When starting a thread, I almost never open up with an opinion because I don't like having any impact on how the discussion plays out... but if this video is as it appears to be, it's cold blooded attempted murder.
Maybe something threatening was said. I'm open. I want more details. But this video looks like bad, bad news.
Fast forward to 1 minute mark. - (
New Window )
'This confirms everything we've been saying since the day that Jonathan was killed: That this was an All-American guy who gave a friend a ride home and was just trying to get home himself when he had a car accident. And when he was runs to the officer for help, the officer shoots him 10 times,' Chestnut told The Associated Press.
This was the narrative the public was given for almost a year. The victim was often referred to as a former college football player and an "All-American" guy.
We're screwed as a society if we give another inch to any of this horseshit.
Then we'll see how sympathetic you are to their plight.
In court, Ferrell's girlfriend testified that he had been smoking pot that afternoon and went to a friend's house. The friend then testified that they hung out that night having "a few beers".
The narrative is that a man politely knocks on a door at 3AM and the police are called simply because he was black. This was the narrative we all were given until the court case. Why didn't anyone report on the 911 call prior? It sure would've painted a different picture.
Man "knocked on door" - ( New Window )
Now, you're away on business. That's your wife on the phone. Your kid/s are upstairs in the house.
How much sympathy do you have for that guy, now?
And that goes all the way back to my original point on this thread.
I wonder how that woman would have reacted if he actually came "knocking" on the door like he did.
This is part of the issue with drawing conclusions without the facts. Without knowing the contents of the 911 call - it is easy to assume a man was simply asking for help and white fear is what drove the police to be called and white fear is what drove the officer to kill him.
Knowing the facts, that becomes a false narrative.
Most of these facts didn't come out until a trial despite there being a 911 call that the Media could have obtained as well as the dashcam footage.
Then we'll see how sympathetic you are to their plight.
Wait a second. I'm supposed to feel unsympathetic to the dead guy, who died younger than me, who wasn't committing a crime (that I've read of), because of this 911 call?
So this woman is scared, so this "clown" needed to die.
I just read the transcript. The woman said he kicked down the door. So logically, I guess this guy deserves no sympathy and should have been shot.
also not sure what the cop excerpt is supposed to prove. You posted a cops testimony that the guy said SHOOT ME that's uncorroborated. That testimony is supposed to prove what? It's the cop's testimony. Why am I to automatically believe that?
Britt, what the fuck is the heinous action that you can PROVE that made this guy a "clown" who deserved to die?
I'm not even passing judgement on this. All I said was that FMiC's post seeemed to have a hell of a lot more bias in it than the articles I read online.
But somehow it turns into another discussion of "hey, this is why this unarmed black guy deserved to get shot by the police".
I can't even compute how that 911 call is supposed to make me feel like it's okay that this guy got shot and killed.
Quote:
where the woman claims he is trying to kick down her door 911 Call - ( New Window )
Yeah, sounds like he's just looking for help. Home alarm going off, dude is screaming in the background, repeatedly kicking the door.
Poor woman with her kids in the house crying on the phone.
Give me a FUCKING break.
Wait, so he wasn't looking for help? So what was he doing? Trying to rob the fucking house?
Hey, I just crashed my car, let me go and try and break into a house just for the fuck of it.
Obviously the woman is scared and crying, but that has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not this guy deserved to die. It can appeal to your emotion all you want but whether or not this woman is crying is totally irrelevant.
She has every right to be scared shitless. She did the right thing for herself by calling the police. Still doesn't mean jack shit regarding whether he should have died.
Out of curiosity, I wonder if any reports have indicated how many police were on the scene.
Now, you're away on business. That's your wife on the phone. Your kid/s are upstairs in the house.
How much sympathy do you have for that guy, now?
And that goes all the way back to my original point on this thread.
Please connect what this woman's 911 call has to do with sympathy for the guy who was shot dead by the police after a car accident, while unarmed and not doing anything illegal.
This woman's 911 call somehow makes you lack sympathy for the dead man? What the fuck? It's like your fishing and looking for reasons to convince yourself that it's okay that this dude was killed.
In court, Ferrell's girlfriend testified that he had been smoking pot that afternoon and went to a friend's house. The friend then testified that they hung out that night having "a few beers".
