(09-23-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see anything there to justify criminal prosecution of the officers or the rioting that has ensued.

I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

I agree with everything you are saying unless he didn't have a gun in his hand. According to the family (take that with a grain of salt) he had a book in his hand.

The wife wasn't saying "Keith, don't you do it. Don't you read that book".

(09-23-2016 03:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see anything there to justify criminal prosecution of the officers or the rioting that has ensued.

I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

I agree with everything you are saying unless he didn't have a gun in his hand. According to the family (take that with a grain of salt) he had a book in his hand.

The wife wasn't saying "Keith, don't you do it. Don't you read that book".

I'm having trouble with what "it" is.

Is she telling Keith not to do it? Is she telling the police not to do it while still calling Keith's name to keep his attention?

(09-23-2016 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

I agree with everything you are saying unless he didn't have a gun in his hand. According to the family (take that with a grain of salt) he had a book in his hand.

The wife wasn't saying "Keith, don't you do it. Don't you read that book".

I'm having trouble with what "it" is.

Is she telling Keith not to do it? Is she telling the police not to do it while still calling Keith's name to keep his attention?

Why let that lack of certainty hold up a good riot and some fine looting though.

(09-23-2016 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Is she telling Keith not to do it? Is she telling the police not to do it while still calling Keith's name to keep his attention?

Remember that the video was presented by her attorney, not the police... meaning the subtitles were added by THEM.

I THINK I have them correct.

Keith, Don't let them break the windows.
Come on out the car.
Keith, Don't do it!
Keith! Get out the car!
Keith, Keith, Don't do it!
Keith! Keith!
Keith! Don't you do it!

Whatever he's doing, he doesn't seem to be listening to anyone... and she seems to be only speaking to him at this point... not the officers.

and just like the 'he better live' at the end, she's strangely worried about the car windows?

(09-23-2016 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

I agree with everything you are saying unless he didn't have a gun in his hand. According to the family (take that with a grain of salt) he had a book in his hand.

The wife wasn't saying "Keith, don't you do it. Don't you read that book".

I'm having trouble with what "it" is.

Is she telling Keith not to do it? Is she telling the police not to do it while still calling Keith's name to keep his attention?

Whooo! That a good perspective that I missed. Went back and listened and it's a possibility.

(09-23-2016 03:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Is she telling Keith not to do it? Is she telling the police not to do it while still calling Keith's name to keep his attention?

Remember that the video was presented by her attorney, not the police... meaning the subtitles were added by THEM.

I THINK I have them correct.

Keith, Don't let them break the windows.
Come on out the car.
Keith, Don't do it!
Keith! Get out the car!
Keith, Keith, Don't do it!
Keith! Keith!
Keith! Don't you do it!

Whatever he's doing, he doesn't seem to be listening to anyone... and she seems to be only speaking to him at this point... not the officers.

and just like the 'he better live' at the end, she's strangely worried about the car windows?

I think she was worried about the car window because that would mean that the police are coming for him by force. Could've been a call to comply.

My grandma and the older people around here used to say "let" instead of "make" sometimes. Same state.

(09-23-2016 03:50 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think she was worried about the car window because that would mean that the police are coming for him by force. Could've been a call to comply.

My grandma and the older people around here used to say "let" instead of "make" sometimes. Same state.

Sure, I get that.... but in any event, she seems to be speaking to nobody but Keith... which I understood to be your question

I don't know what 'it' is, but whatever 'it' is, she obviously was concerned that Keith was about to do 'it' and she didn't want him to.

I suppose you could argue that she thought they would break the windows and instead they shot him... but obviously she expected they were about to do SOMETHING if he didn't comply.

(09-23-2016 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:50 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think she was worried about the car window because that would mean that the police are coming for him by force. Could've been a call to comply.

My grandma and the older people around here used to say "let" instead of "make" sometimes. Same state.

Sure, I get that.... but in any event, she seems to be speaking to nobody but Keith... which I understood to be your question

I don't know what 'it' is, but whatever 'it' is, she obviously was concerned that Keith was about to do 'it' and she didn't want him to.

I suppose you could argue that she thought they would break the windows and instead they shot him... but obviously she expected they were about to do SOMETHING if he didn't comply.

Yeah, I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to piece it together.

(09-23-2016 03:59 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:50 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think she was worried about the car window because that would mean that the police are coming for him by force. Could've been a call to comply.

My grandma and the older people around here used to say "let" instead of "make" sometimes. Same state.

Sure, I get that.... but in any event, she seems to be speaking to nobody but Keith... which I understood to be your question

I don't know what 'it' is, but whatever 'it' is, she obviously was concerned that Keith was about to do 'it' and she didn't want him to.

I suppose you could argue that she thought they would break the windows and instead they shot him... but obviously she expected they were about to do SOMETHING if he didn't comply.

Yeah, I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to piece it together.

Sorry if it appeared I was arguing. I was trying to help you put it together.

Had we just had the video, we could have speculated as to whom she was speaking to. Instead we have the video AND her attorney's sub-titles. I think if she was telling the cops 'don't do it', that they would have captioned it so as to make that obvious. MAYBE they just missed that... but it's a problem for them IMO.

Its a terrible tragedy... but the circumstances all seem to be beyond people's control... both Keith (mental issues) and the cops (uncertainty and lives apparently at risk)....

