the reasonable discharge of their duties (responding to a 911 call of a dangerous man with a gun).
In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.
Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.
Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.
So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.
What clearly established statutory or constitional right did the cop violate in this instance? IF the cop fired because he thought or was told there was a gun/threat and the only reason the victim was shot was because the officer has bad aim that is matter of incompetence during the reasonable discharge of their duties (responding to a 911 call of a dangerous man with a gun).
And if that's the case where the officer was incompetent through inadequate training, then the city can be held liable under the ruling established by City of Canton v. Harris.
In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.
Graham v. Connor held that police officers may be held liable under the Constitution for using excessive force. In fact, Graham v. Connor establishes that "willful, unreasonable conduct" is NOT the metric used(that was overturned by Graham v. Connor's establishment of the "objective reasonableness" standard rather than the "substantive due process" standard held up before) but rather the reasonableness of an officer's use of force must be judged "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight".
If ANY officer could justify this shooting, then they have no business being a police officer.
Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.
Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.
So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.
What clearly established statutory or constitional right did the cop violate in this instance? IF the cop fired because he thought or was told there was a gun/threat and the only reason the victim was shot was because the officer has bad aim that is matter of incompetence during the reasonable discharge of their duties (responding to a 911 call of a dangerous man with a gun).
And if that's the case where the officer was incompetent through inadequate training, then the city can be held liable under the ruling established by City of Canton v. Harris.
In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.
Graham v. Connor held that police officers may be held liable under the Constitution for using excessive force. In fact, Graham v. Connor establishes that "willful, unreasonable conduct" is NOT the metric used(that was overturned by Graham v. Connor's establishment of the "objective reasonableness" standard rather than the "substantive due process" standard held up before) but rather the reasonableness of an officer's use of force must be judged "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight".
If ANY officer could justify this shooting, then they have no business being a police officer.
The city and the department could and probably should be sued but the officer in question could conceivably keep his job.
If this was an issue of excessive force like Rodney King or something similar then I would agree with you about the officer not being protected with qualified immunity but this is allegedly an example of an accidenta shooting/negligent discharge. Either the cop was intending to shot the man with the toy truck and missed or never intended to shoot the victim and had a ND. Shooting at someboy you think is armed and dangerous but missing or negligently firing inadvertently doesn't seem to meet the standard of excessive force/rights violation.
Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.
Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.
agnosto wrote: Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.
Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.
I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".
agnosto wrote: Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.
Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.
I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".
I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.
agnosto wrote: Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.
Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.
I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".
I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.
I think things might be a bit different here with the clarity and quality of the submitted video. It stretches credulity that we can see in a cell-phone video (assumption) that there isn't a weapon involved and somehow highly-trained police officers, carrying tactical gear are somehow unable to do so AND wind up shooting the wrong person. I've grown-up hunting and around firearms and I seem to have learned more than the Miami police seem to have; you don't fire unless you're sure of your target and where the shot will wind-up if you miss. If the officers felt a shot was justified, shouldn't the person with the best angle/shot be the one to pull the trigger? Or do they not teach officers to communicate with each other?
agnosto wrote: Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.
Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.
I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".
I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.
And 'I thought I saw a weapon' is coded language for 'I am a bigot, the victim was a minority and I make illegal policing actions based upon personal beliefs that minorities are dangerous and violent' like in the example of that Austin police officer.
It basically can justify any action as you can make a judgement call that 'target is violent and armed because of demographics' and then 'any movement' is going for an unseen weapon.
agnosto wrote: Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.
Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.
I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".
I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.
And 'I thought I saw a weapon' is coded language for 'I am a bigot, the victim was a minority and I make illegal policing actions based upon personal beliefs that minorities are dangerous and violent' like in the example of that Austin police officer.
It basically can justify any action as you can make a judgement call that 'target is violent and armed because of demographics' and then 'any movement' is going for an unseen weapon.
Don't forget to tack on property damages for when they bleed on you.
/cop hate for one day
I fully support our police forces, but you guys really need to stop shooting black people that aren't doing anything. Time to deescalate.
SO if they were shooting at the autistic guy (er....WHY?) and hit the worker on the street, why did they cuff the worker and leave him for 20 minutes to bleed out?
Frazzled wrote: SO if they were shooting at the autistic guy (er....WHY?) and hit the worker on the street, why did they cuff the worker and leave him for 20 minutes to bleed out?
You see, you're applying too much rational thought to the scenario. The statement by the police is clearly intended for a much more neuron-lite audience.
