Straight Dope Message Board

[Terr]

Here's a pic of the gun at the scene with the evidence marker next to it:

https://twitter.com/valeriehahn/stat...043008/photo/1

another, better, pic of gun at scene

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--...b-620x385.jpeg 601

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Terr

Here's a pic of the gun at the scene with the evidence marker next to it:

https://twitter.com/valeriehahn/stat...043008/photo/1

another, better, pic of gun at scene

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--...b-620x385.jpeg

No, no, that's just his pointing hand. It fell off and turned to chrome when he was shot. 602

[Terr]

http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscm...ux-960-700.jpg 603

[Velocity]

As usual, this incident is proof that everyone believes what they want to believe. 604

[FuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

So you can see a gun in the video?

Yes 605

[elucidator]

Enhance 224 to 176.... Pan right Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance....

I don't know what the heck that is. Maybe I missed it, but is there something that says "Object No.5 is a gun."? OK, type, make, caliber? 606

[Terr]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Enhance 224 to 176.... Pan right Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance....

I don't know what the heck that is. Maybe I missed it, but is there something that says "Object No.5 is a gun."? OK, type, make, caliber?

You don't think this is a gun?

Also - zoomed in surveillance video 607

[FuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Enhance 224 to 176.... Pan right Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance....

I don't know what the heck that is. Maybe I missed it, but is there something that says "Object No.5 is a gun."? OK, type, make, caliber?

..and here we have found our problem... 'luci iapparently smoked a formaldehyde laced blunt at a Vietnam protest in his formative years rendering him blind. They'll introduce the dog with the metal handlebar gear and orange apron after the next commercial break.<CSI:Miami sunglasses pose> 608

[Smapti]

It's pretty clear at about 0:25 in that video, a good minute before the shooting occurs, that the victim has the gun in his hand.

I suppose the cops traveled back in time and planted it in his hand before the shooting. 609

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by FuriousGeorge

So... the video of the incident is out there. It's not very hard to find. It's seems pretty cut and dry to me. Dude pointed a gun at cops within extremely close proximity. Not sure this one is debatable.

Are we ignoring it? Are we rationalizing it? Are we saying it's edited, doctored, made up? Help me out. I got signs to make for the annual Cops are Racist Thugs Christmas Pageant.

About as righteous as it's possible for a shooting by a cop to be. Too bad for all involved but the cop should be cleared quickly after a routine investigation. Note that there were a good number of witnesses nearby. We haven't read about any of them claiming the gun was planted, have we?

The disturbing part about any protests of this particular shooting is that they show how terribly the police are distrusted by much of the public. 610

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Terr

Here's a pic of the gun at the scene with the evidence marker next to it:

https://twitter.com/valeriehahn/stat...043008/photo/1

another, better, pic of gun at scene

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--...b-620x385.jpeg

Well, yeah that's a gun lying on the ground. I have not yet seen a gun in the hands of the suspect pointing at the cops. I'm not saying the cops lied, I'm just saying that the video is not clear enough to see anything at this point.

Originally Posted by elucidator

Enhance 224 to 176.... Pan right Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance....

She's a replicant, you know, right? 611

[elucidator]

Yeah? Well, so's your....! (Sorry, John, still a little touchy about that). 612

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by FuriousGeorge

..and here we have found our problem... 'luci iapparently smoked a formaldehyde laced blunt at a Vietnam protest in his formative years rendering him blind. They'll introduce the dog with the metal handlebar gear and orange apron after the next commercial break.<CSI:Miami sunglasses pose>

Oh, OK, you see it so clear, tell me what you see? Is it a revolver or an automatic? Large caliber or small? Is it resting on something? In the one where the "5" isn't reversed, is that the barrel, with the opening pointed in the observers general direction?

For that matter, anybody else who sees this so clearly, tell me. Mind, I'm not saying that what I am looking at is not a gun, I'm just saying it doesn't clearly look like a gun to me. Seems to me somewhere between Rorschach and Heisenberg.

