Another St. Louis area shooting

[ksen]

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:

Unless of course you are a white woman in Tennessee.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Only if you are an Olympic sprinter.

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

Sorry, the toy gun was in his waistband when he was shot. Tamir Rice was literally empty-handed when he was killed. Makes your defense really silly,

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

More utter bullshit. The chokehold was prohibited because it causes deaths. Makes your defense look ridiculous.

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.

He was not beating anyone's ass nor was he threatening anyone. But then, even short-time participants in these threads know you will defend any killing of those scary black people.

 

[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

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

I wasn't referring to all cases Raven, just as Crazy Eddie wasn't referring to all cases with the "... because he was frightened?" question. I could have been talking about the Travvon Martin case for all you know. Thirty five feet can be crossed in about 3 seconds at a moderate pace (try it). If indeed Mike was running at the officer for another go, should Wilson have waited to see what happened after failing to restrain Brown earlier in the encounter? It does seem crazy to be running at an armed policeman, unless Mike thought a young, goofy looking cop wouldn't have to balls to shoot him. It also seems crazy to assume Mike was turning around to surrender and was shot dead a few feet from the officer - that seems demonic on the officers part. I suspect what happened was a blend of stories.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm curious about the cell phone. Can we get a reliable independent source on that?

 

[Earl IV]

"Black Twitter"

"Black Twitter"

"Black Twitter"


"Black Twitter"​

"Nigger Twitter" rolls off the tongue easier.

Just sayin'

 

[ksen]

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

I wasn't referring to all cases Raven, just as Crazy Eddie wasn't referring to all cases with the "... because he was frightened?" question. I could have been talking about the Travvon Martin case for all you know. Thirty five feet can be crossed in about 3 seconds at a moderate pace (try it). If indeed Mike was running at the officer for another go, should Wilson have waited to see what happened after failing to restrain Brown earlier in the encounter? It does seem crazy to be running at an armed policeman, unless Mike thought a young, goofy looking cop wouldn't have to balls to shoot him. It also seems crazy to assume Mike was turning around to surrender and was shot dead a few feet from the officer - that seems demonic on the officers part. I suspect what happened was a blend of stories. I can't speak to any of the other cases you mentioned.

If only we had a system in place that allowed one party, let's call it a "prosecutor", to present evidence against a charged party, we'll call that one a "defendant", with representation for the "defendant", which we'll call a "defense attorney", being able to rebut the "prosecutor's" evidence before an impartial group of citizens, which we'll call a "jury", and with one person, we'll call the "judge", making sure proper rules and procedures are followed by the "prosecutor" and "defense attorney" and then the "jury" could weigh the evidence and render a decision, we could call a "verdict".

 

[EPresence2]

Only if you are an Olympic sprinter.

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

Sorry, the toy gun was in his waistband when he was shot. Tamir Rice was literally empty-handed when he was killed. Makes your defense really silly,

That incident is also being considered a homicide that prompted the Cleveland police department to change their hiring policy. Not sure why the officers actions are being defended here.

 

[Davka]

Unless you're a white male protecting the rights of another white male to graze cattle on Federal land.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless you're a white male protecting the rights of another white male to graze cattle on Federal land.

How many times do I have to point out that was a hostage situation?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

"No good reason" apparently has different definitions between the public and the prosectors. Prosectors seem to believe that police officers can be "in reasonable fear for their lives" even facing a suspect that is both unarmed and a significant distance away from them, or is lying face down on the ground in a chokehold, or is sitting on a park bench with what is believed to be a weapon in hand.

Of course, not all prosectors or grand jury members seem to have the same opinion on this either.

 

[Davka]

Unless you're a white male protecting the rights of another white male to graze cattle on Federal land.

How many times do I have to point out that was a hostage situation?

Keep repeating it, maybe it will magically become true.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

You're thinking of "soldiers." Cops have a responsibility to try and bring their suspects down alive. There is an acceptable margin for failure, but there are no excuses.

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.

And yet a great many people who are killed by police action are not, in fact, armed. This is something you continue to avoid addressing.

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.

Yes. We're talking about situations where a police officer resorts to deadly force where there is no need to do so. SOMETIMES, police officers are prosecuted and convicted for doing this. That needs to become the rule, not the exception.

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.

And yet even the Martin case has certain inherent questions, like how/why Antonio Martin pulled a gun on a police officer from 5 feet away, pointed it directly at him and managed to get shot three times without even pulling the trigger. That, actually, was the reason the protests turned violent as quickly as he did: because people who SAW the shooting were convinced that Antonio Martin was unarmed when he was shot.

The odd thing is, Martin appears to be perfectly calm until the moment he is killed, and never fires a shot. The officer who kills him appears to be in a state of flailing panic, and fires three times. It's almost as if the two of them had two completely different perceptions about what Antonio was doing...

