Posted on 07/15/2015 3:14:08 PM PDT by redreno
Lawsuits are commonly settled even if they are dubious. We live in a nation where even a drunken meth head illegal who disobeys lawful commands and reaches for his waist 4 times can win a lawsuit.
The cops having their guns drawn only gives them an advantage if they are willing to fire before the suspect is able to draw. By the time they see a gun the shooter has the advantage as he has already made the decision to shoot.
If he keeps his freaking hands up nobody gets hurt.
LOL! Just because you wrote it down on the Internet doesn't make it true. :)
If he keeps his freaking hands up nobody gets hurt.
Police have a bad habit of "shouting orders" while other police officers are "shouting orders". Sometimes, the orders conflict.
Then, it doesn't matter whether you have your hands raised or not. We could ask Erik Scott about that, but he's dead. Good shoot!
All the police were shouting for them to keep their hands up. His 2 buddies had no trouble understanding and fully complying. Maybe being drunk and high on meth is not helpful.
Erik Scott? You do realize that these cops were not involved in that incident? Also, even Scott’s family blames Walmart, not the police.
http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jun/08/erik-scotts-family-files-lawsuit-against-costco-sh/
The cops having their guns drawn only gives them an advantage if they are willing to fire before the suspect is able to draw.
That's no doubt in their training, but it depends on their position and the circumstances.
But why do you still refer to the victim as a "suspect"? Why did the police have their guns drawn in the first place? Because of a botched dispatcher report?
At minimum this incident demonstrates negligence and/or very poor police training.
They even mistakenly shot the guy in the back who did keep his hands up in the process of killing the man who didn't keep his hands up. What is called? Collateral damage?
Objectively, the victim was not a legitimate "suspect" and objectively, he was not a threat to the cops.
Cordially,
He was a suspect at the time of the incident. If he had kept his hands up he would have not been a suspect for long.
His friend was hit with a bullet intended for him. His idiotic behavior endangered everyone at the scene.
I don’t consider him a victim of anything but his own stupidity. His friend was an innocent victim of that stupidity.
I’m glad to hear that no one was seriously injured, at least.
Up the street from my house, a mentally ill man was asphyxiated to death during an arrest. Every week, the man was treated at a psychological center, and he stopped at this convenience store next to it, where he’d buy a coffee or soda, and then hang around outside (as many people do) just smoking a cig and drinking his drink.
Then one day an officer stopped in to buy something, and he took it upon himself to tell the guy to leave, and when the man wouldn’t, the officer tried arresting him for loitering (even though the store itself never complained). When the man resisted, backup was called, and also a whole bunch of customers, who had no idea what was going on, decided to “help” arrest this guy. As they were putting him into the cruiser, they realized he was dead.
Most officers are good people. It’s a thankless job, and I don’t know how they do it. But, then there are these tragic situations...
That having been stipulated, and even granting that the cops had a genuine, perceived fear of imminent physical harm, their fear was objectively unreasonable because there was no actual imminent threat. Thus, their response was disproportionate.
Are cops held to a different standard for self defense? I don't know, but generally speaking, I thought that a person can only legitimately employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the persons defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. But in this case, what was the actual imminent threat?
So, my chief objection to their killing of this man is that their response was not proportional, and that is the sense in which I think it was unjustified.
Cordially,
Well! That'll teach them to interrupt the donut break! (/s)
Prayers up for the men and their families.
"Drunk meth-head" is the new Jew?
Better not be friends with that Jew, Bobby - you know what might happen!
I guess if the fusillade would have caught people in the background buildings, it would have been OK - because they lived in an area where there were "drunk meth-heads".
Gardena is the new Warsaw Ghetto?
Can you believe the excuses? I forgot about the perforating of the other guy who had his hands up, in all the hubbub and fury of the smearing of the dead guy...
Thanks for reminding me. :)
Even rubbing the noses of the Magic Blue fan-boyz in the 4.7 million doesn't make them bat an eye, or skip a beat.
Perhaps I should have termed it "habitual substance abuse". I did not mean to imply that the victim was Untermensch who could be exterminated at will. I meant only that drug and alcohol abuse impairs judgment and normal physical functioning, which statistically leads to all kinds of not very good outcomes, including, but not limited to, early death.
The victim's substance abuse was probably a factor in his inability and/or unwillingness to keep his hands up, but as he posed no actual imminent threat to the cops, it does not excuse their disproportionate use of lethal force.
I have no brief or vendetta against cops in general. There are many good ones and some bad ones. They and their training are not infallible. Just like anyone else they can err in judgment and in ethics, and the law.
I think that if our culture continues it's headlong rush into the abyss, cops along with the culture will tend to become more callous and indifferent to human life.
Cordially,
Cordially,
Your “actual imminent threat” standard is not the standard. Suppose I pointed a gun at your family members and threatened to kill them and you shot me to prevent this. Then suppose it turned out my gun was not loaded. Are you a cold blooded murderer? Aftet all there was no actual imminent threat.