So smoking weed and drinking "a few beers" somehow turned into the implication that he was driving around drunk or inebriated when he crashed his car...
Also, smoking pot in the afternoon has exactly a 0% affect on you 12 hours later, so it's completely irrelevant
I'm not even sure what I'm trying to defend here. I don't even know what position I'm trying to argue.
As I think it through, the only two things I'm contending here is:
1) FMiC's post had a fair bit of slant to it, so I don't think the fact that the media didn't report it the way he posted about it is fair criticism.
2) There is nothing that proves this guy deserves to die... ESPECIALLY that fucking 911 call.
I think the 911 call isn't to be used as evidence that somebody deserves to die - it is evidence that the police are most likely not looking for a car crash victim, but rather a possible break-in suspect at 3AM.
The car accident was never called in or reported.
The difference in those two scenarios means that the police are going to be looking at a suspect differently.
Hey, my position is that killing a guy with 10 shots is overkill and that training among all police in this country needs to get better from a scene recognition standpoint, but what this case also highlighted is how the Media's initial reporting of stories affects how people perceive this situation.
Frankly, if I've just had 911 called on me at 3AM and I charge an officer, I'd expect one possible outcome to be serious injury or death. I think the jury saw it that way as well.
Be as incredulous as you fucking like.
I'm not the one trying to turn a dead guy into a villain based on a 911 call.
"Did you hear how scared that lady is? How could you have sympathy for someone who caused a woman to be so scared!!!"
That's pretty much what you just said. No crime, no weapon, but he scared the woman, so why have sympathy for the dead guy?
What an unbelievable reaction. How can you not be aware that you are looking for reasons to believe this guy should have died?
I am not sympathetic to this particular "victim's" plight because of the way he conducted himself.
What are you going to do about beyond bitch on a message board and perpetuate a culture that at best gets an innocent cop not served at a restaurant, and at worse gets innocent cops executed.
Nothing.
He died because he:
1) Had actions that resulted in 911 involving the police
2) Failed to comply when the police arrived
3) Charged at an officer leading to the deadly shooting
There are a number of ways this could have been avoided, including the officer not using deadly force. Ultimately, a jury had a majority belief that he should have been acquitted.
after reading this board on almost any social issue it's obviously a microcosm of society.
I think the 911 call isn't to be used as evidence that somebody deserves to die - it is evidence that the police are most likely not looking for a car crash victim, but rather a possible break-in suspect at 3AM.
The car accident was never called in or reported.
The difference in those two scenarios means that the police are going to be looking at a suspect differently.
Hey, my position is that killing a guy with 10 shots is overkill and that training among all police in this country needs to get better from a scene recognition standpoint, but what this case also highlighted is how the Media's initial reporting of stories affects how people perceive this situation.
Frankly, if I've just had 911 called on me at 3AM and I charge an officer, I'd expect one possible outcome to be serious injury or death. I think the jury saw it that way as well.
Yeah, that's a fair point, and definitely is something that makes me reconsider a post I made earlier in this thread (the one about how the initial reaction of the police was indicative of a larger problem... they were looking for a possible burglar, so it makes sense they'd come out aggressively).
Having said that, if there's 3 trained cops with guns, and 1 guy, unarmed, who has already been tased, why was shooting him 10 times the next logical course of action?
One thing I am also curious about is how serious his injuries from the car crash were. On one hand, I think that's a huge variable in understanding how the situation went down. On the other hand, it's probably somewhat irrelevant as I don't think this guy should have been shot to begin with. That doesn't mean the cops need to be convicted of a crime... it just means that this guy didn't need to be shot. I don't see where there's any proof that he posed a mortal threat to the police,.
Physically, he seemed fine, but one has to wonder if disorientation or mentally there was an effect.
I don't know if that ever came out.
They are trained that if a taser has no apparent effect on stopping a person, deadly force can be used if there is an immediate threat.
Again - that's why I say training needs to be reviewed. I'd rather see people subdued instead of killed. Also, because of the darkness, it could not be known if he had a weapon on him. There might have been an assumption that if he was openly trying to break into a house, he probably was armed - that point was made at trial.
