Is war between cops and citizens brewing?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Armistead

A lot can be learned in the Sterling shooting. First, he was once again carrying an illegal gun, being he was a felon with numerous charges, assaults, domestic abuse, robberies of occupied dwelling, drugs, weapon charges, child sexual offender....and guess what....resisting arrest.

It is common tactics after a policeman shoots yet another person for their apologists to dig up as much crap about the deceased as possible.

Here's perhaps a better line. If that had not been a cop but say a private citizen trying to citizen arrest that guy. Based on your understanding of the events, how likely would such a citizen be able to get himself off a prison sentence using the usual defenses?

And if he won't be able to, how much extra slack should we give a cop? And why should we give them said slack, when if anything they should be more prepared to take a non-lethal solution than a regular citizen but ultimately did not?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

It is common tactics after a policeman shoots yet another person for their apologists to dig up as much crap about the deceased as possible.

It is even more so a common tactic to be a armchair domestic issue managers claiming the incident should have been handled a different way. Not until any of the armchair observers put themselves in the same position can it really be known how it should be handled. I wish all could be handled differently than what occurred. It's a tough call.

We can say this, officer are often provided information on stopped citizens. Run their name, license number, etc. Sometimes the same individual has had run-ins with the officer responding. Prior incidents and convictions are known. In short, heighten awareness. If said suspect has been known to carry weapons, resist arrest and a laundry list of other illegal activity it is probably not going to be a easy stop and question.

It is very tough to say what one would do when having not experienced the same situation.

[Platapus]

Unless we can demonstrate that the police knew any of this before they shot him, information about his past is irrelevant. The police did not know about his past so they could not have made any decision based on his past.

If I randomly shoot someone on the street and afterward I find out that they are a fleeing felon child molester, terrorist, mass murder, cannibal and even a country music fan, am I a hero or a villain?

I am a villain. Despite taking out a person who deserves it, I did not know this when I randomly killed him.

It all boils down to what was known and when was it known and that influences intent.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Unless we can demonstrate that the police knew any of this before they shot him, information about his past is irrelevant. The police did not know about his past so they could not have made any decision based on his past.

If I randomly shoot someone on the street and afterward I find out that they are a fleeing felon child molester, terrorist, mass murder, cannibal and even a country music fan, am I a hero or a villain?

I am a villain. Despite taking out a person who deserves it, I did not know this when I randomly killed him.

It all boils down to what was known and when was it known and that influences intent.

Lets talk present then in this case. The call came in concerning a man with a gun pointing at others in a parking lot. Enough said. Cops know what they are walking into. Alertness and tension is already there. Suspect apparently has no regard for human life. After all, he busy brandishing his weapon. If anyone believes the cops see it any other way I would say that is a mistake. Suspect struggles and resists arrest. Appears to go for his weapon even while down and having been tazered. What does anyone suggest should happen next?

[Platapus]

Did the police see him brandishing his weapon? I have not read that.

As for the second, if you have a person on the ground and multiple cops are on top of him and you see the person reaching for something, would not the prudent thing to do be to grab and restrain instead of disengaging and pulling your own weapon?

In a grappling situation, I would think that pulling a weapon would be the last thing you want to do.

I dunno. What I fear is that shooting people is no longer a last resort but the first reaction.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Platapus

If I randomly shoot someone on the street and afterward I find out that they are a fleeing felon child molester, terrorist, mass murder, cannibal and even a country music fan, am I a hero or a villain?

A monster. I'm glad to live in a place where I have the given right to bear Hank Williams records and follow the pursuit of honky-tonkness.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Did the police see him brandishing his weapon? I have not read that.

As for the second, if you have a person on the ground and multiple cops are on top of him and you see the person reaching for something, would not the prudent thing to do be to grab and restrain instead of disengaging and pulling your own weapon?

In a grappling situation, I would think that pulling a weapon would be the last thing you want to do.

I dunno. What I fear is that shooting people is no longer a last resort but the first reaction.

The call to 911 stated a man at a convenience store pointing a gun at people in the parking lot. No need to see it. It was called in as such. Police plan accordingly.

The encounter occurred when the officers were dispatched to Sterling’s location outside the store after Baton Rouge Police Department received a disturbance call after midnight. A caller told a dispatcher that a black man in a red shirt who was selling CDs had threatened him with a gun.

Second, the man was on the ground and still resisting after two uses of the tazer. What's prudent when(2) not multiple cops have a suspect on the ground still going strong after two tazers that appears to be going for something in his pocket ? What is in his pocket is possibly a gun because the caller advised the suspect was armed.

The officer used the first resort. Tazer. Twice from what I have read.

[Rockstar]

There is a need to make an on-scene observation to determine if a person is armed and dangerous. The officer needs to articulate what the threat was and his reasons for shooting someone so that a reasonable person would understand and agree with. If he cant he's screwed. Being a reasonable person myself I cannot fathom why an officer would shoot someone based on what he heard through the grape vine (911).

So what if the tazer didnt work? Faulty equipment isnt a reason to shoot some either. Thats why they're taught to use soft/ hard empty hand control, baton, pepper spray, pressure points. An 'accidental' kick to the groin would have stopped him dead in his tracks too.

