Florida... again... Mass shooting at a nightclub's teen night

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.

**Krinsath**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Krinsath wrote:
The more I see things like this happening, the more I wonder if the officers involved are former military. I do not mean that as a slam on those who have served in the armed forces as they and their families sacrifice a great deal to provide our safety, and there are obviously a great number of traits about the military that align well with police work. However, in the modern professional US military, soldiers are trained to kill as a reflex and not as a conscious thought because most humans, when they think about it, are loathe to shoot another human being with the intent to kill. This is a bad trait in a soldier, so the training often focuses on short-circuiting the "do not kill humans" instinct by making it a non-thought action.
.

The military has Rules of Engagement that are faaaaaaar stricter than what cops deal with. If cops followed the RoE the way we expect our military to then this would never happen, and if it did he would be in prison very soon.

We've seen quite a bit of footage over the years of the RoEs being ignored as well; sometimes with no consequence if it was in a combat zone and just a mistake. Also the military tends to not operate in as small of numbers as the police do; typically an officer of some sort will be present that they have been conditioned to obey, and they can draw some calmness from the fact that there's 6 or 7 other guys there (or more). Many of these police shootings occur when they're out on their own with their partner, and those smaller numbers of course increase the anxiety/stress and likelihood to fall back on trained reflexes. This video seemed to show at least 3 officers though it's hard to tell where the shooter might have been in relation to others.

Again, it's just a theory that perhaps that conditioning is playing a role. Many other things play into that like the numbers as mentioned, and race can still be a factor as "you don't look like me" elevates people's wariness at a instinctual level. Very likely a huge number of factors combining badly and uniquely in each case, but I doubt that the problem is just "racist cops" as that seems far too simplistic to be reality.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Somebody points a gun, fires, then says he didn't know why he fired, and then somebody else starts shooting...

2nd amendment be damned! Lock them up, and when they get out, give them a court order that says they're back in jail if they even look at a gun.

American society has the right to bear arms, but it also has the right to be protected from idiots like this.

Apologies if I'm going over the top, but the stupidity of this incident...I just cannot fathom it...

I feel sorry for sensible gun owners who get lumped in with these idiots...

AGAIN, this has literally nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Your police have guns but you have no Bill of Rights.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kronk, some points of mine in response to your comment.

In no particular order:

If you're familiar with my comment history you'll know I'm sympathetic and supportive of the rights of Americans to keep guns.

Hell, in the new black panther thread, I was arguing in favour of African Americans to exercise their right to open carry.

In the vast majority of cases, our everyday police in the UK don't walk around armed, and we're largely an unarmed society, so you can't argue that the cops would still be armed if there were no guns on the streets.

I brought the 2nd into this for the following reason: clearly this man should not be trusted with a gun because he is a danger to himself and society at large, cop or no cop...

He has clearly demonstrated that his 2nd amendment rights should be suspended indefinitely...

Carrying a firearm is a fundamental right for Americans, but responsibility has to go hand in hand with that. Guns are not toys...

You're just trolling at this point.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Ouze wrote:
I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.

Because they always get cleared....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Corey_Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

**Mr. Burning**

Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

**d-usa**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Have you never seen Duel?

**nkelsch**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Clearly in the seconds between the videos when the shooting happened, the truck was being modified into a makeshift firearm, and the Therapist began charging the officers while using the patient as a human shield and was non compliance... being on the ground with his hands up before and after is just fake to 'fit the narrative'.

We should wait for the true evidence, once the police tell us what it is and show us as they have no reason to lie or cover up.

**Ouze**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
Because they always get cleared....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Corey_Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

I'm glad you were able to find 3 convictions out of the thousand or so police shootings that happen yearly.

**kronk**

d-usa wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Have you never seen Duel?

I was thinking Maximum Overdrive, but fair play.

**Frazzled**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Maybe the police were trying to shoot out the tires of the toy truck and save the boy, but being that they never practice they missed, badly?

**nkelsch**

Ouze wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
Because they always get cleared....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Corey_Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

I'm glad you were able to find 3 convictions out of the thousand or so police shootings that happen yearly.

And those show the police lied, manufactured evidence, and made false reports...

So it shows why we should believe anything the police say as part of the investigation after a shooting?

**Ouze**

nkelsch wrote:
We should wait for the true evidence, once the police tell us what it is and show us as they have no reason to lie or cover up.

