A Vietnam Vet Killed An Intruder Who Tried To Strangle His Grandson, Then Police Shot Him

a reply to: fleabit

If you read the rest of my posts you will also see that i say there are good Police.

Thing is in said profession one bad apple does indeed spoil the batch, and there are a lot more than just one bad apple.

If you screw up and end up killing an old man then that's reason enough too consider another profession in my book.

Poor training, crazy person or bad situation, take your pick, its not a profession i see as being very forgiving, just like that old dude's grandson i imagine.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: fleabit

If you read the rest of my posts you will also see that i say there are good Police.

Thing is in said profession one bad apple does indeed spoil the batch, and there are a lot more than just one bad apple.

If you screw up and end up killing an old man then that's reason enough too consider another profession in my book.

Poor training, crazy person or bad situation, take your pick, its not a profession i see as being very forgiving, just like that old dude's grandson i imagine.

It does not spoil the bunch, that is ridiculous. The perception may be this.. it's just not true. I guarantee there are more "good" cops who care, than crappy ones who might shoot someone without a second thought.

How is it screwing up shooting a man (old or not), that is holding a gun? Do you know all the facts to the case? I don't.. and I didn't think anyone did, so unless you have inside sources, you have no idea if someone "screwed up." If someone is raising a gun after repeated requests to drop his weapon, I think their training isn't to wait to see if the person might shoot you. And not saying the police were not at fault.. but how about we wait for facts, before proclaiming the cop should be fired, and all cops are scum. I know you didn't say that, but I've seen it in this thread (and others).

I know for a fact that many cops DO screw up and shoot innocent people. Thus my poor training comment. I think not enough training and too short of OJT before being thrown to the wolves cause these incidents. But there are 60 to 70 (or more) MILLION encounters with civilians and police every YEAR. An incredibly tiny percentage as a result end up in something tragic like this. How that makes the whole bunch bad is baffling to me.

a reply to: fleabit

Situations like this spoils trust, it spoils admiration, it makes Police unapproachable.

When i said the profession being unforgiving i did not mean the departments, i meant the general population opinion and view.

Killing old Men who are war veterans protecting their grandchild from naked psychopaths don't exactly score many brownie points.

Whats tragic will be if the Police is not held to account for such negligence and murder.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for the great reply. I knew you'd give us some great info!

Police are quick to say "well maybe if we had better equipment or maybe if we weren't under paid or maybe if we had better training or werent undermanned".

Well maybe...just maybe if y'all would slow the f* down and stop making so many mistakes that bring costly lawsuits to your departments then y'all would have the funding for some of that stuff!

While you're out there shooting innocent people you are shooting yourselves in the foot to!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey



And another thing, 4 rounds we're allegedly discharged, that's a little overkill is it not?

I always wonder about this as well, because it seems that in these cases that come to light, we always see the officer firing multiple rounds. I've asked about this (why not shoot one round and incapacitate the person instead of firing away nonstop until the person drops dead?) and have always received the answer that just firing once is pointless...the explanation from every cop on this forum makes it sound like firing just once or even twice is either impossible or stupid. I'm sure one of them will chime in now and explain how dumb we are to even ask the question.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Suppose it depends on how good a shot you are.

But Police should be trained and proficient with the tools they use of which a sidearm qualifies.

Else they should not be Police.

The only way its neigh on impossible to shoot one or two rounds off is if you are using an automatic pistol, which i don't think come as the standard issue for Police on the street.

a reply to: NotCrazy

I don't know 100% where the money from lawsuits come from but I doubt it's is taken from dept budgets..straight out of city/state coffers I suspect.

a reply to: KansasGirl

4 rounds is not overkill, because ballistically, handguns are extraordinarily underpowered. A pistol is a weapon of convenience, just the easiest one to carry. If you wanted one and done performance, you would use a rifle. However, even that is not always a sure thing.

a reply to: DisgruntledPatriot

The average bullet travels at 2,500 feet per second (around 1,700 mph).

Bullets have a wide range of force based on a variety of factors and type of round.

In this instance though, I think you may find the lethality of the round to be quite apparent.

End of the day it's not the force that does the damage per-say but the hydrostatic shock(pressure wave).

originally posted by: DisgruntledPatriot
a reply to: KansasGirl

4 rounds is not overkill, because ballistically, handguns are extraordinarily underpowered. A pistol is a weapon of convenience, just the easiest one to carry. If you wanted one and done performance, you would use a rifle. However, even that is not always a sure thing.

Isn't it kind of, though?? (overkill) That kid whose granddad is dead probably thinks so.

But here's something that bothers me- is this type of thing (police officers shooting and killing unarmed or innocent people) happening more in recent years? Or does it just seem like it's happening more because of today's technology (body cameras, phones with video, etc)? Because it SEEMS like it's happening more, and it SEEMS like these officers just fire and fire away until the person is clearly dead.

I'm sure a police officer will soon jump in here and tell me the statistics (or claim that the statistics say) that out of all the interactions of police with citizens, a tiny little percentage results in these scenarios/unarmed and-or innocent person killed by cop. And maybe it's true that it's a tiny percentage, but has that tiny percentage increased? To a still tiny percentage but still a bigger percentage than previously?

Would they admit it if it had?

Killing old Men who are war veterans protecting their grandchild from naked psychopaths don't exactly score many brownie points.

Whats tragic will be if the Police is not held to account for such negligence and murder.

So you really mean YOUR perception.. since you have already convicted the police involved and you are not even part of the investigation. Did the police see a naked psychopath? Nope.. was in bathroom. Did they know he was a war veteran? Nope. Did they know he was even the resident of that house? Nope. Did they know about a grandson? Hmm... nope again. But obviously you think they should have magically known about all these things when they encounter a guy in a home that just had reported a shooting. He didn't drop his weapon. But you think what.. they should have just ASSUMED all of the above?

