(12-13-2017 07:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  He tried talking to them. More bad police work by these bad cops. They weren't letting him and in fact "shut up and don't speak" was part of the orders they were barking at him, orders they were telling him if he failed to follow would likely get him shot.

That's a good point. If the guy isn't able to follow orders, maybe the cops should have listened to what he had to say.

Maybe there needs to be public service announcements explaining to the public what cops require in a situation such as this. Inform the public to either follow directions or simply freeze spread eagle to avoid getting shot.

There has got to be a solution to minimize the amount of unarmed people getting shot by police.

(12-14-2017 11:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 07:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  He tried talking to them. More bad police work by these bad cops. They weren't letting him and in fact "shut up and don't speak" was part of the orders they were barking at him, orders they were telling him if he failed to follow would likely get him shot.

That's a good point. If the guy isn't able to follow orders, maybe the cops should have listened to what he had to say.

Maybe there needs to be public service announcements explaining to the public what cops require in a situation such as this. Inform the public to either follow directions or simply freeze spread eagle to avoid getting shot.

There has got to be a solution to minimize the amount of unarmed people getting shot by police.

It's NOT a good point.

None of them were talking about their inability to comply or some disability or being drunk... all they were doing was pleading their case... and that wasn't the time for that. They weren't shot because they spoke. If they had something PERTINENT to say, that would have been one thing.

How is the cop supposed to know if he 'can't' comply or is just delaying so that his partner in the room can have time to escape/hide the weapon/flush evidence of a plot down the toilet/burn it? Any of a dozen possibilities.

In a perfect world, cops would behave rationally because suspects behave rationally. Over-bearing cops would be easily rooted out. Spend 5 minutes on you-tube and you'll learn that people don't behave rationally... and I'm talking about average law abiding citizens... We have an entire generation who thinks its funny/cool/powerful to challenge the police physically/verbally... and guys like this one pay the price for the false bravado of others.

WHILE you have a gun trained on you and the cop is barking orders is not the time to be pleading your case. There is NO circumstance under which anything you have to say is going to cause him to put his gun down, treat you like you aren't a threat and not arrest you.

NOTHING

What happens to a cop who shoots an unarmed person? I mean aside from a trial. Do they get investigated, drug tested, anger management classes? What?

I don't deny that the cops did everything they could to avoid shooting this guy but at the end of the day, they killed an unarmed person. I don't see how they continue to be allowed to do the same job after something like this.

This should be a deal breaker for any cop.

There should be a rule that says do everything you need to do to keep yourself and your partners safe but if you ever shoot and kill an unarmed person, just know that you will never have the same job again.

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What happens to a cop who shoots an unarmed person? I mean aside from a trial. Do they get investigated, drug tested, anger management classes? What?

Depends on the exact policy in each department but generally yes to investigated and drug tested. Anger management is only called for if it is determined to be needed by the investigation.

Quote:There should be a rule that says do everything you need to do to keep yourself and your partners safe but if you ever shoot and kill an unarmed person, just know that you will never have the same job again.

The second half of this statement is in direct contradiction of the first. A suspect doesn't have to be armed to pose a lethal threat to you and putting conditions like you are would cause law enforcement officers to hesitate in situations where a hesitation means they lose their life.

I'm glad that you and a few others on here aren't in charge of law enforcement policy because the people who make the black mourning bands would be a booming business.

(12-14-2017 01:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What happens to a cop who shoots an unarmed person? I mean aside from a trial. Do they get investigated, drug tested, anger management classes? What?

Depends on the exact policy in each department but generally yes to investigated and drug tested. Anger management is only called for if it is determined to be needed by the investigation.

Quote:There should be a rule that says do everything you need to do to keep yourself and your partners safe but if you ever shoot and kill an unarmed person, just know that you will never have the same job again.

The second half of this statement is in direct contradiction of the first. A suspect doesn't have to be armed to pose a lethal threat to you and putting conditions like you are would cause law enforcement officers to hesitate in situations where a hesitation means they lose their life.

I'm glad that you and a few others on here aren't in charge of law enforcement policy because the people who make the black mourning bands would be a booming business.

You are correct. I would not be a cop if they paid 1 million dollar a year.

I would absolutely hesitate before shooting someone and I would more than likely cause my own death or the death of a partner.

