Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.

But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?

Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?

I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.

I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.

But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

Pobably. Like was said previously when people want to get the cops to show up quickly they often exaggerate the circumstances to make it sound more dangerous so the cops prioritize it higher. There's also the possibility that whoever called it in really did mistake the toy truck for a gun from a distance. There's also the more insidious possibility that whoever called it in was a local resident that didn't like living in a neighborhood with a group home for people with mental disabilities so they called the police and said there was a gun present in order to make trouble for the group home.

@Frazzled: I agree but for rhetorical purposes I was trying to establish the proper order of operations here.

Skyth wrote:Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?

Maybe we should ask the 250+ Whites shot by police in 2015?

Or the unarmed white teen shot by *gasp* a black cop just recently.

http://conservativetribune.com/teen-shot-by-cop/

Or this one from last year:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.

But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?

Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?

I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.

I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.

But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

Pobably. Like was said previously when people want to get the cops to show up quickly they often exaggerate the circumstances to make it sound more dangerous so the cops prioritize it higher. There's also the possibility that whoever called it in really did mistake the toy truck for a gun from a distance. There's also the more insidious possibility that whoever called it in was a local resident that didn't like living in a neighborhood with a group home for people with mental disabilities so they called the police and said there was a gun present in order to make trouble for the group home.

And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.

 kronk wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.

I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.

My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.

Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.

Agreed that the cop was an idiot.

There's lots of things a convicted felon can't do. Not everyone here is even aware.
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicted-felons-lose/

Voting
Traveling abroad
The right to bear arms or own guns
Jury service
Employment in certain fields
Public social benefits and housing
Parental benefits

Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.

Li'l bit harsh....

In the UK, criminal record details expire after 10 years, so long as they cease to be necessary information (such as resulting in a sentence of more than 10 years).

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.

But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?

Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?

I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.

I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.

But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

Pobably. Like was said previously when people want to get the cops to show up quickly they often exaggerate the circumstances to make it sound more dangerous so the cops prioritize it higher. There's also the possibility that whoever called it in really did mistake the toy truck for a gun from a distance. There's also the more insidious possibility that whoever called it in was a local resident that didn't like living in a neighborhood with a group home for people with mental disabilities so they called the police and said there was a gun present in order to make trouble for the group home.

And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.

Good luck proving anything. How do you prove that they lied? Maybe they thought they saw a weapon. Can you prove that they didn't?

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.

Good luck proving anything. How do you prove that they lied? Maybe they thought they saw a weapon. Can you prove that they didn't?

History of calls/complaints from the individual would actually go a long way towards proving motive for falsifying a police report. Objections or complaints to the city about the presence of the group home would be another way to prove motive for falsifying a police report.

You don't actually have to prove that they lied; only that they had a motive to lie.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And if that's the case, that person needs to be charged with falsifying a police report and making threats--or hell, as an accessory after the fact to the shooting.

Good luck proving anything. How do you prove that they lied? Maybe they thought they saw a weapon. Can you prove that they didn't?

History of calls/complaints from the individual would actually go a long way towards proving motive for falsifying a police report. Objections or complaints to the city about the presence of the group home would be another way to prove motive for falsifying a police report.

You don't actually have to prove that they lied; only that they had a motive to lie.

They do keep track of calls. LEO also know there is a Mental Health Facility there. For the life of me. I cannot imagine a reason of pointing my weapons in the directions of the two let alone lock and load. Hell I would have "NOC" the the Autistic hand to ensure it was a truck. Other then that I (my troops to) would have stayed our distance and not engage in ANYWAY being we have no idea what the trigger for the Autistic (poor choice of words) to whack out.

And now for something completely different, Police Union officials say the cop was aiming at the autistic patient and hit the therapist by accident. Words escape me...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bullet-that-struck-caregiver-was-meant-to-protect-him-police-union-president-says/ar-BBuCQMF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.

Odds are the entire gang of cops that participated in this will return to the streets in uniform.


I hope the therapist gets a truckload of money from this.

 Ouze wrote:
I know it's fun to blame the meeeeeeedia for all of our problems, but the number of police officers charged with murder tripled in 2015. With the advent of bodycams, dashcams, and ominpresent cell phone videos, it's getting harder to pretend there isn't an actual real problem with policing in the US - from the methods that policing takes, to the disinclination of good cops to report bad cops, and to the public for failing to indict what are sometimes readily apparent bad actors.

