Man in wheelchair shot dead by Visalia police

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
What makes this worse is that if the officer was lunged at and feared for his life, then they victim was shot at point blank range. Surely, being this close it would have been easy to aim for a leg if he felt the absolute need to shoot at all?

The standard for law enforcement is not to shoot to kill, It is to end the threat. We are not allowed to "wound" or fire warning shots. We are trained to shoot center mass for 2 important reasons -

* - When engaging a human, center mass (chest) is the largest part.
* - Unlike the military, law enforcement as well as law does not allow for collateral damage. If we shoot at an arm or leg and miss, that bullet doesn't just self detonate. it continues until it runs out of steam, or it enters another object, possibly human.

When we discharge our duty weapon, its done with the required legal criteria of ending a threat.

And this is why not just any old officer should be allowed a gun. Armed police are only dispatched in the UK when it is deemed absolutely necessary. A police officer shouldn't be given the opportunity to end a life whenever they feel a bit twitchy. There are two many stories of suspects getting shot to death in the US when the threat they present has not been warranted such extreme action. I think the US gun laws need changing anyway but who am I to judge?

Oh, before you respond, think about these stats

US:
Police deaths in the line of duty increase from 152 to 166 so far this year
This is despite fewer police per population averages in 2011
Ex-cons have tendency to shoot when approached by police, official says
Source

UK:
9 deaths, majority are road traffic accidents.
Source


I think that speaks volumes.

Originally posted by fiftyfifty

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
What makes this worse is that if the officer was lunged at and feared for his life, then they victim was shot at point blank range. Surely, being this close it would have been easy to aim for a leg if he felt the absolute need to shoot at all?

The standard for law enforcement is not to shoot to kill, It is to end the threat. We are not allowed to "wound" or fire warning shots. We are trained to shoot center mass for 2 important reasons -

* - When engaging a human, center mass (chest) is the largest part.
* - Unlike the military, law enforcement as well as law does not allow for collateral damage. If we shoot at an arm or leg and miss, that bullet doesn't just self detonate. it continues until it runs out of steam, or it enters another object, possibly human.

When we discharge our duty weapon, its done with the required legal criteria of ending a threat.

And this is why not just any old officer should be allowed a gun. Armed police are only dispatched in the UK when it is deemed absolutely necessary. A police officer shouldn't be given the opportunity to end a life whenever they feel a bit twitchy. There are two many stories of suspects getting shot to death in the US when the threat they present has not been warranted such extreme action. I think the US gun laws need changing anyway but who am I to judge?

Oh, before you respond, think about these stats

US:
Police deaths in the line of duty increase from 152 to 166 so far this year
This is despite fewer police per population averages in 2011
Ex-cons have tendency to shoot when approached by police, official says
Source

UK:
9 deaths, majority are road traffic accidents.
Source


I think that speaks volumes.

edit on 13-12-2011 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)

I think your whole post speaks volumes.

When Police shoot someone in the UK the people riot.

When Police shoot someone in America the people cheer.

reply to post by fiftyfifty


Population of the US - 300+ million
Population of the UK - 62+ million

Comparing crime stats doesn't work in this case since we would be comparing apples to zebras.

The right to bear arms is in our Constitution and personally speaking I will turn in my badge and resign from my department before following any order to confiscate weapons from people. An armed population are citizens, and unarmed population are subjects.

Just because it works in the UK and Australia does not mean it will work in the US. As far as the UK goes you guys have major issues with the number of people killed by knife and to date the plans the government has in place are not helping to reduce that amount.

In terms of legality the officers in question did break the law by using deadly force. Contrary to popular belief the taking of a life is not legal in the US. What happens is the death is investigate to see if the use of force was valid and in compliance with not only state law, but departmental policy as well as federal law.

If the shooting was ruled justified, its logged as a death with mitigating circumstances. Even when a person is executed by lethal injection, the cause of death is homicide. This incident has nothing to do with gun control, since the gun in question had a knife. As others pointed out the guy threatened security officers and lunged at the police officers. A person armed with a knife is just as dangerous as a person armed with a gun.

