They were telling him to keep his hands up no matter what while he crawls towards them. Specifically telling him not to put his hands behind himself or reach for anything.
cuda1179 wrote: They were telling him to keep his hands up no matter what while he crawls towards them. Specifically telling him not to put his hands behind himself or reach for anything.
Thanks mate sucks watching vids without the audio.
cuda1179 wrote: They were telling him to keep his hands up no matter what while he crawls towards them. Specifically telling him not to put his hands behind himself or reach for anything.
Thanks mate sucks watching vids without the audio.
Shaver was very audibly crying through most of the video, and wobbly as hell, reports said he had been drinking. I feel there should have been a murder charge, the officers were in literally no danger, with 3 of them having guns trained on a drunk kid who is having issues sitting upright, and no visible weapon..
As someone don't used to watch this kind of thing... thats pretty brutal.
This is why I'm glad here is so difficult to have legally a gun. Not because someone could shoot me with a gun, but because our cops aren't as trigger happy as a result of everyone potentially having something to shoot them with.
cuda1179 wrote: They were telling him to keep his hands up no matter what while he crawls towards them. Specifically telling him not to put his hands behind himself or reach for anything.
Thanks mate sucks watching vids without the audio.
Shaver was very audibly crying through most of the video, and wobbly as hell, reports said he had been drinking. I feel there should have been a murder charge, the officers were in literally no danger, with 3 of them having guns trained on a drunk kid who is having issues sitting upright, and no visible weapon..
Well the problem being no visible weapon isnt proof that he doesn't have a weapon
and drunk people with guns happen and its always bad.
he was fired for not following some sort of procedure and i feel like the best course of action would of been to have two keep eyes on him while telling him not to move stay on the ground and then detain him since he was under the influence. however in this situation even if it was or was not proper procedure shaver did not follow instructions and made a gesture that would look like he is reaching for something in his back pocket.
but i have no idea whats on the books for that particular (or any actually) department for this sort of situation when clearing a building with a suspected gun threat.
It was an air rifle provided by his work (exterminator), he was showing it to friends and someone called the cops because they saw it through the window.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: It was an air rifle provided by his work (exterminator), he was showing it to friends and someone called the cops because they saw it through the window.
Well the cops certainly wouldnt of know that it was an air rifle not from a call through a window. especially after the last time a hotel window and a gun was involved. :/
cuda1179 wrote: They were telling him to keep his hands up no matter what while he crawls towards them. Specifically telling him not to put his hands behind himself or reach for anything.
Thanks mate sucks watching vids without the audio.
Shaver was very audibly crying through most of the video, and wobbly as hell, reports said he had been drinking. I feel there should have been a murder charge, the officers were in literally no danger, with 3 of them having guns trained on a drunk kid who is having issues sitting upright, and no visible weapon..
Well the problem being no visible weapon isnt proof that he doesn't have a weapon
and drunk people with guns happen and its always bad.
he was fired for not following some sort of procedure and i feel like the best course of action would of been to have two keep eyes on him while telling him not to move stay on the ground and then detain him since he was under the influence. however in this situation even if it was or was not proper procedure shaver did not follow instructions and made a gesture that would look like he is reaching for something in his back pocket.
but i have no idea whats on the books for that particular (or any actually) department for this sort of situation when clearing a building with a suspected gun threat.
My point is that the kid was drunk, didn't already have a weapon in his hand, was bawling his eyes out. You can hear his say "yes sir", "no sir", and "please don't shoot me". Is a drunk kid going to magically pull a gun out and slot all 3 officers (who are already trained on him) before they shoot him? I don't think so. Either way they were better off sending one guy to secure him when he was still lying on the ground, instead of the circus of commands he was given.
In hindsight sure we know he didn't have a weapon but that's not how a situation like this works. it doesnt matter if a person is crying super emotional pissing his pants until he is secured you just dont know and cops dont have magic x ray vision to make sure he isnt hiding something in his butt crack.
personally yeah i believe one person should of gone up and just secured him.
but in the context of this situation and clearly the jury agrees its not seconded man slaughter.
Easy E wrote: Really, you need to listen to the video, there is a lot more to it.
Some of the instructions were.... bizarre..... so listen for yourself somewhere outside of work.
yeah definitely. i will be doing so later when i can.
without the audio it looks really odd the kid is flailing around and just cant stay still.
Well, at least we can take a break from being armchair generals to being armchair policemen.
Seriously guys, in this day and age, with suicide bombers, terriorists, radicals, and random people shooting other random people from hotel room windows because they just don't care anymore, you really don't want to get judgemental of the police who have to deal with this gak every day, with their lives on the line.
Do you, really, really, really, want to go put your life, or the lives of your friends on the line, and put the life of some drunk you don't know first? Every chance you give him is one chance you're taking away from your friends, and yourself.
We wern't their. Our lives arn't in danger. Every day. It takes seconds to shoot someone fatally. Then you have to watch your friends or yourself die. Maybe this officer already made a bad call and one of his friends died because of it. Maybe he's watched others make bad calls.
Either way, he was trained, paid, and given the responsibility to make this call, and frankly, none of us were, or have ever been in his place.
If any of us have, then I'd accept their views. But otherwise I really don't think this is a fair or tasteful discussion.
Further berating an officer whose lost his job and reputation for making a call he doubtless did to try to save lives isn't going to bring anyone back.
It's just going to make other officers hestiate later. Then someone else is going to get shot.
This comes across as a horrible mistake. They seemed to take it way too far based on just a gun being reported, sounds like the case of the 12 year old in a sense.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Well, at least we can take a break from being armchair generals to being armchair policemen.
Seriously guys, in this day and age, with suicide bombers, terriorists, radicals, and random people shooting other random people from hotel room windows because they just don't care anymore, you really don't want to get judgemental of the police who have to deal with this gak every day, with their lives on the line.
Do you, really, really, really, want to go put your life, or the lives of your friends on the line, and put the life of some drunk you don't know first? Every chance you give him is one chance you're taking away from your friends, and yourself.
We wern't their. Our lives arn't in danger. Every day. It takes seconds to shoot someone fatally. Then you have to watch your friends or yourself die. Maybe this officer already made a bad call and one of his friends died because of it. Maybe he's watched others make bad calls.
Either way, he was trained, paid, and given the responsibility to make this call, and frankly, none of us were, or have ever been in his place.
If any of us have, then I'd accept their views. But otherwise I really don't think this is a fair or tasteful discussion.
Further berating an officer whose lost his job and reputation for making a call he doubtless did to try to save lives isn't going to bring anyone back.
It's just going to make other officers hestiate later. Then someone else is going to get shot.
This is some grade A kill or be killed Judge Dredd fantasy right here. Even in the US the amount of police officers killed is tiny on the number employed, even less for other Western nations. Terrorists aren't exactly roaming the streets, they are singular events taken way out of proportion. The absolute vast majority of police officers will likely never encounter one in their lifetime. Those kinds of assumptions are crazy.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Well, at least we can take a break from being armchair generals to being armchair policemen.
Seriously guys, in this day and age, with suicide bombers, terriorists, radicals, and random people shooting other random people from hotel room windows because they just don't care anymore, you really don't want to get judgemental of the police who have to deal with this gak every day, with their lives on the line.
Do you, really, really, really, want to go put your life, or the lives of your friends on the line, and put the life of some drunk you don't know first? Every chance you give him is one chance you're taking away from your friends, and yourself.
We wern't their. Our lives arn't in danger. Every day. It takes seconds to shoot someone fatally. Then you have to watch your friends or yourself die. Maybe this officer already made a bad call and one of his friends died because of it. Maybe he's watched others make bad calls.
Either way, he was trained, paid, and given the responsibility to make this call, and frankly, none of us were, or have ever been in his place.
If any of us have, then I'd accept their views. But otherwise I really don't think this is a fair or tasteful discussion.
Further berating an officer whose lost his job and reputation for making a call he doubtless did to try to save lives isn't going to bring anyone back.
It's just going to make other officers hestiate later. Then someone else is going to get shot.
I guess the simple question that I have, and some other posters mentioned already: If you already have a guy completely prone with his hands locked on the ground, and you have three policemen on location, why not send one guy to check and constrain him while his two partners give him cover - instead of that mishmash of yelled commands to get him from position A to B to a bit closer to C until he feths up, which was to be expected as drunk and confused as he sounded?
cuda1179 wrote: They were telling him to keep his hands up no matter what while he crawls towards them. Specifically telling him not to put his hands behind himself or reach for anything.
Thanks mate sucks watching vids without the audio.
Shaver was very audibly crying through most of the video, and wobbly as hell, reports said he had been drinking. I feel there should have been a murder charge, the officers were in literally no danger, with 3 of them having guns trained on a drunk kid who is having issues sitting upright, and no visible weapon..
There was a murder charge. The police officer was found not guilty.
I guess the simple question that I have, and some other posters mentioned already: If you already have a guy completely prone with his hands locked on the ground, and you have three policemen on location, why not send one guy to check and constrain him while his two partners give him cover - instead of that mishmash of yelled commands to get him from position A to B to a bit closer to C until he feths up, which was to be expected as drunk and confused as he sounded?
I would suspect they were ordering him closer because they were trying to avoid exposing themselves to the doorway of the room they are attempting to enter at the end of the video. From the police officers view you can't make out the doorway as they are slightly recessed and you wouldn't be able to tell if one of the doors on the right suddenly opened in the case that somebody were going to fire on the police. Being in a narrow hallway with no options for taking cover they are already in a difficult situation which is likely why they ordered both suspects forwards towards them. They managed to secure the first one which was being led away leaving the forward officer by himself and likely a bit extra jumpy. He does tell the kid repeatedly not to lower his hands or he'll be shot and is very clear in that regard, but drunk (or high) people behave in weird unexpected ways. He drops his hands right as he reaches where the bag is at and also turns to the side, it could easily been seen as attempting to reach for a weapon at his back or inside the bag it's really hard to tell exactly what's going on from the camera angle as it cuts off some of the scene.
While the cop had his gun trained on the suspect and could easily fire before he were to draw a weapon it's not like the movies, while a shot will often drop somebody quickly it's not always instantaneous and there's a chance that even taking several round he could fire on officers before he's down. It only takes one unlucky stray shot from a falling suspect to kill one of the officers or anyone else staying in the nearby rooms. Waiting can put everyone's lives in danger and unfortunately the kid died because he was too terrified or messed up to to be able to comply effectively. Hindsight makes it apparent that the cop shouldn't have fired but it's very difficult to make that choice in the moment.
I don't think he followed proper procedure in attempting to secure the suspect while his partner was tending to the other suspect because then both officers are occupied without being able to cover the hallway. In order to maintain proper control in an armed situation you are supposed to process one person at a time leaving one partner at the ready and maintaining full situational awareness. Having somebody crawl on their knees with legs crossed at the same time is pretty darn hard too, not sure how somebody that drunk is supposed to do anything, he should have been ordered to remain flat until the other officer was freed up to allow one of them to approach the suspect and drag him if needed.
Easy E wrote: Really, you need to listen to the video, there is a lot more to it.
Some of the instructions were.... bizarre..... so listen for yourself somewhere outside of work.
Yes. Like crawl while keeping your hands up and legs crossed. What? On another PoPo friendly board the PoPo are going "what?" Bad irders and the shouting is counter to what should be done.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Well, at least we can take a break from being armchair generals to being armchair policemen.
Seriously guys, in this day and age, with suicide bombers, terriorists, radicals, and random people shooting other random people from hotel room windows because they just don't care anymore, you really don't want to get judgemental of the police who have to deal with this gak every day, with their lives on the line.
Do you, really, really, really, want to go put your life, or the lives of your friends on the line, and put the life of some drunk you don't know first? Every chance you give him is one chance you're taking away from your friends, and yourself.
We wern't their. Our lives arn't in danger. Every day. It takes seconds to shoot someone fatally. Then you have to watch your friends or yourself die. Maybe this officer already made a bad call and one of his friends died because of it. Maybe he's watched others make bad calls.
Either way, he was trained, paid, and given the responsibility to make this call, and frankly, none of us were, or have ever been in his place.
If any of us have, then I'd accept their views. But otherwise I really don't think this is a fair or tasteful discussion.
Further berating an officer whose lost his job and reputation for making a call he doubtless did to try to save lives isn't going to bring anyone back.
It's just going to make other officers hestiate later. Then someone else is going to get shot.
Months ago, my older brother was in a normal party-zone of the city at night, at 2-3am. He was peeing in a alley when a police car stopped just at his side. The officers leaved the car and did tell him to remain right there. The friend that was with my brother just waited for the cops, but my brother started to run away from them.
After something like a 15 minute chase, they caught him after he left a nightclub where he entered to go to the bathroom, thinking he had misled them. Obviously, the cops pulled him agaisn't the car, they searched him, and one entered the nigthclub, thinking that he had drugs and that he had thrown them in the toilet.
Luckily for my brother, he was totally clean of course, and one of the officers was a old friend of my father, that recognised him and did tell him to go to his house with just a fine.
When my brother did come home to tell me that, with his hearth racing, I asked him "WTF, are you stupid? Why did you ran?" He's answer was "I don't know. It was just my first impulse."
Is easy to say that when a police officer is yelling at you, everyone can just stand there with a cool head like a secret agent, in total control of his actions. But thats not how human works. When we are scared we do stupid things. Its even worse when an officer is aiming at you with a gun.
In USA, it could have been a real possibility that my older brother could have ended being shot that night by one of the officers. Just because he was scared and acted, Lets recognise it, in a stupid but totally understandable way.
Is the job of the cop, to have a cold head, and to know how to threat the subjet in tense situations. I'm totally in agreement with you that I have no idea how it feels to be in those situations. But officers in other western nations do know. And theres not that high rate of police murder in western European nations. Why? I can understand some of the "why's". Theres a much smaller number of guns out there in Europe, so officers don't need to assume that everybody has a gun. But that can't be all. Things aren't as simple.
