Wanna know why people say ACAB?

[SheepDog4Life]

He did not shoot on sight. However, it could lead a reasonable officer to believe he was reaching for a weapon even though one was not found later.

I'll disagree.

He spots someone fitting the description cutting between buildings, parks and runs to the other side of another building... reporting in on the run.

He rounds the corner, yells "get on the ground, get on the ground" and then commences to firing 4 rapid shots within THREE SECONDS of rounding the corner (1:28 - 1:31). First shot ONE SECOND after his commands.

At the break of that first shot, IMO, there is only one person who has a legitimate fear of imminent death or serious injury... and it ain't Officer Rootin' Tootin' Shootin' Cowboy.

 

[bwframe]

Minneapolis push to defund police backfires after residents complain of slow response times, increase in crime

Minneapolis on Friday backtracked on its original push to defund the city’s police department in the wake of George Floyd’s police custody death after residents begged the city to hire more officers, citing longer response times and increased violent crime.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Denny347]

I'll disagree.

He spots someone fitting the description cutting between buildings, parks and runs to the other side of another building... reporting in on the run.

He rounds the corner, yells "get on the ground, get on the ground" and then commences to firing 4 rapid shots within THREE SECONDS of rounding the corner (1:28 - 1:31). First shot ONE SECOND after his commands.

At the break of that first shot, IMO, there is only one person who has a legitimate fear of imminent death or serious injury... and it ain't Officer Rootin' Tootin' Shootin' Cowboy.

I still don't see your point? The video captures the action but not the perspective/focus or interest or intent of the officer. So are you saying that viewing this video alone is a sufficient investigation to draw the conclusion that this was a bad shoot and the officer needs to face charges?

 

[phylodog]

Minneapolis push to defund police backfires after residents complain of slow response times, increase in crime

Minneapolis on Friday backtracked on its original push to defund the city’s police department in the wake of George Floyd’s police custody death after residents begged the city to hire more officers, citing longer response times and increased violent crime.

www.foxnews.com

Some day these leftists will consider the ramifications of their ideas prior to trying to implement them.

It always puzzles me that a leftist may have to drone on for hours through a complicated weave of thoughts to get to a conclusion that there is a legitimate problem which needs addressed but when it's time to come up with a solution they don't care to spend more than 30 seconds or so on it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I still don't see your point? The video captures the action but not the perspective/focus or interest or intent of the officer. So are you saying that viewing this video alone is a sufficient investigation to draw the conclusion that this was a bad shoot and the officer needs to face charges?

10 seconds after glimpsing someone who fit the description, 3 seconds after rounding a corner 50 yards away and seeing him, 1 second after issuing "get on the ground" commands... four rapid shots with a church as the immediate backstop.

Yup, reasonable went out the window with that first shot.

ETA: Every time I re-view that sequence, whistling to get a deer to stop and present a stationary target comes to mind.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Minneapolis to spend 6.4 million to recruit new police officers.

Defunding the police worked out well, didn’t it? Morons.

Minneapolis to spend $6.4M to recruit more police officers

Minneapolis will spend $6.4 million to hire dozens of police officers, even as some City Council members and activist groups are advocating to replace the police department following George Floyd's death

abcnews.go.com

 

[Denny347]

10 seconds after glimpsing someone who fit the description, 3 seconds after rounding a corner 50 yards away and seeing him, 1 second after issuing "get on the ground" commands... four rapid shots with a church as the immediate backstop.

Yup, reasonable went out the window with that first shot.

ETA: Every time I re-view that sequence, whistling to get a deer to stop and present a stationary target comes to mind.

100% of that could be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. Most of which I'm not privy too. I'm just telling you what an ACTUAL investigation looks at to determine the legality of a use of force.

 

[rooster]

10 seconds after glimpsing someone who fit the description, 3 seconds after rounding a corner 50 yards away and seeing him, 1 second after issuing "get on the ground" commands... four rapid shots with a church as the immediate backstop.

Yup, reasonable went out the window with that first shot.

ETA: Every time I re-view that sequence, whistling to get a deer to stop and present a stationary target comes to mind.

He could have gotten on the ground immediately and begged for his life. Oh wait



that doesn’t even work.

 

[Denny347]

He could have gotten on the ground immediately and begged for his life. Oh wait



that doesn’t even work.

Different officer/situation/facts. The investigation found this to be a bad shoot. Comparing apples and atom bombs.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Different officer/situation/facts. The investigation found this to be a bad shoot. Comparing apples and atom bombs.

Um, he was re-instated and allowed to retire with a $2500/month pension for medical/PTSD.

