Alton Sterling - No charges against LEOs, the right call IMO

Louisiana's attorney general ruled out criminal charges Tuesday against two [..] Baton Rouge police officers in the fatal shooting of a black man outside a convenience store.

LE was called to the store for a report of a man with a firearm. Mr. Sterling did in fact have a firearm, and was shot fatally after a failed Taser deployment.

This is why the "Taser" can't be the go-to for deadly threats. Ever. For any reason.

www.msn.com...

LEOs made the right call, and used reasonable force to protect themselves and the public at large.

Now, let's look at this rationally. If Mr. Sterling would've complied with the LEO's lawful commands, didn't have a firearm, didn't continue to fight despite LTL deployment AND wasn't breaking the law in the first place.....he'd be alive today. It is the suspected criminal in this case (and mostly ever case) who sets the tone. They decide the outcome through their actions.

LE's actions will be automatic, rehearsed and typically just. But most of all, impartial. This was an appropriate response, IMO, given the situation Mr. Sterling presented to the officers. It is sick that manufactured outrage and an understandably emotional family was exploited by MSM to attack two LEOs that were put in an unthinkable position by a selfish criminal.

I always feel terrible for the families however. No family wants to believe or accept that one of their own would be capable of doing something like this (fighting with officers, using a firearm during the commission of a crime, etc). Thoughts and prayers go out to them

EDIT: *Removed "White" from MSN quote paragraph, since it is irrelevant filler data.

a reply to: JBurns

Annnnd Cue the uprising from the BLM "Movement"

I cant wait to hear about how he was such a good person.
How he would never had hurt anyone, was just trying to go buy a pack of skittles... oops wrong story.
But whatever, if it fits, use it I guess.

a reply to: JBurns

Reasonable force is normally force for force.

Reading the timeline of events. Sterling never had his gun out. Having a gun isn't a crime in LA. I think they have an open carry law. They also have a concealed carry law.

These two officers effectively did a Judge Dredd and executed this guy on site after they had him down.

a reply to: JBurns

Wheres the gun?

a reply to: grey580

Reading the timeline of events. Sterling never had his gun out. Having a gun isn't a crime in LA. I think they have an open carry law. They also have a concealed carry law.

They also have laws that bars those convicted of sex crimes, which Sterling was, from possessing firearms.

a reply to: Macenroe82


Heh, or the line that he was "just" selling bootleg CD/DVD's

Which is a felony under US code, punishable by 5 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine

The guy committing a felony, who actually had a firearm and was reported to have threatened someone with it minutes before, who violently resisted officers, ignored lawful commands and continued to fight despite TWO LTL deployments.... yet somehow they try to paint him as the "good guy" in all this

And the protesters, all shouting "hands up don't shoot" are clueless. Mr. Sterling DID NOT have his hands up, nor was he in any sort of compliance position

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JBurns

Reasonable force is normally force for force.

Reading the timeline of events. Sterling never had his gun out. Having a gun isn't a crime in LA. I think they have an open carry law. They also have a concealed carry law.

These two officers effectively did a Judge Dredd and executed this guy on site after they had him down.

They probably do have an open carry law (most states do), but unfortunately much like the case of Phil Castile, when you're committing a felony (or certain misdemeanors, including drug possession) you no longer have the legal right to posses a firearm. Certain past offenses (such as a sex crime, in this case) also causes the individual to become a prohibited person (it is also a felony to posses a firearm as a prohibited person)

I'd also like to point out that the 911 call which brought LEOs there in the first place stated he threatened someone with a firearm. How would they know he even had a gun, unless he brandished it? Why would the caller lie?

Regardless, the caller nor the officers forced Mr. Sterling to violently resist arrest and attempt to reach for his weapon.

I'd also like to point out that although he DID have a firearm, even this isn't 100% required. For instance, simply making movements explained only by having a firearm (like blading, and reaching in the small of your back as an unrelated example) is also a justification for use of deadly force in some situations.

Furtive movement:

A furtive movement is a movement reasonably consistent with going for a weapon and not reasonably consistent with anything else. It is not an innocent gesture.

Given the circumstances, I don't see how these officers could've handled the situation differently. They had every reason to believe Mr. Sterling was a genuine and credible deadly threat, and it seems LA's AG agrees with this assessment

a reply to: grey580

He had a firearm on him.
Was also a convicted felony for previously being caught with a gun.

"The officers recovered a loaded revolver from Sterling's pocket. As a convicted felon, Sterling could not legally carry a gun. Sterling had pleaded guilty in 2011 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and illegally carrying a weapon and was arrested in May 2009 after an officer confronted him outside another store where he was selling CDs, court records show."

