Another St. Louis area shooting

[Crazy Eddie]

Why?

Because police officers have a duty to protect civilians. Civilians have no such duty to protect police officers.

When the actions of a police officer contribute to the death of a civilian, it means that police officer has failed to do his job. This MAY NOT necessarily mean the officer is guilty of negligence or that he necessarily did something improper. It simply means that that officer failed to perform the duty with which society has entrusted him, namely, the duty to serve and protect his community and preserve their lives, their liberty and their property.

And in what percentage of cases do you think a dead police officer is preferable to a dead or injured perp?

In EXACTLY the percentage of cases where it's a clear choice between the police officer and the perp. Which is to say, if a police officer is in a situation where he would have to sacrifice his own life to keep a suspect alive, he has a duty to sacrifice his own life.

It is virtually NEVER that cut and dried, however. In most situations an officer is really facing a choice between ending a suspect's life and letting the suspect escape from arrest. In a few situations, the choice is between ending a suspect's life and tolerating a threat to his own life. Arguably, the logic of the use of deadly force could justifiably say that a suspect that is willing to turn a weapon on a police officer has his judgement sufficiently impaired that he could be considered a threat to civilians in the area. But the threat to the officers ALONE cannot and should not justify the use of deadly force. Police departments were NOT created to protect police officers, they were created to protect their communities by enforcing the law.

if you let a perp shoot at you you have no way of knowing that he will merely wound you or your comrades

Irrelevant. Whether the perp is shooting at you, throwing knives at you, shooting poison-tipped arrows at you or whatever, you have a duty to seek the safest possible resolution to that situation, de-escalate the conflict and capture the perpetrator alive so that he can face justice for his crimes. Killing that man means you failed to perform your duty; that is actually a much greater loss than merely failing to immediately apprehend him, since in this case your failure immediately resulted in the death of a civilian.

No, letting a perp get a shot off is never a desirable outcome.

The DEATH of a suspect is less desirable still. If the odds of a suspect being taken alive means withholding lethal force until AFTER the suspect has opened fire, then holding fire is also the preferable outcome.

And that is a consequence of our desire to live in a civilized society that respects the rights of its citizens. If we are truly entitled to the right of due process and a trial by jury, then we can accept no circumstances under which a free citizen may waive that right. Since pointing a gun at a police officer does NOT negate your right of due process, then being killed by police officers for doing so is a violation of your rights. Actually firing on police officers with intent to injure or kill presents a clear danger not just to those officers but to other citizens in the area, and those officers are obliged to disarm you using the most effective method they have.

BS. Nobody is going to fault a police officer for choosing his safety or that of his colleagues over that of a perp.

Firstly: I just did, and so have several others on this board, so speak for yourself

Secondly, the most effective thing a police officer can do to guarantee his own safety is to find a safer line of work. In the same way, the most effective thing a doctor can do to avoid having to deal with sick people is to not be a doctor in the first place. The fundamental duty of a police officer is to keep EVERYONE safe, not just the police, and CERTAINLY not merely civilians they personally judge to be innocent. A person who is incapable of performing that fundamental duty has no business being a police officer. There are many, MANY people in this world who are fully capable of making that kind of commitment; they are not the source of the problem.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except America sees it as a hurt/dead innocent is far worse than a hurt/dead criminal.

Except that the American legal system maintains that all citizens are innocent until proven guilty. Until and unless we come up with a legally valid way to try dead people for their crimes, those who were killed were also innocent.

THe 9th Circuit Court of Public Opinion, popular as it may be, has no legal standing in the United States. "Innocent until proven guilty" means exactly what you think it means.

 

[Derec]

Because police officers have a duty to protect civilians. Civilians have no such duty to protect police officers.

Police officer also have a duty to protect themselves and their colleagues. And they do not have a duty to protect somebody who wants to kill them.

When the actions of a police officer contribute to the death of a civilian, it means that police officer has failed to do his job.

Not necessarily. Often, usually even, they contributed to the death of a "civilian" precisely because they were doing their job, which includes use of deadly force when necessary.

This MAY NOT necessarily mean the officer is guilty of negligence or that he necessarily did something improper.

In other words, he did his job.

It simply means that that officer failed to perform the duty with which society has entrusted him, namely, the duty to serve and protect his community and preserve their lives, their liberty and their property.

