Sterling Costco Shooting ruled justified

[marshaul]

We don't hire cops to run away. I'll leave that to unarmed French cops responding to murderous Islamic terrorists. I don't want cops "advancing to kill" any more than you do. But I want them to protect innocent life first, and then protect the life of the criminal or mentally ill person if possible.

I, for one, am perfectly willing to discuss the OP in good faith. It's difficult however, because (despite your claims of being here to have meaningful discussions) your only on-topic contributions are designed to simply divert the discussion in your favor.

For instance, the above false dilemma. Nobody has said the cops should "run away". It's been suggested that they might clear the area and create a perimeter while nonlethal options are pursued, but this is hardly "running away". The options which have been proposed are fully compatible with your stated desire for cops to "protect innocent life first, and then protect the life of the criminal or mentally ill person if possible."

Nobody has said these cops should be prosecuted, only that situations like these could be handled better than this one was, given better training and policies. And despite all this, you haven't offered a direct and persuasive rebuttal, choosing instead to offer consistent yet nebulous disagreement, which is ultimately undirected and amounts to what can only be described as apologia.

I might deign to respond again anybody has anything meaningful to say in response to this. No fallacious crap, no puerile back-and-forth sniping. Just meat.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You're like a couple of kids!

How I wish I was a kid again, but I agree with you, it has got to the point it is truly fruitless.

 

[utbagpiper]

Passive is not a tantrum, note the word passive. Tantrums and passive aggressive are two different behaviors, though they are usually traits of a narcissist, as well as self glorifying(god syndrome)...:lol:

I will defer to your personal expertise and experience, my brother.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

I will defer to your personal expertise and experience, my brother.

Charles

Actually I think you have a wider concept of it.

[video=youtube;Q2l4bz1FT8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2l4bz1FT8U[/video]

 

[Primus]

I, for one, am perfectly willing to discuss the OP in good faith. It's difficult however, because (despite your claims of being here to have meaningful discussions) your only on-topic contributions are designed to simply divert the discussion in your favor.

For instance, the above false dilemma. Nobody has said the cops should "run away". It's been suggested that they might clear the area and create a perimeter while nonlethal options are pursued, but this is hardly "running away". The options which have been proposed are fully compatible with your stated desire for cops to "protect innocent life first, and then protect the life of the criminal or mentally ill person if possible."

Nobody has said these cops should be prosecuted, only that situations like these could be handled better than this one was, given better training and policies. And despite all this, you haven't offered a direct and persuasive rebuttal, choosing instead to offer consistent yet nebulous disagreement, which is ultimately undirected and amounts to what can only be described as apologia.

I might deign to respond again anybody has anything meaningful to say in response to this. No fallacious crap, no puerile back-and-forth sniping. Just meat.

I love you marshaul.

Can you respond to that? [emoji39]

 

[utbagpiper]

It's been suggested that they might clear the area and create a perimeter while nonlethal options are pursued, but this is hardly "running away". The options which have been proposed are fully compatible with your stated desire for cops to "protect innocent life first, and then protect the life of the criminal or mentally ill person if possible."

Fully agreed that these are noble and worthwhile options to pursue when possible. Has there been any serious disagreement on this front? I've posted at least once that I'll praise the cops who manage to handle such a case without any loss of life or injury at all. Yet for this, some choose to mock or attack me?

My concerns have been with absolutist statements about the cops being wrong in this case when I don't think there is sufficient evidence available to us to make that determination. If a private citizen acted in claimed self defense, we'd give the benefit of the doubt. I simply give that same benefit of the doubt to police in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

If the desire is to use this, or any other case, as a springboard to a general discussion, that could be very fruitful. Some may have even intended that. But in far too many posts I see conclusions ("no doubt") about this case specifically.

Nobody has said these cops should be prosecuted, only that situations like these could be handled better than this one was, given better training and policies. And despite all this, you haven't offered a direct and persuasive rebuttal, choosing instead to offer consistent yet nebulous disagreement, which is ultimately undirected and amounts to what can only be described as apologia.

Why should I rebut what I largely agree with. By all means, let's provide better training to cops; recognizing that training will come at a certain cost to taxpayers.

