Cell Phone Video Emerges That Refutes St. Louis Cops Version of Shooting

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

If I've got to strike a person with the baton, I've lost all advantage. The baton is best used as a leverage multiplier. I can use it to immobilize or break the arm. Further, disarming the perpetrator is my main goal, aside from staying alive, is it not?

Striking with a baton is a last ditch effort, IMO. It's not a pugil stick.

However, if I have to strike the assailant, base of the wrist is good, so is just above or below the elbow. Whereever there are a great amound of nerves bunched together.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Like I said I am out of this thread but I didn't want to leave you hanging.

Using a baton to break bones is considered deadly force.

What happens when the officer misses the strike and is then stabbed?

originally posted by: JamesCookieIII

This is a textbook example of why I think we oughta defund the military-industrial complex.

Opinions on the situation, and the implications of this new video?

This is a textbook example of what many refer to as cop-assisted suicide. The victim was obviously hiding the knife in his hoody pocket, and was immediately hostile to the police after he seems to have stolen two cans of something in order to get the police called on him. He was standing there waiting for something, and apparently it was for the cops.

He obviously pulled out the knife, as is evident in hearing the officers tell him to put down the knife, and he instead decided to keep it and head directly toward the officers.

Now, let's set aside the emotion for a minute and utilize constructive thinking. First, an assault does not need to have direct contact take place--even a threatening act, such as aggressively walking toward the officers with a knife in your hand--constitutes an assault. Second, police are legally justified to use lethal force when (a) they are threatened with a deadly weapon, or (b) when the person has committed a felony (which an assault on an officer is).

The people on this site (and the interwebs in general) who always scream about unjust police action are generally (but not always) basing their conclusion on legal ignorance. In the specific case seen in this video, the officers had every right to take down a threat assaulting them with a deadly weapon BEFORE the knife could touch their skin. And if you're going to complain about the amount of rounds fired, keep in mind that there were two (so about twice as many than if it were one) officers, and they are trained to fire until they are certain that the threat is neutralized.

These officers did their job. The guy with the cell phone is lucky the victim wasn't so unstable that he ran him down with the knife and stabbed him to death as he walked by laughing at the victim for brazenly committing a crime. The police are lucky that it was a knife instead of a firearm chambered and ready to go.

Again, I assert my thoughts that this was a scenario where a guy wanted a cop-assisted suicide. Things just look too brazen and planned out (petty theft so cops are called...standing there waiting...acting aggressively and ignoring cop orders) for it to be anything else, imo.

edit on 22-8-2014 by SlapMonkey because: mee know spel gud

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Like I said I am out of this thread but I didn't want to leave you hanging.

Using a baton to break bones is considered deadly force.

What happens when the officer misses the strike and is then stabbed?

You missed the part where I said striking is a last resort. Baton is more effective at being used defensively. Considering the training that most police I know have done, I'd rather face an untrained combatant with a pocketknife than one of them. I've been twisted in more ways than a pretzel by them just casually.

One doesn't need to strike another person to break a bone. Leverage, appropriately applied will do it for you.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

You do have some confusing logic in some of these arguments. A lot of what you use as support for your statements is kinda like a firefighter saying no I will not go into that burning building, I will only fight the fire from out here. You know the risk when taking the job it should be no surprise that things can go bad. But to just say hey this person might do this or that and use that for justifying killing someone in my opinion is wrong. We all want to go home to our families every night and that right does not just apply to you, even the crazies or the depressed. All I ask is that every officer at least tries to use non lethal force as a first option.. Which is not what has been the norm for quite some time now.

I'd be interested in hearing the 911 call. Was there mention of a man acting irrational, crazed or was it a simple theft of two drinks and a pastry? Did the man threaten anyone with a weapon? I'd really like to hear the whole story.

ETA-Found this reference "The owner of the convenience store from which Powell allegedly shoplifted told police he had a weapon, a claim corroborated by the owner of a nearby barber shop who called 911 about Powell, according to 911 calls obtained by St. Louis Public Radio."
[link]http://sotomayortv.com/killercopsatitagain/[/link]

I'm not sure of the reliability of the site or its reporting, but they do raise a good question;

"Lastly, why was his friend laughing joking and recording it but after the man was shot oh now you have an issue with the police? Instead of trying to get youtube views, maybe you could have had a talk with the young man and tried to get him to think about what he was doing?"

I seem to remember when two knife-weilding killers (they'd just brutally hacked a British soldier to death) were approached by British armed response police in London. They took them both into custody ALIVE. The killers RAN AT the police. They shot them. They didn't try to kill them. They used less ammunition.

It can be done. It takes discipline, and training, and a shoot-to-wound policy.

originally posted by: centhwevir1979
a reply to: Nochzwei

My opinion is that the guys filming knew the cops had been called, and you know how everyone loves a good spectacle. Notice the vic didn't have a beef with any body else on the street.

That's not a "vic", it's a "perp". He advanced on police in a threatening manner after being instructed otherwise. I'm ok with cops handling all these situations (regardless of ethnicity) this way. We need more guys like this roaming the community or clogging up prisons to the tune of $60k/yr to the taxpayers? Dispense with all the apologist rhetoric and clean up the streets.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: centhwevir1979
a reply to: Nochzwei

My opinion is that the guys filming knew the cops had been called, and you know how everyone loves a good spectacle. Notice the vic didn't have a beef with any body else on the street.

