This wasn't a case of an evil white cop shooting a poor black man for no reason.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
I hadn't heard that and from all first indication I thought it sounded like she (officer)probably carelessly overreacted.
Of course being high on PCP is not a reason or justification to get shot but certainly brings into question his likley behaviour which of course could be misinterpreted as non-responsive and threatening.
This is another example of why we always should wait until all the evidence is presented at a hearing or in this case a trial.
This wasn't a case of an evil white cop shooting a poor black man for no reason.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
'His own poor choices?' He had his freaking hands up in the air.
T
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Seriously? The man had his hands in the air, slowly made his way to the side of his car and by apparent video evidence his window was rolled up. All this and he was closely surrounded by 4 armed officers. He actually played NO part in orchestrating his death.
Do we know for a fact if the window was up or partially down? Â
This wasn't a case of an evil white cop shooting a poor black man for no reason.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
Bullshit.
He had his hands up over his head and was walking away from them. He posed not imminent threat
T
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Seriously? The man had his hands in the air, slowly made his way to the side of his car and by apparent video evidence his window was rolled up. All this and he was closely surrounded by 4 armed officers. He actually played NO part in orchestrating his death.
I said if and yes if he was on PCP, not listening to commands, and reaching into a vehicle-he played a starring role in this death. He had his arms up and it appears he puts them down, making his arms up initially unimportant.
He was running around saying his car was going to blow up, there was something going on that won't be confirmed until tox.
I dont get the idea that any person "sensing" that someone might be on PCP is remotely a justification for shooting them if they are turned the other way ( I understand that other reasons are more understandable threats).
Lets think a moment:
Courts require well research and proven tests to assess alcohol and drug amounts and types. Arent the police agents of the judicial system? Why should a person in a high anxiety state be able to assess another person in a high stress situation well enough to kill them?
Lets remember that the definition of a normal person is normal a normal amount of the time.
Even if we accept the magical thinking that maybe they are on PCP from 50 feet away....all drugs and food and lack thereof make some one off their best.
The most powerful drug is adrenaline and cortisol flooding the systems of both people
If I am jet lagged and at the tail end of a hard week and walking out of starbucks at 5 am trying to get enough boost capacity to push another few hours...I can assure you I am not alert, quick to respond or working on all cylinders especially if someone starts yelling at me or drawing a gun....I might start to wander off to my car to get my ID and show them I was harmless.
Or lets say I was just in an accident while late to an appointment...I am going to be angry and agitated.
Some cop who took a course alerting them to look for signs of stress is going to make the leap that I am on PCP?
I wouldnt touch it if you gave me a mountain of it ( like to be in control of my own senses thank you).
Great pay? Great selection and testing? Great training?
All in favor.
Amping them up to look here there and everywhere to make logic leaps about what is inside citizens who are not aiming a weapon?
Nonsense.
The first job is to protect and serve. All the people
I hadn't heard that and from all first indication I thought it sounded like she (officer)probably carelessly overreacted.
Of course being high on PCP is not a reason or justification to get shot but certainly brings into question his likley behaviour which of course could be misinterpreted as non-responsive and threatening.
This is another example of why we always should wait until all the evidence is presented at a hearing or in this case a trial.
You are of course correct everyone should wait, but people won't, so I wrote my opinion and wrote IF.
The 9-11 call indicated he was saying his car was going to blow up and him ignoring commands with guns drawn seem to indicate he was no in a sound mind frame.
It appears at the 49/50 second mark [as the row of police splits some we see Mr Crutcher] it appears he suddenly drops his arms and his hands go below waist level. That sudden movement maybe is what they saw and fired. Another second or two he was on the ground. It would take those two officers a second or so to react to what they saw and fire.
It is what I think I saw but the video is not in high def or very large.
I don't think that's even questionable, but regardless of your mental state, when you disregard law enforcement instructions and behave in a bizarre manner you are putting yourself at-risk.
I'm not victim blaming, or excusing the officers behavior, she's been deservedly charged, but leaving your car in the middle of the road and not listening to police officers trying to figure out why you're there and what kind of shape you're in and if you mean to do harm to yourself or anyone else and ignoring their instructions can absolutely put yourself in an at-risk situation.
I think most people (on social media at least) view this solely from the victims perspective. and that's understandable. It's a tragic mistake (I believe).
But if you ask yourself this one question, if Terence Crutcher had followed police officer instructions do you think he'd be alive today?
I think you will agree more likely than not the answer is yes, so while he didn't orchestrate his death and while he 100% did not deserve to die, he could have avoided the situation.
not following orders and the officer thought he was high on whatever but observed no gun it would seem he should have been tased BEFORE he got to his car. Remember this guy broke no laws and was not a suspect for ANY wrongdoing. A gun and not a taser drawn was wrong
not following orders and the officer thought he was high on whatever but observed no gun it would seem he should have been tased BEFORE he got to his car. Remember this guy broke no laws and was not a suspect for ANY wrongdoing. A gun and not a taser drawn was wrong
One male cop did actually tase him, and within milliseconds after the female cop shot him.
I don't even know if tasing is proper protocol, but non-lethal force in that situation is certainly more reasonable.
Wood said "it's important to remember" that Shelby was on the scene with Crutcher for about a minute and a half before the start of the video clip released by police on Monday.
When Shelby approached the car, the doors were closed, and the windows were open, Wood said. She looked into the passenger's side to make sure no one was on the floor of the car, and as she was getting ready to move to the driver's side, she turned around and saw Crutcher walking toward her, Wood said.
Wood said that Shelby then said to Crutcher, "Hey, is this your car?"
Crutcher didn't respond, simply dropping his head while continuing to look at Shelby, "kind of under his brow," Wood said. Crutcher then began to put his hand into his left pocket, Wood said, adding that Shelby told Crutcher, "Hey, please keep your hands out of your pocket while you're talking to me. Let's deal with his car."
Crutcher did not respond, Wood said, so Shelby ordered him again to get his hand out of his pocket. He then pulled his hand away and put his hands up in the air, even though he was not instructed to do so, which Shelby found strange, Wood said.
Shelby tried to get Crutcher to talk to her, but he simply mumbled something unintelligible and stared at her, Wood said. He then turned and walked to the edge of the roadway and turned to look at her, his hands still in the air, Wood said. He put his hands down and started to reach into his pocket again, Wood said, and she ordered him again to get his hands out of his pocket.
At this point, Shelby, a drug recognition expert, believed Crutcher was "on something," Wood said, possibly PCP.
Shelby then radioed in that she had a subject "who is not following commands."
"You can kind of hear a degree of stress in her voice when she says that," Wood said.
Tulsa Police Officer Shares Her Side of the Story in …
Tulsa Police Officer Shares Her Side of the Story in Terence Crutcher's Shooting (ABC News)
Shelby then pulled out her gun and had Crutcher at gunpoint as she commanded him to get on his knees, Wood said. She pulled out a gun instead of a Taser because she thought he had a weapon, and she was planning to arrest him for being intoxicated in public and possibly obstructing the investigation, Wood said.
Shelby ordered Crutcher to stop multiple times as Crutcher walked toward the SUV with his hands up, Wood said.
But those orders cannot be heard in the audio from the dashcam video, which starts as another patrol car pulls up to the scene, showing Crutcher walking toward the SUV with his hands up as Shelby follows him, apparently with her weapon drawn and pointing at Crutcher.
T
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Seriously? The man had his hands in the air, slowly made his way to the side of his car and by apparent video evidence his window was rolled up. All this and he was closely surrounded by 4 armed officers. He actually played NO part in orchestrating his death.
+1
I have no idea how people can actually claim this guy had his hands in the air the entire time and ignore his actions including walking away, dropping his hands and making his way to his vehicle.
The affidavit says Shelby initially approached the vehicle and cleared the driver’s side front before moving around to the passenger side. That’s when she encountered Crutcher, who was walking toward her, and asked him if the car belonged to him and if it was disabled. Crutcher was mumbling to himself and wouldn’t answer Shelby’s questions, the document says.
Crutcher kept putting his hands in his pockets, and Shelby ordered him to show his hands, police say in the affidavit. Crutcher then began walking away towards the vehicle with his hands in the air, not responding to Shelby’s orders to stop, the document says.
At that point, Shelby pulled out her service weapon and followed Crutcher to the vehicle. She pointed it at him, and another officer arrived and told Shelby he had his Taser ready, according to the affidavit.
That’s when, police say, Crutcher reached into the driver’s side front window, and the officer fired his Taser and Shelby fired her weapon, striking Crutcher.
The police footage shows Crutcher approaching the driver’s side of the SUV, then more officers walk up and Crutcher appears to lower his hands and place them on the vehicle. A man inside a police helicopter overhead says: “That looks like a bad dude, too. Probably on something.”
,,,
Shelby later told police she was in fear for her life and thought Crutcher was going to kill her, the document says.
emphasis added
I assume this cop wasnt actually looking to murder the victim. Obviously, malicious intent gets no sympathy from me.
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
RE: I just have a lot of sympathy for cops even on bad shoots Â
I assume this cop wasnt actually looking to murder the victim. Obviously, malicious intent gets no sympathy from me.
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
morally, I wouldn't want to prosecute someone acting in good faith that just made a mistake and I believe he put her in a bad situation.
on the other hand, if a law was broken there should be consequences.
I don't think he deserved to die and a lot pf people say that, but it's the actions and not the "deserves" that have to be judged.
RE: RE: I just have a lot of sympathy for cops even on bad shoots Â
I assume this cop wasnt actually looking to murder the victim. Obviously, malicious intent gets no sympathy from me.
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
morally, I wouldn't want to prosecute someone acting in good faith that just made a mistake and I believe he put her in a bad situation.
on the other hand, if a law was broken there should be consequences.
I don't think he deserved to die and a lot pf people say that, but it's the actions and not the "deserves" that have to be judged.
I agree. Deserving to die imply's the officer is making a moral judgment when in fact rightly or wrongly they are responding to a perceived threat based on the persons words and actions.
RE: RE: RE: I just have a lot of sympathy for cops even on bad shoots Â
I assume this cop wasnt actually looking to murder the victim. Obviously, malicious intent gets no sympathy from me.
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
morally, I wouldn't want to prosecute someone acting in good faith that just made a mistake and I believe he put her in a bad situation.
on the other hand, if a law was broken there should be consequences.
I don't think he deserved to die and a lot pf people say that, but it's the actions and not the "deserves" that have to be judged.
I agree. Deserving to die imply's the officer is making a moral judgment when in fact rightly or wrongly they are responding to a perceived threat based on the persons words and actions.
When I used it (he didn't deserve to die) I had no moral decision in mind, it was procedural and based on the victims actions. Based on the video and what I've read I didn't get the sense lethal force was called for, but of course there are other details that will probably come to light at trial that maybe explain the officers state of mind and decision making process.
It had nothing to do with a moral decision IMO, just a bad decision.
because she made a mistake but not a threat to society.
Should have pulled the tazer or done nothing.
That is my initial thought.
The one thing I disagree with is the taser thing people say. The gun drawn was the correct thing for her to do since lethal coverage has to be present before a non-lethal option. She shouldn't have fired the gun though.
The reason for the firearm is that she was the first one there and if she believed he was on drugs and not responding--she could articulate that she would fear for her safety in a one on one fight because of the size difference and a taser has a lower probability to work and without lethal cover a non-functioning taser could be a fatal mistake.
Police are not paid to get injured or killed, so they have a lot of tactical options--though danger is part of the job.
He certainly didn't deserve to die....some have added. Â
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
does not always stop someone like the public thinks it does. The officer it seems was waiting for backup.
But it should have been used as he walked to the car. If it didn't stop him that's another story. He had his hands up and there was no indication of a weapon.
RE: He certainly didn't deserve to die....some have added. Â
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
Was there a gun?
RE: He certainly didn't deserve to die....some have added. Â
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
Was there a gun?
I think his point is police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. So the next time someone doesn't obey an officer and then makes a move that the officer interprets could indicate going for a weapon if the officer instead hesitates he/she easily could end up dead.
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
Of the two officers who did one used a taser and one didn't. One decided to use lethal force, one did not. The one who did will need to answer for their decision.
and this officer will be judged if she goes to trial by a group of people who are not police officers so I don't see what the relevance is that people on here who are not police officers have judged her actions.
It makes me very sad for the family of the slain man.
I am also one who cannot imagine why someone would want to be an officer these days. It is clear we need a set of standardized rules of engagement, like what is given to the military.
It appears that use of lethal force requires not just an honest belief that your life is threatened, but conclusive evidence of that threat.
A thought exercise: assume that you are an officer and believe your life is in imminent danger (not talking about this specific case). Under that assumption, answer this question honestly. How long would you be willing to wait before discharging your weapon in your own defense?
If you are pretty sure that you would be able to hold off on defending yourself (remember, you are supposed to believe that your life is in danger), then we need you to join the police force. You are the type of person who we need to protect and serve the rest of us.
I myself wouldn't qualify, as I'm pretty sure I would fire under those conditions.
A fair assumption - evidenced by the instantaneous reaction of both officers (the one charged and the one who fired the taser). In the end, the fact that the other officer simultaneously fired their taser may ultimately be the critical evidence in the defense of the involved officer.
Quote:
Do they have to be hit before they can return fire?
Many people believe so.
This is what I was getting at. It appears that not only do many people believe so, but that the prosecuting attorneys also believe so.
Like I said, scary time to choose law enforcement as a profession.
This was tragic - it's going to boil down to whether this was just Â
someone who wasn't fit or sufficiently trained to be a police officer having made a terrible mistake in the line of duty, or whether they had some other issues or disregard for human life.
It's pretty obvious lethal force wasn't necessary here, and the other officer on the scene made the right split-second decision. She's got a lot of explaining to do.
that most couldn't do, or wouldn't do. Be many of those sit in front of the TV and believe they should tell police how to do their job, regardless of how much risk they put that officers life in jeopardy.
Some people do, and others just like to talk.
Many believe it is an officers job to take a bullet, that he/she shouldn't fire until being fired upon.
Those people want officers dead!
Seems this DA feels the same way.
No problem, there will be many officers quitting because every time there is a shooting the experts sitting at home need to be heard. Most don't have a clue what it takes to do the job. You guys watch too much TV.
.
