OT: Riots/Looting in North St. Louis

[QuadBoiler]

Originally posted by BleedinGold:
That's my whole point. We're playing a cat and mouse game with "What If's".

We wonder why this country is going broke? Why educational systems have to cut teachers? Why police forces have to cut personnel? Why fire departments are understaffed? Why infrastructure/bridges are falling apart?

Well it could be because we're so worried about what MAY happen that we don't see what IS happening.

We're playing a game where let's acquire as much arsenal "in case something happens". Instead of prioritizing the likelihood of that actually happening.

It's like planning to spend the Powerball winnings, knowing full well you will probably never win anyways. "Let's arm up, just in case X,Y,Z happens."

Your argument is well any district could win the Criminal/Terrorist Powerball Jackpot and it may need all of that stuff. My argument is the likelihood of that occuring is rather small for each district/precinct by itself, and instead the likelihood is that the extra militerization resources have a greater threat of being misused (most likely unintentionally) inside a community.

Instead of spending that money on preparing for that small percentage chance of winning that Criminal/Terrorist Jackpot -- communities focus those resources in other areas. Law Enforcement Outreach projects. Infrastructure improvement. City restoration projects. Better school systems.

Or heck -- if we don't want to spend on any of that stuff -- we just lower property taxes (assuming the community is in great shape in those above areas, and it's operating in the black with a nice reserve fund).

None of this even touches the societal costs of living in a "What If" society. It leads to blatant distrust of community members, of your neighbors, of society in general.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So we should just not prepare for anything? Then when something happens, people like you are the first to bitch and moan that we screwed up. Come on. Yes, I absolutely think it's fine for law enforcement to have access to things they won't use 99% of the time because the 1% of time they do need it, they can save a lot of lives. And as I said before, (from the article you posted), these vehicles were used in the military and are being repurposed. They were donated to local law enforcement and are costing the department just over $6,000 for shipping. To have something like this available for that kind of cost is a great deal for those police. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the greater chances of being misused. There will always be chances of anything being misused. These people will be highly trained on when and how to use this vehicle and the chances of it being misused are actually quite small.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I'd love to see what you'd do if you were staring down the barrels of AK-47s or other high-powered assault rifles held by some gangbangers or Mexican drug cartel members drooling at the thought of blowing your head off.

In many cases the MRAPs you seem to have so much trouble with are donated by the US Military, refurbished, and put to use in local jurisdictions. The biggest cost to use these is the fuel and maintenance.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: You need to wake up

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by BleedinGold:

Originally posted by QuadBoiler:

Originally posted by BleedinGold:

Originally posted by QuadBoiler:

Originally posted by BleedinGold:

Originally posted by timster:
Police should have the better equipment than the other guys
When Police officers used to respond to calls w 9mm pistols facing off v Semi Automatic rifles w armor piercing capabilities it has forced departments across the US to step up.....Meth, Crack, Illegal Aliens, gangs, terrorism has become a small town USA problem and departments have to be prepared

I disagree. I don't feel limited/isolated incidents need to always require a drastic change in policies.

Most small towns don't have criminals shooting at them with "semi-automatic rifles w armor piercing capabilities". And I think it's an extremely small percentage (probably less than 1%) where weapons of that caliber are being used.

But I get it, they dont' want to EVER be in a situation where they are out-gunned. Unfortnately though that sometimes puts the police on the other side of the coin -- where they can come in and escalate or over respond to a situation.

It leads to distrust on both sides.

There will be a much bigger incident than St Louis within the next 5-10 years.

Curious, can anyone give me a LOGICAL reason for Lawrence's recent purhcase of a 48,000 "mine-resistant ambush protectant vehicle"?

Lawrence isn't alone in the state. According to the below article Johnson County, Morgan County, Jefferson County, West Lafayette Police, Merrillville, Mishawaka, and Terre Haute all have one of these vehicles as well.

Seriously does West Lafayette really need one of these things? Can any one name me an incident in the last 25 years in West Lafayette where that vehicle makes any logical choice of needing to have?

Maybe they could have used it on the students when they "rioted" after the women's national championship.

I know that "tank" is an extreme example. But its actually a perfect example... if the police forces are already mobilizing with such size it's a guarantee they have already out-gunned most small countries -- let alone any criminal threat withing their districts.



Link: We're saving some gas, with this beast!

Did you actually read the article? It laid out a few possibilities for use of that vehicle and I'm sure there are plenty more. The captain also specifically states, "we'd rather have it and never need it than need it and wish we had it." I guess I don't see the big problem, it's not like they bring the thing out to give people traffic tickets. And btw, this "purchase" was just over $6,000 for shipping from Texas. The article says the military donates these things to local law enforcement.

Posted from wireless.rivals.com

This post was edited on 8/11 10:15 AM by QuadBoiler

Yeah I read it. And I disagree.