He died because he:
1) Had actions that resulted in 911 involving the police
2) Failed to comply when the police arrived
3) Charged at an officer leading to the deadly shooting
There are a number of ways this could have been avoided, including the officer not using deadly force. Ultimately, a jury had a majority belief that he should have been acquitted.
It's not about a white cop wanting a black guy dead. That's not how it works, it's not so cut and dry. It's about a white cop probably factoring in this guy's race into his assessment of how much of a threat he posed.
This is what the CNN article states happened on the dashcam:
Someone shouts, "Get on the ground!" three times, and shots are heard.
There's no command for the dead guy to stay still. If he moves away from the officers, he's trying to get away. He walks toward them, and they raise a taser.
I just watched the dashcam video. Seems the other car had the dashcam off, but some of the incident is still visible. He's walking pretty calmly towards the police, then begins to run. At that point, they take out their gun and shoot him.
That's the thing that gets me... he's moving towards the police. And the police construed this as "he's going to try to take my gun".
The statement.... "IF he got into a tussle with him, he MAY have tried to take one of our guns" is a pretty weak ass excuse to put 10 bullets in someone. That's two variables in one sentence that equated into an unarmed dead guy.
Physically, he seemed fine, but one has to wonder if disorientation or mentally there was an effect.
I don't know if that ever came out.
Yeah I just watched the video and honestly he doesn't look that badly hurt.
As I rewatch the video, I wonder:
1) why do people put themselves in bad situations by making stupid decisions like running? Did something cause him to run? did he see a taser raised, think it was a gun, and try to GTFO?
2) why do these cops have to fire two separate rounds of fire?
When I watch that video, I do not see the mortal danger posted to police that caused them to have to kill this guy.
The training is definitely a good point. People have spoken about the insular, bunker mentality that are in some police stations. I wonder if training can mitigate some of that, but truth be told, I have absolutely no idea.
It's just a very glum realization to think that there isn't really a crime this guy could have even be charged with (I guess kicking a door), but somehow he ends up dead because he scared the cops.
And this goes back to what I was saying about race. It's not about white cops looking to kill black people outright. But I don't think it's beyond reason to say that this guy's size and race probably played into the threat assessment of him, which probably lead to the officers "fearing for their life" (still dubious, IMO..you may have struggled with him and during that struggle he may have taken your gun?)...which lead to him getting shot.
People who try to deduce these things, on both sides, into singular statements such as "white cops looking to kill black guys" or "don't be a criminal / don't surprise cops or you deserve to get shot" are doing the entire discussion a disservice by trying to boil down a complicated issue and oversimplifying it.
The following statement is obviously not 100% true, but is true enough that it is a big part of this problem: cops perceive black people as bigger threats than white people, and black people have zero trust that the police are actually there to help them, or won't do something to harm them.
The jury also considered the fact that even though the deceased was shot ten times, he still made it to the officer enough to tackle him in a ditch and ended up dead on top of him. The officer did have a fat lip and abrasions to his head
The jury also considered the fact that even though the deceased was shot ten times, he still made it to the officer enough to tackle him in a ditch and ended up dead on top of him. The officer did have a fat lip and abrasions to his head
Regarding your first paragraph, that's exactly my point. I have always maintained that this isn't an issue solely about white cops and black citizens. It's about police interactions with society in general, particularly minorities, and particularly black people.
In terms of your second paragraph, well yeah, I'm not surprised that after being shot 10 times the guy may have tried to fight back and end up dead on the cop. I don't feel the dashcam video shows any indication that this guy was trying to fight three cops and take their guns and murder them, and I don't think any of his behavior up to that point indicates that this dude was going to try and fight and murder 3 cops.
And yeah, lastly, that 911 call does absolutely NOTHING to remove the sympathy I have for this dead guy who shouldn't be dead... and if the 911 call somehow makes someone think it's okay that this guy died.... then the people who feel that way are just looking for an excuse to justify this shooting.
Did I read that he charged at police and one ended up with a fat lip...? Isn't that something he could have been arrested for?
There are several things I could think of that he COULD have been arrested for, prior to even attacking the police. Some of those would depend on whether or not he was intoxicated.
In my opinion, for some unknown reason and rash decision by the deceased,it became a case of 'suicide by cop'.