I'm not gonna declare myself an expert in this matter, quite the contrary, I'm very ignorant. But theres a problem in USA with this. And as long as people just look at the other way, justifying every case, isn't gonna get fixed.
Watching that video is disgusting. Great example of how you handle a crisis. Tell people you're going to shoot them if they don't do as you say multiple times and then giving conflicting and nonsensical orders. Never mind that non-cooperation in itself should not be grounds for lethal force in itself, but it's almost like the officers were trying to trip someone up so they could fire (if you're cynical about it).
In USA, it could have been a real possibility that my older brother could have ended being shot that night by one of the officers. Just because he was scared and acted, Lets recognise it, in a stupid but totally understandable way.
There was a case last year in one of the New England states where a judge ruled that running from police could not be considered evidence of guilt, grounded on the reasoning that people now can have a rational fear of any police interaction. The sad part is that its kind of true.
trexmeyer wrote: I don't know how anyone can possibly consider this acceptable. Also, the judge made sure the jury did not see the video during the trial.
They also didn't allow pictures of his rifle, which he had replaced the dust cover on to a customized one which read "you're fethed". They decided it was too prejudicial, which is pretty bizarre since, well, this is a thing he chose to do and it shows his mindset going in.
Anywhat this is the kind of thing that naturally evolves from letting cops cosplay like they're on patrol in a war zone with an ROE so loose, an actual solider would get court martialed. Eventually they see themselves as an occupying force with the public as the enemy. And it's going to keep happening every time it's reinforced by a jury letting the cops in question skate.
Ouze wrote: They decided it was too prejudicial, which is pretty bizarre since, well, this is a thing he chose to do and it shows his mindset going in.
This happens a lot in these cases. The victim's entire life will be dragged out into public view, but the officer will be shielded from equal scrutiny at trial. The body camera video I find even more baffling. What's the damn point of body cameras if the video is just going to hidden where no one can see it but the people they're supposed to keep in check?
Easy E wrote: Really, you need to listen to the video, there is a lot more to it.
Some of the instructions were.... bizarre..... so listen for yourself somewhere outside of work.
Yes. Like crawl while keeping your hands up and legs crossed. What? On another PoPo friendly board the PoPo are going "what?" Bad irders and the shouting is counter to what should be done.
Yeah the orders were confusing and weird. Like, pushing yourself up on to your knees while keeping your legs crossed is an awkward thing to do under normal circumstances, then yelling at him for not keeping his legs crossed, then telling him to crawl forward while his legs are still crossed and hands in the air.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Panicky instructions by an ill-trained officer who shouldn't have been in the position in the first place.
In other words it's whoever put these officers on the job armed with ARs who should be on trial.
I've never had to point a live weapon at anyone, and I would probably be nervous too, but the first thing drilled into me during military police training was that any orders you give (a suspect or other person) should be very simple and very clear. "Flat on your face hands out" would have been about as complicated as needed, giving the officers here time to secure the area and suspects so they could be less nervous.
gives garbage instructions, that would likely result in anyone falling over, then proceeded to shoot someone because of them falling over. how the hell was he acquitted
This is some grade A kill or be killed Judge Dredd fantasy right here. Even in the US the amount of police officers killed is tiny on the number employed, even less for other Western nations. Terrorists aren't exactly roaming the streets, they are singular events taken way out of proportion. The absolute vast majority of police officers will likely never encounter one in their lifetime. Those kinds of assumptions are crazy.
Pretty much this.
A huge percentage of police officers never fired their guns in their entire career, even in the USA.
The main problem about this matter is that the US law allows cops to murder people just because they felt threatened, even if there wasn't a real threat. Like a cellphone mistaken for a gun, or a woman in pjjama that approached a police car and slapped the rear window to seek the cops' attention. In a civilized country those cops should have been convicted of murder.
Like the guy in the video, was he unarmed? It should be irrelevant what the cop felt, shooting an unarmed man face down on the ground is an execution. How many cops would be killed for not being so jumpy? Maybe a few, if not zero. But hundreds of lives saved, every year, at the same time.
The problem lies with a typical american idea of a world in where everyone and everything are a threat against them or their families. It's not far west anymore.
Wow... In Russia we like to joke about police just being another criminal gang trying to rob you.
It seems in America the police are just another gang of murderers.
Of course, I am certain that the vast majority of policemen (both in Russia and in the US) are decent people and just do a good job. But the cases of "rotten apples" are too numerous I feel. And as they say, a few rotten apples can spoil the whole bunch.
The US police definitely has a massive problem with using violence that it needs to solve.
Isn't the way that a Jury works that if they can't come to a unanimous verdict (or a majority?) that a Not-Guilty verdict is reached?
The accused lawyers are there to put enough doubt in the Jury that some of them vote Not-Guilty from being inconclusive. "There's a chance that they're not guilty, so I have to go with it".
There's clean and cut cases where a Jury member's voted against the majority over stupid crap "oh, my son wouldn't do this, and he's the same age as the murderer, so he couldn't have either". Stuff like that I'd imagine leads to situations like these.
Better yet when Jurors don't disclose a personal bias, or hell knowing the people involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Wow... In Russia we like to joke about police just being another criminal gang trying to rob you.
It seems in America the police are just another gang of murderers.
Of course, I am certain that the vast majority of policemen (both in Russia and in the US) are decent people and just do a good job. But the cases of "rotten apples" are too numerous I feel. And as they say, a few rotten apples can spoil the whole bunch.
The US police definitely has a massive problem with using violence that it needs to solve.
An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
Reaching for your your waist is a sure way to get shot. Especially if the officer clearly states that if you do it yet again they WILL shoot you. I don't agree with the situation's existence, but cannot argue that it doesn't exist.
I don't see how the instructions were so unclear. The woman with him did exactly as instructed. A single officer that was only yelling right at the end when he reached for his waistband yet again. I surely wouldn't give someone the benefit of the doubt in that situation.
Wyrmalla wrote: If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift?
I guess Finland stacks up to some really small US States on a population level. (Actually, a quick web search says with our 5.5 million population we're bigger than more than half the US States) Yet our police seldom even draw a gun, much less fire it. If you did the same search for all European countries you'd probably reach the same conclusion anyway - less police violence overall.
One really big difference is that it's usually somewhat difficult to get a handgun in Europe. You need a reason other than self-defense, usually some sort of competition shooting or finishing off trapped animals if you hunt vermin with traps. Only drug dealers and bike gangs usually bother to get illegal handguns and that's to use against each other, not the general public or the police. Result being our police are generally not worried that you'd have a hidden gun, though they will be on the lookout for knives.
Wyrmalla wrote: Isn't the way that a Jury works that if they can't come to a unanimous verdict (or a majority?) that a Not-Guilty verdict is reached?
The accused lawyers are there to put enough doubt in the Jury that some of them vote Not-Guilty from being inconclusive. "There's a chance that they're not guilty, so I have to go with it".
There's clean and cut cases where a Jury member's voted against the majority over stupid crap "oh, my son wouldn't do this, and he's the same age as the murderer, so he couldn't have either". Stuff like that I'd imagine leads to situations like these.
Better yet when Jurors don't disclose a personal bias, or hell knowing the people involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Wow... In Russia we like to joke about police just being another criminal gang trying to rob you.
It seems in America the police are just another gang of murderers.
Of course, I am certain that the vast majority of policemen (both in Russia and in the US) are decent people and just do a good job. But the cases of "rotten apples" are too numerous I feel. And as they say, a few rotten apples can spoil the whole bunch.
The US police definitely has a massive problem with using violence that it needs to solve.
An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
Yes. America is small next to Russia, and its republics are probably even more independent than the US states. Yet people still tend to treat it as a single whole. Even in a country as tiny as the Netherlands, there is large differences between regions. I am sure not all US states have the same problems, but this police violence problem definitely seems to occur everywhere, although there may be regional differences in frequency. And really, it does not matter whether a country is great or small, because you can compare things proportionally. How many unarmed people in the US get shot by police as a percentage of the total US population compared to how many unarmed people in the Netherlands get shot by police as a percentage of the total Dutch population for example. The numbers on police violence in the US are really high both in absolute and in proportional terms. US police officers shoot more people in a day than the police of most other developed countries do in a decade. That is just insane. And I just don't get how a supposedly developed nation (and not just any developed nation, but the US, one of the first and probably the greatest 'developed' nation) can't fix this issue. It is not like it is something new.
Wyrmalla wrote: If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift?
I guess Finland stacks up to some really small US States on a population level. (Actually, a quick web search says with our 5.5 million population we're bigger than more than half the US States) Yet our police seldom even draw a gun, much less fire it. If you did the same search for all European countries you'd probably reach the same conclusion anyway - less police violence overall.
One really big difference is that it's usually somewhat difficult to get a handgun in Europe. You need a reason other than self-defense, usually some sort of competition shooting or finishing off trapped animals if you hunt vermin with traps. Only drug dealers and bike gangs usually bother to get illegal handguns and that's to use against each other, not the general public or the police. Result being our police are generally not worried that you'd have a hidden gun, though they will be on the lookout for knives.
Yeah, the Finnish police uses less bullets in a year than the US police do in a single shooting... There are more police shootings in most US cities in a month than there are in all of Finland in a year.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Reaching for your your waist is a sure way to get shot. Especially if the officer clearly states that if you do it yet again they WILL shoot you. I don't agree with the situation's existence, but cannot argue that it doesn't exist.
I don't see how the instructions were so unclear. The woman with him did exactly as instructed. A single officer that was only yelling right at the end when he reached for his waistband yet again. I surely wouldn't give someone the benefit of the doubt in that situation.
I agree that we should kill drunk people while screaming at them after barging into their home armed.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Reaching for your your waist is a sure way to get shot. Especially if the officer clearly states that if you do it yet again they WILL shoot you. I don't agree with the situation's existence, but cannot argue that it doesn't exist.
I don't see how the instructions were so unclear. The woman with him did exactly as instructed. A single officer that was only yelling right at the end when he reached for his waistband yet again. I surely wouldn't give someone the benefit of the doubt in that situation.
Okay, so I break in to your house with a weapon pointed at you and start yelling instructions at you. You are drunk and now somebody has entered your home with a weapon pointed at you. They are yelling at you and your adrenaline starts to pump very quickly because of everything going on around you.
Catching on? It doesn't matter how many people are yelling at you, what matters is that it is unreasonable to expect somebody under the influence to be able to handle themselves in a situation like this. Hell, sober people would have a hard time dealing with it.
That's not what I saw in the video. The only time they yelled is after the instructions aren't followed or they're yelling over the people talking back to them.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Reaching for your your waist is a sure way to get shot. Especially if the officer clearly states that if you do it yet again they WILL shoot you. I don't agree with the situation's existence, but cannot argue that it doesn't exist.
I don't see how the instructions were so unclear. The woman with him did exactly as instructed. A single officer that was only yelling right at the end when he reached for his waistband yet again. I surely wouldn't give someone the benefit of the doubt in that situation.
I agree that we should kill drunk people while screaming at them after barging into their home armed.
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
You should compare those rates to Latin America not Europe. We are not in Europe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
soundwave591 wrote: gives garbage instructions, that would likely result in anyone falling over, then proceeded to shoot someone because of them falling over. how the hell was he acquitted
because the video and the rifle with the "you're fethed" engraving on it we're not admitted by the judge.
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
You should compare those rates to Latin America not Europe. We are not in Europe.
Latin America? With the favelas and the army going in once in a while to clear it out? Why would you not want the US compared to Western countries? Even if we say half or 3/4ths off for the drug cartel/gang problems its still a lot higher. Also the Denmark 71 number must be a mistake
The number for the Netherlands is likely a reflection of our organized crime problem.
avantgarde wrote: Just here to mention. The officer giving the orders was a different officer then the one wearing the body cam and firing the shots.
Hang on was it?
on record it was?
it sounded like it was him him self
otherwise i dont agree with him getting fired. i would of agreed with him being convicted of second degree manslaughter if he caused the situation by him self, but the orders that caused shaver to get confused and make that unfortunate action that looks like he is reaching for something wasnt on him. he was only covering the other officers like he is supposed to be..
though this is assuming that he wasnt the one yelling out orders. (though it sounded like it was)
SlaveToDorkness wrote: That's not what I saw in the video. The only time they yelled is after the instructions aren't followed or they're yelling over the people talking back to them.
Then you missed the beginning of the video where they yelled at them from outside of them room then yelled at them when the woman exited the room like asked. They they tell him to "obey" which is bs and to "shut up" which is also bs.
Then there was yelling with the man clearly had issues following instructions due to his emotional state. This was an execution, straight up. There is no way around it. The instructions were also not clear at all. When somebody says crawl, you assume they mean hands and knees. Because that is what crawling is.
These cops have no clue what they are doing and do not in any way deserve to be on the force. The one shouting commands should be relieved of duty immediately because he cannot conduct himself in a civil manner in high stress situations.
Maybe watch the video again so you can catch the stuff you missed.
Edit: Anybody notice that they call for the occupants of room 502 to leave the room, then attempt to go in to room 500 with the keycard?
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
You should compare those rates to Latin America not Europe. We are not in Europe.
Latin America? With the favelas and the army going in once in a while to clear it out? Why would you not want the US compared to Western countries? Even if we say half or 3/4ths off for the drug cartel/gang problems its still a lot higher. Also the Denmark 71 number must be a mistake
The number for the Netherlands is likely a reflection of our organized crime problem.
Why because its not accurate. The US is part of the Americas, not Europe. If we were part of Europe, it would be the US of E. We have a separate culture, history, and destiny.
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
You should compare those rates to Latin America not Europe. We are not in Europe.
Latin America? With the favelas and the army going in once in a while to clear it out? Why would you not want the US compared to Western countries? Even if we say half or 3/4ths off for the drug cartel/gang problems its still a lot higher. Also the Denmark 71 number must be a mistake
The number for the Netherlands is likely a reflection of our organized crime problem.
