Ferguson Riots

[cabiness42]

Most reasonable people are going to understand that an officer is going to make self-serving statements. That's an obvious bias there. But when you add what he said with what other witnesses say, AND THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE with the type of person Brown was 30 minutes before the shooting, etc., the picture is painted.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What kind of person is the officer?

 

IIRC he didn't have a record. He wasn't caught on film assaulting an elderly man and committing a crime 30 minutes before he got into a fight with a cop.

[StrangeSox]

The original story I heard about Cleveland was that the kid reached for the gun in his waistband. I don't know if that's true, but that justifies deadly force.

 

And the Missouri knife thing, I discussed that a while back. That's about as textbook as it comes. And I'd venture to guess that was a suicide by cop.

 

He reached for it, but the gun didn't leave his waistband so whether the tip had been altered or not isn't relevant. It could have still had the orange tip and he'd be just as dead. I'm pointing that out because that was a central part of the original story, "how could this kid or these parents be so dumb?" angle. A comparison would be yet another black man shot to death on police in a matter of seconds for holding a toy gun he picked up off of the shelf in a Walmart. This incident was also caught on tape, and there were no charges against the rambo cop who rushed in and immediately killed a guy who was talking on his phone and looking at fish food.

 

In all cases, the police decided to dive right into the middle of things so that their only remaining options if the person looked like they were making any sort of move would be to shoot them dead. If there's a guy with a knife, why do you need to start the situation by driving within about 20 feet of him so if he takes one step toward you, you start shooting? If there's a kid with an alleged gun, why pull up with your partner's face about two feet from the kid, so that if the kid does anything at all you shoot and kill him in under two seconds? That's exactly the sort of thing the DoJ just criticized in a report on the Cleveland PD.

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cleveland police pull their guns too fast, fire at fleeing cars and people who pose no immediate threat and ignore potential danger to bystanders, the U. S. Department of Justice found.

 

Training shortfalls are a consistent issue in the report. Officers also push situations to an unnecessarily dangerous level, "either because they do not know how, or because they do not have an adequate understanding of the importance of de-escalating encounters before resorting to force whenever possible."

 

According to Charles Drago, former Fort Lauderdale police chief and expert witness in excessive use of force, that's a widespread problem.

 

"The most common type [of incident where excessive force is used] that I see many, many times, and this is a very big bone of contention, is when officers put themselves in difficult or dangerous situations where they have no option but to use force," Drago said. "Police way too often shoot drivers of cars then say, 'Well he was trying to run me over.'

 

In both of these situations, it seemed to be about escalating things from the start instead of defusing them. And a big part of this goes back to what Jake said yesterday, which is that, consciously or subconsciously, there's biases against black people and especially young black males to view them as more likely to be criminals or dangerous and threatening.

Edited December 5, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Milkman delivers]

He reached for it, but the gun didn't leave his waistband so whether the tip had been altered or not isn't relevant. It could have still had the orange tip and he'd be just as dead. I'm pointing that out because that was a central part of the original story, "how could this kid or these parents be so dumb?" angle. A comparison would be yet another black man shot to death on police in a matter of seconds for holding a toy gun he picked up off of the shelf in a Walmart. This incident was also caught on tape, and there were no charges against the rambo cop who rushed in and immediately killed a guy who was talking on his phone and looking at fish food.

 

In all cases, the police decided to dive right into the middle of things so that their only remaining options if the person looked like they were making any sort of move would be to shoot them dead. If there's a guy with a knife, why do you need to start the situation by driving within about 20 feet of him so if he takes one step toward you, you start shooting? If there's a kid with an alleged gun, why pull up with your partner's face about two feet from the kid, so that if the kid does anything at all you shoot and kill him in under two seconds? That's exactly the sort of thing the DoJ just criticized in a report on the Cleveland PD.

 

 

 

 

 

In both of these situations, it seemed to be about escalating things from the start instead of defusing them. And a big part of this goes back to what Jake said yesterday, which is that, consciously or subconsciously, there's biases against black people and especially young black males to view them as more likely to be criminals or dangerous and threatening.

 

Orange tip or not, if the call came in as a person with a gun and the person reaches for the gun in their waistband, they're justified to shoot. I know it's not the answer you want, but that's the reality.

 

And again with the knife thing, maybe it would've been smarter to park a greater distance away, but the man approached the police with a deadly weapon in hand. Justified to shoot, plain and simple.

[StrangeSox]

They're justified to shoot in a deadly situation, but that ignores that they helped create the danger. The initial failure was driving right up to the kid so that if this kid you think has a gun makes any move whatsoever, you need to fear for your life and kill him instantly.