Sometimes serving and protecting the community requires using deadly force against criminals victimizing said community.

In EXACTLY the percentage of cases where it's a clear choice between the police officer and the perp. Which is to say, if a police officer is in a situation where he would have to sacrifice his own life to keep a suspect alive, he has a duty to sacrifice his own life.

With all due respect, that is nonsense. Police officers are not in the "unnecessary self-sacrifice" business. If somebody wants to kill them they not only have the right but also the obligation to use deadly force against the perp.

It is virtually NEVER that cut and dried, however. In most situations an officer is really facing a choice between ending a suspect's life and letting the suspect escape from arrest.

Which is why there are rules as to when use of deadly force by a police officer is justified and when not.

In a few situations, the choice is between ending a suspect's life and tolerating a threat to his own life. Arguably, the logic of the use of deadly force could justifiably say that a suspect that is willing to turn a weapon on a police officer has his judgement sufficiently impaired that he could be considered a threat to civilians in the area. But the threat to the officers ALONE cannot and should not justify the use of deadly force. Police departments were NOT created to protect police officers, they were created to protect their communities by enforcing the law.

Police officers are part of the community. They do not lose their basic human rights just because they are police officers. So as a minimum they have the same right to self defense as any other citizen. In addition to that there is further authorization to use deadly force stemming from their unique work. Civilians are not supposed to engage suspects, police officers are required to do so. That puts them in extra danger from criminals. The police officer in the case from the OP engaged the two people standing next to a gas station and one of them drew a gun. Luckily he was not able to get a shot off before the cop shot him.

Irrelevant. Whether the perp is shooting at you, throwing knives at you, shooting poison-tipped arrows at you or whatever, you have a duty to seek the safest possible resolution to that situation, de-escalate the conflict and capture the perpetrator alive so that he can face justice for his crimes.

This is not the movies. Often "capturing the perpetrator alive" is not feasible. Letting the perp kill a few cops so you can capture them alive is ridiculous.

Killing that man means you failed to perform your duty; that is actually a much greater loss than merely failing to immediately apprehend him, since in this case your failure immediately resulted in the death of a civilian.

The "civilian's" own actions (shooting at police) led to his death. Killing the perp who is posing a lethal threat is not failing to perform their duty, quite the opposite.

The DEATH of a suspect is less desirable still.

BS.

If the odds of a suspect being taken alive means withholding lethal force until AFTER the suspect has opened fire, then holding fire is also the preferable outcome.

Even if it means more dead and wounded cops?

And that is a consequence of our desire to live in a civilized society that respects the rights of its citizens.

The citizens have no right to shoot at the police. So letting them get a shot off is in no way relevant to respecting their rights.

If we are truly entitled to the right of due process and a trial by jury, then we can accept no circumstances under which a free citizen may waive that right.

Yes we can accept such circumstances. If the suspect performs actions that lead to his death he will not face a "trial by jury" whether he gets shot by police (or another citizen defending himself) or shoots himself to evade capture.

Since pointing a gun at a police officer does NOT negate your right of due process, then being killed by police officers for doing so is a violation of your rights.

Pointing a gun at anybody is grounds for legitimate self defense and can lead to your death without your rights being violated. Your views are contrary to all jurisprudence as well as common sense.

Actually firing on police officers with intent to injure or kill presents a clear danger not just to those officers but to other citizens in the area, and those officers are obliged to disarm you using the most effective method they have.

Most effective method being chunks of copper-encased lead going real fast.

Firstly: I just did, and so have several others on this board, so speak for yourself

Ok, I rounded up to one from 0.999995 or so. Forgive my lack of significant figures.

Secondly, the most effective thing a police officer can do to guarantee his own safety is to find a safer line of work.

And if you mandate that police officers must allow perps to shoot at them that would happen to a lot of them.

In the same way, the most effective thing a doctor can do to avoid having to deal with sick people is to not be a doctor in the first place.

Not nearly the same thing. "Dealing with sick people" is analogous to "dealing with suspects". "Police officer is not doing his job if he has to kill a perp" would be analogous to "a physician is not doing his job if anybody dies during treatment". Both statements are equally ridiculous.

The fundamental duty of a police officer is to keep EVERYONE safe, not just the police, and CERTAINLY not merely civilians they personally judge to be innocent.