If he made a sudden move, she was justified in the shooting.
there isn't any reason to wait, like, two-three seconds to see if this one did work?
If a police officer uses deadly force without decent provocation, simply because he/she was scared, yeah that's manslaughter.
What we don't want is for cops to perceive that there is practically no risk if they decide to kill someone without sufficient provocation.
Former Dallas Police Chief Brown spoke about the reason why the amount of killings by his officers had quite literally collapsed since he first took over: his officers were fully trained in threat mitigation, and they got refresher courses to maintain their mindsets in this direction. Cops should be better trained, but in the meantime any cop who doesn't even wait to assess the risk, and then doesn't make any attempt at threat mitigation before shooting to kill, where there isn't an imminent deadly threat, deserves a prison sentence.
she should have tased and not drawn her gun before he got to his vehicle ...
Shelby's attorney, Scott Wood, has said that Shelby completed drug-recognition expert training and thought Crutcher was acting like he might be under the influence of PCP.
There was blood stains on the side of the car. Windows were definitely up.
Not according to the police officer who was there.
Quote:
When Shelby approached the car, the doors were closed, and the windows were open, Wood said. She looked into the passenger's side to make sure no one was on the floor of the car, and as she was getting ready to move to the driver's side, she turned around and saw Crutcher walking toward her, Wood said.
that police would corroborate information that could get one of their own off the hook. How often does the court actually side with the person killed in a "he said, she said" situation?
It is easy for people to watch a video six or seven times and make up an opinion, especially when the media has laid the golden path out for you.
Do it in the heat of the moment where there is a split half a second to decide!
Most of you don't have the balls to do their job but it is so easy to critique someone else's job that you know nothing about while sitting on the couch.
Most of you prove that every day in your opinions on football.
Don't want to get shot by the police do as they say.
I think the charges HAD TO be brought against the officer... Â
can you imagine if there were no charges or if they were very minor? You would see riots like never before. If there is enough evidence to convict her, then she should suffer the consequences. If there is evidence that exonerates her, then the public will not like it but at least they would have felt as if they had their day in court.
that police would corroborate information that could get one of their own off the hook. How often does the court actually side with the person killed in a "he said, she said" situation?
Well I'm not going to accuse someone of lying when a) I wasn't there and b) no one has a different story
and there might even be dash cam video or video from the helicopter that can prove it one way or the other.
I'm don't accuse people of lying without some more proof other than it would be convenient for them to lie to support their story.
that police would corroborate information that could get one of their own off the hook. How often does the court actually side with the person killed in a "he said, she said" situation?
Well I'm not going to accuse someone of lying when a) I wasn't there and b) no one has a different story
and there might even be dash cam video or video from the helicopter that can prove it one way or the other.
I'm don't accuse people of lying without some more proof other than it would be convenient for them to lie to support their story.
But you sure can try and see if it works before firing a firearm..... Â
to exit the car and take off my clothes I wouldn't.
If the same Police Officer ask me to get on the ground I am getting on the ground. don't care if I am on my way to church or a formal affair, I am getting on the ground.
Now after that if I believe it was not justifiable I am getting an Attorney and suing their ass off.
But I am living though the incident.
If I was pulled over and a Police Officer ask me Â
to exit the car and take off my clothes I wouldn't.
If the same Police Officer ask me to get on the ground I am getting on the ground. don't care if I am on my way to church or a formal affair, I am getting on the ground.
Now after that if I believe it was not justifiable I am getting an Attorney and suing their ass off.
But I am living though the incident.
At the time they don't know he doesn't have a gun.
He made a sudden movement.
They fire a taser to see if it works....he fires a gun back.
Dead officer!
Their was no indication he did have a gun or any weapon. This wasn't a stop and he was suspected of nothing. He was walking away with his hands raised. She thought he was high and was oblivious to her orders. Tase him. What was she waiting for? Don't wait until he gets to his vehicle and pop him.
This wasn't a case of an evil white cop shooting a poor black man for no reason.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
Bullshit.
He had his hands up over his head and was walking away from them. He posed not imminent threat
Based on whose post this is, are you surprised by the spinning of the situation to deflect blame from the cop?
RE: Pretty sure BBI has a good contingent of former military... Â
Why do so many unarmed people not obey orders when in this situation? Unfathomable so many still do it time and time again.
It's a pretty terrifying experience to have a weapon pointed at you by someone you know is willing to kill you. If a police officer with years of training and experience on the job can make terrible decisions in tense situation, is it really surprising that some random guy off the street would as well?
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
a discussion about why the police are on such edge when it comes to dealing with the African American community. Accepting the
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
a discussion about why the police are on such edge when it comes to dealing with the African American community. Accepting the
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
"The police encounter people every day who fail to comply with instruction, whether it's a DUI or a public intoxication or any situation," attorney Melvin Hall said. "The law does not authorize the use of lethal force merely because someone fails to comply."
At the time they don't know he doesn't have a gun.
He made a sudden movement.
They fire a taser to see if it works....he fires a gun back.
Dead officer!
What sudden movement? - it looks like slow motion video. Jim it looks real bad when one policeman is using his Taser and she shoots her 9mm.
Have to disagree with you until I see a better video that shows a sudden movement.
"The police encounter people every day who fail to comply with instruction, whether it's a DUI or a public intoxication or any situation," attorney Melvin Hall said. "The law does not authorize the use of lethal force merely because someone fails to comply."
Of course not. I don't think anyone believes that.
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effect them at all.
There is your accountability.
RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
This I agree with. My concealed weapons instructor was the weapons instructor for the local PD (himself a cop). He said quite clearly, the police have the same requirements that civilians do in the use of deadly force. Obviously, with police, any encounter can turn deadly and they meet "bad" people many times per week.
RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effective
accountability?
RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
This I agree with. My concealed weapons instructor was the weapons instructor for the local PD (himself a cop). He said quite clearly, the police have the same requirements that civilians do in the use of deadly force. Obviously, with police, any encounter can turn deadly and they meet "bad" people many times per week.
Will see what comes out at trial and what if anything results in a conviction. It won't be easy, people tend to give officers the benefit of the doubt (not people who riot but other people). Either way it seems like a tragedy.
PCP isn't a magic potion for turning a pussy into a superhuman... Â
The hulk scenarios have happened, but it isn't every time. Tazers are often still effective, as is pepper spray. Now that might have contributed to her heightened sense of alarm but by itself it doesn't excuse the conduct.
RE: RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
She was a 5 year vet (not a rookie) and I have no doubt she is a good person who had no intention of killing somebody on purpose.
She may have killed somebody by mistake, but she did end a man's life that did not have a weapon.
RE: RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
She was a 5 year vet (not a rookie) and I have no doubt she is a good person who had no intention of killing somebody on purpose.
She may have killed somebody by mistake, but she did end a man's life that did not have a weapon.
Of course it's a different standard, and it should be... Â
Police have the authority to use force and where appropriate to display and sometimes to discharge firearms. They must be expected to refrain from arbitrary or malicious use of that authority, but an officer can make a mistake, even a lethal mistake, without it necessarily being criminal. Because what is asked of them is so different, the standard should be different. Of course someone who may not be criminally culpable may be deserving.of administrative discipline or termination.
Of course it's a different standard, and it should be... Â
Police have the authority to use force and where appropriate to display and sometimes to discharge firearms. They must be expected to refrain from arbitrary or malicious use of that authority, but an officer can make a mistake, even a lethal mistake, without it necessarily being criminal. Because what is asked of them is so different, the standard should be different. Of course someone who may not be criminally culpable may be deserving.of administrative discipline or termination.
RE: RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
This I agree with. My concealed weapons instructor was the weapons instructor for the local PD (himself a cop). He said quite clearly, the police have the same requirements that civilians do in the use of deadly force. Obviously, with police, any encounter can turn deadly and they meet "bad" people many times per week.
It's a little different in that a citizen can just leave a dicey situation instead of forcing a resolution. And they definitely don't have to apprehend anyone. So the citizen has the benefit of avoiding confrontation which might escalate. But just as with police a citizen can be deemed justified using deadly force if they reasonably feared for their life. Just like the Zimmerman case. And then it's still controversial.
RE: Of course it's a different standard, and it should be... Â
Police have the authority to use force and where appropriate to display and sometimes to discharge firearms. They must be expected to refrain from arbitrary or malicious use of that authority, but an officer can make a mistake, even a lethal mistake, without it necessarily being criminal. Because what is asked of them is so different, the standard should be different. Of course someone who may not be criminally culpable may be deserving.of administrative discipline or termination.
Dunedin, are you referencing my post? If so, I'm just telling you what was taught at my course. This fellow was all about the rules. Also, police have much better training than any civilian, so they should actually be held to a higher standard, shouldn't they? No doubt people do stupid/purposeful things to force the police officer's hand.
Heck, I was just thinking that maybe the other cop shooting the taser may have jolted her into squeezing trigger, which should not have been on the trigger.
RE: Of course it's a different standard, and it should be... Â
Police have the authority to use force and where appropriate to display and sometimes to discharge firearms. They must be expected to refrain from arbitrary or malicious use of that authority, but an officer can make a mistake, even a lethal mistake, without it necessarily being criminal. Because what is asked of them is so different, the standard should be different. Of course someone who may not be criminally culpable may be deserving.of administrative discipline or termination.
Dunedin, are you referencing my post? If so, I'm just telling you what was taught at my course. This fellow was all about the rules. Also, police have much better training than any civilian, so they should actually be held to a higher standard, shouldn't they? No doubt people do stupid/purposeful things to force the police officer's hand.
Heck, I was just thinking that maybe the other cop shooting the taser may have jolted her into squeezing trigger, which should not have been on the trigger.
RE: RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effect them at all.
There is your accountability.
Wait... so you're saying that the possible grief that this woman may feel should be punishment enough? For killing an innocent man who posed no threat to her (except for the one she created in her mind)?
Interesting perspective.
It never ceases to amaze me at the way it always seems to get turned on to the victim in these cases.
While on vacation this past summer in Florida I remember seeing a story about a kid down there. Good lookin, well built kid who worked out. Can't remember the age but the kid was at least in high school. So one day the kid's mom calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that her son is acting strange and she's concerned and he just left the house. The kid proceeds to walk down the street and sees a couple, husband and wife... mid-high 50's... sitting in their garage. The kid... high on PCP (or something like it)... proceeds to attack and kill the couple... and begins to eat the husband's face. Officer shows up to see this going on and tries to tase him. No effect. The kid gets in a knockdown-drag out fight in the garage with a few officers... dogs have little effect... and it takes multiple officers to finally subdue the kid.
He's sitting in a cell right now awaiting trial. But he's alive.
Guess what his race is?
It's when we see stories like that... and then stories like this... that frustrates many of us. This kid WAS high on something... DID actually kill someone... DID attack and fight several police officers... and lived to tell about it. This other guy MIGHT HAVE been high on something... didn't hurt anyone or committing any crime (at least not a violent one)... and at worst walked away and not heed orders... and he's dead.
But hey... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. I'm also seeing some seemingly suggest that it's ok to shoot and kill someone (instead of tase... because you know... it might not work) if the officer even THINKS the other person MIGHT have a gun. This is a big reason why events such as this one will continue to happen.
As horrible as that story is I guess the question raised is did the officers in that case ever believe the boy had a weapon and also believe that their lives were at risk.
The fact the he killed someone with his bare hands is irrelevant unless you believe police should become judge, jury, and executioners of crimes.
a discussion about why the police are on such edge when it comes to dealing with the African American community. Accepting the
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
It's not about race, it's about poverty. Poor people tend to be much more frequently involved with violent crimes. Now, ask yourself what percentage of white people find themselves below the poverty line, and what percentage of black and Hispanics do, and it'll all be clear.
RE: At some point, some day, there will have to be... Â
a discussion about why the police are on such edge when it comes to dealing with the African American community. Accepting the
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
It's not about race, it's about poverty. Poor people tend to be much more frequently involved with violent crimes. Now, ask yourself what percentage of white people find themselves below the poverty line, and what percentage of black and Hispanics do, and it'll all be clear.
RE: RE: RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effect them at all.
There is your accountability.
Wait... so you're saying that the possible grief that this woman may feel should be punishment enough? For killing an innocent man who posed no threat to her (except for the one she created in her mind)?
Interesting perspective.
It never ceases to amaze me at the way it always seems to get turned on to the victim in these cases.
While on vacation this past summer in Florida I remember seeing a story about a kid down there. Good lookin, well built kid who worked out. Can't remember the age but the kid was at least in high school. So one day the kid's mom calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that her son is acting strange and she's concerned and he just left the house. The kid proceeds to walk down the street and sees a couple, husband and wife... mid-high 50's... sitting in their garage. The kid... high on PCP (or something like it)... proceeds to attack and kill the couple... and begins to eat the husband's face. Officer shows up to see this going on and tries to tase him. No effect. The kid gets in a knockdown-drag out fight in the garage with a few officers... dogs have little effect... and it takes multiple officers to finally subdue the kid.
He's sitting in a cell right now awaiting trial. But he's alive.
Guess what his race is?
It's when we see stories like that... and then stories like this... that frustrates many of us. This kid WAS high on something... DID actually kill someone... DID attack and fight several police officers... and lived to tell about it. This other guy MIGHT HAVE been high on something... didn't hurt anyone or committing any crime (at least not a violent one)... and at worst walked away and not heed orders... and he's dead.
But hey... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. I'm also seeing some seemingly suggest that it's ok to shoot and kill someone (instead of tase... because you know... it might not work) if the officer even THINKS the other person MIGHT have a gun. This is a big reason why events such as this one will continue to happen.
a discussion about why the police are on such edge when it comes to dealing with the African American community. Accepting the
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
It's not about race, it's about poverty. Poor people tend to be much more frequently involved with violent crimes. Now, ask yourself what percentage of white people find themselves below the poverty line, and what percentage of black and Hispanics do, and it'll all be clear.
I always hear black on black. Never hear white on white. It just needs to be neighbor against neighbor. The guy above me is right. There is a correlation between high unemployment and high crime rate.
Thing is it's not like police don't also shoot unarmed white people Â
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Postnoted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
check out the link at 7:29 for a video I watched a few times, around the 49/50 seconds mark the wall of officers split some and you see his arms and hands suddenly down.
Any movement like that could cause a officer to believe his life is in danger. Remember they didn't know that he didn't have a gun until later.
