SoCal cops shoot unarmed airman

[BurghGuy]

I like what alot of you have said here. Particularly a few peoples comments. I think Lonestar hit the nail on the head by saying that we don't know what the cop was thinking or what information he was running on. I mean, yeah it sucks, but everyone makes mistakes. Anyone remember Vincennes? Yes, I know it was a different situation and different people who made different decisions on a much grander scale, but essentially it was underinformed people making major decisions of life or death based on limited or poor intel. Mistakes happen.

I'm not rationalizing his behavior or speculating on the case or overall police training, or even that the cop should/shouldn't burn for it. I'm just saying that in any line of work that you have the power/authority/justification /ability to take someones life, there will be times when your faced with a decision to acctually use that power, and like everything else in life, a situation will eventually arise that will force poor decisions to be made.
It's statistics, if something can happen, given enough time, it will.

And of course other police officers are going to stand up for their fellow commrade, you can't be mad at them for doing it. I'd like to think we'd do the same for our own to one extent or the other.

Either way, it is a very shocking event that happened, and I hope that more information is given to the public so this "the cop is an idiot"/"this cop was under alot of stress" debate can stop. A fellow uniformed servicemember was shot by another. Show some respect for both sides.

 

[wink]

The State has more justification for the use of deadly force than Joe Citizen, for better and for worse.

Not true!! Police do not shoot people to make arrests or, strictly speaking, enforce the law. The justification for the use of deadly force is exactly the same for law enforcement as for civilians. Generally they may shoot if they reasonably believe their lives or the lives of others are at risk. In some states it also extends to stopping the arson of a occupied building, stopping or defending from a rape, or stopping an armed car jacking. Bottom line is that the very same laws with regard to deadly force apply to cops (the State) as well as joe lunch bucket.

For those of you that have passed judgement on the video alone, you must remember, it does not matter what you think or are seeing. What matters is if the officer reasonably thought his life was in danger. There does not have to be a weapon of any sort present. The reasonability of his belief is based on all he knew and saw at the time ( his view of the suspect was different from the camera's angle) and what his own experiences have been, something none of us can know at this point. He is allowed to be wrong about his judgement as long as it was reasonable under the circumstances.
And that is the same standard that applies to all you pistol packers out there.

 

[Fly Navy]

Not true!! Police do not shoot people to make arrests or, strictly speaking, enforce the law. The justification for the use of deadly force is exactly the same for law enforcement as for civilians. Generally they may shoot if they reasonably believe their lives or the lives of others are at risk.

I respectfully disagree, Wink.

Bad Guy has already attacked or displayed intent to harm to a police officer, but has decided it is his best interest to run away. Bad guy is armed, already shown he's willing to harm or kill the officer. Police officer shoots him as he runs. Legal shoot. (obviously this is dumbed down for the sake of argument)

Joe Citizen gets attacked. Bad guy then decides to run. Joe Citizen shoots the bad guy as he runs. Joe Citizen goes to jail for now becoming the aggressor because the Bad Guy is withdrawing.

 

[wink]

I respectfully disagree, Wink.

Bad Guy has already attacked or displayed intent to harm to a police officer, but has decided it is his best interest to run away. Bad guy is armed, already shown he's willing to harm or kill the officer. Police officer shoots him as he runs. Legal shoot. (obviously this is dumbed down for the sake of argument)

Joe Citizen gets attacked. Bad guy then decides to run. Joe Citizen shoots the bad guy as he runs. Joe Citizen goes to jail for now becoming the aggressor because the Bad Guy is withdrawing.

The reason the cop can shoot the suspect is because he the suspect has used deadly force and the officer has reason to think he will use deadly force on another if he gets away. The shooting is not to stop the guy to arrest him. It is because the officer thinks the guy still poses a deadly threat to others. (You may be thinking of the old "fleeing felon" ruling. Garner V Tennessee in 1985 said that violated the suspects fourth ammendment rights. Garner says A deadly threat must be present to use deadly force.) And yes, in my state and in many others that would be a legal shooting by a civilian as well (I probably would not). If on the other hand the suspect bumps into the side of a building as he runs away and drops his weapon, the officer had better not shoot, unless, he can say he didn't see the weapon fall to the ground and he still thought the bad guy had a weapon. Again, it is what the officer reasonably believes at the time that matters. He does not have to be a perfect cop with perfect knowledge and perfect senses, and perfect judgement.

 

[highlyrandom]

Here's the weird one, though. If an armed authority decides that you are about to commit a terrorist act ---and they have the wrong target--- do you have any useful rights? IOW, is it your moral obligation to let yourself be executed (re: London subway case), for the purpose of upholding the process, or do you get them first if you can? In one case, you die right away, in the other, you're suddenly a criminal and worse, a cop killer.

I know this sounds like a movie thing, but if the South American guy they accidentally shot had gotten away unscathed, would he have any legal right to stay alive?

Flame away, it's a legal question.

 

[Fly Navy]

The reason the cop can shoot the suspect is because he the suspect has used deadly force and the officer has reason to think he will use deadly force on another if he gets away. The shooting is not to stop the guy to arrest him.

This I understand and agree completely.

It is because the officer thinks the guy still poses a deadly threat to others. (You may be thinking of the old "fleeing felon" ruling. Garner V Tennessee in 1985 said that violated the suspects fourth ammendment rights. Garner says A deadly threat must be present to use deadly force.) And yes, in my state and in many others that would be a legal shooting by a civilian as well (I probably would not).

Some states have laws that allow you to stop a forcible felony on another citizen if you witness it. An example is Florida. If I witness a rape, I may use deadly force to stop the rapist, even if I don't know the victim, because it is a forcible felony. If the rapist flees at my presence, I can't just shoot him. I can't think of any case where a bad guy withdrawing and a citizen shooting them would result in anything but trouble for the citizen. I, however, am not versed on every state's CCW and deadly force laws. If you say in your state it would be legal to do that, well, then I guess that's the case there.

If on the other hand the suspect bumps into the side of a building as he runs away and drops his weapon, the officer had better not shoot, unless, he can say he didn't see the weapon fall to the ground and he still thought the bad guy had a weapon. Again, it is what the officer reasonably believes at the time that matters. He does not have to be a perfect cop with perfect knowledge and perfect senses, and perfect judgement.

Agreed

 

[pilot_man]

Well I guess if the cop is "scared" then he can do whatever he wants, right? Even if that means tazing some elementary school kids. Just because he's there to enforce laws, doesn't make him God.

 

[Fly Navy]

Well I guess if the cop is "scared" then he can do whatever he wants, right? Even if that means tazing some elementary school kids. Just because he's there to enforce laws, doesn't make him God.

Do you know what happened? None of us do, so please enlighten us. That video is evidence, but it doesn't show everything. Who knows what that airman did before that video. Or, on the other hand, maybe the police officer had an itchy trigger finger.

 

[KBayDog]

Do you know what happened? None of us do, so please enlighten us. That video is evidence, but it doesn't show everything. Who knows what that airman did before that video. Or, on the other hand, maybe the police officer had an itchy trigger finger.

Fly hit it right on the head. For those of you who already have your minds made up, two words: Rodney King.

WHATEVER your opinion of the King case, let's not forget how the video was used (manipulated?) to influence public opinion. We saw the same 10 seconds looped over and over again on the nightly news, but we did not see the minutes of tape beforehand that showed a man high on angel dust racing through a residential area at nearly 100mph, and then resisting multiple "conventional" attempts to subdue him. Popular opinion was formed within minutes of the first airing of those 10 seconds.

Does anybody know if the five seconds of grainy video we have been shown of this recent shooting is the whole story? No. All we know is what we have been presented by the various news sources. We may have seen it all, or we may have seen the popular "sound bite." I've no gripe if we want to discuss hypothetical situations (i.e., taking out terrorists, defending ourselves, etc.), but in light of the fac that all we "know" is what we've seen on TV and read online, we on AW are in no position to judge the actions of anyone involved in this recent shooting.

 

[wink]

Well I guess if the cop is "scared" then he can do whatever he wants, right? Even if that means tazing some elementary school kids. Just because he's there to enforce laws, doesn't make him God.

"Scared" of what pray tell? Scared of dying, believing that the suspect had the means to make him dead? In that case he can't do "whatever" he wants but he sure can shoot the guy!! No he isn't God for the officer can not damn the SOB to hell. I have heard a number of officers tell their side of the story after a use of deadly force. You are damn right they were scared. Scared they would not see their children again. Afraid of how their wife would deal with the loss. One laid on the ground afraid her parents would see a photo of her like that and didn't want it to be their last image of her. I have heard cops tell of being so scared their knees were shaking uncontrollably, soiled their pants or had to get counselling. I have heard this first hand. Being scared of tearing your pants in a dog pile, or getting possible AIDS infected blood on you is also not a reason to shoot someone. That is part of the job. Taking a shot, getting run over by a car or cut by a blade is not part of the job. Read the previous posts. I think we have narrowed the debate well beyond the cops are Gods and can do whatever they want arguement.

Taser employment is not deadly force. It doesn't matter how old the suspect is either. In some cases the use of a Taser is actually safer for the suspect because he won't get whooped on by a couple cops just to get him under control. One shot of a Taser and he is down, compliant. No residual effects.

Come back when you can take up a reasonable debate of a very important issue.

 

[wink]

...the man was unarmed, but I do not know if he was being threatening or not...even if he was, a baton would have been more appropriate not a gun.

Just for the sake of arguement. You do not know that the officer thought he was unarmed. Now to be clear.It makes absolutely no difference that the suspect was unarmed if you find that out after the fact and the officer thought that he was at the time.
Can you agree that if the cop thought the suspect was armed and posing a deadly threat he did the right thing?

 

[pilot_man]

I'm back. Using a taser meant for a 200 lb man on a six year old is deadly force. It's common sense.

As for not forming an opinion; I guess the only ones allowed to form an opinion are the one shooting, the one being shot, and anyone else who was around. I can't form an opinion huh? Fvck that. I have an opinion. I saw and heard enough for me.

As for nearly 100 miles an hour. Big fvcking deal. I know i've been in vet doing 100 on 39 on the way to work before (FLY), so then I should get shot, when following some cops instructions. I'll let you try it, and let me know how that works out for you.

 

[pilot_man]

Can you agree that if the cop thought the suspect was armed and posing a deadly threat he did the right thing?

So if I think a bogey is a bad guy, I can just squeeze the trigger, huh? I thought he was bad so I fvcked up his day. O'well.

 

[wink]

I'm back. Using a taser meant for a 200 lb man on a six year old is deadly force. It's common sense.

The Taser was not designed for a 200 lb man. It does not constitue deadly force on any human, legally or scientificly. You don't have a clue. You can form any opinion you want once you have heard and seen ALL the facts. You have not. I am ashamed for you. Hypothetical discussions are one thing but your position is beyond the pale. A naval officer should be far more judicious then you are my friend.

 

[pilot_man]

OK. Not a 200 lb man, but designed for grown-ups, not children. Sheriffs dept. all around agree with that, just do a google search. My point is cops often over step their boundaries, and if that possibility exists, then steps should be in place to keep things like this from happening.