"Woodruff said the department would use the MRAP in emergencies involving
the SWAT team, like in the case of a mass shooting or a bomb threat."

When was the last mass shooting or successful bomb explosion that occurred in any of those listed districts? Or heck even in the entire state?

"The department has used a large armored car before, including a standoff
at a residence being burglarized. That vehicle was brought in front of
the house and sheltered the SWAT team while officers approached the
suspects. That situation was peacefully resolved."

There were millions of 'stand-offs' that have occurred prior to the use of MRAPs were the situations were peacefully resolved. If the article is trying to say that this one incident was resolved because of the use of the MRAP, I believe that to be an over-reaching statement.

"The armored car could also help the department get around in severe
weather, as it can operate in as deep as 4 feet of water, he said."

When was the last time any community in this state was under 4 feet of water? And if it ever did happen is the MRAP really the optimal vehicle of choice? It's one vehicle. I would offer that a fleet of small fishing boats with trollers would be a better tactical response in a situation where there is 4 ft of water.

My whole point is if the police/city/states/federal government are playing a cat and mouse game against their imagination -- or at best against past isolated incidents.

All I ask is that communities ask themselves is that preparation worth both the financial cost and the societal costs.

My thesis is that in most cases the answer to both of those questions is "No."

And once again, I go back to, it's better to need and not have than to have and not need. "When was the last time..." is a meaningless statement here IMO. When was the last time before 1997 that police officers needed assault rifles to deal with a situation? No one knows when or where a situation that might require something like this will occur. If this vehicle stays in the garage for 20 years and never gets used, great. But at least if something comes up where it would be useful, they have it available to them.

Posted from wireless.rivals.com

That's my whole point. We're playing a cat and mouse game with "What If's".

We wonder why this country is going broke? Why educational systems have to cut teachers? Why police forces have to cut personnel? Why fire departments are understaffed? Why infrastructure/bridges are falling apart?

Well it could be because we're so worried about what MAY happen that we don't see what IS happening.

We're playing a game where let's acquire as much arsenal "in case something happens". Instead of prioritizing the likelihood of that actually happening.

It's like planning to spend the Powerball winnings, knowing full well you will probably never win anyways. "Let's arm up, just in case X,Y,Z happens."

Your argument is well any district could win the Criminal/Terrorist Powerball Jackpot and it may need all of that stuff. My argument is the likelihood of that occuring is rather small for each district/precinct by itself, and instead the likelihood is that the extra militerization resources have a greater threat of being misused (most likely unintentionally) inside a community.

Instead of spending that money on preparing for that small percentage chance of winning that Criminal/Terrorist Jackpot -- communities focus those resources in other areas. Law Enforcement Outreach projects. Infrastructure improvement. City restoration projects. Better school systems.

Or heck -- if we don't want to spend on any of that stuff -- we just lower property taxes (assuming the community is in great shape in those above areas, and it's operating in the black with a nice reserve fund).

None of this even touches the societal costs of living in a "What If" society. It leads to blatant distrust of community members, of your neighbors, of society in general.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Apparently, in your world, drug cartels have not established gangs in most major cities to move their products. As the large cities get saturated, they will expand to smaller cities and towns. Illegal drugs are a multi-Billion dollar industry and the drug gangs are very well armed.

If you haven't noticed, terrorism is alive and well on a worldwide basis. You're delusional, if you think we won't be attacked again. Who knows what's flowing through our Southern border right now, since there is no effort being made to enforce our immigration laws.

It's a different world now, than it was even 20 years ago. These aren't WHAT IFs. These have become WHENs. You need to wake up to the reality of the world today, not some idealized "Leave it to Beaver" scenario you are imagining still exists.

Fear mongering has taken hold in this country. It's so sad.

Drug cartels are being crushed by the legalization of marijuana. See :: https://news.vice.com/article/legal-pot-in-the-us-is-crippling-mexican-cartels And the fact is, you can't name me one drug cartel incident in the state of Indiana in which the use of an MRAP was required. You're just spitting out generalizations to try to prove that we "NEED" these militarized police forces.

You can make an argument that 'terrorism is alive and well on a worldwide basis", but city/town police forces aren't and I argue shouldn't be armed to handle global terrorist threats. That's what the federal government and local National Guard is for.

It makes no sense to arm every police district in case a terrorism threat hits their area. The likelyhood that any of the districts I mentioned are hit with a "global terrorist threat" are extremely rare. The financial and societal burden shouldn't be on the local community to prepare for that, but should be held at the state and federal level.

Now I could see a compromise where state's implement a "Regional Response Groups" It would be much cheaper for the state to have Regional Response Groups that could handle these major events, and take the burden off each local community. Oh wait -- the state has that already. It's called the Indiana State Patrol.

So yeah could ISP justify having some of this militerized equipment? Probably. Should your local county sherriff have them? Probably not. It just doesn't make financial, economic, or logical sense.

