(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:05 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 12:33 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  He was apparently a member of the Bloods gang.

http://gotnews.com/exclusive-cops-kill-b...nsterling/

Nothing to see here folks. He was a fine outstanding young man.

If he was armed and going for his gun then what other recourse did the cops have? The video doesn't show that part. If he didn't have a gun and it's not true that his hands weren't going to his pockets those cops have a lot of 'splaining to do.

Don't jump to conclusions before the facts are in.

I would agree with you except that someone has already posted that he wasnt going for his gun when they shot him. Thats why i asked if it mattered. Apparently, the consensus is that it does matter.

I posted what the witness said. Unless the witness saw the entirety of the takedown, which is unlikely given the highly obstructed views, he could have reached for the gun and the witness not see that.

What a witness doesnt see isnt relevant or evidence. Its what they see. He saw the police retrieve the gun from Sterlings pocket. He did not see Sterling reach, although the clip I saw showed the possibility of his doing just that.

So then he in fact had a gun because when I posted this thread, the police had not confirmed that information.

(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The details or participants of this one don't matter.

The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.

I don't believe it is.

The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.

These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.

That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.

If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:25 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  The video clip that I saw showed him down on the ground with 2 officers right on top of him, I'd be curious to know how he'd even "go for his gun" from that position, he appeared subdued. Maybe more videos will come to light, because witnesses will be unreliable, but imo the position he was in, it did not look like the need for officers to use deadly force was there.

Great summary!

So far there is 45ish seconds of actual video out for public consumption. It shows the officers tackling and subduing Sterling after ordering him on the ground, yelling he has a gun and not to move (while there are two grown men on top of him) and then shooting him. You can only see the right side of Sterling's body as the left side is obstructed by a vehicle so you dont have a clear picture of what was going on the left side where the 2nd officer was. The right side showed Sterling's arm clearly pinned down by the officer's knee.

I am curious to know what led up to the tacking of Sterling. Knowing this would help explain the type of situation they were in and what type of suspect they were dealing with.

Why did they takle him? If he pointed the gun they would have just shot him. If they knew he had a gun, they would have asked him to drop it first. Its weird.

They didn't acknowledge the gun until after he was tackled and they were on top of him. Their proclamations made it apparent to me that the gun did not come into play until after they were on top of him, in terms of a threat to their life or safety

They would not ask him to drop it if it was concealed. The last thing police want is for you to unholster or pull out a gun from your pocket to turn it over. They want it kept exactly where it is until you are restrained and are no longer a threat.

Very true!

My personal opinion on the matter is they suspected he had a gun, which is why they were called in per reports I have read, but didn't see it or find it until after they tackled him.

Being someone who shouldn't have a gun I believe he was trying to get them to go away without searching him because he didn't want to go to jail. Again I have no idea what led up to the tackle so I don't know if he was being violent or simply trying to talk them into leaving.

When he refused a search they probably ordered him on the ground and the rest is on the video.

Something i would like to know.
What rights did sterling have to refuse a search?

If he is standing there and officers come up because someone called and said they were threatened by a man with a gun, what rights so the officers have when it comes to detainment and searches?

(07-06-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:05 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 12:33 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  He was apparently a member of the Bloods gang.

http://gotnews.com/exclusive-cops-kill-b...nsterling/

Nothing to see here folks. He was a fine outstanding young man.

If he was armed and going for his gun then what other recourse did the cops have? The video doesn't show that part. If he didn't have a gun and it's not true that his hands weren't going to his pockets those cops have a lot of 'splaining to do.

Don't jump to conclusions before the facts are in.

I would agree with you except that someone has already posted that he wasnt going for his gun when they shot him. Thats why i asked if it mattered. Apparently, the consensus is that it does matter.

I posted what the witness said. Unless the witness saw the entirety of the takedown, which is unlikely given the highly obstructed views, he could have reached for the gun and the witness not see that.

What a witness doesnt see isnt relevant or evidence. Its what they see. He saw the police retrieve the gun from Sterlings pocket. He did not see Sterling reach, although the clip I saw showed the possibility of his doing just that.

So then he in fact had a gun because when I posted this thread, the police had not confirmed that information.

I understand that you are special, and have to be handled differently, so I'll lay it out specially for you, snowflake.

The original call to police said a man had threatened another man with a gun.