And if its all true, so what? Want to put up a number sign at the front, "X number of days since the last unjustifiable shooting"? Has the fourteen day barrier been breached?

As far as my chemical enthusiasms, I'm not the one talking about dogs with handlebars and orange aprons. Maybe I did too much, maybe you didn't do enough. 613

[FuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Oh, OK, you see it so clear, tell me what you see? Is it a revolver or an automatic? Large caliber or small? Is it resting on something? In the one where the "5" isn't reversed, is that the barrel, with the opening pointed in the observers general direction?

For that matter, anybody else who sees this so clearly, tell me. Mind, I'm not saying that what I am looking at is not a gun, I'm just saying it doesn't clearly look like a gun to me. Seems to me somewhere between Rorschach and Heisenberg.

Jesus fucking Christ... No admittedly... I can't read the god damned serial number on the side of the gun but I can look at the video and say either a. It's a gun or b. it's the worst fucking case of rheumatoid arthritis I've ever seen or c. John fucking Merrick rose from the dead and pointed one of his ghastly deformed tentacles at the cop.

Now being that there was a gun found at the scene, I'm gonna do a little deductive reasoning and surmise it was "a". YM clearly V 614

[elucidator]

Didn't ask for serial numbers. Is it a revolver, with the characteristic bulge? Is the muzzle facing in the direction of the observer, or away? You seem to be rather forceful and aggressive in your opinion and your derision, so naturally I expect a certain clarity to your vision.

I don't think its unreasonable to ask you to describe what you see. And if you can't, well, you can't, no biggie, we all have our limitations. 615

[elucidator]

A center lefty news blog I respect, Talking Points Memo, has a news story up about the mayor's press conference. Consensus seems to be building that the shooting was justified, if tragic. TPM has played pretty square over the years, so I will lean that way as well, barring strong and certain contradictory evidence.

But damned if I will ever call killing anybody a "good shoot". 616

[John Mace]

I'll be surprised if this turns out to be different from the way the mainstream media is reporting it now (the mayor's press conference was all over the news last night), but anyone who is certain he sees a gun in the grainy video is kidding himself. 617

[Leaper]

Even so, of course, one big argument of protesters so far is that police reaction to even justified shootings, or ones involving actual peril, differ by race (positively towards whites, negatively towards minorities), so there may still be a lesson here. 618

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Leaper

Even so, of course, one big argument of protesters so far is that police reaction to even justified shootings, or ones involving actual peril, differ by race (positively towards whites, negatively towards minorities), so there may still be a lesson here.

Protestors, yes. Rock throwers, no. Also "no" for the moroon who threw a firecracker at a gas pump. 619

[Leaper]

When did I ever mention any of that? :: 620

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Leaper

When did I ever mention any of that? ::

I didn't mean to imply that you did. However, some folks around don't distinguish between protesters and rioters, so I wanted to make the distinction clear. 621

[elucidator]

nm 622

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I doubt if I've ever expressed an opinion in GD that no one would call a lie. Such an opinion would have to be innocuous and devoid of consequence.

"I like chocolate ice cream" is an opinion.

"Probable cause doesn't exist anymore" is not. It's a totally dishonest statement.

That's not what the Supreme Court ruled. Snobo knows it, and made a dishonest statement about it anyway. Which makes it a lie, and certainly not a debate. 623

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by elucidator

A center lefty news blog I respect, Talking Points Memo, has a news story up about the mayor's press conference. Consensus seems to be building that the shooting was justified, if tragic. TPM has played pretty square over the years, so I will lean that way as well, barring strong and certain contradictory evidence.