Indeed, I can't make any decisions until the police department has had time to look through the victim's social media for whatever pictures might cast them in the worst possible light. It would be irresponsible not to wait until then.

**SagesStone**

Frazzled wrote:
‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ and his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.'”

Maybe make entry into the police a tad bit harder? Or better more regular evaluation to determine if they should be trusted with a gun, a taser or be better off carrying around a pool noodle.

Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Clearly bla bla bla islamic state... bla bla bla Nice.... bla bla bla murica save the day!
He was probably being loud or upset about something and thus drew their attention. Though here at least if someone is put into a group home like that and isn't considered safe enough on their own, if they were to escape and run away the police would be sent to find them which could be another possibility if he was involuntary and needed to remain under supervision for his own safety.

**Frazzled**

Indeed.

Shouldn't the one officer have shot the other officer, for being insane and shooting at bystanders?

**Krinsath**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Reportedly the police were summoned to an armed man looking to attempt suicide. It's a fair question as to why they didn't realize there was no need to have guns drawn, but they thought they had been called to a far more dangerous situation than what they encountered. If I was told that I'd be going into an area where someone was armed, I'd likely go in with weapon drawn as well.

Whether or not that's true is a different question, but going at face value it's more of "why do the police never put their guns away once they're drawn?"

**SagesStone**

Indeed the bullets were likely subject to a manufacturing error and thus discharged themselves making the entire incident accidental.

**Selym**

I'm waiting for a "He look like a muslamist so I had to shoot him, or he'd have blown up a pair of towers on September" comment.

**Buttery Commissar**

I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.

**Frazzled**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.

I think at this point a very healthy wariness of any interaction would be the most prudent course.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Maybe the police were trying to shoot out the tires of the toy truck and save the boy, but being that they never practice they missed, badly?

The "boy", Rinaldo, was a grown autistic man who lived in a group home.

You can see Rinaldo on the right, sitting up. Purportedly while the therapist was lying down, he tried to get Rinaldo to lie down as well and Rinaldo was telling him to "shut up".

In any regards, this officer needs to be fired immediately and charged with attempted murder. There was NO reason for guns to be drawn in this situation, reports of an armed person attempting suicide or not.

**redleger**

Krinsath wrote:
The more I see things like this happening, the more I wonder if the officers involved are former military. I do not mean that as a slam on those who have served in the armed forces as they and their families sacrifice a great deal to provide our safety, and there are obviously a great number of traits about the military that align well with police work. However, in the modern professional US military, soldiers are trained to kill as a reflex and not as a conscious thought because most humans, when they think about it, are loathe to shoot another human being with the intent to kill. This is a bad trait in a soldier, so the training often focuses on short-circuiting the "do not kill humans" instinct by making it a non-thought action.

While that obviously makes them better soldiers, it makes them awful police officers in a threatening situation. With how stressful those situations inevitably are, their reflexes will kick in and their reflex is to kill because that's what we (meaning society) spent a lot of time and energy making it be. The officer's reported comment of "I don't know" to why he shot the man aligns with that theory. He doesn't know because his brain didn't actually make that choice; his earlier training made that choice for him (if he's former military).

Now, people can also just be hateful people and/or flat-out make mistakes. However, I do see a great deal of overlap between the military and the police in terms of personnel, and I wonder if that's a hidden cause.

This is all kinds of insulting and ignorant. First off no Soldier is trained to shoot an unarmed person. Second off if he had been former military, this could have happened had he been what we call soft skills. They hold a weapon once per year at most. If he had been military and been a combat arms then he would have been comfortable with his weapon, confident in his ability to utilize it, and not negligently shot a human being. This is simply incompetence in a police officer and I agree that he should be locked up. He didn't just make a mistake, he negligently fired his weapon, intentional or not. I haven't even finished reading the thread, but I had to address this.

Edit, Oh and at no point is any Soldier or policeperson is taught to shoot someone in the leg, so if he had been military, he would have shot him center mass. Hitting him in the leg seems like an unaimed shot to me. If it was unaimed, then it was negligent. Same thing applies, arrest him, arraign him and put him on trial.

**Mr. Burning**

Krinsath wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Reportedly the police were summoned to an armed man looking to attempt suicide. It's a fair question as to why they didn't realize there was no need to have guns drawn, but they thought they had been called to a far more dangerous situation than what they encountered. If I was told that I'd be going into an area where someone was armed, I'd likely go in with weapon drawn as well.