"Not just the police", yes, but also not "not including the police". If a suspect can be arrested without using deadly force while not endangering either police of innocent bystanders all the better. If the suspect is posing a lethal threat against police or others then his safety is not a priority.

A person who is incapable of performing that fundamental duty has no business being a police officer. There are many, MANY people in this world who are fully capable of making that kind of commitment; they are not the source of the problem.

Letting themselves be shot by a perp is not a fundamental duty of a police officer and those that would do that out of some misguided idealism have no business being a police officer as they merely endanger their lives, lives of their colleagues as well as lives of citizens other than the perp.

 

[Davka]

<snip>

 

[Derec]

Except that the American legal system maintains that all citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

As are police officers. I still do not see why cops should sacrifice their lives in order to not use deadly force against the perp who poses lethal threat.

Until and unless we come up with a legally valid way to try dead people for their crimes, those who were killed were also innocent.

How about this?

You are conflating "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law and somebody actually being innocent. When a suspect is dead they will not be put to trial. That doesn't mean that they are factually innocent or that they can't be shown to be guilty during an investigation into their shooting.

THe 9th Circuit Court of Public Opinion, popular as it may be, has no legal standing in the United States. "Innocent until proven guilty" means exactly what you think it means.

And which court held that police officers can't shoot a perp that poses lethal threat to them until and unless he actually get a shot off? Not even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as left-wing as it often tends to be, would issue such a ruling.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And they do not have a duty to protect somebody who wants to kill them.

They do if that person is a civilian who has not yet been convicted of the crime of trying to kill them.

Not necessarily. Often, usually even, they contributed to the death of a "civilian" precisely because they were doing their job

Incorrect. The first responsibility of a peace officer is to ensure the safety of all citizens in the area in which he is operating. It is understood that the officer's powers are limited and he cannot always achieve an outcome that sees EVERYONE come through alive. Even then, his responsibility is to the civilians he is sworn to protect above all else.

Sometimes serving and protecting the community requires using deadly force against criminals victimizing said community.

No it does not. Serving and protecting the community means taking immediate and effective action to mitigate threats to that community. Deadly force is ONE of the tools an officer has at his disposal to do that; it is not the safest, the most effective, or even the most important. An officer's duty is NOT to identify criminals against which to use deadly force, his duty is to prevent criminals from causing harm to citizens in his community. Those are two VERY different things.

With all due respect, that is nonsense. Police officers are not in the "unnecessary self-sacrifice" business.

I like how you slipped "unnecessary" in there, like the right of citizens to remain alive is automatically less important than the rights of police officers. That's cute!

This is not the movies. Often "capturing the perpetrator alive" is not feasible.

More often than not, it IS feasible. The current controversy over police use of deadly force exists in the first place because of a slew of events where it was not only feasible, but OBVIOUSLY so. Police officers in those cases took actions that ended the lives of suspects when those suspects posed no immediate threat either to the officers or to the community at large; officers initiated confrontations which then escalated into VIOLENT confrontations unnecessarily.

The "civilian's" own actions (shooting at police) led to his death.

If not for the fact that the current controversy is stirred by the deaths of individuals who were both unarmed and made no attempt to shoot at police, this would ALMOST be a good point.

But only almost. An armed suspect is still entitled to the right of due process whether he has threatened the lives of a police officer or not. Far more importantly is the fact that shooting at police officers is NOT an offense punishable by the death penalty in any state of the union, so even if police officers could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that man DID, in fact, try to kill them, he would never be executed just for that.

Do you believe that police officers have a duty to uphold the law? Or is there a separate "street law" that police officers are uniquely qualified to enforce on their own initiative?

If the odds of a suspect being taken alive means withholding lethal force until AFTER the suspect has opened fire, then holding fire is also the preferable outcome.

Even if it means more dead and wounded cops?

Yes. This is precisely the reason cops are given heroes funerals and full honors, and why the community honors their sacrifices whenever they make them. Because those officers put the safety of their community ahead of their own lives, prioritizing public order and peace.

If that is no longer something we should expect from cops; if their overriding responsibility is just to cover their own asses; if "Badass cop will fuck you up if you don't obey his commands" is an image we're comfortable with, then dead cops aren't heroes, they're just state employees who died from job-related injuries.

There are WAY too many cops in my family for me to be truly comfortable with that idea, but there are also way too many "badass cop will fuck you up" policemen in this country for me to think that we are not already barreling towards that paradigm.

