It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Update - Officer who fatally shot Justine Damond (Australian) charged with murder, turns himself in

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 12:05 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Regular citizens are not paid, trained, armored and armed to deal with precisely those situations.

The officer is trained , paid , armored and armed to deal with those situations.

See your judging it by some worse case 1/1000000 event . Where the cop encounters some rapey serial killer , who also has speacial forces training.

I am comparing it to the average American.

Let’s take a worse case scenerio for the cop to have to make that situation.

The cop is maybe in a pursuit or in some action type situation. He rounds a corner in some dark alley situation and encounters a random citizen. Then commands the citizen to “freeze”.

Now from the citizens POV. They are not planning on walking into that situation AT ALL.

They just rounded a corner and found a gun in their face and a cop yelling at them.

The person goes stiff and reaches behind their back.

At this point is he nervous and trying to hurry up and get out his wallet and ID, or are they going for a gun???

The cop should draw and aim, but wait to fire until the he confirms it is not a wallet. It is a gun/weapon.

The number of people willing to kill a cop is LESS than the number of people willing to kill a citizen. Everyone knows it is a death sentence .

That is a million to one interaction and so obviously your killing more innocents than your saving cops. Just by the shear math of the issue.

edit on 23-3-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 12:13 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Please do yourself a favor and research the topic. Again, you are speaking out of ignorance concerning reaction times and time to identify this or that versus this or that.

Yes, LEOs are trained (and most could be trained better), but they are not perfect nor are they superhuman.

I'm moving on.

edit on 23-3-2018 by SlapMonkey because: coment posted before I typed anything

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 12:13 PM

edit on 23-3-2018 by SlapMonkey because: double post

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 12:49 PM

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: badw0lf

Now that the Drop Bears are armed, can they be considered Assault Drop Bears?

Gorilla drop bears.

You can't see them, they camouflage too well.

Not as well as the ninja kangaroos, you know just what they're packing in their pouches, either.

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 02:37 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Sorry for the long response...

In an ideal world absolutely. In real life, however, it is more problematic.

Use of force and the review of it use totality of circumstances coupled with what the officer perceived the moment deadly force was used.

You cannot look solely at the use of force. You have to look at everything leading up to that use of force and I think this is where a lot of people tend to fail when it comes to understanding what occurred.

In your example of the dark alley the justification to use deadly force, based on what you provided, exists. Officers are required to make split second decisions based on incomplete information.

Do you hold fire to see if the guy is armed? It is certainly an option however one must take into account factors other than death. Law Enforcement carry a lot of tools on their persons, including pepper spray / OC, Batons / collapsible ASPs, Tasers, knives, primary duty weapon, secondary weapons in addition to possible keys to the patrol vehicle which carries even more. An officer has to be aware of what could happen if he / she is incapacitated and those items fall into the wrong hands.

In my state it is considered a deadly force encounter if a civilian attempts to use / brandishes a taser at an officer. It is taken that way because of what I just described above.

Law enforcement (at least my training anyways) constantly taught us to play the what if game. In essence what if this happens how would I react / respond. That includes use of deadly force based on a split second decision with limited facts. While law enforcement is trained, that training places them into the position of complying with higher standards and I and others are fine with that. A civilians use of deadly force is actually held to a LOWER standard than that of Law Enforcement specifically because of the lack of training.

That training is also why SCOTUS established the standards for reviewing an officers use of force.

On the off chance you or anyone else cares -

If the above imbed does not work use this -

Now - using your scenario about waiting to see if the item is a weapon or something else. This is what can happen.

Criticism of law enforcement is completely acceptable. It becomes an issue though when people criticise without understanding the job, the laws that govern it and finally the complete and total ignorance of how people can behave towards law enforcement. You have people who have been stopped in a traffic stop, start a pursuit by fleeing, place the public at large at risk, placing the officers involved at risk, placing the fleeing drivers own life at risk, only to have someone seriously injured or killed all because the driver had a misdemeanor warrant for some nonsense crime.

So we move from a misdemeanor arrest warrant to fatalities or serious physical injury, all felonies, over a misdemeanor.

Criticism is easy when you are the one watching the video with a full accounting of what occurred prior to contact, time of contact and after contact without ever realizing or understanding that the officer didnt have that info at the time it occurred.

Now - think about the info I have provided and then formulate a plan of action against the unknown.

Finally, back to your scenario of the dark alley. Your own example undermines what it is you are trying to explain. The officer in your scenario would not know if the person he is encountering is a citizen or if it is the person from the pursuit or police action. The other part you overlook is even if it is an unrelated citizen that does not mean he is not a threat to the officers. Finally, it is a dark alley. Can you tell if the object in their hand is a weapon or cell phone or wallet? By the way cell phone guns are real as are knives that can shoot the blade a good distance.

As an example the last shooting in Clinton Mo, where one officer was killed and 2 injured, were dispatched to the wrong house. When they went inside to check on the other party, he came out shooting.

A citizen unrelated to the call at the wrong address kiled 1 cop and wounded 2 others.

a citizen unrelated to the original call.

