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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Rocks can kill people, you know

That is a ridiculous argument for killing people.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.

That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.

I don't think you could find a single police department in any country in the world that limits it's officers to only being able to shoot criminals or suspects if they're armed with firearms. Different locales have different laws and different departments have different procedures and rules of engagement but you don't have to have a gun in your hand for police to have justification for shooting you.

If a person came into my neighborhood and started throwing rocks at me or my neighbors they'd likely get shot and none of us are cops.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.

EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

Assaulting a police officer or any private citizen can result in acts of lawful self defense that leave the person who committed the assault dead. That's been true for a few centuries here in the US. The onus is not on the cops or private citizen who is being assaulted with thrown rocks to resolve the situation peacefully, the onus is on the rock thrower to not assault people with lethal implements. You can be killed or incapacitated by a thrown rock, it's a clear cut case of somebody presenting a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm which gives anyone, cop or citizen, the lawful right to defend himself/herself with lethal force.

So hitting someone in the face or throwing a rock at someone is in the US a legal ground for killing someone? I have a hard time believing that, but if it is true, the US truly wins an award for the single-most barbaric place on earth (after North Korea). And where are the borders to it? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable threat of bodily harm"? I think that would be rather subjective.

A rock can constitute a deadly weapon and is absolutely a case for self defense. I wouldn't say it gives full grounds to kill someone, but someone trying to brain you with a large rock is definitely considered assault with a deadly weapon.

Hell, people have been using slingshots to kill people for ages.

After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball

So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them. As they approached him with weapons drawn, he reaches for his waist, turns, and raises his arms up, at which point they opened fire.

Firstly, if you think that the rocks are not dangerous, why don't you go let a friend chuck some softball sized rocks at you. Secondly, the man put himself into a situation where the police had no choice but to respond with deadly force. Those here who are saying that the police acted improperly, have made it very clear that they have never received any training in handgun use in situations like this.

I just spend 2 weeks undergoing combat training for these exact types of situations, and let me tell you what. You don't even have seconds to react when faced with the possibility of lethal force. Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots. The officers used proper techniques of escalation of force in this matter.

They did not just start opening fire at him the second he started tossing rocks. They used verbal techniques in an effort to get him to stop. That did not work. They pursued the man when he fled, even then not opening fire. Only when the man had a rapid change in behavior, and made body movements that could very easily be taken for drawing a weapon and bringing it to bear, did they use deadly force. Watch the video, the man is running away, then he lowers his hands to his waist, turns, lifts his hands bringing them together, and drops his knees, almost as if he was taking a shooters stance.

This is a proper use of escalation of force. Did the man have opportunity? Yes. Did he have intent? He had already proved he was trying to hurt the officers. Did he have the means? The officers had a reasonable expectation that he did. Those are the three things that you need to piece together before you pull that trigger.

The man who was shot put himself into the grave. He could have avoided it any number of ways. He could have not thrown dangerous objects at police officers. He could have not ran (language barrier is BS. EVERYONE knows that you shouldn't run from the police, ESPECIALLY after you were trying to hurt them. He could have stopped running, and just lifted his arms in a clear manner then would not have been confused as if he was reaching for a weapon. Every choice that the man made led to his death.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,

Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.

 Stonebeard wrote:
not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.

How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.

 djones520 wrote:

After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball

So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.

Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,

Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.

 Stonebeard wrote:
not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.

How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.

 djones520 wrote:

After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball

So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.

Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.

How many times are men shot, but not killed? Would you say bullets are not deadly objects? How many people are stabbed and live? Are knives not deadly objects? Put your strawman down.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,

Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.

 Stonebeard wrote:
not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.

How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.

 djones520 wrote:

After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball

So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.

Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.

How many times are men shot, but not killed? Would you say bullets are not deadly objects? How many people are stabbed and live? Are knives not deadly objects? Put your strawman down.

There are gradations of 'deadliness' Shooting or stabbing someone is far more likely to result in dead than throwing a rock at someone is.

