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.

 

Shooting of man holding water nozzle angers family

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darce
X, you sound like a tough guy, can you tell that I am not? For the record, I wasn’t calling anyone specific a pussy, just anyone who is afraid of getting shot. Harsh, I know.


The statement calling anyone a pussy who is afraid of being shot instead of getting closer to see what the guy had in his hand is where my rebute came from. As I said, LAw Enforcement is not required to be shot, or shot at. Those of us who go into this profession understand that each day could be the day. Its one thing to read about an incident, and its entirely something different to be present, pointing a gun at someone when you are not sure if he has a weapon, a wallet, or a cell phone and have a split second to make a life or death decision.

This is exactly why the Supreme Court has ruled that the only consideration for an Officers use of deadly force can only be waht he perceived at the xact moment the force was used. Hindsight is not allowed at all. No one knew what this guy had, and the article states.


Originally posted by Darce
Guns kill people! What do you think happens when you accidentally load a 20GA shell into the barrel of a 12GA shotgun, followed by a 12GA shell? It happens and I think you’d be lucky if it didn’t kill you. Also, ever heard of a “squib load”? A bullet lodged in your .357 snub-nose barrel must make one heck of a bang in your face when you try and send a properly loaded cartridge down after it. Guns kill people and are extremely, extremely dangerous, no matter how careful you are. Sears fail, firing pins drop, ammo gets loaded incorrectly, and retards own guns. If you are afraid of getting shot, stay away from guns, because that’s what they do best.
Now, my argument is about carrying a gun and getting paid to use it when you’re afraid of getting shot. Isn’t that like a hypochondriac doctor, or a pilot who’s afraid of heights etc..


In the above the example you give is death by failure of a component. If I am pointing a gun at a person, the situation is severe enough to qualify a deadly use of force. My duty weapon does not discharge on its own. It requires me manipulating the trigger, not the failure of a bullet, spring, etc.

Police Officers get paid to serve and protect, not to have a running gun battle at any chance we get. When the time comes, as in this case, the officers made a decision and took action based on their perceived threat at the moment of force.

The use of deadly force is an absolute last resort for Officers. These officers, based on the article, did all they could to get more officers on scene and to keep an eye on this guy until they had everyone in place.

My point isn’t about how cops do their job, it’s who’s doing their job. LEO’s should not include people who are afraid of getting shot. It just leads to the unnecessary application of deadly force.


Originally posted by Darce
As for your personal attacks, you couldn’t be more correct. We both know how this world works



How the world works is an excuse in my opinion. If we see injustice, we should do what we can to fix it. Simply accepting something as status quo because its how the world works is failure by lack of trying in my opinion.

I would not consider my response as a personal attack. I was pointing out flaws in the argument you were giving based on the lack of knowledge in how the law works in this area. Just as when you stated the cops were pussies for not wanting to be shot themselves.




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
I think it was uncalled for to shoot the guy.
They shot a deaf guy over hear, with a rake in his hand raking the lawn, Put the rake down or we will shoot, Huh, What? Pow Pow Pow. Hear Ha, Ha ,Ha

They shot this other guy with a Knife, the guy was about 30 feet away but the officer did say the knife had a very llong blade.

You don't know that guy could of had that noozle hooked up to the Hot Water, was the hose Red, Red means danger Hot.
edit on 15-12-2010 by googolplex because: (no reason given)


Care to point out where it says the nozzle was hooked up to a water hose?

The standard for knives by the way is now 26 feet. A person with a knife in his hand can cover 26 feet before an officer has enough time to react, draw his duty weapon, and get rounds off before the blade makes contact with the officer.

The incident with the deaf guy is not as simple as you are making it. The incident occured in Detroit, which has the nations highest rate for officers killed in the line. The guys parents called 911 because the "deaf mute" was chasing them around the house with a butcher knife. When cops arrive the guy ran into the back yard, and came back out front with a garden rake that he was using to keep police at bay.

The reports from neighbors is they were screaming at the officers the guy was a deaf mute, which nis fine and dandy, but any person who has 5 officers pointing a gun at them should know to drop the rake. Instead he made a movement towards an officer, resulting in the shots being fired.

Outcome? The family who called 911 is now refusing to cooperate in the ivnestigation, instead retaining a private lawyer to sue, stating they should not have shot their son.

