Another unarmed man killed by police

[dystopian]

In the fraction of a second it took to check whether the exiting passenger had a gun, the officer could have been shot himself. That's probably all Day was thinking about. Should he have been thinking more? I really can't say for sure - how can you?

Because that's the fucking job.

We entrust people with power and authority; and in return we expect them to live up to the responsibility that comes with it. A cop is meant to be a paragon precisely because they are tasked with enforcing the laws for the rest of us. Every time the public hears about another dirty cop who takes bribes; or a cop who puts a dozen bullets in someone because he decided that his own life was worth so much more than that of others that he couldn't risk taking just a few seconds to make sure he was actually at risk; it tears at the very fabric of society, and diminishes the public integrity of law enforcement. Why should the people respect the badge when the person carries it doesn't respect them in return?

Anyone who can kill others with such overwhelming force without even taking the simple risk of making sure it's actually *necessary* to do so is not the kind of person we can entrust with the power and authority to enforce our laws; it's the kind of person we invented laws for in the first place.

 

[Mumbles]

That's pretty much the stuff of nightmares. Two people with guns out, clearly not rational, giving contradictory orders (And yeah, you can see and hear the cop on the left, looking at the passenger, say "get out, get on the ground" right before the victim slowly exits the car) and death threats.

 

[arkirk]

Some would prefer to risk shooting it out than go to jail. Remember, this is a guy who shot it out before.

And he surely would be going back to prison as he isn't allowed to own a gun with his record.

You two seem to have unflagging faith the cops are always right....even when they are not. We got a verbal accusation there was a gun and we saw something silver that could not be positively identified as a gun. We hear this line every week...."He had a gun." Does the mere possession of a gun mean the cops get to shoot you? Something for the NRA to take up? It still is another BLACK MAN...THEN ANOTHER...THEN ANOTHER. You guys just seem to think there is no limit on black men. Even if they don't have guns, they MIGHT HAVE ONE. Better shoot them JUST IN CASE? Freeze! Don't move! You're gonna be dead! It appears the officer had already stated his goal for this guy. Holder will just say....cop shooting...well okay it gotta be alright.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And he surely would be going back to prison as he isn't allowed to own a gun with his record.

You two seem to have unflagging faith the cops are always right....even when they are not. We got a verbal accusation there was a gun and we saw something silver that could not be positively identified as a gun. We hear this line every week...."He had a gun." Does the mere possession of a gun mean the cops get to shoot you? Something for the NRA to take up? It still is another BLACK MAN...THEN ANOTHER...THEN ANOTHER. You guys just seem to think there is no limit on black men. Even if they don't have guns, they MIGHT HAVE ONE. Better shoot them JUST IN CASE? Freeze! Don't move! You're gonna be dead! It appears the officer had already stated his goal for this guy. Holder will just say....cop shooting...well okay it gotta be alright.

You simply assume the police are always in the wrong.

Note that the driver obeyed--and he didn't get shot.

 

[laughing dog]

You two seem to have unflagging faith the cops are always right....even when they are not. We got a verbal accusation there was a gun and we saw something silver that could not be positively identified as a gun. We hear this line every week...."He had a gun." Does the mere possession of a gun mean the cops get to shoot you? Something for the NRA to take up? It still is another BLACK MAN...THEN ANOTHER...THEN ANOTHER. You guys just seem to think there is no limit on black men. Even if they don't have guns, they MIGHT HAVE ONE. Better shoot them JUST IN CASE? Freeze! Don't move! You're gonna be dead! It appears the officer had already stated his goal for this guy. Holder will just say....cop shooting...well okay it gotta be alright.

You simply assume the police are always in the wrong.

Note that the driver obeyed--and he didn't get shot.

It is not possible from the video to see if the victim obeyed or not. It is not possible to see from the video whether the victim had a firearm in his hand. You are assuming the victim knew who was shouting which orders, and clearly disobeyed the orders from the nearest police officer and had a firearm in his hand despite the complete lack of visual confirmation.

