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.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?

Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?

 Ouze wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?

Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?

I got nuth'n.

Anyhoo... just catching up to this ordeal.

This officer deserves to have the book thrown at him...

This case seems to me to be one of gross incompetence. My guess is the officer was nervous and had his firearm out, and due to lack of training and negligence accidentally discharged the firearm, striking and killing the woman.

The fact that he refuses to make any statement of the facts, whatever they may be, is tragic as well.

Yup... so far, that facts seems to be:

1) Officer heard loud noise
2) 911 woman walks up to car (?)
3) Officers shoots woman thru the driver-side window ACROSS his partner's lap

Do I have that summed up right?

Jaysus... throw the book at him.

And that's a big problem. As long as juries keep walking them, it discourages prosecution and accountability.

My gut tells me he's going to get away with it.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?

well not so much puzzles as annoys me, not all police behave badly, in fact do believe it's the small minority that the police claim they are,

however what is clear is that the majority of officers are not willing to act fast enough against those that are behaving badly (let alone step forward and testify against them)

So now the discussion has progressed from instant termination and jailing of the officer involved to summary execution.

How long before Dakka proposes that we burn their home and salt the earth where it once stood, and also put the progeny of the Officer to death?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.

It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.

In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.

I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.

This is a wildly unrealistic and paranoid view of the US. The 2nd Amendment, Stand Your Ground,Castle Doctrine, and CCWs don't require that everyone operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation. That idea is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The United States is not the wild west as depicted in western films. For that matter, the actual wild west wasn't the wild west as depicted in western films. You are wrong if you think that everyone must operate under the expectation that "gunfire might erupt in almost any situation," and police officers who operate under that expectation are wrong as well. That doesn't mean that crazy things don't happen or danger doesn't exist, but the level of paranoia in a post like this is grossly exaggerated.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
My gut tells me he's going to get away with it.

Of course he will walk.

Murdering cops always walk. It's the American way.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Unless he was naturalized, he isn't an American.

That's a very legalistic response.

That's not the point though. He screwed up and should be held accountable. That was my opinion before I knew his race

It wasn't the point, it was never the point, it was never going to be anything but a weird bit of xenophobia tacked on to the issue, but you posted it anyway.

 curran12 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
My gut tells me he's going to get away with it.

Of course he will walk.

Murdering cops always walk. It's the American way.

It doesn't look like the cop who shot the black Coast Guard vet in the back in South Carolina is going to walk.

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.

It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.

In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.

I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.

This is a wildly unrealistic and paranoid view of the US. The 2nd Amendment, Stand Your Ground,Castle Doctrine, and CCWs don't require that everyone operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation. That idea is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The United States is not the wild west as depicted in western films. For that matter, the actual wild west wasn't the wild west as depicted in western films. You are wrong if you think that everyone must operate under the expectation that "gunfire might erupt in almost any situation," and police officers who operate under that expectation are wrong as well. That doesn't mean that crazy things don't happen or danger doesn't exist, but the level of paranoia in a post like this is grossly exaggerated.

I wouldn't say everyone operates under the assumption that gunfire might erupt in any situation, but the police sure do. They're trained to be that paranoid that every second of every day and every encounter is life or death.

as seen here around 2 mins

In any civilized country that cop would have been arrested on the spot and jailed. Probably convicted with manslaughter or even with harsher charges.

I really don't get why in the USA those killer cops usually walk free. It's not even a matter of protecting their own ones since those cops are getting fired anyway.

 Blackie wrote:
In any civilized country that cop would have been arrested on the spot and jailed. Probably convicted with manslaughter or even with harsher charges.

I really don't get why in the USA those killer cops usually walk free. It's not even a matter of protecting their own ones since those cops are getting fired anyway.

First off, it's kinda insulting that you are implying that the US isn't a civilized country.

Second, there are some good reasons why. One is that little legal concept called "Reasonable Doubt". Police have a high stress job dealing with the absolute worst people in society. And by virtue of that, they are inherently putting their lives at risk. More so in certain areas than others. You do have to consider that, if you were in that same position what would you do? If you have a job where every single day you have the possibility of getting attacked and killed just because of what your job is(there are people out there who vehemently hate police), you're always going to be a little on edge.

