Police Shoot, Kill Man in San Diego Area; Protesters Gather

originally posted by: dragonlover12
lawofficer.com...


Looking at that picture , I`d have shot too.

The article is very imformative about what happened. Its a sad situation, but I am not seeing the officers as acting in an illegal fashion.

This seems like an obvious suicide by cop situation, not a black thing. From the pic it is pretty evident of his intention. If he did have a mental issue then he may have even thought he had a gun.

In the comments of this facebook video, relating to protesters in area

Brad Ruff Ashlee R Hughes --- first off, I will tell you that I was a SDPD officer for over 23 years. Within that time I have been to quite a few incidents where a taser was drawn and sometimes deployed. Sometimes a gun, or lethal force is also drawn in case increased force is necessary. In this case I'm not sure if both were unholstered. In the Tulsa incident, both were pointed at the subject. Keep in my be that these are two separate incidents and NO two are ever alike. It's hard to watch the video of that incident and come to a conclusion. Mostly because you can't hear what officers are saying. It is very unusual for someone to disregard officers commands to stop...and turn and walk away with your hands in the air. Again, this is just me jumping to conclusions...but if I was there and he was walking back to his car...I would've trazed him at that point. I don't know what is in his car or why he is going back to it. In this incident, again, we don't have all the facts. We don't, as the public, know if one officer held his taser and the other had his gun in hand. Or maybe the closer officer was holding his taser because he was concerned with his safety with the unpredictable subject. He may have pulled his taser as he pleaded for the male to show his hands. The subject might have then quickly pulled out something, pointed it at the officer as if it was a gun in a shooting stance. The closer officer may have deployed his taser in fear for his life, as the other officer, fearing for the life of his partner, pulls his gun and shoots the male to stop the threat. See how easy it is to guess at all of this? I wasn't there myself, and I think that it all may have happened this way. That is what the problem is with jumping to conclusions until the investigation is over. People are all up in arms over transparency. I'm sure video will come. The district attorney is pretty good about this. I'm only giving you my thoughts of what I think of the incidents...having done the job for many years. I challenge anybody to look at a one of my previous posts on this thread and partake in mock use of force scenarios with the SDPD. It is eye opening for the average person that doesn't understand police work.

a reply to: MConnalley

If true, this mans comment is the best non blm monikered comment on the issue ive seen

David Kinlow Dear El Cajon, This is where you #ed up with Alfred Olango:
1. You received 3 calls for assistance. The first call was 50 minutes prior to your response. Based on your OWN triage factors, you determined this individual not to be an imminent threat to safety, and informed the caller (the victim's sister) as such. When your officers finally responded, they immediately treated him as an imminent threat anyway, completely ignoring the fact that if he was that dangerous and armed while being "erratic" they'd have walked into a sea of dead bodies at that point. Logic and critical thinking was not used.
2. On the 911 call, enough information was gathered to know that the victim suffered from mental illness and that it was reported that he was unarmed. It was confirmed that this information was passed along to the responding officers. However, this was clearly ignored by the responding officers, and instead of bringing the one familiar face the victim may recognize closer to help calm him, they ushered her away for her "safety" while they cornered him like some common criminal they were pursuing. Deescalation was never considered as evidenced by the fact that they knowingly cornered a mentally ill man while shouting at him. Again, logic was not used.
3. Your own officers on the scene differ in their judgement. One officer thought it was enough to deploy a taser while the other responding officer thought it was time to discharge his firearm. The official language is shoot center mass to neutralize the threat, but let's be honest. The primary organs center mass are the heart and lungs. Therefore, you all shoot to kill because unless a cop is down, the EMTs are not risking their lives by performing traffic acrobatics in order to reach a person shot by a cop. I find it odd 300 cops can get to the scene before 1 ambulance can get there, but I digress. You all don't really care if someone you all shot survives as long as you do.
4. You all actually HAVE a specialized unit that was created and trained to respond to requests for help with mentally ill/disabled citizens. However, you sent Johnny Jackrabbit and the Cowboy Kid instead, after 50 minutes. The Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT) was no where to be found despite being created for this purpose. Your department deployed the wrong resource for this issue. However, as soon as you all kill an unarmed citizen who you KNEW was mentally disabled BEFORE you got there, suddenly 50 cops can respond within 2 minutes like roaches crawling out of the walls when the lights are shut off. You wasted taxpayer money by creating a specialized team to help reduce the number of excessive force and fatalities associated with responses for help with mentally ill/disabled citizens by NOT utilizing that resource and NOW by the obvious payout coming from the obvious chain of # ups that occurred which allowed this tragic event to take place.
5. Unfortunately, despite the fact that your officers that received the call knew they were responding to the scene to help bring a mentally ill/disabled man to a psychiatric facility, and that he'd been walking around the same spot for 50 minutes while the caller waited for help to subdue him and get him transported to the facility, and that it was reported that he was unarmed, and that they responded to the scene without taking a single moment to assess the scene in a logical manner, based on the image released, this will be considered a justified shooting, regardless of the fact that one of the most common actions that a mentally disabled person will take to defend themselves when they feel threatened is to mimic the actions of the one threatening them. So, in short, if the officers hadn't approached the victim backing him in a corner while yelling at him with their own weapons raised, this man would be alive.
So El Cajon, please convey to your officers that they didn't protect the public safety, they brought about the death of the man because of their lack of concern for the citizenry and lack of critical thinking skills. Several members of your department and the officers on the scene created the chain of events that led to this man being shot. Your officer created the reaction from the victim that caused him to shoot this man down in cold blood. Good job. Sincerely, Clearly you all failed on this day, and you suck for trying to justify this bull#.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