The rioting in response is completely controllable.

Nomad has a possibility. The cops are sure (right or wrong) he has a gun but the wife could be talking to Keith and the cops. Her reaction after isn't as bizarre if she was saying don't do it to the cops.

(09-23-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I agree with everything you are saying unless he didn't have a gun in his hand. According to the family (take that with a grain of salt) he had a book in his hand.

If he did not have a gun and the police were able to determine that he did not have a gun, then I might agree. But if the police were unable to determine what he had in his hand, and it appears that here it would have been difficult if not impossible to make that determination, then I see no reason to fault the police. They're just trying to stay alive. In any event, I see no reason why the family's later self-serving statements would be relevant.

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see anything there to justify criminal prosecution of the officers or the rioting that has ensued.

I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

If he DID have a gun, visible to cops, can they allow or endanger a "civilian" like that? Honest ???.

(09-23-2016 05:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see anything there to justify criminal prosecution of the officers or the rioting that has ensued.

I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

If he DID have a gun, visible to cops, can they allow or endanger a "civilian" like that? Honest ???.

I don't know of any law enforcement commander who would allow that. You never allow additional innocents into the danger zone.

(09-23-2016 05:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 05:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see anything there to justify criminal prosecution of the officers or the rioting that has ensued.

I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

If he DID have a gun, visible to cops, can they allow or endanger a "civilian" like that? Honest ???.

I don't know of any law enforcement commander who would allow that. You never allow additional innocents into the danger zone.

I'd think liability-wise there'd be know way. That's why I was asking, but if she volunteered... ? Hunh. Interesting question.

(09-23-2016 05:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 05:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see anything there to justify criminal prosecution of the officers or the rioting that has ensued.

I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.
The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

If he DID have a gun, visible to cops, can they allow or endanger a "civilian" like that? Honest ???.

I don't know of any law enforcement commander who would allow that. You never allow additional innocents into the danger zone.

Good point. I'm not sure how innocent she is, but you're right. That being the case, I don't know how you avoid the result they got.

That's a good point, but perhaps not for the reason some people think.

They repeatedly tried to stop her from approaching, and she repreatedly ignored their instriuctions and noted that she was filming them.

A) right or wrong, she's interfering with a police action
B) with the recent conversation, plus the focus on the other person, you KNOW they are hesitant to escalate with her.

Still, they probably violated policy by letting her close, but what does anyone think would have happened if they had physically tried to restrain her?

Bottom line is that it shows that the riots HAVE had an impact, but not necessarily for the better.

(09-23-2016 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 05:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 05:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I think the wife knew hubby had a gun. Maybe Keith called her and was acting messed up on the phone. She knew his background and that he shot at popo before. That is why she was yelling don't you do it Keith.

I think the, "Don't do it, Keith," comments are particularly telling. There was obviously something that she did not want him to do. Whatever it was probably constituted reasonable grounds for the police response that occurred.

The one thing I would wonder about, and this cannot really be ascertained from the video, is whether it would have been possible for police to seal off the area and then allow her to go in and try to talk him down. It's about the only alternative that I can envision to what happened.

If he DID have a gun, visible to cops, can they allow or endanger a "civilian" like that? Honest ???.

I don't know of any law enforcement commander who would allow that. You never allow additional innocents into the danger zone.

I'd think liability-wise there'd be know way. That's why I was asking, but if she volunteered... ? Hunh. Interesting question.

Doesn't matter if she volunteered they would still be liable, not to mention the public backlash.

to the OP, I don't think it matters to the situation in terms of how the cops react. 'Safety' and logic dictates that you assume that someone with a gun might use it, and not that they might not. You'd REALLY have to know the person to assume the latter. If they didn't know, they'd assume he would use it. If they did know, they'd ALSO assume he would use it. If he had no record whatsoever, they'd probably still err on the side of safety... say 60/50 rather than 80/20.... UNTIL he ignores orders to drop the weapon... and then it becomes 95/5 no matter what.

WHile my percentages are merely meant to imply a 'feeling' rather than being an actual representation, I can't imagine anyone with a brain wouldn't agree with that feeling.

(09-24-2016 11:28 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  to the OP, I don't think it matters to the situation in terms of how the cops react. 'Safety' and logic dictates that you assume that someone with a gun might use it, and not that they might not. You'd REALLY have to know the person to assume the latter. If they didn't know, they'd assume he would use it. If they did know, they'd ALSO assume he would use it. If he had no record whatsoever, they'd probably still err on the side of safety... say 60/40 rather than 80/20.... UNTIL he ignores orders to drop the weapon... and then it becomes 95/5 no matter what.
While my percentages are merely meant to imply a 'feeling' rather than being an actual representation, I can't imagine anyone with a brain wouldn't agree with that feeling.

This brings us to my question.

Given all that we know from the video or anywhere else, in particular considering what the police would have known at the time, exactly what SHOULD the police have done differently in that situation? What result would that have produced? Why would that be a better result?

They should have shot him in the arm, grazing him just enough to make him drop the gun, but not so much that the bullet would ricochet.

That's what happens in the movies and on TV and even in the video games sometimes.

If someone doesn't want to comply with the police, bad things are going to happen. Sure, there's a range, but that's almost a constant.