Police in Utah gun down black cosplayer

[laughing dog]

So you are saying that trained police officers should not be able to discern when someone is a real threat? Someone in a role playing costume, holding a toy sword and amiably chatting with police should not be a realistic perception of a threat, even if the wielder is a black man.

Wearing a cosplay costume doesn't give you a free pass to swing a sword at someone. The key factor is the attack, not his clothing or skin color.

No one swung at sword at anyone. An attack does not automatically justify a lethal reaction. It really is that simple.

 

[Toni]

According to the cited news report -

Springs wearing a red shirt and blue pants similar to an anime character

Yeah, you shouldn't blindly believe incompetent journalists when there is clear pics of his normal street clothes. His clothing was "similar" to an anime character only in the sense that there is character with a red shirt. What his clothing was similar to was that of millions of normally dressed people and what is on the rack at almost every department store. Those are the objective facts and any effort to pretend that his clothing indicated to a "costume" is purely dishonest. 99.9% of observers would not think his clothing was anything other than normal street clothes.

Holding what appeared to be a sword, was sheathed so they couldn't see the blade (until he pulled it out and swung it), and which Hunt himself repeatedly referred to as "a sword", never indicating it was a toy despite the fact that the cops kept referring to .
IOW, smiling as he refused to put what he called "my sword" down when asked by the police to put "the sword" down which he knew they thought was real and deliberately fueled that perception by referring to it as a sword. Cops deal with mentally unstable people like Hunt on a regular basis, and their emotional responses are often disjointed from how a rational person would respond.

is there a point here?

The point is that the cops could not tell it was fake and Hunt deliberately reinforced their idea that it was real by calling it "a sword" and not ever attempting to point out that it was fake, as every sane person not looking to get shot would have done in that situation. Hunt deliberately tried to make the cops think his sword was real and thus he was a threat. There is no psychologically plausible explanation for his behavior.

While he was smiling and "chatting" in that pic, the cops did not yet determined he was a deadly threat despite his refusal to put down what looked like and what Hunt called his "sword". That is why the cops don't have their guns out, or even their hand on the holster. If he was shot for being black and merely holding a toy, he'd by dead already in that pic. He unsheathed the sword, then ran towards some stores and shoppers. Only then did the cops shoot him and that is supported by all evidence. Despite a witness saying he swung the sword at the cops, that isn't even critical since their job isn't just to protect their own lives but that of others and Hunt's actions we're highly consistent with that of an unstable armed individual intending to harm others. Their are only two plausible accounts of the evidence and his actions (which includes his Facebook post). Either he did intend to harm others (which would be true if the sword were real, but something the cops couldn't know for sure), or he intended to make the cops think his sword was real and that was going to harm someone (which the cops would reasonably have thought no matter his race). The cops were not in a position to distinguish between those two probabilities and either way, Hunts own actions were largely responsible for his death and akin to walking into a bank with a toy gun, then not putting it down and still calling it "your gun" and not a toy when the cops come. Technically doing that would be as legal as what Hunt did, yet no reasonable person would put most the blame on the cops.

From the cited article

A narrative in the autopsy states an officer fired three shots when Darrien Hunt charged at him, swinging the sword, as the officer got out of his car. Darrien Hunt ran away and police fired four more times as they chased him, the report says. The autopsy found no drugs in his system.

which basically contradicts your narrative.

It fully supports my narrative and fully falsifies any notion that he was shot merely for being black and holding an apparent sword, since the pic shows he was black and holding the sword when the cops arrived and yet they stood there and talking to him without being close to shooting him until, as the autopsy supports, he swung the sword toward them than ran away. It is perfectly consistent with Hunt acting to deliberately increase his perception as a threat and only then being shot.

And if you had bothered to read the article, you'd have seen that

The autopsy shows four of the gunshots found in Hunt's body traveled back to front.

If did read the article, and those shots to the back fully support that the cops continued to fire because he ran in the direction of other people. The facts really could not be more supportive of the cops story and more definitively refuting of the notion that he was shot just for being black and holding a toy. Again, your narrative predicts that he should already be dead in that pic and never had a chance to "chat" with the cops

. Springs did not remotely threaten anyone else directly.

Who is "Springs"? The guy was Darrien Hunt and your own cited autopsy plus and eyewitteness supports that he threatened the cops with his sword after refusing to put it down, then he ran with what he reinforced the cops to believe was a deadly weapon toward other people. Shooting him was far more justified than would have been letting him run. The only reasonable alternative would have been disabling him with a less deadly weapon, all of which are less reliable and accurate in that situation with a fleeing suspect who given his age and seeming fitness would have been much faster than them.

Your claim the police were not in a position to distinguish is an indictment of the police.

No, its a recognition that the police are only human and they didn't have your 20/20 hindsight of knowing it was fake only because you've been told that, a fact you would not have had you been in the situation. IT is an only an "indictment" if you are a egomaniacal narcissist that cannot imagine the psychological reality of the situation the cops were in and the split-second decision they needed to make about a man who went out of his way to reinforce the possibility that the sword was real and he was a threat. By the time they shot him, his actions and words greatly favored the sword being real and he being a mentally unstable threat.

