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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Based on your logic the Officer dies everytime. Either for spending time to attempt to figure out what the guy has, or by wasting ammunition trying to shoot a small target.


Although I agree with you on this particular case, this particular case also proves that is completely wrong as not a single officer would have been killed here regardless of how much time they spent trying to figure out what the guy had, unless they somehow got dehydration or starved because it took too long.

This is a tough case. There are tons of incidents out there where the officer(s) was(were) clearly in the wrong, this is not one of them. However, there are enough bad officers out there doing bad things that the public's opinion gets tempered and when something like this happens, the public naturally will be angry with the cops. If this were the only incident that ever happened, or even one of only a few, I'm sure people would take the side of the officers. After being and seeing abuse by officers for years and years though, things change.




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeSignal
 


My defense is directed at people who do not understand how this works, in terms of the law, SOG, and actions of the person being dealt with.

My thing is people need to wait to see the outcome of the 2 investigations to see if their actions were within policy as well as within law. We are only getting part of the incident, and wont get the rest until the investigations are done and it becomes a matter of public record.

The other information Ive been adding is to show people that these situations are not always how it appears. The general argument I have seen is based on a traditional mindset of a gun is a gun, and if it does not look like a gun its not. I am trying to show that in this day and age this is not always the case anymore.

Suggesting officers shoot to wound an individual is problematic for many reasons, and I already have given some.

here is one more that the person does not understand. If a LEO pulls his duty weapon and discharges rounds at someine, its by defitinition, law and policy, a deadly force encounter. Using a diuty weapon to "wound" a person is not consistent with deadly force, and could technically be construed as cruel and unusual punishment ot the person shot.

If there is a possibly to "wound" a person, then there is no need foruse of deadly force, since the situation would not warrant it.

Just trying to educate... nothing more.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Just another sickening example of officers who shoot first, ask questions later. LEO's have become nothing more than instruments of the police state~


Wonder what they'll do when the gun is turned around, and they're out numbered during the impending revolution? I have a feeling, in many peoples eyes, anyone with a badge is a target during those days?
edit on 15-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This was a reply to a situation-in-theory. Real cases with real guns is a different matter. It still doesn't justify shooting a kid with a toy gun.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
Because of the Columbine incident, the manner in which law enforcement deals with active shooter situations has changed. In addition to traiing using adult active shooters, the training I went through also inluded a twist. While clearing the school with another officer, we were confrtoned with a 8 year old boy who was armed and was the active shooter.


Again, I see where you are coming from, but it still doesn't justify anything. Just because a kid pulls a gun, doesn't mean every kid does the same. There would never be a single moment of peace, if we all acted upon that assumption.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeSignal
Just for laughs, humor me and answer this: In this situation, who was it they served and protected? What a joke.
I am not a wide supporter of jails, especially in the private sector, and I seriously doubt these LEO's will ever see one from the inside. On the other hand I hope, in the deepest chambers of my heart, that they will have a nagging feeling in their stomach for the rest of their days.


In this case, they handled the situation the best they could under the circumstances. We dont always get it right, and we all know that since no one is perfect.

In this case 911 received calls from civilians stating a man was waiving a gun around. Since people saw this, and 911 received multiple calls, it tells me there are innocent people possibly in danger. Our goal as LAw Enforcement is to serve and protect society.

In this case, I believe the Officers were attempting to protect and serve the people in the immidiate vicinity. Until the investigation is done, this is how I perceived their actions based on m own experience and training.

Being involved in an officer involved shooting is bad enough, because it means someone is most likel going to be dead from the result. Even Officers who end a threat, and meet all the criteria and then some, dont always recover from their actions. This is why most departments will place officers on extended leave, sometimes last weeks or months, for the officer to come to terms of what occured, and allow him to speak to a psychiatrist to make sure they are ok mentally.

Shooting and killing someone who appeared to be an imminent threat, only to find out later he was unarmed, can cause even more damage than a truely clean shoot.