Just my opinion.
It is a shame anyway you look at it.
Everyone should just listen to the police and do as they say, later if you feel they were wrong take them to court.
That way your alive, their alive.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Postnoted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
But then you are getting into the discussion some already touched on with economics and percentage of people involved in violent crimes.
The thing is police shoot unarmed whites also. They aren't targeting blacks.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Postnoted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
Using that kind of blind unthinking population, analysis, you can prove by population statistics, that police discriminate extremely stronger against men over women in fatal shootings,
Cops should be held to a higher standard not lower Â
As horrible as that story is I guess the question raised is did the officers in that case ever believe the boy had a weapon and also believe that their lives were at risk.
The fact the he killed someone with his bare hands is irrelevant unless you believe police should become judge, jury, and executioners of crimes.
Let's see steve... you pull up on a kid who you see has killed two people and is eating the FACE off of one of them... and proceeded to fight other officers... and on the other hand you have a man who has a car broken down in the middle of the road and appears to be high on something but at no point makes a threatening move towards an officer... which one appears to be the more dangerous situation to you?
The argument that they should be held to a lower standard than the public is mindblowing.
What could go wrong giving people huge authority with little reprecussions for bad actions?
It's a different standard. There are very few circumstances where a civilian can lawfully present a firearm. Within those circumstances criminal liability is limited, even in the case of a mistake or an accident.
these are used to force better training methods for handling weapons for law enforcement. That it leads to using methods other than deadly force unless otherwise being unavoidable and it teaches police that being irresponsible has repurcussions.
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
And just to be clear, I haven't formed a conclusion as to her guilt or innocence. This is what I said earlier in thread.
Quote:
This is another example of why we always should wait until all the evidence is presented at a hearing or in this case a trial.
You are the one who appears to have formed a conclusion based on limited evidence.
Based on the video, I feel pretty confident about my conclusion so far. If I turn out to be wrong, I can admit that I was wrong based on the evidence that I'd seen at this point.
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
As a general principle, people get upset by a killing of a group from the "Other" whether it be race, religion, nationality or in cases we are discussing the evil police. Not so much when killing is within the group.
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
As a general principle, people get upset by a killing of a group from the "Other" whether it be race, religion, nationality or in cases we are discussing the evil police. Not so much when killing is within the group.
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
RE: RE: Why isn't anyone upset over the 15...... Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
As a general principle, people get upset by a killing of a group from the "Other" whether it be race, religion, nationality or in cases we are discussing the evil police. Not so much when killing is within the group.
While this is probably true, police shootings uncover another level of outrage than garden variety inter-racial killings or same race killings do because police are seen as an extension of the government.
that's why even though it was a black police officer in Charlotte people didn't care. With police from what I can tell there is no racial distinction of the officer.
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
I'm talking about in these two specific cases steve.
OK so if I post a link to two other cases where in one an unarmed white man was shot and in the other a black man was tazed does that prove anything?
I remember reading about two or three times this summer where an unarmed white man was shot by police. It happens, and the better question is about police training and if there can be improvements. Making claims based on only two cases and inferring it is about race in IMO unproductive.
RE: RE: RE: Why isn't anyone upset over the 15...... Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
As a general principle, people get upset by a killing of a group from the "Other" whether it be race, religion, nationality or in cases we are discussing the evil police. Not so much when killing is within the group.
While this is probably true, police shootings uncover another level of outrage than garden variety inter-racial killings or same race killings do because police are seen as an extension of the government.
that's why even though it was a black police officer in Charlotte people didn't care. With police from what I can tell there is no racial distinction of the officer.
The protesters should walk in an officers shoes for a day. Especially in the inner city locations.
Since these police shootings have started to really catch on as a hot-button topic over the last several years, I've constantly been told that the reason why there are so many police shootings of black people is because black people are more prone to violence and crime. This is a narrative I've been hearing repeatedly. But then, when it appears to be convenient to bring up, it's brought up that police shoot more white people than black people. So... by using the logic applied above... since there are more shootings done by police to white people... that would mean that white people are actually more prone to violence and crime correct? Or am I missing something somewhere?
I don't think the color of anyones skin makes them more or less prone Â
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
I'm talking about in these two specific cases steve.
OK so if I post a link to two other cases where in one an unarmed white man was shot and in the other a black man was tazed does that prove anything?
I remember reading about two or three times this summer where an unarmed white man was shot by police. It happens, and the better question is about police training and if there can be improvements. Making claims based on only two cases and inferring it is about race in IMO unproductive.
If you can do it, please feel free. But remember, it has to be under the same circumstances where the white person wasn't (or perhaps I should say shouldn't have been) a perceived threat and the black person was please.
Thanks!
RE: I don't think the color of anyones skin makes them more or less prone Â
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
I'm talking about in these two specific cases steve.
OK so if I post a link to two other cases where in one an unarmed white man was shot and in the other a black man was tazed does that prove anything?
I remember reading about two or three times this summer where an unarmed white man was shot by police. It happens, and the better question is about police training and if there can be improvements. Making claims based on only two cases and inferring it is about race in IMO unproductive.
If you can do it, please feel free. But remember, it has to be under the same circumstances where the white person wasn't (or perhaps I should say shouldn't have been) a perceived threat and the black person was please.
Thanks!
Did you show where in your example of the tazing that police thought he was possibly armed and made a move which could be interpreted of going for a weapon?
You posted about some psycho eating someone face, but that doesn't translate into a precised threat towards the police when they arrived.
With all do respect T-Bone, I often agree with your reasoning on things but you seem to be a little all over the place on this one.
that's why even though it was a black police officer in Charlotte people didn't care
But people did care. It was initially reported that it was a white officer.
I don't think it would've blown up if the first few hours weren't covered thinking this was a white officer shooting an unarmed black man.
Maybe you're right, but there have been other cases of police violence where the police officers were black and it hasn't mattered, if you listen to many of the protestors it's police vs black people not white police vs black people.
Freddie Gray is an example.
3 of th3 6 officers involved were black and 3 were white. How did that make a difference?
we need to be working towards understanding one another, not trying to "fix" other people's thinking.
If you are having trouble understanding T-Bone's thinking, focus on this quote of his a little longer.
Quote:
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
What is helpful is to learn about tracking. T-Bone sees these incidents and sees a racial issue. He's not alone. There are lots of people just like him, and they aren't wrong just because you have some logical argument to the contrary.
Ask yourself - what do you track? It would be helpful to do some self-analysis and learn when and why you track, then you will better understand when and why others track. Doing this will help us better understand why people are upset and also help us see how we can heal some wounds as a nation.
That's all I got for this thread. Great discussion though.
Did you show where in your example of the tazing that police thought he was possibly armed and made a move which could be interpreted of going for a weapon?
If you're referring to the Tulsa shooting, that's based on the officer's description of the events, which are being disputed based on what appears to be the window being up and blood on the window in the video from the copter. And it's not the 'tazing' that's the issue... it's the shooting with a gun that's the issue.
Quote:
You posted about some psycho eating someone face, but that doesn't translate into a precised threat towards the police when they arrived.
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Quote:
With all do respect T-Bone, I often agree with your reasoning on things but you seem to be a little all over the place on this one.
I think I'm being pretty clear on my stance. But if you need me to explain something further please let me know what you're confused by.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
I agree he is one of the better posters, one who I respect greatly. And if you are talking to me I certainly am not trying to "fix' his thinking LOL.
He posted the two examples and inferred because of those examples the reason was race, and since this is a discussion I responded.
I also have great respect for you too steve. I consider you to be a good poster and man. That's why I'm responding back to you (when I can... I'm now at work and you know how that is...).
I'm not trying to 'fix' your thinking either but try to show you why most black folks are feeling the way they do. It's hard to understand how a white kid who's killed and fought officers DOESN'T get shot and yet a man who is simply standing there... posing no imminent threat (again, except for the one that the officer made up in her mind)... does. One cop thought it was ok to tase him... the other thought to shoot him. If he was that much of a threat, why didn't they both go for the guns?
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black?
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
Fuck the police comin' straight from the underground Â
A young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
RE: Fuck the police comin' straight from the underground Â
A young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
Cam - yes it is.
But to be fair, we as a community haven't helped ourselves in some respects either. We can do a MUCH better job of respecting ourselves as well.
It's hard to understand how a white kid who's killed and fought officers DOESN'T get shot and yet a man who is simply standing there... posing no imminent threat (again, except for the one that the officer made up in her mind)... does.
Except there ARE unarmed white guys who get killed (Deven Guilford, Seth Adams, Daniel Shaver, James Boyd, etc), but those stories don't advance anyone's narrative so their stories aren't hyped to the same degree.
Yet again - racializing police brutality as an issue elides its true nature and root causes.
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
He very well may have I have no idea and unless anyone knows that police officer intimately they cant really know either.
And now we are leaving one discussion of police shooting unarmed men into another one entirely about whether this policeman would have shot this man when once wrestling with him a gun was pulled.
The thing is that obviously there are going to be a variety of reactions in a variety of different situations. And we can cherry pick any one or two and draw broad conclusions.
I still believe that these tragedies largely occur because of fear and a perceived possible deadly threat for the officers involved. That why you see both black and white police involved and black and white victims involved. Sure some react poorly because of that fear and perceived threat while others are more trained, possibly more heroic, possibly even place a greater value on the life of others than some of their peers. But IMO is still comes down to them reacting, rightly or wrongly to a perceived possible deadly threat.
If others want to believe police are targeting people because of their color that is their choice, I haven't seen evidence of that.
I do think the question about training and improving police awareness and response is a valid and good one that needs to be looked at by police departments across the country. But then you get into budgets ans money which many cites are short of.
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
A young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
Cam - yes it is.
But to be fair, we as a community haven't helped ourselves in some respects either. We can do a MUCH better job of respecting ourselves as well.
question in the same realm as that, should it be more alarming to see race killing same race at a record rate as opposed to cop killing a certain race? mad regardless but it sucks there is more unity towards the police(which is also more televised) then lets say the chicago killings (which is still opposed by the people but not as televised or kept by the media)
is that the seeds of this have been sown over decades and decades. Video cameras are ubiquitious, things are being caught on tape more. But one thing worse than a borderline case being caught on video, is a borderline case not being caught on video and then framed in the police report to look like a slam dunk when victims and eye witnesses know it's bullshit. I still can't and won't trust a police report related to a shooting if there wasn't a video, and I see no reason why to (they have incentive to make it look better, this is not even a question).
Subject the same communities to this mechanism (which, I want to interject, is perfectly understandable from the police POV... the failure lies with the government and society allowing police to police themselves and not have a better watchdog type of arm).... but yeah, subject the same communities to the same stuff for years and you're surprised they don't trust cops?
All this stuff we see on tape isn't news to black people.
A young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
Cam - yes it is.
But to be fair, we as a community haven't helped ourselves in some respects either. We can do a MUCH better job of respecting ourselves as well.
question in the same realm as that, should it be more alarming to see race killing same race at a record rate as opposed to cop killing a certain race? mad regardless but it sucks there is more unity towards the police(which is also more televised) then lets say the chicago killings (which is still opposed by the people but not as televised or kept by the media)
Uh it's OBVIOUSLY more alarming to see police actors have a propensity towards killing a certain race. What kind of a question is that? And why does it "suck" there is more unity than there is towards "chicago killings" (everyone's favorite diversion).
These are the fucking police. This is the antithesis to their position in society. Criminals killing people is not news, they are fucking criminals. Sorry for being brash but this line of thinking really needs to be stomped out.
That couldn't possibly sound more made-up if you tried.
It's real, most states have something like it, where it's generally a misdemeanor but jumps to a felony charge based on history of the offender. It's similar to assault.
Quote:
2903.21 Aggravated menacing. (A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family.
Should not be the lone justification to get killed.
Its not smart and it may get you tased or land you in jail, but shot? This isn't some 3rd world country. We have due process.
Blaming the victim is BS. What if the person has a medical condition? What if they are experiencing some sort of a mental break down and can't respond like "normal" person. What if they are hearing impaired? What if they are mentally handicapped?
I had a situation back in the mid 90s where had the situation was different, I could have been shot. Probably justifiably. I had been up for over 36 hours. Highly stressful job. Just got thrown under the bus by my boss. Not happy. Got pulled over by a cop on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Cop was very angry from the start because he had been trying to get me to pull over for several miles. I was so fatigued I didn't even notice. The interaction was confrontational from the start. Because of the area where I had pulled off was so close to the oncoming traffic, the cop asked me to move the car back about 20 feet. I slammed the car in reverse and punched it. Slammed on the brakes before hitting the police cruiser. At this point, the officer could have interpreted this as threat. The police office started screaming at me for almost hitting him. At this point, I told him to STFU and just write me my GD ticket. I was not thinking clearly. Here are the take aways from this:
1. I should not have been driving.
2. I should have been arrested.
3. I could have been shot.
4. I was not even given a ticket for speeding, failing to pull over, almost hitting the officer and his car.
5. I was given a warning even after I verbally abused him.
If I was black (I'm Asian) on the south side, what do you think would have happened to me?
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
I never said that it did. Does that then mean that only whites are killed for reasons other than race? No it doesn't. Is there a means of determining which killings were driven primarily by race? No, not really. So why is that just about the only angle of approach for public discussion of police brutality?
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
That no one got shot.
As it pertains to this case it is an example of how you can handle a situation where there was a blatant and obvious threat to the officer's lives, yet they didn't shoot anyone.
Whereas in the Tulsa case, the threat is not nearly as obvious (some arguing that there was not threat at all) yet there is a dead man.
To me, it shows the disparity in threat assessment and reaction.
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
You posted about a white man in florida who murdered people and was eating their faces off when police came and didn't shoot him when they could have. You opined that if he were black they likely or possibly would have shot him.
You asked for examples where something similar, police perceived a threat, where the suspect was black and police didn't shoot him.
that's the example I provided. There are hundreds of them.
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
To me, it shows the disparity in threat assessment and reaction.
Do you really have the ideal that every police officer in every city in the country will react exactly the same to all variety of people and situations they encounter?
Again, as we discussed on a earlier thread, messages to a dumb population, which America is, are simple. That's the only way that they are effective. Linking police brutality to race is an effective means to galvanize support among people who actually care about society moving forward.