All in all, your reactionary defense of this killing by police is very unconvincing.

My defense is not reactionary, it is reasoned and unbiased, something you should try. Your condemnation of the cops is what is based purely on ideology and emotion, without a shred of thought to how all the facts logically cohere together and with the possible accounts.

You're just making stuff up. The autopsy cannot possibly determine that he was swinging a sword at anyone. The autopsy may contain a narrative (provided by police, I am sure), that the police officers fired 3 times at him while he was swinging a sword before he started running away at which point, they shot, hitting him 4 times in the back.

The autopsy cannot, cannot, possibly determine that he was swinging anything before he was shot. If it suggests that the officers shot at him while he was swinging a sword at them, it certainly should mention why they failed to hit him with any of those shots and suddenly became so much more accurate when their 'attacker' was running away. I certainly would like to know that. Also, how would the ME performing the autopsy know that the officers shot 3 times while he was swinging a sword? Were there powder burns and GSR on his shirt? Or were the images of those events burned onto his retinas and the ME was able to retrieve them? I don't think so. It's a narrative supplied by someone else--like the police. And even that fails.


He did not have an actual sword but rather a 'sword' replica, the kind my kids used to try to get me to let them buy at a shop in the mall. I am not anything close to a weapons expert but I will say that even I could tell the difference just by a glance at the rounded blade of these replica/roll playing 'swords' and a sharp blade. He was no danger to the police or anyone else.

 

[Jarhyn]

One thing that does bother me is people here calling three feet of steel a 'toy'. The absence of an edge does not make such an object 'safe'. The sword I. It's entirety is a red herring, toy or not. They shot a kid in a costume. Maybe he was making poses with the sword. It doesn't matter. He talked to the cops, had a nice chat even. Then later they claimed he came into the scene swinging and they immediately opened fire.

There is proof that the police narrative is false. It is a lie. The first thing the officers did here was lie about what happened. This is strong evidence of further malfeasance. There is certainly no good reason to give them any benefit of the doubt: they already gave that up when they lied out the gate.

 

[dismal]

One thing that does bother me is people here calling three feet of steel a 'toy'. The absence of an edge does not make such an object 'safe'. The sword I. It's entirety is a red herring, toy or not. They shot a kid in a costume.

In your quest to be accurate: Not a kid.

But anyway, is your view that the officers had a nice chat with the guy, at some point noticed he was black and decided to shoot him?

 

[PyramidHead]

One thing that does bother me is people here calling three feet of steel a 'toy'. The absence of an edge does not make such an object 'safe'. The sword I. It's entirety is a red herring, toy or not. They shot a kid in a costume.

In your quest to be accurate: Not a kid.

But anyway, is your view that the officers had a nice chat with the guy, at some point noticed he was black and decided to shoot him?

That's what's so bizarre about the situation to me. It doesn't fit any narrative that satisfies my skepticism. If there was footage of the event, hopefully it will fill in the blanks. There are a lot of ways that both parties could have been acting stupid that are not settled by what little we know.

 

[doubtingt]

According to the cited news report -

Springs wearing a red shirt and blue pants similar to an anime character

Yeah, you shouldn't blindly believe incompetent journalists when there is clear pics of his normal street clothes. His clothing was "similar" to an anime character only in the sense that there is character with a red shirt. What his clothing was similar to was that of millions of normally dressed people and what is on the rack at almost every department store. Those are the objective facts and any effort to pretend that his clothing indicated to a "costume" is purely dishonest. 99.9% of observers would not think his clothing was anything other than normal street clothes.

Holding what appeared to be a sword, was sheathed so they couldn't see the blade (until he pulled it out and swung it), and which Hunt himself repeatedly referred to as "a sword", never indicating it was a toy despite the fact that the cops kept referring to .
IOW, smiling as he refused to put what he called "my sword" down when asked by the police to put "the sword" down which he knew they thought was real and deliberately fueled that perception by referring to it as a sword. Cops deal with mentally unstable people like Hunt on a regular basis, and their emotional responses are often disjointed from how a rational person would respond.

is there a point here?

The point is that the cops could not tell it was fake and Hunt deliberately reinforced their idea that it was real by calling it "a sword" and not ever attempting to point out that it was fake, as every sane person not looking to get shot would have done in that situation. Hunt deliberately tried to make the cops think his sword was real and thus he was a threat. There is no psychologically plausible explanation for his behavior.

