White cop shoots unarmed black man dead in Arizona

Status
Not open for further replies.
cwmartin said:
I generally agree with your sentiment, but this statement right here I'm going to comment on. Police are trained extensively to do exactly what your claiming is not to be done. They are trained to responsibly use their firearm. They are trained to use it to diffuse dangerous scenarios, which may involve them actually pointing a gun without shooting it.

Although to your point, it appears that many police officers can't help themselves when presented on opportunity where their gun seems like the only option they have in their mind.
Click to expand...

Except, police are trained to shoot if there is an "objectively reasonable" threat. This is why police can get away with shooting victims who are "reaching," even if no weapon is present.
 
Crosseyes said:
What "could" be a weapon is an unknown, not a known threat on the officer's life. "Reaching" is taken as the cops word after the effect, when the person who could've said otherwise is dead. "Indications of being hostile" is... you see where this is going?

Civilians can definitely kill people, cops kill civilians a lot more and without consequence needing only shreds of proof compared to normal people. Even less so when dealing with a suspected criminal (see: black person).
Click to expand...

you're acting like unknowns aren't threats

and i'm not even arguing the last part because i've said multiple times that i believe the story as a whole is nonsense

forget the report - if someone makes every attempt to look hostile/dangerous/threatening and reaches for where a weapon would likely be located, they're most likely going to be shot for it. justifiably.
 
Not Spaceghost said:
Directly threatened or fired upon

the operative word being "or"

If a person is threatening then the officer obviously has the right to drop the guy for his own safety, and obviously when you are fired at you have 100% right to fire back.

But all I am saying really is the gun should be VISIBLE and the intention of use should be 100% clear before deciding to fire.

Just because the guy has a gun doesn't mean anything, imagine if you get pulled over for speeding, you go to get your registration and you have a gun in the glove box that's registered and perfectly legal to own, the cop could panic and drop you right there with the assumption that you were going for the gun when you were going for the registration.

Ya dig?
Click to expand...

Except that in the article it states that the two were already fighting each other in CQC. Has he not been threatened enough by now that it would be too crazy to believe he would pull a gun out?
 
Kill3r7 said:
Except, police are trained to shoot if there is an "objectively reasonable" threat. This is why police can get away with shooting victims who are "reaching," even if no weapon is present.
Click to expand...
Well when do you propose they shoot? Let's say a officer has a suspect cornered and is demanding the suspect to comply and lay down with the cop's weapon drawn. Let's say the suspect keeps refusing. Eventually the suspect reaches into his backside very quickly. The cop does not know if the suspect is armed, but it appears he is trying to reach for a weapon if he has one. Would it be appropriate for the cop to shoot before seeing what is being reached for, or wait to see what is being reached for and only shoot if he recognizes it to be a weapon?

I ask because I want to know if you feel there is any case where this should be allowed, and if so, what makes it okay sometimes and not others.
 
Two Words said:
Well when do you propose they shoot? Let's say a officer has a suspect corner and is demanding the suspect to comply and lay down with the cop's weapon drawn Let's say the suspect keeps refusing. Eventually the suspect reaches into his backside very quickly. The cop does not know if the suspect is armed, but it appears he is trying to reach for a weapon if he has one. Would it be appropriate for the cop to shoot before seeing what is being reached for, or wait to see what is being reached for and only shoot if he recognizes it to be a weapon?

I ask because I want to know if you feel there is any case where this should be allowed, and if so, what makes it okay sometimes and not others.
Click to expand...

it could be a cell phone :3

or candy :o
 
Not Spaceghost said:
Directly threatened or fired upon

the operative word being "or"

If a person is threatening then the officer obviously has the right to drop the guy for his own safety, and obviously when you are fired at you have 100% right to fire back.

But all I am saying really is the gun should be VISIBLE and the intention of use should be 100% clear before deciding to fire.

Just because the guy has a gun doesn't mean anything, imagine if you get pulled over for speeding, you go to get your registration and you have a gun in the glove box that's registered and perfectly legal to own, the cop could panic and drop you right there with the assumption that you were going for the gun when you were going for the registration.

Ya dig?
Click to expand...

I feel like most sensible people would warn a police officer that they have a gun in the glove compartment before just reaching in there.
 
Whom_Gods_Annoy said:
Except that in the article it states that the two were already fighting each other in CQC. Has he not been threatened enough by now that it would be too crazy to believe he would pull on gun out?
Click to expand...

I wasn't explicitly referring to the article with that post.

.GqueB. said:
I feel like most sensible people would warn a police officer that they have a gun in the glove compartment before just reaching in there.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean people forget stuff or things are misunderstood.

Really though I just think the burden of proof before firing a weapon should be higher than what it currently feels like it is. I may have clumsily stated my point or been come off as unrealistic.
 
Escape Goat said:
Thats a pretty safe decision to make sitting at your computer removed from any sense of danger. You' have the benefit of hindsight. As it turns out he did have a gun in the car.
Click to expand...

And of course, you're right there in the thick of it to tell us what it's like.

