A young deaf and mute father has been shot dead by police as he tried to communicate with them using sign language.
Daniel Kevin Harris, 29, was initially pulled over for speeding. The incident took place in North Carolina last Thursday (18th August).
The father-of-one was killed by a trooper just feet from his home.
According to the police, trooper Jermaine Saunders attempted to pull Harris over but he hadn't stopped initially which led to a brief chase. After he stopped, they claim that he got out of his car and there was a 'brief encounter' which led to the fatal shooting.
However, eyewitnesses claim that Harris was shot 'almost immediately' after getting out of his car. He was unarmed and attempting to communicate with them according to WCNC.
Should we have a generic "Police kill innocent people for doing nothing dangerous" thread?
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
Still though. LEO had a vehicle between him the vic. Should have waited to see what the handicap was. Thought it was law to post signs indicating Deaf Person? If so then the LEO is double stupid and his situational awareness sucks a$$
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
One has to wonder how many people need to die in situations that makes one contemplate if police officers are being trained at all before the faithful abandon the thinly veiled veneer that nothing is wrong.
Well, regardless of the tragedy (and it is one), it is a rare occurrence. Millions of cop to non-cop interactions every year do not end up in any type of use of force, vastly outnumbering those which do end in violence (justifiable or not).
I submit that is pretty damned indicative that there is indeed some training going on.
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
Quick on the character assassinations. Not surprising that a man who is deaf and mute would want to resist officers if he was completely unaware he had commit a crime.
The police officer probably had the information in his car, as he was chasing this guy, that this person of interest was deaf.
I don't know what NC's state law... but, in MO and IL, you are REQUIRED to document with the DMV that you're deaf, wear hearing aids, and have corrected visions. (it's also coded on your license)
If that's true in NC, then as this officer tailing the driver, that information ought to be at his finger tips...
So, it's possible that he missed that, assumed the worst and shot the guy.
Or...
We're not getting the complete picture of the event that transpired.
The police officer probably had the information in his car, as he was chasing this guy, that this person of interest was deaf.
I don't know what NC's state law... but, in MO and IL, you are REQUIRED to document with the DMV that you're deaf, wear hearing aids, and have corrected visions. (it's also coded on your license)
If that's true in NC, then as this officer tailing the driver, that information ought to be at his finger tips...
So, it's possible that he missed that, assumed the worst and shot the guy.
Or...
We're not getting the complete picture of the event that transpired.
Or the guy might of not indicated it or became deft and mute after he got the license and never bothered to update it
If he was unarmed, waiving ones hands in the air is no reason to get shot. Maybe you get arrested for evading, but not shot. I can not think of any scenario in which this would be justified, as long as he was not armed. I can say feth you to a police officer, I might get inconvenienced by him, but I shouldn't get shot by him.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
You are overegging this.
The dog in question was seized by the police due to public fears, it was NOT running around biting people. Were it to do so a mandatory order to put down the dog would have occurred, as that is the law.
Instead there was concerns from the public because it was reported to be a banned breed, a justifiable cause to seize a dog under the Dangerous Dogs act. It was returned because it was not, there was at that time no individual evidence against the dog, so it was unlawful to withhold the animal from its owner.
Concerns that the dog was dangerous were later proven correct, but only by happenstance.
The press didn't keep up with this story because if you scratch the surface the police did nothing wrong and were tied by the law anyway. It is coincidental that things worked out that way.
redleger wrote: If he was unarmed, waiving ones hands in the air is no reason to get shot. Maybe you get arrested for evading, but not shot. I can not think of any scenario in which this would be justified, as long as he was not armed. I can say feth you to a police officer, I might get inconvenienced by him, but I shouldn't get shot by him.
Daddy Frazzled had a saying. "get off my yard you damn hippy!" oh, wait, not that one, this one "there's right and then there's dead right."
I agree what you should be able to do. But in the real world, you get dead right. And thats the problem.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
You are overegging this.
The dog in question was seized by the police due to public fears, it was NOT running around biting people. Were it to do so a mandatory order to put down the dog would have occurred, as that is the law.
Instead there was concerns from the public because it was reported to be a banned breed, a justifiable cause to seize a dog under the Dangerous Dogs act. It was returned because it was not, there was at that time no individual evidence against the dog, so it was unlawful to withhold the animal from its owner.
Concerns that the dog was dangerous were later proven correct, but only by happenstance.
The press didn't keep up with this story because if you scratch the surface the police did nothing wrong and were tied by the law anyway. It is coincidental that things worked out that way.
As far as I'm concerned, the police fethed up big time...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Well, regardless of the tragedy (and it is one), it is a rare occurrence. Millions of cop to non-cop interactions every year do not end up in any type of use of force, vastly outnumbering those which do end in violence (justifiable or not).
I submit that is pretty damned indicative that there is indeed some training going on.
Yeah, but is it the right training though?
We had this major debate during the countries with an unarmed police force thread, and the consensus was that other countries tend to focus on de-escalation first, and pulling a gun is a last resort...
I totally understand that US cops, for obvious reasons, have to assume that people are open carry or concealed carry,
but I can't help but think the default mode for US police is shoot first, questions later...
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
You are overegging this.
The dog in question was seized by the police due to public fears, it was NOT running around biting people. Were it to do so a mandatory order to put down the dog would have occurred, as that is the law.
Instead there was concerns from the public because it was reported to be a banned breed, a justifiable cause to seize a dog under the Dangerous Dogs act. It was returned because it was not, there was at that time no individual evidence against the dog, so it was unlawful to withhold the animal from its owner.
Concerns that the dog was dangerous were later proven correct, but only by happenstance.
The press didn't keep up with this story because if you scratch the surface the police did nothing wrong and were tied by the law anyway. It is coincidental that things worked out that way.
As far as I'm concerned, the police fethed up big time...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Well, regardless of the tragedy (and it is one), it is a rare occurrence. Millions of cop to non-cop interactions every year do not end up in any type of use of force, vastly outnumbering those which do end in violence (justifiable or not).
I submit that is pretty damned indicative that there is indeed some training going on.
Yeah, but is it the right training though?
We had this major debate during the countries with an unarmed police force thread, and the consensus was that other countries tend to focus on de-escalation first, and pulling a gun is a last resort...
I totally understand that US cops, for obvious reasons, have to assume that people are open carry or concealed carry,
but I can't help but think the default mode for US police is shoot first, questions later...
Just my opinion...
And your opinion is a valid one, based on what is regurgitated by the media. However CPTJake's point is for every bad thing you read about as far as police violence, there are good things happening in a much larger quantity. So large that if you work out percentages it becomes so small, that you are more likely to die of other causes. Not defending bad cop behavior, but the fear mongering is very real. And its actually starting to tear cities apart.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
You are overegging this.
The dog in question was seized by the police due to public fears, it was NOT running around biting people. Were it to do so a mandatory order to put down the dog would have occurred, as that is the law.
Instead there was concerns from the public because it was reported to be a banned breed, a justifiable cause to seize a dog under the Dangerous Dogs act. It was returned because it was not, there was at that time no individual evidence against the dog, so it was unlawful to withhold the animal from its owner.
Concerns that the dog was dangerous were later proven correct, but only by happenstance.
The press didn't keep up with this story because if you scratch the surface the police did nothing wrong and were tied by the law anyway. It is coincidental that things worked out that way.
As far as I'm concerned, the police fethed up big time...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Well, regardless of the tragedy (and it is one), it is a rare occurrence. Millions of cop to non-cop interactions every year do not end up in any type of use of force, vastly outnumbering those which do end in violence (justifiable or not).
I submit that is pretty damned indicative that there is indeed some training going on.
Yeah, but is it the right training though?
We had this major debate during the countries with an unarmed police force thread, and the consensus was that other countries tend to focus on de-escalation first, and pulling a gun is a last resort...
I totally understand that US cops, for obvious reasons, have to assume that people are open carry or concealed carry,
but I can't help but think the default mode for US police is shoot first, questions later...
Just my opinion...
And your opinion is a valid one, based on what is regurgitated by the media. However CPTJake's point is for every bad thing you read about as far as police violence, there are good things happening in a much larger quantity. So large that if you work out percentages it becomes so small, that you are more likely to die of other causes. Not defending bad cop behavior, but the fear mongering is very real. And its actually starting to tear cities apart.
If you're working in McDonalds, and you make a mistake, what happens? Somebody gets fries instead of a big mac, no big deal.
If the police make a mistake, people can die, so obviously, we hold them to a higher standard.
If this unfortunate victim had died because of a mistake, say, the police officer dropped his gun, and it went off, it would still be a tragedy, but nowhere near the level of what the article is reporting.
Accidents happen, that's life.
But there's a major difference between an honest, unavoidable mistake, and what happened with this incident, assuming the account is true.
That's incompetence, it's not unique to the US police, but people get killed by this level of incompetence.
Yes, it's a very very tiny percentage in the grand scheme of things, but that is of little comfort to the victim and their family..
This level of incompetence is unforgivable in my book.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
You are overegging this.
The dog in question was seized by the police due to public fears, it was NOT running around biting people. Were it to do so a mandatory order to put down the dog would have occurred, as that is the law.
Instead there was concerns from the public because it was reported to be a banned breed, a justifiable cause to seize a dog under the Dangerous Dogs act. It was returned because it was not, there was at that time no individual evidence against the dog, so it was unlawful to withhold the animal from its owner.
Concerns that the dog was dangerous were later proven correct, but only by happenstance.
The press didn't keep up with this story because if you scratch the surface the police did nothing wrong and were tied by the law anyway. It is coincidental that things worked out that way.
As far as I'm concerned, the police fethed up big time...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Well, regardless of the tragedy (and it is one), it is a rare occurrence. Millions of cop to non-cop interactions every year do not end up in any type of use of force, vastly outnumbering those which do end in violence (justifiable or not).
I submit that is pretty damned indicative that there is indeed some training going on.
Yeah, but is it the right training though?
We had this major debate during the countries with an unarmed police force thread, and the consensus was that other countries tend to focus on de-escalation first, and pulling a gun is a last resort...
I totally understand that US cops, for obvious reasons, have to assume that people are open carry or concealed carry,
but I can't help but think the default mode for US police is shoot first, questions later...
Just my opinion...
And your opinion is a valid one, based on what is regurgitated by the media. However CPTJake's point is for every bad thing you read about as far as police violence, there are good things happening in a much larger quantity. So large that if you work out percentages it becomes so small, that you are more likely to die of other causes. Not defending bad cop behavior, but the fear mongering is very real. And its actually starting to tear cities apart.
If you're working in McDonalds, and you make a mistake, what happens? Somebody gets fries instead of a big mac, no big deal.
If the police make a mistake, people can die, so obviously, we hold them to a higher standard.
If this unfortunate victim had died because of a mistake, say, the police officer dropped his gun, and it went off, it would still be a tragedy, but nowhere near the level of what the article is reporting.
Accidents happen, that's life.
But there's a major difference between an honest, unavoidable mistake, and what happened with this incident, assuming the account is true.
That's incompetence, it's not unique to the US police, but people get killed by this level of incompetence.
Yes, it's a very very tiny percentage in the grand scheme of things, but that is of little comfort to the victim and their family..
This level of incompetence is unforgivable in my book.
Im not disagreeing with you, Im simply pointing out that everyone here likes percentages and numbers until it doesn't fit the media bottom line. This LEO is most likely in the wrong(not that I trust the press to give all the facts). If he did shoot an unarmed man, I have zero sympathy. My feeling on LEOs use of force has been discussed before. However the problem is for every bad incident you see, there are few good ones being reported, simply because they happen too frequently to be news. How many interactions happen on a daily basis between American Citizen and LEOs. Now how many of those end up in the cop murdering said citizens.
Every murder may be a tragedy, but people get murdered every day. Its unfortunate, but what can you do to stop it. Its been happening since we could pick up Jaw Bones and stab our brothers with them. So yes in the grand scheme of things, its not as dire as many would have you believe.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
True, I could write endlessly about the horrible incompetence and stupidity of the russian police too (And make jokes: Why do russian policemen always operate in pairs? It is simple, it is because of specialisation. One knows how to write, the other how to read), but regardless, I don't think russian police has ever shot an unarmed deaf man during a traffic stop. That is just on an entirely different level of incompetence.
I'm getting sick to the back teeth of reading about these incidents. American police are an absolute fething disgrace from top to bottom. I said it before and I'll say it again; they really do deserve everything they get.
Perception of a higher threat level (LEO) when someone does something out of the ordinary. Guy got out his car and finger fumbling an explanation and LEO might perceive it as a attempt to chamber a round from 40 ft away. Color shirt mention?
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
I just checked through google maps, including using street view. I am assuming the chase was down State Highway 2828. The distance from the highway to the street the stop ended was ~3 miles of rural road, mostly 1 lane in each direction. Obviously he didn't hear the car behind him, being deaf. However, on a rural highway, he didn't notice the flashing lights for 3 miles? In the cops mind, this was a chase. Obviously, it is possible that the guy didn't notice.
Also, maybe he wanted to get home so that there would be someone the officer could talk to. Dunno. I can only speculate, there.
However, NONE of that should allow the cop to shoot him. Did the officer let his adrenaline get to him, thinking he was on a chase? Bad training? Stupid cop? I dunno. I've never chased anyone while wearing a lethal weapon.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm getting sick to the back teeth of reading about these incidents. American police are an absolute fething disgrace from top to bottom. I said it before and I'll say it again; they really do deserve everything they get.
woooah dude. Are all Brits asshats with bad teeth and a garage full of tea? Might wanna slow that down a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Perception of a higher threat level (LEO) when someone does something out of the ordinary. Guy got out his car and finger fumbling an explanation and LEO might perceive it as a attempt to chamber a round from 40 ft away. Color shirt mention?
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm getting sick to the back teeth of reading about these incidents. American police are an absolute fething disgrace from top to bottom. I said it before and I'll say it again; they really do deserve everything they get.
woooah dude. Are all Brits asshats with bad teeth and a garage full of tea? Might wanna slow that down a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Perception of a higher threat level (LEO) when someone does something out of the ordinary. Guy got out his car and finger fumbling an explanation and LEO might perceive it as a attempt to chamber a round from 40 ft away. Color shirt mention?
I bet it was red?!
Why you feeding in to it?
Edit
Red SHirt?! He was suppose to die then. Everyone knows the original Suicide Squad was Security in the Federation
Future War Cultist wrote: I said it before and I'll say it again; they really do deserve everything they get.
And you're just as wrong now to paint with such a broad brush as you were then. Also, that was pretty classy to say that all cops deserve to get "everything they get", whatever that is.