While he was smiling and "chatting" in that pic, the cops did not yet determined he was a deadly threat despite his refusal to put down what looked like and what Hunt called his "sword". That is why the cops don't have their guns out, or even their hand on the holster. If he was shot for being black and merely holding a toy, he'd by dead already in that pic. He unsheathed the sword, then ran towards some stores and shoppers. Only then did the cops shoot him and that is supported by all evidence. Despite a witness saying he swung the sword at the cops, that isn't even critical since their job isn't just to protect their own lives but that of others and Hunt's actions we're highly consistent with that of an unstable armed individual intending to harm others. Their are only two plausible accounts of the evidence and his actions (which includes his Facebook post). Either he did intend to harm others (which would be true if the sword were real, but something the cops couldn't know for sure), or he intended to make the cops think his sword was real and that was going to harm someone (which the cops would reasonably have thought no matter his race). The cops were not in a position to distinguish between those two probabilities and either way, Hunts own actions were largely responsible for his death and akin to walking into a bank with a toy gun, then not putting it down and still calling it "your gun" and not a toy when the cops come. Technically doing that would be as legal as what Hunt did, yet no reasonable person would put most the blame on the cops.

From the cited article

A narrative in the autopsy states an officer fired three shots when Darrien Hunt charged at him, swinging the sword, as the officer got out of his car. Darrien Hunt ran away and police fired four more times as they chased him, the report says. The autopsy found no drugs in his system.

which basically contradicts your narrative.

It fully supports my narrative and fully falsifies any notion that he was shot merely for being black and holding an apparent sword, since the pic shows he was black and holding the sword when the cops arrived and yet they stood there and talking to him without being close to shooting him until, as the autopsy supports, he swung the sword toward them than ran away. It is perfectly consistent with Hunt acting to deliberately increase his perception as a threat and only then being shot.

And if you had bothered to read the article, you'd have seen that

The autopsy shows four of the gunshots found in Hunt's body traveled back to front.

If did read the article, and those shots to the back fully support that the cops continued to fire because he ran in the direction of other people. The facts really could not be more supportive of the cops story and more definitively refuting of the notion that he was shot just for being black and holding a toy. Again, your narrative predicts that he should already be dead in that pic and never had a chance to "chat" with the cops

. Springs did not remotely threaten anyone else directly.

Who is "Springs"? The guy was Darrien Hunt and your own cited autopsy plus and eyewitteness supports that he threatened the cops with his sword after refusing to put it down, then he ran with what he reinforced the cops to believe was a deadly weapon toward other people. Shooting him was far more justified than would have been letting him run. The only reasonable alternative would have been disabling him with a less deadly weapon, all of which are less reliable and accurate in that situation with a fleeing suspect who given his age and seeming fitness would have been much faster than them.

Your claim the police were not in a position to distinguish is an indictment of the police.

No, its a recognition that the police are only human and they didn't have your 20/20 hindsight of knowing it was fake only because you've been told that, a fact you would not have had you been in the situation. IT is an only an "indictment" if you are a egomaniacal narcissist that cannot imagine the psychological reality of the situation the cops were in and the split-second decision they needed to make about a man who went out of his way to reinforce the possibility that the sword was real and he was a threat. By the time they shot him, his actions and words greatly favored the sword being real and he being a mentally unstable threat.

All in all, your reactionary defense of this killing by police is very unconvincing.

My defense is not reactionary, it is reasoned and unbiased, something you should try. Your condemnation of the cops is what is based purely on ideology and emotion, without a shred of thought to how all the facts logically cohere together and with the possible accounts.

You're just making stuff up. The autopsy cannot possibly determine that he was swinging a sword at anyone. The autopsy may contain a narrative (provided by police, I am sure), that the police officers fired 3 times at him while he was swinging a sword before he started running away at which point, they shot, hitting him 4 times in the back.

The autopsy cannot, cannot, possibly determine that he was swinging anything before he was shot. If it suggests that the officers shot at him while he was swinging a sword at them, it certainly should mention why they failed to hit him with any of those shots and suddenly became so much more accurate when their 'attacker' was running away. I certainly would like to know that. Also, how would the ME performing the autopsy know that the officers shot 3 times while he was swinging a sword? Were there powder burns and GSR on his shirt? Or were the images of those events burned onto his retinas and the ME was able to retrieve them? I don't think so. It's a narrative supplied by someone else--like the police. And even that fails.

I was referring specifically to the overall autopsy report that laughing dog had brought up, as though it was inconsistent with what I said. It isn't. Both the forensic findings and the other aspects of the report are consistent with the narrative I presented, as are the two eyewitnesses who both saw Hunt unsheathes the sword before any shots were fired, and one who saw him "violently" swing the sword towards the officers.
What the autopsy, the pictures and the witnesses all cohere to clearly refute is the notion that he was shot for being black since this predicts the fatal shots would be fired when the cops arrived and saw a black guy holding a sword rather than only after a verbal exchange in which he refuses to put the sword down, unsheathes it, swings it, than runs toward where other people are.

He did not have an actual sword but rather a 'sword' replica, the kind my kids used to try to get me to let them buy at a shop in the mall.

He had a steel blade sword with a pointed tip and forged narrowed edge that merely was not sharpened to professional standards. Ooh, its sold in the mall, then it has to be an obvious harmless toy!!! Nope, real swords and military and hunting grade blades and knifes are often sold at malls and often in the same stores that sell the kind of unsharpened sword that Hunt had.