The US does train police to always be mindful of their surroundings and focus on their own personal safety, even to the point where it's bordering on obsessive paranoia. There are reasons for this. Several decades ago, there were events where officers got into dangerous situations and were woefully unprepared. Some FBI agents were tailing some bank robbery suspects, got into a shootout, and several agents were killed because they were both outgunned and didn't wait for backup(at the time officers only got issued pistols and the badguys had rifles). That incident was a tipping point in terms of both equipment for officers, as well as how officers acted when faced with potential danger. Instead of laughing off danger and ignoring it, they taught officers to always act as if they could potentially get shot by anybody. It's because there were a number of tragedies with police getting massacred because they weren't careful.

We don't train out police to be paranoid and twitchy for lulz. It's because in the past there were a lot of officers who got shot because they weren't careful and the public didn't like the idea of police being poorly equipped and trained.

 Blackie wrote:
In any civilized country that cop would have been arrested on the spot and jailed. Probably convicted with manslaughter or even with harsher charges.

Automatic arrest and sentencing decided without trial is pretty much the opposite of civilisation.

And failure to prosecute police for shootings is actually pretty common. What's unique in the US appears to be how frequently such shootings happen.

I really don't get why in the USA those killer cops usually walk free. It's not even a matter of protecting their own ones since those cops are getting fired anyway.

It isn't really an issue of cops protecting their own. The shootings are investigated, and they are brought before courts pretty regularly. The issue is that it rarely results in convictions, which speaks to a greater issue in society that people are unwilling to punish policemen for using deadly force on innocent people and minor criminals.

You get the police you deserve. If that passes for their training programme and the juries won't convict them when they do these things well, it'll never be fixed. Actually, maybe the former is leading to the latter. Maybe they won't convict them because they're only ollowing their training, even though said training basically boils down to shoot to kill on sight.

Probably because english isn't my own language I poorly argued before. I never meant to consider immediate sentencing of course, and I never suggested that the USA aren't civilized.

I wanted to say that in any civilized country a cop that shoots a lady in pyjama with no weapons is going to be arrested. And in circumstances like this one he will be later sentenced, after months or years since the incident happened. The fact that he refuses to talk is unacceptable too, he killed an innocent person and he cannot be at large only because he's a cop. If it's acceptable than someons shoots dead a woman that wasn't a threat and he's even free to remain silent about what happens and free I'm sorry but this behavior is not typical of civilized countries as it looks like wild wild west.

In any civilized country if a cop fears for his/her life but he/she actually made a mistake and kills someone in a scenario in which there weren't any real threats, that's murder or manslaughter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Second, there are some good reasons why. One is that little legal concept called "Reasonable Doubt". Police have a high stress job dealing with the absolute worst people in society. And by virtue of that, they are inherently putting their lives at risk. More so in certain areas than others. You do have to consider that, if you were in that same position what would you do? If you have a job where every single day you have the possibility of getting attacked and killed just because of what your job is(there are people out there who vehemently hate police), you're always going to be a little on edge.

I understand that and I don't think he shot the lady intentionally. But if you kill someone for no reason you must take responsability and pay the consequences. Otherwise a cop could murder whoever he/she likes and walks free everytime just because he/she argued for "reasonable doubt". A woman in pyjama with a phone in her hand can't be considered reasonble doubt. In the same position I can assure you, I won't shoot to a lady that clearly doesn't look as a threat. In italy we have mafia mobsters and tons of violent illegals, but no way cops would fire weapons so often like in the USA. America is a great country but it has some issues that must be fixed, this is one of them. In a scenario of real reasonable doubt I tipycally side with the police but this is outrageous and it can't be justified in any possible way.

Being a cop, especially in violent nations, is tough, I understand that. But if someone makes a mistake that person should be punished. Granting immunity to cops' murders generates backlash, makes racism grows, let people shoot first towards the police in fear to get killed by cops for no reason, and even ambushes in which cops are really murdered becomes real. If innocent people killed by cops got any justice many of those issues wouldn't even exist.

 Ouze wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?

Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?

Hey, he'd just shot an unarmed person and was still in possession of a firearm. For anyone but a police officer that would certainly put them in the bracket of "still a threat".

