Police arrest, attack reporters; order reporters NOT to cover protest. IN UNITED STATES.

[Shallow]

Don't try to feed me this bull about it being their job.  Their salary is good, but it isn't 'risk your life' good, and yet they train to put themselves in the line of fire whenever necessary to save others.  So yeah, the default should be respect until they prove they don't deserve it.       

 

Yeah sure, the default should be innocent until proven guilty. But you aren't just a bad cop if you're in the minority of horrible **** going out of their way to make peoples lives ****, you're a bad cop if you're in the massive majority who protects said minority. And as civilians aren't able to organize investigations and trials, they don't have the luxury of assuming innocence, for innocent until proven guilty only works when proper trials can be conducted without interference.

[HoonDing]

Oh no, not you Hercules. :/

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/21/actor-kevin-sorbo-ferguson-unrest-let-black-protesters-be-the-animals-they-truly-are/

He looks a lot like Mark Hamill now. Creepy.

[HoonDing]

There's a new case of a summary execution by police

 

[Volourn]

Evil to the core.

[Tale]

There's a new case of a summary execution by police

 

I'm pretty well classified as a bleeding heart liberal, but that's not something I can be outraged by. Police should take any threat with a weapon seriously. And you'd be surprised how fast someone can charge at you while under fire.

 

They gave him lots of opportunity to disarm and whatever else their commands were.

 

The thing I'm seeing there is a failure in our mental health care and overall health care systems.

[Stun]

I don't know. That's iffy. A kid with a knife can be quick but not quicker than the attack dog in that scene. Also 8 armed cops? Why didn't one of them just shoot the kid's leg or something?

[Tsuga C]

Not at all surprising. Cops are neither devils nor angels, but most certainly are subject to the same mob/group-think mentality as are all but the most deliberative and conscientious individuals. It's obvious that the nut job should've been tasered and pepper sprayed into submission as they had the numbers to do so without undue difficulty or risk to themselves. Yet another reason not to put too much faith in any form of governmental authority.

 

Edit: Didn't know about the knife. The #1 goal of every cop on a beat is to go home safe and sound at the end of their shift. That the nut was armed with a blade changes things a bit, but their actions still leave me feeling uneasy. This is yet another example of why a great many of us just don't trust the police all that much.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Tsuga C

[Stun]

I agree. It wasn't even one of those tense scenes that required a split-second decision to be made. It was a standoff. There's no reason why they couldn't have struck to maim/subdue.

[Hurlshort]

It looks really easy in the movies to shoot someone in the hand or leg when they are a threat, but that isn't realistic for an average cop.  Also, a stun gun is not an easy weapon to hit correctly with, so it is rarely used when the suspect has a weapon.

 

But I do think they needed an officer to take a lead position here, and that clearly didn't happen.  Why was the dog there?  Why did they feel the need to close on him? etc.

 

This was a mentally unstable individual with a knife.  It is a tragic situation with a tragic outcome.

[Gorgon]

Dude there are six cops there. Surely one or two could have attempted a non lethal shot. What's the downside.

[Volourn]

People defending that barbarism is sickening.  That wasn't a'stand off'. That was n execution. Police aren't supposed to be the executers. They are not judge or juries either. None of their lives were in danger.

 

That is evil. Bunch of nazis. It's all about power, control, and slavery.

[Hurlshort]

Dude there are six cops there. Surely one or two could have attempted a non lethal shot. What's the downside.

 

How do you make that decision in real time?  It's not a turn based strategy game.  They aren't trained to take shots like that. 

 

I'm not defending them either.  It looks like a poorly handled situation.  To me it doesn't matter whether 1 shot or 48 were fired, they should have tried to de-escalate the situation and they failed.  Is this situation better if he's killed by 2 cops instead of 6?  