I am not anything close to a weapons expert but I will say that even I could tell the difference just by a glance at the rounded blade of these replica/roll playing 'swords' and a sharp blade.

You can say anyting you want, but it is nonsense. You are also clearly not a law enforcement expert nor have any ability to put yourself into their life threatening situations. A guy with what is made to look like a real sword, and is basically an unsharpened sword (not a toy) still in its sheath so you cannot get a good look from the 10 feet away you need to stand to protect yourself, and the guy calls it his sword while refusing to put it down, and never indicates it isn't "real" despite knowing that the cops are afraid that it is, then he suddenly unsheathes it and you have to decide in 1 second whether this pointed steel bladed sword that likely made a classic steel blade sound when being pulled out of the sheath is really professionally sharp enough to be a deadly threat.
You are certain you could make this judgment with total accuracy.

He was no danger to the police or anyone else.

He went out his way to make the cops think he was a deadly threat to them and others. There is no other plausible account for his behavior and it is supported by his prior Facebook post. He was only shot after acting to escalate the situation and increase the perception of his threat. And unsharpened or not, his steel blade pointed sword could easily be used as a weapon to harm others.

Had the exact same interaction with the cops occurred but the cops not fired allowing him to run to other people and stick someone with his sword, the same people claiming Hunt was no threat would be attacking the cops for not acting. And if the victims happened to be black, then the cops would be accussed of letting Hunt hurt them because they were black.

 

[laughing dog]

Had the exact same interaction with the cops occurred but the cops not fired allowing him to run to other people and stick someone with his sword, the same people claiming Hunt was no threat would be attacking the cops for not acting. And if the victims happened to be black, then the cops would be accussed of letting Hunt hurt them because they were black.

And had the exact same interaction with cops occurred but ended with no deaths or injuries, everyone would be praising the police for the humane and effective reaction.

 

[doubtingt]

Had the exact same interaction with the cops occurred but the cops not fired allowing him to run to other people and stick someone with his sword, the same people claiming Hunt was no threat would be attacking the cops for not acting. And if the victims happened to be black, then the cops would be accussed of letting Hunt hurt them because they were black.

And had the exact same interaction with cops occurred but ended with no deaths or injuries, everyone would be praising the police for the humane and effective reaction.

And if God sprinkled magic fairy dust on us all then we might all have clairvoyance and complete and perfect knowledge of every situation and error free split second decision making. But here in reality where most of live, all decisions are made with incomplete information and finite information processing for split second decisions. Thus even when people make the most reasonable inference given the available information (e.g., that Hunts sword was real, he was mentally unstable, and intended to use the sword he just pulled from its sheath), those conclusions can be in error without anyone being reckless or inhumane or racist. The cops are guilty of being human beings and made a reasonable assessment of the situation given Hunts words and actions. Their reaction was in fact humane and effective and their community is far better off than it would be if you were the one forced to make that decision where every single suspect of violence (especially if they were black) would simply be let go unless their was 100% certainty that they are a real threat and not just trying to make themselves seem like a threat (which applies to all suspects since such certainty is impossible).

 

[laughing dog]

And had the exact same interaction with cops occurred but ended with no deaths or injuries, everyone would be praising the police for the humane and effective reaction.

And if God sprinkled magic fairy dust on us all then we might all have clairvoyance and complete and perfect knowledge of every situation and error free split second decision making. But here in reality where most of live, all decisions are made with incomplete information and finite information processing for split second decisions.

You assuming these are split second decisions.

Thus even when people make the most reasonable inference given the available information (e.g., that Hunts sword was real, he was mentally unstable, and intended to use the sword he just pulled from its sheath), those conclusions can be in error without anyone being reckless or inhumane or racist.

And, of course, they can be in error because someone is reckless or inhumane or racist.

The cops are guilty of being human beings and made a reasonable assessment of the situation given Hunts words and actions.

That is your conclusion based on your unwarranted assumptions about what exactly happened.

Their reaction was in fact humane and effective and their community is far better off than it would be if you were the one forced to make that decision where every single suspect of violence (especially if they were black) would simply be let go unless their was 100% certainty that they are a real threat and not just trying to make themselves seem like a threat (which applies to all suspects since such certainty is impossible).

Your conclusion is based on yet another unsubstantiated assumption that is inconsistent with a disinterested and reasoned approach to the situation. But I find your claim that the community is necessarily better off due to a tragedy than if the tragedy might have been avoided reveals a rather unpleasant moral mindset.

 

[Toni]

According to the cited news report -

Springs wearing a red shirt and blue pants similar to an anime character

Yeah, you shouldn't blindly believe incompetent journalists when there is clear pics of his normal street clothes. His clothing was "similar" to an anime character only in the sense that there is character with a red shirt. What his clothing was similar to was that of millions of normally dressed people and what is on the rack at almost every department store. Those are the objective facts and any effort to pretend that his clothing indicated to a "costume" is purely dishonest. 99.9% of observers would not think his clothing was anything other than normal street clothes.

