What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Police shot a man 20 times in his back yard, thinking he had a gun. It was a cellphone (2 Viewers)

Sweet J said:
It's not clear from anything that I have read that (1) he knew he was being chased; or (2) if he did know that he was being chased, he knew it was police that were chasing him.

I'm pretty sure he was running through backyards immediately prior to being shot.  But there could have been any number of reasons for this action.

In any event, I was referring to the actual video I saw, where the police appeared to first confront him.  There were immediate shouts of "freeze," or "stop" or something similar (with no identification of themselves as police or law enforcement), followed by an almost immediate shout of "gun gun" and then panicked shooting him to death.  After he was dead (or in all likelihood dead) they did identify themselves as police.  Which was nice of them. 

I welcome correction if I have the facts wrong.  Although, to be fair, I'd likely follow that up by "just because you aren't complying to an order to 'half' by police, it doesn't give the police valid reason to shoot someone to death." 
Click to expand...
Please do not mistake me, I am not defending the police here, I am simply wondering why you seem to want to venture into the world of fantasy and denial to get to that simple premise.  He had every chance to comply.  (I think he could have been given more, but he had many chances)  As for any doubt that he knew it was the police there are street lights in that neighborhood.  There were lights on the houses.  the cops were in uniform, having arrived in marked units, and had air support.  You can seek refuge in the unreasonable epistemological point that none of us know what he knew then, but to a moral certainty we all know, and deep down inside you do too. 

Hell any 5 year old pee wee in that neighborhood can spot an unmarked car and a plainclothesman three blocks away in the dead of night. Still, if it comforts you to take refuge in fantasy be my guest.

 
Sweet J said:
By the way, there are a lot of things I "kinda" believe in.  The government should do this; the government shouldn't do that.  Whatever.  I may believe that way, but I don't *really* care that much.  

For me, however, the ability of the State to take my life for whatever reason they see fit (oftentimes, because of a State Officer's perceived "threat" that I may pose to them, or a fear of my threat), is the most important, consequential issue on the table in this country.  Or more accurately, it is the thing that I care most about. Anything else facing a citizen, that citizen at least has a fighting chance.  But in this situation, faced with a corrupt State actor, or an incompetent State actor, or even a competent yet irrationally fearful State actor, there is NOTHING that can be done to fight back.  

There are enough documented videotaped pieces of evidence where a State actor used his firearm against a citizen for me to now question ANY other time the State actor uses his firearm and it's not videotaped.  We have caught too many police officers lying about it.

I'm not sure why you are so cavalier about this particular issue.  Probably because it doesn't personally effect you or your kids.  I wonder if you had a black son if it would be different. 
Click to expand...
I agree with your valid points.  I just think you need to state them forthrightly and not cheapen them with nonsensical arguments.  I very much agree with you in fact.

As for the skin color of my children you may be surprised.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Please do not mistake me, I am not defending the police here, I am simply wondering why you seem to want to venture into the world of fantasy and denial to get to that simple premise.  He had every chance to comply.  (I think he could have been given more, but he had many chances)  As for any doubt that he knew it was the police there are street lights in that neighborhood.  There were lights on the houses.  the cops were in uniform, having arrived in marked units, and had air support.  You can seek refuge in the unreasonable epistemological point that none of us know what he knew then, but to a moral certainty we all know, and deep down inside you do too. 

Hell any 5 year old pee wee in that neighborhood can spot an unmarked car and a plainclothesman three blocks away in the dead of night. Still, if it comforts you to take refuge in fantasy be my guest.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in giving the benefit of doubt to the police in a situation where a young unarmed man was gunned down in his own backyard. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet J said:
With that cavalier response, yes, I'd be surprised.  But to each there own.  We all have out own level of shame we can live with. 
Click to expand...
You fascinate me.  I like your forthright and unapologetic approach.  I don't respect your reading comprehension level, but I like you. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
California considering changing laws about deadly force

I don't know if this will really help, but it's time to do something.  I personally witnessed two different unarmed people get gunned down by multiple San Diego cops when I lived there.  It's far to easy for cops to shoot people and justify it.

I only read the last three or four pages of this thread.  Apologies if it's a repost.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
California considering changing laws about deadly force

I don't know if this will really help, but it's time to do something.  I personally witnessed two different unarmed people get gunned down by multiple San Diego cops when I lived there.  It's far to easy for cops to shoot people and justify it.
Click to expand...
I wonder what events would occur in response to that change in the law.  Perhaps we will find out.  This I know, cooler heads may prevail if the law is changed, but hotter heads will have the first and loudest say. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I wonder what events would occur in response to that change in the law.  Perhaps we will find out.  This I know, cooler heads may prevail if the law is changed, but hotter heads will have the first and loudest say. 
Click to expand...
Can you actually train to be more discerning when you shoot?