We could even discuss whether it really makes sense to hold cops to the same (or higher) standard as private citizens. Ironically, those who say that the most often seem to be the least likely to extend the same benefit of the doubt.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Nobody has said these cops should be prosecuted, only that situations like these could be handled better than this one was, given better training and policies. And despite all this, you haven't offered a direct and persuasive rebuttal, choosing instead to offer consistent yet nebulous disagreement, which is ultimately undirected and amounts to what can only be described as apologia.

Marshaul,

For kicks, play something out in your mind for a few minutes. Let's pretend these weren't cops, but were private citizens either attempting to protect innocent third parties from the same mentally ill person with knives in a store or perhaps even engaged in home defense against an invader. Private citizen shoots and kills aggressor. All indication is it is a legally justified shoot.

How does that thread go around here? Maybe something like this:

"Legal shoot. Real shame they have to live with that forever. What might they have done differently to avoid having to use deadly force...."

And how does that tone compare to what you've read on this thread? Honestly?

If 5 guys are going to endless pile on cops, maybe you need a devil's advocate to provoke some thought beyond, "They have qualified immunity and so give no thought to how to avoid killing people." "+1" "+1" "I agree and will bash cops some more, heh, heh."

It isn't cop apologetics. It is recognizing some unpleasant political realities. If cops get crucified for shooting someone who "only" had a knife, or for shooting the "unarmed 'kid'" who happens to be a strapping 17 year old athlete who had 6 inches and 100 pounds of muscle on the cop, what do you think happens to the private citizen who shoots under similar circumstances? Maybe it would be nice if when you're forced to defend yourself, the risk of jail or bankruptcy trying to avoid jail were to be reduced.

Right now the whole country including the media is piling on cops for most uses of deadly force no matter how justified. As uncomfortable as this fact may be to some of us here, police officers are part of the gun owning, gun carrying community. They may not often stand with us in defense of RKBA. Often, the high ranking visibly oppose us. And for too frequently the street cop at least hassle us or outright infringe our rights. But if we think an unreasonably high standard (legal or social) can be set for how cops defend themselves and third parties without affecting the standards to which we will be held, then we learned nothing of the divide and conquer tactics of the 60s to 90s.

Food for thought for those willing to read and think.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Actually I think you have a wider concept of it.

A lovely self portrait of the guy who "has what it takes" to shoot as a private citizen, and everything needed not to shoot as a cop.

You look good my brother wolf.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

Marshaul,

For kicks, play something out in your mind for a few minutes. Let's pretend these weren't cops, but were private citizens either attempting to protect innocent third parties from the same mentally ill person with knives in a store or perhaps even engaged in home defense against an invader. Private citizen shoots and kills aggressor. All indication is it is a legally justified shoot.

How does that thread go around here? Maybe something like this:

"Legal shoot. Real shame they have to live with that forever. What might they have done differently to avoid having to use deadly force...."

And how does that tone compare to what you've read on this thread? Honestly?

If 5 guys are going to endless pile on cops, maybe you need a devil's advocate to provoke some thought beyond, "They have qualified immunity and so give no thought to how to avoid killing people." "+1" "+1" "I agree and will bash cops some more, heh, heh."

It isn't cop apologetics. It is recognizing some unpleasant political realities. If cops get crucified for shooting someone who "only" had a knife, or for shooting the "unarmed 'kid'" who happens to be a strapping 17 year old athlete who had 6 inches and 100 pounds of muscle on the cop, what do you think happens to the private citizen who shoots under similar circumstances? Maybe it would be nice if when you're forced to defend yourself, the risk of jail or bankruptcy trying to avoid jail were to be reduced.

Right now the whole country including the media is piling on cops for most uses of deadly force no matter how justified. As uncomfortable as this fact may be to some of us here, police officers are part of the gun owning, gun carrying community. They may not often stand with us in defense of RKBA. Often, the high ranking visibly oppose us. And for too frequently the street cop at least hassle us or outright infringe our rights. But if we think an unreasonably high standard (legal or social) can be set for how cops defend themselves and third parties without affecting the standards to which we will be held, then we learned nothing of the divide and conquer tactics of the 60s to 90s.

Food for thought for those willing to read and think.