 

[arkirk]

You two seem to have unflagging faith the cops are always right....even when they are not. We got a verbal accusation there was a gun and we saw something silver that could not be positively identified as a gun. We hear this line every week...."He had a gun." Does the mere possession of a gun mean the cops get to shoot you? Something for the NRA to take up? It still is another BLACK MAN...THEN ANOTHER...THEN ANOTHER. You guys just seem to think there is no limit on black men. Even if they don't have guns, they MIGHT HAVE ONE. Better shoot them JUST IN CASE? Freeze! Don't move! You're gonna be dead! It appears the officer had already stated his goal for this guy. Holder will just say....cop shooting...well okay it gotta be alright.

You simply assume the police are always in the wrong.

Note that the driver obeyed--and he didn't get shot.

I am assuming nothing at all. You, on the other hand always assume the cop is right, no matter what he does. My interest is in keeping people alive and if possible, civil. This is just another in a long line of questionable police shootings. It appears both cops shot the guy in the passenger seat. Are you asserting there is NOT A PROBLEM WITH POLICE SHOOTING MINORITIES? As for the driver, it appears he got out and on the ground before they could reload.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You simply assume the police are always in the wrong.

Note that the driver obeyed--and he didn't get shot.

I am assuming nothing at all. You, on the other hand always assume the cop is right, no matter what he does. My interest is in keeping people alive and if possible, civil. This is just another in a long line of questionable police shootings. It appears both cops shot the guy in the passenger seat. Are you asserting there is NOT A PROBLEM WITH POLICE SHOOTING MINORITIES? As for the driver, it appears he got out and on the ground before they could reload.

You're assuming that lacking a close-up of the gun that there wasn't one.

 

[EPresence2]

In the fraction of a second it took to check whether the exiting passenger had a gun, the officer could have been shot himself. That's probably all Day was thinking about. Should he have been thinking more? I really can't say for sure - how can you?

Because that's the fucking job.

We entrust people with power and authority; and in return we expect them to live up to the responsibility that comes with it. A cop is meant to be a paragon precisely because they are tasked with enforcing the laws for the rest of us. Every time the public hears about another dirty cop who takes bribes; or a cop who puts a dozen bullets in someone because he decided that his own life was worth so much more than that of others that he couldn't risk taking just a few seconds to make sure he was actually at risk; it tears at the very fabric of society, and diminishes the public integrity of law enforcement. Why should the people respect the badge when the person carries it doesn't respect them in return?

Anyone who can kill others with such overwhelming force without even taking the simple risk of making sure it's actually *necessary* to do so is not the kind of person we can entrust with the power and authority to enforce our laws; it's the kind of person we invented laws for in the first place.

Because it's his job... to think more than you think he did. The two officers should have: (1) made it clear what they wanted the vehicle occupants to do in a "not more than firm" voice, and (2) if the passenger remained insistent on getting out, the officer should have allowed him to exit the vehicle and checked for weapons before doing anything else. If the passenger pulled another weapon in the process of opening the door, the officer should have taken the chance of a lost moment to verify a weapon - the dice falling where they may.

The officer focusing on the driver only gave firm direction to get out of the car after the shooting. That officer was directed by Days to get him (the driver) out of the car before the shooting. There was a careful reach by the driver's side officer to grasp the driver's wrist as the situation on the other side escalated. It didn't sound like he said much of anything. Officer Days was clearly giving the orders. The directions on the passenger side were loud and clear - put your hands up and don't move. So the police should let the "suspect" take the initiative and risk being shot at?

Instead of questioning why the officer had to shoot, why not also question why the passenger just had to get out - it clearly wasn't because he was listening to the other officer. Did he think the white officer would shoot him because his directive was being violated by staying in the car? Days was clearly talking about getting the driver out. How does an alternative narrative make more sense?