Truth is even if the shot was unintentional or it was intentional and a miss, it could still be argued as attempted murder for allowing someone who was compliant to sit and possibly bleed out. There is an expectation to render aid. And no way does it take 20 min for an ambulance to arrive when called by police.
Hell my neighbor had heat exhaustion weed eating last week, by the time I got a towel soaked, and pulled him into the shade the ambulance was arriving.
No, this can not stand. I have in previous threads thought there was a possibility of justification for these discussions, but this is the line. You shall not pass!
Buttery Commissar wrote: I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.
Don't worry, it won't be this one incident that takes away their sense of justice and being safe, because it's highly likely they've not had one since they were a vulnerable child. Or if one has survived unscathed this long, it will be taken care of by the constant barrage of negative media coverage, repeated everyday acts of unkindness and dismissive malice from "normal" people, and tendency of law enforcement to scapegoat any mentally ill people they can find near a crime for an easy conviction.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.
Don't worry, it won't be this one incident that takes away their sense of justice and being safe, because it's highly likely they've not had one since they were a vulnerable child. Or if one has survived unscathed this long, it will be taken care of by the constant barrage of negative media coverage, repeated everyday acts of unkindness and dismissive malice from "normal" people, and tendency of law enforcement to scapegoat any mentally ill people they can find near a crime for an easy conviction.
I imabine that vulnerable autistic adults prone to outbursts have probably have countless encounters with the police by the time they reached adulthood.
Well the officer has been named and placed on leave (reasonable enough)
and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),
but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)
and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),
but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)
That isn't enough.
If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.
and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),
but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)
That isn't enough.
If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.
and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),
but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)
That isn't enough.
If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.
and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),
but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)
That isn't enough.
If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.
Murder? DIdn't the guy survive?
Attached "Attempted" and we're good to roll.
If the dept keeps even the false stories 'straight' they can manage the outcome of whatever penalty is handed to the officers involved.
Whats the worst that can happen here? members of the PoPo are less likely to get handed a custodial sentence.
Suspension.
Firing.
Resignation.
No longer SWAT qualified (IK,R)
The officers have to keep their mouths buttoned shut about what really happened so at best you can hope for maybe a breakdown and some contrition and the subsequent shunning by the rest of the dept for breaking silence. Hell, they will be told what story to tell.
Meanwhile is the autistic guy still behind bars or has he been let go (on bail obvs).
No, we're not. Murder requires deliberate intent to commit the crime. And, while the shooter seems to have been spectacularly incompetent, there doesn't seem to have been deliberate intent. The correct charge here would be negligence or assault with a deadly weapon (along with being fired and blacklisted from ever working as a cop again).
and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),
but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)
That isn't enough.
If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.
No, we're not. Murder requires deliberate intent to commit the crime. And, while the shooter seems to have been spectacularly incompetent, there doesn't seem to have been deliberate intent. The correct charge here would be negligence or assault with a deadly weapon (along with being fired and blacklisted from ever working as a cop again).
He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.
Frazzled wrote: He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.
While responding to a call about an "armed" suspect and believing that the target had a gun and was going to use it. Obviously he didn't have a gun and the whole thing is an inexcusable level of incompetence, but that's negligence, not murder.
LEO is screwed for a major **** up of his own action. I can't even blame the department. He owns this 125% What a damn idiot. I would use harsher word but Motty but nerf me.....
Frazzled wrote: He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.
While responding to a call about an "armed" suspect and believing that the target had a gun and was going to use it. Obviously he didn't have a gun and the whole thing is an inexcusable level of incompetence, but that's negligence, not murder.
Believing the suspect was armed and was going to use it on himself. So I mean, it makes perfect sense to just go ahead and shoot him, right?
Frazzled wrote: He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.
While responding to a call about an "armed" suspect and believing that the target had a gun and was going to use it. Obviously he didn't have a gun and the whole thing is an inexcusable level of incompetence, but that's negligence, not murder.
no. it was the intention to shoot someone who was not a reasonable threat.
Frazzled wrote: no. it was the intention to shoot someone who was not a reasonable threat.
Which is incompetence, not malice. Since "attempted manslaughter", as you suggested, is an inherently absurd concept* your choices are attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon. Attempted murder is obviously not correct, and assault with a deadly weapon includes criminal negligence with a gun. I'm not defending this guy's actions at all, but crimes do have meanings and charging him with a crime he's obviously not guilty of is just a good way to let him go free.
