Another Police Shooting, Ho Hum, Wait What The Fuck

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I do know that, I also know that some subjects can be dangerous enough that 3 cops won't be enough to restrain them. Admittedly it doesn't look like it, but it's just I couldn't see the guy clearly.

Except then if he WAS dangerous he would've been cuffed already instead of not having cuffs, or they would have maced him then cuffed him, or tased him and cuffed him, or beat them up and cuffed him. They didn't consider him a threat. By your view, they did- why didn't they then use these, rather than a gun?

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I didn't hear where he voiced his intent to cooperate, and I've learned to distrust the media. But if he did that would hurt the cop's case.

Given that BART has yet to repudiate that evidence, or make a statement at all, we must assume the multiple witnesses are correct since they have not disputed their claims.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Infortunately that's not 100% true. Some suspects are virtually immune to the non-lethal weapons(though I'm not sure about tasers), and will sue any cop that tasers them, right or wrong. Such a suspect who becomes violent enough can indeed pose a threat to the cop.

And how would they know he's immune unless they tried? Even so, shooting someone to avoid a lawsuit is...wrong? Are you seriously arguing that this officer, rather than risk a lawsuit, decided that it'd be a-okay to endanger that man's life? There is a clear protocol for using lethal weapons, such as guns, and quite frankly every police officer knows that if you shoot someone there's a good possibility they'll die. Now, given we have the massive pile of evidence that happens to be the same, it's up to you to give us a situation that this unarmed man, who has three cops surrounding him with one on his back pushing him down with his body weight could have conceivably jumped up and seriously injured a cop while his two companions who are not being attacked twiddle their thumbs because golly gee cops never hit someone from behind.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Please not wikipedia *facepalm*

1. Cuffing someone who is violently shaking like that is NOT that easy. Sure you got him penned but he's shaking violently enough you'll pretty much have to keep him from moving a single muscle to get the cuffs on. Yes they are trained to do it, but it's not as simple as "Okay I'm trained for this. *slaps on cuffs* That was easy." A violent enough suspect can get away.

2. The body armor helps, but not like you think. Police don't necessarily get military grade armor, and it only protects part of them anyway. And it does not stop a subject from beating on you, should he break free(which isn't as implausible as you think it is).

3. You've obviously never seen spastically violent subjects who use every body muscle they have against the cops, but I have. I can tell you it is scary, and at times they can overcome several trained cops at once, if only for short periods of time.

1. It's not easy, no, but cops are trained to do it solo without aid and frequently do so. they're also taught numerous submission techniques that aid in this. None of those techniques were used, and neither of his two fellow officers attempt to grab the guy's hands.

2. Even if he got free and managed to attack an officer, the two officers accompanying him would immediately put an end to it.

3. Yes, I have, and that's why they have mace, tasers, and nightsticks to stop violent people without shooting them. And this man was not a spastic violent person, because spastic violent people usually don't sit down when officers tell them to, they attack them because they're spastically violent. Or they attack them when they start forcing them to the ground. They also tend not to cooperate with the police at all, or beg them not to tase him. Both things he did. You're telling us that somehow a little squirming should be immediately quelled with lethal force.

Also, that definition in wikipedia is fairly accurate. Unless you have a law book handy and are willing to quote me what exactly was wrong with the article?

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Escape? Doubt it, but seriously injure? Yes that is a plausible scenerio. I'm not sure how likely it would have been. If I could see it through the cop's eyes I could tell you.

Once again, 3 vs 1, highly trained officers with melee combat and their various nonlethal weapons, no chance of that happening.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I've explained that in my above posts and I'm not repeating myself, go back and read through my posts and if you still have questions, I'll be glad to answer.

Except you really didn't explain how a man of average build who so far has completely complied with the police could possibly stand a threat when there's A) three armed officers, B) one of them holding down his body with his body weight, C) no indication whatsoever he was attacking anyone, D) how he would throw the officer off his back, E) how he would disable the other officer, F) how he would, untested, resist mace, taser, and nightstick, and G) manage to kill or severely injure the other officer before at least one of them could respond. Failing this, when someone strikes an officer generally they pull a gun and warn him. Viewing the tape again it took only a few seconds to shoot from drawing the weapon and pointing. (It's around 2:28.) There are no warnings and BART has not said anything in his defense.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Not if it was done on purpose no, but the question is was it shoot to wound gone wrong, or to kill?

