Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[kfrankie]

On 8/19/2020 at 5:31 PM, Llevron said:

First of all - the **** kinda cop makes 225,000 a year!? 

 

Im not surprised he made it all up. That he made so much of this **** up is amazing. I hope we really get a handle on this ****. These dudes getting away with wayyyyy too much lying. 

 

I don't think that figure is accurate.  I don't believe think a Police Chief in a major city, such as D.C. or Baltimore makes that much, much less a Sheriff's deputy.  Regardless, it looks like the guy has no interest in being in law enforcement and is trying to fabricate a disability claim.  It happens all the time in law enforcement.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

21 hours ago, mammajamma said:

They need to make shooting a gun at someone who is unarmed an automatic firing/criminal charge. If you shoot someone, and no gun is on them, you're done. I'm so sick of the "I thought he had a gun" excuse working.

This is a bad idea.  How can you tell the difference between a gun and something else from a distance at night? I don’t see most people standing up risking there own life while they debate of a guy is pointing a gun at them. This guy was shot in the back in the daytime though. 

 

The bad policing happened way before they “thought” he had a gun. As others have pointed out there were numerous chances to deescalate the situation and the cops failed to do that. 
 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[mammajamma]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

This is a bad idea.  How can you tell the difference between a gun and something else from a distance at night? I don’t see most people standing up risking there own life while they debate of a guy is pointing a gun at them.
 

 

Why does a person have to die just because someone "thinks" you have a gun? Firing a gun at someone HAS to be the absolute last resort where you KNOW the other person has a gun and is about to, or already has, used it. Not just a maybe. Don't like it, there's other jobs out there where you don't need to worry about it. But too many people have died because of incorrect guesses by cops

[PokerPacker]

14 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t see most people standing up risking there own life while they debate of a guy is pointing a gun at them.

Most people didn't volunteer to become cops.  When you volunteer for the police service, you are volunteering to put your life on the line for others.

[kfrankie]

22 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

Why does a person have to die just because someone "thinks" you have a gun? Firing a gun at someone HAS to be the absolute last resort where you KNOW the other person has a gun and is about to, or already has, used it. Not just a maybe. Don't like it, there's other jobs out there where you don't need to worry about it. But too many people have died because of incorrect guesses by cops

 

What if a police officer sincerely believes that a person has a firearm, and is about to, or already has, used it.  For instance take these hypotheticals:

 

(1) A suspect has a metallic object in his waistband that appears to be a firearm from 40 feet away, he starts walking toward police yelling "**** you," when asked to get on the ground by the police and reaches for his waistband?  Officer shoots him dead.  Turns out it wasn't a gun, but was instead a knife. 

 

(2) An officer is called to a scene on a report that a suspect is armed with a handgun and threatening a woman.  The officer arrives on the scene, identifies the suspect threatening the woman, the suspect is told back off and get on the ground, but instead advances on the woman while reaching into his jacket?  Police officer fires his weapon and kills the suspect.  It turns out he was unarmed and its unclear why he was reaching into his jacket.

 

(3) An officer arrives on scene after being dispatched for a suspect in a wheelchair appearing to be under the influence, acting erratically, yelling that he's going to shoot someone.  Five officer arrive on the scene, observe the suspect in the middle of the road with what appears to be a handgun on his lap, barricade themselves behind a jersey wall, and try to convince the suspect to throw the gun on the ground.  He refuses and continues to act erratically.  There are pedestrians walking on the sidewalk on either side of the street, and two of them have stopped to film the incident with their cell phones.  A sixth officer arrives on the scene 5 minutes later, yells at the suspect to place his hands in the air. instead the suspect reaches for his waistband where the handgun is located, and the 6th officer shoots him dead.