And that is a consequence of our desire to live in a civilized society that respects the rights of its citizens.

The citizens have no right to shoot at the police.

This does not change the fact that the citizens have the right to LIVE, a right that police officers are obliged to respect like they do any other. If police officers can choose to ignore that right when they feel threatened by civilians, it follows that civilians can make a similar choice when threatened by police.

If we are truly entitled to the right of due process and a trial by jury, then we can accept no circumstances under which a free citizen may waive that right.

Yes we can accept such circumstances.

You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is this "we" that thinks summary execution is acceptable for crimes against the police?

Since pointing a gun at a police officer does NOT negate your right of due process, then being killed by police officers for doing so is a violation of your rights.

Pointing a gun at anybody is grounds for legitimate self defense and can lead to your death without your rights being violated.

And yet people who are killed in supposedly self-defense circumstances are frequently sued by the families of the deceased for wrongful death and/or Federal indictments for violating their civil rights.

That's precisely the reason why citizens are afforded the right of due process. Because the decision of whether or not a shooting is justified is a decision for the courts, not the cops.

Secondly, the most effective thing a police officer can do to guarantee his own safety is to find a safer line of work.

And if you mandate that police officers must allow perps to shoot at them that would happen to a lot of them.

Maybe it should. If anything it would result in a drastic reduction of bad cops.

OTOH, there IS a valid career path for individuals whose overriding concern is protecting their own safety and that of their comrades in the performance of their duties.

In the same way, the most effective thing a doctor can do to avoid having to deal with sick people is to not be a doctor in the first place.

Not nearly the same thing. "Dealing with sick people" is analogous to "dealing with suspects". "Police officer is not doing his job if he has to kill a perp" would be analogous to "a physician is not doing his job if anybody dies during treatment". Both statements are equally ridiculous.

When we have a series of back-to-back cases of patients dying in emergency rooms because the attending physicians refused to treat them out of fear that they might be carrying undisclosed diseases, then those statements would be comparable.

The fact us we have NUMEROUS cases of police officers escalating to deadly force where doing so is CLEARLY avoidable. The public is not disputing the police officers' winning of gun battles with dangerous suspects; they're disputing the police's over-used claim that everyone they kill IS, in fact, dangerous. We know for a fact that this is not always the case, and it has come to light that this happens FAR more often than it should.

And the reason it happens is simple: police officers have, by and large, been allowed to forget the fact that their first duty is to the public and not to themselves. If we no longer expect police officers to be paragons of restraint and self-control in a wide range of situations -- as you are suggesting -- then we can really no longer trust them with the responsibility to use deadly force in their own defense. That leaves us with only two options:

1) Cull the herd. Get rid of cops who can't handle the pressure, can't show restraint, and are more afraid of being injured or killed than they are of accidentally injuring or killing an innocent person (like this guy, for example. Darren Wilson should be joining him in prison by now). If police officers want to enjoy the public's trust, then police departments need to make sure all of their officers are absolutely trustworthy.

2) Brace yourself. If police departments are leveraging their legitimacy against the interests of their officers -- which is exactly what they are doing when they excuse overreactive use of deadly force -- then they should not be surprised by the manifestation of backlash, and should be even less surprise when the public begins to express indifference to that backlash. The murder of those two NYPD officers in the past week could very well be a manifestation of exactly that. Police departments cannot and will not continue to enjoy the support of the public if they explicitly place the public interest as secondary to their own.

You clearly prefer Option Two. That is NOT the preferable option, but it's the path we're currently on.

Letting themselves be shot by a perp is not a fundamental duty of a police officer

Open-ended question for you.

You're a cop.
You're on patrol in a high-crime neighborhood.
As you stop your car at a bus stop, you see a girl wearing a hoodie selling bags of something you suspect is marijuana, and when you stopped your car in front of her she stuffed the bags back into her pocket.
As you step out to question her, you notice a little red laser dot jittering in the middle of her chest. You realize that somewhere across the street, a sniper is drawing a bead on this kid. Turning your head for a second, you see an open window and you're pretty sure that's where the sniper is.