Police should be held to a higher standard. I think we can agree on that. But police officers should be granted greater leeway based on their responsibilities and duties, which the average citizen is not entrusted with. And that especially holds true in split second decisions.
At that exact point in time, the second or two that the officer had to react to the would-be defendant, what exactly should the officer had done? Remember, retreating is not an option. What would you have done in that second?
Is it reasonable to believe that you were about to be assaulted? Is it reasonable to believe that the person charging at you has regard for his own safety or life? Is it reasonable to believe that had he overpowered you he would have taken your gun and likely used it against you?
A super majority of the jury seemed to think so.
So what decision would you have made in that split second?
Is there a right answer? Probably not.
Was the officer justified in his actions? A jury decided yes.
Did I read that he charged at police and one ended up with a fat lip...? Isn't that something he could have been arrested for?
Apparently this was after he was shot. The video is pretty easy to find, check it out.
There are several things I could think of that he COULD have been arrested for, prior to even attacking the police. Some of those would depend on whether or not he was intoxicated.
I haven't found any reference to his BAL or anything like that online. Either way, even if there was something he could have been arrested for, he shouldn't have been shot dead.
Watching the video, I think it's pretty clear that there were other outcomes that could have been achieved. Even through the disagreement FMiC and I are having (btw, thank you for being civil even as we disagree), we both feel that there were probably other avenues that this incident could have and should have gone in that wouldn't leave this guy dead.
In my opinion, for some unknown reason and rash decision by the deceased,it became a case of 'suicide by cop'.
Police should be held to a higher standard. I think we can agree on that. But police officers should be granted greater leeway based on their responsibilities and duties, which the average citizen is not entrusted with. And that especially holds true in split second decisions.
At that exact point in time, the second or two that the officer had to react to the would-be defendant, what exactly should the officer had done? Remember, retreating is not an option. What would you have done in that second?
Is it reasonable to believe that you were about to be assaulted? Is it reasonable to believe that the person charging at you has regard for his own safety or life? Is it reasonable to believe that had he overpowered you he would have taken your gun and likely used it against you?
A super majority of the jury seemed to think so.
So what decision would you have made in that split second?
Is there a right answer? Probably not.
Was the officer justified in his actions? A jury decided yes.
Actually, the jury wasn't unanimous, and instead of opting for a retrial, the prosecution decided to stop pursuing the case due to the difficulty of finding a jury that would actually be unanimous.
Why don't you watch the video and tell me that this unarmed guy posted a mortal threat to the police?
This isn't going to go anywhere because you're spitting out the same tired platitudes that people always do in these situations.
I'm not a trained officer, so it doesn't matter what I'd do in that situation. But you're going to tell me that there's no better training that could be given to the police so that this situation didn't unravel as it did?
Like I said, this is all based on mistrust. Officers of ALL races look at black people differently, and black people look at cops VERY differently than a white person does. There are reasons for this on both sides. Black people commit most crime than other races, and black people are also at the receiving end of police misconduct and systemic inequity than white people, so I think there's validity on both ends.
Having said that, nobody deserves to be sized up and treated like a threat based on how they looked. The question becomes "How do we find a way to mitigate and fight the mistrust and inequity?".
Remember, the rationale for shooting this guy dead was that they MIGHT get in a tussle, and if they did, he MIGHT try and take a cops gun.
Honest question: if someone punches a cop, do you think they deserve to be shot dead on the spot? I don't, personally. I think they should be arrested and have the book thrown at them for assaulting a police officer, but I do not think they should be shot dead. That's what we have a legal system for.
If the perp immediately starts running away, no. If he is throwing another punch or looks like he will the answer's yes. There's a possibility he will be knocked silly and the perp will get his gun.
The legal system doesn't do jack shit for a cop who's shot dead with his own gun.
Quote:
Honest question: if someone punches a cop, do you think they deserve to be shot dead on the spot? I don't, personally. I think they should be arrested and have the book thrown at them for assaulting a police officer, but I do not think they should be shot dead. That's what we have a legal system for.
If the perp immediately starts running away, no. If he is throwing another punch or looks like he will the answer's yes. There's a possibility he will be knocked silly and the perp will get his gun.
The legal system doesn't do jack shit for a cop who's shot dead with his own gun.
Not saying I disagree with you, but to play devil's advocate.
