Posted on 08/21/2014 8:25:04 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Authorities release recordings of death that came amid extreme tension in nearby Ferguson over Michael Brown killing
Police is St. Louis Missouri have released video and audio recordings of the shooting on Tuesday of Kajieme Powell, a 25-year-old man described as "behaving erratically" and carrying a knife when officers arrived on the scene.
One video, taken by a witness with a phone camera, shows officers opening fire repeatedly within 15 seconds of arriving at the scene. 12 shots are fired in rapid succession.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
How do you arrest someone who is actively trying to kill you? You reach for him to cuff him, he slashes your throat - stupid move. He was closing distance fast with obvious lethal intent.
They did what they had to to stop him. It was several shots before he started falling. He hit the ground close enough to still reach he cop with the knife. He was still moving for several seconds (count them off with me...1...2...3...4...5...) hence the cuffing. Stopping him involved killing him. The only valid point your inane insistence has is the last two shots, which may have been to something the camera didn’t see, or to the adrenaline and fear of the moment.
If they hadn’t shot multiple times, at least one cop would be dead. Seems you’re arguing in favor of that outcome.
You still don’t see: sometimes one person is able, willing and intent on killing another in a few seconds flat - and all your what-ifs won’t stop him, only judicious use of deadly force will.
.
- Don’t many of the comments on these FR threads remind you of Eric Holder whining about “how ‘they’ treat the President and me!”
- Think about it sportsfans
- Ooops - an old Redskins game on TV - great they are all “Little Mikey” fans now -
Looks to me like it's you doing the ranting. Here's a clue, when you start shouting, you're losing.
If you cannot see this shooting as justified then it must be due to the fact that your head is firmly stuck up your ass.
See? I take it you don't care about that Constitution thingy. Why are you here?
Even the scumbag thugs are not protesting this. You must be on their side with mike brown as well.
No, I'm leaning toward the officer in that case, but the facts aren't all in yet. Those that are in are quite different, but then, I don't take sides first based upon appearances and then fit the facts to my preferences, like you apparently do. No wonder you're having such a hard time.
I have been good....pm me for details.
“The job of a police officer is to take risks to preserve life. If you don’t like the risks attendant to the job, quit. We’ll find someone else willing to take those risks”
Thats not in the oath or in any of the listed job qualifications....neither is be I willing to talk a person down from their “crisis” as they are charging at you with a knife.
Risks come with the job...but I am not required to add additional risk by being stupid.
Let me run at you with a knife and I want you to try and form a cogent sentence l,et alone try to reason with me.
Time? He died at the cops feet....they used every second of time available.
Position? He took the high ground and went for the officer where he ended up dying.
Backup? Unless his partner can turn back to hands of time there was not anything else backup could have done....he hid the nakednin his pocket until the cops arrived.
Armed to the teeth? A handgun is only marginally better than a knife.
Authority? The crazy suicidal guy did not respect their authority....authority is not power.
“One more thing - believe it or not, just because someone seems to be trying to kill a cop, does not give the cop the right to kill him back”
Guess what? You just forfeited your right to even participate in this conversation. If you think a police officer who is facing imminent death does not have the right to defend themselves then you sir not only have no right to even talk on this thread you should give up your screen name also.
I may never be able to enjoy Talisker again.
Don’t bother with him....he probably thinks we should talk ISIS down from their crisis.....ititn is thw Obama foreign policy applied to police deadly force encounters.
I really hate it when everybody thinks the police should be perfect and be able to control every situation. There is always at least one other person involved who is always dictating the police’s response. Police are reacting to the things around them. Police have no power. Police have authority.
There is a huge difference between the two...I am not referring to you obviously.
Did you ever see the movie Copycat, starring Holly Hunter? In the movie she shoots to wound a suspect and it ends up costing someone their life. It’s a really good illustration of what the danger would be.
Guess what? You just forfeited your right to even participate in this conversation. If you think a police officer who is facing imminent death does not have the right to defend themselves then you sir not only have no right to even talk on this thread you should give up your screen name also.