 

[EPresence2]

That's pretty much the stuff of nightmares. Two people with guns out, clearly not rational, giving contradictory orders (And yeah, you can see and hear the cop on the left, looking at the passenger, say "get out, get on the ground" right before the victim slowly exits the car) and death threats.

Did you even watch the video Mumbles - the white officer (driver's side) said "get out, get on the ground" after the passenger was shot and down. He said nothing before that. Days told the driver's side officer to get "him" out of the car during the escalation. Obviously, he was talking about the driver. Why don't you ask yourself why the passenger just had to get out. An alternative narrative rests entirely on Jerame Reid taking "him" to mean himself. Why the hell would Jerame not wait for the other officer to come around and get him out if that were the case? Police stupidity doesn't make sense in all initially questionable situations.

 

[laughing dog]

Instead of questioning why the officer had to shoot, why not also question why the passenger just had to get out - it clearly wasn't because he was listening to the other officer. Did he think the white officer would shoot him because his directive was being violated by staying in the car? Days was clearly talking about getting the driver out. How does an alternative narrative make more sense?

I would like to know on what basis you have any clue on who the victim was hearing?

 

[Mumbles]

That's pretty much the stuff of nightmares. Two people with guns out, clearly not rational, giving contradictory orders (And yeah, you can see and hear the cop on the left, looking at the passenger, say "get out, get on the ground" right before the victim slowly exits the car) and death threats.

Did you even watch the video Mumbles - the white officer (driver's side) said "get out, get on the ground" after the passenger was shot and down. He said nothing before that. Days told the driver's side officer to get "him" out of the car during the escalation. Obviously, he was talking about the driver. Why don't you ask yourself why the passenger just had to get out. An alternative narrative rests entirely on Jerame Reid taking "him" to mean himself. Why the hell would Jerame not wait for the other officer to come around and get him out if that were the case? Police stupidity doesn't make sense in all initially questionable situations.

Nonsense. Again, we can see and hear the cop on the left say "get out of the car" at roughly 2:00, Right before the shooting. The cop on the right, in contrast, is yelling "Don't you fucking move!" There's literally nothing that he can do to comply with both of the cops here.

 

[arkirk]

I am assuming nothing at all. You, on the other hand always assume the cop is right, no matter what he does. My interest is in keeping people alive and if possible, civil. This is just another in a long line of questionable police shootings. It appears both cops shot the guy in the passenger seat. Are you asserting there is NOT A PROBLEM WITH POLICE SHOOTING MINORITIES? As for the driver, it appears he got out and on the ground before they could reload.

You're assuming that lacking a close-up of the gun that there wasn't one.

Let me repeat. I am assuming NOTHING. I am noticing however your self righteous defense of actions these officers are taking in absence of evidence of any wrongdoing whatever on the part of the murdered person. Why do you continue to put thoughts in my head? Why is this important to you? Are these police your connection with reality? Must they always be right? It sounds to me like the cop working the passenger side of the vehicle has emotional issues and should not even be allowed to be there.

 

[dystopian]

Because it's his job... to think more than you think he did.

Yes, it's his job to think more than I think this cop did... and we have the video to confirm that he didn't.

The two officers should have: (1) made it clear what they wanted the vehicle occupants to do in a "not more than firm" voice, and (2) if the passenger remained insistent on getting out, the officer should have allowed him to exit the vehicle and checked for weapons before doing anything else.

Correct and correct.

If the passenger pulled another weapon in the process of opening the door, the officer should have taken the chance of a lost moment to verify a weapon - the dice falling where they may.

Correct; although it's hardly a case of 'the dice falling where they may' if that had indeed been the case. The cop would still have the tactical advantage in that situation, already having his gun trained on the would-be shooter.

The officer focusing on the driver only gave firm direction to get out of the car after the shooting. That officer was directed by Days to get him (the driver) out of the car before the shooting. There was a careful reach by the driver's side officer to grasp the driver's wrist as the situation on the other side escalated. It didn't sound like he said much of anything. Officer Days was clearly giving the orders. The directions on the passenger side were loud and clear - put your hands up and don't move.