Shooting to wound is only used in rare occassions and in this situation a taser would be better. No, they don't have any proof he's immune because that's very rare and they have yet to tase him. In addition, there is no such thing as shoot to wound, because any shot you fire can be lethal in some way.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

No the proper assumption to make is, "Let's get to the bottom of this" as opposed to "Oh yeah, you're guilty." I'm agreeing, at least that this is cause for suspicion, I even said it looks suspicious.

The proper reaction is to assess the evidence of one side, assess the evidence of the other side and see which portrayal is A) more factually accurate and B) less contradicted . This has not happened because BART hasn't provided any evidence except that the officer perhaps mistook his gun for his taser, which is unlikely given the reasons I've mentioned before. Now, seeing as BART has yet to deny anything the press has said thus far, or say anything at all, we can pretty much assume the media has it right because the police in general have a very good response time to this sort of thing and it will soon be two weeks since the incident. Given what evidence we have is extremely compelling, it is safe to say we can draw a conclusion from the testimony of many witnesses that is in unison and the numerous videos that have been made available.

Armake, you've gone beyond reasonable doubt and are now arguing in clear violation of police procedure- i.e. don't shoot people lying on the ground who are not actively resisting you beyond what nearly every human does when they're forcibly held in an uncomfortable position which by the way cops know about since it's the most basic grappling lesson you learn - and imagining this man is somehow a ninja that can escape from a prone semi submission position and seriously injure someone, or possibly Superman. You are essentially arguing for one side despite the mountain of evidence against it because you like them more, as Fifth has pointed out, and have attempted to argue every single person here who interprets it differently is incorrect despite your stance is entirely reliant on possibilities while we have the advantage of the video and news report evidence, in collusion with people who were physically present and protesting the way those people were treated, which judging from people who have USED that train and provided their experience with it is far below reasonable expectations in civilian-police interaction on the whole. I mean you're arguing a dude lying on the ground who was shot had it coming. Looking at that sentence alone and agreeing with it is a colossal warning sign your argument may-possibly- have a flaw.

[Osterbaum]

About the nonlethal thing, I don't know where it's appropriate versus using their guns, so I can't argue one way or the other on it.

Having gone through Military Police training, we were naturally thaught what atleast here Finland are called 'The rules of using force'. I don't know if these apply everywhere, but I would guess they're pretty universal. At the very least they apply to the 'regular' police here.

The order is naturally what's important here.
1. Speech: guidance, requests and orders
2. Bodylocks etc. (via the means of your own body, that is)
3. Handcuffs etc.
4. Mace or baton.
5. Dog.
6. Firearm: Threatening; clearly announce you have a gun and you intend to use it. Warning shot. A shot to the targets feet or thighs. A direct shot with intention to kill, aimed at the central point of mass.

"In order to accomplish a mission the most minor froms of force, whioch depend on the situation, should be used."

From what the videos show and from what the articles say, a gun was in NO WAY a necessarry form of force.

I remember we were taught that a gun is basically ok, if the guy is coming at you fast and suddenly with a big knife or gun.

[Fifthfiend]

I kind of touched on this already but -

Please not wikipedia *facepalm*

Armake, if you're going to throw around aspersions about every source that anybody cites, at least have some kind of actual reason why we're not supposed to trust it besides "I don't like what it happens to say." At this point you've dismissed Wikipedia, every news reporting organization, every eyewitness to the event, actual videorecorded footage of the event, all apparently because 'you know they're biased'. If you have some actual reason why we should believe any of these sources are flawed then please share it, otherwise you're just making yourself look uninformed.

Originally Posted by Lord Setheris

Here is the fact. This happened.
Here is another fact. Tens of thousands of police do NOT shoot people in the back daily.

People have bad experiences with police because generally when police are involved, the situation is not favorable. Situations like this one breed an unneeded fear and resentment of law enforcement, which leads to distrust and disregard for law

This is an isolated incident, and the man responsible will face punishment for this murder. It is in no way an accurate reflection on the state of our law enforcement system as a whole.

Your record of stating facts in discussion isn't anything I'd hang my hat on, if I were you.

