Support NeoGAF

[nVidiot_Whore]

nvidiot wtf are you on

i thought you were a smart guy at one point. but do you not realize that you started going ham when you quoted me HERE and didn't even respond to shit that I wrote?

I asked you question, because you appear to be a police officer... I asked you the question based on the facts presented in the article.

How is that in any way crazy, or "off the ham"?? What I asked you clearly wasn't in relation to what you actually wrote.. it was just a reply to show you are a cop.. in case anyone else was wondering why I was asking you a question about Police Procedure in the first person.

You sound crazy, and possibly emotionally attached to this story bro. I think you should stop posting and talk a walk or have some kool-aid.

And you are repeatedly being condescending, and in no way answered my original question.. which was asked of you because you are a Police Officer.

You deferred to the other facts.. like that the guy had allegedly threatened his neighboor.

THAT is why 6 cops showed up with guns drawn.. but I still attempted to ask you some questions based on the facts.

He was shot in the back of the head for turning around.. even if he did clearly have a weapon in his hand, is that Police procedure?

Why am I CRAZY for asking a POLICE OFFICER basic questions?

You could.. I dunno.. answer them? Tell me yes or no?

Obviously there could be other facts.. things left out.. I'm asking questions based on what was presented, and being told I'm insane for doing so, and in a highly condescending manner. Where did I deserve any of that?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

So ignore other situations in which this officer has killed people because its "not on topic".

:lol







Riiight.

Going by the descriptions above, he only discharged his firearm in response to violent crime.

 

[(._.)]

the guy has killed 6 other people in the line of duty. He should have been removed ages ago. He is obviously reckless and incredibly hostile in his actions. Should be charged with manslaughter but I'm sure he is protected by some sort of law.

 

[Miggytronz]

He was shot in the back of the head for turning around.. even if he did clearly have a weapon in his hand, is that Police procedure?

He also REACHED for something, inturn thats automatic Police action to take you down.

 

[Miggytronz]

You guys do realize 5 of those kills he got are while he was on SWAT. SWAT just doesnt show up to normal police situation. They are called in to Strategically stop the situation, sometimes lethal is the only way.

 

[krameriffic]

Uh, his killstreak is only 6 with 1 assist.

 

[fabricated backlash]

This coming from the guy that is using what he's read on GAF to back his stance? Sir, please stop. In real life, people are trained for these scenarios. This is aside from rather or not the shot was justified, he has been trained for those types of shots.

I was using this as a critique of a common idiotic response that I've seen in GAF threads whenever someone defended a cop killing someone. I know quite well that police and SWAT officers are trained to still aim and hit targets while under stress. At least they should.
Last year a Vienna Policeman shot an attacker 3 times in the leg while being at least 5 meters away, so I always found this fairytale about police officers not being able to hit the broadside of a barn to be nothing more than a lame excuse. But for what?
For a policeforce that becomes more militant by the day, a policeforce that willingly lowers their requirements and as a result gets staffed with unstable individuals who might confuse policework with war? Like I asked before: Do people fear that admitting that their police isn't exactly doing their job of protect and serve, would destroy their fake sense of security? Is it a side effect of the Bush era fear mongering that everyone is a potential threat and killing someone should be the first option? Or is it a simple disregard for human life and civil conduct?

A well I seriously give up here. I guess not being a US citizen the notion of a police force that tolerates such loons to still carry guns and being in active duty just doesn't mesh with me.
Kinda reminds me of Leslie Nielson getting a honorary speech for having shot 100 drug dealers.

 

[venne]

He also REACHED for something, inturn thats automatic Police action to take you down.

Reportedly.

I'd like to see a video. Police lost deference a long time ago.

 

[eagledare]

Definition of serial killer:

"A serial killer is typically defined as an individual who has murdered three or more people"

God damn, America rules. We have serial killer cops, motherfuckers.

