Sterling Costco Shooting ruled justified

[riverrat10k]

bureaucy is a disease in this country

It appears that folks either do not know, do not understand, or care to disregard how a bureaucracy works.

That does not in any way imply that how a bureaucracy works is good, proper, or even efficient - mostly because with very few exceptions bureaucracies are none of those things. However, it is vital to understand how they work and why they work that way.

Condensed and stated in very simple terms the rules of a bureaucracy are 1) All Hail the Bureaucracy; 2) Avoid Risk at All Costs; and 3) We Will Change Only When you Force Us To Change (see rule #1).

This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycbgHM1mI0k is not how you change a bureaucracy even if it is the preferred solution among posters here on OCDO.

So far the courts are upholding the ways of the bureaucracy because to do otherwise would mean going against decades of precedent. That's not good or right or just - but it is what is happening. Barring some tremendous case it will also be the way things are going to be going forward.

So the beast will not change its spots on its own, and the "traditional" force of change is loath to change the beast's

spots. What to do, what to do?

stay safe.

Heard a wise man say this on Saturday.(inside joke for skid)

 

[FreeInAZ]

Yup. Here is a good example of a take down by LVPD with bean bag ammo. First they disarm him with a well placed shot to the hand wielding the hammer, then one to the torso to take him down. The shots take place at about the 30 second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2KCI_1Zz2g


The best scenario, imo, would be for one leo to have the less than lethal rounds at the ready and the other one to have lethal rounds just in case the perp is on PCP or some other scenario were the perp keeps coming at them.

What I am about to write is horrifying, I know, but I must say it. There seems to be a element in police ranks that wants to kill when it may not be needed. They understand they will be given: time off paid, light duty afterwards for sometime & paid counseling with time off. They also know this may aid them in obtaining a disability claim. Again not all police but some. It is the "some" that should have everyone scared chitless....

Edit to add above video is a fine example of officers using their heads & deploying the "needed" amount of force. Well done officers.

Today officers are being put in the position where they not only enforce the law, but far too often are expected to be mental health experts. This points to HUGE issues in our mental health policies and lack of facilities to help those with mental issues. But that is another can of worms entirely, but linked.

 

[Shovelhead]

Just sayin................. Does not apply to all officers.
But their brothers in blue know who they are.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

OK.

Message received.

You pick a particular behavior to jump up and down about, and then propose to fix that problem by solving all of the ills of society, during which you may actually address that particular behavior.

It has been awe-inspiring to correspond with someone who can eat an elephant in one bite.

But please do send me a PM when your all-or-nothing, from the top down approach works.

stay safe.

You are funny. You accuse me of exactly the same thing you are doing. An old dog can't change his spots. imo the solution is the next generation of leaders. Yours seems to be changing the minds of the constituency or the elected officials making the shot to kill policy and the immunity to prevent prosecution for manslaughter, or unjustified homicide or whatever other cop out for murder you can think of. Pun intended.

For the record my proposal involves taking million of bites. The youth. I am talking big picture here. Not tunnel vision. Maybe my reasoning is just too simple for the high IQ types?

Top down approach? Hardly. Completely opposite.

I will follow suit with an invitation to communicate via pm when your plan is formulated, implemented, and executed.

Staying safe usually accomplishes little. It takes guts and risk sometimes.

stay frosty

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

What I am about to write is horrifying, I know, but I must say it. There seems to be a element in police ranks that wants to kill when it may not be needed. They understand they will be given: time off paid, light duty afterwards for sometime & paid counseling with time off. They also know this may aid them in obtaining a disability claim. Again not all police but some. It is the "some" that should have everyone scared chitless....

Edit to add above video is a fine example of officers using their heads & deploying the "needed" amount of force. Well done officers.

Today officers are being put in the position where they not only enforce the law, but far too often are expected to be mental health experts. This points to HUGE issues in our mental health policies and lack of facilities to help those with mental issues. But that is another can of worms entirely, but linked.

