You will notice that when our former convict held a weapon, nobody died. When cops were allowed to hold weapons, someone did die. Put down your cop apologism for a moment and try to get over that very real difference. Try and consider if they hadn't gone in tasers blazing, maybe no one had to get hurt that day.

I've actually explained it (and you have ignored it), but to get to criminality, you need to satisfy all the elements of the crime, and so, OK, he brandished with intent - as it is, we are talking a misdemeanor here. Then justifications must be absent or inadequate.

Self-defense is one of the justifications, and the unifying condition of all justifications is proportionality. Since Sterling actually used zero violence (OK, you can quibble over wide and narrow definitions of "violence" but at least you can say that and that's more than what the police managed), proportionality is guaranteed. Since his action is justifiable, the only thing one can do, from a criminal law perspective, is to call it a "non-crime".

http://www.lacriminaldefensepartners...arm-or-weapon/


Brandishing a weapon a misdemeanor in some states. LA? I'm not sure. But, are the police going to stand idle by and allow the misdemeanor to possibly become murder? It is apparent the suspect covered each and determined as such from the resulting 911 call. Also, nowhere has any accounts demonstrated the cops came in with tazers a-blazing. No one appears to really care how it escalated to what it did become.


Further, I'm not defending(apologism) the cops or suspect. I'm discussing this particular incident and what anyone would do in the exact similar situation.

I found the actual code:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...sectionNum=417

A firearm was indeed "exhibited", but it is not even resolved whether Sterling even "rude, angry or threatening" - he could have drawn it without being particularly rude, angry or threatening, which would actually mean all the elements of the crime aren't even there. (In fact, it seems Louisiana doesn't have a brandishing rule per se - scanning through their law, I can't find it either).

In any case, you can see that it really isn't a big deal. No one was hurt and no one was in imminent danger, I can't see the need to immediately reel him in to the point of firing tasers as the first move, much less ending up shooting him.

Well, then as far as I am concerned, let's not use the kid gloves on these cops. Let's treat them as people who've killed someone, and let them try and construct an argument based on self-defense or necessity.

They will do their best to argue self-defense/eminent danger.

I really do not know what I would do in this situation or any other similar situation.

There is no doubt good cops and bad cops. As well as good and citizens. Other than the shootings that have occurred involving blacks(and I'm not making light of that) the underlying theme is black are being targeted unfairly(guilty before proven innocent/profiling). It is a recurring theme spoken by many who have experienced it.

How to resolve this problem remains elusive and will be for sometime.

This implies that they just walked up to him and started firing their tasers. That's not how the incident started...

911 calls are really not prima facei evidence. I would expect the police to do a little bit of investigating to confirm and not assume.

If the police get a call about a brandishing and they show up and there is no one brandishing, then there are at least three explanations

1. The person who make the 911 call was either mistaken or lied. 911 callers do make mistakes and 911 callers do lie.
2. The person who brandished is not there but another person is
3. The person who is there was brandishing but is no longer

In all these explanations there is no immediate threat. Clearly the police need to take reasonable precautions like talking to this person while behind some cover. I think it is even appropriate for the police to have their weapons drawn as long as the police have proper trigger control.

I have read of other cases where the police roll in and straight away start yelling and taking people down. No one, not even the police should be allowed to take pre-emptive violent actions based on the possibility that there might sometimes be a threat.

I don't even know why the police would even attempt to grapple with a person they suspect has a weapon. That puts the officer at a vulnerability.

The officers should be in a defensive position with their weapons drawn. If a suspect can start to reach for a weapon, pull that weapon, aim that weapon and pull the trigger faster than the police can fire an already aimed gun, the police need to go back to the range.

If the person is just standing there not threatening anyone, why not talk to the person (while still maintaining a defensive position). If the person cooperates and lays down with their arms spread, put the cuffs on them. There is no need to jump on a suspect and many reasons why you would not want to. The officer must remain in a position where they can control the suspect. Grappling with a suspect is not staying in control. Grappling gives up control and puts the suspect and the officer on equal terms.

If the suspect is not cooperating but still not violent, what's the hurry? Call for back up

Only if the suspect is resisting without provocation from the police, or makes an attempt to leave or makes an attempt to use a weapon, then the police can take an appropriate minimum force methods up to an including, if necessary, using their weapon.