You have about three seconds to act. Do you
a) Step directly in front of her to block the sniper's line of fire
b) Pull out you gun and fire at the sniper
c) Get back into your car with the intention of calling for backup
d) Shoot the girl in the chest

Bearing in mind that you have only three seconds to act and can only choose ONE of these options, which of the above represents your fundamental duty as a cop?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As are police officers. I still do not see why cops should sacrifice their lives in order to not use deadly force against the perp who poses lethal threat.

And if anyone was protesting the right of cops to shoot people who posed a lethal threat, that would be a valid point.

But do you really want to live in a country where a police officer can pull out a gun and shoot you in the chest and then justifiably say -- with the support of both the department and the prosecutors -- that he shot you because he was frightened?

 

[EPresence2]

As are police officers. I still do not see why cops should sacrifice their lives in order to not use deadly force against the perp who poses lethal threat.

And if anyone was protesting the right of cops to shoot people who posed a lethal threat, that would be a valid point.

But do you really want to live in a country where a police officer can pull out a gun and shoot you in the chest and then justifiably say -- with the support of both the department and the prosecutors -- that he shot you because he was frightened?

... while you were (allegedly) beating his ass. Let's not neglect that part of the narrative - saying nothing about how much it is true

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And if anyone was protesting the right of cops to shoot people who posed a lethal threat, that would be a valid point.

But do you really want to live in a country where a police officer can pull out a gun and shoot you in the chest and then justifiably say -- with the support of both the department and the prosecutors -- that he shot you because he was frightened?

... while you were (allegedly) beating his ass. Let's not neglect that part of the narrative - saying nothing about how much it is true

I'm not neglecting anything. SEVERAL people have been killed in the past few months for considerably less than that.

 

[EPresence2]

... while you were (allegedly) beating his ass. Let's not neglect that part of the narrative - saying nothing about how much it is true

I'm not neglecting anything. SEVERAL people have been killed in the past few months for considerably less than that.

That would be true if you had specified more what specific cases were being referred to. I assumed the narrative was including Ferguson and other cases that have received national attention. It would be grounds for indictment if it was probable the officer was only shooting because he was afraid for no good reason.

 

[RavenSky]

And if anyone was protesting the right of cops to shoot people who posed a lethal threat, that would be a valid point.

But do you really want to live in a country where a police officer can pull out a gun and shoot you in the chest and then justifiably say -- with the support of both the department and the prosecutors -- that he shot you because he was frightened?

... while you were (allegedly) beating his ass. Let's not neglect that part of the narrative - saying nothing about how much it is true

Except that has not been part of the factual narrative as recorded on video, or even by (for instance) Darren Wilson's own testimony. A young man who is 35+/- feet away cannot simultaneously be beating the cop's ass. The little boy in the park was not beating anyone's ass. Eric Garner was not beating anyone's ass. John Crawford was not beating anyone's ass. No one can even legitimately allege that any of those victim's of police killing were beating anyone's ass at the time of their death's

 

[Derec]

They do if that person is a civilian who has not yet been convicted of the crime of trying to kill them.

That statement has no relationship to reality. A police officer doesn't have to wait for a convioction in order to be able to use force, including lethal force, against somebody.

Incorrect. The first responsibility of a peace officer is to ensure the safety of all citizens in the area in which he is operating. It is understood that the officer's powers are limited and he cannot always achieve an outcome that sees EVERYONE come through alive. Even then, his responsibility is to the civilians he is sworn to protect above all else.

Wrong. His responsibility is not to the perps trying to kill him and his colleagues over his own safety.

Deadly force is ONE of the tools an officer has at his disposal to do that;

And sometimes it is necessary.

it is not the safest, the most effective, or even the most important. An officer's duty is NOT to identify criminals against which to use deadly force, his duty is to prevent criminals from causing harm to citizens in his community. Those are two VERY different things.

They are different but have a great deal of overlap especially in a society when great many criminals are armed.

I like how you slipped "unnecessary" in there, like the right of citizens to remain alive is automatically less important than the rights of police officers.

If you pull a gun at a police officer expect to be shot. Don't expect him to think that your right to remain alive is more important than his.
Listen to the ski instructor:

More often than not, it IS feasible.

True. Vast majority of police interactions happen without anybody getting shot. We are not talking about those though.

The current controversy over police use of deadly force exists in the first place because of a slew of events where it was not only feasible, but OBVIOUSLY so.

