Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If there's one thing people fear more than the cops...it's mom.




https://gma.yahoo.com/baltimore-mom-...opstories.html

Where was the father?

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

To your first point, the video shows that it was a confined area hemmed in by vehicles near the front door. The police in that case are responsible for safeguarding not only their lives, but the life of the mother. Since the subject was so close to the officers, it would have taken a split second for him to lunge forward and stab someone.

As for the Michael Brown situation. You failed to mention the physical altercation and the attempt to gain control of Darren Wilson's gun. Both of which were undoubtedly huge factors in the grand jury's decisions in that case.

There was a Physical altercation. It was never proven without a doubt that it was over the officers firearm. Presumably it was but only one person involved that lived to tell the tale.

[Oling_Roachinen]

It's unacceptable in this day and age to have such a blatant racist President:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/us/bal...ots/index.html

Still, no angst can excuse what Obama called the behavior of "criminals and thugs who tore up" Baltimore.

I kid.

Originally Posted by blueski

Where was the father?

Unacceptable if you're implying what I think you are.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Sorry, but that wiki article isn't accurate.

Reread what I wrote.

An individual who used "deadly force" while committing a crime will, most assuredly see a much different response from police in terms of tactics. That fact, in it of itself does NOT mean lethal force can be used by police.

The part you should have highlighted was the "all circumstances at the time".

In your original video link, I don't think lethal force could have been justified at any point in that video.

You know, you are right about one thing. It is the internet and people are allowed their opinions no matter how uniformed they are. From the chief of police...

"For him to make the judgment call that he did shows great restraint and maturity," New Richmond Police Chief Randy Harvey told WLWT about Kidder, who's been on the force for a year. "This video footage, it eliminated all doubt that this officer would have been justified if in fact it came to a shooting."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-co...y-sure-n344011

Pretty much any article you read on the matter says the same thing. From CNN...

If there were a checklist for when it's OK to shoot a suspect, Kidder could have ticked most of the boxes.
Double homicide suspect, check. Possibly armed, check.
Verbally threatening police, check.
Refusing to remove hands from pockets, check.
Charging at an officer, check.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/us/ohi...shoot-suspect/

Anyone of those facts would have justified shooting the guy much less all of them. So considering all circumstances at the time doesn't mean you can ignore any of them including what crime he is suspected of committing.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You know, you are right about one thing. It is the internet and people are allowed their opinions no matter how uniformed they are. From the chief of police...



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-co...y-sure-n344011

Pretty much any article you read on the matter says the same thing. From CNN...



http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/us/ohi...shoot-suspect/

Anyone of those facts would have justified shooting the guy much less all of them. So considering all circumstances at the time doesn't mean you can ignore any of them including what crime he is suspected of committing.

I'm not exactly uninformed on the use of lethal force. Send me a PM and we can compare our experiences.

I think what stands out is that there really isn't a "checklist" as you have conveniently outlined. Each and every encounter is different. This cop didn't shoot. Another cop might have.

Also, I had no sound nor any background other than a double homicide suspect. Was there a weapon used? Was he ignoring commands to remove his hands from his pockets? If that's the case, then ya, that changes things. All I saw was a double homicide suspect advancing on a cop. And that's not enough to shoot.

For the record, I understand your opinion. I do however think that wiki and cnn research perhaps aren't the best resources.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you are black in the USA, riots have historically been a much better way of pushing progress.

For example, prior to the violence in Baltimore, there had been 4 days of peaceful protesting that went completely unreported.

It took riots in Ferguson to expose the depth of corruption and racism in that police department. Same in Los Angeles 15 years prior.

So you are condoning violence? The wilful injuring of innocent people and destruction of local business, schools and homes?

Is this what you are saying?

[OMG!WTF!]

Also, I had no sound nor any background other than a double homicide suspect. Was there a weapon used? Was he ignoring commands to remove his hands from his pockets? If that's the case, then ya, that changes things. All I saw was a double homicide suspect advancing on a cop. And that's not enough to shoot.

Actually it is. It really is. The guy is not obeying commands, advancing on an officer, is much closer than 21 feet (common rule in US law enforcement). Not to mention, there is a real threat of escape/danger to the public. It's an absolute no brainer. I bet you anything the training that would follow such an event is, do not give this guy as much of a chance as this cop did. It's borderline dangerous. Anyway, I'm sure you disagree and that's is a ok.