Its like people who argue cops put people in danger when involved in a pursuit. Here is a clue.. Stop the car and pull over. When having 5 guns pointed at you, drop the rake.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Hmm, it's not just cops, but anyone who is afraid of getting shot, should not be allowed to carry. It makes no sense to give someone a gun when they are afraid of the very thing that gun does, happening to them. If you are going to be a gunslinger, then you have to be able to accept the consequences of being a target to anyone else who has a gun, and obviously doesn't want to get shot. It's not the not-wanting to be shot part, nobody stable wants to get shot, but being afraid of it makes you too unreliable to carry in my opinion. With that power to kill in an instant, nothing is stopping your cowardice from taking over and pre-emptively shooting somebody who is harmless to you, because your fear of injury supersedes your ability to be responsible with such power.

Also, the use of force should be proportional to the threat. The actual threat, not the perceived threat. Taking the measures to understand a deadly threat takes guts, but guts should be a prerequisite to carrying a 9mm on your hip. You know what I mean? It’s not about LEO’s, it’s about cowards with the potential to kill innocent people. That’s a recipe for slaughter.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
I was watching when these guys opened up with automatic weapons in Detroit.
The Cops showed up about 2 hours later with the sirens going, that was day time, those guys weren't stupid.

I called,another time, they never came about a 100 rounds, the third time I called, still no police had come, the 911 said has anyone been shot I said I don't know, I didn't go look. Pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow, Bang BAng BANg BANG BANG.

Are you sure there wasn't a hose on the Noozle.

Yea I didn't hear the rest about the rake guy.


edit on 15-12-2010 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
I know of on bad guy, he only shoot his victims in the leg.

That way he don't kill anyone, nice guy



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darce
Hmm, it's not just cops, but anyone who is afraid of getting shot, should not be allowed to carry. It makes no sense to give someone a gun when they are afraid of the very thing that gun does, happening to them. If you are going to be a gunslinger, then you have to be able to accept the consequences of being a target to anyone else who has a gun, and obviously doesn't want to get shot. It's not the not-wanting to be shot part, nobody stable wants to get shot, but being afraid of it makes you too unreliable to carry in my opinion. With that power to kill in an instant, nothing is stopping your cowardice from taking over and pre-emptively shooting somebody who is harmless to you, because your fear of injury supersedes your ability to be responsible with such power.

Also, the use of force should be proportional to the threat. The actual threat, not the perceived threat. Taking the measures to understand a deadly threat takes guts, but guts should be a prerequisite to carrying a 9mm on your hip. You know what I mean? It’s not about LEO’s, it’s about cowards with the potential to kill innocent people. That’s a recipe for slaughter.


The use of deadly force is based on the incident, and what the officers perceived at the exact moment the use of force was used. Without that type of ruling, Officers would never be able to defend themselves or others because they would be required to verify the threat. The time involved, while it could be only a few seconds, is enough time for the person to kill the officers or anyone in the area.

We dont go out looking for a gunfight. Aside from an officer randomly rolling up on an incident, which happens but not often, we are forced to use the information provided to the 911 center. We dont know who is calling in, or if the crime occured. We have had incidents when an officer was requested for one call low priority, only to be ambushed and killed the moment he arrived on scene. Sadly enough, another 2-3 officers met the same fate when they were dispatched to check on the officers not answering their radios.

I am not expecting people to understand the perceived vs. verified argument, but I wanted to get it out there to clear up some of the confusion people have when incindents like this occur. If you want to look into it more start with Tennesse vs. Gardner, which is the basis for deadly use of force when a threat to society exists, and go through the case law from there.

The Police Departments did not create this standard, the Judicial did.

As far as people owning and carrying weapons, while I agree that people who buy a weapon who do not spend time learning how to use it, when it can be used, and the safety surrounding it, up to and including the mental preperation to use it against another human being, then they should probably rethink owning one.

Having guts in order to own a weapon is again as dangerous as those who own one, but dont prep to use it. A deadly force encounter can occur at any point. I would prefer a person have intelligence, instead of guts, when owning and using a weapon, especially when its used against another person.

Anybody can be a John Wayne, but I would prefer someone who understand their weapon as John Wayne, with the mental mindset of an educated and informed person who understand that while deadly force can be used, it should only be used as a last resort.

As with everything in life, humans are prone to mistakes. Could this incident be one of those? I dunno, I want to see the outcome of the 2 investigations to see what we are not being told about the incident first.

My concern though is when we start to place restrictions on the sale of weapons to those who would use it vs those who would not, places us back to the edge of the slippery slope. I firmly beleive citizens have an absolute right to bear arms as a deterrent again the abuse of power by the Government.

Armed population = citizens An unarmed population = subjects.