Because, again, you're trying to divert the argument to your red herring about the legality of the shoot. I don't care about the legality, in this instance. I'm concerned with the policies and tactics, at least for the time being.

As I already pointed out, citizens could indeed have shot this woman, resolved the situation, and it would have been presumably legal. Same goes for the cops. But, it seems to me and I should imagine most folks overall, the whole point of police (if indeed there is to be any) is to be able to provide the professional capacity to implement minimum-disruption solutions to a large variety of encounters involving force/aggression (or the threat thereof).

There is indeed a "piling on" by the media with regard to deadly force incidents by cops. Frankly, I think this is entirely appropriate, although I would stress that this should be directed towards providing cops with the tools and incentives needed to minimize their use of deadly force (even when justified), and not directed towards undermining the strong and proper self-defense rights enjoyed by (most) citizens. I don't think this is at all unfeasible, and a necessary part of that is for the RKBA community (on forums like this one) agreeing, as far as is possible, to insist on framing the issue this way whenever we are part of the discussion.

 

[The Truth]

What the hell does what a citizen would do in this situation have to do with what actually happened, and the fact that police are an entirely different class of people with entirely different rules of engagement? No, I'm not going to humor such pointless diversions.

 

[utbagpiper]

Because, again, you're trying to divert the argument to your red herring about the legality of the shoot. I don't care about the legality, in this instance. I'm concerned with the policies and tactics, at least for the time being.

Not the legality of the shooting. And I'm not questioning the value of non-violent resolution and training to that end. My concern is the tone. It is great to call for additional training. Also good to read some thoughts on how to resolve a situation with less than lethal force. But the tone can be one of piling on cops and the whole system under the guise of wanting better/different training, or it can be one of recognizing some sad realities while encouraging better/different training.

There is a difference between cops being "stupid" and cops simply not being trained to take the necessary time to resolve a situation peacefully so long as innocent third parties and the cops are not at risk.

And I'm fully on board with your thesis of better training to eliminate available deaths.

We've had far too many news stories locally of SWAT Teams showing up to "handle" a distraught or suicidal person who doesn't want to come out of their home. Under the premise that the guy has or may have guns they tend to burst in far too quickly, IMO, with the result being the suicidal person gets to commit suicide by cop. This befuddles, distresses, and outrages me.

How much danger does a suicidal guy pose to anyone, even if he has a hunting rifle, so long as he is inside his own home and hasn't expressed some overt desire to harm the neighbors? Seems to me the proper response is one or two officers parked down the street and a counselor on the phone with the guy, not a SWAT team busting in the door. Lacking hostages or some evidence the guy wants to and is capable of causing harm to others, the SWAT team is the wrong tool.

There is indeed a "piling on" by the media with regard to deadly force incidents by cops. Frankly, I think this is entirely appropriate, although I would stress that this should be directed towards providing cops with the tools and incentives needed to minimize their use of deadly force (even when justified), and not directed towards undermining the strong and proper self-defense rights enjoyed by (most) citizens. I don't think this is at all unfeasible, and a necessary part of that is for the RKBA community (on forums like this one) agreeing, as far as is possible, to insist on framing the issue this way whenever we are part of the discussion.

The media and a few self-proclaimed minority/civil-rights "leaders" are piling on even in cases where non-lethal means to resolve the situation seem mostly out of grips. Could the Ferguson cop have avoided his situation? Likely. George Zimmerman? Certainly. But once it got to the point of a large man pounding on the victim, non-violent resolution is largely out of reach. When the media or anyone else screams "excessive force" in such cases, it is a lot like the boy who cried wolf.

And every time the media piles on cops for shooting an "unarmed" "kid" I cringe. That same language was used against private citizen Zimmerman. Past evidence suggests to me that the standard the media wishes to impose on cops will get applied to us as well.

And that should give us pause into both our message and tone. We want cops trained to protect the life of the aggressor whenever possible. We agree. Do we want them held to some legal standard to do that or simply via training to make the last resort happen later (not at all if something else works)?

What legal standard do we want applied to ourselves? The arguments against "stand your ground" are not all that dissimilar sounding (to the average voter/legislator) than some of the things we are saying here about cops using deadly force too quickly even though they are legally justified in doing so.