 

And then there's the Walmart shooting, where the police just rushed in and shot the guy before he could even realize what was going on.

 

[StrangeSox]

on the other hand, South Carolina Breaks National Trend, Indicts 3 Cops In Past 4 Months

 

EUTAWVILLE, S.C. (AP) — As communities around the nation protest decisions not to charge officers who have injured or killed suspects, South Carolina prosecutors have obtained indictments against three white officers for on-duty shootings of unarmed black men in the past four months.

 

It might seem unusual that officers would face charges in a law-and-order state like South Carolina. But a former prosecutor with some high-profile cases under his belt said officials are acutely aware that people think there is a good ol' boy network in the state and are extra careful to give cases involving police officers the highest level of scrutiny.

[Y2HH]

They're justified to shoot in a deadly situation, but that ignores that they helped create the danger. The initial failure was driving right up to the kid so that if this kid you think has a gun makes any move whatsoever, you need to fear for your life and kill him instantly.

 

And then there's the Walmart shooting, where the police just rushed in and shot the guy before he could even realize what was going on.

 

You armchair quarterback a LOT when it comes to police action.

 

They're justified to shoot in any situation they perceive as a deadly situation, sorry to correct you, since you seem to be under this completely incorrect mindset that because they're police they should know exactly what's deadly and whats not at all times.

 

In your world, I assume they should do nothing and hope the person they're called about doesn't turn out to kill people? Because if that actually happened, you'd be the first to say, "well, they called the police, why didn't they do anything?! I thought they were there to serve and protect?"

 

I know plenty of police, and on a daily basis they deal with the parts of society you never have to talk too out in the open, so much as even look at, and they have to make decisions on a split second basis whenever they're in those situations. Those decisions could lead to them never seeing their families again...and for what? Because in your opinion, "just in case" the perpetrator didn't actually mean any harm when he approached them with a knife, they should wait and see?

 

I think you need to watch less television.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Y2HH

[Milkman delivers]

They're justified to shoot in a deadly situation, but that ignores that they helped create the danger. The initial failure was driving right up to the kid so that if this kid you think has a gun makes any move whatsoever, you need to fear for your life and kill him instantly.

 

And then there's the Walmart shooting, where the police just rushed in and shot the guy before he could even realize what was going on.

 

I already allowed that they may have gotten too close (didn't watch it), but the call is for a person with a gun. Someone reaches for a gun, they are justified to shoot.

[Jenksismyhero]

You armchair quarterback a LOT when it comes to police action.

 

They're justified to shoot in any situation they perceive as a deadly situation, sorry to correct you, since you seem to be under this mindset that because they're police they know exactly what's deadly and whats not at all times. At least, you seem to think you'd know if you were in the same situation.

 

In your world, I assume they should do nothing and hope the person they're called about doesn't turn out to kill people? Because if that actually happened, you'd be the first to say, "well, they called the police, why didn't they do anything?! I thought they were there to serve and protect?"

 

I know plenty of police, and on a daily basis they deal with the parts of society you never have to talk too out in the open, so much as even look at, and they have to make decisions on a split second basis whenever they're in those situations. Those decisions could lead to them never seeing their families again...and for what? Because in your opinion, "just in case" the perpetrator didn't actually mean any harm when he approached them with a knife, they should wait and see?

 

I think you need to watch less television.

 

See, I agree with SS (gasp!) to an extent though, because if it's THAT dangerous, then cops shouldn't be inserting themselves into a situation where they can get hurt. There was literally no reason for them to pull into that park like they did, position themselves mere feet from someone who they've been told has a gun (someone told me today the dispatch person never told the officers that it was possibly a toy gun, so they're going in thinking they have an armed suspect), shoot first, ask questions later. That's not good policing.

[Jenksismyhero]

I already allowed that they may have gotten too close (didn't watch it), but the call is for a person with a gun. Someone reaches for a gun, they are justified to shoot.

 

You need to watch it. The narrative doesn't fit with the video.

[Y2HH]

See, I agree with SS (gasp!) to an extent though, because if it's THAT dangerous, then cops shouldn't be inserting themselves into a situation where they can get hurt. There was literally no reason for them to pull into that park like they did, position themselves mere feet from someone who they've been told has a gun (someone told me today the dispatch person never told the officers that it was possibly a toy gun, so they're going in thinking they have an armed suspect), shoot first, ask questions later. That's not good policing.