Rules of Engagement need to change and immunity eliminated forthwith.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

It appears that folks either do not know, do not understand, or care to disregard how a bureaucracy works.

That does not in any way imply that how a bureaucracy works is good, proper, or even efficient - mostly because with very few exceptions bureaucracies are none of those things. However, it is vital to understand how they work and why they work that way.

Condensed and stated in very simple terms the rules of a bureaucracy are 1) All Hail the Bureaucracy; 2) Avoid Risk at All Costs; and 3) We Will Change Only When you Force Us To Change (see rule #1).

This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycbgHM1mI0k is not how you change a bureaucracy even if it is the preferred solution among posters here on OCDO.

So far the courts are upholding the ways of the bureaucracy because to do otherwise would mean going against decades of precedent. That's not good or right or just - but it is what is happening. Barring some tremendous case it will also be the way things are going to be going forward.

So the beast will not change its spots on its own, and the "traditional" force of change is loath to change the beast's spots. What to do, what to do?

stay safe.

And here you state the problems, no solution, and admit you don't know what to do.

Here are a couple bites you can start with if you don't have any better ideas:

Try getting those in charge to change the rules of engagement and eliminate immunity for cops.

Let us know how it works out changing the bureaucracy.

stay frosty

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

This thread is no longer recognizable as the original content header. Vote to close.

I disagree. Maybe try to apply what is being said to the context of the OP, and an attempt to find a solution to the problem. if one want to stay mired in the problem, that is ones choice. Some folks see a problem as an unresolved opportunity, and try to see how it might be resolved. We are all wired differently and have different approaches.

 

[skidmark]

And here you state the problems, no solution, and admit you don't know what to do.

Here are a couple bites you can start with if you don't have any better ideas:

Try getting those in charge to change the rules of engagement and eliminate immunity for cops.

Let us know how it works out changing the bureaucracy.

stay frosty

Could have sworn I did just those things:

I have no idea if I am better educated than you. Where (and when) did you go to school? What were your majors? Who were your professors? What were your grades? Do you have the same problems applying the theoretical and practical constructs of your education major(s) - be they intergalactic physics or driving a forklift or pushing a broom - to your day job as you appear to have resolving a local administrative/policy issue?

There are times when I am convinced that I am in fact magnitudes smater than you - at least in a "street smarts" sense. "Street smarts" identifies the problem in its smallest component and attacks it there - whether it is dealing with a schoolyard bully (punch him in the snoot rather than wait for the anti-bullying policy to actually effect the thinking and behavior of those that would be bullies) or changing the rules of when/why cops can shoot people. Draining the swamp may be a glorious objective but often you have to do that by working backwards from the individual alligator that has latched onto your backside.

Continuum of Force is a local policy/procedure issue, controlled ultimately by the head cop. Sherrifs are easier to deal with than Chiefs of Police as they stand for election. Get yourself a candidate and run them against the inncumbent. Once they are in they write a new Continuum of Force policy.

Chiefs of Police are hired, usually by some top administrative weeny that answers to the local government unit (City Council/Board of Supervisors). Get yourself some candidates and run them against the incumbents. Once they are elected they vote "No Confidence" against the current Chief and give the administrative weeny a list of characteristics they insist on for the replacement. Once the new Chief is in they write a new Continuum of Force policy.

It may take a few election cycles but certainly not the multitudes of generations you say your plans will need just to get to the point where influence on Continuum of Force and begin to trickle down to the local level.

stay safe.

BTW - changing a bureaucracy is easy - the difficulty is only in getting one to change itself.

As has been noted, our disagreement is on whether to address the issue as a separate practice or as a systemic social issue. There is little possibility of either of us changing our positions. I do wish you well in your endeavors to change society as a whole.

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

What part of "justified...move along now," do some folks not get? Even if it were found to not have been justified the consequences applied to the relevant parties would be minimal...at best. All "we" can do is hope we are not the one getting shot by a wayward cop...the dead gain no redress.

