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

When keeping it real goes wrong. This situations happen with officers every day. This is the main take away...

The officers encountered Sterling after responding to a report of a man with a gun outside the Triple S Food Mart

There was a report with a man with a gun. Not someone selling CD's...a man brandishing a weapon. This immediately puts up the guard of the officers. They have NO idea what they are going in to.

What is worse is this garbage...cashing in on the death of a person....

The mass arrests of protesters after Sterling's death spawned lawsuits that accused police of using excessive force and advancing against peaceful protesters while wearing military gear and gas masks and brandishing assault weapons. In October, a federal judge approved a class-action settlement that awards up to $1,000 in cash to dozens of protesters who claim police violated their civil rights.

He had already been convicted of having a handgun in front of another store selling CD"s a few years earlier.

Those that continue down a path like that end up like this. It is a miracle an officer or bystanders was not shot.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Josh, thanks for the reply

From what I understand, they were made aware of the firearm by dispatch. As I understand it, that car was dispatched there because a 911 caller stated Mr. Sterling had threatened them with a firearm. Whether dispatch simply gave a description of the suspect (most commonly) or actually identified him by name, I am unsure. I will have to look that up to refresh my memory

But from one of the videos shot by a bystander, you can see the failed Taser deployments that one officer tried to rectify by taking Mr. Sterling to the ground. This is also pretty common when somebody is refusing to follow the officers instructions. From my understanding, use of an electronic control device would be a lower level of force than physical contact/force so it appears they escalated force appropriately (with the intent of de-escalation/controlling the subject). It was while they were on the ground with Mr. Sterling that they apparently felt threatened enough to pull their own weapons and once again tell him not to go for his weapon.

At this point, shots are heard and the camera pans away. And Mr. Sterling is apparently deceased by this point. From the narrative, it appears they then secured the weapon (which is said to have been a revolver in his pocket) and rendered first aid

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

Agreed, their knowledge of the circumstances in that specific moment is vitally important in determining whether it is justified or not. Based on the video (and the original 911 call) it does seem reasonable to me to believe they were aware of the firearm. I have to believe they were made aware of it by dispatch (since it was the purpose for the call in the first place), but am certain they were aware of it by time they were on the ground.

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

I could not agree more Shooting someone "just in case" is both disgusting and is indisputably murder. It does not seem this was the case in this particular shooting however.

I can only add that despite public beliefs, taking a life is something no LEO (or human being) would ever take lightly. Whether you are religious or not, I believe every human is created in the Lord's image and deserves a chance to live a full life. But it is equally important to remember that these officers are also human beings, with families, and they too deserve to go home to their lives

Either way, seeing Mr. Sterling's 13 year old son on television was heartbreaking. Although the shooting was justified (by law, and IMO it seems they are correct), he didn't "deserve" to die (nor does anyone) and the human/emotional impact on all involved is very clear to see. I have no doubt the officers involved in that shooting experienced very similar soul-crushing feelings after the shooting. I personally don't believe it is something you could ever really "get over"

These situations never need to happen. Should always cooperate with LE (especially when you know you are actually breaking the law) and save your arguments/greivances for your lawyer

All you fraudulent Libertarians and Constitutionalists and "Law purists" that can justify police Murdering people with impunity, that can justify breaking the ""LAW"" because you have a badge, you are all supporting armed enforcing of tyranny by the State

He was held down on the ground and shot...

www.cnn.com...

"The owner of the store where the shooting occurred said that Sterling had started carrying a gun a few days prior to the event as other CD vendors had been robbed recently. He also said that Sterling was "not the one causing trouble" during the situation that led to the police being called. At the time of his death, Sterling was 37 years old."


"A second video was made available the day after the shooting by the store owner and eyewitness, who said in a statement to NBC News, "Sterling never wielded the gun or threatened the officers."

a reply to: XAnarchistX


If he had the firearm for self-defense, then why would a 911 caller state Mr. Sterling threatened him with the firearm?

How would the 911 caller even know Mr. Sterling was in possession of a firearm, unless Mr. Sterling did in fact brandish the weapon?

All of these facts are relevant as to the intent and mindset of Mr. Sterling at the time of the officer involved shooting

And from what I understand, Mr. Sterling is not accused of wielding the firearm. He was attempting to retrieve the weapon from his pocket (unsure whether front or back). Unfortunately, the time to act is when someone is reaching for the weapon (not once they wield it). Remember, it only takes a reasonably practiced individual 1-2 seconds to draw a firearm and put shots on target

a reply to: XAnarchistX


Further, Mr. Sterling was not (to my knowledge) a CD vendor.

He was selling bootlegged CD/DVDs (which is a federal offense) while in possesion of a firearm. The evidence also indicates he threatened someone with that firearm (otherwise, nobody could've possibly known it even existed)

Police were called to the location because Mr. Sterling was breaking the law. The situation escalated because Mr. Sterling resisted arrest and then attempted to retreive a firearm despite multiple warnings from the officers.