The cop on the driver's side was calm, yes. The cop on the other side clearly was not; and his behavior would confuse and alarm the hell out of anyone who'd be caught in that situation. Had both cops been calm and rational, this wouldn't have happened.

So the police should let the "suspect" take the initiative and risk being shot at?

Not normally, but:

A) it was the cop himself who lost control of his emotions and therefore the situation, his behavior directly causing the passenger to behave the way that he did.

B) if and when a suspect *does* take the initiative, it is NOT acceptable to just immediately shoot them (nine times at that!). This cop clearly doesn't understand the concept of there being more than two levels to threat escalation. It doesn't go from "suspect is calmly following orders" to "OMG FUCKING SHOOT HIM".

Yes, cops are supposed to risk their own lives in order to protect that of others; even when those others are criminal suspects. You've heard of innocent until proven guilty, I assume? Someone who unloads his clip into people on the sole rationale that they *might* be a threat to him because he isn't willing to put himself at risk in order to determine whether they actually *are* is not an officer of the law, he's just a uniformed thug.

Instead of questioning why the officer had to shoot, why not also question why the passenger just had to get out

Instead of questioning why the perp had to rape all those women, why not also question why those women were just asking for it by wearing those skirts and high heels? Or hey, how about instead of questioning why that mass shooter did what he did, why not question why his victims didn't just not go to the mall that day? And maybe if that orphanage hadn't been such a jerk by reminding the arsonist of his crappy childhood, little Timmy and his friends would still have a roof over their heads; but noooo, everybody always has to blame the arsonist!

If you'd read my other posts in this thread, you would know that I already asked (and answered) why the passenger felt he had to get out. Not that questioning the victim's (and he *is* a victim here) behavior in any shape or form mitigates the cop's behavior/incompetence.

 

[EPresence2]

Instead of questioning why the officer had to shoot, why not also question why the passenger just had to get out - it clearly wasn't because he was listening to the other officer. Did he think the white officer would shoot him because his directive was being violated by staying in the car? Days was clearly talking about getting the driver out. How does an alternative narrative make more sense?

I would like to know on what basis you have any clue on who the victim was hearing?

Are you serious? After witnessing the video several times, I haven't heard the drivers side officer say much of anything audible before the shooting. So you think Jerame heard the silent officer and didn't hear the one making the commands? How is that possible? Besides, is he more likely to get shot staying put or getting out of the car? And don't forget the guy was known to the officer and known to have shot at police. We're not talking about Jo Blow citizen here.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you even watch the video Mumbles - the white officer (driver's side) said "get out, get on the ground" after the passenger was shot and down. He said nothing before that. Days told the driver's side officer to get "him" out of the car during the escalation. Obviously, he was talking about the driver. Why don't you ask yourself why the passenger just had to get out. An alternative narrative rests entirely on Jerame Reid taking "him" to mean himself. Why the hell would Jerame not wait for the other officer to come around and get him out if that were the case? Police stupidity doesn't make sense in all initially questionable situations.

Nonsense. Again, we can see and hear the cop on the left say "get out of the car" at roughly 2:00, Right before the shooting. The cop on the right, in contrast, is yelling "Don't you fucking move!" There's literally nothing that he can do to comply with both of the cops here.

Recounting what the video actually shows isn't nonsense, or could you be more specific? After witnessing the video several times, I still haven't heard the officer say anything before the shooting and certainly nothing very authoritative. Why should anyone trust you after incorrectly stating the white officer said something before the shooting that he didn't? Assuming the white officer actually said something (to the driver whom he's got by the wrist), why in the name of reason does the passenger think that applies to him while the officer yelling on his side is telling him the opposite. And which is more likely to get you shot, from the perspective of one so experienced with law enforcement: (1) hands up and no moving, or (2) one hand down opening up a door/shield to take the initiative? The choice is obvious if you want to stay alive. Is your friend with the criminal record that stupid or deaf in his right ear?