*Since manslaughter refers to killing someone without intent, while "attempted" would mean that you tried to kill them. Attempted manslaughter doesn't appear to exist as a crime outside of legal fictions involved in plea bargains.
nkelsch wrote: The second the 'organization' covers up, lies, defends these bad cops, they instantly BECOME bad cops. They are all guilty the second they begin the cover up or blue wall.
But that's the thing with closed organisations like police, military and so on. They're concerned about their authority (for a good reason) but it also means guys at the scene can't easily stop whatever is going wrong since they're not supposed to publicly gainsay the leader. And the higher-ups are expected to defend their men.
Frazzled wrote: no. it was the intention to shoot someone who was not a reasonable threat.
Which is incompetence, not malice. Since "attempted manslaughter", as you suggested, is an inherently absurd concept* your choices are attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon. Attempted murder is obviously not correct, and assault with a deadly weapon includes criminal negligence with a gun. I'm not defending this guy's actions at all, but crimes do have meanings and charging him with a crime he's obviously not guilty of is just a good way to let him go free.
*Since manslaughter refers to killing someone without intent, while "attempted" would mean that you tried to kill them. Attempted manslaughter doesn't appear to exist as a crime outside of legal fictions involved in plea bargains.
I was under the impression you could be charged with attempted manslaughter. "Attempt" can be added to any article of crime as long as the crime was intentional. And contrary to what a lot seem to think, you can intentionally commit a manslaughter, you just can't premeditate it (voluntary manslaughter requires that you had no intent to kill prior to the event that resulted in the killing, not that, throughout the commission of the crime, the intent never popped up).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have to agree with Peregrine. "Attempted manslaughter" is a very silly oxymoron. How can you intend to unintentionally commit a crime?
Usually some sort of negligence that leads to an accidental death, as far as I know.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have to agree with Peregrine. "Attempted manslaughter" is a very silly oxymoron. How can you intend to unintentionally commit a crime?
Some unknown bloke in the street tells you off. (no premeditation)
Having had a very bad day, you blow your fuse and jump the man. At some point in the altercation, you are heard screaming, "Im gonna kill you", but end up being separated by folks around before you enact your threat. (stated intention to commit a murder + failure in the act)
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have to agree with Peregrine. "Attempted manslaughter" is a very silly oxymoron. How can you intend to unintentionally commit a crime?
Some unknown bloke in the street tells you off. (no premeditation)
Having had a very bad day, you blow your fuse and jump the man. At some point in the altercation, you are heard screaming, "Im gonna kill you", but end up being separated by folks around before you enact your threat. (stated intention to commit a murder + failure in the act)
Boom : "attempted volontary manslaughter".
No, that's assault.
Verbal behaviour, at least in England, is only taken seriously when not in the heat of the moment, when you've had time to think about what you are saying.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have to agree with Peregrine. "Attempted manslaughter" is a very silly oxymoron. How can you intend to unintentionally commit a crime?
Some unknown bloke in the street tells you off. (no premeditation)
Having had a very bad day, you blow your fuse and jump the man. At some point in the altercation, you are heard screaming, "Im gonna kill you", but end up being separated by folks around before you enact your threat. (stated intention to commit a murder + failure in the act)
Boom : "attempted volontary manslaughter".
No, that's assault.
Verbal behaviour, at least in England, is only taken seriously when not in the heat of the moment, when you've had time to think about what you are saying.
That'd be both. And anyways, any "Heat of Passion" moment suffice. I'm not aware that anything precludes both the reduction and the "attempted" addition. And I very much doubt that there is such a high requirement on verbal behaviour in England, it would basically make it impossible for someone to self-implicate.
Selym wrote: In a fight, you rarely say what you mean. If, after the fight broke up, you were still saying it, that'd be taken more seriously.
Words said are use in the context of the situation. You use verbal threats in a physical confrontation and they will be used to build a charge up against you, whether you meant them or not.
Frazzled wrote: no. it was the intention to shoot someone who was not a reasonable threat.
Which is incompetence, not malice. Since "attempted manslaughter", as you suggested, is an inherently absurd concept* your choices are attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon. Attempted murder is obviously not correct, and assault with a deadly weapon includes criminal negligence with a gun. I'm not defending this guy's actions at all, but crimes do have meanings and charging him with a crime he's obviously not guilty of is just a good way to let him go free.
*Since manslaughter refers to killing someone without intent, while "attempted" would mean that you tried to kill them. Attempted manslaughter doesn't appear to exist as a crime outside of legal fictions involved in plea bargains.