If someone punches another civilian, does that civilian have the right to pull out a gun and shoot his attacker? And yes, this is under the assumption said civilian owns the gun legally.
Quote:
Honest question: if someone punches a cop, do you think they deserve to be shot dead on the spot? I don't, personally. I think they should be arrested and have the book thrown at them for assaulting a police officer, but I do not think they should be shot dead. That's what we have a legal system for.
If the perp immediately starts running away, no. If he is throwing another punch or looks like he will the answer's yes. There's a possibility he will be knocked silly and the perp will get his gun.
The legal system doesn't do jack shit for a cop who's shot dead with his own gun.
Ok, I can buy that. That makes sense. I don't think that applies in this case, though.
Either way, I don't want to start arguing over minute dissections of this one incident. It's not a gigantic stretch of the imagination to say that there are outcomes where this guy didn't have to be killed. I'm hoping we can all agree on that.
Quote:
In comment 12454000 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Honest question: if someone punches a cop, do you think they deserve to be shot dead on the spot? I don't, personally. I think they should be arrested and have the book thrown at them for assaulting a police officer, but I do not think they should be shot dead. That's what we have a legal system for.
If the perp immediately starts running away, no. If he is throwing another punch or looks like he will the answer's yes. There's a possibility he will be knocked silly and the perp will get his gun.
The legal system doesn't do jack shit for a cop who's shot dead with his own gun.
Not saying I disagree with you, but to play devil's advocate.
If someone punches another civilian, does that civilian have the right to pull out a gun and shoot his attacker? And yes, this is under the assumption said civilian owns the gun legally.
I'll let any criminal law attorney's who post here answer definitively, but I believe a civilian is allowed to use deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they are in danger of being killed or seriously injured. And I don't think that changes if the gun is illegal, though they would likely face criminal prosecution for possessing an illegal weapon.
Quote:
In comment 12454074 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 12454000 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Honest question: if someone punches a cop, do you think they deserve to be shot dead on the spot? I don't, personally. I think they should be arrested and have the book thrown at them for assaulting a police officer, but I do not think they should be shot dead. That's what we have a legal system for.
If the perp immediately starts running away, no. If he is throwing another punch or looks like he will the answer's yes. There's a possibility he will be knocked silly and the perp will get his gun.
The legal system doesn't do jack shit for a cop who's shot dead with his own gun.
Not saying I disagree with you, but to play devil's advocate.
If someone punches another civilian, does that civilian have the right to pull out a gun and shoot his attacker? And yes, this is under the assumption said civilian owns the gun legally.
I'll let any criminal law attorney's who post here answer definitively, but I believe a civilian is allowed to use deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they are in danger of being killed or seriously injured. And I don't think that changes if the gun is illegal, though they would likely face criminal prosecution for possessing an illegal weapon.
It varies by state, there are different standards and it is not terribly useful to try to glean common threads when they don't exist.
What I think is extremely underestimated in all this is how often law enforcement is in situations where they could easily pull the trigger and not be seriously questioned on the decision and they don't. And it has been my experience that the cases that they are most animated about aren't the cases where they had to physically subdue someone, or where they were punched or kicked or otherwise assaulted, but the cases where they came very close to pulling the trigger because of something the individual was doing or failing to do.
Quote:
The deceased put himself in a no win situation when he charged at the police officer, who was at the scene of a burglary in progress.
In my opinion, for some unknown reason and rash decision by the deceased,it became a case of 'suicide by cop'.
Police should be held to a higher standard. I think we can agree on that. But police officers should be granted greater leeway based on their responsibilities and duties, which the average citizen is not entrusted with. And that especially holds true in split second decisions.
At that exact point in time, the second or two that the officer had to react to the would-be defendant, what exactly should the officer had done? Remember, retreating is not an option. What would you have done in that second?
Is it reasonable to believe that you were about to be assaulted? Is it reasonable to believe that the person charging at you has regard for his own safety or life? Is it reasonable to believe that had he overpowered you he would have taken your gun and likely used it against you?
A super majority of the jury seemed to think so.
So what decision would you have made in that split second?
Is there a right answer? Probably not.
Was the officer justified in his actions? A jury decided yes.