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.

Which is why cops should be prosecuted for manslaughter if the suspect turned out to be unarmed. It is also why police officers should face VERY serious consequences if they knowingly falsify their reports/evidence of what happened.

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.

Then they're human just like anybody else.

And therefore, not heroes.

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?

What do you think those views are based on? The only people more distressed about the prevalence of steroidal/paranoid/trigger happy cops in the world are GOOD cops who actually know what their jobs are supposed to be.

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

And police officers are citizens.

But not civilians. They are (supposed to be) held to a higher standard.

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.

That would be a valid statement of the number of officers killed in the line of duty wasn't at an all-time low in this country.

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?

It's not the use of deadly force that's the problem. It's the circumstances under which it is allowed, the police tendency to excuse it when it shouldn't be. Cops are making their lives unnecessarily hard -- and their futures unnecessarily bleak -- by making up excuses when they shouldn't be.

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

I think backup would be imperative in a sniper situation.

So YOUR answer is "get out of dodge and call for backup."

I ask this question because it actually happened to my grandfather just before he retired. HE chose to step directly into the path of what he thought was the sniper's line of fire and then drag the girl into his car and drive her to the police station to interview her in a less dangerous environment. The laser dot in question turned out to be just that, some stupid kid playing with a laser pointer.

Had he called for backup, a SWAT team probably would have raided that kid's apartment, and an innocent person might be dead right now.

I recall this story every time this line of discussion comes up. There is a run of police officers these days who think they work in a war zone and their overriding priority is to make sure they go home safety every day. But if you are policing in the neighborhood where you live, you are HOME ALREADY. You're not trying to protect yourself from "perps" who could kill you at any moment. You're an enforcer of order trying to make sure your friends and neighbors all play by the rules and nobody gets hurt on your watch.

In an ideal world, police officers would already know the first name and address of every person they will ever have to pull a gun on. It's a lot easier to shoot a stranger by accident than it is to shoot a friend who is having the worst day of his life.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't know why I didn't notice this before, but I take another look at the police video and there's something about it that's bugging me:

Antonio and his companion exit the food mart at the beginning of the video and stand on the sidewalk. Just standing there. Apparently waiting.

A few seconds into the video, you see the police car turning the corner coming around the street on its way into the gas station. Antonio's companion turns his head; he sees it too. He and Antonio begin walking towards the end of the parking lot. His buddy, in fact, goes out of his way to walk around the white car in the foreground so that he's walking in the actual lot, while his puzzled-looking Antonio sticks to the sidewalk at first.

The police car pulls up. Companion walks right up to the police car. Antonio sticks to the sidewalk. They both appear to be walking towards the car before the car even stops, before the officer opens his door or even gets out.


I'm puzzled as to exactly what sort of police action this behavior represents. Two individuals are waiting in a public place for the arrival of a police officer; they go to meet that officer when he pulls up. They have a discussion with him lasting approximately 55 seconds, at which point one of them pulls a gun?

I'm not suggesting this is what happened... but two suspects with criminal histories walking up to a car they've been waiting for, brief conversation, sudden hail of bullets... if you remove the fact that the person they're waiting for is a COP, this looks a lot like a drug deal gone bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How many times do I have to point out that was a hostage situation?

Keep repeating it, maybe it will magically become true.

Pay a little attention to the case. They were there with their families, a lot of the women and kids out front. They didn't consider themselves hostages but if it turned into gunfire many of them would have ended up dead.

Besides, before the guns came out the cops knew it was a robbery, not an attack on the cops.

 

[Derec]

You're thinking of "soldiers." Cops have a responsibility to try and bring their suspects down alive. There is an acceptable margin for failure, but there are no excuses.

No, not excuses. Legitimate reasons.

And yet a great many people who are killed by police action are not, in fact, armed. This is something you continue to avoid addressing.

I do not avoid addressing it. It's just not really relevant to this thread, as it deals with an armed perp.
While an unarmed perp can still pose a threat to the officer's life and safety it is more complicated than this rather straightforward case. And yet you think the police officer should not have shot even when he had a gun pointed at him.

Yes. We're talking about situations where a police officer resorts to deadly force where there is no need to do so.

But there was a need to do so in this case.

SOMETIMES, police officers are prosecuted and convicted for doing this. That needs to become the rule, not the exception.

If there is probable cause that a police officer broke the law they should be prosecuted. No more, no less. Police officers should not be above the law, but they are not below its protections either.

And yet even the Martin case has certain inherent questions, like how/why Antonio Martin pulled a gun on a police officer from 5 feet away, pointed it directly at him and managed to get shot three times without even pulling the trigger.

How do you know he did not try to pull the trigger? Apparently the safety was still on, which likely saved the police officer's life.