Of course not because you had a reasonable belief that their was an imminent threat.
When a suspect repeatedly goes for his waistband while being ordered to keep his hands up, it is reasonable to believe that he might be reaching for a gun and is an imminent threat.
The standard for police and private citizens is pretty much the same. The main difference is that ordinary citizens normally wouldn’t be seeking out crime suspects, as it is not their job.
So how did the cops in this case reasonably believe that the danger of being killed or seriously injured was imminent when they did not even know what level of force to use (because no weapon was displayed)?
That's why I believe that their response was not proportionate.
Cordially,
He appeared that he could be reaching for a weapon and he did it 4 times.
Suppose you caught me breaking into your home and you held me at gunpoint and ordered me to keep my hands up. If you allowed me to keep my hands by my waist and it turned out that I did have a gun in my waistband, there is a good chance I would be able to draw it and kill you before you could shoot me.
Your advantage of already having your gun out would be offset by the fact that I had already made up my mind to draw and fire, while you were waiting for positive verification that I had a gun. By the time you saw my gun, processed that it was a gun, made the decision to shoot and pulled the trigger there is a good chance you would be dead. That is why police key on hand position and movements.
I just watched the video, cold blooded murder.
You don't appear to be part of the "follow all 16 shouted orders all at once or die" crowd.
Cordially,
I understand that, which is why when I have been stopped a couple of times over the years while driving I turn my interior lights on in the car, keep my hands on the steering wheel, and I don't move without permission.
The castle doctrine situation seems a little less strict than the street situation; I would be allowed to use deadly force within my own home if I have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril or great bodily injury.”.
The street situation on the other hand, seems to require the additional burden of using the proportionate amount of force required to neutralize the threat.
I don't know if cops are required to meet the burden of proportionality or not. I have watched the video several time from both angles and I just don't see the "suspect" EVER reaching for anything in his waist band, which was covered by his shirt. The cops reacted with hair triggers. They used deadly force without ever even approaching the "suspect" to apprehend him, get him on the ground, cuff him etc. It stretches credulity to me to believe that that man could have pulled a gun and gotten ANY shots off with those trained officers aiming at him and at the ready. The speed at which they shot him is certainly indicative of that.
You and I are probably never going to see this incident in the same light because I still believe that the man was shot to death simply for being unable and/or unwilling to comply with their orders to keep his hands up, and that their use of deadly force was disproportionate under the circumstances.
Cordially,
An optimist would say that there's a pony in your post somewhere. LOL! :)
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #8: The suspect in the dark shirt brought his hands down to his pockets or waist FOUR times while being ordered to keep his hands up over and over.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #13: The one idiot suspect kept going for his waist and pockets, a total of 4 times.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #14: Regardless of that, if a suspect is ordered to keep his hands in the air, at gunpoint, but instead keeps dropping them to his waist area, he is making himself appear to be a threat and is begging to be shot.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #17: The video linked here shows what can happen to cops who allow suspects to go for their waist and pockets.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #23: If the suspect who went for his pocket and waist had a gun on him, and the officers failed to shoot him, he could have drawn and killed one or more officers with that gun.
Put yourself in their shoes. Why does this guy keep dropping his hands and reaching for his waist area? He has 4 officers pointing guns at him and yelling at him to keep his hands up, yet he keeps lowering them to his waist. That is crazy behavior and suggests that he might well have a gun.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #28: I agree that his moves were puzzling. It made no sense that he kept dropping his hands to his waist.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #39: ...They had to assume he did have a gun in his waistband.
Even if we assume he was pleading with them. that is a common ploy. “Officer, you don’t understand, let me explain...grabs gun from waistband...bang..bang...bang!”
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #41: We live in a nation where even a drunken meth head illegal who disobeys lawful commands and reaches for his waist 4 times can win a lawsuit.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #52: When a suspect repeatedly goes for his waistband while being ordered to keep his hands up, it is reasonable to believe that he might be reaching for a gun and is an imminent threat.
Above My Pay Grade wrote in post #54: He appeared that he could be reaching for a weapon and he did it 4 times.
Suppose you caught me breaking into your home and you held me at gunpoint and ordered me to keep my hands up. If you allowed me to keep my hands by my waist and it turned out that I did have a gun in my waistband, there is a good chance I would be able to draw it and kill you before you could shoot me.
=============================
Geez, all that work to establish that the dead guy was "reaching for his waistband", and Diamond spoils the parade by pointing out that the guy's shirt was covering his waistband.
Thanks for playing, Above My Pay Grade! Better luck next time! LOL! :)
Yep. By the time Officer Friendly is at my window, every interior light is on, the front windows are down, the engine is off, the keys are on the dash, I have my DL, registration and insurance in my hand, and my hands are clearly visible, with my wrists resting on the top of the steering wheel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.