Cop in America doing a bad job, again

Grinner said:
But did he have a gun? I haven't read closely enough...has that been determined?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you pause the vid in Tweet you can see it behind his back at about 3 seconds in. He throws it behind the fence and then raises his hands all in the same movement with his body and fence obscuring the view of the gun as he tosses it away. All that and cop firing happens in the space of 2 seconds at the most.

I think it's a tough one. The cop wouldn't have known he tossed it and the raising of his hands could have been to fire. That does beg the question why he asked him to raise his hands instead of telling him to drop the weapon but with the gun going out of view like that there was no way of knowing if he still had it in his hands as he raised them. If he waits to find out the cop could be deadd. If the kid had dropped it behind him just straight down on the ground then I guess there's a chance it wouldn't have happened.
 
Chipper said:
Yes. If you pause the vid in Tweet you can see it behind his back at about 3 seconds in. He throws it behind the fence and then raises his hands all in the same movement with his body and fence obscuring the view of the gun as he tosses it away. All that and cop firing happens in the space of 2 seconds at the most.

I think it's a tough one. The cop wouldn't have known he tossed it and the raising of his hands could have been to fire. That does beg the question why he asked him to raise his hands instead of telling him to drop the weapon but with the gun going out of view like that there was no way of knowing if he still had it in his hands as he raised them. If he waits to find out he could be dead. If the kid had dropped it behind him just straight down on the ground then I guess there's a chance it wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but for me this is not a tough one. He was ordered to put his hands up. He put his hands up. If the officer is so rattled he/she still murders that child even as he is doing what he is told then he/she sure as hell should not be an officer and sure as hell belongs in jail for manslaughter.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Teenagers like to be out late. Maybe he snuck out of the house. I know I did plenty of times at that age. Most rational people would wonder why the police shot him when his hands were up.
Click to expand...

My issue here isnt that it was 2am...more that he’s out with someone firing random gunshots off into the night.


Rado_N said:
Why was he out so late is basically the same as “why was she wearing a short skirt”.
Click to expand...

If that’s supposed to be aimed at me, then that’s not even close to what I’m asking or saying, so I’ll assume it’s not.
 
It's super cool that the American state has basically made around 700,000 Paul Blart mall cops into an occupying army and some people instead still want to debate why a kid was outside at 2am.

It's the same arguments over and over again.
 
WI_Red said:
I'm sorry, but for me this is not a tough one. He was ordered to put his hands up. He put his hands up. If the officer is so rattled he/she still murders that child even as he is doing what he is told then he/she sure as hell should not be an officer and sure as hell belongs in jail for manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Another instance of sheer negligence at a minimum.
 
Remember this one next time someone says "Why did he run/resist, if he just did what he was told he wouldn't have been killed".
 
Skizzo said:
My issue here isnt that it was 2am...more that he’s out with someone firing random gunshots off into the night.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with this at all. It is definitely relevant as to why he and the LEO were there, and probably also contributed to the state of mind of the officer.

However, it has no bearing as to why the officer shot him when he was complying and putting his hands up.
 
Not sure the chronology of these three frames, which of the two smaller frames comes first, but they don’t absolve the officer of murdering the kid when he complied to the letter...

 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Watch the video. His hands were up.
Click to expand...


No, I get that. I'm just considering that the cops were chasing somebody who had a firearm. It looks to me that the shooting is a terrible, illegal decision from that video. But it's night and there is somebody running around with a gun so cops are going to be amped up.
 
Grinner said:
No, I get that. I'm just considering that the cops were chasing somebody who had a firearm. It looks to me that the shooting is a terrible, illegal decision from that video. But it's night and there is somebody running around with a gun so cops are going to be amped up.
Click to expand...

Yes but it only took me one viewing of the video to determine the kid's hands were empty and he was holding them up as ordered. You can't tell someone to drop it, put your hands up and then shoot almost simultaneously. Cops, seemingly, are always amped up. This is part of the problem.
 
