Police kill unarmed man in Montanna

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.

**stanman**

loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

While they typically have a bullet vest on most cops don't wear a stab plate as it's very restrictive to their movement during standard duties. I've worn a stab plate and they are incredibly annoying and uncomfortable to use for an extended period. A lot of police also don't carry batons here, they get in and out of patrol cars all day long and they become an issue. Officers can injure themselves entering or leaving vehicles. Some departments allow for extendable spring loaded batons, but many don't given how brutal of an effect they have on people compared to a standard wooden baton or billy club. In the US they are also seen a lot more negatively as it's a symbol of oppression especially with minorities. (Rodney King incident)

Most cops in the suburbs are typically one per car. In the cities they may have two cops per car or per street beat. This can create a lot of potential stresses in a situation where you are faced with multiple individuals, you have to wait for additional back up and if you are physically challenged before other officers arrive you can quickly find yourself in a situation where you need to draw your gun.

If you confront somebody in situation two where he's aggressive and outweighs and outsizes you by a considerable amount and not standing down I think most would resort to drawing a weapon. While many people like to think that somebody without a knife or a gun is "unarmed", fists and feet are a serious weapon and can in fact kill somebody quite easily. Even against an untrained fighter all it takes is for somebody to land a lucky blow that knocks you out or just renders you senseless enough they can easily strangle you, stab you, shoot you, or whatever else they need to do to make sure you die and you are defenseless.

**loki old fart**

CptJake wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?

(not all cops have a partner....)

So it's a procedural problem then. ?

**djones520**

loki old fart wrote:
CptJake wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?

(not all cops have a partner....)

So it's a procedural problem then. ?

A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.

**stanman**

Population density is a huge factor. Suburbs are quite spread out and most have a much lower rate of violent crime than the major cities so it makes a lot of sense to spread the available police out as the majority of their duties they don't need a second officer for. Most of their shifts are spent writing tickets, responding to low level non-threatening calls. When they have something like a accident, fight, or domestic disturbance they usually show up with several cars and officers together.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.

Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?

I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner

**djones520**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.

Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?

I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner

Meth is freakin scary... I've heard stories of Methheads taking multiple bullets, and not even being phased.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.

Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?

I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner

The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.

Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?

I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner

The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.

It's not the location... seriously, you can make meths in a small can.

It's procuring the ingredients.

Are your Sudafeds behind the counter?

**paulson games**

I saw a meth head fight off eight cops then run almost an entire city block all while he had a compound fracture in his leg and the bone was sticking clear out of his thigh. It didn't even phase him which was pretty scary. He ran into the street and was hit by an oncoming car which finally stopped him, he didn't die but was seriously messed up and still kept fighting with the police and EMTs until they injected him with something to knock him out.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.

Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?

I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner

The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.

It's not the location... seriously, you can make meths in a small can.

It's procuring the ingredients.

Are your Sudafeds behind the counter?

You can make it in a small can but that's not very efficient. You could make a personal stash like that but enough to supply a major drug problem in a town/city? Not likely. The chemicals are harder to come by here than in the US. Plus you need people who are actually semi-qualified in chemistry to make it if you want it to be any good. Then we've already got easy access to alternatives, like cocaine. So we never really built a market for meth.

This BBC article covers it quite well:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23453028

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Here we go again. UK LEO vs US LEO
At stake the 2nd Amendment
Does a LEO who feels imminent danger is justified in shooting the individual who, to the LEO, made a move as if reaching for a weapon.

Also, at the risk of me sounding logical... I do have to wonder if the UK has the same kind of Meth problem that a place like Montana (or the US in general) does?

I know I've talked about some of my police officer type friends in the past, and every single one of them has flat out said, "Do not feth with meth" as each one has either directly dealt with someone on it, or had someone of their co-workers dealt with it in a less than successful manner

The UK doesn't have as big a problem with Meth as the US. Partly this is due to there not really being places to make it. We don't have deserts to hide an RV lab in etc.

It's not the location... seriously, you can make meths in a small can.

It's procuring the ingredients.

Are your Sudafeds behind the counter?