I'm to young (35) to have watched Leave It To Beaver, but I'm sure it was an overly idealic and simplistic show -- even for it's times (eg Korean War? Vietnam War? War on Communism, War on Drugs, War on Terror). I'm not sure the exact time frame of the show, but it doesn't really matter. The US has been involved in some sort of globalist threat since the end of WW2.

To act like this is something completely new is false as well. And doesn't change the fact that local police forces can't logically justify the use of much of the equipment. Especially at the financial and opportunity costs it puts on their communities.

 

[BleedinGold]

Originally posted by QuadBoiler:

Originally posted by BleedinGold:

That's my whole point. We're playing a cat and mouse game with "What If's".

We wonder why this country is going broke? Why educational systems have to cut teachers? Why police forces have to cut personnel? Why fire departments are understaffed? Why infrastructure/bridges are falling apart?

Well it could be because we're so worried about what MAY happen that we don't see what IS happening.

We're playing a game where let's acquire as much arsenal "in case something happens". Instead of prioritizing the likelihood of that actually happening.

It's like planning to spend the Powerball winnings, knowing full well you will probably never win anyways. "Let's arm up, just in case X,Y,Z happens."

Your argument is well any district could win the Criminal/Terrorist Powerball Jackpot and it may need all of that stuff. My argument is the likelihood of that occuring is rather small for each district/precinct by itself, and instead the likelihood is that the extra militerization resources have a greater threat of being misused (most likely unintentionally) inside a community.

Instead of spending that money on preparing for that small percentage chance of winning that Criminal/Terrorist Jackpot -- communities focus those resources in other areas. Law Enforcement Outreach projects. Infrastructure improvement. City restoration projects. Better school systems.

Or heck -- if we don't want to spend on any of that stuff -- we just lower property taxes (assuming the community is in great shape in those above areas, and it's operating in the black with a nice reserve fund).

None of this even touches the societal costs of living in a "What If" society. It leads to blatant distrust of community members, of your neighbors, of society in general.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So we should just not prepare for anything? Then when something happens, people like you are the first to bitch and moan that we screwed up. Come on. Yes, I absolutely think it's fine for law enforcement to have access to things they won't use 99% of the time because the 1% of time they do need it, they can save a lot of lives. And as I said before, (from the article you posted), these vehicles were used in the military and are being repurposed. They were donated to local law enforcement and are costing the department just over $6,000 for shipping. To have something like this available for that kind of cost is a great deal for those police. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the greater chances of being misused. There will always be chances of anything being misused. These people will be highly trained on when and how to use this vehicle and the chances of it being misused are actually quite small.

So we should just not prepare for anything?

We should prepare for SOME things, but not for EVERY thing. That's my whole point. Analyze and make logical choices. And whom should be responsible to prepare for certain things. eg global terrorist threat? Probably not a local police department's jurisdiction. bomb threat? Probably not a local police dept's jurisdiction.

I mean where does it stop? If a criminal gets an RPG and uses it in an act of a crime -- should every police cruiser in every district than be switched over to an RPG resistant humvee?

I don't think you can make the argument that there shouldn't be a line. We're just disagreeing on where that line should be. To me that line should stop a lot farther back for local police departments.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the greater chances of being
misused. There will always be chances of anything being misused. These
people will be highly trained on when and how to use this vehicle and
the chances of it being misused are actually quite small.

Smaller than the need that there may be an actual need for some of these militarized devices? I'd say no. Heck police are trained to use their side arm -- more than probably any other tool or weapon they have. And they STILL have incidents involving the misuse of that item all the time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have that weapon though. Because the likelihood that they will need that sidearm outweighs the risk that it may be inappropriately misused. But I think that question should be asked of every weapon that the police have access to.

Again it's just a question of where that line should be. I'm arguing that the line should be farther back to them being more of a civilian police force that are armed and equipped to handle 95-97% of all community related needs. The other 3-5% should be farmed out to either State Police, National Guard, or National (FBI, etc) assuming on what the situation calls for.

 

[QuadBoiler]

Originally posted by BleedinGold:

Originally posted by QuadBoiler:

Originally posted by BleedinGold:

That's my whole point. We're playing a cat and mouse game with "What If's".

We wonder why this country is going broke? Why educational systems have to cut teachers? Why police forces have to cut personnel? Why fire departments are understaffed? Why infrastructure/bridges are falling apart?

Well it could be because we're so worried about what MAY happen that we don't see what IS happening.

We're playing a game where let's acquire as much arsenal "in case something happens". Instead of prioritizing the likelihood of that actually happening.

It's like planning to spend the Powerball winnings, knowing full well you will probably never win anyways. "Let's arm up, just in case X,Y,Z happens."