 

(4) Two officers are called to the scene for a report of destruction of property (breaking a convenience store window), and are given a detailed description of the suspect (white shirt, jean shorts, average size black male) and information that he may be traveling eastward on a nearby sidewalk. The officers arrive on the scene 3 minutes later and observe an individual walking down the sidewalk eastward about 200 yards from the scene.  As they approach him in their cruiser, they determine that he matches the description of the suspect.  The officers turn on their lights, get out of their cruiser, and ask him to stop and tell him that an individual matching his description has just reportedly broken a store window, and ask for his identification, with the intent to hold him until the store owner can arrive at the scene and identify him.  He says "what for, i know my rights and i'm just walking" and refuses to stop.  The officers ask him to stop again, he refuses again, and tells them this time to **** off, and starts to run. One of the officers catches up with him, and tackles him about 100 feet away.  The suspect wrestles with the officer, punches him, and tries to get away again. The second officer approaches, attempts to incapacitate the suspect with her stun gun, but it has no effect and the suspect begins advancing on her.  She pulls out her firearm and tells him to get on the ground.  He refuses, continues to advance on her, and she shoots him dead, while the first officer is unable to intervene.  It turns out that the suspect was not armed, was not the actual perpetrator, but instead had a warrant out for his arrest and did not want to be taken in.

 

(5) A single officer in a small town is called to a residence for a report of domestic violence.  He arrives at the residence, can hear a woman screaming/panicking inside, knocks loudly on the door, and announces his presence.  After 15 seconds, no one comes to the door, so he opens it (its not locked) and enters the residence.  He then observes a woman sitting at the kitchen table sobbing and screaming "he's going to hit me again," and a man on the other side of the kitchen telling her to "calm the **** down."  He appears to be drunk.  There's also 5 year old child sitting at the table.  The officer tells the man to exit the kitchen through the door into the nearby living room, which he does.  The woman then gets up, grabs a nearby vegetable knife, and yells to the man to get out of her house.  He refuses, says he pays the rent, and she then starts walking toward the living room entrance with the knife.  The officer is in between the two, tells her to sit back down and drop it, but shes unresponsive.  The officer then grabs her, disarms her, and takes her to the ground to place her in handcuffs.  As the officer is cuffing the woman, the man becomes incensed, yells "get off my woman," from behind the officer and begins walking back into the kitchen.  The officer then turns toward the living room, draws his weapon and shoots him dead.

 

Are these hypotheticals really guesses?  Should a police officer be convicted and sent to prison under and of these circumstances?  My point here is that there's a continuum.  Not every "unarmed" police shooting (I know #4 involves a handgun) is the result of a bad guess or bad training. Nor is every one of them justified.   Opportunities for deescalation may or may not be available, particularly during the course of an ongoing incident.

[China]

Jacob Blake’s father says son’s paralyzed from waist down after police shooting in Kenosha

 

Doctors don’t yet know whether the injury is permanent. ‘I want to put my hand on my son’s cheek and kiss him on his forehead, and then I’ll be OK,’ the father says.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[visionary]

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

Most people didn't volunteer to become cops.  When you volunteer for the police service, you are volunteering to put your life on the line for others.

that’s not exactly my point. There is a difference between generically “putting your life on the line” and explicitly waiting till you can see the barrel of the gun to protect yourself.

[mammajamma]

27 minutes ago, kfrankie said:

 

What if a police officer sincerely believes that a person has a firearm, and is about to, or already has, used it.  For instance take these hypotheticals:

 

(1) A suspect has a metallic object in his waistband that appears to be a firearm from 40 feet away, he starts walking toward police yelling "**** you," when asked to get on the ground by the police and reaches for his waistband?  Officer shoots him dead.  Turns out it wasn't a gun, but was instead a knife. 

 

(2) An officer is called to a scene on a report that a suspect is armed with a handgun and threatening a woman.  The officer arrives on the scene, identifies the suspect threatening the woman, the suspect is told back off and get on the ground, but instead advances on the woman while reaching into his jacket?  Police officer fires his weapon and kills the suspect.  It turns out he was unarmed and its unclear why he was reaching into his jacket.