You understand that you are the one acting like a loudmouth right now, yes?

a reply to: MiddleInitial

Sure he does, his comment has nothing to do with the op and everything to do with trying to insult Americans.

Also his kindest respect b.s is obvious that he is a member who has been banned before, right lago??

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: elementalgrove

To many gun owners for the police state, that which would require every militarya nd police officer in the country to turn on his sister and brother, not happening ever.

American Civil war!! It has happened once why not again?

It will happen again someday, but it won't be what most people think.

originally posted by: slider1982

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: elementalgrove

To many gun owners for the police state, that which would require every militarya nd police officer in the country to turn on his sister and brother, not happening ever.

What about foreign NATO troops once the unrest is to much for local forces to deal with. Do not think Police state just neans US Police and Troops. Given a big enough problem you could see Blue helmets and UN tanks at anytime..

RA

Can you imagine the logistics and tactics required to round up 3 million + registered gun owners and then all the illegal lawful owners and then the illegal unlawful owners. The amount of civil servants such as cops, fireman,city workers, etc etc etc all saying " wait I have to take my Dads guns from him?" You see its not gonna happen until they get we American's to walk in an hand the guns over willingly like they did these other countries in the 90's. /rant off

a reply to: SlapMonkey
opethPA

Police said they were called to the mall shortly after 2 p.m. by the sister of a man in his 30s who said he was "not acting like himself" and walking in traffic. They say the man refused "multiple" orders to take his hand from his pocket, then was shot after pulling out the object.

From the OP

This was what I was referring to. Reasonable to think he may be deficient or unstable.

According to the call, the man was "not acting like himself" and had been walking in traffic, endangering himself and motorists, Davis said. The woman calling 911 claimed to be the man's sister and told the dispatcher that he was mentally ill and unarmed, Davis said. Investigators have not been able to confirm if the caller was the man's sister, he said.

From
www.cnn.com...

I'm not firmly defending anyone here yet. Just getting the facts out.

Pic says plenty, cops were justified in assuming a weapon. BLM can STFU now.

Seriously not giving much of a crap anymore. THIS s# is how you breed "movement" apathy, crying wolf over every. single. black person shot, despite context. It's a movement alright, but more related to what you turn food into than anything else.

a reply to: Nyiah

That pic is one frame from the police body cam, that was hand picked by the police to show to the public. Of course they're going to pick the most damning shot they could find. I'll wait for the videos to be released before I decide.