WI_Red said:
Don't disagree with this at all. It is definitely relevant as to why he and the LEO were there, and probably also contributed to the state of mind of the officer.

However, it has no bearing as to why the officer shot him when he was complying and putting his hands up.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Never said the officer was in the right or wasn’t at fault. I don’t believe it was malicious, but obviously I’m on the other side and know mistakes can be made in split seconds. Maybe he thought he saw something. It’s never easy to dissect something a million times that you get to see once in a split second. Either way, someone was shot and killed and mistake or not, taking someone’s life can’t be downplayed.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Yes but it only took me one viewing of the video to determine the kid's hands were empty and he was holding them up as ordered. You can't tell someone to drop it, put your hands up and then shoot almost simultaneously. Cops, seemingly, are always amped up. This is part of the problem.
Click to expand...
@MrMarcello has this writ large in his post earlier. That is a tough video to watch.
 
Skizzo said:
Not at all. Never said the officer was in the right or wasn’t at fault. I don’t believe it was malicious, but obviously I’m on the other side and know mistakes can be made in split seconds. Maybe he thought he saw something. It’s never easy to dissect something a million times that you get to see once in a split second. Either way, someone was shot and killed and mistake or not, taking someone’s life can’t be downplayed.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think we are exactly on the same page.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Yes but it only took me one viewing of the video to determine the kid's hands were empty and he was holding them up as ordered. You can't tell someone to drop it, put your hands up and then shoot almost simultaneously. Cops, seemingly, are always amped up. This is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

viewing the video and watching it on a screen at home while you’re sat down, isn’t the same as someone making a split second decision in a low light situation after a foot pursuit of someone with a firearm.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Yes but it only took me one viewing of the video to determine the kid's hands were empty and he was holding them up as ordered. You can't tell someone to drop it, put your hands up and then shoot almost simultaneously. Cops, seemingly, are always amped up. This is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

If you've been in a live weapons situation, at night, then you'll know that could and should doesn't always apply. I think the cop will walk because the kid had a gun and there's enough to make the case that he was still a threat given how previous cases have been decided. This is part of the bargain that the US has made by allowing citizens to carry guns and asking cops to police that situation.
 
Skizzo said:
viewing the video and watching it on a screen at home while you’re sat down, isn’t the same as someone making a split second decision in a low light situation after a foot pursuit of someone with a firearm.
Click to expand...

But that's just it. The compact we make with LE is that they get police powers, they get to carry a weapon, they get to use that weapon, but what we get is the promise that they will use those powers and extra rights in the most judicious and cautious manner possible. They don't get to guess or assume that they are in danger to claim self defense. That is their part of the compact. Any shoot where the officer, or another officer or civilian is not in ACTUAL immanent danger is a bad shoot in my opinion.
 
WI_Red said:
But that's just it. The compact we make with LE is that they get police powers, they get to carry a weapon, they get to use that weapon, but what we get is the promise that they will use those powers and extra rights in the most judicious and cautious manner possible. They don't get to guess or assume that they are in danger to claim self defense. That is their part of the compact. Any shoot where the officer, or another officer or civilian is not in ACTUAL immanent danger is a bad shoot in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree, there’s absolutely a trade off and you’re giving someone a lot of responsibility and power. The downside is that it goes to someone who’s still human and can make errors or be corrupt. You don’t get a badge and gun and become immune to making a mistake. You try and remain vigilant, avoid complacency, train as much as you can...but a split second life or death decision still gets made by a person, not the equipment they’ve been given.
 
Skizzo said:
I agree, there’s absolutely a trade off and you’re giving someone a lot of responsibility and power. The downside is that it goes to someone who’s still human and can make errors or be corrupt. You don’t get a badge and gun and become immune to making a mistake. You try and remain vigilant, avoid complacency, train as much as you can...but a split second life or death decision still gets made by a person, not the equipment they’ve been given.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this to an extent. Setting aside the corrupt and evil element of the profession, I get that at the end of the day you just want to go home. I get that in a moment a bad decision can be made. The problem is that the bad decisions too often means someone else no longer gets to make any more decisions. I don't know what the answer is. Actually I do, ban and confiscate all guns and burn the second amendment, but realistically it really just comes down to LE making the right decision every time. That is impossible, but it should be the goal, and when that goal is not met there should be accountability.
 
