oscarsear Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 The back story: The guy was throwing rocks at moving cars at a major intersection. The police arrived and they did get into a physical altercation with the man who broke free. They tried a taser but failed to get activation. They guy then started throwing rocks (or dirt clods) at the police and hit at least one of them. The man then turned and simply trotted or walked away, across this major intersection. He had another rock in his hand. The police then opened fire while he was still in the street. The video shows the rest. All the while the police were verbally commanding him to halt and drop, etc. The man turned and the 3 officers drilled the guy and that was that. I dunno. Seems like one man against several trained officers should not have gotten that far out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Everyone should do a few ride-a-longs these days, times have changed, you pretty much can throw your current thoughts out the window when looking down the business end of a perps weapon, no matter the weapon. it's you or him. It's just not what we think it is, TV/Media has blurred reality. Do a few ride-a-longs and get back to me. see if you could live the life of an officer and what he/she faces daily. Blah. They applied for the job, went through the training and know the risks. Not to mention they wear body armor. The odds are slanted favorably to them. At the end of the day if you can't handle the job without relying on killing someone throwing rocks in your direction then maybe you ought to choose a new career. "They went through training" "Not to mention they wear body armor" " The odds are slanted favorably to them" Do you honestly believe someone can train for every possible scenario in the world we live in where violence is rampant, life don't mean shit and guns are the equalizer for BOTH the good AND bad guys? Well hell they wear body armor which must be why you never hear of a cop "being killed in the line of duty". That's just a ridiculous statement. And for sure cops out number criminals and thugs with easy access to guns which certainly slants the odds in their favor. Are you for real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I can't believe these cops are judge and jury, We here should be judge and jury????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Everyone should do a few ride-a-longs these days, times have changed, you pretty much can throw your current thoughts out the window when looking down the business end of a perps weapon, no matter the weapon. it's you or him. It's just not what we think it is, TV/Media has blurred reality. Do a few ride-a-longs and get back to me. see if you could live the life of an officer and what he/she faces daily. Blah. They applied for the job, went through the training and know the risks. Not to mention they wear body armor. The odds are slanted favorably to them. At the end of the day if you can't handle the job without relying on killing someone throwing rocks in your direction then maybe you ought to choose a new career. "They went through training" "Not to mention they wear body armor" " The odds are slanted favorably to them" Do you honestly believe someone can train for every possible scenario in the world we live in where violence is rampant, life don't mean **** and guns are the equalizer for BOTH the good AND bad guys? Well hell they wear body armor which must be why you never hear of a cop "being killed in the line of duty". That's just a ridiculous statement. And for sure cops out number criminals and thugs with easy access to guns which certainly slants the odds in their favor. Are you for real? I am completely for real. Perhaps you didn't see the video but going from memory I think I saw 4 maybe 5 officers chasing after one guy in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. Each of those officers is highly trained and well armed/protected. From what I have read here the officers had just interacted with this individual thus, they should have known if he was armed with more than just rocks. Clearly, he wasn't. So I maintain my position that: they are trained, armored, and ESPECIALLY since 4 or so officers were chasing ONE guy armed with rocks the odds were in their favor. I wonder what your position would be if that had been your brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Everyone should do a few ride-a-longs these days, times have changed, you pretty much can throw your current thoughts out the window when looking down the business end of a perps weapon, no matter the weapon. it's you or him. It's just not what we think it is, TV/Media has blurred reality. Do a few ride-a-longs and get back to me. see if you could live the life of an officer and what he/she faces daily. Blah. They applied for the job, went through the training and know the risks. Not to mention they wear body armor. The odds are slanted favorably to them. At the end of the day if you can't handle the job without relying on killing someone throwing rocks in your direction then maybe you ought to choose a new career. "They went through training" "Not to mention they wear body armor" " The odds are slanted favorably to them" Do you honestly believe someone can train for every possible scenario in the world we live in where violence is rampant, life don't mean **** and guns are the equalizer for BOTH the good AND bad guys? Well hell they wear body armor which must be why you never hear of a cop "being killed in the line of duty". That's just a ridiculous statement. And for sure cops out number criminals and thugs with easy access to guns which certainly slants the odds in their favor. Are you for real? I am completely for real. Perhaps you didn't see the video but going from memory I think I saw 4 maybe 5 officers chasing after one guy in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. Each of those officers is highly trained and well armed/protected. From what I have read here the officers had just interacted with this