Put yourself in the cops shoes. You get a call about shots fired in a home. You arrive. You haven't received any info about the resident. You enter.. you encounter an old guy with a gun. You tell him multiple times to drop his weapon. He doesn't. He raises his flashlight. So you fire. So.. are you guilty of negligence and murder? Keep in mind that the cops had no idea if the actual residents were also there, and in danger.

You are assuming crap... like apparently many people do, instead of using your head and thinking logically. If the bodycam reveals the police were negligent.. yea, throw them in jail. But you don't know.. you are guessing. And accusing. You act like the police should have been aware of: grandson, assailant, war vet. Ridiculous.

a reply to: fleabit

Kind of hard to presume his innocence given the dead OAP with Police rounds in his body.

Should be rather simple to establish the facts should they simply release the body camera footage.

They do have such......right?

What the Police should have been aware of is his surroundings and attempting to establish the lay of the land before discharging 4 rounds into anyone or anything short of being shot at.

I'm assuming the Police was crap given the innocent dead man.

a reply to: KansasGirl
a reply to: DisgruntledPatriot

As far as rounds fired the training is shoot until there is no threat. That can be as little as one bullet and as many as a crap load. It just depends on whats going on, the location where its occurring at, civilians in proximity etc etc etc.

We are required to use the least amount of force necessary to overcome the level of resistance we are facing. We are also required to deescalate as quickly and as safely as possible. Also the number of officers present can also impact use of force. In some situations if 1 officer is present use of deadly force could be justified where as if 2 or more officers are present use of deadly force might not be applicable because of the other officer.

It is case by case and based on totality of circumstances.

The other thing to consider is the status of the officer. Are they injured and if so where. Would that injury to the officer impact the situation to an extent use of deadly force would be justified? I really cant stress this enough. Each situation is unique and is never the exact same twice. Even when dealing with the same person time after time.

Law Enforcement is not required to back down / retreat from a situation. Unlike civilians law enforcement can escalate to overcome resistance. That standard is generally not applicable to civilians because of law enforcement's training and having a higher standard applied to our actions.

The weird part is civilians use of deadly force is actually easier to reach than an officers use of deadly force.

As for increase verse decrease the number have decreased. The use of force / use of deadly force today pales in comparison to the stats during the 50's, 60's and 70's. The other difference is 24 hours news instead of the old standard nightly news from 6pm to 630 pm. Instead of hearing only local news nowadays you here about local news from all over the globe.

As you pointed out dash cams, CCTV' cameras and body cams along with bystander cellphones you get to see what happened instead of only hearing about it. Several groups have demanded police be equipped with body cameras with the mindset that officer behavior will change now that they know they are being recorded. The problem here is the introduction and use of body cameras have not done what the groups thought. Ironically those cameras have been instrumental is countering claims by civilians that are flat out lies. The same holds for deadly force encounters.

People just need to bear in mind a camera only faces 1 direction and does not have peripheral vision like humans. So again what you see on camera might not be the whole story.



Because of the change in coverage it seems like things are worse now than back then but its not - its the opposite.

a reply to: andy06shake





For some reason the youtube imbed link looks like it is not working so here is the link to the video.

Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra


Well it looks like these guys are taking the time to establish the facts and are really concerned about being involved in an officer-involved murder.

You notice they manage to shout "Show me your hands, he's got a gun(or gun gun gun)" before discharging multiple rounds in the Mans direction(27 rounds) ultimately hitting him 7 times and killing the poor fellow. Now if Stephon did have a weapon he would have shot them/at them long before they managed to shout.

The reality is there are good and bad police as well as people, but when people kill one another we call it murder, when Police do it they call it enforcing the law.

a reply to: andy06shake

This is how the social contract works. Police have authority granted to them for the protection of your property.

When the laws don't reflect this and give directives that have high possibilities of infringement of a citezens private property and constitutional rights (like the 4th amend.) Society needs to come to a consensus to fix the mistakes. Blaming officers is like blaming a waitress the food sucks.

If our intent is blame and the thoughts never surpass this we can't examine the way forward. Often bad acting police officers are found in poor establishments. Unfortunately there are a lit of poor sections and communities as well.

Instead of paying officers more for policing bad areas because of increased danger they are usually paid far less than their suburban cousins.

We have some serious flaws that are procedural and to fix them they need to be laws and procedures. If we focus on officers the next guy up has the same rules and laws to follow.

a reply to: luthier

A waitress is a hell of a less lightly to shoot you multiple times through for the least of imagined slights.

There are some serious flaws from multiple different areas and angles but there are also a hell of a lot of innocent dead civilians with there blood on the hands of people supposedly there to protect them.

Without Police through our respective societies would tear themselves apart, then again are they not already in the process of doing so?

a reply to: Xcathdra

You say that "As for increase verse decrease the number have decreased. The use of force/use of deadly force today pales in comparison to the stats during the 50's, 60's, and 70's."

What are the reasons we have much less use of deadly force today, in your opinion?

a reply to: andy06shake

Respectfully you would be incorrect. There are many examples from agencies on youtube that show armed individuals running from but not shooting at police. That does not exempt them from the use of deadly force, especially given public at large concerns.

As for the use of murder that term is not really used. The term used is homicide (on official records) and that term applies to everyone, law enforcement included. The portion that is of note is the further circumstances listed, which would be justified or not justified. When a person is sentenced to death by the state and it is carried out their death is listed as homicide.