It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oklahoma City police officer shoots, kills man holding metal pipe

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

Why is it every time you start a conversation with me you have to insult my intelligence? I'm guessing it's because we are on the internet and you can't ticket me for speaking my opinion that you disagree with. Yes, share a gun. Did I stutter? Does that make your job too hard? Too bad. Deal with it. Good cops will overcome, bad ones will complain. I have no sympathy for cops resisting change to their gun crazy culture. If you want to be productive show some #ing respect and explain why my ideas won't work or offer counter ideas. You sound exactly like the type of cops I don't like though. Only your opinion matters.
edit on 21-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The guy referenced in the OP was approached by a lieutenant and a sergeant. The sergeant shot him. So, taking your idea entirely at face value and not debating or changing one single aspect of it...

This guy still gets shot.

You're talking about implementing some pretty draconian measures for what is statistically a small percentage of deadly force situations, because the media narrative is that this happens all the time, every day, all day.

963 people were killed by law enforcement in 2016. Of those, 48 were unarmed. A further 68 are listed as "unknown" as to whether they were armed or not. Over 500 of those killed had guns when they were killed. Almost 200 of them had knives.

Sure, this guy would likely get listed as "armed" because he had a pipe in his hand. And it's a tragedy that he was killed because (so far as we can tell) he couldn't hear them. But these situations are by far the exception, not the rule, and going to the extreme of disarming cops is nothing more than ignoring the majority of a situation in an effort to prevent the exception from ever happening. I'm in complete agreement that we need to do what we can to prevent things from happening. But I'm not in agreement that taking the sledgehammer to a fly approach is the answer to the problem.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I have policy solutions too that would go a long way to fixing things and rebuilding trust in the police, but the police and prisons are two of the top lobbies that prevent those solutions from being implemented. So until that changes I'm going to keep advocating that police go onto the streets with less guns, not more. The problem may not produce large numbers, but it does keep getting worse from year-to-year. It won't go away if we pretend it doesn't exist or ignore it just to acquiesce to police fears (that their unions are contributing to create).



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Lead pipes can kill you. Even if the guy was deaf you dont charge two officers with a pipe in your hand with cops pointing their guns at you. His mistake.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Less people were killed by cops in 2016 compared to 2015.

Less unarmed people were killed by cops in 2016 compared 2015.

The numbers this year are at worst stagnant compared to 2016.

What's getting worse? And what's a higher percentage of people killed by cops than those who were unarmed?

Mentally ill people. It was 1 in 5 in 2016, and this year its edging up to 1 in 4.

So using the media created narrative to push the idea of disarming cops isn't going to get anywhere. The unions will dig in their heels. And the unions aren't going anywhere any time soon, either. If we're going to talk about the fears that police unions try and stoke, then we can at least acknowledge the other side of that coin as well. The media does the same thing, and people buy it just as readily as they buy anything a union says.

And I'm not pretending the problem doesn't exist. I think my previous comment pretty clearly states that. But I'm not going to pretend that the ideas you're pushing are going to get anywhere, either. I'm all for improving the job, but it seems to be a better use of time and energy trying to find solutions that'll actually get some traction rather than pushing for ones that are non-starters.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh, you have policies well great problem solved. We live in reality and not your Mayberry utopia where the town has a gun that the cops all share. Grow up



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well for one, the guy shot in the OP was innocent. They were looking for his father. Not him.

Well, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, I suppose.

You're pointing out the wrong reason for the deadly interaction, and hopefully on purpose (because if not, I'm probably done discussing this with you as it shows a severe lack of following along). He didn't get shot because he was a hit-and-run suspect. I shouldn't need to expand on that any further.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm under no illusions that any of my ideas would be implemented. I'm just trying to brain storm ideas to get an idea about a direction we could go. After all, it is a discussion forum. Ultimately I think that ending the war on drugs and demilitarizing the police would be the way to go to really quell these issues. If gangs can't make such easy money on a product that has no business being illegal then they won't be as numerous or powerful as they are now. That's really my biggest fix to the problem. I see that as a HUGE elephant that contributes to many many smaller issues involving law enforcement and detainment.