 

(3) An officer arrives on scene after being dispatched for a suspect in a wheelchair appearing to be under the influence, acting erratically, yelling that he's going to shoot someone.  Five officer arrive on the scene, observe the suspect in the middle of the road with what appears to be a handgun on his lap, barricade themselves behind a jersey wall, and try to convince the suspect to throw the gun on the ground.  He refuses and continues to act erratically.  There are pedestrians walking on the sidewalk on either side of the street, and two of them have stopped to film the incident with their cell phones.  A sixth officer arrives on the scene 5 minutes later, yells at the suspect to place his hands in the air. instead the suspect reaches for his waistband where the handgun is located, and the 6th officer shoots him dead.

 

(4) Two officers are called to the scene for a report of destruction of property (breaking a convenience store window), and are given a detailed description of the suspect (white shirt, jean shorts, average size black male) and information that he may be traveling eastward on a nearby sidewalk. The officers arrive on the scene 3 minutes later and observe an individual walking down the sidewalk eastward about 200 yards from the scene.  As they approach him in their cruiser, they determine that he matches the description of the suspect.  The officers turn on their lights, get out of their cruiser, and ask him to stop and tell him that an individual matching his description has just reportedly broken a store window, and ask for his identification, with the intent to hold him until the store owner can arrive at the scene and identify him.  He says "what for, i know my rights and i'm just walking" and refuses to stop.  The officers ask him to stop again, he refuses again, and tells them this time to **** off, and starts to run. One of the officers catches up with him, and tackles him about 100 feet away.  The suspect wrestles with the officer, punches him, and tries to get away again. The second officer approaches, attempts to incapacitate the suspect with her stun gun, but it has no effect and the suspect begins advancing on her.  She pulls out her firearm and tells him to get on the ground.  He refuses, continues to advance on her, and she shoots him dead, while the first officer is unable to intervene.  It turns out that the suspect was not armed, was not the actual perpetrator, but instead had a warrant out for his arrest and did not want to be taken in.

 

(5) A single officer in a small town is called to a residence for a report of domestic violence.  He arrives at the residence, can hear a woman screaming/panicking inside, knocks loudly on the door, and announces his presence.  After 15 seconds, no one comes to the door, so he opens it (its not locked) and enters the residence.  He then observes a woman sitting at the kitchen table sobbing and screaming "he's going to hit me again," and a man on the other side of the kitchen telling her to "calm the **** down."  He appears to be drunk.  There's also 5 year old child sitting at the table.  The officer tells the man to exit the kitchen through the door into the nearby living room, which he does.  The woman then gets up, grabs a nearby vegetable knife, and yells to the man to get out of her house.  He refuses, says he pays the rent, and she then starts walking toward the living room entrance with the knife.  The officer is in between the two, tells her to sit back down and drop it, but shes unresponsive.  The officer then grabs her, disarms her, and takes her to the ground to place her in handcuffs.  As the officer is cuffing the woman, the man becomes incensed, yells "get off my woman," from behind the officer and begins walking back into the kitchen.  The officer then turns toward the living room, draws his weapon and shoots him dead.

 

Are these hypotheticals really guesses?

Yes, because all of those that don't involve a gun, involve a cop guessing the person has a gun, and ends their life because of that incorrect guess.

1) having a "metallic object" shouldnt be a death sentence because someone else mistakes it for a gun (ie Stephon Clark)

2) again, reaching for something that isnt a gun shouldnt be a death sentence, just because a cop is scared. they could be reaching for a phone to record the situation, so the cop doesnt break the law.

3) i don't understand this example. yes if they confirm he has a gun, is threatening to use it, and starts to reach for it with other people around, then yes, it may be justified

4) you know how many innocent people have been murdered by police because they "matched a description"? the beginning part of this is a terrible example. however, if a cop is actually being physically attacked (not just a struggle to get away), and other tactics (stun gun) don't work first, i can see this being the one exemption to automatic firing/charges. however, ONLY if the cops have their bodycams on to prove they were being attacked.

5) the person with the weapon was already subdued, so yes, no reason to open fire here

[PokerPacker]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

that’s not exactly my point. There is a difference between generically “putting your life on the line” and explicitly waiting till you can see the barrel of the gun to protect yourself kill another human being that may be of no threat.