I have never been a supporter of blanket policies and so I can understand why my second suggestion would be a bad idea.

Allow me to rephrase.

How often does a cop who shoots an unarmed person resumes his same position after doing so?

I would think that many of them would be placed in a different position like a desk job or writing parking tickets.

another video

(12-14-2017 01:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What happens to a cop who shoots an unarmed person? I mean aside from a trial. Do they get investigated, drug tested, anger management classes? What?

Depends on the exact policy in each department but generally yes to investigated and drug tested. Anger management is only called for if it is determined to be needed by the investigation.

Quote:There should be a rule that says do everything you need to do to keep yourself and your partners safe but if you ever shoot and kill an unarmed person, just know that you will never have the same job again.

The second half of this statement is in direct contradiction of the first. A suspect doesn't have to be armed to pose a lethal threat to you and putting conditions like you are would cause law enforcement officers to hesitate in situations where a hesitation means they lose their life.

I'm glad that you and a few others on here aren't in charge of law enforcement policy because the people who make the black mourning bands would be a booming business.

You are correct. I would not be a cop if they paid 1 million dollar a year.

I would absolutely hesitate before shooting someone and I would more than likely cause my own death or the death of a partner.

I have never been a supporter of blanket policies and so I can understand why my second suggestion would be a bad idea.

Allow me to rephrase.

How often does a cop who shoots an unarmed person resumes his same position after doing so?

I would think that many of them would be placed in a different position like a desk job or writing parking tickets.

Would this same standard be applied if for instance a suspect tells police on arrival, “I’m glad you’re here because I’m armed and want to kill a cop. I’m going to reach into my pocket now to grab my gun....die pig!”.....and it was a cell phone he yanked out instead of a gun?

I think all conduct has to be measured based upon what the person knew or should reasonably have known at the time that he/she acted. Nobody should be held accountable for 20/20 hindsight. That applies to military as well as police as well as anyone else.

If someone is reaching for what MIGHT reasonably be a gun, then the officer should be entitled to act as if it were a gun, with no second guessing later.

I would expect that, in many cases, the officer would be so traumatized by the incident that he/she would not want to return to the same duty.

Again, bad cop. Bad shooting. Knock on the freaking door and talk to people. Idiot is calling down a long hallway. They couldn't hear him. Had no idea cops were in the hall. That was apparent when they both came out and were surprised to see cops. But the ass being the ass he is was already giving them unnecessary **** about "apparently we have a failure of you to comprehend simple instruction". They hadn't heard a word from this dick. But lets pretend he really believes they weren't able to comprehend simple instruction. Why give them more elaborate ones.

So they come out unaware cops and guns are there. Contrary to several here who keep bs'ing otherwise, he immediately is yelling at them, escalating. Guy immediately complies and goes down. And again, contrary to some here continuing to bs that the girl was able to follow instructions, comply, and lived, the girl continues walking. She doesn't get shot. Hum. Cop asks if they understand, girl answers, guy begins and gets his first "shut up". Girl asks a question, cop listens and answers. Tells girl get up in a kneeling position. She fails in some way and gets another "kneeling position" from him. Not in a loud and you're gonna die threatening way. But, like the guy, she DIDN'T do his tricks perfectly. And she wasn't shot. Guess he has a daughter at home.

I hate to say there's anything funny in these vids but this is:

After she crawl to them, he says stop. Then "OK, grab and pull". Now the cop defaults to his training and standard procedures and goes behind her to cuff her. "PULL RICK(?)!!!" One instruction and he wasn't under threat of death if he failed to follow this unusual instruction and got the same barking from the *******.

So much for all the other bs about all these instructions were easy and the guy should have been able to follow just fine. His own team members were confused by his dumb*** instructions.

The guy was anticipating commonly known instructions. He immediately went down when he saw them. "Don't move or you die".
"Cool, I can do that."
Then he did get confused by the dumbassery.
"Now get up and dance a jig for us."
"WTF? You just said you'd shoot me for moving. How am I suppose to satisfy both commands? Can you clarify these conflicting orders? I don't want to die."
But of course he didn't get any of that out because he was again told to shut up.
"Do not make a mistake".
"W..."
"SHUT UP".

There were lots of cops in that hall. At least 6. Other than the one obvious idiot issuing the off script orders, my guess, the rest of them would have done the job proper and everyone lives. Whole thing is on the one *******. If you reasonably believe someone might have a gun, you don't want them moving AT ALL.