You know, tens of thousands of mafiosi don't murder anyone on a given day. Tens of thousands of gang members, drug dealers, and terrorists don't harm so much as a fly in the course of an afternoon. Are you saying we should shake them by the hand?

And yes of course most people's experiences with the police are in unfavorable situations, which is generally the result of a system of laws designed to give police lots and lots of unfavorable situations in which to accost generally peaceful citizens. The fact that an average person's experience with the police is likely occur, say, for having violated the speeding laws that every single otherwise law-abiding citizen routinely violates because they're ridiculous counterproductive makework laws, as opposed to any situation where an officer might be of actual help to any particular person, doesn't give me a reason to think that the police are particularly swell guys.

I mean hell's bells, most people's experience with plumbers are in unfavorable circumstances, but you have at least an even chance that whatever particular situation is going to end with the plumber fixing whatever problem you're having, as opposed to like, actively and aggressively making it worse and then oh hey, you get shot.

Frankly as far as this goes --

Originally Posted by Kepor

Obviously, this isn't a problem in the majority of the police force -- training counters natural tendencies.

-- I haven't seen anything outside of the movies that indicated that whatever training police officers receive does anything to inhibit this tendencies if it doesn't outright exacerbate them. On way too many occasions where I've observed police officers in action I've seen them act with the same mix of angry, aggressive bullying that seems positively designed to escalate any situation to violent confrontation.

Oh, and "and the man responsible will face punishment for this murder"? So the men who shot Sean Bell to death, they're safely behind bars, right? Yes? No? I'm pretty sure there would be a whole lot less outrage over these kind of crimes if there were any kind of record of actual punishment for the officers who commit them.

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

You know, tens of thousands of mafiosi don't murder anyone on a given day. Tens of thousands of gang members, drug dealers, and terrorists don't harm so much as a fly in the course of an afternoon.

True, but while the Mafia, gangs, and terrorists all answer to themselves, the police are accountable to public opinion. If there's something that we don't like about what the police do, we can demand hearings, trials, or a change in procedure. If there's something we don't like about what the mafia does, too damn bad 'cause they're looking out for #1.

Also,

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

-- I haven't seen anything outside of the movies that indicated that whatever training police officers receive does anything to inhibit this tendencies if it doesn't outright exacerbate them. On way too many occasions where I've observed police officers in action I've seen them act with the same mix of angry, aggressive bullying that seems positively designed to escalate any situation to violent confrontation.

If that's the case, then it would definitely merit a reform of the system, or at the very least an investigation. Or maybe it's a regional thing, I dunno. The few encounters I've had with the police, they've always acted professionally.

[Armake21truth]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Armake, if you're going to throw around aspersions about every source that anybody cites, at least have some kind of actual reason why we're not supposed to trust it besides "I don't like what it happens to say." At this point you've dismissed Wikipedia, every news reporting organization, every eyewitness to the event, actual videorecorded footage of the event, all apparently because 'you know they're biased'. If you have some actual reason why we should believe any of these sources are flawed then please share it, otherwise you're just making yourself look uninformed.

No I haven't, I dismissed wikipedia, you're making up that I outright dismissed the rest. The witnesses, okay yeah, but come on the crowd was against the cops to being with. And yes, there's mountains of evidence that wikipedia, biased or not, is NEVER trustworhty.

You are putting words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Armake it is is generally the case that when you want to kill someone, you use a gun, and when you do not want to kill someone, the one thing you definitely do not do is use a gun.

So tell me what shoot to wound means then.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

just speaking personally but I think I'm seeing a lot of how you, Armake, conveniently interpret things however you see fit.

No I'm refraining from interpretation based on what I don't see.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

In any case, your original claim

is pretty clearly bunk.

And that's why I abandoned it.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

If it's that important to you to hold onto whatever 1% chance of some unknown fact that somehow completely validates a shooting under those circumstances then there's nothing anyone can do to stop you, but when your argument is 'we don't know for an absolute fact that the media, the multiple witnesses, and the video footage aren't conspiring to hide the truth (as opposed to the officers, who are demonstrably and actively hiding the truth), so let's not go making opinions until we have whatever impossibly high standard of evidence will suit me' then don't expect a whole lot of people to find that line of reasoning convincing.

I'm not alleging a big conspiracy, I'm saying it maybe looks worse than it is, and that how it looks has maybe lead to hysteria over the situation that has altered everyone's judgement, and that's not really just a 1% chance, because shit like that does happen. And I'm sorry, but the rowdy crowd are NOT good witnesses, if the cops tried to cover stuff up they aren't either, but that isn't the point.

[MasterOfMagic]

So tell me what shoot to wound means then.

I'm kinda curious why shooting to wound even seems like a possible "well, it was just an accident then" out in this case? Assuming the man was struggling hard enough to harm the police officers (which I very seriously doubt from the video), these cases are the whole point of tasers. Tasers have a much lower chance of accidentally killing people. All it takes with a gun is hitting the wrong spot.

[KnightOfRounds]

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I'm not alleging a big conspiracy, I'm saying it maybe looks worse than it is, and that how it looks has maybe lead to hysteria over the situation that has altered everyone's judgement, and that's not really just a 1% chance, because shit like that does happen. And I'm sorry, but the rowdy crowd are NOT good witnesses, if the cops tried to cover stuff up they aren't either, but that isn't the point.

It maybe looks worse than it is?

Like... It looks like a group of policemen held down an unarmed man who was trying to cooperate with them and shot him in the back. You're saying it only looks like that and it's actually not that bad?

Originally Posted by MasterOfMagic

Tasers have a much lower chance of accidentally killing people. All it takes with a gun is hitting the wrong spot.

Well, the victim did beg the officers not to taze him, so maybe they decided they'd oblige him since he was cooperating and opted to shoot him instead?

[Kim]

Taser, mace, non-lethal force. They didn't even attempt to resolve this without murder. I find it highly unlikely they meant to "shoot to wound" when there were a number of other ways they could've tried to subdue the person that they didn't even attempt. There is no excuse.

Maybe it's just me, but killing someone is pretty serious. They're dead. Not coming back ever. These police just ended someone's life. Given how serious that is you think they'd try a lot harder to avoid it. Even if you say it's more understandable, which I can't even begin to understand, they had absolutely no excuse to just end a man's life.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

No I haven't, I dismissed wikipedia, you're making up that I outright dismissed the rest. The witnesses, okay yeah, but come on the crowd was against the cops to being with. And yes, there's mountains of evidence that wikipedia, biased or not, is NEVER trustworhty.

No, but you have, if I remember correctly, dimissed other sources numerous times before.

So tell me what shoot to wound means then.

To be completely and utterly blunt, "shoot to wound" is outright fucking bullshit.

If you get shot, one of several things will happen:

1) If you're really lucky, something such as a bulletproof vest will stop the bullet. You're still looking at broken bones, and quite probably, internal injuries.

2) You're just plain lucky, and you get shot somewhere "minor", or you're able to get medical attention. You survive, though you'll probably be crippled somewhere.

3) You get shot, and instantly die.

4) You get shot, and bleed to death.

Besides this, even if hypothetically, you were "shooting to wound", do you know how hard it is to precisely hit an area where he "might" not die, which is realistically the best you could hope for?

Police officers know this. You are never, ever, ever supposed to even draw your gun, unless there is immediate, clear danger to your life or others.

No I'm refraining from interpretation based on what I don't see.

...Except as everyone has said, it is really easy to see from the mountains of videos and witnesses that are available what happened.

I'm not alleging a big conspiracy, I'm saying it maybe looks worse than it is, and that how it looks has maybe lead to hysteria over the situation that has altered everyone's judgement, and that's not really just a 1% chance, because shit like that does happen. And I'm sorry, but the rowdy crowd are NOT good witnesses, if the cops tried to cover stuff up they aren't either, but that isn't the point.

...Except you're completely ignoring the enormous amount of evidence that refutes your claim.

Videos don't lie. Witnesses occasionally do, but even if they are, generally a couple dozen of them don't lie at the exact same time.

I am not discounting that maybe, maybe, maybe there was something that warranted him being shot (not fucking likely, though), but evidence, common sense, and Occam's Razor all say that there was nothing he did that warranted a shooting.

[Fifthfiend]

Anyway past limit and everyone's had their say, so closing.

Let's give it say, a 24 hour cooldown on this, after that feel free to rethread if you wanna.