 

[Always-honest]

That's one triggerhappy rambo

 

[Miggytronz]

A well I seriously give up here. I guess not being a US citizen the notion of a police force that tolerates such loons to still carry guns and being in active duty just doesn't mesh with me.
Kinda reminds me of Leslie Nielson getting a honorary speech for having shot 100 drug dealers.

Police Officers too have families. They dont go out looking for trouble, they just wanna get home safe. If that means a situation comes up where they have to take a shot to keep society safe then thats what they have to do. Come on man.

 

[venne]

Definition of serial killer:

"A serial killer is typically defined as an individual who has murdered three or more people"

God damn, America rules. We have serial killer cops, motherfuckers.

When they're state actors we call them heroes.

So brave.

 

[neutralgamer02]

He also REACHED for something, inturn thats automatic Police action to take you down.

Yeah, he REACHED for something guys. That means he has to be taken down. Doesn't matter what he was reaching for even if it was a stroller to put his kid in. Should have came out and put the baby on the hot sidewalk and put his hands up. Yep.

 

[Miggytronz]

Yeah, he REACHED for something guys. That means he has to be taken down. Doesn't matter what he was reaching for even if it was a stroller to put his kid in. Should have came out and put the baby on the hot sidewalk and put his hands up. Yep.

As sarcastic as this seems, its the goddamn truth.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I'm not sure why people bother with threads like this. You always have idiots defend every cops action. Waste of time arguing against them.

I know, but it's especially frustrating because they're the exact reason why cops are getting slaps on the wrist, if that.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

He also REACHED for something, inturn thats automatic Police action to take you down.

What? Really? How do they know he was actually "reaching for something"?

Didn't they claim he had something in his hand? Couldn't he have been.. setting something down?

Is it truly Police Procedure to shoot someone for reaching for something with their back turned?

 

[Miggytronz]

What? Really? How do they know he was actually "reaching for something"?

Didn't they claim he had something in his hand? Couldn't he have been.. setting something down?

Is it truly Police Procedure to shoot someone for reaching for something with their back turned?

If a police officer gives you non lethal warnings and you dont comply, then you go reaching (visual assumption) or make any sudden movements that are threatening, dont be surprised to get lit up. Seriously.


How hard is it for GAF to understand the concept to comply to Police. They tell you to do something you better fucking doit.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Whose word do we have that he reached for something?

For all I know, anything the officer involved files could be the equivalent of South Park's "It's coming straight for us!"

Given his gun was stuffed down the side of the couch and it sounds like he was gunned down in his doorway, I have to wonder what the officer actually believes he saw. And if he was standing there with a child in his hands, a child who as far as we know - was in no distress, I have to question the judgement of anyone willing to fire on that person -- if only because it endangers the kid and could psychologically scar them for life.

Maybe when you've gotten so used to killing people you stop making such humanistic judgements. Or maybe your willingness (maybe even desire) to kill will steer your perception of the danger posed so you believe whatever will help you reach that end.

I'm not going to get into the debate any further than this, because I don't really know what happened -- but I'll just say it again: I'm glad I don't live in a country where armed police can do this and then justify it with no retort from the deceased - so it all just goes away afterwards.

If the story about the guy's facebook page is true, then he sounds like he was a little bit nuts, but that's not necessarily to say he deserved to die. Maybe this proves some of the things he said about the state are true.

 

[guldakot]

Ok, lets give the police officer the EXTREME benefit of the doubt. We will take his past history out of the equation given that he was a swat officer, and as a result he would be in quite a few situations where lethal force would be warranted.

Officer receives report of a man who kicked a trash can and then pointed and cocked his pistol at a neighbor. He then is part of a group that meets the man on his doorstep. The man is holding a baby and does not respond to officers instructions. He turns to go back into his house while reaching for something. The officer decides that the man may be a threat to the child, and decides to take the shot while its available.

If you look at this as a single isolated incident, while the outcome is awful, given the information that the officer had I believe that this was the right call.