Fixed the wording to be more accurate.

[kfrankie]

58 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

Yes, because all of those that don't involve a gun, involve a cop guessing the person has a gun, and ends their life because of that incorrect guess.

1) having a "metallic object" shouldnt be a death sentence because someone else mistakes it for a gun (ie Stephon Clark)

2) again, reaching for something that isnt a gun shouldnt be a death sentence, just because a cop is scared. they could be reaching for a phone to record the situation, so the cop doesnt break the law.

3) i don't understand this example. yes if they confirm he has a gun, is threatening to use it, and starts to reach for it with other people around, then yes, it may be justified

4) you know how many innocent people have been murdered by police because they "matched a description"? the beginning part of this is a terrible example. however, if a cop is actually being physically attacked (not just a struggle to get away), and other tactics (stun gun) don't work first, i can see this being the one exemption to automatic firing/charges. however, ONLY if the cops have their bodycams on to prove they were being attacked.

5) the person with the weapon was already subdued, so yes, no reason to open fire here

 

Ok.  Now for hypotheticals #1, #2, modify the fact patterns so that the suspects each were found with handguns, instead of being unarmed or carrying a knife.  Assume the facts are exactly the same otherwise.  Does the fact that both were found to have handguns change your answer?

 

 

Edit:  FYI, #3 is based on a real occurrence.  In my opinion, the final officer that arrived on the scene escalated the situation because the suspect only moved for his gun when he arrived.  Now, that doesn't mean that that officer should be thrown in jail, but in my opinion it would justify termination of his employment.

 

For hypothetical #4, why is the beginning of fact pattern "terrible?" Officers are constantly called to the scene of recent crimes and provided with a description of a suspect that has "just fled" the scene.  Sometimes the description may be somewhat generic, i.e. "male with white shirt and shorts, and he ran off to the east."  Does that mean that a male wearing white shorts and shorts shouldn't be stopped if he spotted 200 yards from the scene, heading east within 3 minutes of the report? People will refuse to stop for police officers, with the misunderstanding that the police have no right to stop them. If the police stop an innocent man because they reasonable determine that he matches the description of a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime, its not an illegal stop. These matters can be sorted out quickly.  The victim may be present to "identify" the suspect or confirm that the person stopped is not the suspect, or some other information may be disclosed eliminating that person at the scene. There's no handgun in this hypothetical. On the other hand, the victim could mistakenly confirm that the man is the one that broke the window, which would result in an arrest.  At that point, the State's Attorney will be given the available evidence, and make a determination on whether to prosecute.  The innocent man is then given an attorney if he cannot afford one, and has his day in court.  Hopefully it doesn't get to that point, but the police officer is still not civilly liable to the man for stopping and ultimately arresting him.

 

For hypothetical #5, change the fact pattern so that the officer yells "stay back," but does not attempt draw his handgun on the man.  The man then grabs his own knife and stabs his girifriend/wife while she's handcuffed on the ground.  Should the officer be liable to the woman if she lives, or to her family if she dies, because he had the opportunity to end the threat but instead just dodged the man?

Edited August 25, 2020 by kfrankie

[mammajamma]

59 minutes ago, kfrankie said:

 

Ok.  Now for hypotheticals #1, #2, modify the fact patterns so that the suspects each were found with handguns, instead of being unarmed or carrying a knife.  Assume the facts are exactly the same otherwise.  Does the fact that both were found to have handguns change your answer?

No it doesn't change my answer. They had a gun, so it wouldn't apply to my original statement above that "if no gun is found, they're done". That is my point. A cop needs to be 100% sure before firing, or else they need to be held accountable. If someone were to shoot the cop, they'd spend their life in prison or get the death penalty. If the cop shoots an unarmed person, they get paid leave pending an internal investigation (done by their peers).

