Shot in the head. Police say this. Witnesses say that.

A woman called the policve after a long fight with her sister.
The same woman was shot twice. Once in the head and once in the chest.

Police ordered her to drop the knife.
She said the police would have to shoot her.

Witnesses said she had dropped the knife and the officer should have used a taser.
The cheif said there wasn't enough time and she still had the knife.

Is it possible that low rent people judge danger differently?
In my world an angry black person with a butcher knife walking towards me is an immediate danger.
In their world the same thing might be one step above spilt milk. No big deal.

Have the low rent types been so desensitized to danger that they live in a different world than the rest of us?

Shot in the head.

reply to post by samkent


It seems the fact you use the term "low rent types" is all I really need to understand your perspective.

In my opinion, regardless of your rent designation, involving the police in any situation that involves a potential violation of the law also carries with it a potential death sentence.

It sounds like you are ok with that.

I am not.

Originally posted by samkent
A woman called the policve after a long fight with her sister.
The same woman was shot twice. Once in the head and once in the chest.

Police ordered her to drop the knife.
She said the police would have to shoot her.

Witnesses said she had dropped the knife and the officer should have used a taser.
The cheif said there wasn't enough time and she still had the knife.

Is it possible that low rent people judge danger differently?
In my world an angry black person with a butcher knife walking towards me is an immediate danger.
In their world the same thing might be one step above spilt milk. No big deal.


Have the low rent types been so desensitized to danger that they live in a different world than the rest of us?

Shot in the head.

Just another class distinction hipster posting on ATS. Lets see you come back here and post when your local PD man handles your for a minor infringement.

The point is, when non lethal control is available and could have been used, it very seldom is used.

I didn't see where in the article it was disputed she was still holding the knife but the amount of Red Bull I've ingested is making reading a little difficult.

A person can get 30 feet with a knife in seconds, shooting was probably the best bet unfortunately.

I would suggest rephrasing some things in that OP. Perhaps, uh, taking out the racial component.

reply to post by Domo1

At least two witnesses told police Erica Collins shouted to Latzy that he would have to shoot her, just before she advanced in his direction. That’s when police say Latzy shot Collins, once in the upper chest and once in her head. She was pronounced dead on the scene.

Notwithstanding what the officer said, it sounds like he had time in advance to choose the appropriate weapon.

Moreover, what ever happened to disabling a perpetrator? Being shot in the chest and head certainly doesn't qualify.

Of course, the devil is always in the details. But we hear these examples often enough, that I no longer give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement.

You seem a little out of touch

reply to post by loam


WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO



ETA Of course I would have to see the whole thing but don't underestimate someone with a knife vs. a gun.

From another article:

In a press release attorney Deters says that "no one was in imminent harm when Erica was shot and killed by a police officer." He goes on to say "When she was shot, she was not near anyone and did not threaten the police officer in any manner."

According to Deters, Collins' sister, who she was originally arguing with, maintains that no one was even close to Erica when she was shot. She and her brother, who witnessed the shooting say that Erica she had complied with the officers demands to drop the knife.

www.fox19.com...

The woman had NO previous history of criminal behavior.

reply to post by loam


Ah there we go. Not having a previous criminal record does not mean she wasn't a dirt bag though and in a situation like this I hesitate to believe the family. Hesitate to believe the cops too. Really would have to see the video. Also an eye witness saying she was nowhere close to anyone doesn't mean she wasn't close enough to be a threat. Many people don't get how fast someone with a knife closes ground, look at above video.

Despite ATS popular opinion I have never met a cop (and have met many) that ever actually wanted to use their weapon. I think most regard it as the worst thing they may ever have to do.

reply to post by Domo1


Of course, that's all fine and dandy, but the basic facts are disputed by even the woman who called the police.

reply to post by Domo1

Originally posted by Domo1
Ah there we go. Not having a previous criminal record does not mean she wasn't a dirt bag though and in a situation like this I hesitate to believe the family.

Yes, let's ignore the 'presumption of innocence' component to our form of governance. Your approach places that presumption on its head.

Sorry, but I will never buy into that.

Originally posted by Domo1
Despite ATS popular opinion I have never met a cop (and have met many) that ever actually wanted to use their weapon. I think most regard it as the worst thing they may ever have to do.

