Man killed by police officer had no gun

[Algorem]

Man killed by police officer had no gun
7/13/2005, 6:54 a.m. ET
The Associated Press

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/news-18/112124858097130.xml&storylist=cleveland

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) —...

But police spokesman Sgt. Brent Mull said the suspect, Shawn McCoy, 33, was known to carry weapons. And he noted that bank tellers said McCoy told them he had a gun and that information was relayed to SWAT officers.

SWAT officers had been following McCoy Monday morning, acting on a tip that he was planning a bank robbery, police said.

Police said the officer, Robert Coffman, 56, shot McCoy when he felt threatened. They haven't said how he felt threatened.

Franklin County Coroner Brad Lewis said McCoy died of multiple gunshot wounds...

[Mairead]

1. A badge seems to be a 'stay out of jail free' card for killers.

One wonders how they'll whitewash this one. Perhaps they'll say that he made a sudden movement, or reached toward his pocket, or gave his killer a dirty look. Or maybe, like that lunatic who was just given 99 years for having a big mouth, he just said something the cop didn't like.

[LisaL]

4. How about-he just robbed a bank and told the teller he got a gun?

Police are not psychic. If the bank robber says he got a gun, then they are going to believe he got a gun.
Frankly, sounds like 11 years in prison didn't teach this guy anything, and now he is dead.

[Mairead]

7. How about--they were already surveilling him, and would have

had a fairly good idea about whether he had a gun.

How about--shooting someone dead 'prophylacticly' is a crime.

[LisaL]

Robbing banks is a crime too.

[Mairead]

22. But it's not one for which the law is allowed to kill people!

We haven't quite devolved yet to 16th-century standards, when even being of the 'wrong' religion could bring execution. At present, robbing a bank is an offence for which one is imprisoned for awhile, not shot dead!

[LiberalFighter]

54. They must had been given standing orders by the Governor...

in order to reduce the budget and relieve prison population and the need to build more prisons... shoot to kill anyone suspected of having a gun.

[Rich Hunt]

64. it's a capital crime now?

Since when is robbing banks a capital crime?

Moreover, shooting a bank robber is impractical. I would think the guy would be more useful alive than dead.

[LisaL]

92. Useful for what, exactly?

What, there are not enough bank robbers in prison already?

[Rich Hunt]

189. are you this naive?

You don't think that felons can provide information about other felons, or do you think that all criminals operate in isolation?

This sort of naivete does nothing to help fight crime.

[LisaL]

199. This one operated in isolation. He robbed the bank alone.

What information would he be providing?
In fact, sounds like somebody provided the information on him, as somebody called the police with a tip.

[Dhalgren]

17. By the looks of these posts, I'd say it seems that everyone

here is ok with cops shooting down unarmed people. It seems to me that most police authorities would say that the shooting down of an unarmed suspect is an "error" or a "mistake". People, here, seem to think that if you commit a crime and have ever carried a weapon in the past, then the cops can just kill you and go on about their days. There is a difference between "explaining" why something happened and "justifying" why it happened. You can always explain the circumstances and situation that led up to the killing of an unarmed suspect, but not "justify" it. It can never be considered "right" to shoot down and unarmed person - it may be explainable, but never justified.

Again, if you cross the path of the police, stay alert and hope the cop you are dealing with doesn't "feel" the need to shoot you...

[TX-RAT]

26. I guess him telling everybody he had a gun doesn't matter to you.

[Mairead]

28. Show us the statute that says telling a lie is a capital offence.

The cops had been following him the whole while. They had many non-lethal options for bagging him. Lying is not a capital offence in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

I note that this is one case where using a tazer would have made sense--and naturally they didn't even try.

[TX-RAT]

30. "Show us the statute that says telling a lie is a capital offence."

You've got to be kidding.

He broke the law the moment he announced he had a weapon, and was robbing the bank, whether he had one or not was irrelevant after that.

(offense)

[Mairead]

33. No, I'm not kidding. And you don't understand how the rule of law works.

[TX-RAT]

36. LMAO

That was snappy.

[Rich Hunt]

66. LMAO

That was logical and thoughtful....not, not, not!!

[maquisard]

94. Why would she be kidding?

In this country, only the most egregious offenses warrant the death penalty, right? That's a basic fact we can agree upon, isn't it? So why do you find it so laughable that anyone would question a law enforcement officer's right to use lethal force on persons guilty of far lesser offenses which do not come even close to commanding the death penalty?

I've often wondered how we get our minds around this inconsistency. A petty thief may break into your house for instance to steal a beer and half a cold chicken from your refrigerator. If you're not home when s/he commits this crime and is subsequently apprehended, this crime will barely even warrant jail time. If, on the other hand, you happen to be home when this person climbs through your window, it's okay for you to kill him/her. It seems a little strange to me, but I gather it doesn't offend your sense of logic.

[chunkylover55]

106. You're joking right?

Someone breaks into my house, I'm shooting them. Its called self defense.

I'm not going to bother to ask them if they're there to "steal a beer and half a cold chicken" or rape my wife. The fact of the matter is they're breaking into my home obviously to commit a crime. I don't need to know exactly what that crime is. What, are you going to wait around and ask exactly why he's there and if he has a gun, so you know whether to shoot him or not?

[maquisard]

110. Nope

So the destitute person who breaks into your house to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving daughter is equally as deserving of death as the homocidal maniac who breaks in with the intention of carving you and your family into little pieces? No difference at all between those two cases, huh? Both deserve death? Interesting ideas on justice you have there, I'm very happy that our courts don't follow such guidelines, I'd probably have been executed years ago for jaywalking.

[hughee99]

151. So if a person breaks into my house

I should ask him why he's there and run a background check? Assuming he's telling me the truth that he's just stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving daughter, I should do what, let him go? I don't really have the option to incarcerate him. I can attack him, which may or may not result in his death, or do nothing.

Is it reasonable to assume that someone who broke into my house is going to tell me the truth? If he tells me that he's there to beat my wife and I to death, is it then okay to kill him, since murder is a capital offense? If he tells me he's just there to beat me HALF to death and rape my wife then it's not okay to kill him because rape and aggravated assault are not capital offenses?

The fact is that if someone breaks into my house, I will have no idea what there intentions are, and if I stop to talk to him and find out, there's plenty of reason not to believe a word he says. This leaves me back where I started, with someone in my house who doesn't belong there, only now, they know where I am, and they know that I'm aware of them. If they were trying to sneak in, steal something, and sneak out, that is no longer an option for them.

[maquisard]

156. Well, you could try calling 911

...and locking yourself in your bedroom until the police arrive. Of course, it's not as much fun as filling somebody full of lead, but look on the bright side: then you don't have to pay to have the trespasser's brains cleaned out of your carpet!

[hughee99]

160. What if that's not an option?

What if I don't have access to the phone? What if the person is standing right in front of me? What if the person is already in my bedroom, or between me and a room with a door on it? I agree that 911 is the way to go here, but sometimes it's not always feasible. Am I required to have a dialog with the person before taking any action, and possibly lose any advantage I may have? I'm not saying that my first option is to attack the person, but should I have to get their side of the story before I do that?

[maquisard]

166. You're right, it depends upon the circumstances

I'm not saying that people don't have the right to defend themselves from bona fide threats and, in the instance you describe, I'm not sure how I'd react. If I possessed a firearm and had it trained on him/her, I would hope that it would give me enough sense of security to get the person to, I don't know, lie down with their legs crossed or something, long enough for me to call the police. It's not a terribly likely scenario in my case as I do not own a gun and I do have a telephone next to my bed, so, if I heard any strange sounds which gave me cause to believe my home was being burgled, hiding until the police arrived wouldpretty much be my only option. But I concede that, if I were armed and someone was in my home, was conspicuously armed and behaving in an overtly threatening fashion, shooting that person might well be the right thing to do under the circumstances. What I object to is the assertion that anyone who appears anywhere on your property for any reason is someone you are automatically entitled to kill. Self defense is one thing; recklessly shooting people who pose no threat is another. Whether you have any alternatives to shooting someone is obviously going to depend upon the specific circumstances, but I reject the notion that there are no circumstances under which nonlethal alternative courses of action are available and practical.

[hughee99]

195. I understand what your saying...

I tried not to say that I'd shoot anyone, since I do not own a gun either, so it wouldn't be realistic to suppose that I would be in a situation to shoot anyone. I was essentially referring to the two courses of action, violent and non-violent. IMHO, knowing the purpose of the intruder isn't practical, since you won't know for sure what their intentions are until after they've done what they've planned to do.

It really depends not on the persons intentions, but on the situation, IMHO. If someone were standing in my yard in the middle of the day, my first recourse wouldn't be to attack them, but if someone were standing over my bed at 3am, then I probably wouldn't be inclined to try diplomacy first.

[LisaL]

201. Well, the destitute person who breaks into a house

to steal a loaf of bread might be out of luck. You don't know the intentions of a person that breaks into your house. In case you don't recall, BTK would tell his victims he won't kill them, but after he tied them up, he did just that. So, I wouldn't recommend to trust anyone who breaks into your house even if they tell you they are not there to hurt you.
Could be a last mistake you ever make.

[okieinpain]

139. oh my god, how dare you protect yourself and family. why you evil

evil, evil, person. you should be banned to the outer areas of DU.

[maquisard]

Protect them from what, exactly?

From a homocidal maniac coming to butcher your family or from a homeless guy trying to get out of the snow in your garage? Oh that's right, I keep forgetting, in your world, they're equally deserving of death, so it doesn't matter what their intent was or whether they were a bona fide threat to you or anyone else, they're on your property, ergo they must be killed. Thank god I'm not your postal carrier, that must be a short-lived job, quite literally.

[okieinpain]

183. are you kidding. you have actually let homeless people sleep

in your garage. homeless people that you don't know. are you for real.

[primavera]

187. I'm for real

Naturally I didn't let homeless people sleep in my garage, what human being with a heart would? As soon as I found them sheltering in my garage, I did what any decent human being would do: I invited them inside for showers and food and a change of clothes and shelter and gave them some money and found a homeless shelter for them.

Lucky for them they came to my garage instead of yours, they'd evidently be dead by now.

[LisaL]

202. You are a very trusting person.

One day one of these homeless people might turn out to be anything but harmless. But oh well-if you want to live dangerously, it's your priority.

[primavera]

204. Given that they were starving...

... and hadn't had a decent night's sleep in god only knows how long, I'm pretty sure I wasn't living all that dangerously: I doubt they could have mustered enough energy to crush a fly in ill health. Besides, what else could I have done? I'm a Democrat, that means I try to help unfortunate people, not shoot them, that's what Republicans do to poor people and I want no truck with it.

[okieinpain]

216. I help the unforunate too, i pay taxes. I'll pray that your kindness

doesn't lead to anything happening to you or yours. for you are truly one of gods children.

[LiberalFighter]

56. OHIO § 2911.01. Aggravated robbery.

(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:

(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control and either display the weapon, brandish it, indicate that the offender possesses it, or use it;

Most states if not all have a law that provides it to be a crime to just state that you have a weapon while committing a crime. It is probably federal law too.


§ 2911.02. Robbery.

(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:

(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control;

(2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another;

(3) Use or threaten the immediate use of force against another.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery. A violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is a felony of the second degree. A violation of division (A)(3) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

[Mairead]

70. All your citation proves is that, *IF* you have a weapon,

you mustn't tell anyone! It doesn't say anything at all about pretending to have one.

Nor--and especially--does it make pretending into a capital crime or turn the pretender into an outlaw whose life is forfeit to the first killer on the scene.

