Cop in America doing a bad job, again

choiboyx012 said:
I do, with the luxury of hindsight, feel the number of rounds was excessive. However that isn’t as important as whether the shooting itself was justified based on the facts and events known at the time. Was the decision to shoot proportional and appropriate? If yes, then the number of subsequent shots isn’t that relevant. If I’m pursuing someone and at some point he does something to make me shoot him, I’m solely focused on him, the threat. If there’s 10 other cops in my peripheral view also taking shots, then it’s not inconceivable that 60 rounds can be fired, if say we all take 5-6 shots each.
Click to expand...
I mean, we're talking about a number of cops continuously firing for 6 seconds here. Justified shooting or not, that's clearly excessive, and speaks of a complete lack of discipline. And that's ignoring the fecker with the bodycam who put at least two of his colleagues in immediate danger by opening fire while running with them perilously close.
 
Halftrack said:
I mean, we're talking about a number of cops continuously firing for 6 seconds here. Justified shooting or not, that's clearly excessive, and speaks of a complete lack of discipline. And that's ignoring the fecker with the bodycam who put at least two of his colleagues in immediate danger by opening fire while running with them perilously close.
Click to expand...
That’s actually a really good eye I didn’t catch at first re cross-fire with his partners. At the end of the day I can’t really judge because I’ve never been in a shooting. I can only imagine the stress level and adrenaline is through the roof as these incidents always are. That can possibly explain tunnel vision focus on the suspect and not on the other officers around. And can also explain the delayed response to stop shooting when suspect is down. You can hear one of them yell out “cease fire” kind of late. And it does look like they keep shooting when he’s on the ground.
 
RedTiger said:
He wasn't in his car when he was shot though....
Click to expand...
true...but how would the cops know that during a chase after a guy shot at them from his car? try putting yourself in their shoes when chasing someone in the dark
 
RedTiger said:
Do you think he wanted suicide by cop?
Click to expand...
He did recently lose his fiancée (not sure what caused her death). It’s a possibility, but he was running away from them when he was gunned down. Wearing a ski mask was a little odd tbh. Who knows?
 
choiboyx012 said:
That’s actually a really good eye I didn’t catch at first re cross-fire with his partners. At the end of the day I can’t really judge because I’ve never been in a shooting. I can only imagine the stress level and adrenaline is through the roof as these incidents always are. That can possibly explain tunnel vision focus on the suspect and not on the other officers around. And can also explain the delayed response to stop shooting when suspect is down. You can hear one of them yell out “cease fire” kind of late. And it does look like they keep shooting when he’s on the ground.
Click to expand...

Surely police training is there to take out the adrenaline from these sort of situations??
There should be no stress levels, if the training is adequate or sufficient.
 
MUW4Eva said:
Surely police training is there to take out the adrenaline from these sort of situations??
There should be no stress levels, if the training is adequate or sufficient.
Click to expand...

They’re police officers not robocops. Even the SAS can’t train stress and adrenaline out of you, and they wouldn’t want to anyway.
 
MUW4Eva said:
Surely police training is there to take out the adrenaline from these sort of situations??
There should be no stress levels, if the training is adequate or sufficient.
Click to expand...

Probably not so easy. Even professional athletes that train every day, fail to control their emotions and will underperform compared to their training performance when the lights are on. The ones that don't are the minority (Messi, Volkanovski, Nadal, etc).
 
Until police and police unions begin leading the charge for serious gun control the argument of “I felt in immediate danger” will hold zero weight with me. The current gun laws in this country in a large number of states would allow that argument to apply to anyone since concealed carry is legal. So either you enjoy the convenience of an excuse to gun down citizens or you are openly accepting, and ok with, being surrounded by guns.
 
Halftrack said:
I mean, we're talking about a number of cops continuously firing for 6 seconds here. Justified shooting or not, that's clearly excessive, and speaks of a complete lack of discipline. And that's ignoring the fecker with the bodycam who put at least two of his colleagues in immediate danger by opening fire while running with them perilously close.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the video of the LEOs firing at a suspect while in traffic and using moving/active vehicles as cover?
 
