Open Carrier Murdered by **** Cop

[marrandy]

This problem is continuing to get worse.

The policeman's final version of the facts will come out.

But the issues will remain until the police work to solve them.

Basically, the police had training, tactics and body armor.

He could have observed, called backup, withdrawn and waited.

He chose to challenge by himself.

After some communication, he chose to shoot even though he wasn't being shot at and chose not to withdraw from someone's private property.


But then there is the whole problem of the police acting like a gang, who will not tell on each other, no matter how outrageous the abuse. Guess what happens. The people who get away with it become emboldened and more violent and others in the department feel they can do the same. The police get more aggressive, unthinking and terroristic.


This feeds back into the start. One police officer thinking he can shoot someone and will be absolved.


With more military equipment and training being provided, more battle hardened ex-military being recruited, the problem is being exacerbated. In the military, you see an armed threat, you kill it. That isn't the polices job. The police are supposed to defuse and arrest and use their guns to protect themselves when fired apon or cornered. In this case, as in many others, this apparently was NOT the case.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Yawn...

That's my bad. I was responding also to the story about the 107 yr old shot by the police and i god forbid made a mistake and posted in the wrong box!

shiver me timbers!

Yeah, that wassss a little too much. Just goes to show you: cops make mistekes ! :uhoh:

 

[Maverick9]

I defended nobody. I said there is no way to know from this article if the shooting was justified or not. That is not a defense. It is a statement of agnosticism. Violence is sometimes the only response and often the legal response. Was this such a situation? I have no idea, nor does any other discerning reader who chooses not to kneejerk out of bigotry/prejudice against cops

If everything the cop did leading up to the shooting was not legal or justified, then there's no way to call the actual killing of the person on his own property justified.

Cop shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have escalated, he should have called for backup, he should have considered the cost of making an individual apprehension and chances of making a mistake. He should have used patience instead of aggression.

It's called 'steamrolling'. Yeah, he might have had a 'cops justification' in the last few seconds. But that's not good enough. A man got killed unnecessarily because of it.

 

[PALO]

If everything the cop did leading up to the shooting was not legal or justified, then there's no way to call the actual killing of the person on his own property justified.

Cop shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have escalated, he should have called for backup, he should have considered the cost of making an individual apprehension and chances of making a mistake. He should have used patience instead of aggression.

It's called 'steamrolling'. Yeah, he might have had a 'cops justification' in the last few seconds. But that's not good enough. A man got killed unnecessarily because of it.

First of all , it has hardly been established tha "everything" the cop did leading up to the shooting was not legal or justified. That aside, depending on jurisdictional case law, in many cases where a cop DOES stuff unjustified (like makes an arrest w/o PC), the person is still legally prohibited from resisting and if they resisted with deadly force, the cop WOULD be legally justified in shooting. That's not opinion. That's fact. All of your protestations are what is called "20/20 hindsight" and also are a results based vs. a process based analysis, which is always problematic and is never properly used in UOF detterminations and I say that as somebody who has testified on deadly force in inquests and taught aspects of deadly force law to literally hundreds of trainees on the range.

It's easy in hindsight to say cop shouldn't have done x, y, or z. I see nowhere NEAR enough critical info in the media articles to determine whether the shooting was justified or not. I remain agnostic.

 

[HandyHamlet]

That's not opinion. That's fact.

Cite please per forum rules.