You consider CNN a responsible source?
The news source that couldn’t find a picture of Trayvon Martin where he was older than 12 years old for months to hide the fact that he was a wannabe gangbanger?
Please…
It’s a common misconception. It comes from trying to shove a lot of control measures into the mix with self defense concepts.
I went on one of those - Bosnia. By policy we didn’t wear body armor, helmets, or even chamber a round when we left our base. Our ROE was very restrictive. I could still have justifiably used deadly force in this scenario with a solid legal footing. I wouldn’t have had to wait to get shot at. Right there on my ROE card was the reminder that the ROE/RUF did not trump my “inherent right” of self defense.
It would be nice if you didn’t personalize your attacks on other posters. Please refrain in the future.
nm
I was reading an article about an ex Marine turned police officer who was fired for not shooting an armed suspect. Apparently the suspect was mentally unstable and attempting “suicide by cop” by brandishing a pistol. The officer attempted to talk the guy down and eventually two other cops shot the suspect. The reason the officer was fired was for putting the other cops lives in danger by not immediately shooting the suspect.
Now I’m not an expert on police procedures or anything like that. But it does seem to me that while cops are not “paid to get shot”, they are paid to take a certain amount of risk, as opposed to just shooting anyone who looks like they are carrying a weapon. Especially in a country where a large portion of the population feels compelled to have the right to carry firearms.
Yeah, but it’s very different obviously (and I’m just posting to explain–I know you aren’t saying it’s the same as policing), soldiers move in groups of varying sizes, never one or two guys like police. Being “fired upon” in military ROE terms doesn’t mean each individual soldier has been fired upon, but that any person in the larger unit (whichever we’re talking about) has been engaged with by hostile behavior from an enemy force, the entire unit can then respond with lethal force and be acting kosher under the sort of ROE you’re talking about.
The mission and tactical situation for a peacekeeping force and a couple beat cops responding to an armed robbery call are fundamentally too different to realistically compare.
Anytime one of these situations come up, there are conflicting desires/goals going on. On one hand, we have a society that is becoming increasingly skeptical of police behavior, and that wants more accountability and a better system for determining when police violence was justified and a better way to get at the truth than a system in which officers frequently cover for each other and prosecutors depend on the support of the FOP to get elected so frequently do not prosecute even egregious cases.
On the other hand, on an individual case level, individual police officers have rights, and they shouldn’t be presumed guilty, just because of problems with policing nationally. So my default stance on specific incidents, is take the police statements, any witness statements, compare them to physical evidence uncovered, give time for a full investigation, and make a best guess of what happened. If any of this stuff reveals something that gives probable belief that the cop acted improperly then action should be taken against him/her. Otherwise sans evidence demonstrating their guilt/impropriety/corruption they shouldn’t face criminal/occupational sanction (sometimes they should face occupational sanction but not criminal sanction, for example in some cases a cop’s action might be legal self defense but he broke departmental policy somewhere in the incident.)
More broadly I don’t think we should try to fix all the country’s policing problems on a case by case basis. We need a more systemic approach. I also think if we’re going to help professionalize and improve police departments it must be holistic. Bad cops don’t usually start on day one shooting people or beating people inappropriately. It usually starts with them being allowed to do more penny-ante nonsense, like violating minorities on nonsense or harassing people and etc, escalating to beating suspects and such. Usually by the time a “bad cop” like the one who killed Walter Scott has gotten to that point, he’s already beyond redemption and has been allowed to behave inappropriately for years in lesser ways.
We also should recognize in many places still, cops are poorly paid and poorly educated (in some places it’s standard they make good money, high 5 figures/low six figures, and have college degrees), and often times there are broad policing policies like the “broken windows theory” that mandates they harass people over minor offenses and forces them to engage in their jobs in a way that is guaranteed to build community resentment and probably makes it very hard for them to be successful in a way we’d want. It’s not always fair to blame police for being on the front lines of poor policymaking.
So, new information has come out in this case. Turns out the child was running away when she was shot, and was shot in the back.