MUW4Eva said:
Surely police training is there to take out the adrenaline from these sort of situations??
There should be no stress levels, if the training is adequate or sufficient.
Click to expand...
No, there’s no training that can really prepare you for the real thing. You can practice boxing, grappling, shooting at paper targets and do scenarios all you want. Those are all controlled environments. It’s nothing like a real life situation where your life is on the line, or at the least your own physical well-being. No time outs, no do overs. And the gun on your hip is real with live rounds, not the bright red plastic ones we use in training days. Unless you train with live fire there’s no way to train out adrenaline rushes and stress levels in these shooting incidents.
 
choiboyx012 said:
No, there’s no training that can really prepare you for the real thing. You can practice boxing, grappling, shooting at paper targets and do scenarios all you want. Those are all controlled environments. It’s nothing like a real life situation where your life is on the line, or at the least your own physical well-being. No time outs, no do overs. And the gun on your hip is real with live rounds, not the bright red plastic ones we use in training days. Unless you train with live fire there’s no way to train out adrenaline rushes and stress levels in these shooting incidents.
Click to expand...
I can't exactly tell what the training process with the British SFOs, but those guys are consistently monitored for weapons proficiency (including trigger dicipline) and (most importantly) psychological fitness prior to earning the right to carry a firearm on the job time and time again. If police training in the US made the same kind of extreme empahsis on those, there would be far less problems in action.

Speaking of what happened in Akron, all I saw are a bunch of panicky idiots to whom I would not even give a water gun on the job. They would be stamped as "psychologically inapt for the job" if I was doing the evaluation.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
I can't exactly tell what the training process with the British SFOs, but those guys are consistently monitored for weapons proficiency (including trigger dicipline) and (most importantly) psychological fitness prior to earning the right to carry a firearm on the job time and time again. If police training in the US made the same kind of extreme empahsis on those, there would be far less problems in action.

Speaking of what happened in Akron, all I saw are a bunch of panicky idiots to whom I would not even give a water gun on the job. They would be stamped as "psychologically inapt for the job" if I was doing the evaluation.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with British SFOs, but are you saying they would have handled the akron incident differently? I do agree that there should be more required training. But that costs money. And I’m not sure certain parts of society want to fund police departments’ budgets even more for training.

What makes you say the akron officers were a bunch of panicky idiots and psychologically inept? Are you saying the shooting wasn’t justified? What should have been done differently if so?
 
choiboyx012 said:
I’m not familiar with British SFOs, but are you saying they would have handled the akron incident differently? I do agree that there should be more required training. But that costs money. And I’m not sure certain parts of society want to fund police departments’ budgets even more for training.

What makes you say the akron officers were a bunch of panicky idiots and psychologically inept? Are you saying the shooting wasn’t justified? What should have been done differently if so?
Click to expand...

No. It's just police departments in the US that are misusing public funds by wasting on military level hardware instead of investing it in training. And for the 4,999,999th, must I remind that the budget for European police is nowhere near close to what American police havs for starters? Yet they spend the money wisely; that's all that matters. In the UK, armed police never fire unless totally justified or they would lose their status as a SFO if they screw up.

That poor black man in Akron was a Doordash driver. They were 9 police officers for one guy. What I would have done differently? I would force police officers to carry those old .38 revolvers at best. After that, they can either live with it and learn some self-discipline, or feck off.

edit: By the way, this would be valuable lecture.

A closer look at police officers who have fired their weapon on duty (Pew Research Center)
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
No. It's just police departments in the US that are misusing public funds by wasting on military level hardware instead of investing it in training. And for the 4,999,999th, must I remind that the budget for European police is nowhere near close to what American police havs for starters? Yet they spend the money wisely; that's all that matters. In the UK, armed police never fire unless totally justified or they would lose their status as a SFO if they screw up.

That poor black man in Akron was a Doordash driver. They were 9 police officers for one guy. What I would have done differently? I would force police officers to carry those old .38 revolvers at best. After that, they can either live with it and learn some self-discipline, or feck off.

edit: By the way, this would be valuable lecture.

A closer look at police officers who have fired their weapon on duty (Pew Research Center)
Click to expand...

There definitely needs to be better use of funds and resources, and that’s a whole other conversation. But comparing funding between US police and European ones is moot, as the societal makeup is way different as are crime trends and gun presence.
So are you saying the UK police would not shoot? The akron shooting is justified.

You calling him a “poor black man in Akron” shows your bias in the incident against the police. Are you conveniently ignoring that he fled a traffic stop and caused a vehicle pursuit? And that the poor doordash driver had a gun and shot at the pursuing officers?

.38 revolvers, in America?! That’s utterly stupid. I don’t think I have to explain why.
 
choiboyx012 said:
Consider it all we want. I’m pretty certain he did. Doesn’t matter though does it. He caused his own death through his continued actions. The cops are only reacting to what he does.
Click to expand...