The primary thing there is the advent of bodycams and cell phones. Actual shootings continue to decline year on year. What has changed is the recorded evidence, that lets us see how many shootings were bad, or in some cases like this, absolutely ridiculously terrible.



We shouldn't think the sudden influx of evidence of bad shootings means things are getting worse. They are continuing to get better, it's just that we're now seeing evidence of how bad they have been.

Remember, we live in a nation where it's okay to say someone is too smart to be a police officer. Or at least if that's a hoax the news channels pick-up, crap is bad enough that we believe it.

The number of these back to back is sickening, but it seems like the problem is getting better in the fact that video evidence is holding greater accountability/awareness.

Edit, seems legit...

 d-usa wrote:
So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.

And then double down on the mistake by having another officer shoot him.

FAIL.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Use charges that will stick.

But first of all, the prosecutor should make sure a crime was committed.

 skyth wrote:
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

No reason to believe otherwise TBH, at least on the available facts.

I'd proffer its about as self evident that a crime has been committed as could possibly be. There is no legal excuse under the law for shooting an unarmed man who laying down and thus posing no threat, indeed involved in no criminal activity and was trying to prevent harm. The extent of the crime (as you note, the appropriate charging) is the only thing at issue.

Exactly. If I'd done it, there'd be no problems finding something to convict me of. Police officers should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to behaviour and gun use, since they are supposedly well trained professionals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Politicians love to pander to voters by being "tough on crime" which pretty much always means passing even more laws making more stuff illegal or already illegal stuff be extra double/triple illegal and treating anyone convicted of a crime as the worst subhuman scum imaginable. It's an incredibly counter productive vicious cycle. Prison here is really just warehousing people for a "timeout" before releasing them back into the public domain in a manner wherein they are significantly worse off than they were before they committed whatever crime they did. Most convicts end up getting released at some point especially with our overcrowded prisons but very few prisoners ever get any kind of programs or training to help them be better citizens once they're released. The problems with the system are clearly self evident yet nobody in power ever seems to want to do anything to change it.

I wonder what extend private prisons play in it? Why would you try and reduce the re-offending rate if you make a profit from locking people up ?

Herzlos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Politicians love to pander to voters by being "tough on crime" which pretty much always means passing even more laws making more stuff illegal or already illegal stuff be extra double/triple illegal and treating anyone convicted of a crime as the worst subhuman scum imaginable. It's an incredibly counter productive vicious cycle. Prison here is really just warehousing people for a "timeout" before releasing them back into the public domain in a manner wherein they are significantly worse off than they were before they committed whatever crime they did. Most convicts end up getting released at some point especially with our overcrowded prisons but very few prisoners ever get any kind of programs or training to help them be better citizens once they're released. The problems with the system are clearly self evident yet nobody in power ever seems to want to do anything to change it.

I wonder what extend private prisons play in it? Why would you try and reduce the re-offending rate if you make a profit from locking people up ?

John Oliver had an interesting segment where they showed leaked promotion powerpoint slides from a for-profit prison company talking to investors. The slides actually mentioned "high recidivism" of criminals as a positive business trait because of the steady flow of income.

 Manchu wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Use charges that will stick.

But first of all, the prosecutor should make sure a crime was committed.

 skyth wrote:
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

No reason to believe otherwise TBH, at least on the available facts.

A few years ago, cops were called on a friend of mine, reported as walking down the street with a sword. They screetched up in the car, jumped out with batons ready (they don't carry guns here), realised that the suspect was dressed as a pirate, going to a fancy dress party, with a $5 plastic cutlass, burst out laughing and then went over to talk to him.

Why the story? It's an example of a fairly well respected police force identifying that a situation isn't serious and de-escalating their response instead of charging on. It should have been blatantly obvious to any observer that there was no threat, at which point the offers should have de-escalated (not even holstering guns, but just taking finger off the trigger and pointing at the ground) until they feel the need to re-escalate. Are US cops so paranoid that they'll genuinely keep a chambered, finger-on-trigger gun pointing at someone who clearly isn't a threat? Or are they so paranoid about being attacked that they genuinely don't register that there's no threat?

There's definitely a cultural problem here, and to outsiders it's bordering on ridiculous, and views them the same as a lot of the 3rd world. I genuinely can't comprehend the idea of being shot by a cop for doing anything short of actually attacking a cop.
I don't know if the problem is with cop culture or society at large. Sure, cops are pretty heavy handed and bordering on criminally negligent, but is a lot of that due to genuine paranoia about cops being at huge risk of attack from anyone in the ublic?