In a contrary scenaio, how close does a double murder suspect need to get to a cop while advancing agressively and not obeying commands to justify a shooting? What does the guy need to do to get shot? Serious question.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you are condoning violence? The wilful injuring of innocent people and destruction of local business, schools and homes?

Is this what you are saying?

If I'm a black guy in the States, I think I'd probably believe violence against me was sponsored by the state, condoned and accepted, so yeah, I get why they'd want to resort to rioting. I don't know about targeting homes, schools and people (has that actually happened?) but if the only way you are going to get attention to this serious problem is going wild in the streets, then yeah, go for it.

Like it was pointed out, they were peacefully demonstrating for days and nobody paid attention. I'd never even heard of this case before yesterday and that says a couple things: 1) it's so commonplace now that a story of an unarmed black guy dying in police custody under mysterious circumstances goes un-noticed and 2) nobody cares.

If I think nobody cares about me, why do I care about them?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The mother called the police on her schizophrenic son because he was off his meds and threatening to harm people. The door opens with that man holding what could very easily be a deadly weapon and appears to advance towards the cops. It's an unfortunate situation but, to me, it's not like the deaths of Eric Garner, Walter Scott, and more than likely Freddie Gray.

If a bunch of trained cops can't subdue a schizophrenic with a screwdriver without killing him, then they shouldn't be cops.

I'm also sick of this 'what appeared to be' bull####. Call it what it is. How many people (mostly black) need to be murdered by police because they were reaching for a cell phone or a wallet that the cops 'thought' was a weapon.

They don't get to abdicate responsibility for that. They felt threatened? They're ####ing cops. It's part of their job. You don't wanna be threatened at work, go sell Hondas.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you are condoning violence? The wilful injuring of innocent people and destruction of local business, schools and homes?

Is this what you are saying?

I think if you asked around, an astonishingly high number of black Americans would find this an accurate description of their local police forces.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If a bunch of trained cops can't subdue a schizophrenic with a screwdriver without killing him, then they shouldn't be cops.

I'm also sick of this 'what appeared to be' bull####. Call it what it is. How many people (mostly black) need to be murdered by police because they were reaching for a cell phone or a wallet that the cops 'thought' was a weapon.

They don't get to abdicate responsibility for that. They felt threatened? They're ####ing cops. It's part of their job. You don't wanna be threatened at work, go sell Hondas.

Yes, a screwdriver is exactly the same as a cellphone and wallet.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes, a screwdriver is exactly the same as a cellphone and wallet.

Yes, it is. When there's a group of cops against one schizophrenic individual, you have to be able to subdue that person with out taking his life.

Is there no part of police training that prepares an officer to deal with a mentally infirm man with vaguely threatening tool? Maybe there should be.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Yes, it is. When there's a group of cops against one schizophrenic individual, you have to be able to subdue that person with out taking his life.

Is there no part of police training that prepares an officer to deal with a mentally infirm man with vaguely threatening tool? Maybe there should be.

Vaguely threatening tools? 5 seconds and any grown man could kill an individual with a screwdriver. Well assuming it's a phillips. Definitely wouldn't bring a wallet to a screwdriver fight.

I don't know what world people live in where they think a screwdriver isn't dangerous. We're squishy, really squishy. The difference between a screwdriver and a knife in a grown man's hand is pretty much you can slash with a knife, if it's still a deadly weapon to anyone who wants it to be.

Unfortunately the officers were called to a location where a grown man was mentally disturbed and threatening harm to others. When they get there, the door is opened and he's there with a weapon. When he doesn't drop it, after being told to do so, and advances towards the very close by police, they don't have other options. They can't call in a psychiatrist while the man rips through their intestines.

Ideally, if possible, they should have had more distance from the door but there's also the factor that there was an innocent bystander in the home, who they also had an obligation to protect.

Given what transpired, I can't blame the officers.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Actually it is. It really is. The guy is not obeying commands, advancing on an officer, is much closer than 21 feet (common rule in US law enforcement). Not to mention, there is a real threat of escape/danger to the public. It's an absolute no brainer. I bet you anything the training that would follow such an event is, do not give this guy as much of a chance as this cop did. It's borderline dangerous. Anyway, I'm sure you disagree and that's is a ok.