Also, I did not clearly see the guy reaching for his waistband. He just turns around, brings his arms in front of him (likely to show he has nothing in them) and the police shoots him. From the video I can see clearly he his not pulling anything from his waistband. It is broad daylight, the polices is standing about 2 meters away from the suspect. Couldn't they see he wasn't carrying anything in his hands? Is American police that blind? Or are American guns invisible?

Doesn't matter. It can still cause deadly harm. And why don't you read the rest of my post. I did not in anyways say that simply throwing rocks was a justification of using deadly force. It was the rest of the mans actions. Why don't you explain how my break down of the escalation of force was wrong.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,

Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.

You mean like throwing rocks at someone? Throwing rocks at someone is both dangerous, potentially lethal, and illegal (this is a Florida law, but other states have equivalent laws and I'm not going to waste time posting links to every state's version, I just happened to find Florida's first): http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.19.html

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:
not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.

How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.

 djones520 wrote:

After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball

So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.

Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.

So the only way that you can justify self-defense is if other person uses a "deadly object" on you, and the only time something counts as a deadly object is when it kills the person it's used against? Meaning that the only way you can defend yourself is if someone's already killed you, in which case it's too late? No wonder no one seems to be taking your side of the argument seriously.

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Rocks can kill people, you know

That is a ridiculous argument for killing people.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.

That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

Assaulting a police officer or any private citizen can result in acts of lawful self defense that leave the person who committed the assault dead. That's been true for a few centuries here in the US. The onus is not on the cops or private citizen who is being assaulted with thrown rocks to resolve the situation peacefully, the onus is on the rock thrower to not assault people with lethal implements. You can be killed or incapacitated by a thrown rock, it's a clear cut case of somebody presenting a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm which gives anyone, cop or citizen, the lawful right to defend himself/herself with lethal force.

So hitting someone in the face or throwing a rock at someone is in the US a legal ground for killing someone? I have a hard time believing that, but if it is true, the US truly wins an award for the single-most barbaric place on earth (after North Korea). And where are the borders to it? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable threat of bodily harm"? I think that would be rather subjective.

Here is the verbatim text of the applicable state statute:



The definition of reasonable will be determined by the local prosecutor and if charges are filed and it goes to court the definition of "reasonable" will be determined by a jury of your peers. Here in the US a citizen does not have to wait to be struck to defend himself or herself with force. The use of deadly force is limited to situations in which you have a reasonable fear that you will seriously harmed or killed if you don't use deadly force. Does a single punch give me the legal justification to shoot somebody? No. Does a punch followed up by successive blows by somebody whom I believe is trying to beat me to the point of severe injury or death legal justification to shoot my attacker? Yes. Is being attacked with a lethal weapon like a rock justification for me to defend myself with lethal force? Yes.Obviously the size of the rock and the force with which it is thrown plays a large part in the reasonableness of choosing to use lethal force against the attacker.

In this particular instance, Zambrano was throwing rocks at cars in a busy intersection before throwing any rocks at the police who responded. If Zambrano kept throwing rocks at cars while the cops were there and the thrown rocks presented a clear threat of imminent harm to the passing motorists either directly or due to their ability of the rocks to cause accidents then the cops would have been justified in shooting him to end the threat to the motorists.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Escalation of force did cause the death of this unarmed individual. The man no longer had a rock in his hand and did not reach for a weapon. He had no weapon on him. Their force was escalated too much.

So, can she draw a weapon and fire it before you can pull the trigger with a weapon already pointed at her? Your anecdote, please explain it in context to the scenario.

Pro-tip: Don't throw rocks at people... especially at the cops.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Escalation of force did cause the death of this unarmed individual. The man no longer had a rock in his hand and did not reach for a weapon. He had no weapon on him. Their force was escalated too much.

So, can she draw a weapon and fire it before you can pull the trigger with a weapon already pointed at her? Your anecdote, please explain it in context to the scenario.

If the police officers had waited, yes it was possible that he could have opened fire if he had a weapon. The amount of time that took place in there, I could have opened fire, and I'm not the quickest on the draw. Dude, keep sticking your head in the sand if you like, but you're just armchair commandoing here. You are refusing to put yourself in their shoes. I'm providing you first hand knowledge and experience for this type of situation, these are techniques that have been brought about through decades of trial and error. Hundreds of thousands of police officers and military personnel are trained on these techniques, and use them daily, constant refinement is made to ensure the minimum amount of collateral damage occurs, experts nationwide are involved, yet you say it is wrong.