Shooting of Daniel Shaver - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A jury found this "reasonable" solely based upon a 911 call from someone who saw him thru his hotel window with a pellet rifle he used for pest extermination.

Different officer/situation/facts... but the same essential fact... killed an unarmed man instantly solely because he moved his hands.

 

[Denny347]

Um, he was re-instated and allowed to retire with a $2500/month pension for medical/PTSD.

Shooting of Daniel Shaver - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A jury found this "reasonable" solely based upon a 911 call from someone who saw him thru his hotel window with a pellet rifle he used for pest extermination.

Different officer/situation/facts... but the same essential fact... killed an unarmed man instantly solely because he moved his hands.

Ok, I wasn't up to date with that one. So a JURY found him "not guilty" after being presented with all the facts and that still isn't enough for you? "Killed an unarmed man" is 20/20 hindsight. There were facts and circumstances that led the officer to believe the "suspect" was armed. You're statement is applying knowledge unknown to the officer at the time. I cannot use that same approach when looking at use of force cases as it is a direct violation of the SCOTUS Graham v. Connor decision, "The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight"

 

[Jaybird1980]

Ok, I wasn't up to date with that one. So a JURY found him "not guilty" after being presented with all the facts and that still isn't enough for you? "Killed an unarmed man" is 20/20 hindsight. There were facts and circumstances that led the officer to believe the "suspect" was armed. You're statement is applying knowledge unknown to the officer at the time. I cannot use that same approach when looking at use of force cases as it is a direct violation of the SCOTUS Graham v. Connor decision, "The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight"

Yeah, I'm never going to be OK with the Shaver shooting.
First telling a drunk guy to crawl around and be able to think clearly while doing it drunk is not a good move. This guy was killed for pulling up his shorts while doing what was told to do while also being DRUNK.
Cleared or not, I don't agree this one was handled properly.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Ok, I wasn't up to date with that one. So a JURY found him "not guilty" after being presented with all the facts and that still isn't enough for you? "Killed an unarmed man" is 20/20 hindsight. There were facts and circumstances that led the officer to believe the "suspect" was armed. You're statement is applying knowledge unknown to the officer at the time. I cannot use that same approach when looking at use of force cases as it is a direct violation of the SCOTUS Graham v. Connor decision, "The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight"

I agree with the hindsight is 20/20 and a jury found him to be innocent, so he was judged by his peers... the system worked as it was designed.

Also, before I get into this next part, I’m a HUGE LEO supporter. Even in this thread you’ll see I think the frequency of interactions vs the amount of controversial instances is a very small percentage and all LEO shouldn’t be labeled based on a mistake one makes occasionally. We all make mistakes.

However, this could have been me, you, our children, or anybody on this forum. We all own guns and I’m sure in our homes we get them out to clean them, which can be seen from a window in public view carrying through the house at times. I think the threshold for deadly force should be higher than a witness seeing him with a gun in a hotel window. Our soldiers are sent to a war zone (some cities are war zones also) and given rules of engagement. Our officers should have the same rules of engagement, to an extent. We could make a 3 page long comment about instances where RoE should be ignored, but an unarmed man being killed should always make us question what could have been done differently and why it happened. As someone who is always armed, I want to ensure I’m not going to be considered a threat for simply minding my own business because some nosey neddy saw my firearm and called 911.

 

[Denny347]

Yeah, I'm never going to be OK with the Shaver shooting.
First telling a drunk guy to crawl around and be able to think clearly while doing it drunk is not a good move. This guy was killed for pulling up his shorts while doing what was told to do while also being DRUNK.
Cleared or not, I don't agree this one was handled properly.

I'm certainly not arguing that it could have been handled differently, of course. I also believe this officer had some pithy quote etched on his ejection cover of his rifle that stirred up all sorts of angst. But again, I'm looking at this strictly in terms of legally justified as defined by the SCOTUS. That's it!!! My opinion, feeling, ideas about it are irrelevant. Coulda-shoulda-woulda, are also immaterial. I've seen UoF that looked terrible, I would have not handled it that way. However, I had to place my feelings to the side and focus on the details only to discover that they met the legal requirements.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I'm certainly not arguing that it could have been handled differently, of course. I also believe this officer had some pithy quote etched on his ejection cover of his rifle that stirred up all sorts of angst. But again, I'm looking at this strictly in terms of legally justified as defined by the SCOTUS. That's it!!! My opinion, feeling, ideas about it are irrelevant. Coulda-shoulda-woulda, are also immaterial. I've seen UoF that looked terrible, I would have not handled it that way. However, I had to place my feelings to the side and focus on the details only to discover that they met the legal requirements.