Nothing like living in a county that goes out of its way to protect those people who want to destroy it. Where else on this planet will you find that?
edit on 15-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: fixed quote



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
I was watching when these guys opened up with automatic weapons in Detroit.
The Cops showed up about 2 hours later with the sirens going, that was day time, those guys weren't stupid.

I called,another time, they never came about a 100 rounds, the third time I called, still no police had come, the 911 said has anyone been shot I said I don't know, I didn't go look. Pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow, Bang BAng BANg BANG BANG.

Are you sure there wasn't a hose on the Noozle.

Yea I didn't hear the rest about the rake guy.


edit on 15-12-2010 by googolplex because: (no reason given)


I did not see anything in the article that states it, unless I am missing it. The Chief stated he had the spray nozzle in his hand, but nothing about a hose, which is why I want to see the investigation results.

As far as the first part of your response, I dont know what to tell you. Its hard to get officers to high priority calls when they are dealing with high priority calls. It happens more often than people think.

As far s the rake incident I dont mind people pointing out when cops get it wrong. I just wish at times people would relay the entire story, and not just bits and pieces of it since it gives a completely different views than what actually occured. I wasnt trying to be an ass by calling you out on that, just a irritation of mine.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 
Yea I sleep with my gun, but it is kind of because of fear.
I don't want to shoot someone, the big thing is though that I don't want to get caught with my pants down.
To me one of the worst feelings would be to need a gun and not have one.
Like that movie " Last House on the Left "
If someone wants me they have to pay to play.

I don't have any problems with Cops, but I don't give them any reason for problems.


edit on 15-12-2010 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   


Having guts in order to own a weapon is again as dangerous as those who own one, but dont prep to use it. A deadly force encounter can occur at any point. I would prefer a person have intelligence, instead of guts, when owning and using a weapon, especially when its used against another person.


Not what I’m talking about when I say guts



Anybody can be a John Wayne, but I would prefer someone who understand their weapon as John Wayne, with the mental mindset of an educated and informed person who understand that while deadly force can be used, it should only be used as a last resort


Exactly what I’m talking about when I say guts! The last resort! Literally last, final. Endanger yourself before endangering others. Is that too much to ask?



My concern though is when we start to place restrictions on the sale of weapons to those who would use it vs those who would not, places us back to the edge of the slippery slope. I firmly beleive citizens have an absolute right to bear arms as a deterrent again the abuse of power by the Government


That’s a new and interesting perspective for me, Im’ a Canadian and things are different here. And hearing that from a cop is especially surprising.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Googolplex here

Yes I was being sarcastic with the water hose thing, but that was first thing I thought, what the guy was watering his lawn.

Your right, you have to get the whole, correct true story.
I only heard the deaf and rake part on the guy in Detroit, I read the story but I don't think that all came out at first, I never did follow up on that story.

But I'm the type person, if I saw a cop in trouble I would help him out, this other cop I know told me I was stupid, I may be in some ways.


edit on 15-12-2010 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I don't see how killing a man guilty of nothing is 'the right thing'.

It's amazing what some people are able to convince themselves of these days.

Tsk, tsk...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


Cops, like the US military, takes an oath to serve the people who entrusted us with their authority to enfore laws, and to protect the Constitution of the US as well as the State we are in (this oath varies from state to state).

Its difficult to really explain America and the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution (Right to bare arms). Its rooted in our fight for independance (war of insureection to the rest) from Great Britain. Had it not been for citizens who were armed, we would still be singing God save the Queen and would be driving on the left hand side of the road (in addition to being able to cross from Detroit to Windsor without waiting in line at customs for an hour and a half, but I digress)..

The 2nd amendment was in place to protect the people from the Government. Its a reminder to our Government, both the State and Federal, that they derive their authority from the people, and not the other way around. The Government forgets this on occasion, as we have seen throughout history.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Tharsis
 





I don't see how killing a man guilty of nothing is 'the right thing'.....


After reading the story and looking at the hose nozzle, I think these officers should be up on manslaughter charges.




As officers awaited requested backup units, the man pointed the object at apartments and played with it, causing it to make sounds similar to those of a gun being handled, he said.


From this description the guy was in fantasyland. There are certainly lifelike water pistols and other toys on the market. There have also been other occasions of mistaking the identity of an "object" Why, while the guy was under "observation", did they not take a closer look at the "object" through binoculars to determine if the object the guy was PLAYING with was a gun or not?

Remember the guy was NOT holding anyone hostage, or actually threatening anyone.


Also take a good look at the "GUN" it is pretty darn obvious it is NOT a pistol to anyone with eyes in their head.