The problem is that there is a whole lot of alleged instances that took place in this scenario, so people will obviously doubt parts of the story. If things went down exactly as have been reported then the officer did the right thing imho.

Its only when you look at the officers past actions that you raise an eyebrow.

If any of this information that we have so far turns out to be false however, this officer should be crucified (not literally of course).

 

[neutralgamer02]

Police Officers too have families. They dont go out looking for trouble, they just wanna get home safe. If that means a situation comes up where they have to take a shot to keep society safe then thats what they have to do. Come on man.

Translation: Yeah, guys. Cops have family as well. They aren't looking out to protect you. They are getting their paycheck and making sure they get home at night to support their family. I would know since my brother is a cop and I support cops. Yeah.

 

[marrec]

He also REACHED for something, inturn thats automatic Police action to take you down.

I hope you never become a cop.

Alternatively:

I don't think you know how being a cop works.

 

[SonnyBoy]

How hard is it for GAF to understand the concept to comply to Police. They tell you to do something you better fucking doit.

Agreed. All he had to do was listen to the cop... It's fairly safe to assume he was asked to come outside, put the kid down and then to get on the ground with his hands on top of his head. Very simple, easy to follow. If he had followed directions, he'd still be alive. Regardless if the cop is in the wrong or not, this guy did NOT help his case. Doesn't mean he deserved to die either...

I guess my blackness compels me to not test the police. LMAO

 

[Miggytronz]

How hard is it for GAF to understand the concept to comply to Police. They tell you to do something you better fucking doit.

I like how GAF ignores Common Sense in these types of threads.

 

[numble]

Those stories have nothing to do with a crazy grandpa whos been pointing his gun at people and later died kuz of his idiocracy.

Those stories come from the very same articles you link to. Why are you intent at selectively choosing part of the story, when even the articles you link to believe it is important to provide context in the form of the officer's past actions?

If you want to consider the grandpa's past with threatening people, the officer's past, including a past that has his police department paying the family of a man the officer killed, after the police department was sued for his actions.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Problem?

No sir.

 

[neutralgamer02]

Agreed. All he had to do was listen to the cop... It's fairly safe to assume he was asked to come outside, put the kid down and then to get on the ground with his hands on top of his head. Very simple, easy to follow. If he had followed directions, he'd still be alive. Regardless if the cop is in the wrong or not, this guy did NOT help his case. Doesn't mean he deserved to die either...

I guess my blackness compels me to not test the police. LMAO

I'm black and I not going to comply with everything the police says. If you are recording them with a camera and they tell you to stop, are you just going to walk away? I definitely won't even if I have to go to jail.

I like how GAF ignores Common Sense in these types of threads.

I like how people rush to judgment to support the police even though all the information isn't there.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

If a police officer gives you non lethal warnings and you dont comply, then you go reaching (visual assumption) or make any sudden movements that are threatening, dont be surprised to get lit up. Seriously.

Well can we get an account of these warnings? Because the article mentions no warnings.. only that he came to the door, then turned around.

And a non lethal warning turns into a head shot for turning around?

Again, is that truly Police Procedure?

How hard is it for GAF to understand the concept to comply to Police. They tell you to do something you better fucking doit.

I completely understand that concept, the guy is in the wrong on a lot of things. Comply with Police and 99/100 you'll have little to no problems.. and certainly won't get yourself shot.

But there is absolutely no account of him even getting a verbal warning.. of what was said to him, etc. The account is a man coming to his door, and being shot in the head for turning around and allegedly "reaching for something" (which easily could be, reaching to set something down.)

But either way, I'm asking what is proper police procedure, which I truly don't think you know.

Hence why I asked a Police Officer in this thread the same questions.

 

[SapientWolf]

http://www.cbsnews.comhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57379270-504083/ariz-police-officer-who-fatally-shot-suspect-tuesday-has-killed-at-least-5-while-on-duty/

When police arrived, three officers - including Peters - made their way to the front door. One officer says he spotted what was believed to be a weapon.