[LiberalFighter]

95. (2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten

(2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another;

[Mairead]

113. Yes, fine, that means he can be charged with robbery. Did you think

that I didn't know that he committed a robbery?

Robbery is still not a capital crime. Even if he'd had a real weapon it wouldn't have been.

[maquisard]

96. Does the next paragraph...

...state that aggrevated robbery is a capital offense? I didn't see that in the section you cited, but maybe it's farther down...

[djg21]

71. I know!!!

They could have aimmed for his knees! Better yet, they could have snuck up from behind him and thrown a burlap bag over his head!

Please tell me, why does the criminal/perpetrator deserve the benefit of the doubt that you are so unwilling to extend to the police officer. My guess is that you have never, ever had a meaningful conversation with anyone who has worked in law enforcement, and that you know absolutely nothing about the topic which you are addressing.

BTW, just how is it that you know about "one case where using a tazer would have made sense--and (the police) didn't even try."

[okieinpain]

140. I've heard that banana peels are good for apprehending felons also

[djg21]

185. They are a little tough to carry in a holster however.

[Dhalgren]

35. "I guess him telling everybody he had a gun doesn't matter to

you." No, it doesn't. And it shouldn't matter to anyone. Regardless of how this scenario is spun, whenever the police gun down and unarmed person it is not the correct thing to do. We simply cannot allow our police in this country to have the power to execute people on the street based upon the police officer's "feeling" or suspicions. I know many people here seem to think that whatever the police do is for the good and that these things only happen to someone who has it coming. Well, we ought to be worried about who gets to decide who has it coming, because that can change...

[Rich Hunt]

68. as if it's never happened before...

Chicago: In June 1999, LaTanya Haggerty, a 19-year-old passenger in a car pulled over by Chicago police after a short chase, was shot dead when officers mistook the cell-phone in her hand for a gun. In September 1999, the Chicago Police Board (a police adjudicatory body) opened a hearing to decide on a recommendation by the police chief that the officers should be dismissed from the force. A day after the Haggerty shooting, Chicago police officers shot dead Robert Russ, a former college football player, after he refused to get out of his car after a pursuit. He was shot when an officer smashed the car window and pointed his gun directly into the car. The case was still under investigation at the time of writing. Both Haggerty and Russ were black.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511471999?open&of=ENG-2M4

By the way, after his death, Robert Russ was smeared in the media as having attended some party in which there was cocaine, as if that somehow mitigates the severity of this cold-blooded murder (IMO). I guess being an NU student wasn't enough - it may have helped if he weren't black, I guess.

Why are people on this thread "playing dumb" and pretending this doesn't happen?

[okieinpain]

142. I've been pretty glib on this post against those who are upset with

the shooting. so let me first appoligize, and give you some benefit of the doubt. they have not said what led to the shooting, and it is possible that the office overreacted.

I give the police the benefit of the doubt because it is a tough job, there are some real nut case's living in our small world. but there are also some real nut case's working in the police dept., who are just looking for a reason to use their guns.

now did I split that baby or what.

[northzax]

72. ok, scenario

man standing in a crowd of people, wearing a trench coat, claiming to have a bomb strapped around his waist. He's threatening to explode the bomb. Can you shoot him, or wait until he actually sets it off? I know it's not completely analogous, but there is a perceived weapon, real or not, and a decision to be made. what do you do?

second scenario, guy claims to have a gun, has committed violent felonies, is backed against the wall (literally) with a cop holding a gun on him. man reaches into his inside coat pocket. Should the officer wait until the gun is actually fired at him before he can shoot?

[maquisard]

103. Second one's easy

The cop should definitely wait to ascertain whether what is being reached for is, in fact, a gun. Remeber the guy in New York who got shot reaching for his keys? Or the tourist in Florida who got shot reaching for a wallet? There are thousands of these kinds of stories where a police officer inappropriately shot someone who was reaching for something that turned out to be purely innocent. If you have a gun out, cocked, and aimed directly at someone, you ought to have reasonable assurance that you will be able to pull the trigger before the person upon whom you are training the weapon has the chance to clear, aim, and fire theirs. In other words, you can spare a second to identify what's in the person's hand before just opening fire on them.

As for your first hypothetical, that's more interesting and harder, will have to think about that one.

[TX-RAT]

114. Thousands? gotta link for that?

[maquisard]

117. Only the accounts I read in the papers every week

... and have been reading in the papers every week for my entire life. Are you suggesting that accidental shootings by police don't take place? You must be astonished then to encounter this story if it's genuinely the first instance of which you've ever heard. Not sure what planet you've been living on if you've never encountered these sorts of stories yourself, but welcome to Earth, here it happens a lot.

[TX-RAT]

144. No links huh, thats what i thought.

[maquisard]

147. I see

So the collective experience of a lifetime worth of reading has no value unless I expressly cite chapter and verse for every article I've ever read in my entire life. Gotcha. Of course, I assume you would never be so hypocritical as to make statements without citing your sources, oh, but wait, it seems that you've expressed any number of opinions in the course of this thread. I assume you have sources for all of them and have the time and energy to reproduce them all for us right here and now. Good, I'll be eager to see your bibliography which I have no doubt will be forthcoming immediately.

[northzax]

118. ahh, on the second one

there is a difference between the police assuming that a gun is present and yelling "I have a gun" while reaching into your pocket.

the first case is usually fairly easy, unless there are serious mitigating circumstances, no shots should be fired. but the second? when someone claims to have a gun? can you then make an assumption that a gun is present? harder to consider.

the conplication is that cops are notoriously bad shots, especially under pressure, they simply don't train enough to react well in those circumstances. I remember the guy in new york, as I recall, the cops fired something like 45 times, from 15 feet away, and hit him 9 times. that's pretty fucking bad for people who carry guns for a living.

what scares me is knowing those stats, living in DC, I see metro cops, formerly the second level officers in DC, carrying assault rifles. is that supposed to make me feel safe?

[msmcghee]

41. Whoa!

You said, "People, here, seem to think that if you commit a crime and have ever carried a weapon in the past, then the cops can just kill you and go on about their days."

No, some people here think that, if you commit a crime and have ever carried a weapon in the past, and if you are in the process of committing another crime and you have claimed that you have a gun - then the cops can use their judgment as to whether you need to be shot (to protect the cops and the victims) - without worrying too much about people second guessing them.

In some cases cops are way out of line. But if you call them cold blooded killers every time they confront a real criminal with violent force - then you lose credibility with anyone who has any common sense.

[Dhalgren]

45. I think that the point was in this line:

"There is a difference between "explaining" why something happened and "justifying" why it happened." People on this thread are saying that the unarmed man had it coming and the cops were "justified" in shooting him down. I didn't say that the cops feel this way, I said that these posters seem to feel this way. The killing of an unarmed suspect may be explainable, but never justifiable. If you can justify the police killing an unarmed suspect, then we are all in the line of fire...

[LisaL]

46. The suspect just robbed a bank and said he had a gun.

I find that a good justification for shooting him. You don't even know if he pretended to pull out a gun when apprehended by an officer, or what.

[Rich Hunt]

74. you are right

...and your argument is very clear.

But don't expect some of your opponents to comprehend the subtleties of it.

[djg21]

63. By the looks of these posts . . .

There are a lot of seemingly intelligent persons who inexplicably rush to judgment and make uninformed, irrational, baseless, and just plain stupid generalizations about police officers any and every time one is called upon to use physical or deadly force.

I, for one, am thankful that some people are willing to become police officers. Moreover, IMO, police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt when they are forced to make snap judgments, especially when the consequences of a bad decision is the potential loss of the officer's life or injury to innocent bystanders.

[Rich Hunt]

76. um...no

No party should automatically be granted "the benefit of the doubt", especially when the state is involved.

You are essentially saying that the state should always be given the benefit of the doubt over the citizens.

[djg21]

86. No.

I'm saying that police officers should be (and in fact are under well-established Constitutional doctrines such as qualified immunity) entitled to substantial deference when they exercise discretion while performing their official duties. Without the ability to execise discretion, they would be rendered entirely unable to protect you and I from persons who are unwilling or unable to abide by laws intended to protect us. Such a result would be patently unworkable. Go speak with a police officer!

Um . . .

[maquisard]

105. And who protects the innocent from the overly zealous cop?

Agreed, police protect us - most of the time. Then again, every now and then, they blow it, exercise their discretion poorly, and inflict harm on an innocent person. Are you suggesting they should not be held accountable for those blunders? Why not? The rest of us are. Manslaughter is by definition accidental homicide, lacking any intent to do harm, yet it's still an imprisonable offense...

[djg21]

153. Are you suggestion that they are not now accountable?

Last time I checked (which was earlier this morning),a police officer whom unreasonably and improperly uses excessive force may be held civilly liable for a civil rights violation purusant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Criminal responsibility may also be imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy to injure citizens in the exercise of federal rights) and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (willful deprivations of federal rights under color of law).

[maquisard]

159. Just responding to your post

Your comment that law enforcement officers need to be granted considerable discretion in the exercise of their duties made it sound to me at least like you were giving them pretty close to total carte blanche to get away with murder (literally) and write off their conduct based on their necessary discretionary judgement. Discretionary authority in my experience is a potentially risky thing, as it leaves very little basis for enforcing accountability. If I misunderstood your meaning, my apologies.

[chunkylover55]

108. I'm ok with cops shooting people that are in the middle of a bank robbery

and claim to have a gun. Its a fair assessment to say if you're a cop and you're in that situation, you may feel your life is at risk.

The fact of the matter is that the cops deserve the benefit of the doubt, not the scumbag bank robber who lies about having a gun.

The anti-cop sentiment on this board amazes me.

[djg21]

162. I'm OK with cops shooting people . . .

who deserve it.

:evilgrin:

[TX-RAT]

165. The anti-cop sentiment on this board amazes me.

It gets worse, give them time.

[Endangered Specie]

152. There are guns that are so small that you couldnt see

them even if you were standing right next to the guy.

[sojourner]

43. just as your sig line says "we are in trouble"

[High Plains]

47. Here are two more unarmed people killed by cops this month

For all you cop apologists out there:


Drug Raids: Two Unarmed Men Killed in Separate Drug Raids

Hair-trigger police officers in separate drug raids in Utah and Florida shot and killed unarmed men early this month. In one case, the dead man was a suspicious, argumentative neighbor; in the other, an apparent fleeing suspect. In both cases, police conduct is causing questions to be asked.

West Valley City, Utah, resident Bounmy Ousa, 60, died after being shot three times in the stomach by undercover narcotics officers in an unmarked police car parked in front of his home as the prepared to raid a house down the street. According to an account from West Valley City police Captain Steve Sandquist, Ousa walked up to their car, and they identified themselves as police officers and ordered him to go back inside. Instead, Ousa continued to argue with the detectives, walking around to the driver’s side of the car as he did so.

According to Sandquist, Ousa reached behind his back and produced an object, prompting the detective on the driver’s side to fire. “"The officer feared for his safety. That's obviously why he took the shot," Sandquist said. "It was more than just reaching behind . He wasn't guessing. He made an observation of what he believed" to be a weapon, Sandquist said.

Except that the detective apparently was guessing, and guessing wrong. Police would not say whether Ousa actually had a weapon—a pretty good sign that he did not. But they were quick to release Ousa’s criminal record, which included three counts of driving under the influence of alcohol in the early 1990s and one domestic violence charge. Sandquist also volunteered to reporters that Ousa’s son, Steve, was a “documented member of an Asian gang.”