[mammajamma]

1 hour ago, kfrankie said:

For hypothetical #4, why is the beginning of fact pattern "terrible?" Officers are constantly called to the scene of recent crimes and provided with a description of a suspect that has "just fled" the scene.  Sometimes the description may be somewhat generic, i.e. "male with white shirt and shorts, and he ran off to the east."  Does that mean that a male wearing white shorts and shorts shouldn't be stopped if he spotted 200 yards from the scene, heading east within 3 minutes of the report? People will refuse to stop for police officers, with the misunderstanding that the police have no right to stop them. If the police stop an innocent man because they reasonable determine that he matches the description of a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime, its not an illegal stop. These matters can be sorted out quickly.  The victim may be present to "identify" the suspect or confirm that the person stopped is not the suspect, or some other information may be disclosed eliminating that person at the scene. There's no handgun in this hypothetical. On the other hand, the victim could mistakenly confirm that the man is the one that broke the window, which would result in an arrest.  At that point, the State's Attorney will be given the available evidence, and make a determination on whether to prosecute.  The innocent man is then given an attorney if he cannot afford one, and has his day in court.  Hopefully it doesn't get to that point, but the police officer is still not civilly liable to the man for stopping and ultimately arresting him.

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph, so we'll just go through them 1 by 1...

 

In many cases, as you said, the description is very generic and results in the wrong person being stopped. And in many cases, the cops approach that person with guns drawn already. You're innocent, walking around, and just because you match some generic description, you have people running at you, guns pointed at you, screaming. How you react back to that is the cops fault, not yours. Yeah it might be legal to go off of "generic descriptions", but that law is wrong and must change. As i said, generic "matching of a description" has resulted in countless murders by cops of innocent people.

 

But i'll play along with your hypothetical - the innocent person goes along with it and is arrested because they're wearing the same color shorts... The person is held in a cell until they get around to them. Then use interrogation tactics that get people to give false confessions (about 1/5 of all confessions were false confessions, as high as 80% for people with mental illness). If that doesn't work, you go back and sit in a cell for days, weeks, sometimes months until your cases gets to the state's attorney. They then convince you to take a plea deal so you "can go home". What they don't tell you is that youre agreeing to a felony, so you can no longer get a job, welfare assistance if needed, lose your kids, cant vote, etc etc etc. 80% of people can't afford an attorney, and you legally don't get one unless you're actually charged and incarcerated. So if its a misdemeanor, 80% of people don't get legal representation. And even then, public defenders are so underpaid and run thin, they're usually just only capable of doing your paperwork for you. So don't preach that its not a big deal to be innocent and arrested.

 

tell Kalief Browder's family that its not a big deal to be arrested while innocent and "matching a description"

Edited August 25, 2020 by mammajamma

[NoCalMike]

The thing is mistakes cost people their jobs all the time.  Do I believe every job is equatable to a police officer? Of course not, but there doesn't seem to be a good system in place within most police departments to properly discipline and/or terminate cops who exercise poor decisions and judgement.  

 

I don't get why the police get this blanket protection because of a feeling.  I know not all situations are the same, and I fully believe every incident should be judged on it's own circumstances.

[kfrankie]

2 hours ago, mammajamma said:

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph, so we'll just go through them 1 by 1...

 

In many cases, as you said, the description is very generic and results in the wrong person being stopped. And in many cases, the cops approach that person with guns drawn already. You're innocent, walking around, and just because you match some generic description, you have people running at you, guns pointed at you, screaming. How you react back to that is the cops fault, not yours. Yeah it might be legal to go off of "generic descriptions", but that law is wrong and must change. As i said, generic "matching of a description" has resulted in countless murders by cops of innocent people.

 

But i'll play along with your hypothetical - the innocent person goes along with it and is arrested because they're wearing the same color shorts... The person is held in a cell until they get around to them. Then use interrogation tactics that get people to give false confessions (about 1/5 of all confessions were false confessions, as high as 80% for people with mental illness). If that doesn't work, you go back and sit in a cell for days, weeks, sometimes months until your cases gets to the state's attorney. They then convince you to take a plea deal so you "can go home". What they don't tell you is that youre agreeing to a felony, so you can no longer get a job, welfare assistance if needed, lose your kids, cant vote, etc etc etc. 80% of people can't afford an attorney, and you legally don't get one unless you're actually charged and incarcerated. So if its a misdemeanor, 80% of people don't get legal representation. And even then, public defenders are so underpaid and run thin, they're usually just only capable of doing your paperwork for you. So don't preach that its not a big deal to be innocent and arrested.