Well, I'm reading claims that there are witnesses who say the victim was unarmed, and that the video shows a silver object coming out of his pocket (a cell phone), unlike the black gun claimed to be the weapon. But I can't confirm primary sources. 624

[Defensive Indifference]

It's small potatoes compared to some of the stuff in this thread -- no one got killed -- but a cop in suburban St. Louis has been charged with a dozen counts of burglary. Officer Brian Barker of the Edwardsville, Illinois Police Department is accused of burglarizing several businesses and one home. Prosecutors say that Barker committed some of the burglaries while on duty and in uniform. Barker was also charged with having possession of six stolen guns.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/cri...ile_touch=true

The Edwardsville PD has had some, uh, issues. A former chief went to prison in 2013 for embezzling from the city, and another officer was accused in 2012 of secretly videotaping women at a tanning salon. 625

[get lives]

Originally Posted by Bayard

It's small potatoes compared to some of the stuff in this thread -- no one got killed -- but a cop in suburban St. Louis has been charged with a dozen counts of burglary. Officer Brian Barker of the Edwardsville, Illinois Police Department is accused of burglarizing several businesses and one home. Prosecutors say that Barker committed some of the burglaries while on duty and in uniform. Barker was also charged with having possession of six stolen guns.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/cri...ile_touch=true

The Edwardsville PD has had some, uh, issues. A former chief went to prison in 2013 for embezzling from the city, and another officer was accused in 2012 of secretly videotaping women at a tanning salon.

I would happily let my home get burglarized weekly if it meant cops stopped shooting so many people in this country. Please, burgle my house, if shooting someone is the alternative. Seriously. 626

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'll be surprised if this turns out to be different from the way the mainstream media is reporting it now (the mayor's press conference was all over the news last night), but anyone who is certain he sees a gun in the grainy video is kidding himself.

Agreed, it looks like he has something in his hand, but if someone were to show me that video by itself and I had knew nothing else about the case other than the video, there's no way I'd say, "yeah that's clearly a gun."

That said, it's really hard to see what else it could be. Do people really think the kid was so stupid he'd decide to point his cellphone at an armed cop in a tense situation in an area where cops have a reputation for overreacting to perceived threats? 627

[septimus]

Here's a story and video about a guy who did NOT follow the usual recommendation -- he reacted violently to a routine traffic stop and resisted arrest. Congrats to the cops whoavoided murdering him.

Sorry if "encounters between law-enforcement and civilians" is the wrong thread: though in plain-clothes the resistor was himself a cop. 628

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by septimus

Congrats to the cops whoavoided murdering him.

The perp was white. I'm sure it was just a coincidence. 629

[Terr]

http://fox2now.com/2014/12/30/update...lved-shooting/

An independent investigation performed by St. Louis County Police confirmed that Martin pulled a gun on the officer who was responding to the call for shoplifting.

During the conference, Police Chief Frank McCall said the individual who was with Martin at the time confirmed the same. He told police that he fled for fear of his life because he didn’t know if he would be shot.

Police say several witnesses also said Martin was armed and did attempt to fire his weapon at the officer.

The protesters are idiots. 630

[Drunky Smurf]

Clearly the Berkely Mayor, Police Chief and every other person in that video are racists and the Mayor and Chief ordered the police to actively hunt down young black men for funsies. 631

[iiandyiiii]

For some reason, some NYPD officers threw a man to the ground after he danced behind them.

The video is a bit jumpy, and not all of the altercation is clear. 632

[Donald Rump]

Originally Posted by Terr

http://fox2now.com/2014/12/30/update...lved-shooting/

An independent investigation performed by St. Louis County Police confirmed that Martin pulled a gun on the officer who was responding to the call for shoplifting.

During the conference, Police Chief Frank McCall said the individual who was with Martin at the time confirmed the same. He told police that he fled for fear of his life because he didn’t know if he would be shot.

Police say several witnesses also said Martin was armed and did attempt to fire his weapon at the officer.

The protesters are idiots.

IMHO the protesters would do their cause great service by being a little more selective about who they choose to make poster boys in calls for police reform. As someone who is very sympathetic to that cause, I can only cringe and wince at the protesters' reaction to the latest shooting in St. Louis.

I think a good rule of thumb is: if the best evidence available suggests that someone was shot after pointing a gun at the police, don't protest that event as an example of out-of-control policing. Doing so severely weakens the credibility of your message. 633

[Snowboarder Bo]

An unarmed man killed by a Montana police officer during a traffic stop was told repeatedly to raise his hands before the officer shot him three times, according to video footage shown Tuesday during an inquest into the shooting.