Ousa’s family members said he didn’t even own a gun. “They can say what they want, but he was not armed,” daughter Chandhda Ousa told the Associated Press. Her father was merely investigating suspicious men parked in front of his house and trying to protect his family she, said. “And he got killed for it.”

Steve Ousa told KSL TV5 that police initially tried to suggest Ousa had been the victim of a drive-by shooting. “Me and my mom were looking out the blinds the whole time he went out, approached the driver’s side door, and not even two or three seconds later and they shot him three times. Then after they shot him, they turned on their light, and when we came out said, ‘Oh, lucky we came in time, what happened?’ And I was like, ‘What do you mean, what happened?” and my dad was lying on the floor.”

Steve Ousa, who said his gang status was ancient history, told the Salt Lake City station the police acted as if a rival gang member had done the shooting. “I don’t have nothing against the police, but their asking if it was a rival gang member, they asked me like three times, ‘Are you sure no one drove by and shot your dad?’ when I seen it with my own eyes like 10 feet from my window to the driveway.”

As for his father allegedly reaching behind his back, Steve Ousa said his father had health problems that caused him to stand with his hand behind his hip sometimes. “If a 60-year-old man with gray hair approaches you, his shirt is tight because his belly is sticking out, do you think he’s going to hurt anybody? My dad never hurt anyone in his whole life. He’s a nice man, goes to work, takes care of our family.”

The West Valley City Police Department has declined any further comment on the killing. Both the department and the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office are conducting investigations.

About 12 hours later and 2000 miles away, a bizarre mid-day drug raid in Sarasota, Florida, ended with a handful of penny ante arrests, a bunch of traumatized children, and 44-year-old Michael Meluzzi dead, shot by police as he fled the scene unarmed. According to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, the Sarasota SWAT team, undercover narcotics agents, and uniformed officers roared up to a Newtown home, jumped out of a van, and threw multiple flash grenades into a yard where children were playing as they executed their bust.

Meluzzi was in the yard when the SWAT team exploded into action, witnesses told the Herald Tribune. Meluzzi had put his hands up and was about to get down on the ground when the explosions went off. “The next thing you know, 'Boom!' They blew the fence in, and he started running," said Tyran Young, 18.

Sarasota police reported that they twice fired Tasers at Meluzzi, with one missing and the other having no apparent impact. Then Sarasota Police Officer Alan Devaney, who was patrolling the raid perimeter with a police dog, ordered Meluzzi to stop. According to police, Meluzzi “reached into his waistband” and brought his right arm up in a quick motion. Delaney feared for his life and shot Meluzzi once, penetrating his right arm and chest. Meluzzi died soon after in the hospital. “He (Devaney) believed he was armed,” said Sarasota police spokesman Jay Frank.

No weapon was found.

Police were quick to release Meluzzi’s criminal record, which included convictions on burglary, aggravated assault, and cocaine possession. He had spent five of the last seven years in prison, state records show—which might explain why he was fleeing yet another unhappy encounter with police. Neighbors told the Herald Tribune Meluzzi worked as a mechanic and frequently stopped by the raided home to fix the cars there.

In addition to a dead Meluzzi, the raid netted three people on charges of failure to appear in court and one person on cocaine possession charges. A small amount of cash and two weapons were seized.

As for throwing flashbang grenades into yards full of children, not to worry—that’s just business as usual, said Frank. "They were thrown outside the house as a diversionary tactic," he said. "It's standard operating procedure. They're not used to hurt anybody. They just make noise." Besides, there was a nice, friendly narcotics officer who “immediately went over to take care of .” Presumably not one of those ones who look like Imperial Storm Troopers in their SWAT get-up. Or the ones trying to Taser people. Or the ones with snarling drug dogs. Or the ones who shoot a fleeing man before their eyes.

[TryingToWarnYou]

69. No source? How convenient. NT

[Rich Hunt]

80. errr...

The poster probably should have used an attribution, but I'm sure you can google. It might be more civil to do that rather than attribute suspect motives to him or her.

[TryingToWarnYou]

84. Maybe, but if they are going to make claims, they can source it.

Its called 'courtesy'.

My guess is that his information comes from an anti gun/anti law enforcement site...thats hardly reliable or unbiased.

EDIT to add that I just Googled several unique key phrases and got no hits whatsoever. I stand by my earlier assessment.

[High Plains]

109. You didn't try too damned hard

Go to Google, type in the name of the Utah victim, Bounmy Ousa, and hit the news search button:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2846236
http://radio.ksl.com/index.php?sid=217395&nid=19
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=39&sid=217203

Do the same with the Florida victim, Michael Meluzzi:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050709/NEWS/507090384
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/12102738.htm

etc.

So, what the hell were you googling, "anti-law enforcement," "cop hater," or what?

Those are all mainstream media sources, along with comments straight from the cops' mouths. Do you still stand by your earlier assessment?

[TryingToWarnYou]

155. I want to know where the poster got his comments.

I used: "In one case, the dead man was a suspicious, argumentative neighbor;"

For example..

Its called specific language.

I never questioned media sources of the event, just the posters source since he didnt provide it.

And while we are on the subject, I would wager that specific language and phrases, such as above, would not be found in a reputable source.

Yes, I still stand by my assessment that the poster found some anti-cop, pro-crook website and quoted it with all the loaded language and opinions.

[High Plains]

168. I wrote the damn thing.

I described the dead man as "a suspicious, argumentative neighbor."

Do you have a problem with that specific language? Do you find it an inaccurate encapsulation of the mainstream news articles? If so, please explain why.

I write something called the Drug War Chronicle. You can check it out at www.stopthedrugwar.org. It is a web site devoted to reforming the nation's drug laws--the source of many of these killings and much other police thuggery. You might also check out my weekly feature, "This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories." Never any shortage of those either.

We're not too fond of overzealous policing in the name of the drug war. We criticize when we think it occurs. We also report on the end results of investigations. We typically find prosecutors who can't convince grand juries to indict (and we all know what that means) and in the rare cases that go to trial, juries who refuse to convict. Maybe they're right, but it sure smells funny.

So, does that make the Drug War Chronicle "anti-cop, pro-crook"?

[TX-RAT]

172. Are we advertising our web site?

Explains your reason for being here.

[Rich Hunt]

191. are you suspecting someone's motives?

With what basis?

As the charter states, this is a progressive website.

Somehow I don't think the poster is posting the link to make lots of money or get attention.

Someone else asked for the credentials, she gives them, and you call her (in so many words) an attention hog.

It's the double-team strategy again. I've seen this tactic a lot on DU lately.

[TX-RAT]

220. Just pointing out the obvious.

[High Plains]

193. Fuck off n/t

What is your reason for being here?

[High Plains]

196. Sorry, bad form there.

I shouldn't have put n/t in the subject line if I was going to say something else in the main body. My apologies.

[TX-RAT]

221. To promote and support the democratic party.

Not to bash Law Enforcement ( which in this area, tend to vote democrat ) or promote my web site for the legalization of drugs.

("Fuck off n/t")?
Ain't you cute!

[TryingToWarnYou]

223. Ok.

I described the dead man as "a suspicious, argumentative neighbor."

Ok, why not just report the facts as opposed to your biased opinion?

Do you have a problem with that specific language? Do you find it an inaccurate encapsulation of the mainstream news articles? If so, please explain why.

Its an opinion, not fact. You are having trouble seeing the difference.

I write something called the Drug War Chronicle. You can check it out at www.stopthedrugwar.org . It is a web site devoted to reforming the nation's drug laws--the source of many of these killings and much other police thuggery.

Yep, Im sure theres no anti-cop rhetoric there. Im also sure that your whole opinion of the WOD and cops is a balanced, fair assessment. FWIW, I think the WOD is a crock of shit.

You might also check out my weekly feature, "This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories." Never any shortage of those either.

Sure and plenty of folks like you to take the facts, twist them, make stuff up, give opinions, leave out information etc. etc. etc. Im in no way saying that there arent dirty cops. There are plenty. I just dont expect folks that write anti-cop stuff to be very fair and balanced.

We're not too fond of overzealous policing in the name of the drug war.

I imagine so.

We criticize when we think it occurs. We also report on the end results of investigations. We typically find prosecutors who can't convince grand juries to indict (and we all know what that means)

What it typically means is that there wasnt enough evidence to indict. What it also means is that due process is working.

and in the rare cases that go to trial, juries who refuse to convict. Maybe they're right, but it sure smells funny.

And maybe they found that the offenders didnt break the law?

So, does that make the Drug War Chronicle "anti-cop, pro-crook"?

I dont know as Ive never seen it or read it, but by reading your comments here, you have a problem with cops. Thats going to cloud your judgement.

[Rich Hunt]

190. okay...

But the fact is, the stories she told trace to actual news sources.

You could probably find the names in a news database, such as Lexis-Nexis. That is certainly true about the 'taser' story.

Whether an "anti-gun" site cited the story doesn't render the account itself fictional.

[Lilith Velkor]

93. here's a source

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/metro/md/princegeorges/government/police/shootings/

Not the same case, but a reference to dozens of others.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catnhatnh]

206. I'm commenting here late...

and jumping on an early reply to have something I posted in GD read here....the police had a tip he was going to rob a bank and had the suspect under surveilence.They had reason (they claim) to suspect he had a gun.Then instead of arresting him on the FEDERAL FELONY of being a felon in possession of a firearm,they decided to try for "Big Casino" and LET him walk into a bank full of innocent civilians while they suspected he was armed-and then when he exited the bank one of THEM felt"threatened" and shot him to death!!!Past the obvious stupidity of allowing someone you beleive to be an ARMED PREDICATE FELON enter a bank full of people you swore to "protect and serve" how about an award for chutzpah...followed by a major investigation???

[djg21]

218. Do you know anything about law enforcement?

Why are you so quick to impute some nefarious motive to the police?

Have you any clue as to the contents of the United States Constitution? It appears that understanding of that document is just selective, such that it suits your misguided political beliefs and biases.

There is this little thing in the Constitution that is typically referred to as the Fourth Amendment! To save you the trouble:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Even "predicate felons" retain their Constitutional rights. To the extent the police recieved a "tip," you do not know who it was from, how credible that person was, or how that person came into possession of the information he passed on the the police. (Was it a unreliable jail house informant; was some sort of corraborative evidence necessary to pass Constitutional muster, i.e., to give rise to probable cause?).

BTW, perhaps I'll call your local police and anonymously suggest that you grow marijuana in your basement, and that you have buried the bodies of rival drug dealers there too. Let's see what you do when the police knock at your door to conduct a search. No doubt, you'll be the first to bitch about an unlawful warrant and the lack of probable cause!

[Dhalgren]

2. I think we should all be getting the message by now.

The police will shoot you down based upon what they "feel". Stay alert, is all I can say...

[LisaL]

8. And don't rob any banks. Perhaps that would help.

[TahitiNut]

20. (delete)

.

[High Plains]

57. Check out my post #47

It's not just fleeing bank robbers who get killed by trigger-happy police.

Do police killings ever make you the least bit uncomfortable?

[TX-RAT]

79. I did it's pointless

Provide links with the results of the investigations, and then we'll continue.

[High Plains]

102. The investigations are underway

So...do any police shootings make you uncomfortable?

[TX-RAT]

116. Of course they do.

This is not one of them.

[High Plains]

121. Glad to hear that

[jeffrey_X]

59. and robbing a bank shouldn't equate to death

Yes...it's against the law, but it doesn't mean you should get the fucking death penalty.

