St. Louis: White Missouri cop kills armed black 18-year-old

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Right. In the meantime:

Between 200 and 300 people gathered behind police crime scene tape early Wednesday morning after the shooting.

At least two cops were injured after the crowd become unruly and four people were arrested at the scene for assaults against police officers, the department said.

Someone set off explosive fireworks next to a gas pump, scattering people and briefly spreading panic. Vandals set fire to the QuikTrip across the street from the gas station.

A police officer was taken to the hospital with leg wounds after he was injured while trying to flee from the explosion. A second officer was hit in the face with a brick, police said.

The cops did not use tear gas or flash bangs to quell the violent crowd, police said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2055525

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I find such behavior acceptable under the circumstances. I don't.

Where we differ, as I said in that earlier post, is on the causes of this reaction and other similar reactions to police killing civilians. It is not "left wing propaganda". It's the impunity with which police are able to use deadly force.

There are instances where deadly force is justified and instances where it isn't. The problem is that the police are immune from the consequence of their actions in virtually all cases, justifiable and unjustifiable alike.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

true, i see nothing wrong however with having a conversation to discover if an unarmed man needs to be shot 12 times in 3 bursts.

to my mind's eye this is worth exploring

The law is pretty clear on that. The cop is under no obligation to stop shooting after every shot to ascertain the physical condition of a threatening suspect. Once the decision is made to shoot a threatening suspect, it's immaterial in the eyes of the law if he is shot once between the eyes or multiple times before expiring. The whole point is to make him expire and cops are trained to shoot until he does. Take the time to read up a bit on this and maybe you'll decide to bury this red herring once and for all.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Sorry, but I must assume you have access to the Google Machine. Do a search yourself, but make sure your Google search string discriminates between those who were justifiably shot and those who were not. Otherwise, it's meaningless (cops shooting armed hostage-takers or armed, barricaded madmen ain't necessarily a bad thing). Once you've completed your search, I'll be happy to review it. Carry on.

Given the virtual impunity with which the police operate these days, such a statistic is meaningless.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I find such behavior acceptable under the circumstances. I don't.

Where we differ, as I said in that earlier post, we disagree on the causes of this reaction and other similar reactions to police killing civilians. It is not "left wing propaganda". It's the impunity with which police are able to use deadly force.

There are instances where deadly force is justified and instances where it isn't. The problem is that the police are immune from the consequence of their actions in virtually all cases, justifiable and unjustifiable alike.

John

The issue simply boils down to the standard of whether a cop is reasonable in perceiving a threat (regardless of whether a threat actually exists (as in a realistic-looking toy gun)). In recognition of the dangers/uncertainties of policing (or even personal self-defense), this is what the law has evolved to. If you don't like the results this standard has brought, I think you'll have to get behind a case that goes all the way to the SCOTUS and overturn it. Unfortunately in the real world, I'm not sure any other standard makes sense (or at least that's the courts have decided).

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The law is pretty clear on that. The cop is under no obligation to stop shooting after every shot to ascertain the physical condition of a threatening suspect. Once the decision is made to shoot a threatening suspect, it's immaterial in the eyes of the law if he is shot once between the eyes or multiple times before expiring. The whole point is to make him expire and cops are trained to shoot until he does. Take the time to read up a bit on this and maybe you'll decide to bury this red herring once and for all.

without a conversation, nothing will change

i will not accept that shooting an unarmed man 12 times in 3 bursts is not worth exploring to possibly find a better way going forward

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There was a time when HoCo police were a little edgy. This occurred in the late '60s and early '70s when the construction of Columbia changed the county from a small white agricultural backwater into a large semi-urban, semi-industrial county with a diverse population containing a significant number of urban blacks from Washington and Baltimore. It was a situation totally alien to the experience of the County Police. That gradually changed with the police force increased in size and diversity and trained to function in the new reality.

Nothing lasts forever, though, and there is now a siege mentality that has infected police everywhere. It's not surprising to me to learn that HoCo has fallen victim to it.

The cops have for years referred to the rest of us as "civilians". This always implied a distinct separation between the cops and the people they were sworn to protect. Cops have always felt aggrieved and misunderstood and, over the years, they've developed a mythology wherein they are an island of blue in a storm-tossed sea of at best profound misunderstanding and at worst lethal hostility.

It's reached the point where an atmosphere of fear and apprehension suffuses every interaction between "them and us". These encounters almost never end in a way that both parties would consider good. Often they end in profoundly tragic ways. Since the police are the ones who are always armed, the tragedies tend to accumulate on the "civilian" side.

John

Actually John the great majority of the cops here are OK. Florence happened to be openly carrying her 6mm air pistol openly - 1911 Colt replica and a good one. Young girl in an SUV parked across the road talking to her boy friend (he lives across the road) and she went nuts and called the cops. They arrived and we all had a good laugh. Even showed them my 6mm Beretta Cheetah replica. Mind you both exceed 500fps so ar not recommended for paintball as they have been known to draw blood.

[sheltiedave]

That is wrong, Finn. The police are allowed to use reasonable force to affect the arrest of the suspect. They are not allowed to use unreasonable force to kill a suspect.

The same holds true in civlant, re the Minnesota murders.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

without a conversation, nothing will change

i will not accept that shooting an unarmed man 12 times in 3 bursts is not worth exploring to possibly find a better way going forward

Would it have made any difference if Brown had been shot once between the eyes? Would your entire opinion on Ferguson have changed if Wilson was a better marksman under pressure?

[sheltiedave]

Would it make any difference to you if brown was attempting to surrender?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

That is wrong, Finn. The police are allowed to use reasonable force to affect the arrest of the suspect. They are not allowed to use unreasonable force to kill a suspect.

The same holds true in civlant, re the Minnesota murders.

I never said they were. In the eyes of the law (concerning just about all behaviors, BTW) the "reasonable man" standard applies. Cops are allowed to use deadly force if they reasonably perceive a threat, whether or not the threat was real (e.g., a bank robber or kidnapper using a toy gun). If it is determined that their perception of threat was unreasonable, the cop's in trouble. It has been thus for decades.