Yeah, I understand all of that. Hell that may have been there protocol on how to handle the situation. I'm just saying what went down there will never set right with me.

I don't think because you weren't found guilty means you are innocent. There are plenty of people who for sure did wrong that were not found guilty during a trial.

 

[Denny347]

I agree with the hindsight is 20/20 and a jury found him to be innocent, so he was judged by his peers... the system worked as it was designed.

Also, before I get into this next part, I’m a HUGE LEO supporter. Even in this thread you’ll see I think the frequency of interactions vs the amount of controversial instances is a very small percentage and all LEO shouldn’t be labeled based on a mistake one makes occasionally. We all make mistakes.

However, this could have been me, you, our children, or anybody on this forum. We all own guns and I’m sure in our homes we get them out to clean them, which can be seen from a window in public view carrying through the house at times. I think the threshold for deadly force should be higher than a witness seeing him with a gun in a hotel window. Our soldiers are sent to a war zone (some cities are war zones also) and given rules of engagement. Our officers should have the same rules of engagement, to an extent. We could make a 3 page long comment about instances where RoE should be ignored, but an unarmed man being killed should always make us question what could have been done differently and why it happened. As someone who is always armed, I want to ensure I’m not going to be considered a threat for simply minding my own business because some nosey neddy saw my firearm and called 911.

I get you. I'm not making a character judgement on you I promise. We are having an adult conversation-exchange of ideas. No harm-no foul. For Indiana, LE is granted the authority to use force/deadly force under IC35-41-3-3. "An officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person." Probable cause is a low bar as it is only 30-40% likely to be correct. Indiana defines Serious Bodily Injury as "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes: (1) serious permanent disfigurement; (2) unconsciousness; (3) extreme pain; (4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or (5) loss of a fetus." SBI is not a high bar either. Lastly, a Forcible Felony is defined as " a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being." Again, not a high bar.

 

[rooster]

I agree with the hindsight is 20/20 and a jury found him to be innocent, so he was judged by his peers... the system worked as it was designed.

I’d love to hear the jury instructions on that case. A prosecutor can indict a Ham sandwich and a judge can get whatever outcome he wants if he chooses abuse jury instructions

 

[SheepDog4Life]

@Denny347 , thank you for adding in the Indiana law.

As a lay person, I always thought "probable cause" was along the lines of more likely than not... i.e. 51% at a minimum... otherwise, at 30-40%, the officers were arresting, and the courts were trying, the wrong person most of the time. Ditto shooting someone who was more likely (60-70%) to be unarmed, than armed (30-40%).

And as others have said about Shaver, it's not an acceptable outcome to me. If that's what the system prescribes, then IMO, the system needs to change.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

@Denny347 , thank you for adding in the Indiana law.

As a lay person, I always thought "probable cause" was along the lines of more likely than not... i.e. 51% at a minimum... otherwise, at 30-40%, the officers were arresting, and the courts were trying, the wrong person most of the time. Ditto shooting someone who was more likely (60-70%) to be unarmed, than armed (30-40%).

And as others have said about Shaver, it's not an acceptable outcome to me. If that's what the system prescribes, then IMO, the system needs to change.

I think a big part that plays into it is also what information they are given before arriving to the scene. If my wife called and said a guy was at the door with a rifle I’d be expecting a violent confrontation when I arrived. Likewise, an officer has many of these instances daily, so I’m sure if they’re told a man with a gun they’re already on heightened awareness and expecting some sort of violent interaction based on the info they were given. This is why I believe we need MORE funding for police, so there can be 2 officers to a car and they feel more secure having someone to assist them on a scene like that vs pulling up alone expecting a violent suspect. I’m glad I’m not in those shoes to make those calls, but I do think there has to be some way to minimize these instances... and they’re already a pretty low occurrence, if we could minimize them more so we’d be doing great

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I'm certainly not arguing that it could have been handled differently, of course. I also believe this officer had some pithy quote etched on his ejection cover of his rifle that stirred up all sorts of angst. But again, I'm looking at this strictly in terms of legally justified as defined by the SCOTUS. That's it!!! My opinion, feeling, ideas about it are irrelevant. Coulda-shoulda-woulda, are also immaterial. I've seen UoF that looked terrible, I would have not handled it that way. However, I had to place my feelings to the side and focus on the details only to discover that they met the legal requirements.

Oh was that the shooting where the officers dust cover had “you’re ****ed” etched into it? I remember that one, not sure if they’re the same instance... not really worried enough to look it up. If it’s a good shoot I don’t care what’s engraved on a gun, and I don’t care what’s on it if it’s a bad shoot either. Engravings don’t equate to intention, although to a jury I guess it might show some insight to mentality.