You honestly believe that these officers should put their lives at greater risk, when the perp already made the choices that brought himself to this point?

 Laemos wrote:
Why does he be a victim just because he runs out of rocks?

Because that's how self defense works. You're allowed to use lethal force to stop an immediate threat, you don't get indefinite permission to shoot someone because their initial act labeled them a Bad Person. If the person is no longer a threat then it is no longer a case of self defense and your use of lethal force becomes murder or attempted murder.

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.

Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.

 djones520 wrote:
Doesn't matter. It can still cause deadly harm. And why don't you read the rest of my post. I did not in anyways say that simply throwing rocks was a justification of using deadly force. It was the rest of the mans actions. Why don't you explain how my break down of the escalation of force was wrong.

Okay

 djones520 wrote:
So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them. As they approached him with weapons drawn, he reaches for his waist, turns, and raises his arms up, at which point they opened fire.

Firstly, if you think that the rocks are not dangerous, why don't you go let a friend chuck some softball sized rocks at you. Secondly, the man put himself into a situation where the police had no choice but to respond with deadly force. Those here who are saying that the police acted improperly, have made it very clear that they have never received any training in handgun use in situations like this.

I have been hit by softball sized rocks. I lived. Sure, rocks can be dangerous, but I would not call them 'deadly missiles' they are not lethal more often than not.
Your second and third arguments are fallacious.

 djones520 wrote:
I just spend 2 weeks undergoing combat training for these exact types of situations, and let me tell you what. You don't even have seconds to react when faced with the possibility of lethal force. Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots. The officers used proper techniques of escalation of force in this matter.

Wow! Two whole weeks of training? You must be such an expert now. Again you use fallacious arguments like: "Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots.". But it is good to know you are the ultimate and infallible judge of proper techniques of escalation of force. Of course I must be an idiot for disagreeing with high and mighty you. I am sorry, my lord.

 djones520 wrote:
They did not just start opening fire at him the second he started tossing rocks. They used verbal techniques in an effort to get him to stop. That did not work. They pursued the man when he fled, even then not opening fire. Only when the man had a rapid change in behavior, and made body movements that could very easily be taken for drawing a weapon and bringing it to bear, did they use deadly force. Watch the video, the man is running away, then he lowers his hands to his waist, turns, lifts his hands bringing them together, and drops his knees, almost as if he was taking a shooters stance.

Verbal techniques obviously did not work because he did not speak english. Doesn't the US police have procedures for that? The man barely gets his hands to his waist at all, he just moves them in front of him after turning around. It is clear from the video he could not have pulled anything out. The police, standing 2 meters away could have seen that too. His stance could have been mistaken for a shooters stance, but did the police not see his hands were empty and he did not pull anything? His hands were visible almost the entire time and the police was standing only a few meters away.

 djones520 wrote:
This is a proper use of escalation of force. Did the man have opportunity? Yes. Did he have intent? He had already proved he was trying to hurt the officers. Did he have the means? The officers had a reasonable expectation that he did. Those are the three things that you need to piece together before you pull that trigger.

Yes, by stopping to throw rocks and running away he proved the intent of hurting officers. From the video, I see the man did not really have an opportunity to pull out a gun (if so, where?). The officers did not have a reasonable expectation, because in 99% of similar cases when the suspect runs away while the police aims weapons at him the suspect does not have the intention to pull out a gun (because that would certainly get him killed). By running away, people generally try to avoid confrontation and escape danger.

 djones520 wrote:
The man who was shot put himself into the grave. He could have avoided it any number of ways. He could have not thrown dangerous objects at police officers. He could have not ran (language barrier is BS. EVERYONE knows that you shouldn't run from the police, ESPECIALLY after you were trying to hurt them. He could have stopped running, and just lifted his arms in a clear manner then would not have been confused as if he was reaching for a weapon. Every choice that the man made led to his death.

