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

a reply to: andy06shake

There are also a hell of a lot of dead law enforcement officers from across all facets of the law enforcement system who were murder for no justifiable reasons other than the suspect in question did not want to go back to prison / jail. The number of innocent civilians killed in these encounters is also a statistic not looked at or understood by the public at large.

As an example -



Every time a bullet misses there is the risk of an innocent bystander stopping it with their body. What the video doesnt show or tell you is the building the suspect crashed in to was right next to an elementary school.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
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?

**sorry for the long winded response. If I miss3ed a point you wanted covered let me know.**

Better training, better deescalation programs, community outreach programs and many court and supreme court decisions placing more requirements on law enforcement in terms of use of force, technology etc etc...

As an example the case Tennessee vs. Garner was the result of a shooting that occurred in Memphis TN in 1974. Police were called to a neighborhood for a suspect burglar. The officer located the burglar and a foot pursuit ensued. When the suspect refused to stop the officer shot the suspect in the back.

The suspect was unarmed and was a 15 year old black kid. The subsequent court results created the standard when dealing with fleeing felons. Prior to the case a fleeing felon met the criteria for use of deadly force, regardless of circumstances. The scotus ruling changed that and placed severe restrictions on use of deadly force on a fleeing felon.

An officer must articulate why deadly force was used on a fleeing felon and the felony must support the reason for the use of deadly force. Essentially law enforcement cannot shoot a fleeing felon unless that person places the officer or the public at large in immediate danger. Totality of circumstances is what is looked at. By that you must take into account the events that led up to the use of force.

Did the suspect just kill someone? Did the suspect threaten to kill someone? Is the suspect armed and with what? Did the suspect display the weapon to others. Did the suspect intimate he was armed to someone? Does law enforcement know the suspect in question and if so how? Are any officers who are present with the incident familiar with the suspects criminal history? Does the suspect have a past history of violence? Does the suspect have a past history of assault on law enforcement.

Why is the suspect fleeing? What is the suspect fleeing in - vehicle, on foot, bicycle etc. Where is this occurring at? Out in the county, a neighborhood, downtown in a city? Whats nearby - restaurants? schools? hospitals / clinics? retirement homes? Business - are they open and what to do they sell?

There are a lot more issues that go into consideration on any use of force, up to and including is the officer outnumbered or at a tactical disadvantage where engagement would place the officer or bystanders in greater danger by acting.

There is no shame in law enforcement pulling back from a situation to await the arrival of more officers to better handle the overall situation.

There have been more scotus rulings since TN vs. Garner and the large bulk of them apply to law enforcement actions and what they can and cannot do.

The one thing that has been constant though is how use of force is reviewed.

Back in the 50's/60's/70's, before and just after the civil rights act was signed into law by Johnson, use of force was viewed a lot differently. It was nothing for a cop to manhandle a person, up to and including hitting them, to send a warning to the person to knock it off.

Commonly referred to as beat and release policy (cant really do this today).

After the civil rights act was signed 42 USC 1983 came into existence. It is part of the overall civil rights legislation and makes it a crime for a person acting under color of law to violate a persons constitutional/civil rights. The law falls on both sides - civil and criminal.

That coupled with ever changing social dynamics and shifts in the public's mindset on right and wrong and the abandoning of archaic beliefs that a person of color is somehow not the same as a white person. Better economic and educational opportunities help. It is a slow process though as we see on the news.

But - comparing use of force back then to now there is a fundamental shift downwards in use of force stats. The reason it does seem like it is the existence of 24 hour news on a global scale with round the clock reporting and updates. The introduction of cell phones and citizen journalists also impact it.

It is not that there is an increase in use of force by law enforcement. There is an increase in news coverage of law enforcement use of force.

An example from the 60's would be the Vietnam war and the Tet offensive. Vietnam was the first war to reach the dinner table via the news media. During that offensive the NVA came out of the jungle and engaged allied forces head on for once. They succeeded in capturing a lot of territory / towns from the allies but at the end they NVA got their asses handed to them and pushed back.

However the way the media reported on it concentrated only on the offensive and the losses and not the counter attacks and recaptures. Reporting in that realm helped shaped the mindset of the people at home watching a war several thousand miles away.

While police and civilians arent at war the 24 hour media coverage certainly appears to give that impression.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: 727Sky

I want to see the evidence / video police couldnt release before forming my opinion.

If a person has never been in this type of situation then they should think twice and get all the facts before suggesting the police did something wrong.

Yeah, people have no idea what LEOs deal with. I could be 100% incorrect, but I guarantee the officer(s) who shot him are riddled with guilt right now. Most likely, it was a bad case of "crap, crap, crap! Bad guy! Gun! Crap, fire!" All the while thinking they were doing the right thing. Souls that excuse them? Should they go to prison for it? No. Should they necessarily lose their job over it? I don't know.

It all depends on what actually happened, as you say. Surely there was some kind of recording.