Whether or not that's true is a different question, but going at face value it's more of "why do the police never put their guns away once they're drawn?"

True.

How much time elapsed form them attending the scene to the shooting.

Another thought, if you are told, by despatchers, that there may be a danger in the form of a weapon are your senses then distorted when you can see there is none? There must be reluctance to lower your own defence?

**Frazzled**

When the police lose Kanluwen AND Frazzled, then there's a problem.

**Mr. Burning**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
Everyone should back up for a minute......

This situation was brought about by a mentally ill individual carrying a toy truck.

What were the circumstances leading up to the point that guns were drawn on a guy playing toy cars. In what world is a toy eighteen wheeler considered a threat?

Maybe the police were trying to shoot out the tires of the toy truck and save the boy, but being that they never practice they missed, badly?

The "boy", Rinaldo, was a grown autistic man who lived in a group home.

You can see Rinaldo on the right, sitting up. Purportedly while the therapist was lying down, he tried to get Rinaldo to lie down as well and Rinaldo was telling him to "shut up".

In any regards, this officer needs to be fired immediately and charged with attempted murder. There was NO reason for guns to be drawn in this situation, reports of an armed person attempting suicide or not.

Its also a case where training is lacking in areas of mental health and welfare?

**Kanluwen**

Mr. Burning wrote:

Its also a case where training is lacking in areas of mental health and welfare?

It's not as lacking as you might think. There is training in place, nationwide, that is to be used as templates by police departments for training their employees in dealing with the mentally ill and deescalating situations.

What is lacking is a lack of enforcement of that training or proper acceptance of that training. There's a stigma attached to that training within law enforcement itself; some officers feel that it makes them look less like a "police officer" and more like a "social worker". It's also worth mentioning that the training itself isn't something you can learn once or twice and never use; it's something you'll actually have to keep working with and keeping abreast of developments in the field of mental illness.

**SagesStone**

So then they should be trying to remove that stupid stigma?

**Krinsath**

redleger wrote:

This is all kinds of insulting and ignorant. First off no Soldier is trained to shoot an unarmed person. Second off if he had been former military, this could have happened had he been what we call soft skills. They hold a weapon once per year at most. If he had been military and been a combat arms then he would have been comfortable with his weapon, confident in his ability to utilize it, and not negligently shot a human being. This is simply incompetence in a police officer and I agree that he should be locked up. He didn't just make a mistake, he negligently fired his weapon, intentional or not. I haven't even finished reading the thread, but I had to address this.

Soldiers are trained that when in danger, shoot to kill. In a perfect world, soldiers are only in "engagement" mode when they are faced with enemies/under fire and thus there are not unarmed people in the way. Sadly, there's ample evidence of civilian causalities in pretty much every conflict that shows that under stress, bad things happen and that reflexive conditioning takes over. We kind of accept that in a war though, because war is an ugly business even if sometimes necessary.

The officer in question could have no military training whatsoever, and could have simply panicked. However, we've seen a disturbing trend of these things happening and I don't think it's just the media paying more attention or police becoming more brazen racists who think they should execute people. As a society, we need to figure out why these things keep happening and how we can address the problem. No cow should be held as sacred in trying to defuse why innocent people are being shot.

**redleger**

Krinsath wrote:
redleger wrote:

This is all kinds of insulting and ignorant. First off no Soldier is trained to shoot an unarmed person. Second off if he had been former military, this could have happened had he been what we call soft skills. They hold a weapon once per year at most. If he had been military and been a combat arms then he would have been comfortable with his weapon, confident in his ability to utilize it, and not negligently shot a human being. This is simply incompetence in a police officer and I agree that he should be locked up. He didn't just make a mistake, he negligently fired his weapon, intentional or not. I haven't even finished reading the thread, but I had to address this.

Soldiers are trained that when in danger, shoot to kill. In a perfect world, soldiers are only in "engagement" mode when they are faced with enemies/under fire and thus there are not unarmed people in the way. Sadly, there's ample evidence of civilian causalities in pretty much every conflict that shows that under stress, bad things happen and that reflexive conditioning takes over. We kind of accept that in a war though, because war is an ugly business even if sometimes necessary.

The officer in question could have no military training whatsoever, and could have simply panicked. However, we've seen a disturbing trend of these things happening and I don't think it's just the media paying more attention or police becoming more brazen racists who think they should execute people. As a society, we need to figure out why these things keep happening and how we can address the problem. No cow should be held as sacred in trying to defuse why innocent people are being shot.

