Anti-police protesters don't care about facts: Salt Lake City edition

[Loren Pechtel]

He could have surrendered immediately or try to shoot it out immediately, the first time, the second time or the third time but he didn’t he just tried to keep running away.

Obviously he didn't desire a shootout with the cops. Few criminals do. The question is what he will choose when faced with only two bad choices--being captured or shooting it out. Shooting it out is very high risk, but some criminals prefer death to jail.

We have an extreme case of this locally--16 year old, no rap sheet. Caught driving a stolen car, he chose to point a realistic replica gun at the cop. What else could that be other than suicide rather than jail?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You would be ok with basically handing society over to the armed criminals?
A cop couldn't do anything about them, the cops would simply run away.

yes, right. because 'cops don't shoot FIRST' is exactly the same thing as 'cops never EVER point the gun at bad guys.'

But pointing a gun at the bad guys is a meaningless gesture.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The guy could barely stand up - that is according to the involved officers. Which suggest he was not going to escape unless the officers were complete incompetents.

We don't know if he actually threatened an officer because there has no been no independent verification of the involved officer's stories - that is the real problem here.
Says the tacit defender of police brutality.

You don't need to be able to stand up to use a gun.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Do you have a relevant point?

The point is not being able to stand up doesn't make him not a threat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You would be ok with basically handing society over to the armed criminals?
A cop couldn't do anything about them, the cops would simply run away.

yes, right. because 'cops don't shoot FIRST' is exactly the same thing as 'cops never EVER point the gun at bad guys.'

But pointing a gun at the bad guys is a meaningless gesture.

Bullshit. You're ready and prepared to shoot at him the instant he chooses to escalate. Made clear by the gun pointed at his center mass. If he shoots, you shoot. If he doesn't, no one shoots.
If it's a fucking toy, no one gets shot.

 

[Derec]

Bullshit. You're ready and prepared to shoot at him the instant he chooses to escalate. Made clear by the gun pointed at his center mass. If he shoots, you shoot. If he doesn't, no one shoots.
If it's a fucking toy, no one gets shot.

But if it's not a toy realistic replica, the bad guy gets a free opportunity to murder you.

No, Jarhyn's standard to prohibit police to shoot unless the bad guys get the first free shot is absolutely idiotic.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Do you have a relevant point?

The point is not being able to stand up doesn't make him not a threat.

I never made such a claim at all. I don't believe anyone made such a claim. The point is that he did not point a gun at the police which is what did not make him an immediate threat.

 

[laughing dog]

No, Jarhyn's standard to prohibit police to shoot unless the bad guys get the first free shot is absolutely idiotic.

My son fought in Afghanistan in a region where every male had a firearm. Every male was a potential enemy. Their orders were to not fire unless they were fired upon. Those soldiers were paid less than police and they were under a constant (24 hour threat) of attack.

If they can operate successfully under those rules, it is not completely idiotic to expect the police to operate successfully under similar rules. Personally, I would amend the rule to "a gun pointed at the police".

But the idea that the police can get away with killing anyone unless it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt without hindsight that they believed they were "threatedn" is fucking idiotic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But pointing a gun at the bad guys is a meaningless gesture.

Bullshit. You're ready and prepared to shoot at him the instant he chooses to escalate. Made clear by the gun pointed at his center mass. If he shoots, you shoot. If he doesn't, no one shoots.
If it's a fucking toy, no one gets shot.

He has plenty of time to aim carefully. If he's any good you're in no shape to shoot back. It's not like your torpedoes that have travel time.

A better comparison would be you can't shoot back until you've confirmed it's not an exercise torpedo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, Jarhyn's standard to prohibit police to shoot unless the bad guys get the first free shot is absolutely idiotic.

My son fought in Afghanistan in a region where every male had a firearm. Every male was a potential enemy. Their orders were to not fire unless they were fired upon. Those soldiers were paid less than police and they were under a constant (24 hour threat) of attack.

If they can operate successfully under those rules, it is not completely idiotic to expect the police to operate successfully under similar rules. Personally, I would amend the rule to "a gun pointed at the police".

But the idea that the police can get away with killing anyone unless it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt without hindsight that they believed they were "threatedn" is fucking idiotic.

The state can order them to take such a risk to their lives on threat of jail. It's not that they choose to take the risk.

 

[Derec]

My son fought in Afghanistan in a region where every male had a firearm. Every male was a potential enemy. Their orders were to not fire unless they were fired upon. Those soldiers were paid less than police and they were under a constant (24 hour threat) of attack.

And how well is the war in Afghanistan going with these overly restrictive rules of engagement?

If they can operate successfully under those rules, it is not completely idiotic to expect the police to operate successfully under similar rules. Personally, I would amend the rule to "a gun pointed at the police".

Define 'successfully'? US is withdrawing and Taliban are taking over. Not particularly successful in my book.
But your rule is less crazy than Jarhyn's. The thing is: police are protecting not only themselves, but also others. A fleeing armed robbery suspect such as BPC with a gun is a clear and present danger to others and police would be derelict in their duties to let him escape. Even if he can't run any more, he can carjack somebody and then you have even bigger mess.

But the idea that the police can get away with killing anyone unless it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt without hindsight that they believed they were "threatedn" is fucking idiotic.