When police arrive, a man who refuses to comply with police and has a Bloods tattoo on the side of his head decides to wrestle with police. And he had a gun.

The police have not confirmed he had a gun, but a witness did, and the original police call said a gun was involved.

(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The details or participants of this one don't matter.

The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.

I don't believe it is.

The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.

These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.

That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

The cops in Baton Rogue got a call about a guy with a gun at the store I believe.

This is non aggressive policing, Chiraq

Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 307
Shot & Wounded: 1746
Total Shot: 2053
Total Homicides: 341

(07-06-2016 01:53 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The details or participants of this one don't matter.

The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.

I don't believe it is.

The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.

These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.

That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.

If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.

I have an average career.

My uncle was a Fort Worth policeman for 30 years. My dad was a reserve officer. I have several friends who are police officers.

Not sure that matters though because I tend to look at it as an issue of public policy instead of emotionally anyway.

One of the police officers I know told me that the primary mission was that all of them make it home at the end of the day. I respectfully disagreed.

If your primary mission is personal safety, then do not become a police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc.

(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:05 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Nothing to see here folks. He was a fine outstanding young man.

If he was armed and going for his gun then what other recourse did the cops have? The video doesn't show that part. If he didn't have a gun and it's not true that his hands weren't going to his pockets those cops have a lot of 'splaining to do.

Don't jump to conclusions before the facts are in.

I would agree with you except that someone has already posted that he wasnt going for his gun when they shot him. Thats why i asked if it mattered. Apparently, the consensus is that it does matter.

I posted what the witness said. Unless the witness saw the entirety of the takedown, which is unlikely given the highly obstructed views, he could have reached for the gun and the witness not see that.

What a witness doesnt see isnt relevant or evidence. Its what they see. He saw the police retrieve the gun from Sterlings pocket. He did not see Sterling reach, although the clip I saw showed the possibility of his doing just that.

So then he in fact had a gun because when I posted this thread, the police had not confirmed that information.

I understand that you are special, and have to be handled differently, so I'll lay it out specially for you, snowflake.

The original call to police said a man had threatened another man with a gun.

When police arrive, a man who refuses to comply with police and has a Bloods tattoo on the side of his head decides to wrestle with police. And he had a gun.

The police have not confirmed he had a gun, but a witness did, and the original police call said a gun was involved.

A witness also confirmed that he did not reach for his gun.

I'm withholding judgment on this particular case until all the facts are in. Things often come out later...like in Ferguson.

I'm commenting generally on the overall pattern I see.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(07-06-2016 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I would agree with you except that someone has already posted that he wasnt going for his gun when they shot him. Thats why i asked if it mattered. Apparently, the consensus is that it does matter.

I posted what the witness said. Unless the witness saw the entirety of the takedown, which is unlikely given the highly obstructed views, he could have reached for the gun and the witness not see that.

What a witness doesnt see isnt relevant or evidence. Its what they see. He saw the police retrieve the gun from Sterlings pocket. He did not see Sterling reach, although the clip I saw showed the possibility of his doing just that.

So then he in fact had a gun because when I posted this thread, the police had not confirmed that information.

I understand that you are special, and have to be handled differently, so I'll lay it out specially for you, snowflake.

The original call to police said a man had threatened another man with a gun.

When police arrive, a man who refuses to comply with police and has a Bloods tattoo on the side of his head decides to wrestle with police. And he had a gun.

The police have not confirmed he had a gun, but a witness did, and the original police call said a gun was involved.

A witness also confirmed that he did not reach for his gun.

Nope, not under questioning. Maybe his view was blocked.

(07-06-2016 01:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Great summary!

So far there is 45ish seconds of actual video out for public consumption. It shows the officers tackling and subduing Sterling after ordering him on the ground, yelling he has a gun and not to move (while there are two grown men on top of him) and then shooting him. You can only see the right side of Sterling's body as the left side is obstructed by a vehicle so you dont have a clear picture of what was going on the left side where the 2nd officer was. The right side showed Sterling's arm clearly pinned down by the officer's knee.

I am curious to know what led up to the tacking of Sterling. Knowing this would help explain the type of situation they were in and what type of suspect they were dealing with.

Why did they takle him? If he pointed the gun they would have just shot him. If they knew he had a gun, they would have asked him to drop it first. Its weird.

