It's terrible that dude died, but in the other news footage, they highlighted him reaching for the door handle. It's a shame, but if you don't comply, the cops aren't going to wait and see if you are or are not reaching for a weapon. I have other questions, too. There is also helicopter footage of the shooting. How long of a chase or what all have you been doing to give time for a helicopter to be filming? In the audio, there is something about being tasered, then the shooting - who was tasered? Why do the three cops backing away once the man is shot appear to be helping one of the other officer? Is that standard post-shooting retreat maneuver, or is injured?
I think it illustrates the shocking lack of police training that many departments get. Jocko Willink went in depth into this in one of his podcasts. For example: - If the officers feared for their safety ("He was acting weird," "He was non-compliant," "He was reaching for something."), then they should NOT be out in the wide open. They should take cover and and address the suspect from a position of greater security. - Willink noted this himself from battle: under stress, people will do the strangest things. If they survive and you ask them why, their reasoning is often an indication of shock. So someone acting odd - i.e. not complying with an order to kneel - is quite possibly because their brains are in fight/flight, rather than thinking rationally. - It's been noted before, but use of non-deadly force is often warranted. Why not let the officer with the taser fire? Yes, they can rarely be fatal, but I'd much rather be tased that shot. It comes back to bad policing, IMO. To say nothing of the effect this will have on minority communities trusting cops in that area.
I would say that it's part of a police officers job to take that chance. They signed up to protect and serve, that includes the "erratic" people they come in to contact with. The standard for when it's okay for a cop to open fire should be a lot higher than, "they weren't doing exactly what I was telling them to." The mentality and training of our police forces needs to change, but it won't because people like you don't give a shit about minorities lives.
I think the standards police have to adhere to should be different than a civilian. Here's a situation: you are in a parking lot. You are alone, but you are armed (gun, knife, whatever). A man appears and starts behaving erratically. He then starts coming towards you in an aggressive manner. He does this even though you tell him to stop. After he continues to advance after the "Stop!" order has been given, I think a civilian should have the right to strike first. You have no idea who he is or what he's capable of, nor do you necessarily have any specific training to deal with this sudden threat that's accosted you on a calm Tuesday afternoon. A cop, in that same situation, issues the "Stop!" order. The crazy person continues to advance. I believe the officer should have to wait until the person lays hands on them, or until they draw a weapon on the police officer. Why? Because presumably a police officer is trained in de-escalating, in assessing violent situations and dealing with the mentally ill or aggressive members of society. The cop should have the skills to calm that crazy person down, or get them to back down, if at all possible. If it turns out they can't, the officer should have clear visual confirmation that a weapon and threat is present. Like AMP, I think the threshold has to be higher than, "Do what I say when I say it." You know what you sign up for when you apply to be a police officer. Also, statistically speaking, being a cop isn't even in the top ten of dangerous jobs. Personally I could never do it; I hate the thought of dealing with the crazies or the tragedy, and I do not think it is by any stretch of the imagination easy. The training has got to improve, and the candidate selection also has to improve.
If he was reaching for the door, then cops should have stopped him with using their fucking guns. Do some cop shit. The job they signed up for. They swore an oath to put themselves in danger, they knew the risks of this job, this guy has his hands in the air and was not about to magically pull gun out of the clouds. They. Fucking. Murdered him. If they had any sand at all they could have just tackled and arrested him considering they both are "trained officers" AND outnumbered him but they shot him like cowards instead. You don't need police experience to know it, you just need eyes. "Comply or die"is NOT a police motto, they are public SERVANTS and should act as such or find a new job.
The problem with that is, very few people want to be cops in this toxic environment. Every thing they do is scrutinized, then they're tried in the media and on boards like this. Even if they do everything correctly, their life and livelihood can be destroyed by people that call out their every single action. No one wants to deal with that. Severe police shortage article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96570&page=1
I'm not sure how you arrived at that ridiculous notion, but you're wrong. Unless you think that every single police shooting is unjustifiable and every person shot by the police is a minority, then I suppose you would be correct.
Oh, don't get me wrong...I could never do it, nor could I recommend it as a job. Let's break down what you do with your days: - If you're assigned to traffic, then you spend your time springing traps on otherwise law-abiding citizens all so you can collect money for the county on minor infractions. Your career is made based on the revenue you generate. You will also get called to process violent car accidents where people died brutally. People will lie to you when the truth would do, all because they fear your authority or they don't want a ticket. - If you're assigned to robbery/homicide, you're seeing some of the most violent, deplorable members of society daily and trying to bring justice to victims who were brutally violated. - Either way you're in court most of the time and the most minute procedural error could mean a guilty person walks. - Any person you approach might attack you. - You are the first person called when someone is drunk, mentally ill, abusing their spouse, or under threat. - Every mistake you ever make will be villified in the press and in the victim's families So, yeah...I'll pass. On top of it all you don't get very good training and the whole thing is a political mess.
Should this perhaps be a push towards better firearms training/accuracy/proficiency/whatever? I get that officers are trained to fire at the center mass of a person (easiest part to hit and so on, so on), but wouldn't it behoove them to push more towards trying to wing people in the arm or leg? I've never been shot with a firearm before, so maybe I'm not a subject matter expert, but I'm willing to wager a well placed bullet to my kneecap would drop me pretty quickly. The guy in the video was acting weirdly. I get that. The police have the right to respond to that. Should it be an automatic death sentence when someone doesn't act exactly the way one particular office wants in order to not get executed?
I don't necessarily think it's a problem with guns. Clearly, the cops new how to operate their weapons well. The problem is that they should never have stood out in the open when there was a possibility that a suspect was going for a gun, and that they did not wait to confirm that he had a weapon before they shot.
There are several reasons they are taught to fire at center mass; 1) You're more likely to hit it as opposed to an arm or leg (Especially if the person is moving). Bullets that don't hit their target are also more likely to hit an innocent bystander. 2) A shot to a major artery in the leg can be just as fatal as a shot to center mass. 3) A wounded subject with a gun is still a subject with a gun and therefore deadly, that's why you sometimes see cops empty their clip.
He was. They did. Based on rep and some other comments, I guess in all of your cities there are news and/or police helicopters always in the air? I don't live in a big city, so maybe it's different. Around here, if a helicopter shows up, the chase has been going on for more than a minute or two. Is there a good article or link about what all had happened prior to the shooting?
Can someone in the military state what their rules are? I think I heard someone say they basically have to be shot at first before engaging. I have no idea what they are, but I'd like someone to enlighten me. I think the police should use similar rules. Now they have to meerly feel threatened to engage in lethal force. I think that bar is far too subjective. I think there needs to be clear evidence that they are in mortal danger, not just they think they saw something or someone made them jittery.
Tim Kennedy, who was active duty Special Forces, says that their rules of engagement are that they have to first be subjected to specific, targeted assault. Meaning that shots fired in their general direction is not enough; they are essentially required to hear the whistle of the bullets before they can establish a position. It became a problem, because eventually the insurgents figured this out and directed their fire accordingly, so as to avoid giving the US SF units a reason to engage. I have no idea if this applies to regular infantry, and I'm sure the rules differ conflict to conflict. I'd wager that the military, on the whole, is FAR better trained than the police.
Here's a fun fact: the cop who killed him? Her husband is the one commentating in the helicopter. Really.