 

tell Kalief Browder's family that its not a big deal to be arrested while innocent and "matching a description"

 

If you are charged with a misdemeanor, you can pray for a jury trial and you will be given an attorney.  Before you are interrogated, if you request an attorney you can hire your own or someone from the public defender's office will be assigned to you.  Public defenders are underpaid and run thin, but so are State's Attorneys.  If the cops don't read you your rights, the confession is not admissible if given in a custodial setting. Cops are not authorized give plea deals, that can only come with approval from a State's Attorney.  And then the deal must be approved by a Judge, who in open court questions the Defendant to ensure that he understands what the plea entails and the consequences. A defendant can back out at any point before this final step.  A defendant will not sit in his cell for days and days at a time until he agrees to talk. He will be provided a bail hearing within no more than about 48-72 hours, and rarely are suspects held on secured bond. The exceptions are if you are charged with serious sex crime, a violent offense, or you are a flight risk.  Courts even hold bail review hearings at night to ensure that no one is held longer than absolutely necessary.  If for some reason a defendant doesn't have an attorney at your bail review (normally because he refused assistance of counsel), and end up held on secured bond, he'll have a right to a second review hearing once you have an attorney.

 

I've never said that its not a big deal to be innocent and arrested.  i'm talking about the issue from the angle of a Police Officer's responsibility.  A police officer is not responsible for arresting an individual if there is probable cause to make an arrest.  If an individual matches the description of a suspect, that constitutes cause to stop and hold that individual for a reasonable period of time, and coupled with an identification of the individual by the victim shortly after the incident, that satisfies probable cause to make an arrest.  if a suspect attempts to flee or refuses to stop, that constitutes grounds to physically detain the suspect.  If a person is wrongfully identified, and then is forced to go through to the end of the judicial process to obtain an acquittal, it ranges from unfortunate to devastating, but that's a consequence of the system of justice that has been established and has evolved over centuries in this country.  Its not perfect, and never will be perfect.  And more to the point, it's not the police officer's fault if he's acting in good faith and relies upon a description and ultimately an identification of the defendant by the victim.  If this wasn't enough, the police would never have grounds to make an arrest, and if we were allowed to evaluate things in hindsight, every defendant acquitted at trial would have a cause of action against his arresting officer.  Law enforcement would cease to exist.  Remember, an acquittal is not the equivalent of an exoneration. It only means that the State could not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant committed the offense.  That is considered roughly a 90% evidentiary burden, and a strong presumption of innocence which has long been established in this country (and which I happen to strongly agree with).  There are plenty of guilty defendants that walk away out of Court with an acquittal, or don't even make it to Court because the State doesn't have the resources to prosecute even every "solid" case through to trial, must less all of the closer cases.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by kfrankie

[spjunkies]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm wonder how many people here with strong opinions have been in a position where they are are given a firearm and told to go into a situation where there is a very real possibility that a person will try to do you harm, potentially lethal harm.  

 

It is not as easy as only shooting when you are positive someone has a gun and plans to use it.  Nor is it reasonable to shoot any time a person "might" have a weapon.  Like most things, the line is somewhere in the middle. 

[purbeast]

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm wonder how many people here with strong opinions have been in a position where they are are given a firearm and told to go into a situation where there is a very real possibility that a person will try to do you harm, potentially lethal harm.  

 

It is not as easy as only shooting when you are positive someone has a gun and plans to use it.  Nor is it reasonable to shoot any time a person "might" have a weapon.  Like most things, the line is somewhere in the middle. 

It doesn't matter and is completely irrelevant.  A police officer made the choice to take that job and they go through training for those exact situations.

 

A rando on the street with a gun going into a situation as such isn't even in the same realm.