I just don't get this part. His death was caused by being shot 60 times. I know that if I was in the officers place I would be scared shitless and angry at being shot at, and I likely would make a poor decision based on those emotions. That is why I am not a police officer. "I was in fear of my life" and "I just want to go home" sound great a noble, but when in the aftermath of so many of these shootings we find the officer was never truly in danger it kind of loses it meaning. Those cops were guessing when they shot him. Educated guess or not it was a guess and they guessed wrong and there will be no consequences for it.
 
WI_Red said:
I just don't get this part. His death was caused by being shot 60 times. I know that if I was in the officers place I would be scared shitless and angry at being shot at, and I likely would make a poor decision based on those emotions. That is why I am not a police officer. "I was in fear of my life" and "I just want to go home" sound great a noble, but when in the aftermath of so many of these shootings we find the officer was never truly in danger it kind of loses it meaning. Those cops were guessing when they shot him. Educated guess or not it was a guess and they guessed wrong and there will be no consequences for it.
Click to expand...
You or anyone else would reasonably have those emotions. It’s completely understandable. But no you would not be making a poor decision by shooting him. It would be reasonable and justified to shoot him. A majority of people would do the same if they were in your shoes, if they’re honest with themselves.
 
choiboyx012 said:
You or anyone else would reasonably have those emotions. It’s completely understandable. But no you would not be making a poor decision by shooting him. It would be reasonable and justified to shoot him. A majority of people would do the same if they were in your shoes, if they’re honest with themselves.
Click to expand...
Which is why I would not put myself in those shoes. When you take a job, any job, you are expected to show some level of elevated competency in it. If I make a wrong decision at work I could cost my company millions or I could cost a customer years of R&D time. That is an extreme level of stress, but I accept that as it is part of my job. It means I have to be 100% sure of something before I do it, because telling my customer "listen, I was reasonably sure that the assay we put in place and spent 18 months developing would work, but oops" will not fly and I am getting fired.

Those cops guessed and they guessed wrong and a man is dead. That is not reasonable, it is a tragedy and to think otherwise is truly a sad thing. As with the obsession with guns in this country it is yet another sign that this country is a cesspool that holds no value in human life.
 
choiboyx012 said:
You or anyone else would reasonably have those emotions. It’s completely understandable. But no you would not be making a poor decision by shooting him. It would be reasonable and justified to shoot him. A majority of people would do the same if they were in your shoes, if they’re honest with themselves.
Click to expand...

He was unarmed and running away.
 
I would think lethal force should only be used if someone's an immediate danger to someone else.
 
WI_Red said:
Which is why I would not put myself in those shoes. When you take a job, any job, you are expected to show some level of elevated competency in it. If I make a wrong decision at work I could cost my company millions or I could cost a customer years of R&D time. That is an extreme level of stress, but I accept that as it is part of my job. It means I have to be 100% sure of something before I do it, because telling my customer "listen, I was reasonably sure that the assay we put in place and spent 18 months developing would work, but oops" will not fly and I am getting fired.

Those cops guessed and they guessed wrong and a man is dead. That is not reasonable, it is a tragedy and to think otherwise is truly a sad thing. As with the obsession with guns in this country it is yet another sign that this country is a cesspool that holds no value in human life.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing incompetent in their decision to shoot though. Yea of course it’s tragic that a life was lost. And he reportedly was behaving strangely after losing his fiancé recently, that could explain why he acted as he did.
It was definitely a reasonable shoot. They already got shot at and know he has a gun. It’s then reasonable to assume he’s still armed and dangerous while they’re chasing him on foot and refuses to stop with his hands up. He then turns towards the officers and reaches into his waistband area. Are you waiting for him to draw out and shoot you? I’m not. No other cop is waiting either.
They don’t know that he ditched the gun in the car, so they can’t be culpable for that. But you think they should. We’ll just have to agree too disagree on that, as I’m sure you’ve mentioned similar earlier in this thread. The law judges cops’ actions not on 20/20 hindsight, like you seem in favor of. But on what they objectively and reasonably perceived at that time.
 
choiboyx012 said:
Consider it all we want. I’m pretty certain he did. Doesn’t matter though does it. He caused his own death through his continued actions. The cops are only reacting to what he does.
Click to expand...

The cops executed him when they kept blasting bullets into a defenseless man laying on the ground.

I remember seeing a video awhile back. A guy was getting verbally harassed, and when it escalated into pushing he knocked the other guy out. That was probably legal. He then continued to kick and stomp on his head, and got sent away for attempted murder. This is a pretty basic concept for most people except American cops: it stops being self defense when there's no longer a threat or when excessive force is being used.