[maquisard]

112. Or jaywalk.

Or run a red light. Or pull dangerous looking wallets, keys, or cellphones from your pocket which might be a weapon.

[TX-RAT]

120. pull dangerous looking wallets, keys, or cellphones from your pocket

Doing any of those while at gun point is not only foolish, it can also be fatal.

If you want to take your chances, go ahead. I would recommend doing exactly what the officer says, and do it very slowly.

How about robbing a bank and claiming to have a weapon.

[maquisard]

124. So where do you stand on running?

I know that's been a question which has come up in the courts: whether running constitutes sufficient probable cause for police to act. Say I'm a black jogger and am hooked up to my CD player so I don't hear the policemen shouting at me from behind where I can't see them. It's okay for them to shoot me, right? I mean, hell, I'm probably up to no good, otherwise, why would I be running? No need to muck up the courts with a trial by jury for that sort of thing, is there? Best of all, once I'm dead, who's ever going to know I was just an innocent jogger? You can say what you like about me and I won't challenege it - I'll be six feet under!

[TX-RAT]

127. Oh for piss sake.

I don't like what if scenario's, their pointless. I do find it disturbing that you try to make your scenario racial. Why would you do that?

Google fleeing Felon, deadly force, you'll find the answer your looking for.

[maquisard]

138. Life's hard

Speculating what-if scenarios is a useful intellectual tool, although in this case it's not even a hypothetical what-if, since real live cases on this topic have come up in our courts.

As for why I make the scenario racial, I should have thought it was obvious: study after study after study confirms that law enforcement officers are vastly more likely to (mis)perceive suspicious or sinister conduct in ethnic minorities than they are to perceive it in caucasians. Most police shootings of unarmed people are minorities, incorrectly judged by the officer(s) to be a threat.

I'll follow your advice and google "fleeing felon." I wonder though what I'd find if I googled "jogging innocent bystander"? Just strikes me as interesting that you automatically put "fleeing" and "felon" together, not even acknowledging the possibility that those two words might not necessarily be linked. Guess you're not a jogger, huh? Good for you, it's bad for the knees and apparently identifies you with being a felon to boot.

[TX-RAT]

143. Sure wish you'd post a link to all these cases.

Just strikes me as interesting that you automatically put "fleeing" and "felon" together

Actually it was fleeing felon deadly force.

Tennessee v Garner

[maquisard]

154. I'm not your third grade teacher

It's not my job to educate you on basic common knowledge. If you honestly are as poorly informed as you profess to be, I wholeheartedly urge you to spend your own time doing some googling, the information you seek is hardly difficult to find.

[sojourner]

42. Agreed. many here apparently will justify anything a policeman does...

every citizen killed "deserves" what he/she got...regardless of their actual crime.

[marmadogg]

3. I understand the outrage

The police chief in a large city actively recruited me out of college to work in his city.

I turned down the offer because my temperament is not suited to wearing a bullet proof vest when ever I have a police uniform on.

The police office made a mistake for sure but to crucify this person before the investigation is complete is not right.

[TryingToWarnYou]

5. Spot on. Problem is though, you wasted your time.

Too many here are so quick to judge officers without any facts. Authority = bad. Having been a cop since 1991, Ive seen all kinds come and go. Ive heard every criticisim there is. My response is the same: Until you can do the job that we do day in and day out, facing what we face, you dont have a leg to stand on when you pre-judge someone like this. Everyone can talk shit, but few know what they are talking about.

[catnhatnh]

23. So sometimes....

....it's just shit luck and okay to shoot an unarmed man to death (multiple gunshots I might add)??? We should not pre-judge the person but it sure is easy for me to pre-judge the action. "Everyone can talk shit,but few know...etc,etc...."I have cops in my family and well understand the stresses of the job but this one just stinks.As to your attitude, your poster name says it all, certain law officers SHOULD come with a warning....

[TryingToWarnYou]

61. Its never 'ok'. Mistakes happen.

....it's just shit luck and okay to shoot an unarmed man to death (multiple gunshots I might add)???

Cops are not all knowing, all seeing. They are human beings with a very difficult task of making split second decisions, often, daily that you and others like you do not have the first clue about or the experience of. That said, mistakes are going to be made. There is a huge difference between a mistake and an intentional act. Your problem seems to be that you cannot or will not differentiate between the two when its law enforcement as the subject. The cops are guilty, always. Im sorry, but thats not reality. Just edited to add that one source says he was shot multiple times, another media source cited in this thread says it was one time. If they cannot even agree on how many times he was shot, what else did they get wrong? It happens all the time and the main reason I dont trust the media at all.

We should not pre-judge the person but it sure is easy for me to pre-judge the action.

Actually, you have less of a right to judge it. You know nothing of the situation that developed. You have the luxury of hindsight which the cops dont have.

"Everyone can talk shit,but few know...etc,etc...."I have cops in my family and well understand the stresses of the job but this one just stinks.

Just because your cousin on your moms side is a cop, dont pretend you understand squat. Unless YOU have done the job, you dont have the first clue.

As to your attitude, your poster name says it all, certain law officers SHOULD come with a warning....

Witty ad hominem..like I havent heard that one before here.

[catnhatnh]

97. OK....

...it's apparent that we don't have those warm squishy feelings for each other that lead to enduring friendships and leisurely co-showers. But thats ok, we are here to discuss.Your points....

1. Yes, it may have been just a mistake of judgment. In fact it may even have been suicide-by-cop....

2. Actually you don't know me and have no idea how appropriate it may be for me to comment.

3. Sounds a lot like one of those cheap,flea market,faux-indian prayer plaques with the wolf pictures and "walk a mile in my moccasins..."

4. You've heard it before? once is a fluke, twice a coincidence, but the third time you aught to suspect somethings causing a trend.

My points....

1. The outcome was undesirable and needs investigation.

2. Actually, as a citizen, I still have the right (some would say duty)to weigh in on the action of our government, from the President down to the dogcatcher and everywhere in between.

3.I have no desire to get into a pissing contest on my bona fides or your perception of what "clues" I have.

4. Have a good day...

[TryingToWarnYou]

222. My apologies

...it's apparent that we don't have those warm squishy feelings for each other that lead to enduring friendships and leisurely co-showers. But thats ok, we are here to discuss.Your points....

Sorry for coming off sounding shitty.

1. Yes, it may have been just a mistake of judgment. In fact it may even have been suicide-by-cop....

Maybe so.

2. Actually you don't know me and have no idea how appropriate it may be for me to comment.

Actually I know that if you arent a cop, have never been a cop, then you have no right or ability to judge others that put themselves on the line every day. I dont care if everyone in your family puts on the blue every day, if you dont do it, your judgement doesnt matter.

3. Sounds a lot like one of those cheap,flea market,faux-indian prayer plaques with the wolf pictures and "walk a mile in my moccasins..."

Thanks for providing me with another reason why you have no right to comment. See No. 2.

4. You've heard it before? once is a fluke, twice a coincidence, but the third time you aught to suspect somethings causing a trend.

Yeah. Usually its assholes that have run out of comments or points and want to make a parting shot.

My points....

1. The outcome was undesirable and needs investigation.

Agreed 100%

2. Actually, as a citizen, I still have the right (some would say duty)to weigh in on the action of our government, from the President down to the dogcatcher and everywhere in between.

I agree mostly. The problem seems to be that everyone loves to give the cops shit when something goes bad but would never dream of doing the job themselves seeing as how they could do it so much better.

3.I have no desire to get into a pissing contest on my bona fides or your perception of what "clues" I have.

You dont have any bona fides. You claim people in your family do. Thats not the same thing. My mother is a nurse. I dont know what its like to be a nurse so I dont have much understanding there. See the correlation?

4. Have a good day...

You too.

[Endangered Specie]

158. Dont listen to them, there are plenty of us who respect

the police, I do not envy their job and would never want it. :hi:

[Tomee450]

167. Please tell me why it is

that these cops, for whom you have such sympathy, manage not to shoot white people? Why is it that almost all of their victims are black or latino?

[TX-RAT]

169. Here come the racism charges.

Wasn't the bank robber white?

[Tomee450]

175. If you can't face the truth

that's your problem, not mine. The truth is that most of the victims of police brutality are black, not white. If this latest victim is white, that is highly unusual. African Americans experience police brutality constantly and most do not have a high opinion of the police as they know what they will do. I've had several most unpleasant experiences with the police even though I had committed no crime. In one instance, a police supervisor did apologize. If stopped by the police, I'd almost be afraid to look in the glove compartment for my registration for fear he would shoot me. I get so tired of all this talk about how good the police are. Some are decent but many are not and they use their badge to harm people they dislike, even if they are innocent or no threat to them whatsoever.

[TX-RAT]

176. The bank robber was white.

Having trouble staying on the same page?

[Tomee450]

197. His being white doesn't change

the fact that the death of a white person at the hands of the police is quite rare. Most of the victims of police brutality in this country are black people. That's a fact you seem to wish to dismiss. And its my belief that the reason why so many people support the police is because they mainly murder minorities. If the time comes that every other week we hear whites being the victims of the police, attitudes will certainly change. You never hear of whites being shot while they reach for their cell phones or wallets or as they are running away from the cops and no threat. That usually only happens to blacks and latinos.

[Rich Hunt]

37. that's too bad

...because people have civil rights, and as such, they have a right to be skeptical of the authorities.

I'm sure the job is hard - surely a little skepticism on the part of the public also comes with the job.

All it takes are some bad cops who abuse their authority to turn the public into skeptics. That isn't the fault of the good cops, but then again, I think they'd understand that.

[TryingToWarnYou]

65. Im well aware of civil rights, thanks

Being skeptical is more than welcome. There is a difference between being skeptical and being an asshole (not saying you are, just commenting on the comments Im seeing) when nobody here has any more of the facts than what is in the press report. I know from my own experiences that many times the press gets a lot of it WRONG in their reporting.

Were the cops wrong? It sounds like it to me from what Ive seen so far. Was the bad guy treated as the dangerous person he apparently was? It sounds like it to me from what Ive seen so far. Mr. Bad Guy didnt have a gun this time. It still doesnt change the fact that he did what he did, said what he said and had the history that he had. All that adds up to the cops being extra hardcore when dealing with him. He got shot because he claimed to have a gun and did something that placed an officer in fear of his life or safety. If you want to blame someone, you can start with the criminal and work your way down from there to blaming the cops.

[Tomee450]

164. How many times do we have

to hear in reference to the police, "it's only a few bad apples," " the police should be given the benefit of doubt" blah, blah. I'll be very surprised if this latest victim isn't black. Some people are always ready to defend the police no matter how awful their acts and I suggest that the reason is that most of the victims are minorities. Unarmed people should never be killed. This man was no threat to the police, did not show a gun yet they gunned him down. African Americans can tell of many acts of police brutality against innocent black people and the police continue to get away with it. It is rare that the police gun down innocent white people. Whites rob banks and commit crimes just like minorities yet the police manage to exercise restraint and avoid killing them. They show no such willingness or restraint when the victims are black.

It's racist and utterly despicable that people would condone the continued police brutality meted out only to minorities, mostly African Americans. It just proves what most blacks know; there are people who would justify any act, no matter how brutal if the victim is a minority. So now all the cop has to do is think you have a gun and he can kill you, but of course, the YOU would be black, rarely white. I suppose you think the death of deaf person running and unable to hear the police is excusable too?

[LisaL]

6. For all I know, the guy didn't want to go back to prison.

He just spend 11 years there. Maybe he wanted to be suicided by a cop.