I may never be able to enjoy Talisker again.
Guess what? The rest of my statement - the part you deliberately left out from post #113 - went like this:
"We have what’s called a legal system. The job of the cop is to defend himself and make an arrest - not do roaming summary executions. Its a subtle difference worth thinking about. Stopping the threat is one thing. Dumping bullets into a downed man to make sure he’s dead, and then ludicrously handcuffing the corpse for the cameras is something completely different."
I guess that's why you left it out - it leaves you nothing to talk about.
There is a difference between neutralizing the threat and making sure someone is dead, except in the military.
In the military, for the most part, there is no difference between the two. For the police however, the reason they are called police and given all sorts of crisis intervention and nonlethal weapons and tactics training is because there is supposed to be a DIFFERENCE between them and the military.
Your examples are irrelevent because they don’t acknowledge the EFFECT of ANY partial or nonlethal approaches. For example one or two shots and then backing up. Or tazer and one shot. Or tazer alone, or simply backing up and talking to the obviously crazy guy who is obviously worked up over the riots. On and on and on. Time is a huge tactic that was completely abandoned here. Why park so close? Why not use the availabe space? Why not do the minimum instead of the maximum?
But what’s the point - twelve bullets dumped into the perp, the knife is gone, he’s on the ground twitching, and you justify the cuffs because he’s still twitching! LOL! Hey, how about just arming the police with with 40mm grenade launchers to be sure? Or just get kids in high school to be cops and tell them to kill everyone who gives them lip or who is armed - after all, what do they need training for when all they’re going to do is blow everyone away anyway?
Because that’s the rules of engagement you’re defending here, and it’s pathetic. It’s an insult to real cops with real training who use that training to disarm and de-escalate situations all over the country every day. You talk like a paranoid Rambo with zero comprehension of nonlethal tactics, and the absolutely enormous amount of options available to the police that they know about, train for, plan and have available at all times.
You write: “You reach for him to cuff him, he slashes your throat - stupid move.” No, stupid example, but one that perfectly represents the shallowness of your understanding of the actual professionalism of police work. You think you’re defending cops, but you’re only insulting them.
LOL, thanks for playing.
I will play in the sand box one more time.
First....no trial takes place until an investigation can occur. Noninvestigatikn can even start until the first thing every officer does on every call must do is completed....Render the scene safe.
The scene can’t be rendered safe until the man teyfor ng to kill the officer with the knife is stopped.
You don’t understand the biomechanics, sensory and perceptual science involved in a critical incident like this.
I doubt that I have a receptive audience with you but I will try to explain it....it takes a human being a minimum amount of time to see something, send that data to the brain, process the info, make a decision, send the signal to the body parts what that decision was, then perform the physical act itself.
The time it takes to all that is between 1.3 & 1.5 seconds. That means a person shooting a gun at a threat can easily squeeze off 1 - 3 rounds after they see a man begin falling while they make and implementation the decision to stop shooting.
Force Science Institute has put out this info as well as many other interesting physical science studies on force encounters stuff.
Don't bother.
The guy goes down at the same rate whether the first cop is shooting or the one behind the car. So it does not make a bit of difference insofar as the risk to the closer officer is concerned.
In this case, it appears about 2 seconds from the first shot until the man falls down, after multiple shots.
How long it takes to fall is the wrong metric. How long was it before he was incapacitated from pursuing an attack? He was probably unconscious well before he hit the ground.
If the cop had a .45, I'd take issue with the likelihood that a perp the size in the video would be able to harm the officer after taking one or two hits. A 6'-6" monster PCP case raging on adrenaline would be different. This does not appear to be that kind of situation.
Personally, I have had screaming idiots on drugs far bigger than I am threatening me at shorter distances and just kept my head and things calmed down. At the time, I lived in a run-down marina on the waterfront below downtown Oakland back in the 70s when things were pretty rugged down there. But then I could run faster than the potential attackers, and swim better too. :-)
As for “suicide by cop”, what else would you call it when the man says repeatedly “Shoot Me!” and refuses to obey commands, while approaching the police with a weapon in his hand?