It's the reason why the Libertarian message is one about liberty (and not all the other important measures they support), and it's why Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have largely failed. They expanded their simple message.
Shouldn't we expect a uniform response from the police? Â
I never said that it did. Does that then mean that only whites are killed for reasons other than race? No it doesn't. Is there a means of determining which killings were driven primarily by race? No, not really. So why is that just about the only angle of approach for public discussion of police brutality?
It isn't as evidenced by this thread.
It's absolutely the "common" approach and I understand your frustration with that.
Considering our history, (not 1850's, but 60's and beyond) is it that difficult to understand why folks latch onto that narrative?
Even if we can agree that race isn't the determining factor, or that it is just one of many factors, and not always a factor at all, it's still something that needs to be addressed, no?
What's all too common is the stance that it has nothing to do with race, so let's just go ahead and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
To me, it shows the disparity in threat assessment and reaction.
Do you really have the ideal that every police officer in every city in the country will react exactly the same to all variety of people and situations they encounter?
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
Racializing the subject does nothing but exacerbate divisions which then obscure a very real problem that affects a lot of people. We can talk about the stupidity of reflexive reactions all we want, but that's simply human nature and the tribal instinct. Thus, instead of a needed examination of the nature of policing as a whole and the degree to which criminal law negatively pervades all walks of life, we get Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter and a lot of shitflinging all around. And it angers me because it's something I spend an inordinate amount of time preaching about to those around me who almost invariably are pro-cop law and order types (many cops in my mother's family, plus she is an office worker for a LE agency and regards them fondly). You make progress in getting people to examine previously rigid opinions, but then these kinds of arguments tap a mallet on the knee and boom! the leg kicks out again.
Should not be the lone justification to get killed.
Its not smart and it may get you tased or land you in jail, but shot? This isn't some 3rd world country. We have due process.
Blaming the victim is BS. What if the person has a medical condition? What if they are experiencing some sort of a mental break down and can't respond like "normal" person. What if they are hearing impaired? What if they are mentally handicapped?
I had a situation back in the mid 90s where had the situation was different, I could have been shot. Probably justifiably. I had been up for over 36 hours. Highly stressful job. Just got thrown under the bus by my boss. Not happy. Got pulled over by a cop on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Cop was very angry from the start because he had been trying to get me to pull over for several miles. I was so fatigued I didn't even notice. The interaction was confrontational from the start. Because of the area where I had pulled off was so close to the oncoming traffic, the cop asked me to move the car back about 20 feet. I slammed the car in reverse and punched it. Slammed on the brakes before hitting the police cruiser. At this point, the officer could have interpreted this as threat. The police office started screaming at me for almost hitting him. At this point, I told him to STFU and just write me my GD ticket. I was not thinking clearly. Here are the take aways from this:
1. I should not have been driving.
2. I should have been arrested.
3. I could have been shot.
4. I was not even given a ticket for speeding, failing to pull over, almost hitting the officer and his car.
5. I was given a warning even after I verbally abused him.
If I was black (I'm Asian) on the south side, what do you think would have happened to me?
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
I don't know if it's possible, but is there a way to normalize based on environment? Would the reaction in a place know to have a higher incidence of crime, violent crime etc, be similar? It's hard to get into individuals' anxiety levels, sense of danger, etc, but it seems reasonable that the context of the interaction, even before the interaction takes place, might play a role.
Think about it this way Greg. May assuage some of your concerns. Â
Large scale change based on civilian-police interactions are not going to change within a generation.
This is the market working. The pendulum swings too far one way, but then settles in a reasonable position as emotions become muted. It's happened with all large social movements in the past 150 years, but has always yielded a better outcome.
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
I don't know if it's possible, but is there a way to normalize based on environment? Would the reaction in a place know to have a higher incidence of crime, violent crime etc, be similar? It's hard to get into individuals' anxiety levels, sense of danger, etc, but it seems reasonable that the context of the interaction, even before the interaction takes place, might play a role.
I appreciate how you feel. Personally I am against capitol punishment, I don't own a handgun because IMO they are made for no other reason than shooting another person, and I know I could never be a policeman because I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to shoot another person.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
You posted about a white man in florida who murdered people and was eating their faces off when police came and didn't shoot him when they could have. You opined that if he were black they likely or possibly would have shot him.
You asked for examples where something similar, police perceived a threat, where the suspect was black and police didn't shoot him.
that's the example I provided. There are hundreds of them.
Ahh I see but I think you misunderstood my point (and that may've been my fault).
My point, to steve, was I wasn't saying that if the suspect was black the police would've shot him as much as why, under those conditions, the white kid NOT shot but in the case of someone like Cutcher's he was (where he wasn't a threat to the officer... except for the perceived threat she made up in her mind). That's the example I was asking for. In the case of the face-eating kid, they tried tasing him... they tried taking him alive even though he'd already killed two people and fought a few officers and at no point was a gun drawn... but in Cutcher's case it was not only drawn very quickly but fired on a man who did nothing more but (allegedly... because at the moment I don't believe her story) reached inside his vehicle.
I know that there are some... maybe even most... police officers who will try to avoid using deadly force until it's a last resort. This woman didn't.
I appreciate how you feel. Personally I am against capitol punishment, I don't own a handgun because IMO they are made for no other reason than shooting another person, and I know I could never be a policeman because I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to shoot another person.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
I don't own one either and have only held one once in my life (a handgun). I hate guns... but that's just me.
You see... you say 'wait'... I say 'verify'. I believe that an officer should be in CLEAR danger before using lethal force (that's acknowledging that there will always be circumstances that permit the opposite). How many stories have we've heard about an officer firing off his or her weapon on a person because they THOUGHT they were going for a gun only to find out it was their wallet or phone? You want to use a taser and then sort things out... fine. At least the guy still lives (especially when they haven't or are not currently breaking any laws). But it just appears to be waaaaaay to easy to shoot a person... of ANY color... and say 'Oh... I thought they had a gun!' and get a paid vacation off of it(administrative leave with pay) and in most cases nothing else happens.
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
I don't know if it's possible, but is there a way to normalize based on environment? Would the reaction in a place know to have a higher incidence of crime, violent crime etc, be similar? It's hard to get into individuals' anxiety levels, sense of danger, etc, but it seems reasonable that the context of the interaction, even before the interaction takes place, might play a role.
Yes, I state other factors could be involved. However, there have been various studies done where black men are perceived as more dangerous. Here is one where a black male sounding name makes people image a more dangerous person.
I’ve never been so disgusted by my own data,” said lead author Colin Holbrook, a research scientist in the anthropology department in the UCLA College. “The amount that our study participants assumed based only on a name was remarkable. A character with a black-sounding name was assumed to be physically larger, more prone to aggression, and lower in status than a character with a white-sounding name.” Link - ( New Window )
I appreciate how you feel. Personally I am against capitol punishment, I don't own a handgun because IMO they are made for no other reason than shooting another person, and I know I could never be a policeman because I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to shoot another person.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
they don't need to wait until fired upon. but they should have a reasonable basis for firing - it must be something more than he won't pull down his weapon - stall, negotiate, calm the target down, and if possible, they should try and aim for a part of the body that will disable but won't kill the target or use a non-lethal weapon to disable the target.
is too much and I can't afford to sit here and keep hitting Refresh to try and keep up with this thread. I may just back in later but I got stuff to take care of. Good discussion and if I don't rejoin I want everyone to have a safe and happy weekend.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
is too much and I can't afford to sit here and keep hitting Refresh to try and keep up with this thread. I may just back in later but I got stuff to take care of. Good discussion and if I don't rejoin I want everyone to have a safe and happy weekend.
Same to you T-Bone, I expect to see my name in lights Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
RE: RE: Why isn't anyone upset over the 15...... Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Not completely true. It is the tribal aspect. If it were White civilians who did this in a Black neighborhood it would be similar upset (and vice versa).
RE: RE: Why isn't anyone upset over the 15...... Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Not completely true. It is the tribal aspect. If it were White civilians who did this in a Black neighborhood it would be similar upset (and vice versa).
maintained that individuals interacting with the police above all just need to deliberately do what the cops say and follow orders are thinking fairly 1-dimensionally.
Perhaps useful advice for the sane and sober among us. Is this fully the societal contingent the police encounter?
We have as a society indirectly chosen to designate the police to deal with many of our social problems. Especially mental health. My preferred course would be to deal with it via something that begins with "Universal" and ends with "Healthcare" (coupled with decriminalizing all drugs) but that is not the course our lawmakers have chosen.
So it's often up to the cops to deal with the mentally unstable or even physically ill. "Sir, keep your hands where I can see them, please" is an order likely mechanically followed by Chip the suburban dad in the 2015 Altima. Eric Garner probably doesn't understand fully what's going on around him.
Add in insidious (often sub-conscious, to be fair) racial bias and I'm not sure I feel comfortable dictating what a poor black guy "should" do when the cops roll up on his s.l.a.b., guns drawn. I don't really know what it's like to be them wrt interactions with the cops.
--
My favorite show is South Park. One of the best episodes they made is when Randy (Stan's dad) goes on Wheel of Fortune and solves the final puzzle as niggers (the actual answer is naggers). Stan is mortified and spends the entire episode trying to convince his black friend Token (who was offended and hurt by the affair) that he, Stan understands what Token is feeling. Over and over he tries to act empathetic and that it's no big deal, that his Dad is just a dumbass.
At the end of the episode, after Cartman fights a midget (haha...), there's some moralizing about empathy, and Stan ponders... "I don't get it". Then he has an epiphany.
He runs up to Token:
Quote:
Token, I get it now. I don't get it. I've been trying to say that I understand how you feel, but, I'll never understand. I'll never really get how it feels for a black person to have somebody use the N word. I don't get it.
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
T
I'm going to post a section of law from the NYS Penal Law related to use of force. By national standards NY is pretty strict regarding use of DPF, one exception being not requiring police to retreat, basically because you pay them not to. Almost every section refers to a 'person', meaning everyone, not just the police.
In any case the standard for using DPF in the limited cases where it is allowed is reasonableness. What would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances. So you better be able to articulate why exactly you used Deadly Physical Force because you likely will have to articulate your your case before a Grand Jury and/or a Criminal Jury. And that relates to both the police AND civilians.
In the age of cameras being almost everywhere, very little is going to slip through the cracks anymore.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
There were so many WTF facts in that incident that it boggles the mind. Seriously, that officer has no business being a police either based on his decision making or in his competency with his weapon.
can't you people figure out how to delete nonpertinent quotes? Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
these are used to force better training methods for handling weapons for law enforcement. That it leads to using methods other than deadly force unless otherwise being unavoidable and it teaches police that being irresponsible has repurcussions.
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
This is definitely the most cogent thought on this matter. She sounds like she panicked, and when you're a police officer, mixing fear with weapon leading to panicked reaction is a recipe for deadly disaster.
On the other hand, we can be grateful that the clown in Miami couldn't shoot for shit, since that poor bastard who was shot is still alive today.
Or be thankful since he said he was aiming at the mentally challenged man playing with a toy. Seriously...how is that fuck even a police officer (and even in their SWAT team)?
Cell phone video of the Charlotte shooting just got released Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
Cell phone video of the Charlotte shooting just got released Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
yup, just like the officer in Minnesota. I wouldn't trust these pants pissers to pour me hot coffee, let alone "protect & serve" while armed.
"Remain calm in tense situations" would seemingly be a useful trait for those elevated to the position of police officer. There's a reason vets often make good cops.
You actually can't tell if it is a gun flung to the ground Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
To quote Dave Chappelle, "just sprinkle some crack on him"
(server) but the police likely kept her from intervening. If he posed a threat there's no way they the police would let someone else near them or the perp.
Able to go home each day alive, and while that should always be the goal, of such priority causes one to panic and escalate a situation when there may be another way, then one doesn't have any business being a police officer.
Too often these incidents happen because those involved were too fast in drawing their weapons for the sake of self preservation.
RE: They identified one of the items tossed on the ground Â
is that if my wife has just been shot, I'm screaming like a wailing mourner, rushing to her side and completely freaking out. I'm not standing there with a video camera saying "She better not be dead. She better not be dead".
I know it is hard to judge situations, but a person has clearly been shot and may be dying and his spouse seemed more upset before the shooting than afterwards.
Showing video to family is not a problem, might even be the recommended course of action. Making it publicly available - caving in to public outcry. IMO, not the way to go.
ends up clearly showing a threat? Do people go back and make reparations for the destruction?
I don't know what value showing the video has. Even the wife who released the video shows the police clearly yelling "Drop the gun" over and over again. Pretty much debunks the idea it was onl a book in the man's hand.
I agree. My wife pointed out her flatness in emotion after the shooting and she made the point that had that been me, she'd freak out after the shooting where she said the wife seemed to freak out more before the shooting.
I can't judge how another one acts - it just seems odd and not in the expected way.
that's my point. People rioted because they thought this was a situation of an unarmed caring husband executed in his car while reading a book by a white officer.
Would they take to the streets if he was a multiple felon carrying a gun killed by a black cop?
My main criticism is of the media who takes these initial stories and runs with them, fueling emotions and hate, but when the stories end up being false or muted, there aren't any apologies.
I don't think one can regulate ones way out of this. Detailed instructions to police wont work if a few of them lack an understanding about the intended relationship between state and citizen in this nation .
Of course, citizens need that also, but obvíousky we invest a lot of power in our police so it's vital that they view their role from a Bill of Rights point of view. Training for all state employees ought to start with that and get those concepts and possible applications down before we preclude judgemts on the scene with bogs of detailed prescriptions. Same goes for all state employees.
This is from the other thread but its how I feel about Protesting Â
Protesting is a way to achieve a right. Civil Rights,ETC.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
This is from the other thread but its how I feel about Protesting Â
Protesting is a way to achieve a right. Civil Rights,ETC.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
It's a business. Hard to sell advertising space by saying "We will have to patiently wait while the investigation and court proceedings run their course."
Don't get me wrong, a responsible and effective media can be a very effective protector against the abuses of government agents - but....what they do is about more than that, and some of it is not good.
Every action of public officials. Police. Teachers, social workers in various agencies, not only do not help enforce principles such as are in the bill of rights, but may often msy inadvertently serve to contradict those principles.
We need to empower officials to make Principled decisions on the spot guided by concepts like rights rather than regulations. In this instance, a sergeant would have just suggested that the team stay in their vehicles as he calmly discussed with the individual or something.