That, actually, was the reason the protests turned violent as quickly as he did: because people who SAW the shooting were convinced that Antonio Martin was unarmed when he was shot.

Actually, witnesses, including Martin's buddy, said that Martin was holding a gun.
Police: Multiple witnesses say Antonio Martin pulled gun on officer
It is people who were not there, many of them on Twitter, who insisted that he wasn't holding a gun.

The odd thing is, Martin appears to be perfectly calm until the moment he is killed, and never fires a shot.

Maybe he's a sociopath.

The officer who kills him appears to be in a state of flailing panic, and fires three times.

Proving that he is 100% human, not Robocop.

It's almost as if the two of them had two completely different perceptions about what Antonio was doing...

Interesting. I wonder if a tox screen was performed on Martin. Not that it matters much to whether the shooting was justified.

Which is why cops should be prosecuted for manslaughter if the suspect turned out to be unarmed.

That is too simplistic as it ignores the fact that unarmed perps can still pose threat, especially if they are allowed to gain control of the officer's weapon.
Might seem like a tautology, but cops should be prosecuted for manslaughter iff there is probable cause that they committed the crime of manslaughter.

It is also why police officers should face VERY serious consequences if they knowingly falsify their reports/evidence of what happened.

No argument there.

And therefore, not heroes.

Heroes are human. You are confusing heroes with robots. Even Robocop was still a bit human.

What do you think those views are based on? The only people more distressed about the prevalence of steroidal/paranoid/trigger happy cops in the world are GOOD cops who actually know what their jobs are supposed to be.

Their jobs are not having to sacrifice themselves rather than shoot a perp who points a gun at them. That has nothing to do with trigger happy bad cops or steroids.

But not civilians. They are (supposed to be) held to a higher standard.

They are held to a higher standard because they are authorized to use deadly force in circumstances where civilians aren't. You apparently want to change that to have them be authorized to use deadly force in fewer circumstances than regular civilians.

That would be a valid statement of the number of officers killed in the line of duty wasn't at an all-time low in this country.

That would change real fast if they weren't allowed to use deadly force against all perps who pose a clear and imminent danger.
The police officer in Berkeley is not dead because he shot Antonio Martin first. It's as simple as that.

It's not the use of deadly force that's the problem. It's the circumstances under which it is allowed, the police tendency to excuse it when it shouldn't be.

Clearly not the case in the Antonio Martin case. More compex and questionable in the Michael Brown case.

So YOUR answer is "get out of dodge and call for backup."

Seek cover and call for backup.

I ask this question because it actually happened to my grandfather just before he retired. HE chose to step directly into the path of what he thought was the sniper's line of fire and then drag the girl into his car and drive her to the police station to interview her in a less dangerous environment. The laser dot in question turned out to be just that, some stupid kid playing with a laser pointer.

And he just happened to point it toward a drug dealer? But I guess a bit more realistic than a pusher using snipers to keep their street level dealers in line.

Had he called for backup, a SWAT team probably would have raided that kid's apartment, and an innocent person might be dead right now.

Why would they shoot a kid unless he does something else stupid?

I recall this story every time this line of discussion comes up. There is a run of police officers these days who think they work in a war zone and their overriding priority is to make sure they go home safety every day. But if you are policing in the neighborhood where you live, you are HOME ALREADY. You're not trying to protect yourself from "perps" who could kill you at any moment. You're an enforcer of order trying to make sure your friends and neighbors all play by the rules and nobody gets hurt on your watch.

Obviously you need to balance those things as best you can. If you are patrolling a dangerous neighborhood, you will think more of the possibility of getting attacked by a perp and not coming home than otherwise.

In an ideal world, police officers would already know the first name and address of every person they will ever have to pull a gun on. It's a lot easier to shoot a stranger by accident than it is to shoot a friend who is having the worst day of his life.

May work in Mayburry, might not be so realistic on the streets on New York City. Or even St. Louis.

 

[RavenSky]

Unless you're a white male protecting the rights of another white male to graze cattle on Federal land.

How many times do I have to point out that was a hostage situation?

Who were the hostages, Loren?

 

[Davka]

Keep repeating it, maybe it will magically become true.

Pay a little attention to the case. They were there with their families, a lot of the women and kids out front. They didn't consider themselves hostages but if it turned into gunfire many of them would have ended up dead.

Besides, before the guns came out the cops knew it was a robbery, not an attack on the cops.

Hilarious! When Real Americans^TM do this, it's a "hostage situation" and the feds are right to hold their fire. When Palestinians do it, it's perfectly justified to kill 'em all, women and children included.

The inside of your brain is a spooky-scary place, Loren. Twists and turns, cul-de-sacs and Möbius-strip logic. You should rent it out on Halloween.