The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[grumbler]

Backing up is backing up.  Running away is running away.

Exactly.  Shooting someone should be the last resort, not the first.  I am fairly confident that the perp, if he really wanted to get shot, could and would have forced the cops to shoot him, but the answer to the "shoot/don't shoot" question should not always be "shoot."  There was time here to try to talk to the guy, but the cops didn't go that route.  I won't say that they were wrong, but I will say that they appeared to me to be wrong.

[Razgovory]

Backing up is backing up.  Running away is running away.

Exactly.  Shooting someone should be the last resort, not the first.  I am fairly confident that the perp, if he really wanted to get shot, could and would have forced the cops to shoot him, but the answer to the "shoot/don't shoot" question should not always be "shoot."  There was time here to try to talk to the guy, but the cops didn't go that route.  I won't say that they were wrong, but I will say that they appeared to me to be wrong.

Do you ever get tired of the absurdity of only responding to me through a third person?

[Berkut]

If they are backing up, they are essentially running away.

That is farscicle. No they are not, they are backing up. I don't even know how to respond to something that bizarre.

  It also increases the danger since the police are walking in a direction they aren't facing.

Oh noes, the danger is increased! There could be a bear behind them, or perhaps a zombie!

Your right, rather than walk backwards, shooting someone is the only option.

  Since both officers were standing next to each other the guy with the knife could move towards both at the same time.

So maybe they could move away from each other, while backing up and checking their six for bears or gremlins?

Besides being dangerous, backing up only delays thing since the man with the knife was approaching the officers demanding they shoot him.

Well, we would not want to delay fulfilling his wish, now would we?

[Razgovory]

Okay, smart guy, how far should police have to back up when faced with a knife wielding maniac?  How close should the knife wielder be allowed to get.  I need an exact number.

I would have it thought obvious that crossing a street while walking backwards and carrying a firearm as a man with a knife advances on you is in fact dangerous.

[Berkut]

Okay, smart guy, how far should police have to back up when faced with a knife wielding maniac?  How close should the knife wielder be allowed to get.  I need an exact number.

I would have it thought obvious that crossing a street while walking backwards and carrying a firearm as a man with a knife advances on you is in fact dangerous.

There are no "exact numbers". It depends on the circumstances, obviously. If taking 100 steps backs will result in them avoiding shooting someone, then they should take 100. If taking 1 step back results in them being a position where they have no choice but to use deadly force, then the answer is zero steps.

I trust police officers to know when they can move around safely and when they cannot. Certainly if the person in question has them pinned against something that they cannot maneuver any longer, then obviously that enters into their decision to use deadly force. It should also enter into their decision about how to approach any situation, of course.

You just don't get it - it isn't a matter of "How far should they 'have to' back up". They should back up however far is necessary. And it isn't about what they "have to" do before they can unload on someone - that is exactly the attitude I am talking about. They question is not "Can we shoot him" the question should be "Must we shoot him".

[grumbler]

Okay, smart guy, how far should police have to back up when faced with a knife wielding maniac?  How close should the knife wielder be allowed to get.  I need an exact number.

I would have it thought obvious that crossing a street while walking backwards and carrying a firearm as a man with a knife advances on you is in fact dangerous.

There are no "exact numbers". It depends on the circumstances, obviously. If taking 100 steps backs will result in them avoiding shooting someone, then they should take 100. If taking 1 step back results in them being a position where they have no choice but to use deadly force, then the answer is zero steps.

I trust police officers to know when they can move around safely and when they cannot. Certainly if the person in question has them pinned against something that they cannot maneuver any longer, then obviously that enters into their decision to use deadly force. It should also enter into their decision about how to approach any situation, of course.

You just don't get it - it isn't a matter of "How far should they 'have to' back up". They should back up however far is necessary. And it isn't about what they "have to" do before they can unload on someone - that is exactly the attitude I am talking about. They question is not "Can we shoot him" the question should be "Must we shoot him".

Save your breathe, dude.  He and his twin have already decided that shooting is the first choice.  Others are far more reasonable; save it for them.