- - - Updated - - -

 

[EPresence2]

If the passenger pulled another weapon in the process of opening the door, the officer should have taken the chance of a lost moment to verify a weapon - the dice falling where they may.

Correct; although it's hardly a case of 'the dice falling where they may' if that had indeed been the case. The cop would still have the tactical advantage in that situation, already having his gun trained on the would-be shooter.

Officer Day is in the ready position as he stumbles backward, whereas Jerame is opening a door/shield and (maybe) expecting the officer to check his hands before doing anything crazy. If the officer waits, there is no tactical advantage: Day is a stationary target with a trained weapon whereas Jerame is a moving target and behind a door/shield. How is that a tactical advantage for either D?

The officer focusing on the driver only gave firm direction to get out of the car after the shooting. That officer was directed by Days to get him (the driver) out of the car before the shooting. There was a careful reach by the driver's side officer to grasp the driver's wrist as the situation on the other side escalated. It didn't sound like he said much of anything. Officer Days was clearly giving the orders. The directions on the passenger side were loud and clear - put your hands up and don't move.

The cop on the driver's side was calm, yes. The cop on the other side clearly was not; and his behavior would confuse and alarm the hell out of anyone who'd be caught in that situation. Had both cops been calm and rational, this wouldn't have happened

Pure speculation without a shred of evidence. If the passenger had kept his hands up and not moved, this wouldn't have happened for certain.

So the police should let the "suspect" take the initiative and risk being shot at?

Not normally, but:

A) it was the cop himself who lost control of his emotions and therefore the situation, his behavior directly causing the passenger to behave the way that he did.

B) if and when a suspect *does* take the initiative, it is NOT acceptable to just immediately shoot them (nine times at that!). This cop clearly doesn't understand the concept of there being more than two levels to threat escalation. It doesn't go from "suspect is calmly following orders" to "OMG FUCKING SHOOT HIM".

Yes, cops are supposed to risk their own lives in order to protect that of others; even when those others are criminal suspects. You've heard of innocent until proven guilty, I assume? Someone who unloads his clip into people on the sole rationale that they *might* be a threat to him because he isn't willing to put himself at risk in order to determine whether they actually *are* is not an officer of the law, he's just a uniformed thug.

It was more like 6 times (still too many). The other officer shot once, assuming Day had a good reason to shoot. And if the exiting "suspect" had another gun - that trumps your intermediate level of threat escalation. Based on the video captured of the event, it makes no sense for the passenger to be complying with a non-existent command from the driver's side officer. Was Jerame deaf in his right ear and inventing commands from his left? If he actually heard officer Day say "Get him out of the vehicle" - was he just NOT going to wait for that? And why would the driver's side officer leave his man to come over to the passenger side? Maybe Jerame was so afraid of what a white officer might do (based on a selection of parsed police brutality videos) that he took the chance to jump up on a black officer.

The alternative scenario of Jerame calmly (pushing hard against the passenger side door) exiting the vehicle in compliance with a barely audible (if present at all) command from the white officer to "get out of the car" while the black officer is yelling at him to stop moving and put hands in the air... is more compelling how? Is the passenger a meek little kid who shuts down when being yelled at? This guy was involved in a shoot out with police! And just like I've heard claimed about George Zimmerman's record (for example) - he did it once (violent assault of plain-clothes police officer), he will do it again. The assumptions go both directions.

Instead of questioning why the officer had to shoot, why not also question why the passenger just had to get out

Instead of questioning why the perp had to rape all those women, why not also question why those women were just asking for it by wearing those skirts and high heels? Or hey, how about instead of questioning why that mass shooter did what he did, why not question why his victims didn't just not go to the mall that day? And maybe if that orphanage hadn't been such a jerk by reminding the arsonist of his crappy childhood, little Timmy and his friends would still have a roof over their heads; but noooo, everybody always has to blame the arsonist!

