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.

nkelsch wrote:
Why are the unwashed masses expected to be composed and trained on how to interact with someone who is supposed to be a highly skilled trained professional? And the trained professional is allowed to freak out and lose his gak over the tiniest thing and allowed to say 'it is a mistake, benefit of the doubt! Justified action!"

This is an amazingly fair point. My only pragmatic response would be: because they have guns pointed at your head and odds are nothing is going to happen to them like what could happen to you.

Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.

 skyth wrote:
Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.

Agreed. But it does wonders to help with the 'not being shot by cops' part. As the wife and I CHL , this is a concern.

On this principle I try to avoid non-competition interaction at all times.

 Xenomancers wrote:
As far as I can tell from my research...there is no proof of a CCP. There is also no proff that the car was stopped for an out tail light. Ive heard police audio prior to the event and the police did not specify a reason for the stop.

Here's some facts about the case that liberal media does not tell you because it detracts from their agenda.

The cop shooter is Latino - as in he is also a minority.- Not relevant in a discussion of Police vs. Public
The cops were already on the lookout for a black man with dreadlocks that had committed an armed robbery the day before. Relevance? It has been reported, but no one has confirmed or denied the veracity of the radio audio that I am aware of. I would love a link to a local new source if you have it.
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun. There is also video of the police trying to resuscitate the victim as well. Reported on in this very thread. He received 1 warning, and was immediately shot 4 or 5 times.

In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benefit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. This is the heart of the problem. Our training and police culture in about escalating and maintaining control not de-escalation

Lesson to the wise. Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop. Be polite - comply with all legal requests - and don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you. That is a terrible lesson and is Authoritarianism at is worst

My comments in Orange above.

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benifit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. .

It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).

TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.

I am a middle of the road atheist. The bias in the media is literally sickening. I am forced to dig through 20 to 30 articles on a subject to find some semblance of fact. If you can't acknowledge the bias in the media - it just means you are hearing everything you want to hear.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Spinner wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun.

I thought the witness account was clarified as "one warning, then multiple shots" instead of "multiple warnings, then one shot"?

Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop.

Or you'll get shot?

Be polite - comply with all legal requests

Or you'll get shot?

Don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you.

Or you'll get shot?

Does none of that seem like a problem to you? I don't want to have to treat the police like a stray dog with a suspicious bit of foam around its mouth. Plus, it sounds like Mr. Casile was, in fact, politely complying with legal requests.

For what it's worth, I don't think there was malice aforethought; everything I've seen points toward someone who was far, far too nervous to safely handle his weapon around members of the public. That doesn't give Mr. Castile back his life.

.

We have no idea if Casile was being compliant. The fact that he got shot kind of suggests he wasn't. Is there any way of really knowing that? The video is useless in this regard. I have conceded that I think this cop made a mistake - which is bound to happen in any situation where human error is possible. However, if you don't think cops are forced to make decisions like this all the time - you are most certainly wrong. Otherwise we are totally in agreement - this wasn't a malicious act - it was a conceivable mistake.

What level of noncompliance would justify the use of lethal force? The use of lethal force suggests that the officer thought Castile posed a clear immediate threat of harm to the officer. That's not a matter of noncompliance that's alleging that Castile was attacking or attempting to attack the cops. The idea that a law abiding citizen with a carry permit and his family in the car with him suddenly decided to try to gun down two cops during a routine traffic stop for no reason strains credulity.

What appears to be the case in this instance is that a cop with multiple years of service felt so threatened by interacting with a peaceful law abiding armed citizen that the slightest ambiguous movement by that citizen triggered an immediate lethal response. Police need to handle such a situation with calm patience and deescalate any tension in a confident manner. What they shouldn't be doing is confronting citizens at gunpoint freaked out on a hair trigger.

 Xenomancers wrote:

We have no idea if Casile was being compliant. The fact that he got shot kind of suggests he wasn't. Is there any way of really knowing that? The video is useless in this regard. I have conceded that I think this cop made a mistake - which is bound to happen in any situation where human error is possible. However, if you don't think cops are forced to make decisions like this all the time - you are most certainly wrong. Otherwise we are totally in agreement - this wasn't a malicious act - it was a conceivable mistake.