Why because its not accurate. The US is part of the Americas, not Europe. If we were part of Europe, it would be the US of E. We have a separate culture, history, and destiny.
Yeah and plenty of European countries have the same seperate history, culture and destiny. But overall the West as in Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and European states are roughly similar for a comparison to make sense. South America is as or even more different from the US than Europe. But socioeconomically and politically speaking the US fits better in a Western comparison. That's what I meant. The Americas is just a geographic area, the differences between say Haiti and the US are incredibly vast compared to a random other Western state and the US.
Plus in the future the USA might get to be friends with the USE regardless
LordofHats wrote:There was a case last year in one of the New England states where a judge ruled that running from police could not be considered evidence of guilt, grounded on the reasoning that people now can have a rational fear of any police interaction. The sad part is that its kind of true.
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
You should compare those rates to Latin America not Europe. We are not in Europe.
Latin America? With the favelas and the army going in once in a while to clear it out? Why would you not want the US compared to Western countries? Even if we say half or 3/4ths off for the drug cartel/gang problems its still a lot higher. Also the Denmark 71 number must be a mistake
The number for the Netherlands is likely a reflection of our organized crime problem.
Why because its not accurate. The US is part of the Americas, not Europe. If we were part of Europe, it would be the US of E. We have a separate culture, history, and destiny.
The standard of living, economic, and social situation in the USA is on average more comparable to Europe than to most other American countries. In America Canada is probably the only one that's actually comparable in those regards. This argument only works if your idea of destiny for the USA is a combination of helplessness and contentment. "Why improve? Most countries to the south have it worse." and that sounds just sad and not at all like "the land of the free and the home of the brave!"
Why because its not accurate. The US is part of the Americas, not Europe. If we were part of Europe, it would be the US of E.
We have a separate culture, history, and destiny.
The US has a history? It is not even 300 years old yet! You can't call that a history!
But in all seriousness, virtually all American culture is European culture. There isn't really such a thing as American culture in the same way there is European culture (or rather, there is, but it has been mostly wiped out and only remnants of it exist nowadays). Or don't you remember that whole episode where your ancestors came from Europe and wiped out virtually all Americans? Americans are culturally much closer to the English than the English are to the Ukrainians. And English and Ukrainians are both Europeans, so that makes you culturally European as well Fraz . Same thing goes for Latin America with Spain and Portugal.
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
You should compare those rates to Latin America not Europe. We are not in Europe.
Wyrmalla wrote: Isn't the way that a Jury works that if they can't come to a unanimous verdict (or a majority?) that a Not-Guilty verdict is reached?
If the Jury is not unanimous, the Judge either tells them to go back and keep trying, or accept that the jury is dead locked and declare a mistrial (no verdict is thus rendered).
Desubot wrote: In hindsight sure we know he didn't have a weapon but that's not how a situation like this works. it doesnt matter if a person is crying super emotional pissing his pants until he is secured you just dont know and cops dont have magic x ray vision to make sure he isnt hiding something in his butt crack.
personally yeah i believe one person should of gone up and just secured him.
but in the context of this situation and clearly the jury agrees its not seconded man slaughter.
The challenge with asking why one officer did not move forward to secure the suspect is that when the report was made to the Police there were three people in the room, and the Police were able to confront two people in the hallway. Sending an Officer to secure the suspect may not have been considered as it would have placed an Officer in a potential cross fire between his partner and a third suspect in the hotel room.
From the responding Officer's perspective they have a non-compliant suspect who may be armed, is not following instructions, and attempted to reach in his waistband. Add in the potential for a third suspect who may be armed and a hotel full of civilians and this was a tactically challenging scenario.
avantgarde wrote: Just here to mention. The officer giving the orders was a different officer then the one wearing the body cam and firing the shots.
Do you have a source for this? I don't want to offer an opinion on the comments until I confirm this.
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
Can we please avoid turning this into a discussion on America's gun laws? Those threads are almost as much trouble as US politics threads
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
Can we please avoid turning this into a discussion on America's gun laws? Those threads are almost as much trouble as US politics threads
I said nothing about American gun laws, simply provided wikipedia stats on the number of people killed by police firearms as requested by the previous poster.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I said nothing about American gun laws, simply provided wikipedia stats on the number of people killed by police firearms as requested by the previous poster.
Good, then we can cease this tangent of comparing the UK to Europe for gun deaths and get back to the topic at hand.
Wyrmalla wrote: An issue with people describing America as having "problems" fails to be aware of the size of the country. If you treated the US as 50 different countries rather than a single one then would that opinion shift? Collect all the different crimes taking place over the whole of Europe (and the surrounding countries) and how do the total numbers look?
Of course, the numbers are high regardless.
The US numbers are exceptionally high even when considered by capita.
From wikipedia, the number of people killed by police firearms per 100 million people.
United States 342
South Africa 634
Germany 12
Denmark 71
France 6
England and Wales 5
Netherlands 18
Australia 4
Austria 12
Finland 0
Norway 0
You should compare those rates to Latin America not Europe. We are not in Europe.
Latin America? With the favelas and the army going in once in a while to clear it out? Why would you not want the US compared to Western countries? Even if we say half or 3/4ths off for the drug cartel/gang problems its still a lot higher. Also the Denmark 71 number must be a mistake
The number for the Netherlands is likely a reflection of our organized crime problem.
Why because its not accurate. The US is part of the Americas, not Europe. If we were part of Europe, it would be the US of E. We have a separate culture, history, and destiny.
Yeah and plenty of European countries have the same seperate history, culture and destiny. But overall the West as in Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and European states are roughly similar for a comparison to make sense. South America is as or even more different from the US than Europe. But socioeconomically and politically speaking the US fits better in a Western comparison. That's what I meant. The Americas is just a geographic area, the differences between say Haiti and the US are incredibly vast compared to a random other Western state and the US.
Plus in the future the USA might get to be friends with the USE regardless
No ferenner.
The west and southwest have far more in common with Latin America than Europe.
Frazzled wrote: The west and southwest have far more in common with Latin America than Europe.
I think that's a stretch even in the west and southwest (at least the portions I've travelled through felt culturally closer to my home in Australia than, say, Mexico), but my understanding was the police-killing-civilians rate was pretty high all over the USA, not just the south western parts.
Frazzled wrote: The west and southwest have far more in common with Latin America than Europe.
But if the west and southwest have more in common with L America than Europe doesn't that mean the rest of the country has less in common with L America and more with Europe?
I mean, I found the Wiki page. I also realise that it is per 100 million (and we were 5.4 million in 2006 - where the number is from).
But it sounds really insane. It is front page stuff if the police draws a gun here (slightly hyperbolic), much less fire it.
Doing the math it means that about 4 people were killed by the Danish Police in 2006.
Ah, there we go;
"In 2006 the death of 4 people by police shootings prompted an investigation into the use of firearms by the Danish police force from 1996 to 2006."
Well, look at the numbers. California makes up 12% of the US population, in 2016. They accounted for 16% of police shootings resulting in death.
Arizona has 2% of the nations population, but accounted for 5% of police shootings resulting in death.
Texas has 8.6% of the population, but accounted for 9.7% of police shootings resulting in death.
New Mexico has .6% of the population, accounted for 2% of the shootings resulting in death.
So all of the major SW states all have a higher shooting rate then their population should warrant. 23% of the nations population accounts for 34% of police shootings that result in death. Definitely a significant imbalance.
I mean, I found the Wiki page. I also realise that it is per 100 million (and we were 5.4 million in 2006 - where the number is from).
But it sounds really insane. It is front page stuff if the police draws a gun here (slightly hyperbolic), much less fire it. Doing the math it means that about 4 people were killed by the Danish Police in 2006.
Ah, there we go;
"In 2006 the death of 4 people by police shootings prompted an investigation into the use of firearms by the Danish police force from 1996 to 2006."
4 people killed by the Police was enough to start an official inquiry, and an overhaul and strengthening of police fire arms training.
For any Americans here - fire arms training here means how to shot less - not how to shoot better.
Yeah, it was 4 people killed in Denmark in 2006, which normalised to a per 100 million figure is 71.
Places with small populations obviously have big swings when events like that occur. Averaged over more years it'd probably be closer to the rate for the rest of Europe.
I mean, I found the Wiki page. I also realise that it is per 100 million (and we were 5.4 million in 2006 - where the number is from).
But it sounds really insane. It is front page stuff if the police draws a gun here (slightly hyperbolic), much less fire it.
Doing the math it means that about 4 people were killed by the Danish Police in 2006.
Ah, there we go;
"In 2006 the death of 4 people by police shootings prompted an investigation into the use of firearms by the Danish police force from 1996 to 2006."
4 people killed by the Police was enough to start an official inquiry, and an overhaul and strengthening of police fire arms training.
For any Americans here - fire arms training here means how to shot less - not how to shoot better.
Yeah, it was 4 people killed in Denmark in 2006, which normalised to a per 100 million figure is 71.
Places with small populations obviously have big swings when events like that occur. Averaged over more years it'd probably be closer to the rate for the rest of Europe.
Yeah I realize, but the imbalance is absurd. Going by numbers it seems for Denmark around 20-30 should be noted, not 71. I mean fidgiting with numbers from the Netherlands can put us anywhere from 10-30. So 18 seems an acceptable average. But Denmark seems to have been based of the highest number from one year, which is a terrible way to do these comparisons by whoever did it like that.
Mmk, I found one site that had police kills by state over the past 5 years. I averaged over those 5 years and normalised by population, checked PA, VA, OH, NJ and came up with numbers of 39, 47, 34 and 28 per 100 million. So North Eastern states and avoiding the big cities and came up with numbers still much higher than Europe, which were more around the 0 to 18 mark (other that the anomalous year from Denmark). Adding Maryland gives 60, Illinois is 34, New York is 24.
I'm not going to go through all states, but yeah, on a whole the numbers are still on the high side for those more northern and easterly states.
EDIT: Sorry I'm an idiot, was looking at the wrong link, was looking at Police casualties (which includes traffic incidents) ignore all that, my apologies folks! Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah I realize, but the imbalance is absurd. Going by numbers it seems for Denmark around 20-30 should be noted, not 71. I mean fidgiting with numbers from the Netherlands can put us anywhere from 10-30. So 18 seems an acceptable average. But Denmark seems to have been based of the highest number from one year, which is a terrible way to do these comparisons by whoever did it like that.
Yeah I agree, the numbers aren't calculated in the best way. I'm looking at them more as a way to broadly compare regions I guess because I can't be bothered doing the research to produce my own table
djones520 wrote: Well, look at the numbers. California makes up 12% of the US population, in 2016. They accounted for 16% of police shootings resulting in death.
Arizona has 2% of the nations population, but accounted for 5% of police shootings resulting in death.
Texas has 8.6% of the population, but accounted for 9.7% of police shootings resulting in death.
New Mexico has .6% of the population, accounted for 2% of the shootings resulting in death.
So all of the major SW states all have a higher shooting rate then their population should warrant. 23% of the nations population accounts for 34% of police shootings that result in death. Definitely a significant imbalance.
Well the amount of population might be involved. Because more people live there in concentrated areas policing might be more detached. While policing low population states especially outside of the cities might be more personal. Also I assume it depends on crime numbers in the area which might be higher due to population also leading to a higher number of actual justified violence (because the shooting statistics don't distinguish between victims I presume). Also this is just thinking out loud but perhaps more police officers are employed per person in those states than average? Which could shift these statistics.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah I realize, but the imbalance is absurd. Going by numbers it seems for Denmark around 20-30 should be noted, not 71. I mean fidgiting with numbers from the Netherlands can put us anywhere from 10-30. So 18 seems an acceptable average. But Denmark seems to have been based of the highest number from one year, which is a terrible way to do these comparisons by whoever did it like that.
Yeah I agree, the numbers aren't calculated in the best way. I'm looking at them more as a way to broadly compare regions I guess because I can't be bothered doing the research to produce my own table
I get the value behind it, the Demark 71 number just made me do a double take because it appeared so disproportionate. Nothing on you of course, if we had to set up our own systems Dakka would be a second job.
So all of the major SW states all have a higher shooting rate then their population should warrant. 23% of the nations population accounts for 34% of police shootings that result in death. Definitely a significant imbalance.
Still, take the SW states out and the rate is still grossly inflated compared with any other developed country.
Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, etc have drug and organised crime with plenty of weaponry (some it military-grade, thank the Balkan wars for that) too, and still they come out with way less people shot.
But yes, Honduras is worse off than the US if that was your point.
Ok, because I can't live with the great shame of screwing up in my previous post, here are the numbers broken down by state, using this website for the kill numbers in 2016...
Hopefully I didn't screw up my calculations, feel free to check my numbers, lol.
Just as a check the excel spreadsheet gives me a total of 962 kills for 2016 and a population of 322M, for a rate of 298 per 100 million people. Slightly less than the wikipedia page I quoted earlier, but still massively higher than Europe both on a country wide basis and on an individual state level.
djones520 wrote: Well, look at the numbers. California makes up 12% of the US population, in 2016. They accounted for 16% of police shootings resulting in death.
Arizona has 2% of the nations population, but accounted for 5% of police shootings resulting in death.
Texas has 8.6% of the population, but accounted for 9.7% of police shootings resulting in death.
New Mexico has .6% of the population, accounted for 2% of the shootings resulting in death.
So all of the major SW states all have a higher shooting rate then their population should warrant. 23% of the nations population accounts for 34% of police shootings that result in death. Definitely a significant imbalance.
Well in New Mexico's defense, that includes shootings a
If radioactive muties.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I said nothing about American gun laws, simply provided wikipedia stats on the number of people killed by police firearms as requested by the previous poster.
Good, then we can cease this tangent of comparing the UK to Europe for gun deaths and get back to the topic at hand.
I think, talking about gun laws is different from talking about police brutality/gunfire. People isn't comparing USA to Europe for gun deaths, they are comparing numbers of people killed by the police. For example in Spain we don't have a problem with police killing people with guns. Police brutality in the other hand? Oh boy... the amount of people that receives a beating in a police station once they have been already arrested is a problem.