True, throwing rocks at police is stupid but it is also a common way of protesting in many countries. Running is something that people often do when they are panicked and want to escape confrontation, and when you are panicky and desperately trying to show police you are unarmed you may not think about such a simple thing as raising your hands above your head, but rather put them towards the police to show them you are unarmed.

Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.

Well, I think this might be a case of different thoughts on how to deal with this sort of thing. They only resorted to lethal force after attempting to tazer him. And then only after attempting to communicate (Which resulted in them having rocks thrown at them). I personally see nothing wrong with attempting to tazer a man who is a threat to himself and othrrs.

How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.

Im sure, or at least I hope, this wasn't JUST the motion. I imagine it was a combination of their assessments of his mental state, the previous agressively behavior and possibly the ubiquitous nature of firearms here. It might not be nice, and I'm actually not even sure if it is legal, but I can understand it. I imagine if your police were under the same threats as ours as frequency, they may respond accordingly.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.

Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.

Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Laemos wrote:
Why does he be a victim just because he runs out of rocks?

Because that's how self defense works. You're allowed to use lethal force to stop an immediate threat, you don't get indefinite permission to shoot someone because their initial act labeled them a Bad Person. If the person is no longer a threat then it is no longer a case of self defense and your use of lethal force becomes murder or attempted murder.

What about perceived threats? The man had already assaulted officers and had a criminal past. He then ran, abruptly stopped, and turned in what could be deemed a move to draw a weapon.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

The man had already hurled rocks at passing cars, a dangerous potentially lethal crime, resulting in the police response. He then threw rocks at cops, again committing a violent, potentially lethal crime and then fled from the cops after the initial violent interaction with them. The police gave chase to the fleeing violent criminal who eventually stops on the sidewalk across the street and then makes a suspicious movement that looks like he's reaching for something in his pants. The cops know that the man is demonstrably dangerous, violent and aggressive, the cops don't know what might be in his waistband, a gun, a knife, an improvised explosive device, or something harmless or absolutely nothing. However, at that point it doesn't matter what is or isn't in his waistband because he's already a demonstrably dangerous violent criminal and the suspicious movement by itself is enough to have a reasonable fear that Zambrano was an imminent threat and justify the use of deadly force. It doesn't matter whether or not he had anything to reach for it only matters that it was reasonable to believe that the person who just a minute earlier was violently attacking random motorists and cops, who hadn't been searched and could therefore be carrying anything on his person, had tried to flee the scene to evade arrest and then when cornered by the cops made a threatening movement. In that context the cops can justify the shooting. Looking at the incident in hindsight and giving undue importance to the fact that he was unarmed when he died is a pointless exercise because it ignores the context of the actions and their lawful justifications.

 djones520 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.

Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.

Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.

Z had been basically stalking and harassing him. I don't think either was in the right.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, throwing rocks does not give somebody the right to use deadly force. I expected this argument, but holy gak, first post?

That is where you would be wrong. Police are allowed to escalate the situation to protect themselves. So basically, if you attack them with any weapon at all, they can shoot you.

Also, I saw the video. The guy attacks the cops, runs, then whips around to attack them again. Most sane people will not stop and turn back around to attack armed gunmen, while unarmed. The cops are going to assume he is armed and act accordingly.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are abuses of power by law enforcement in this country on a daily basis, I just don't believe this is one of them.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.

Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.

Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.

Z had been basically stalking and harassing him. I don't think either was in the right.

None of which gave T the right to attack him like he did. It was T's choice to resort to physical violence, and that is why he ended up on a slab.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I just spend 2 weeks undergoing combat training for these exact types of situations, and let me tell you what. You don't even have seconds to react when faced with the possibility of lethal force. Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots. The officers used proper techniques of escalation of force in this matter.

Wow! Two whole weeks of training? You must be such an expert now. Again you use fallacious arguments like: "Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots.". But it is good to know you are the ultimate and infallible judge of proper techniques of escalation of force. Of course I must be an idiot for disagreeing with high and mighty you. I am sorry, my lord.

I'm pretty sure djones' little finger has more training in this kind of thing than you do. Instead of being condescending to him, you ought to pay attention to what he has to say. You might actually learn something.

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Escalation of force did cause the death of this unarmed individual. The man no longer had a rock in his hand and did not reach for a weapon. He had no weapon on him. Their force was escalated too much.