Training is not all that helpful outside of principles and ones being allowed to employ bill if rights based principles on the spot without fear of reprimand.
I'm always hesitant to jump into these dicussions, but I did want to add something that I think people don't consider in these discussions.
Too often we discuss "the police" as if they were one entity and we compare police shooting that occur across various jurisdictions, states, departments, etc...You need to look at all those factors when considering incidents, shootings and the overall narrative. A particular department could be racist, have bias or a lack of training, but the reasoning behind why an officer did or didn't shoot will vary depending on a lot of factors that often aren't considered.
A better analysis would be to consider how that department typically reacts. For example, instead of comparing the Charlotte shooting to Tulsa or any other recent death, compare it to other police interactions in Charlotte, or compare Tulsa to Tulsa. The Dallas PD has been praised on multiple threads, does that mean if a police shooting happens in Dallas in the next few months, they should now be lumped in with what happened in Tulsa?
Of rights inadvertently by regulations is the diminishment of individual rights by the zero sum game of group rights.
If each and every citizen has his bill of rights rights as an individual , than he does not need them as a group member. But as soon as we seek to promote one group over another, we have destroyed that.
Individual liberties does get us to where civil rights promises to get us, but fails.
Regulations,some of which were a backdoor attempt to trade agreed upon bill of rights rights in for a group rights concept not in the Constitution, have left us with neither.
on Tulsa officer (didn't read thru entire thread so this may have been posted already) link - ( New Window )
Some similarities with the female cop being hired as an officer after being incompetent in other police departments and then shooting and killing a White teenager opening his door holding a game controller. I do remember the riot by video game players a few years back after that incident.
Seriously this sounds like a hiring and training problem more than anything else. The race aspect may or may not be an added factor.
In order to accommodate state employees that we don't trust to embody bill if rights concepts or,in order to push agendas not agreed to by the general population, we have moved away from a society based on an idea, bill of rights, to a society based on reams of regulations that seek to direct every action of public employees a.....and ended up with less rights than we had before
Add to that the background investigation of one officer involved in Cleveland shooting - these were not close calls re: the hiring decision.
Some things are BRIGHT RED FLAGS - (i.e., involvement in domestic disturbances, instability, poor employment record especially w/previous law enforcement agency.)
For one thing, our diets of rich carbs, cooked meat and processed food enabled us to get more bang for our buck, nutritionally speaking. For another, the phenomenon of sharing food meant that humans could take time to go after high-risk, high-reward energy sources, like a tasty mammoth.
1) So, if eating animals was an essential part of the journey from Lucy or her cousins to homo sapiens, where along that journey did we lose the right to include animal protein in our diet?
2) For those of you who think we did lose that right somewhere during the trip, would you prefer to still be eating walnuts and bugs?
3) Or are bugs off limits, too?
RE: RE: RE: Whether a mistake or a bad judgement, why shouldn't a police officer Â
While on vacation this past summer in Florida I remember seeing a story about a kid down there. Good lookin, well built kid who worked out. Can't remember the age but the kid was at least in high school. So one day the kid's mom calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that her son is acting strange and she's concerned and he just left the house. The kid proceeds to walk down the street and sees a couple, husband and wife... mid-high 50's... sitting in their garage. The kid... high on PCP (or something like it)... proceeds to attack and kill the couple... and begins to eat the husband's face. Officer shows up to see this going on and tries to tase him. No effect. The kid gets in a knockdown-drag out fight in the garage with a few officers... dogs have little effect... and it takes multiple officers to finally subdue the kid.
Shannon Sharpe said the same thing.
It's easy to cherry pick scenarios and in this situation there are only two I can think of.
The man the black guy was eating was still alive when the solo cop shot him and the victim lived.
The couple the white guy was eating were already dead when a group of deputies encountered the man and they're still dead.
These are two important details. A police officer by himself has much greater chance of needing deadly force against a single offender compared to a group of police officers against a single offender.
The second is an officer can use deadly force to preserve his or another life from serious harm or death. Perhaps in both cases the officer didn't fear for his life or in the 2nd case took the personal decision to risk his life even if deadly force was reasonable.
Are you upset a black cannibal got shot and not a white one? Is this really an example you want to use to show cops are racist?
Personally, I wouldn't have minded if both got shot.
Link - ( New Window )
now we will see if it gets protested like Charlotte.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
Of course being high on PCP is not a reason or justification to get shot but certainly brings into question his likley behaviour which of course could be misinterpreted as non-responsive and threatening.
This is another example of why we always should wait until all the evidence is presented at a hearing or in this case a trial.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
'His own poor choices?' He had his freaking hands up in the air.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Seriously? The man had his hands in the air, slowly made his way to the side of his car and by apparent video evidence his window was rolled up. All this and he was closely surrounded by 4 armed officers. He actually played NO part in orchestrating his death.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
Bullshit.
He had his hands up over his head and was walking away from them. He posed not imminent threat
Quote:
T
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Seriously? The man had his hands in the air, slowly made his way to the side of his car and by apparent video evidence his window was rolled up. All this and he was closely surrounded by 4 armed officers. He actually played NO part in orchestrating his death.
I said if and yes if he was on PCP, not listening to commands, and reaching into a vehicle-he played a starring role in this death. He had his arms up and it appears he puts them down, making his arms up initially unimportant.
He was running around saying his car was going to blow up, there was something going on that won't be confirmed until tox.
Lets think a moment:
Courts require well research and proven tests to assess alcohol and drug amounts and types. Arent the police agents of the judicial system? Why should a person in a high anxiety state be able to assess another person in a high stress situation well enough to kill them?
Lets remember that the definition of a normal person is normal a normal amount of the time.
Even if we accept the magical thinking that maybe they are on PCP from 50 feet away....all drugs and food and lack thereof make some one off their best.
The most powerful drug is adrenaline and cortisol flooding the systems of both people
If I am jet lagged and at the tail end of a hard week and walking out of starbucks at 5 am trying to get enough boost capacity to push another few hours...I can assure you I am not alert, quick to respond or working on all cylinders especially if someone starts yelling at me or drawing a gun....I might start to wander off to my car to get my ID and show them I was harmless.
Or lets say I was just in an accident while late to an appointment...I am going to be angry and agitated.
Some cop who took a course alerting them to look for signs of stress is going to make the leap that I am on PCP?
I wouldnt touch it if you gave me a mountain of it ( like to be in control of my own senses thank you).
Great pay? Great selection and testing? Great training?
All in favor.
Amping them up to look here there and everywhere to make logic leaps about what is inside citizens who are not aiming a weapon?
Nonsense.
The first job is to protect and serve. All the people
Of course being high on PCP is not a reason or justification to get shot but certainly brings into question his likley behaviour which of course could be misinterpreted as non-responsive and threatening.
This is another example of why we always should wait until all the evidence is presented at a hearing or in this case a trial.
You are of course correct everyone should wait, but people won't, so I wrote my opinion and wrote IF.
The 9-11 call indicated he was saying his car was going to blow up and him ignoring commands with guns drawn seem to indicate he was no in a sound mind frame.
It is what I think I saw but the video is not in high def or very large.
Take a look, I think the link is good.
.
Link - ( New Window )
I'm not victim blaming, or excusing the officers behavior, she's been deservedly charged, but leaving your car in the middle of the road and not listening to police officers trying to figure out why you're there and what kind of shape you're in and if you mean to do harm to yourself or anyone else and ignoring their instructions can absolutely put yourself in an at-risk situation.
I think most people (on social media at least) view this solely from the victims perspective. and that's understandable. It's a tragic mistake (I believe).
But if you ask yourself this one question, if Terence Crutcher had followed police officer instructions do you think he'd be alive today?
I think you will agree more likely than not the answer is yes, so while he didn't orchestrate his death and while he 100% did not deserve to die, he could have avoided the situation.
One male cop did actually tase him, and within milliseconds after the female cop shot him.
I don't even know if tasing is proper protocol, but non-lethal force in that situation is certainly more reasonable.
When Shelby approached the car, the doors were closed, and the windows were open, Wood said. She looked into the passenger's side to make sure no one was on the floor of the car, and as she was getting ready to move to the driver's side, she turned around and saw Crutcher walking toward her, Wood said.
Wood said that Shelby then said to Crutcher, "Hey, is this your car?"
Crutcher didn't respond, simply dropping his head while continuing to look at Shelby, "kind of under his brow," Wood said. Crutcher then began to put his hand into his left pocket, Wood said, adding that Shelby told Crutcher, "Hey, please keep your hands out of your pocket while you're talking to me. Let's deal with his car."
Crutcher did not respond, Wood said, so Shelby ordered him again to get his hand out of his pocket. He then pulled his hand away and put his hands up in the air, even though he was not instructed to do so, which Shelby found strange, Wood said.
Shelby tried to get Crutcher to talk to her, but he simply mumbled something unintelligible and stared at her, Wood said. He then turned and walked to the edge of the roadway and turned to look at her, his hands still in the air, Wood said. He put his hands down and started to reach into his pocket again, Wood said, and she ordered him again to get his hands out of his pocket.
At this point, Shelby, a drug recognition expert, believed Crutcher was "on something," Wood said, possibly PCP.
Shelby then radioed in that she had a subject "who is not following commands."
"You can kind of hear a degree of stress in her voice when she says that," Wood said.
Tulsa Police Officer Shares Her Side of the Story in …
Tulsa Police Officer Shares Her Side of the Story in Terence Crutcher's Shooting (ABC News)
Shelby then pulled out her gun and had Crutcher at gunpoint as she commanded him to get on his knees, Wood said. She pulled out a gun instead of a Taser because she thought he had a weapon, and she was planning to arrest him for being intoxicated in public and possibly obstructing the investigation, Wood said.
Shelby ordered Crutcher to stop multiple times as Crutcher walked toward the SUV with his hands up, Wood said.
But those orders cannot be heard in the audio from the dashcam video, which starts as another patrol car pulls up to the scene, showing Crutcher walking toward the SUV with his hands up as Shelby follows him, apparently with her weapon drawn and pointing at Crutcher.
Quote:
T
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Seriously? The man had his hands in the air, slowly made his way to the side of his car and by apparent video evidence his window was rolled up. All this and he was closely surrounded by 4 armed officers. He actually played NO part in orchestrating his death.
+1
I have no idea how people can actually claim this guy had his hands in the air the entire time and ignore his actions including walking away, dropping his hands and making his way to his vehicle.
Crutcher kept putting his hands in his pockets, and Shelby ordered him to show his hands, police say in the affidavit. Crutcher then began walking away towards the vehicle with his hands in the air, not responding to Shelby’s orders to stop, the document says.
At that point, Shelby pulled out her service weapon and followed Crutcher to the vehicle. She pointed it at him, and another officer arrived and told Shelby he had his Taser ready, according to the affidavit.
That’s when, police say, Crutcher reached into the driver’s side front window, and the officer fired his Taser and Shelby fired her weapon, striking Crutcher.
The police footage shows Crutcher approaching the driver’s side of the SUV, then more officers walk up and Crutcher appears to lower his hands and place them on the vehicle. A man inside a police helicopter overhead says: “That looks like a bad dude, too. Probably on something.”
,,,
Shelby later told police she was in fear for her life and thought Crutcher was going to kill her, the document says.
emphasis added
Nope, it doesn't.
Even if you believe you have no choice other than firing your weapon, how do you not immediately try and aid them afterwards?
If true I can't get my head around a number of police officers basically letting someone lay there and die within feet of themselves.
Should have pulled the tazer or done nothing.
Link - ( New Window )
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
morally, I wouldn't want to prosecute someone acting in good faith that just made a mistake and I believe he put her in a bad situation.
on the other hand, if a law was broken there should be consequences.
I don't think he deserved to die and a lot pf people say that, but it's the actions and not the "deserves" that have to be judged.
Quote:
I assume this cop wasnt actually looking to murder the victim. Obviously, malicious intent gets no sympathy from me.
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
morally, I wouldn't want to prosecute someone acting in good faith that just made a mistake and I believe he put her in a bad situation.
on the other hand, if a law was broken there should be consequences.
I don't think he deserved to die and a lot pf people say that, but it's the actions and not the "deserves" that have to be judged.
I agree. Deserving to die imply's the officer is making a moral judgment when in fact rightly or wrongly they are responding to a perceived threat based on the persons words and actions.
Quote:
In comment 13136561 Deej said:
Quote:
I assume this cop wasnt actually looking to murder the victim. Obviously, malicious intent gets no sympathy from me.
So if it is just a bad decision, do we really want to prosecute that? There is no mere mistake I can make at work that will get me prosecuted. But for the police, a very, very bad mistake can lead to a homicide prosecution. You have to wonder who will want to be a police officer under those circumstances. Police Departments already have a problem vis a vis a certain personality type being drawn to the badge (authoritarians).
morally, I wouldn't want to prosecute someone acting in good faith that just made a mistake and I believe he put her in a bad situation.
on the other hand, if a law was broken there should be consequences.
I don't think he deserved to die and a lot pf people say that, but it's the actions and not the "deserves" that have to be judged.
I agree. Deserving to die imply's the officer is making a moral judgment when in fact rightly or wrongly they are responding to a perceived threat based on the persons words and actions.
When I used it (he didn't deserve to die) I had no moral decision in mind, it was procedural and based on the victims actions. Based on the video and what I've read I didn't get the sense lethal force was called for, but of course there are other details that will probably come to light at trial that maybe explain the officers state of mind and decision making process.
It had nothing to do with a moral decision IMO, just a bad decision.
Should have pulled the tazer or done nothing.
That is my initial thought.
The one thing I disagree with is the taser thing people say. The gun drawn was the correct thing for her to do since lethal coverage has to be present before a non-lethal option. She shouldn't have fired the gun though.
The reason for the firearm is that she was the first one there and if she believed he was on drugs and not responding--she could articulate that she would fear for her safety in a one on one fight because of the size difference and a taser has a lower probability to work and without lethal cover a non-functioning taser could be a fatal mistake.
Police are not paid to get injured or killed, so they have a lot of tactical options--though danger is part of the job.
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
But it should have been used as he walked to the car. If it didn't stop him that's another story. He had his hands up and there was no indication of a weapon.
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
Was there a gun?
