Full Version: Armed and Dangerous...with a Hairbrush?
QUOTE(gordo @ Nov 21 2007, 10:31 PM) 
QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 22 2007, 03:58 AM)
BA
Did any of the officers verify that he had a gun in his hand??
No, you need to read the article. Where in the article does it say that the the mother reported to the police he has a gun?? The only person saying he has a gun is the lunatic screaming "i got a gun... kill me kill me"
BUUUUUUTTTTT.... got to love those annoying "buts" that get in the way of a sound perspective, huh
Look the law of averages could be applied to the fact that in a war zone soldiers are going to rape people, torture people, or unjustly kill people... does that mean we shouldn't do anything... we should have no.. deterrent, for shooting people that may or may not have a weapon??
So you are stuck on calling this an accident. They purposely pull out their guns, they purposely shoot, they purposefully aim for kill shots in the torso... but you still state it was an accident.
MOIF you state they failed to identify the hair brush. That seemingly implies... they tried to identify the object at all.
What from their response, the eyewitness accounts, or articles you've read led you to believe they tried at all. All i hear is "he didn't listen... he pointed a black object at us.... BANG BANG BANG BANG... Lights out!!!"
In this case punishable by death...
Thus we have it AD...in this "free"nation... I think we should use the word "free" loosely reading posts by some of you... Be careful to never let the cop feel scared... cause if he/she gets a little scared and blows you away... it's justified.
I'm not making a template... i am showing you the capability of human to restrain themselves even under the possibility of the threat of death. I can just as easily point out car chases where people exit waving guns, with out the officers getting spooked to the point of shooting just because the guy is waving a gun. The looney toon didn't even wave the gun at the officers, before they went into panic mode, cause if he did they would have seen it was a hairbrush. I'm just giving an example of the human beings ability to to see a lethal weapon without going into panic mode. Cause for some reason you think it is a "higher than possible standard" to ask that police verify that it is a lethal weapon, before killing the person.
NT
No NT... we're going to kill him!!! Because that the "normal" response to handle screaming lunatics coming at you. You shoot'em, you cuththeir throats, you pick up the nearest rock and bash their brains into the cement. Isn't that the general consensus. If some oone says "i'm gonna kill you" as long as you are afraidyou can find the nearest weapon and kill 'em. Because not only will we not hold our police to a higher standard, why not hold ourselves to the same standard. When in doubt... as long as you are scared... kill the threat first, ask questions later.
So when you come to the conclusion... "they screwed up" .. and you start bashing... how comfortable is that chair you decide from??
oh... and your quote of the cop....
[/i]
I'd rather give Osama Bin Laden the benifit of the doubt, than a cop that shoots a man armed with a deadly hair brush. And if it is the best they got, then I guess their best isn't good enough. Maybe they should take up a job selling shoes or something, i hear foot lockers is hiring.
QUOTE
The police did everything they could have done given the situation at hand.
Did any of the officers verify that he had a gun in his hand??
QUOTE
You need to read the article. The mother of the boy called the police and told them he had a gun. He told the police he had a gun. It was completely reasonable to believe he had a gun.
No, you need to read the article. Where in the article does it say that the the mother reported to the police he has a gun?? The only person saying he has a gun is the lunatic screaming "i got a gun... kill me kill me"
QUOTE
Your perspective sounds great on the surface of it, but those two or three seconds are over pretty fast and if you still can't be sure what your looking at, then what next? There is always going to be amargin of error and you know it just as well as I do. Sooner or later the law of averages tells us people are going to die because of an accident like this.
BUUUUUUTTTTT.... got to love those annoying "buts" that get in the way of a sound perspective, huh
Look the law of averages could be applied to the fact that in a war zone soldiers are going to rape people, torture people, or unjustly kill people... does that mean we shouldn't do anything... we should have no.. deterrent, for shooting people that may or may not have a weapon??
QUOTE
The accident in question is an accident of misunderstanding. The accident lies in the failure to identify the hand brush for what it really was. No doubt in 99% of the time, the police would see through the suspects bluff, but every so often we will see mistakes being made and often with tragic consequences. That twenty shots were fired is not unusual, Once a gun goes off, people will react to protect themselves, no matter how well trained they are. If you can find me a national police force, any where on this planet which hasn't shot people by accident, then I'll eat my hat!
So you are stuck on calling this an accident. They purposely pull out their guns, they purposely shoot, they purposefully aim for kill shots in the torso... but you still state it was an accident.
MOIF you state they failed to identify the hair brush. That seemingly implies... they tried to identify the object at all.
What from their response, the eyewitness accounts, or articles you've read led you to believe they tried at all. All i hear is "he didn't listen... he pointed a black object at us.... BANG BANG BANG BANG... Lights out!!!"