Your argument is well any district could win the Criminal/Terrorist Powerball Jackpot and it may need all of that stuff. My argument is the likelihood of that occuring is rather small for each district/precinct by itself, and instead the likelihood is that the extra militerization resources have a greater threat of being misused (most likely unintentionally) inside a community.

Instead of spending that money on preparing for that small percentage chance of winning that Criminal/Terrorist Jackpot -- communities focus those resources in other areas. Law Enforcement Outreach projects. Infrastructure improvement. City restoration projects. Better school systems.

Or heck -- if we don't want to spend on any of that stuff -- we just lower property taxes (assuming the community is in great shape in those above areas, and it's operating in the black with a nice reserve fund).

None of this even touches the societal costs of living in a "What If" society. It leads to blatant distrust of community members, of your neighbors, of society in general.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So we should just not prepare for anything? Then when something happens, people like you are the first to bitch and moan that we screwed up. Come on. Yes, I absolutely think it's fine for law enforcement to have access to things they won't use 99% of the time because the 1% of time they do need it, they can save a lot of lives. And as I said before, (from the article you posted), these vehicles were used in the military and are being repurposed. They were donated to local law enforcement and are costing the department just over $6,000 for shipping. To have something like this available for that kind of cost is a great deal for those police. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the greater chances of being misused. There will always be chances of anything being misused. These people will be highly trained on when and how to use this vehicle and the chances of it being misused are actually quite small.

Smaller than the need that there may be an actual need for some of these militarized devices? I'd say no. Heck police are trained to use their side arm -- more than probably any other tool or weapon they have. And they STILL have incidents involving the misuse of that item all the time.

Not the same. You're comparing a tool that EVERY police officer in the country has on them at all times to a vehicle that will be used by a select group of officers and only in extreme circumstances. This isn't a cruiser that will be rotated throughout the force to patrol the streets each day. I would argue that the chances this vehicle is misused are actually lower than the chances of having to use it. Either way, the thing was dirt cheap and now they have a way to deal with extreme situations that might arise and save lives instead of having to wait for ISP or the National Guard...
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

This post was edited on 8/11 2:34 PM by QuadBoiler

 

[Courthouse Carp]

Backing up BleedinGold's EXCELLENT points:

Originally posted by colburnr:

Originally posted by BleedinGold:

Originally posted by timster:
Police should have the better equipment than the other guys
When Police officers used to respond to calls w 9mm pistols facing off v Semi Automatic rifles w armor piercing capabilities it has forced departments across the US to step up.....Meth, Crack, Illegal Aliens, gangs, terrorism has become a small town USA problem and departments have to be prepared

I disagree. I don't feel limited/isolated incidents need to always require a drastic change in policies.

Most small towns don't have criminals shooting at them with "semi-automatic rifles w armor piercing capabilities". And I think it's an extremely small percentage (probably less than 1%) where weapons of that caliber are being used.

But I get it, they dont' want to EVER be in a situation where they are out-gunned. Unfortnately though that sometimes puts the police on the other side of the coin -- where they can come in and escalate or over respond to a situation.

It leads to distrust on both sides.

There will be a much bigger incident than St Louis within the next 5-10 years.

Curious, can anyone give me a LOGICAL reason for Lawrence's recent purhcase of a 48,000 "mine-resistant ambush protectant vehicle"?

Lawrence isn't alone in the state. According to the below article Johnson County, Morgan County, Jefferson County, West Lafayette Police, Merrillville, Mishawaka, and Terre Haute all have one of these vehicles as well.

Seriously does West Lafayette really need one of these things? Can any one name me an incident in the last 25 years in West Lafayette where that vehicle makes any logical choice of needing to have?

Maybe they could have used it on the students when they "rioted" after the women's national championship.

I know that "tank" is an extreme example. But its actually a perfect example... if the police forces are already mobilizing with such size it's a guarantee they have already out-gunned most small countries -- let alone any criminal threat withing their districts.

Wrong...The reason police forces are better equipped these days are due to the fact that many officers lives have been lost as a result of being "outgunned." This really began to become prominent with the drug wars in the 80's. Shoot...look at Chicago, it's a freaking war zone. There is a lot of research that goes on in the LE community regarding risk assessment, etc... A police department just doesn't think, "gee whiz let's get a tank to play with." Crazy thing are happening everywhere now days, even in small towns. As for your examples of the towns/cities who purchased the armored vehicles, I can't speak for all of them, but as someone who lives close to Merrillville and has 2 friends whom are Merrillville cops, yeah it is pretty bad in Merrillville. Also, as someone who works in the LE community, remember there is a TON the public does not know, hear, etc...

Do you have statistics to back that claim up?

How far is Pulaski County from Lake County? (The population of Pulaski County is 99 people LESS than Mackey Arena's old capacity!!)

Pulaski Co. Sheriffs Dept. thinks that

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: Chicago?

Originally posted by ChuckJr:
How can you say Chicago is a war zone? This is the home of our great President and they have strict gun controls. Better get your facts straight. On second thought, you're probably right but I'm sure Obama will fix it as soon as he gets back from vacation.

Never been to Chicago, have you?

 

[db]

"The community?" Because some small number of thugs decided to do it?

You can't be serious in referring to "the community" as if it were one thing.

 

[db]

Bentley said to Craig, "Let him have it Chris...."
To this day we still don't know just what he meant by this.

(from a sad song that is also a great song)

 

[atmafola]

Dash Cams and personal cam for all police

While we are busy arming police departments with tanks, and anti-arcraft missiles lol, can we add a simple on-person cam for every police officer. With how cheap cams are nowadays, it shouldn't cost too much. Personally, I am tired of all this he said / she said. Who knows what actually happened in this case?

In cases like this where eye-witness accounts contradict official police report, it would be great if the policeman had evidence on him that there was no wrong doing.

For those worried about the cost, for districts that have implemented it, it has paid for itself within a year by reducing lawsuits against police for brutality. Civilian complaints of police brutality have gone down, lawsuits that need to be paid have gone down and remarkably justified use of force by police have gone down too. A cam has to be way cheaper than those tanks and million dollar lawsuits, right?

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Originally posted by BoilerCop:
actually yes most SOPs state that going for an officers gun is a reasonable justification for lethal use of force
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

I can understand this and actually agree. But if it is true that the body was left laying in the street for four hours, that's not right. And showing up to a candlelight vigil in full riot gear is inviting trouble, no?

 

[atmafola]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by BoilerCop:
actually yes most SOPs state that going for an officers gun is a reasonable justification for lethal use of force
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

I can understand this and actually agree. But if it is true that the body was left laying in the street for four hours, that's not right. And showing up to a candlelight vigil in full riot gear is inviting trouble, no?

Personally, I am not buying the official story from the cops. People with reasons to lie, do actually lie. Eye witness have other stories. They said the kid was far away from the car with his arms raised when the cop proceeded to shoot him a few more times.

I think the truth is something like this
1. Initially there was some verbal confrontation. (Both sides agree on this)
2. Then maybe some physical altercation (Official Police story), perhaps an attempted arrest with the young man freeing himself and trying to run into his nearby grandma house.(more likely scenario in my own opinion)
3. Something there happened that pissed off the cops or "made him fear for his life".
4. Either ways, he started the firing.
5. The kid knowing the gig was up, stopped running and made the right calculation that its better to be arrested than shot.
6. But the officer still proceeded and shot him anyways a few more times for god knows what reason even though the diseased was no longer moving, had his arms raised. (a few eye witness confirm this, and no police story is denying this)

For those that are pro-police, the key for them will be what happened that set off the shooting.
For me, it is why continue to shoot someone who has surrendered irrespective of what happened prior to that.

 

[threeeputtt]

I love all of the "Monday morning" comments. The story is simply to sketchy to draw any conclusions. I will wait until more facts come out. I have no opinion other than it is sad.

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by atmafola:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by BoilerCop:
actually yes most SOPs state that going for an officers gun is a reasonable justification for lethal use of force
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

I can understand this and actually agree. But if it is true that the body was left laying in the street for four hours, that's not right. And showing up to a candlelight vigil in full riot gear is inviting trouble, no?

Personally, I am not buying the official story from the cops. People with reasons to lie, do actually lie. Eye witness have other stories. They said the kid was far away from the car with his arms raised when the cop proceeded to shoot him a few more times.

I think the truth is something like this
1. Initially there was some verbal confrontation. (Both sides agree on this)
2. Then maybe some physical altercation (Official Police story), perhaps an attempted arrest with the young man freeing himself and trying to run into his nearby grandma house.(more likely scenario in my own opinion)
3. Something there happened that pissed off the cops or "made him fear for his life".
4. Either ways, he started the firing.
5. The kid knowing the gig was up, stopped running and made the right calculation that its better to be arrested than shot.
6. But the officer still proceeded and shot him anyways a few more times for god knows what reason even though the diseased was no longer moving, had his arms raised. (a few eye witness confirm this, and no police story is denying this)

For those that are pro-police, the key for them will be what happened that set off the shooting.
For me, it is why continue to shoot someone who has surrendered irrespective of what happened prior to that.

What makes you label this kid as diseased? Seems a little insensitive.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by atmafola:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by BoilerCop:
actually yes most SOPs state that going for an officers gun is a reasonable justification for lethal use of force
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

I can understand this and actually agree. But if it is true that the body was left laying in the street for four hours, that's not right. And showing up to a candlelight vigil in full riot gear is inviting trouble, no?

Personally, I am not buying the official story from the cops. People with reasons to lie, do actually lie. Eye witness have other stories. They said the kid was far away from the car with his arms raised when the cop proceeded to shoot him a few more times.