WI_Red said:
I don't disagree with any of this to an extent. Setting aside the corrupt and evil element of the profession, I get that at the end of the day you just want to go home. I get that in a moment a bad decision can be made. The problem is that the bad decisions too often means someone else no longer gets to make any more decisions. I don't know what the answer is. Actually I do, ban and confiscate all guns and burn the second amendment, but realistically it really just comes down to LE making the right decision every time. That is impossible, but it should be the goal, and when that goal is not met there should be accountability.
Click to expand...

There also needs to be an understanding that sometime something may just be a horrible, tragic mistake. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be consequences or someone held accountable, but the narrative shouldn’t be the same that every time something happens it’s a racist cop, backed by all of his evil friends. I don’t want to see anyone needlessly shot or gunned down or killed either, but I’m just an officer so my opinion is considered void, because apparently if you wear the uniform, you all think the same.
 
WI_Red said:
I don't disagree with any of this to an extent. Setting aside the corrupt and evil element of the profession, I get that at the end of the day you just want to go home. I get that in a moment a bad decision can be made. The problem is that the bad decisions too often means someone else no longer gets to make any more decisions. I don't know what the answer is. Actually I do, ban and confiscate all guns and burn the second amendment, but realistically it really just comes down to LE making the right decision every time. That is impossible, but it should be the goal, and when that goal is not met there should be accountability.
Click to expand...

But the kid has complicated things by being out late at night, with a gun and running from cops. The law will side with the officer as will most people. I bet he's sick that he shot a kid and it will stay with him forever. If it went the other way, what would we be saying about a cop shot by a kid because he wasn't fast enough with his decision?
 
Skizzo said:
There also needs to be an understanding that sometime something may just be a horrible, tragic mistake. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be consequences or someone held accountable, but the narrative shouldn’t be the same that every time something happens it’s a racist cop, backed by all of his evil friends. I don’t want to see anyone needlessly shot or gunned down or killed either, but I’m just an officer so my opinion is considered void, because apparently if you wear the uniform, you all think the same.
Click to expand...
These horrible, tragic mistakes keep increasing at unacceptable rates & have for decades. We’re a bit past classifying every incident a potential tragedy. Actions have consequences

To me, restructuring qualified immunity to allow for easier civil lawsuits could be a way to potentially trend this downwards.

The status quo just can’t be maintained. We’ve tried it long enough.

It isn’t always a ‘racist’ cop, it’s the overtly violent policing that is the issue.
 
Grinner said:
But the kid has complicated things by being out late at night, with a gun and running from cops. The law will side with the officer as will most people. I bet he's sick that he shot a kid and it will stay with him forever. If it went the other way, what would we be saying about a cop shot by a kid because he wasn't fast enough with his decision?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't get to "what if" this. This was caught on video. The kid had his hands up, and empty, in compliance with the order he was given. At that moment it does not matter if he was Rambo running around with a minigun. At that moment he is an unarmed civilian complying with an officer. That is all that matters in this situation.
 
Skizzo said:
viewing the video and watching it on a screen at home while you’re sat down, isn’t the same as someone making a split second decision in a low light situation after a foot pursuit of someone with a firearm.
Click to expand...

Yeah they say the same about football around here. I do all my shooting in the daytime so I'm not overly familiar with the use of a weapon light, was the strobe function a good choice there or is that something that could have contributed to the outcome?
 
Grinner said:
If you've been in a live weapons situation, at night, then you'll know that could and should doesn't always apply. I think the cop will walk because the kid had a gun and there's enough to make the case that he was still a threat given how previous cases have been decided. This is part of the bargain that the US has made by allowing citizens to carry guns and asking cops to police that situation.
Click to expand...