QUOTE
Threatening police officers is a crime. No matter how valid the threat is.
In this case punishable by death...
QUOTE
This person should have followed the police's instructions, by not doing so and by acting in a threatening manner, he got himself killed. Too bad for him, but I reserve my pity for the police who were pushed into a situation where their own survival instinct was used by some one to commit suicide.
I don't see any argument which holds the police to some higher than possible standard where by they are expected to wait until some one has shot at them before returning fire. As far as I'm concerned, once the police believe within reasonable doubt that they are under direct threat, then they can open fire to protect themselves and the general public.
I don't see any argument which holds the police to some higher than possible standard where by they are expected to wait until some one has shot at them before returning fire. As far as I'm concerned, once the police believe within reasonable doubt that they are under direct threat, then they can open fire to protect themselves and the general public.
Thus we have it AD...in this "free"nation... I think we should use the word "free" loosely reading posts by some of you... Be careful to never let the cop feel scared... cause if he/she gets a little scared and blows you away... it's justified.
QUOTE
Soldiers in Iraq are fighting what amounts to a war. The police are not. You can't use military tems of engagement as a template for how police should operate because the miltary have those terms to prevent mass slaughter with all manner of weaponry in an environment where normal laws are invalid.
I'm not making a template... i am showing you the capability of human to restrain themselves even under the possibility of the threat of death. I can just as easily point out car chases where people exit waving guns, with out the officers getting spooked to the point of shooting just because the guy is waving a gun. The looney toon didn't even wave the gun at the officers, before they went into panic mode, cause if he did they would have seen it was a hairbrush. I'm just giving an example of the human beings ability to to see a lethal weapon without going into panic mode. Cause for some reason you think it is a "higher than possible standard" to ask that police verify that it is a lethal weapon, before killing the person.
NT
QUOTE
I sincerely doubt most people could face off with a angry, screaming, cursing man rushing at us and be as cool as Dirty Harry chewing a sandwich while blowing away the bad guys. We might flinch at the least or soil ourselves at the worst.
No NT... we're going to kill him!!! Because that the "normal" response to handle screaming lunatics coming at you. You shoot'em, you cuththeir throats, you pick up the nearest rock and bash their brains into the cement. Isn't that the general consensus. If some oone says "i'm gonna kill you" as long as you are afraidyou can find the nearest weapon and kill 'em. Because not only will we not hold our police to a higher standard, why not hold ourselves to the same standard. When in doubt... as long as you are scared... kill the threat first, ask questions later.
QUOTE
I have no reluctance in bashing cops when they screw up. I'm not convinced anyone has demonstrated yet that they did. All we've established is cops are human beings with all the emotions (including fear and doubt) as the rest of us. They just have to make their decisions in a blink of an eyelash while we get to make ours in a comfortable chair and a cup of coffee.
So when you come to the conclusion... "they screwed up" .. and you start bashing... how comfortable is that chair you decide from??
oh... and your quote of the cop....
QUOTE
[i]So do me a favor: First, thank God you don’t have the awesome and sometimes deadly responsibility that comes when you pin on a badge and holster your weapon. Then give the cops who do the benefit of the doubt. They are doing the best they can in a moment of time you never want to be a part of.
[/i]
I'd rather give Osama Bin Laden the benifit of the doubt, than a cop that shoots a man armed with a deadly hair brush. And if it is the best they got, then I guess their best isn't good enough. Maybe they should take up a job selling shoes or something, i hear foot lockers is hiring.
I agree with a majority of what you say droop I just have a few points. I don’t know how easily giving the ability for reality to be chaotic how you can train a police force to react in those crucial seconds or second perfectly. That being said I don’t think the cops handled this correctly, I also voted that I think it was a tragic accident. Did the police not have any forward understanding of this individual, why or why not? If a gun could be a possibility why were local residents not evacuated to some extent, why was the area not cordoned off to allow for a better decision to be made. I don’t understand how a group of cops would move into a situation so unknowing at least, for if that happened that I think to much uncertainty is being involved in situations that can cost a life. Cops are like you say charged with enforcing laws on society in general, that responsibility along with the reality that it can cost lives should make the bar high on who can and how you be a cop. I know I personally at least tried to treat locals with dignity and respect, I did not see how it could hurt and I know you can do at least that much without making a serious risk. I think if that barrier gets destroyed its just a Pandora’s box in which say the populous of America or any particular sect of it like green peace could come to have a less then positive view of the police as an organization. Cases like this can take on so many different appearances, its hard to know really, more so being I don’t know all the facts.
