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.

Now, if it had been a black cop...

 Krinsath wrote:

 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.

I think we can come to an agreement that the trend causing this should be studied. I don't think the link is the military though. Another aspect is, in the military there is very much a brotherhood and we learn to judge those by actions not color of skin. There are always exceptions, humans are humans with flaws.

It seemed like yet another attack Sodliers because they all have non-functioning PTSD and only know how to kill argument. But military training or not, he did go to a police academy, which IMO are all subpar in weapons immersion. We sleep with ours, eat with ours, shower with it not out of arms reach. So even the REMF's(google it, I don't wanna get slapped by a mod) probably have decent weapons discipline(usually, there are always exceptions. I have corrected some horrible infractions).

Either way, I think we definitely agree this was negligence. Causes for the seeming trend though I would wait and see some scientific type data. Horrible as these incidents are, they are still rare if you think of the thousands of interactions the police have with citizens daily across the country. It does not make it ok, and we should always seek to better ourselves and our country. Unfortunately fox, cnn, msnbc don't like to do the good will stories about how helpful LEOs can be.

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

You're missing the point. If he's convicted of a felony he won't be permitted a firearm again, even assuming he can now. As a police officer he is not subject to laws concerning the Second Amendment in the first place.

There is zero valid excuse that can be used in this situation to justify any kind of shot from the officer(s).

Whatever happened to talking to people?

Whatever happened to verifying what someone is telling you?

Did none of these cops think to ask the guy "What group home do you work at?" and then use a cell phone to call and verify his identity? (or have dispatch call)

It seems like police do not have enough critical thinking training.

 redleger wrote:

I think we can come to an agreement that the trend causing this should be studied. I don't think the link is the military though. Another aspect is, in the military there is very much a brotherhood and we learn to judge those by actions not color of skin. There are always exceptions, humans are humans with flaws.

It seemed like yet another attack Sodliers because they all have non-functioning PTSD and only know how to kill argument. But military training or not, he did go to a police academy, which IMO are all subpar in weapons immersion. We sleep with ours, eat with ours, shower with it not out of arms reach. So even the REMF's(google it, I don't wanna get slapped by a mod) probably have decent weapons discipline(usually, there are always exceptions. I have corrected some horrible infractions).

Either way, I think we definitely agree this was negligence. Causes for the seeming trend though I would wait and see some scientific type data. Horrible as these incidents are, they are still rare if you think of the thousands of interactions the police have with citizens daily across the country. It does not make it ok, and we should always seek to better ourselves and our country. Unfortunately fox, cnn, msnbc don't like to do the good will stories about how helpful LEOs can be.

I agree, and I do hope that it's no connection to military service is ever found given that my own background is heavily influenced by the military. However, the military is exceedingly good at psychology and thus it seems an avenue worth exploring as the military as an organization is not typically concerned beyond its own needs (as many people quip "If the military wanted you to have a family they'd have issued you one"). Those two things taken together are mainly what give me pause, not the soldiers themselves.

The main thing that is saddening about this is like military service, being a LEO should be an honorable thing. Both of them are far more likely to help you as a citizen than hurt you. However, when the incidents with LEOs keep repeating, it breeds the kind of mistrust that ensures that incidents like this are going to continue to happen while simultaneously diminishing the LEOs ability to actually help (ask any LEO about how much fun it is to get witnesses to violent crimes in poor neighborhoods).

 Frazzled wrote:

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

You're missing the point. If he's convicted of a felony he won't be permitted a firearm again, even assuming he can now. As a police officer he is not subject to laws concerning the Second Amendment in the first place.

Do I Not Like That might not be aware that felons cannot legally purchase firearms. So, if this cop is convicted of a felony and not killed in prison, we won't legally be able to purchase a gun again.

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

You're missing the point. If he's convicted of a felony he won't be permitted a firearm again, even assuming he can now. As a police officer he is not subject to laws concerning the Second Amendment in the first place.

Do I Not Like That might not be aware that felons cannot legally purchase firearms. So, if this cop is convicted of a felony and not killed in prison, we won't legally be able to purchase a gun again.

That last part is exactly why I don't understand why LEOs keep towing the line, and then crossing it, seeing as how when you get to prison, you are probably not gonna have a very good experience, relatively speaking of course.

Juries are reluctant to even send a guilty cop to jail for that reason.

Anecdotal, I know, but I was on a jury that convicted a cop of a crime (not going into it here). Even with all 12 members agreeing he did it, 3 of them dug in and said they'd never send him to jail. We spent more time on deliberating the punishment than the guilty verdict.

Edit: I googled that guy recently. He killed himself last year.

What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.

And people wonder why it is hard to trust police.

 curran12 wrote:
What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.

And people wonder why it is hard to trust police.

Because, as soon as you say "Hey, I don't shoot people. I am usually very successful at coming to peaceful resolutions, and I understand that law enforcement is not all about arrest figures", you get responses like:

"So, what, you want us to applaud you for doing your job? Where were you to stop these kinds of shootings, d**khead?"

 curran12 wrote:
What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.