 

[crazydude6030]

Sounds like the little Asian girl was acting out in all sorts of unpredictable ways. We all have to be held accountable for our own actions and from what i can tell she is the one who provoked the need for cops in the first place. It would be another story if she was in target checking out steak knives and gunned down.

I don't have a problem with what the cops did and I think all this Monday morning qb stuff taking place is easier said after the fact and honestly somewhat a waste of time. I am shocked this thread has lasted as long as it has.

I'm pretty sure i'll get beaten over that but that's my 2 cents.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Sounds like the little Asian girl was acting out in all sorts of unpredictable ways. We all have to be held accountable for our own actions and from what i can tell she is the one who provoked the need for cops in the first place. It would be another story if she was in target checking out steak knives and gunned down.

I don't have a problem with what the cops did and I think all this Monday morning qb stuff taking place is easier said after the fact and honestly somewhat a waste of time. I am shocked this thread has lasted as long as it has.

I'm pretty sure i'll get beaten over that but that's my 2 cents.

I got news for you but that is what court is about, Monday morning quarterbacking. News is mostly the same. So you would suggest we just bury our heads in the sand, and trust the state, no matter what they do. Pray your loved one does not ever run into a problem, if so just KYBMS.

 

[crazydude6030]

I got news for you but that is what court is about, Monday morning quarterbacking. News is mostly the same. So you would suggest we just bury our heads in the sand, and trust the state, no matter what they do. Pray your loved one does not ever run into a problem, if so just KYBMS.

Oh please don't ever bother talking at me like i am some spoiled kid. If your all hurt about what i said then so be it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Oh please don't ever bother talking at me like i am some spoiled kid. If your all hurt about what i said then so be it.

I am not hurt in the least bit, but it seems you do not care unless it affects you personally. PLUS you try to silence the public for giving their opinion, on a matter that they pay tax dollars for and it is a public matter. If your post is to be taken seriously there would be NO citizen oversight and we would be property of the state, with all information, and opinions controlled by the state. I believe they call that communism. If that gives you hemorrhoids then so be it.

 

[marshaul]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate just to see if anybody can get past their anti-cop anti-shoot bias and provide a response that stays on track and is not laden with feewings (sic).

Let's suppose that the responding cops decided that firearms against a 5-foot/5-foot one-ish little Oriental lady should not be the first or only choice but the action of last resort. They try the trusty TASER (Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle - you should go read it) and it does not incapacitate her. They get the brilliant idea of ramming her up against a wall/display shelf with a shopping cart, or run to housewares to grab a rug/blanket/bath sheet to swarm & smother her.

They ram her with the shopping cart and because she is such a bitty thing she takes it full in the chest, suffering a punctured lung if not her sternum puncturing her heart. She - or her heirs and assigns if she dies - sues the bejabbers out of the cop(s) and because ramming with a shopping cart is not in the continuum of force it is ruled grossly or wantonly negligent. They lose qualified immunity. What does that tell every cop and every cop-trainer?

They run at her while holding the corners of whatever it is they are planning to take her down and wrap her up with. She hits the corner of a display shelf on the way down, or bounces her head on the floor and ends up paralyzed (you pick how badly). Her family sues for the millions it will take to care for her the rest of her life, plus billions in pain and suffering and punitive damages. Smothering the allegedly emotionally disturbed is not in the conntinuum of force and is considered grossly or wantonly negligent. They lose qualified immunity. What does that tell every cop and cop-trainer?

More importantly - what happens to your cries for alternatives to using deadly force?

I vote Bear Mace.

[video=youtube;IVK8dQAHGG4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVK8dQAHGG4[/video]

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

I vote Bear Mace.

+1

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

BTW - changing a bureaucracy is easy - the difficulty is only in getting one to change itself.

I am glad it is easy. For expediency, it would suggest changing it. Especially the part that allows each new top cop to write his own rules. That is insane. He/she does not own the department he/she has been entrusted/hired to run. The people do, and since the people bear the brunt of abuse, the people should decide if bear spray, bean bag rounds, tranquilizer darts should be used instead of bullets.