I'd always look to protect myself. I think that was lacking here and contributed to the outcome. As has been mentioned, too aggressive, perhaps. But I get it, you've been running hard and don't always make the right choices in those moments.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Yeah they say the same about football around here. I do all my shooting in the daytime so I'm not overly familiar with the use of a weapon light, was the strobe function a good choice there or is that something that could have contributed to the outcome?
Click to expand...

I hate using the strobe and I personally would never use it in a shooting situation. Any advantage I may gain from disorienting the suspect would be lost as I’m trying to make out what was happening myself. Especially going into a situation where you know someone is armed, keep everything down range as well lit as possible so you can see absolutely everything you need to seems like the best course of action.
 
@calodo2003 i just watched that clip, and it seems like my response to Dwazza kinda sums it up. Similar thoughts as to the fella in the video. I don’t have a weapon mounted light, I use my own flashlight. It has a strobe feature too but rarely used for my reasons above.

looking up the link now.
 
Skizzo said:
@calodo2003 i just watched that clip, and it seems like my response to Dwazza kinda sums it up. Similar thoughts as to the fella in the video. I don’t have a weapon mounted light, I use my own flashlight. It has a strobe feature too but rarely used for my reasons above.

looking up the link now.
Click to expand...

:nervous: I am not Beau and I did not watch the clip before I posted that.

Would imagine the strobe is good for very offensive actions.
 
Skizzo said:
@calodo2003 i just watched that clip, and it seems like my response to Dwazza kinda sums it up. Similar thoughts as to the fella in the video. I don’t have a weapon mounted light, I use my own flashlight. It has a strobe feature too but rarely used for my reasons above.

looking up the link now.
Click to expand...
This appeared to be a flashlight as well.

Are weapon mounted lights allowed for y’all? Are strobes allowed, e

I ask because Beau brought up an interesting point about having another LEO with a static light shone where a strobe is also.

The article gets pretty interesting granularly, especially about what the human brain can process when looking at what a strobe illuminates. I sort of punted when it got to all the different strives, that may be right up your alley!
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
:nervous: I am not Beau and I did not watch the clip before I posted that.

Would imagine the strobe is good for very offensive actions.
Click to expand...

wait a second.... it kinda lines up. I am going to watch his/(your??) old videos to see if there’s any hidden skeleton porn in the background
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
:nervous: I am not Beau and I did not watch the clip before I posted that.

i would imagine the strobe is good for very offensive actions.
Click to expand...

It looks like I just took all my thoughts from the video now :lol:

@calodo2003 I can’t find much wrong with what he’s saying.

we are allowed weapon mounted lights. My graveyard partner has one, I opted not to. I’ve rarely used the strobe feature just because any instance I’ve been in wouldn’t have gained much benefit for myself. I also feel like it would require a lot of communication and pre-plan going into a situation to ensure you have appropriate lighting cover etc and means a lot of moving parts and room for error. The flashlights we use, with our takedown lights, are enough for someone to not he able to see what’s going on back where we are anyway. Plus in today’s climate, I’m more likely to give someone a seizure and get sued.
 
Skizzo said:
It looks like I just took all my thoughts from the video now :lol:

@calodo2003 I can’t find much wrong with what he’s saying.

we are allowed weapon mounted lights. My graveyard partner has one, I opted not to. I’ve rarely used the strobe feature just because any instance I’ve been in wouldn’t have gained much benefit for myself. I also feel like it would require a lot of communication and pre-plan going into a situation to ensure you have appropriate lighting cover etc and means a lot of moving parts and room for error. The flashlights we use, with our takedown lights, are enough for someone to not he able to see what’s going on back where we are anyway. Plus in today’s climate, I’m more likely to give someone a seizure and get sued.
Click to expand...

or drop some E and fire up some trance music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.