Better overtime is not what I think you're implying.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
True, I could write endlessly about the horrible incompetence and stupidity of the russian police too (And make jokes: Why do russian policemen always operate in pairs? It is simple, it is because of specialisation. One knows how to write, the other how to read), but regardless, I don't think russian police has ever shot an unarmed deaf man during a traffic stop. That is just on an entirely different level of incompetence.
No they just gas a theater full of people to death instead
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
True, I could write endlessly about the horrible incompetence and stupidity of the russian police too (And make jokes: Why do russian policemen always operate in pairs? It is simple, it is because of specialisation. One knows how to write, the other how to read), but regardless, I don't think russian police has ever shot an unarmed deaf man during a traffic stop. That is just on an entirely different level of incompetence.
No they just gas a theater full of people to death instead
The chemical agent they use to incapacitate them was the factor right? We're talking about that school right? In Russia?
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
True, I could write endlessly about the horrible incompetence and stupidity of the russian police too (And make jokes: Why do russian policemen always operate in pairs? It is simple, it is because of specialisation. One knows how to write, the other how to read), but regardless, I don't think russian police has ever shot an unarmed deaf man during a traffic stop. That is just on an entirely different level of incompetence.
No they just gas a theater full of people to death instead
Future War Cultist wrote: When they can kill unarmed people for little to no reason with impunity and do so repeatedly what else do you expect me to say?
Future War Cultist wrote: When they can kill unarmed people for little to no reason with impunity and do so repeatedly what else do you expect me to say?
Maybe focus on the bad actors and not the entirety of the US police. Maybe that is slightly more reasonable than saying they should all be killed?
A man who is silent can be assumed to be intelligent. I man who talks out of his ass has breath that stinks.
Future War Cultist wrote: When they can kill unarmed people for little to no reason with impunity and do so repeatedly what else do you expect me to say?
I expect you to post thoughtfully, in a way that contributes to the conversation, rather than derailing it with what looks like obvious trolling.
My emotions got the better of me there. But you understand where I'm coming from right? Come on, enough is enough. How many more people being shot dead for little to no reason is it going to take before change is brought in?
LordofHats wrote: One has to wonder how many people need to die in situations that makes one contemplate if police officers are being trained at all before the faithful abandon the thinly veiled veneer that nothing is wrong.
Rest assured they are being trained. The question is what are they being trained to do?
Sadly, the answer is to have a warrior or "Bullet-Proof" mindset.
Future War Cultist wrote: My emotions got the better of me there. But you understand where I'm coming from right? Come on, enough is enough. How many more people being shot dead for little to no reason is it going to take before change is brought in?
That is a more thoughtful statement, and one I can agree with.
I'm all for sweeping changes in how police officers are trained to handle high adrenaline circumstances like car chases, foot pursuits, etc.
Ya i never said the shoot was justified. Just pointing out a small part of the incident. Several little things can turn into one big thing. I've seen it happen multiple times working on the border.
Same. Some guy fumbling for something with dark clothes on makes me tend to look at them differently. Though I have to wait for that individual to take specific actions before we engage.
Jihadin wrote: Same. Some guy fumbling for something with dark clothes on makes me tend to look at them differently. Though I have to wait for that individual to take specific actions before we engage.
Yea but thats different. I don't think he was wearing a man dress and rolling around in a 1980's toyota.
Hopefully we'll get to see video soon. It certainly doesnt sound like a shoot that would be justified by a CHL holder, in which case it shouldnt be justified for a cop, but that rarely seems to make a difference.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
I think Police in general the world over are equally as incompetent and stupid.
Here in the UK, we had a case a few days ago of a dangerous dog that was seized by police( it's owner was an idiot) because it was running around biting people.
Police said the dog was fine, then gave it back to the owner. The dog then killed somebody...
Don't get me wrong, this incident a tragedy, and the officers in question deserve jail time, but incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty is not unique to the USA.
True, I could write endlessly about the horrible incompetence and stupidity of the russian police too (And make jokes: Why do russian policemen always operate in pairs? It is simple, it is because of specialisation. One knows how to write, the other how to read), but regardless, I don't think russian police has ever shot an unarmed deaf man during a traffic stop. That is just on an entirely different level of incompetence.
No they just gas a theater full of people to death instead
This one?
I want to know why they used pictures of very obviously not Russian dudes for this picture...
Aye I know. You figure that LEO has the same ROE as we did. Though if we implement a ROE on LEO's would that be misconstrued as making the LEO agencies more Military
kronk wrote: I just checked through google maps, including using street view. I am assuming the chase was down State Highway 2828. The distance from the highway to the street the stop ended was ~3 miles of rural road, mostly 1 lane in each direction. Obviously he didn't hear the car behind him, being deaf. However, on a rural highway, he didn't notice the flashing lights for 3 miles? In the cops mind, this was a chase. Obviously, it is possible that the guy didn't notice.
Maybe he was busy playing Pokemon Go? 'Cause you know roads and police be damned when you gotta catch them all.
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
I just checked through google maps, including using street view. I am assuming the chase was down State Highway 2828. The distance from the highway to the street the stop ended was ~3 miles of rural road, mostly 1 lane in each direction. Obviously he didn't hear the car behind him, being deaf. However, on a rural highway, he didn't notice the flashing lights for 3 miles? In the cops mind, this was a chase. Obviously, it is possible that the guy didn't notice.
Also, maybe he wanted to get home so that there would be someone the officer could talk to. Dunno. I can only speculate, there.
However, NONE of that should allow the cop to shoot him. Did the officer let his adrenaline get to him, thinking he was on a chase? Bad training? Stupid cop? I dunno. I've never chased anyone while wearing a lethal weapon..
Chase stated on hwy 485 and one article I read said it was about 7 miles. He had to have exited the highway and made several more turns. You would think, especially being deaf, he would visually clear all around his vehicle before making those turns. I find it hard to believe he did not notice flashing lights, assuming the cop had them on.
Again, I'll wait for the dash cam and body cam footage. I suspect there is more to this than we know right now.
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
I just checked through google maps, including using street view. I am assuming the chase was down State Highway 2828. The distance from the highway to the street the stop ended was ~3 miles of rural road, mostly 1 lane in each direction. Obviously he didn't hear the car behind him, being deaf. However, on a rural highway, he didn't notice the flashing lights for 3 miles? In the cops mind, this was a chase. Obviously, it is possible that the guy didn't notice.
Also, maybe he wanted to get home so that there would be someone the officer could talk to. Dunno. I can only speculate, there.
However, NONE of that should allow the cop to shoot him. Did the officer let his adrenaline get to him, thinking he was on a chase? Bad training? Stupid cop? I dunno. I've never chased anyone while wearing a lethal weapon..
Chase stated on hwy 485 and one article I read said it was about 7 miles. He had to have exited the highway and made several more turns. You would think, especially being deaf, he would visually clear all around his vehicle before making those turns. I find it hard to believe he did not notice flashing lights, assuming the cop had them on.
Again, I'll wait for the dash cam and body cam footage. I suspect there is more to this than we know right now.
I'll note the news folks say he was 'likely trying to communicate with sign language'.
Chase started on a highway, guy did not pull over. Exited highway and kept going. Pulled into his driveway and exited the car. Deaf or not, you probably want to pull over when the cops want you to do so. Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm getting sick to the back teeth of reading about these incidents. American police are an absolute fething disgrace from top to bottom. I said it before and I'll say it again; they really do deserve everything they get.
No they don't, because when some nutcase shoots cops in revenge it happens in Dallas or New York, miles from the jurisdiction that committed these blunders. More innocent people die, more families re ruined.
It wouldn't be better even if the revenge killings targeted the 'right' cops.
The solution to abuse of firearms is not more gun crime.
Also, maybe he wanted to get home so that there would be someone the officer could talk to. Dunno. I can only speculate, there.
However, NONE of that should allow the cop to shoot him. Did the officer let his adrenaline get to him, thinking he was on a chase? Bad training? Stupid cop? I dunno. I've never chased anyone while wearing a lethal weapon.
Entirely possible, maybe he tried signalling to the cop to follow him. He may have been advised to get to a safe stopping place or figured he'd be best driving a couple of miles to get a translator (but the article said his family were also mute).
Here, we're advised not to pull over for the police where you don't feel safe, and can drive on to a service station or forecourt or something. That's more for the risk of cop impersonators though, rather than being shot for a traffic violation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There's definitely more to it though, the new article implies that there was a collision and that the cop car was smoking. Has the cop run into him in an attempt to stop and the victim assumed he's being rammed, then driven home in a panic?
Did the cop car have it's light on and could he see them?
Are cops trained how to identify mutes or sign language?
How many are being shot not-dead?
We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?
Good luck finding anything to back this up. 6 weeks on crutches after a traffic stop doesn't hit the headlines quite as often.
As for shooting a deaf-mute driver when he gets out, his disabilities should not factor into it. The LOE should be able to work that out before pulling the trigger.
And, we had a death-by-tazer last week, so we get similar stuff in the UK, too. Guns are not the cause of the problem, they just make them more likely to happen.
Skinnereal wrote: How many are being shot not-dead?
We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?
Good luck finding anything to back this up. 6 weeks on crutches after a traffic stop doesn't hit the headlines quite as often.
As for shooting a deaf-mute driver when he gets out, his disabilities should not factor into it. The LOE should be able to work that out before pulling the trigger.
Shooting is never to disable. You cannot with a gun shoot reliably and safely "to disable". If you shoot it's for lethal effect.
How many people it's currently estimated to be shot by police btw? Don't think there's official statistic of that. In Finland it has been 5 in 10 years(one being accident due to careless handling of gun). Scaled with population it would give 295 dead in america in 10 years. Albeit Finnish police seems to be unusually low even compared to other europe.
CptJake wrote: You also don't refuse to pull over for 7 or so miles like this guy did.
You shouldn't get shot by it either. Fined yes. Why throw him in the jail. But GETTING SHOT? Getting killed is not appropriate penalty for that.
You'll have a hard time showing I said that merits being shot.
I said
Sounds like there is dash and body cam footage so the investigation should be able to show what actually happened, and hopefully the NC State Troopers do the right thing.
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
Spetulhu wrote: We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
You are absolutely correct. And unfortunately, the deaf guy exacerbated the situation by not doing what the cop wanted him to do from the get go. Leading the cop on a chase raises the tension. Getting out of the car raises the tension further. It sounds like in NC the cop would not have had a way to know he was dealing with a deaf guy before the traffic stop. So heightened tension coupled with inability to communicate led to a really gakky incident. And again, if the cop screwed up at all, I hope the NC State Troopers do what is right in regards to his future, be it firing or jail time based on the outcome of the investigation.
But I'm willing to wait for the videos and investigation.
No but it suggests there is more to the story than we have access to at the moment. There is currently insufficient information to make a judgement on whether it was a justified shooting.
No but it suggests there is more to the story than we have access to at the moment. There is currently insufficient information to make a judgement on whether it was a justified shooting.
That would be him trying to kill the police. Was he even armed? Did he even sport toy gun?
Spetulhu wrote: We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
Getting out of the car raises the tension further.
He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.
Spetulhu wrote: We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
Opening fire absolutely should not be an option for someone who ignores a police officers order, unless there's a direct threat involved. They must have other ways to force compliance.
Spetulhu wrote: We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
Getting out of the car raises the tension further.
He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.
I'm going to assume that in order to get his license with his handicap he must have had some class/training on how to handle being pulled over as a deaf mute, or at least should have thought it through. Carrying a simple card explaining your condition which you hand over with your license would go a long way. Getting out of the car during a stop unless told to do so is always a bad idea.
Spetulhu wrote: We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
Getting out of the car raises the tension further.
He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.
I'm going to assume that in order to get his license with his handicap he must have had some class/training on how to handle being pulled over as a deaf mute, or at least should have thought it through. Carrying a simple card explaining your condition which you hand over with your license would go a long way. Getting out of the car during a stop unless told to do so is always a bad idea.
You know as well as I that what should have been thought through and what happens and does get planned are 2 different things. I am 100% sure not all the info is out there. However being shot from a safe position when you are not armed is kinda overkill regardless. I am not saying this is the norm, I'm talking about this one incident, and I still can't think of one reason at all for a justified shooting from this scenario.
Spetulhu wrote: We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
You are absolutely correct. And unfortunately, the deaf guy exacerbated the situation by not doing what the cop wanted him to do from the get go. Leading the cop on a chase raises the tension. Getting out of the car raises the tension further. It sounds like in NC the cop would not have had a way to know he was dealing with a deaf guy before the traffic stop. So heightened tension coupled with inability to communicate led to a really gakky incident. And again, if the cop screwed up at all, I hope the NC State Troopers do what is right in regards to his future, be it firing or jail time based on the outcome of the investigation.
But I'm willing to wait for the videos and investigation.
Hahah, you think cops will actually do something to punish another cop. How adorable.
You also don't refuse to pull over for 7 or so miles like this guy did.
And that warrants being shot dead does it?
If I learned anything from Dakka it's that a significant amount of posters think that yes, not behaving exactly like a cop wants you to is grounds for immediate execution. Just read any past thread on police shootings.
lord_blackfang wrote: If I learned anything from Dakka it's that a significant amount of posters think that yes, not behaving exactly like a cop wants you to is grounds for immediate execution. Just read any past thread on police shootings.
I see.
Well, when I look at this incident, and this one as well:
Spetulhu wrote: We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.
But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.
Getting out of the car raises the tension further.
He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.
I'm going to assume that in order to get his license with his handicap he must have had some class/training on how to handle being pulled over as a deaf mute, or at least should have thought it through. Carrying a simple card explaining your condition which you hand over with your license would go a long way. Getting out of the car during a stop unless told to do so is always a bad idea.
But, it is his right to get out of the car. It is not the cops right to shoot him for it. Only if he is threatening him. The act of getting out of a car is not a threat and should never be interpreted as a threat. Cops should not treat every citizen as an armed hostile. This is the problem.
CptJake wrote: Harris seems to have been convicted of resisting an officer before
In all likelihood, the "resisting" was due to him not being able to hear the officer in the first place, and the conviction was due to him not having the resources to contest the charge.
Just as in this case, he didn't hear the police sirens behind him, and didn't stop until he got home and saw the police. Then he got out to ask "WTF?" and was promptly shot dead.
Well that needs knocked on the head for starters. The police in my area are all armed and they aren't shooting people for little to no reason. So there's no excuse.
We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?
Nobody, I hope. At the time one escalates to deadly force, any action should have lethal consequences. Every single time. A failure to actually use a lethal weapon lethally means that the officer was not properly trained in its use.
The problem is the escalation to deadly force, which should not have happened in the first place.
I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Something needs to change.
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.
If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.
Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.
I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The easiest way to prevent police shootings of civilians is to mandate that DAs charge officers to the fullest extent of the law. If every police shooting starts out with a Murder 1 indictment, that changes the entire force calculus.