This thread is about a case where the perp, Antonio Martin, pulled a gun at a police officer and got shot dead. Another case referenced, the one that you used as a springboard, was about cops who were too hesitant and did not shoot the teenage perp, Xavier McDonald, until he shot one of them, seriously wounding him. In neither case was not using deadly force feasible, and it was OBVIOUSLY not feasible.

Police officers in those cases took actions that ended the lives of suspects when those suspects posed no immediate threat either to the officers or to the community at large; officers initiated confrontations which then escalated into VIOLENT confrontations unnecessarily.

Antonio Martin and Xavier McDonald posed an immediate threat to the police officers. Yet your position is that police should not shoot any perps until they are allowed to shoot first. In the Xavier McDonald case that resulted in a seriously injured cop (who could well have been killed), in the Antonio Martin case it could have resulted in an injured or dead cop. I think a dead perp pointing a gun at police is a better outcome than a dead cop.

If not for the fact that the current controversy is stirred by the deaths of individuals who were both unarmed and made no attempt to shoot at police, this would ALMOST be a good point.

But this thread isn't. And neither is your assertion that police should sacrifice themselves rather than shooting a perp who is obviously posing a threat (like pointing a gun).

An armed suspect is still entitled to the right of due process whether he has threatened the lives of a police officer or not.

True. If the perp survives the shooting he is given due process and is put on trial. However, shooting him is not a violation of due process even if he dies.

Far more importantly is the fact that shooting at police officers is NOT an offense punishable by the death penalty in any state of the union, so even if police officers could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that man DID, in fact, try to kill them, he would never be executed just for that.

You are confusing police killing somebody with death penalty. Police are justified and even required to use lethal force for violations that do not carry the death penalty. In fact police can use lethal force even in states that do not have the death penalty. Also you are confusing shooting somebody who poses a threat with an execution. Executing somebody means killing somebody who is in custody and thus poses no threat.

Do you believe that police officers have a duty to uphold the law?

Yes. And law gives them the right and duty to use lethal force under certain circumstances.

Yes. This is precisely the reason cops are given heroes funerals and full honors, and why the community honors their sacrifices whenever they make them. Because those officers put the safety of their community ahead of their own lives, prioritizing public order and peace.

Police officers risk their own lives. That does not however mean that need to risk their lives more than necessary by not shooting suspects posing a real and imminent threat to them by for example pulling a gun or knife on them.

If that is no longer something we should expect from cops; if their overriding responsibility is just to cover their own asses; if "Badass cop will fuck you up if you don't obey his commands" is an image we're comfortable with, then dead cops aren't heroes, they're just state employees who died from job-related injuries.

Huh?

There are WAY too many cops in my family for me to be truly comfortable with that idea, but there are also way too many "badass cop will fuck you up" policemen in this country for me to think that we are not already barreling towards that paradigm.

And do they know about your views on this matter?

This does not change the fact that the citizens have the right to LIVE,

And police officers are citizens.

a right that police officers are obliged to respect like they do any other.

Right up to the point where the law authorizes the use of lethal force.

If police officers can choose to ignore that right when they feel threatened by civilians, it follows that civilians can make a similar choice when threatened by police.

It does not follow at all.

You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is this "we" that thinks summary execution is acceptable for crimes against the police?

Funny you should challenge my use of "we" when your position is held by a tiny minority. And shooting somebody who poses a threat is hardly a "summary execution".

And yet people who are killed in supposedly self-defense circumstances are frequently sued by the families of the deceased for wrongful death and/or Federal indictments for violating their civil rights.

Unfortunately anybody can sue for any reason and federal civil rights prosecutions are more about politics than about genuine civil rights. That said, so you really foresee either a successful civil suit or a federal prosecution in the Antonio Martin case? When the perp pulled out a gun at a police officer?

That's precisely the reason why citizens are afforded the right of due process. Because the decision of whether or not a shooting is justified is a decision for the courts, not the cops.

And that court decision is by necessity one done after the fact. During the fact, cops have to make a decision and have to make it in a fraction of a second. Sometimes mistakes are made, one way or another. Cops mistakenly shot Tamir Rice (although him acting the fool contributed to it) and in the Xavier McDonald case they waited too long to shoot. That doesn't change the fact that cops are authorized to use deadly force and that they are not required to let themselves be killed by criminals.

Maybe it should. If anything it would result in a drastic reduction of bad cops.

It would result in a drastic reduction of good cops without a death wish.