We also cannot be blind to the fact that the expansive and very permissive gun laws of the US, and the consequent higher likelihood of a potential perpetrator carrying a fire arm, absolutely influences the actions of law enforcement personnel.
Yes, it is apparently a prickly subject, but it certainly isn't a non-factor in what happened.
I say this, not to bring up any value (perceived or otherwise) of such gun laws, but rather to point out that those laws (good or bad) ARE a factor in these incidents.
Steelmage99 wrote: We also cannot be blind to the fact that the expansive and very permissive gun laws of the US, and the consequent higher likelihood of a potential perpetrator carrying a fire arm, absolutely influences the actions of law enforcement personnel.
Yes, it is apparently a prickly subject, but it certainly isn't a non-factor in what happened.
I say this, not to bring up any value (perceived or otherwise) of such gun laws, but rather to point out that those laws (good or bad) ARE a factor in these incidents.
....
Indeed. Its definitely the primary reason Police have lenient use of their firearms. They have to have it simply because anybody could be armed. Reaching for your waistband, drunk or not, is inexcusable when police are giving you instructions. If you're being told to crawl, you don't reach down to pull up your pants. You crawl, you don't need your stupid baggy pants to do that.
It's simply unreasonable to make police, or indeed anybody acting in self-defense, to wait till the threat is totally confirmed. That's a good way to get killed first. If I find some intruder in my house and he starts coming towards me, I shouldn't have to make sure he's armed before I shoot him. Thankfully, we don't have to in this country.
Steelmage99 wrote: We also cannot be blind to the fact that the expansive and very permissive gun laws of the US, and the consequent higher likelihood of a potential perpetrator carrying a fire arm, absolutely influences the actions of law enforcement personnel.
Yes, it is apparently a prickly subject, but it certainly isn't a non-factor in what happened.
I say this, not to bring up any value (perceived or otherwise) of such gun laws, but rather to point out that those laws (good or bad) ARE a factor in these incidents.
....
Indeed. Its definitely the primary reason Police have lenient use of their firearms. They have to have it simply because anybody could be armed. Reaching for your waistband, drunk or not, is inexcusable when police are giving you instructions. If you're being told to crawl, you don't reach down to pull up your pants. You crawl, you don't need your stupid baggy pants to do that.
It's simply unreasonable to make police, or indeed anybody acting in self-defense, to wait till the threat is totally confirmed. That's a good way to get killed first. If I find some intruder in my house and he starts coming towards me, I shouldn't have to make sure he's armed before I shoot him. Thankfully, we don't have to in this country.
A home intruder charging you in your home is a lot different than somebody pulling their pants up. One has clear intent to harm while the other is murky at best. In a murky situation, police should exercise restraint as not everybody they deal with is a hardened cop killer.
Steelmage99 wrote: We also cannot be blind to the fact that the expansive and very permissive gun laws of the US, and the consequent higher likelihood of a potential perpetrator carrying a fire arm, absolutely influences the actions of law enforcement personnel.
Yes, it is apparently a prickly subject, but it certainly isn't a non-factor in what happened.
I say this, not to bring up any value (perceived or otherwise) of such gun laws, but rather to point out that those laws (good or bad) ARE a factor in these incidents.
....
Indeed. Its definitely the primary reason Police have lenient use of their firearms. They have to have it simply because anybody could be armed. Reaching for your waistband, drunk or not, is inexcusable when police are giving you instructions. If you're being told to crawl, you don't reach down to pull up your pants. You crawl, you don't need your stupid baggy pants to do that.
It's simply unreasonable to make police, or indeed anybody acting in self-defense, to wait till the threat is totally confirmed. That's a good way to get killed first. If I find some intruder in my house and he starts coming towards me, I shouldn't have to make sure he's armed before I shoot him. Thankfully, we don't have to in this country.
A home intruder charging you in your home is a lot different than somebody pulling their pants up. One has clear intent to harm while the other is murky at best. In a murky situation, police should exercise restraint as not everybody they deal with is a hardened cop killer.
That is just a god awful argument.
There are a lot of similarities. You don't know if either of them are armed. Both are doing something that is threatening. You shouldn't wait till you know one way or another.
The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
Honestly, I don't think that's enough. We need to consider raising hands to be threatening as well. What if the man on the floor begging for his life has some sort of weapon up his sleeve, like the guy from Django, or the other guy from the Punisher? You never know, and the only way for some cops to be able to do their job of enforcing the law and protecting citizens safely and efficiently is to gun down anyone not instantly complying with their orders.
Until the police are safe from wrist-deployable weapons, this country has a long way to go. You never know if a random traffic stop is going to involve a Mandalorian bounty hunter.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
So if I am walking down the street and pass a cop, then reach to pull my pants up, it is reasonable for a cop to shoot me dead?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
So if I am walking down the street and pass a cop, then reach to pull my pants up, it is reasonable for a cop to shoot me dead?
You were coming right at him! That cop just wanted to go home to his family.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
What part do you disagree with?
I never said reaching for his waist wasn't threatening, I said the popo should absolutely be held to a higher standard when identifying threats and dealing with them in a way that doesn't result in people being killed. Especially when the cop is the one instigating the engagement that lead to a potential threat in the first place (vs your example of a home invasion, in this case the cops are the ones doing the invading).
If you disagree with that, well, fine, but I don't think it's a remotely unreasonable argument that police shouldn't completely suck at their jobs of protecting and serving. We're better off not having cops at all than cops that gun people down whenever there might maybe perhaps be a threat.
When the rate of cops being gunned down by civilians comes within an order of magnitude of civilians gunned down by cops I might start to think cops need to be a bit more proactive in dealing with threats.
At this stage you could make the argument that a civilian gunning down a cop is more justified than vice versa because currently cops seem to be more threatening than the civilians.
Spinner wrote: Honestly, I don't think that's enough. We need to consider raising hands to be threatening as well. What if the man on the floor begging for his life has some sort of weapon up his sleeve, like the guy from Django, or the other guy from the Punisher? You never know, and the only way for some cops to be able to do their job of enforcing the law and protecting citizens safely and efficiently is to gun down anyone not instantly complying with their orders.
Until the police are safe from wrist-deployable weapons, this country has a long way to go. You never know if a random traffic stop is going to involve a Mandalorian bounty hunter.
However you need to add clarification to that statement: Only in US. Or at least only outside Europe. In Europe police can do their job just fine without gunning down people down all the time just like that.
I'm sooooo glad I wasn't born in US nor have any need to go there. Much more pleasant to live in safe country.
Grey Templar wrote: Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
Its true that a hand moving to the waistband is a signal. But you are completely wrong in claiming that it is enough to justify a use of lethal force. That's not true anywhere in the world, including the US. Police are trained to consider the situation, the suspect's statements, demeanor and body language as well as their previous level of compliance as well as the suspect's immediate actions.
Consider a policeman who hears screams, goes to the scene and sees a man standing over a woman. The man is belligerent and threatening to the officer, he moves towards the officer and only stops when ordered. The man then goes quiet for a half second, then moves his hand to his waistband. That's a lethal shoot even if the guy was reaching for a copy of the congressional medal he won for campaigning for police safety.
But then consider an officer who pulls a man over for a random breath test. The man is polite and immediately complies with every request from the officer. The RBT is passed, and at the end the officer hands the man back his license. When the man goes to place it in his pocket, the officer doesn't immediately draw and fire because all those cues before that told the officer the man had a very justified reason to move his hand to his waistband.
Those are extreme examples, obviously, but hopefully they make it clear how 'reaching for the waistband' is only one element of police risk assessment, there's a whole lot more the officer should assess.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
So if I am walking down the street and pass a cop, then reach to pull my pants up, it is reasonable for a cop to shoot me dead?
You were coming right at him! That cop just wanted to go home to his family.
He saw the hate in my eyes! (I don't hate cops!)
You know, we have had the argument used that since african americans are not disproportionately killed by the police, we should not do anything to stop it. Should that also apply to cops? I believe the figures showing that being a policeman isn't actually that dangerous of a job have been thrown around, why are they given special regard when they execute people?
Police deaths, not that high. Why are they allowed special privilege?
You know, we have had the argument used that since african americans are not disproportionately killed by the police, we should not do anything to stop it. Should that also apply to cops? I believe the figures showing that being a policeman isn't actually that dangerous of a job have been thrown around, why are they given special regard when they execute people?
Police deaths, not that high. Why are they allowed special privilege?
I hadn't really looked at the numbers before. From memory more cops die in car crashes than are shot, and as a ratio of the total population a cop is around half as likely to be killed by being shot than a construction worker is to be killed on the job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Police deaths, not that high. Why are they allowed special privilege?
Yeah, we should all be allowed to gun people down for reaching for their waist!
I have always been curious, what right, if any, do civilians have to defend themselves against someone claiming to be the police?
Like if someone comes in to your house (or hotel in this case) and you aren't running a drug lab out of it so have no reason to believe the cops would be after you and you gun one of them down while they're pointing guns at you, can you claim any sort of self defence?
I ask because if you have no rights once the popo says "I'm the police" that would be an awesome way to rob/rape/kidnap/murder/terrorist attack someone, dress up as a cop and yell at people to do what you say until you can gain enough advantage to do the aforementioned robbery/rape/kidnapping/murder/terrorist attack.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I have always been curious, what right, if any, do civilians have to defend themselves against someone claiming to be the police?
Like if someone comes in to your house (or hotel in this case) and you aren't running a drug lab out of it so have no reason to believe the cops would be after you and you gun one of them down while they're pointing guns at you, can you claim any sort of self defence?
I ask because if you have no rights once the popo says "I'm the police" that would be an awesome way to rob/rape/kidnap/murder/terrorist attack someone, dress up as a cop and yell at people to do what you say until you can gain enough advantage to do the aforementioned robbery/rape/kidnapping/murder/terrorist attack.
Basically, if there is no way for you to know that the person in question is a police officer (no knock warrant in middle of the night), or you have reasonable suspicion that the person is impersonating a police officer (always ask for name and badge number when in doubt, they should be able to rattle it off by memory), then you are in the clear. My friend punched a plainclothes cop who failed to identify himself before grabbing my friend, and was able to walk free from it after being detained and questioned by some of the higher ups (cameras helped a good bit too).
Spinner wrote: Honestly, I don't think that's enough. We need to consider raising hands to be threatening as well. What if the man on the floor begging for his life has some sort of weapon up his sleeve, like the guy from Django, or the other guy from the Punisher? You never know, and the only way for some cops to be able to do their job of enforcing the law and protecting citizens safely and efficiently is to gun down anyone not instantly complying with their orders.
Until the police are safe from wrist-deployable weapons, this country has a long way to go. You never know if a random traffic stop is going to involve a Mandalorian bounty hunter.
However you need to add clarification to that statement: Only in US. Or at least only outside Europe. In Europe police can do their job just fine without gunning down people down all the time just like that.
I'm sooooo glad I wasn't born in US nor have any need to go there. Much more pleasant to live in safe country.
Basically, if there is no way for you to know that the person in question is a police officer (no knock warrant in middle of the night), or you have reasonable suspicion that the person is impersonating a police officer (always ask for name and badge number when in doubt, they should be able to rattle it off by memory), then you are in the clear. My friend punched a plainclothes cop who failed to identify himself before grabbing my friend, and was able to walk free from it after being detained and questioned by some of the higher ups (cameras helped a good bit too).
Caselaw actually supports that you will not be in the clear. It is highly likely you will be dead.
Spinner wrote: Honestly, I don't think that's enough. We need to consider raising hands to be threatening as well. What if the man on the floor begging for his life has some sort of weapon up his sleeve, like the guy from Django, or the other guy from the Punisher? You never know, and the only way for some cops to be able to do their job of enforcing the law and protecting citizens safely and efficiently is to gun down anyone not instantly complying with their orders.
Until the police are safe from wrist-deployable weapons, this country has a long way to go. You never know if a random traffic stop is going to involve a Mandalorian bounty hunter.
However you need to add clarification to that statement: Only in US. Or at least only outside Europe. In Europe police can do their job just fine without gunning down people down all the time just like that.
I'm sooooo glad I wasn't born in US nor have any need to go there. Much more pleasant to live in safe country.
Agreed. Your wussy self would not survive here.
Hey, don't mess with the Finns or they'll go all Simo Häyhä on y'all. Texas ain't got nothin' on that!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I have always been curious, what right, if any, do civilians have to defend themselves against someone claiming to be the police?
Like if someone comes in to your house (or hotel in this case) and you aren't running a drug lab out of it so have no reason to believe the cops would be after you and you gun one of them down while they're pointing guns at you, can you claim any sort of self defence?
I ask because if you have no rights once the popo says "I'm the police" that would be an awesome way to rob/rape/kidnap/murder/terrorist attack someone, dress up as a cop and yell at people to do what you say until you can gain enough advantage to do the aforementioned robbery/rape/kidnapping/murder/terrorist attack.
An interesting question since I believe there was a case years back of someone who had cop lights he would put on his car, pull women over, and rape them.
Spinner wrote: Honestly, I don't think that's enough. We need to consider raising hands to be threatening as well. What if the man on the floor begging for his life has some sort of weapon up his sleeve, like the guy from Django, or the other guy from the Punisher? You never know, and the only way for some cops to be able to do their job of enforcing the law and protecting citizens safely and efficiently is to gun down anyone not instantly complying with their orders.
Until the police are safe from wrist-deployable weapons, this country has a long way to go. You never know if a random traffic stop is going to involve a Mandalorian bounty hunter.
However you need to add clarification to that statement: Only in US. Or at least only outside Europe. In Europe police can do their job just fine without gunning down people down all the time just like that.
I'm sooooo glad I wasn't born in US nor have any need to go there. Much more pleasant to live in safe country.
Agreed. Your wussy self would not survive here.
Hey, don't mess with the Finns or they'll go all Simo Häyhä on y'all. Texas ain't got nothin' on that!