Is there anything to indicate that Mr. Castile was not being compliant? I mean, it's like everyone else said - you seem to be arguing that the officer made a mistake and yet this was somehow justified at the same time. Just because it's a tough job with inherent risks doesn't mean that it can't be done badly.

And deecisions like what? Decisions over whether or not to shoot someone they've pulled over for a traffic stop? I certainly hope that's not the immediate thought process.

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
As far as I can tell from my research...there is no proof of a CCP. There is also no proff that the car was stopped for an out tail light. Ive heard police audio prior to the event and the police did not specify a reason for the stop.

Here's some facts about the case that liberal media does not tell you because it detracts from their agenda.

The cop shooter is Latino - as in he is also a minority.- Not relevant in a discussion of Police vs. Public
The cops were already on the lookout for a black man with dreadlocks that had committed an armed robbery the day before. Relevance? It has been reported, but no one has confirmed or denied the veracity of the radio audio that I am aware of. I would love a link to a local new source if you have it.
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun. There is also video of the police trying to resuscitate the victim as well. Reported on in this very thread. He received 1 warning, and was immediately shot 4 or 5 times.

In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benefit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. This is the heart of the problem. Our training and police culture in about escalating and maintaining control not de-escalation

Lesson to the wise. Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop. Be polite - comply with all legal requests - and don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you. That is a terrible lesson and is Authoritarianism at is worst

My comments in Orange above.

Agreed.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benifit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. .

It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).

TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.

I am a middle of the road atheist. The bias in the media is literally sickening. I am forced to dig through 20 to 30 articles on a subject to find some semblance of fact. If you can't acknowledge the bias in the media - it just means you are hearing everything you want to hear.

How is atheism at all relevant?

Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.

As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.

Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.

I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
As far as I can tell from my research...there is no proof of a CCP. There is also no proff that the car was stopped for an out tail light. Ive heard police audio prior to the event and the police did not specify a reason for the stop.

Here's some facts about the case that liberal media does not tell you because it detracts from their agenda.

The cop shooter is Latino - as in he is also a minority.- Not relevant in a discussion of Police vs. Public
The cops were already on the lookout for a black man with dreadlocks that had committed an armed robbery the day before. Relevance? It has been reported, but no one has confirmed or denied the veracity of the radio audio that I am aware of. I would love a link to a local new source if you have it.
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun. There is also video of the police trying to resuscitate the victim as well. Reported on in this very thread. He received 1 warning, and was immediately shot 4 or 5 times.

In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benefit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. This is the heart of the problem. Our training and police culture in about escalating and maintaining control not de-escalation

Lesson to the wise. Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop. Be polite - comply with all legal requests - and don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you. That is a terrible lesson and is Authoritarianism at is worst

My comments in Orange above.

The Latino comment is solely to rule out racial motivations. At least the white vs black rubbish that Obama is trying to sell the people right now.

Cops are authority figures - it is in your best interests to do what they say. Do you dispute this? That is the only meaning of my statement.

I don't disagree with you on the training. The way we train officers to "eliminate the threat" rather than do their best to preserve lives during rough situations is clearly wrong to me. However, with that being their current training I find it difficult to judge someone who reacts like this when someone is non compliant. I have had a gun in my face before - it is frightening beyond comparison. I don't pretend to imagine that the police are immune to this fear. When your training is to eliminate threats and you see a gun being reached for...what exactly do you expect to happen?

Do you really believe a cop gave a single warning and then shot a man with a kid in the back seat? Really? Do you think he accidentally pulled the trigger? or do you think he just really wanted to shoot somebody? Here is the most likely case - the officer told him in a calm voice not to reach for his wallet and then the last time he yelled it and then shot him. The fact that he shot him 4 times is actually irrelevant. That is what he is trained to do.

