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.

@Kilkrazy: I could see a tazer itself being a thread since it would make it quite a bit easier to disarm the cop and get the gun if there was an active struggle. But not from far away and especially not, like you point out, while running away.

The cop doesn't look like he thought that the guy had his tazer, he shoots and then casually picks up the dropped tazer and nothing in his body language screams "crap, he didn't have it". His posture and behaviors just seems way to casual for everything that is happening and looks more like "feth it, I don't feel like chasing anyone today" and then he just casually walks over while calling it in, casually cuffs the guy as he is dying, and has no sense of urgency of any kind. It's just such a stark contrast to the video a short while ago of the cop shooting a drugged up guy.

WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video

Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....


Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........

Edit

Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....

 Jihadin wrote:
WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video

Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....


Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........

Edit

Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....

linky for dashcam?


I was personally wondering how in the heck the police dashcam wasnt the *first* video released of this...

Especially considering it was a traffic stop, and the phone cam vid is in a park.

 easysauce wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video

Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....


Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........

Edit

Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....

linky for dashcam?


I was personally wondering how in the heck the police dashcam wasnt the *first* video released of this...

Especially considering it was a traffic stop, and the phone cam vid is in a park.

Just hit Youtube




edit

Probably didn't see it at first due to the 2nd individual in the car. Have to wait till investigation of that individual is done I believe before its release

According to what's been posted on news forums there was an altercation that took place in the time between the dash cam and the bystander cam where the runner and the officer engaged each other, he engaged with the runner they struggled and the taser was fired before he began running again. The bystander footage starts after the taser was already fired, the runners hands appear to be reaching for the cops belt or hands, something appears to fall to the ground at the start of the video (the taser possibly?) and it's picked up and moved later. While it's quite short the bystander video does appear to show that the runner had been in physical contact with the cop, and he's certainly resisting arrest in both videos. (although that in itself does not justify the shooting)

It will be interesting to see how the audio sync's up, the "danger danger"' portion of the broadcast could be from when they were wrestling? which would be an accurate call if they were struggling or engaged in a physical exchange. When a cop is attempting to subdue somebody without backup, fists are certainly dangerous.

 Jihadin wrote:
WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video

Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....


Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........

Edit

Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....

This surely is the key point of the whole issue of police shootings. Are the police to be allowed generally to shoot people for resisting arrest by running away or trying to close a door on them or other such marginally violent resistances of authority?

I mention these several points as the overall issue takes in a number of cases where police officers have roughed up or shot people on what turned out to be incorrect reasons.

Is there a general police culture of shoot first, ask questions later, or just a few bad apples in the police barrel?

"A few bad apples spoil the bunch"

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video

Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....


Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........

Edit

Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....

This surely is the key point of the whole issue of police shootings. Are the police to be allowed generally to shoot people for resisting arrest by running away or trying to close a door on them or other such marginally violent resistances of authority?

I mention these several points as the overall issue takes in a number of cases where police officers have roughed up or shot people on what turned out to be incorrect reasons.

Is there a general police culture of shoot first, ask questions later, or just a few bad apples in the police barrel?

It's more the bad apple. There is no shoot first culture. If there was, we'd have thousands of these shootings a day.

 djones520 wrote:
It's more the bad apple. There is no shoot first culture. If there was, we'd have thousands of these shootings a day.

If there was a shoot first culture then surely there would have been no physical altercation, nor tazer deployed

I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.

It seems to me that the strong gun culture of the US, with many citizens and all police being armed, would tend to bias the police towards this kind of resolution.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.

It seems to me that the strong gun culture of the US, with many citizens and all police being armed, would tend to bias the police towards this kind of resolution.

As has been said repeatedly in here, the firearm is the measure to fall back on when faced with deadly force, which encompasses a lot more then someone else just having a gun. Now in instance like this, its use was clearly wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.

Overgeneralization. If you're physicall assaulted by a, let's say, very bulky person who is said to have robbed a store before, then shooting is a perfectly legit option. Shooting at someone who's running away and who isn't a threat to anyone, especially when you CBA to even /check/ for any mission weapon on you before cowardly shooting another man in the back for 8 times, isn't.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.

"[A} general pattern of behaviour". Do you have any evidence that supports this general pattern claim?

I am asking if there is any. That was the point of my earlier posting about the bad apples.

There really isn't. We have hundreds of thousands of police officers in this nation, with probably thousands of violent encounters between them, and others, a day. Yet these instances really aren't all that common.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-much-higher-count-of-police-homicides/

A good look at some numbers.

 d-usa wrote:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-much-higher-count-of-police-homicides/

A good look at some numbers.