When we have a series of back-to-back cases of patients dying in emergency rooms because the attending physicians refused to treat them out of fear that they might be carrying undisclosed diseases, then those statements would be comparable.

Not at all.

The fact us we have NUMEROUS cases of police officers escalating to deadly force where doing so is CLEARLY avoidable.

Except you do not want police to use deadly force even when it is CLEARLY not avoidable. Like when a perp pulls a gun on you.

The public is not disputing the police officers' winning of gun battles with dangerous suspects;

The public may not be but you have in this thread.

1) Cull the herd. Get rid of cops who can't handle the pressure, can't show restraint, and are more afraid of being injured or killed than they are of accidentally injuring or killing an innocent person (like this guy, for example. Darren Wilson should be joining him in prison by now). If police officers want to enjoy the public's trust, then police departments need to make sure all of their officers are absolutely trustworthy.

This thread is not about Darren Wilson. There are enough threads about that case. While more ambiguous than this case, I think that the "no bill" was still completely justified given the evidence.

The murder of those two NYPD officers in the past week could very well be a manifestation of exactly that. Police departments cannot and will not continue to enjoy the support of the public if they explicitly place the public interest as secondary to their own.

And how is murdering police officers going to make them more willing to not use deadly force when threatened?

You're a cop.
You're on patrol in a high-crime neighborhood.
As you stop your car at a bus stop, you see a girl wearing a hoodie selling bags of something you suspect is marijuana, and when you stopped your car in front of her she stuffed the bags back into her pocket.
As you step out to question her, you notice a little red laser dot jittering in the middle of her chest. You realize that somewhere across the street, a sniper is drawing a bead on this kid. Turning your head for a second, you see an open window and you're pretty sure that's where the sniper is.

Cool story bro. Are we to believe the sniper is forcing the girl to sell weed by keeping a rifle aimed at her at all times? Or is he from a rival gang and it's a dispute over territory?

You have about three seconds to act. Do you
a) Step directly in front of her to block the sniper's line of fire

How is that going to help?

b) Pull out you gun and fire at the sniper

Not useful given the distance and accuracy of a handgun.

c) Get back into your car with the intention of calling for backup

I think backup would be imperative in a sniper situation.

d) Shoot the girl in the chest

What the hell for?

 

[Derec]

Except that has not been part of the factual narrative as recorded on video, or even by (for instance) Darren Wilson's own testimony. A young man who is 35+/- feet away cannot simultaneously be beating the cop's ass.

He attacked the police officer previously. And 35' distance can be closed pretty fast.

The little boy in the park was not beating anyone's ass.

He was waving a realistic looking toy gun around after removing the orange tip.

Eric Garner was not beating anyone's ass.

No, he was resisting arrest and had the bad luck that the arrest procedure which is usually not lethal resulted in his death.

John Crawford was not beating anyone's ass.

No. He was waving a realistic looking rifle. One that didn't have the orange tip because while not being a real AR15 it nevertheless wasn't a toy gun.

No one can even legitimately allege that any of those victim's of police killing were beating anyone's ass at the time of their death's

And this thread is not about any of them, while there are more than enough other threads about those cases.
This thread was started about Antonio Martin. The case of Xavier McDonald was also mentioned with Crazy Eddie, living up to his screen name, claimed that police should not shoot people pointing a gun at them. Do you agree with Crazy Eddie on this question? Should the cop have shot Antonio Martin? Should cops have shot Xavier McDonald before he managed to get a shot off and seriously would a cop?

 

[RavenSky]

He attacked the police officer previously. And 35' distance can be closed pretty fast.

The little boy in the park was not beating anyone's ass.

He was waving a realistic looking toy gun around after removing the orange tip.

Eric Garner was not beating anyone's ass.

No, he was resisting arrest and had the bad luck that the arrest procedure which is usually not lethal resulted in his death.

John Crawford was not beating anyone's ass.

No. He was waving a realistic looking rifle. One that didn't have the orange tip because while not being a real AR15 it nevertheless wasn't a toy gun.

No one can even legitimately allege that any of those victim's of police killing were beating anyone's ass at the time of their death's

And this thread is not about any of them, while there are more than enough other threads about those cases.
This thread was started about Antonio Martin. The case of Xavier McDonald was also mentioned with Crazy Eddie, <snip> claimed that police should not shoot people pointing a gun at them. Do you agree with Crazy Eddie on this question? Should the cop have shot Antonio Martin? Should cops have shot Xavier McDonald before he managed to get a shot off and seriously would a cop?