Police still enjoy things like presumption of innocence and the requirement that in criminal trials guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is no different than with anybody else. What is different is that police officers have a job where possibility of use of deadly force is part of the job description.

 

[Derec]

I never made such a claim at all. I don't believe anyone made such a claim. The point is that he did not point a gun at the police which is what did not make him an immediate threat.

According to the officers he did raise his firearm after he was shot initially, requiring further use of deadly force. That is not clear in the video because it is too dark though.
The police killing of Bernardo Palacios-Carbajal: Where prosecutors and the family’s lawyers disagree.

But Gill believes there was a threat. He spent several minutes going over body camera footage, stopping it frame-by-frame to show what he said was video showing the man raising the weapon toward officers and then afterward the gun visibly resting on Palacios-Carbajal’s waist. Gill said there was no other explanation for the gun ending up there, unless Palacios-Carbajal had previously been pointing it at officers.

And again, a successful prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers committed a crime.
Which is why the family shysters are much more interested in civil suits. Not only is the burden of proof ridiculously low even for multi-million dollar suits, but often cities and counties will settle even when the officers did nothing wrong because juries are like balms - unpredictable. See the ridiculous Korryn Gaines verdict where a sovereign citizen (i.e. people who believe laws do not apply to them) woman pointed a shotgun at police and was justifiably shot and killed.

 

[Derec]

More about St. Bernardo.

FOX 13 Exclusive: Bernardo Palacios’ armed robbery victims have separate views of deadly police shooting

Turns out he robbed three people that night. He also had an accomplice.

 

[laughing dog]

I never made such a claim at all. I don't believe anyone made such a claim. The point is that he did not point a gun at the police which is what did not make him an immediate threat.

According to the officers he did raise his firearm after he was shot initially, requiring further use of deadly force. That is not clear in the video because it is too dark though.

It is obvious that a significant portion of the community do not believe the police. Without any knowledge of the Salt Lake City police and DA, why should they? There plenty of examples of police lying to cover up their misconduct.

The issue here is the level of trust between the Salt Lake City police and their community. Quite obviously, that level of trust is not high enough. Focusing on the character and actions of the victim misses the point: the lack of trust. Focusing on the standards for charges against the police or conviction misses the point: the lack of trust. Calling the protesters stupid or ignorant misses the real problem: lack of trust.

 

[Derec]

It is obvious that a significant portion of the community do not believe the police.

That is not obvious. We know a few hundred people decided to attack police, break windows etc. over the death of an armed robber who refused to drop his gun and surrender. That does not mean a "significant portion of the community" agrees with those idiots.

There plenty of examples of police lying to cover up their misconduct.

Even more examples of thug's families and their lawyers lying to make police look guilty.

The issue here is the level of trust between the Salt Lake City police and their community. Quite obviously, that level of trust is not high enough.

No matter the actual trust level, you can always find a few hundred extremists willing to defend armed robbers and condemn police.

Focusing on the character and actions of the victim misses the point: the lack of trust. Focusing on the standards for charges against the police or conviction misses the point: the lack of trust. Calling the protesters stupid or ignorant misses the real problem: lack of trust.

Actions of the perp do not miss the point. Neither do the legal standards that a DA must consider when deciding whether to bring changes in any case before him.
Police officers should not be railroaded just to appease some extremists! That's not how you establish real trust. Trust needs to go both ways. #BLM and similar extremist groups are not trustworthy as they attack police and defend thugs in a knee-jerk fashion simply based on the skin color or ethnicity of the perps.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I am okay with that. The kid shot for holding a toy would be okay with it, if he wasn't dead.

I am not surprised you are ok with dead cops. And those replicas (not really toys) look very realistic and have been used by people like Darius Smith, Quanice Hayes and Tyre King to rob people.
Not to mention that Jarhyn's idea would also mean that police are not allowed to shoot at perps armed with real gun unless they start shooting at police first.

That adult shot for holding a toy gun in WalMart would be okay with it. If...
The autistic kid shot for, um , screaming? And the cop threw out 'i feared for my life' faster than a white house aide yells 'national security? Yeah.

Those are a small percentage of all police shootings. Vast majority are justified and most involve perps armed with firearms.

Hey, there's casualties in every war, right?

 

[Derec]

Hey, there's casualties in every war, right?

And the "war" you are talking about is the leftist war against the police?

 

[laughing dog]

That is not obvious. We know a few hundred people decided to attack police, break windows etc. over the death of an armed robber who refused to drop his gun and surrender. That does not mean a "significant portion of the community" agrees with those idiots.

I did not say "agree with, I said do not believe the police.

Even more examples of thug's families and their lawyers lying to make police look guilty.

Ah, you just had to get that irrelevant smear.

No matter the actual trust level, you can always find a few hundred extremists willing to defend armed robbers and condemn police.

That is untrue. It does not always happen.

Actions of the perp do not miss the point....

Yes, General Obtuse, they do. Whether or not the actions of the alleged perp are accurately reported by the police is not relevant to the issue of the trust of the community in the police. Neither are the legal standards. And trust will not be enhanced by kneejerk denunciations and name calling by racists, bigots, and law and order groupies, and their dupes.

If the police have lost the trust of a significant portion of a community, it is up to the police to regain the trust not the other way around.