Finn snipers are no match for chupacabra and angry Mexican mother in law's!
So do serial killers, narcos, terrorists etc... the fact they have a family doesn't justify a murder.
Yeah, that's the joke. Every time a cop has a bad shoot, they always trot out that line as an excuse, along with "he didn't wake up and plan to shoot someone that day" or something in that vein. I think most people who commit criminally negligent manslaughter by definition could so claim.
Spinner wrote: Honestly, I don't think that's enough. We need to consider raising hands to be threatening as well. What if the man on the floor begging for his life has some sort of weapon up his sleeve, like the guy from Django, or the other guy from the Punisher? You never know, and the only way for some cops to be able to do their job of enforcing the law and protecting citizens safely and efficiently is to gun down anyone not instantly complying with their orders.
Until the police are safe from wrist-deployable weapons, this country has a long way to go. You never know if a random traffic stop is going to involve a Mandalorian bounty hunter.
However you need to add clarification to that statement: Only in US. Or at least only outside Europe. In Europe police can do their job just fine without gunning down people down all the time just like that.
I'm sooooo glad I wasn't born in US nor have any need to go there. Much more pleasant to live in safe country.
Agreed. Your wussy self would not survive here.
Hey, don't mess with the Finns or they'll go all Simo Häyhä on y'all. Texas ain't got nothin' on that!
Finn snipers are no match for chupacabra and angry Mexican mother in law's!
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
So if I am walking down the street and pass a cop, then reach to pull my pants up, it is reasonable for a cop to shoot me dead?
No, because there are other factors. If the police have had reason to try to detain you, then you need to comply and not do stupid things like reach for your waist. In this case, the police were responding to a gun complaint, so they had every reason to think he was armed.
If anybody should have blame, it was the person who called the police just because they saw a gun through a window.
Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
Not out to get you. But someone who is being detained who makes a move which is the same move that would be used to draw a gun is threatening the officer, willing or unwilling.
If you are arresting someone and they reach for the waistband, they could be drawing a weapon. They're even more likely if the call you are responding to was firearm related.
My issue is this - no armed citizen would have gotten away with that shoot looking at the video. Had it been someone without a badge behind that trigger, I cannot see this having resulted in an acquittal. If it's not a good shoot for you or I, it should not be a good shoot for a police officer.
Police training, at least in my opinion, heavily emphasizes a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, or a "officer safety is so paramount any even remotely potential threat, no matter how unlikely is actionable", almost looking for an excuse to fire in some cases (one instructor at my range recently made a comment during a training that basically amounted to this). Any movement can be construed as going for a weapon and a "go" to fire, which in many cases would not be considered appropriate for your average person even in the exact same situation, and often for military personnel in actual combat zones. I won't comment too much on the specifics here, but this shoot certainly doesn't inspire me to confidence. That said, it went to trial, a jury heard the evidence, and made their decision, as far as the justice system is concerned, thats all that can be asked I guess with regards to this specific case.
The big issue I think, more than anything specific to this shoot, is training and culture among police, and things have to change for the public to have confidence in the police, and to keep such institutions from overstepping their boundaries it's good to have this constant pushback and public scrutiny.
Having recently served as a jury foreman on a criminal case and hearing several days of testimony from multiple officers from two different departments, I will say my impression of police standards and conduct in general has...certainly not been enhanced.
The problem with possibly grabbing a gun movements is that this is an area many people keep their ID and such. As in the Castillo case. Its not helped when you have all of 5 seconds to respond to an event the police officers who mentally prepared themselves for expect you to understand immediatly. How many innocent people have died like this? Well they don't keep records so we will never know. But officers are very quick to treat any movement as 'threatening'. Its a serious lack of training and the "warrior-cop" mentality.
On the specific case itself, the trial was done properly, but leaving out key pieces of evidence certainly makes t look like the victim wasn't given a fair chance at justice
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
So if I am walking down the street and pass a cop, then reach to pull my pants up, it is reasonable for a cop to shoot me dead?
No, because there are other factors. If the police have had reason to try to detain you, then you need to comply and not do stupid things like reach for your waist. In this case, the police were responding to a gun complaint, so they had every reason to think he was armed.
If anybody should have blame, it was the person who called the police just because they saw a gun through a window.
Horsegak. You dot no shoot until you see a weapon. Period. Because there is no threat until a weapon is confirmed. This isn't the wild west, he isn't going to quick draw a weapon why laying prone and kill an entire group of officers. You don't shoot somebody because they might have a weapon, but you're not sure, somebody on the phone told you they did.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The two big differences are firstly the home intruder is the one threatening you vs the cop being the one doing the threatening and the second is that it's the cop's job to deal with those situations.
I have a lot less sympathy for cops who wrongly kill someone in self defence than a home owner wrongly killing an intruder in self defence.
The cop should rightly be held to a higher standard.
Disagree. If someone is reaching for their waistband, that is considered a threatening move in the presence of police. Since you could potentially be reaching for a gun or a knife. This is pretty much true in every country in the world, its not unique to the US.
So if I am walking down the street and pass a cop, then reach to pull my pants up, it is reasonable for a cop to shoot me dead?
No, because there are other factors. If the police have had reason to try to detain you, then you need to comply and not do stupid things like reach for your waist. In this case, the police were responding to a gun complaint, so they had every reason to think he was armed.
If anybody should have blame, it was the person who called the police just because they saw a gun through a window.
You keep saying "Don't do stupid things", when the natural human response to feeling threated and being scared are literally all the "stupid things" that can get you shoot by a police officer. Is the job of the police officer to be better than your normal Joe, and have the mental capacity to evaluate situations that other people can't.
I know it must be different for you because in USA you are more used to firearms, etc... but if a police officer was pointing at me with that firearm of the video? Thats something out of Call of Duty. If a police is pointing at me with that at the same time is companion is yelling at me? I doubt I'll even be able to eard the instructions they are yelling. I'll be scared as Probably I'll just faint into the ground.
I'm no Rambo, no police or soldier. I'm a normal civilian that his biggest contact with fire weapons has been with medieval replications from Toledo. And I believe, most people out there, is the same as me.
This used to be satire (mostly) but it's become more of a sad reality over the passing years. Can't even adjust your pants let alone reach for a safety orange wallet.
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?
Probably not but it is probably illegal to be brandishing a weapon through an window???
Marmatag wrote: Just because someone calls in and says someone is armed doesn't make it true.
And the report of a gun doesn't carry a death sentence. Which is what this guy received.
Just because some one calls it in doesnt make it false ether. hindsight is 20/20 its not the polices job to make assumptions its their job to secure the location and make sure there is no threat or the neutralize it. the two cops that was yelling out those nutzo orders should be convicted of manslaughter at the minimum for causing the situation in the first place. the cop doing the shooting was doing his role of keeping watch.
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?
Probably not but it is probably illegal to be brandishing a weapon through an window???
Well, were they brandishing a weapon through a window? Did the person just see a weapon through a window? The person could have been moving it, inspecting it, making sure it made the trip alright, or double checking to make sure it was unloaded(I would do that, anxiety is a mfer).
Are we to assume anybody with a weapon out in a hotel has criminal intent? Could they have just knocked on the door and inquired about the weapon? Could they have called the room and inquired about the weapon? If it was against Hotel policy to have a gun in the room, why does it make more sense to have more people with guns come in to the hotel and actually fire theirs harming a patron instead of you know, calling the room to inform the patrons of the policy and asking them to check out while pointing them to gun friendly hotels in the area so as to keep them happy and amicable? I don't think this was well thought out.
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?
Probably not but it is probably illegal to be brandishing a weapon through an window???
Well, were they brandishing a weapon through a window? Did the person just see a weapon through a window? The person could have been moving it, inspecting it, making sure it made the trip alright, or double checking to make sure it was unloaded(I would do that, anxiety is a mfer).
Are we to assume anybody with a weapon out in a hotel has criminal intent? Could they have just knocked on the door and inquired about the weapon? Could they have called the room and inquired about the weapon? If it was against Hotel policy to have a gun in the room, why does it make more sense to have more people with guns come in to the hotel and actually fire theirs harming a patron instead of you know, calling the room to inform the patrons of the policy and asking them to check out while pointing them to gun friendly hotels in the area so as to keep them happy and amicable? I don't think this was well thought out.
Seems to go against the 2nd Amendment.
Dunno how was it called in?
The police doesn't have magic telepathic vision and they absolutely have to take any call seriously.
So say they instead call the hotel and ask them to check with the people in the room. what if it turned out to be some nutzo getting ready copycat vegas and the hotel staff and everyone in the building gets hurt. the police department would be 1000% liable for causing the situation.
absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Back in 2011, police got calls about a man casually strolling around a Carolina campus with a rifle. They responded, turned out that all the guy had was an umbrella.
Somehow they managed to restrain themselves from blowing him away.
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I have always been curious, what right, if any, do civilians have to defend themselves against someone claiming to be the police?
Like if someone comes in to your house (or hotel in this case) and you aren't running a drug lab out of it so have no reason to believe the cops would be after you and you gun one of them down while they're pointing guns at you, can you claim any sort of self defence?
I ask because if you have no rights once the popo says "I'm the police" that would be an awesome way to rob/rape/kidnap/murder/terrorist attack someone, dress up as a cop and yell at people to do what you say until you can gain enough advantage to do the aforementioned robbery/rape/kidnapping/murder/terrorist attack.
Aside from being exceptionally long it didn't really answer the question
Those were cases where the shooter didn't even hear the call that the people knocking down their doors were cops, and they were people who were doing naughty things.
But from the sounds of things once they've said "it's the police" you don't have any recourse, which makes me surprised we aren't constantly hearing about people dressing up as police to do nefarious things.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
You are leo right
maybe its best if you could break down the situation so everyone can understand the 123s of it all.
But from the sounds of things once they've said "it's the police" you don't have any recourse, which makes me surprised we aren't constantly hearing about people dressing up as police to do nefarious things.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
I know you're not defending them and I know the report. But how many times a year does a report come in about someone with a gun. If the report could be used as justification, how many potential casualties could we be looking at per year from such reports?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I have always been curious, what right, if any, do civilians have to defend themselves against someone claiming to be the police?
Like if someone comes in to your house (or hotel in this case) and you aren't running a drug lab out of it so have no reason to believe the cops would be after you and you gun one of them down while they're pointing guns at you, can you claim any sort of self defence?
I ask because if you have no rights once the popo says "I'm the police" that would be an awesome way to rob/rape/kidnap/murder/terrorist attack someone, dress up as a cop and yell at people to do what you say until you can gain enough advantage to do the aforementioned robbery/rape/kidnapping/murder/terrorist attack.
Aside from being exceptionally long it didn't really answer the question
Those were cases where the shooter didn't even hear the call that the people knocking down their doors were cops, and they were people who were doing naughty things.
But from the sounds of things once they've said "it's the police" you don't have any recourse, which makes me surprised we aren't constantly hearing about people dressing up as police to do nefarious things.
It doesn't answer it fully no. But it shows that even if you don't know its the police or even if they say they are police you better do nothing. Because if later they turn out to be you might be facing life. Your self defense claim leaves you at the mercy of a jury. So pretending to be a cop works pretty well in that regard as long as you make the victim believe it.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.
Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.
Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.
How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.
Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.
How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.
Investigate. Like I said with the gun situation. Calling to find out more information is called "investigating". You can do that in a situation where there is no reason to suspect a threat. Now if somebody had called and said "There are people walking through the halls with guns drawn!" Oh yeah, come on down and bring your buddies with you. However, seeing one in the privacy of ones room is not the same.
Domestic Violence is a completely different situation. If it has escalated to the point that people are calling the cops, it has escalated to the point that it is now a noise complaint. Which is also against the law in many places. The cops would come and guess what, they would probably ask questions to find out what is going on and why it was so loud. If it was a loud disagreement, then a citation or just a warning would suffice and they would be on their way. If it is domestic violence, deal with that.
Again, one of these things is illegal and the other is not. In no way are they the same and it is still a god awful argument.
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?
I think the report was that it was being "waved around" not positive. Arizona is an open carry state actually.
You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.
It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?
Probably not but it is probably illegal to be brandishing a weapon through an window???
That is interesting as this looked like the type of hotel where the windows don't open.
They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.
So some one using their 2nd Amendment rights is reason for police to forcibly enter the room where they are staying and detain them?
Did you miss the part of my statement where I said: "Not defending them, but thats why they were there."
Per the article in the OP: Shaver was shot at a hotel in the community of Mesa as officers responded to a call that someone was pointing a gun out a window.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.
Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.
How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.
Investigate. Like I said with the gun situation. Calling to find out more information is called "investigating". You can do that in a situation where there is no reason to suspect a threat. Now if somebody had called and said "There are people walking through the halls with guns drawn!" Oh yeah, come on down and bring your buddies with you. However, seeing one in the privacy of ones room is not the same.
Domestic Violence is a completely different situation. If it has escalated to the point that people are calling the cops, it has escalated to the point that it is now a noise complaint. Which is also against the law in many places. The cops would come and guess what, they would probably ask questions to find out what is going on and why it was so loud. If it was a loud disagreement, then a citation or just a warning would suffice and they would be on their way. If it is domestic violence, deal with that.
Again, one of these things is illegal and the other is not. In no way are they the same and it is still a god awful argument.
Investigating through others is putting them at risk and why they dont do it. a loud argument may cause the neighbors to get concerned and they may call the cops. if the cops call the house and it IS an domestive violence situation its entirly possible for one of the parties involved to get further enraged. you just put the house hold and the people around them in danger.
you think people in a potentially distressed situation is going to react rationally to a phone call every time?
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
Here's my problem with that. I saw the arm go back on the video too. But If I am the shooter I have a scoped rifle pointed at him and am able to burn him even if he comes out with a piece, which actually goes against his behavior, crying etc. plus there is at least one other officer with a gun on him. Thats when you shout STOP first and then burn him if he comes out with something. But there is nothing in his behavior (remember this guy is actively crying, complying and begging not to be shot) that he is going to do that, and even John Wick can't pull something when you HAVE A RIFLE POINTED AT HIM FROM SEVEN FEET.
The Officer was amped out of his mind and burned him when he got confused. The only reason he's not in prison is because the rifle and the video where not allowed in by the judge (WHY???).
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"
But then at the same time if they dont protect them selves first and get taken out you have a wild card running around doing whatever they want to do. (not talking about this specific situation)
Edit: wait the judge didnt allow the video evidence? dafaq?
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"
Look at this guys setup. He is a SWAT type - believe it or not - not all USA cops walk about with assault rifles. He was called in to neutralize a possible shooter - seen brandishing a weapon and acting drunk in the hallways apparently. I mean - if you know/think (was this just bad intel or did the guy actually have a gun in the bag?) a guy has a gun and hes not respecting the fact you have an AR-15 on him and reaches back behind his back - hes probably trying to shoot you. Maybe we need to change the rules of engagement here - cops can't shoot until fired upon - lets see how that goes. I'll make an estimate though that cops will start dying at such astounding rates and the backlash would be 10 times worse than what we have now.
I've had 2 friends quit the police force in the past 10 years. Each told me the exact same thing as to why. "I am not dying or going to jail to do this job". I could actually post a bunch of videos of police officers being shot in similar situations. I assure you - police officers have seen them all.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"
But then at the same time if they dont protect them selves first and get taken out you have a wild card running around doing whatever they want to do. (not talking about this specific situation)
Edit: wait the judge didnt allow the video evidence? dafaq?
Wasn't allowed as evidence? then why are we seeing it? Sounds like BS to me.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"
Look at this guys setup. He is a SWAT type - believe it or not - not all USA cops walk about with assault rifles. He was called in to neutralize a possible shooter - seen brandishing a weapon and acting drunk in the hallways apparently. I mean - if you know/think (was this just bad intel or did the guy actually have a gun in the bag?) a guy has a gun and hes not respecting the fact you have an AR-15 on him and reaches back behind his back - hes probably trying to shoot you.
Or it could be any one of an infinite number of just-as or more likely things than "he's trying to shoot you".
Maybe we need to change the rules of engagement here
How about something a bit more strict than "they moved"?
- cops can't shoot until fired upon - lets see how that goes. I'll make an estimate though that cops will start dying at such astounding rates and the backlash would be 10 times worse than what we have now.
I would ask what your basis is for assuming this would be the case?
I've had 2 friends quit the police force in the past 10 years. Each told me the exact same thing as to why. "I am not dying or going to jail to do this job".
All I can say in response to this is that, if that is their attitude, they never had any business in that profession in the first place, and made the right decision for themselves and society to leave it.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
Here's my problem with that. I saw the arm go back on the video too. But If I am the shooter I have a scoped rifle pointed at him and am able to burn him even if he comes out with a piece, which actually goes against his behavior, crying etc. plus there is at least one other officer with a gun on him. Thats when you shout STOP first and then burn him if he comes out with something. But there is nothing in his behavior (remember this guy is actively crying, complying and begging not to be shot) that he is going to do that, and even John Wick can't pull something when you HAVE A RIFLE POINTED AT HIM FROM SEVEN FEET.
The Officer was amped out of his mind and burned him when he got confused. The only reason he's not in prison is because the rifle and the video where not allowed in by the judge (WHY???).
As to the video not being allowed? WTF?
As to the fact that he is trained and well equipped vs a crying drunk idiot reaching back behind his waist. I'd say - baring an equipment malfunction there is close to a 0 % chance that he would fail to put 2 of his first 3 shots on target. The question then becomes even if hes getting shot could he return fire once? If hes on PCP...maybe he could. Like I said I am not going to ask anyone to take that risk on a daily basis because eventually you will get shot if you second guess your instincts. Also - John Wick could totally take that guy out
We all know, Cops are constantly being trained by watching videos of cops getting shot and told the only way to stay alive is to shoot first. It's the whole "Bullet-proof" trainings purpose is to watch those videos and talk about how not to get shot be escalating first.
If that is what we call "training" then we have a serious issue with training our cops.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
Here's my problem with that. I saw the arm go back on the video too. But If I am the shooter I have a scoped rifle pointed at him and am able to burn him even if he comes out with a piece, which actually goes against his behavior, crying etc. plus there is at least one other officer with a gun on him. Thats when you shout STOP first and then burn him if he comes out with something. But there is nothing in his behavior (remember this guy is actively crying, complying and begging not to be shot) that he is going to do that, and even John Wick can't pull something when you HAVE A RIFLE POINTED AT HIM FROM SEVEN FEET.
The Officer was amped out of his mind and burned him when he got confused. The only reason he's not in prison is because the rifle and the video where not allowed in by the judge (WHY???).
As to the video not being allowed? WTF?
As to the fact that he is trained and well equipped vs a crying drunk idiot reaching back behind his waist. I'd say - baring an equipment malfunction there is close to a 0 % chance that he would fail to put 2 of his first 3 shots on target. The question then becomes even if hes getting shot could he return fire once? If hes on PCP...maybe he could. Like I said I am not going to ask anyone to take that risk on a daily basis because eventually you will get shot if you second guess your instincts. Also - John Wick could totally take that guy out
Actually he popped him five times and dropped him completely to the floor by round three. I don't know if the video on the article shows it but others do. I'll give the officer credit. He was probably popping .20 - .25 splits on that burst.
Just to clear some things up here. The jury did see video of the event from other body cams that offered the same information.
"Ben Meiselas, an attorney with Geragos' firm, confirmed that the AR-15 that Brailsford used in the shooting had an expletive etched into it. But the judge did not allow the AR-15 into evidence because he ruled it "too prejudicial" and "not sufficiently relevant," he told CNN." From this article http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/us/arizona-jury-acquits-ex-cop-of-murder/index.html
This is the only evidence that was not allowed to the jury. He had the words "Your F***ed" Etched into his rifle. This isn't something I want police officers doing to their effects. Then again - this is his personal weapon. He was also fired as a result too.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
Do I ignore it, no. I flat out say the LEO did in fact fire too soon. Im looking at multiple things when I come to this conclusion. The demeaner of the LEO. The attitude displayed by the dustcover. I do not expect that on LEOs who's purpose is to keep the piece. Its not the same as a Soldier who is not there to keep peace, but to wreak havoc and death. There is a reason we are not allowed to operate on American soil, rightfully so. You don't have to ask a LEO to make that choice, you have to ask him to have trigger DISCIPLINE. Also based on how you reacted over Castille, I find your defesne of this LEO but absolute surety about Castille to be confusing. LIke I said, I have been in those positions, so its not like I am arm chair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance.
He had the upper hand at all times. This LEO, other than his extremely horrible commands, was in no position to assume the suspect had any hope of obtaining the upper hand. I support lethal force by police becuase I have unique insight to be shot at. But when Soldiers are being imprisoned for life for accidently making a bad call in combat, I will expect a higher standard from LEOs in America and I expect prosecution when said LEO so obviously and egregiously executes someone.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.
Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.
How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.
Investigate. Like I said with the gun situation. Calling to find out more information is called "investigating". You can do that in a situation where there is no reason to suspect a threat. Now if somebody had called and said "There are people walking through the halls with guns drawn!" Oh yeah, come on down and bring your buddies with you. However, seeing one in the privacy of ones room is not the same.
Domestic Violence is a completely different situation. If it has escalated to the point that people are calling the cops, it has escalated to the point that it is now a noise complaint. Which is also against the law in many places. The cops would come and guess what, they would probably ask questions to find out what is going on and why it was so loud. If it was a loud disagreement, then a citation or just a warning would suffice and they would be on their way. If it is domestic violence, deal with that.
Again, one of these things is illegal and the other is not. In no way are they the same and it is still a god awful argument.
Investigating through others is putting them at risk and why they dont do it. a loud argument may cause the neighbors to get concerned and they may call the cops. if the cops call the house and it IS an domestive violence situation its entirly possible for one of the parties involved to get further enraged. you just put the house hold and the people around them in danger.
you think people in a potentially distressed situation is going to react rationally to a phone call every time?
Stop with this argument. It is not the same. Nothing indicated there was any issue inside the room other than the existence of a weapon. These are not the same scenarios.
you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation possibly making it worse. or otherwise contact them through the phone ether enraging or spooking them.
Im still waiting on an explanation on how telling the hotel management to walk into an unknown situation involving a firearm is even remotely a good idea.
you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation
Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.
you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation
Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.
unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words
anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.
sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off. just realized this is for something that happend 2016. i guess the only justification for a full on swat team would be if the call in made it out to be more extreme of a situation than waving gun around. but i havnt seen a transcript. its also kinda irrelevant.
fact is sending untrained people to do something potentially dangerous is a dumb idea.
you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation
Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.
unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words
anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.
sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off.
Was there yelling? Did anybody else report an issue? Were they actually waving around a weapon or did somebody freak out about something? Problem easily solved with a phone call. Not all issues require the police, nor are all issues incredibly dangerous. It very easily could have been a misunderstanding.
I have explained how these things are not the same. Soooooooo.....
you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation
Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.
unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words
anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.
sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off.
Was there yelling? Did anybody else report an issue? Were they actually waving around a weapon or did somebody freak out about something? Problem easily solved with a phone call. Not all issues require the police, nor are all issues incredibly dangerous. It very easily could have been a misunderstanding.
I have explained how these things are not the same. Soooooooo.....
OOOOoooooooor in the 1 in a million chance that its a bunch of no good scum ready to do something terrible a phone con may spook them into doing something far worse. or they straight lie and proceed to do something terrible. if you think an actual threat assessment is easily done over the phone then i dont know what to tell you.
you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation
Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.
unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words
anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.
sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off.
Was there yelling? Did anybody else report an issue? Were they actually waving around a weapon or did somebody freak out about something? Problem easily solved with a phone call. Not all issues require the police, nor are all issues incredibly dangerous. It very easily could have been a misunderstanding.
I have explained how these things are not the same. Soooooooo.....
OOOOoooooooor in the 1 in a million chance that its a bunch of no good scum ready to do something terrible a phone con may spook them into doing something far worse. or they straight lie and proceed to do something terrible. if you think an actual threat assessment is easily done over the phone then i dont know what to tell you.
So we just assume everybody is guilty and planning mass murder?
No the police can go ahead and take full responsibility for being lax and something bad happening or they can take full responsibility for not being lax and something bad happening.
on the one hand many false reports end up being nothing but its much easier for people to take advantage of if all you are going to get is a phone call asking if everything is ok.
on the other hand many people are going to hate the show of force but if and when something stupid happens at least they are there.
how many preventable tragedies, not just gun related, would you be willing to except?
its a world full of big numbers its going to happen one way or another.
If I'm gonna get killed, at least I prefer to die at the hands of someone that we aren't paying to protect us.
That way at least some justice can be served agaisn't that individual.
Desubot wrote: No the police can go ahead and take full responsibility for being lax and something bad happening or they can take full responsibility for not being lax and something bad happening.
on the one hand many false reports end up being nothing but its much easier for people to take advantage of if all you are going to get is a phone call asking if everything is ok.
on the other hand many people are going to hate the show of force but if and when something stupid happens at least they are there.
My Scenario:
Officer: "Hello, this is the [Generic Police Department]. Is this the occupant of room 502?"
Occupant: "Yes sir, how may I help you?"
Officer: "We had a report of a weapon being waved about. We were calling to follow up on the report."
Occupant: "I do not have a weapon with me, I am not sure how they got that."
Officer: "Is there another occupant in the room with you?"
Occupant: "Yes there is."
Officer: "May I speak with them to confirm this?"
Occupant: "Yes you may."
Occupant 2: "Hello."
Officer: "Hello, I am just looking to confirm with you that there is no weapon in the room with the two of you."
Occupant 2: "There is no weapon here with us. It must have been a mistake."
Officer: "I apologize for the inconvenience, you two have a great night." *hang up*
Your scenario:
Officer: "Hello, this is-"
Occupant: "WOOOOOOOO! I KNEW YOU PIGGIES WOULD COME SNORTIN AROUND SOONER OR LATER! YOU WILL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!" *multiple gunshots, families screaming*
Yeah, one is far more likely than the other here.....
But if the risk of being killed by police becomes higher then the risk of being killed by those the police are sworn to protect others from then the concept of the police being there to protect starts to fall apart and starts looking more and more that they are dispatched to display force to remind others that the state won't lax. It's a terrifying direction if no oversight is applied to itchy triggers. We don't want mass murderers wandering free, for sure, but we also don't want the boys in blue to amass kill scores that make the former blush in envy either. Not saying it's there yet but with no oversight and a lack of swift punishment for infringements it may.
Or you know. Officer: "Hello, this is the [Generic Police Department]. Is this the occupant of room 502?"
Occupant: "Yes sir, how may I help you?"
Officer: "We had a report of a weapon being waved about. We were calling to follow up on the report."
Occupant: "I do not have a weapon with me, I am not sure how they got that."
Officer: "Is there another occupant in the room with you?"
Occupant: "Yes there is."
Officer: "May I speak with them to confirm this?"
Occupant: "Yes you may."
Occupant 2: "Hello."
Officer: "Hello, I am just looking to confirm with you that there is no weapon in the room with the two of you."
Occupant 2: "There is no weapon here with us. It must have been a mistake."
Officer: "I apologize for the inconvenience, you two have a great night." *hang up*
Occupant 2: ok they fell for it lets go do that (generic illegal thing) we were going to do.
or
"oh gak some one snitched on us click click"
do or alternatively.
Officer: "Hello, this is-"
Occupant: Feth the police (regardless of having a weapon)
you are free to make any level of extreme assumptions BOTH ways but in the end it doesnt change the fact that its just words and if you are willing to live on simple fate that a person will not lie to the police then feth it yolo.