Then deny him his wish by staying at a safe distance. Try the taser. If one stays far enough away, there's no harm in a second shot. They should resort a firearm only if it appears the perp is taking action toward causing bodily harm. Better would have been to have the officer behind the car having a shotgun instead of a pistol, but that's up to the guys training them to figure out the procedure. But even if all I had was a .45 pistol, with him moving that slowly, I would wait for the distance to his reach to close to four feet or so and IMO the .45 hit would stop him cold.
Ask any big game hunter how far a deer will run after it has been shot in the heart. They often run a hundred yards before falling over. In a human, a similar sized animal, that equates to 5-10 second so life.
I happen to know a guy who's got a house full of kudu, roebuck, bighorn, etc. and over fifty elk racks... I'll ask that question as to how often he's seen that and get back to you, because although I know it is possible, I don't think it's likely. It's not what I've seen when I've gone hunting unless the first shot missed vital organs and the animal was on an adrenaline dump. I don't see that in this clown. Most animals I've shot just fall right where they are, at the most twitching a little.
Remember, policing is not and never was supposed to be a totally safe job. We pay these people to protect lives and property in respect for the rights of citizens; police are paid to take risks to protect those rights. What we see in the unionized work rules designed for "officer safety" is a systematic rebalancing of that system of tradeoffs heavily weighted on behalf of the officer where the only acceptable risk is "no risk." This is why we see two cops making routine traffic stops here in California. This is why we see so many SWAT teams and no-knock raids gone wrong. It's unionism. It sets up police as adversaries of the people, and therefore a threat of a police state. If you haven't read Radly Balko's thoroughly documented history on the topic you should.
This is an impression against which we must guard. It means that we should be aware that what constitutes an expediency at the expense of rights in the name of safety builds that impression. Hence, taking life because of the existence of an unnecessary and minimal risk is not part of the program.
A mountain lion is more dangerous than this idiot. Most of the time they dart lions instead of killing them. Why are we doing this?
The guy was clearly crazy. The people around him were keeping their distance and he wasn't chasing anybody. The officers knew that before they arrived hell they drove up without stopping hard. The cop behind the car was totally safe and had the perp sited within twenty feet. The perp had a knife but not a gun, so he was incapable of harming anyone beyond his reach. When they drove up the perp didn't rush them. All of that means they should prepare to handle a psych case and not get close enough to be attacked until he disarms. If he wants to stand there and scream and gesticulate, let him. In a case of suicide by cop where the perp is saying "Shoot me!" had the officers been notified of that demand prior to their arrival and taken no measures to account for that in minimizing the hazard to a citizen who is not a dangerous fugitive from justice, they might legitimately stand accused of a premeditated killing. They certainly appeared to be so predisposed.
With all the non-lethal technology available, I just don't see that this killing was necessary. More importantly, I see it as unnecessarily politically damaging. No doubt a $0.80 round is cheaper than a shrink, but the paperwork dealing with this death won't be cheap and neither will the consequences of the impression it makes in a cohort of citizens inclined to see themselves at risk of similar and more unwarranted treatment. This just adds to a series of bad impressions, especially because of all the stupidity associated with the WOD. So, in microcosm I don't see this as nearly as much of a serious matter as in its larger context.
BTW, I'll be gone for a couple of days and have a lot to do to get ready to go, so if you reply and I don't, please don't take it as a huff or snit. In the mean time, I do recommend the book.
Did you not watch Breaking Bad?
No half-measures.
Those who have actually studied the subject agree the cops acted correctly, taking into account (and rejecting with good cause) all your flippant demands.
The rules of engagement do not require the cops to die. You’re demanding they do.
Anyone who doesn’t understand suicide by cop, like Carry okie, is a complete waste of time and bandwidth.
You need to read & watch this: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/170481-9-second-video-shows-cops-shooting-man-putting-gun-watch-twice-wont-believe/
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.