(12-15-2017 06:27 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  


another video

What I see here is a deadly game of Simon says.

(12-15-2017 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think all conduct has to be measured based upon what the person knew or should reasonably have known at the time that he/she acted. Nobody should be held accountable for 20/20 hindsight. That applies to military as well as police as well as anyone else.

If someone is reaching for what MIGHT reasonably be a gun, then the officer should be entitled to act as if it were a gun, with no second guessing later.

I would expect that, in many cases, the officer would be so traumatized by the incident that he/she would not want to return to the same duty.

You may be right but I heard somewhere that the cop that shot him had the phrase, " You're ******" on his gun.

(12-15-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think all conduct has to be measured based upon what the person knew or should reasonably have known at the time that he/she acted. Nobody should be held accountable for 20/20 hindsight. That applies to military as well as police as well as anyone else.
If someone is reaching for what MIGHT reasonably be a gun, then the officer should be entitled to act as if it were a gun, with no second guessing later.
I would expect that, in many cases, the officer would be so traumatized by the incident that he/she would not want to return to the same duty.

You may be right but I heard somewhere that the cop that shot him had the phrase, " You're ******" on his gun.

Meaning?

If I had to use a gun on someone, I sincerely hope that they would be ****** as a result.

(12-15-2017 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think all conduct has to be measured based upon what the person knew or should reasonably have known at the time that he/she acted. Nobody should be held accountable for 20/20 hindsight. That applies to military as well as police as well as anyone else.
If someone is reaching for what MIGHT reasonably be a gun, then the officer should be entitled to act as if it were a gun, with no second guessing later.
I would expect that, in many cases, the officer would be so traumatized by the incident that he/she would not want to return to the same duty.

You may be right but I heard somewhere that the cop that shot him had the phrase, " You're ******" on his gun.

Meaning?

If I had to use a gun on someone, I sincerely hope that they would be ****** as a result.

Perhaps but that phrase seems to suggest that if he has to draw his weapon, he is more inclined to use it regardless of the situation.

I would think different if he had a phrase like say, " the last resort".

This is the overlying issue I have with cop shootings of unarmed people.

It seems sometimes that it isn't a matter of last resort.

Yes, they claim that they didn't know for sure that he wasn't armed but looking at that second video, it become pretty obvious he had no weapon.

If I pull a gun, my focus is not going to be on reading what is written on the gun.

And I'd say we all look at a video of an event after the fact with a very different perspective from how you would view events happening in real time in front of your face, with the very real prospect that someone might try to shoot you at any point.

As I said before, I think this was another case of over charging. I probably get to manslaughter very easily on the facts, but murder requires proof of intent that I just don't see.

Occasionally you have to wonder if the over charging isn't an attempt to help someone get off.

(12-15-2017 01:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I pull a gun, my focus is not going to be on reading what is written on the gun.

And I'd say we all look at a video of an event after the fact with a very different perspective from how you would view events happening in real time in front of your face, with the very real prospect that someone might try to shoot you at any point.

As I said before, I think this was another case of over charging. I probably get to manslaughter very easily on the facts, but murder requires proof of intent that I just don't see.

I totally agree. I think this guy and Zimmerman would have been found guilty if they had just gone to manslaughter.

(12-15-2017 12:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps but that phrase seems to suggest that if he has to draw his weapon, he is more inclined to use it regardless of the situation.

I would think different if he had a phrase like say, " the last resort".

This is the overlying issue I have with cop shootings of unarmed people.

It seems sometimes that it isn't a matter of last resort.

Yes, they claim that they didn't know for sure that he wasn't armed but looking at that second video, it become pretty obvious he had no weapon.

and yet you just said, you wouldn't do the job for $1mm/yr... and that you'd likely cause your own death or the death of your partner....

so you admit that your natural position on the issue (which is not in any way inappropriate 'as a person' and i would likely feel the same way, but by your own admission, entirely inappropriate as a policeman) is the wrong one. You can't 'protect and serve' if you or your partner are dead.... and while yes, you're supposed to protect and serve this one person, the 'public' is your greater responsibility... and a second video is by definition, a second perspective.... which of course nobody has in the moment.