 
I watched a guy with a garden trowel get shot 23 times by 4 or 5 cops.  At no point were they or anyone else in immediate danger from a six inch long shovel.  I’m not sure if that can be trained away, but the threat of criminal or civil liability because there’s no way that is “necessary” may be a deterrent. 

 
the rover said:
Can you actually train to be more discerning when you shoot?
Click to expand...
You can try.

To me the interesting thing is this will require Officers with "unique" temperament.  When things are unique they cost more.  Also, "unique" may be antithetical to demographically representative highering practices at modest pay rates normally associated with government employment.  We shall find out.  I know this, some communities are already experiencing substantial difficulty attracting representative demographics into their Departments and recruiting of such has lead to reworking basic qualifications.  So too will this change.  I also know this, Police, Prosecutors, and Police Legal Advisors respect civilian leadership and the Legislatures and will implement the new law in a responsible fashion.  We will make it work a few #### ups aside.

 
I don’t know about training officers to be more discerning when shooting but they can definitely be trained to be more discerning in general.

The most recent video from Asheville is an example. Cops end up in a chase and then beat the crap out of a guy over jaywalking. Yes, the guy was being rude and yes he did take off running, but why chase him down, choke him and beat him up? They had no suspicion of any other crime and basically are just pissed of that he’s not respecting them.

I believe there are lots of changes police departments can make to be more discerning about when, how, why and where they pursue peopls. They can also improve how they interact with people. Many departments are working on these things, but we have a long way to go.

 
Ilov80s said:
I don’t know about training officers to be more discerning when shooting but they can definitely be trained to be more discerning in general.

The most recent video from Asheville is an example. Cops end up in a chase and then beat the crap out of a guy over jaywalking. Yes, the guy was being rude and yes he did take off running, but why chase him down, choke him and beat him up? They had no suspicion of any other crime and basically are just pissed of that he’s not respecting them.

I believe there are lots of changes police departments can make to be more discerning about when, how, why and where they pursue peopls. They can also improve how they interact with people. Many departments are working on these things, but we have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with officers chasing down and restraining someone resisting arrest, but obviously they shouldn’t just beat somebody up.

Do you have a link to the video?  

 
jonessed said:
I have no issue with officers chasing down and restraining someone resisting arrest, but obviously they shouldn’t just beat somebody up.

Do you have a link to the video?  
Click to expand...
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wj7gdq/asheville-cop-who-who-beat-black-jaywalker-i-beat-the-####-out-of-his-head

I don’t think he was under arrest, they were admonishing him for jaywalking. IMO chasing a guy for jaywalking is following a bad decision with another. I know teaching isn’t the same as being an officer but we sometimes face similar situations: disgruntled person that’s not respecting our authority and cooperating with instructions. The stakes are lower (although I’ve had experience in juvenile detention and with mentally disturbed teens  where the stakes were pretty high at times) but we are absolutely trained on knowing how to de-escalate situations. Many of the officers in these videos repeatedly break the most basic rules and it ends up escalating the situations. IMO if the only reason an officer is talking with someone is over jaywalking, just let the guy run away. A chase creates so many potential negative outcomes that drastically outweigh the negatives of a jaywalker.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wj7gdq/asheville-cop-who-who-beat-black-jaywalker-i-beat-the-####-out-of-his-head

I don’t think he was under arrest, they were admonishing him for jaywalking. IMO chasing a guy for jaywalking is following a bad decision with another. I know teaching isn’t the same as being an officer but we sometimes face similar situations: disgruntled person that’s not respecting our authority and cooperating with instructions. The stakes are lower (although I’ve had experience in juvenile detention and with mentally disturbed teens  where the stakes were pretty high at times) but we are absolutely trained on knowing how to de-escalate situations. Many of the officers in these videos repeatedly break the most basic rules and it ends up escalating the situations. IMO if the only reason an officer is talking with someone is over jaywalking, just let the guy run away. A chase creates so many potential negative outcomes that drastically outweigh the negatives of a jaywalker.
Click to expand...
Shoulda just shot him.  Once you go down the path of jaywalking there's really no coming back.  The guy might have killed someone had the cops not beat the crap out of him.