You can make it in a small can but that's not very efficient. You could make a personal stash like that but enough to supply a major drug problem in a town/city? Not likely. The chemicals are harder to come by here than in the US. Plus you need people who are actually semi-qualified in chemistry to make it if you want it to be any good. Then we've already got easy access to alternatives, like cocaine. So we never really built a market for meth.

This BBC article covers it quite well:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23453028

Thanks for the link.

Don't wanna drag the discussion off track anymore than it already is...

**stanman**

Meth doesn't need to be made in some remote area, most of it is cooked in people's basements, living rooms, or sheds in some areas it's so prolific that in order to rent out apartments it's required by the county that they undergo a set of chemical tests to make sure there's no toxic reside from former renters.

In rural areas it's particularly hard to spot because they just go to remote stretches of roads or into farm fields where they can see any potential cops miles away. People in those areas are also a lot more tight knit than people in the city so it's much harder to get the drop on the cooks as its obvious when there's somebody from outside the group.

**daedalus**

Torga_DW wrote:

Halle Berry wrote: the one-drop theory.

I'm... not sure what that is, but something makes me feel like it's something that cannot be properly evaluated by the scientific method.

**Jihadin**

daedalus wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:

Halle Berry wrote: the one-drop theory.

I'm... not sure what that is, but something makes me feel like it's something that cannot be properly evaluated by the scientific method.

Ignore it

On topic

Just an example for the UKer's and pray this damn thing DOESN'T hits your street. I saw some around Ft Bragg, Ft Campbell, Ft Drum, well Hell quite a few places (users or suspected users)

Edit
Missed a word

**daedalus**

Jihadin wrote:

Ignore it

Fair enough.

Just an example for the UKer's and pray this damn thing DOESN'T hits your street. I saw some around Ft Bragg, Ft Campbell, Ft Drum, well Hell quite a few places (users or suspected users)

Edit
Missed a word

a
I don't know what you think your seeing, but the thing on the right is a zombie, and not one of the easy to kill shambling slow ones. OH GOD IS IT STILL AROUND?! YOU NEED FIRE!

**Jihadin**

Before and after pics of a Meth user

Though in the after pic if he got hold of some Bath Salt then we can scream ZOMBIE

**Goliath**

daedalus wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:

Halle Berry wrote: the one-drop theory.

I'm... not sure what that is, but something makes me feel like it's something that cannot be properly evaluated by the scientific method.

It's the theory that a single drop of black blood makes a person black, so even if your entire family is white, if your great great great great great great great great great grandfather is black, then you're black. It was used to judge whether a person qualified as black for the purposes of Jim Crow laws and other such thingss

**Jihadin**

Goliath wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:

Halle Berry wrote: the one-drop theory.

I'm... not sure what that is, but something makes me feel like it's something that cannot be properly evaluated by the scientific method.
It's the theory that a single drop of black blood makes a person black, so even if your entire family is white, if your great great great great great great great great great grandfather is black, then you're black. It was used to judge whether a person qualified as black for the purposes of Jim Crow laws and other such thingss

Episode of MASH centered on that way the hell back

**daedalus**

Must have been during the "Sissy boy Alan Alda" days...

**DarkLink**

Dronze wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Dronze wrote:
Unless that officer can verify, or at least have reasonable grounds to assume, that this individual was armed, why is he breaking leather?

Because your line of thinking would just result in more dead police officers.

and notably fewer civilian deaths. Let's face it, cops aren't long on being granted trust, and rightly so, given the long list of abuses of power that seem to be racking up.

Perceived abuses of power by monday morning quarterbackers who know jack all about what they're talking about. Distinct difference there. Case in point: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/08/heres-what-happened-after-black-lives-matter-protester-underwent-use-of-force-scenarios-with-cops/

Turns out use of force scenarios are a lot more difficult and complicated than most people seem to understand.

**A Town Called Malus**

daedalus wrote:
Must have been during the "Sissy boy Alan Alda" days...

Was actually one of the earlier episodes with Trapper and Henry Blake. Wounded soldier didn't want "dark" blood. So they dye his skin darker as he sleeps then pretend they gave him "dark" blood.

Before hitting him right in the racism with the story (though not true, is an urban myth) that a doctor who helped develop the method of storing blood plasma bled to death because he was refused treatment in a segregated hospital because he was black.

Good episode

**Jihadin**

Nurse Ginger Ballis (Odessa Cleveland)

NOTE: I am unsure of the spelling of Ginger’s last name. Hawkeye said it at the end of “Dear Dad” and the closed captioning on the DVD gave the spelling as Ballis while other sources use Bayliss.

During the first two seasons, Ginger was one of the most recognizable faces in the background scenes of M*A*S*H. Odessa Cleveland is credited in eleven episodes of Season One and eight episodes of Season Two, plus one additional episode in Season Three. At the end of “M*A*S*H – The Pilot,” when the P.A. announces that “the following personnel are assigned to the 4077th surgical hospital,” Odessa Cleveland’s name is listed. And at the end of “Dear Dad,” Hawkeye wishes his father a Merry Christmas from everyone at the camp, including Ginger. However, her role was never as significant as other supporting characters of the early years.

She was seen dancing with Spearchucker at the raffle party in “M*A*S*H – The Pilot” and a game of strip dominoes between her and Spearchucker in “Chief Surgeon Who?” is interrupted by General Barker, who asks her if everybody at the 4077th is crazy. Her response? “Everybody who’s sane is, sir.” Hawkeye asked her to check on a patient in “Bananas, Crackers, and Nuts” because he is worried about the patient’s breathing. She is shocked to discover that the patient is a dog.

In “Major Fred C. Dobbs,” Frank erupts at Ginger, calling her useless and an incompetent bungler. His harsh words reduce her to tears. After surgery, Hawkeye and Trapper comfort her and then proceed to prank Frank without mercy. She assists Henry during surgery in “5 O’Clock Charlie” and he asks what number of yards she has down for 5 O’Clock Charlie that day. When she replies thirty-two and a half, he laughs, and refuses to disclose his own number. It is a very nice scene between the two.
Donnie has written in to explain that in “5 O’Clock Charlie,” Henry does not refer to Ginger as Richardson, he is asking her for a Richardson retractor, a surgical instrument that comes in two different sizes. Because Henry doesn’t specify the size he wants, Ginger asks “Big or little?”

Perhaps her finest moment came in “Dear Dad… Three.” Early in the episode, after Hawkeye sends her for more plasma, a soldier asks Hawkeye to make sure he doesn’t get “darkie” blood. Later, Hawkeye and Trapper paint the soldier’s face and hands with tincture of iodine. When Ginger goes to check on him, she compliments him on passing for white, which prompts him to start yelling at her. She yells right back, declaring that she is a lieutenant and he had better watch his mouth. After Hawkeye and Trapper tell the soldier about the man who discovered plasma dying because a whites only hospital wouldn’t let him in (the story is false) the remorseful soldier thanks Hawkeye for giving him a lot to think about, and then salutes Ginger.

She was yelled at by Margaret in “Hot Lips and Empty Arms,” but by that time her role was reduced to a scene or two in the O.R. and after the Season Three episode “O.R.” the character was never seen again.

The episode we're talking

**NuggzTheNinja**

stanman wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

While they typically have a bullet vest on most cops don't wear a stab plate as it's very restrictive to their movement during standard duties. I've worn a stab plate and they are incredibly annoying and uncomfortable to use for an extended period. A lot of police also don't carry batons here, they get in and out of patrol cars all day long and they become an issue. Officers can injure themselves entering or leaving vehicles. Some departments allow for extendable spring loaded batons, but many don't given how brutal of an effect they have on people compared to a standard wooden baton or billy club. In the US they are also seen a lot more negatively as it's a symbol of oppression especially with minorities. (Rodney King incident)

Most cops in the suburbs are typically one per car. In the cities they may have two cops per car or per street beat. This can create a lot of potential stresses in a situation where you are faced with multiple individuals, you have to wait for additional back up and if you are physically challenged before other officers arrive you can quickly find yourself in a situation where you need to draw your gun.

