Posted on 07/07/2016 7:32:13 AM PDT by WayneDupreeShow
This is not good, this is not good at all. I really don't want to engage this except to make a few points.
I am sure the cops are going to say he was reaching for his gun. And it is hard to tell whether he was, or not, by the videos I have seen. But what I don't understand is why did it get to the point that he was being combative with the cops? You NEVER escalate any situation with the cops or you may end up a dead man. And what does it matter at this point if he was right or not? He's dead. Did he save his honor by resisting what he believed to be a false arrest? Was he a real man to stand up for his rights? That is why we have courts.
I am very sympathetic to the situation and to him. I hate abuse of power and I post stuff about it all the time on my Facebook. But there is a huge difference between what is right and wrong, vs acting in wisdom or foolishness. He may be 100 percent right, but acted as a fool. The cops can be guilty as sin--and from the looks of things, they probably are--but the man is still dead. That isn't going to get his life back.
[FACEBOOK VIDEO OF NEW VIDEO INSERTED HERE]
I can't see how he can be considered a threat when one officer has him "pinned" by his ankles, while the other officer is pinning his upper torso pinned down. That's where I break with everyone blaming that he owed child support as a reason to shoot him. That's ridiculous!
From CBS News:
Disturbing new video has surfaced in the police killing of a black man who authorities say had a gun when he was shot on the pavement outside a convenience store.Here is the news report:The shooting death of Alton Sterling is being investigated by federal authorities.
Sterling, 37, was confronted by police and shot on Tuesday after an anonymous caller said he had threatened someone with a gun outside the store, where he was selling homemade CDs, authorities said.
In the video, filmed by store owner Abdullah Muflahi, officers are seen pinning Sterling to the ground. Officers can be heard saying “You [expletive] move, I swear to God,” and shouting, “Gun!” before shots ring out.
Sterling can be seen bleeding from the chest on the ground.
Muflahi told CBS Baton Rouge affiliate WAFB-TV the first officer used a Taser on Sterling and the second officer tackled him. Muflahi said that, as Sterling fought to get the officer off him, the first officer shot him “four to six times.”
The owner said Sterling didn’t have a gun in his hand at the time but he saw officers remove a gun from Sterling’s pocket after the shooting.
[CBS VIDEO INSERTED HERE]
That is my 2¢ and I don't want any of my cop friends telling me the cops were right here. I blame their training which makes them see too many situations are potential lethal threats and justifiable shooting in too many instances.
[TWITTER VIDEO INSERTED HERE]
These cops will probably be found justified and THAT is why the system is wrong. The "rules of engagement" need to CHANGE. It's not really a racial thing (generally). It's police training seeing people as enemies rather than police seeing themselves as public servants protecting people's civil rights. They have it backwards.
I might get roasted for saying this: But I sometimes wonder why people can't cooperate with the police officers. These things don't need to happen like this. I feel so bad watching what happened to Alton in that video and if I was there I would have told him to "please dude stop and fight it out in the court system."
What are your thoughts?
Help support conservative news and views by sharing this post on Facebook and Twitter.
Don’t forget to follow the Wayne Dupree Show on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also listen to replays of the Wayne Dupree Show via Spreaker and iHeartRadio.
One: Arrests are not convictions.
Two: The Second Amendment flatly denies the federal government the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Three: Even if convicted and the sentence is served, then all rights should be fully restored.
He likely BROKE a GUN LAW. He would break a MILLION Gun laws.
Given the Second Amendment's flat prohibition to the government of the infringement of keeping and bearing arms, which of these gun laws are actually valid?
WHY DID HE RESIST?
I would say that it's human nature.
He was going to jail. He didn’t want to go back to jail.
Maybe that's why he was resisting, maybe it was because he felt injustice at his situation; I don't know.
He was RESISTING with a GUN in his pocket. This had no chance of ending well for him.
This is perhaps the only sensible sentiment in your post.
Your two statements are not equivalent.
YES to the first.
NO to the second.
It becomes increasingly clear, many of our cops are trained to quickly kill people, rather than take the slightest risk to themselves.
And it is not just blacks.
Thing is, we can’t see the thugs hands.
That is key.
The bad apples put targets on the good cops’ backs.
He had a permit to conceal carry his weapon? I thought no permit was required in LA.
He had 10 previous arrests.
People Who May Not Carry a Gun in Louisiana:
The following individuals are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon in Louisiana:
•people younger than 21 years old
•illegal aliens
•fugitives from justice
•convicted felons
•unlawful users of controlled substances
•people who have a physical or mental infirmary that prevents the safe handling of a firearm
•people who have been committed to a drug abuse treatment facility or have been convicted of specified crimes involving controlled substances within the last five years
•people that chronically and habitually use alcohol in a way that impairs normal functioning (presumed when people have been convicted of certain crimes involving alcohol use, such as drunk driving)
•those who have been convicted of certain violent crimes or have a history of violent behavior
•people who have been adjudicated as mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution
•those who have been dishonorably discharged from the armed services
•people ineligible to possess a firearm under federal law, and
•people who have had a concealed carry permit application denied within the past year, or had a permit revoked within the last four years.
(La. Rev. Stat. § 40:1379.3.)
Apparently neither is Treason.
(Ref Hillary's selling aid and comfort to the enemies of the States.)
That is an excellent point.
I think it along with all the stories like these (remember that SWATing of the Marine a few years back) provides some evidence that the police [at least a non-insignificant portion] think of themselves as the unquestionable authority and want to make it known/felt. In the case you cite, the Citizen even being armed was a threat to his authority (under the same reasoning that gun-confiscators wish to take your guns), and in the marine's case it was so that they could shoot someone (see how they crowd into the doorway?).