Billings Police Officer Grant Morrison shot 38-year-old Richard Ramirez in April when authorities said Ramirez — a suspect in a recent drug-involved shooting — appeared to reach for something during the traffic stop.

In the previously unreleased video from a patrol car dash-cam, Morrison could be heard yelling "Hands up!" at least six times before firing three shots into the vehicle in rapid succession.

The actions of Ramirez could not be seen in the footage.

So basically, in America, the land of freedom, anything you do that is not actively cooperating with the police is grounds to kill you. That's lovely. Home of the free AND the brave? 634

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

So basically, in America, the land of freedom, anything you do that is not actively cooperating with the police is grounds to kill you. That's lovely. Home of the free AND the brave?

Not anything, no. Reaching for something the officer can't see, then refusing to show your hands, yes. Imminent threat and all that. 635

[Leaper]

Serious question: what does "independent investigation performed by... the [p]olice" mean? I mean, I would think from the phrasing that "independent investigations" would be performed by disinterested third parties. Is there a specific meaning here I don't know? 636

[iiandyiiii]

Interesting article about the views of minority NYPD officers. One tidbit: most of them have experienced racial profiling and other bad behavior at the hands of police (while off-duty), and most who reported these bad experiences either had these complaints dismissed or were actually retaliated against by their supervisors. 637

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Not anything, no. Reaching for something the officer can't see, then refusing to show your hands, yes. Imminent threat and all that.

You have a funny definition of "imminent." Sounds more like a hypothetical threat at that point. 638

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by steronz

You have a funny definition of "imminent." Sounds more like a hypothetical threat at that point.

Agreed. While I don't think that police should wait until they are fired upon before they can use deadly force, the current standards yield too many false positives.

The standard has to be something greater than just the potential that someone might have the means to harm the officer. 639

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Interesting article about the views of minority NYPD officers. One tidbit: most of them have experienced racial profiling and other bad behavior at the hands of police (while off-duty), and most who reported these bad experiences either had these complaints dismissed or were actually retaliated against by their supervisors.

From the article:

Reuters interviewed 25 African American male officers on the NYPD, 15 of whom are retired and 10 of whom are still serving," ...All but one said that, when off duty and out of uniform, they had been victims of racial profiling...Officers said this included being pulled over for no reason, having their heads slammed against their cars, getting guns brandished in their faces, being thrown into prison vans and experiencing stop and frisks while shopping." These weren't one-off events. "The majority of the officers said they had been pulled over multiple times while driving. Five had had guns pulled on them."

I remember talking with a former coworker of mine. We lived relatively close to each other and worked at the same building, so we basically drove the same route to work at around the same time. We drove price-equivalent cars which were the same color, and wore similar work clothes (we both shopped at Brooks Brothers so there was probably a 80-90% overlap in our wardrobe). We were similar ages, and we had identical driving records (neither of us had ever had a ticket). We had similar education backgrounds, similar income, etc. etc. etc.. In the 4 years we worked together, I never got pulled over for any reason. He got pulled over a couple dozen times. Based on that, can you guess our races? 640

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Agreed. While I don't think that police should wait until they are fired upon before they can use deadly force, the current standards yield too many false positives.

The standard has to be something greater than just the potential that someone might have the means to harm the officer.

Here in Las Vegas, the standard is only "might harm someone at some time". Cite:

According to Metro's use of force policy, officers can use deadly force if they believe a fleeing suspect would pose a threat to other people if they escape.

Note that in that story from 2006, the suspect (still only a suspect, not a convicted felon) was running away from officers with his hands handcuffed behind his back.

The Las Vegas Metro PD also once shot an unarmed man clad only in a pair of shorts who was on his knees with his hands behind his back and surrounded by officers moving in to handcuff him. It was ruled justifiable. Google "Orlando Barlow" to read about that shooting.