Please stay tunned I will attempt to locate the link to the audio.

I certainly wouldn't encourage being a jerk to a cop; it's just that the way it was being phrased seemed to suggest that it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone for 'not complying', which I strongly disagree with. If you're caught speeding, say, five miles over and get pulled over and act like an a-hole, you don't get to complain for getting a ticket instead of a warning. If you're doing five over, act like an a-hole to the officer who pulls you over, and he blows you away, that's completely different.

Do you really believe a cop gave a single warning and then shot a man with a kid in the back seat? Really? Do you think he accidentally pulled the trigger? or do you think he just really wanted to shoot somebody? .

Do you really believe Mr. Castile drew on the officer for no reason with his family in the car? Why is that so much easier to believe than the officer was dangerously nervous for whatever reason.?

 Spinner wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benifit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. .

It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).

TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.

I am a middle of the road atheist. The bias in the media is literally sickening. I am forced to dig through 20 to 30 articles on a subject to find some semblance of fact. If you can't acknowledge the bias in the media - it just means you are hearing everything you want to hear.

How is atheism at all relevant?

I am simply stating my biases. As in - I probably roll more liberal than not and I can still acknowledge the agenda in the majority of our news. Agenda is not truth. It is relevant because there isn't a real non bias new organization you can really follow these days.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Do you really believe a cop gave a single warning and then shot a man with a kid in the back seat? Really? Do you think he accidentally pulled the trigger? or do you think he just really wanted to shoot somebody? Here is the most likely case - the officer told him in a calm voice not to reach for his wallet and then the last time he yelled it and then shot him. The fact that he shot him 4 times is actually irrelevant. That is what he is trained to do.

It doesn't matter what I think. That was what the eyewitness in the Star Tribune Local Newspaper stated.

The only relevance that the eyewitness mentioned 4 to 5 shots, it also matches what another eyewitness (Mrs. Reynolds) said, therefore corroborating that part of the story.

Everything beyond that is speculation/bias which is something you have stated you dislike.

There are over a million LEOs in the US and we know from officer involved shootings data kept by the DoJ that the large majority of LEOs don't get involved in shootings. Therefore the decisions involved in situations that require officers to fire their weapon are not made on a daily or even common basis for any officers. Very very few officers die in the line of duty because it's not that dangerous of a job.

This particular instance was a traffic stop. Not a response to a crime in progress or the pursuit of a fugitive. A traffic stop, a simple interaction with the public. The public isn't dangerous all of us civilians live, work and interact with the public every day. There is no reason for cops to approach routine interaction with the public like a traffic stop with the fear that the public is an imminent threat. There's no data to support such a combative stance.

 redleger wrote:
Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.

As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.

Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.

I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.

None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.

 Frazzled wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.

As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.

Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.

I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.

None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.

no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.

Ah, agreed, being rude will in no way lead to a positive outcome with someone who can arrest you for "resisting arrest."

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.

As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.

Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.

I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.

None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.

no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.

How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.

As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.

Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.

I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.

None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.

no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.

How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.

You seem to be missing the point. You were implying it ok to not be polite and compliant with a cop, cause they shouldn't shoot you. Im saying it unlawful to be non compliant. Its unlawful for him to shoot you for that reason too. Do not advocate illegal and dangerous activity by saying its ok to be non compliant and rude. read up on possible outcomes, other than being shot in the above quote.

 skyth wrote:
Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.

unfortunately from a practical standpoint, with the way police forces and the judicial system have evolved, there's very little to be positive about with police interactions. There is very little reason for an average citizen to feel anything but fear and discomfort around police, even taking away firearms and lethal force, the system is set up such that there's usually very little upside to engaging with the police in almost any capacity.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.

unfortunately from a practical standpoint, with the way police forces and the judicial system have evolved, there's very little to be positive about with police interactions. There is very little reason for an average citizen to feel anything but fear and discomfort around police, even taking away firearms and lethal force, the system is set up such that there's usually very little upside to engaging with the police in almost any capacity.