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
The "If he had a gun" argument can get a lot of killed, black or white.
Quote:
But when does an officer deserve to die?
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
Was there a gun?
I think his point is police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. So the next time someone doesn't obey an officer and then makes a move that the officer interprets could indicate going for a weapon if the officer instead hesitates he/she easily could end up dead.
Hind sight is always 20/20
Follow what they say.
Live for another day.
All take judgement, but never been in a situation like that.
If he did make a sudden move by dropping his hand below waist level or near his waist line, officers would take that as a threat to the lives. Two officers did!
A taser doesn't always stop someone. Even if he was hit by the taser, if he had a gun in his pants he could still get a shot off.
So I'll ask again, when does an officer deserve to die?
.
Of the two officers who did one used a taser and one didn't. One decided to use lethal force, one did not. The one who did will need to answer for their decision.
and this officer will be judged if she goes to trial by a group of people who are not police officers so I don't see what the relevance is that people on here who are not police officers have judged her actions.
I am also one who cannot imagine why someone would want to be an officer these days. It is clear we need a set of standardized rules of engagement, like what is given to the military.
It appears that use of lethal force requires not just an honest belief that your life is threatened, but conclusive evidence of that threat.
A thought exercise: assume that you are an officer and believe your life is in imminent danger (not talking about this specific case). Under that assumption, answer this question honestly. How long would you be willing to wait before discharging your weapon in your own defense?
If you are pretty sure that you would be able to hold off on defending yourself (remember, you are supposed to believe that your life is in danger), then we need you to join the police force. You are the type of person who we need to protect and serve the rest of us.
I myself wouldn't qualify, as I'm pretty sure I would fire under those conditions.
Stops like this are the most dangerous for police.
Listen and follow what they say, even if it is wrong.
Don't make sudden movements.
Do they have to be hit before they can return fire?
Many people believe so.
Do they have to be hit before they can return fire?
Many people believe so.
Amazingly I have seen some here on BBI say police should never fire unless having first been fired upon.
A fair assumption - evidenced by the instantaneous reaction of both officers (the one charged and the one who fired the taser). In the end, the fact that the other officer simultaneously fired their taser may ultimately be the critical evidence in the defense of the involved officer.
Many people believe so.
This is what I was getting at. It appears that not only do many people believe so, but that the prosecuting attorneys also believe so.
Like I said, scary time to choose law enforcement as a profession.
It's pretty obvious lethal force wasn't necessary here, and the other officer on the scene made the right split-second decision. She's got a lot of explaining to do.
Follow what they say.
Live for another day.
THIS
How many people have been killed for obeying an Officer?
If you think its wrong get a lawyer and fight it in court.
Even if you believe you have no choice other than firing your weapon, how do you not immediately try and aid them afterwards?
If true I can't get my head around a number of police officers basically letting someone lay there and die within feet of themselves.
That's standard for them to let them bleed out and console the officer who killed them.
Some people do, and others just like to talk.
Many believe it is an officers job to take a bullet, that he/she shouldn't fire until being fired upon.
Those people want officers dead!
Seems this DA feels the same way.
No problem, there will be many officers quitting because every time there is a shooting the experts sitting at home need to be heard. Most don't have a clue what it takes to do the job. You guys watch too much TV.
.
If he made a sudden move, she was justified in the shooting.
If a police officer uses deadly force without decent provocation, simply because he/she was scared, yeah that's manslaughter.
What we don't want is for cops to perceive that there is practically no risk if they decide to kill someone without sufficient provocation.
Former Dallas Police Chief Brown spoke about the reason why the amount of killings by his officers had quite literally collapsed since he first took over: his officers were fully trained in threat mitigation, and they got refresher courses to maintain their mindsets in this direction. Cops should be better trained, but in the meantime any cop who doesn't even wait to assess the risk, and then doesn't make any attempt at threat mitigation before shooting to kill, where there isn't an imminent deadly threat, deserves a prison sentence.
Shelby's attorney, Scott Wood, has said that Shelby completed drug-recognition expert training and thought Crutcher was acting like he might be under the influence of PCP.
She was waiting for backup, that is why she didn't taser him before he got back to his car.
No easy answers.
There was blood stains on the side of the car. Windows were definitely up.
Quote:
That makes a large difference in the situation.
There was blood stains on the side of the car. Windows were definitely up.
Not according to the police officer who was there.
Quote:
does not always stop someone like the public thinks it does. .
Nope, it doesn't.
But you sure can try and see if it works before firing a firearm.....
Do it in the heat of the moment where there is a split half a second to decide!
Most of you don't have the balls to do their job but it is so easy to critique someone else's job that you know nothing about while sitting on the couch.
Most of you prove that every day in your opinions on football.
Don't want to get shot by the police do as they say.
Well I'm not going to accuse someone of lying when a) I wasn't there and b) no one has a different story
and there might even be dash cam video or video from the helicopter that can prove it one way or the other.
I'm don't accuse people of lying without some more proof other than it would be convenient for them to lie to support their story.
Well I'm not going to accuse someone of lying when a) I wasn't there and b) no one has a different story
and there might even be dash cam video or video from the helicopter that can prove it one way or the other.
I'm don't accuse people of lying without some more proof other than it would be convenient for them to lie to support their story.
He made a sudden movement.
They fire a taser to see if it works....he fires a gun back.
Dead officer!
Quote:
In comment 13136545 JimNY56 said:
Quote:
does not always stop someone like the public thinks it does. .
Nope, it doesn't.
But you sure can try and see if it works before firing a firearm.....
I have read complaints of people believing policemen tazing people without cause. And if they wait until their is a threat tazing may be too late.
I think many time police taze when they are convinced that there is no deadly threat but yet can't control the suspect or situation.
It isn't always substitute for reacting to believed possibly deadly force.
But keep judging something you know nothing about.
They didn't know he didn't have a gun. You don't assume he doesn't, that would be crazy.
He made a sudden move by dropping his hands.
They don't have time in that situation to try a taser.
Do what the hell you are being told to you when a cop has a gun pointed at you.
Do what the hell you are being told to you when a cop has a gun pointed at you.
If the same Police Officer ask me to get on the ground I am getting on the ground. don't care if I am on my way to church or a formal affair, I am getting on the ground.
Now after that if I believe it was not justifiable I am getting an Attorney and suing their ass off.
But I am living though the incident.
If the same Police Officer ask me to get on the ground I am getting on the ground. don't care if I am on my way to church or a formal affair, I am getting on the ground.
Now after that if I believe it was not justifiable I am getting an Attorney and suing their ass off.
But I am living though the incident.
He made a sudden movement.
They fire a taser to see if it works....he fires a gun back.
Dead officer!
Their was no indication he did have a gun or any weapon. This wasn't a stop and he was suspected of nothing. He was walking away with his hands raised. She thought he was high and was oblivious to her orders. Tase him. What was she waiting for? Don't wait until he gets to his vehicle and pop him.
She was waiting for backup, that is why she didn't taser him before he got back to his car.
Against the police? Who the fuck are you to suggest that? I'm as pro law enforcement as they come. You're just making shit up. This was a bad shoot.
Quote:
This wasn't a case of an evil white cop shooting a poor black man for no reason.
This was a man who had no small part in orchestrating his own death through his own poor choices.
Of course everything is premature, but IF he was on PCP, disregarding lawful orders, and reaching into a vehicle it definitely portrays himself to police as a potential deadly threat reaching for a weapon.
Ultimately he didn't pose an Immediate deadly threat and that is why there are charges, but it seems to come down to discipline in the face of anxiety.
Bullshit.
He had his hands up over his head and was walking away from them. He posed not imminent threat
Based on whose post this is, are you surprised by the spinning of the situation to deflect blame from the cop?
I wore a Messier jersey at the Boston Garden. I wouldn't do it again, does that count?
Whose poor family?
Quote:
Bad judgement, bad decision obviously but not criminal. Poor family.
Whose poor family?
Lemme guess. PA Giants Fan = Penn State fan
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
So, flame away now.
Probably. Just a weird context the way the post was stated.
He made a sudden movement.
They fire a taser to see if it works....he fires a gun back.
Dead officer!
What sudden movement? - it looks like slow motion video. Jim it looks real bad when one policeman is using his Taser and she shoots her 9mm.
Have to disagree with you until I see a better video that shows a sudden movement.
Of course not. I don't think anyone believes that.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effect them at all.
There is your accountability.
This I agree with. My concealed weapons instructor was the weapons instructor for the local PD (himself a cop). He said quite clearly, the police have the same requirements that civilians do in the use of deadly force. Obviously, with police, any encounter can turn deadly and they meet "bad" people many times per week.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effective
accountability?
This I agree with. My concealed weapons instructor was the weapons instructor for the local PD (himself a cop). He said quite clearly, the police have the same requirements that civilians do in the use of deadly force. Obviously, with police, any encounter can turn deadly and they meet "bad" people many times per week.
Quote:
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
She was a 5 year vet (not a rookie) and I have no doubt she is a good person who had no intention of killing somebody on purpose.
She may have killed somebody by mistake, but she did end a man's life that did not have a weapon.
Quote:
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
She was a 5 year vet (not a rookie) and I have no doubt she is a good person who had no intention of killing somebody on purpose.
She may have killed somebody by mistake, but she did end a man's life that did not have a weapon.
Quote:
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
This I agree with. My concealed weapons instructor was the weapons instructor for the local PD (himself a cop). He said quite clearly, the police have the same requirements that civilians do in the use of deadly force. Obviously, with police, any encounter can turn deadly and they meet "bad" people many times per week.
It's a little different in that a citizen can just leave a dicey situation instead of forcing a resolution. And they definitely don't have to apprehend anyone. So the citizen has the benefit of avoiding confrontation which might escalate. But just as with police a citizen can be deemed justified using deadly force if they reasonably feared for their life. Just like the Zimmerman case. And then it's still controversial.
Dunedin, are you referencing my post? If so, I'm just telling you what was taught at my course. This fellow was all about the rules. Also, police have much better training than any civilian, so they should actually be held to a higher standard, shouldn't they? No doubt people do stupid/purposeful things to force the police officer's hand.
Heck, I was just thinking that maybe the other cop shooting the taser may have jolted her into squeezing trigger, which should not have been on the trigger.
Dunedin, are you referencing my post? If so, I'm just telling you what was taught at my course. This fellow was all about the rules. Also, police have much better training than any civilian, so they should actually be held to a higher standard, shouldn't they? No doubt people do stupid/purposeful things to force the police officer's hand.
Heck, I was just thinking that maybe the other cop shooting the taser may have jolted her into squeezing trigger, which should not have been on the trigger.
Quote:
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effect them at all.
There is your accountability.
Wait... so you're saying that the possible grief that this woman may feel should be punishment enough? For killing an innocent man who posed no threat to her (except for the one she created in her mind)?
Interesting perspective.
It never ceases to amaze me at the way it always seems to get turned on to the victim in these cases.
While on vacation this past summer in Florida I remember seeing a story about a kid down there. Good lookin, well built kid who worked out. Can't remember the age but the kid was at least in high school. So one day the kid's mom calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that her son is acting strange and she's concerned and he just left the house. The kid proceeds to walk down the street and sees a couple, husband and wife... mid-high 50's... sitting in their garage. The kid... high on PCP (or something like it)... proceeds to attack and kill the couple... and begins to eat the husband's face. Officer shows up to see this going on and tries to tase him. No effect. The kid gets in a knockdown-drag out fight in the garage with a few officers... dogs have little effect... and it takes multiple officers to finally subdue the kid.
He's sitting in a cell right now awaiting trial. But he's alive.
Guess what his race is?
It's when we see stories like that... and then stories like this... that frustrates many of us. This kid WAS high on something... DID actually kill someone... DID attack and fight several police officers... and lived to tell about it. This other guy MIGHT HAVE been high on something... didn't hurt anyone or committing any crime (at least not a violent one)... and at worst walked away and not heed orders... and he's dead.
But hey... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. I'm also seeing some seemingly suggest that it's ok to shoot and kill someone (instead of tase... because you know... it might not work) if the officer even THINKS the other person MIGHT have a gun. This is a big reason why events such as this one will continue to happen.
The fact the he killed someone with his bare hands is irrelevant unless you believe police should become judge, jury, and executioners of crimes.
If we are OK with following any order they give to preserve ourselves, maybe we should take a look at the police institution itself.
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
It's not about race, it's about poverty. Poor people tend to be much more frequently involved with violent crimes. Now, ask yourself what percentage of white people find themselves below the poverty line, and what percentage of black and Hispanics do, and it'll all be clear.
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
It's not about race, it's about poverty. Poor people tend to be much more frequently involved with violent crimes. Now, ask yourself what percentage of white people find themselves below the poverty line, and what percentage of black and Hispanics do, and it'll all be clear.
I love that logic. So I guess every person that does something that ends another's life and regrets it should not serve time in prison? Absurd
In comment 13136953 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13136831 RC02XX said:
Quote:
Be held accountable? As others have already stated, if she is convicted, she can serve minimal time. However, this idea that if you make a bad judgement call and someone dies, you shouldn't be held accountable because you're a cop and your job is hard is utter bullshit. We give police officers great authority (even to the point of allowing them to take a life if necey), and in the same regards, they should be held to the highest of standards.
You don't think the collateral damage of this woman carrying around that she ended someones life the rest of her life and the fact her Career is over is not punishment. She made a judgement and killed someone because of it. I'm sure the Android Police force without emotions could handle that but this was a inexperienced officer who do to the training did the wrong thing.
Let talk about the victim too If he was on illegal drugs and was influenced then he put himself in danger when he got behind the wheel and left the safety of his house.
So yes he did put himself in Danger and was not just a stranded motorist. Ever see someone on PCP get Tazed I have in the ER and seen it not effect them at all.
There is your accountability.
Wait... so you're saying that the possible grief that this woman may feel should be punishment enough? For killing an innocent man who posed no threat to her (except for the one she created in her mind)?
Interesting perspective.
It never ceases to amaze me at the way it always seems to get turned on to the victim in these cases.