There is a reason Law Enforcement Officers have a very weird and unique sense of humor. Not many people can relate to what we do for our job, and many more cannot understand it, or our actions, at all.

And yes, the majority of officers, even those who are involved in situations that dont require shots fired, always have a nagging feeling, playing the what if game.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimpish
 


Not gang mentality at all. The other part of that story revolves around the knife. Where was it? Did the guy dump it in the back yard when he got a rake, was it concealed on him?

Its tragic I agree, but the reason law enforcement was their in the first place was because he was chasing his parents around their house with a knife. So we already are starting out with a potentially deadly use of force upon contact.

A rake, shovel, garden hoe, log, bat. A deadly force encounter is not limited to just a knife or gun. Any weapon that can be used that can inflict major bodily harm or death is a deadly weapon.

There wer 5 officers present, the guy had a rake and knew he was looking at 5 officers with their guns drawn. Logic would say put the rake down. Instead he made agrssive moves towards an officer, and the result was shots fired.

I dont really know how else to explain how it works. I understand the perception people will have, but again I feel its based on a hindsight 20/20 view point, and not what was occuring at the exact moment force was used.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree with you on the situation of things, and that we don't know the whole story, and therefore I always irritate myself a bit responding to these kind of threads, because everything is still relative, not definitive.

No matter what the end results may be, they still shot him 8 times.
I know, there could be a thousand scenarios in this scene, and all played out it should only yield this end result in maybe two of those scenarios. It was a really bad judgement call these officers made, and they should feel extremely bad about it. In fact they should feel so bad that they actually want to sit at a desk job for the next 5 yrs, and then maybe return and do good again.

The caller who told the police he had a gun was the only person in this scenario who got his money worth, right? We have to call a shovel a shovel here.

Sorry if it sounds like a rant now, it is not my intention. I support the police and I find them important and necessary in every aspect. I just hate it when innocent people get hurt, even if they are drunk.

edit on 15/12/10 by JoeSignal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimpish
 


All fair and valid points. The perception of police by the peeople is in part because of the Media. We are prevented by law from discussing information about an active investigation so its not compromised, and the media fills in the pieces by leaps of logic, or by people who observed the incident, but does not understand the incident.

Its intresting working in a profession where at time we must use force in public. To almost all people, pacifist is the word of the day, and there is nothing wrong with that view. Its hard to watch an incident where a perosn is killed or "manhandled" by officers, because the actions, while more often than not justified, is contrary to peoples perception.

Any act of violence catches people off guard.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well that issue needs to be changed in my opinion. And I'm willing to bet a lot of others too.


Then you need to place yourself into a situation where you are responding to reports of a man weilding a weapon. You arrive on scene and the guy sees you and points an object at you and you are unsure of what he is pointing.

Based on your logic the Officer dies everytime. Either for spending time to attempt to figure out what the guy has, or by wasting ammunition trying to shoot a small target.

The target is moving as well. You are amped up, which means you loose fine motor control, going back to muscle memory and training.

Center mass is the target, not a woulding shot, leg shot, arm shot etc. The shooting is to stop the threat, not would or kill.


Police officers willingly signed up for the job nobody made them take the job. So with that comes danger and possible loss of life. To not even make an attempt to put a criminal down without killing in my opinion is a disregard for human life cut and dry simple as that. Thank you for bringing to my attention everything you have as alot of it I wasn't aware of as I try to stay away from criminal activities. But I still feel that the laws need to be changed to take actions to preserve life not destroy it especially when you have more than 1 officer against 1 criminal, if the officers are trained to the T then one should be able to assess the situation while the other is ready to take out the target if things start going south. In this case the guy had something unidentifiable in his hand, we have to point out the fact he was not shooting that in my mind is also a difference.




The above does not even cover toy guns that look like real guns. Toy guys are suppose to have a bright color attach to it, usually the end of the barrel, to differentiate it from a real gun. A Black permanent marker can solve that, makin the gun look real.


