Here we go again ...

[Derec]

The shooting becomes more defensible if they were actually shot at. Don't forget that this man was shot in the back while pleading not to be shot. There was nothing in the video to suggest that he had directly threatened the police.

I think his being armed and refusing to stop and disarm is threatening enough. He "pleaded" not to be shot but he also claimed not to be armed.

Yes, but you can discover quite a few examples easily with a web search. The one that stands out in my mind was the shooting of an unarmed man, Keith Lamont Scott, in Charlotte, NC. The plant was caught on video. Police reported that Scott's DNA and fingerprints were found on the gun that was obviously planted by them.

No, Keith Lamont Scott was armed, and there was no gun planted on him. The family claimed he was not armed, but it quickly turned out to be a lie.
For example, he also had an ankle holster. Did police surreptitiously strap that onto him as well?
Hell, police even found the guy who sold the illegal gun to KLS.

I could find other examples--e.g. the Baltimore police who carried BB guns to plant or a detective in LA who shot someone in a car and then planted a gun in the car. It seems that planting evidence is not all that uncommon.

It happens sometimes. What I was asking is an example of planting evidence in a case like this one where a shooting is justified even without that evidence. Seems like a needless risk.

If that is what happened, then he would also have had the safety off.

He was shooting his gun in the air minutes before police encountered him. I assume safety was still off.

There are enough cases of the police shooting unarmed victims, particularly people of color, to make a damning case against police tactics in the US.

Unarmed does not mean that the perp wasn't a threat or that the shooting was unjustified. Example: St. Michael Brown. He attacked the police officer which made him a threat.
Given that in US police officers are armed and an unarmed perp who attacks a cop can disarm him and use cop's gun against him. This has happened before with cops who hesitated too long to shoot an "unarmed" suspect.
Note that in many jurisdictions cops are on patrol alone - they do not work with a partner two to a cop car. I think that's a bad idea, but that's what we often have.

This isn't one of those cases, but I still feel that the police tactics used in this incident were partly responsible for Blevins' death. The police had worked themselves and Blevins up into a state of terror.

I disagree. The profanity might have been superfluous, but Thurman didn't want to go back to prison (where he most definitely was going if captured) and thus trying to escape was the only option he wanted to contemplate regardless of risk.

After Blevins was shot with a hail of bullets and lay bleeding out on the pavement, you can see one officer approach fearfully and nervously kick his gun away--as if a man lying in a pool of blood was suddenly going to spring up, grab his gun, and take on half a dozen cops all pointing weapons at him.

You see that a lot, so it must be part of training. Probably due to fear the perp might be faking/exaggerating to get the element of surprise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, the gun was in his hand while he was running. I believe that he drew it from his waistband when the police charged out of the patrol car and began screaming at him. The police claim that he shot at them and that they found a casing from the gun on the scene, but I saw no evidence of that on the bodycam footage.

But they did find the bullet and the casing at the point the police said he shot at them.

Did you see him fire his gun or hear a gunshot in the bodycam footage? I didn't. It's possible that the police planted the casing in order to strengthen their case for a justifiable shooting. It's not as if police have never done that kind of thing before. It is also possible that he squeezed the trigger by reflex when he was shot. The sound of gunfire from police weapons would have masked the sound of Blevins' gun going off. However, even if Blevins never fired his gun, they probably would have considered the shooting justifiable, IMO. Blevins had a gun and was refusing to drop it. In fact, he had initially denied that he had a gun. So it was reasonable to infer that he intended to use the gun against his pursuers.

They would have a hard time faking it without getting caught.

Personally, I suspect the round was an accident due to running with his finger on the trigger. We don't see anything because it's not coming towards the cops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After Blevins was shot with a hail of bullets and lay bleeding out on the pavement, you can see one officer approach fearfully and nervously kick his gun away--as if a man lying in a pool of blood was suddenly going to spring up, grab his gun, and take on half a dozen cops all pointing weapons at him.

That's how the world works--just because someone is bleeding badly doesn't mean they are incapable of firing a gun.

 

[Copernicus]

Derec, I have agreed with your basic argument about the culpability of Blevins and the justifiability of deadly force in this case. I also think it more likely, as I pointed out earlier and Loren Pechtel also thinks, that Blevins did not fire at the police. There is nothing in the bodycam footage to suggest that. A more plausible explanation for the casing is that Blevins' gun fired as he was being shot by the police. IOW, it is a distinct possibility that the police manufactured the bullet casing evidence to strengthen their case, since there was considerable public reaction to the shooting, but I doubt that that was likely here.

That said, I have reviewed the video several times, and I still strongly oppose the aggressive tactics that the police used for the reasons I have given--that they raise the fear level of both target and pursuers. The idea that the police have is one that I've seen many times before--that an overwhelming show of force and violence will more likely cause suspects to submit. Sometimes it works, but I've seen it fail so miserably in real life. That was especially true during the several violent encounters with police and National Guard troops that I have personally witnessed in the past. Displays of force tend to create a cycle of escalation that more often than not leads to violence and tragedy.

The police in the bodycam footage were barely in control of themselves. The cop who ended up shooting Blevins was spooked by the shout of a gun being sighted, and he kept uselessly screaming threats at Blevins, who only became more and more agitated. A less aggressive start to the encounter might well have convinced Blevins (who may have been drinking) to submit voluntarily. Given all of the publicity about police violence against African Americans, Blevins would have had a reasonable fear that he would be shot regardless of what he did. Screaming obscenities at him was never going to disabuse him of that fear.

 

[repoman]

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kQKxk_1533868100


Shot a schizophrenic for having stolen a tazer from a cop, but also from a safe distant.

Bad shooting. Fuckers.

Start at 3:45 for enough of the context.
"Let them treat you" for slightly bloody hands or I am going to put you in handcuffs?!? Fuck this cop.

Shooting at 6:10 or so

I like this comment:

The more videos like this I see, the more I worry.
Where is it legal to threaten a citizen with arrest if he or she refuses medical treatment (4:45)? Perhaps a state or local law allows this when there is an auto accident? The county deputy, stated, however, that the accident would be handled by the State Troopers, not the county (3:01). Then, there's the TASER...a device specifically designed for law enforcement as a non-lethal means to stop, not kill, a subject.
So, we have a county deputy at the scene, waiting for the Troopers to arrive. While waiting, he threatens a citizen with arrest for refusing medical treatment and then deploys lethal force against him for taking/having a device that is, by definition, non-lethal.
The more videos like this I see, the more I worry

 

[Rhea]

I do not know anybody at all who has a gas water heater or an electric one, for that matter, which is located in the garage, even a heated garage attached garage. There is generally a mechanicals room or section of a basement or inside the home in those rare occasions where there is no basement.

I've never seen it done that way--I have never seen a gas water heater inside the living space and given some of the ways I've seen them installed I suspect that's code here.

Toni, dontcha know that if Loren hasn’t seen it, it must not exist?

Loren, putting water heaters in garages in most of the country would be stupid as shit. They would freeze. It isn’t done because it would be stupid. Mine’s in my basement. Everyone I know has them inside the house. Everyone. My 250-gallon oil tank is in my basement, too.

So funny that you think local habits in Las Vegas are absolute gospel for the nation. That you think your world is the only world - in water heaters or in threat assessment.