individual thus, they should have known if he was armed with more than just rocks. Clearly, he wasn't. So I maintain my position that: they are trained, armored, and ESPECIALLY since 4 or so officers were chasing ONE guy armed with rocks the odds were in their favor. I wonder what your position would be if that had been your brother. A brother of mine would have enough sense not to throw rocks at people with badges and guns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 A brother of mine would have enough sense not to throw rocks at people with badges and guns Conversely, one would hope that people with badges and guns wouldn't shoot at a person throwing rocks. In the late 60s, my father suffered a complete mental breakdown. Sheriff's deputies had to pick him up on a country road where...he threw rocks at them when they approached. Oddly, they did not seem find it necessary to execute him for this affront to their God-given authority, nor even teach him a lesson with a baton. They simply ducked the rocks and gently brought him under control. They were law enforcement professionals. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 "Objective reasonableness" versus mass paranoia. Paranoia is a state of irrational fear that has become anchored in the psyche. Mass paranoia is the state where a group collectively suffers from an unreasonable excess of fear. While there is no question that police work in a milieux of confrontation they need to have genuine and clear understanding of their own abilities to manage peril and do the least harm. More and more what the public is witnessing is a loss of this clarity of judgment. Instead of deploying training and tactics and 'thinking' threats to a more peaceful resolution guns get drawn and utilized. So - are the police simply more lax knowing that the courts are lax and will accept a broad definition of peril exonerating even outrageous conduct? Or - are the police genuinely paranoid? Have they psychologically adapted their own mindset to see life threatening situations in the mildest of conflicts? Are they in some way suffering from some degree of mass insanity? Are some departments suffering from institutional psychosis? Have they lost any realistic sense of objectivity and replaced it with rote overreaction? The blue advocates on this thread express this paranoia suggesting that every traffic stop could be Bonnie and Clyde......... so treat them ALL as if they will be Bonnie and Clyde. Yet the statistics do not support this level of paranoia and thus do not support the unwarranted hyper paranoid posturing. Bonnie and Clyde events are extremely rare relatively speaking. Is there any doubt that 4 trained police officers could not have subdued this 45 y/o man without too much trouble or harm to themselves? A lethal hail of bullets is too often the quick and easy cure-all for any confrontation. Police are hired to 'police' and not to determine guilt, define and execute the penalty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 A brother of mine would have enough sense not to throw rocks at people with badges and guns Conversely, one would hope that people with badges and guns wouldn't shoot at a person throwing rocks. In the late 60s, my father suffered a complete mental breakdown. Sheriff's deputies had to pick him up on a country road where...he threw rocks at them when they approached. Oddly, they did not seem find it necessary to execute him for this affront to their God-given authority, nor even teach him a lesson with a baton. They simply ducked the rocks and gently brought him under control. They were law enforcement professionals. Dave Well said Dave And I think this just points to the much more extreme and violent society the past 55 years have given us from both the general society and those that police. Don't get me wrong with my pro police comments for as I said earlier I am a biased observer. And yes at the surface the video shows a definite over reaction from police. I'm just stressing that until we walk in those shoes on a daily basis --- Unfortunately the '60's, Andy, Barney and Mayberry are long behind all of us. To our detriment --- I'm out on this, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I am old enough to remember a different time. Shooting unarmed civilians, school shootings Kent State, Charles Whitman... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-police-officer-charged-assaulting-indian-man-062639725.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Everyone should do a few ride-a-longs these days, times have changed, you pretty much can throw your current thoughts out the window when looking down the business end of a perps weapon, no matter the weapon. it's you or him. It's just not what we think it is, TV/Media has blurred reality. Do a few ride-a-longs and get back to me. see if you could live the life of an officer and what he/she faces daily. Blah. They applied for the job, went through the training and know the risks. Not to mention they wear body armor. The odds are slanted favorably to them. At the end of the day if you can't handle the job without relying on killing someone throwing rocks in your direction then maybe you ought to choose a new career. "They went through training" "Not to mention they wear body armor" " The odds are slanted favorably to them" Do you honestly believe someone can train for every possible scenario in the world we live in where violence is rampant, life don't mean **** and guns are the equalizer for BOTH the good AND bad guys? Well hell they wear body armor which must be why you never hear of a cop "being killed in the line of duty". That's just a ridiculous statement. And for sure cops out number criminals and thugs with easy access to guns which certainly slants the odds in their favor. Are you for real? I am completely for real. Perhaps you didn't see the video but going from memory I think I saw 4 maybe 5 officers chasing after one guy in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. Each of those officers is highly trained