The safest option was always to wait for backup, even if he thought the situation became more dangerous.

Not dangerous enough for him to get right in there like a motherfucker, though.
 
cwmartin said:
I generally agree with your sentiment, but this statement right here I'm going to comment on. Police are trained extensively to do exactly what your claiming is not to be done. They are trained to responsibly use their firearm. They are trained to use it to diffuse dangerous scenarios, which may involve them actually pointing a gun without shooting it.

Although to your point, it appears that many police officers can't help themselves when presented on opportunity where their gun seems like the only option they have in their mind.

I also think its disingenuous (can't remember who made the comment) to say that a taser is not realistic as he was a moving target at a distance, and then shoot someone when your in a physical struggle with them. Too far for a taser but when your close enough you pull the trigger? Good grief.
Click to expand...
Yeah but everyone else doesn't have that training. And that's what I'm commenting on. It's unreasonable to expect an officer to wait for a gun to be pointed at them. I agree that an officer pointing a gun at someone should only very rarely lead to shots fired, but they should never be expected to be aimed at first.
 
Simon Belmont said:
And of course, you're right there in the thick of it to tell us what it's like.

The safest option was always to wait for backup, even if he thought the situation became more dangerous.

Not dangerous enough for him to get right in there like a motherfucker, though.
Click to expand...

yes. wait for backup while suspect runs off
 
cwmartin said:
I didn't know that actually, thanks.
Click to expand...

No problem, it's a fairly misunderstood technology that is grossly incorrectly represented in media. It's finicky and dangerous to the user. It also doesn't help that major firearms manufacturers buy up taser companies and liquidate them because they don't want people buying tasers over pistols for home defense.
 
Simon Belmont said:
Considering the outcome that does seem like the better path.
Click to expand...

bruh

you don't just let guys run off

okay - backup shows up. "where the fuck did he go craig?" "he got away :o i waited :("

call in locations while you're on foot. you don't get to just sit on your hands when a guy takes off through a residential area
 
Two Words said:
Well when do you propose they shoot? Let's say a officer has a suspect corner and is demanding the suspect to comply and lay down with the cop's weapon drawn Let's say the suspect keeps refusing. Eventually the suspect reaches into his backside very quickly. The cop does not know if the suspect is armed, but it appears he is trying to reach for a weapon if he has one. Would it be appropriate for the cop to shoot before seeing what is being reached for, or wait to see what is being reached for and only shoot if he recognizes it to be a weapon?
Click to expand...

As the law is presently constituted (SCOTUS unanimous decision) a cop is justified to fire upon the suspect the moment he or she disregards the warning and reaches (objectionably reasonable threat). I don't think we'll ever get to the point where a cop will have to wait and see. So, it's pretty moot.
 
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
So it's really that black and white that every instance is improved by waiting around for backup?
Click to expand...

Am I replying to every instance or just this one?

DY_nasty said:
bruh

you don't just let guys run off

okay - backup shows up. "where the fuck did he go craig?" "he got away :o i waited :("

call in locations while you're on foot. you don't get to just sit on your hands when a guy takes off through a residential area
Click to expand...

How would they ever find him, considering they had his car.

ITT: Police work is dead.
 
Whom_Gods_Annoy said:
Ridiculous hindsight bias in some of these comments.

Oh yes, I'm sure every one of us would wait for someone to have a gun completely pulled on us before we would take any decisive action. Oh yes, absolutely.

And whether or not he had one actually on him is beside the point. After repeatedly refusing to comply and me having the suspicion that he did indeed have a gun on him I would be guilty of the same actions the officer took.

I'm not condoning what the officer did, I'm just saying if I was in the his position I would not have acted very differently.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you wouldn't act much differently, and that seems to be part of the problem. We have a bunch of cops who aren't able to do their jobs much better than a bunch of untrained civilians likely would.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
He saw him reaching for something in the backseat (was probably the gun) and then when the suspect got out and started running/antagonizing the cop he kept motioning as if he was pulling a gun from his waistband. The officer told him not to put his hands there, and he kept doing it.

Like, seriously, what would you assume? You obviously have a pretty high standard of perception.

I don't really get why people are acting like the officer was completely unreasonable in defending himself from what was logically perceived as a threat on their life.
Click to expand...

Who cares if he was reasonable? I'm not saying that he deserves to be criminally prosecuted (although he might, I just don't know enough). But in either case he performed shitty at his job. People in the workforce get fired for mistakes way smaller than killing an unarmed person.
 
Resident_UA said:
Who cares if he was reasonable? I'm not saying that he deserves to be criminally prosecuted (although he might, I just don't know enough). But in either case he performed shitty at his job. People in the workforce get fired for mistakes way smaller than killing an unarmed person.
Click to expand...

I took your statement of "There should be some consequences" to mean criminal prosecution, but yes there should be (and is) a review done after every police shooting. If he is found to have breached proper procedure then (ideally, though clearly not always) he would be removed from field duty if not fired.
 
Lionheart1827 said:
I know what you're talking about, that's a horrible video. :(
Click to expand...

Watching that video put a lot of things into perspective and it is kind of infuriating seeing all these people sitting in their comfy arm chairs with a full detailed report of all angles talking about how a police office should handle a life or death situation where a seconds are what matter. And to top it all off we get a click bait title pandering for views with mentioning race first before stating any facts.

Don't get me wrong there are plently of cases where police deserve to be held responsible, the Eric case is one of the most recent ones. This is an officer doing his job and he isn't doing anything different that I wouldn't do if I felt my life was in danger.
 
What happened to the taser option again?

If everything in that article is right then that guy did everything wrong that you could do when getting caught by the cops short of actually opening fire, but the cop really should have tased him or something if they were in that close of proximity.
 
mr jones said:
...

.... damn it I'm curious. Link?
Click to expand...

I've been trying to find it on youtube

it is fucked up

there's a bunch out there though. the one with the woman getting beaten by a father of 3 onlooking kids was the worst imo
 
Buzzman said:
Just a question, how often does it happen that later evidence shows the police weren't telling the truth about a suspect?
Click to expand...

Just check that thread about the Cleveland boy getting shot. Cops lie and lie and lie and lie. They dont deserve the benefit of the doubt until they present concrete, tangible evidence of their claims
 
Maybe they should start making some of those human shooting targets white on black paper, just to even things out somewhat.
 
Simon Belmont said:
And of course, you're right there in the thick of it to tell us what it's like.

The safest option was always to wait for backup, even if he thought the situation became more dangerous.

Not dangerous enough for him to get right in there like a motherfucker, though.
Click to expand...

Please tell me where I'm telling you what its like. All I know is what I read in the OP. You're the one making armchair policing arguments.
 
Now, I'm no expert, but maybe you shouldn't get in a fistfight with a cop if you don't want to get shot? What's the debate here? You get in a fight with a cop, black or white, the least you could expect is a severe beating.
 
I'm certainly not saying my situation is similar, but if a cop is trying to get my attention or shouting commands, the last thing I'd do is run away. If they want to see my hands, then they'll see my hands. I'm not going to argue with someone who could very well be the wrong cop. I think we all know that by now.
 
The cop was putting himself at risk for chasing down the guy all by himself.

Comply or die situations should be avoided.

Wait for backup and force the guy to surrender.

Once you get into a struggle... anything can happen.
evilromero said:
I'm certainly not saying my situation is similar, but if a cop is trying to get my attention or shouting commands, the last thing I'd do is run away. If they want to see my hands, then they'll see my hands. I'm not going to argue with someone who could very well be the wrong cop. I think we all know that by now.
Click to expand...

You definitely shouldn't run away from cops that said you definitely should not get killed for doing so.

will you pay cops to protect us not kill us when we disobey. these days there is a culture of assuming zero risk.cops killed by civilians every year is on the order of 10 a year but civilians killed by cops is on the order of thousands I believe.
 
Beartruck said:
Now, I'm no expert, but maybe you shouldn't get in a fistfight with a cop if you don't want to get shot? What's the debate here? You get in a fight with a cop, black or white, the least you could expect is a severe beating.
Click to expand...

I was once outside a bar in Charleston, SC, and some white college kid had gotten thrown out of the bar for being too belligerent. Three cops were talking down the street, 2 guys and 1 woman. The lady cop sees the college kid punch the window of the bar and moves toward him. She calmly taps him on the shoulder, and the kid throws a spinning haymaker without even looking at what he was aiming at and knocked the lady cop on her ass.

This was followed by a sheer look of horror on his face, which was immediately hidden by the sidewalk as the two guy cops threw him down and beat the crap out of him.

Not that that's particularly relevant to the thread, but you reminded me of that story and how hard I was laughing for about two hours afterward.
 
boiled goose said:
The cop was putting himself at risk for chasing down the guy all by himself.

Comply or die situations should be avoided.

Wait for backup and force the guy to surrender.

Once you get into a struggle... anything can happen.

You definitely shouldn't run away from cops that said you definitely should not get killed for doing so.

will you pay cops to protect us not kill us when we disobey. these days there is a culture of assuming zero risk.cops killed by civilians every year is on the order of 10 a year but civilians killed by cops is on the order of thousands I believe.
Click to expand...

There were 409 civilian deaths by cop in 2012, not thousands. There are about 10,000 deaths by gunshot in the US total every year.

Also cops do have the right to shoot a fleeing suspect if they believe that suspect constitutes a threat to the general public and the dude was reaching in his waistband while running into a crowded apartment complex. That's not some department-generated guideline either, that's the Law as Written. So, if you want that right taken from them you need lawmakers to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sony’s Spider-Man universe is dead
31
2K
Doom85 replied
“Single WHITE Female” remake in development
2
69
4K
Hudo replied
How's Arizona Bros
37
2K
SpiceRacz replied
Snow & White | Review Thread
Community  2
80
5K
GymWolf replied
Gene Hackman and wife found dead, in their home
2 3 4 5
214
14K
Rentahamster replied
Top Bottom