I do wish you well in your endeavors to change society as a whole.

stay safe.

To be clear, I have no intention to change society as a whole. Impossible, imo. I intend to educate my children. All parents/guardians have that responsibility, instead of turning that responsibility over to the state.

stay frosty

 

[utbagpiper]

Let me put it simply, she met the level of deadly force so deadly force was used.

It is a shame a person values their own life so little as to put themselves into that position. It sounds like some on-going, probably untreated mental illness given the history of domestic calls and the text messages about satan. Sad that she was walking the streets unsupervised rather than having someway to receive the mental health treatment she needed.

Of course, how such a person gets needed treatment in a libertarian/anarchist society would be an interesting if uncomfortable discussion for those who hate government. Personally, I'm a huge fan of private charity, but also recognize that some government run (ie taxpayer funded) welfare is probably needed in a civil society.

Long gone are the days when police actually tried to find a solution without harming someone.

Sounds like the cops tried to use their taser and it failed. Sounds like before that, co-workers had tried to calm the woman. It appears that the officers attempted to talk to her, though for how long I don't know. A friend of mine who is a police officer has told me how talented he is at getting compliance with verbal requests and that reaching for either his taser or his gun are very last resorts. Another friend who works as a probation/parole officer has related a similar sentiment while also noting the somewhat unique "needs" of many who are "in the system". In my interactions with street cops while OCing I've never gotten any sense of any desire to use force if it is not needed.

That all said, I wonder if the rate of cops being faced with deadly force has increased in the last few decades. Or if their use of deadly force in such cases has actually increased, or whether we are simply getting more coverage of such incidents thanks to the combination of the 24 hour news cycle and nearly ubiquitous cell phone video cameras.

I'm sincere in this query. Do you or does anyone else have any stats on any of these things? Would such stats even have been kept 20 or more years ago?

How are the rates of mental illness among those walking the streets compared to the days before we closed down our mental facilities and turned a bunch of folks loose in the late 70s?

Even when shooting them is justified. The deputy is not guilty of a crime, but our society is guilty of lack of empathy for our fellow human beings. This is not just a police problem, it is a society problem, people would rather solve their problems with violence instead of reason.

It is a social problem. Why even on this site I've seen someone be so lacking in empathy as to strongly criticize a private citizen for not having what it takes to pull the trigger when he was, demonstrably, able to resolve a situation without pulling the trigger. How ironic (a nicer word that hypocritical) for that very same person to turn around and criticize the cops for using deadly force when their attempt at a Taser failed to subdue a violent and erratic person threatening them with a deadly weapon.

Of course, the same folks who will criticize the cops for a legally justified shoot, would cut them how much slack if they waited too long to act and some innocent person was injured? Or would such critics suddenly find a lack of empathy for innocent bystanders who were not prepared to use deadly force themselves? Ironies all around.

Again, I'm saddened that a woman was killed. I would be even more saddened were an innocent person injured by the criminal/ill person wielding the weapons.

I will add this, there are very few deadly force incidents in Britain, if the winds of politics and emotions change the police could lose their guns forever.

Making such a comparison to England is no more useful on this side than it is when the gun grabbers point out that England has far fewer gun crimes and murders/suicides committed with guns thanks to their strict gun laws. "If the winds of politics and emotion change, the US public could lose their guns forever."

Perhaps if we could limit anti-cop criticism to unjustified cases that criticism would carry a little more weight. Something about the boy who cried wolf comes to mind here. When "Black Lives Matter" after a criminal thug assaults a cop, or beats a private citizen's head into the ground, a lot of folks have a hard time taking seriously claims that police are over-reacting.

As I've written here previously, show me cases of unjustified use of force (including the vast majority of forced home entries by police), and I'll join in the chorus of criticism of the police.