For the good ones. But there are ample bad ones too. And the system protects them, making the good ones few and far between.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Domo1

 

Of course, that's all fine and dandy, but the basic facts are disputed by even the woman who called the police.

Right. I don't trust family members when a loved one is shot in front of them.

Meh we're all just speculating. Sad incident. There is something I think we can take away from the story though. Don't threaten people with knives and don't still be holding it when the cops show up.

reply to post by loam

Yes, let's ignore the 'presumption of innocence' component to our form of governance. Your approach places that presumption on its head. Sorry, but I will never buy into that.

I'm simply stating that not having a record doesn't really mean anything. Especially not if they only checked that particular county which the article indicates. I don't think a criminal record has much bearing either way in this case unless she had a history of running at police with knives.

reply to post by Domo1

Originally posted by Domo1
Meh we're all just speculating. Sad incident. There is something I think we can take away from the story though. Don't threaten people with knives and don't still be holding it when the cops show up.

Agreed.

reply to post by samkent



"Low rent types" LOL Wonder what you mean by that?
Unless you are Mitt Romney rich, I think you recognize danger equally. I would say you have come to stereotype a whole bunch of people before you have enough facts at all. Like the discrepency of the knife, the distance is a missing factor.

You have jumped the gun on this one. I tend to trust people over police. If you haven't noticed the police are pretty big on murdering civilians these days.

reply to post by loam

It seems the fact you use the term "low rent types" is all I really need to understand your perspective.

In my opinion, regardless of your rent designation, involving the police in any situation that involves a potential violation of the law also carries with it a potential death sentence.

It sounds like you are ok with that.

The argument was over gas money.

These types (low rent) seem to fly off the handle over something relatively small.
The argument went on for a few hours before hand. Then she goes out to slice the tires??
Would you consider this middle class behavior?
And then as a topper she says "the police is just gonna have to shoot me"! In front of the officer. Pure class.

Lets just admit that a large segment of these low rent types live in a different world than we do. The same common sense and rules just don't apply to them in their world.
So when she forced the oficer to make a 'Darwin" decision her neighbors just can't understand.

Happens a lot in low rent districs they see the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in the death of someone more than they see in their life. Hey i live in a low rent distric!!

reply to post by samkent


I almost left this alone. Sigh. Yes low rent types live in a different world then you. Let us consider it. Such a small thing as gas money. Needed to keep a job. Not many jobs around these days for low rent types. I wonder if she had to NOT FEED HER KIDS in order to save that money to keep the job to feed her kids. Just speculating of course. To her $20 might be the same as $2000 to you or more. Of course once the police were on the scene it was all over. Her job was gone. Probably her freedom as well as it would be doubtful if she could afford bond. Then of course there would be CPS to take her kids away. Obviously unstable. So because her sister stole gas money from her she was going to lose her job and possibly her kids to start with. Such a minor problem! Once the officer was on the scene she not only would lose her job and kids but her freedom as well. So she was going to lose everything she loved in life. If I was you I would be glad that I lived in better circumstances. What would YOU do in the same situation? Let your sister endanger your kids? Yes this is all speculation but this is HOW the "low rent" people HAVE to live. Once the police were on the scene her life was effectively over and it sounds like she knew it. Why I bet she did not have cable TV, a computer or internet, and probably had trouble getting food stamps as it seems only the incompetent work for in public service anymore. They can not be fired for incompetence. Just think about it.

Most likely had she dropped the knife she would not have been arrested.
I don't know if the tires were actually sliced or not.

reply to post by loam

Yes, let's ignore the 'presumption of innocence' component to our form of governance. Your approach places that presumption on its head.

Sorry, but I will never buy into that.

Well, actually you do buy into that.

In your previous post, you stated this:

Notwithstanding what the officer said, it sounds like he had time in advance to choose the appropriate weapon.

You are discounting what the officer said and automatically assuming that he was wrong to shoot her.

How can you simply discount one side of the story? Is it because you have already tried and convicted the officer? Is it because you already presume the officer is not telling the truth?

Where is your

'presumption of innocence'

for the officer?

So you have a presumption of innocence for people as long as they are not police officers?

Moreover, what ever happened to disabling a perpetrator? Being shot in the chest and head certainly doesn't qualify.

If the officer has time to use a less lethal means then great. If not, deadly force must be confronted with deadly force.

Someone advancing on another with a knife is surely deadly force.