 

Yes there is, because they're paid to do exactly that -- put themselves between those that are potentially dangerous and the innocent.

 

In hindsight, it's always easy to second guess when all the facts are on display, which is exactly what you and the other armchair quarterbacks are doing now. But when riding up to that scene, they were aware of two things, 1) there was a person with a gun, and 2) there were innocent people in the immediate area. That's all they were aware of when rolling up to that scene...and they made a split second judgement call based on that information. And keep in mind this was information they had no reason to doubt, especially when they rode up and saw a person with a gun.

 

I'm sure the outcome would be much different if they were given the information you have now, which is quite clear, "There's a kid with a toy gun in the park."

 

Bad information led to that situation, not bad policing.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

You armchair quarterback a LOT when it comes to police action.

 

They're justified to shoot in any situation they perceive as a deadly situation, sorry to correct you, since you seem to be under this completely incorrect mindset that because they're police they should know exactly what's deadly and whats not at all times.

 

Don't take my word for it, take the Department of Justice's word.

 

 

 

Those decisions could lead to them never seeing their families again...

 

The people these cops are killing never get to see their families again. The little boy they flew up on and shot within 2 seconds will never see his family again. The guy who picked a toy gun up off the shelf in a Walmart and was shot to death for it by a police officer who rushed in and fired immediately will never see his family. Eric Garner will never see his family again.

 

People invested with the power and authority of the state to use violence up to and including deadly force to enforce the law should be held to a higher standard.

[StrangeSox]

See, I agree with SS (gasp!) to an extent though, because if it's THAT dangerous, then cops shouldn't be inserting themselves into a situation where they can get hurt. There was literally no reason for them to pull into that park like they did, position themselves mere feet from someone who they've been told has a gun (someone told me today the dispatch person never told the officers that it was possibly a toy gun, so they're going in thinking they have an armed suspect), shoot first, ask questions later. That's not good policing.

Yes, the caller said it was "probably" a toy gun but that was not communicated to the police.

[StrangeSox]

You need to watch it. The narrative doesn't fit with the video.

That's the other aspect of the Tamir shooting. The police unquestionably lied when they claimed he was seated at the gazebo with multiple other people around when they arrived.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes there is, because they're paid to do exactly that -- put themselves between those that are potentially dangerous and the innocent.

 

In hindsight, it's always easy to second guess when all the facts are on display, which is exactly what you and the other armchair quarterbacks are doing now. But when riding up to that scene, they were aware of two things, 1) there was a person with a gun, and 2) there were innocent people in the immediate area. That's all they were aware of when rolling up to that scene...and they made a split second judgement call based on that information.

 

Bad information led to that situation, not bad policing.

 

No, they knew there was a young man with a gun in a gazebo. And then they proceeded to park their car within 5 feet of that gazebo. That was moronic. In the stand your ground argument, it's akin to starting a fight and then killing that person because you feel your life is in danger.

 

I'm sure they violated police procedure. There's no way that's appropriate when responding to a scene. You don't drive right up to the person with the gun because if the person has any intention of killing someone, he can easily shoot the cops in the car. They should have maintained SOME kind of distance to at least give themselves time to analyze the situation. They didn't do that. And the fact that they lied about telling the kid three times to put the weapon away means they KNEW they f***ed up royally and were trying to cover themselves.

 

Did you watch the video? Honestly? Because like you from the narrative i thought the same thing - hey cops can shoot if they feel threatened and this kid had a gun and wasn't following orders. But the video shows that the cops didn't give the kid time to follow orders. They rolled up, opened the door, and shot the kid within about 2 seconds.

[Y2HH]

Don't take my word for it, take the Department of Justice's word.

 

 

 

 

 

The people these cops are killing never get to see their families again. The little boy they flew up on and shot within 2 seconds will never see his family again. The guy who picked a toy gun up off the shelf in a Walmart and was shot to death for it by a police officer who rushed in and fired immediately will never see his family. Eric Garner will never see his family again.

 

People invested with the power and authority of the state to use violence up to and including deadly force to enforce the law should be held to a higher standard.

 

And what standard is that? That they should allow themselves to get shot, stabbed or otherwise BEFORE taking action, just in case? Laughable.

[StrangeSox]

Yes there is, because they're paid to do exactly that -- put themselves between those that are potentially dangerous and the innocent.

 

In hindsight, it's always easy to second guess when all the facts are on display, which is exactly what you and the other armchair quarterbacks are doing now. But when riding up to that scene, they were aware of two things, 1) there was a person with a gun, and 2) there were innocent people in the immediate area. That's all they were aware of when rolling up to that scene...and they made a split second judgement call based on that information. And keep in mind this was information they had no reason to doubt, especially when they rode up and saw a person with a gun.