[Guard Dog]

The second cop from the camera has a Taser on his belt. Never even reached for it. Not as much fun I guess. This is just an armed gang of thugs who happen to wear a uniform. I'm surprised they didn't shoot the bystanders and smash his phone

Edited October 31, 2014 by Guard Dog

[HoonDing]

One of the policemen had a dog. Pretty sure those are trained to disarm, no?

[Hurlshort]

You typically don't use a taser on an armed suspect unless he is in close proximity with someone else or has his back to you.  It is fairly risky to chance that you will get the prongs to fully activate, especially depending on the range.  

 

I'm super confused about the dog.  You do not want to risk the dog getting killed by having him attack someone that is armed, so why is he there?  He is escalating the situation.  The suspect also doesn't really advance on anyone, and they seem to be closing proximity.  Of course, that is why the ACLU is pursuing legal action against the department.  This happened two years ago, btw.

 

http://www.aclumich.org/MiltonHall

 

The idea that the 6 officers were roaming around looking to gank someone is pretty unreasonable though.  It's a tragic situation for everyone involved, we should be looking at ways to prevent these situations, not going on witch hunts.\

 

 

edit:  The best equipment here would be a bean bag shotgun, btw.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

"You typically don't use a taser on an armed suspect"

 

That's the kind of weapon you use to murder UNARMED suspects. Our bad.

 

 

"The idea that the 6 officers were roaming around looking to gank someone is pretty unreasonable though. "

 

No, it isn't. Police are gangs. They don't seem to get  that their motto is supposedly to 'serve and protect' not 'kill, maim, and terrorize'. That's what they are. Terrorists. People fear the police for a reason.

 

 

 "They aren't trained to take shots like that. "

 

Then they should be or if not take away their guns until they know how to use them. That's what happens when civilians abuse their gun priveledge.

 

 

"It's a tragic situation for everyone involved,"

 

O RLY? The police walk away. The guy is dead. The bystanders get stuck watching an execution.

 

"we should be looking at ways to prevent these situations,"

 

Yup, and one of the best ways to do so is not making excuse for bad cops. That does a disservice to the good ones. Plenty of police officers deal with these types of situations without  being executer. None of those cops were in danger. NONE.

 

"not going on witch hunts.\"

 

Hypocrite much? That's exactly what the police did and you defend them simply because they have a nice uniform on. That's ighnorant. Why do you hate good cops? Why do you feel the need to treat cops with kiddie gloves?

 

EVIL TO CORE.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Volourn

[Hurlshort]

You are the one making excuses by just labeling them as teh evil instead of actually talking about strategies to prevent these shootings.  Why do you hate solutions?  Why do you hate proper training?  

 

You really think your childish labels solve anything?  This man lost his life, have some respect.

[Stun]

How do you make that decision in real time? It's not a turn based strategy game.

They had an entire minute. I almost got bored watching the staredown.

 

They also had a trained attack dog -and- they were not under fire -and- there was absolutely nothing to hinder communication between either themselves or the kid.

 

 

From this footage that we have, it's very *very* difficult for an objective observer to conclude that these cops handled the situation correctly.

 

 

The idea that the 6 officers were roaming around looking to gank someone is pretty unreasonable though.

Straw man. Human nature doesn't work that way. Instead, these types of cops find themselves together in a group, and that makes them bold. Then they see a trouble maker and then they mentally weigh the importance of that troublemaker's life. In this case, they concluded that it wasn't worth a whole lot (in fact, they concluded it was worth less than a dog's). So instead of going out of their way to diffuse the situation non-lethally, they said F*ck it, lets just unload and be done with it.

 

PS: There were 8 cops, people, not 6.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Stun

[Hurlshort]

As a group, they all mentally weighed the value of this guy's life, and then mentally decided to kill him at the same time?  That is the most logical scenario here?  

 

Who is defending what they did?  I've just pointed out the flaws in your alternative solutions.  I also said the solution would be to have a lead officer talking and engaging, have everyone else back the heck off, put the dog away, and worst case scenario, get a bean bag shotgun and knock him down.    