If you CAN safely retreat, shouldn't you? I say sure, that is the prudent thing to do. But I don't want a legal requirement to have to show I did, or wasn't able to in order for a self-defense use of my firearm to be legally permitted. I don't want a cultural or community standard requiring that even if the law technically allows me to stand my ground. If I wasn't the aggressor and had a legal right to be where I was, that is all the law (criminal or civil) and the jury should look at. It is all we in the gun community should demand of others even as there is great prudence in adhering to a higher standard personally so as to avoid any and every shooting we possibly can.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

What the hell does what a citizen would do in this situation have to do with what actually happened, and the fact that police are an entirely different class of people with entirely different rules of engagement? No, I'm not going to humor such pointless diversions.

You might consider that the exact same "unarmed 'kid'" language used against the cop in Ferguson was used against private citizen George Zimmer in Florida.

Whatever we in the gun community may think the difference are between cops and ourselves, there are segments of the media and perhaps the public at large who don't see much difference when it comes to a deceased person who, upon his passing has his entire violent criminal past magically transformed into choir boy purity.

You see a diversion from today's chance to bash on cops. I see a future problem emerging where we get held to unreasonably high legal or social standards for use of deadly force based on cops getting held to some unreasonably high standards. I'm not saying we don't need to change standards for cops. I'm just saying if think carefully about what you demand lest you find yourself hanged with the same noose you tied for another.

Charles

 

[The Truth]

You see a diversion from today's chance to bash on cops.

I'm really not interested in your personal opinion of me or your mindless assumptions and attempts to discredit people who think differently than you with fallacy arguments and red herrings. It says a lot about your character, and it's an all too common theme in your ramblings.

 

[The Truth]

On this we are fully agreed. I come to read on RKBA and OC and have to wade through a ton of cop bashing, anarchy promotions, and tin foil hat gold fringe on the flag on the courtroom conspiracy stuff to get a few useful nuggets about cases or bills actually involving the subject of this forum.

Charles

Here's a late post to address your reply...

You can't hide from reality.

 

[peter nap]

Here's a late post to address your reply...

You can't hide from reality.

Reality and Charles have yet to get together. I assume playing a bagpipe and tooting ones own horn leave little time for the required Virginia reality check.

 

[wrearick]

nobody asked but here is my take on the OP.....

I still have faith in man (in general) (vice absolute)
I still have faith in our court system (in general)
I still will give an officer the benefit of the doubt. I am not going to cloud the discussion with "it could have happened like this...." I don't have to think too hard to come up with a couple of sequence of events that would have led to having to resort to shooting the woman.

The press is always the press and one of the things we learned from the case in Ferguson(or should have learned, and maybe even lectured others on) was what gets reported in the papers is the most sensational story and often contains very little of the truth or relevant facts. I for one am not willing to second guess the actions of police officers who regularly put their life on the line for others. I know they don't have a responsibility in some cases but there are plenty out there who still do it without a second thought. I can't provide a cite but I am convinced that while there may have been some police officers in the twin towers at the time the attacks occurred, the number that died that day showed that many more went into the building in the face of danger.

Back to COSTCO....I wasn't there and there is no clear video of the event so let's let the investigation run it's course, oh wait it has, and it was ruled justified. We don't have to like it and can play woulda coulda shoulda all day. There are a lot of folks that don't like/accept the finding of the grand jury in Ferguson but I accept the decision. I don't think anyone can equate that grand jury to some of the ones that didn't do their duty properly back in the days when the KKK was rampaging and getting away with murder.

 

[peter nap]

nobody asked but here is my take on the OP.....

I still have faith in man (in general) (vice absolute)
I still have faith in our court system (in general)
I still will give an officer the benefit of the doubt. I am not going to cloud the discussion with "it could have happened like this...." I don't have to think too hard to come up with a couple of sequence of events that would have led to having to resort to shooting the woman.