They didn't acknowledge the gun until after he was tackled and they were on top of him. Their proclamations made it apparent to me that the gun did not come into play until after they were on top of him, in terms of a threat to their life or safety

They would not ask him to drop it if it was concealed. The last thing police want is for you to unholster or pull out a gun from your pocket to turn it over. They want it kept exactly where it is until you are restrained and are no longer a threat.

Very true!

My personal opinion on the matter is they suspected he had a gun, which is why they were called in per reports I have read, but didn't see it or find it until after they tackled him.

Being someone who shouldn't have a gun I believe he was trying to get them to go away without searching him because he didn't want to go to jail. Again I have no idea what led up to the tackle so I don't know if he was being violent or simply trying to talk them into leaving.

When he refused a search they probably ordered him on the ground and the rest is on the video.

Something i would like to know.
What rights did sterling have to refuse a search?

If he is standing there and officers come up because someone called and said they were threatened by a man with a gun, what rights so the officers have when it comes to detainment and searches?

Depends. If they gave him a lawful order and he disobeyed, it is a search incident to arrest and there are no rights. You can go easy or you can go hard.

If they have reasonable/probable cause to believe that this is the guy the dispatcher sent them out to look for in investigating the incident, that is generally enough, too. That is the way, way cooked down summary.

(07-06-2016 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I posted what the witness said. Unless the witness saw the entirety of the takedown, which is unlikely given the highly obstructed views, he could have reached for the gun and the witness not see that.

What a witness doesnt see isnt relevant or evidence. Its what they see. He saw the police retrieve the gun from Sterlings pocket. He did not see Sterling reach, although the clip I saw showed the possibility of his doing just that.

So then he in fact had a gun because when I posted this thread, the police had not confirmed that information.

I understand that you are special, and have to be handled differently, so I'll lay it out specially for you, snowflake.

The original call to police said a man had threatened another man with a gun.

When police arrive, a man who refuses to comply with police and has a Bloods tattoo on the side of his head decides to wrestle with police. And he had a gun.

The police have not confirmed he had a gun, but a witness did, and the original police call said a gun was involved.

A witness also confirmed that he did not reach for his gun.

Nope, not under questioning. Maybe his view was blocked.

Perhaps not but that is still what a witness claims he saw.

(07-06-2016 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So then he in fact had a gun because when I posted this thread, the police had not confirmed that information.

I understand that you are special, and have to be handled differently, so I'll lay it out specially for you, snowflake.

The original call to police said a man had threatened another man with a gun.

When police arrive, a man who refuses to comply with police and has a Bloods tattoo on the side of his head decides to wrestle with police. And he had a gun.

The police have not confirmed he had a gun, but a witness did, and the original police call said a gun was involved.

A witness also confirmed that he did not reach for his gun.

Nope, not under questioning. Maybe his view was blocked.

Perhaps not but that is still what a witness claims he saw.

Flashbacks to witness "hands up don't shoot" crap. When will people learn that an eye witness can't always be trusted?

(07-06-2016 02:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why did they takle him? If he pointed the gun they would have just shot him. If they knew he had a gun, they would have asked him to drop it first. Its weird.

They didn't acknowledge the gun until after he was tackled and they were on top of him. Their proclamations made it apparent to me that the gun did not come into play until after they were on top of him, in terms of a threat to their life or safety

They would not ask him to drop it if it was concealed. The last thing police want is for you to unholster or pull out a gun from your pocket to turn it over. They want it kept exactly where it is until you are restrained and are no longer a threat.

Very true!

My personal opinion on the matter is they suspected he had a gun, which is why they were called in per reports I have read, but didn't see it or find it until after they tackled him.

Being someone who shouldn't have a gun I believe he was trying to get them to go away without searching him because he didn't want to go to jail. Again I have no idea what led up to the tackle so I don't know if he was being violent or simply trying to talk them into leaving.

When he refused a search they probably ordered him on the ground and the rest is on the video.

Something i would like to know.
What rights did sterling have to refuse a search?

If he is standing there and officers come up because someone called and said they were threatened by a man with a gun, what rights so the officers have when it comes to detainment and searches?

Depends. If they gave him a lawful order and he disobeyed, it is a search incident to arrest and there are no rights. You can go easy or you can go hard.