I assume those of y’all who were promoting the “scary Black person deserved it” meme are unfazed by this, correct?
That’s quite a failure of imagination on your part. Do you really think the only options are the police investigating themselves, and the police being investigated by plumbers?
Says an independent medical examiner hired by the boy’s family, according to that highly regarded journalistic site, The Guardian.
Meanwhile, the official coroner’s report won’t be released for at least six weeks, so I’m withholding judgment until then.
Perhaps so but unless you are saying that this gun was (or might have been) planted, there is no relevance to the Walter Scott case. The kid had a gun, it seems like you are arguing that the cops happened to shoot the kid with a gun by chance but he could just as easily NOT have had a gun.
No, I said it make the cops version of the story more likely because now we know the gun was not plated or fabricated.
You brought up the Walter Scott case, not me. YOU. Don’t you remember?
His plans make it very likely that he actually had a gun and that it wasn’t planted.
How does planning on having sex later relate to getting raped in the same way that planning on robbing someone later relate to having a gun?
Why would they assume that Tyre was armed? There were three kids there. YOU really think they cold have felt confident enough that Tyre was armed that they shot him on that assumption?
The dead kid had a gun. The other kid that ran with Tyre was a 19 year old. Why did they shoot the 13 year old rather than the 19 year old?
If I shot a 13 year old with a gun and I said that the kid drew a gun on me (and it was proven that the kid actually had a gun), I bet I would be out on bail. If there was testimony by the dead kid’s friends that the dead kid had an intent to use that gun to rob people (not me but some other people later on in the day), I might be released on my own recognizance.
In theory?!?!? The 5th amendment is only really observed in theory? The 6th amendment is only really ever observed in theory? Earl Warren is turning in his grave right now.
I don’t know. Walter Scott was shot in the back. 6 times. So I would have to know more.
But if he had been shot in the chest, and there were no other witnesses, then I would say that there was probably enough evidence to support a claim of self defense.
Are you saying that it is likely that the cops are lying in this case? Don’t we have to wait for the results of the investigation?
That’s just a lawyer talking. That’s not evidence. Who are the people that are contradicting the police version and what are they saying?
The video made him a pretty perfect victim IMHO.
Would you be more likely to believe that someone with an history of violence had committed a violent crime or that the mild mannered librarian had done so?
What injustice? Cops are entitled to justice as much as anyone else.
I don’t know if you realize this but you do not seem to be neutral or objective. You seem to have a bias against the cop in this case.
Almost everyone is prefacing their statements with the words “IF what the cop is saying is true, then…” You seem to be pissed off because you think this means everyone is assuming the cops are telling the truth. You seem to be pissed off that the presence of a gun enhances the credibility of their story.
It really seems like you are assuming guilt where the initial information seems exculpatory. I mean between the comparisons to Walter Scott where the gun was planted on the dead guy and the notion that the kid’s gun doesn’t lend any credibility to the cop’s version of the story, its seems like you are going out of your way to not believe the cop.
So there aren’t people in this very thread that have made comparisons to our soldiers being instructed not to fire unless fired upon? And people who have mentioned that some think that being shot at is part of a cop’s job.
The gun is physical evidence. NOTHING said by the lawyer retained by the kid’s family is evidence physical or otherwise.
Now, it very well may turn out that the cop is guilty but it just doesn’t look that way right now.
Actually the deceased was a he, and this isn’t new information. I’ve followed this story since it first broke and the very first article about it I read a couple days ago said that he was running.
I’m going to relate the information that has come out so far–note my repeating something reported in the news isn’t me making an affirmative claim such a thing happened, I just think it’s helpful to actually reflect in a discussion about this incident the actual information we have about this incident.
The police story is they received a call about an armed robbery, they respond to the call. The victim and a witness say that four young men pointed a gun at the victim and robbed him. The police responding come upon a group matching the description given by the victim, two of the members of that group flee upon police approach.
While pursuing them, CPD Officer Bryan Mason shoots and kills Tyre King, saying that King pulled a gun out of his waistband to prompt the shooting. The other suspect, Demetrius Braxton, 19, surrenders peacefully.