If you'd read my other posts in this thread, you would know that I already asked (and answered) why the passenger felt he had to get out. Not that questioning the victim's (and he *is* a victim here) behavior in any shape or form mitigates the cop's behavior/incompetence.

Grossly inappropriate analogies and character assassination based on the video evidence. Should the officer have given up the initiative to a felon known to shoot at police? I'm not sure what he should have been thinking beyond the obvious. You are. I'm not the one going out on a limb here to make another case of police thuggery.

 

[ksen]

Yet another open-minded post landing squarely on the side of the killer of an unarmed black man.

eta: someone reply to this so Epresence2 can see it

 

[EPresence2]

I'm sure someone who has earned a place on my ignore list has something valuable to contribute to this discussion. I'm betting it's something about being open-minded.

 

[ksen]

I'm sure someone who has earned a place on my ignore list has something valuable to contribute to this discussion. I'm betting it's something about being open-minded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you even watch the video Mumbles - the white officer (driver's side) said "get out, get on the ground" after the passenger was shot and down. He said nothing before that. Days told the driver's side officer to get "him" out of the car during the escalation. Obviously, he was talking about the driver. Why don't you ask yourself why the passenger just had to get out. An alternative narrative rests entirely on Jerame Reid taking "him" to mean himself. Why the hell would Jerame not wait for the other officer to come around and get him out if that were the case? Police stupidity doesn't make sense in all initially questionable situations.

Nonsense. Again, we can see and hear the cop on the left say "get out of the car" at roughly 2:00, Right before the shooting. The cop on the right, in contrast, is yelling "Don't you fucking move!" There's literally nothing that he can do to comply with both of the cops here.

The "get out" is directed at the driver. "Don't move" is directed at the passenger.

What to do is obvious--obey the cop that is closer to you. The other guy is closer to the other cop, figure his instructions are for the other guy.

 

[dystopian]

Officer Day is in the ready position as he stumbles backward,

He didn't stumble, he backed away.

whereas Jerame is opening a door/shield and (maybe) expecting the officer to check his hands before doing anything crazy. If the officer waits, there is no tactical advantage: Day is a stationary target with a trained weapon whereas Jerame is a moving target and behind a door/shield. How is that a tactical advantage for either D?

If the officer waits there's still a tactical advantage because the officer (who clearly didn't 'stumble') already has a gun aimed in the right direction with his finger on the trigger whereas the victim; in this hypothetical scenario; is 1) busy getting out of the car, 2) somehow at the same time retrieving a weapon didn't the cops didn't see, and 3) simultaneously aiming said gun at the cop during the split second where the door *supposedly* gets in the way of the cop's vision and thereby negating the cop's situational advantage through the element of surprise? All this in about a second flat. It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to rationalize a cop shooting an unarmed man by claiming this chain of events *could* happen (hint: it can't).

Incidentally, we're expected to believe that the cop's vision was interrupted by the car door opening; which makes no sense because there's a *fucking window through which one can see him holding up his hands as he gets out*; but somehow this isn't a problem for the would-be cop-killer who'se doing three things at once whose hypothetical existence apparently justifies cops shooting unarmed people.

Pure speculation without a shred of evidence. If the passenger had kept his hands up and not moved, this wouldn't have happened for certain.

Wow.

So, when I speculate that if the cop had been acting like a professional instead of like a panicked idiot yelling he's going to kill people, nobody would get hurt; that's bad. How you, me, speculating that calm rational behavior could save lives!

But, when the cop speculates without any shred of evidence that the victim *could* maybe have another gun with which he would shoot the cop, and decides to put nine bullets into an unarmed man; that's a "justified" shooting and why am I questioning that instead of blaming the victim?

It was more like 6 times (still too many).

At least nine shots are heard. The other officer appears to have only fired once. The suggestion has been made due to muted audio; at least one shot that had been fired could not be heard.