Have you ever been a Soldier? I am trained to eliminate an enemy, not shoot when I am in danger, there is a difference. Police are not Soldiers, and should not be placed in the same level, simply because police are not as well trained. Its a sad, but obvious fact. Casualties of war happen, but has nothing to do with this situation, as he was not an innocent bystander caught in a crossfire.

The officer in question failed to follow procedure, regardless of his background, But Ill bet one months base pay at my enlisted rate with housing allowance that he was not a veteran who had been in combat. Yes we need to figure out why these things are happening, but don't lump bad cops in the same category as Soldiers, because nothing about this situation screams Soldier. I know I am one, and many of the posters here were also, so I am sure they can help illuminate you if you need help understanding the difference.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Ouze wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I'm sure the officer in question will surely question his actions when he gets a paid vacation (while they do an investigation) and then is cleared of all wrongdoing, as always.
Because they always get cleared....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Corey_Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

I'm glad you were able to find 3 convictions out of the thousand or so police shootings that happen yearly.

So this is the part where you supply evidence that prove when police were verifiably in the wrong they are always cleared? No?

Those are just 3 that came up in recent times with a bit of googling. I just get sick of hearing offhand inflammatory statements about how the police are always corrupt and always victimising the populace. If you have some actual evidence instead of inflammatory moaning then maybe we can actually have a discussion.

It seems on the surface that this is a case of the cop doing the wrong thing. Bad gak happens from time to time, hopefully the cop gets dealt with and the injured party compensated appropriately.

**Krinsath**

redleger wrote:

Have you ever been a Soldier? I am trained to eliminate an enemy, not shoot when I am in danger, there is a difference. Police are not Soldiers, and should not be placed in the same level, simply because police are not as well trained. Its a sad, but obvious fact. Casualties of war happen, but has nothing to do with this situation, as he was not an innocent bystander caught in a crossfire.

The officer in question failed to follow procedure, regardless of his background, But Ill bet one months base pay at my enlisted rate with housing allowance that he was not a veteran who had been in combat. Yes we need to figure out why these things are happening, but don't lump bad cops in the same category as Soldiers, because nothing about this situation screams Soldier. I know I am one, and many of the posters here were also, so I am sure they can help illuminate you if you need help understanding the difference.

There is a difference, but your own post illustrates that there are large swathes of the military where your statements are not true because they are not trained as well as front-line soldiers and, to use your tiering, are more police-grade in their training. It was not an accusation that all former military turned police are ticking time-bombs as you seem to be reacting to but a question that is that a possible common thread in these "how in the hell did someone thinking shooting was a good idea?" Perhaps that hypothesis will not bear out and you are correct that military training is of no concern in the field of police work, especially given the numerous obvious benefits it provides.

I do not disagree that the officer in question didn't follow procedure and in that sense it doesn't matter if he's a Medal of Honor recipient or someone who struggled to get through the Police Academy and never set foot on a military base; he screwed up badly. However, he's a portion of a much larger national trend where these things keep happening. It could be utterly random and there's no unifying cause and this is how things are with the state of accountability and funding that police have, but it would behoove us to look into anything that could be a factor, no? If a hypothesis is proven false, we know we can disregard it. If it's never examined, then we never know.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazz, I ain't trolling, and this point I'm making is for Kronk as well.

In both our societies, people obviously drive cars, and they have a duty to drive safely, maintain their car, and if they get caught drunk driving, they can be banned and or imprisoned, because cars can be lethal if things go wrong. We accept that.

We also accept that accidents happen. That's life, and often there is mitigating circumstances. I nearly got killed in a car crash once because some idiot didn't look before pulling out at a junction and ended up smacking into my car

If this officer in question had accidently shot himself, or slipped on something and shot a person, it's obviously bad, but that's life.

None the less, despite the 2nd being a fundamental right for American citizens, with great power comes great responsibility, because ultimately, guns are lethal things...

So when you have this officer who pulls out a gun, aims that gun, fires that gun, and doesn't know why he fired, he has gone beyond the social contract of rights and responsibilities.

Cop or no cop, he has clearly demonstrated that it would be irresponsible for him to be able to own a gun.

If he was a car owner, he'd be banned and nobody would complain. Suspending or banning his 2nd rights, is a fair measure in my book.