Really?

The Killed By Police Facebook page, which aggregates links to news articles on police-related killings and keeps a running tally on the number of victims. The creator of the page does not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable

Facebook page

links to news articles

not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable

Maximus facepalmicus

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-much-higher-count-of-police-homicides/

A good look at some numbers.

Really?

The Killed By Police Facebook page, which aggregates links to news articles on police-related killings and keeps a running tally on the number of victims. The creator of the page does not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable

Facebook page

links to news articles

not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable

Maximus facepalmicus

1) The article also linked to the FBI source.
2) A Facebook page linking to actual articles is not really a horrible source. (It's at least as dependable as random Dakka posters facepalming)
3) I made no claim that any of the police killings included in the total were justifiable or not justifiable.

The question was "how common are shootings really". The article linked gives as good an answer as we can get: FBI says ~400/year which is probably under reported, an aggregate of news sources says ~1,000/year. So the number of police shootings is most likely somewhere between 400-1000, with some of them being non-justified but it's hard to get accurate numbers.

was this grand theft auto? a lot of what scott says leads me to think that's a possibility. It might explain why scott was running away.

Well, no, apparently the police man is being prosecuted for murder, not theft.

 d-usa wrote:


1) The article also linked to the FBI source.
2) A Facebook page linking to actual articles is not really a horrible source. (It's at least as dependable as random Dakka posters facepalming)
3) I made no claim that any of the police killings included in the total were justifiable or not justifiable.
.

The "Really?" wasn't directed at you, but rather the poorly done article. You were just the messenger and...don't shoot the messenger. The article has a very strong bias and doesn't even attempt to hide it (headline). It mentions the FBI report and states that it only refers to justified shootings but then goes on and directly compares that number to numbers reported in news articles that incorporate all shootings - and glances over the fact that most shootings reported in the news are vastly overblown and emotional reports. I.e: Brown shooting.

Articles with such a strong bias disqualify themselves immediately for any proper discussion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, no, apparently the police man is being prosecuted for murder, not theft.

Talking about the dude that got shot. The dude that was in the Mercedes. The one that bolted out of the Mercedes during a routine traffic stop for a taillight.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, no, apparently the police man is being prosecuted for murder, not theft.

Talking about the dude that got shot. The dude that was in the Mercedes. The one that bolted out of the Mercedes during a routine traffic stop for a taillight.

His family and their lawyer have claimed that he ran because he knew he had an outstanding warrant for unpaid child support, knew that it would come up with the cop ran his license and therefore ran to avoid getting taken into custody. Not a particularly smart line of thought but certainly a believable one.

And even so - he was no danger at all. So he ran. You got him on camera. You got his license plate. Track him down, take him into custody. There was no reason to assume that he'd run and take a hostage or something. Call for backup, maybe catch him immediately, maybe not, then catch him later.

I will enjoy seeing this "cop" sent to prison. He will soon wish he had gotten executed instead of being sent to prison. Heard that an ex-cop in prison isn't much fun.

 d-usa wrote:
The question was "how common are shootings really". The article linked gives as good an answer as we can get: FBI says ~400/year which is probably under reported, an aggregate of news sources says ~1,000/year. So the number of police shootings is most likely somewhere between 400-1000, with some of them being non-justified but it's hard to get accurate numbers.

The real issue is that recording deaths by LEOs is voluntary, and not many departments provide their statistics to the FBI. Of those that do there is no standardized format (justified homicides excluded for example) so there will be inconsistency in the figures that are reported;
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/us/us-has-limited-data-on-shootings-involving-police.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-shootings-police-not-collected

 Sigvatr wrote:
And even so - he was no danger at all. So he ran. You got him on camera. You got his license plate. Track him down, take him into custody. There was no reason to assume that he'd run and take a hostage or something. Call for backup, maybe catch him immediately, maybe not, then catch him later.

I will enjoy seeing this "cop" sent to prison. He will soon wish he had gotten executed instead of being sent to prison. Heard that an ex-cop in prison isn't much fun.

No doubt in my mind hes going to prison. The question is under what charge. I think that ex cops aren't put into regular prison populations. That would be a death sentence.

Rage kill. IMO it was a straight out Rage Kill

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think that ex cops aren't put into regular prison populations. That would be a death sentence.

...and wouldn't that be a pity!

(Dreadclaw beat me to making the point I made, my bad, I should read the whole page before responding)

We stand corrected.....was not "Danger Danger Danger" that was said but "Tazer Tazer tazer"