Actually, the jury wasn't unanimous, and instead of opting for a retrial, the prosecution decided to stop pursuing the case due to the difficulty of finding a jury that would actually be unanimous.
Why don't you watch the video and tell me that this unarmed guy posted a mortal threat to the police?
This isn't going to go anywhere because you're spitting out the same tired platitudes that people always do in these situations.
I'm not a trained officer, so it doesn't matter what I'd do in that situation. But you're going to tell me that there's no better training that could be given to the police so that this situation didn't unravel as it did?
Like I said, this is all based on mistrust. Officers of ALL races look at black people differently, and black people look at cops VERY differently than a white person does. There are reasons for this on both sides. Black people commit most crime than other races, and black people are also at the receiving end of police misconduct and systemic inequity than white people, so I think there's validity on both ends.
Having said that, nobody deserves to be sized up and treated like a threat based on how they looked. The question becomes "How do we find a way to mitigate and fight the mistrust and inequity?".
Remember, the rationale for shooting this guy dead was that they MIGHT get in a tussle, and if they did, he MIGHT try and take a cops gun.
Honest question: if someone punches a cop, do you think they deserve to be shot dead on the spot? I don't, personally. I think they should be arrested and have the book thrown at them for assaulting a police officer, but I do not think they should be shot dead. That's what we have a legal system for.
First, I never said unanimous, you did. I said super-majority, which it was.
Second, I watched the video. I don't think it would be difficult at all to articulate why the officer used deadly physical force in that situation.
And once again the jury, in a SUPER-MAJORITY vote, decided that the officer was justified in using DPF.
Third, I really think you are mistaking tired platitudes for common sense and reasonableness, because you have no clue whatsoever as to how the officer should have reacted and you have no desire to respond as to how you would have reacted to that immediate threat.
Next, how do you mitigate a fight when possible a burglary suspect charges at you and tackles you? Whether the deceased was black or white, do you really think the outcome would have been different in this case?
Finally, police practices and use of force are based on laws in place, reasonableness and common sense.
The jury decided, in a SUPER-MAJORITY fashion, that the officer was justified in his actions.
And if you said super majority, I missed that. My point was moreso that, from my understanding, it wasn't so much an exoneration as it was that a jury couldn't reach a decision either way, and prosecutors chose not to retry the case. I may have been mistake and misunderstood, as I admittedly only read a few articles over a few minutes and didn't take the time to fully understand that segment of the article. if that's the case, okay, maybe a jury exonerated him. But there's been plenty of times where I don't agree with a jury's decision, and I feel that they typically err on the side of the police, so I still disagree with it.
My interpretation of the video is the dude started running when he saw something raised at him. I'm guessing what was raised at him was a tazer. Whatever the case may be, it's a dead 24 year old kid, so I still wish it didn't happen, i still don't feel the video showed a clear cut case of why this 24 year old had to die, and even though it's not related to this conversation thread you and I are having, I DEFINITELY don't think the 911 call affects my sympathy for a dead guy my age. It's understandable that a woman is scared if a stranger is at her door and kicking/knocking, but he's just that - a STRANGER - and I'm not prepared to pass judgement on whether someone should literally stop living based on a strangers 911 call.
Sorry about that last part. I was going off on a tangent, and while the rest of this thread has been mostly people civilly sharing perspectives, that comment about the 911 call and sympathy for the dead person really, really, really irked me.
I'm just going by government definition that is currently being used on a daily basis.
And if you said super majority, I missed that. My point was moreso that, from my understanding, it wasn't so much an exoneration as it was that a jury couldn't reach a decision either way, and prosecutors chose not to retry the case. I may have been mistake and misunderstood, as I admittedly only read a few articles over a few minutes and didn't take the time to fully understand that segment of the article. if that's the case, okay, maybe a jury exonerated him. But there's been plenty of times where I don't agree with a jury's decision, and I feel that they typically err on the side of the police, so I still disagree with it.
My interpretation of the video is the dude started running when he saw something raised at him. I'm guessing what was raised at him was a tazer. Whatever the case may be, it's a dead 24 year old kid, so I still wish it didn't happen, i still don't feel the video showed a clear cut case of why this 24 year old had to die, and even though it's not related to this conversation thread you and I are having, I DEFINITELY don't think the 911 call affects my sympathy for a dead guy my age. It's understandable that a woman is scared if a stranger is at her door and kicking/knocking, but he's just that - a STRANGER - and I'm not prepared to pass judgement on whether someone should literally stop living based on a strangers 911 call.