Upthread someone said that he had a [concealed carry] permit.
The 2 things are:
1. I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent
2. I want a lawyer
Then shut up, cooperate physically and let the thing play out.
How does the burden of proof work here?
Self Defense is an affirmative defense. The accused has to demonstrate that he was in reasonable fear of his life or serious injury in order to assert self defense.
What is the standard of proof for that? Is it a preponderance of evidence? Or is it beyond a reasonable doubt?
Because if it is a preponderance of evidence, and the police officer says that he knew Sterling was armed and he thought that he was reaching for a gun, and the video does not demonstrate otherwise, if I were on the jury, I would have to vote to acquit.
However, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt, under the same circumstance, if I were on the jury, I would have to vote to convict.
Any Legal Eagles out there who know the standard of proof required to assert Self Defense?
>> So, obey or die?? Cops are executioners??
>
> Your two statements are not equivalent.
> YES to the first.
> NO to the second.
This is manifestly false, for if failure to obey is the cause for them to put you to death than they ARE executioners, and judge and jury.
Your crime is not what you possibly actually did to warrant an arrest, for failure to unquestioningly obey.
Perhaps this gem from one of our State Constitutions will disabuse you of the notion that this is proper:
NH State Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. [Right of Revolution.]
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. THE DOCTRINE OF NONRESISTANCE AGAINST ARBITRARY POWER, AND OPPRESSION, IS ABSURD, SLAVISH, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GOOD AND HAPPINESS OF MANKIND.
You fail to realize that you’re mode of thought makes this less than satire:
http://edward.fish/index.php/2016/07/03/stop-drop-and-cower/
Did anybody notice that after they shot him, they didn’t have to do a search for his weapon? Right in his front pocket.
OK, maybe there's one. One. Out of tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions of encounters of CCWs with police without incident.
BTW: I am one of those statistics.
It's real simple: Follow police orders and you don't risk being shot.
BLM got your back, dawg. Yo' bich' gonna be famous on FB and get PAID, too.
< /SARC>
I dont think so, watch the video again, the cop was clearly freaked out. He knows the guy has a gun, sees him reaching for something, freaks out and pops the guy. Sad day for everyone.
As I have said in the past, unless you are a police officer or have watched HUNDREDS of episodes of “COPS”, you are uninformed.
The police are trained in procedures. They aren’t going to argue with you all day if you don’t follow their commands.
Wud I do? Wud I do? It doesn’t matter, they have their reasons, just do what they say, argue about it later if you are still alive.
He was down with 2 cops on him. Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The policed want you FACE DOWN. They want, DEMAND, control of your hands preferably handcuffed behind your BACK. Until this is accomplished they don’t feel safe.
He was face UP, they did NOT have control of his hands. He was bigger than the two of them put together, He never stopped resisting, HE HAD A GUN.
Add all that up and you are a dead man.
lol. then they HAD to shoot him under PC circumstances.
Civil cases are “preponderance of evidence.” The person bringing the charges have to prove that.
Criminal cases are “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The state has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendants don’t have to “prove” anything. That is the responsibility of the state—can they prove the officers acted illegally.
What can the state prove from the facts?
With a call reporting an armed guy, then the guy not placing his hands in full view when fighting the officers, and we can’t see the hands of the thug, then it would be to me a case where the officers were struggling with an armed man that intends to take the resistance to a whole new level (deadly force).
The guy either pulled the weapon or the weapon was presented in seconds in such a way that the threat to life is there (a armed guy fighting with the police).
Is it reasonable affirmative defense to say they had to shoot because they guy was armed and the weapon was introduced and they did not have full control over the guy or the weapon.
If they arrested him and hand-cuffed him and then found the weapon, there is no threat to life so deadly force would not be reasonable.
In this case, it is reasonable to think the officers saw the weapon in the middle of the struggle and the guy was not complying and (can’t tell) the guy was struggling for control of his weapon, a threat to their life (or by-standers as well) was present.
The onus is one the state to prove the charges, not the officers to disprove the charges.
So, on a jury, you have to evaluate the facts, not your inferences, not your feelings (that is what dems do). Given what we know (thug fighting, weapon not under control of the officers), those basic facts prove the officers acted reasonably.
The facts stand that they were involved in a struggle with a non-compliant thug that was reported to be armed (subsequently found to be armed as reported by the storekeeper), and they acted reasonably. . .as you would if you were struggling with an armed thug and you shot him.
Again, the Citizen even being armed is drilled into the mind of the police officer as being a threat.
The police are not very well trained in deescalation,* rather they are increasingly trained to project force and certain LEO hiring practices indicate a bias towards those who are essentially bullies.
This whole thing could have been avoided with application of Proverbs 25:15 and Proverbs 15:1; respectively:
Honestly, this mentality of "he has a weapon so he's automatically an enemy threat" would never fly even in a literal warzone, because you'd end up friendly firing on your own guys and/or allies.
Indeed, considering all this, I wonder if some police are being trained to assert their authority in such confrontational and abrasive manner to cause escalations and therefore more police shootings, and therefore make police officer work less safe statistically which the government can use as another push for gun-control: It's for our brave, hardworking officers who ought to be able to go home to their families safely!
(Yes, I distrust our government that much; after seeing the recommendation against indictment of Hillary after essentially proving her guilty, I wonder who doesn't.)
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.