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: 727Sky

I want to see the evidence / video police couldnt release before forming my opinion.

If a person has never been in this type of situation then they should think twice and get all the facts before suggesting the police did something wrong.

It all depends on what actually happened, as you say. Surely there was some kind of recording.

There surely was- the body cam recording of one of the officers, and it can be viewed in one of the first several responses of this thread.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's the Polices job through to enforce the law which carries within it modicum of risk.

Not so for the innocent members of the public who they are there to protect via the laws they are supposed to enforce.

When they get killed by Police accidentally that's one thing, but when Police fail to follow procedure and essentially unlawfully kill a member of the public, suspect or otherwise, they should be held to account for there actions.

We can show each other videos all day long highlighting both sides of the argument, but all that goes to prove is that there is indeed a problem nevermind conflicting arguments and opinions surrounding the matter.

Think we can both agree though that when people lose patience and trust in the very people that are there to protect them then there is indeed a problem. And that problem makes it harder for Police to do their job simply down to the fact that members of the public are rather apprehensive to speak to or approach Police.

a reply to: andy06shake

Police who fail to follow procedure are dealt with. As I said if you violate procedure you are on your own with civil lawsuits (wrongful death etc). It is possible though to violate policy but not the law. It is also possible to violate the law but not policy.

As for trust I agree to an extent. One of the underlying issues is the lack of understanding in how use of force incidents are investigated. To a civilian they only see what the media portrays and without an understanding of the legalities behind it (Supreme Court rulings etc) clear guilt in their eyes is shattered when the officers arent charged because the prosecutor found the use of force as justified.

I do understand that mindset but only because ive seen both sides of the coin - before I went into law enforcement and then seeing whats involved legal wise in law enforcement.

I know we can show each other videos but I will post one more since it touched on what I am trying to point out. A civil rights leader who is very outspoken on law enforcement use of force incidents and extremely critical of law enforcement actions and the subsequent outcomes in investigations put his money where his mouth is and accepted an invitation by a sheriff's department to go thru their shoot dont shoot scenarios.

The results were surprising -


I have stated before in other threads their is a trust deficiency between police and the citizens we server. Community outreach programs have started to have an impact in some cities on this point. However I do point out the trust is a 2 way road.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I dont know the nuances of law enforcent as a profession beyond what a close LEO friend has explained to me.

I will say that back in the day, I hear and saw to some extent, that the police would "take care of their own" when dealing with "good" or "bad" cops.

What I see now is a certain type of cop finding success and being promoted. These were the hot heads and fudging idiots of old. The ones to get nudged out or into another precinct or role where they may be useful.

Police unions are near criminal in their ability to extort and corner cities across the US into giving concessions and salaries undeserving for a public SERVANT.

There is too much power in the hands of regular uniformed cops. Leave them the ability to defend themselves. Take away their ability to legally ruin lives in the process of a traffic stop, search and frisk or other such police action.

Either way, the country has changed and is rapidly changing again.

We NEED to restructure the police and civil defences to not provoke an uprising in the next 2-3 generations.

Police leadership are "Heads in the isht" trying to do their jobs, while sticking their collective feet in the same mess.

We are a proud people. Start with that premise.

We are overall respectful of law and order. ASSUME our innocence with near cultish fervor.

Many of us would place ourselves in harms way to protect our communities, (!which include our cops!). *stop becoming an increasingly mortal threat to our young people through misunderstandings that adult police should be able to handle without weapons drawn.

Let some things go. We DOUBT cops are sticklers about rules to other cops. Cut the act. Modern Americans have a live and let live attitude. Be modern Americans or continue to find yourselves at odds with YOUR people.

And so on. The details and semantics will vary in every city and PD. Generally speaking, the spirit and core mission of the nations police needs to be renewed and refocused.

originally posted by: tadaman
I dont know the nuances of law enforcent as a profession beyond what a close LEO friend has explained to me.

You took the time to ask someone in law enforcement so I can respect that even if our views dont completely verge. You made the effort.

originally posted by: tadaman
I will say that back in the day, I hear and saw to some extent, that the police would "take care of their own" when dealing with "good" or "bad" cops.

Absolutely correct and it is still a problem today but imo not near the levels we saw from years gone by.

originally posted by: tadaman
What I see now is a certain type of cop finding success and being promoted. These were the hot heads and fudging idiots of old. The ones to get nudged out or into another precinct or role where they may be useful.

Again I completely agree. The adage "people are promoted to take them out of the loop of productivity" comes to mind. Some people are good being on the streets and some are good at being behind a desk. Unfortunately in law enforcement and how chains of commands work its not always possible to promote an idiot into a position where they are walled off from uniformed / detective operations. I had a Captain who was administrative (reports / jail supervisor / dispatch operations / training / etc). She had nothing to do with uniformed operations however it didnt stop her from interfering and on her rotations as duty commander (senior officer on call) we paid the price for her incompetence.