Holding what appeared to be a sword, was sheathed so they couldn't see the blade (until he pulled it out and swung it), and which Hunt himself repeatedly referred to as "a sword", never indicating it was a toy despite the fact that the cops kept referring to .
IOW, smiling as he refused to put what he called "my sword" down when asked by the police to put "the sword" down which he knew they thought was real and deliberately fueled that perception by referring to it as a sword. Cops deal with mentally unstable people like Hunt on a regular basis, and their emotional responses are often disjointed from how a rational person would respond.

is there a point here?

The point is that the cops could not tell it was fake and Hunt deliberately reinforced their idea that it was real by calling it "a sword" and not ever attempting to point out that it was fake, as every sane person not looking to get shot would have done in that situation. Hunt deliberately tried to make the cops think his sword was real and thus he was a threat. There is no psychologically plausible explanation for his behavior.

While he was smiling and "chatting" in that pic, the cops did not yet determined he was a deadly threat despite his refusal to put down what looked like and what Hunt called his "sword". That is why the cops don't have their guns out, or even their hand on the holster. If he was shot for being black and merely holding a toy, he'd by dead already in that pic. He unsheathed the sword, then ran towards some stores and shoppers. Only then did the cops shoot him and that is supported by all evidence. Despite a witness saying he swung the sword at the cops, that isn't even critical since their job isn't just to protect their own lives but that of others and Hunt's actions we're highly consistent with that of an unstable armed individual intending to harm others. Their are only two plausible accounts of the evidence and his actions (which includes his Facebook post). Either he did intend to harm others (which would be true if the sword were real, but something the cops couldn't know for sure), or he intended to make the cops think his sword was real and that was going to harm someone (which the cops would reasonably have thought no matter his race). The cops were not in a position to distinguish between those two probabilities and either way, Hunts own actions were largely responsible for his death and akin to walking into a bank with a toy gun, then not putting it down and still calling it "your gun" and not a toy when the cops come. Technically doing that would be as legal as what Hunt did, yet no reasonable person would put most the blame on the cops.

From the cited article

A narrative in the autopsy states an officer fired three shots when Darrien Hunt charged at him, swinging the sword, as the officer got out of his car. Darrien Hunt ran away and police fired four more times as they chased him, the report says. The autopsy found no drugs in his system.

which basically contradicts your narrative.

It fully supports my narrative and fully falsifies any notion that he was shot merely for being black and holding an apparent sword, since the pic shows he was black and holding the sword when the cops arrived and yet they stood there and talking to him without being close to shooting him until, as the autopsy supports, he swung the sword toward them than ran away. It is perfectly consistent with Hunt acting to deliberately increase his perception as a threat and only then being shot.

And if you had bothered to read the article, you'd have seen that

The autopsy shows four of the gunshots found in Hunt's body traveled back to front.

If did read the article, and those shots to the back fully support that the cops continued to fire because he ran in the direction of other people. The facts really could not be more supportive of the cops story and more definitively refuting of the notion that he was shot just for being black and holding a toy. Again, your narrative predicts that he should already be dead in that pic and never had a chance to "chat" with the cops

. Springs did not remotely threaten anyone else directly.

Who is "Springs"? The guy was Darrien Hunt and your own cited autopsy plus and eyewitteness supports that he threatened the cops with his sword after refusing to put it down, then he ran with what he reinforced the cops to believe was a deadly weapon toward other people. Shooting him was far more justified than would have been letting him run. The only reasonable alternative would have been disabling him with a less deadly weapon, all of which are less reliable and accurate in that situation with a fleeing suspect who given his age and seeming fitness would have been much faster than them.

Your claim the police were not in a position to distinguish is an indictment of the police.

No, its a recognition that the police are only human and they didn't have your 20/20 hindsight of knowing it was fake only because you've been told that, a fact you would not have had you been in the situation. IT is an only an "indictment" if you are a egomaniacal narcissist that cannot imagine the psychological reality of the situation the cops were in and the split-second decision they needed to make about a man who went out of his way to reinforce the possibility that the sword was real and he was a threat. By the time they shot him, his actions and words greatly favored the sword being real and he being a mentally unstable threat.

All in all, your reactionary defense of this killing by police is very unconvincing.

My defense is not reactionary, it is reasoned and unbiased, something you should try. Your condemnation of the cops is what is based purely on ideology and emotion, without a shred of thought to how all the facts logically cohere together and with the possible accounts.

You're just making stuff up. The autopsy cannot possibly determine that he was swinging a sword at anyone. The autopsy may contain a narrative (provided by police, I am sure), that the police officers fired 3 times at him while he was swinging a sword before he started running away at which point, they shot, hitting him 4 times in the back.