 

I'm sure the outcome would be much different if they were given the information you have now, which is quite clear, "There's a kid with a toy gun in the park."

 

Bad information led to that situation, not bad policing.

 

There was nobody else around. There is zero justification for riding in like that. Even from an officer safety perspective, it is incredibly stupid. This is not just coming from some guy on SoxTalk, this is what the DOJ and multiple current and former police have said regarding the actions taken in this case and similar ones.

 

[Y2HH]

No, they knew there was a young man with a gun in a gazebo. And then they proceeded to park their car within 5 feet of that gazebo. That was moronic. In the stand your ground argument, it's akin to starting a fight and then killing that person because you feel your life is in danger.

 

I'm sure they violated police procedure. There's no way that's appropriate when responding to a scene. You don't drive right up to the person with the gun because if the person has any intention of killing someone, he can easily shoot the cops in the car. They should have maintained SOME kind of distance to at least give themselves time to analyze the situation. They didn't do that. And the fact that they lied about telling the kid three times to put the weapon away means they KNEW they f***ed up royally and were trying to cover themselves.

 

Did you watch the video? Honestly? Because like you from the narrative i thought the same thing - hey cops can shoot if they feel threatened and this kid had a gun and wasn't following orders. But the video shows that the cops didn't give the kid time to follow orders. They rolled up, opened the door, and shot the kid within about 2 seconds.

 

Well, with all your training, you'd know.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, with all your training, you'd know.

 

Given that i've sued police departments for misconduct, and i've read some training manuals as part of the cases, i'm confident i know more than you. I can't say i'm an expert on procedure for arriving on scene with a potentially armed perp, but generally the rule is always "don't put yourself in danger." Parking 5 feet from a person with a gun violates that rule, and common sense frankly.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

And what standard is that? That they should allow themselves to get shot, stabbed or otherwise BEFORE taking action, just in case? Laughable.

The standard where they don't help to create situations where they feel their only choice is to shoot a 12 year old kid dead. Don't want to get stabbed? Don't pull up 15 feet away from a guy with a knife. Don't want to get shot? Try to diffuse the situation instead of flying up two feet away from a kid, getting out of the car and then immediately shooting him. Don't charge into a Walmart and start blasting the guy with a toy gun who's talking on the phone in the back corner of the store as soon as you see him. Stop putting yourself into more deadly situations than you need to.

[Jenksismyhero]

And what standard is that? That they should allow themselves to get shot, stabbed or otherwise BEFORE taking action, just in case? Laughable.

 

Did you watch the video, yes or no?

[StrangeSox]

Given that i've sued police departments for misconduct, and i've read some training manuals as part of the cases, i'm confident i know more than you. I can't say i'm an expert on procedure for arriving on scene with a potentially armed perp, but generally the rule is always "don't put yourself in danger." Parking 5 feet from a person with a gun violates that rule, and common sense frankly.

Just think about a slightly different scenario unfolding to show how stupid their actions were.

 

They fly like, just like in the video. The cop in the passenger side doesn't get out immediately, and instead the driver starts to. As he's doing this, Tamir goes to pull out what's actually a real gun. How vulnerable is the officer on the passenger side at this point? He's sitting down with his gun in his holster inside of a car. If this kid actually is some sort of a deadly threat, you've essentially written your partner's life off by driving up that close.

[Y2HH]

The standard where they don't help to create situations where they feel their only choice is to shoot a 12 year old kid dead. Don't want to get stabbed? Don't pull up 15 feet away from a guy with a knife. Don't want to get shot? Try to diffuse the situation instead of flying up two feet away from a kid, getting out of the car and then immediately shooting him. Don't charge into a Walmart and start blasting the guy with a toy gun who's talking on the phone in the back corner of the store as soon as you see him. Stop putting yourself into more deadly situations than you need to.

 

You make a lot of assumption when you discuss things.

 

How do you know they didn't mean to pull up 100 yards away, when they suddenly realized, holy crap, the guy we're looking for is right there in front of us?! Do you think police have some sort of built in GPS where they know the exact coordinates of the people they're looking for when they ride up?

[StrangeSox]

Well, with all your training, you'd know.

I have witnessed actual tactical response training for unquestionably deadly situations before. You don't blindly rush into things.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, i'm telling you, the universal rule is "don't needlessly put yourself in danger."