So no, it was not "more like 6 times"; and yes, that is still too many. I don't understand how you can maintain this cognitive dissonance whereby you're defending the cop while you clearly recognize that the cop behaved in an incompetent manner.

The other officer shot once, assuming Day had a good reason to shoot. And if the exiting "suspect" had another gun - that trumps your intermediate level of threat escalation.

Only for the other officer.

Based on the video captured of the event, it makes no sense for the passenger to be complying with a non-existent command from the driver's side officer.

It makes perfect sense. First of all, the cop did NOT say: "You, Driver, Get out. You, Passenger, stay."; there is absolutely no fucking way you can tell how it sounded for the victim when he hears two different orders. It might make sense for you, after the fact, to claim that it makes "sense" for the victim to disregard what the other cop was saying, but not to the rest of us. Especially when we recognize that the cop on the victim's side of the car was madly shouting and threatening to kill him. It is not a calm and rational situation to be in; and human beings do not generally make the smartest decisions under such violent pressure. If *I* had been in that situation, it would make perfect sense for me to listen to the cop who appeared calm and in control as opposed to the idiot threatening to kill me. It would also make perfect sense for me to get out of the car and onto the ground (as the victim can clearly be heard saying he was going to do) even if the other cop *hadn't* ordered me to do so, because that's the kind of shit I see happen on tv and it makes sense that if I'm on the ground with my hands behind my back, nobody can think I'm about to shoot them.

Why is it that I can easily imagine myself making that decision under such immense pressure, but you appear completely and utterly incapable of imagining the victim doing anything other than what in hindsight is (possibly) the best solution? Why, could it be that to acknowledge the victim made a perfectly reasonable mistake than ANYONE in those circumstances could've made would mean you'd have to acknowledge that the cop is actually the one to blame for causing this situation in the first place? No, it couldn't be that, could it?

Was Jerame deaf in his right ear and inventing commands from his left? If he actually heard officer Day say "Get him out of the vehicle" - was he just NOT going to wait for that? And why would the driver's side officer leave his man to come over to the passenger side? Maybe Jerame was so afraid of what a white officer might do (based on a selection of parsed police brutality videos) that he took the chance to jump up on a black officer.

Yes, of course!

"Man, this white dude is scary being all calm and professional and shit... I'd better go throw my empty hands-in-the-air gesture at this cop who is threatening to kill me. because hey you know how it is us brothas gonna stick together y'know."

That makes so much more sense

This guy was involved in a shoot out with police!

Twenty years ago.

And just like I've heard claimed about George Zimmerman's record (for example) - he did it once (violent assault of plain-clothes police officer), he will do it again. The assumptions go both directions.

You're right. Let's just go and indiscriminately kill every violent offender just cause they *might* do it again.

Grossly inappropriate analogies and character assassination based on the video evidence.

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate about the analogy. You are doing the exact same fucking thing we hear from certain kind of men when there's a story about a woman getting raped. You are blaming the victim. And what's even worse is, you *know* the cop is in the wrong here; you've acknowledged that the cop didn't do what he was supposed to. Yet here you are, still throwing all of this on the victim. Me pointing out what you're doing is not "character assassination"; you're assassinating your own character here.

Should the officer have given up the initiative to a felon known to shoot at police? I'm not sure what he should have been thinking beyond the obvious. You are.

Yes I am; because I happen to *like* the idea of innocent until proven guilty; and I happen to like the idea that someone who has *done his fucking time* doesn't get gunned down in the streets by uniformed thugs unwilling to actually verify that maybe it's neccessary to do so. And I happen to *dislike* the idea that cops, who are supposed to be trained professionals enforcing our laws, can get away with actively *breaking* said laws just because they can't keep themselves calm under pressure.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure someone who has earned a place on my ignore list has something valuable to contribute to this discussion. I'm betting it's something about being open-minded.