What made it worse is she never saw herself as the problem. The other issue was she was female and gay. The chances of her being fired were next to 0 because of those 2 factors and the lawsuit that would result (for the record I have no problems with females in law enforcement nor gay people in law enforcement and have served under other supervisors with those qualities).

My management style was to confront problems head on with other officers, explain whats wrong and develop a plan of action to correct the issue and go from there. I refuse to transfer a "problem" to another supervisor / division.

originally posted by: tadaman
Police unions are near criminal in their ability to extort and corner cities across the US into giving concessions and salaries undeserving for a public SERVANT.

If you research the pay scales for law enforcement you will find its well below other public safety entities / public servants.

originally posted by: tadaman
There is too much power in the hands of regular uniformed cops. Leave them the ability to defend themselves. Take away their ability to legally ruin lives in the process of a traffic stop, search and frisk or other such police action.

I disagree with you here. The authority of law enforcement is very restricted in terms of what we can and cannot do.

originally posted by: tadaman
Either way, the country has changed and is rapidly changing again.

We NEED to restructure the police and civil defences to not provoke an uprising in the next 2-3 generations.

Unfortunately Law Enforcement filled a needed position that the founding fathers wanted to avoid - a standing army in the cities / towns etc. The result of that was restrictions on law enforcement. Our system is based on the system used in the UK - policing by consent.

originally posted by: tadaman
Police leadership are "Heads in the isht" trying to do their jobs, while sticking their collective feet in the same mess.

Politics is the problem.

originally posted by: tadaman
We are a proud people. Start with that premise.

We are overall respectful of law and order. ASSUME our innocense with near cultish fervor.

Many of us would place ourselves in harms way to protect our communities, (!which include our cops!). *stop becoming an increasingly mortal threat to our young people through misunderstandings that adult police should be able to handle without weapons drawn.

Let some things go. We DOUBT cops are sticklers about rules to other cops. Cut the act. Modern Americans have a live and let live attitude. Be modern Americans or continue to find yourselves at odds with YOUR people.

And so on. The details and semantics will vary in every city and PD. Generally speaking, the spirit and core mission of the nations police needs to be renewed and refocused.

In general I agree although I would note all states allow for a wide degree of officer discretion in how they enforce the law. I would also point out, respectfully, that not being familiar with the nuances of law enforcement is a little problematic. There are a lot of "nuances" that affect how the job is done and an understanding of the nuances could go a ways to understanding why something was done (regardless of whether you agree with the action or not if that makes sense).

a reply to: Xcathdra

Police have and will cover each other's behinds at the expense or emission of the truth or facts through.

Even good Police don't want to be seen as a grass or informants regarding any bad or corrupt officers, nor what they get upto.

Else working alongside such could be rather hazardous to there health nevermind make the work environment somewhat untenable at best.

Might sound like the plot to Serpico but there is major corruption and wrongdoings in any organization that wields such influence and power.

That being said, and human nature being what it is, the alternative does not bear thinking about.

a reply to: andy06shake

Fair enough.. We will agree to disagree on a few points.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think what Andy may be getting at is that police not taken seriously in terms of how they are trained and paid can lead to problems that many other types of work would not.

For one there is a close relationship with the social contract (written into law by the costitution) civil liberties, and law enforcement.

The type of authority given to police is supposed to be closely watched and corrected but socity itself has gotten lazy about its own care, and allowed politicians and lobby power to create civil laws that may not be in the best interest of freedom.

Placing police in as the fixers of everything while continuing terrible pay and training is how corruption is spread. There areally several instances of entire police dept being involved in things like money laundering, murder for hire, and enabling local drug and gang kingpins.

Because of the function of police these types of corruption have an unusually high degree of malace for society. They allow things like gangs and drugs. Police dept in baltimore, chicago, parts of Miami and other parts of Florida have had serious problems with corruption and so have others. In fact in the border states many police have been caught aiding in illegal traficing and drugs.

Police are just people which many forget. When you pay a guy risking his life in a dangerous Atlanta section $34k his chances of taking a bribe a significantly hire than departments and communities who value law enforcement and their community relationships more.

I will say again I dot believe supporting police is saying it's a hard job and they do their best. I think the conversation should be just how hard their job is and what we can do to prevent unnecessary corruption and accidents. The question should be are we doing enough to support the police or are they going rogue because they are in a thankless crappy job and not properly screened.

Bad police even though the actual malicious officers are not the norm, even a small amount can have a huge impact which is why the policies can't be blown off and not examined and tweaked until the relationship between the community and police is better.

On the flip side good police like yourself are incredibly important and should also be promoted in dialogue as a way to make others better or to weed out those who aren't capable of the job. Having better pt requirements would do a huge amount for officers health. If more than half of officers in the us are out of shape we can expect problems to follow the officers. Whether it's adrenaline dumps hitting the system and clouding judgement or not being able to safely handle perps.

Anyway thank you for taking your job serious and we disagree and much of politics but I apreciate you ability to discuss law enforcement in a sane way.