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 ...
Your insistence on this lie despite my repeated and original specific rejection of the concept shows that you cannot rely on facts, but only personal insults and red herrings.
My only point has been that nonviolent and nonlethal means to deal with this situation were available to the police and part of their training, and they refused to use any of it. That's a simple and unavoidable fact, which is why you have had to resort to hysteria and personal insults to try to get around it. But there is no getting around it, insults or not. We are watching the militarization of the police and being habituated to summary executions in our streets. That's the reality here.
Why, because bad guys can be treacherous? You think your the only one who grasps that concept? What you don't seem to grasp is the rule of law, due process, rights, the existence of mental illness on the streets, statistics or actual police training.
Do you know, for example, why those cops didn't stop 50 yards away, take out rifles, scope the perp and shoot him down at a safe distance?
I'm asking you a serious question here. Do you know the answer? Because by your way of thinking, the existence of the knife and threats were an automatic death sentence. So did the cops screw up by endangering themselves with proximity and handguns, when they could have backed up in their car and used rifles?
The fact is that the vast majority of police interactions with armed and angry people do not result in killing the perp. The fact is that cops are trained in de-escalation and do it every day. The fact is that they actually have to justify firing in comparison to the option of nonviolent resolution every time they shoot. Your asinine attacks over anything less than blowing dangerous perps away has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with police work. Killing people is supposed to be the last resort, Rambo, not the first. And discussing nonviolent alternatives is what a free people do in order to hold onto their freedom.
The police are not the military, genius. That fact doesn't make me ignorant of the realities of the street. In many ways, police work is harder than military work, because no, you CAN'T just take out the "target."
Grow the hell up.
“You think your the only one who grasps that concept?”
Yes, I do. Seems you’re not part of that set.
‘bye.
Imagine the tree has a weapon and is trying to cut you back...then the comparison will have some validity.
That's a judgment call and a value judgment. I am not a 'cop lover' and I disagree with you on both. I'll just say Mr. Badass didn't have to die, but his choices and actions made it more likely. He alone bears responsibility for that.
Seriously...I have no friends or acquaintances who would engage in strong arm robbery, walk down the middle of the street, then act as this guy did toward a cop.
We expect cops to address and deal with situations such as those, situations most often not of their making. When we're being robbed or mugged, we do not call the NAACP.
It is, by definition, a no-win scenario. You have to deal with someone displaying mental or social issues. There's danger of someone being seriously hurt or killed.
No-win scenarios p!ss me off. By definition, they involve someone making a bad situation for someone else, where they have no good options. That's about the most psychopathic act imaginable.
If the situation went down as described, I have no problem with the cop doing as he did. None whatsoever.
Mr. Badass created a bad situation. Where that involves risk, it's fair, just and moral that risk of bodily harm is borne by the guy who created the situation.
Most of the time it's Mr. Badass. Increasingly it's the cops with such actions as 'dynamic entry,' and overuse of SWAT teams.
The question is simple: would a REASONABLE person conclude there's a significant risk of harm, and who created the situation?
Michael Keaton in Mr. Mom.
"You going to wire that for 220?"
"220, 221, whatever it takes."
Tagline Candidate of the Day.
One of whom had been seriously injured.
This wasn't a sentence being handed down...it was a situation being dealt with. Mr. Badass chose poorly.
A 40 cal. bullet hitting body armor will still knock you on your ass.
Just sayin'.
Amazing. You are seriously confused.
We send cops out to handle situations. It's fair to give them some guidelines and afterward judge not based upon the outcome, but about whether those guidelines were followed. Cops in the line of fire do not have the benefit of hindsight, and those who use hindsight to judge are not reasonable or rational. You would seemingly be included in that.
I do not expect human beings to take the job with any other expectations, and I don't want anyone wearing a uniform who would.
.
- You are correct sir!
.
- one less cretin to spread around that high IQ DNA
That a fact? Guaranteed?
Yeah, where would we be if we required cops to be reasonable and rational, eh?
LOL, incredible.
I do not expect cops to exercise perfect judgment, I expect them to follow guidelines and policies.
I hold Monday Morning Quarterbacks to a higher standard.
You are seriously deficient.
I hold Monday Morning Quarterbacks to a higher standard.
You are seriously deficient.
Deficient why - because I dare have an opinion on "guidelines and policies" that differs from yours? How tremendously irritating that must be for you! It's just basically proof that someone simply has no idea what he's talking about, isn't it? Really, you don't even need to converse with people - if they disagree with you, they're already wrong by definition! LOL!
And as for Monday Morning Quarterbacking, are you a cop? If so, do you write your own policies? Or do you obey policies set by a civilian city counsel? Do you require them to be cops, too? Seems this whole American civil authority thing pisses you off. Does it upset you that a civilian President is CIC of the Armed Forces? How about the authority of the city council in Seattle to change the rules of engagement for the police - do you think they should have that authority, or should the cops decide for themselves, because no one else could possibly have any knowledge or life experiences that could apply to the situation?
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024363457_lawsuitresponsexml.html
Sorry, he agrees with me. Given the backup safely behind the car, at close range, with pistol drawn, and the assailant armed with a only knife attempting suicide-by-cop, the lead officer should have backed off, kept his distance, and tried the taser before either one of them opened fire.
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.