Think about that please.

You dont have to agree with me but all I request is you think about some of the issues I raised in my response. The best way to hold government, and by extension, law enforcement, accountable is to understand what it is they do, why they do it, what the laws and court rulings are that affect it. Then you can make a factual argument for change with the ability to explain, with facts, why your idea is better than what is currently in play.

Knowledge is power. You dont have to like law enforcement to take the time to understand it. The info is freely available and is not restricted.

If our playbook is out for all to see why not take advantage of it and become educated on the topic? (in general and not directed at you).
edit on 23-3-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 03:01 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Your supposed to actually say what I have wrong..

“Nah uh” is not a counterpoint...

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 06:12 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

A) What are you talking about?!?!

Everything leading up to the act is considered inadmissible...

The only second the officer is judged on is literally the last second before shooting.

Take the kid in the hotel hallway the cop shpt while the kid was sobbing and begging for the cop not to shoot him..

The only thing the jury was allowed to see was the second before shooting.. only the fact the kid reached to pull his shorts up while crawling..

The cop gets to use the time before the shooting for his defense, but the state does not get to use it agai st the officer.

So you seem to have that backwards..

B) I said weapon, not gun. I have no problem with a cop shooting someone who has a tazer or pepper spray... anything that someone wields as a weapon that shoots projectiles and bladed weapons of anywhere near close range...

I have a problem when someone is executed for shifting weird or pulling their pants up, when they never had a weapon in the first place.

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 07:40 PM
Anyone know if Noor's partner, Matthew Harrity has said anything more concerning this case? There's been a lot of focus on Noor, but Harrity must have a strong opinion on what happened, seeing as he's had a gun fired in his face and all.

I understand that he was only on the job for a year and doesn't want to be the guy who snitched on his partner, but surely he has more to add than he was "Stunned" by the shooting.

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 07:46 PM
a reply to: TheAiIsLying

A portion of Harrity's report was included in one of the links on page one, but aside from that he hasn't made any public statements nor indicated that he will.

Given that it's going to trial, I doubt he'll say anything any time soon.

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 07:53 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The only thing the jury was allowed to see was the second before shooting.. only the fact the kid reached to pull his shorts up while crawling..

Absolutely incorrect.

The video footage shown in court, which was captured on Brailsford's on-body camera, starts with Sgt. Charles Langley, who has since retired, yelling several commands for a woman to get out of the room. Minutes later, both Brailsford and a woman walk out. The woman was eventually taken into custody when she crawled toward officers with her hands in the air, the video shows. Shaver, 26, who was unarmed wearing athletic shorts and a T-shirt, appeared confused by Langley's commands to get on his knees and cross his feet, the video shows. At one point, Shaver raised his hands in the air, following the commands, but put them down when an officer told him to crawl toward them, the video shows. "Put your hands up in the air. Hands up in the air. You do that again and we're shooting you, do you understand?" Langley warned Shaver. "Please don't shoot me," Shaver said as he began to sob. Shaver, who had met a man and woman earlier that night and invited them to his room for drinks, began to crawl on his hands and knees toward officers, the video shows. As he made a quick movement that appeared he was raising his right hand, Brailsford shot him.

Everything leading up to the act is considered inadmissible...

Again, absolutely false. "Totality of the circumstances" is the standard by which law enforcement shootings must be judged. "The second before the shooting" is the exact opposite of "the totality of the circumstances."

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 08:03 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 12:25 PM

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Xcathdra

A) What are you talking about?!?!

Everything leading up to the act is considered inadmissible...

The only second the officer is judged on is literally the last second before shooting.

You are so ignorant as to how a courtroom works and as to what evidence is or is not admissible that I don't know where to start in correcting you, other to just say that you are absolutely wrong in your assertion.

And yes, it used to be my job to sift through evidence, aid in conducting witness interviews, sit through trials, prepare evidence for the jury deliberations, etc., etc., in a federal courtroom, so yes, I absolutely know what I'm talking about.

But since you don't know what you are talking about, please don't pretend that you do and vomit incorrect information onto this site.

Seriously, it's getting worse every day.

posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nope.. there was a Supreme Court case that established that the cop can ONLY be judged by the second before he shoots.

That is why the cop who murdered the kid begging for his life I the motel hallway was acquitted..

All the prosecution could legally show the jury was the second of footage when the kid reaches back to raise his pants.

If you are not going to be honest why would anyone ever listen to you..

If it was actually your job to sift through the evidence. Then you would know about the above mentioned Supreme Court decision..

The Supreme Court, in Graham v. Connor, determined that "reasonable use of force" by an officer must be viewed from the perspective of what appeared reasonable in the moment of its application — not from 20/20 hindsight.

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

Add those 2 together and and the state is forced to prove the cop did not feel threatened in the instant before he shot..

Since how someone felt is literally unknowable.. any cop who fights it wins.

edit on 26-3-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 07:41 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So were you lying about how “that used to be your job” or ere you just really bad at it..