ProwlerPC wrote: But if the risk of being killed by police becomes higher then the risk of being killed by those the police are sworn to protect others from then the concept of the police being there to protect starts to fall apart and starts looking more and more that they are dispatched to display force to remind others that the state won't lax. It's a terrifying direction if no oversight is applied to itchy triggers. We don't want mass murderers wandering free, for sure, but we also don't want the boys in blue to amass kill scores that make the former blush in envy either. Not saying it's there yet but with no oversight and a lack of swift punishment for infringements it may.
Well yeah no one wants zero oversight on dumb cops with itchy trigger fingers. but making courtesy calls or making untrained randos hotel management confirm a call first is just irresponsible.
True. I am going to distance myself from the phone call and front desk suggestions. A patrol unit is reasonable to check it out with nearby units on standby. It's what they do. Starting right from the beginning with mobilizing SWAT based on an initial phone call seems unnecessarily escalated. Admittedly I too have no clue of the contents of that call. It's possible they heard gunfire through the call and streets had injured and dead on them and the news forgot to mention that detail. At which point I retract my line of thoughts.
So in Scenario 1 that you posted they would then be guilty of a crime and the police would get involved and arrest them. In the second Scenario you posted, the cops would then come out and investigate the situation, since clearly the people are non compliant.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.
Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.
Indeed. Which is why I'd say the issue is with the dumb-nut who called the police just because he saw a gun. It's not with the way the police responded, its the fact that somebody felt the need to call them in the first place.
I definitely think if someone reports to the police they saw someone walking in front of a window with a gun, they have a responsibility to show up and make sure everything is OK. I don't think they should show up and pretend they are performing a room-clearing in Fallujah, however. Arizona is an open carry state and people have the right to lawfully carry firearms without being subject to summary execution by the police.
I have a lot of police officers in my family, and while I believe they need to take reasonable measures to protect themselves, at some point the scale got moved way, way too far in that direction to the detriment of the public at large. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect to actually see a gun before using lethal force, and when cops use undue force, they need a little less benefit of the doubt when they go to trial. A non-officer who shot someone in that situation would have certainly gone to jail for the rest of their lives, and we should hold police to a higher standard, not a looser one.
Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?
Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.
Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.
Indeed. Which is why I'd say the issue is with the dumb-nut who called the police just because he saw a gun. It's not with the way the police responded, its the fact that somebody felt the need to call them in the first place.
Are you gaking me? You take issue with the untrained public calling the police about something they are concerned about but have no expectation of knowing about, vs the cops who should probably actually know the law of the state they are being paid by to police?
Since when did the responsibility of policing the public fall on the public more than, ya know, the police? If we were all trained to identify and deal with threats like the police should be, we wouldn't need them
how many preventable tragedies, not just gun related, would you be willing to except?
its a world full of big numbers its going to happen one way or another.
I don't think so. If cops learn how to be less jumpy hundreds of citizen will live and maybe just a few cops (but IMHO a number near zero) will die because they didn't shoot first.
The majority of those "incidents" were not risk situations. USA cops also can use tasers which are not lethal but neutralize a possible shooter as well.
Those cops that are involved in killing unarmed citizens are not average cops, are always bad ones. People that enjoy killing other people, typically former high school bullys and/or heavy drinkers obsessed with guns and violent movies/video games. A standard cop, even an american one, doesn't shoot towards anything that moves.
Blackie wrote: I don't think so. If cops learn how to be less jumpy hundreds of citizen will live and maybe just a few cops (but IMHO a number near zero) will die because they didn't shoot first.
IIRC there was a sharp spike in officer deaths back in the what, 1970s? Largely untrained police, carrying at the most a .38 revolver, facing much better armed criminals willing to kill. The current jumpiness stems from the police reactions to those bad days, as does the way they've been given better weapons (plus war on terror even more heavy equipment). Some police departments, like New York, could probably succesfully invade a small country.
Dreadwinter wrote: So in Scenario 1 that you posted they would then be guilty of a crime and the police would get involved and arrest them. In the second Scenario you posted, the cops would then come out and investigate the situation, since clearly the people are non compliant.
Seems reasonable.
You fething with me? Scenario 1 they lie so the police dont come in, they do whatever terrible thing they want to do and innocent people get hurt or worse killed.
scenario 2 yeah they get sent out. but what do you think a bunch of spooked scared or enraged people would do in the time it takes for a squad car to get from the station or near by to get there. people can and probably will get hurt. totally reasonable.
The majority of those "incidents" were not risk situations. USA cops also can use tasers which are not lethal but neutralize a possible shooter as well.
Dont mistake me for some leo lover and while i want my cops to be smarter and far better trained and very much not trigger happy, you cannot say any situation is a no risk situation until people comply (and no i dont mean just give up your rights and let them do anything they want) and are fully detained literally anything can happen and thats not just risk for the cops thats risk for everyone around them.
Frazzled wrote: It didn't offer the same information. Its a different viewpoint. The fact it wasn't admitted is nonsensical.
I can guarantee if it was a police officer who was shot it would have been.
Also unless you read the transcript you have no idea if that was the only evidence not admitted. Better you don't make statements like that.
Sorry - I ment the only video evidence that was excluded from the jury. From my understanding there were other police officers standing right next to him with camera footage. Seriosly - the judge would not have omitted the shooters camera footage if the different vantage point changed anything relevant.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
Do I ignore it, no. I flat out say the LEO did in fact fire too soon. Im looking at multiple things when I come to this conclusion. The demeaner of the LEO. The attitude displayed by the dustcover. I do not expect that on LEOs who's purpose is to keep the piece. Its not the same as a Soldier who is not there to keep peace, but to wreak havoc and death. There is a reason we are not allowed to operate on American soil, rightfully so. You don't have to ask a LEO to make that choice, you have to ask him to have trigger DISCIPLINE. Also based on how you reacted over Castille, I find your defesne of this LEO but absolute surety about Castille to be confusing. LIke I said, I have been in those positions, so its not like I am arm chair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance.
He had the upper hand at all times. This LEO, other than his extremely horrible commands, was in no position to assume the suspect had any hope of obtaining the upper hand. I support lethal force by police because I have unique insight to be shot at. But when Soldiers are being imprisoned for life for accidently making a bad call in combat, I will expect a higher standard from LEOs in America and I expect prosecution when said LEO so obviously and egregiously executes someone.
I find nothing wrong with the officers commands or demeanor (nothing out of the ordinary I see in countless LEO/swat documentaries I've seen - with live action) . They are particularly direct. "Don't reach back or I will shoot you". What about this do you take issue with? Also what do you mean by dustcover - from the video it appears closed to me - am I not seeing this correctly? Why would this have any affect on your opinion in this case anyways? I respect your experience but why do you expect a higher standard from LEO?
You fething with me? Scenario 1 they lie so the police dont come in, they do whatever terrible thing they want to do and innocent people get hurt or worse killed.
scenario 2 yeah they get sent out. but what do you think a bunch of spooked scared or enraged people would do in the time it takes for a squad car to get from the station or near by to get there. people can and probably will get hurt. totally reasonable.
Scenario 1: What do you expect the police to do in the first scenario you posted? Going full swat on a call like that is silly. It ends in murder, as we have seen. If they were to show up and ask questions, they could just lie their way out of that, assuming they even have a reason to lie in the first place. It's not like it is hard to lie to the police. "Absolutely Officer, I will get that fixed right away." "Sure thing Officer, I will never jaywalk again." Open carry state. They are allowed to have guns.
Scenario 2: Um, either leave in a hurry or sit and wait for the police if they know they have done nothing wrong. Are you expecting some sort of hostage situation or mass shooting every time the police are called?
You fething with me? Scenario 1 they lie so the police dont come in, they do whatever terrible thing they want to do and innocent people get hurt or worse killed.
scenario 2 yeah they get sent out. but what do you think a bunch of spooked scared or enraged people would do in the time it takes for a squad car to get from the station or near by to get there. people can and probably will get hurt. totally reasonable.
Scenario 1: What do you expect the police to do in the first scenario you posted? Going full swat on a call like that is silly. It ends in murder, as we have seen. If they were to show up and ask questions, they could just lie their way out of that, assuming they even have a reason to lie in the first place. It's not like it is hard to lie to the police. "Absolutely Officer, I will get that fixed right away." "Sure thing Officer, I will never jaywalk again." Open carry state. They are allowed to have guns.
Scenario 2: Um, either leave in a hurry or sit and wait for the police if they know they have done nothing wrong. Are you expecting some sort of hostage situation or mass shooting every time the police are called?
1) they ether take it serious as a serious threat aka swat team. and yes when they are doing stupid things like yelling really really stupid orders then yes people die, if the cops in this situation was component and just detained shaver quickly by not giving him a fething field sobriety test then they would of gone in and potentially resolved the entire issue and this wouldn't be news, or they send out a beat cop in a more lax manner, they may lie or they may not its a risk. 2) no im saying we dont know what is going to happen all you are doing by calling is potentially provoking something that may end up resulting in a worse situation than going there detaining them first and sorting out the details after.
What part of risk do you not understand. yes generally speaking people arent complete melon fething donkey caves but there are melon fething donkey caves. Do you think the risk is worth the chance?
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?
Detaining is not the same thing as being arrested.
you know that first guy in the vid that got pulled out? he wasn't arrested but they put him in handcuffs, they want to secure him and get him out of the way for his and everyone elses safety.
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?
Detaining is not the same thing as being arrested.
you know that first guy in the vid that got pulled out? he wasn't arrested but they put him in handcuffs, they want to secure him and get him out of the way for his and everyone elses safety.
Police are still required to have a real, expressible reason to detain someone. Suspicious activity is not enough. Legal activities (i.e. open carry) are not enough either obviously.
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?
Detaining is not the same thing as being arrested.
you know that first guy in the vid that got pulled out? he wasn't arrested but they put him in handcuffs, they want to secure him and get him out of the way for his and everyone elses safety.
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
"Gun threat" means a lot, was he actively aiming at someone? or firing it?
Open carry means allowed to carry. It only becomes a threat if it's fired/aimed at someone iirc. Holding it is not illegal
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.
Sorry - I ment the only video evidence that was excluded from the jury. From my understanding there were other police officers standing right next to him with camera footage. Seriosly - the judge would not have omitted the shooters camera footage if the different vantage point changed anything relevant.
It would have been relevant. There had to be a different reason to exclude.
redleger wrote: I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.
LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.
So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.
Do I ignore it, no. I flat out say the LEO did in fact fire too soon. Im looking at multiple things when I come to this conclusion. The demeaner of the LEO. The attitude displayed by the dustcover. I do not expect that on LEOs who's purpose is to keep the piece. Its not the same as a Soldier who is not there to keep peace, but to wreak havoc and death. There is a reason we are not allowed to operate on American soil, rightfully so. You don't have to ask a LEO to make that choice, you have to ask him to have trigger DISCIPLINE. Also based on how you reacted over Castille, I find your defesne of this LEO but absolute surety about Castille to be confusing. LIke I said, I have been in those positions, so its not like I am arm chair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance.
He had the upper hand at all times. This LEO, other than his extremely horrible commands, was in no position to assume the suspect had any hope of obtaining the upper hand. I support lethal force by police because I have unique insight to be shot at. But when Soldiers are being imprisoned for life for accidently making a bad call in combat, I will expect a higher standard from LEOs in America and I expect prosecution when said LEO so obviously and egregiously executes someone.
I find nothing wrong with the officers commands or demeanor (nothing out of the ordinary I see in countless LEO/swat documentaries I've seen - with live action) . They are particularly direct. "Don't reach back or I will shoot you". What about this do you take issue with? Also what do you mean by dustcover - from the video it appears closed to me - am I not seeing this correctly? Why would this have any affect on your opinion in this case anyways? I respect your experience but why do you expect a higher standard from LEO?
One question that has been raised, why was SWAT sent?
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?
Detaining is not the same thing as being arrested.
you know that first guy in the vid that got pulled out? he wasn't arrested but they put him in handcuffs, they want to secure him and get him out of the way for his and everyone elses safety.
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
You can be detained for officer safety for a limited period during the investigation.
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.
I pretty much agree that sending in swat here was probably the main cause for the shooting. I haven't seen the recording of the phone call if there is one...but anything short of shots being fired or a hostage situation - there is no reason for this guy to be there. 4-5 officers could easily have been deployed to investigate and swat called in to wait in the parking lot.
I understand the need to deal with the risk...to allow an active shooter situation to blow up after the las vegas shooting would have been a terrible terrible tragedy. This is ofc why the dept. over reacted i assume in the first place. So now we have another tragedy. Like...why did the guy have to be drunk out of his mind? Just bad luck. Picked a bad night to pound entire bottles of liquor and show off his air rifle...
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.
They received a call about a weapon being waved around inside a hotel room. gunfire, complaints it has nothing to do about anything. its the cops job to go secure location and then find out the answers there are ways they can do it that would look less aggressive like calling in beat cops and knocking on the door and sorting everything out. or they could of had hotel management go up and tell them their no guns policy and in this case yeah it would of been resolved. but the fact of the matter is they have to take the calls serious, they cant make fething assumptions because no one else called it in, they have to think about everyone safety and not just their own. that is their responsibility and thats why going in and attempting to clear the floor the way they did would of been fine and not news worthy, the caller would of gotten fined, the people detained would complain but otherwise walked away. what wasnt acceptable in this case was the fethin idiot cops making stupid commands that caused this kid to make a confused stupid move that got him shot by a guy thats job is to make disisions based on the situation, not hindsight, not on assumptions. charge the other two cops with manslaughter call it a day.
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
Hotels are considered a "temporary residence", thus he was well within his rights to brandish it, as long as it wasn't pointed an another person. Unless that particular hotel has a "no guns" policy, he did nothing wrong.
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
Hotels are considered a "temporary residence", thus he was well within his rights to brandish it, as long as it wasn't pointed an another person. Unless that particular hotel has a "no guns" policy, he did nothing wrong.
Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?
Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?
I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.