The guy could have dropped the knife, yet he chose not to.
He could have remained in the wheel chair. yet he chose to lunge at an officer.

The guy armed with the knife met every single requirement the law has in place for officers to exercise the use of deadly force.

On a personal note, and no offense to you, but why do people always come down on the side of a criminal? People want to blame the police for what occurred, yet they completely ignore the fact -

* - The guy chose to arm himself with a knife, the police didn't do it for him.
* - The guy decided to enter a store to steal, the police did not do it for him.
* - He chose to display the knife in a threatening manner, security did not do it for him.
* - He chose to flee the location, no one did it for him.
* - He chose to display the knife in a threatening manner when confronted by police, the police didn't do it for him.
* - He chose to ignore all verbal commands to drop the knife, the cops didn't plug his ears for him.
* - He chose to lunge at an officer in a threatening manner, the police didn't do it for him.
* - He chose every single factor in this story, which means he had complete control to change his mind.

All the guy needed to do was drop the knife.

He decided not to.

He is dead because of his poor choices, not because the officers shot him.

As a side note if the system in your country works so well, then why do you even need armed officers? There is essentially no right to bear arms (some exceptions exist) so why the need for armed police?

Why are you ok with wanting to hold police accountable for their actions yet you and other remain quiet / ignore the personal accountability of the man with the knife?

reply to post by theovermensch


I'm afraid that's where your wrong. The riots started when a few people rebelled against the police for shooting someone in shady circumstances. IT escalated when desperate hopefuls jumped on the bandwagon hoping to bag some free goods. That was absolutely nothing to do with Mark Duggan in the end. Besides, how often has this happened?

If the Americans cheer whenever someone get's shot then frankly, I'm glad I don't live there. However, I'm smart enough to realise that this is the views of a single person and not indicative of an entire nation. I think you should speak for yourself rather than your fellow countrymen.

reply to post by Xcathdra


In answer to your last question first, there are a hell of a lot of illegally owned guns on the streets of the UK. There are also a lot of legally owned guns and in the hands of the wrong people, even these can often end in someone's death. Armed police are a necessity in any country in my opinion. I know the UK has it's flaws but the policing here is something I respect and in a way also pity at the same time as they are not allowed to be as tough on criminals as they should be. Shooting suspects unnecessarily though, is not something I would want to see happen regularly here.

I am not anti police and realise that in certain situations, criminals have made their choices and get what they deserve. However, with the amount of guns freely available in the US, it is inevitable that there will be more loons and twisted people around to decide to go shooting. Mix this with armed police everywhere and it is going to result in more shootings (on both sides).

reply to post by fiftyfifty


The stats in the UK prove gun control does not work. It does not work here in the US either. The reason for that is criminals do not follow the law. As you guys see when guns are outlawed / severely restricted, it allows criminals the ability to do their thing without opposition.

As far as guns being freely available, you do understand that aside from hunting rifles a person cannot just walk into a store and buy a gun no questions asked? Most states have added restrictions for purchasing a handgun, requiring people to submit to a background check first, and once passed they are issued a permit to purchase. What a person does with that weapon once they obtain it is their choice. Since we can't arrest and charge people for the possibility of committing future crimes, and if the person passes all requirement to be in possession of that gun, then thats the way it goes.

Do armed citizens make my job dangerous? absolutely it does.
Do I want to see guns outlawed here in the US? absolutely not.

The people have a right to be able to defend themselves, whether its from criminals, the police gone bonkers or against the government when they fail to represent the will of the people. Banning guns and only allowing the military / police to own, carry and use sends the wrong message and in my opinion poses a serious threat to freedom.

My boss are the people I serve and when my boss decides they want to make some changes to the laws then the changes will be made. Until that time, Ill take my chances dealing with people who very well maybe armed and wanting to kill me.