and well armed/protected. From what I have read here the officers had just interacted with this individual thus, they should have known if he was armed with more than just rocks. Clearly, he wasn't. So I maintain my position that: they are trained, armored, and ESPECIALLY since 4 or so officers were chasing ONE guy armed with rocks the odds were in their favor. I wonder what your position would be if that had been your brother. A brother of mine would have enough sense not to throw rocks at people with badges and guns Perhaps. I would also like to think that people with badges and guns would have enough sense not to kill a guy with a rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 A brother of mine would have enough sense not to throw rocks at people with badges and guns Conversely, one would hope that people with badges and guns wouldn't shoot at a person throwing rocks. In the late 60s, my father suffered a complete mental breakdown. Sheriff's deputies had to pick him up on a country road where...he threw rocks at them when they approached. Oddly, they did not seem find it necessary to execute him for this affront to their God-given authority, nor even teach him a lesson with a baton. They simply ducked the rocks and gently brought him under control. They were law enforcement professionals. Dave Dave that is the right answer - plain common sense - people with mental distress are part of our society - a lot of us spent years patrolling their communities to serve and protect in cases when they had to be in harms way and faced violence - the problem is that in high crime areas , the aspect of the community is gone , Police officers become themselves sick with PTSD , they dont recognize that the post traumatic stress disorder causes them to be violent - when all hell breaks loose , the gun is the answer 99% of the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 13, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2015 Why would you think that? Border patrol agents have been using lethal force against rock throwers for years. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-shooting-20141019-story.html#page=1 "Border Patrol agents fired their weapons in 960 encounters over the last eight years, according to Border Patrol records. Including Arevalo, 30 people were killed, with at least 10 of those in incidents alleged to involve rock-throwing and eight on the Mexican side of the border." The border patrol has just been ordered to pay a man 500,000 for shooting a man. However, the border patrol agent didn't appear to have credibility and may have taken a bribe in another case. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-lawsuit-border-patrol-shooting-excessive-force-28895701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Movie star Danny Trejo actually went to prison for about 10 years for throwing rocks at a cop, hit him right in the noggin, charged him with attempted murder. edit: I take that back, maybe not. I guess he was already in prison then threw a rock at a guard, tried to charge him at that point but no witnesses would testify. Edited February 13, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) "Objective reasonableness" versus mass paranoia. Paranoia is a state of irrational fear that has become anchored in the psyche. Mass paranoia is the state where a group collectively suffers from an unreasonable excess of fear. While there is no question that police work in a milieux of confrontation they need to have genuine and clear understanding of their own abilities to manage peril and do the least harm. More and more what the public is witnessing is a loss of this clarity of judgment. Instead of deploying training and tactics and 'thinking' threats to a more peaceful resolution guns get drawn and utilized. So - are the police simply more lax knowing that the courts are lax and will accept a broad definition of peril exonerating even outrageous conduct? Or - are the police genuinely paranoid? This is the fallacy of the False Dilemma. There are more options than the two bad choices listed. Have they psychologically adapted their own mindset to see life threatening situations in the mildest of conflicts? Are they in some way suffering from some degree of mass insanity? Are some departments suffering from institutional psychosis? False Dilemma. Have they lost any realistic sense of objectivity and replaced it with rote overreaction? The blue advocates on this thread express this paranoia suggesting that every traffic stop could be Bonnie and Clyde......... so treat them ALL as if they will be Bonnie and Clyde. Yet the statistics do not support this level of paranoia and thus do not support the unwarranted hyper paranoid posturing. Bonnie and Clyde events are extremely rare relatively speaking. False Dilemma. Is there any doubt that 4 trained police officers could not have subdued this 45 y/o man without too much trouble or harm to themselves? A lethal hail of bullets is too often the quick and easy cure-all for any confrontation. Police are hired to 'police' and not to determine guilt, define and execute the penalty. The answer to the last bolded section is "yes," there is a lot of doubt. First of all the doubt comes using the same information you presented that this man is mentally unstable. By definition, that requires a higher level of alert from the police by virtue of the man's unstable and unpredictable behavior. Who do you think kills people in the mall, solid citizens who are mentally stable? I've also seen this man characterized as "homeless." I don't know about homeless people everywhere, and I certainly don't know about this particular homeless man, but in my town many of the homeless live under the bridge and do drugs all day. Speaking for me personally, this is not the kind of person I would trust. I do believe drug addicts can kill people when they are out of their mind and need their fix. AGAIN, I am not defending what we saw in the video. What I am doing is pointing out very obvious flaws in your presentation, and