[August]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

There is a need to make an on-scene observation to determine if a person is armed and dangerous. Shooting someone and killing them because of what someone else said to 911 is not an excuse.

No but there was more to it than just a phone call. He was scuffling with two police officers while armed with a pistol.

[Rockstar]

If he was resisting arrest and the officer saw a firearm. Then me thinks Johnny Law wont have any problems explaining why he did what he did.

[Oberon]

http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...ng-truths.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

There is a need to make an on-scene observation to determine if a person is armed and dangerous. The officer needs to articulate what the threat was and his reasons for shooting someone so that a reasonable person would understand and agree with. If he cant he's screwed. Being a reasonable person myself I cannot fathom why an officer would shoot someone based on what he heard through the grape vine (911).

So what if the tazer didnt work? Faulty equipment isnt a reason to shoot some either. Thats why they're taught to use soft/ hard empty hand control, baton, pepper spray, pressure points. An 'accidental' kick to the groin would have stopped him dead in his tracks too.

On scene observation entails searching. Simply looking and asking is not enough. It is apparent then this individual resisting the search is then hiding something? Such as a weapon?

Tazer #1 did not work. Tazer #2 did not work. The possibility of two non-functioning tazers is very high. But, he was down eventually. The one officer had trouble getting a hold of the suspects right hand. Baton=brutality. Let's face it on the baton. It will always be construed as brutality/excessive force when used. Pepper spray? The tazer did no good. Pepper spray is less effective IMO. Kick in the groin? Will be noted as brutality.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The call to 911 stated a man at a convenience store pointing a gun at people in the parking lot. No need to see it. It was called in as such. Police plan accordingly.

Let's not make it sound so good. What in essence happened was this (according to the police account). A homeless man contacted Stirling and was immune to verbal and/or body language indications to cease and desist. It is not clear exactly what happened here but if homeless man so much as touched Stirling in this entire process, he technically committed Assault (you don't need to punch or kick to qualify).

Anyway, faced with this minor but persistent impediment to his freedom to walk the street without interference, Stirling took the decision to deploy his gun. This decision resolved the impediment with zero violence or actual injuries, something that won't be true if he chose to physically remove his impediment. Even if he met the objective and subjective elements of a crime here, he can actually justify it as self-defense using proportionate means (the threat was minor, but so was his zero-violence response).

Though what was reported is in fact a non-crime, the police department decided not to leave well enough alone and sent 2 people to attack with electroshock weapons, reckless of the risk that their arrest may be unjustified and further that the "less-than-lethal" weapon will actually be a disproportionate response at best considering the low social dangerousness of the alleged offense.

Even if he resisted the cops here, the fact that the basis of their arrest in the first place is a non-crime makes this an entrapment on the part of the police. He didn't have a "disposition" to resist police, at least not that day. The police decided to come arrest him for a non-crime, provoking this response.

Eventually, with assistance from their electroshock weapons, the people from the Police Department successfully wrestle Stirling to the ground. Even if Stirling was reaching for his gun with intent to employ, at this point he has a reasonable fear for his life (considering they had already hit him with electroshock weaponry twice). The cops take the decision to just shoot Stirling dead (heat-of-passion murder, perhaps?).

The officer used the first resort. Tazer. Twice from what I have read.

Only in America can electro-shock weapons be considered the "first resort".

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Let's not make it sound so good. What in essence happened was this (according to the police account). A homeless man contacted Stirling and was immune to verbal and/or body language indications to cease and desist. It is not clear exactly what happened here but if homeless man so much as touched Stirling in this entire process, he technically committed Assault (you don't need to punch or kick to qualify).

Anyway, faced with this minor but persistent impediment to his freedom to walk the street without interference, Stirling took the decision to deploy his gun. This decision resolved the impediment with zero violence or actual injuries, something that won't be true if he chose to physically remove his impediment. Even if he met the objective and subjective elements of a crime here, he can actually justify it as self-defense using proportionate means (the threat was minor, but so was his zero-violence response).

Though what was reported is in fact a non-crime, the police department decided not to leave well enough alone and sent 2 people to attack with electroshock weapons, reckless of the risk that their arrest may be unjustified and further that the "less-than-lethal" weapon will actually be a disproportionate response at best considering the low social dangerousness of the alleged offense.

Even if he resisted the cops here, the fact that the basis of their arrest in the first place is a non-crime makes this an entrapment on the part of the police. He didn't have a "disposition" to resist police, at least not that day. The police decided to come arrest him for a non-crime, provoking this response.

Eventually, with assistance from their electroshock weapons, the people from the Police Department successfully wrestle Stirling to the ground. Even if Stirling was reaching for his gun with intent to employ, at this point he has a reasonable fear for his life (considering they had already hit him with electroshock weaponry twice). The cops take the decision to just shoot Stirling dead (heat-of-passion murder, perhaps?).



Only in America can electro-shock weapons be considered the "first resort".

Deploying a gun as self defense? Calls for a person brandishing a weapon at another is a non-crime? Low social dangerousness of the alleged offense? Welding a weapon is a low social dangerousness?

Using a tazer is not the first resort. It is the first non-lethal resort when warranted.

You paint the incident as guns a-blazing response and ask questions later.

[Sailor Steve]

'Black Lives Matter' protest leader finds out what it's like to be a cop.