Its also tricky on how much you can realistically ask of a person. As a human being myself if I were a cop I would like to know I can act if I feel threatened, with that how do you make such a reality one that’s lawful and accountable? I know dash cams exist, but reality is large... I don’t want to look like I am acting for one side over the other, but to be honest I don’t know what I should pick here, it would seem is as so much is at fault it could be nothing more then a tragic accident, then again I don’t know all the facts.
To both gordo and droop, in a perfect world, there would be time to evacuate neighborhoods, reason with the guy, determine what he did actually have and talk him down. In reality, this situation can take hours, or in most cases, a matter of minutes. From the time the mother calls 911 to the time the guy was shot, it could have only taken a few minutes. Again, a great Monday morning quarterback such as yourselves can come up with all sorts of alternative solutions, however you and I weren't there. You don't know if any of what you think should have happened could have happened.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Nov 22 2007, 09:15 AM)
To both gordo and droop, in a perfect world, there would be time to evacuate neighborhoods, reason with the guy, determine what he did actually have and talk him down. In reality, this situation can take hours, or in most cases, a matter of minutes. From the time the mother calls 911 to the time the guy was shot, it could have only taken a few minutes. Again, a great Monday morning quarterback such as yourselves can come up with all sorts of alternative solutions, however you and I weren't there. You don't know if any of what you think should have happened could have happened.
Thanks for throwing us a truism scubatim.
Sure, this isn't a perfect world, but I get the impression that some aren't very interested in perfecting it.Although we will never have a perfect world, that is no excuse to quit striving for one.
Many older Democrats, like me, were inspired by John F. Kennedy. In his Inaugural Address Kennedy said:
QUOTE
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
Some police departments employ skilled negotiators, who work with SWAT teams. The job of the negotiators is to defuse potential violence before someone - a hostage, a perpetrator or a police officer gets killed.
Richmond, Indiana is an just example; there are others.
QUOTE
The RPD Crisis Negotiation Team consists of six officers trained in human psychology, active listening techniques, mental illnesses and dealing with those who are mentally ill, as well as a host of other areas dealing with human behavior. Like the SWAT Team, the Crisis Negotiation Team is on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and is activated by either the Administration or by an RPD Supervisor. The CNT averages 3 call-outs per year.
http://www.richmondin.org/police/swat/index.php
I don’t know if there was time to use a negotiator in this instance, but such things do work sometimes. Maybe the folks in charge of Richmond are at least trying to make the world perfect.
QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 22 2007, 10:45 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Nov 22 2007, 09:15 AM)
To both gordo and droop, in a perfect world, there would be time to evacuate neighborhoods, reason with the guy, determine what he did actually have and talk him down. In reality, this situation can take hours, or in most cases, a matter of minutes. From the time the mother calls 911 to the time the guy was shot, it could have only taken a few minutes. Again, a great Monday morning quarterback such as yourselves can come up with all sorts of alternative solutions, however you and I weren't there. You don't know if any of what you think should have happened could have happened.
Thanks for throwing us a truism scubatim.
Sure, this isn't a perfect world, but I get the impression that some aren't very interested in perfecting it.Although we will never have a perfect world, that is no excuse to quit striving for one.
Many older Democrats, like me, were inspired by John F. Kennedy. In his Inaugural Address Kennedy said:
QUOTE
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
Some police departments employ skilled negotiators, who work with SWAT teams. The job of the negotiators is to defuse potential violence before someone - a hostage, a perpetrator or a police officer gets killed.
Richmond, Indiana is an just example; there are others.
QUOTE
The RPD Crisis Negotiation Team consists of six officers trained in human psychology, active listening techniques, mental illnesses and dealing with those who are mentally ill, as well as a host of other areas dealing with human behavior. Like the SWAT Team, the Crisis Negotiation Team is on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and is activated by either the Administration or by an RPD Supervisor. The CNT averages 3 call-outs per year.
http://www.richmondin.org/police/swat/index.php
I don’t know if there was time to use a negotiator in this instance, but such things do work sometimes. Maybe the folks in charge of Richmond are at least trying to make the world perfect.
What a utopian world. Since none of us were actually there, no one can say for sure. I don't ever recall saying that in this situation, there wasn't time for a negotiator or the SWAT team. Since you called me out on this, I did say that we don't know for sure, it could have been only a few minutes before the kid left the apartment, or it could have been hours. Negotiators don't work too well when the perpetrator is running through the streets. Yes, in a perfect world, we would all sit in circles and sing camp songs and hold hands. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and you will never convince me that it ever will be. Aside from the ambiguity of the word and idea of perfection, we are all human and nothing will stop bad people from doing bad things. Not even our friends that think we can work towards a perfect world. In this situation, unless anyone can provide any facts that the tragedy could have been avoided, I scoff at any attempts to make the cops in this situation the evil doers. Comparing this situation to something from a completely different part of the country, time and players is like comparing apples to oranges.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.