Note that very early on, like maybe 30 hours after the shooting, Braxton had given an interview with police in which he confirms there was a BB gun used to rob someone in his group, and says that he was “with” King who committed the robbery, but that he himself didn’t “participate.” So this was available almost before this story had gone national–that the surviving suspect not only confirmed the gun but confirmed they had actually used it to rob someone moments before–something it doesn’t seem like anyone has even mentioned in this thread, everyone has been saying stuff like the deceased had “planned” a robbery. But one of the surviving suspects outright says a robbery was committed.
Now, the most recent twist is the victim actually looked at a photo array and identified Demetrius Braxton as the person who actually pointed a gun at him and robbed him. This prompted CPD to arrest Braxton (he had been released after his initial interview) and charge him with felony robbery.
Now, to move into my “guessing”, it’s starting to sound to me like what may have happened is the 19 year old committed armed robbery, then gave the gun to the 13 year old. Because the 19 year old knows if they’re caught he’s facing adult felony charges, whereas a 13 year old is young enough he almost certainly is tried as a juvenile and receives a much lesser punishment. Further guessing, Tyre King got scared running from the police with a realistic fake gun on him, and was trying to pull it out to throw it away hoping to not be caught with it on him–not smart, but he was a scared 13 year old. This incident happened at night and very quickly, sadly the officer probably saw the gun coming out of the waistband and made a split second decision to fire.
I’ll withhold any judgment on what I think about the incident pending more information, but let’s at least try to repeat the news accurately, at the very least.
I would like American cops to be trained differently than they do now. Right now, they are way too trigger happy. This shooting seems justified to me, a realistic-looking gun is reason enough to fire, but many of the other times when cops have shot people do not seem justified at all.
I’ve also read news articles from coaches, local community center people and etc that said Tyre generally was a good kid, not one really into “bad stuff.” It seems to me we may have a simple case of an older teen, who was a bit more down the “bad path” probably pressured an impressionable 13 year old, who would want to seem “cool” for the older boy, into doing something he wouldn’t otherwise do. King paid for this decision with his life, which I think is sad and tragic regardless of whether the shooting was justified or not.
Like I said I’ll withhold judgment on the shooting until we have more information, but if things are as they look about this 19 year old I hope the potential to charge him with felony murder is there.
I did. Can you point to a few examples of fleeing suspects pulling a bb gun on the cops?
Correct. Just as we’ve seen demonstrable lies from the police as well. Why do you seem to take their word and not witnesses?
Generally, yes.
See, the great part about these conversations is that the people tend to reveal who they really are.
Maybe you can link to a you tube video to give him a little perspective…
My apologies - unfortunate typo on my part. And the rest of your post is much appreciated.
Felony murder usually requires that the murder occur during the commission of a felony. I don’t know what felony the 19 year old might have been committing during the shooting of the 13 year old.
The trigger happiness is a color coded.
The guy that got shot at the Bundy standoff in Oregon probably reached for his gun and changed his mind two or three times before the cps got nervous enough to shoot him.
How many times do you think a black man could reach for his gun before getting shot?
There is a popular video of a white guy putting is hand n his holstered gun as he s approached by a police officer. The police officer has his hands in front of his hands in front of him and he says: “sir can you please take your hand off your gun” The white dude says something about his right to open carry and the conversation goes on for 30 seconds or so before the guy takes his hand off his gun. The police officer repeated the request that the guy take his hand off his gun a couple of times.
How many ties in the history of the United Sates of America do you think that a black man has heard a cop say “can you please take your hand off your gun” How many times do you think they’ve heard it twice?
So, what should that training be? Currently, officers are trained to not use deadly force unless they have a reasonable fear that they are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Perhaps officers are “cleared” in the vast majority of cases not because there is some conspiracy but because they actually met the legal standards (Graham vs. Connor).
I don’t believe any amount of training can counteract the fear of Blackness that permeates the USA culture. The only viable solution is to disarm or disband the police force completely.