Are the police even being taught non lethal ways of controlling a suspect any more? They are not being taught PR-24 take-down and immobilization techniques? Are they not taught how to de-escalate situations? That's all part of being a law enforcement officer, in my opinion. Not just how fast you can shoot down a citizen because you felt threatened.

I've noticed some of the posters here seem to be referring to the tasers as possibly malfunctioning. This may actually not be the case: some individuals under the influence of substances such as meth or PCP sometimes are not affected at all by a taser strike that would take down a sober man; for that matter, there are some drunks I have seen who have shrugged off tasers while in their cups. I once witnessed LAPD officers trying to take down a rampaging man high on PCP; not only did he shrug off three taser strikes, he also was unfazed by repeated baton blows; one officer actually broke his baton on the back of the guy. The guy even ran through a massive floor to ceiling car dealership showroom window and didn't even slow down. It finally took the combined efforts of several police officers to swarm and smother him to the ground. So, those tasers used in the case cited in previous posts probably were functional; they just didn't function on the deceased suspect...


<O>

The voice of reason (IMO).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpQDOtI4KzE

I think TASERs were a good start, but probably not the ultimate solution. The problem with them is that there is little way to predict the effects on the person with regard to size, age, health condition, intoxication, and a multiple of other reasons.

The effects of a TASER can range from little effect to death. Not exactly a good solution to the problem of neutralizing a threat.

What we need is to encourage further research into non-lethal ways of neutralizing threats. I for one, would be very willing to pay extra taxes if the money was earmarked for this purpose.

What I don't want to see is taking the limitations/failures of the TASER and proclaiming that non-lethal weapons don't work.

That would be faulty logic.

The problem with LTL's (Less Than Lethal) is that they still have the potential to be lethal, and that police tend to be very inclined to use them in situations where their use isn't actually necessary at the moment they are used. There isn't such a thing as a non-lethal weapon, any use of force has risks.

Also the US is in kind of a difficult situation when it comes to equipping their police force. Due to the massive proliferation of firearms in the country, it is highly variable as to what kind of threat an officer may face. They may face an unarmed person, or they may face a person armed with military grade weapons and hardware.

There are a lot of reasons why most US police now have access to military grade weapons and body armor, such as the North Hollywood Shootout. I think the proliferation of firearms has also created this feeling in the police of being besieged by the civilian populace, as the police never knows what the heck they may be dealing with when responding to a call.

Throw in latent & systemic racism into the mix, where police tend to view black males as a serious potential threat, even with a total lack of evidence, and police encounters become very dangerous events.

I'm not sure about the Alton Sterling case, but I wonder how they initiated contact. Its not uncommon particularly when dealing with a black male, for the officers to initiate contact aggressively. Often by yelling commands to the person with gun or sometimes taser drawn.

Think how you would react if you were in this situation: your on the street, all of a sudden 1 or more cops approach you, draw their weapons and scream compliance commands at you? How would you react, or would you even be able to react at all? What if they then tased you (which hurts an awful lot, and they disorient), how would you then react then, and do you think you were resisting arrest?

Then take all of that and consider what if you were a black man in this situation, where the same chain of events will probably result in your death.

I think the police department or whoever made the video may have set the BLM activist up for failure. Because unless I missed something all the trainers gave him to use was a firearm.

I'd, go so far and say they are next to useless, since they are very unreliable. They aren't the wonder-tool so many SJW's claim. And personally, I can understand every single cop reaching for his 9mm instead of a "maybe you will get home tonight, maybe not" toy. Reaching for your gun is the best safety you can get and I think it is sick of spoiled SJW idiots to even DEMAND cops use them in potentially life threatening situations.
The matter is simple: DON'T resist and DON'T threaten - no need to worry*.

No, excuse me, but what you guys over there need is to find a way to fix your rotten society that thinks it is in the middle of some racial war, where everyone, cop or civilian, black or white or yellow or purple, has to be afraid that the next person he encounters might be a lunatic.

You can give someone with a broken arm drugs to ease the pain - that won't fix the broken arm though.
I hope you guys will, because it won't be too long until we encounter similar problems here and who knows, maybe we can benefit from you "alpha testing society deterioration".


*in normal conditions

What the heck is SJW?

A "social justice warrior" is basically a retarded regressive leftist who constantly 'fights' for 'justice' in all kinds of matters.
Feminism, gay rights, manspreading, ...
Reason, common sense, logic and facts are not the strong side of a SJW.
On top SJWs do this mostly to be PC. Because that is important these days.

social justice warrior
OK. That is one I've never heard before.
:har: