I have to wonder about unions. We had a cop who pepper sprayed a Wendy’s employee over incorrect change. I believe it’s the same officer I had the misfortune of meeting one night. It was all I could do not to beat the MF dead. I have had the fortune of meeting many other officers in my area who are great people. Everybody wanted him off the force but the union kept him around.
One of the biggest problems seems to be that of overkill. If the guy really was running at a group of cops in an apparently threatening manner, why couldn’t they just resort to the good ol’ billy club. They could of given him a beating which they seem to be inclined to do but he would also be more likely to survive the encounter.
The taser is supposed to take the place of the billy club, because it renders a person unable to pull a weapon. That middle ground step apparently failed, perhaps because the victim was a really big, muscular guy.
Does it matter? It certainly wouldn’t matter to me if the big dude pounding on my door was white or black. I’m calling the police.
To me, the biggest hurdle to overcome in convicting the officer of wrongdoing is that the homeowner misinterpreted what the guy who was pounding on her door wanted. They honestly believed, because she honestly believed, that he was trying to rob or harm her. So they were more aggressive with him from the get go.
The problem with why you never let a charging person get close to you is that they can pull a knife on you in the last moment and stab you, billy club or not.
Hypothetically speaking, if the following happened: Man starts charging toward a police officer, officer yells and tells the man to stop, man continues to run, officer tries to use a taser on the suspect but it is not effective for whatever reason, man continues to charge toward officer, officer draws his gun and warns one last time if the man does not stop the officer will fire, man continues to charge toward officer, officer fires his gun killing the man, then I don’t think the officer did anything wrong, if he COULD NOT retreat to safety.
If it was possible for the officer to lock himself in his car or get away from the charging man in some way, he should have done that.
For what it’s worth, all of the instances that Snowboarder Bo mentioned in his last post are terrible tragedies and the police should have been found guilty of murder in every one of those. If a person is not an immediate credible threat, then shooting them is never the right option. I think in this one case, even though we now know the man was unarmed, the police might not have done anything wrong. However, it’s very likely that he did.
Really? You think a person who intended to burglarize a home would decide the best way in is by banging on the front door and announcing his presence to the homeowner.
The spectrum of burglars likely includes “The Ballsy Burglar”.
If a citizen jumped to the wrong conclusion and shot someone after mistaking them for a thuggish maniac when really they’re just a frantic kid upset because their car crashed into a ravine, that citizen would be going to jail. Don’t see why a cop should be treated any differently.
Prejudging someone falsely is not a good excuse.
No, but someone preparing to effect a home invasion might, as might a drug-crazed maniac with a bloody cleaver. And as anyone who’s seen A Clockwork Orange knows, “help, there’s been a terrible accident!” may occasionally be a ruse to gain entry to someone’s home for purposed of robbery, rape, impromptu performances of show tunes and whatnot.
If someone banged on my door in the wee hours screaming that they needed help, I would hesitate before letting them in. I’m not particularly proud of that, but this is the world we live in.
I don’t blame the homeowner- it’s OK to “just be safe” and call the police if you’re not sure and someone’s banging on your door.
I do (based on the information I have, which may not be complete, and withhold final judgement until then) blame the cop who shot the guy- in this case “just being safe” is not a good enough reason to shoot an unarmed man. Maybe it’s a good enough excuse to tase him, or perhaps even to hit him with a club, but not to kill him. Killing should be reserved as a last option, only when there is clear and significant risk to life. An unarmed erratic guy, even a muscular one, should not be in this category when there are 3 cops present.
[
](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/police-cop-shot-unarmed-man-charlotte-10-times)
I have nothing to add, just linking to the new info.
Yup, that was one of the many reasons I left … I just didn’t feel safe from the authorities driving around in the middle of the night while “very tan” … I really had too many close calls myself.
I agree. Irrespective of this case, I think there needs to be a discussion of when escalation to lethal force is warranted. Especially since the vague, individual standards we have now seem to introduce many biases and prejudices into these situations that result in a lot more people being killed or injured. I also think that if we are going to arm cops, giving them the discretion to kill others, we should expect that there be some unambiguous, clear and present danger that could credibly lead to their death (or serious injury).
Along those lines, even if we presume that this guy was running towards the cops, why is that (in and of itself) a lethal threat to (I think) 3 armed police officers with backup on call? I just don’t see why maybe getting punched or bum rushed by someone warrants attempting to kill them. And I say that with all due respect to police officers, but the job is really not that dangerous compared to many others (like taxi driver or roofer). Furthermore, they are compensated like professionals and treated by most with great deference. I think society does that because we expect that their jobs have inherent risks like physical threats, public disobedience, and basic assault that should not be mitigated by preemptively shooting people because they might do those things. Now that doesn’t mean you need to peacefully get your ass beat by some crazed drug addict because you are a cop, but I think the line needs to be a lot closer to that than, “a scary guy was running towards me and I got scared”.
Actually, if they were in reasonable fear for their life, they might not spend any time at all in jail. Had the homeowner herself shot Ferrell, she might have been charged with involuntary manslaughter, or she might not have been charged with anything. Whether it was a misunderstanding or not, you are allowed to defend yourself, even with lethal force, if you are in imminent fear of your life. Parents have shot their own kids or spouses after mistaking them for an intruder.
I think we can all agree that there have been some hyperbolic statements made in this thread, but the fact remains that there seems to be a staggering number of (mostly) Black people killed in this country whose deaths are rarely accounted for. And I don’t just mean the cops and wannabe neighborhood watchmen gunning down “suspicious” minorities, but also the thousands of Black kids in inner cities that are killed on a regular basis. The means, motives, and perpetrators often have few similarities aside from the fact that they killed someone whose life society has deemed unworthy of investigation or mourning. I just don’t see how anyone could look at the body count and (regardless of the causes) not wonder about the deafening silence and indifference to a well documented holocaust going on.
Drugs usually don’t make you homicidal. The things you are describing: stranger rape, hot burglaries, bloody cleavers, etc., are just really really really rare. For all to occur at once is pure fantasy. What you are describing is pretty much solely the domain of movies.
Honestly, that is not the world we live in. I suppose some specific neighborhoods might be subject to that reality, but most people don’t live in that world. The streets are, for the most part, safer than they have ever been. Now, I agree it may not be prudent to let some bloody person into your house in the middle of the night, but it’s not prudent to always let the low probability, worst case scenario guide your decisions.
Chris Chestnut is the attorney that the Ferrell family has retained to help them in this matter. He has also represented the family of Robert Champion a FAMU student who was killed as a result of hazing by the FAMU Marching 100 (the university’s famous marching band) back in 2011.
[
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CHARLOTTE_POLICE_SHOOTING_DEATH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-16-19-09-35)
:rolleyes: No surprise there, at least not to me.
Why are you assuming that? I see nothing about the police saying anything to him. You’d think that the police would include something like that in their statement, if it had happened, because it’s really kind of significant.
I disagree. Regular citizens ought to have a duty to retreat, but not police officers. Their job is to stand in the charging maniac’s way.
Did you actually read any articles regarding the incidents Bo mentioned? They are absolutely tragedies, maybe even criminal, but they’re not as black and white as he presented them.
For example, Stanley Gibson, who was “unarmed and sitting in his car, which was blocked by other vehicles.” Bo is presenting the story in a way that’s downright deceitful.
First, Gibson had the engine running, and was deliberately ramming vehicles with people inside, and attempted to hit people with his vehicle (but was prevented from doing so by the police, who pinned him with their vehicles).
Second, hindsight indicates Gibson may have been experiencing a psychotic episode, as he had been committed to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation (which didn’t happen before he was discharged) and had been to jail for causing bizarre disturbances, all over the previous two days. (This part wasn’t known to the officers on scene, but it puts into perspective the state of mind this guy was in at the time). He was mentally ill and emotionally unstable, and he ignored all commands to stop the vehicle, and was attempting to ram his way out at the time he was shot.
Third, the tactic the police were going to use to get him out of the vehicle involved shooting bean bag rounds through the driver side window, followed by pepper spray. The police did not know whether he was armed at the time. The plan was changed to have officers fire the non-lethal round through the passenger window. The officer who shot Gibson was not told of this change in plans. He heard a gunshot at an unexpected time, and saw the passenger window shatter, which he also did not expect. He assumed the shot came from within the vehicle. He showed incredibly poor judgment by firing his weapon (and the police showed a great deal of incompetence in general), but under the circumstances I certainly wouldn’t call it murder.
Fourth, the officer who shot Gibson was fired. No, he wasn’t charged with a crime. Maybe he should have been, but I think it would have been difficult to convince a jury he committed murder. Even though he wasn’t charged, it’s not exactly like the picture people some are painting about rampaging police killing people with impunity and suffering no consequences.
The other incidents Bo mentioned have similarly important details left out.
I agree that the police are overly militarized in their training, they don’t have nearly enough oversight (especially from non-police entities), their union is too influential, the police have too much power in general, and have deservedly lost much the support and respect of their community. But let’s be rational about it. The police aren’t monsters just waiting for the chance to kill people.
Actually that’s how it’s done. If nobody answers then the door gets kicked in. Well, usually the doorbell is rung so as not to make any more noise than necessary.
So the police showed up in a pickup truck wearing white sheets? I just assumed they drove badged cars and were wearing uniforms. How does this guy not know they are the police?
This really needs a better narrative to discuss. Something is way off here.
And before I forget, the Officers in the UK terrorist shooting managed to shoot the guy in the legs and he was armed with a gun and a knife. It apparently isn’t as difficult as it’s been made out to be.
In the US we went to tasers because night sticks were considered too rough. But somehow we went from situations where police got physical to a mentality that any suggestion of bodily harm is met with deadly force.