In a contrary scenaio, how close does a double murder suspect need to get to a cop while advancing agressively and not obeying commands to justify a shooting? What does the guy need to do to get shot? Serious question.

To answer your question, all that is needed is a cops belief and subsequent articulation that GBH or death is imminent.

Trust me, that's different for everyone based on an infinite number of factors.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Vaguely threatening tools? 5 seconds and any grown man could kill an individual with a screwdriver. Well assuming it's a phillips. Definitely wouldn't bring a wallet to a screwdriver fight.

I don't know what world people live in where they think a screwdriver isn't dangerous. We're squishy, really squishy. The difference between a screwdriver and a knife in a grown man's hand is pretty much you can slash with a knife, if it's still a deadly weapon to anyone who wants it to be.

Unfortunately the officers were called to a location where a grown man was mentally disturbed and threatening harm to others. When they get there, the door is opened and he's there with a weapon. When he doesn't drop it, after being told to do so, and advances towards the very close by police, they don't have other options. They can't call in a psychiatrist while the man rips through their intestines.

Ideally, if possible, they should have had more distance from the door but there's also the factor that there was an innocent bystander in the home, who they also had an obligation to protect.

Given what transpired, I can't blame the officers.

Here's a thought. They could back up. They could draw him away from the innocent bystanders, stand behind their cars, they could do any number of things before shooting him to death.

Screwdrivers aren't so benign as to be a non threat. Multiple officers still have to be capable of handing that situation in a manner that sees everyone alive tomorrow. And if they cannot do that, they should find other careers.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by blueski

Where was the father?

This is an absolutely garbage post and has no place on this forum.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Here's a thought. They could back up. They could draw him away from the innocent bystanders, stand behind their cars, they could do any number of things before shooting him to death.

Screwdrivers aren't so benign as to be a non threat. Multiple officers still have to be capable of handing that situation in a manner that sees everyone alive tomorrow. And if they cannot do that, they should find other careers.

They said they were in a confined space, and why run backwards away from a man going forwards? Fall and you risk death, he catches up and you risk death. There wasn't separation at the time of the incident, we've seen the video we know exactly how far they were away.

You're right that they could have stood behind their cars before approaching. Like I said, ideally they would have been further away. Perhaps they were not aware that there was a weapon or feared for the callers safety. But given the circumstances at the time of the shooting, what other steps? Not shoot and risk death. Meh, rather they go home to their family that night.

This isn't a similar case to Eric Garner or even John Crawford. The was enough evidence man was an actual threat. There appears to be reason to be there, no cover up, no lies in the story, video presented at the trial. It's an unfortunate situation, I do feel for the man and especially his mother. But I wont blame the cops, and I think many of those who do underestimate how quickly things can go south for the officers in that situation. One stab, half a second, all it could take. That's not an exaggeration.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Curious GreenLantern2814, and any one else, would your thoughts on the situation be different if it was a knife in his hand?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

To answer your question, all that is needed is a cops belief and subsequent articulation that GBH or death is imminent.

Trust me, that's different for everyone based on an infinite number of factors.

Not really true either. Yes, a cop needs to feel like he/she or someone else is in immediate danger. But it also needs to be a reasonable feeling or, what a reasonable person would feel in the same situation. In that sense, it is not different for everyone. It's based on past case law and any new case needs to pass previous muster. Officer Slager thought his life was in danger when he shot Walter Scott six times in the back at twenty paces during the worlds slowest escape attempt. He "articulated" as much in the police report which was total bs and based on what all similar reports are supposed to say. He could not have described the event accurately and expected any judge to believe him.

Screwdrivers aren't so benign as to be a non threat. Multiple officers still have to be capable of handing that situation in a manner that sees everyone alive tomorrow. And if they cannot do that, they should find other careers.

I don't know. I don't really expect cops to fight people with screwdrivers all the time. A taser would have been good. But I can't say it's a good idea to have a general policy that goes something like, if you think you can take him...

[White Out 403]

This debate is sad. Police should be able to apprehend a suspect who's armed only with a screw driver without killing them.

Our standards are so depressing.