I think the truth is something like this
1. Initially there was some verbal confrontation. (Both sides agree on this)
2. Then maybe some physical altercation (Official Police story), perhaps an attempted arrest with the young man freeing himself and trying to run into his nearby grandma house.(more likely scenario in my own opinion)
3. Something there happened that pissed off the cops or "made him fear for his life".
4. Either ways, he started the firing.
5. The kid knowing the gig was up, stopped running and made the right calculation that its better to be arrested than shot.
6. But the officer still proceeded and shot him anyways a few more times for god knows what reason even though the diseased was no longer moving, had his arms raised. (a few eye witness confirm this, and no police story is denying this)

For those that are pro-police, the key for them will be what happened that set off the shooting.
For me, it is why continue to shoot someone who has surrendered irrespective of what happened prior to that.

What makes you label this kid as diseased? Seems a little insensitive.

Misspelling of deceased, perhaps?

 

[timster]

Al Sharpton on the scene..all is saved

No surprise

 

[atmafola]

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by atmafola:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by BoilerCop:
actually yes most SOPs state that going for an officers gun is a reasonable justification for lethal use of force
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

I can understand this and actually agree. But if it is true that the body was left laying in the street for four hours, that's not right. And showing up to a candlelight vigil in full riot gear is inviting trouble, no?

Personally, I am not buying the official story from the cops. People with reasons to lie, do actually lie. Eye witness have other stories. They said the kid was far away from the car with his arms raised when the cop proceeded to shoot him a few more times.

I think the truth is something like this
1. Initially there was some verbal confrontation. (Both sides agree on this)
2. Then maybe some physical altercation (Official Police story), perhaps an attempted arrest with the young man freeing himself and trying to run into his nearby grandma house.(more likely scenario in my own opinion)
3. Something there happened that pissed off the cops or "made him fear for his life".
4. Either ways, he started the firing.
5. The kid knowing the gig was up, stopped running and made the right calculation that its better to be arrested than shot.
6. But the officer still proceeded and shot him anyways a few more times for god knows what reason even though the diseased was no longer moving, had his arms raised. (a few eye witness confirm this, and no police story is denying this)

For those that are pro-police, the key for them will be what happened that set off the shooting.
For me, it is why continue to shoot someone who has surrendered irrespective of what happened prior to that.

What makes you label this kid as diseased? Seems a little insensitive.

oops my bad. the older I get, the worse of a speller I get. I definitely meant "deceased" in every single instance I said "diseased" in that post

 

[BoilerTom90]

But wait...still need Jesse Jackson

Need a double dose of that savin'

 

[qazplm]

one department

added the cams around the neck, and the complaints about police dropped over 50% or something like that.

It both removes the ability of those who are lying against the police from faking something, while forcing the police to know that their actions are always being monitored/recorded and thus forcing them to moderate their behavior. Win-win for everyone.

 

[qazplm]

you make great points, but as you noted, it's all about fear and security over freedom and rights. And let's be honest, they don't identify with the folks who are bearing the brunt of police brutality. Poor whites and minorities do. So when someone dies in a chokehold because of loosies, gets shot holding a fake toy gun in a store (meanwhile they cheer the guys who walk into Chipotle with a real gun, and would be aghast if those guys were shoot and killed), or no gun at all for that matter it doesn't matter...they all must have done something to deserve it.

We should wait and give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, but the folks who were shot were probably thugs and criminals, or did something they were not supposed to do, or ran away (which means they are ok to shoot--which actually isn't the law thank goodness).

Then we have the AQ's is going to get us, or terrorist gangs are going to get us, when the reality is the chances of that happening (or highly armed police responding in time to stop either) are extremely remote. 9/11 changed everything for sure, but that includes valuing liberty and freedom over security.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: one department

Originally posted by qazplm:
added the cams around the neck, and the complaints about police dropped over 50% or something like that.

It both removes the ability of those who are lying against the police from faking something, while forcing the police to know that their actions are always being monitored/recorded and thus forcing them to moderate their behavior. Win-win for everyone.

I'd love to see the cams around the necks of all officers. I don't see how that's not a win-win for everyone. It's just an extension of the dashboard cam.

 

[hunkgolden]

Robbery suspect

Hadn't heard this previously

 

[TheCainer]

Here is another link to that same "story". It also includes a copy of the police report. If you look at that police report close enough, you will see that the named suspect is Dorian Johnson, aged 22, and being all of 5'-5" and 120 lbs.

It sounds to me like this is someone's attempt to obfuscate the real story.



Link

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by TheCainer:
Here is another link to that same "story". It also includes a copy of the police report. If you look at that police report close enough, you will see that the named suspect is Dorian Johnson, aged 22, and being all of 5'-5" and 120 lbs.

It sounds to me like this is someone's attempt to obfuscate the real story.

LOL - you need to read your own link a little closer. Here's a hint - read who suspect #1 is. Also, does the guy in the picture manhandling the store worker look 5' 5" and 120 lbs to you?

Nice of you to take the side of an apparent robbery suspect who fought with police instead of siding with people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work to keep you and your family safe. Why would you do this?

 

[TheCainer]

Don't you find it curious that this "information" is coming out now, and that it was released by on-line websites?

Why didn't the Ferguson police department come right out with this information? It would surely have simplified the whole situation, don't you think?

And, even if any of this is true, what gives the cop the right to continue shooting an unarmed suspect with his hands in the air?

Why would you accept this?

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by TheCainer:
Don't you find it curious that this "information" is coming out now, and that it was released by on-line websites?

Why didn't the Ferguson police department come right out with this information? It would surely have simplified the whole situation, don't you think?

And, even if any of this is true, what gives the cop the right to continue shooting an unarmed suspect with his hands in the air?

Why would you accept this?

1. Nice job of diverting the subject away from your first point. You clearly know you were wrong on your first attempt to slam the police department.

2. What's curious about it? I know we live in microwave gotta have it now society but I'm comfortable with people taking their time and not putting out information until they know it's 100% accurate. Can you imagine the outcry if they put out this info only to find out later it was wrong? I have a feeling you'd be one of the first to claim the police intentionally misled the public if that were to happen.

3. Accept a robbery suspect fighting with police getting shot? Got no problem with it. Any time you involve yourself in violent criminal activity you run the risk of being killed. If this gigantic young man hadn't robbed a store and fought with police he would still be alive today.

4. Educate yourself and talk to a policeman who patrols an urban area to get an idea of what they deal with on a daily basis in these communities. I'm shocked that more people aren't killed by police given all the crap that they deal with. I'm also shocked that the guys I know who are policeman - remain policeman. No effin' way would/could I ever do their job. The amount of restraint these guys show everyday is amazing.

5. Why aren't the same people holding rallies and marching in the streets over this death putting the same time and energy into ending black on black murders in this country? Infinitely more blacks are killed by other blacks in this country - where's the outrage? Why no "Justice for..." signs over all of these deaths?

Again I ask you - why was your first inclination to claim the police were committing some sort of cover up? Why would you side with a robbery suspect who was fighting with police?

 

[Bill4411]

I wondered if there was more going on than what the original story but I'm still not sure why you need to continue to shoot someone as many times as has been reported (10). If the kid was shooting back I would understand but I imagine all he was trying to do was run away. I think the officer may have been pissed and just unloaded his gun into him.

 

[qazplm]

I find this curious

so you think "anytime you engage in criminal activity you run the risk of getting killed?"

So, steal some cigars, police can shoot you?

The problem with this is the cops themselves say the actual cop who shot him had no idea he was a suspect in ANYTHING. He just didn't like them walking in the street, and that led to the shooting the kid.

Let's assume the kid was resisting, then ran away, case law is pretty clear EVEN THEN you cannot shot the person running away unless they are a clear threat to seriously injure or kill the officer or the general public. This kid was neither.

But let's say the first shot was still ok nonetheless (in the back no less).
the kid turns around with hands up. At THAT point, there is no reason to kill the kid. None. His hands are up, he's unarmed, he's surrendered.

your concern for black on black crime is touching, thanks. Of course, one can focus on more than one thing at a time. One can both want to solve that issue, and not like it when the cops kill unarmed black men on what is a fairly routine basis. There was more than one that happened this week you know, it's just this one that's gotten all the attention.

unarmed robbery suspects don't deserve to be shot dead.

 

[atmafola]

Originally posted by atmafola:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by BoilerCop:
actually yes most SOPs state that going for an officers gun is a reasonable justification for lethal use of force
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

I can understand this and actually agree. But if it is true that the body was left laying in the street for four hours, that's not right. And showing up to a candlelight vigil in full riot gear is inviting trouble, no?

Personally, I am not buying the official story from the cops. People with reasons to lie, do actually lie. Eye witness have other stories. They said the kid was far away from the car with his arms raised when the cop proceeded to shoot him a few more times.

I think the truth is something like this
1. Initially there was some verbal confrontation. (Both sides agree on this)
2. Then maybe some physical altercation (Official Police story), perhaps an attempted arrest with the young man freeing himself and trying to run into his nearby grandma house.(more likely scenario in my own opinion)
3. Something there happened that pissed off the cops or "made him fear for his life".
4. Either ways, he started the firing.
5. The kid knowing the gig was up, stopped running and made the right calculation that its better to be arrested than shot.
6. But the officer still proceeded and shot him anyways a few more times for god knows what reason even though the diseased was no longer moving, had his arms raised. (a few eye witness confirm this, and no police story is denying this)

- For those that are pro-police, the key for them will be what happened that set off the shooting.
- For me, it is why continue to shoot someone who has surrendered irrespective of what happened prior to that.