:coffee:

 
Ilov80s said:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wj7gdq/asheville-cop-who-who-beat-black-jaywalker-i-beat-the-####-out-of-his-head

I don’t think he was under arrest, they were admonishing him for jaywalking. IMO chasing a guy for jaywalking is following a bad decision with another. I know teaching isn’t the same as being an officer but we sometimes face similar situations: disgruntled person that’s not respecting our authority and cooperating with instructions. The stakes are lower (although I’ve had experience in juvenile detention and with mentally disturbed teens  where the stakes were pretty high at times) but we are absolutely trained on knowing how to de-escalate situations. Many of the officers in these videos repeatedly break the most basic rules and it ends up escalating the situations. IMO if the only reason an officer is talking with someone is over jaywalking, just let the guy run away. A chase creates so many potential negative outcomes that drastically outweigh the negatives of a jaywalker.
Click to expand...
Teaching and being a cop are completely different. As a teacher there isn't a legit risk that the reason the kid doesn't want to stop eating paste is because he is actually wanted for murder and is trying to avoid getting caught. You also have the advantage of you know, actually probably already knowing who it is you are dealing with, knowing their address, things like that where allowing deescalation in the moment is fine because it can be dealt with later.  

For the same reason you are arguing they shouldn't chase a guy for something as minor as jaywalking is exactly why they should chase a guy for jaywalking. I mean who runs from the cops because of a jaywalking ticket? Idiots and people wanted for worse.   

So nothing wrong with chasing a guy down in that scenario. 

Once two cops have the guy on the ground though, there was zero reason for punching him in the head like that. I don't even think it helps you get cuffs on him. How could it? You are taking away a hand to use for cuffing and you aren't hitting him hard enough to incapacitate. It is really just stupid and was clearly done due to his pride being injured. Then the idiot cop is mad because the guy's blood got on him? So dumb. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Teaching and being a cop are completely different. As a teacher there isn't a legit risk that the reason the kid doesn't want to stop eating paste is because he is actually wanted for murder and is trying to avoid getting caught. You also have the advantage of you know, actually probably already knowing who it is you are dealing with, knowing their address, things like that where allowing deescalation in the moment is fine because it can be dealt with later.  

For the same reason you are arguing they shouldn't chase a guy for something as minor as jaywalking is exactly why they should chase a guy for jaywalking. I mean who runs from the cops because of a jaywalking ticket? Idiots and people wanted for worse.   

So nothing wrong with chasing a guy down in that scenario. 

Once two cops have the guy on the ground though, there was zero reason for punching him in the head like that. I don't even think it helps you get cuffs on him. How could it? You are taking away a hand to use for cuffing and you aren't hitting him hard enough to incapacitate. It is really just stupid and was clearly done due to his pride being injured. Then the idiot cop is mad because the guy's blood got on him? So dumb. 
Click to expand...
It was handled awful from the start, including the way in which they interacted with him.  If he was a guy in a business suit on a Monday morning, would they have spoken to him like that? 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Teaching and being a cop are completely different. As a teacher there isn't a legit risk that the reason the kid doesn't want to stop eating paste is because he is actually wanted for murder and is trying to avoid getting caught. You also have the advantage of you know, actually probably already knowing who it is you are dealing with, knowing their address, things like that where allowing deescalation in the moment is fine because it can be dealt with later.  
Click to expand...
I acknowledged they are very different but you are greatly underestimating situations. It’s not eating paste. There are fights, kids threatening others, kids threatening you. I have experience in juvenile detention and classrooms for kids with extreme mental and emotional problems problems. It’s not the same as being a cop but I’ve had kids threaten to stab me and I’ve had kids rape other kids. Those places are serious and there is liability. There are risks. We are trained for how restrain students and if we mess that up, it’s big trouble. De-escalation techniques are absolutely essential. I know cops get trained on these things, but I think it needs to be a bigger emphasis. The same goes with teaching and support staff because I’ve observed a lot of teachers not use the tactics and escalate situations to where things get ugly.

For the same reason you are arguing they shouldn't chase a guy for something as minor as jaywalking is exactly why they should chase a guy for jaywalking. I mean who runs from the cops because of a jaywalking ticket? Idiots and people wanted for worse.   

So nothing wrong with chasing a guy down in that scenario. 
Click to expand...
Perhaps and maybe it will come out he had a warrant out for a sexual assault or something but now it seems like this was just a guy that was leaving work, felt like the cops were harassing and made a dumb split decision. 

I ran from the cops before when I was a teen. Drinking in the park or smoking a joint in a parking lot. The cops never chased me down. 

Once two cops have the guy on the ground though, there was zero reason for punching him in the head like that. I don't even think it helps you get cuffs on him. How could it? You are taking away a hand to use for cuffing and you aren't hitting him hard enough to incapacitate. It is really just stupid and was clearly done due to his pride being injured. Then the idiot cop is mad because the guy's blood got on him? So dumb. 
Click to expand...
Agree completely here. I can understand if we disagree in some spots on the other points, but no doubt this cop acted like a total #######. 

 
Sweet J said:
It was handled awful from the start, including the way in which they interacted with him.  If he was a guy in a business suit on a Monday morning, would they have spoken to him like that? 
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. For something so minor, lots of cops wouldn’t even bother to stop yet alone get out and address someone like that. Tone and how you approach someone makes such a big difference in how people cooperate, especially under stress like this.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Teaching and being a cop are completely different. As a teacher there isn't a legit risk that the reason the kid doesn't want to stop eating paste is because he is actually wanted for murder and is trying to avoid getting caught. You also have the advantage of you know, actually probably already knowing who it is you are dealing with, knowing their address, things like that where allowing deescalation in the moment is fine because it can be dealt with later.  

For the same reason you are arguing they shouldn't chase a guy for something as minor as jaywalking is exactly why they should chase a guy for jaywalking. I mean who runs from the cops because of a jaywalking ticket? Idiots and people wanted for worse.   

So nothing wrong with chasing a guy down in that scenario. 

Once two cops have the guy on the ground though, there was zero reason for punching him in the head like that. I don't even think it helps you get cuffs on him. How could it? You are taking away a hand to use for cuffing and you aren't hitting him hard enough to incapacitate. It is really just stupid and was clearly done due to his pride being injured. Then the idiot cop is mad because the guy's blood got on him? So dumb. 
Click to expand...
See this is a problem.   The Supreme Court has ruled that running from cops is not, in itself, a crime.   Lots of people are justifiably afraid of cops.  When the cops overreact and beat them, tase them or shoot them for running away, they need to start reevaluating why they're chasing them in the first place.

 
-fish- said:
See this is a problem.   The Supreme Court has ruled that running from cops is not, in itself, a crime.   Lots of people are justifiably afraid of cops.  When the cops overreact and beat them, tase them or shoot them for running away, they need to start reevaluating why they're chasing them in the first place.
Click to expand...
This might be relevant to this discussion if the cops had a sting operation here where they just decided to randomly run at dudes and then if the guys ran issue resisting arrest tickets. 

The last part is also pretty funny. People run from the police because the police shoot them for running away!!!!

 
parasaurolophus said:
This might be relevant to this discussion if the cops had a sting operation here where they just decided to randomly run at dudes and then if the guys ran issue resisting arrest tickets. 

The last part is also pretty funny. People run from the police because the police shoot them for running away!!!!
Click to expand...
I have zero issue with chasing the guy down. The officers need to show some restraint once they catch him though.  Control him and cuff him.  There’s no place for beating somebody up.

Running away because you are afraid of getting shot for running away is definitely a bit counter-intuitive ?.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/4/17199512/stephon-clark-california-police-shootings-lethal-force

The fatal police shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento last month reopened the national conversation about race, policing, and police violence. California lawmakers are now proposing legislation that would restrict when police officers can use lethal force.

On Tuesday, state legislators announced that they had introduced a measure that would allow officers to use deadly force “only when necessary’ rather than ‘when reasonable,’” said Sacramento Assembly member Kevin McCarty, one of the bill’s sponsors.

Supporters of the new policy say that it’s an important distinction, especially in light of several recent high-profile police shootings of unarmed black men and women.

“Clearly the current standard ... isn’t enough to prevent the unnecessary deaths of members of the community, particularly people of color,” said Lizzie Buchen, a legislative advocate with the American Civil Liberties Union of California, at a press conference announcing the legislation. “It’s given legal cover to killings that have devastated communities, and resulted in people feeling less safe.”...
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

 
Shaun King‏ @ShaunKing 8m8 minutes ago

I kid you not.

The horrible conservative Sacramento DA, Anne Marie Schubert, has literally built a fence around the DA's office to keep protestors (and the whole community) away.

Never seen anything like it.

It's a metaphor for her awful leadership in the city.

#StephonClark

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/987447831601602561 (photo of fence at link)

 
squistion said:
Shaun King‏ @ShaunKing 8m8 minutes ago

I kid you not.

The horrible conservative Sacramento DA, Anne Marie Schubert, has literally built a fence around the DA's office to keep protestors (and the whole community) away.

Never seen anything like it.

It's a metaphor for her awful leadership in the city.

#StephonClark

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/987447831601602561 (photo of fence at link)
Click to expand...
Maybe it's to keep crazy criminals out like his brother

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article209360769.html

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
804
FairWarning
FairWarning
E
NYC sucker-puncher. He’s in jail. He’s out of jail. He’s back in jail…
2
Replies
75
Views
2K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
GordonGekko
Revisiting Rae Carruth's Conviction - A Resource Management Perspective On The Death Penalty (10/12/22 20:52 PST)
Replies
2
Views
514
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top