Sgt. Clark said the suspect was holding the child in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. The suspect then reached down to his right, lowering the baby and exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters fired a single shot to the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly, according to Sgt Clark, and the baby was unharmed.

Inside the home, police say they found two loaded pistols, including one between the arm and cushion of a chair a few feet away from where the suspect fell. Police also told KPHO they had been to the same home in 2009 where the same man was also believed to have been waiving a gun at people.

"In this particular case we had someone the officers were confronting that had already pointed his pistol at at least two neighbors while he had a child in his arms, so there's a lot of factors that go into the decision to shoot - certainly the presence of a weapon is one of them or the perceived presence of a weapon," Clark said Wednesday morning.

I think this information is pertinent. Not sure why it wasn't included in the OP.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

If a police officer gives you non lethal warnings and you dont comply, then you go reaching (visual assumption) or make any sudden movements that are threatening, dont be surprised to get lit up. Seriously.

Eh, that's bullshit. You know, I'm all for cops. I love what they do and I appreciate the stress of their job, but that doesn't mean you can go around shooting people in the back of the head because you suspect something. Shot. In the fucking head. And in this case, whoops, remote control! Sorry! Just making sure we can all go home safe tonight!

Do these people really receive no other training to deal with suspects that don't comply with verbal commands? Take a baton to his kneecap. Beanbag him in the liver.

The whole shoot-first-figure-it-out-later approach is pretty embarrassing to our police force.

 

[neutralgamer02]

But there is absolutely no account of him even getting a verbal warning.. of what was said to him, etc. The account is a man coming to his door, and being shot in the head for turning around and allegedly "reaching for something" (which easily could be, reaching to set something down.)

Exactly. Where are people getting that the cops said anything to him? One poster just said, it is police procedure, so it probably happened. Well, it isn't in the story so we can't know.

 

[SonnyBoy]

I'm black and I not going to comply with everything the police says. If you are recording them with a camera and they tell you to stop, are you just going to walk away? I definitely won't even if I have to go to jail.

Fair enough but considering those circumstances, you need to listen. But, like that man, you have a choice. LMAO Nobody is debating that.

 

[Igo]

Well can we get an account of these warnings? Because the article mentions no warnings.. only that he came to the door, then turned around.

And a non lethal warning turns into a head shot for turning around?

Again, is that truly Police Procedure?

Judge Dread style.

 

[perfectnight]

Exactly. Also, fuck the OP for saying it was deserved. Hope he is next.

I lol'd

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I think this information is pertinent. Not sure why it wasn't included in the OP.

It's not much different than the OP.

Other than the fact he had a loaded gun in his home? That isn't illegal whatsoever. Going by his Facebook.. he is one of those "proud gun owner" 2nd Amendment types. And he was likely just committing the crime of brandishing that weapon, so not shocking it was found in his couch.

Yeah, he had probably threatened his neighbors.. and is pertinent to the Police Response of showing up with 6 officers and approaching him with caution.

But they still show no indication that he was even warned.

He waved a gun at people, he should be put in jail.. but the story still seems like a way too trigger happy cop.

The accounts also differ.. in one account he supposedly had something in his hand, in the other.. he was reaching for something. Those sort of contradict each other, because if you have something in your hand, you could just as likely be reaching to set it down.

Like I said earlier.. really need more facts.. but the reported facts indicate trigger happiness that doesn't sit well with me.

The over-riding fact, no matter what other evidence is presented.. he was shot unarmed in his own home. Which is a shame no matter how you slice it.. I'm willing to give cops a break, but they have absolutely no description of him being threatening to the Police whatsoever.. and the fact that he was holding a baby, and they are doing their best to try to construe it as some sort of "human shield" (how else do you hold a baby in ONE ARM but near your face?), and.. as it turned out, he wasn't reaching for a weapon..