If you confront somebody in situation two where he's aggressive and outweighs and outsizes you by a considerable amount and not standing down I think most would resort to drawing a weapon. While many people like to think that somebody without a knife or a gun is "unarmed", fists and feet are a serious weapon and can in fact kill somebody quite easily. Even against an untrained fighter all it takes is for somebody to land a lucky blow that knocks you out or just renders you senseless enough they can easily strangle you, stab you, shoot you, or whatever else they need to do to make sure you die and you are defenseless.

The answer to at least one of those scenarios:

I hear what you're saying, but as someone with a background dealing with these situations it seems like the scenarios were stacked heavily. Give someone a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. If all you give the guy is a handgun, he's probably going to use it to protect himself. Less-than-lethal is very popular these days for good reason. The trick is getting these meatheaded morons to use the systems properly.

**Torga_DW**

Tasers aren't a magic solution. Aside from not always working on certain people, they can also kill. We still get incidents here in australia of tasers killing people.

This is before you start putting drugs (and i'm thinking meth and pcp here) into the equation. I would not trust a taser to protect me in that situation.

**Hordini**

I'm not against tasers, but as stated, they do have disadvantages. In addition to what Torga_DW mentioned, depending on the model, some of them have a very short range (even shorter than that of pistols), only one shot, and take longer to reload.

If you're up against multiple assailants, particularly if you are on your own, a taser is not ideal.

**Jihadin**

All depends on what the LEO feels the situation warrants what tool to meet the threat. By the time the situation resolves its already to late. The LEO made the call which to him/her is the right call. What's question is the action by the "individual" to justify the use of whatever force the LEO decides. In this case the Meth Head made a move indicating a reaction of "OH CRAP HE'S GOT A GUN" and LEO responded to the possible threat. Humans react to actions that are threatening and will adjust their posture

**stanman**

Jihadin wrote:
All depends on what the LEO feels the situation warrants what tool to meet the threat. By the time the situation resolves its already to late. The LEO made the call which to him/her is the right call. What's question is the action by the "individual" to justify the use of whatever force the LEO decides. In this case the Meth Head made a move indicating a reaction of "OH CRAP HE'S GOT A GUN" and LEO responded to the possible threat. Humans react to actions that are threatening and will adjust their posture

I agree.

What I find perplexing is that this in many ways is a mirror of the situation with the 12 year old kid who was shot. Both were reaching into their waistband out of view of the officer, forcing the officer to make a very quick judgement call on very limited information and in a situation what they perceived it as life threatening action. Cop that shot the kid gets raked over the coals by the media, yet cop that shoots a hispanic/mexican methhead isn't met with the same outrage.

In the scenario with the kid the officers entered into the situation with information (incorrectly) suggesting that the suspect was armed, and the kid did have what appeared to be a weapon. This guy was also shot but without any reports or sightings of a weapon, the cop responded to the movements that he saw as reaching for a weapon, much like the kids movements. One cop is upheld as making the right call the other is vilified because of the age and race of the victim.

It doesn't matter that one was a kid and one was an adult, bullets kill the same regardless of the shooters age.

Tasers are certainly not a one size fits all option. Tasers have killed people, there are reliability issues with them, they are often defeated by the clothing of the target. Even at short range can be very inaccurate. If you have only one shot with a taser there's a high likelyhood that if you miss with that shot your target will be able to close that distance before you can draw a pistol or baton. If you are drawing a back up weapon at least one hand is occupied leaving you at a distinct disadvantage when defending yourself from a punch or being tackled etc. People armed with a knife can close a distance of 10-15ft and inflict a lethal wound faster than the time it takes to unholster and train weapon. That 10-15ft distance is what tasers typically function at, and you would not have proper time to react when switching out for a secondary weapon.

**Torga_DW**

It wasn't necessarily the age and race that makes the difference, but the use of drugs and the presence of associates + vehicle.

**Hordini**

If a police officer has his weapon out, if you haven't realized it before that moment, it's time to start complying immediately. "Hands up" or "hands on the dash" or "get on the ground" or whatever the officer says doesn't mean "reach for your waistband."

**Jihadin**

I've done check points in Iraq. I want to see all hands of everybody in the vehicle as I approach. If I see hands go down then I back off and half raise my weapon yelling hands up.