The press is always the press and one of the things we learned from the case in Ferguson(or should have learned, and maybe even lectured others on) was what gets reported in the papers is the most sensational story and often contains very little of the truth or relevant facts. I for one am not willing to second guess the actions of police officers who regularly put their life on the line for others. I know they don't have a responsibility in some cases but there are plenty out there who still do it without a second thought. I can't provide a cite but I am convinced that while there may have been some police officers in the twin towers at the time the attacks occurred, the number that died that day showed that many more went into the building in the face of danger.

Back to COSTCO....I wasn't there and there is no clear video of the event so let's let the investigation run it's course, oh wait it has, and it was ruled justified. We don't have to like it and can play woulda coulda shoulda all day. There are a lot of folks that don't like/accept the finding of the grand jury in Ferguson but I accept the decision. I don't think anyone can equate that grand jury to some of the ones that didn't do their duty properly back in the days when the KKK was rampaging and getting away with murder.

While I don't necessarily go along with all that, I've found from long exposure to some of the more rational members here, User Grapeshot Skidmark and I'll include you...that there are many sides to everything and as you said,I wasn't there.

 

[OC for ME]

...I for one am not willing to second guess the actions of police officers who regularly put their life on the line for others. I know they don't have a responsibility in some cases but there are plenty out there who still do it without a second thought. ...

+1

Yet, in our country, I like to think, the acts that are taken by state agents must be held up to close scrutiny...at every turn. Cops must have a benefit of a doubt, but I will not give then the benefit of the doubt arbitrarily. Investigations must run there course, but how long must we stay on that course before we realize we are off course.

The courts have proven that a redress of wrongs, via a dollar sign, results in very little redress in reality. How well does it sit that a dollar amount is placed on the deprivations inflicted upon you, by the state, and that dollar amount is a proper redress of wrongs.

 

[Maverick9]

Back to COSTCO....I wasn't there and there is no clear video of the event so let's let the investigation run it's course, oh wait it has, and it was ruled justified.

Though I've somewhat amended my opinion, consider it like this.

A cop must KNOW when he goes into a scene that anything more threatening than a middle-aged lady JUST STANDING THERE with a pair of scissors and his options are shoot her five times (or HOPE his taser works)

This is just ridiculous on the face of it.

I can not imagine a professional law enforcement officer would be OK with this.

If I KNEW I was so incompetent as a LARGE MAN with TWO OTHER MEN as back up, that a tiny lady would give me no other options than to shoot her FIVE TIMES to stop her, I'd go in with a team of ten other cops in full riot gear to effect a live arrest. Who the H-e-LL wants to have that on their conscience. WHO the heck wants to go back to headquarters and admit they had to shoot a 5' tall lady with a pair of scissors? COME ON.

If that's the best you can do when the heck do you get the message? How many little grannies are you allowed to kill in one career?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Though I've somewhat amended my opinion, consider it like this.

A cop must KNOW when he goes into a scene that anything more threatening than a middle-aged lady JUST STANDING THERE with a pair of scissors and his options are shoot her five times (or HOPE his taser works)

This is just ridiculous on the face of it.

I can not imagine a professional law enforcement officer would be OK with this.

If I KNEW I was so incompetent as a LARGE MAN with TWO OTHER MEN as back up, that a tiny lady would give me no other options than to shoot her FIVE TIMES to stop her, I'd go in with a team of ten other cops in full riot gear to effect a live arrest. Who the H-e-LL wants to have that on their conscience. WHO the heck wants to go back to headquarters and admit they had to shoot a 5' tall lady with a pair of scissors? COME ON.

If that's the best you can do when the heck do you get the message? How many little grannies are you allowed to kill in one career?

I have been in this situation several times, and not once was deadly force used. When there is time there is no need for any injuries by police or the suspect. Whenever there is a call like this the paramedics should be dispatched, often times that includes the fire dept. They have a whole range of tools for control, and apprehension. One of my favorite tools was the fireman's pike pole, which we had in the trunks of our cars for retrieving bodies live or dead from the water. They worked very well to control just about anything except a firearm.

Hell they could have called the dog catcher and s/he would have been better equipped than these guys. Don't these numbskulls even carry a baton in the cruiser any more?

IMO they shot because that is easy, they didn't have to think, or put effort into it. And hey, as long as it is justified, or ruled that way. The question is~~did they reasonably believe they were in imminent danger. I say no, absolutely not.