It just smacks of the Police doing their best to make it sound like a justified shooting.. and the things they ARE SAYING certainly should make it fairly suspect that he actually wasn't verbally warned, etc.. because why wouldn't they tell the media that? They are doing everything they can to tell the media evidence that justifies the shooting.. so why leave out verbal warnings?

 

[DY_nasty]

I completely understand that concept, the guy is in the wrong on a lot of things.

But there is absolutely no account of him even getting a verbal warning.. of what was said to him, etc. The account is a man coming to his door, and being shot in the head for turning around and allegedly "reaching for something" (which easily could be, reaching to set something down.)

But either way, I'm asking what is proper police procedure, which I truly don't think you know.

Hence why I asked a Police Officer in this thread the same questions..

Not a cop - soldier, but the same situations pop up just the same. I'm not waiting for a guy to pull out whatever he's reaching for. You can though.

But again, the story is absent of a LOT of basic procedural things. All the details aside though, if you take

1) guy who had a history of threatening others with weapons threatening neighbor with a gun, looking agitated and confrontational
2) same guy looking like he has a weapon

you think, well damn. he's got a gun and he's probably fucking crazy like last time we came out here -this is where there isn't too much info provided by the article. a lot of things had to have happened at this point from assessing the situation, to communicating it with other officers at the spot, to talking to the guy.... a lot is missing-

then you see the see the baby

....

its purely judgement at that point.

I'm not taking into account the killstreak. The guy was SWAT - and his job is too go into already heated situations and end them. Its like saying a driver at demolition derby has a history car accidents. But if you take that out of the picture.... he made a judgement call that I can't really disagree with until more information comes to light.

 

[SonnyBoy]

Ummmm...quick question here.

Who keeps a loaded gun in between the sofa cushions with a baby in the house?

 

[Miggytronz]

Ummmm...quick question here.

Who keeps a loaded gun in between the sofa cushions with a baby in the house?

People with issues and a itchy trigger finger.....am i right?

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Exactly. Where are people getting that the cops said anything to him? One poster just said, it is police procedure, so it probably happened. Well, it isn't in the story so we can't know.

It doesn't even really matter. I can assume that many verbal commands were given, and I'll even assume the suspect didn't listen. The fact of the matter is they still shot and killed an unarmed man.

Here's a novel idea: how about you actually identify a weapon before you open fire? Or would that take too much training?

I know there are many, many great cops out there, and I love 'em, but this guy is a shitbird.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Ummmm...quick question here.

Who keeps a loaded gun in between the sofa cushions with a baby in the house?

I keep my 9 on me at all times, lest my neighbors start tripping about my car blocking their driveway.

 

[venne]

My main issue is the guy in the back is the one that shot. If it was one of the guys up front that could really see and hear everything I would be more understanding.

But the report says the officer was at the end of the driveway aiming at the guy with his rifle. Seems like unless he was ordered to fire, he was reckless in his decision.

 

[Volimar]

I keep my 9 on me at all times, lest my neighbors start tripping about my car blocking their driveway.

You have 9 weapons on you at all times!?!?!?!

Spoiler

How I read that the first time.

 

[DY_nasty]

My main issue is the guy in the back is the one that shot. If it was one of the guys up front that could really see and hear everything I would be more understanding.

But the report says the officer was at the end of the driveway aiming at the guy with his rifle. Seems like unless he was ordered to fire, he was reckless in his decision.

That part is strange to me too.

 

[Miggytronz]

Doesn't seem strange to me. Set him up with Rifle anchored & sighted at the door in case suspect came out guns blazing and or made any sudden moves while officers are at the door.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Not a cop - soldier, but the same situations pop up just the same. I'm not waiting for a guy to pull out whatever he's reaching for. You can though.

Odd.. you said:

I know when I fire a round, the paperwork I end up filling out is 3 pages long.

Certainly gave the impression you are a cop.. you really have to fill out 3 pages of paperwork every time you fire a round as a soldier?

Either way, my bad.. I'll stop asking you Police procedure questions.. I hope you can at least understand why I was asking you, and realize they were real questions and not rhetorical accusations of what you are claiming.