[Razgovory]

I know you meant calling Derspeiss my "twin" was supposed be insulting, but I am actually flattered.  I have healthy respect for the man.  We may differ in politics (though not necessarily as much as we seem to on Languish), but he's decent guy.

[jimmy olsen]

 

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2014/08/27/st-paul-cops-allegedly-taser-and-arrest-black-male-sitting-public-space

St. Paul cops allegedly taser and arrest black male for sitting in public space
By Kristoffer Tigue, TC Daily Planet
August 27, 2014

UPDATE: Christopher Lollie, the man identified in the video claims charges against him were dropped. Read more here.

A video showing the arrest of a black St. Paul man for allegedly sitting in a public space and refusing to give up his name surfaced yesterday, Aug. 26 — only weeks after the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Missouri re-sparked the national debate on race and police profiling.

The video, shot by the man's cellphone, shows his interaction with officers as he attempts to pick up his children from New Horizon Academy in downtown St. Paul. As the officers force the man to put his hands behind his back, he drops his phone and the video goes black, but the audio continues and we hear the man crying for help and proclaiming that his kids are watching. Both officers in the video are white.

"Why do I have to let you know who I am?" the man asks the first female officer at the beginning of the video. "I don't have to let you know who I am if I haven't broken any laws."

From the following dialogue, it appears the police were called by a store clerk, who was upset over the man sitting in front of his store. The man in the video tells the officer he was sitting in front of the store for 10 minutes as he waited for his kids to get out of school, and that the area is public and he had a right to sit there.

"The problem was —" the female officer begins.

"The problem is I'm black," the man fires back. "It really is, because I'm not sitting there with a group of people. I'm sitting there by myself. By myself, not causing a problem."

Eventually a second male officer approaches the man in the video and attempts to restrain him.

"I've got to go get my kids," the man tells the second officer, pulling his arm away. "Please don't touch me."

"You're going to go to jail then," the second officer says.

"I'm not doing anything wrong," the man replies.

At this point, both officers grab the man.

"Come on brother," the man says, "This is assault."

"I'm not your brother," the second officer replies. "Put your hands behind your back otherwise it's going to get ugly."

Eventually the officers start to cuff the man and he drops his cellphone and the video goes black.

"I haven't done anything wrong!" we hear the man yell. "Can somebody help me? That's my kids, right there! My kids are right there!"

"Put your hands behind your back!" the male officer screams.

We hear the flicker of a Taser and the man screams out. As they move away from the cellphone, the man continues to plea to passersby to help him.

In the distance the scene calms down and the man continues to explain to the officers that he still hasn't broken any laws, that he stayed calm, didn't curse and wasn't attempting to flee — making cuffing him and tasering him unnecessary.

"I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a working man. I take care of my kids. And I get this?" we hear him say. "And you tase me. For what? I don't have any weapons. You're the ones with the weapons here."

Watch the video below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UWH578nAasM

[sbr]

spiess is disappointed in the lack of gun fire.

[Ed Anger]

I know I am.

[garbon]

I hope the Black Community swoops in and helps him sue.

[CountDeMoney]

Okay, smart guy, how far should police have to back up when faced with a knife wielding maniac?  How close should the knife wielder be allowed to get.  I need an exact number.

Officer's discretion.

I would have it thought obvious that crossing a street while walking backwards and carrying a firearm as a man with a knife advances on you is in fact dangerous.

Not that obvious.

[Kleves]

What I can't understand is why the cops didn't just shoot the knife out of the guy's hand when he started coming toward them.

[Darth Wagtaros]

What I can't understand is why the cops didn't just shoot the knife out of the guy's hand when he started coming toward them.

Yeah, preferably while holding the gun sideways to increase the coolness factor.

[derspiess]

I know you meant calling Derspeiss my "twin" was supposed be insulting, but I am actually flattered.  I have healthy respect for the man.  We may differ in politics (though not necessarily as much as we seem to on Languish), but he's decent guy.

Save your breathe, dude.  He and his twin have already decided that backing up into a street with traffic would have been the wisest choice.  Others are far more reasonable; save it for them.