So if I take a real gun and paint the end a "fake" looking color like on a fake gun, the officers will perceive it to not be a threat, the logic in all of this really makes no sense.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This was a reply to a situation-in-theory. Real cases with real guns is a different matter. It still doesn't justify shooting a kid with a toy gun.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
Because of the Columbine incident, the manner in which law enforcement deals with active shooter situations has changed. In addition to traiing using adult active shooters, the training I went through also inluded a twist. While clearing the school with another officer, we were confrtoned with a 8 year old boy who was armed and was the active shooter.


Again, I see where you are coming from, but it still doesn't justify anything. Just because a kid pulls a gun, doesn't mean every kid does the same. There would never be a single moment of peace, if we all acted upon that assumption.


My point was even kids can kill a person. Are police supposed to take a different avenue of approach because the kid is 8 and weights maybe 70 pounds?

Its to show that again, the traditional viewpoint from people in this thread is there is a black and white line on what a criminal / suspect is. There is a black and white line as to what a weapon is. There is a black and white line by people about law enforcement actions, and communication.

Its not black or white. Its very complex.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeSignal
 


It was more than just one caller. When involved in a high stress situation, people on both sides undergo whats refered to as auditory exclusion, in addition to "time dialation". It is experienced differently by every officer. Some can tell you all the details of why force was used, but cant tell you how many shots were fired.

Also, you kind of contradicted one of your earlier comments, about waiting for all the facts to come out. These officers did there job, and how they feel is entirely in their perview. Personally I dont think they should feel bad until all the investigations are done and all the facts come out.

Until you have been involved in a deadly force encounter, the argument is based off of the "this is what I would do argument" by people who are not trained, understand or have any experience dealing with it. As I said, its not as black and white as people are making it.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its to show that again, the traditional viewpoint from people in this thread is there is a black and white line on what a criminal / suspect is. There is a black and white line as to what a weapon is. There is a black and white line by people about law enforcement actions, and communication. Its not black or white. Its very complex.


Aren't you painting it the same way? It sounds very black and white coming from you.
If I come home and my wife is held up by a 8 year old with a toy knife, and I strangle the kid, in self defense, what do you think is going to happen to me? I will go to jail for the rest of my life.

I can't assume anything, I have to assess everything everyday, that is life. That is no different just because we are dealing with police officers. I agree with you that we can't know the enemy before he stands 10 feet away, but I still hold my ground on ethics and morale. We have to think before we act, and these officers did not.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


As far as the color of the gun comment, the intent behind that is to ambush an officer. The officer sees the colored end and could come to the conclusion the person he is dealing with is attempting whats called "suicide by cop". It changes the thought process over to this person wants me to kill him.

The problem is the thought process the officer goes into is a distraction to what is going on. Its enough time for the fake gun to be discharged, possibly killing an officer or bystander.

The intent of criminals is to think up new ways to give themsevles an advantage over the officer. This is accomplished by forcing the officer to second guess the situation because of the color on the barrel.

To the other point yes, we sign up and know what we are getting into. However, its not as black and white as you are making it out to be. Trying to put a criminal down, based on my knowledge, and this situation, does not come into play. Failure to identify the object in the persons hand could turn an attempt to Tase, bean bag or pepperspray the person into a dead cop.

The courts allow Officers whats called a 1 plus advantage. It allows officers to escelate force one level higher than whats being used against them. The simplest argument is people are supposed to submit to the authority of a LEO. This is not always the case, and the situation also prevents that at times.

The officers were trying to end the situation peacefully based on the article. They were rpesent but not confronting the guy. They called for back and were waiting for it to arrive (which means it wouldhave been possible for an officer to attempt to emply a less than lethal device, like beanbag round since there are enough cops for deadly force cover if needed).

The guy decided to hold the item like a person would hold a gun, and point it at the officers.

Snap decision - Shoot or no shoot.

People will most likely never understand that concept or agree with the result of those actions. Not really sure what more I can add to that other than the perception by the people, and whats actually allowed, are not the same.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Originally posted by Xcathdra
These officers did there job, and how they feel is entirely in their perview. Personally I dont think they should feel bad until all the investigations are done and all the facts come out.