Since the call was only about a possible gun the first DUTY of the officers was to determine if their WAS A GUN!!!!!

I am sorry but this sounds like a bunch of rookies playing at cops and robbers and not like professionals.

see the actual "gun"



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
When people choose to be a public servant EVERY PROFESSION HAS RISKS,the doctors can loose the licence and go to jail for 'MAL PRACTICE',the firefigthers can die putting out a fire or rescuing someone,the nurse can have agresive patients,get infected while giving care,the laborer in construction can fall from high floors,or be kill by heavy equipment,the zookeepers can easily be attack by animals that they have 'known for years' the actual account of situations goes on and on, most of this peoples still performing because they all make split second descisions.What ever happend to negotiate whith the subject that is cousing trouble??....ARE THIS CASES when they call NEGOTIATORS ONLY RESERVED FOR VERY HIGH PROFILE CASES???..so the rest of the population better behave??In recent times everybody have troubles and they go out of hand,specially for those like the ELDERLYS,DISABLED PEOPLE,BIPOLAR PEOPLE,BASICALLY PEOPLE WHOS ALREADY AFRAID OF SOMETHING,they only have been hostages of themselves.DIED like that is the ultimate punishment,remind me of the firing squads.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
This is just another example of Cold Blooded Murder by the Police.

Lets just assume that this citizen was holding a gun per the Police’s statement.

It is LEAGAL for a citizen to own a gun and hold said gun. PERIOD. Police have no justification for shooting a citizen just because he is holding a gun. The citizen crosses this line when the Policeman says “Citizen, What are you doing” and then the citizen points the gun at the policeman. At that point the police are justified in protecting themselves. Beyond this it is COLD BLOODED MURDER.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by brokedown
 





It is LEGAL for a citizen to own a gun and hold said gun. PERIOD.


EXACTLY! The story states the guy aimed at the cops but that does not make sense at all. The guy was playing with something like a nine year old playing Cowboys and Indians. The cops OBSERVED him playing and making bang bang noises. Why the heck did these cops walk up to the area in his line of fire BEFORE determining WHAT was in the guy's hands or ordering him to drop it AND giving him time to respond to the order.


I KNEW better than to walk into the line of fire of a weapon as a frecken FOUR YEAR OLD!

I hope it goes to court and the judge throws the book at these cops.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 


Hi Googoplex, I have worked in Detroit for 15 years now, and the rake shooting..that is a good friend of mine. I worked with him on a few occasions as partners. The rake incident totally changed him. He realized that this man with a large metal rake (not a flimsy leaf rake) was about to inflict severe harm, and he did what he had to do. He has since left the force for his own reasons. The man who was shot wasn't raking leaves, his family called the Police because a few minutes earlier he was chasing them around with a knife.
As far as the water hose goes it sounds like suicide by cop. But a black metallic object in someones hand, and them acting like its a gun, the police are not required to ask if its a real gun or not, it not feasible in a real world situation. Look up the force continuum it explains the levels of force, this is used by every Police Department in the country.

www.policetest.info...

Deadly Force. If a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others then the use of deadly force is justified. (see Tennessee v. Garner) By the very nature of the profession, peace officers may at times be confronted with a potentially lethal threat. In most of these instances, peace officers will have no other option but to discharge their firearm in order to protect their life or, the life of others.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOMALY502
 



Deadly Force. If a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others then the use of deadly force is justified.


What is the average IQ of a LEO?

As I recall an article of someone not being allowed to be a LEO because they had an IQ that was too high?

Do people understand the implications that these cases bring with them? Do the apologists understand who they are protecting? Do the LEO's understand that they are not, any longer, protecting civilians in the majority of the cases?

It's disgusting to even say one word in the defense of cold blooded murderers.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOMALY502
 





Deadly Force. If a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat ....


I can understand the Rake incident. They guy was acting aggressively towards other people.

The news write up does not sound like this guy was acting aggressively towards anyone when the cops WALKED into his line of fire. A different matter entirely. The guy was sitting down not hunting someone.

I am hoping there are enough witnesses to actually clarify what really happened. At this point we have nothing but a news paper story.

Also the "Object" was BRASS not silver metal and it was the wrong shape. news.yahoo.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Never heard of that one about the IQ. Tenesee vs. garner is what shaped the current Deadly Force policies used by most Departments. The other buzzword is objectively reasonable which was heard by the supreme court in the case of Graham vs Connor. These are two of the largest Supreme court cases which have shaped Police dept policies.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join