[TX-RAT]

14. The police office made a mistake for sure?

The man was robbing a bank.
He told people in the bank he had a gun.
People in the bank told officers he had a gun.
He was treated as a armed suspect.

Sounds like he did a good job of convincing everybody he was armed.

Who really, made the mistake?

[LisaL]

16. Maybe it wasn't a mistake. Maybe he wanted to be suicided.

Rather than go back to prison.

[TX-RAT]

18. You may very well be right

Not saying it was a good choice, but it was his choice.

Really doesn't matter anymore.

[Robb]

9. Poor little bank robber

Google news tells me he robbed a bank with success by pretending to have a gun. And that he has previously been arrested with one.

Officer Coffman appears to have been nonplussed.

We complain all the time about biased reporting... how about a story on a bank robbery where the lede is the police confirming he didn't actually have a gun?

What about the SWAT vans that surrounded the guy and gave him the opportunity to drop everything and lay down? There's a good lede. Second-day story on the freakin' tellers, maybe?

This crap swings both ways.

[LisaL]

10. Exactly. The guy says he got a gun. He robs a bank, and

a police officer shoots him. Boo-hoo. How was the police officer supposed to know the guy lied this time about having a gun?

[Algorem]

15. That boy scary.

There's librarians that look like that,though.

[livinginphotographs]

11. It's a little too early to jump the gun on the cops or the suspect.

I fall somewhere between the automatically blame cops crowd and the automatically blame the suspect crowd, but since the article is not exactly that informative, we should probably not draw too many conclusions at this point.

Just sayin'... :shrug:

[Rich Hunt]

39. good point

Far too many people on DU take the stories posted here at face value, and run with them.

What ever happened to waiting until you have all of the facts?

This is a BIG problem on DU, IMO. Just plain old judgmentalism is a big problem here.

[rooboy]

12. Take note all you anti-gun freaks...

if that criminal had been carrying a gun, he could have defended himself... I'm off to join the NRA.

:evilgrin:

[LisaL]

13. This is a link to a better story.

Reading the first link, one might be led to believe police was following this poor guy and shot him out of the blue.
In fact, he had robbed a bank already and run to his car with the money when he was shot. I saw a footage of him robbing a bank on a local news.
http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4707645/detail.html

[Mairead]

24. Per the story, he was merely trying to escape.

The story says it's not known whether he threatened the cop (who'd been following him all day and who actually parked next to his car!!) with a weapon, but since he was unarmed the best he could have done was point his finger and go bang bang. That's NOT justification for shooting him dead!

[TX-RAT]

25. Only person that knew he was unarmed, was the suspect.

[Mairead]

27. I don't think you understand the principles of law very well

Cops aren't allowed to shoot people based on suspicion or 'feelings'!

Except in police states, of course.

[TX-RAT]

29. "I don't think you understand the principles of law very well"

And you do? Please explain.

[Mairead]

32. I already did explain: it is not a capital offence to tell a lie

And, except in police states, cops are not allowed to shoot people on suspicion. They have to be defending themselves or others against a real, not imagined threat.

In this case, the guy had no hope from the off. The cop who'd been following him all day even parked his car next to the robber's. The cop could have flatted the guy's offside tires, or taken out his distributor rotor, or something else to make him trivially easy to capture. They could have tasered him.

But no, they shot him dead.

[TX-RAT]

38. Another back seat driver.

[High Plains]

49. another reflexive cop apologist n/t

[TX-RAT]

50. No apologies necessary for this one.

Try again, or was that all you had?

[High Plains]

52. Of course not.

Check out my post #47 and get back to me.

The facts remain to be sorted out in the Cleveland case, although the police sound pretty feeble there. "Feared for his life...was FORCED to shoot," explained the cop spokesman.

There are justifiable police killings and there are ones that are questionable, if not downright homicidal. Have you ever seen a police shooting you didn't like?

Yes, some people on this list very quick to condemn the cops based on limited information. Others are just as quick to defend them based on the same limited information.

Trigger-happy police are a serious problem in this county. They rarely get indicted and almost never convicted. And I'm starting to get really tired of this "feared for my life so I had to shoot the unarmed person" bullshit.

[Rich Hunt]

58. you're not refuting her points very well

A good response to a good argument is not the following:

"and what do YOU know about the law?"

You're not really refuting her points well.

[TX-RAT]

85. You're not really refuting her points well.

She's not making any.

Lead someone into believing you have a weapon ( especially to LEO's while in the middle of robbing a bank ), and you will be treated as if you do. Running from officers after committing a felony is also a bad idea.

[Mairead]

111. Just because your political (and other?) limitations prevent you seeing

the points I'm making doesn't mean I'm not making them. Other people understand that even if you don't.

[TX-RAT]

128. Just because your political (and other?) limitations prevent you seeing"

Please feel free to point out my political, and other limitations.
This should be interesting, If not comical.

[LisaL]

48. You know perfectly well they can't do anything to the guy on

suspicion alone. That's why they had to wait until he actually committed a crime.

[TX-RAT]

31. You need to google

Deadly force, fleeing felon.

[LisaL]

34. So sad.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[Dhalgren]

40. First they shot down unarmed felons

and I said I'm not a felon. Then they shot down unarmed suspected felons, and I said I'm not a suspected felon...

[Rich Hunt]

62. look at breaking news...

Elsewhere, some guy supposedly got executed and now they're having second thoughts.

I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this story, but do DUers really think that no innocent person has been killed by police, or that no innocent person has been framed by police?

I thought better of DUers. I mean, that's really naive, and it's also kind of illiberal...I mean, in the eighteenth-century sense of the word.

[High Plains]

53. It will be when it's one of your relatives n/t

[Rich Hunt]

60. uh-huh

It's the old "dovetail" tactic at work again.

Didn't I see this trick on another thread yesterday?

[bribri16]

19. Iraq under Saddam; US under Bush. Similar.

Only difference, the Bushites and police state can hide under the cover of "law and order."

[TX-RAT]

21. Don't understand your comment, please explain.

[sojourner]

44. ...in this case the "law and order" movement predates Chimpy

...remember the flap over Michael Dukakis and how Pappy Bush licked him by painting him soft on crime? I think the momentum picked up from there. And today, I do not feel safe in or around a crisis situation involving an officer of the law. Notice I said "in a crisis situation".

[candy]

67. I can't imagine ANYONE would safe around a crisis situation

with or without an officer of the law present.

I know I would feel safer with a police presence in a volatile situation.

[sojourner]

88. Post 77 says it for me...

[jahyarain]

51. "They haven't said how he felt threatened".

don't they have penis enhancement pill thingys to fix this problem

[Karmakaze]

55. Even if he DID have a gun, he shouldnt have been shot!

I believe that a police officer should NEVER fire his or her weapon FIRST. If ALL police officers lived by that rule NO unarmed people would EVER be shot.

Now the obvious argument against that will be a police officer should be able to protect him or her self even if he or she "feels threatened". I say bull.

Its the same as the death penalty - death can NOT be reversed, and an error when it comes to gunfire can lead to death, so there should be NO MARGIN for error. If a police officer was denied BY LAW the right to shoot first, then he or she would be automatically charged if they kill an unarmed person.

Sure some police may be killed because they let the suspect fire the first shot, but that is the risks they take - they don't like it, quit the police. A police officer's life is NOT more worthy than any other innocent person, so innocent people should be protected too - even if that means protecting some criminals; even if it cost some officers their lives.

The point is - if police officers are not cowards, then they would recognise that what they are there to do is PROTECT the innocent - even from the police - and that means they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice to ENSURE that no innocent person dies.

[sojourner]

73. That's been part of my POV, too. But not necessarily " if he HAD a gun"

That's been part of my POV, too. Nobody forces them to take the job.


Edited to clear up my title...gave an impression I did not intend.

[TryingToWarnYou]

83. Youre right.

But nowhere does it say we have to go running like ninnies into gunfire and let the creeps take the first shot. And Ill ask you, as I did the other guy that would rather see a dead cop than a dead crook, if we dont do the job, who will? You? If so, why arent you out here?

[Karmakaze]

209. Where did I say...

I'd rather see a dead cop than a dead crook? I said I'd rather see a dead cop - a person who signed up to take that risk - than a dead innocent person!

There is a vast difference between what I said and what you say I said.

Secondly, police DO "run like ninnies" into gunfire - for example if the "creeps" HAVE taken the first shot - you dont run away if they ARE armed do you? Of course not, because that is your job!

The point Im trying to make is there has been PLENTY of times when an unarmed INNOCENT person, a person who has COMMITTED NO CRIME, has been shot because the police fired on suspicion.

THAT should be a crime no matter what. I dont care if the cop was scared, I don't care if he or she felt threatened, when a child with a water pistol, or a man with a wallet or any innocent person is shot because a cop felt scared then that cop should be charged.

If I was walking down the street and someone reached into their jacket and I felt threatened, would I be legally allowed to shoot them? Of course not. I would be charged for manslaughter, if not murder.

Why is it different for cops?

[TryingToWarnYou]

225. ...sigh...

I'd rather see a dead cop than a dead crook? I said I'd rather see a dead cop - a person who signed up to take that risk - than a dead innocent person!

The 'crook' is an innocent person technically. Just because we take the job doesnt mean we are going to take bigger risks then we already do because you think its appropriate.

There is a vast difference between what I said and what you say I said.

No and you said it again here.

Secondly, police DO "run like ninnies" into gunfire - for example if the "creeps" HAVE taken the first shot - you dont run away if they ARE armed do you? Of course not, because that is your job!

Hey, but you dont want us to intervene because an innocent person might get shot by a COP. No, we dont run away because we have a duty to protect others. We risk our lives for people like you who would rather see us dead than being able to protect ourselves.

The point Im trying to make is there has been PLENTY of times when an unarmed INNOCENT person, a person who has COMMITTED NO CRIME, has been shot because the police fired on suspicion.

Its really not that simple.

THAT should be a crime no matter what. I dont care if the cop was scared, I don't care if he or she felt threatened, when a child with a water pistol, or a man with a wallet or any innocent person is shot because a cop felt scared then that cop should be charged.

You do not have one iota of understanding with regard to deadly force and how/when it is applied. You are completely ignorant of the job that law enforcement does, is asked to do, is expected to do. You want them to all be little robots and make perfect decisons at all times. Im sorry to disappoint you, but thats not reality. We are humans, we make mistakes. Until such time as Robocop becomes a reality, this is going to continue. If you are so distraught and upset about all this, please join your local police department, sheriff's office, etc. and get to understand what it is you are complaining about. See it first hand. If you dont want to join full time, become a reserve/non-paid officer (believe it or not, some officers risk their lives for people like you for no cost to the taxpayer). Basically what Im asking you to do is put your money where your mouth is and come do the job you criticize. Hopefully you will be put in a life and death situation (Ive been there twice) and you can keep your weapon holstered so the 'innocent' person remains safe and the folded flag can be given to your wife/husband

If I was walking down the street and someone reached into their jacket and I felt threatened, would I be legally allowed to shoot them? Of course not. I would be charged for manslaughter, if not murder.

Why is it different for cops?

Its not. We walk past people all the time that reach into their jackets and I can only speak for myself, but I dont think Ive ever felt threatened by that action in and of itself. Seriously though, you are taking a very complex issue and trying to make it A B C simple. Its never simple and as any officer can tell you, its the totality of the circumstances that dictate their actions. Again, seek employment in this field. The money isnt bad and you get to help people.

[LisaL]

91. Nobody forced that guy to rob a bank either.

He just spend 11 years in prison for robbing banks. And what does he do when he got out? Robs another bank. Natural selection in work here.