CBC report

a reply to: JBurns

Always the victim.
Never the perp.

a reply to: JBurns

I am not familiar with this shooting, so it could be legit. He was armed with an illegal weapon, unless it was planted after the shooting to justify it..

But I have one important question...

did the cop shoot without knowing he was armed????


Because if the cop didn’t know he was armed. Then that means he would have shot him armed or not. Making the fact he was armed irrelevant.

However, if the cop knew he was armed. Then he refused to comply. The cop was reasonably in danger..

If the cop didn’t know he was armed though and shot him “just in case”. I find that disgusting.

a reply to: JBurns

I am not familiar with this shooting, so it could be legit. He was armed with an illegal weapon, unless it was planted after the shooting to justify it..

But I have one important question...

did the cop shoot without knowing he was armed????


Because if the cop didn’t know he was armed. Then that means he would have shot him armed or not. Making the fact he was armed irrelevant.

However, if the cop knew he was armed. Then he refused to comply. The cop was reasonably in danger..

If the cop didn’t know he was armed though and shot him “just in case”. I find that disgusting.

a reply to: JBurns

I am not familiar with this shooting, so it could be legit. He was armed with an illegal weapon, unless it was planted after the shooting to justify it..

But I have one important question...

did the cop shoot without knowing he was armed????


Because if the cop didn’t know he was armed. Then that means he would have shot him armed or not. Making the fact he was armed irrelevant.

However, if the cop knew he was armed. Then he refused to comply. The cop was reasonably in danger..

If the cop didn’t know he was armed though and shot him “just in case”. I find that disgusting.

a reply to: grey580

If they knew he was armed and he was refusing to comply. Then I don’t fault the officer. Not without seeing a video..

However, if the cop didn’t know he had a gun and found out after he was dead.....

a reply to: Macenroe82

I don’t know, but the article really makes it sound like they didn’t find out about the gun till after the shooting..

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: grey580

Reading the timeline of events. Sterling never had his gun out. Having a gun isn't a crime in LA. I think they have an open carry law. They also have a concealed carry law.

They also have laws that bars those convicted of sex crimes, which Sterling was, from possessing firearms.

Pretty sure that has nothing to do with why they shot him..

a reply to: notsure1

It doesn't, which is why I didn't attempt to connect the two. You'll notice what I said directly connects to the comment I quoted. Sort of why I quoted it and then said what I said.

a reply to: notsure1

I disagee..

The cops knew the gun was there...

I just watched the video and the officer INSTANTLY removes the gun from his pocket. Not in a pat down after the shooting.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The video shows the cops wrestling with him.

While wrestling with him one officer says "He's got a gun." then says "he's reaching for it." Then Sterling gets popped.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: JBurns

Always the victim.
Never the perp.

Perfect quote, very very fitting

I do not personally understand why officer involved shootings are immediately demonized by certain advocacy groups. I am a firm supporter of civil rights for all people, and believe in accountability for government/policing...and so do a whole heck of a lot of LEOs. Honestly, given the extreme degree of gang violence many areas face, I'd expect at least 100X more outrage over the constant daily death tolls from gang violence and drug related crime

But you are absolutely right, the criminal is always made out to be a victim and the LEOs are wrongfully painted as heartless murders who set out to take a life. And I am pretty damn sick of seeing good men and women demonized for doing their jobs. Probably the most thankless job in the world too. And this is *always* before the evidence comes out. How many times have we seen OIS demonized only to later discover it was justified

Glad to see a lot of people (especially here) have retained common sense and critical thinking skills though!

I think the shooting is justifiable. In this case anyway, I agree with the determination. Now the witnesses may not have seen the gun and not seeing it does not mean it was not drawn or that the guy was not appearing to go for his gun.

The guy should have not committed this crime in the first place and he should have listened to the police. Police are not babysitters, they are there to protect the public from people like this man.

I have seen other events where the police were wrong, but not in this case, their action most likely was justifiable. If a cop makes an honest mistake of identity and shoots the wrong person, I can see that the police should be liable to help support any family via Lawsuit. But if that person has committed a crime and looks like a threat, then I believe no lawsuit should be allowed. The relatives of this criminal should not get a penny of the taxpayers money in a lawsuit.

Hey, if I accidently get shot by a police officer and was not breaking the law, I would expect my family to be compensated. If I was doing a crime, I would not expect my family to be compensated if I were shot. If this was a case of mistaken identity I would back the guy but even then, cops aren't perfect, they may think a person is going for a gun when they aren't. Restitution is in order in mistakes but actually I do not believe that the cop should be put into jail unless he knew he was shooting someone who was not a threat. That does happen sometimes, but it is not that common.