So, can she draw a weapon and fire it before you can pull the trigger with a weapon already pointed at her? Your anecdote, please explain it in context to the scenario.

If the police officers had waited, yes it was possible that he could have opened fire if he had a weapon. The amount of time that took place in there, I could have opened fire, and I'm not the quickest on the draw. Dude, keep sticking your head in the sand if you like, but you're just armchair commandoing here. You are refusing to put yourself in their shoes. I'm providing you first hand knowledge and experience for this type of situation, these are techniques that have been brought about through decades of trial and error. Hundreds of thousands of police officers and military personnel are trained on these techniques, and use them daily, constant refinement is made to ensure the minimum amount of collateral damage occurs, experts nationwide are involved, yet you say it is wrong.

You honestly believe that these officers should put their lives at greater risk, when the perp already made the choices that brought himself to this point?

I am going to have to ask you to pull your head out of the sand and answer my question. Could you pull the trigger faster than her while she has to draw, chamber a round, then pull the trigger. Remember, your gun is 100% locked and loaded, ready to fire. You only have one step, pull the trigger. Can you do it faster than her?

The point is, they should have waited to see if there was a gun. They did not. They just went crazy when they saw his hand move. Your anecdote is laughable at best. How do I know you took the training? Who the crap are you? Why should I believe you? (See, when I went and talked to an LEO and he told me what I relayed in a previous thread, I was told to get out and I had absolutely not done that) See how this works!

I honestly believe that they should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this person has a weapon and that they have intent to use lethal force on the Officers. None of this is shown and there is no indication that he had any plans to pull a weapon and fire on them.

But you are right, I shouldn't question these things. Especially when we have experts in the field like you, with two weeks of training.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, throwing rocks does not give somebody the right to use deadly force. I expected this argument, but holy gak, first post?

That is where you would be wrong. Police are allowed to escalate the situation to protect themselves. So basically, if you attack them with any weapon at all, they can shoot you.

Also, I saw the video. The guy attacks the cops, runs, then whips around to attack them again. Most sane people will not stop and turn back around to attack armed gunmen, while unarmed. The cops are going to assume he is armed and act accordingly.

Right, he couldn't he turning around to surrender. He is clearly a psychopath bent on the death of the police. That is why when they chased, he dropped his weapons(rocks) and ran!

You are wrong, Police are allowed to reasonably escalate a situation to protect themselves. They are supposed to escalate it just a little further to show they are willing to stop the person. At what point during the Escalation of Force is it alright to shoot an unarmed assailant? (Remember, there were 3 Cops, I assume all trained in subduing an unarmed subject)

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.

So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?

I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.

EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.

States with Stand Your Ground laws and/or Castle Doctrine laws no longer impose a duty to retreat on the defender. The onus is on the attacker to not assault people not on the defender to evade criminal attacks. Obviously not all rocks are the same size and not all throws provide the same level of velocity but just about any level of assault if left unchecked can do harm including the possibility of rendering you vulnerable to truly severe life threatening levels of harm. If somebody on the street made a persistent and concerted effort to pelt me with rocks then it would be reasonable for me to assume that person is intent on harming me so I would be justified in using force agains that attacking person to defend myself. The amount of force I would be lawfully justified in using would depend on the amount of danger the rocks posed. A grown man putting legitimate effort into his throws would likely be agreed upon as being a reasonable threat of bodily harm, justifying a response with lethal force.

 djones520 wrote:
None of which gave T the right to attack him like he did. It was T's choice to resort to physical violence, and that is why he ended up on a slab.

Wow, so you finally found the missing proof of who started the fight? Perhaps you could share it with us and the courts?

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about perceived threats? The man had already assaulted officers and had a criminal past. He then ran, abruptly stopped, and turned in what could be deemed a move to draw a weapon.

That's arguably a case for self defense, though the final answer depends on how credible the "he was reaching for a gun" argument is. If a reasonable person would believe that he was in the process of drawing a weapon then it's legitimate self defense. If he kind of moved his hands in the general direction of his pockets and the police are exaggerating the threat to defend their trigger-happy habits then no, it isn't legitimate self defense.

*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly.