quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
How hard can it be, when law enforcement has firearms aimed at you, to instantly comply with simple commands such as "don't move," "put your hands up," "get down on the ground" and the like?

I don't care if my pants are about to fall off. If I have guns pointed at me and the cops yelling "Put your hands up!," my hands are going up and staying up.

We've all seen videos where 2 or 3 cops are yelling different commands at the same time. "Don't move", "put your hands up", "get down on the ground". When you drop your hands to get down on the ground you get shot by the cop who said to put your hands up because you reached for your waistband. I'm not suggesting that this was the case here, but I think in some high stress situations it may be a lot harder then you make it out to be.

For that matter, if I'm at home minding my business and answer a knock at the door, how do I know at first that it's actually police yelling commands at me? Knowing that I haven't done anything wrong, I would be more inclined to think it's home invaders tricking me or something similar.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
The body cam footage really bothers me. Exactly what should the dead man have done?

For any LEO's who want to step in this quagmire, I really would love a question to this answer. I meant it honestly.

My own inclination after this shooting and Daniel Shaver's shooting is, if met by officers shouting commands, I'm throwing myself face-down prone on the ground spread eagle and shouting "Don't shoot, I'm compliant!" Would that work, or would that get me killed? This is real "Hands up, don't shoot" shit right here, and nobody is rioting, reasonable white people are asking reasonable questions.

Obviously, it seems that trying to crawl on your knees with your ankles crossed while following directions is a good way to get killed, as is stepping out your front door. Chongosuerte has situational story along similar lines that he posts from time to time, and this is the nightmare version of it.

Sudden movements are bad, even well intended ones. Freeze. Do not move. Take a few seconds and try and process any commands you get. Then TELL them what you’re going to do before you do it. Repeat their commands back. I get pulled over occasionally, it happens. Traffic stops makes cops nervous. Engine off. Lights on. Hands on wheel. Freeze. When they ask for my ID I say “my ID is on the seat/in my wallet/whatever. Can I reach for it?” They ask for insurance “my insurance is in the glove box, may I reach for it now?”

Freeze. Repeat commands, ask permission. Move slowly. Do not dive to the ground.

Can someone explain to me why the RoE for soldiers in a combat zone facing foreign enemies are more restrictive than the RoE for domestic police facing innocent citizens?

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
Honestly, I can't answer. Nothing I can say will convey just how disappointed I am in most of this comments blaming the officer for doing his job. Nothing I say will make any of you see the facts, and I cant change you not understanding. So I will leave this discussion alone. See ya'll on other things.

WTF....WATCH THE BODYCAM VIDEO!!!

It would seem impossible that you don't see this situation a bit differently after doing so. If the video doesn't change you view on this then honestly, you should NEVER EVER be responding to such an incident! Maybe Administration would be a better calling for you, because based on your comments you come off as a self important trigger happy adrenaline junkie....And a danger to the general public!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Maybe Administration would be a better calling for you, because based on your comments you come off as a self important trigger happy adrenaline junkie....And a danger to the general public!

I don't want that mindset administrating, especially since he thinks that's the outcome the administration should prefer. No sir. No thanks.

Where's Chongo with the ultimate shit situation perspective? I'm not being derisive here, I'm wondering what the cops who have tried very hard to show the other perspective and open minds think about this shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Can someone explain to me why the RoE for soldiers in a combat zone facing foreign enemies are more restrictive than the RoE for domestic police facing innocent citizens?

Short version: Because the SCOTUS says so. Sorry, not trying to be an asshole. It's that simple.

Since the late 1980s LE use of force has been guided by largely "static" precedent. To the extent that the principal cases that discuss use of force (Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner) have been revisited, appellate courts have almost universally been in favor of LEOs making split-second decisions in "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" circumstances based on the information they have at their disposal AT THE TIME FORCE IS USED. Not what they learn AFTER the force is used. Not what viscerally seems "fair" or "right" AFTER the fact. What they decide to do in the second or two that determines whether more people might be visited with death or serious bodily harm.

The law doesn't require LEOs to be "right." It requires them to be REASONABLE. And thirty years of precedents have given LEOs a good basis for articulating what might be objectively reasonable. You can have absolutely tragic results, even deadly ones, but "tragic" and "legally culpable" are two different thing. What matters is whether the officer can articulate, with objective facts, why their force was reasonable. Again, the courts have actually provided a pretty good collection of examples to work from.

That's the summary.

Viscerally, this seems horribly wrong to many. Most, even. Frankly, I get that. But that's the state of the law.

I know that this is a tragedy, no matter what. If at the end of the day the officers' articulable and objective facts-- not suppositions, not feelings, but facts-- support the "reasonableness" of their actions, they'll be adjudged neither criminally nor civilly liable. If they can't establish that, they're hosed.

Is there a different video than the one that’s linked in the original post? I am either not looking at the right one, or there’s something wrong with the resolution I’m getting with my computer (only had it a few months). I can hardly see the victim at all, much less see what he does before he was shot. I’d like to be as certain about the events as many of the other posters here, but that’s not possible with what I’m seeing.

Some help—?

Disgusting. Any police officer defending this event should be ashamed. Police have a tough job and have to make hard calls, trust me I get it. But how in the hell do you see an event turn out wrong, do an analysis, and say “well that was ok for me because I went home safe.” Unsat.

Having spent a lot of time flying strikes in war, I empathize with imperfect information and risk and adrenaline all playing into time sensitive situations. Sometimes shit happens. When it does, own it and try to fix it. But this attitude of “only cops judge cops” and “as long as the cop went home safe he made the right call” is going to turn citizens against LE. Change your training. Something is seriously wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
Honestly, I can't answer. Nothing I can say will convey just how disappointed I am in most of this comments blaming the officer for doing his job. Nothing I say will make any of you see the facts, and I cant change you not understanding. So I will leave this discussion alone. See ya'll on other things.

You remind me of the FBI agent formerly here that also tried to take this forum to task for dumping on his agency when his boss (Comey) declared HRC guilty but no "reasonable" prosecutor would bring charges.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Can someone explain to me why the RoE for soldiers in a combat zone facing foreign enemies are more restrictive than the RoE for domestic police facing innocent citizens?

There were plenty of instances where we could've killed someone and for it to be justified. Such as a kid running around with a toy AK. But we didn't shoot him. We also didn't shoot the Afghan guard when we came near the compound he was guarding at night despite the fact that he leveled his AK at us.

Funny how service members overseas can lack blood lust fighting a war but it seems cops here crave it.

It's the same defense: I feared for my safety.

Worse is that some people will defend that mentality no matter what.

From what I saw on the video, looks like the guy had spotlights trained on him and when he heard yelling, raised his hand(s) to block the light from his eyes. That was when the shot was fired.

Is there a different video than the one in this thread? I don't see much of anything that suggests right or wrong conduct by the deceased or the officers. Seriously, it's poor quality and from quite a ways away.

Can't give an opinion on what can't clearly be seen. Is that all the video there is and is it the same footage that some of you have used to conclusively decided the cop was wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
Honestly, I can't answer. Nothing I can say will convey just how disappointed I am in most of this comments blaming the officer for doing his job. Nothing I say will make any of you see the facts, and I cant change you not understanding. So I will leave this discussion alone. See ya'll on other things.

I am disgusted by your responses in this thread. You continue to cling to the premise that the officer was justified in shooting an unarmed person from a distance that had all of the officers out of any danger.

You want to talk facts. Explain to me in that video, what did the victim do that justified being killed?
He was not aggressive in any way.
He was not threatening in any way.
He was unarmed.
He did not have anything in his hands like a cell phone that could be confused for a weapon.
He was never even close to any officer.

What was the justification for the use of deadly force? That he did not put his hands up when ordered?

Educate me.

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
Honestly, I can't answer. Nothing I can say will convey just how disappointed I am in most of this comments blaming the officer for doing his job. Nothing I say will make any of you see the facts, and I cant change you not understanding. So I will leave this discussion alone. See ya'll on other things.

I am disgusted by your responses in this thread. You continue to cling to the premise that the officer was justified in shooting an unarmed person from a distance that had all of the officers out of any danger.

You want to talk facts. Explain to me in that video, what did the victim do that justified being killed?
He was not aggressive in any way.
He was not threatening in any way.
He was unarmed.
He did not have anything in his hands like a cell phone that could be confused for a weapon.
He was never even close to any officer.

What was the justification for the use of deadly force? That he did not put his hands up when ordered?

Educate me.

Man you are whipped into a frenzy over an extremely hazy and grainy cam that neither shows nor tells the entire sequence of events. Unless you have the statement from the cop that shot him or that specific body cam footage, you're talking out your piehole based on being upset that people aren't as ticked off as you or agree with you.

How about slowing down the frothing train a bit and seeing what all the evidence is first? See it and weigh it and then form an educated opinion. If you were that cop wouldn't you expect and want the same? Of course you would.

If the cop was wrong he should face all the punishment the law allows but not until something besides that shitty video comes forward.

Let's all please ease off of the gas, guys. Everyone just take it down a notch or two, please.

That video is spectacularly shitty.

Having a rifle gives one distance. Having distance gives one time. I don’t know what kind of training that agency has before an officer can carry a rifle (I HIGHLY doubt that was a SWAT officer, until otherwise proven) but I know that scenario violates the training I’ve had to carry a patrol rifle.

We specifically train with the naked eye in low light at distance with our rifles, with role players at the end of the range with the objective of identifying whether they are presenting weapons in scenarios or not. To show us to be damn sure before we pull that trigger. We are not left confused about what will happen to us if we shoot without being sure, at distance with a rifle.

The video is crap, but I wouldn't expect anything better than that given where the camera is. Those body cams aren't high definition units designed for long distance images.

In the video I can see at least two other officers to the left of the house in front of the neighbor's garage. They are much closer than the officer with the rifle, so I'm assuming they had an even better view of what was going on than he did.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
The video is crap, but I wouldn't expect anything better than that given where the camera is. Those body cams aren't high definition units designed for long distance images.

In the video I can see at least two other officers to the left of the house in front of the neighbor's garage. They are much closer than the officer with the rifle, so I'm assuming they had an even better view of what was going on than he did.

The very fact that the video is so bad is a large chunk of why I say it’s damning... it implies significant distance and some measure of cover stacked against a potential adversary who is obviously not holding a long gun. As I think we can all agree that set of circumstances weighs heavily in favor of the officers.

I am typically one who defends officers in the various shooting threads... and as I said before I’ll refrain from passing firm judgement here, but the video is really bad looking from the officer/agency perspective and NOT indicative of how we train.

Had the officer been 20 feet away and exposed it would be MUCH easier to understand and defend a shoot based on furitive movements, but that’s not the scenario here.

Very sad all the way around.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Honest, and I hope non-judgmental question: If the guy is on his porch, and you are on the other side of the street, behind cover, with a rifle, and the guy on the porch doesn't have a long gun in his hands or isn't actually shooting a pistol, why are you shooting? Even if he pulls a pistol from his waist band, you already have him sighted, and you have cover. Can't they wait just another heartbeat to make sure innocent people aren't shot on their porch? It's dark, for fucks sake, and his entire world is flashing blue and white lights. He can't see shit.

Fuck me, I support the police but I hate seeing stuff like this.

It's either insufficient training, or too much adrenaline, or the wrong people are on the swat team, but that should not have happened.

^^^ To me, that says it perfectly.

^^^ Damn Straight.... Very well said by ArtieS!