[sojourner]

104. I get that part...I sure do. it's called Social Darwinism. n/t

[djg21]

75. This is silly.

Put your money where your mouth is. Become a cop. Then your family can collect a pitance of a death benefit and place a nice photo of you on the mantle after you've become a statistic.

[sojourner]

87. No thanks. But who in the hell twists these guys' arms and makes them sign

up? Sure as hell isn't me.

I've managed to live most of my life without needing cops. And when I did need them (had a crack-house spring up next door when the elderly owner passed and left it to her daughter who let her young'uns move in) to investigate and perhaps intervene in the numerous illegal activities going on next door -- I was told that I should get a camcorder and videotape what I saw. No officer EVER came out.

We had to take action by contacting the new owner, complaining loudly and continuously and getting her to put the damn thing up for sale. We then bought it and made it into OUR rental.

Or the time I attended court proceedings (divorce) with a female friend. Her SO came along...spotted an officer in the hallway and talked him up. "I used to be in the force...blah, blah" -- next thing you know, SO says "Hey, there's this neighbor of mine...total jerk. How about you shake him up a little...you know, check him out...etc."

Know what the response of the officer was? "Got his info?" -- which was then passed along (suspicious to me that the SO even HAD the info with him). And the officer says "Yeah, no problem. Hate scumbags like that."

I listened to their blather a little while longer until I COULD NOT restrain myself. They'd accused some little old lady in a neighborhood where a new stopsign had been installed of LYING to them when she said she apparently ran it because she forgot it was there. (I know for a fact that sometimes when something changes it can miss your attention occasionally...partly because highly familiar scenarios tend to be processed less vigorously (nonconsciously) allowing expectations, rather than reality to be "seen") --

When I tried to defend those of us who are less than perfect citizens -- who sometimes do something NOT ON PURPOSE -- they scoffed and let me know what they think of us...all of us. We're law-breakers. We're suspected scum.

--- I have more like this. And not a word of it is made up. So...go ahead, jump on me for criticizing the killing of citizens. I am not shutting up about the injustice I perceive in the system now at work.

[djg21]

161. Nice Anecdotes

Let me see if I can paraphrase your tale about the "crackhouse": police officers suck , until you need them . . . then you expect them to come to your beck and call, and when they are not available to do so because they are understaffed, lack a budget, lack the resources, and have more urgent mattrers to attend to, you become unhappy and point out just how much they suck and how much you hate them.

I see.

[sojourner]

182. Listen, please...

I have NOT said that I hate policemen. You guys keep coming back to that word. Fear, yes. Worry about, yes. Hate, no!

I'm not alone in this f'd up society. I'm a generally law-abiding citizen. I've gotten a perspective that I didn't go looking for, through experience. Check out the experiences of fellow citizens on my poll...maybe you'll learn something about how the behavior of policemen affects the public perception they earn for themselves.

And one minute you tell me if I don't like the way it's done do it myself. So I told you about getting rid of the undesirable criminals next door...with no assistance from the PD. I'm not bitching. Just telling you that in fact I can and have pretty much taken care of myself.

Poll here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4093013

[Tomee450]

171. Cops

aren't the only people who have dangerous jobs. I have friends who have taught in some very tough schools. They would never get away with hitting a eighteen year old who had threatened them with a telephone or some other object. They would lose their jobs immediately. Do you really believe that an ordinary person would get away with killing someone who had only threatened them? Society allows cops to carry dangerous weapons but they are expected to use them responsibly.

[djg21]

174. Yes.

Self defense is a well-established defense to criminal culpability for assault, murder, etc.

If your teacher friend reasonably believed that there was an imminent threat to his/her life and/or safety, he/she would be within his/her rights to use reasonable force, and perhaps even deadly force, to protect him/herself.

[Tomee450]

198. Wrong

That teacher would not be allowed to teach again. She would have been fired and prosecuted. In this society, you don't get away with killing someone simply because you think he might hurt you unless you are a cop it seems. Attacking someone who simply threatens with no weapon visible would not be acceptable. The teacher would be expected to attempt escape THEN if the student tried to prevent such escape, her defending herself would be justified. What kind of society would this be if everyone who threatened someone could be killed for doing so. Ridiculous.

[LisaL]

207. Actually, they are changing the self-defense laws in many states.

It used to be you had to try to escape first. Now, you can defend yourself with a deadly force without trying to escape. Actually, I completely agree with it. You have to have a right to defend yourself.
If someone is coming at you with a gun, running away is not as good an option as shooting them if you can.

[Tomee450]

215. Well then, welcome

to the wild, wild west, to vigilante justice. Supporting violent action against a person who only threatens you, is insane. In this country, many whites have lynched blacks. The name James Byrd comes to mind. Because of the history of this country and its violence towards African Americans, do you think every black person threatened by a white person would be justified in taking violent action even though the white person appeared to be unarmed? I don't think so, but by your previous comments, one would think that you would believe such violent action would be entirely justified. After all, in the past, many whites have acted on their threats against African Americans. See where this could lead? If more people begin to adopt your beliefs many perfectly innocent people will be killed.

[Karmakaze]

211. REASONABLE - thats the word you are over looking

Killing a person for reaching into a pocket is NOT REASONABLE.

Sure if they pull out a gun, but unless and until that gun comes out and is pointed at you, then the "threat" is NOT reasonable.

Imagine if you will an undercover cop happens upon an argument - he starts yelling at the people to settle down, in the mean time he reaches into hi pocket to pull out his ID.

If someone there thought he was reaching for a gun, and did not realise the person was a cop, do you think it would be alright if that person shot and killed the cop because he thought the cop was threatening him?

[Karmakaze]

210. So, dont become a cop, if you dont want take the risks!

NO innocent person should be murdered by a cop because the cop was afraid the "benefits" were a pitance.

How many totally innocent people have been killed by cops over the years? Hundreds? Thousands? Why is that OK with you? How is that different from soldiers killing innocent Iraqis?

[TryingToWarnYou]

82. Wow.

I believe that a police officer should NEVER fire his or her weapon FIRST.

So if a person I stop produces a weapon and points it at me, what am I supposed to do? Why do you think he is pointing a gun at me? What on Earth could his intentions be? Lets go one step further. What if I see him pointing a gun and threatening to kill you or your family member? Should I wait until he shoots one of you dead before I stop him? I mean, he is innocent and you dont want me to shoot first.

If ALL police officers lived by that rule NO unarmed people would EVER be shot.

And if the bad guys didnt carry guns and shoot at cops and innocent people, no bad guys would ever be shot.

Now the obvious argument against that will be a police officer should be able to protect him or her self even if he or she "feels threatened". I say bull.

Gee, so when can we have your permission to defend ourselves. After we have been shot? (provided we are still alive of course).

Its the same as the death penalty - death can NOT be reversed, and an error when it comes to gunfire can lead to death, so there should be NO MARGIN for error.

Unless its the cops being shot, then thats ok because we are expected to sacrifice our lives, right?

If a police officer was denied BY LAW the right to shoot first, then he or she would be automatically charged if they kill an unarmed person.

Sorry, even though you would like for me and other officers to be killed in the line of duty, the Supreme Court has always upheld the right of the officer to defend his life.

Sure some police may be killed because they let the suspect fire the first shot, but that is the risks they take - they don't like it, quit the police.

Big talk from someone who doesnt know what it takes to do the job. If people like myself dont do it, who will? You?

A police officer's life is NOT more worthy than any other innocent person, so innocent people should be protected too - even if that means protecting some criminals; even if it cost some officers their lives.

I have a news flash for you, Perry Mason. Cops give their lives every day for innocent people and the criminals you are crying over.

The point is - if police officers are not cowards, then they would recognise that what they are there to do is PROTECT the innocent - even from the police - and that means they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice to ENSURE that no innocent person dies.

Many have done that already. Many more will. I dont know you and I dont want to know you, but I have taken a very deep personal offense to your post. You have shit on the sacrifices made in the line of duty by thousands of officers already and you are willing, wanting, more to die by your very words here. Im going to stop now as I would really rather not get banned.

[Karmakaze]

213. Yeah..

So if a person I stop produces a weapon and points it at me, what am I supposed to do? Why do you think he is pointing a gun at me? What on Earth could his intentions be? Lets go one step further. What if I see him pointing a gun and threatening to kill you or your family member? Should I wait until he shoots one of you dead before I stop him? I mean, he is innocent and you dont want me to shoot first.

Firstly, lets clear something up - I am NOT saying a person pointing a gun at you or anyone else is innocent - I am saying that some innocent people do things that SEEM threatening, and the only SURE way to prevent them being killed by cops is for the cops to not fire first. So if a kid with a water pistol happens to point it at a cop, unless it goes bang the kid doesnt die. Seem reasonable?

Secondly, are you saying pointing a gun is a death sentecne? So I would be well within my rights to kill a cop if he points a gun at me? Or do cops have special rights that no-one else has?

And if the bad guys didnt carry guns and shoot at cops and innocent people, no bad guys would ever be shot.

And if cops didnt shoot just because they were scared, no children with water pistols would ever be shot.

Gee, so when can we have your permission to defend ourselves. After we have been shot? (provided we are still alive of course).

Should I be allowed to kill anyone who puts their hand in their pocket near me, because I feel threatened? Or is that special privilige reserved for cops?

Unless its the cops being shot, then thats ok because we are expected to sacrifice our lives, right?

So a cop who signed on to take the risks, who is trained to deal with them, and who is equiped to help mitigate them, should take prority over for example the kid with the water pistol?

That kid should just accept that a cop might kill him, because cops shouldnt sacrifice their lives to PROTECT the INNOCENT?

Sorry, even though you would like for me and other officers to be killed in the line of duty, the Supreme Court has always upheld the right of the officer to defend his life.

The big brave policeman needs to be able to protect his life from kids with water pistols, so thats why he should be allowed to shoot them on suspicion! After all his uniform might get wet!

I never said I would like police officers to die in the line of duty - I said that is the risks they take to PROTECT THE INNOCENT. If that means they have to create a law that say they must not shoot first, then so be it, because at the moment, you can't trust the judgment of a person who is in fear for their life.

Far too many people are killed simply because a cop misjudged - if they were not allowed to shoot first, such misjudgements would not occur.

Big talk from someone who doesnt know what it takes to do the job. If people like myself dont do it, who will? You?

Killing unarmed people is what it takes to do the job? If that is what you think then you shouldnt be a cop. Come on admit it - it bothers you just as much that innocent people are killed by cops, I understand why a cop would get defensive about it though. The point Im trying to make is that if the rules were changed it wouldnt happen.

Now that may mean that other things have to change to accomodate those rules - for example the wearing of ballstic helmets designed to withstand gunfire, along with ballistic vests. Or better pay - which I believe should happen anyway.

The point is we expect police officers to take risks, that is their job, if you dont like it, then dont become a cop, if you can live with it, then take steps to mitigate them, but dont go around shooting anything that feels threatening.

I have a news flash for you, Perry Mason. Cops give their lives every day for innocent people and the criminals you are crying over.

Amazing - I talk about innocent people - you talk about criminals. ARE there ANY innocent people in your view? Or are we ALL just criminals who havent been caught yet?

Many have done that already. Many more will. I dont know you and I dont want to know you, but I have taken a very deep personal offense to your post. You have shit on the sacrifices made in the line of duty by thousands of officers already and you are willing, wanting, more to die by your very words here. Im going to stop now as I would really rather not get banned.

