Wanna know why people say ACAB?

[rooster]

He was talking in general terms about the initial call and the officer safety bulletin. The specific details contained in either of those things could be HUGE in determining the reasonableness of this shooting

So if these are the details that you are referring to, let’s say bulletin came over that he was armed and was a known to be violent with police. Does that then justify shooting on sight?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

He fired 4 shots in rapid succession from 50 yards away with a church as the immediate backstop. I can think of few scenario that justify that action, this isn't even close to any of them.

The shots from closer range, he killed the guy because, it appears to me, he lost his balance kneeling in the landscaping while the cop was looking down.

The Youtuber's comments are pertinent, IMO. Had the cop really thought the suspect was armed and dangerous, there was hard cover in the form a large tree mere yards to the left.

Nope... he exited the patrol car with an itchy trigger finger. He killed an unarmed man in who was zero imminent threat to him in cold blood. The law has a word for that...

 

[Denny347]

So if these are the details that you are referring to, let’s say bulletin came over that he was armed and was a known to be violent with police. Does that then justify shooting on sight?

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.

 

[Denny347]

He killed an unarmed man in who was zero imminent threat to him in cold blood.

This is based on what facts known to the officer at the time the force was used?

 

[Route 45]

Every police action shooting has to be judged on its own merits of course, but I will say that an officer who has had to use deadly force 5 times and kill 4 people in 12 years is one unlucky dude. That, or Modesto is a ****ing war zone.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This is based on what facts known to the officer at the time the force was used?

This is the crux of it, ain't it... an officer can assume anyone is armed and with any hand movement, it's "reasonable" to open fire?

I reject that... not reasonable.

Over on another thread, an officer went to gun based upon a phone call on a guy the only thing on his cam was he was ringing a doorbell. He was an ATF agent.

 

[Denny347]

This is the crux of it, ain't it... an officer can assume anyone is armed and with any hand movement, it's "reasonable" to open fire?

I reject that... not reasonable.

Over on another thread, an officer went to gun based upon a phone call on a guy the only thing on his cam was he was ringing a doorbell. He was an ATF agent.

Again, WHAT information did the officer have at the time the force was used? We are not talking about ANYONE. We are referring to the specific details to this specific suspect. The video stated something to the affect that the suspect had TOLD his family he was armed. There were threats. That there was an officer safety bulletin regarding his threat level to police. The details in that bulletin could be very informative to determine the state of mind of the officer at the time the force was used. The question becomes, "Was it reasonable for the officer to believe the suspect was armed and dangerous, at the time force was used?" I don't care what ANOTHER officer did on another thread. That has ZERO bearing to this case. Adding it to this discussion is only used for emotional effect.

 

[Denny347]

Every police action shooting has to be judged on its own merits of course, but I will say that an officer who has had to use deadly force 5 times and kill 4 people in 12 years is one unlucky dude. That, or Modesto is a ****ing war zone.

What is a "non-suspicious" number of deadly force encounters? I have a good friend who has more than that in 20 years. All above board. I have lots of friends who have 1, 2, or 3 in their careers. Looking up Modesto CA crime rates, it has one of the highest crimes rates in the country of cities the same size.
With a population of approximately 201,165 and the 18th largest city in the state of California, Modesto has an extremely high crime rate. In fact, it is 102% higher than the national average and only safer than 3% of the cities in the United States

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think the first is by identifying and quantifying the problems... and there are definitely problems and bad cops. If you have 750,000 people of any stripe, some are going to be bad... rotten in fact... even if they are sworn law enforcement officers.

Arrest? I see many videos of bad cops behaving badly... criminal? Not so much.

How about judges that issue no knock warrants? What is their culpability? For example, Breonna Taylor, the judge, the supposed gatekeeper, IMO, should have said... "Wait! She works regular shifts... at a regular job. You need to give me some damn good reasons you can't just meet her in the driveway with the search warrant when she gets home from work?"

No knocks should be rare... extremely... and reviewed with a fine toothed comb to avoid deadly mistakes.

Some cops are fine people, but should not be officers with a gun. They don't have the fortitude and end up shooting unarmed people over "furtive motions with their hands" or clutching their chests while being tased on the ground. If you value "going home tonight" above "not shooting and innocent", then you shouldn't be a cop, IMO. You got "protect and serve" all backwards.