But again, the story is absent of a LOT of basic procedural things. All the details aside though, if you take

1) guy who had a history of threatening others with weapons threatening neighbor with a gun, looking agitated and confrontational
2) same guy looking like he has a weapon

I take all of those things into account, and think Police Officers should be far more reluctant to shoot a man, especially one holding a baby..

Threatening your neighboors with a gun is something you should to time for IMO, but I still think the situation is an account of trigger happy Police.. and you might think that's OK as a soldier, but I certainly don't personally find it OK for civilian Police to act that way.

And as the reports indicate.. the guy who shot, wasn't the one who allegedly saw a weapon.

you think, well damn. he's got a gun and he's probably fucking crazy like last time we came out here -this is where there isn't too much info provided by the article. a lot of things had to have happened at this point from assessing the situation, to communicating it with other officers at the spot, to talking to the guy.... a lot is missing-

And as I said.. i'm avoiding filling in blanks, other than suggesting the fact that the blanks the Police have tried to "fill in" suggest that the blanks are just blanks.. if there were verbal warnings, or more time passed, more indication he was a threat, etc.. why are the Police not saying that? But instead are reporting that they found guns in his house? Finding guns in someones house is not a justification for shooting, verbal warnings potentially ARE.. so why not report them?

I'm not taking into account the killstreak.

Yet you are making all kinds of other assumptions.. like the idea that these cops knew about the other time he threatened his neighboors.. or that he was "acting crazy", etc.

They had allegations that were probably true.

Otherwise... their account appears to be that he came to the door, and turned around, and either reached to set something down or reached for something.. and was shot in the head with a baby in his arms.

I have the opposite opinion of the "baby in his arms" aspect.. it should lead to further caution, not trigger happyness.. the guy had made no threats towards the baby.. and after the fact, looking at his Facebook.. that baby was his pride and joy.

He also comes across like kind of a nutty libertarian type.. which I can't stand personally, but don't believe it is relevant to this particular shooting.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I have no idea if the cop's reaction was warranted, any kind of news reporting is going to simplify the situation.

But even if the cop's reaction was warranted and the cop did no wrong, doesn't mean we need to cheer. It sucks. A man died. His grandkid won't ever know him. At best, this is an unfortunate but necessary situation. It's not good that the guy died.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Not a cop - soldier, but the same situations pop up just the same. I'm not waiting for a guy to pull out whatever he's reaching for. You can though.

Well, a soldier, during a time of war, is a completely different situation than a police officer sworn to protect and serve the public.

 

[neutralgamer02]

Here's a novel idea: how about you actually identify a weapon before you open fire? Or would that take too much training?

Well, that is what we would assume most rational people to agree on, but police apologists always make accuses. Well, the wallet looked like a gun. Well, the cell phone looked like a gun. Oh, he sneezed and looked like he was reaching for something. Every time, there is some sort of excuse for these cops. If cops were trained and held to a high standard we wouldn't have these issues. But no. People hold cops to the lowest standards, and fall over themselves to make excuses for them.

 

[happyfunball]

People with issues and a itchy trigger finger.....am i right?

It sounds like it could describe the victim and the murderer in this case.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I have no idea if the cop's reaction was warranted, any kind of news reporting is going to simplify the situation.

But even if the cop's reaction was warranted and the cop did no wrong, doesn't mean we need to cheer. It sucks. A man died. His grandkid won't ever know him. At best, this is an unfortunate but necessary situation. It's not good that the guy died.

Agreed -- But at the same time I'm not going to weep for a dude that's had a history of pulling guns on people whenever he was agitated. I firmly believe that if given enough time and the right circumstance that he would have pulled the trigger on someone he was pissed at.

 

[DY_nasty]

"Why aren't they saying anything?"

Because they haven't yet. A lot is missing, but what no longer is is the fact that the guy is known for waving guns around and acting crazy. That makes a lot of things make more sense.