PS: I understand why the guy was shot and it wasn't for him being the suspect. I was just pointing out that he was ultimately innocent of any crime.
edit on 21-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have no issue whatsoever with the use of deadly force IF all other options have been exhausted, or there simply isn't time to deescalate the situation.

This is the crux of the issue in this case, and we just don't know.


If we find that this man was approaching in a threatening manner with the pipe raised over his head or in a position to swing it, my opinion will change accordingly.

And I will do the same if he was slowly walking with the pipe down at his side. I'd really hate for it to be a misunderstanding where he had it raised, but because he was showing them that he's hearing impaired...


I'm not familiar with the kid's museum, unless you're referring to The Magic House, which is pretty awesome

Maybe...is that the one with the outdoor climbing area and suspended and elevated stuff? (...researching...)

Nope, it's the City Museum, and it's freaking awesome. I went without my kids (went with other families when I went there for a Tough Mudder...coincidentally, right at the time the Ferguson riots were happening). I enjoyed it, even experiencing it vicariously through my kids.
edit on 21-9-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
So ... we're to consider the people killed by LE particularly that are UNARMED as what ... collateral damage? Acceptable losses?

Nope. Don't think so.

This logic would suggest that, you know, since the chance of being killed on a commercial airliner is about 1 in 29 million, we can just accept that one is going to crash every once in a while and just stop WORRYING about it, jeez.

There's nothing wrong with having this conversation. There's nothing insulting to Law Enforcement to have this discussion, IN FACT, if we can more toward greater safety for all, the likelihood of a given likely perpetrator overreacting is minimized, which only makes cops safer.

Nothing wrong with the conversation at all, as a matter of fact, for those of us who are civil libertarians who love what our Constitution stands for, anything that can be seen as government overreach (and I'd say that killing civilians qualifies if anything does) should be viewed at the very least with wary mistrust.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think a significant change to the war on drugs would impact nearly all, if not all, aspects of law enforcement. And do so in a positive way.

As to the militarization of LE, I don't think that's going to change substantially unless there's a change to what weapons civilians have access to. I think it could potentially be drawn down and reduced to a degree, but I think things like armored vehicles for tactical teams and patrol carbines are effectively here to stay.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Well the militarization would only be able to be deescalated once the war on drugs has been wound down for some time. It's not like you can legalize drugs today then tomorrow decommission all police APCs and SWAT units. There are still going to be gangs out there and there are still going to be bad people with a lot of money and drugs. The mob didn't go away when alcohol was legalized (though it helped that drugs were made illegal 3 years later). But over time less and less police units will ever need this equipment so we can get rid of it as we rebuild the trust between the public and the police.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


It's not like you can legalize drugs today then tomorrow decommission all police APCs and SWAT units.


Well you're a radical left-winger so I can never tell with you. (that was a joke everybody, Krazy and I are friendly even when we disagree)



That's a very valid point, though. When it comes to dealing with narcotics, the assumption is always going to be that there will be firearms involved. And if there's an assumption that there are firearms involved, we're going to bring more for us.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah. It's a never ending story that saps our tax money more and more each year because while you are reliant on taxes, the gang lords pretty much have unlimited funds to buy their protection.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

So, Shamrock, within the community of Law Enforcement Officers ... what's the take on the use of lethal force?

Generally speaking, of course.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I'll say what I most always say...

Let's not rush to judgement before all the facts are out.

From the sounds of it it was a confusing situation. Not one of us was there, so we don't know any thing, yet.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's kind of a really broad question. I'm not sure what you're getting at?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Shamrock6

So, Shamrock, within the community of Law Enforcement Officers ... what's the take on the use of lethal force?

Generally speaking, of course.


Hmm... okay.

Considering most of the LEOs that you know and work with, are they concerned with the number of folks that are the victims of lethal force from a police officer nationwide?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Really broad? I'd say so.




posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Okay ... so how should I phrase it?

The only way we usually engage with LEOS around here regarding lethal force is either pro or con.

I'm just wondering what the folks who are out there DOING THE JOB every day are thinking.

Do some share our concerns as expressed here, for example?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join