They received a call about a weapon being waved around inside a hotel room. gunfire, complaints it has nothing to do about anything. its the cops job to go secure location and then find out the answers there are ways they can do it that would look less aggressive like calling in beat cops and knocking on the door and sorting everything out. or they could of had hotel management go up and tell them their no guns policy and in this case yeah it would of been resolved. but the fact of the matter is they have to take the calls serious, they cant make fething assumptions because no one else called it in, they have to think about everyone safety and not just their own. that is their responsibility and thats why going in and attempting to clear the floor the way they did would of been fine and not news worthy, the caller would of gotten fined, the people detained would complain but otherwise walked away. what wasnt acceptable in this case was the fethin idiot cops making stupid commands that caused this kid to make a confused stupid move that got him shot by a guy thats job is to make disisions based on the situation, not hindsight, not on assumptions. charge the other two cops with manslaughter call it a day.
You mean they have to consider everyones safety when a man is legally holding a weapon in a room and has made no threats towards anybody?
CALL IN THE SWAT BOYS! TED HAS HIS RIFLE OUT CLEANING IT! HE MAY BE ABOUT TO GO POSTAL WE GOTTA GET THE COPS DOWN HERE TO HANDLE THIS SITUATION BEFORE IT POTENTIALLY GETS WORSE!
Something to consider. I am a tax preparer. I passed the test with the IRS and have met my continuous education requirements.
This means that 'mistakes' on my personal tax return are held to a higher standard than yours. Since I have special knowledge and training.
The same principle should apply to police officers.
I'm also amused by the fact that the same people that claim that gun deaths are miniscule so we don't need any additional gun control laws are trying to argue that the same principle doesn't apply to police officers using lethal force...
ProwlerPC wrote: But if the risk of being killed by police becomes higher then the risk of being killed by those the police are sworn to protect others from then the concept of the police being there to protect starts to fall apart and starts looking more and more that they are dispatched to display force to remind others that the state won't lax. It's a terrifying direction if no oversight is applied to itchy triggers. We don't want mass murderers wandering free, for sure, but we also don't want the boys in blue to amass kill scores that make the former blush in envy either. Not saying it's there yet but with no oversight and a lack of swift punishment for infringements it may.
Wait, wait! I have the solution! The US needs a special force to protect people from the police.
"Hello, this is the police protection force, how may we assist you?"
"Please help, I think I saw a policeman sneaking around the neighbourhood. There are a lot of black people living in the area. I am afraid he is going to shoot someone."
"Please stay calm. We will dispatch a team immediately."
Or implement swift decisive punishment for officers whom are overcome with zeal resulting in civilian executions. Might seem counter intuitive but I think it's worth a shot.
ProwlerPC wrote: Or implement swift decisive punishment for officers whom are overcome with zeal resulting in civilian executions. Might seem counter intuitive but I think it's worth a shot.
Certainly could and probably should.
gotta figure out the whole cops protecting their own problem first though. can get rid of the bad ones if the good ones and the in between keep them safe. if there are real repercussions then maybe the few bad ones will think twice.
I understand the need to deal with the risk...to allow an active shooter situation to blow up after the las vegas shooting would have been a terrible terrible tragedy. This is ofc why the dept. over reacted i assume in the first place. So now we have another tragedy. Like...why did the guy have to be drunk out of his mind? Just bad luck. Picked a bad night to pound entire bottles of liquor and show off his air rifle...
I think this happened before Las Vegas so that incident should not have had any impact in how the Mesa incident was handled.
Pretty typical internet discussion on a police matter (read: 90% ignorance).
I'd lean heavily toward this being a bad shoot, personally. The officer in the video is pretty awful (control, shouting, commands, etc.) all pretty bad. Even worse so it sounds like he has a new guy riding with him and he's trying to instruct him on what to do. The defence he'd rely on is exceptionally grey-area on this one. A normal use-of-force policy would indicate that the officer would have to identify why he felt his life was in danger (or risk of grievous bodily harm). When investigated for an on duty use of force, the officer will be judged according to what a "normal" police officer would do - not subject to a jury of non-officers (that would be the civil case arena).
I suspect the officer just skated by on this one but will probably take it in the pants in the civil case coming up.
From a LEO perspective, this officer handled this very poorly. However, the usual "oh man, cops just want to kill everybody" nonsense is clouding the thread as usual.
No acceptable innocents. Sending in LEOs in this situation was warranted. What this LEO then did was unacceptable. Would have been easier for him to hold the guy instead of giving horrible commands outside of protocol then shooting the victim because the LEO was being stupid. Procedure wise, LEOs on scene was a good call. What happened after is the entirety of the problem. Thats when it became murder as I have stated before. No one with experience that is not ideologically in defense of the police can intellectually honestly say this was justified. They jury was wrong, this is the clearest video I have seen of a police shooting and it shows an execution.
Elbows wrote: Pretty typical internet discussion on a police matter (read: 90% ignorance).
I'd lean heavily toward this being a bad shoot, personally. The officer in the video is pretty awful (control, shouting, commands, etc.) all pretty bad. Even worse so it sounds like he has a new guy riding with him and he's trying to instruct him on what to do. The defence he'd rely on is exceptionally grey-area on this one. A normal use-of-force policy would indicate that the officer would have to identify why he felt his life was in danger (or risk of grievous bodily harm). When investigated for an on duty use of force, the officer will be judged according to what a "normal" police officer would do - not subject to a jury of non-officers (that would be the civil case arena).
UOF policies are not commonly applied to SWAT-related shootings. The idea is that they're a specialized unit with specialized circumstances and as such they are given broader discretion when it comes to their use of force.
I suspect the officer just skated by on this one but will probably take it in the pants in the civil case coming up.
Civil cases against officers tend to do poorly when the officers are found not guilty. They tend to go even worse in red states where the "Blue Lives Matter" tripe is treated as gospel rather than the nonsensical deflection that it is.
From a LEO perspective, this officer handled this very poorly. However, the usual "oh man, cops just want to kill everybody" nonsense is clouding the thread as usual.
Right, because a guy who is rocking personalized stuff on his firearm that basically amounts to the usual wanna-be Delta Operators that make up SWAT teams these days totally negates the argument that this individual had literally zero business being an officer.
As soon as that gak went on his gun, someone should have been sitting him down to have a serious talk.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Court didn't see it as a crime, I don't it either. Accidents happened, officer made a bad choice in an awkward situation.
Unfortunately, this is less of an "accident" and more of a "This officer never should have been hired in the first place if he just wants to cosplay as John McClane".
NenkotaMoon wrote: Court didn't see it as a crime, I don't it either. Accidents happened, officer made a bad choice in an awkward situation.
Unfortunately, this is less of an "accident" and more of a "This officer never should have been hired in the first place if he just wants to cosplay as John McClane".
TFW you try to have a serious discussion why a guy who essentially admitted to trolling in a different thread less than 15 minutes ago.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Why can't I have another conversation with something I find a bit more serious of an issue, something that may if I'm convinced be an ACTUAL issue.
Because you're not looking to be convinced or even have an actual discussion. You have an opinion that you think is fact.
This is a case where evidence was purportedly held back(his dust cover on the rifle saying "You're fethed") as being "too prejudicial" against the officer despite it being entirely relevant to the officer's state of mind going into this situation.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Why can't I have another conversation with something I find a bit more serious of an issue, something that may if I'm convinced be an ACTUAL issue.
Because you're not looking to be convinced or even have an actual discussion. You have an opinion that you think is fact.
This is a case where evidence was purportedly held back(his dust cover on the rifle saying "You're fethed") as being "too prejudicial" against the officer despite it being entirely relevant to the officer's state of mind going into this situation.
While I absolutely believe this was an execution, speaking as someone with experience in much higher stress situations that were more dangerous to my person than this poor kid was to the officers, I do not believe the dust cover was as relevant as many believe. While it shows he may be a douche, it does not speak to motive IMO. I have known many well disciplined grunts and other type Soldiers with what we refer to as "Morale patches". These are funny patches we put on the velcro on our sleeves usually hidden under unit insignia or the fold down flap. Didn't make them more or less prone to any action be it heroic or illegal. In other words you can be a douche and still not be a murderer, and vice versa.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Why can't I have another conversation with something I find a bit more serious of an issue, something that may if I'm convinced be an ACTUAL issue.
Because you're not looking to be convinced or even have an actual discussion. You have an opinion that you think is fact.
This is a case where evidence was purportedly held back(his dust cover on the rifle saying "You're fethed") as being "too prejudicial" against the officer despite it being entirely relevant to the officer's state of mind going into this situation.
While I absolutely believe this was an execution, speaking as someone with experience in much higher stress situations that were more dangerous to my person than this poor kid was to the officers, I do not believe the dust cover was as relevant as many believe. While it shows he may be a douche, it does not speak to motive IMO. I have known many well disciplined grunts and other type Soldiers with what we refer to as "Morale patches". These are funny patches we put on the velcro on our sleeves usually hidden under unit insignia or the fold down flap. Didn't make them more or less prone to any action be it heroic or illegal. In other words you can be a douche and still not be a murderer, and vice versa.
That's actually what I was referring to specifically when I made the comment about "cosplaying as John McClane".
This kind of officer is exactly the kind who should have been screened out. Someone who thinks they're a soldier, not a law enforcement officer.
It doesn't speak to motive, it speaks to intent and mindset. It's not meaningful in and of itself, but as a piece of what happened, it shows state of mind.
Ouze wrote: It doesn't speak to motive, it speaks to intent and mindset. It's not meaningful in and of itself, but as a piece of what happened, it shows state of mind.
I disagree, unless you are asserting that his peace of mind was always one of panic and cowardice. He very may well have seen it online, bought it because he thought it was funny. (I find it kinda funny myself, but not in this context) It shows nothing about his state of mind during that situation. His state of mind was that of someone who was too scared to make a rational decision, or communicate effectively. If he was the kind of bad ass he tried to portray himself to be, he would have had more trigger discipline.
It might not show panic and cowardice, but an adversarial mindset, an us-vs-them attitude, a lack of respect and decorum commensurate with his powers and responsibilities.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might not show panic and cowardice, but an adversarial mindset, an us-vs-them attitude, a lack of respect and decorum commensurate with his powers and responsibilities.
Throw into that extremely poor execution of policy and procedure and you have this particular incident in a nutshell.
Ouze wrote: It doesn't speak to motive, it speaks to intent and mindset. It's not meaningful in and of itself, but as a piece of what happened, it shows state of mind.
I disagree, unless you are asserting that his peace of mind was always one of panic and cowardice. He very may well have seen it online, bought it because he thought it was funny. (I find it kinda funny myself, but not in this context) It shows nothing about his state of mind during that situation. His state of mind was that of someone who was too scared to make a rational decision, or communicate effectively. If he was the kind of bad ass he tried to portray himself to be, he would have had more trigger discipline.
It shows that someone in a professional law enforcement capacity actively sought out aggressive and unprofessional upgrades to a weapon, in a manner that can only be seen as boastful or threatening, that they used in an ostensibly professional capacity. To me, that shows a marked lack of judgement for that role and a fundamental misunderstanding of that profession.
Much like the department that had their cars done up with the Punisher logo and whatnot all over them.
I spent most of my twenties professionally wielding firearms in various capacities, and I would NEVER have added some kind of cosmetic part for that very reason. You carry a firearm with the knowledge that you may have to end someone's life with it in the fulfillment of your duties. Knowing that day might come, and that adding any kind of unnecessary modification to your duty weapon might reflect poorly on you and your department/unit/company in that dire moment, modifying the weapon anyway doesn't speak very well of an individual's judgment.
Xenomancers wrote: Just to clear some things up here. The jury did see video of the event from other body cams that offered the same information.
"Ben Meiselas, an attorney with Geragos' firm, confirmed that the AR-15 that Brailsford used in the shooting had an expletive etched into it. But the judge did not allow the AR-15 into evidence because he ruled it "too prejudicial" and "not sufficiently relevant," he told CNN." From this article http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/us/arizona-jury-acquits-ex-cop-of-murder/index.html
This is the only evidence that was not allowed to the jury. He had the words "Your F***ed" Etched into his rifle. This isn't something I want police officers doing to their effects. Then again - this is his personal weapon. He was also fired as a result too.
This is one of my rifles:
(spoiler for bad language in image)
Spoiler:
Even my (active duty army ossifer) wife finds it funny. Limited edition rifle for the Range 15 movie. I love it.
Xenomancers wrote: Just to clear some things up here. The jury did see video of the event from other body cams that offered the same information.
"Ben Meiselas, an attorney with Geragos' firm, confirmed that the AR-15 that Brailsford used in the shooting had an expletive etched into it. But the judge did not allow the AR-15 into evidence because he ruled it "too prejudicial" and "not sufficiently relevant," he told CNN." From this article http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/us/arizona-jury-acquits-ex-cop-of-murder/index.html
This is the only evidence that was not allowed to the jury. He had the words "Your F***ed" Etched into his rifle. This isn't something I want police officers doing to their effects. Then again - this is his personal weapon. He was also fired as a result too.
This is one of my rifles:
(spoiler for bad language in image)
Spoiler:
Even my (active duty army ossifer) wife finds it funny. Limited edition rifle for the Range 15 movie. I love it.
I love that movie, Article 15 and Ranger up clothing. I need that rifle. Had no idea they released one.
Claim that 90% of the people in this thread don't know what they are talking about
subsequently make the exact same observations and come to the exact same conclusion as virtually everyone else
Truly you are the poster this forum needs.
Prove me wrong?
PS: Kanluwen - never ever seen a special unit which wasn't restricted by departmental UOF - ever. Every single special unit in our agency was under the same exact restrictions, same for the local OA (PD, Sheriffs, etc., including the local BIA guys and BLM etc.).
What am I supposed to prove wrong? That you claimed that virtually no one here knew what they were talking about, and then you same to the same conclusion as virtually everyone else did? What do you want me to do, quote your post?
Probably I'll just faint into the ground.