The Las Vegas Review Journal is one of the worst newspapers I've ever had the misfortune to be subjected to, but they get tremendous credit from me for an investigative piece they did a couple of years ago on police shootings, Deadly Force. Over 142 dead at the hands of officers, and because of the terribly flawed inquest system we used to have, not a single one was ruled unjustified, no matter the circumstances. 641

[Donald Rump]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Interesting article about the views of minority NYPD officers. One tidbit: most of them have experienced racial profiling and other bad behavior at the hands of police (while off-duty), and most who reported these bad experiences either had these complaints dismissed or were actually retaliated against by their supervisors.

Very interesting article.

Unless it was mentioned and I wasn't reading carefully, I'd like to know how they selected the 25 black officers interviewed for the story, given that 96% of them reported experiencing racial profiling. 642

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

So basically, in America, the land of freedom, anything you do that is not actively cooperating with the police is grounds to kill you. That's lovely. Home of the free AND the brave?

This one doesn't seem to help the thread. A known shooting suspect, multiple warrants, told repeatedly to raise his hands, reaches for something..... that sounds like a justified shooting.

I only have a couple of questions, and the due to bad journalism, weren't addressed in the article.

The person sitting next to Ramirez, Tom Black, told The Associated Press in the days after the shooting that Ramirez was trying to unbuckle his seatbelt when he was shot.

Does this mean Ramirez was still seated and buckled when he was shot?

"He could have tased my brother or called for backup," Julie Ramirez said. "When Officer Morrison got out of that patrol car he knew he was going to kill my brother."

Does this mean the officer did not call for backup before approaching the car? 643

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Donald Rump

Very interesting article.

Unless it was mentioned and I wasn't reading carefully, I'd like to know how they selected the 25 black officers interviewed for the story, given that 96% of them reported experiencing racial profiling.

I didn't see anything about it, so I would assume typical journalism -- look through public records and newspapers, find a bunch of NYPD names that go with pictures of black faces, and call them, send an email, knock on their door, and ask them if they'd like to be interviewed. Presumably, they did this until they had 25 officers/former officers who said "yes". 644

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

This one doesn't seem to help the thread. A known shooting suspect, multiple warrants, told repeatedly to raise his hands, reaches for something..... that sounds like a justified shooting.

So you are asserting that the officer knew Mr. Ramirez's identity & the existence of outstanding warrants prior to shooting him? How did the officer know such things? Is he psychic? Is the officer a part of the Pre-Crime police force?

So the penalty for not obeying an officer's commands is now death? Srsly? 645

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

So you are asserting that the officer knew Mr. Ramirez's identity & the existence of outstanding warrants prior to shooting him? How did the officer know such things? Is he psychic? Is the officer a part of the Pre-Crime police force?

According to the article you posted, he recognised him. Perhaps you should read your own cites? 646

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

So the penalty for not obeying an officer's commands is now death? Srsly?

Been that way in the US for a while now. 647

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

So the penalty for not obeying an officer's commands is now death? Srsly?

Oh, and no, it's not a penalty. This ridiculous point keeps getting made every time someone is killed in (claimed) self defence. A killing in self defence isn't a penalty of any sort, and if it's not self defence, it's a crime, not a penalty.

The consequence of not obeying may well be death, and that may be an acceptable consequence, if that disobedience puts the officer in reasonable fear of death or injury.

Such as, for example, someone refusing to put their hands up and instead reaching into an area the officer can't see. It's reasonable for the police to assume people are armed. 648

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

It's reasonable for the police to assume people are armed.

Reasonable and perhaps prudent, absolutely. It's not reasonable for an officer to open fire based on an assumption, though. 649

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by steronz

Reasonable and perhaps prudent, absolutely. It's not reasonable for an officer to open fire based on an assumption, though.

That's how self defence works, though. If you can reasonably assume that the person is an imminent threat to you, you can defend yourself.

Someone disobeying a cop, and reaching for something, has been proven in court to meet that standard. That's really all there is to it. 650