It's always interesting to see the difference in attitude towards certain topics between the Old World and those pesky Colonials

 Future War Cultist wrote:
You get the police you deserve. If that passes for their training programme and the juries won't convict them when they do these things well, it'll never be fixed. Actually, maybe the former is leading to the latter. Maybe they won't convict them because they're only ollowing their training, even though said training basically boils down to shoot to kill on sight.

Are we talking about the RUC again and their well documented uses of force and torture across Northern Ireland? Or how about Sergeant Lee Clegg? He not only had his murder conviction overturned for killing two car theives (after their vehicle has passed and was no longer a threat), but was then permitted to return to serve in Her Majesty's armed forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
Probably because english isn't my own language I poorly argued before. I never meant to consider immediate sentencing of course, and I never suggested that the USA aren't civilized.

I wanted to say that in any civilized country a cop that shoots a lady in pyjama with no weapons is going to be arrested. And in circumstances like this one he will be later sentenced, after months or years since the incident happened. The fact that he refuses to talk is unacceptable too, he killed an innocent person and he cannot be at large only because he's a cop. If it's acceptable than someons shoots dead a woman that wasn't a threat and he's even free to remain silent about what happens and free I'm sorry but this behavior is not typical of civilized countries as it looks like wild wild west.

In any civilized country if a cop fears for his/her life but he/she actually made a mistake and kills someone in a scenario in which there weren't any real threats, that's murder or manslaughter.

Yeah... about that...

What happens in civilized countries is that we follow a process of laws. Sometimes this process takes a while, and there are multiple steps involved to ensure that all parties have a fair hearing. Part of that right to a fair hearing is the right to silence, a right that is present in both American and European jurisprudence. Of course reasonable inferences may be drawn from that silence, but this matter is still under investigation.

If you want to discuss the "wild wild west" or "uncivilized" behavior I suggest you look at the comments calling for police officers to be jailed immediately, if not executed on the spot, or juries suffering legal sanctions for returning the wrong verdict.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?

Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?

Hey, he'd just shot an unarmed person and was still in possession of a firearm. For anyone but a police officer that would certainly put them in the bracket of "still a threat".

Hah. Well, you're not wrong.

@ Dreadclaw69

The RUC hasn't existed since 2001. The things you described are why it no longer exists. You should look to the PSNI for how we do things now.

As for Sergeant Lee Clegg, he was a soldier operating in a place that could be described as a war zone. The car thieves ran straight through a check point. For all he knew those were IRA gunmen attempting a drive by shooting. I'm not justifying what he did, but it's all about context. He was tried and convicted but it was overturned when new evidence emerged. That's how the system works. What he did is a little different to a supposedly non military cop in the us shooting an unarmed person standing right in front of them dead just because they felt scared.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


What happens in civilized countries is that we follow a process of laws.

A major component of this issue with policing in the US is that the process of law is failing. Police are being witnessed and recorded committing crimes that non-police individuals would be incarcerated for, and yet the officers are walking free. The system isn't working.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The RUC hasn't existed since 2001. The things you described are why it no longer exists. You should look to the PSNI for how we do things now.

The sound of shifting goalposts when inconvenient facts come to light. I'm well aware of the PSNI, I have family serving in that organization. I grew up with both them and the RUC on active duty where I lived. Did the people of Northern Ireland "You get the police [they] deserve." when the RUC was in existence?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
As for Sergeant Lee Clegg, he was a soldier operating in a place that could be described as a war zone. The car thieves ran straight through a check point. For all he knew those were IRA gunmen attempting a drive by shooting. I'm not justifying what he did, but it's all about context. He was tried and convicted but it was overturned when new evidence emerged. That's how the system works. What he did is a little different to a supposedly non military cop in the us shooting an unarmed person standing right in front of them dead just because they felt scared.

You mean that there is a difference between shooting an unarmed member of the public standing on the other side of a police vehicle and shooting armed members of the public when they are driving away from you? How fine a distinction are you trying to draw here, because both scenarios involve members of the public who possess no threat to the individual who pulled the trigger.

It is interesting that you claim that the system works in this instance and make excuses for these killings, but are prepared to make sweeping statements in this case.

You know, your unnecessarily hostile attitude suggests to me that you're just looking for a fight and to be honest I can't be bothered to give you one.

All I'll say is this. With the issues of race and firearms that underline American society, it's no wonder that US police go out there half expecting the first traffic stop of the day to be fatal. The narrative is, scary black people with guns are everywhere and you have to kill them before they kill you. These parts of American society are why your police are so poor, and because nothing is being done to resolve them things will continue as they are. Since America won't address these issues, they get the police they deserve.

As for Northern Ireland, we had the exact same issues, with the difference being that it was spilt along reglious and political lines. You had the unionist Protestant population largely believing that it was only a matter of time before the Catholics ended British rule and destroyed their way of life, ergo they must be repressed at all costs. That and a little bit of supremist triumphalism. And this came to be reflected in the RUC, who were sectarian scumbags to the extreme. feth me the B specials and the UVF were pretty much one and the same. Since the loyalist mentality created this situation, they got the police they deserved.

Then we had a long and bloody fight over it and now that attitude has changed. It's not perfect but we're working on correcting the mistakes of the past and that is reflected in the PSNI. Northern Ireland gets the police it deserves.

I'm typing this out on a phone that's near out of juice so apologies if I'm talking up the left.

EDIT: Actually get the police they deserve is the wrong way to put it. Police are a reflection of their societies. Ours used to be sectarian just as our wider society was sectarian, and now they're better, reflecting our better present day society that only came about as the result of decades of fighting. Your police are always frightened by the threat of people with guns, especially if they're black. You can't create better police whilst that major underlining issue is unresolved. I just hope it doesn't take another civil war to do it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
You know, your unnecessarily hostile attitude suggests to me that you're just looking for a fight and to be honest I can't be bothered to give you one.

No attitude from me. I would consider some of your remarks hostile "third word, "weird obsession"), but nothing of mine has been hostile.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
All I'll say is this. With the issues of race and firearms that underline American society, it's no wonder that US police go out there half expecting the first traffic stop of the day to be fatal. The narrative is, scary black people with guns are everywhere and you have to kill them before they kill you. These parts of American society are why your police are so poor, and because nothing is being done to resolve them things will continue as they are. Since America won't address these issues, they get the police they deserve.

So a white Australian woman was shot by a Somali-American police officer because of "scary black people"?

What is the narrative that lead to UK Police shooting James Ashley, who was naked and unarmed? Those Police were not convicted of murder or manslaughter, and continued to serve as policemen. Was Mark Duggan a "scary black [person]" when he was shot while running away from British armed police and he was not armed and the officers involved then lied about him having a firearm that was 14 foot away and over a fence?

Is that the police force that the UK deserves? One that kills the unarmed and then lies about it?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
As for Northern Ireland, we had the exact same issues, with the difference being that it was spilt along reglious and political lines. You had the unionist Protestant population largely believing that it was only a matter of time before the Catholics ended British rule and destroyed their way of life, ergo they must be repressed at all costs. That and a little bit of supremist triumphalism. And this came to be reflected in the RUC, who were sectarian scumbags to the extreme. feth me the B specials and the UVF were pretty much one and the same. Since the loyalist mentality created this situation, they got the police they deserved.

Then we had a long and bloody fight over it and now that attitude has changed. It's not perfect but we're working on correcting the mistakes of the past and that is reflected in the PSNI. Northern Ireland gets the police it deserves.

I'm typing this out on a phone that's near out of juice so apologies if I'm talking up the left.

I grew up in Northern Ireland. I am more than well aware of it's history. So the Loyalists got the police they deserved, what about the Catholics?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
EDIT: Actually get the police they deserve is the wrong way to put it. Police are a reflection of their societies. Ours used to be sectarian just as our wider society was sectarian, and now they're better, reflecting our better present day society that only came about as the result of decades of fighting. Your police are always frightened by the threat of people with guns, especially if they're black. You can't create better police whilst that major underlining issue is unresolved. I just hope it doesn't take another civil war to do it.

Talk of another US Civil War is asinine. The major issue fueling crime in the United States is the War on Drugs, and the law enforcement centered around this.

 Blackie wrote:
... Several decades ago, there were events where officers got into dangerous situations and were woefully unprepared. Some FBI agents were tailing some bank robbery suspects, got into a shootout, and several agents were killed because they were both outgunned and didn't wait for backup(at the time officers only got issued pistols and the badguys had rifles). That incident was a tipping point in terms of both equipment for officers, as well as how officers acted when faced with potential danger.

Ugh, the North Hollywood CA shootout. I worked in that Laurel Plaza shopping center... Thankfully, not working during the actual event. The police literally were barging into nearby gun shops to get AR-15s to try and level the field. This was the incident that made local police forces carry these weapons, since the bad guys had it (and body armor, too.) However, this is a bit off point...

Also, do not confuse him not making a statement meaning he is not talking. The police simply do not need to tell us what he said. Oh, he was grilled plenty by an internal investigation, but those comments are not for public view, unless the police decide to release. He is under no obligation to make any public comments, just as any other citizen would not be. i am sure at some point a statement will be released by the police - it is just that the longer it takes for them to do so, the stinkier it gets.

And, one last point... As history has already taught us about the police in America along racial lines, there is no way I can see this coming out good in the end:

Scenario #1 - Cop gets convicted and jailed - Race riots because you convict a black cop when a white woman is killed, but not when a white cop kills a black teen, etc.

Scenario #2 - Cop is not guilty - General riots over continued police brutality and unacceptable and inappropriate lethal force.

Really, does anyone else see this ending any other way beyond just waiting so long that people might forget and move onto some other national crisis???

 MDSW wrote:
And, one last point... As history has already taught us about the police in America along racial lines, there is no way I can see this coming out good in the end:

Scenario #1 - Cop gets convicted and jailed - Race riots because you convict a black cop when a white woman is killed, but not when a white cop kills a black teen, etc.

Scenario #2 - Cop is not guilty - General riots over continued police brutality and unacceptable and inappropriate lethal force.

Really, does anyone else see this ending any other way beyond just waiting so long that people might forget and move onto some other national crisis???

We will have more shooting incidents before this gets resolved, and some people will lose track of this story. The fact that the victim is Australian may help keep it fresh in people's minds even if the legal proceedings drag out, but I agree, no matter how this turns out there will be unrest.

Their best bet is to have it all resolve mid-January to late February. No one can leave their house then due to winter conditions.

A country where members of police departments EVERYWHERE can get away with murdering civilians at the rate we have in this country cannot consider itself civilized. We are becoming more barbaric in this manner, and others.

If you are offended by this statement, then you need to grow up. While I believe this country has good qualities, these types of situations are clear indications that much improvement is needed.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


What happens in civilized countries is that we follow a process of laws. Sometimes this process takes a while, and there are multiple steps involved to ensure that all parties have a fair hearing. Part of that right to a fair hearing is the right to silence, a right that is present in both American and European jurisprudence. Of course reasonable inferences may be drawn from that silence, but this matter is still under investigation.

If you want to discuss the "wild wild west" or "uncivilized" behavior I suggest you look at the comments calling for police officers to be jailed immediately, if not executed on the spot, or juries suffering legal sanctions for returning the wrong verdict.

What I meant to say is that an officer shoots down a civilian that wasn't a real threat but only beacause he heard a loud sound and the trial confirms that, that officer must be jailed. I'm not pro executions or sentences without trials of course, but if the scenario will be confirmed there's nothing that can justify that shooting in a civilized country.

The fact that he's remaining silent cannot be understood from outside, in my country he would have been questioned the same night. If you kill a civilian and refuse to tell the reason you should be put under arrest.

Even the police chief admitted "I believe the actions in question go against who we are as a department, how we train and the expectations we have for our officers", even with the matter under investigation.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-07-21/australian-woman-shot-by-dead-us-police-should-not-have-died-authorities-admit/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MDSW wrote:


Scenario #1 - Cop gets convicted and jailed - Race riots because you convict a black cop when a white woman is killed, but not when a white cop kills a black teen, etc.

Scenario #2 - Cop is not guilty - General riots over continued police brutality and unacceptable and inappropriate lethal force.

But this case could be important for both sides. Even Black Lives Matters backed up the family of the deceased woman while Blue Lives Matters activists are silent. A conviction for this cop may lead to some justice for future black people wrongly killed by the cops or even some changes in the police training. That's why I believe scenario 1 is a bit pessimistic.

Scenario 2 instead includes racial anger against immigrants, muslims and general black people since the cop is a somali. If the cop walks free I agree on what you listed, the problem that causes lots of innocents to lose their lives continues to grow.