Yes, its systemic. But being a male sexual organ to the cop definitely does not promote 2 way trust.

 redleger wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.

unfortunately from a practical standpoint, with the way police forces and the judicial system have evolved, there's very little to be positive about with police interactions. There is very little reason for an average citizen to feel anything but fear and discomfort around police, even taking away firearms and lethal force, the system is set up such that there's usually very little upside to engaging with the police in almost any capacity.

Yes, its systemic. But being a male sexual organ to the cop definitely does not promote 2 way trust.

while I dont disagree (I'm all for people not being jerks to each other), its also something a trained professional should be able to deal with in a responsible manner without affecting their duties. People being rude to cops is going to inherently be part of the job, and if escalation to the threat or use of force is the response, the problem lies far more with the police.

 redleger wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.

As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.

Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.

I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.

None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.

no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.

How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.

You seem to be missing the point. You were implying it ok to not be polite and compliant with a cop, cause they shouldn't shoot you. Im saying it unlawful to be non compliant. Its unlawful for him to shoot you for that reason too. Do not advocate illegal and dangerous activity by saying its ok to be non compliant and rude. read up on possible outcomes, other than being shot in the above quote.

No, I wasn't. Not at all. Where do you see my statement advocating it's okay to "not be polite and compliant with a cop"? Please, specifically point that out to me.

 redleger wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.

As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.

Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.

I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.

None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.

no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.

How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.

You seem to be missing the point. You were implying it ok to not be polite and compliant with a cop, cause they shouldn't shoot you. Im saying it unlawful to be non compliant. Its unlawful for him to shoot you for that reason too. Do not advocate illegal and dangerous activity by saying its ok to be non compliant and rude. read up on possible outcomes, other than being shot in the above quote.

it is unlawful if the orders given are themselves lawful.
A police order to let them into your home is not necessarily lawful.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Where do you see my statement advocating it's okay to "not be polite and compliant with a cop"? Please, specifically point that out to me.

Or really when anyone did that in this thread, for I too am curious.

I saw a few people indicate that the population shouldn't be reduced to bootlickers during every encounter with police for fear of being shot to death, but if you equate that with advocating that it's OK to be rude to the police... well, I can't help you with that one.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There are over a million LEOs in the US and we know from officer involved shootings data kept by the DoJ that the large majority of LEOs don't get involved in shootings. Therefore the decisions involved in situations that require officers to fire their weapon are not made on a daily or even common basis for any officers. Very very few officers die in the line of duty because it's not that dangerous of a job.

This particular instance was a traffic stop. Not a response to a crime in progress or the pursuit of a fugitive. A traffic stop, a simple interaction with the public. The public isn't dangerous all of us civilians live, work and interact with the public every day. There is no reason for cops to approach routine interaction with the public like a traffic stop with the fear that the public is an imminent threat. There's no data to support such a combative stance.

Just thought I would point this out. You seem to think that death is the only "danger" a cop faces. Lets not forget the 50,000-60,000 Assaults the police suffer on average every year, or the 15,000-16,000 Assaults that result in injury cops face every year. But hey, that is not a very dangerous job at all.

The US Employs around 800,000 SWORN officials (Police with the power to arrest/detain) according to those numbers you have about a 1/13 to a 1/16 chance to be assaulted in the line of duty and a 1/50 chance to be assaulted and sustain an injury. I would say that is a rather dangerous job.

SemperMortis wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There are over a million LEOs in the US and we know from officer involved shootings data kept by the DoJ that the large majority of LEOs don't get involved in shootings. Therefore the decisions involved in situations that require officers to fire their weapon are not made on a daily or even common basis for any officers. Very very few officers die in the line of duty because it's not that dangerous of a job.

This particular instance was a traffic stop. Not a response to a crime in progress or the pursuit of a fugitive. A traffic stop, a simple interaction with the public. The public isn't dangerous all of us civilians live, work and interact with the public every day. There is no reason for cops to approach routine interaction with the public like a traffic stop with the fear that the public is an imminent threat. There's no data to support such a combative stance.