The autopsy cannot, cannot, possibly determine that he was swinging anything before he was shot. If it suggests that the officers shot at him while he was swinging a sword at them, it certainly should mention why they failed to hit him with any of those shots and suddenly became so much more accurate when their 'attacker' was running away. I certainly would like to know that. Also, how would the ME performing the autopsy know that the officers shot 3 times while he was swinging a sword? Were there powder burns and GSR on his shirt? Or were the images of those events burned onto his retinas and the ME was able to retrieve them? I don't think so. It's a narrative supplied by someone else--like the police. And even that fails.

I was referring specifically to the overall autopsy report that laughing dog had brought up, as though it was inconsistent with what I said. It isn't. Both the forensic findings and the other aspects of the report are consistent with the narrative I presented, as are the two eyewitnesses who both saw Hunt unsheathes the sword before any shots were fired, and one who saw him "violently" swing the sword towards the officers.
What the autopsy, the pictures and the witnesses all cohere to clearly refute is the notion that he was shot for being black since this predicts the fatal shots would be fired when the cops arrived and saw a black guy holding a sword rather than only after a verbal exchange in which he refuses to put the sword down, unsheathes it, swings it, than runs toward where other people are.

He did not have an actual sword but rather a 'sword' replica, the kind my kids used to try to get me to let them buy at a shop in the mall.

He had a steel blade sword with a pointed tip and forged narrowed edge that merely was not sharpened to professional standards. Ooh, its sold in the mall, then it has to be an obvious harmless toy!!! Nope, real swords and military and hunting grade blades and knifes are often sold at malls and often in the same stores that sell the kind of unsharpened sword that Hunt had.

I am not anything close to a weapons expert but I will say that even I could tell the difference just by a glance at the rounded blade of these replica/roll playing 'swords' and a sharp blade.

You can say anyting you want, but it is nonsense. You are also clearly not a law enforcement expert nor have any ability to put yourself into their life threatening situations. A guy with what is made to look like a real sword, and is basically an unsharpened sword (not a toy) still in its sheath so you cannot get a good look from the 10 feet away you need to stand to protect yourself, and the guy calls it his sword while refusing to put it down, and never indicates it isn't "real" despite knowing that the cops are afraid that it is, then he suddenly unsheathes it and you have to decide in 1 second whether this pointed steel bladed sword that likely made a classic steel blade sound when being pulled out of the sheath is really professionally sharp enough to be a deadly threat.
You are certain you could make this judgment with total accuracy.

He was no danger to the police or anyone else.

He went out his way to make the cops think he was a deadly threat to them and others. There is no other plausible account for his behavior and it is supported by his prior Facebook post. He was only shot after acting to escalate the situation and increase the perception of his threat. And unsharpened or not, his steel blade pointed sword could easily be used as a weapon to harm others.

Had the exact same interaction with the cops occurred but the cops not fired allowing him to run to other people and stick someone with his sword, the same people claiming Hunt was no threat would be attacking the cops for not acting. And if the victims happened to be black, then the cops would be accussed of letting Hunt hurt them because they were black.

You are still just making stuff up. If the display fake sword was sheathed, clearly it was no threat. If it was not sheathed but was being waved about, the officers had more than one second to determine whether or nog the object was actually a sword or some non sharp display replica-- which it was.

 

[Nexus]

A metal blade can crack your skull. While its not a deadly as a sharp katana that could behead you in a split second it is a deadly weapon nonetheless. The Dog Brothers have a instructional video of a sparring match between a bokken or wooden practice katana and kali sticks. The man with the sticks is one of the best stick fighters in the world and had his ribs broken from the bokken. Imagine what a metal one would have done. Miyamoto Musashi often used bokkens in his many duels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are still just making stuff up. If the display fake sword was sheathed, clearly it was no threat. If it was not sheathed but was being waved about, the officers had more than one second to determine whether or nog the object was actually a sword or some non sharp display replica-- which it was.

1) You seem to be missing the fact that he drew and attacked.

2) It's irrelevant anyway--it doesn't matter if the cop knew it didn't have an edge. Even if it can't cut butter it's still a club and capable of inflicting serious damage.

 

[laughing dog]

You are still just making stuff up. If the display fake sword was sheathed, clearly it was no threat. If it was not sheathed but was being waved about, the officers had more than one second to determine whether or nog the object was actually a sword or some non sharp display replica-- which it was.

1) You seem to be missing the fact that he drew and attacked.

If by "attack", you mean "jabbed", do you know even how close the sword was?

2) It's irrelevant anyway--it doesn't matter if the cop knew it didn't have an edge. Even if it can't cut butter it's still a club and capable of inflicting serious damage.

How close was the attacker? You seem to making lots of assumptions about what happened.

 

[Toni]

You are still just making stuff up. If the display fake sword was sheathed, clearly it was no threat. If it was not sheathed but was being waved about, the officers had more than one second to determine whether or nog the object was actually a sword or some non sharp display replica-- which it was.

1) You seem to be missing the fact that he drew and attacked.

2) It's irrelevant anyway--it doesn't matter if the cop knew it didn't have an edge. Even if it can't cut butter it's still a club and capable of inflicting serious damage.