While on vacation this past summer in Florida I remember seeing a story about a kid down there. Good lookin, well built kid who worked out. Can't remember the age but the kid was at least in high school. So one day the kid's mom calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that her son is acting strange and she's concerned and he just left the house. The kid proceeds to walk down the street and sees a couple, husband and wife... mid-high 50's... sitting in their garage. The kid... high on PCP (or something like it)... proceeds to attack and kill the couple... and begins to eat the husband's face. Officer shows up to see this going on and tries to tase him. No effect. The kid gets in a knockdown-drag out fight in the garage with a few officers... dogs have little effect... and it takes multiple officers to finally subdue the kid.
He's sitting in a cell right now awaiting trial. But he's alive.
Guess what his race is?
It's when we see stories like that... and then stories like this... that frustrates many of us. This kid WAS high on something... DID actually kill someone... DID attack and fight several police officers... and lived to tell about it. This other guy MIGHT HAVE been high on something... didn't hurt anyone or committing any crime (at least not a violent one)... and at worst walked away and not heed orders... and he's dead.
But hey... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. I'm also seeing some seemingly suggest that it's ok to shoot and kill someone (instead of tase... because you know... it might not work) if the officer even THINKS the other person MIGHT have a gun. This is a big reason why events such as this one will continue to happen.
White- 494
Black- 258
Hispanic- 172
Other- 38
Unknown- 28
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
a discussion about why the police are on such edge when it comes to dealing with the African American community. Accepting the
narrative that this was simply a bias shooting, what would cause a Black police officer in Charlotte to shoot a Black citizen for no reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that while African Americans make up
only 13% of the population, they are responsible for 52% of gun deaths? That Black on Black gun deaths top 6,000 per year in this country? Is it any wonder that cops, Black or White, are fearful? Scott has shot a man in the past and served time for it as well as for assault with a deadly weapon. Of course this doesn't justify bad shootings by the police. But at some point, there needs to be some self examination in the Black community to assess why there is so much confrontational contact between the community and law enforcement.
It's not about race, it's about poverty. Poor people tend to be much more frequently involved with violent crimes. Now, ask yourself what percentage of white people find themselves below the poverty line, and what percentage of black and Hispanics do, and it'll all be clear.
I always hear black on black. Never hear white on white. It just needs to be neighbor against neighbor. The guy above me is right. There is a correlation between high unemployment and high crime rate.
White- 494
Black- 258
Hispanic- 172
Other- 38
Unknown- 28
Link - ( New Window )
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Postnoted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
Any movement like that could cause a officer to believe his life is in danger. Remember they didn't know that he didn't have a gun until later.
Just my opinion.
It is a shame anyway you look at it.
Everyone should just listen to the police and do as they say, later if you feel they were wrong take them to court.
That way your alive, their alive.
Quote:
People shot and killed by police in 2015 by race
White- 494
Black- 258
Hispanic- 172
Other- 38
Unknown- 28
Link - ( New Window )
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Postnoted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
But then you are getting into the discussion some already touched on with economics and percentage of people involved in violent crimes.
The thing is police shoot unarmed whites also. They aren't targeting blacks.
The public doesn't deserve a police force.
Close Your Eyes (and count to fuck) - ( New Window )
Quote:
People shot and killed by police in 2015 by race
White- 494
Black- 258
Hispanic- 172
Other- 38
Unknown- 28
Link - ( New Window )
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Postnoted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
What could go wrong giving people huge authority with little reprecussions for bad actions?
The fact the he killed someone with his bare hands is irrelevant unless you believe police should become judge, jury, and executioners of crimes.
Let's see steve... you pull up on a kid who you see has killed two people and is eating the FACE off of one of them... and proceeded to fight other officers... and on the other hand you have a man who has a car broken down in the middle of the road and appears to be high on something but at no point makes a threatening move towards an officer... which one appears to be the more dangerous situation to you?
C'mon man.
But that is the million dollar question. The officers claim he did. And it is impossible to for certain either way from the video.
What could go wrong giving people huge authority with little reprecussions for bad actions?
It's a different standard. There are very few circumstances where a civilian can lawfully present a firearm. Within those circumstances criminal liability is limited, even in the case of a mistake or an accident.
You are the one who appears to have formed a conclusion based on limited evidence.
Quote:
but at no point makes a threatening move towards an officer
But that is the million dollar question. The officers claim he did. And it is impossible to for certain either way from the video.
No... they claim he simply reached in his car (which appears to might be a lie). They never claimed that he made any threatening move towards them.
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
#dothoselivesmatter?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Quote:
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
Quote:
This is another example of why we always should wait until all the evidence is presented at a hearing or in this case a trial.
You are the one who appears to have formed a conclusion based on limited evidence.
Based on the video, I feel pretty confident about my conclusion so far. If I turn out to be wrong, I can admit that I was wrong based on the evidence that I'd seen at this point.
#dothoselivesmatter?
#dothoselivesmatter?
Quote:
In comment 13137151 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Quote:
In comment 13137184 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137151 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
Quote:
In comment 13137189 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137184 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137151 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
I'm talking about in these two specific cases steve.
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
As a general principle, people get upset by a killing of a group from the "Other" whether it be race, religion, nationality or in cases we are discussing the evil police. Not so much when killing is within the group.
While this is probably true, police shootings uncover another level of outrage than garden variety inter-racial killings or same race killings do because police are seen as an extension of the government.
that's why even though it was a black police officer in Charlotte people didn't care. With police from what I can tell there is no racial distinction of the officer.
Quote:
In comment 13137200 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137189 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137184 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137151 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
I'm talking about in these two specific cases steve.
OK so if I post a link to two other cases where in one an unarmed white man was shot and in the other a black man was tazed does that prove anything?
I remember reading about two or three times this summer where an unarmed white man was shot by police. It happens, and the better question is about police training and if there can be improvements. Making claims based on only two cases and inferring it is about race in IMO unproductive.
Quote:
In comment 13137175 BlueHurricane said:
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
As a general principle, people get upset by a killing of a group from the "Other" whether it be race, religion, nationality or in cases we are discussing the evil police. Not so much when killing is within the group.
While this is probably true, police shootings uncover another level of outrage than garden variety inter-racial killings or same race killings do because police are seen as an extension of the government.
that's why even though it was a black police officer in Charlotte people didn't care. With police from what I can tell there is no racial distinction of the officer.
The protesters should walk in an officers shoes for a day. Especially in the inner city locations.
But people did care. It was initially reported that it was a white officer.
I don't think it would've blown up if the first few hours weren't covered thinking this was a white officer shooting an unarmed black man.
Quote:
In comment 13137206 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137200 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137189 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137184 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137151 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
I'm talking about in these two specific cases steve.
OK so if I post a link to two other cases where in one an unarmed white man was shot and in the other a black man was tazed does that prove anything?
I remember reading about two or three times this summer where an unarmed white man was shot by police. It happens, and the better question is about police training and if there can be improvements. Making claims based on only two cases and inferring it is about race in IMO unproductive.
If you can do it, please feel free. But remember, it has to be under the same circumstances where the white person wasn't (or perhaps I should say shouldn't have been) a perceived threat and the black person was please.
Thanks!
Of course not. But I'm not the one stating this am I?
Quote:
In comment 13137233 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137206 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137200 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137189 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137184 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137151 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Also there are plenty of times when cops shoot unarmed white men also. So based on your reasoning how do you explain that?
Oh... well that means it's ok I guess.
Of course not, but you inferred it was because of race.
What other difference is there between the two? Age? Financial status? Those are more valid reasons in your eyes?
Umm perceived threat?
The point is that if cops shoot BOTH black and white men and the common denominator rightly or wrongly is a perceived threat.
I'm talking about in these two specific cases steve.
OK so if I post a link to two other cases where in one an unarmed white man was shot and in the other a black man was tazed does that prove anything?
I remember reading about two or three times this summer where an unarmed white man was shot by police. It happens, and the better question is about police training and if there can be improvements. Making claims based on only two cases and inferring it is about race in IMO unproductive.
If you can do it, please feel free. But remember, it has to be under the same circumstances where the white person wasn't (or perhaps I should say shouldn't have been) a perceived threat and the black person was please.
Thanks!
Did you show where in your example of the tazing that police thought he was possibly armed and made a move which could be interpreted of going for a weapon?
You posted about some psycho eating someone face, but that doesn't translate into a precised threat towards the police when they arrived.
With all do respect T-Bone, I often agree with your reasoning on things but you seem to be a little all over the place on this one.
Quote:
that's why even though it was a black police officer in Charlotte people didn't care
But people did care. It was initially reported that it was a white officer.
I don't think it would've blown up if the first few hours weren't covered thinking this was a white officer shooting an unarmed black man.
Maybe you're right, but there have been other cases of police violence where the police officers were black and it hasn't mattered, if you listen to many of the protestors it's police vs black people not white police vs black people.
Freddie Gray is an example.
3 of th3 6 officers involved were black and 3 were white. How did that make a difference?
If you are having trouble understanding T-Bone's thinking, focus on this quote of his a little longer.
What is helpful is to learn about tracking. T-Bone sees these incidents and sees a racial issue. He's not alone. There are lots of people just like him, and they aren't wrong just because you have some logical argument to the contrary.
Ask yourself - what do you track? It would be helpful to do some self-analysis and learn when and why you track, then you will better understand when and why others track. Doing this will help us better understand why people are upset and also help us see how we can heal some wounds as a nation.
That's all I got for this thread. Great discussion though.
He posted the two examples and inferred because of those examples the reason was race, and since this is a discussion I responded.
If you're referring to the Tulsa shooting, that's based on the officer's description of the events, which are being disputed based on what appears to be the window being up and blood on the window in the video from the copter. And it's not the 'tazing' that's the issue... it's the shooting with a gun that's the issue.
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
I think I'm being pretty clear on my stance. But if you need me to explain something further please let me know what you're confused by.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
He posted the two examples and inferred because of those examples the reason was race, and since this is a discussion I responded.
I also have great respect for you too steve. I consider you to be a good poster and man. That's why I'm responding back to you (when I can... I'm now at work and you know how that is...).
I'm not trying to 'fix' your thinking either but try to show you why most black folks are feeling the way they do. It's hard to understand how a white kid who's killed and fought officers DOESN'T get shot and yet a man who is simply standing there... posing no imminent threat (again, except for the one that the officer made up in her mind)... does. One cop thought it was ok to tase him... the other thought to shoot him. If he was that much of a threat, why didn't they both go for the guns?
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black?
Link - ( New Window )
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
Quote:
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
Cam - yes it is.
But to be fair, we as a community haven't helped ourselves in some respects either. We can do a MUCH better job of respecting ourselves as well.
Except there ARE unarmed white guys who get killed (Deven Guilford, Seth Adams, Daniel Shaver, James Boyd, etc), but those stories don't advance anyone's narrative so their stories aren't hyped to the same degree.
Yet again - racializing police brutality as an issue elides its true nature and root causes.
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
He very well may have I have no idea and unless anyone knows that police officer intimately they cant really know either.
And now we are leaving one discussion of police shooting unarmed men into another one entirely about whether this policeman would have shot this man when once wrestling with him a gun was pulled.
The thing is that obviously there are going to be a variety of reactions in a variety of different situations. And we can cherry pick any one or two and draw broad conclusions.
I still believe that these tragedies largely occur because of fear and a perceived possible deadly threat for the officers involved. That why you see both black and white police involved and black and white victims involved. Sure some react poorly because of that fear and perceived threat while others are more trained, possibly more heroic, possibly even place a greater value on the life of others than some of their peers. But IMO is still comes down to them reacting, rightly or wrongly to a perceived possible deadly threat.
If others want to believe police are targeting people because of their color that is their choice, I haven't seen evidence of that.
I do think the question about training and improving police awareness and response is a valid and good one that needs to be looked at by police departments across the country. But then you get into budgets ans money which many cites are short of.
Refresh entire thread and it should show. Happened to me on this thread also.
The public doesn't deserve a police force.
Logic at its finest. Maybe it's time to look at the minimum education standards as well.
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Quote:
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
A young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
Cam - yes it is.
But to be fair, we as a community haven't helped ourselves in some respects either. We can do a MUCH better job of respecting ourselves as well.
question in the same realm as that, should it be more alarming to see race killing same race at a record rate as opposed to cop killing a certain race? mad regardless but it sucks there is more unity towards the police(which is also more televised) then lets say the chicago killings (which is still opposed by the people but not as televised or kept by the media)
Subject the same communities to this mechanism (which, I want to interject, is perfectly understandable from the police POV... the failure lies with the government and society allowing police to police themselves and not have a better watchdog type of arm).... but yeah, subject the same communities to the same stuff for years and you're surprised they don't trust cops?
All this stuff we see on tape isn't news to black people.
Quote:
In comment 13137399 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
A young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
and not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority...
...Fuckin' with me cuz I'm a teenager
with a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product,
thinking every nigga is sellin' narcotics.
Hard to believe that was damn near 30 years ago.
Not too much to add other than that perception has certainly survived to today whether you agree with it or not. And that's very disheartening, IMO.
Cam - yes it is.
But to be fair, we as a community haven't helped ourselves in some respects either. We can do a MUCH better job of respecting ourselves as well.
question in the same realm as that, should it be more alarming to see race killing same race at a record rate as opposed to cop killing a certain race? mad regardless but it sucks there is more unity towards the police(which is also more televised) then lets say the chicago killings (which is still opposed by the people but not as televised or kept by the media)
These are the fucking police. This is the antithesis to their position in society. Criminals killing people is not news, they are fucking criminals. Sorry for being brash but this line of thinking really needs to be stomped out.
It's real, most states have something like it, where it's generally a misdemeanor but jumps to a felony charge based on history of the offender. It's similar to assault.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
You can find ALL the evidence on this with a simple search.
The evidence of something (white men being killed by police) in no way precludes the fact that race is a motivating factor in police behavior.
Its not smart and it may get you tased or land you in jail, but shot? This isn't some 3rd world country. We have due process.
Blaming the victim is BS. What if the person has a medical condition? What if they are experiencing some sort of a mental break down and can't respond like "normal" person. What if they are hearing impaired? What if they are mentally handicapped?