Derec, you are the last person on earth who should be admonishing people about bringing up other cases in a thread. At least my references are timely and relevant to the post I was addressing.

Second, Derec, you should not be making goading/insulting comments about other members if you do not want other members doing the same to you. I have snipped your snark from the quoted text above. I suggest you voluntarily do the same to your own post.

As to your question, I think the police in the case Davka (not CrazyEddie) cited handled their situation admirably and correctly. In the end, the young man gave them no choice but to shoot at him, but they did give him every opportunity to choose a different course. I fully disagree with your contention that those police officers acted wrongly by trying to calm the situation rather than immediately escalating to deadly force.

 

[RavenSky]

Latest "black Twitter" shit storm: an 18 year old with a criminal record pointed a 9mm at a police officer and got shot for it.

Btw, via your own link to twitter, it is looking more and more like Antonio Martin was killed by police for holding a smart phone. It appears to me that perhaps the police in that case should have behaved a bit more like the police in the case Davka cited. Had they waited just a bit more, tried to diffuse a situation rather than escalate it, they might have avoided killing yet another young man of color.

 

[Derec]

And if anyone was protesting the right of cops to shoot people who posed a lethal threat, that would be a valid point.

But they are.
Protesters Mourn Antonio Martin, Shut Down Missouri Highway On Christmas Eve
Teen charged with Berkeley Quik Trip arson, burglary

But do you really want to live in a country where a police officer can pull out a gun and shoot you in the chest and then justifiably say -- with the support of both the department and the prosecutors -- that he shot you because he was frightened?

That's what the investigation is for. Whether a person, including a police officer, is to be charged with a crime should be determined by the outcome of an investigation, not how many protesters the case attracts or how many businesses they burn down and/or loot. And why are they all hating on QuikTrip anyway?

 

[Derec]

Btw, via your own link to twitter, it is looking more and more like Antonio Martin was killed by police for holding a smart phone.

Naw, that's just the usual Twitter conspiracy theories.

It appears to me that perhaps the police in that case should have behaved a bit more like the police in the case Davka cited.

And he probably would have gotten shot, possibly even killed.

Had they waited just a bit more, tried to diffuse a situation rather than escalate it, they might have avoided killing yet another young man of color.

Because he'd have shot a cop who was alone at the scene.

 

[RavenSky]

Naw, that's just the usual Twitter conspiracy theories.

. With videos? Maybe. But it was YOUR link, the one YOU used to support your claim that the young man pointed a 9mm gun.

 

[Derec]

Derec, you are the last person on earth who should be admonishing people about bringing up other cases in a thread. At least my references are timely and relevant to the post I was addressing.

Yes I sometimes compare cases to other relevant cases, but not when these cases are already being discussed in other open threads.

I suggest you voluntarily do the same to your own post.

Is that an official request?

As to your question, I think the police in the case Davka (not CrazyEddie) cited handled their situation admirably and correctly.

Yes Davka brought it up by Crazy Eddie commented on it with his opinion that police officers should sacrifice themselves rather than shoot perps pointing guns at them.

In the end, the young man gave them no choice but to shoot at him, but they did give him every opportunity to choose a different course. I fully disagree with your contention that those police officers acted wrongly by trying to calm the situation rather than immediately escalating to deadly force.

I did not say anything about "immediately" nor did I fault them for trying to "calm the situation" or "give him every opportunity to choose a different course". That is all good and proper. But once it was clear he planned to shoot they should have shot him before he was able to get his own shot off. He's just as dead now as he would have been then, but a police officer would not have to worry whether he'd ever walk again.

 

[Derec]

Naw, that's just the usual Twitter conspiracy theories.

. With videos? Maybe. But it was YOUR link, the one YOU used to support your claim that the young man pointed a 9mm gun.

They found a gun at the scene. Martin holding an object in a manner of a gun (not a phone) is visible in the video. Martin has outstanding charges for gun crimes.
And on the other side you have Twitter conspiracy theorists. This is getting as ridiculous as that other guy who was shot for "holding a sandwich" except that he was able to get a few shots off with his "sandwich" before getting shot himself.