pointing out AGAIN that we do not yet have the other side of the facts, which is the point of view of the officers involved. I like to hear BOTH sides, because I think it is unfair to judge after hearing only one side. Edited February 13, 2015 by wvu80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Are the police doing something new? We are seeing many stories of police shooting unarmed people over minor scuffles. If this is new, we need to understand why. Nothing much just happens without specific motivation or design. Did we redesign policing? I think we did. And we are beginning to see some consequences that were intended and some unintended. We turned the police into an army. Bingo. They are being trained to be more like a military force. And behind them in the DHS, which appears to have begun operating at a local level. Wasn't it a politician this past decade that remarked he would like a domestic force as powerful as the military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 We turned the police into an army. and a lot of police officers are quitting or being forced out - the good ones that is - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The police should be trained and have available in every vehicle a rope that can be used to lasso perpetrators of crime. Instead of drawing weapons in a situation such as this one officer could simply call out 'calf rope' and the non-lethal apprehension could then take place, with the ensuing officers rubbing the criminals little dickie to calm him. Keith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The police should be trained and have available in every vehicle a rope that can be used to lasso perpetrators of crime. Instead of drawing weapons in a situation such as this one officer could simply call out 'calf rope' and the non-lethal apprehension could then take place, with the ensuing officers rubbing the criminals little dickie to calm him. Keith they have them , it is a gun with a net that they use to catch wild life with - you aim it - shoot and the net catches the recipient - the lasso is even better - cant miss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 "Objective reasonableness" versus mass paranoia. Paranoia is a state of irrational fear that has become anchored in the psyche. Mass paranoia is the state where a group collectively suffers from an unreasonable excess of fear. While there is no question that police work in a milieux of confrontation they need to have genuine and clear understanding of their own abilities to manage peril and do the least harm. More and more what the public is witnessing is a loss of this clarity of judgment. Instead of deploying training and tactics and 'thinking' threats to a more peaceful resolution guns get drawn and utilized. So - are the police simply more lax knowing that the courts are lax and will accept a broad definition of peril exonerating even outrageous conduct? Or - are the police genuinely paranoid? This is the fallacy of the False Dilemma. There are more options than the two bad choices listed. Have they psychologically adapted their own mindset to see life threatening situations in the mildest of conflicts? Are they in some way suffering from some degree of mass insanity? Are some departments suffering from institutional psychosis? False Dilemma. Have they lost any realistic sense of objectivity and replaced it with rote overreaction? The blue advocates on this thread express this paranoia suggesting that every traffic stop could be Bonnie and Clyde......... so treat them ALL as if they will be Bonnie and Clyde. Yet the statistics do not support this level of paranoia and thus do not support the unwarranted hyper paranoid posturing. Bonnie and Clyde events are extremely rare relatively speaking. False Dilemma. Is there any doubt that 4 trained police officers could not have subdued this 45 y/o man without too much trouble or harm to themselves? A lethal hail of bullets is too often the quick and easy cure-all for any confrontation. Police are hired to 'police' and not to determine guilt, define and execute the penalty. The answer to the last bolded section is "yes," there is a lot of doubt. First of all the doubt comes using the same information you presented that this man is mentally unstable. By definition, that requires a higher level of alert from the police by virtue of the man's unstable and unpredictable behavior. Who do you think kills people in the mall, solid citizens who are mentally stable? I've also seen this man characterized as "homeless." I don't know about homeless people everywhere, and I certainly don't know about this particular homeless man, but in my town many of the homeless live under the bridge and do drugs all day. Speaking for me personally, this is not the kind of person I would trust. I do believe drug addicts can kill people when they are out of their mind and need their fix. AGAIN, I am not defending what we saw in the video. What I am doing is pointing out very obvious flaws in your presentation, and pointing out AGAIN that we do not yet have the other side of the facts, which is the point of view of the officers involved. I like to hear BOTH sides, because I think it is unfair to judge after hearing only one side. There are no flaws in my presentation just additional perspectives, AKA options, AKA 'food for thought'. They were not and are not the only options, just what I feel need to be included in the solution set. There have been homeowners in violent neighborhoods that feel so threatened that they are on a hair trigger defense posture. Some have acted on their paranoia with lethal force and have been convicted of various crimes for conducting what they genuinely felt was an objective and reasonable response to the perils they faced. The racial profiling issue takes this approach whereby ethnicities feel that their racial presentation automatically puts police at a greater bias for criminal scrutiny. These things are certainly true at least some of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.