The whole "reacting" thing is of course a meaningless phrase. Walker was reacting to the cops when he allegedly fired a shot, and he was reacting when he ran. It's a simple fact that he was just reacting to what the cops did at every point of the interaction, from when they tried to initiate a traffic stop to when they fired 90 bullets, but still that doesn't excuse his actions in your mind.
 
NotThatSoph said:
from when they tried to initiate a traffic stop to when they fired 90 bullets, but still that doesn't excuse his actions in your mind.
Click to expand...

Only in America...
Otherwise, don't bother, there'll always be someone to defend the indefensible. In this case, someone considers it totally normal that officers unload no less than 90 bullets into an unarmed person, and call it a traffic stop.
 
choiboyx012 said:
There’s nothing incompetent in their decision to shoot though. Yea of course it’s tragic that a life was lost. And he reportedly was behaving strangely after losing his fiancé recently, that could explain why he acted as he did.
It was definitely a reasonable shoot. They already got shot at and know he has a gun. It’s then reasonable to assume he’s still armed and dangerous while they’re chasing him on foot and refuses to stop with his hands up. He then turns towards the officers and reaches into his waistband area. Are you waiting for him to draw out and shoot you? I’m not. No other cop is waiting either.
They don’t know that he ditched the gun in the car, so they can’t be culpable for that. But you think they should. We’ll just have to agree too disagree on that, as I’m sure you’ve mentioned similar earlier in this thread. The law judges cops’ actions not on 20/20 hindsight, like you seem in favor of. But on what they objectively and reasonably perceived at that time.
Click to expand...

So you are acting on an assumption, a hunch, a guess or whatever and the consequence of that action is the death of another human being. We are never going to agree on this because we obviously view the value of life differently. I don't know if I could ever take a life, even in defense of myself, much less on a hunch.
 
NotThatSoph said:
The cops executed him when they kept blasting bullets into a defenseless man laying on the ground.

I remember seeing a video awhile back. A guy was getting verbally harassed, and when it escalated into pushing he knocked the other guy out. That was probably legal. He then continued to kick and stomp on his head, and got sent away for attempted murder. This is a pretty basic concept for most people except American cops: it stops being self defense when there's no longer a threat or when excessive force is being used.

The whole "reacting" thing is of course a meaningless phrase. Walker was reacting to the cops when he allegedly fired a shot, and he was reacting when he ran. It's a simple fact that he was just reacting to what the cops did at every point of the interaction, from when they tried to initiate a traffic stop to when they fired 90 bullets, but still that doesn't excuse his actions in your mind.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said, each officer is responsible only for his own bullets, not for the other officers’ decisions on scene. So they will have to answer and account for their actions and rounds fired. It’s very possible one or more of them were excessive. But the more important thing they’ll be judged on is whether they were justified to shoot in the first place.

Yes sure he reacted. Reacted in the most wrong, bizarre and dangerous way you can imagine. And continued to “react “ badly which resulted in him getting shot to death. He may have been going through a mental health episode, that may be his excuse. But his multiple continued unlawful actions are not excusable.
 
choiboyx012 said:
As I’ve said, each officer is responsible only for his own bullets, not for the other officers’ decisions on scene. So they will have to answer and account for their actions and rounds fired. It’s very possible one or more of them were excessive. But the more important thing they’ll be judged on is whether they were justified to shoot in the first place.

Yes sure he reacted. Reacted in the most wrong, bizarre and dangerous way you can imagine. And continued to “react “ badly which resulted in him getting shot to death. He may have been going through a mental health episode, that may be his excuse. But his multiple continued unlawful actions are not excusable.
Click to expand...

He doesn't need an excuse, he's dead, and qualified immunity means all LEO actions are excusable.
 
The pursuit at all costs thinking that is endemic with American cops is one of the problems here.

No one thought to stay with the abandoned car and search it. They might have noticed the gun that was apparently left behind and have been able to communicate that to those pursuing on foot.

Sure he might have had two guns (I've always said they like Lays chips...you can't have just one) but it might have descalated things just enough to avoid the guy being shot 60 fecking times.
 
choiboyx012 said:
Correct. You know what took place before all that too right? So there was no way the cops would have known he was unarmed.
Click to expand...
Is it national policy to pursue anyone who speeds away from a traffic stop regardless the reason for the stop?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
The pursuit at all costs thinking that is endemic with American cops is one of the problems here.

No one thought to stay with the abandoned car and search it. They might have noticed the gun that was apparently left behind and have been able to communicate that to those pursuing on foot.

Sure he might have had two guns (I've always said they like Lays chips...you can't have just one) but it might have descalated things just enough to avoid the guy being shot 60 fecking times.
Click to expand...
Tattoos are the same as Lay’s potato chips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.