That's not a "vic", it's a "perp". He advanced on police in a threatening manner after being instructed otherwise. I'm ok with cops handling all these situations (regardless of ethnicity) this way. We need more guys like this roaming the community or clogging up prisons to the tune of $60k/yr to the taxpayers? Dispense with all the apologist rhetoric and clean up the streets.

im sure every officer on the scene that day was carrying a tazer. but they chose to use bullets instead. i understand the need fior force in that situation, but not lethal force.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

There were two cops that had their guns trained on this guy. I can't believe one of them didn't tell the other one, "hey I'm going to try to use pepper spray or tazer him, watch my back. I can understand adrenaline pumping when you're alone face to face with someone holding a knife, but when you have a fellow police officer by your side, I would think calmer minds would prevail to defuse the situation.

How could these cops go home at night knowing they ended a life without trying to subdue their victim in other ways. You would think they would have at least a moral convenience before resorting to the use of their gun and repeatedly shooting this guy dead.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: JamesCookieIII

There were two cops that had their guns trained on this guy. I can't believe one of them didn't tell the other one, "hey I'm going to try to use pepper spray or tazer him, watch my back. I can understand adrenaline pumping when you're alone face to face with someone holding a knife, but when you have a fellow police officer by your side, I would think calmer minds would prevail to defuse the situation.

How could these cops go home at night knowing they ended a life without trying to subdue their victim in other ways. You would think they would have at least a moral convenience before resorting to the use of their gun and repeatedly shooting this guy dead.

exactly. they are cowards and so are people who believe this man's mannerisms justify lethal force or the fact that he might have committed a felony justifies lethal force. the average American commits 3 felonies a day without even realizing it. Just because somebody thinks the legal system has their back doesn't mean that at the end of the day we are not still humans. I have a link for people to show what the proper training for military/police forces should entail.

www.viralnova.com...

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

In a situation like that the police are not there to defend they are there to stop the threat.

a reply to: jaynkeel

Oh so because I knew I was entering a dangerous job I don't have the right to prevent myself from being injured or killed. What about preventing others from being injured or killed.

Or what if they pepper sprayed or tasered the guy and it didn't work. The guy then turns around and charges the camera man or someone else that was there and harms them. Then what.

What ifs might not play a factor in your career field but they absolutely do in law enforcement.

I don't think anything I have said is confusing.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: jaynkeel

Oh so because I knew I was entering a dangerous job I don't have the right to prevent myself from being injured or killed. What about preventing others from being injured or killed.

Or what if they pepper sprayed or tasered the guy and it didn't work. The guy then turns around and charges the camera man or someone else that was there and harms them. Then what.

I don't anything I have said is confusing.

what about rubber bullets in a situation like that?

I think its clear from this video that this person's goal was an altercation with the cops.

He stole the sodas, then set them down on the cub and waited for the cops. If his goal was to steal and get away with it, he had plenty of time to get out of there, but he didn't.

He pulled out a fairly small knife and moved around within view of the cops, but never close enough to strike, yelling "shoot me!"

This guy was either looking for suicide by cop, or was making a statement/protest about how quick the cops are to shoot and kill someone who poses a minor threat.

If his goal was to show the world how trigger happy cops are, I'd say he was successful. There were many other options for the cops, but they chose the easy one. Just kill him and get it over with.

Crazy or not, the person who is now dead was still a person, a human being. He deserved a trial and due process, but was denied because the cops were too "afraid" to do their job.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

Rubber bullets were not designed to be used as a substitute for lethal force.

Rubber bullets can have accuracy issues and are not always effective at stopping a person. Depending on what kind of clothes a person is wearing they may not work at all.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: JamesCookieIII

Rubber bullets were not designed to be used as a substitute for lethal force.

Rubber bullets can have accuracy issues and are not always effective at stopping a person. Depending on what kind of clothes a person is wearing they may not work at all.

okay I think you are lacking a little bit in the reasoning department - they were 10 feet away from him, missing would be quite the task EVEN with rubber bullets. At that range, they would get the message across to him that they were not screwing around. Sigh - you are a murderous person i guess. People like you are why I love my second amendment. I will not consent to your prescribed indoctrination. I'm going to teach my kids to resist cops in EVERY single legal way possible and to ALWAYS record every single transaction between them and law enforcement SECRETLY so that there will be no doubt, and the judge will not be able to side with cops simply because they are "upstanding members of society." Ignorance breeds contempt, but understanding breeds peace. You clearly don't understand the value of a human life - to you, it's just part of the job, an unavoidable problem which officers HAVE to deal with violently. I pity your worldview.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

Wow nice ad hominem attack there. Very mature.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: JamesCookieIII

Wow nice ad hominem attack there. Very mature.

You complain about ad hominem attacks? you are advocating the same thing by saying killing him was the proper decision, and should be socially acceptable. You are right, I DID just ad hominem you - hows it feel? It's what cops do when they profile people, or define them as a perp so they can kill em.

But the real point is that you avoid the ACTUAL alternatives available to them, and still feel that the officers were justified... as stated above, in Britain they subdued TWO knife-wielding suspects at the same time, and justice was served. THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH YOUR PHILOSOPHY IS THAT YOU ARE OKAY WITH MURDER, EVER. If cops manned up and accepted anything short of TOTAL control, they would handle this problem VERY differently.

im not trying to discredit you personally, I am trying to discredit your way of thinking - peace is the only way, and if we can't make up and come to solutions that don't involve murder, there is no point in living in society. civilization is redundant at that point - the only thing that separates us from animals is that we DO NOT kill fellow humans. IF we do, we deteriorate into beasts.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

You have your opinion and I have mine.

That being said since you are second ammendment supporter you better not ever use deadly force against a person advancing towards you or a family member with a knife unless you try less lethal means first. You can buy pepper spray and a taser.

Anything else would be hypocritical.