Maybe start with Sen. Tim Scott's law enforcement reform legislation... anyone disagree with anything in that?

Maybe start with some things that many/most people can agree upon... and not burn **** to the ground?

Maybe hold the judge and Chief/Sheriff directly responsible for "no knock" warrants? Sarbannes/Oxley like, get it wrong and wear orange type responsibility?

BUT, the one way that absolutely will not work is labeling ACAB. Those who know, are related to, or come in contact with the 99%+ who are good cops know that is a lie... start with a lie and don't expect many people to listen.

Ditto forgery videos.

I've looked... not found any legit "planted evidence" videos... maybe there is one out there, but I've satisfied myself that it is so rare that fakes have to be manufactured... and far outnumber anything remotely legit.

I agree in general. Even close to home I have a group of widely varying LEOs near me, ranging from perfectly honest to at least one not above planting evidence to one who sold drugs when we were in school and I am given to understand still does. This brings me to the point of addressing that with this much variation in a very small group, how in the universe can anyone suggest with a straight face that the nationwide membership of a very large group is monolithic?

 

[Route 45]

What is a "non-suspicious" number of deadly force encounters? I have a good friend who has more than that in 20 years. All above board. I have lots of friends who have 1, 2, or 3 in their careers. Looking up Modesto CA crime rates, it has one of the highest crimes rates in the country of cities the same size.
With a population of approximately 201,165 and the 18th largest city in the state of California, Modesto has an extremely high crime rate. In fact, it is 102% higher than the national average and only safer than 3% of the cities in the United States

Now who is getting emotional? I didn't say that he was suspicious. I said that he was unlucky or the city is a war zone. Looks like a combination of both, if you ask me.

I would like to know how many of his shootings involved suspects that were actually armed, and how many just made "furtive" movements 50 yards away.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Again, WHAT information did the officer have at the time the force was used? We are not talking about ANYONE. We are referring to the specific details to this specific suspect. The video stated something to the affect that the suspect had TOLD his family he was armed. There were threats. That there was an officer safety bulletin regarding his threat level to police. The details in that bulletin could be very informative to determine the state of mind of the officer at the time the force was used. The question becomes, "Was it reasonable for the officer to believe the suspect was armed and dangerous, at the time force was used?" I don't care what ANOTHER officer did on another thread. That has ZERO bearing to this case. Adding it to this discussion is only used for emotional effect.

Look, I've been pro-police for a long time... but from the two cops that pissed their pants and shot Philadro Castille and the un-armed woman walking up to the squad car... the negligent homicide from a stairwell ND... the female cop who shot a prone suspect clutching taser wires while being shocked... etc, etc to this cowboy. I'm done.

Killed a man for "reaching for a gun"? I say show me the gun... yeah, the cop better be that sure... not someone said something about something.

Ditto pointing a gun at someone... better have damn good articulible reasons for putting someone in fear of loosing their life in the next quarter second if anyone farts or sneezes.

So, we'll never agree on any of the above.

But, are you defending his taking 4 rapid shots at 50 yards in front of a church without SEEING a gun?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let me remind everyone that when you attack someone who takes a reasonable position you will often push him to circle the wagons further away from center than where he really lives.

 

[Route 45]

Let me remind everyone that when you attack someone who takes a reasonable position you will often push him to circle the wagons further away from center than where he really lives.

That widens the gaps between the wagons. Probably not the best defensive strategy.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That widens the gaps between the wagons. Probably not the best defensive strategy.

Regardless, it still tends to work that way. When attacked rather than engaged most people will stop making an effort to find middle ground.

 

[Denny347]

Now who is getting emotional?

Indeed. I'm a work in progress.

 

[foszoe]

Regardless, it still tends to work that way. When attacked rather than engaged most people will stop making an effort to find middle ground.

Yeah. just read the political forums.

 

[Denny347]

Killed a man for "reaching for a gun"? I say show me the gun... yeah, the cop better be that sure... not someone said something about something.

