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.
Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
Car doors do not make good shields from bullets, unless they are kevlar reinforced.
A moment longer?
That is a great point, and probably applies to everything in life, at least before an event is actually occurring. How many 'moments' should he have to keep adding in the hope that 'One more and he may finally comply'?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
I blame hollywood for spreading the idea that you can use a car door as a shield.
That's 5.56 but in reality even a 22 will go through a car door as if it's not there, unless it hits the lock mechanism it's just 2 sheets of thin sheet metal and some plastic.
Some police departs do have ballistic plates in the doors as CptJake said but I think that's pretty damn rare.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/14 10:42:34
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I think the "biggest" benefit, and I use that lightly, of hiding behind a door is to make it just a little bit harder for someone to actually aim at you. But if the bad guy "sprays & prays" that really doesn't make any difference at all.
Car doors do not make good shields from bullets, unless they are kevlar reinforced.
A moment longer?
That is a great point, and probably applies to everything in life, at least before an event is actually occurring. How many 'moments' should he have to keep adding in the hope that 'One more and he may finally comply'?
Oh right, car doors as a shield are a terrible choice. I have never been linked a video on this forum where a police officer uses a car door as a shield. Absolutely no benefit to this, they might as well stand in the open. It has never saved lives. Those cops on those videos should probably be taught proper police tactics.
Also, yes a moment longer. Give the person the benefit of the doubt. As for how many moments, it should probably be as many as it takes to make sure the person is a threat and to handle the situation so that it does not put an entire car full of people at risk of being shot by the police officer. Can you explain to me how he made the right decision by endangering the lives of the other people in the car by shooting a man that he only suspected of having a weapon?
Why is it that when a cop is presented with a situation where a person is not following directions and acting strange, they do not fall back and call for backup. Instead, we "justify" them pulling a weapon and shooting a civilian?
AduroT wrote: Even if he Does pull a gun, give him another few moments to make sure it's not just some realistic toy.
Not sure if serious or not...
I played this game once already
In compliance with Federal Laws
Of course we military) have this issue to
Actual weapons
Its not like your the one rolling the dice on your life to take time to see if its real or not. Another factor was "Meth Head" so he might have the crazed look.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.
That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.
I just have no sympathy for him.
Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.
Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.
An action being justified does not necessarily mean the situation was just or that justice was done, depending on perspective.
On one hand you have an officer who did everything, seemingly anyway, by the book and in accordance with police protocol. He did not go in to this situation with malicious intent, wanting to harm someone just for the sake of harming them. He didn't go into that situation wanting to shoot that man. Indeed, from what we can see of his reaction, he was horrified by it and distraught. He took an innocent man's life, and he seemed to feel an immense amount of sadness for it. That being said, the officer also did everything as he was instructed to do, taught to do. Yes, the man who died was no threat; however, the officer did not know he wasn't reaching for a gun. The officer warned the man multiple times to step away from the car and to get his hands up, but the man refused and continued to reach into the vehicle. What if it was a rifle? Should he let it be drawn, risk no only his life but the lives of others. Its a tough call, one I would never want to make, but it would seem his training told him to fire, so his action was justified. That does not, however, mean justice was done. It wasn't: the officer was put in an impossible situation which lead to him being at least pushed to take the life of an innocent man, something that he has to live with the rest of his life. Not showing at least some degree of sympathy for the officer here seems a bit callous to me.
For the man who died? No. He was unarmed and his death was needless. Situations, some beyond his control, many entirely within, led to him being killed when he certainly didn't deserve it. He didn't need to die, but he did. Justice wasn't done by him, but throwing an innocent, and the police officer is innocent in that he did everything by the book and he had no malicious intent, in jail for his death isn't justice either.
Sometimes you just have gakky situations. It's just how it goes.
I agree with Stonebeard here....
Unfortunately there definitely seem to be a few people who take a "feth the police" stance, no matter what the situation is, if a cop kills an "innocent" person. Wasn't there a blurb in the OP about how the autopsy showed certain drugs in the dude's system? Clearly, if he's on drugs (even if the police don't know it at the time) that creates a volatile situation that is only made worse by actions that run contrary to police orders.
CptJake wrote: He did call for backup. That is why backup arrives so quickly.
But don't let things like facts color your opinion.
Oh yeah, can you point me to this information? Because in the original article it doesn't even mention calling for backup. Do you have information I do not have? Did he attempt to call reinforcements before he opened fire on the vehicle full of unarmed civilians?
Could you at least address some of the points I am making and maybe follow up with some sources for the information you are giving out? Let us see these facts you speak of.
Dreadwinter wrote: Oh right, car doors as a shield are a terrible choice. I have never been linked a video on this forum where a police officer uses a car door as a shield. Absolutely no benefit to this, they might as well stand in the open. It has never saved lives. Those cops on those videos should probably be taught proper police tactics.
But to what end would that matter as far as prosecuting the officer goes? Whether or not the car door is good or bad cover is immaterial (though I would say that it would be better than air), what matters as far as leading to a prosecution is whether or not he (the officer) acted in a criminal fashion. Now, you concede that he at least did not have criminal intent. If you now concede, which you seem to be doing, that his training was a fault, how can we the government, or us for that matter, reasonably punish him? That's the crux of the matter. The government cannot reasonably punish a man who meant no harm and who did as said government instructed them to do. It wouldn't be, as previously pointed out, justice.
Also, yes a moment longer. Give the person the benefit of the doubt. As for how many moments, it should probably be as many as it takes to make sure the person is a threat and to handle the situation so that it does not put an entire car full of people at risk of being shot by the police officer. Can you explain to me how he made the right decision by endangering the lives of the other people in the car by shooting a man that he only suspected of having a weapon?
I might have missed it, but can you point out where it says the can was full of people. I'm not trying to be condescending here, I actually would like to see it if it exists.
Why is it that when a cop is presented with a situation where a person is not following directions and acting strange, they do not fall back and call for backup. Instead, we "justify" them pulling a weapon and shooting a civilian?
I think that, in this situation anyway, it's somewhat more complex. The officer is charged with defending the populace as a whole and himself more than any singular individual, so, if the man was indeed reaching for a weapon, falling back would present itself with problems. If the man does reach for a gun, doesn't matter much what type, in falling back the officer has given that man full reign to get just as much cover as him, potentially starting a firefight in a populated area. What if he gets killed? What if a stray shot hits a child? A mother? A father? What if, after backup is called (which we know happened at some point), a different officer is shot and killed? What if he is killed and the man is now mobile? There are a huge number of issues for the officer to consider. Considering the circumstances (the man being considered likely to be armed, chemically dependent, unresponsive to police demands and reaching into a location that the officer cannot see), the officers action were understandable, and probably justified. Of course, that doesn't mean that the man deserved death any less, but it also doesn't mean that the officers life should be ruined either. Perhaps instead of throwing blame onto a single person we look at the wider issues and try to solve those, whatever they might be?
Dreadwinter wrote: Oh right, car doors as a shield are a terrible choice. I have never been linked a video on this forum where a police officer uses a car door as a shield. Absolutely no benefit to this, they might as well stand in the open. It has never saved lives. Those cops on those videos should probably be taught proper police tactics.
But to what end would that matter as far as prosecuting the officer goes? Whether or not the car door is good or bad cover is immaterial (though I would say that it would be better than air), what matters as far as leading to a prosecution is whether or not he (the officer) acted in a criminal fashion. Now, you concede that he at least did not have criminal intent. If you now concede, which you seem to be doing, that his training was a fault, how can we the government, or us for that matter, reasonably punish him? That's the crux of the matter. The government cannot reasonably punish a man who meant no harm and who did as said government instructed them to do. It wouldn't be, as previously pointed out, justice.
It would have mattered in that he could have found a peaceful end to the situation. Thus never having to even be put in to this situation. But alas, he made his choice. He wanted to make it home to his kid and these nonviolent people were standing between him and his son. As far as his police training, he already made it clear in the article that his motivation was pure fear. Fear that he would not make it home to his family. Which lead to the death of an innocent man.
From Article wrote:"I knew in that moment, which later was determined to be untrue, but I knew in that moment that he was reaching for a gun," Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."
Dreadwinter wrote: Also, yes a moment longer. Give the person the benefit of the doubt. As for how many moments, it should probably be as many as it takes to make sure the person is a threat and to handle the situation so that it does not put an entire car full of people at risk of being shot by the police officer. Can you explain to me how he made the right decision by endangering the lives of the other people in the car by shooting a man that he only suspected of having a weapon?
I might have missed it, but can you point out where it says the can was full of people. I'm not trying to be condescending here, I actually would like to see it if it exists.
Sure thing. No problems providing information. Here is the video of the shooting, it was annoying to find through all of the videos of the breakdown. You can clearly see multiple people in the vehicle.
From Article wrote:Police video showed Morrison repeatedly ordered Ramirez and other occupants of the vehicle to raise their hands. Ramirez's actions were largely obscured in the video. But Morrison said Ramirez dropped his left hand to his side — out of the officer's view — and "started to jiggle it up and down" just before he was shot.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why is it that when a cop is presented with a situation where a person is not following directions and acting strange, they do not fall back and call for backup. Instead, we "justify" them pulling a weapon and shooting a civilian?
I think that, in this situation anyway, it's somewhat more complex. The officer is charged with defending the populace as a whole and himself more than any singular individual, so, if the man was indeed reaching for a weapon, falling back would present itself with problems. If the man does reach for a gun, doesn't matter much what type, in falling back the officer has given that man full reign to get just as much cover as him, potentially starting a firefight in a populated area. What if he gets killed? What if a stray shot hits a child? A mother? A father? What if, after backup is called (which we know happened at some point), a different officer is shot and killed? What if he is killed and the man is now mobile? There are a huge number of issues for the officer to consider. Considering the circumstances (the man being considered likely to be armed, chemically dependent, unresponsive to police demands and reaching into a location that the officer cannot see), the officers action were understandable, and probably justified. Of course, that doesn't mean that the man deserved death any less, but it also doesn't mean that the officers life should be ruined either. Perhaps instead of throwing blame onto a single person we look at the wider issues and try to solve those, whatever they might be?
As posted earlier, his motivations were not the safety of others, but instead his own selfishness. If I were to guess, that is probably the reason he shot and killed the other innocent man in 2013. A man who was unarmed, outnumbered, and had been tazered. This man is no hero. He does not deserve to be on the streets. He does not protect people.
CptJake wrote: Watch the video of the shooting, back up comes in before the video ends (and the video is only about 4:26 long).
Fair enough, in the video he had called backup and they were clearly moments away. Sadly he did not move back and wait for the backup that was coming.
Maybe the LEO was influence by what he was seeing on media of cop assassinations and attempted cop assassination lately.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
I'm glad to see, though, that in your expert hindsight you can attest that he should have backed away.
Please, elaborate. I would like your explanation.
What explanation is needed? Dude was hardly an "innocent." High as balls on meth and he didn't comply with the LEOs orders to put his hands up. And you especially don't reach for your waistband.
But again, I am enjoying all your armchair hindsight explanations and rationalizations.
I'm glad to see, though, that in your expert hindsight you can attest that he should have backed away.
Please, elaborate. I would like your explanation.
What explanation is needed? Dude was hardly an "innocent." High as balls on meth and he didn't comply with the LEOs orders to put his hands up. And you especially don't reach for your waistband.
But again, I am enjoying all your armchair hindsight explanations and rationalizations.
I dunno, an explanation on your reasoning as to why this person was deserving of being shot. Despite making no aggressive moves towards the officer and having no weapon in which to harm him with.
You do not have to explain yourself. That would be on par for how this thread is going.
I dunno, an explanation on your reasoning as to why this person was deserving of being shot.
Well I never made that claim, now did I? I said he wasn't innocent. Which he wasn't.
Despite making no aggressive moves towards the officer and having no weapon in which to harm him with.
Reaching for your waist after the LEO instructs you to put your hands up is considered an aggressive move. It's lovely to have the hindsight in which to judge the fact that he didn't have a weapon.
You do not have to explain yourself. That would be on par for how this thread is going.
Despite your rather demanding comments, I'm fully aware that I don't.
I dunno, an explanation on your reasoning as to why this person was deserving of being shot.
Well I never made that claim, now did I? I said he wasn't innocent. Which he wasn't.
Why are you trying to argue that? The claim of innocence was over his deserving to be shot or not. Of course he was not innocent, he had drugs on him and had been pulled over for one reason or another. Please, stop trying to derail this argument in to something that was never implied.
Dreadwinter wrote: Despite making no aggressive moves towards the officer and having no weapon in which to harm him with.
Reaching for your waist after the LEO instructs you to put your hands up is considered an aggressive move. It's lovely to have the hindsight in which to judge the fact that he didn't have a weapon.
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever. You are implying that because I am looking back on a situation that I have no right to question whether or not it was handled correctly. If that is how this is going, we need to stop arguing over Obamacare. The law was passed and we need to stop using our hindsight on it. Armchair politicians and such. Who needs opinions?
It would have mattered in that he could have found a peaceful end to the situation. Thus never having to even be put in to this situation. But alas, he made his choice. He wanted to make it home to his kid and these nonviolent people were standing between him and his son. As far as his police training, he already made it clear in the article that his motivation was pure fear. Fear that he would not make it home to his family. Which lead to the death of an innocent man.
You're right. It wasn't implied. You said it directly.
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever. You are implying that because I am looking back on a situation that I have no right to question whether or not it was handled correctly. If that is how this is going, we need to stop arguing over Obamacare. The law was passed and we need to stop using our hindsight on it. Armchair politicians and such. Who needs opinions?
.
I'm saying you're wrong and that it was handled correctly, for the situation at hand. In the moment, snap decisions have to be made. He made an appropriate decision given the situation. The jury agreed. Comparing this to Obamacare, or any piece of legislation is, quite frankly, a little silly.
I know, right? I even said please when I asked you to explain your reasoning. I am a monster.
I'd have gone with a different word, but If that's what you prefer, then sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/14 21:06:41
It would have mattered in that he could have found a peaceful end to the situation. Thus never having to even be put in to this situation. But alas, he made his choice. He wanted to make it home to his kid and these nonviolent people were standing between him and his son. As far as his police training, he already made it clear in the article that his motivation was pure fear. Fear that he would not make it home to his family. Which lead to the death of an innocent man.
You're right. It wasn't implied. You said it directly.
How does that go? Innocent until proven guilty? Or we just fine with going Judge Dredd these days?
After all of that, you throw that out as your last resort argument?
I actually referred to him as a civilian instead of an innocent for most of my time posting in here because I expected this sort of reaction. Thanks for not letting me down!
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever. You are implying that because I am looking back on a situation that I have no right to question whether or not it was handled correctly. If that is how this is going, we need to stop arguing over Obamacare. The law was passed and we need to stop using our hindsight on it. Armchair politicians and such. Who needs opinions?
.
I'm saying you're wrong and that it was handled correctly, for the situation at hand. In the moment, snap decisions have to be made. He made an appropriate decision given the situation. The jury agreed. Comparing this to Obamacare, or any piece of legislation is, quite frankly, a little silly.
Good thing I did not do that! Instead I compared your argument for how hindsight is a terrible thing. Reading comprehension for the win!
How does that go? Innocent until proven guilty? Or we just fine with going Judge Dredd these days?
He was guilty of being a POS meth head who was high to such an extent that the ME said the amount of it in his system would have killed all but the heaviest users.
He was guilty of not complying with the LEO when he told him, on multiple occasions, to put his hands up. It's important to note that the other occupants of the car DID comply.
He was guilty of making an aggressive action by reaching towards his pants while failing to comply with the LEO that directly led to him being shot.
After all of that, you throw that out as your last resort argument?
Hardly a last resort. I think your argument as a whole is full of hindsight judgement that makes it really easy for you to armchair quarterback the situation. The reality is that the LEO simply did not have that luxury in real time in the field. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that is curious to me.
I actually referred to him as a civilian instead of an innocent for most of my time posting in here because I expected this sort of reaction. Thanks for not letting me down!
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever.
You're wrong here. The jury is specifically told to not use hindsight and the cop's lawyer has to show the cop AT THE TIME had reason to believe he was in danger and the use of force was in his mind justified. Or more accurately, the prosecutor had to prove that was not the case.
Dreadwinter wrote: Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
The Officer had options. He chose the wrong one.
The person who had options and consistently chose the wrong ones was the dude who got shot. That dude chose to do drugs and get high. That dude chose not to comply with the officer's instructions, fidget and mess with his waistband instead of putting his hands up. That dude made enough bad choices that it cost him his life.
The fact that he was unarmed doesn't matter. Being unarmed doesn't mean you're not dangerous and doesn't mean you can't be lawfully shot. I, as a civilian, can legally defend myself with lethal force against an unarmed man. The noncompliance and suspicious/dangerous movements created a reasonable fear of imminent harm and justified the officer's action of shooting him. If the legal requirements are met that make it a lawful shoot then it's a lawful shoot regardless of personal opinions.
Circumstances matter, laws matter. If the media took the time to actually explain what happened and what the laws are that govern those scenarios there would be less confusion and fewer people pushing emotional arguments that have no bearing on the legal process. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc. each time the media, politicians and people with an agenda hype the emotional narrative while ignoring the important fact that when people die as a result of lawful actions there's no reason to prosecute somebody for it because no laws were broken.
Everything is viewed in hindsight. That is how time works. You don't get to live in a moment forever.
You're wrong here. The jury is specifically told to not use hindsight and the cop's lawyer has to show the cop AT THE TIME had reason to believe he was in danger and the use of force was in his mind justified. Or more accurately, the prosecutor had to prove that was not the case.
So, looking in to the past at this situation, how is that not hindsight? Also, how do you tell somebody not to use hindsight when looking in to a situation in the past. That just seems absurd.
Dreadwinter wrote: Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
The Officer had options. He chose the wrong one.
The person who had options and consistently chose the wrong ones was the dude who got shot. That dude chose to do drugs and get high. That dude chose not to comply with the officer's instructions, fidget and mess with his waistband instead of putting his hands up. That dude made enough bad choices that it cost him his life.
The fact that he was unarmed doesn't matter. Being unarmed doesn't mean you're not dangerous and doesn't mean you can't be lawfully shot. I, as a civilian, can legally defend myself with lethal force against an unarmed man. The noncompliance and suspicious/dangerous movements created a reasonable fear of imminent harm and justified the officer's action of shooting him. If the legal requirements are met that make it a lawful shoot then it's a lawful shoot regardless of personal opinions.
Circumstances matter, laws matter. If the media took the time to actually explain what happened and what the laws are that govern those scenarios there would be less confusion and fewer people pushing emotional arguments that have no bearing on the legal process. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc. each time the media, politicians and people with an agenda hype the emotional narrative while ignoring the important fact that when people die as a result of lawful actions there's no reason to prosecute somebody for it because no laws were broken.
Oh boy, I can almost copy and paste parts of your past to refute your claims.
First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.
As far as circumstances and laws, I decided to ask my friend who works for St. Louis Metro as to how these high intensity situations are handled. I have shown him the video and his first reaction was "Wow, this officer has jumped the gun." According to him, it goes against pretty much everything you are told as an officer to shoot before you verify a threat. To verify a perceived threat, it is heavily implied that an officer needs to see a weapon before he may open fire on a target. To quote him, "You have to see the weapon, unless you are a derp." Even more so, he said that firing in to a car of 4 people is incredibly reckless and dangerous and he was shocked the man had a job after the first shooting he was involved with. But hey, the man was on drugs. He deserved it, right?
Dreadwinter wrote: Yeah, that is a gak situation you describe. I completely agree, the cop had no intention of going in to that situation and killing a person. That would be insane and no, I am not being sarcastic. But, when he was put in the situation where he thought it was his life or another's life, even though the only threat was the one in his mind, he immediately disregarded any sort of peaceful resolution (protect and serve, right?) and jumped straight to eliminating the threat by means of deadly force.
I mean, he could have retreated to his vehicle and used his door as a shield, eliminating risk to himself by not risking the lives of others. He could have taken just a moment longer for the person to comply. But instead, he pulled his weapon and fired on the person sitting in a vehicle full of people, disregarding the persons life as well as those of the other people in the vehicle.
The Officer had options. He chose the wrong one.
Prestor Jon wrote: [The person who had options and consistently chose the wrong ones was the dude who got shot. That dude chose to do drugs and get high. That dude chose not to comply with the officer's instructions, fidget and mess with his waistband instead of putting his hands up. That dude made enough bad choices that it cost him his life.
The fact that he was unarmed doesn't matter. Being unarmed doesn't mean you're not dangerous and doesn't mean you can't be lawfully shot. I, as a civilian, can legally defend myself with lethal force against an unarmed man. The noncompliance and suspicious/dangerous movements created a reasonable fear of imminent harm and justified the officer's action of shooting him. If the legal requirements are met that make it a lawful shoot then it's a lawful shoot regardless of personal opinions.
Circumstances matter, laws matter. If the media took the time to actually explain what happened and what the laws are that govern those scenarios there would be less confusion and fewer people pushing emotional arguments that have no bearing on the legal process. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc. each time the media, politicians and people with an agenda hype the emotional narrative while ignoring the important fact that when people die as a result of lawful actions there's no reason to prosecute somebody for it because no laws were broken.
Dreadwinter wrote: Oh boy, I can almost copy and paste parts of your past to refute your claims.
First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.
As far as circumstances and laws, I decided to ask my friend who works for St. Louis Metro as to how these high intensity situations are handled. I have shown him the video and his first reaction was "Wow, this officer has jumped the gun." According to him, it goes against pretty much everything you are told as an officer to shoot before you verify a threat. To verify a perceived threat, it is heavily implied that an officer needs to see a weapon before he may open fire on a target. To quote him, "You have to see the weapon, unless you are a derp." Even more so, he said that firing in to a car of 4 people is incredibly reckless and dangerous and he was shocked the man had a job after the first shooting he was involved with. But hey, the man was on drugs. He deserved it, right?
At what point did I state that the man was dangerous because he was on drugs? I didn't. I said he chose to abuse drugs which is factually supported by the coroner's report and certainly played a role in his inability to adequately process the situation and comply with the officer's instructions.
I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/14 22:56:08