Of course they should feel bad, they shot an unarmed man 8 times, with a shotgun and a pistol. The investigation isn't going to change that. When all comes to conclusion they will with 98% certainty be acquitted, but they still shot an unarmed man they thought was armed. Why should they not feel bad now, knowing what they know?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeSignal
 


Assuming you would go to jail for strangling the kid is a worst case scenarion, and its dependant upon the state you live in. Some states have whats called a duty to retreat if your a civilian. Some states dont require a person to retreat.

The picture I am painting is whoing the LEO side of an incident like this. Only the investigation results are going to matter.

Out of curisoity, what if you were the officer the guy was pointing the item at. You are told by dispatch people were reporting him witha gun. If you dont shoot, you or your partner could die. You wait a few more seconds, and the guy turns away from you. Looks like you might be getting lucky, until you realize there is a bystander in their front yard who came out to see what the commotion was about. The guy with the item shoots the bystander.

Now what?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Officers are wearing body armor correct? And they are trained extensively to deal with high stress situations. So we are to believe that in all that training and situation management they are still unable to take control of the situation without loss of life? I just can't see it, because all the logic in this says if the guy starts shooting by disabling him with a non lethal shot the officers could easily take control of the situation. If you are telling me that people highly trained are unable to handle the stress of the situation and shoot accurately, how the hell is the regular Joe on the street gonna pull off a lethal shot? Sure odds are involved but to me it seems like taking the easy way out I am sure there is a better way and like I said earlier suspecting someone has a real gun and not shoot and someone actually shooting is a different circumstance. Now if the guy was pulling off rounds then by all means take him out. Sounds to me like the publicly financed police departments need a retraining session and a outside review on procedures as what is currently being used doesn't bode well with the taxpayers.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Originally posted by Xcathdra
These officers did there job, and how they feel is entirely in their perview. Personally I dont think they should feel bad until all the investigations are done and all the facts come out.


Of course they should feel bad, they shot an unarmed man 8 times, with a shotgun and a pistol. The investigation isn't going to change that. When all comes to conclusion they will with 98% certainty be acquitted, but they still shot an unarmed man they thought was armed. Why should they not feel bad now, knowing what they know?


This is what im getting at. They did not shoot an unarmed man. They shot a person who had a potentially deadly item in his hands that he pointed at the officers. It was not until after the incident was over that they found out he was not holding a gun.

Again, the thought process you are giving is a hindsight is 20/20 answer.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
While it is indeed a sad story, I can't really fault the officers for this.
They're going into situations daily where their lives are put on the line, and someone should know better than to hold something like that as if its a gun pointed towards police.

How should they react to such a call? Assume the man is unarmed and put their own lives in even greater danger? You have to remember they are people also not robots, they wish to stay alive for many reasons and a lot of them have families who they must return home too.

I thought it was common sense not to act as if you're pointing a gun towards police officers, and to expect nothing to happen afterwards?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I wouldn't even be in the line of fire. That must have been their biggest mistake. Like one other poster said, one officer holds the line of sight, while the other talks/commands the perp down. If the perp is acting erratic and points at the officer in sight, the other one shoots. And not 8 times. Maybe one or two times. And I know, I wasn't there and it's easy to be clever now, but seriously...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think you sound like a great cop. I've met a few really awesome police officers. The best was a young female officer. I was so impressed by her attitude that I wrote the police chief and told him how great she was. Unfortunately, I've met more d-bag cops than good ones so when I read articles written so blatantly biased against the officers, I make my decision based on that.

My original point was the article was a bad piece of journalism because it didn't give a clear picture of what happened. It doesn't have enough information for anyone to really know what happened. It's impossible to make an informative decision so I fall back on my personal experiences. Just like you are defending them because you identify with them, I identify with the victim because of my negative police experiences. Joe Public will do the same so you and that pretty young cop that was such a help to me when I needed it the most will pay for it by furthering the wedge between cops and citizens. But at least the media will make some money from it.







 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join