But if I'm confronted by someone acting nuts and wielding edged or pointed weapons and escape is not a viable option, I'm going to end the threat. As it happens, the Tueller drill demonstrating the risk of a knife inside about 21 feet was done by Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department and published in SWAT magazine in 1983. Having the gun in hand, rather than in the holster reduces the size of the danger zone, but does not eliminate it. I won't expect cops (whose job description is not to run away from such threats but to isolate and/or eliminate them before innocent persons get hurt or killed) to behave materially differently. If a cop can end such a threat without use of deadly force, I'll praise him. But I won't condemn the cop who uses deadly force when legally justified any more than I'd want to see a private citizen criticized for using deadly force when he is legally justified in doing so.

There are some very legitimate issues that need to be addressed regarding current police practices and government intrusion into our lives' generally. Criticizing and second guessing cops for using deadly force when its use is legally justified undermines legitimate criticism IMO.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

Of course, how such a person gets needed treatment in a libertarian/anarchist society would be an interesting if uncomfortable discussion for those who hate government. Personally, I'm a huge fan of private charity, but also recognize that some government run (ie taxpayer funded) welfare is probably needed in a civil society.

Because the present method of shooting them is so admirable. :lol:

It wouldn't take much to improve on the present state of affairs. The inevitable reduction in care costs which would result from abolition of bloated and counterproductive regulatory bureaucracies should make it easy on charities, and with non-existent taxes for the middle- and lower-income echelons of society I would expect to see more folks actually able to contribute to charity than ever before. Of course, the incentive is ample because everybody knows somebody with mental health issues, and without a largely-fictitious government-provided "safety net" we would be less inclined to pretend the issue didn't exist.

Really, the statists should be the ones finding this issue "uncomfortable", given how badly government intervention has mangled every aspect of health care in the last half-century or so.

 

[marshaul]

But if I'm confronted by someone acting nuts and wielding edged or pointed weapons and escape is not a viable option, I'm going to end the threat. As it happens, the Tueller drill demonstrating the risk of a knife inside about 21 feet was done by Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department and published in SWAT magazine in 1983. Having the gun in hand, rather than in the holster reduces the size of the danger zone, but does not eliminate it. I won't expect cops (whose job description is not to run away from such threats but to isolate and/or eliminate them before innocent persons get hurt or killed) to behave materially differently. If a cop can end such a threat without use of deadly force, I'll praise him. But I won't condemn the cop who uses deadly force when legally justified any more than I'd want to see a private citizen criticized for using deadly force when he is legally justified in doing so.

I won't speak for others, but for myself this is nothing more than a straw man. I tend to avoid "criticizing" individual officers for use of force when it is, indeed, justified. But individual "justification" is hardly the point. What most of would like to see is reform of training and practices, so that the police might once again serve some fathomable function in a stable society.

Nobody would bat an eye if the manager had to shoot this woman in self-defense. And, indeed, if shooting her is the best solution we can envision, one wonders how paying the state to do this is preferable to the manager "cutting out the middleman" (so to speak).

No, folks don't call the police because they assume the police will do what they could have done themselves. They figure a squad of professionals accustomed to physical altercation might bring with them a toolbox encompassing means beyond the last-resort.

In other words, I'm pretty sure this is not a recording of that manager to the police dispatcher:

[video=youtube;F5zboV3_9KY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zboV3_9KY[/video]

Given how thoughtless and easily dismantled your "argument" was, I'm going to chalk one in the "reflexive apologia" column.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Because the present method of shooting them is so admirable. :lol:

It wouldn't take much to improve on the present state of affairs. The inevitable reduction in care costs which would result from abolition of bloated and counterproductive regulatory bureaucracies should make it easy on charities, and with non-existent taxes for the middle- and lower-income echelons of society I would expect to see more folks actually able to contribute to charity than ever before. Of course, the incentive is ample because everybody knows somebody with mental health issues, and without a largely-fictitious government-provided "safety net" we would be less inclined to pretend the issue didn't exist.

Really, the statists should be the ones finding this issue "uncomfortable", given how badly government intervention has mangled every aspect of health care in the last half-century or so.

Statists prefer we just keep our mouths shut and don't make waves for the state. So what if she could have been taken to a hospital safely, they were legally justified, that makes it moral in their thoughts.