Sorry about that last part. I was going off on a tangent, and while the rest of this thread has been mostly people civilly sharing perspectives, that comment about the 911 call and sympathy for the dead person really, really, really irked me.
I don't think the kid deserved to die. What I do think is the kid made a conscious decision to engage in an overt action that a reasonable person would construe as an imminent threat, and if properly articulated that threat could easily be elevated to the level of imminent threat of deadly physical force. In other words, the police officer made a split second decision that his life was in danger.
A majority of the jury agreed.
Quote:
on a road about a mile from where he ended up. He walked through a small woods to get to a subdivision.
Physically, he seemed fine, but one has to wonder if disorientation or mentally there was an effect.
I don't know if that ever came out.
Yeah I just watched the video and honestly he doesn't look that badly hurt.
As I rewatch the video, I wonder:
1) why do people put themselves in bad situations by making stupid decisions like running? Did something cause him to run? did he see a taser raised, think it was a gun, and try to GTFO?
2) why do these cops have to fire two separate rounds of fire?
When I watch that video, I do not see the mortal danger posted to police that caused them to have to kill this guy.
The training is definitely a good point. People have spoken about the insular, bunker mentality that are in some police stations. I wonder if training can mitigate some of that, but truth be told, I have absolutely no idea.
It's just a very glum realization to think that there isn't really a crime this guy could have even be charged with (I guess kicking a door), but somehow he ends up dead because he scared the cops.
And this goes back to what I was saying about race. It's not about white cops looking to kill black people outright. But I don't think it's beyond reason to say that this guy's size and race probably played into the threat assessment of him, which probably lead to the officers "fearing for their life" (still dubious, IMO..you may have struggled with him and during that struggle he may have taken your gun?)...which lead to him getting shot.
People who try to deduce these things, on both sides, into singular statements such as "white cops looking to kill black guys" or "don't be a criminal / don't surprise cops or you deserve to get shot" are doing the entire discussion a disservice by trying to boil down a complicated issue and oversimplifying it.
The following statement is obviously not 100% true, but is true enough that it is a big part of this problem: cops perceive black people as bigger threats than white people, and black people have zero trust that the police are actually there to help them, or won't do something to harm them.
Have you ever been in an argument that lead to a fist fight?
Have you ever been in a life threatening situation?
I ask because in my experience (except when I've been drunk) the adrenaline and 'Rush' that you get when fisticuffs begin are the exact se feeling as the 'Rush' you get when you narrowly avoid a car accident.
As an outsider it's easy to say "how were they in fear of their lives- he didn't even have a gun?"
Just something to consider.
I just don't think having two conditional phrases in the justification for ending someone's life is enough. Maybe I should have explained that previously, but that's what get's me about the explanation
He MAY have been trying to engage me, and if he did engage me, he MAY have tried to take my gun, so I shot him before he even got to me.
That really rubs me the wrong way.
I agree with you an extent. I said in one of my previous posts that I don't understand why people behave the way they do to put themselves in worse situations than the already bad circumstances they are in. But the same way that I don't know how it is to be a cop making that split second decision, I can truly say that I don't know what it feels like to be a black person being approached by a cop after you heard an alarm go off in the middle of night and then subsequently seeing them raise a weapon (taser) as you are walking towards them relatively slowly. I have no idea, man. I may have ran also. And if I was in the cops shoes, I may have shot also.
But only one of the two parties is dead.
The thing is that I'm not a police officer. Like I said, I don't know if it's training or some type of selection process that can simulate who can stay cool under pressure, but I do think that law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard of decisions under pressure.
Having said that, I also understand what Duned said regarding the actual percentage of the time that these incidents end up fatal. But I personally feel that if an unarmed person is shot dead, with ten bullets, in 2 bursts, by 3 cops, there needs to be a pretty clear and present danger.
Also, in case anyone didn't come across the same articles I did... the reason I'm repeating the "he may have charged me and if he did he may have taken the gun" repeatedly is because that was the defense posited by the officers at the scene.