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 )
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.