Ditto pointing a gun at someone... better have damn good articulible reasons for putting someone in fear of loosing their life in the next quarter second if anyone farts or sneezes.

So, we'll never agree on any of the above.

But, are you defending his taking 4 rapid shots at 50 yards in front of a church without SEEING a gun?

Well, that is not how it legally works. As example for the very case ALL police use of force is judged by, Graham v. Connor. I'm sure most here, judging on their grasp of LE UoF, know the details of the landmark case. For those who do not, essentially, police see man enter a convenient store then leave quickly. Thinking they were just robbed, they stopped Graham. He got into a scuffle and he broke his ankle fighting with the police. Come to find out that he was a diabetic needed Sucrose and no crime committed. However, based on the facts and circumstances present at the time force was used, the SCOTUS ruled in the police's favor. Specifically, "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. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."
Most state laws require Probable Cause that a threat of serious bodily injury or death be present before deadly force is used. "Probable Cause" is just that...probable. To place a numerical value on it, PC=approximately 30-40% chance the charges/accusations are true. When you say "sure" the person has a gun, you are referring to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that does not legally exist in UoF.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well, that is not how it legally works. As example for the very case ALL police use of force is judged by, Graham v. Connor. I'm sure most here, judging on their grasp of LE UoF, know the details of the landmark case. For those who do not, essentially, police see man enter a convenient store then leave quickly. Thinking they were just robbed, they stopped Graham. He got into a scuffle and he broke his ankle fighting with the police. Come to find out that he was a diabetic needed Sucrose and no crime committed. However, based on the facts and circumstances present at the time force was used, the SCOTUS ruled in the police's favor. Specifically, "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. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."
Most state laws require Probable Cause that a threat of serious bodily injury or death be present before deadly force is used. "Probable Cause" is just that...probable. To place a numerical value on it, PC=approximately 30-40% chance the charges/accusations are true. When you say "sure" the person has a gun, you are referring to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that does not legally exist in UoF.

Nope, I'm talking to the "reasonable" part of believing death or serious injury is eminent... and the reasonableness is determined by a jury. Taking pot shots at 50 yards in this incident means more to me than other shootings he might have been involved in... or back-up for... etc.

And this goes to a grand jury, there is probable cause to believe it was murder, enough to send it to a trial and jury.

And, I'm telling you... I'm someone the defense would normally want on a self-defense jury... but not this one.

Bottom-line, an officer shoots someone for "furtive hand movements" they are betting that person's life that they have a gun. They sure better be more than 40% sure to avoid my vote to send them to prison.

 

[Route 45]

Indeed. I'm a work in progress.

We all are.

 

[Tombs]

Few things are "clear cut" when it comes to UoF. He got out of his car and ran. It was about 11 seconds from car door to first shot. About 4 seconds from aiming to first shot. The officer was running for about 6 seconds. Assuming he was jogging a typical 5mph for 6 seconds = about 2 1/2 yards per second = 15yrds. None of that is "popping rounds the second he gets out of the car". His history has nothing to do with the facts of THIS case and is only used to prejudice the investigation. I can only speak for Indiana law but citizens and LE enjoy the same UoF laws with the only difference in force to affect an arrest. IC 35-41-3-2 and IC 35-41-3-3. Please do not assume the legality of a non-LE using deadly force in this same scenario as it would be silly since a non-LEO would not be out taking someone into custody. By his radio traffic, the tac reloads, his verbal commands, he appeared to be operating in what we refer to as his "high brain". A 50 yrd shot while in high brain isn't hard. I've seen it/done it myself. To say a 50yrd shot with a pistol is a ridiculous distance is itself ridiculous. Reckless speed? Not so much. I'm away from my human performance notes but tomorrow I will look up the action times to start/stop firing. I don't think his firing was all that unusual.

Firing a shot at 50 yards isn't ridiculous, nor is 100 or 200 yards if you know what you're doing. I can do that with my daily carry with reasonable degrees of confidence.

Running split times that would make jerry miculek blush at that distance, is another matter entirely. We're entitled to have opinions, and it is my opinion that no human being is shooting that way with any degree of responsibility, even on a range. Much less while in a public area. I didn't even see him allow the gun to settle between shots, which would be necessary to hit anything at that distance.