As a side note it was not my intention to insinuate you were anti police, so if I came across that way my apologies.

reply to post by Xcathdra


In all honesty... total respect. You are spot on in the fact that neither systems work. It's like the conundrum with drugs. If you make certain drugs legal, more people will start taking them, ban drugs and people find alternative ways of getting them resulting in more crime. Catch 22 really.

You have a tough job and I don't purport to fully understand American law or for that matter British law. If the solution was that easy then it would have been done by now.

reply to post by fiftyfifty

Text I'm afraid that's where your wrong. The riots started when a few people rebelled against the police for shooting someone in shady circumstances.

Im afraid I am right. It wasnt a few people. I saw them before the riots. There was outrage in the community. And like you just said "rebelled against the police for shooting someone in shady circumstances" again in case you missed it "rebelled against the police for shooting someone in shady circumstances".

Thats what started the whole thing. Police shooting someone. There was outrage.
In America there is no outrage.

Text On 6 August a protest was held, initially peacefully, beginning at Broadwater Farm and finishing at Tottenham police station.[35] The protest was organised by friends and relatives of Duggan to demand justice for the family.[15][36][37] Rioting occurred shortly after about 120 people marched from the Broadwater Farm estate to Tottenham Police Station via the High Road.[38] The group of some 200 people demanded that a senior local police officer come out to speak to them. They stayed in front of the police station hours longer than they originally planned because they were not satisfied with the seniority of the officers available at the time. A younger and more aggressive crowd arrived at the scene around dusk, some carrying weapons. Further violence broke out based on an allegation that the police had attacked a 16-year-old girl.

Text If the Americans cheer whenever someone get's shot then frankly, I'm glad I don't live there. However, I'm smart enough to realise that this is the views of a single person and not indicative of an entire nation. I think you should speak for yourself rather than your fellow countrymen.

Im not American thank god. I think you should not assume stuff.

Text That was absolutely nothing to do with Mark Duggan in the end. Besides, how often has this happened?

Like you showed there are almost no instances of this happening in the UK. So I would say for the amount of times someone is shot by police in "shady" circumstances rioting is at a high rate.

And when did I say indicative of an entire nation? I said people cheer. You know that doesnt mean every American. Are you being "smart" or silly? I think silly and pedantic.

Again,if Duggan was not killed there would be no riots.
And I think America is a morally debased nation. They cheer for War they cheer for their Police State and they seem to hate each other. Obviously not every individual.

reply to post by theovermensch


I'm a bit confused by your last post, you seem to be argueing with your own words. I know that riots are not common in greater britain, and not so common now where I am thank god. Rioting is not so common now in the US either. Maybe people have thrown in the towel against the increasingly cruel way police go about their business. The distinction between 'criminal' and a 'suspect' has become blurred and everyone is bucked to the ground--just in case. The man who died in this case had been shot at least twice, (pop pop) and the police, (plural) were telling him to "roll over" presumably for the 'cuffs' a possibly fatal thing to do. That is what witnesses have said, so at least their word is as good as the police's when they said the man got up out of his wheelchair.

A friend of a man in a wheelchair fatally shot over the weekend by a Visalia police officer said Monday that she believed the man may have pulled a knife intending to force the officer to kill him. "I think Snap went the way he wanted to go" Trudy Burkdoll said, using the nickname of the man she knew as "Jason Sweet."

Looks like "Snap" just snapped.

Suicide by Cop. I really feel for that Cop.

She said Sweet was a panhandler and someone who shoplifted regularly to support himself and his methamphetamine habit.

The guy was a Tweeker?

And there are questions of whether the "Jason Sweet" name he gave his friends is real or if he might be the Robert Leon Sweet — with the same Feb. 20 birthday as the man Burkdoll knew — convicted last month after pleading no contest in Tulare County Superior Court to charges of burglary, theft and carrying a concealed dirk or dagger .

Well if he had a "Dirk".....WTF is a Dirk?

"He seemed like a real nice person," despite his drug habit and the fact that he stole to get by and feed his habit, Burkdoll said.

Listen to yourself.....Link to the pathetic article