1) I'm not missing anything. I haven't seen evidence that supports your claim/the cops' claim.

2) A lot of things are capable of inflicting serious damage. Right now I have in my purse several every day items with normal, everyday purposes not related to inflicting harm on anybody or anything which could indeed be used to seriously harm or even kill someone. You probably have at least one item on your desk right now that could be used, easily, to kill someone but most people would just use it to sign a check or jot down a note or maybe scribble a picture.


What is completely relevant is why the cops felt he was a threat. Some guy walking around like any one of hundreds of similarly outfitted attendees at any Comicon should not be seen as a deadly threat.

Police sometimes get things wrong. Sometimes they, like a lot of other people, craft a narrative that makes their mistakes look less bad, and even like the right thing to do.

I have a hard time seeing how shooting an unarmed person in the back, 4 times, is justified.

A few years ago, in my small town, there was a 911 call about a man, reportedly suicidal and probably on drugs, who was on a bridge, threatening to kill himself. In days previous to this day, he had told others that he had a .38 but no one actually saw him with any kind of firearm. In fact, he was never known to have any type of firearm. Friends called because they were worried he would actually commit suicide. He had been in a bad emotional state for some days at that point.

Police were duly dispatched and saw the man, alone, about 35-40 yards away, on a bridge over a river. He had something in his hand, and was pointing it AT HIMSELF, like a gun: to his head, to his heart, in his mouth. One officer observed him from a distance of about 40 yards away through a scope on his rifle. A friend of the man on the bridge approached in a car and attempted to talk to the suicidal man but was ordered away and actually arrested by officers present. Officers demanded that the man on the bridge drop the gun, repeatedly. He did not. Ultimately, the officer with the rifle fired a single shot and killed the man on the bridge. His body was recovered. The object was a small folding knife, with a 3.5 inch blade. He was never in any danger to anyone other than himself. EVER. He never had a gun; no one had ever seen him with a gun; they had only heard him talk of having a gun.

In the pocket of the pants he was wearing was a suicide note. The autopsy showed drugs in his system. He had a history of mental illness but no history of violence towards anyone, nor had he ever threatened anyone at all, except himself.

The cop who killed him was exonerated by the grand jury, although he shot and killed a man who was in no way a danger to anyone aside from himself. There was never any gun. No gun was found on his body, near his body, nor in his residence or in/with any of his belongings. Not one person saw him with a gun, although the police were sure he was armed with a gun the night he was killed.

As an even sadder note, the officer and the man who tried to help his friend on the bridge attended high school together, with one of my kids. The man who was killed was some years younger, but known to the officer (small town) and clearly troubled but with no history of violence.

 

[Mumbles]

1) You seem to be missing the fact that he drew and attacked.

2) It's irrelevant anyway--it doesn't matter if the cop knew it didn't have an edge. Even if it can't cut butter it's still a club and capable of inflicting serious damage.

1) I'm not missing anything. I haven't seen evidence that supports your claim/the cops' claim.

2) A lot of things are capable of inflicting serious damage. Right now I have in my purse several every day items with normal, everyday purposes not related to inflicting harm on anybody or anything which could indeed be used to seriously harm or even kill someone. You probably have at least one item on your desk right now that could be used, easily, to kill someone but most people would just use it to sign a check or jot down a note or maybe scribble a picture.


What is completely relevant is why the cops felt he was a threat. Some guy walking around like any one of hundreds of similarly outfitted attendees at any Comicon should not be seen as a deadly threat.

Police sometimes get things wrong. Sometimes they, like a lot of other people, craft a narrative that makes their mistakes look less bad, and even like the right thing to do.

I have a hard time seeing how shooting an unarmed person in the back, 4 times, is justified.

A few years ago, in my small town, there was a 911 call about a man, reportedly suicidal and probably on drugs, who was on a bridge, threatening to kill himself. In days previous to this day, he had told others that he had a .38 but no one actually saw him with any kind of firearm. In fact, he was never known to have any type of firearm. Friends called because they were worried he would actually commit suicide. He had been in a bad emotional state for some days at that point.

Police were duly dispatched and saw the man, alone, about 35-40 yards away, on a bridge over a river. He had something in his hand, and was pointing it AT HIMSELF, like a gun: to his head, to his heart, in his mouth. One officer observed him from a distance of about 40 yards away through a scope on his rifle. A friend of the man on the bridge approached in a car and attempted to talk to the suicidal man but was ordered away and actually arrested by officers present. Officers demanded that the man on the bridge drop the gun, repeatedly. He did not. Ultimately, the officer with the rifle fired a single shot and killed the man on the bridge. His body was recovered. The object was a small folding knife, with a 3.5 inch blade. He was never in any danger to anyone other than himself. EVER. He never had a gun; no one had ever seen him with a gun; they had only heard him talk of having a gun.

In the pocket of the pants he was wearing was a suicide note. The autopsy showed drugs in his system. He had a history of mental illness but no history of violence towards anyone, nor had he ever threatened anyone at all, except himself.