 BigWaaagh wrote:
And now for something completely different, Police Union officials say the cop was aiming at the autistic patient and hit the therapist by accident. Words escape me...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bullet-that-struck-caregiver-was-meant-to-protect-him-police-union-president-says/ar-BBuCQMF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Oh, come on now!!

Circling the wagons? Will this be easier to excuse?

The article says the officer who fired was part of a SWAT team so....worst case is no more SWAT for this guy.

Reading that article, looks like the police have buttoned up. Won't even release the officer's name? How is that legal?

With modern video showing this stuff now, Dallas and Baton Rouge are just the beginning.

And stuff like this just this morning:
http://kxan.com/2016/07/21/apd-officer-throws-woman-to-the-ground-during-traffic-stop/

One way the police might approach making individual officers more likely to report/restrain/arrest their brother officers when they behave in such an appalling way is to start looking to prosecute them for 'joint enterprise'

in the same way that police/prosecutors seem to like charging a whole group of young men when one of them spontaneously decides to grab something from a store even when it's pretty clear there was no preplanning of the incident, even the ones who never even make it into the store and stayed outside or in the car.

The rational often seem to be that the 'ought' to have know there was a crime coming and to have stayed away.... similarly I'm sure most police will know who are trigger happy, racist or incompetent (or all 3) and stay away (or report and keep them off the streets) from them

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
And now for something completely different, Police Union officials say the cop was aiming at the autistic patient and hit the therapist by accident. Words escape me...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bullet-that-struck-caregiver-was-meant-to-protect-him-police-union-president-says/ar-BBuCQMF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Oh, come on now!!

Circling the wagons? Will this be easier to excuse?

Obviously, he was "afraid for his safety", that's the 'get away with murder' line, right?

 d-usa wrote:
So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.

It's as bad as that, yes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Reading that article, looks like the police have buttoned up. Won't even release the officer's name? How is that legal?

With modern video showing this stuff now, Dallas and Baton Rouge are just the beginning.

And stuff like this just this morning:
http://kxan.com/2016/07/21/apd-officer-throws-woman-to-the-ground-during-traffic-stop/

It might just be me, but you would think with the current climate, somebody might step back and say, maybe we should take things easy for a while, be less heavy handed than usual, just til things calm down...

There has to be a police chief out there somewhere who's thinking this...

 Frazzled wrote:
Reading that article, looks like the police have buttoned up. Won't even release the officer's name? How is that legal?

With modern video showing this stuff now, Dallas and Baton Rouge are just the beginning.

And stuff like this just this morning:
http://kxan.com/2016/07/21/apd-officer-throws-woman-to-the-ground-during-traffic-stop/

That reminds me of the Freddie Gray case. I've been told by cops that noncompliance = resisting arrest. When Gray was telling officers he didn't want to go to jail and was standing there not being cooperative he was technically resisting arrest and cops, for whatever reason, never seem to have the patience to deal with noncompliance in a better manner than just escalating it to physically forcing compliance. Same with that woman in the link, cop tells her to get out of the car, she doesn't get out fast enough so her noncompliance/defiance is considered "resistance" so the cop gets physical. It's really not needed and is more bully behavior than protecting and serving but it's not necessarily illegal action by the cop either.

Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.

 SickSix wrote:
Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.

I completely agree. I'm just explaining why it happens because passive noncompliance is technically no different from active phsyical resistance so cops can technically treat it the same. Doesn't mean they should but it explains why they can.

 d-usa wrote:
So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.

I think the shooter was actually too far away to hear the conversation, being a marksman set up on a car hood, but in radio contact with the cop that was talking to them. One of the front cops said something over the radio that he took as a threat and the marksman shot who he thought was the risk.

It's still epically stupid, but it seems it's a bit more complicated that a single cop being so incompetent. It at least explains why the first cop said "I don't know" when the guy asked why he was shot; he didn't know as he didn't authorize or shoot. Maybe be negligently discharged and then the marksman shot.

 SickSix wrote:
Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.

The majority of the police aren't good guys. Some of them are heroes, some of them are monsters, and the majority of them are just doing a job and punching a clock. This whole simplistic thing of casting people as "good guys" and "bad guys" is part of the problem we have with how police officers who do stuff they shouldn't rarely face significant consequences.

 SickSix wrote:
Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.

The second the 'organization' covers up, lies, defends these bad cops, they instantly BECOME bad cops. They are all guilty the second they begin the cover up or blue wall.



So the story is an obvious lie or exposure of gross incompetence.