Again, tragic situation that could've been averted by Mr. Sterling simply acknowledging he was indeed breaking the law and accepting the consequences for that behavior. Selling priate CD's isn't the end of the world. Having an illegal weapon isn't the end of the world either. But resisting arrest and trying to pull that weapon on officers is not going to end well, and it is going to force those officers into a position no one ever wants to be in.

a reply to: JBurns

If the man committed a crime then he should have due process. To many instances in this country where police are judge, jury and executioner and my fellow Americans defending that . He should have obey. Well he should have the right to a trial.

a reply to: JBurns

If the man committed a crime then he should have due process. To many instances in this country where police are judge, jury and executioner and my fellow Americans defending that . He should have obey. Well he should have the right to a trial.

a reply to: JBurns

If the man committed a crime then he should have due process. To many instances in this country where police are judge, jury and executioner and my fellow Americans defending that . He should have obey. Well he should have the right to a trial.

a reply to: Prisoner60863

He was afforded the right to a trial.

Right up until he reached for a gun that cops knew he had on him.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

He was held down on the ground and shot when he reached for a gun.

Fixed that for you.

Its really hard to tell from the video, but did the cops claim he was reaching for it, or merely that they spotted the gun in his trousers?

a reply to: JBurns

Selling Bootleg CD'S, clutch your pearls, everyone!!!!

obviously, deserves to be murdered...

If he was allegedly "reaching for his gun", I mean watch the video, but, "allegedly reaching for his gun" that means he had put it away/in his pants before engaging with the police correct?


blavity.com...

www.alternet.org...

hellobeautiful.com...

"In the above video, you can see 45-year-old Tamayo waving his gun around and pointing it directly at men, women, children and some police officers in Mission Bay Park in San Diego, California."

he got arrested

a reply to: Shamrock6

"A second video was made available the day after the shooting by the store owner and eyewitness, who said in a statement to NBC News, "Sterling never wielded the gun or threatened the officers."

“I was just in shock,” said Muflahi, who is from Yemen and has owned the store since 2010. “They shot him three times, and rolled off of him. Then they shot him three more times.

“That’s his gun they are taking out of his pocket.

“As soon as I finished the video, I put my phone in my pocket. I knew they would take it from me, if they knew I had it. They took my security camera videos. They told me they had a warrant, but didn’t show me one. So I kept this video for myself. Otherwise, what proof do I have?”

"He dindu nuffin, start a race war"

-CNN

Can we yank their broadcast license already?

a reply to: XAnarchistX

"A second video was made available the day after the shooting by the store owner and eyewitness, who said in a statement to NBC News, "Sterling never wielded the gun or threatened the officers."

Reaching for a gun while fighting with two cops is sort of the exact opposite of not threatening.

But thank you for providing the quotes to support my statement that he was shot while not only in possession of a firearm, but while reaching for it. 'Preciate it.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Shamrock6

"A second video was made available the day after the shooting by the store owner and eyewitness, who said in a statement to NBC News, "Sterling never wielded the gun or threatened the officers."

“I was just in shock,” said Muflahi, who is from Yemen and has owned the store since 2010. “They shot him three times, and rolled off of him. Then they shot him three more times.

“That’s his gun they are taking out of his pocket.

“As soon as I finished the video, I put my phone in my pocket. I knew they would take it from me, if they knew I had it. They took my security camera videos. They told me they had a warrant, but didn’t show me one. So I kept this video for myself. Otherwise, what proof do I have?”

Ah, so that answers it. They shot him while the gun was still in his trousers, then attempted to destroy any evidence to the contrary. Definitely Sterlings fault.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Where did it say reaching? it says they removed the Gun from his pocket and destroyed all video evidence...

a reply to: Wayfarer

would you except anything less?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: XAnarchistX

"A second video was made available the day after the shooting by the store owner and eyewitness, who said in a statement to NBC News, "Sterling never wielded the gun or threatened the officers."

Reaching for a gun while fighting with two cops is sort of the exact opposite of not threatening.

But thank you for providing the quotes to support my statement that he was shot while not only in possession of a firearm, but while reaching for it. 'Preciate it.

Video doesn't show him reaching for the gun. His hands are at his sides and his fingers are splayed in a sign of submission.

So what would you suggest LEOs do when confronted by a person with a firearm? Just let themselves be shot? Run away?

If pulling a gun on Police was all it took to evade arrest then a whole lot more criminals would start doing it.

That doesn't sound like a very reasonable position to me. Despite the fact that all people are entitled to due process when accused of a crime. However, exigent circumstances (like someone pulling a firearm on you) changes the calculus entirely. If Mr. Sterling would've submitted to the legal process, he would've been innocent until proven guilty and afforded due process. He chose to take that off the table by resisting arrest and then by reaching for the same firearm he had just allegedly threatened another person with minutes earlier

All citizens (including LEOs) are entitled to self-defense and defense of others. Whether you have a legal or moral duty to act, it is implied that all human beings wish to be "rescued" when in danger. Police officers are no different, in that if they reasonably believes their lives are in danger, it is expected they would take decisive action to eliminate the danger