If they have reasonable/probable cause to believe that this is the guy the dispatcher sent them out to look for in investigating the incident, that is generally enough, too. That is the way, way cooked down summary.

Thank you. So if they asked to search him thinking he was the guy they got called about and he refuses them they are justified in escalation. Trying to determine if the tackle was justified without video

(07-06-2016 02:27 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I understand that you are special, and have to be handled differently, so I'll lay it out specially for you, snowflake.

The original call to police said a man had threatened another man with a gun.

When police arrive, a man who refuses to comply with police and has a Bloods tattoo on the side of his head decides to wrestle with police. And he had a gun.

The police have not confirmed he had a gun, but a witness did, and the original police call said a gun was involved.

A witness also confirmed that he did not reach for his gun.

Nope, not under questioning. Maybe his view was blocked.

Perhaps not but that is still what a witness claims he saw.

Flashbacks to witness "hands up don't shoot" crap. When will people learn that an eye witness can't always be trusted?

Does that also apply to the person who witnessed someone being threatened with a gun?

(07-06-2016 02:14 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:53 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The details or participants of this one don't matter.

The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.

I don't believe it is.

The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.

These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.

That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.

If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.

I have an average career.

My uncle was a Fort Worth policeman for 30 years. My dad was a reserve officer. I have several friends who are police officers.

Not sure that matters though because I tend to look at it as an issue of public policy instead of emotionally anyway.

One of the police officers I know told me that the primary mission was that all of them make it home at the end of the day. I respectfully disagreed.

If your primary mission is personal safety, then do not become a police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc.

Gonna have to mostly disagree with you on this one.
Police have no duty to protect you: Warren v. District of Columbia
Soldier: Isn't the way to win a battle by killing more of them then they kill of you? Therefore the primary goal would be not dying...i.e. personal safety.
Firefighter: So you're saying a firefighter should risk their personal safety to save a burning, unoccupied building?

(07-06-2016 02:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:49 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They didn't acknowledge the gun until after he was tackled and they were on top of him. Their proclamations made it apparent to me that the gun did not come into play until after they were on top of him, in terms of a threat to their life or safety

They would not ask him to drop it if it was concealed. The last thing police want is for you to unholster or pull out a gun from your pocket to turn it over. They want it kept exactly where it is until you are restrained and are no longer a threat.

Very true!

My personal opinion on the matter is they suspected he had a gun, which is why they were called in per reports I have read, but didn't see it or find it until after they tackled him.

Being someone who shouldn't have a gun I believe he was trying to get them to go away without searching him because he didn't want to go to jail. Again I have no idea what led up to the tackle so I don't know if he was being violent or simply trying to talk them into leaving.

When he refused a search they probably ordered him on the ground and the rest is on the video.

Something i would like to know.
What rights did sterling have to refuse a search?

If he is standing there and officers come up because someone called and said they were threatened by a man with a gun, what rights so the officers have when it comes to detainment and searches?

Depends. If they gave him a lawful order and he disobeyed, it is a search incident to arrest and there are no rights. You can go easy or you can go hard.

If they have reasonable/probable cause to believe that this is the guy the dispatcher sent them out to look for in investigating the incident, that is generally enough, too. That is the way, way cooked down summary.

Thank you. So if they asked to search him thinking he was the guy they got called about and he refuses them they are justified in escalation. Trying to determine if the tackle was justified without video

I saw that Sterling was tased at least twice...to absolutely no effect prior to being tackled.

No kidding.

(07-06-2016 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:27 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  A witness also confirmed that he did not reach for his gun.

Nope, not under questioning. Maybe his view was blocked.

Perhaps not but that is still what a witness claims he saw.

Flashbacks to witness "hands up don't shoot" crap. When will people learn that an eye witness can't always be trusted?

Does that also apply to the person who witnessed someone being threatened with a gun?

No. What the dispatcher told them has more meaning.

[/quote]

I saw that Sterling was tased at least twice...to absolutely no effect prior to being tackled.
[/quote]

Lots of stuff happened prior to the video being taken and released.

(07-06-2016 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Does that also apply to the person who witnessed someone being threatened with a gun?

Of course, it does but the police have to treat it as if he had one. Had he complied with them he would be alive today *regardless* of whether or not he possessed a weapon.