 

Whoever fired the first shot is the real culprit.  He or she is the one that is dangerous to have in a tense situation.  But that will be a hard thing to figure out, even with the video.   

[Volourn]

"You really think your childish labels solve anything?  This man lost his life, have some respect."

 

Show respect? That's rich coming from the guy who is defending the ones who murdered the man. How about you show him respect and  oppose evil people in uniforms?

 

 

"Who is defending what they did?"

 

You are. Makinge xcuses after excuses for cold blood execution.

 

 

"You really think your childish labels solve anything?"

 

How about you childishly blindedly defending cold blooded killers simply because they have a uniform on. Shooting someone should be the last option for cops not the first. Why do you disrespect the good cops so much by defending trash like them?

 

That's EVIL.

[Stun]

As a group, they all mentally weighed the value of this guy's life, and then mentally decided to kill him at the same time?  That is the most logical scenario here?

The fact that we've got 8 cops and a dog together against a single pen-knife wielding kid is ALREADY an utterly illogical scenario that begs a ton of questions -- questions about motives and reasons and the like. So yes, I'm certainly not going to dismiss the possibility of bigoted group-think.

[Hurlshort]

edited out.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Hurlshot

[Hurlshort]

 

As a group, they all mentally weighed the value of this guy's life, and then mentally decided to kill him at the same time?  That is the most logical scenario here?

The fact that we've got 8 cops and a dog together against a single pen-knife wielding kid is ALREADY an utterly illogical scenario that begs a ton of questions -- questions about motives and reasons and the like. So yes, I'm certainly not going to dismiss the possibility of bigoted group-think.

 

 

The guy was a 49 year old homeless man.  

 

If they sick the dog on him and the dog gets stabbed, is that a good outcome?

 

We also have very little background as to why he was surrounded.  But as I've already said over and over again, they handled the situation horribly and I fully support the ACLU and their ongoing legal case.

 

Feel free what I posted earlier: http://www.aclumich.org/MiltonHall

Edited October 31, 2014 by Hurlshot

[Valsuelm]

Solution, fire anyone who fired their gun, and don't rehire anyone else. Most police departments are way overstaffed.

 

Also, disarm your average cop. There is no good reason they all are armed with weapons that are primarily lethal. Arm the populace, not government thugs.

 

I'd wager a proper ballistics report was not done, in which case fire all those that would/should be responsible for doing one.

 

Prosecute the policemen who fired more than one round, or can be proven to have actually hit the subject with a round from their gun, for murder. If the evidence isn't available due to a lack of a proper investigation, dissolve the police department, sell it's wares, award all proceeds to the family of the man, and issue an injunction barring that municipality from forming another police department for a period of at least 20 years.

 

Likely none of the above will happen, and the police will get away with murder. That's the norm these days in police state USA.

 

Oh... and possibly most important of all. Repeal all legislation that gives any government worker immunity from anything (an amendment forbidding immunity clauses for government workers is one of the few I'd add to the US Constitution). Then in the future we can prosecute the DA for helping cover up a murder, rather than doing their job.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Gorgon]

They got spooked when he moved and they should have been able to realise that they held every advantage and that there was time  for another play. He wasn't going to run at them faster than a bullet. Missing leadership, experience ?. 

 

 

Dude there are six cops there. Surely one or two could have attempted a non lethal shot. What's the downside.

 

How do you make that decision in real time?  It's not a turn based strategy game.  They aren't trained to take shots like that. 

 

I'm not defending them either.  It looks like a poorly handled situation.  To me it doesn't matter whether 1 shot or 48 were fired, they should have tried to de-escalate the situation and they failed.  Is this situation better if he's killed by 2 cops instead of 6?  

 

How do you make that decision in real time ?. By not getting spooked. Experience, leadership by someone in the group. He's not going to run at them faster than a bullet. There was time for another play besides yelling at him which with the dog and everything obviously had no effect.