And people wonder why it is hard to trust police.

That is actually a really good point. There have been a few out there spreading the word but once again, this is not the story the media wants to tell on a national level. It is relegated to local news at best. However I would like to see more reporting from both sides. It helps with the sense that there is no agenda being pushed by anyone, when it clearly looks that way.

What I would really like to see is both movements talking together, supporting each other, and moving forward together. There has been some coverage of this, but not as widespread.

 curran12 wrote:
What bothers me almost as much as the event itself is of course, where is the outcry from all of the supposed 'good cops' who don't do this sort of thing? After all, they are letting the thuggish bullies set the tone, and despite there always being claims of 'more good cops than bad', the good cops are never there to cry out against the bad.

And people wonder why it is hard to trust police.

NO GROUP effectively polices itself. This is not limited to police, or lawyers, or real estate agents, or politicians.

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

I will be happy to concede that not every officer that is accused of wrongdoing is 100% cleared if you concede that police officers are statistically, virtually never indicted and convicted, and the ones that are convicted are essentially a rounding error. How's that? Is that pedantically precise enough for you?

 Ouze wrote:

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

I will be happy to concede that not every officer that is accused of wrongdoing is 100% cleared if you concede that police officers are statistically, virtually never indicted and convicted, and the ones that are convicted are essentially a rounding error. How's that? Is that pedantically precise enough for you?

And that Police can LIE to juries who believe the officer even when forensic evidence proves what the officer said can't possibly happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/

Basically evidence which would convict virtually anyone else becomes nullified due to people who always believe police and victim character assassination on the stand which makes them say 'well he was technicality wrong but the victim had it coming as he was a criminal even though he was unarmed and fleeing'

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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...

Please stop conflating 2nd Amendment rights with police issued firearms. The 2nd Amendment covers ownership by private individuals, i.e., civilians. Police are issued their firearms under separate authority granted them by the State/Federal governments and have specific rules and regulations that accompany them. This authority is no different than what other countries, including the United Kingdom, give their police. Gun ownership as a civil right is not part of the equation here and is really way off topic.

Back on topic: Here is a link to a Yahoo article that has a video interview with the victim in the hospital.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/therapist-helping-autistic-man-shot-155845848.html

As for charges, depending on the statute Attempted Murder might be difficult to prove here, but yes I also believe the officer needs to be fired and charged with some sort of felony for shooting an innocent, unarmed man who was laying on the ground trying to protect this autistic man. I certainly hope Florida law doesn't prevent this guy from suing.

I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.

I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.

My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.

Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.

More bad training of cops leading to cops fear biting people causing harm to innocents. In far too many of these shootings the police are the most dangerous people at the scene and there's no acceptable excuse for it.

If the police were told that the therapist helping the autistic man holding the toy truck was a suicidal man holding a gun then that could explain why the cops approached the scene with guns drawn. However, IMHO approaching the scene with guns drawn without first verifying that any threat exists is a bad policy and dangerous safety violation. In too many situations we see officers approaching the scene with guns drawn and behaving in a manner that appears fearful and focussed on preemptively shooting to end any preceived threat at the slightest provocation. Evidence of this can be seen in departments across the country.

In San Diego a cop shot an unarmed homeless man because a pen looked like a knife. Then that same officer weeks later negligently discharged a round into a baby's crib while searching the unoccupied room.

In New York two rookie officers were patrolling a housing development and since the section of stairwell they were in had broken lights one officer was using his flashlight and also drew his gun (just because it was dark apparently) and then that officer accidently shot an unarmed innocent man when he and his girlfriend entered the stairwell and their appearance surprised the officer. The officer was convicted of manslaughter but the charge was downgraded and he avoided any prison time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Akai_Gurley

Then there's the LAPD that saw negligent discharges more than double from 2012 to 2014 because of poor training. The LAPD used to issue Berettas, partly because they had a 12-15lb trigger pull (the harder pull supposedly makes it safer since officers have to exert more effort to fire a round) but then they taught officers to keep a finger on the trigger specifically to compensate for the extra time and effort required by a heavier trigger. One of the largest police departments in the country was teaching officers to violate one of the fundamental rules of firearm safety. When the department switched to issuing pistols with a lighter trigger pull that required safer handling by leaving your finger off the trigger until you needed to shoot the old bad habit of keeping a finger on the trigger caused a sharp increase in negligent discharges.

L.A. County sheriff's deputies learning to shoot the Beretta were taught to rest a finger on the trigger as soon as they took aim. The mantra was "on target, on trigger."

With M&Ps and Glocks, the trigger finger should stay on the side of the gun until the last moment.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-guns-20150614-story.html#page=1

These instances just offer insight as to a possible explanation for this particular shooting. Officer believes he's approaching a scene with a possibly suicida/deranged person armed with a gun so he has his gun out. He may also have his finger on the trigger already so that he can shoot quickly without hesitation because he may be confronting an armed person. Since his finger is on the trigger it would only take one little accident like a stumble to cause an involuntary reaction of clenching his hand and discharging a round which could lead to instinctive follow up shots. Or since his gun was drawn and if his finger was on the trigger it would only take a brief moment of mistaking the toy truck for a gun, maybe the sunlight glinted on it or the man held in a manner resembling pistol grip, whatever, to cause the officer to instinctively fire in preemptive self preservation. That's similar to what happened in the infamous Diallo shooting.

Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.

At best. Its still a felony.

Also-anything on how many times the victim was shot? One is a potential misfire (still a felony in my book) three is damn intentional especially with a crappy Glock 7lb trigger pull.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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.

Have you ever looked in to the Chicago PD?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.

I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.

My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.

Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.

Yeah, and when you consider that the VAST MAJORITY of firearm crimes are committed by people who are felons, aka unable to possess a firearm... you might start to understand the crux of the issue when so many people slam on folks proposing "new laws". They aren't following the laws that are already there, what will new laws do?

This sounds like a simple case of a cop unfit for duty. No greater conspiracy or malice to be found.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wasn't aware that a felony conviction resulted in an individual being unable to purchase or own firearms at a later date.

I was under the impression that once an individual has repaid their debt to society, all rights would be automatically restored, hence my earlier points.

My mistake and I'll say no more on this to avoid taking the thread OT.

Still think that cop in question is a fething idiot, though.

Agreed that the cop was an idiot.

There's lots of things a convicted felon can't do. Not everyone here is even aware.
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicted-felons-lose/

Voting
Traveling abroad
The right to bear arms or own guns
Jury service
Employment in certain fields
Public social benefits and housing
Parental benefits

Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.

There seems to be a serious issue that is causing these cops to go from 0-100% real quick. It's just not just shooting black men either, despite the fact that it is generating the most news coverage.

There has to be some serious issues with the training that is going on with current police officers, as well as whatever escalation of force policies they are following.

Some serious evaluation needs to start going on Nationwide.

I'm also inclined to believe that there needs to be special prosecutors assigned to police killing cases, as most DAs are not going to try very hard to convict Cops. It also puts a strain on the working relationship between the DA and police.

 SickSix wrote:
This sounds like a simple case of a cop unfit for duty. No greater conspiracy or malice to be found.

The conspiracy and malice will occur when nothing is done. If someone digs up an article a year from now showing he went to the state penitentiary for a felony I will eat my words, but we know that isn't going to happen.

Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

 Jihadin wrote:
Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

Three times with a Glock semi? I call bull gak-

"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.

“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”

Seconds later, off camera, one of the officers fired his weapon three times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/#comments

As usual, my money is on the other police in the area, as well as those who believe police can do no wrong will soon be in the defend this thug.

 Ouze wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Far too rational. We need to immediately use the incident to somehow prove that there is a national epidemic of racial police shootings (not just more/selective reporting) and jump to conclusions and avoid all due process. Because that should turn out well.

I know it's fun to blame the meeeeeeedia for all of our problems, but the number of police officers charged with murder tripled in 2015. With the advent of bodycams, dashcams, and ominpresent cell phone videos, it's getting harder to pretend there isn't an actual real problem with policing in the US - from the methods that policing takes, to the disinclination of good cops to report bad cops, and to the public for failing to indict what are sometimes readily apparent bad actors.

Wait, so the number charged tripled indicating that there is greater accountability. And more cameras indicates more agencies documenting problems- which is a good thing. But how does this indicate an epidemic of racial shootings again? OP posted this in context of "race relations". My point was this is not really a racial issue at all, not that there aren't issues. It is an area where there is greater awareness in directly addressing the issue of unnecessary use of force. And that we have due process for a reason and knee jerk reactions trying to skirt that usually leads to unintended consequences.

Perhaps there is more to the story (though it is hard to imagine what). If not, I am sure Florida has appropriate penalties for such behavior. Assault with a deadly weapon would seem appropriate. I would imagine there is civil liability for the incident as well.

As to saying police don't speak out against such behavior, that is pretty asinine. You do realize agencies routinely speak out against brutality and community initiatives are all over the place. However, "police" are not one group, but divided agencies all over the nation! Why would an officer in Kentucky even be aware of what's going on in Nevada? That is the same stupid anti-logic that dictates that all Muslims are bad because they don't speak out against extremist terrorists or all white people are essentially the KKK.

As to juries not indicting, convicting, oh well. So long as we cling to a jury based system where we pick 12 people who are ignorant of what's going on by design, don't be surprised. The system is basically setup to fail to convict for all kinds of silly reasons.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

Three times with a Glock semi? I call bull gak-

"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.

“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”

Seconds later, off camera, one of the officers fired his weapon three times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/#comments

Still sticking with it. From a Lawyer POV. That's more cash cow he/she can hit up.

Lack of Training
Improper Training
Lack of Visual Confirmation
Lack of Motive to Draw Weapons
Negligent Discharge causing injuries
Shooter trigger control
etc etc etc

Three shots fired ... either negligent discharge or some kind of psychological/neurological episode. This story is getting a lot of attention but does not really fit the "systematic racism" argument lobbyists and pundits have been constructing.