Amazing - apparently being against the killing of innocent people by scared cops is "shitting on the sacrifices" made by other cops. You see because a cop got killed, its alright to kill a kid with a water pistol.

When US and British pilots were policing the "no-fly zones" they had some rules of engagement. One of those was they could not fire unless fired upon. Was the person who made those rules "shitting on the sacrifices" of other pilots by requiring them to risk their lives? Or is it only cops who should not have to live by such rules?

Peacekeepers often have such a rule - they can not fire unless fired upon - and yet we still send them to keep the peace. What is different about cops?

[TryingToWarnYou]

227. Some interesting stuff here...

Firstly, lets clear something up - I am NOT saying a person pointing a gun at you or anyone else is innocent

By law, they are. Please either understand what you are talking about or dont question those of us who do know what we are talking about.

- I am saying that some innocent people do things that SEEM threatening

Are they doing these things just throughout the day or during high stress, potentially unstable situations involving emergency services?

and the only SURE way to prevent them being killed by cops is for the cops to not fire first. So if a kid with a water pistol happens to point it at a cop, unless it goes bang the kid doesnt die. Seem reasonable?

Can you point me to a source that shows the cops killing a child with a water pistol where the child was involved in an altercation with the police and was the subject of a criminal investigation?

Secondly, are you saying pointing a gun is a death sentecne? So I would be well within my rights to kill a cop if he points a gun at me? Or do cops have special rights that no-one else has?

See? Again, you fail to do your homework. Use of force is clearly defined and practiced by law enforcement daily. You, as an ordinary citizen, have the right to resist excessive force. The problem lies with the fact that the average person doesnt know his rights and responsibilities as a citizen, but ask him who won "Survivor" and they can tell you... So, no, cops dont have special rights in this respect.

Should I be allowed to kill anyone who puts their hand in their pocket near me, because I feel threatened? Or is that special privilige reserved for cops?

I asked you a specific question, actually several questions, and you have dodged each one of them. Again, you are trying to make a very complex chain of events (police shooting) into a Dick and Jane primer. Ill ask you again, When am I allowed to defend myself? (and as for the hand in the pocket BS, I addressed that and asked you a specific question regarding the 'scenario' of putting a hand in a pocket. You failed to address that question)

So a cop who signed on to take the risks, who is trained to deal with them, and who is equiped to help mitigate them, should take prority over for example the kid with the water pistol?

Wow, so Ive signed on to take the risks, Im TRAINED to deal with these risks and Im EQUIPPED to help mitigate and solve these problems, but you dont want me to. I dont understand what you expect me to do...

And this stuff with the kid and the water pistol is getting silly... its not even a proper example. If you are going to ask loaded questions, lets at least ask reasonably likely loaded questions.

A couple more and I think Ill conclude my discussion with you...

The big brave policeman needs to be able to protect his life from kids with water pistols, so thats why he should be allowed to shoot them on suspicion! After all his uniform might get wet!

Please show me where this has happened. You are talking as if its commonplace, so surely its easy to find a source citing all these dead water pistol wielding children.

I never said I would like police officers to die in the line of duty - I said that is the risks they take to PROTECT THE INNOCENT.

Bullshit. You said you would rather a cop die than someone innocent. The 'bad guys' are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Dont be ashamed of your position. Many folks hate us but never hesitate to call when they need us. Ironic huh?

If that means they have to create a law that say they must not shoot first, then so be it, because at the moment, you can't trust the judgment of a person who is in fear for their life.

Far too many people are killed simply because a cop misjudged - if they were not allowed to shoot first, such misjudgements would not occur.

I dont believe any further discussion is beneficial for me or you. You dont have a very firm grasp of reality, you have an unusually simplistic view of a very complex issue and have an obvious bias against those that are sworn to protect. Until you can address the questions Ive posed here and in the other post, Ill refrain from discussing this with you further. Good day.

[TX-RAT]

126. That really says it all.

I believe that a police officer should NEVER fire his or her weapon FIRST

So a dead Officer doesn't bother you?

Now i know why they give us an ignore button.
Congrats, your the first.

[Karmakaze]

212. Not as much a dead child with a water pistol...

As for the ignore feature - Im glad you find it useful, because I would hate to have someone who doesnt want to read what I say be forced to read it!

[TryingToWarnYou]

228. Can you give us some news links to these water pistol carrying dead kids?

Thanks.

[Endangered Specie]

157. So youre going to put the life of a thug over the life of a policeman?

Oh sorry, I forgot, were supposed to cuddle the criminals and sing them Kumbaya :eyes: After all, everyones innocent, cops make up everything :eyes:

[Karmakaze]

214. Umm where did I say that?

So were are ALL criminals and should be treated as one? Even if all we are doing is reaching into a pocket for an asthma inhaler? Hey I put my hand in my pocket - shoot me!

[Miss Chybil]

77. Remember when they used to shoot them in the knees? Now, it's shoot

them anywhere you can, a whole bunch of times.

I'm a little bitter about this in that a friend of our family was just shot by the police, multiple times, in his parent's home. He was going through DTs. The parents had called for help because he was acting so strangely. The police came and said they couldn't do anything, but told the parents they could go to some agency to fill out some paperwork and maybe they could help. The parents left, the son freaked out - presumably because he was alone - and called 911 and hung up.

The police went back to the house and supposedly the door was open so they went in. The son was coming down the hall with an antique rifle. He didn't know who the police were. Who knows, he could have thought they were bears. The rifle was inoperable and wasn't loaded. I know a policeman wouldn't know that, BUT in their report they said the rifle had a magazine in it. It did not. It didn't take magazines. They shot him multiple times, as well as shot up the house.

He was a groomsman in my step-brother's wedding last month and last Saturday, my step-brother was his paul-bearer. The reason the guy was home with his parents is he had asked them if he could come back, he wanted to quit drinking and he needed their help. They let him move back home and he quit drinking cold turkey. I wish the police had called him an ambulance the first time the came to the house and sent him off to be de-toxed. Instead they played the "there's nothing we can do" card and ended up killing the guy a few hours later.

My father was a policeman when I was young and I've always had a healthy respect for the profession. Lately, though, with all the shootings and taserings resulting in death, I'm getting a bitter taste in my mouth. I will never call them, if I need help with my kids. I'm afraid they'll kill them.

On edit - I don't have a lot of sympathy for armed robbers. You play the game, you have to take the consequences.

[slackmaster]

90. Sorry to hear about your friend, but you are mistaken

Police have NEVER shot for the knees.

Police are and have always been trained to shoot for the center of mass.

[Miss Chybil]

141. Maybe, it was just in the movies... nt

[DelawareValleyDem]

78. Reading about incidents likes this always remind me

of a former acquaintance of mine who, as an officer, shot and killed an unarmed man. He was placed on desk duty but returned to normal responsibilities after an internal investigation recommended no further disciplinary action. No charges were filed.


I was, and am, inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Ironically, a couple of his friends told me they weren't so understanding and that they had always considered him trigger-happy.

Edited for spelling

[sojourner]

81. Those of us here speaking up for the rights of civilians NOT to be shot

are accused of "hating cops" when what we're saying (at least what I'M saying) is that the police should not be shooting innocents. Ever. It undermines our ability to trust our "public servants" when we are asked to merely accept the fact that if a policeman feels threatened he will shoot to kill. And that is what the apologists here are defending.

I'm even hesitant about letting them kill suspects because after all, in this country it used to be that a person was "innocent until proven guilty".

And policemen are NOT all powerful. They sometimes make huge mistakes. Understanding that point, we are advocating that the right to kill be used with the utmost restraint, if at all, since it is undisputably an act with irreversible consequences.

[slackmaster]

89. Yes, even unarmed bank robbers have a right not to be shot

But anyone who puts himself or herself into a confrontational situation with armed police officers (e.g. by robbing a bank) and does anything other than surrender peacefully is asking for trouble.

:nopity:

[Mairead]

98. Exactly how much more control would the cops had to have had

over the situation before you'd agree that the killing was Not Okay?

• they'd been following the guy all day because they believed (why?) he was going to rob a bank.
  
• they had such a complete handle on the situation that the guy who killed him was able to park his unmarked NEXT TO the guy's intended getaway car and wait for him to come back.
  
• he wasn't armed (and the fact that he said he was in the bank was not information his killer would have had, unless they'd also managed to mike the poor bastard!)
  

What more was needed, in your opinion?

[LisaL]

100. Well, they got the robbery on tape.

Obviously, the teller called the police. His previous robbery was committed with a gun. It stands to reason that the policeman thought he was armed.
:eyes:

[Mairead]

107. Your reasoning is completely disconnected from the reality

They had been following him around! What part of that is hard for you? Do you think they all got together and watched the tape while he was running for his car? The cop who killed him was parked next to his car waiting for him! Is there ANY OTHER ADVANTAGE the cops could have had before you'd agree it was a color-of-law murder? How about if he'd been unconscious, would it have been bad to kill him then? How about if he had suffered a heart attack and collapsed? Anything? Is there ANYthing that would sway you?

[LisaL]

122. Well, if he wasn't a bank robber...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
No, I don't feel sorry for him. His rights? Hah? What about my rights to go to a bank and not expect to be caught in a robbery? Do I have any rights? Or does the bank robber has all the rights? And yes, it's dangerous situation when police knows someone had committed a bank robbery. In fact, that's most likely why they waited he got out of the bank and didn't apprehend him while he was inside.
And yes, it's reasonable for them to expect he was armed-considering he spend 11 years in prison for armed bank robbery!
What should they expect? Of course they think he got a gun.

[Mairead]

131. Since you seem unable or unwilling to engage with the meaning

of the cops having had a complete lock on the situation, I'll stop here.

[slackmaster]

125. I'm not going to try to second guess what the police did

Figuring out whether the shooting was justified or not is someone else's job (ETA and I don't have nearly enough information about the incident to make a meaningful comment about it). Shoot/no shoot decisions are usually made under very high pressure with very little time to mull it over.

[Mairead]

132. Except that you've already decided that the shooting was justified.

And you did so by ignoring that the police had a complete lock on the situation.

It's not especially honest, I don't think, to take a position and then, asked to justify it, claim that you haven't. It suggests that you know you can't justify it but intend to cling to it regardless.

[slackmaster]

163. No, my position is more nuanced than that

The alleged bank robber appears to have caused his own death by making bad choices. He could have chosen not to rob the bank, he could have surrendered peacefully.

Whether or not the police officer was justified in pulling the trigger or not is an entirely separate matter.

It suggests that you know you can't justify it but intend to cling to it regardless.

Or maybe you have made up your own mind that the shooting was not justified.

[Mairead]

203. "Or maybe you have made up your own mind that it was not justified"

Of course I have! Given the situation as reported, no other conclusion makes sense. The pro-killing people haven't a leg to stand on and must know it. That's why they-and you-want to duck the tough questions. The cops stalked this guy. His eventual killer parked his unmarked next to the getaway car and, when the crook came running back to make his getaway, shot him dead. The cops didn't do any of the fifty or a hundred things they could have done to take him alive. Nope, they shot him dead. An unarmed man who committed a crime for which the normal penalty is a few years in the kerker, dead. Dead.

You pro-killing guys have no goods at all in your parcel...but, as usual, you won't own up.

[slackmaster]

224. Nice job of poisoning the well

Given the situation as reported, no other conclusion makes sense.

The two most valuable things I learned in college were critical thinking and open-mindedness. I believe the information presented in this thread is not sufficient to make such a conclusion, therefore I have not made one. In your mind anyone who comes to a conclusion different than yours must not be a sensible person, eh?

The cops stalked this guy.