Just thought I would point this out. You seem to think that death is the only "danger" a cop faces. Lets not forget the 50,000-60,000 Assaults the police suffer on average every year, or the 15,000-16,000 Assaults that result in injury cops face every year. But hey, that is not a very dangerous job at all.

The US Employs around 800,000 SWORN officials (Police with the power to arrest/detain) according to those numbers you have about a 1/13 to a 1/16 chance to be assaulted in the line of duty and a 1/50 chance to be assaulted and sustain an injury. I would say that is a rather dangerous job.

I don't think facing a 6-7% chance of facing a single instance of assault in a year makes being a cop an incredibly dangerous job. A 2% chance of sustaining an injury in the line of duty once a year isn't very dangerous either. According to OSHA over 4,821 workers died on jobsites in 2014. Contrast that to 124 deaths in the line of duty for police, 50 by firearm, which was a large increase from 2013 when 102 offcers died, 32 by firearm.

https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htm
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/12/30/373985338/report-number-of-police-officers-killed-spikes-in-2014

Construction work is a common occupation that is far more dangerous than being a cop. I'm not saying being a cop isn't dangerous at all, I'm saying it's not nearly dangerous enough for police officers to be trained to be as fearful of the public as they are. The vast majority of all interactions between cops and citizens are going to be peaceful and uneventful.

SemperMortis wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There are over a million LEOs in the US and we know from officer involved shootings data kept by the DoJ that the large majority of LEOs don't get involved in shootings. Therefore the decisions involved in situations that require officers to fire their weapon are not made on a daily or even common basis for any officers. Very very few officers die in the line of duty because it's not that dangerous of a job.

This particular instance was a traffic stop. Not a response to a crime in progress or the pursuit of a fugitive. A traffic stop, a simple interaction with the public. The public isn't dangerous all of us civilians live, work and interact with the public every day. There is no reason for cops to approach routine interaction with the public like a traffic stop with the fear that the public is an imminent threat. There's no data to support such a combative stance.

Just thought I would point this out. You seem to think that death is the only "danger" a cop faces. Lets not forget the 50,000-60,000 Assaults the police suffer on average every year, or the 15,000-16,000 Assaults that result in injury cops face every year. But hey, that is not a very dangerous job at all.

The US Employs around 800,000 SWORN officials (Police with the power to arrest/detain) according to those numbers you have about a 1/13 to a 1/16 chance to be assaulted in the line of duty and a 1/50 chance to be assaulted and sustain an injury. I would say that is a rather dangerous job.

And only about 1/2 of the military are ever deployed into a warzone so let's just call that a safe job too while we're at it.

From an earlier post in this thread (sorry for quoting myself):

Police made an estimated 11,205,833 arrests during 2014—498,666 for violent crimes, and 1,553,980 for property crimes.

Applying that 2014 number to the 2015 death by police officer number of 990 (I'm too lazy to dig up the 2014 database), there was a .00835% chance per arrest of a police officer killing a suspect. There is no data that encapsulates traffic stops or other interactions but adding these in would make that chance even less likely.

Let's put it another way. In 2014 there were 627,949 law officers in the US. There were 990 deaths caused by those officers which means that .158% of the police officers in the US killed someone.

And, here's a video that provides a bit of perspective (this is one view on the matter and like all data, it can be presented in a way that supports one side of an argument):




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Contrast that to 124 deaths in the line of duty for police, 50 by firearm, which was a large increase from 2013 when 102 officers died, 32 by firearm.

That's a 17.7% increase in the number of police deaths and a 36% increase in the number of those deaths involving a firearm. Statistically, that's alarming and cause for those in the field to be cautious (overly so?)

This may be an argument for argument's sake and I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this but...

Why shouldn't it be "OK" to be rude to a cop?

Inspired far as it's "okay" to be rude to a subway attendant, a taxi driver, a store clerk, a traffic warden.

By which I mean, of course it's not "OK" to be rude to them but... Well. I might be talking gibberish here.