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.
2015/02/17 05:13:15
Subject: Re:Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
Uh, I never said that think you're quoting someone else?
... Interesting. Normally I'd say well, I screwed up trimming the quote, but in this case, you weren't even part of the quote tree that was in; so I truly have no idea how that was attributed to you and not Iron Captain. In any event, my apologies for the error.
No worries. Just trying to make sure I didn't black out and start posting stuff all over Dakka
BrotherGecko wrote: I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.
Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.
@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.
Frag 5's to 7's were the norm for up armored HUMVEE's to roll outside the wire before the arrival of MRAP's vehicle type of family. That was 2008 so when I rotated back in 2010 it was only MRAP's style family that rolled outside the wire.
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
2015/02/17 05:52:13
Subject: Re:Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
DarkLink wrote: Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.
On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.
They really aren't. I'd take an uparmored HMWWV over an MRAP if I'm needing to go off-roading, and need protection. MRAP's aren't used that much in Afghanistan because of how unsteady they are. Very prone to rolling over. Granted, they are much easier to get out of them a hummer when it goes onto its side.
Edit: Hordini, you've got it backwards. MRAP's are very top heavy. HMMWV's sit much lower to the ground, so their center of gravity is a lot lower. They sit 3' lower.
Right, MRAPs aren't exactly rock climbers. That said, they're a lot better than the armored vans SWAT would otherwise use. I doubt those could get much rougher than a flat dirt road. Regardless, my point was that as far as police are concerned, MRAPs are probably just slightly more capable versions of what they would normally use.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
2015/02/17 06:05:29
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
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.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
2015/02/17 11:58:20
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/02/17 12:09:27
Subject: Re:Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.
Because that's not being done by both sides in this at all...
2015/02/17 16:08:54
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
BrotherGecko wrote: I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.
Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.
@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.
Frag 5's to 7's were the norm for up armored HUMVEE's to roll outside the wire before the arrival of MRAP's vehicle type of family. That was 2008 so when I rotated back in 2010 it was only MRAP's style family that rolled outside the wire.
I'm well aware of the time line to it all. Even before 2010 it required approval from a commissioned officer to go outside the wire in one. I responding to a comment that MRAPs are not used in Afghanistan in favor of 1165s which is completely false.
2015/02/17 18:57:17
Subject: Re:Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.
I lived through a situation where the police nearly hit me with a car, jumped out, and drew their guns on me.
Want to know what I did ?
I stood as perfectly still as I possibley could with my hands in the air.
You know what I didn't do ?
Throw rocks at the cops, run away, and suddenly spin back around at them.
Cops are scared gak they are going to die in the line of duty. If you give them any reason to think your going to kill/maim/injure them they are going to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.
What about the hypothetical situation where he was attempting to pull a weapon? You guys seemed pretty interested in that.....
2015/02/17 18:59:26
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/02/17 19:01:14
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
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.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
I never made the argument that a private citizen could shoot a fleeing criminal. What I stated was that throwing rocks at somebody was a threat of imminent harm that would justify a shooting in self defense. I agree with you that in your hypothetical example a citizen in Washington state couldn't shoot somebody who threw rocks at people and was fleeing the scene. I also agree with you that I is a wholly irrelevant hypothetical example. Zambrano wasn't chased by a citizen he was chased by cops and cops have the right and the obligation to pursue violent criminals who flew the scene of their crimes. The cops in question were justified in chasing him and will likely be found to have had lawful justification to shoot him.
Washington has no duty to retreat precedent was set in State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user.
Spoiler:
RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide --- By other person --- When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/02/17 19:29:16
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
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.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
I never made the argument that a private citizen could shoot a fleeing criminal. What I stated was that throwing rocks at somebody was a threat of imminent harm that would justify a shooting in self defense. I agree with you that in your hypothetical example a citizen in Washington state couldn't shoot somebody who threw rocks at people and was fleeing the scene. I also agree with you that I is a wholly irrelevant hypothetical example. Zambrano wasn't chased by a citizen he was chased by cops and cops have the right and the obligation to pursue violent criminals who flew the scene of their crimes. The cops in question were justified in chasing him and will likely be found to have had lawful justification to shoot him.
Washington has no duty to retreat precedent was set in State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user.
Spoiler:
RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide --- By other person --- When justifiable. Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
Ah, see, you had me confused when you brought those up, mostly because I was under the impression Washington didn't have either of those. In any case, they're largely irrelevant here. And, yes, obviously the officer is obligated to peruse the suspect. To whether the officers had the right to fire, I don't know enough about what an officer can or cannot do under any given set of conditions, so I won't say, but if history is anything to go by, I would imagine you are correct and that they won't be charged.
The above response and my previous response might come off a tad rude. I apologize if they do. Also, thank you for pointing that fact about Washington law. I might be attending grad school up there, so it's good to know what I can and cannot do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/17 19:29:42
2015/02/17 19:34:00
Subject: Re:Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.
I lived through a situation where the police nearly hit me with a car, jumped out, and drew their guns on me.
Want to know what I did ?
I stood as perfectly still as I possibley could with my hands in the air.
You know what I didn't do ?
Throw rocks at the cops, run away, and suddenly spin back around at them.
Cops are scared gak they are going to die in the line of duty. If you give them any reason to think your going to kill/maim/injure them they are going to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.
What about the hypothetical situation where he was attempting to pull a weapon? You guys seemed pretty interested in that.....