This is precisely the problem. We hire military to be pit bulls and we hire police to be doberman so that we (the public) can be lap dogs, and then we expect them to behave according to the same sensitivities as lap dogs (us).

If we want to retrain police as they do in the UK, where the average beat cop is unarmed and 'special units' are called in for the more aggressive actions, that's fine.... but it wouldn't have applied to this situation. We'd still have called in the doberman.

I know I'm using a dog analogy and most people are smarter than dogs... but the mentality that someone takes into a potential mass shooter situation... rushing TOWARDS danger as opposed to away from it is NOT a natural human (especially not a modern human) mentality. It is a mind set of putting the public safety over your own life without thinking of your own family, and of course, being willing and prepared to kill the suspect if necessary.

Those are NOT the ways that most people act... at least not without developing serious PTS etc as we see with the military constantly...

It is IMO up to the public to realize this. That these AREN'T lap dogs. They are attack dogs... and that is what we hire them to be.

If you don't want that, then whom are you going to call when you have a live-active shooter?

(12-15-2017 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 12:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps but that phrase seems to suggest that if he has to draw his weapon, he is more inclined to use it regardless of the situation.

I would think different if he had a phrase like say, " the last resort".

This is the overlying issue I have with cop shootings of unarmed people.

It seems sometimes that it isn't a matter of last resort.

Yes, they claim that they didn't know for sure that he wasn't armed but looking at that second video, it become pretty obvious he had no weapon.

and yet you just said, you wouldn't do the job for $1mm/yr... and that you'd likely cause your own death or the death of your partner....

so you admit that your natural position on the issue (which is not in any way inappropriate 'as a person' and i would likely feel the same way, but by your own admission, entirely inappropriate as a policeman) is the wrong one. You can't 'protect and serve' if you or your partner are dead.... and while yes, you're supposed to protect and serve this one person, the 'public' is your greater responsibility... and a second video is by definition, a second perspective.... which of course nobody has in the moment.

This is precisely the problem. We hire military to be pit bulls and we hire police to be doberman so that we (the public) can be lap dogs, and then we expect them to behave according to the same sensitivities as lap dogs (us).

If we want to retrain police as they do in the UK, where the average beat cop is unarmed and 'special units' are called in for the more aggressive actions, that's fine.... but it wouldn't have applied to this situation. We'd still have called in the doberman.

I know I'm using a dog analogy and most people are smarter than dogs... but the mentality that someone takes into a potential mass shooter situation... rushing TOWARDS danger as opposed to away from it is NOT a natural human (especially not a modern human) mentality. It is a mind set of putting the public safety over your own life without thinking of your own family, and of course, being willing and prepared to kill the suspect if necessary.

Those are NOT the ways that most people act... at least not without developing serious PTS etc as we see with the military constantly...

It is IMO up to the public to realize this. That these AREN'T lap dogs. They are attack dogs... and that is what we hire them to be.

If you don't want that, then whom are you going to call when you have a live-active shooter?

I think you nailed it perfectly. I cannot disagree with anything that you said.

I am not an attack dog. In fact, I'm the opposite. I generally want to get along with people and have a talent for winning people over.

That said, people still have to be accountable for their actions.

Remember that movie "A few good men" where Jack Nicholson says....

" You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall..."

It's true. We need those people but at the end of the day, they aren't above the law and they still have to be held accountable for their actions.

(12-15-2017 03:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That said, people still have to be accountable for their actions.

Remember that movie "A few good men" where Jack Nicholson says....

" You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall..."

It's true. We need those people but at the end of the day, they aren't above the law and they still have to be held accountable for their actions.

Yes... but remember where Nicholson violates clear protocols and then covers that up?

If there is evidence of this here, the jury likely convicts.

Nicholson uses that excuse to justify actions he obviously knew to be illegal before he did them

(12-15-2017 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 03:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That said, people still have to be accountable for their actions.

Remember that movie "A few good men" where Jack Nicholson says....

" You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall..."

It's true. We need those people but at the end of the day, they aren't above the law and they still have to be held accountable for their actions.

Yes... but remember where Nicholson violates clear protocols and then covers that up?

If there is evidence of this here, the jury likely convicts.

Nicholson uses that excuse to justify actions he obviously knew to be illegal before he did them

True

These cops didn't do anything illegal as far as I can tell. I just think they could have done it better.

Thankfully, that guy isn't a cop anymore. Does anyone know why?