Seems to me the most important Supreme Court decisions on the topic should be common knowledge to those on the field.

posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Might be my mistake..

I specifically remember reading an article that said “the jury was only allowed to consider the split second before the shooting” as well as it saying the prosecutor had repeatedly played that one second exert on repeat.

I assumed that meant the jury had only seen that clip, but maybe they showed them the whole thing. Then advised them the only part that mattered when considering the verdict is that one second the defense attorney put on a loop.

Irreguqrdless it is irrelevant because I posted the Supreme Court decisions that established when it was legal or an officer to use force and it is precisely as I said..

ANY prosecutor trying to prosecute an off Car for a shooting has to prove the officer did not feel threatened at the moment of shooting..

Something that is impossible.

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:42 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This comment may get removed, but you're just simply displaying idiocy when it comes to comprehending that which I write and the overlying points of my comments.

I'm not going to explain it to you--it's a worthless use of my time.

But rest assured that what you quoted actually backs my comments and my point, it's not at odds with it, but again, I'm not going to go into detail over it, because it's not worth my time.

Bye bye.

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:54 AM
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I post quotes from the Supreme Court cases that established the criteria and you say “trust me”...

That’s credible....

BWAHAHAHA.. how very conservative of you...
edit on 28-3-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 10:02 AM
Has there ever been a qualitative assessment of the effect of outfitting police in armor? It seems so many of these events are driven from a fear/response action chain, and I can't help but think if the police had protective gear that drastically reduced the odds of injury from small arms/bladed weapons then it would allow for a less proactive/lethal response in the immediate time-frame of the occurrence.

I know standard gear is a vest, but I'm talking more like tactical armor (ceramics/steel, etc).

posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 08:25 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You are wrong.

Tennessee vs. Garner set the standard for use of deadly force.
Illinois v. Gates - totality of circumstances. SCOTUS decision overruling / changing the test established prior (Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410)
Graham vs. Connor - Law Enforcement use of force using totality of circumstances.

In Graham, the Supreme Court established what has become known as the “objectively reasonable standard” when it held that “the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” When it comes to UOF cases, Graham is probably the most important, and yet following a high-profile use of force, this case is almost never mentioned — nor is it likely to be well understood — by the mainstream media.

20/20 hindsight cannot be used to review and officers use of force. Objective reasonableness from the perspective of the officer is required and it applies totality of circumstances to the review -

IE what did the officer perceive based on all available info (totality of circumstances) up to that use of force.

posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 08:55 AM
a reply to: Wayfarer

Protective armor is just that - protective. However it is not "bullet proof / stab proof" as we see people using that term. The vest is bullet resistant or stab resistant as both its can fail and can be overcome with items that extend beyond the protection offered.

Bullet resistance vests are classified by level and each level of armor is designed to offer protection from certain caliber bullets. 9 / 40 / 223 / 308 / 45 / buck shot / slug etc etc. A vest designed to offer protection against a certain caliber is not as effective against calibers not listed.

Stab resistant vests fall in their own category.

The bullet resistant and stab resistant do not cross over. A stab resistant wont work with bullets and a bullet resistant vest wont work against knives / sharp objects.

Use of heavy armor is mainly provided to SRT / SWAT / ERT / ETC and only because of their defined roles. The higher the level of body armor the more cumbersome it gets. Taking into account everything a standard patrol officer carries you are looking at an additional 20+ pounds of equipment.

The body armor I use is mid line - effective against 9mm / 40 cal etc. The front side part of my vest has a slot for added armor that goes over the center part of the chest. It came with soft armor insert however I replaced mine with a hard insert. It gives added protection to the chest are only. My vest is also oversized on the sides, allowing a wrap over to give protection on the left / right side of the body. A standard fitting vest usually has the front / back sides of the vest touch each other instead of overlapping, leaving a potential spot for bullets to enter.

Because firearms / sharp objects are considered a deadly force encounter the use of bullet / stab resistant vests are not a factor. Neither are the different items law enforcement carries (ASP / Baton / OC spray / Taser / etc).

Use of force / subject resistance control does not require an officer to enter at the first level. They can enter based on the level of resistance encountered. A person armed with a firearm or a knife allows an officer to enter at the top of the level of use of force.

The other thing to keep in mind is law enforcement, when it comes to use of force at any level, is allowed to escalate without provocation. They are allowed a 1+ advantage in that they can escalate their use of force to overcome the level of resistance being offered (something generally not allowed for civilians however civilians have a reduced threshold for use of deadly force when compared to law enforcement and it comes down to laws / court rulings / department policy / level of training).

SCOTUS rulings require law enforcement use the least amount of force necessary and It requires we deescalate force as soon as safely possible to do so. Law Enforcement is not required to withdraw (some states require it for civilians) from an encounter.

Protective gear / defensive tools / firearms have no impact on the laws that govern firearms / knives carried by civilians and since those items can still kill the presence of defensive / offensive items carried by law enforcement does not impact those laws.
edit on 1-4-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in