I had a situation back in the mid 90s where had the situation was different, I could have been shot. Probably justifiably. I had been up for over 36 hours. Highly stressful job. Just got thrown under the bus by my boss. Not happy. Got pulled over by a cop on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Cop was very angry from the start because he had been trying to get me to pull over for several miles. I was so fatigued I didn't even notice. The interaction was confrontational from the start. Because of the area where I had pulled off was so close to the oncoming traffic, the cop asked me to move the car back about 20 feet. I slammed the car in reverse and punched it. Slammed on the brakes before hitting the police cruiser. At this point, the officer could have interpreted this as threat. The police office started screaming at me for almost hitting him. At this point, I told him to STFU and just write me my GD ticket. I was not thinking clearly. Here are the take aways from this:
1. I should not have been driving.
2. I should have been arrested.
3. I could have been shot.
4. I was not even given a ticket for speeding, failing to pull over, almost hitting the officer and his car.
5. I was given a warning even after I verbally abused him.
If I was black (I'm Asian) on the south side, what do you think would have happened to me?
Quote:
In comment 13137367 Les in TO said:
Quote:
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
Quote:
In comment 13137389 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137367 Les in TO said:
Quote:
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
That no one got shot.
As it pertains to this case it is an example of how you can handle a situation where there was a blatant and obvious threat to the officer's lives, yet they didn't shoot anyone.
Whereas in the Tulsa case, the threat is not nearly as obvious (some arguing that there was not threat at all) yet there is a dead man.
To me, it shows the disparity in threat assessment and reaction.
Quote:
In comment 13137389 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137367 Les in TO said:
Quote:
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
You posted about a white man in florida who murdered people and was eating their faces off when police came and didn't shoot him when they could have. You opined that if he were black they likely or possibly would have shot him.
You asked for examples where something similar, police perceived a threat, where the suspect was black and police didn't shoot him.
that's the example I provided. There are hundreds of them.
Quote:
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
Do you really have the ideal that every police officer in every city in the country will react exactly the same to all variety of people and situations they encounter?
It's the reason why the Libertarian message is one about liberty (and not all the other important measures they support), and it's why Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have largely failed. They expanded their simple message.
It isn't as evidenced by this thread.
It's absolutely the "common" approach and I understand your frustration with that.
Considering our history, (not 1850's, but 60's and beyond) is it that difficult to understand why folks latch onto that narrative?
Even if we can agree that race isn't the determining factor, or that it is just one of many factors, and not always a factor at all, it's still something that needs to be addressed, no?
What's all too common is the stance that it has nothing to do with race, so let's just go ahead and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Quote:
To me, it shows the disparity in threat assessment and reaction.
Do you really have the ideal that every police officer in every city in the country will react exactly the same to all variety of people and situations they encounter?
No. Did I state that anywhere?
Quote:
In comment 13137379 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
Its not smart and it may get you tased or land you in jail, but shot? This isn't some 3rd world country. We have due process.
Blaming the victim is BS. What if the person has a medical condition? What if they are experiencing some sort of a mental break down and can't respond like "normal" person. What if they are hearing impaired? What if they are mentally handicapped?
I had a situation back in the mid 90s where had the situation was different, I could have been shot. Probably justifiably. I had been up for over 36 hours. Highly stressful job. Just got thrown under the bus by my boss. Not happy. Got pulled over by a cop on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Cop was very angry from the start because he had been trying to get me to pull over for several miles. I was so fatigued I didn't even notice. The interaction was confrontational from the start. Because of the area where I had pulled off was so close to the oncoming traffic, the cop asked me to move the car back about 20 feet. I slammed the car in reverse and punched it. Slammed on the brakes before hitting the police cruiser. At this point, the officer could have interpreted this as threat. The police office started screaming at me for almost hitting him. At this point, I told him to STFU and just write me my GD ticket. I was not thinking clearly. Here are the take aways from this:
1. I should not have been driving.
2. I should have been arrested.
3. I could have been shot.
4. I was not even given a ticket for speeding, failing to pull over, almost hitting the officer and his car.
5. I was given a warning even after I verbally abused him.
If I was black (I'm Asian) on the south side, what do you think would have happened to me?
Quote:
In comment 13137434 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
This is the market working. The pendulum swings too far one way, but then settles in a reasonable position as emotions become muted. It's happened with all large social movements in the past 150 years, but has always yielded a better outcome.
This IS a free market working.
Quote:
In comment 13137434 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
Quote:
In comment 13137424 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13137389 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137367 Les in TO said:
Quote:
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
You posted about a white man in florida who murdered people and was eating their faces off when police came and didn't shoot him when they could have. You opined that if he were black they likely or possibly would have shot him.
You asked for examples where something similar, police perceived a threat, where the suspect was black and police didn't shoot him.
that's the example I provided. There are hundreds of them.
Ahh I see but I think you misunderstood my point (and that may've been my fault).
My point, to steve, was I wasn't saying that if the suspect was black the police would've shot him as much as why, under those conditions, the white kid NOT shot but in the case of someone like Cutcher's he was (where he wasn't a threat to the officer... except for the perceived threat she made up in her mind). That's the example I was asking for. In the case of the face-eating kid, they tried tasing him... they tried taking him alive even though he'd already killed two people and fought a few officers and at no point was a gun drawn... but in Cutcher's case it was not only drawn very quickly but fired on a man who did nothing more but (allegedly... because at the moment I don't believe her story) reached inside his vehicle.
I know that there are some... maybe even most... police officers who will try to avoid using deadly force until it's a last resort. This woman didn't.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
I don't own one either and have only held one once in my life (a handgun). I hate guns... but that's just me.
You see... you say 'wait'... I say 'verify'. I believe that an officer should be in CLEAR danger before using lethal force (that's acknowledging that there will always be circumstances that permit the opposite). How many stories have we've heard about an officer firing off his or her weapon on a person because they THOUGHT they were going for a gun only to find out it was their wallet or phone? You want to use a taser and then sort things out... fine. At least the guy still lives (especially when they haven't or are not currently breaking any laws). But it just appears to be waaaaaay to easy to shoot a person... of ANY color... and say 'Oh... I thought they had a gun!' and get a paid vacation off of it(administrative leave with pay) and in most cases nothing else happens.
Quote:
In comment 13137442 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137434 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
I don't know if it's possible, but is there a way to normalize based on environment? Would the reaction in a place know to have a higher incidence of crime, violent crime etc, be similar? It's hard to get into individuals' anxiety levels, sense of danger, etc, but it seems reasonable that the context of the interaction, even before the interaction takes place, might play a role.
Yes, I state other factors could be involved. However, there have been various studies done where black men are perceived as more dangerous. Here is one where a black male sounding name makes people image a more dangerous person.
I’ve never been so disgusted by my own data,” said lead author Colin Holbrook, a research scientist in the anthropology department in the UCLA College. “The amount that our study participants assumed based only on a name was remarkable. A character with a black-sounding name was assumed to be physically larger, more prone to aggression, and lower in status than a character with a white-sounding name.”
Link - ( New Window )
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
Same to you T-Bone, I expect to see my name in lights Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday.
Quote:
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Perhaps useful advice for the sane and sober among us. Is this fully the societal contingent the police encounter?
We have as a society indirectly chosen to designate the police to deal with many of our social problems. Especially mental health. My preferred course would be to deal with it via something that begins with "Universal" and ends with "Healthcare" (coupled with decriminalizing all drugs) but that is not the course our lawmakers have chosen.
So it's often up to the cops to deal with the mentally unstable or even physically ill. "Sir, keep your hands where I can see them, please" is an order likely mechanically followed by Chip the suburban dad in the 2015 Altima. Eric Garner probably doesn't understand fully what's going on around him.
Add in insidious (often sub-conscious, to be fair) racial bias and I'm not sure I feel comfortable dictating what a poor black guy "should" do when the cops roll up on his s.l.a.b., guns drawn. I don't really know what it's like to be them wrt interactions with the cops.
--
My favorite show is South Park. One of the best episodes they made is when Randy (Stan's dad) goes on Wheel of Fortune and solves the final puzzle as niggers (the actual answer is naggers). Stan is mortified and spends the entire episode trying to convince his black friend Token (who was offended and hurt by the affair) that he, Stan understands what Token is feeling. Over and over he tries to act empathetic and that it's no big deal, that his Dad is just a dumbass.
At the end of the episode, after Cartman fights a midget (haha...), there's some moralizing about empathy, and Stan ponders... "I don't get it". Then he has an epiphany.
He runs up to Token:
Quote:
In comment 13137402 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137379 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
T
I'm going to post a section of law from the NYS Penal Law related to use of force. By national standards NY is pretty strict regarding use of DPF, one exception being not requiring police to retreat, basically because you pay them not to. Almost every section refers to a 'person', meaning everyone, not just the police.
In any case the standard for using DPF in the limited cases where it is allowed is reasonableness. What would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances. So you better be able to articulate why exactly you used Deadly Physical Force because you likely will have to articulate your your case before a Grand Jury and/or a Criminal Jury. And that relates to both the police AND civilians.
In the age of cameras being almost everywhere, very little is going to slip through the cracks anymore.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Quote:
In comment 13137350 Les in TO said:
Quote:
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
There were so many WTF facts in that incident that it boggles the mind. Seriously, that officer has no business being a police either based on his decision making or in his competency with his weapon.
Quote:
In comment 13137175 BlueHurricane said:
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
Exactly my point
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
This is definitely the most cogent thought on this matter. She sounds like she panicked, and when you're a police officer, mixing fear with weapon leading to panicked reaction is a recipe for deadly disaster.
Or be thankful since he said he was aiming at the mentally challenged man playing with a toy. Seriously...how is that fuck even a police officer (and even in their SWAT team)?
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up
video link - ( New Window )
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up
video link - ( New Window )
"Remain calm in tense situations" would seemingly be a useful trait for those elevated to the position of police officer. There's a reason vets often make good cops.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
To quote Dave Chappelle, "just sprinkle some crack on him"
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Probably got a call from the mayor
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Because if she intervened she would almost certainly be shot as well?
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Because if she intervened she would almost certainly be shot as well?
Probably got a call from the mayor
Too often these incidents happen because those involved were too fast in drawing their weapons for the sake of self preservation.
There is something that appears to be the gun at 1:05 behind the officer wearing the red shirt.
They believe it "keeps things even and prevents planted evidence"
They believe it acts as a modulating voice reminding police of consequences for uneven treatment
Some believe the media is a the court that modulates uneven power
"Cant we all just get along?"
I know it is hard to judge situations, but a person has clearly been shot and may be dying and his spouse seemed more upset before the shooting than afterwards.
I don't know what value showing the video has. Even the wife who released the video shows the police clearly yelling "Drop the gun" over and over again. Pretty much debunks the idea it was onl a book in the man's hand.
I can't judge how another one acts - it just seems odd and not in the expected way.
link - ( New Window )
Would they take to the streets if he was a multiple felon carrying a gun killed by a black cop?
My main criticism is of the media who takes these initial stories and runs with them, fueling emotions and hate, but when the stories end up being false or muted, there aren't any apologies.
Of course, citizens need that also, but obvíousky we invest a lot of power in our police so it's vital that they view their role from a Bill of Rights point of view. Training for all state employees ought to start with that and get those concepts and possible applications down before we preclude judgemts on the scene with bogs of detailed prescriptions. Same goes for all state employees.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
Don't get me wrong, a responsible and effective media can be a very effective protector against the abuses of government agents - but....what they do is about more than that, and some of it is not good.
We need to empower officials to make Principled decisions on the spot guided by concepts like rights rather than regulations. In this instance, a sergeant would have just suggested that the team stay in their vehicles as he calmly discussed with the individual or something.
Training is not all that helpful outside of principles and ones being allowed to employ bill if rights based principles on the spot without fear of reprimand.
Too often we discuss "the police" as if they were one entity and we compare police shooting that occur across various jurisdictions, states, departments, etc...You need to look at all those factors when considering incidents, shootings and the overall narrative. A particular department could be racist, have bias or a lack of training, but the reasoning behind why an officer did or didn't shoot will vary depending on a lot of factors that often aren't considered.
A better analysis would be to consider how that department typically reacts. For example, instead of comparing the Charlotte shooting to Tulsa or any other recent death, compare it to other police interactions in Charlotte, or compare Tulsa to Tulsa. The Dallas PD has been praised on multiple threads, does that mean if a police shooting happens in Dallas in the next few months, they should now be lumped in with what happened in Tulsa?
If each and every citizen has his bill of rights rights as an individual , than he does not need them as a group member. But as soon as we seek to promote one group over another, we have destroyed that.
Individual liberties does get us to where civil rights promises to get us, but fails.
Regulations,some of which were a backdoor attempt to trade agreed upon bill of rights rights in for a group rights concept not in the Constitution, have left us with neither.
Seriously this sounds like a hiring and training problem more than anything else. The race aspect may or may not be an added factor.
Some things are BRIGHT RED FLAGS - (i.e., involvement in domestic disturbances, instability, poor employment record especially w/previous law enforcement agency.)
1) So, if eating animals was an essential part of the journey from Lucy or her cousins to homo sapiens, where along that journey did we lose the right to include animal protein in our diet?
2) For those of you who think we did lose that right somewhere during the trip, would you prefer to still be eating walnuts and bugs?
3) Or are bugs off limits, too?
While on vacation this past summer in Florida I remember seeing a story about a kid down there. Good lookin, well built kid who worked out. Can't remember the age but the kid was at least in high school. So one day the kid's mom calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that her son is acting strange and she's concerned and he just left the house. The kid proceeds to walk down the street and sees a couple, husband and wife... mid-high 50's... sitting in their garage. The kid... high on PCP (or something like it)... proceeds to attack and kill the couple... and begins to eat the husband's face. Officer shows up to see this going on and tries to tase him. No effect. The kid gets in a knockdown-drag out fight in the garage with a few officers... dogs have little effect... and it takes multiple officers to finally subdue the kid.
Shannon Sharpe said the same thing.
It's easy to cherry pick scenarios and in this situation there are only two I can think of.
The man the black guy was eating was still alive when the solo cop shot him and the victim lived.
The couple the white guy was eating were already dead when a group of deputies encountered the man and they're still dead.
These are two important details. A police officer by himself has much greater chance of needing deadly force against a single offender compared to a group of police officers against a single offender.
The second is an officer can use deadly force to preserve his or another life from serious harm or death. Perhaps in both cases the officer didn't fear for his life or in the 2nd case took the personal decision to risk his life even if deadly force was reasonable.
Are you upset a black cannibal got shot and not a white one? Is this really an example you want to use to show cops are racist?
Personally, I wouldn't have minded if both got shot.