The police were responding to 5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold) plus they were informed that the man was unarmed, and they placed the call down the list of priorities for that reason. There's no way they would let an armed mad man wander the streets for an hour before showing up.

originally posted by: MConnalley
21 foot rule with knifes link to article Here

For decades now many American officers have heard use-of-force instructors discuss the "21-Foot Rule" during officer safety, firearms, and deadly force training. As a use-of-force instructor and a practicing forensic police practices expert, I have also trained and testified to this concept myself. The 21-foot rule was developed by Lt. John Tueller, a firearms instructor with the Salt Lake City Police Department. Back in 1983, Tueller set up a drill where he placed a "suspect" armed with an edged weapon 20 or so feet away from an officer with a holstered sidearm. He then directed the armed suspect to run toward the officer in attack mode. The training objective was to determine whether the officer could draw and accurately fire upon the assailant before the suspect stabbed him. After repeating the drill numerous times, Tueller—who is now retired—wrote an article saying it was entirely possible for a suspect armed with an edged weapon to fatally engage an officer armed with a handgun within a distance of 21 feet. The so-called "21-Foot Rule" was born and soon spread throughout the law enforcement community. But is the "21-Foot Rule" a forensic fact or a police myth?

This guy charges the officer well within 21 feet and just starts stabbing the hell out of him. He doesn't/can't go for his gun because instinctively he is trying to control the knife. Officers have to face things and experience things that the vast majority of people never come close to experiencing.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
According to the story released, the sister called the police because her brother was acting in a threatening manner. When the police show up, she tells them he is mentally ill. Why in the # did she take him out in public?
...
Whoever was, or should have been watching this fella is responsible. If that person was his sister, so be it.

Because the days of keeping crazy relatives locked in the attic have long since passed. Quite rightly so. Getting people out and about in their local community often has therapeutic value.

Mental health issues are also not static. People fluctuate, for lots of reasons. There might have been no way for his family to know that today was the day when things were going to kick off.

Incredibly sad all round, but I don't think it's fair to lay the blame at the feet of the family any more than it's fair to lay the blame at the feet of the police.

originally posted by: windword...plus they were informed that the man was unarmed...

The police in Charlotte were told, quite vocally by his wife, that Keith Scott was unarmed as well. Right up until he wasn't.

originally posted by: MConnalley
a reply to: MConnalley

If true, this mans comment is the best non blm monikered comment on the issue ive seen

... regardless of the fact that one of the most common actions that a mentally disabled person will take to defend themselves when they feel threatened is to mimic the actions of the one threatening them...

Absolutely bull. I have rarely come across such a piece of old tosh as this sentence - which is saying something for ATS.

I deal with people with mental health disorders on a regular basis. Because of the nature of the job, many of these people have been involved in violent altercations with people, including the police when the police have tried to bring them in. Many of them have been acting in what is, from their perspective, self defence. I cannot think of a single example where this statement holds true.

I could go on about the matter for hours but (i) it's gone midnight here, and (ii) nobody here is paying me by the hour Suffice to say, mentally ill people can hit just as hard or pull a trigger just as easily as anyone else. When push comes to shove, why they are doing something stops being relevant, the only important thing is stopping them doing it.

a reply to: EvillerBob

He wasn't pointing anything at the officers when he was shot and killed. Whether or not he was armed at all is questionable.

had she not called the police for help, her brother would still be alive.

i never thought the sentence above would make sense in my lifetime...

i wonder given how close the cops were, how hard would it have been to not know the difference between a vape and a gun of any sort. maybe the vape looked identical to a gun.

moral of the story, dont call the police to diffuse a situation, they only extinguish it.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Not a bad idea to cease pointing anything at the police. I just heard it was a vape machine (been out of the loop).

a reply to: DAVID64

There is a quite of few of you yes......I have no doubt that you military types are just as fallible as anyone else....

If the government ordered you lot to fight for them and used something like a threat you family as a motivator....I suspect many would not risk their families to protect strangers

There are so many of these shootings occurring, that I'm going to design a template response, and paste into each ATS thread as they are created. We've had about 1 a week over the past 2 months, haven't we?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: EvillerBob

He wasn't pointing anything at the officers when he was shot and killed. Whether or not he was armed at all is questionable.

Except they've already released still images from the video of the event that show him doing exactly that. Not just pointing, either, but very clearly taking up a stance that was entirely consistent with someone with a firearm.

They have confirmed that the object he was pointing at them wasn't a firearm. He was not carrying a firearm either.

It was an unfortunate reaction. With the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of the subsequent investigation, it was an unnecessary reaction. The officers who were in that situation, however, could only respond to what they knew and saw at the time. From that perspective, it was the most appropriate reaction.