Some people need to be stalked. The police have a duty to protect the public from violent criminals. Maybe they were picking on this poor fellow. The investigation will determine what really happened.

His eventual killer parked his unmarked next to the getaway car...

Unmarked. So the cops were "cheating". I see.

The cops didn't do any of the fifty or a hundred things they could have done to take him alive. Nope, they shot him dead.

And the dead guy could have done fifty or a hundred things other than robbing a bank and telling the bank employees that he had a gun. He could have surrendered to the police. He chose not to.

You pro-killing guys...

I'm not pro-killing. I'm pro-self-defense.

An unarmed man who committed a crime for which the normal penalty is a few years in the kerker, dead. Dead.

Maybe this was an extrajudicial execution, or maybe it was an act of self-defense. The investigation, not this discussion, will sort that out.

[maquisard]

115. Very nicely stated, sojourner

I'm by no means unsympathetic to the risks incurred by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties, but neither is it acceptable for police to function as judge, jury, and executioner. We separate out those functions for very, very good reasons. If police feel so threatened that they have to resort to lethal force to protect themselves with the frequency with which they appear to, maybe we need to be addressing the training and equipment provided to officers so that they are better able to defuse violent encounters without recourse to lethal force.

[sojourner]

133. Thanks...and agreed. Thoughts on intractability of the arguments:

And try as I might I cannot get my mind around the arguments and justifications of those here who either are LEOs or are apologists for LEOs. Death is an emotional subject. Those of us who dislike the killing of innocents in Iraq find the justifications similarly slim.

I am truly sorry that we can't seem to "get" each other. I wish I could feel good about what they are doing, like when I was very young and thought every police officer was my protector and friend. But I've read/heard about too many of these instances to believe that any more. My personal encounters with policemen (on and off duty) and the justifications made here just make it worse for me. (And I'll reiterate because they will accuse me of being a criminal -- I'm sure as hell not perfect but haven't commited any crime greater than speeding)

Maybe I'd feel differently if those here were to feel some regret, express some remorse that all too frequently truly innocent people are killed...(not this robber, necessarily...) and if they were to agree that MAYBE there is a way to reduce if not eliminate such outcomes - and actively contribute to thinking of such solutions instead of just shouting us down, then maybe we'd think they really did have our best interests in mind.

[mtnester]

101. CPD, same outfit that tasered a man with a GSW to the belly

cuz he was upset, yelling and not obeying their commands. His hands were over the belly wound holding his gut, he was bent over in OBVIOUS pain, and they hit him with two tasers. The video clip of this event was on the news channels a couple weeks back because a news crew happened to capture this fine event on their cameras. It literally DISAPPEARED the next day...no one was showing it anymore. Anywhere.


Spelling edit

[sojourner]

129. This is like talking to RWers. And seems it's same on either side......

[nmliberal]

119. NM sheriff deputy shot a man in handcuffs

Granted the man who was shot was a racist murderer, but I am horrified by the amount of support for the deputy who shot him AFTER he'd handcuffed the creep:


Autopsy: Body of New Mexico Man Arrives Handcuffs

ALBUQUERQUE (AP) -- The body of a man shot by an Otero County deputy arrived at the state medical examiner's office with his hands cuffed behind his back, according to an autopsy report.

The Office of the Medical Investigator ruled Earl Flippen's death a homicide.

He died Dec. 18 after a confrontation with two sheriff's deputies at his Cloudcroft-area home. One deputy was killed, and the other has been indicted on a voluntary manslaughter charge in Flippen's death.

[LisaL]

123. Not a very bright deputy, is he?

If he had taken handcuffs off the suspect, he could have gotten away with it.

[High Plains]

130. ...and then you'd be justifying the killing, right? n/t

[LisaL]

136. Not if I knew how it had actually happened.

:eyes:
But if the guy wasn't in handcuffs-then hell, yea.
He apparently killed his pregnant girlfriend and another cop.

[TX-RAT]

137. Helps to hear the whole unbiased story.

That poor suspect had just killed his girl fiend, shot the other officer in the head killing him instantly, then decided to swap shots with the remaining officer, i believe the suspect was hit 4 times.
It would not have been uncommon for the remaining officer to place cuffs on the suspect.
Beings the last round stuck the suspect in the head, most likely killing him instantly. that would explain why he arrived at the coroners with cuffs still on.

[LisaL]

145. Why would he place cuffs on a dead body?

They must be charging him because of the cuffs. Otherwise, how can they charge him? The suspect just killed another police officer and was in a shoot out with the second police officer. I can't believe they would have charged the second police officer in his death unless they believed he shot him after he cuffed him?
:shrug:

[TX-RAT]

146. "Why would he place cuffs on a dead body?"

How did he know he was dead?

I know of several people that have survived being shot in the head.

(I can't believe they would have charged the second police officer in his death unless they believed he shot him after he cuffed him?)

That is what some think may have happen, if that was the case, i could in no way support the officer. When it's all over we'll find out. If he shot him in cuffs, it's murder. If he died before, or after being cuffed from injuries suffered in the exchange, all charges will be dropped.

[LisaL]

150. Yes, I agree.

They shouldn't have charged him unless he shot this guy after the guy was handcuffed.

[TX-RAT]

135. The rest of the story?

Seems you left a little out, please post a link.

[sojourner]

134. Another thread...similar topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1617568

[duhneece]

205. Here's the link and more of the story

http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5BNews%5D=ID&ID%5BNews%5D=8250

"...KRQE News 13 has learned that a New Mexico State Police investigation disputes Anders’ story that he killed Flippen in a gun battle. Instead, investigators allege Sgt. Anders was able to subdue Flippen, placed him in handcuffs and executed him with a single shot to the chest.

Sources say the incident was caught on videotape, from a dashboard camera in a nearby patrol car.

The state police report has now been turned over to Otero County District Attorney Scot Key. In addition, a spokesman for the FBI has confirmed to KRQE News 13 that the incident has sparked a Department of Justice civil rights investigation...."

I live in Otero County and I, too, feel sick for the support for the deputy.

[Applepie]

148. A scary situation

Happened last week to my future DIL. She works 3rd shift and was stopped by police on her way to work. As she was reaching for her registration in the glove box they called over their PA for the driver to put hands in the air out the window. Since her window is broken she was unable to do this. She opened her door and raised her hands. The officers approached her with guns drawn. They ordered her out of the van and proceeded to cuff her hands behind her back all the while ignoring her question of why. The poor woman was panic stricken. They did say they were sorry finally. They told her that her van matched the description of one they were looking for but it was not as new. This happened in a very rural area, a very scary situation for a woman traveling alone.

[Endangered Specie]

149. Cue the Police Bashing...

I think they should create a list of everyone that hates police officers, that way, when you call 911 in panic, the police can avoid your house so they dont have to worry about offending you should they be forced to gun down the guy robbing/killing you :eyes:

[High Plains]

170. Wouldn't ever want to criticize the police. No, sir.

Nothing to see here. Just move along. Ignore the bodies.

Funny thing about police. They don't seem to be there when I could use their help, but they're sure ready to kick my door down while I'm smoking a joint.

Gee, why would anybody have anything against the police? They must all be malcontents or criminals or their apologists.

[Endangered Specie]

173. Police dont make the laws,

they enforce them. Add your name to the list?

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

180. which one?

curious minds want to know :)

[TX-RAT]

181. Check out 168

[Endangered Specie]

184. Ah, i see...

well, if your mad about the drug laws, bash the lawmakers, not the law enforcers. Sorta like undertipping a waitress bc the cook cant cook.

[High Plains]

192. Yeah, sure, but with one proviso

I promise not to call 911 next time a homicidal maniac is breaking down my door...but the police have to promise not to be the homicidal maniacs breaking down my door. Fair enough?

[High Plains]

194. Police don't make the laws, but they do have discretion

In most cases, drug law enforcement is one of the most discretionary areas of policing. In real crimes, someone complains and the police must respond. In most drug offenses, no one is complaining. Police choose to emphasize drug law enforcement, at the expense of other areas.

So, yes, I have a problem with police who choose to enforce the drug laws. They could choose to emphasize something else, but that would require real police work, not threatening 18-year-olds with years of prison rape unless they rat off their friends.

And you know what? There have been about 10 million of us arrested on drug charges in the past couple of decades. And we're not all happy about it and we don't forgive the police anymore than we forgive the lawmakers.

[TX-RAT]

219. 10 million of us arrested on drug charges in the past couple of decades.

Obviously they missed one.

If your only argument for legalizing drugs is to blame every thing on Law enforcement, your fighting an uphill battle. There are plenty of good ( and more intelligent ) arguments to be made for the legalization of certain drugs, many of them i agree with. Instead of going after the legislators that actually write the laws, you so disagree with ( and i do too under certain circumstances ) You choose to attack the one group of people whose job it is to enforce the law. They have been sworn in, to enforce the laws of their states, they have no choice, other than not becoming a peace officer.

Might i suggest you take all this hatred and anger you hold for Law Enforcement and channel it in the proper direction, at your legislators.

You'll get far better results that way.

Oh, if and when you talk to them, i'd try not to use the term FUCK OFF, it really degrades your argument.

[Robb]

177. This is the most absurd thread I've read in a long time

...And I've read it all.

Here's what society has decided: accidental shootings of suspects who didn't have it coming from time to time is better than criminals getting off the first shot.

Ask any officer: who fires more bullets in a year, the good guys or the bad guys? It's the bad guys.

If the cops don't sometimes shoot first, they get shot. Other people get shot. There's a lot of bullets flying in the world.

If you ask me to weep for a bank robber surrounded by SWAT who makes any, any fast moves, you won't get it. It's the same as people who splatter themselves running from the cops. You endanger not only yourself, but everyone around you when you do it.

It's not a police state. It's a state with police.

[TX-RAT]

179. It's not a police state. It's a state with police.

Well said.

[Endangered Specie]

186. Well put.

[slackmaster]

200. The shooting was not "accidental"

It was deliberate.

Perhaps it was unnecessary, but that does not mean it was not justified.

[phrenzy]

188. Good Cop Bad Cop

Many posts here have the same tone as those who argued that the Rodney King beating was justified. C'mon - you know you want to argue how he was 'driving like a madman' and 'on pcp' or whatever so he deserved to get that 'mild' beating.

Or maybe if Amadu Dialou wasn't a stupid foreigner - ya know - those cops wouldn't have HAD to unload x number of bullets in to him.

I think some people need to admit their biases in both directions. There is most certainly a distrust of cops evident on DU. Do you think that distrust is not justified? MANY people have had MANY very BAD experiences with belligerent, macho-man, ass-hole cops. I have had many encounters with prick cops that you could palpably feel wanted to shoot (or at least smack) someone for daring to even look at them the wrong way.

Other cops have been very professional and some have been very friendly and courteous.

The fact is that being a cop attracts a certain type of mindset.

One thing I have found is that many people become cops because they want to "kick ass" or "punish young punks".

In any case, I believe it is justified to hold police officers to a much higher standard than we hold 'the thugs' in terms of patience with a weapon. Don't forget, the cops ultimately have the entire arsenal of the U.S. govt. behind them if they need it.

[genieroze]

208. This article doesn't say much. Was this person in the middle of robbing

a bank, of after. The article said he told a teller that he had a gun. Well duh, what robber would tell a teller that he was unarmed?????

[kestrel91316]

217. Ick...........why didn't he just taser him to death .................

it would have been a whole lot tidier.:shrug:

[TryingToWarnYou]

226. Another media source says a single gunshot wound..which is correct?

NT