*They say they were talking with the two men, then claim 'they couldn't hear them'
*They say people were at risk, but yet the officers were far away behind vehicles and no one else around.
*They were armed with SWAT gear but apparently no way to use binoculars to actually 'see' what they were shooting at clearly.
*They say the target was the 'non-compliant man with a gun', they shoot the other person who is complying and instead of 'rescuing' the innocent man they wounded with intentional friendly fire, they cuff him and let him bleed like an animal and render no aid and deny him his right to attempt to save his own life by applying pressure to his own wound.
*They say they can't 'hear them' to hear that there is no weapon and no threat... But when asked 'why did you shoot me' they can hear that and respond 'I don't know...'
*If he *DID* know he was shooting to 'save' the man from the violent armed offender, when you respond you say 'we were targeting a non-compliant armed person.'
*The Autistic man who probably lacks the ability to comply with orders is still in jail for no reason probably having his rights abused as we speak.

There is no way if this went to a jury where it could be vetted by cross-examination and the actual evidence, the lies would never stand up. But because the police as a whole are leaking lies to fill in the 'wait for the true facts' crowd, there will never be an indictment and the name of the officer will never be released.

*THIS* is the problem. Racist/bigot/violent cops CAUSE isolated bad stops which lead to excessive force... but the entire organization becomes involved when the coverup happens and the lies and fake evidence start being released. And the 'wait for the true facts' crowd only want the police story and then they are satiated and ready to acquit every time. All I want is a day in court as there is always enough to indite these cases.

This officer was better off being 'I panicked, it was a mistake'. Now he is a lying shitbag, dirty cop in a corrupt department.

Herzlos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.

I think the shooter was actually too far away to hear the conversation, being a marksman set up on a car hood, but in radio contact with the cop that was talking to them. One of the front cops said something over the radio that he took as a threat and the marksman shot who he thought was the risk.

It's still epically stupid, but it seems it's a bit more complicated that a single cop being so incompetent. It at least explains why the first cop said "I don't know" when the guy asked why he was shot; he didn't know as he didn't authorize or shoot. Maybe be negligently discharged and then the marksman shot.

It also nicely sets up intended murder. We now have intent people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.

The majority of the police aren't good guys. Some of them are heroes, some of them are monsters, and the majority of them are just doing a job and punching a clock. This whole simplistic thing of casting people as "good guys" and "bad guys" is part of the problem we have with how police officers who do stuff they shouldn't rarely face significant consequences.

Indeed, with very few career exceptions most people follow the bell curve. Obviously Nazis, cat lovers, and your local tax office are the exception.

Herzlos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So he was trying to shoot the man with the toy truck, after being told over and over again by the person he was "protecting" that the man with the toy truck wasn't a threat. Then he accidentally shot the guy he was protecting instead, and then they followed up the accidental shooting by not rendering aid and handcuffing the guy that they were protecting while accidentally shooting him.

I think the shooter was actually too far away to hear the conversation, being a marksman set up on a car hood, but in radio contact with the cop that was talking to them. One of the front cops said something over the radio that he took as a threat and the marksman shot who he thought was the risk.

It's still epically stupid, but it seems it's a bit more complicated that a single cop being so incompetent. It at least explains why the first cop said "I don't know" when the guy asked why he was shot; he didn't know as he didn't authorize or shoot. Maybe be negligently discharged and then the marksman shot.

*I'm not arguing at you just addressing the information you have provided.*

If they placed themselves in such a situation were their job was to deescalate but were too far away and fired on a "suspect" they couldn't hear, then every officer on the scene should be charged with criminal negligence. How could we hear the man from a cellphone microphone from inside a house across the street but the officers could not? Only real answers are that they could and are outright lying or from the start absolutely failed in their job.

If the "marksmen" missed his shot then criminal negligence. If he intentionally made the call to shoot an unarmed compliant man with incomplete information then attempted murder. Then again three shots at a unarmed compliant man by a marksman in a "non-lethal" area indicates intent to use bullets to solve problems. As if the officer marksmen choose to shoot the man in the leg as a form of punishment or a free "kill". As inevitably the thin blue line would shield him from repercussions.

This information doesn't really make things more complicated. It just says every officer involved was criminally negligent at the minimum. The officers and their boss should all be relieved of duty and fired. If it were the military the commander even when not present is accountable to the actions of their troops. Maybe if police leaders were accountable to the actions of their officiers a greater standard would take place.

What this situation does illustrate to the black community in the US, is that even complying with police (a common agruement against) still will result in being shot if not potentially being killed.