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, purbeast said:

It doesn't matter and is completely irrelevant.  A police officer made the choice to take that job and they go through training for those exact situations.

 

A rando on the street with a gun going into a situation as such isn't even in the same realm.

I was not referring to "a rando".  I was saying how many here have had their job be getting put in that position.  How many have had a job where they are handed a weapon and sent into those situations?

 

Just because you chose that job doesn't mean that you should have to wait until a gun is pointed at your head.  It also doesn't mean that you should use deadly force any time you MIGHT be POSSIBLY in a situation where a person COULD use deadly force.  After all, you volunteered to be in that position.  Like I said, the line is somewhere in the middle.

[Koala]

12 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

This is a bad idea.  How can you tell the difference between a gun and something else from a distance at night? I don’t see most people standing up risking there own life while they debate of a guy is pointing a gun at them. This guy was shot in the back in the daytime though. 

 

The bad policing happened way before they “thought” he had a gun. As others have pointed out there were numerous chances to deescalate the situation and the cops failed to do that. 
 

 

Agreed 100%.  It think that this highlights how poorly trained police are.  What strikes me about this video, and so many other videos, is how quickly police officers make the decision to draw their guns.  It is almost reflexive for some officers, the second someone doesnt comply, the second there is any of sort of uncertainty, they're drawing guns faster than they did in them old Western flicks.  It is an indictment of the training system, a force that has no concept of proper threat escalation has no right to be anywhere near a deadly weapon.      

 

 

If police have access to deadly force, they MUST be thoroughly trained on how to avoid using it, or even threatening the use of deadly force, until it is the best option for dealing with the situation at hand.  Actually, it should be the ONLY option for dealing with a situation.  We have to stamp out this "draw-my-gun" reflex from the first day of training.  

 

I think 90% of the problem in this video, and what caused this tragedy, is the fact that the police officers all had their guns drawn.  That means NONE of them had access to a less deadly means that they could have used to force compliance or incapacitate Mr. Blake temporarily.  A taser would have worked fine, even a baton to the back of the knees would have been fine, hell even two free hands to able to grab and tackle Mr. Blake  --  would all have been good options.  But none of them were an option, because the officer had his gun in his hand.  You could see his dilemma for a second, when he tried desperately to grab Blake's t-shirt with his non-dominant hand (cause his dominant hand had the gun).  Of course, he couldnt generate enough power or get a decent grip on Mr. Blake, and you can almost see him wish he had both his hands free at that second. 

 

The gun suddenly became a hindrance to dealing with the situation, and once the situation progressed to where Mr. Blake had opened the door and was attempting to retrieve something from the vehicle, the gun became the solution to a poor situation that it had helped cause.  We really need to overhaul police training in this country.  That should never have happened, and its not even the individual officer that is to blame here -- and I think the public must be careful not to get tricked into focusing its ire on the police officer, when its ire belongs on the department that failed to train him properly.  If just half of the budget of police departments that was spent on weapons was spent on thorough training that emphasizes non-deadly force, everyone (including the police) would be far safer and far better off.   

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Koala

[Simmsy]

If you need training to know that you shouldn't murder, MAYBE this job isn't for you?

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Berggy9598]

Let me see if I get this straight. There’s a legitimate belief that this guy, with three cops at point blank range and his kids in the car, was going to pull out a gun and get into a shootout with said cops...a foot and a half from said car? He went to break up a fight, and when the cops showed up, said to himself well golly gee this is a perfect time to commit suicide by cop a foot and a half from my kids! I guess the common sense fairy doesn’t visit everyone’s house. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

26 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Let me see if I get this straight. There’s a legitimate belief that this guy, with three cops at point blank range and his kids in the car, was going to pull out a gun and get into a shootout with said cops...a foot and a half from said car? He went to break up a fight, and when the cops showed up, said to himself well golly gee this is a perfect time to commit suicide by cop a foot and a half from my kids! I guess the common sense fairy doesn’t visit everyone’s house. 

yeah but he didn’t listen to their commands which, when you’re black, means that you have agreed to forfeit your life 

[visionary]