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

reply to post by areyouserious2010


I actually listened to the press conference and used their words to make a judgment.

I zeroed in on the fact the officer said the woman appeared to attempting to slash the tires (said in a way that creates the impression he wasn't really sure and could not fully see her from his position) and that there were people near the woman he was trying to protect-- disputed by witnesses.

In terms of where the presumption lies, the design of our system always REQUIRES it be given to the citizen, not the State.

If you don't want a dangerous job....then don't have one.

Talk about placing things on their head....

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

By "low rent types" I suppose you mean "lower class"?
Do they live in a different world than "the rest of us"?
What the #&)! do YOU think?????

reply to post by loam

I zeroed in on the fact the officer said the woman appeared to attempting to slash the tires (said in a way that creates the impression he wasn't really sure and could not fully see her from his position) and that there were people near the woman he was trying to protect-- disputed by witnesses.

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.

Source
So, the chief showed the knife that the woman was holding.

And we have two independent witnesses saying that she shouted to the officer that he would have to shoot her just before advancing in his direction. INDEPENDENT witnesses, not solely the officer's word.

So, if independent witnesses give one story and the family of the woman gives another, who do you think would be more inclined to provide a false account?

In terms of where the presumption lies, the design of our system always REQUIRES it be given to the citizen, not the State.

Is a police officer not a citizen? If a police officer is accused of wrongdoing, they are afforded the same rights as anyone else when it comes to the presumption of innocence.

And you are only partially correct. The JUDICIAL system must maintain a presumption of innocence until evidence is presented by the state that proves otherwise. We are only dealing in the court of PUBLIC OPINION and based on the above testimony by independent witnesses, the officer was right to shoot the out of control woman weilding a knife.

If you don't want a dangerous job....then don't have one.

It sounds like this officer not only wanted the dangerous job but performed appropriately when placed in a dangerous situation.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


As I agreed previously, it's pointless to argue the merits of this example, based solely upon the few examples of media coverage.

However...

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
...JUDICIAL system...

Providing an automatic presumption that the officer's story is always correct largely eliminates the need for a judicial system- particulalrly when the 'perp' is already dead.

And like I also said previously, I no longer am willing to so easily give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement. I draw this conclusion for the endless number of examples of CLEAR abuse in other cases and my own personal experiences.

The system is broken. Plain and simple.

reply to post by loam

Providing an automatic presumption that the officer's story is always correct largely eliminates the need for a judicial system, when the 'perp' is already dead.

Like I also said previously, I no longer am willing to so easily give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement. I draw this conclusion for the endless number of examples of CLEAR abuse and my own personal experiences.

I had no automatic presumption. I read the article. Did you miss the part of the article that clearly states two independent witnesses said the woman stated the officer would have to shoot her just before advancing in his direction. Or are you just ignoring that fact because it does not fit your agenda?

Not only are you not willing to give police officers the benefit of the doubt, you are also not willing to accept facts that show the officer acted correctly.

This is one of the reasons that actual police brutality or misconduct is sometimes overlooked by the public. Every time a police officer does something, there is ALWAYS an element to scream POLICE BRUTALITY or MURDER even when confronted with facts that say otherwise. Those same people will scream that the officer should be fired, charged with a crime or even outright killed without weighing any facts whatsoever. This becomes very distracting and takes attention away from ACTUAL police misconduct.

The system is broken. Plain and simple.

What "system?" Now instead of claiming this one officer was wrong, you are now claiming the entire "system" is broken?

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.

''In my world, an angry black person with a butcher knife is an immediate danger. In their world, the same thing might be one step above spilt milk. No big deal.'' Really?? In my world, ANYBODY wielding a knife, approaching me is a danger. But for you, only blacks, right? GTFOH. Do you really think black people equates taking someone's life with spilled milk? That was insulting a whole race of people singlehandedly, champ. Nice job. But I'm sure you have ''black friends''. Sometimes, I'd like to see how it feels to hate people simply for the color of their skin. From what I gather, it must be exhilerating.

reply to post by poloblack

I never said black.
I said low rent types because it covers both black and white.
Now in this case they were black. And I have noticed they have a tendancy to over react to circunstances that, in my world, would piss me off. But I would not grab a knife and start slicing tires.

To me it seems like they are more accepting of high level of violence in their world.
Drugs, gun fire, robbery, home invasion, beatings are prevolant in their world. With no outrage.

In my world any of those requires immediate attention. As in we would tell the police who, what, and what time. We do not tolerate those actions.

In their world no one sees anything. Even the victim refuses to talk to the police. That doesn't remove the animals from the street.

I can see how an officer would feel threatened by a person holding a butcher knife and refusing the command to drop the knife.

I don't think that this is a racial thing.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by poloblack

 

I never said black.
I said low rent types because it covers both black and white.
Now in this case they were black. And I have noticed they have a tendancy to over react to circunstances that, in my world, would piss me off. But I would not grab a knife and start slicing tires.

To me it seems like they are more accepting of high level of violence in their world.
Drugs, gun fire, robbery, home invasion, beatings are prevolant in their world. With no outrage.

In my world any of those requires immediate attention. As in we would tell the police who, what, and what time. We do not tolerate those actions.

In their world no one sees anything. Even the victim refuses to talk to the police. That doesn't remove the animals from the street.

Yes you did. Re-read your post. You said that if a BLACK person with a butcher knife was coming towards you, well, you know the rest of what you said. And I can tell by your post, sociology isn't your strong suit, but generalizing an entire segment of society seems to be. You know, the black and white ''low rent people''. You should really get over yourself.

Originally posted by Domo1
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.

With all due respect Domo, could you envision any cop admitting that it felt good to discharge their weapon at someone who dared them? I don't doubt your perception of the cops you've met. I question their ability to be honest with themselves.

reply to post by poloblack

I stand partially corrected.
This incident involved black but there is that segment of both that live with different standards of safety.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


"advancing" means a different things to cops than it does to normal people.
I remember when the deaf woodcarver didn't hear the police's commands and turned around with his pocket knife. The turning was enough advancement for a cop to unload a clip in him and kill him. Not that the guy did anything at all. He was just walkng down the street widdling the cop went maniac cop on him for having a knife.

Originally posted by samkent

Is it possible that low rent people judge danger differently?

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.

I would rather be a "low rent type" than an entitled idiot with Rectal-Cranial Inversion Disorder who can't judge much of anything right. If ever you come up for air maybe you'll get a clue. "Different world than the rest of us..." Indeed.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

"advancing" means a different things to cops than it does to normal people.

The witnesses, or normal people in your words, also stated the woman "advanced" in the officer's direction.

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.

"He said, 'Ma'am, drop the weapon.' He asked her maybe three or four times to drop the weapon. She said, 'If you're going to shoot me, shoot me,'" one witness said.

Source

Apparently in this case, the officer's definition of "advancing" and normal people's definition of "advancing" are one and the same.

And not only did he ask her once before shooting her, he asked her three or four times to drop the knife according to this witness.