While that is a hypothetical, it is what you always assume to be the case if you are facing a hostile subject.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Medium of Death wrote: The video he turns round with his arms facing forward at hip height. Could have been a gun for all the pursuing officers knew.
If he didn't want to get shot maybe he shouldn't have thrown rocks at police cars or ran away from the police.
Yeah, pretty much, I saw this on the news. They kept on going on about if he were unarmed or not. Rocks can kill, just look at how they stone people to death in some parts of the world and the man was unhinged and refusing to cooperate, probably because he was in the country illegally. So the cops shot a dangerous crazy person, what's the deal?
If you want a real case of police brutality then consider the Indian man who didn't speak english get thrown to the ground and suffer back injury.
Life choices can either be bad or good later down the road
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
2015/02/18 02:50:51
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
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.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2015/02/18 12:05:33
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
I don't care nearly as much for active criminals. If he hadn't been here illegally none of this would have happened, and I wouldn't have wasted valuable seconds typing this.
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.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
You missed the part where Iran still stones people to death. People have been charged for homicide for dropping stones on cars from overpasses in California.
This is now cute kid game. Rocks are still Man's first and most mobile method of killing another man.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/18 12:07:17
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/02/18 12:12:32
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
Psienesis wrote: I don't give a gak what they do in Iraq, this is the United States we're talking about.
Why are you talking about Iraq then?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/02/18 12:40:31
Subject: Re:Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
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.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
It's a good thing I don't live in a state that has a duty to retreat and specifically stated that in a hypothetical assault via rock throwing in my neighborhood that it would justify a response with lethal force. I actually know the self defense laws that govern my state, it's a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed carry permit, which I have. Different states/locales have different laws, nowhere have I stated otherwise. If you have issues with the way self defense laws are written in some states that is your issue it doesn't alter the fact that having somebody chucking rocks at you in NC is a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm or death.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/02/18 12:50:19
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
People also confuse "chucking rocks" as in small rocks kids throw at each other, to "chucking rocks" as in large stones that can kill another person or permanently injure them if struck in the head.
Its all in what type of "rocks" we're talking about.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/02/18 15:40:45
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
Frazzled wrote: People also confuse "chucking rocks" as in small rocks kids throw at each other, to "chucking rocks" as in large stones that can kill another person or permanently injure them if struck in the head.
Its all in what type of "rocks" we're talking about.
Exactly. As I said earlier in this thread, there are different types of throwing rocks. A kid flicking driveway gravel at you is entirely different than a deranged adult man hurling softball sized rocks at cars and people, which is what witnesses state that Zambrano was doing before he was chased and shot by the cops. If I'm out in my yard and a deranged man starts throwing softball sized rocks at me and doesn't acknowledge my verbal commands that he stop (regardless of whether he is fluent in English) then that man has become a reasonable threat of imminent bodily harm or death to me. He is the aggressor and if he doesn't stop throwing rocks at me I'll get hurt so I have the right to defend myself.
In this particular situation the cops were wholly justified in responding to the scene, commanding Zambrano to stop throwing rocks, drawing their weapons when he refused and threw rocks at the cops and chasing after Zambrano when he tried to flee. There is a level of ambiguity in whether or not Zambrano's final actions were enough to justify shooting him but once you reach the point where cops have drawn their weapons and are in pursuit of a violent criminal fleeing the scene to evade arrest you have a situation where the cops aren't going to give Zambrano the benefit of the doubt and they're going to interpret any action that could be aggressive/dangerous as such and that is entirely due to Zambrano's own actions.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/02/18 16:47:42
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
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.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
No, you'd probably be arrested. But the prosecutor would likely drop the charges in a clear case of self defense. And no judge in his right mind would convict you.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/02/18 18:42:58
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
Stonebeard wrote: Also, thank you for pointing that fact about Washington law. I might be attending grad school up there, so it's good to know what I can and cannot do.
Stonebeard, during your stay in Washington, even if tempted, please refrain from throwing softball sized rocks at the police.
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2015/02/18 19:04:46
Subject: Jumping the Gun, another police brutality thread
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.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
I never made the argument that a private citizen could shoot a fleeing criminal. What I stated was that throwing rocks at somebody was a threat of imminent harm that would justify a shooting in self defense. I agree with you that in your hypothetical example a citizen in Washington state couldn't shoot somebody who threw rocks at people and was fleeing the scene. I also agree with you that I is a wholly irrelevant hypothetical example. Zambrano wasn't chased by a citizen he was chased by cops and cops have the right and the obligation to pursue violent criminals who flew the scene of their crimes. The cops in question were justified in chasing him and will likely be found to have had lawful justification to shoot him.
Washington has no duty to retreat precedent was set in State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user.
[spoiler]RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide --- By other person --- When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[/spoiler]
Ah, see, you had me confused when you brought those up, mostly because I was under the impression Washington didn't have either of those. In any case, they're largely irrelevant here. And, yes, obviously the officer is obligated to peruse the suspect. To whether the officers had the right to fire, I don't know enough about what an officer can or cannot do under any given set of conditions, so I won't say, but if history is anything to go by, I would imagine you are correct and that they won't be charged.
The above response and my previous response might come off a tad rude. I apologize if they do. Also, thank you for pointing that fact about Washington law. I might be attending grad school up there, so it's good to know what I can and cannot do.
No worries, I never thought you were rude. I just wanted to clarify things before we ended up going down a rabbit hole of a tangent.