As much as I'd admire that approach, it might be easier just to take the penalty judgements from lawsuits out of the union pension fund instead of a taxpayer funded insurance payout.
Vaktathi wrote: As much as I'd admire that approach, it might be easier just to take the penalty judgements from lawsuits out of the union pension fund instead of a taxpayer funded insurance payout.
Vaktathi wrote: As much as I'd admire that approach, it might be easier just to take the penalty judgements from lawsuits out of the union pension fund instead of a taxpayer funded insurance payout.
Damn. That would be great. The blue wall of silence might crack then and cops might actually start being ethical feths who report the bad apples around them.
Because penalizing a retirement system for the actions of bad actors is bonkers? How about we also take out judgments from the general Social Security fund?
Or, we could stop with the stereotyping and deal with individuals as such. You know, like justice pretty much demands.
The trend seems to be that LEOs are getting more aggressively prosecuted, but, like anything, it varies. Until people can comprehend that this is not one monolithic group, but thousands spread all across the country governed by different laws and present in different communities, nothing will improve.
A very good point was raised that we expect police to be kind of catch all problem solvers and crisis intervention, from traffic to mental health, to apprehending some of the most violent criminals in the world. And then we are surprised when problems develop.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Something needs to change.
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.
If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.
Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.
I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The vet policy definitely needs to be re-examined. Again, no offence to vets, but I really think many of them are not prime police candidates.
Also I love the idea of the police being forced to pay for their own mistakes rather than the public. I said this before but is it not possible to pass laws stating that payouts by the police for these incidents should come from their pension pots/union funds rather than the city treasury? I guarantee that would shape them up.
We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?
Nobody, I hope. At the time one escalates to deadly force, any action should have lethal consequences. Every single time. A failure to actually use a lethal weapon lethally means that the officer was not properly trained in its use.
The problem is the escalation to deadly force, which should not have happened in the first place.
I disagree that when you escalate to deadly force that you should then no longer seek to de-escalate if the opportunity presents itself.
Take the Lee Rigby murder here in the UK as an example. We had two armed men, one of which had a pistol (non-functional as it turned out but the police of course didn't know that at the time) and our armed response team on the scene.
The two men charged the officers who shot them. However they were also capable of identifying when their shots had incapacitated the suspects without the suspects being dead (hits to the shoullder had made the suspects drop their weapons, for example), which allowed the suspects to be detained, first aid given and them survive to stand trial.
They were not aiming to disable but retained enough awareness of the situation as a whole to identify when the situation could be dialed back from lethal force once the suspects ability to respond in kind had been eliminated.
I changed my Avatar for the LEO's who are being sniped/ambush and getting opt out. Want to throw that out there before someone pulls the trigger on me with a perception that, to me, LEO do no wrong. Aimed at the new peeps in Dakka OT. You Crusty Scrubs who been posting here already know my sense of.....common damn sense
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Something needs to change.
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.
If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.
Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.
I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The vet policy definitely needs to be re-examined. Again, no offence to vets, but I really think many of them are not prime police candidates.
Also I love the idea of the police being forced to pay for their own mistakes rather than the public. I said this before but is it not possible to pass laws stating that payouts by the police for these incidents should come from their pension pots/union funds rather than the city treasury? I guarantee that would shape them up.
once again you say something very offensive and I would even call ignorant. What you don't understand is the escalation of force training we receive, and the understanding of the consequences of our actions is much better than current civilian law enforcement. So Please stop once again tossing all vets into the blood lusty khornate pool you seem to think we are all swimming in. In fact I would say Soldiers and Marines have a much better grip on reality then those who have sat comfortably and never sacrificed. I tell you I purposely play nice, cause I have no desire to be incarcerated away from my family. I did it for 3 years already voluntarily.
Questions surround IMPD officer's shooting of homeowner
Police still don't know what the nine-year Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department veteran said, if anything, to an armed east-side homeowner before shooting him once in the stomach early Tuesday.
Questions remain about how homeowner Carl Williams, 48, who called police to say his wife was robbed at gunpoint, approached officers as they arrived at the scene.
It's unclear if what Williams was wearing matched the description of the robbery suspect, or whether he raised his weapon before being wounded.
But officials are certain that the incident should not have ended with the man hospitalized after being shot by one of the very officers he called for help.
"Our homeowner, the individual who was trying his best protect himself and his wife from any other harm, was shot mistakenly by our officers," IMPD Maj. Richard Riddle said during a Tuesday afternoon news conference. "This incident occurred within a few seconds, and those judgment calls are made within a few split seconds.
"She was victimized, and unfortunately now, her husband was victimized as well."
According to IMPD Assistant Chief Randal Taylor, the investigation began shortly before 4:30 a.m., when a man called 911 and said an armed suspect stole his wife’s car keys in front of the couple’s home in the 3600 block of Foxtail Drive on the east side, and drove off in their black Nissan Sentra.
IMPD Assistant Chief Randal Taylor provides an updateBuy Photo
IMPD Assistant Chief Randal Taylor provides an update on the officer-involved shooting that wounded an innocent homeowner. (Photo: Michael Anthony Adams / IndyStar)
The homeowner, who is black, described the suspect who robbed his wife as a black man wearing a red shirt and carrying a rifle. In an edited 911 call played during the news conference, the man can be heard referring to the suspect's weapon as a "long gun."
While on the call with dispatchers, the homeowner wife's can he heard sobbing and frantically trying to explain what happened in the background. The homeowner does his best to comfort her.
"It's OK. It's OK," the homeowner repeats.
At the end of the 911 call, the homeowner can be heard shouting "Is that him?" in reference to the possible suspect. The 911 call then disconnects, and dispatchers are unable to reconnect with the homeowner.
INDIANAPOLIS STAR
Fatal shootings by IMPD increase in 2015, but sketchy data nationally hinder deep analysis
At no point does the homeowner tell dispatchers that he is armed.
When they arrived outside the home, officers saw a black Nissan sedan backed into the driveway with the lights on, Taylor said. Officers took cover and ran the plates of the vehicle.
But before police could learn who owned the car, the garage door opened and the homeowner came out.
That is when nine-year veteran Officer Christopher Mills shot Williams once in the abdomen, Taylor said. It's unclear if more rounds were fired. A second officer on the scene, an eight-year veteran, did not fire his weapon.
In the 911 call, no vocal exchange could be heard between the homeowner and officer who fired his weapon. Riddle and Taylor said it was still unclear whether the officer gave any verbal commands to the homeowner.
Williams' handgun was recovered from the home, but there was no indication that Williams raised his weapon, fired his weapon or brandished it in a threatening way.
Investigators have not spoken with the officer who fired his weapon or the homeowner who was wounded. Williams was rushed into surgery before detectives could question him, Riddle said, and the officer did not release a statement before seeking counsel. He’s been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation, which is standard in officer-involved shootings.
After the shooting, Williams was taken to IU Health Methodist Hospital in serious condition. He is expected to survive.
"This was a tragic event with numerous circumstance that collided all at once," Taylor said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the homeowner."
The robber, who held Williams’ wife at gunpoint and took her car keys, had fled before police arrived. Riddle said it doesn't appear that the suspect got away with anything else, but he remains on the loose.
“Police are given pretty sketchy information most of the time,” said Thomas J. Aveni, executive director of the Police Policy Studies Council, a law enforcement training and consultation corporation.
When officers arrive at a scene, Aveni said, they only know what callers have told dispatchers. Accurate suspect descriptions and detailed explanations of suspected crimes are rare, making it difficult for officers to know what they’re walking into.
Aveni, a former officer, said factors such as light, proximity and disposition of the gun would also play a role in an officer's decision to use deadly force.
Although it was dark Tuesday morning when officers arrived, it’s unclear how far away police were from the homeowner when he was shot.
Chris Grollnek, an expert on active shooter situations, told IndyStar it falls on police departments "to do community policing and teach people that, if you call the police, and you're calling them to report a (person) with a gun, don't be the (person) with a gun when they show up.
"Everybody can blame police and everybody can blame the homeowner, but that's callous," said Grollnek, a retired officer from the McKinney Police Department in Texas. "I'm not blaming either; what I'm saying is, the challenge is reinventing the police role in communities."
Grollnek suggests officers need to spread this message on their beats: "If you are a responsible gun owner, this is how to be a responsible gun owner when you call the police."
At Tuesday's press conference, when asked whether IMPD would recommend homeowners not protect themselves in a similar situation, Riddle said callers should use caution.
"If you call 911, and you know the officers are on their way, clearly we have guns, and the last thing that we want to do is confront a legal owner of a firearm and a homeowner that's doing their best to protect their family," Riddle said.
By Tuesday afternoon, the neighborhood near 38th Street and German Church Road appeared to return to normal. Children zigzagged through streets, playing a pickup game of basketball in the sunshine. Neighbors returned from work, checked their mail and walked their dogs.
Several were unconcerned about what transpired just hours before.
April Davidson, 41, said she was awakened by the sound of gunshots Tuesday morning, but she didn't stay up for long.
“It scared me,” she said. “I waited a minute, and I peeked out my window, and I didn’t see anything, so I just laid back down.”
She said too many of the details are still too shaky — whether or not the victim had identified himself to police and told them he was armed — for her to draw conclusions about what happened.
Jabari Lewis, 32, lives next door to the victim. He heard gunshots, he said, but he didn’t get out of bed until the police sirens came.
When he looked out his front door, investigators were wrapping crime scene tape around his mailbox.
Lewis said the shooting was unfortunate, but he’s comforted in knowing that his neighbor is expected to live. If he had died, it would have been tragic.
He said it’s alarming to have a shooting happen next door, but other details concern him more right now.
“I think that what’s more unsettling is that the (carjacker) is on the loose, the suspect was not captured,” Lewis said.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Something needs to change.
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.
If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.
Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.
I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The vet policy definitely needs to be re-examined. Again, no offence to vets, but I really think many of them are not prime police candidates.
Also I love the idea of the police being forced to pay for their own mistakes rather than the public. I said this before but is it not possible to pass laws stating that payouts by the police for these incidents should come from their pension pots/union funds rather than the city treasury? I guarantee that would shape them up.
once again you say something very offensive and I would even call ignorant. What you don't understand is the escalation of force training we receive, and the understanding of the consequences of our actions is much better than current civilian law enforcement. So Please stop once again tossing all vets into the blood lusty khornate pool you seem to think we are all swimming in. In fact I would say Soldiers and Marines have a much better grip on reality then those who have sat comfortably and never sacrificed. I tell you I purposely play nice, cause I have no desire to be incarcerated away from my family. I did it for 3 years already voluntarily.
You should try to stop straw manning what is being said. Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. That is not opinion, that is fact. That doesn't mean that every veteran is "blood lusty" or a problem, but what is being asked is, "does that pool of candidates deserve the preferential treatment for hiring they currently do?" It is worth looking into. If there is any data on which officer involved shoots involved former veterans that would be interesting to look over.
Also, your bit of:
redleger wrote: Soldiers and Marines have a much better grip on reality then those who have sat comfortably and never sacrificed.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The easiest way to prevent police shootings of civilians is to mandate that DAs charge officers to the fullest extent of the law. If every police shooting starts out with a Murder 1 indictment, that changes the entire force calculus.
DAs should indict on whatever charges are actually supported by the evidence found by the state mandated investigations of every officer involved shooting.
The DA in Baltimore leveled a whole lot of very severe charges and they all got tossed out by a judge due to lack of evidence so improperly charging cops is an unethical waste of time.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Vaktathi wrote: As much as I'd admire that approach, it might be easier just to take the penalty judgements from lawsuits out of the union pension fund instead of a taxpayer funded insurance payout.
Damn. That would be great. The blue wall of silence might crack then and cops might actually start being ethical feths who report the bad apples around them.
You're not going to be able to punish the officers like that unless you got the courts to take away their qualified immunity. If cops are convicted of a crime they should go to prison like any other criminal so pushing the union would be unethical and unnecessary and if they're not guilty of criminal wrongdoing it's difficult to find them liable in civil court when they have qualified immunity.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Something needs to change.
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.
If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.
Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.
I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The vet policy definitely needs to be re-examined. Again, no offence to vets, but I really think many of them are not prime police candidates.
Also I love the idea of the police being forced to pay for their own mistakes rather than the public. I said this before but is it not possible to pass laws stating that payouts by the police for these incidents should come from their pension pots/union funds rather than the city treasury? I guarantee that would shape them up.
once again you say something very offensive and I would even call ignorant. What you don't understand is the escalation of force training we receive, and the understanding of the consequences of our actions is much better than current civilian law enforcement. So Please stop once again tossing all vets into the blood lusty khornate pool you seem to think we are all swimming in. In fact I would say Soldiers and Marines have a much better grip on reality then those who have sat comfortably and never sacrificed. I tell you I purposely play nice, cause I have no desire to be incarcerated away from my family. I did it for 3 years already voluntarily.
You should try to stop straw manning what is being said. Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. That is not opinion, that is fact. That doesn't mean that every veteran is "blood lusty" or a problem, but what is being asked is, "does that pool of candidates deserve the preferential treatment for hiring they currently do?" It is worth looking into. If there is any data on which officer involved shoots involved former veterans that would be interesting to look over.
Also, your bit of:
redleger wrote: Soldiers and Marines have a much better grip on reality then those who have sat comfortably and never sacrificed.
Is just broad-brush painting bs.
Cultist is the one consistently making inflammatory remarks, hell in this very thread he said all LEOs deserve what they get, now he's going after veterans. So its not a straw man, I am actually refuting what he is implying, not a different implication.
You show me data that veteran mental health issues has anything to do with LEO rates of bad shootings and Ill fly to your house and eat my own shoe in front of you. Second, military training and job performance are usually the last thing that suffers when a Combat Veteran suffers from any form of adjustment issues. Thirdly the PTSD card has been very blown out of proportion, and leads to horrible stereotypes, which are being perpetuated on this very thread. I have argued police training is bad, and could probably benefit from more veterans or military type training as far as weapons discipline is concerned, but it is not a strawman to say it is offensive that you suggest veteran hiring has anything to do with LEO unjustified shootings.
As to the second part, I would say you never truly appreciate something until you have had to sacrifice it, or go without. The majority of the non veterans on this very forum, from any country do not know what they do not know. When you have been left on top of a mountain for 3 months with more ammo than food, and given a mission that is usually reserved for a battalion, and you have 28 dudes oh and BTW the Australians that are supposed to feed you keep sending you raw lamb grudgingly then you learn to appreciate what you have. So to say you do not have a grip on sacrifice as a civilian population is accurate from my point of view, because not having your favorite item in stock at a local store is not necessarily doing without. I have missed a total of 3 years of my oldest daughters life, 2 of my middle, 1 of my youngest, 2 weeks after she was born none the less. So I know going without. Can the majority of civilians say they truly understand this? I am not saying it makes us better, I'm saying it gives us a better grip on what its like to truly appreciate these things.
Now if we could get off the war veteran hate, I think we can all agree absolutely that getting out of a car waving your hands in the air is not a reason to get shot. I for one think there is more to the story, but either way unless a weapon was found, I can't think how this could be justified.
Think the title need to be changed sine this incident happen way waaayyy past the point of a traffic stop. The guy went seven miles before even stopping
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh God...
That is just a new level of sadness. Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the US police.
The good news? It's not racism, they are just as happy to shoot white people who look at them funny.
Yeah which begs the question if it's really racism or just police brutality in general. Not saying police don't have a hard job. Still something's going around.
redleger wrote: You show me data that veteran mental health issues has anything to do with LEO rates of bad shootings and Ill fly to your house and eat my own shoe in front of you.
I never made the claim that data existed. Go back and actually read my post without a chip on your shoulder and you'll see what is actually being discussed here.
redleger wrote: [is offensive that you suggest veteran hiring has anything to do with LEO unjustified shootings.
It is offensive to ask if there might be a connection between bad shoots and police departments favoring hiring combat veterans who are statistically more likely to have mental issues related to their military service?
That is asinine. Every rock should be uncovered in order to change the tide of police violence against civilians.
redleger wrote: [As to the second part, I would say you never truly appreciate something until you have had to sacrifice it, or go without. The majority of the non veterans on this very forum, from any country do not know what they do not know. When you have been left on top of a mountain for 3 months with more ammo than food, and given a mission that is usually reserved for a battalion, and you have 28 dudes oh and BTW the Australians that are supposed to feed you keep sending you raw lamb grudgingly then you learn to appreciate what you have. So to say you do not have a grip on sacrifice as a civilian population is accurate from my point of view, because not having your favorite item in stock at a local store is not necessarily doing without. I have missed a total of 3 years of my oldest daughters life, 2 of my middle, 1 of my youngest, 2 weeks after she was born none the less. So I know going without. Can the majority of civilians say they truly understand this? I am not saying it makes us better, I'm saying it gives us a better grip on what its like to truly appreciate these things.
Thanks for your service and all that, but no one cares about any of what you have written above. You lost three years of your life. Were you drafted or did you volunteer? You claim that all of your sacrifices don't make you better, but it sure seems like you feel superior to those who have "sat comfortably and never sacrificed", even more telling is your anger at the mere suggestion that there could possibly be a connection between police violence and the personal histories of those officers perpetrating that violence.
You are trying to make this emotional when it shouldn't be. Hard questions need to be asked because people are dying. The fact that you can't even broach the question of whether or not favoring veterans for police hiring could potentially be aiding in the violent responses from police against civilians is further evidence of your bias.
redleger wrote: [Now if we could get off the war veteran hate
jmurph wrote: Because penalizing a retirement system for the actions of bad actors is bonkers?
The suggestion was mostly tongue in cheek in case that wasn't clear (and plainly legally untenable ), though it would provide an incentive for the good cops to dump the bad ones more readily, as currently damages awards dont appear to have any meaningful impact as those responsible are not the ones that bear the burden of the costs.
That said, some changes to qualified immunity may be in order.
redleger wrote: You show me data that veteran mental health issues has anything to do with LEO rates of bad shootings and Ill fly to your house and eat my own shoe in front of you.
I never made the claim that data existed. Go back and actually read my post without a chip on your shoulder and you'll see what is actually being discussed here.
redleger wrote: [is offensive that you suggest veteran hiring has anything to do with LEO unjustified shootings.
It is offensive to ask if there might be a connection between bad shoots and police departments favoring hiring combat veterans who are statistically more likely to have mental issues related to their military service?
That is asinine. Every rock should be uncovered in order to change the tide of police violence against civilians.
Every rock should be uncovered. I am not emotional, I am however flabbergasted at how we went from, wow this shoot was totally unjustified to Veteran hiring should be looked at. I mean literally there is nothing that states it has any effect in this shooting. In fact the Cops being shot by frelling arseholes are usually veterans, not the ones doing the shooting.
Now rephrase that question to "wow, white cop hiring should be looked at. Black cop hiring should be looked at. Red headed cop hiring should be looked at." That is exactly how out of the blue that question was.
redleger wrote: [As to the second part, I would say you never truly appreciate something until you have had to sacrifice it, or go without. The majority of the non veterans on this very forum, from any country do not know what they do not know. When you have been left on top of a mountain for 3 months with more ammo than food, and given a mission that is usually reserved for a battalion, and you have 28 dudes oh and BTW the Australians that are supposed to feed you keep sending you raw lamb grudgingly then you learn to appreciate what you have. So to say you do not have a grip on sacrifice as a civilian population is accurate from my point of view, because not having your favorite item in stock at a local store is not necessarily doing without. I have missed a total of 3 years of my oldest daughters life, 2 of my middle, 1 of my youngest, 2 weeks after she was born none the less. So I know going without. Can the majority of civilians say they truly understand this? I am not saying it makes us better, I'm saying it gives us a better grip on what its like to truly appreciate these things.
Thanks for your service and all that, but no one cares about any of what you have written above. You lost three years of your life. Were you drafted or did you volunteer? You claim that all of your sacrifices don't make you better, but it sure seems like you feel superior to those who have "sat comfortably and never sacrificed", even more telling is your anger at the mere suggestion that there could possibly be a connection between police violence and the personal histories of those officers perpetrating that violence.
I never said I feel superior. I said because of those experiences I understand what bad decisions could lead to. Ask someone who went to prison if they realized how hard it would be. I don't need to, because I have been away. That's all I'm saying. You don't understand. It doesn't mean anything is wrong with you, its just a lack of understanding. And yes I volunteered, which doesn't mean that my understanding of sacrifice is any less significant. It simply means I did it because you can't.
BTW thanks for your service and all that is pretty much a patronization, and on behalf of all veterans I would like to invite you to just say nothing instead. It just sounds disingenuous.
You are trying to make this emotional when it shouldn't be. Hard questions need to be asked because people are dying. The fact that you can't even broach the question of whether or not favoring veterans for police hiring could potentially be aiding in the violent responses from police against civilians is further evidence of your bias.
I can happily and easily broach the question. In fact once again show me any data that the two are related on any quantifiable scale and I will eat my shoe, in person, wearing a pink dress. I will then have a discussion on this. What bothers me is the leap made with no evidence or prior discussion.
redleger wrote: [Now if we could get off the war veteran hate
Vaktathi wrote: Wait, are we equating military service with prison time...?
Honestly once you sign that dotted line, there are parallels, although not the same thing. Technically you can leave when ever you want, but then you really might end up in prison.
Edit: Being on this desk for 24 hours right now is starting to feel like prison though.
Every rock should be uncovered. I am not emotional, I am however flabbergasted at how we went from, wow this shoot was totally unjustified to Veteran hiring should be looked at. I mean literally there is nothing that states it has any effect in this shooting. In fact the Cops being shot by frelling arseholes are usually veterans, not the ones doing the shooting.
Now rephrase that question to "wow, white cop hiring should be looked at. Black cop hiring should be looked at. Red headed cop hiring should be looked at." That is exactly how out of the blue that question was.
Jeez, man. Quotes. Learn them.
Well, this thread went from discussing a cop shooting a deaf man and evolved to discussing what changes could be made to avoid more idiotic police shoots. That is where veterans came in before you started frothing at the mouth.
redleger wrote: I never said I feel superior. I said because of those experiences I understand what bad decisions could lead to. Ask someone who went to prison if they realized how hard it would be. I don't need to, because I have been away. That's all I'm saying. You don't understand. It doesn't mean anything is wrong with you, its just a lack of understanding. And yes I volunteered, which doesn't mean that my understanding of sacrifice is any less significant. It simply means I did it because you can't.
What exactly do you mean by saying that you volunteered because I "can't"? You do not know anything about me. Again, stick to the fething discussion and stop trying to wear your heart on your service sleeve and make this about hating on veterans.
redleger wrote: [color=green]I can happily and easily broach the question. In fact once again show me any data that the two are related on any
No, you really can't. I simply wondered in the thread if that area of police hiring should be re-examined for the previously documented reason that former military service personnel are more likely to suffer from mental health issues. Then you went full gak storm. That isn't a discussion. That is you trying to use your service history to shut down a conversation.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Something needs to change.
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.
If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.
Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.
I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The vet policy definitely needs to be re-examined. Again, no offence to vets, but I really think many of them are not prime police candidates.
Also I love the idea of the police being forced to pay for their own mistakes rather than the public. I said this before but is it not possible to pass laws stating that payouts by the police for these incidents should come from their pension pots/union funds rather than the city treasury? I guarantee that would shape them up.
I'd argue that most vets are actually less likely to shoot in a stressful situation, as they are most likely less frightened (or more able to control their fear), better able to evaluate an actual threat (as opposed to an imagined one), and used to ROEs that are much more restrictive than what most police departments go by.
The "psycho war vet" stereotype really needs to go away. Anyone who is pedaling it as a reason why veterans shouldn't be hired by police departments doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?
Something needs to change.
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.
If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.
Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.
I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The vet policy definitely needs to be re-examined. Again, no offence to vets, but I really think many of them are not prime police candidates.
Also I love the idea of the police being forced to pay for their own mistakes rather than the public. I said this before but is it not possible to pass laws stating that payouts by the police for these incidents should come from their pension pots/union funds rather than the city treasury? I guarantee that would shape them up.
I'd argue that most vets are actually less likely to shoot in a stressful situation, as they are most likely less frightened (or more able to control their fear), better able to evaluate an actual threat (as opposed to an imagined one), and used to ROEs that are much more restrictive than what most police departments go by.
The "psycho war vet" stereotype really needs to go away. Anyone who is pedaling it as a reason why veterans shouldn't be hired by police departments doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.
but Kessler said nearly half of the soldiers who were diagnosed with a mental disorder had it when they enlisted.
Which has nothing to do with combat veterans at all.
And again:
Most suicides occurred back home, not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the rate has increased among troops who have never been deployed overseas, Kessler said.
So guys who were combat vets suicide LESS than those who are not.
Then there is this:
Despite concerns about the effects of multiple combat tours and shorter stints at home during more than a decade of war, Kessler said veterans appear to fare better than younger soldiers. Those who suffer from mental health problems are "substantially less likely" to re-enlist, while troops on their second or third hitch are more likely to enjoy Army life.
And up at the beginning of the article
rates of many of these disorders are much higher in soldiers than in civilians.
Many disorders. Of course that means it does not hold true for many others. And it sure as gak does not give enough data to determine which those may be let alone come close to proving "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. "
And this is an article about one study. Not even a link to the study. Your 'fact' that combat vets have higher rates of mental health issues is pretty fething slim on facts.
Pre-enlistment onset disorders were not only more common but also more impairing than disorders with post-enlistment onsets, highlighting the importance of early identification and resilience/prevention interventions. Current mental disorders are much more common among non-deployed U.S. Army soldiers than sociodemographically matched civilians (25.1% vs. 11.6%). The vast majority (76.6%) of such soldiers say their disorders started before enlistment. Nearly 60% of reported soldier suicide attempts were associated with these disorders.
Now, do you have any source to back up your claim that "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. " And please clarify the 'have higher rates" than... You surely don't mean 'all civilians' because the article you referenced used a study only comparing "sociodemographically matched civilians ".
Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
but Kessler said nearly half of the soldiers who were diagnosed with a mental disorder had it when they enlisted.
Which has nothing to do with combat veterans at all.
And again:
Most suicides occurred back home, not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the rate has increased among troops who have never been deployed overseas, Kessler said.
So guys who were combat vets suicide LESS than those who are not.
Then there is this:
Despite concerns about the effects of multiple combat tours and shorter stints at home during more than a decade of war, Kessler said veterans appear to fare better than younger soldiers. Those who suffer from mental health problems are "substantially less likely" to re-enlist, while troops on their second or third hitch are more likely to enjoy Army life.
And up at the beginning of the article
rates of many of these disorders are much higher in soldiers than in civilians.
Many disorders. Of course that means it does not hold true for many others. And it sure as gak does not give enough data to determine which those may be let alone come close to proving "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. "
And this is an article about one study. Not even a link to the study. Your 'fact' that combat vets have higher rates of mental health issues is pretty fething slim on facts.
Pre-enlistment onset disorders were not only more common but also more impairing than disorders with post-enlistment onsets, highlighting the importance of early identification and resilience/prevention interventions. Current mental disorders are much more common among non-deployed U.S. Army soldiers than sociodemographically matched civilians (25.1% vs. 11.6%). The vast majority (76.6%) of such soldiers say their disorders started before enlistment. Nearly 60% of reported soldier suicide attempts were associated with these disorders.
Now, do you have any source to back up your claim that "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. " And please clarify the 'have higher rates" than... You surely don't mean 'all civilians' because the article you referenced used a study only comparing "sociodemographically matched civilians ".
That was the first result I found while Googling from work.
A recent report on SUDs in the US Armed Forces (IOM, 2012a) described the present situation as a public health crisis potentially undermining the armed force readiness and psychological fitness. The 2008 Department of Defense Survey of Health Related Behaviors among Active Duty Military Personnel (Bray et al., 2009) established that almost a half of all Active Duty service members (47%) engaged in binge drinking and 20% in heavy drinking in the past 30 days. Misuse of prescription drugs affected 11% of respondents, 30% reported smoking cigarettes, and 10% were heavy cigarette smokers (one pack or more daily). These alcohol and drug-use-related behaviors continue after the discharge from military, especially among those veterans who are having difficulties with successful reintegration into civilian life.
Involvement in warfare can have dramatic consequences for the mental health and well-being of military personnel. During the 20th century, US military psychiatrists tried to deal with these consequences while contributing to the military goal of preserving manpower and reducing the debilitating impact of psychiatric syndromes by implementing screening programs to detect factors that predispose individuals to mental disorders, providing early intervention strategies for acute war-related syndromes, and treating long-term psychiatric disability after deployment.
The success of screening has proven disappointing, the effects of treatment near the front lines are unclear, and the results of treatment for chronic postwar syndromes are mixed.
Although the majority of veterans who return from
Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a behavioral health
condition and have not experienced a traumatic brain
injury,3
all veterans experience a period of readjustment
as they reintegrate into life with family, friends, and
community. The veterans’ juggling of military and
family responsibilities, reintegration into civilian life in
the United States after living in unfamiliar settings, and
processing exposure to combat may contribute to problems
for veterans themselves, as well as their spouses and
family members.4, 5 Behaviors needed to survive in a war
zone, such as maintaining a constant state of alertness,
may initially translate into troublesome behaviors in
civilian life, such as feeling edgy or jumpy and being
easily startled.
Is that good material for a police officer? I don't think it is. I don't want jumpy, trigger happy people in law enforcement.
My point is, these factors should be looked at. Veterans, especially combat veterans, should not be given the preferential treatment for hiring that they currently get if these other factors could be contributing to the police on civilian violence.
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
I absolutely think there should be some laws adopted, call it a hybrid law set between the non-gun toting societies and America. I honestly think there are more factors though. It was nailed down earlier. Cops are scared shitless for some reason. I mean yes its scary, I've been there. But target discrimination and trigger discipline are things that you learn to do even in high stress situations. Maybe there needs to be training on everything up to pulling your weapon, then on when to use it, and then on when to put it away and most importantly when to pull the trigger.
The "psycho war vet" stereotype really needs to go away. Anyone who is pedaling it as a reason why veterans shouldn't be hired by police departments doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.
Which isn't being said at all. Again. What I am suggesting and others are misinterpreting, is that veteran status shouldn't be an automatic positive on a police application. It shouldn't be considered a merit to have served in the military, especially in a combat role, to police civilians. No one is advocating that ex-soldiers can't and shouldn't be cops. Rather, they should be evaluated like everyone else, and potentially more so, since they could be carrying some baggage with them that makes them inappropriate for a role in law enforcement.
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
I absolutely think there should be some laws adopted, call it a hybrid law set between the non-gun toting societies and America. I honestly think there are more factors though. It was nailed down earlier. Cops are scared shitless for some reason. I mean yes its scary, I've been there. But target discrimination and trigger discipline are things that you learn to do even in high stress situations. Maybe there needs to be training on everything up to pulling your weapon, then on when to use it, and then on when to put it away and most importantly when to pull the trigger.
I do not even just mean gun laws I mean look at the police and community aswell.
What are the hours more cops work, is over time encouraged or accepted, are they under man? Is the training uptodate? are they taught everything is a threat ect.
One thing I noticed from CNN if it is true or not I can't say but they had some cops on who said "All traffic stops, and interactions with the public need to be taken seriously and as life threatening"
Couple of my friends said that was scary because when he was training for the Mounties they said the first rule was to treat everyone like they needed help and that you are their to make sure they get the help they need weither it is a ambulance or the drunnk tank".
One thing I noticed from CNN if it is true or not I can't say but they had some cops on who said "All traffic stops, and interactions with the public need to be taken seriously and as life threatening"
Couple of my friends said that was scary because when he was training for the Mounties they said the first rule was to treat everyone like they needed help and that you are their to make sure they get the help they need weither it is a ambulance or the drunnk tank".
Yeah, the idea that every civilian encountered needs to be treated like the enemy is so wrong minded and does nothing to bridge the gap between police and the public.
That's the main problem right there. If that's their idea of good training, treating everyone as a hostile who needs to be shot at the slightest provocation then they're idiots.
That and the 'respect mah authority' mentality a lot of them have too. I've seen the YouTube videos. Thuggish power tripping scumbags in uniform.
but Kessler said nearly half of the soldiers who were diagnosed with a mental disorder had it when they enlisted.
Which has nothing to do with combat veterans at all.
And again:
Most suicides occurred back home, not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the rate has increased among troops who have never been deployed overseas, Kessler said.
So guys who were combat vets suicide LESS than those who are not.
Then there is this:
Despite concerns about the effects of multiple combat tours and shorter stints at home during more than a decade of war, Kessler said veterans appear to fare better than younger soldiers. Those who suffer from mental health problems are "substantially less likely" to re-enlist, while troops on their second or third hitch are more likely to enjoy Army life.
And up at the beginning of the article
rates of many of these disorders are much higher in soldiers than in civilians.
Many disorders. Of course that means it does not hold true for many others. And it sure as gak does not give enough data to determine which those may be let alone come close to proving "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. "
And this is an article about one study. Not even a link to the study. Your 'fact' that combat vets have higher rates of mental health issues is pretty fething slim on facts.
Pre-enlistment onset disorders were not only more common but also more impairing than disorders with post-enlistment onsets, highlighting the importance of early identification and resilience/prevention interventions. Current mental disorders are much more common among non-deployed U.S. Army soldiers than sociodemographically matched civilians (25.1% vs. 11.6%). The vast majority (76.6%) of such soldiers say their disorders started before enlistment. Nearly 60% of reported soldier suicide attempts were associated with these disorders.
Now, do you have any source to back up your claim that "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. " And please clarify the 'have higher rates" than... You surely don't mean 'all civilians' because the article you referenced used a study only comparing "sociodemographically matched civilians ".
That was the first result I found while Googling from work.
A recent report on SUDs in the US Armed Forces (IOM, 2012a) described the present situation as a public health crisis potentially undermining the armed force readiness and psychological fitness. The 2008 Department of Defense Survey of Health Related Behaviors among Active Duty Military Personnel (Bray et al., 2009) established that almost a half of all Active Duty service members (47%) engaged in binge drinking and 20% in heavy drinking in the past 30 days. Misuse of prescription drugs affected 11% of respondents, 30% reported smoking cigarettes, and 10% were heavy cigarette smokers (one pack or more daily). These alcohol and drug-use-related behaviors continue after the discharge from military, especially among those veterans who are having difficulties with successful reintegration into civilian life.
Involvement in warfare can have dramatic consequences for the mental health and well-being of military personnel. During the 20th century, US military psychiatrists tried to deal with these consequences while contributing to the military goal of preserving manpower and reducing the debilitating impact of psychiatric syndromes by implementing screening programs to detect factors that predispose individuals to mental disorders, providing early intervention strategies for acute war-related syndromes, and treating long-term psychiatric disability after deployment.
The success of screening has proven disappointing, the effects of treatment near the front lines are unclear, and the results of treatment for chronic postwar syndromes are mixed.
Although the majority of veterans who return from
Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a behavioral health
condition and have not experienced a traumatic brain
injury,3
all veterans experience a period of readjustment
as they reintegrate into life with family, friends, and
community. The veterans’ juggling of military and
family responsibilities, reintegration into civilian life in
the United States after living in unfamiliar settings, and
processing exposure to combat may contribute to problems
for veterans themselves, as well as their spouses and
family members.4, 5 Behaviors needed to survive in a war
zone, such as maintaining a constant state of alertness,
may initially translate into troublesome behaviors in
civilian life, such as feeling edgy or jumpy and being
easily startled.
Is that good material for a police officer? I don't think it is. I don't want jumpy, trigger happy people in law enforcement.
My point is, these factors should be looked at. Veterans, especially combat veterans, should not be given the preferential treatment for hiring that they currently get if these other factors could be contributing to the police on civilian violence.
wow, lots of cherry picking there.
re-adjustment issues are usually temporary situation, and as each deployment happens, there is a resilience built up to it. The fact that Soldiers who are able to reintegrate have that resilience and are able to compose themselves in those situations would be a plus not a minus.
The "psycho war vet" stereotype really needs to go away. Anyone who is pedaling it as a reason why veterans shouldn't be hired by police departments doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.
Which isn't being said at all. Again. What I am suggesting and others are misinterpreting, is that veteran status shouldn't be an automatic positive on a police application. It shouldn't be considered a merit to have served in the military, especially in a combat role, to police civilians. No one is advocating that ex-soldiers can't and shouldn't be cops. Rather, they should be evaluated like everyone else, and potentially more so, since they could be carrying some baggage with them that makes them inappropriate for a role in law enforcement.
What makes you think that veterans aren't already evaluated like everyone else?
And why do you think soldiers would treat everyone they meet like an enemy? Not everyone they meet in a combat zone is an enemy, and they have to learn how to deal with non-combatants just as much as they do combatants. There are things called escalation of force, and humanitarian operations. The first is something that pretty much any veteran who would be in a position to use force will learn (over...and over...) and the second is something the military does a lot of - nowadays probably even more often than combat operations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: That's the main problem right there. If that's their idea of good training, treating everyone as a hostile who needs to be shot at the slightest provocation then they're idiots.
Some good military training would fix that right up.
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
The second amendment and the USA's love for guns is part of the problem too but nobody wants to touch that. From the Guardian: By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years (they also have all kinds of stats here). Here's another article (that links to more information and stats) that tries to explain why the rate of fatal police shootings is so much higher in the US.
In the USA you get about 3.4 annual fatal police shootings per million residents while european countries top at 0.2 and only get lower. That's more than one order of magnitude in difference and from what I have read, I don't think just changing some stuff about police training or how this "problem" gets handled when it happens will solve this. Australia, more or less, banned guns when they were fed up with their shootings and it worked by overall lowering gun fatalities.
That's just doesn't seem to be an option in the US. I don't know what number of yearly gun deaths (police or otherwise) would be needed for the US to even start thinking about abolishing the second amendment. I'm not talking about some NYT article or twitter moment but actual and widespread consideration from the government. :/
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
The second amendment and the USA's love for guns is part of the problem too but nobody wants to touch that. From the Guardian: By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years (they also have all kinds of stats here). Here's another article (that links to more information and stats) that tries to explain why the rate of fatal police shootings is so much higher in the US.
In the USA you get about 3.4 annual fatal police shootings per million residents while european countries top at 0.2 and only get lower. That's more than one order of magnitude in difference and from what I have read, I don't think just changing some stuff about police training or how this "problem" gets handled when it happens will solve this. Australia, more or less, banned guns when they were fed up with their shootings and it worked by overall lowering gun fatalities.
That's just doesn't seem to be an option in the US. I don't know what number of yearly gun deaths (police or otherwise) would be needed for the US to even start thinking about abolishing the second amendment. I'm not talking about some NYT article or twitter moment but actual and widespread consideration from the government. :/
Why shouldn't a free people own weapons? Do you deny the fundamental right to self-defense or defense of others?
Indeed redleger. While the relevance of an armed citizenry to this thread is undeniable, let's keep discussion of that limited to how it concerns the police and their actions directly, rather than branching into "America needs to fix its gun laws". Thanks guys
redleger wrote: nope nope nope, lets not do that. Hordini you are awesome, but lets please not touch that one.
Thanks. Just trying to call it like I see it.
And no problem motyak, I'll dial it back.
In regards to the original topic, it is indeed tragic. While it is true that the man who was shot probably should have either pulled over immediately, or at the very least stayed in his vehicle, none of that justifies his being shot. The video evidence might show something different, but that seems unlikely at this point.
Hordini wrote: What makes you think that veterans aren't already evaluated like everyone else?
I didn't say they weren't. I said they should be evaluated like everyone else. During an application process they should not be prioritized due to their veteran status (which many departments do), and perhaps if more research bears out that veterans are more susceptible to mental health problems, then they should be even more stringently evaluated before being added to a force.
Hordini wrote: And why do you think soldiers would treat everyone they meet like an enemy?
Not soldiers, cops. I was responding to OgreChubbs comment about US police treating every traffic stop as if it is life threatening. That is problematic to me. Yes, police work is dangerous, and yes some traffic stops result in violence, but I'd wager the majority don't (no data, but feel free to prove me wrong). Treating civilians like they are threats, i.e. enemies, is a wrong minded approach to policing. Add in a veteran's potential for developing service-related mental health problems that could exacerbate this adversarial mindset and that doesn't make for a very good equation in my opinion.
Therefore I wonder if seeking out vets for roles in police is a good idea in the first place.
And with that I am out for the day. Going to job #2.
Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.
I'm reminded of the cop who shot a guy for getting his driving license. Multiple times too I think it was. Thankfully non fatally if I remember correctly. Of course there's too many incidents like this to count. But the training needs to change, as does the attitude.
Hordini wrote: What makes you think that veterans aren't already evaluated like everyone else?
I didn't say they weren't. I said they should be evaluated like everyone else. During an application process they should not be prioritized due to their veteran status (which many departments do), and perhaps if more research bears out that veterans are more susceptible to mental health problems, then they should be even more stringently evaluated before being added to a force.
Hordini wrote: And why do you think soldiers would treat everyone they meet like an enemy?
Not soldiers, cops. I was responding to OgreChubbs comment about US police treating every traffic stop as if it is life threatening. That is problematic to me. Yes, police work is dangerous, and yes some traffic stops result in violence, but I'd wager the majority don't (no data, but feel free to prove me wrong). Treating civilians like they are threats, i.e. enemies, is a wrong minded approach to policing. Add in a veteran's potential for developing service-related mental health problems that could exacerbate this adversarial mindset and that doesn't make for a very good equation in my opinion.
Therefore I wonder if seeking out vets for roles in police is a good idea in the first place.
And with that I am out for the day. Going to job #2.
Whether or not hiring preference is given to vets is irrelevant to this conversation. whether or not Veterans are susceptible to mental health issues precluding them from honorable community service in the form of law enforcement is entirely speculation based on a lack of understanding, and maybe a bit of bias.
Military training teaches handling stressful situations with poise and control. Not going off half cocked just cause your pulse raises and you get a bad spidey sense. Actually because of this, it would make sense that Combat Vets, specifically of the Infantry, Artillery, Combat Engineer and even girly Cav Scouts would make excellent, trainable and mentally collected Police Officers. Your question is based off the falsity that Vets are damaged goods. In fact you pass one daily in all likelihood and don't even know it.
Now disclamer. Arseholes are everywhere and military service does not preclude that either. So linking bad apples to any one demographic without proof is profiling and as many liberals on this site would say, profiling is wrong. So explain why your stance holds any water, and is not akin to a profiling of one group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.
actually you can remain tactically minded, and prepared without treating someone like a threat. In all likelihood, based on our society and gun ownership, every time you pull someone over it has the potential to be deadly, the trick is treating it like a potential bad situation without letting the person you pulled over know it is being treated as such.
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
The second amendment and the USA's love for guns is part of the problem too but nobody wants to touch that. From the Guardian: By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years (they also have all kinds of stats here). Here's another article (that links to more information and stats) that tries to explain why the rate of fatal police shootings is so much higher in the US.
In the USA you get about 3.4 annual fatal police shootings per million residents while european countries top at 0.2 and only get lower. That's more than one order of magnitude in difference and from what I have read, I don't think just changing some stuff about police training or how this "problem" gets handled when it happens will solve this. Australia, more or less, banned guns when they were fed up with their shootings and it worked by overall lowering gun fatalities.
That's just doesn't seem to be an option in the US. I don't know what number of yearly gun deaths (police or otherwise) would be needed for the US to even start thinking about abolishing the second amendment. I'm not talking about some NYT article or twitter moment but actual and widespread consideration from the government. :/
Abolishment of the 2nd? O.o
First of all, nearly 2/3rd of gun deaths are related to suicides.
So... maybe that's why we don't see that number "terrifying enough" to abolish the 2nd.
What it should do is force us to look into mental health and fund appropriately.
As to this police engagement... we haven't seen the dashcam yet, have we?
damn. Unsure to be proud of my service or fear it. Good thing I am medicated for your all safety. People at work wonder why I have my body armor and ACH by my desk at work.....along with the Centurion helmet, Spartan helmet....Gladiator helmet....Camelspider in a sealed glass case...emperor scorpian in a seal glass case...Fu Dog in my Xmas cactus plant....wwearing a old poor of my Mike Frame Oakly's....
What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.
motyak wrote: What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.
I come out and say it then.
Military mindset takes on many forms. All applicants I interview, because of varying backgrounds, can find out that I am very intimidating and project authority with my voice. We, those who post here, that are military can relate and talk at level a lot of you cannot or will not comprehend.
Example
UCMJ action
I was directing my post about Vets to be treated the same as everyone. Yet we are separated from everyone else.
Veteran Recruitment Act
Veteran Employment Oppurtunity Act
Being considered first over civilians for hired if 30% Disabled
Being first over civilians for consideration of job for being a Vet with Campaigns ribbons
etc etc
I got my job with the government by VRA and 30% Disability with VA letter. I was picked up for No Competition for Hire due to my Campaigns Stars
The same applies to Federal LEA's
Same applies to local and state LEA's
Also to back up Jake post. Did you know those who are on Jump Status already have PTSD for combat jumps (practice or real) because we "swallow" our fears?
So the question now is
Do Combat Vets make better LEO's overall over civilian LEO's who are hired off the street. Now for those who do not know. The Hiring Authority of LEO's can ask for a Vet Mental Health records by service or recommend him/her to get a mental eval (current documents mainly being the reason).
Now Motty if you want to know why at times my posts are...interesting. Bear in mind. I might have just taking a Xanax (PTSD)
Edit
Removed the award that has a huge lead over all others. Its one not earned
but Kessler said nearly half of the soldiers who were diagnosed with a mental disorder had it when they enlisted.
Which has nothing to do with combat veterans at all.
And again:
Most suicides occurred back home, not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the rate has increased among troops who have never been deployed overseas, Kessler said.
So guys who were combat vets suicide LESS than those who are not.
Then there is this:
Despite concerns about the effects of multiple combat tours and shorter stints at home during more than a decade of war, Kessler said veterans appear to fare better than younger soldiers. Those who suffer from mental health problems are "substantially less likely" to re-enlist, while troops on their second or third hitch are more likely to enjoy Army life.
And up at the beginning of the article
rates of many of these disorders are much higher in soldiers than in civilians.
Many disorders. Of course that means it does not hold true for many others. And it sure as gak does not give enough data to determine which those may be let alone come close to proving "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. "
And this is an article about one study. Not even a link to the study. Your 'fact' that combat vets have higher rates of mental health issues is pretty fething slim on facts.
Pre-enlistment onset disorders were not only more common but also more impairing than disorders with post-enlistment onsets, highlighting the importance of early identification and resilience/prevention interventions. Current mental disorders are much more common among non-deployed U.S. Army soldiers than sociodemographically matched civilians (25.1% vs. 11.6%). The vast majority (76.6%) of such soldiers say their disorders started before enlistment. Nearly 60% of reported soldier suicide attempts were associated with these disorders.
Now, do you have any source to back up your claim that "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. " And please clarify the 'have higher rates" than... You surely don't mean 'all civilians' because the article you referenced used a study only comparing "sociodemographically matched civilians ".
That was the first result I found while Googling from work.
A recent report on SUDs in the US Armed Forces (IOM, 2012a) described the present situation as a public health crisis potentially undermining the armed force readiness and psychological fitness. The 2008 Department of Defense Survey of Health Related Behaviors among Active Duty Military Personnel (Bray et al., 2009) established that almost a half of all Active Duty service members (47%) engaged in binge drinking and 20% in heavy drinking in the past 30 days. Misuse of prescription drugs affected 11% of respondents, 30% reported smoking cigarettes, and 10% were heavy cigarette smokers (one pack or more daily). These alcohol and drug-use-related behaviors continue after the discharge from military, especially among those veterans who are having difficulties with successful reintegration into civilian life.
Involvement in warfare can have dramatic consequences for the mental health and well-being of military personnel. During the 20th century, US military psychiatrists tried to deal with these consequences while contributing to the military goal of preserving manpower and reducing the debilitating impact of psychiatric syndromes by implementing screening programs to detect factors that predispose individuals to mental disorders, providing early intervention strategies for acute war-related syndromes, and treating long-term psychiatric disability after deployment.
The success of screening has proven disappointing, the effects of treatment near the front lines are unclear, and the results of treatment for chronic postwar syndromes are mixed.
Although the majority of veterans who return from
Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a behavioral health
condition and have not experienced a traumatic brain
injury,3
all veterans experience a period of readjustment
as they reintegrate into life with family, friends, and
community. The veterans’ juggling of military and
family responsibilities, reintegration into civilian life in
the United States after living in unfamiliar settings, and
processing exposure to combat may contribute to problems
for veterans themselves, as well as their spouses and
family members.4, 5 Behaviors needed to survive in a war
zone, such as maintaining a constant state of alertness,
may initially translate into troublesome behaviors in
civilian life, such as feeling edgy or jumpy and being
easily startled.
Is that good material for a police officer? I don't think it is. I don't want jumpy, trigger happy people in law enforcement.
My point is, these factors should be looked at. Veterans, especially combat veterans, should not be given the preferential treatment for hiring that they currently get if these other factors could be contributing to the police on civilian violence.
My point is you made a specific claim about combat vets, and have yet to back it up. Don't make claims you can't back up.
motyak wrote: What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.
I come out and say it then.
Military mindset takes on many forms. All applicants I interview, because of varying backgrounds, can find out that I am very intimidating and project authority with my voice. We, those who post here, that are military can relate and talk at level a lot of you cannot or will not comprehend.
Example
UCMJ action
I was directing my post about Vets to be treated the same as everyone. Yet we are separated from everyone else.
Veteran Recruitment Act
Veteran Employment Oppurtunity Act
Being considered first over civilians for hired if 30% Disabled
Being first over civilians for consideration of job for being a Vet with Campaigns ribbons
etc etc
I got my job with the government by VRA and 30% Disability with VA letter. I was picked up for No Competition for Hire due to my Campaigns Stars
The same applies to Federal LEA's
Same applies to local and state LEA's
Also to back up Jake post. Did you know those who are on Jump Status already have PTSD for combat jumps (practice or real) because we "swallow" our fears?
So the question now is
Do Combat Vets make better LEO's overall over civilian LEO's who are hired off the street. Now for those who do not know. The Hiring Authority of LEO's can ask for a Vet Mental Health records by service or recommend him/her to get a mental eval (current documents mainly being the reason).
Now Motty if you want to know why at times my posts are...interesting. Bear in mind. I might have just taking a Xanax (PTSD)
Edit
Removed the award that has a huge lead over all others. Its one not earned
No, that wasn't remotely what you said in your post. If you had posted that, I wouldn't have said anything. Instead you said this
Jihadin wrote: damn. Unsure to be proud of my service or fear it. Good thing I am medicated for your all safety. People at work wonder why I have my body armor and ACH by my desk at work.....along with the Centurion helmet, Spartan helmet....Gladiator helmet....Camelspider in a sealed glass case...emperor scorpian in a seal glass case...Fu Dog in my Xmas cactus plant....wwearing a old poor of my Mike Frame Oakly's....
motyak wrote: What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.
What he said, exactly, was:
Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. That is not opinion, that is fact.
And until he can come up with actual sources, I'm calling him out on it.
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
The second amendment and the USA's love for guns is part of the problem too but nobody wants to touch that. From the Guardian: By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years (they also have all kinds of stats here). Here's another article (that links to more information and stats) that tries to explain why the rate of fatal police shootings is so much higher in the US.
In the USA you get about 3.4 annual fatal police shootings per million residents while european countries top at 0.2 and only get lower. That's more than one order of magnitude in difference and from what I have read, I don't think just changing some stuff about police training or how this "problem" gets handled when it happens will solve this. Australia, more or less, banned guns when they were fed up with their shootings and it worked by overall lowering gun fatalities.
That's just doesn't seem to be an option in the US. I don't know what number of yearly gun deaths (police or otherwise) would be needed for the US to even start thinking about abolishing the second amendment. I'm not talking about some NYT article or twitter moment but actual and widespread consideration from the government. :/
Alcohol related deaths in the U.S. outnumber gun related homicides 8 to 1. If the object were to save lives, why don't the people decrying all the firearms deaths put the same energy into campaigning against distillers and Brewers?
motyak wrote: What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.
What he said, exactly, was:
Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. That is not opinion, that is fact.
And until he can come up with actual sources, I'm calling him out on it.
So far, nothing he has provided backs that up.
Jake and me are tracking the same Tango Motty.....I hate assuming....but I am going to assume....you just started on this page....(?)
I think we need a Mod with some military background......oh...SD is Staff Duty...24 hrs duty manning the Bat Phone and doing Security Checks of unit areas every hour on the hour till 0900 the next day (0900 - 0900)
Jihadin wrote: I think we need a Mod with some military background......oh...SD is Staff Duty...24 hrs duty manning the Bat Phone and doing Security Checks of unit areas every hour on the hour till 0900 the next day (0900 - 0900)
This one is 0600-0600 but otherwise yep, same shizzle. And a mod with any military background would probably not be allowed. IDK if you have ever noticed a trend with allowing some to say whatever, and others censured pretty quickly. I digress though. Seems like we need our own DV thread. (Dysfunctional Veteran) Then maybe we can speak our language without the butthurt flowing.
There are multiple mods who have served in different nations armed forces. But that is hardly on topic for this thread, so let's reel that back and try and salvage something from this, thanks
JohnHwangDD wrote: The easiest way to prevent police shootings of civilians is to mandate that DAs charge officers to the fullest extent of the law. If every police shooting starts out with a Murder 1 indictment, that changes the entire force calculus.
DAs should indict on whatever charges are actually supported by the evidence found by the state mandated investigations of every officer involved shooting.
The DA in Baltimore leveled a whole lot of very severe charges and they all got tossed out by a judge due to lack of evidence so improperly charging cops is an unethical waste of time.
In the uk, when a cop shoots someone they are automatically suspended pending a full investigation. I'm not sure if that'd work in thus as we treat shooting as an absolute last resort
Rosebuddy wrote: Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.
I think that's the jist of it. We've got to a chicken and egg situation where civilians are terrified of vops and cops are terrified of civilians. Both perfectly valid. Unfortunately I think it's all down to your crazy gun laws. Cops have to assume that anyone they stop is armed, because anyone they stop could be armed. We don't really have that that situation anywhere else beyond the middle east. In Europe/Canada, cops don't assume everyone is armed because they aren't. The biggest risk is knives so they have stab proof vests, batons and pepper spray, as well as lots of situation handling and deescalation training. UK cops treat everyone as friendly until proven otherwise, as you'll see by all the silly clips of them doing karaoke and the likes. Only videos of US cops i see are violent.
Rosebuddy wrote: Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.
I think that's the jist of it. We've got to a chicken and egg situation where civilians are terrified of vops and cops are terrified of civilians. Both perfectly valid. Unfortunately I think it's all down to your crazy gun laws. Cops have to assume that anyone they stop is armed, because anyone they stop could be armed. We don't really have that that situation anywhere else beyond the middle east. In Europe/Canada, cops don't assume everyone is armed because they aren't. The biggest risk is knives so they have stab proof vests, batons and pepper spray, as well as lots of situation handling and deescalation training. UK cops treat everyone as friendly until proven otherwise, as you'll see by all the silly clips of them doing karaoke and the likes. Only videos of US cops i see are violent.
Just to be fair, our media is pretty much garbage. There are plenty of LEOs out there doing great things for and with the communities they serve. But in America all you will see are the bad things, thus perpetuating this attitude of an us vs them mentality everyone seems to think all American LEOs have. I have had my run ins in my younger days, and came out unscathed because I knew to shut up, say yes sir, and in the end, I learned my lesson. There are many, even here who would have you believe its a literal warzone across the states, but its really not. Its localized and although there are bad things happening, its not as widespread as they would have you believe. The thing is, we just need to tighten up on the causes of these situations and tragedies/crimes and come up with solutions.
In fact you're right, I've seen a few things on social media about US cops being good guys, buying people groceries, cooking them dinner, helping them with shoelaces and stuff.
Our media is pretty garbage too.
There does seem to be a prevailing theme of a Them Vs Us when it comes to US law enforcement, from an outsiders POV.
I've never had any direct interaction with the US police.
In the uk, when a cop shoots someone they are automatically suspended pending a full investigation. I'm not sure if that'd work in thus as we treat shooting as an absolute last resort
And the cop in this case is suspended (on administrative leave) pending the investigation as well. Honestly that seems to always be the case though I'm sure someone will find an article were the cop was not put on administrative leave...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Only videos of US cops i see are violent.
Here is a video of my brother, a Houston cop who does a lot of community outreach:
Not too violent. Actually pretty boring. But he did get on their local news.
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
Actually, cross training with other police forces would be awesome. I would love to see some joint exercises/development over here. Problem is, the tinfoil crowd would go bonkers about "foreign police" coming in black helicopters, NWO, etc.
Future War Cultist wrote: That's the main problem right there. If that's their idea of good training, treating everyone as a hostile who needs to be shot at the slightest provocation then they're idiots.
That and the 'respect mah authority' mentality a lot of them have too. I've seen the YouTube videos. Thuggish power tripping scumbags in uniform.
Wait, there are some bad videos on YouTube, so we obviously have an epidemic? And this is the problem with bad media and an uninformed audience.... Try looking at the actual numbers sometime. The rate of shootings isn't anywhere where the media is reporting and US police violence seems to be at a low (it was actually much worse in the 60s and 70s), matching the decline in crime generally. The fact that departments are adopting things like bodycams is an indicator that they probably don't care for such illegal activity. There is certainly no reason not to continue addressing these issues and severely punishing those officers that abuse their position, but mischaracterizing normal policing as some sort of occupation just indicates a personal axe to grind. The one figure that has climbed remarkably since all this overblown hype is violence towards officers.
So, if police acts of violence have been in steady decline but media reports have sensationalized cases and there is now a stark uptick in violence against LEOs, what does that indicate?
OgreChubbs wrote: Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.
Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.
Actually, cross training with other police forces would be awesome. I would love to see some joint exercises/development over here. Problem is, the tinfoil crowd would go bonkers about "foreign police" coming in black helicopters, NWO, etc.
Many large police forces cross train with others (to include UK, Canadian and other international police forces) and even send liaison officers to each other.
Rosebuddy wrote: Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.
I think that's the jist of it. We've got to a chicken and egg situation where civilians are terrified of vops and cops are terrified of civilians. Both perfectly valid. Unfortunately I think it's all down to your crazy gun laws. Cops have to assume that anyone they stop is armed, because anyone they stop could be armed. We don't really have that that situation anywhere else beyond the middle east. In Europe/Canada, cops don't assume everyone is armed because they aren't. The biggest risk is knives so they have stab proof vests, batons and pepper spray, as well as lots of situation handling and deescalation training. UK cops treat everyone as friendly until proven otherwise, as you'll see by all the silly clips of them doing karaoke and the likes. Only videos of US cops i see are violent.
Hrm, I don't think it's all guns or a fear of people being armed. There are also very good reasons why the public (*note*: not "civilians", cops are civilians too and that's something sometimes forgotten) has very little reason to like the police based on the fundamental nature of the US legal system and the role of the police in it. Fundamentally, the police are not there to protect and serve, they have no legal obligation to actually protect anybody, they are there to enforce the law however their superiors deem fit (which, as everyone knows, is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving). Police are allowed to lie to people and use that as a fundamental cornerstone of their profession in obtaining confessions and investigating crimes, which is a valuable tool in that profession but also means that people need to be exceedingly wary of any interaction they have with the police. Talking with the police is a hazardous affair and something almost all lawyers (and candidly, some police officers too) will advise not talking to the police under any circumstances even in friendly encounters (remember, anything you say can and will be used against you, never *for* you), and in many communities the only time they see the police is when they're there to take someone away or issue fines/tickets.
When often even innocent people's reaction to police is to actively avoid them for the above reasons, that's going to create trust issues. There are just fundamental facets with the nature of policing in the US that makes the public uncomfortable about the police, and that's going to complicate people's reactions and raise the potential for distrust and violence whether they have access to weapons or not.
I was very clear that we were dropping the general "how to deal with the gun problem" line of discussion. This post was edited because that was not followed. Make sure the thread doesn't pursue it further.
What's absurd is the insistence to turn this thread into another destined to be locked thread on gun ownership in the US. Gun ownership is not relevant to the police shooting this thread is supposed to be discussing so let's not digress into that tangent.
Color me amazed. Having a gun in the house increases risk of a gun in the house being involved in an accident or intentional gun related injury or death.
I'm just fething flabbergasted that not having a gun in the house would reduce the risk of a gun in the house harming someone.
I bet folks who don't own a car are at a reduced risk of being in a car wreck involving a car they own as well.
I know you guys were just responding, but remember that I was pretty clear we don't need to discuss the general gun control topic here. Just hit the mod alert if you see it happen again, thanks
I've worked with and for law enforcement. In my opinion what needs to change is attitude. It seems most cops treat everyone as a threat. Regardless of your history. I've known several cops who wouldn't even be friends with anyone except another cop.
Yup. Law enforcements attitude towards the people they serve is really what needs to change.
yellowfever wrote: I've worked with and for law enforcement. In my opinion what needs to change is attitude. It seems most cops treat everyone as a threat. Regardless of your history. I've known several cops who wouldn't even be friends with anyone except another cop.
Yup. Law enforcements attitude towards the people they serve is really what needs to change.
That seems to be the jist of what people here think the problem is.
Shooting to kill is one thing, but when there is a will to do it (or at least, having no reason not to), this will keep getting worse.
"To Protect and Serve" has no association with shooting too soon, or when a shot should not even be fired at all.
Do the police forces have a problem with staffing levels? Can people get sacked for having the wrong attitude, and not harm shift pattern, for instance?
How likely is it that a cull of the trigger-happy few can be chucked out to east the problem?
yellowfever wrote: I've worked with and for law enforcement. In my opinion what needs to change is attitude. It seems most cops treat everyone as a threat. Regardless of your history. I've known several cops who wouldn't even be friends with anyone except another cop.
Yup. Law enforcements attitude towards the people they serve is really what needs to change.
There are thousands of LEAs in the US, from county to small municipalities and so on. I very strongly suspect your sample is not going to be good enough to give such broad brush statements any real validity.
The trooper was placed on administrative leave after the shooting as is usual for any trooper involved in a shooting, Baker said.
Authorities are gathering dashboard-camera and body-camera video relating to the incident from the highway patrol and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, which sent officers to the scene after the shooting, said Audria Bridges, a special agent with North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation.
“Because at least 20 highway patrol officers responded, it is taking some time to get all videos related to (the) incident together,” said Bridges,
whose agency is investigating the shooting.
The deaf man's car was damaged during the 7 mile chase, pictures show the front bumper damaged and the left front tire gone leaving the car resting on the metal rim.
Eyewitness says the state trooper's car was also damaged and smoking.
“The Highway Patrol car came down across here,” neighbor Mark Barringer told the station. “He was kind of smoking real bad, and then he stopped over here, and then a few minutes later, I heard a gunshot. I saw a body on the street, and it looked like he was dead.”
Officials said that around 6:15 p.m., the trooper tried to pull over a Volvo that was speeding on the interstate near mile marker 30, but the 29-year-old driver would not stop.
The man then led authorities on a brief pursuit, exiting onto Rocky River Road and turning onto Seven Oaks Drive.
Harris must have seen the blue lights behind him as two troopers followed him for 6 miles on I-485, authorities said.
When they reached the off ramp at Rocky River Road, the SBI said troopers deliberately bumped his car trying to get him to stop, but Harris kept going.
The Highway Patrol said a confrontation followed, and that was when Trooper Jermaine Saunders fired the fatal shot.
Mario wrote: I was very clear that we were dropping the general "how to deal with the gun problem" line of discussion. Don't pursue it further.
If this was in directed at me, my post was about "why there's distrust of police regardless of other factors" not "what to do about the gun problem". If we're going to treat any passing mention of firearms as a "gun problem discussion" then we're going to have a hard time discussing anything on this subject.
That was me removing his whole post for not following my earlier instruction. Could have probably been clearer about that...my bad. Your post was fine, I'll clear it up
I've been to several states and perception was basically the same. Of course I can't and don't speak for everyone. But looking into shows I'm far from the only one thinking it.
Herzlos wrote: Only videos of US cops i see are violent.
That's because the media likes to heighten the sense of distrust between civilians and cops instead of diffusing them. I see plenty of videos of US cops acting friendly/helpful/silly/funny, but it's not from mainstream media sources. When I lived in the US I saw nothing but cops acting friendly and helpful. Maybe it's because I was also friendly to them, though mostly I found Americans to be friendly in general.
I mean look at the title of this thread "North Carolina police shoot deaf man trying to sign at them during traffic stop", click baity and inflammatory, it makes it sound like NC Police shoot deaf people during traffic stops, you could instead say "7 mile police chase ends in deaf man being shot by an officer" which adds the context and the takes the emphasis away from "THE POLICE SHOOT PEOPLE!!11!!one!!!!" to "a person was shot by an officer". But then you'd actually have an informative title and we all know people don't click on informative titles, they need the controversial click baity ones.
Herzlos wrote: Only videos of US cops i see are violent.
That's because the media likes to heighten the sense of distrust between civilians and cops instead of diffusing them. I see plenty of videos of US cops acting friendly/helpful/silly/funny, but it's not from mainstream media sources. When I lived in the US I saw nothing but cops acting friendly and helpful. Maybe it's because I was also friendly to them, though mostly I found Americans to be friendly in general.
I mean look at the title of this thread "North Carolina police shoot deaf man trying to sign at them during traffic stop", click baity and inflammatory, it makes it sound like NC Police shoot blind people during traffic stops, you could instead say "7 mile police chase ends in blind man being shot by an officer" which adds the context and the takes the emphasis away from "THE POLICE SHOOT PEOPLE!!11!!one!!!!" to "a person was shot by an officer". But then you'd actually have an informative title and we all know people don't click on informative titles, they need the controversial click baity ones.
Very true. The media also often avoids supplying proper context. We have 1.1 million LEOs in the US that are collectively policing a populace of about 325 million people. There are literally millions of interactions between police and people every day. Only a small fraction of those interactions are violent and only a small fraction of those involve the LEO shooting somebody fatally or otherwise. Every officer involved shooting results in an investigation of the circumstances and the validity of the justification of the use of force. Every use of force by the police should be examined, we have a civic duty to be vigilant over our govt agencies and their use of the powers we grant them. There are certainly problems with polo on currently especially in regards to training practices and public perceptions. However, given the low number of shooting deaths by police it's hard to justify calling police shootings any kind of national crisis. It's even harder to declare police racist or bigoted on a national scale when all of the egregious incidents happen with different officers in different departments in different locales under the oversight of different elected officials. It's not logical to tie different incidents together just because they involve LEOs.
Prestor Jon wrote: However, given the low number of shooting deaths by police it's hard to justify calling police shootings any kind of national crisis. It's even harder to declare police racist or bigoted on a national scale when all of the egregious incidents happen with different officers in different departments in different locales under the oversight of different elected officials. It's not logical to tie different incidents together just because they involve LEOs.
Then again even factored by population sizes US polices are shooting LOT more than polices in Europe. In Finland there's was 5 persons shot in 2004-2014. Factored in population size that would be around 230 people.
" Updated estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics released in 2015 estimate the number to be around 930 per year, or 1240 if assuming that nonreporting local agencies kill people at the same rate as reporting agencies"
If rate was same as in Finland it would be more like 23 people per year...
But on more positive note they also do stuff like this:
Prestor Jon wrote: However, given the low number of shooting deaths by police it's hard to justify calling police shootings any kind of national crisis. It's even harder to declare police racist or bigoted on a national scale when all of the egregious incidents happen with different officers in different departments in different locales under the oversight of different elected officials. It's not logical to tie different incidents together just because they involve LEOs.
Then again even factored by population sizes US polices are shooting LOT more than polices in Europe. In Finland there's was 5 persons shot in 2004-2014. Factored in population size that would be around 230 people.
" Updated estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics released in 2015 estimate the number to be around 930 per year, or 1240 if assuming that nonreporting local agencies kill people at the same rate as reporting agencies"
If rate was same as in Finland it would be more like 23 people per year...
But on more positive note they also do stuff like this:
I know the mods have tabooed talking about gun control in this thread, but any comparison of gun deaths by police in the US vs other countries does need to take in to account firstly the number of guns in populace has and the number of gun related deaths inflicted by civilians. There is no western country that comes close to the US in that regard.
According to wikipedia, Finland pulls in less than 1/10th the number of gun related homicides as the US inflicted by the civilian population. Whether you agree with strict gun control or believe in the right to bear arms, the more gun violence you have among the community, the more police are going to respond with gun violence. Likewise, the more police respond with gun violence, the more often mistakes will be made like a person who didn't pull over and then stepped out of their vehicle when they finally did accidentally getting shot. Is it good that it happened? Of course not, it's terrible and should be investigated, but I also don't think the first conclusion we should jump to is "it's a systemic problem with police! police are evil! cops in other countries don't go around shooting people! They must be badly trained! They must have a vendetta against blacks/deaf/disabled people!" without first looking at the context within US cops have to operate compared to other western countries.
I'm also a big believer in "innocent until proven guilty" and yes, that even includes cops! The media loves dragging people over the coals to up their views with no regard for things like evidence and how it might destroy the lives of the people they are targeting.
The trooper was placed on administrative leave after the shooting as is usual for any trooper involved in a shooting, Baker said.
Authorities are gathering dashboard-camera and body-camera video relating to the incident from the highway patrol and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, which sent officers to the scene after the shooting, said Audria Bridges, a special agent with North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation.
“Because at least 20 highway patrol officers responded, it is taking some time to get all videos related to (the) incident together,” said Bridges,
whose agency is investigating the shooting.
The deaf man's car was damaged during the 7 mile chase, pictures show the front bumper damaged and the left front tire gone leaving the car resting on the metal rim.
Eyewitness says the state trooper's car was also damaged and smoking.
“The Highway Patrol car came down across here,” neighbor Mark Barringer told the station. “He was kind of smoking real bad, and then he stopped over here, and then a few minutes later, I heard a gunshot. I saw a body on the street, and it looked like he was dead.”
Officials said that around 6:15 p.m., the trooper tried to pull over a Volvo that was speeding on the interstate near mile marker 30, but the 29-year-old driver would not stop.
The man then led authorities on a brief pursuit, exiting onto Rocky River Road and turning onto Seven Oaks Drive.
Harris must have seen the blue lights behind him as two troopers followed him for 6 miles on I-485, authorities said.
When they reached the off ramp at Rocky River Road, the SBI said troopers deliberately bumped his car trying to get him to stop, but Harris kept going.
The Highway Patrol said a confrontation followed, and that was when Trooper Jermaine Saunders fired the fatal shot.
This right here tells me everything I need to know to make an educated guess, based on my own experience.
1-High speed chase. That suspect in question KNEW he was being chased and deliberately continued to refuse to stop. That's a serious thing in most U.S. jurisdictions and FELONY FAILURE TO STOP. This puts the lives of the public and pursuing officers in jeopardy.
2-Chase ends, perp jumps out of the car. When we engaged in pursuits, and the pursuit itself ended, it was SOP for us to exit out vehicles WITH WEAPONS DRAWN. Which is what this Trooper, in all likelyhood, did. When HP joined us in chases, that's what they did when we went to take control of the suspect. That's what we were trained to do to gain quick control of a suspect/situation, and react faster if they decide to fight. I don't care if the guy was a deaf-mute. If he was smart enough to drive a car, and had prior dealings with police, he sure as hell knew what a Trooper pointing his duty weapon at him meant. It means don't move unless he instructs you to, and keep your goddamned hands where he can see them. Getting out of the car, I'm sure he didn't miss a cop pointing his sidearm at him. The perp knew what the drill was.
3-If the guy got out of the car after a chase of this kind, it means one of two things: He's going to bolt or he's going to engage the officer(s). And the boys and girls over at HP are not in the habit of shooting suspects who do a runner, unless the "Fleeing Felon Rule" applies to a given situation.
4-Odds are the guy did one of two things: Appeared to go for a weapon, and/or advanced toward the Trooper without instructions. Both are EQUALLY DANGEROUS in a felony pursuit and stop. If one or both are the case, then deadly force on the Trooper's part was both WITHIN SOP and APPROPRIATE for the situation. It doesn't matter if the guy was armed or not. If he can get close, your life is in danger. Just ask one of my former brother officers a few years ago that was disarmed, and nearly killed with his own duty weapon, after a guy wanted on a felony drug warrant rammed his patrol car, jumped out, and ran toward him in a grocery store parking lot. The punk overpowered him, and disarmed him of his SIG P229. Luckily, he popped the mag out of the gun when he felt like he was going to lose control of the weapon, and (by some miracle) the suspect missed when he fired the chambered round at his head, at close range. Cops being killed by their own duty weapons has been happening since the first police agency was established in the United States. Instances have been reduced due to better training over the last thirty years, but it still happens.
5-People in this thread are making assumptions about training in this circumstance without knowing what the hell they are talking about. The North Carolina Highway Patrol gets better training than local and County agencies. In fact, they have strict guidelines about potential recruits, and they have to attend the Highway Patrol Academy. And the Academy isn't easy to pass if you're not on top of your game. Town cops and "county mounties" are also trained according North Carolina Justice Academy guidelines and have to go through eight weeks of BLET. And if you don't meet all of the guidelines AND pass the exam, you don't get certified. Period. Training isn't always the issue.
That's my take based on the information provided so far. When (or if) we get more details, my personal view on the incident will change. Problem is, when you have an investigation of a shooting incident in police agencies, full details are usually not provided until all is said and done.
Yes. Who would have imagined that someone could smear the deceased, make them look very bad, insinuate they deserved what they got while actually proving nothing, and then proceed to demand everyone who disagrees that the dead person had it coming was wrong. Absolutely mind blowing. That's never ever happened before. Clearly, the annoyance of having to chase him was great justification. We'll just throwing in some double speak like "confrontation," let some innuendo's stick and be done with the matter. Clearly anyone afraid of the police is just paranoid and dumb.
Until evidence is presented that there really was a confrontation, and that it involved more than some harsh hand work on the part of the deceased, construing that he had it coming and we should all just walk away and not be bothered by this event is completely unconvincing.
As a side note, the brother of the deceased seems like a bit of tool.
djones520 wrote: Wait a second... there is more evidence of things happening? But I thought this was a clear cut case of a cop just murdering someone for no reason.
I can't believe that having waited, new facts arose that could have an impact on how the event is viewed. This is just blowing my mind.
There's still been no evidence police was in life danger. Was the guy even armed? In Finland unless the guy was armed police would have been EXTREMELY unlikely to shoot him. Why? Police here are far less trigger happy as evidenced by the fact that even factored population size US shoots *30* times as many in a year as Finnish police.
Long chase ain't justification for shooting people down.
LordofHats wrote:Until evidence is presented that there really was a confrontation, and that it involved more than some harsh hand work on the part of the deceased, construing that he had it coming
And who, pray tell, has construed that he had it coming?
We're simply saying that maybe there were circumstances that lead to the deaf person being shot that may not place the blame solely at the feet of the cops. Maybe, maybe not, we are just asking that evidence is supplied before judging either the guy shot OR the cop.
djones sarcastically pointed out that you should wait for the evidence of the situation to come out before deciding how to view it.
oldraven gave an educated guess of what he thought likely happened, since when is trying to reconstruct what happened tantamount to saying someone deserved it?
I pointed out that the media likes to be inflammatory, maybe there were circumstances, cops in the US can't be compared to other western countries for obvious reasons and people are innocent until proven guilty even if they happen to be wearing a badge.
People aren't saying the guy deserved to be shot.... we are saying maybe the cop also doesn't deserved to have his name dragged through the mud by idiots who are going to judge and smear without even knowing the circumstances. The first post in this thread has an inflammatory title and insinuated that the Police killed an innocent person for doing nothing dangerous, maybe he should have waited for the facts before crucifying the policeman.
tneva82 wrote:There's still been no evidence police was in life danger. Was the guy even armed? In Finland unless the guy was armed police would have been EXTREMELY unlikely to shoot him. Why? Police here are far less trigger happy as evidenced by the fact that even factored population size US shoots *30* times as many in a year as Finnish police.
Read my above post regarding comparisons to Finland. Civilians in the USA are far more likely to have a gun and far more likely to use a gun violently, so guess what, so are the cops
It's even taught when you get your drivers license that when you get pulled over, you stay in the car with your hands on the wheel so the cop can be confident you aren't dangerous. It was on the fething drivers permit test (at least it was in PA) so it should be common knowledge in the US.
Long chase ain't justification for shooting people down.
And no one is bloody saying that, get yerself some reading comprehension.
The usual suspects who've done the same in every thread about similar events, bending over backwards to deny all possibility that the shooting wasn't justified, and building up series of events to paint the deceased as a reckless individual who made foolish decisions (i.e. had it coming).
djones sarcastically pointed out that you should wait for the evidence of the situation to come out before deciding how to view it.
Everyone picked sides on this issue ages ago, and we shouldn't delude ourselves or each other into thinking we only form opinions after whatever vague and arbitrary amount of information is made available. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to lay out in a list who would argue what beforehand, because it's always the same people with the same talking points in every thread.
In the end, only one piece of information actually matters; the nature of the "confrontation" the predicated the use of lethal force. As far as this instance goes, its the only one that will change anyone's minds and knowing our luck it's gonna end up being a total toss up.
The usual suspects who've done the same in every thread about similar events, bending over backwards to deny all possibility that the shooting wasn't justified, and building up series of events to paint the deceased as a reckless individual who made foolish decisions (i.e. had it coming).
djones sarcastically pointed out that you should wait for the evidence of the situation to come out before deciding how to view it.
Everyone picked sides on this issue ages ago, and we shouldn't delude ourselves or each other into thinking we only form opinions after whatever vague and arbitrary amount of information is made available. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to lay out in a list who would argue what beforehand, because it's always the same people with the same talking points in every thread.
In the end, only one piece of information actually matters; the nature of the "confrontation" the predicated the use of lethal force. As far as this instance goes, its the only one that will change anyone's minds and knowing our luck it's gonna end up being a total toss up.
Well it's good to know you're too entrenched in your opinion to bother talking to.
I'm more than happy to change my opinion once the facts are known. My opinion on the matter is simply that people are too quick to judge before the facts are actually known and I tend to think the anti-cop side is too willing to accuse people who say "lets wait for evidence" as automatically siding with the cops.
I tend to err on the side of "most people aren't outright evil", so I'm not going to blame the cop for shooting nor the person who got shot for being shot until I am clear on the facts. In that position I more often than not find myself siding with the cop because I despise hearing statements that insinuate someone is bad or automatically in the wrong simply because they wear are badge.
And I will add...
Everyone picked sides on this issue ages ago
Try to stick to what people have said in the actual thread and respond to specific points. It makes you look stupid if you start referring to things that happened ages ago or in other threads without specifying that's what you're doing.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm more than happy to change my opinion once the facts are known.
Most people probably are, but it's nice that we can both agree we have an opinion on something before all the facts are known (with the capacity to change it once more specific facts become available). That's just human nature, especially when looking at repetitious events and topics (and oh boy is this a repetitious topic on DDOT. At least a dozen times now).
I tend to err on the side of "most people aren't outright evil"so I'm not going to blame the cop for shooting nor the person who got shot for being shot until I am clear on the facts. In that position I more often than not find myself siding with the cop because I despise hearing statements that insinuate someone is bad or automatically in the wrong simply because they wear are badge.
So you have taken a side? There's nothing wrong with that. We all do it. My beef is that only one side pretends it doesn't, then merrily jumps into the thread to construe its narrative with the eagerness of a cat who finally got at the cat nip denouncing all those people who took the other side as "not having an opinion based in facts" as if their own initial opinion was in any better standing. If you think I'm merely referring to past events, and not the thread in question merely look at the post above my own that you quoted.
This right here tells me everything I need to know to make an educated guess, based on my own experience.
1-High speed chase. That suspect in question KNEW he was being chased and deliberately continued to refuse to stop. That's a serious thing in most U.S. jurisdictions and FELONY FAILURE TO STOP. This puts the lives of the public and pursuing officers in jeopardy.
2-Chase ends, perp jumps out of the car. When we engaged in pursuits, and the pursuit itself ended, it was SOP for us to exit out vehicles WITH WEAPONS DRAWN. Which is what this Trooper, in all likelyhood, did. When HP joined us in chases, that's what they did when we went to take control of the suspect. That's what we were trained to do to gain quick control of a suspect/situation, and react faster if they decide to fight. I don't care if the guy was a deaf-mute. If he was smart enough to drive a car, and had prior dealings with police, he sure as hell knew what a Trooper pointing his duty weapon at him meant. It means don't move unless he instructs you to, and keep your goddamned hands where he can see them. Getting out of the car, I'm sure he didn't miss a cop pointing his sidearm at him. The perp knew what the drill was.
3-If the guy got out of the car after a chase of this kind, it means one of two things: He's going to bolt or he's going to engage the officer(s). And the boys and girls over at HP are not in the habit of shooting suspects who do a runner, unless the "Fleeing Felon Rule" applies to a given situation.
4-Odds are the guy did one of two things: Appeared to go for a weapon, and/or advanced toward the Trooper without instructions. Both are EQUALLY DANGEROUS in a felony pursuit and stop. If one or both are the case, then deadly force on the Trooper's part was both WITHIN SOP and APPROPRIATE for the situation. It doesn't matter if the guy was armed or not. If he can get close, your life is in danger. Just ask one of my former brother officers a few years ago that was disarmed, and nearly killed with his own duty weapon, after a guy wanted on a felony drug warrant rammed his patrol car, jumped out, and ran toward him in a grocery store parking lot. The punk overpowered him, and disarmed him of his SIG P229. Luckily, he popped the mag out of the gun when he felt like he was going to lose control of the weapon, and (by some miracle) the suspect missed when he fired the chambered round at his head, at close range. Cops being killed by their own duty weapons has been happening since the first police agency was established in the United States. Instances have been reduced due to better training over the last thirty years, but it still happens.
5-People in this thread are making assumptions about training in this circumstance without knowing what the hell they are talking about. The North Carolina Highway Patrol gets better training than local and County agencies. In fact, they have strict guidelines about potential recruits, and they have to attend the Highway Patrol Academy. And the Academy isn't easy to pass if you're not on top of your game. Town cops and "county mounties" are also trained according North Carolina Justice Academy guidelines and have to go through eight weeks of BLET. And if you don't meet all of the guidelines AND pass the exam, you don't get certified. Period. Training isn't always the issue.
That's my take based on the information provided so far. When (or if) we get more details, my personal view on the incident will change. Problem is, when you have an investigation of a shooting incident in police agencies, full details are usually not provided until all is said and done.
From an outsider, none of that sounds like a reason to have been shot. Here, when a suspect jumps out of the car at the end of a pursuit (being in mind we don't know how he did it), they wouldn't come out with guns drawn (when they are even armed) so that they could, you know, chase them on foot. Batons out to shock them by smashing the glass certainly, but surely you should only draw a gun if you were escalated to the point where you might fire?
Surely, neither walking towards or running away from, police officers is not a valid reason to be shot? The only reason to pull the trigger should be if in actual danger, and a man walking towards you from nearly 2 car lengths away without a gun can't be a danger, no?
I mean, I get that things may have become heated after a high speed chase with a collision of some sort, but that happens over here regularly and people still don't get executed.
Herzlos wrote: From an outsider, none of that sounds like a reason to have been shot. Here, when a suspect jumps out of the car at the end of a pursuit (being in mind we don't know how he did it), they wouldn't come out with guns drawn (when they are even armed) so that they could, you know, chase them on foot. Batons out to shock them by smashing the glass certainly, but surely you should only draw a gun if you were escalated to the point where you might fire?
Surely, neither walking towards or running away from, police officers is not a valid reason to be shot? The only reason to pull the trigger should be if in actual danger, and a man walking towards you from nearly 2 car lengths away without a gun can't be a danger, no?
I mean, I get that things may have become heated after a high speed chase with a collision of some sort, but that happens over here regularly and people still don't get executed.
It's culturally ingrained in the USA that when you get pulled over you remain in the vehicle with your hands on the wheel to avoid confusing the situation. Does it make it ok to shoot people just because they got out of their car? No, but it adds to the confusion, just like not pulling over after a 7 mile chase adds to the confusion, just like not putting your hands in the air when cops are pointing guns at you adds to the confusion.
And again you're comparing different countries with very different gun cultures. Going off your flag, you're in Ireland, Ireland has approximately 0.2 gun related homicides per 100k people, the US has 3.4. Police in the US are naturally going to be more likely to assume a suspect might be armed and dangerous because it's true.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: , just like not putting your hands in the air when cops are pointing guns at you adds to the confusion. .
Considering that sitting on the ground with your arms in the air didn't prevent someone else from being shot...
And that's a specific circumstance unique to that situation for which evidence should not be used to judge the officer in this situation.
Seriously guys, we aren't saying "cops can do no wrong". Any shooting by police should be investigated and if the cop found in the wrong they should be punished. And maybe the investigation system needs reform, I am not familiar with it to know, but I do know cops do get found to be in the wrong on occasion so it's obviously not COMPLETELY flawed, but even if it is flawed it doesn't make trial by media and uneducated trolls the correct course of action.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: , just like not putting your hands in the air when cops are pointing guns at you adds to the confusion.
.
Considering that sitting on the ground with your arms in the air didn't prevent someone else from being shot...
And that's a specific circumstance unique to that situation for which evidence should not be used to judge the officer in this situation.
Seriously guys, we aren't saying "cops can do no wrong". Any shooting by police should be investigated and if the cop found in the wrong they should be punished. And maybe the investigation system needs reform, I am not familiar with it to know, but I do know cops do get found to be in the wrong on occasion so it's obviously not COMPLETELY flawed, but even if it is flawed it doesn't make trial by media and uneducated trolls the correct course of action.
Actually, if you have a system that is not working as intended then trial by media is exactly what you need as it highlights the problems which can otherwise be swept under the rug.
To argue otherwise is to say that the media was wrong to apply pressure on the UK government to launch an inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster, or the Iraq War, or Watergate. Without the press doing its thing and putting out information which could be construed as putting those involved on trial then many scandals wouldn't have been revealed.
The problem is the media is not being objective or truthful in most situations. Take the title of this thread. It is neither factual nor objective.
The media sees a story, takes the interesting parts(the parts that sell or gain views) and they run with it. Truth is not necessarily the end goal, although sometimes that does happen on accident.
If the media could be trusted to tell all stories without bias, be factual, conducting truth and fact finding inquiries, and include a little less opinion then maybe just maybe trial by media wouldn't even be a thing. It would simply be media exposes truth.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Actually, if you have a system that is not working as intended then trial by media is exactly what you need as it highlights the problems which can otherwise be swept under the rug.
As redleger said....
redleger wrote: The problem is the media is not being objective or truthful in most situations. Take the title of this thread. It is neither factual nor objective.
When it comes to cops shooting people the media are, in short, fething morons. I even see on Australian programs them misrepresenting statistics from the US. As someone said earlier in this thread,"Only videos of US cops i see are violent", it's not because US cops are only violent.
Sure, the media can be great to shine light on certain stories, but more often than not they're just trying to get viewers and page hits and are willing to drag peoples' names through the mud.
A family friend had someone make up a story about his business which was taken to the media and they ran a completely incorrect "exposition" on it. They redacted the statements at a later date when they found accusations were incorrect and he threatened legal action, but no one remembers the small redaction, they remember the big flashy piece dragging the guy's name and business through the mud.
If there's one thing I don't have much respect for it's the idea of an objective and informative media.