You seem to have forgotten about voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Future War Cultist wrote: I hope that the cops who shot him go down for it. They have to go down for it. How can you allow them to get away with this in a free society?
At the risk of sounding crazy, I'm starting to think that American police really do deserve everything they get.
I think it's indeed a bit crazy to believe that people deserve to be gunned down in cold blood for sharing a profession with some other people who did something wrong while having done nothing wrong themselves.
Future War Cultist wrote: I hope that the cops who shot him go down for it. They have to go down for it. How can you allow them to get away with this in a free society?
At the risk of sounding crazy, I'm starting to think that American police really do deserve everything they get.
I think it's indeed a bit crazy to believe that people deserve to be gunned down in cold blood for sharing a profession with some other people who did something wrong while having done nothing wrong themselves.
the problem comes when that profession frequently presents itself as a "brotherhood" and united front with a frequent "us vs them" mentality, portraying themselves as a unified "thin blue line", often operating under organized collective representation (that frequently engages in the most tenuous of lame defenses and legislative lobbying for special perks).
That tends to get what otherwise would be wildly disparate people lumped together quite easily by others, particularly when it's also a representative of the State.
Two people have been killed and 16 others wounded in a mass shooting at a Florida nightclub, according to US media reports.
The shooting took place at Club Blu in Fort Myers in the early hours of Monday morning, said Lt. Jim Mulligan of the Lee County Sheriff's Office.
One person has been detained by police.The incident is thought to have taken place during a 'teen night' at the club, with some of the people at the event as young as 13.
One witness says that she heard around 30 gunshots from the scene and believes that these came from a number of weapons.
Syreeta Gary's daughter was at the club when the attack happened. Speaking on a Twitter video, she said: 'Well, I just thank God that my daughter is okay. She could have been shot. She was dodging bullets and dropping between cars.
'It is ridiculous that kids have to go through this and they cannot enjoy themselves because you have people with criminalistic minds who want to terrorize people." At least 20 police officers are at the scene and roads in the area have been sealed off.
The shootings happened at 12.30am local time. Police said they were at two other locations connected to the incident.
What they described as "a person of interest" was detained at one of them.A police statement said: "The Fort Myers Police Department and Lee County Sheriff's Office are actively canvassing the area looking for other persons who may be involved in this incident.
"At this time the scene is still very active as investigators and crime scene personnel attempt to determine what occurred."
angelofvengeance wrote: And while we're on the topic of Florida... another mass shooting at a club's "teen night" event. For feth's sake, haven't you lot had enough?
Of being lectured, yes. Are you attempting to make this into another gun control thread?
It really has depressed me, these past few weeks, with multiple shootings and murders in the USA, France, now Germany, the USA again, and the coup in Turkey.
Obviously things tend to cluster. It would be a lot more unlikely if these dreadful events would space themselves out neatly to an average per month.
Could we not keep this thread for its intended purpose. I'm not sure that Florida is a great enough connection between a mass shooting and an issue with law enforcement.
The original topic is still ongoing and is going to get lost.
Selym wrote: I think that comment is aimed more generally.
"[Y]ou lot" is aiming something generally?
It would be nice to keep this thread to its original topic. Someone else can create another topic with the intention of poking the gun control bear, which I have no doubt will end up with people talking past each other until it gets locked (again).
Of being lectured, yes. Are you attempting to make this into another gun control thread?
Not lecturing anybody. Sure there will undoubtedly be mention of gun control issues. But my main question is, why isn't the USA doing more about this issue?
Of being lectured, yes. Are you attempting to make this into another gun control thread?
Not lecturing anybody. Sure there will undoubtedly be mention of gun control issues. But my main question is, why isn't the USA doing more about this issue?
What issue?
What prompted this attack? Why did it happen? Who did it?
Can you explain any of this? Maybe then we can get down to doing more about the issue.
Of being lectured, yes. Are you attempting to make this into another gun control thread?
Not lecturing anybody. Sure there will undoubtedly be mention of gun control issues. But my main question is, why isn't the USA doing more about this issue?
angelofvengeance wrote: And while we're on the topic of Florida... another mass shooting at a club's "teen night" event. For feth's sake, haven't you lot had enough?
Heard this on the radio at work...You know things are definitely FUBAR when you've become so jaded and cynical that your first reaction is "Thank feth only two people were killed".
like this weren't becoming so damned commonplace. The video on Yahoo's site has news commentary included. I linked a Youtube video which has only the 