The cop who killed him was exonerated by the grand jury, although he shot and killed a man who was in no way a danger to anyone aside from himself. There was never any gun. No gun was found on his body, near his body, nor in his residence or in/with any of his belongings. Not one person saw him with a gun, although the police were sure he was armed with a gun the night he was killed.

As an even sadder note, the officer and the man who tried to help his friend on the bridge attended high school together, with one of my kids. The man who was killed was some years younger, but known to the officer (small town) and clearly troubled but with no history of violence.

Really, you don't even need to bring up the relatively obscure stories. Jordan Miles, Dymond Milburn, Levar Jones, John Crawford III - we've seen plenty of people, often black, attacked or shot for asinine reasons by police, who then tell stories that simply do not match the evidence. And in at least one of these cases - the Levar Jones on in particular, and likely the John Crawford shooting as well, I actually think that, in the cops' minds, the two were doing exactly what they described. In their minds, Jones "dove" into his car, and Crawford "refused to drop his weapon". And honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the cop in your case thought he saw a gun. Which, in truth, makes them worse.

 

[Malintent]

They did not respond with deadly force (they could have done a better job, though).

I haven't seen this addressed, though I may have missed it, but this is absolute nonsense. If you are firing a handgun at a fleeing target, you are using deadly force, the end. If the two officers *said* they weren't using deadly force, then they should be immediately fired, and likely belong in jail. At the very best, you're making a case for why the cop who shot Hunt is an incompetent shot (and no, it wouldn't be a shot to the head - you're supposed to aim for center mass)

All of the shots were fired at the suspects arms, presumably in an attempt to disarm. The shots that were found by the medical examiner to have passed "from back to front" means from the back of the arm to the front.. not the suspect's "back".

And no... cops do not have only one spot to shot at on a body (center of mass). There are kill shots and there are disabling shots.. That is why several were fired.. the idea (presumably) was to stop him, not kill him.

Yes, a taser or peper spray would have been better at that.. but the range and situation may not have allowed that to be effective at all.

 

[ksen]

When taught to shoot at a person you are always taught to go for center mass. Please provide some examples where police officers are taught the "shoot to disarm" technique.

 

[Jarhyn]

When taught to shoot at a person you are always taught to go for center mass. Please provide some examples where police officers are taught the "shoot to disarm" technique.

Seconded. When you shoot, it's always shoot assuming you will kill. Pistols are not accurate enough in real world application to make any kind of intentional wounding or disarmament shot. Most police would envy a 60% hit rate with a handgun in an applied setting. Any use of a firearm is deadly force.

 

[Mumbles]

I haven't seen this addressed, though I may have missed it, but this is absolute nonsense. If you are firing a handgun at a fleeing target, you are using deadly force, the end. If the two officers *said* they weren't using deadly force, then they should be immediately fired, and likely belong in jail. At the very best, you're making a case for why the cop who shot Hunt is an incompetent shot (and no, it wouldn't be a shot to the head - you're supposed to aim for center mass)

All of the shots were fired at the suspects arms, presumably in an attempt to disarm. The shots that were found by the medical examiner to have passed "from back to front" means from the back of the arm to the front.. not the suspect's "back".

And no... cops do not have only one spot to shot at on a body (center of mass). There are kill shots and there are disabling shots.. That is why several were fired.. the idea (presumably) was to stop him, not kill him.

Yes, a taser or peper spray would have been better at that.. but the range and situation may not have allowed that to be effective at all.

No, no, no.

I can think of exactly *one* case where shooting by a cop was meant to do anything other than to kill. And it was a guy with a gun, sitting in a chair in public. And the cop was a military-trained marksman, using a sniper rifle from a rooftop. And this was considered high-risk. Far more common are stories where cops shoot at someone, and hit a bystander.

Two basic rules:

1) if you shoot to "disable", and the person is not disabled, then you now have a very angry person with a weapon, who will consider you to be a deadly threat, and correctly so.

2) a so-called "disabling shot" is very likely to kill the person who was shot. If you paralyze someone, you've likely hit something very important. A "disarming shot" at someone, with a relatively low-accuracy weapon like any handgun, at a fleeing person, is Calamity Jane - level marksmanship at the very least, and actually, I don't recall even her pulling that off.

"Shoot at center mass." is probably Rule #3 for general handgun training, right behind "Always treat a gun as if it's loaded." and "Never point a gun at anyone you don't intend to kill." Again, shooting at someone with a handgun is deadly force, always. And the majority of cops only have the most basic training, because most cops never pull out their guns in the line of duty.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And no... cops do not have only one spot to shot at on a body (center of mass). There are kill shots and there are disabling shots.. That is why several were fired.. the idea (presumably) was to stop him, not kill him.

It's interesting that you say that, because in other threads when it is asked whether the police could have made a disabling shot the defenders of the police are always saying that no, that can't easily be done and so they shoot to kill, basically.