No new information coming out changes my original narrative. So he committed a crime prior to the encounter leading to his death. Ok. so Mr. Brown is not an angel, and probably should be in jail somewhere awaiting a robbery trial or whatever the proper charge should be. The argument of wrongful death was never based on his character. It was based one and only thing: Did the officer keep shooting after he stopped running, raised his hands and should have just been arrested at that point.

 

[atmafola]

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

4. Educate yourself and talk to a policeman who patrols an urban area to get an idea of what they deal with on a daily basis in these communities. I'm shocked that more people aren't killed by police given all the crap that they deal with. I'm also shocked that the guys I know who are policeman - remain policeman. No effin' way would/could I ever do their job. The amount of restraint these guys show everyday is amazing.

The day your friend should ever get tired of showing restraint, as you said you would have, can he please do us all a favor and drop of his badge and gun and perhaps go police in some community that is less frustrating. We the taxpayer in urban areas have certain expectations of those we pay to serve and that includes using good judgement and showing restraint. Tell your friend thanks on our behalf for doing so so far.

5. Why aren't the same people holding rallies and marching in the streets over this death putting the same time and energy into ending black on black murders in this country? Infinitely more blacks are killed by other blacks in this country - where's the outrage? Why no "Justice for..." signs over all of these deaths?

This is the one red herring statement I have real issues with. Thanks we do worry about black-on-black violence. Criminals, are as you know criminals and they sometimes do things like murder. You are not advocating that we hold policemen to the same standard we hold criminals, are you?

As a fellow Purdue educated guy who also happens to be black I have more to fear from an encounter with the police than I have from some black on black crime. Up to 80% (y some stats out of chicago) of those murders are gang - and therefore drug - related. I can reduce my risk to almost zero by avoiding drugs and gangs. Do you have any tips on how to avoid potential violent encounters with the police. Please don't suggest "commit no crime". I already do that. Maybe it works for you, but personally, it hasn't worked for me so far.

Again I ask you - why was your first inclination to claim the police were committing some sort of cover up? Why would you side with a robbery suspect who was fighting with police?

Personally, I am less inclined than the average person here to believe the police verbatim. That's just from personal experience. From the start my issue with this shooting had always been one point. As reported by eyewitnesses, and still not disputed by police yet, the man was shot a couple more times after he stopped running and raised his hands.
[/QUOTE]Please excuse my combative tone. It is no way meant to be disparaging. Some of my points may also reflect general frustrations related to but not directly dealing with issues you raised.


This post was edited on 8/15 7:35 PM by atmafola

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: I find this curious

Originally posted by qazplm:
so you think "anytime you engage in criminal activity you run the risk of getting killed?"

So, steal some cigars, police can shoot you?

The problem with this is the cops themselves say the actual cop who shot him had no idea he was a suspect in ANYTHING. He just didn't like them walking in the street, and that led to the shooting the kid.

Let's assume the kid was resisting, then ran away, case law is pretty clear EVEN THEN you cannot shot the person running away unless they are a clear threat to seriously injure or kill the officer or the general public. This kid was neither.

But let's say the first shot was still ok nonetheless (in the back no less).
the kid turns around with hands up. At THAT point, there is no reason to kill the kid. None. His hands are up, he's unarmed, he's surrendered.

your concern for black on black crime is touching, thanks. Of course, one can focus on more than one thing at a time. One can both want to solve that issue, and not like it when the cops kill unarmed black men on what is a fairly routine basis. There was more than one that happened this week you know, it's just this one that's gotten all the attention.

unarmed robbery suspects don't deserve to be shot dead.

The fact that you had to change my quote in your opening sentence is all we need to know about how strongly you feel about your stance on this subject. FWIW, I stopped reading after your misquote.

Strong armed robbery is a violent act as is fighting with police. He's lucky the store clerk didn't own a gun or he probably would've never made it out of that store alive. And then of course that too would've been enough for the fine people of Ferguson to start looting and rioting.

Bottom line - reasonable people of all colors would be just as outraged over this kid's death as the blacks in Ferguson if he wasn't fighting with police and/or committing strong armed robbery. And based on the video of his crime - he looks very comfortable while committing this robbery. The eye test tells me this wasn't his first rodeo.

 

[atmafola]

Re: I find this curious

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

Originally posted by qazplm:
so you think "anytime you engage in criminal activity you run the risk of getting killed?"

So, steal some cigars, police can shoot you?

The problem with this is the cops themselves say the actual cop who shot him had no idea he was a suspect in ANYTHING. He just didn't like them walking in the street, and that led to the shooting the kid.

Let's assume the kid was resisting, then ran away, case law is pretty clear EVEN THEN you cannot shot the person running away unless they are a clear threat to seriously injure or kill the officer or the general public. This kid was neither.

But let's say the first shot was still ok nonetheless (in the back no less).
the kid turns around with hands up. At THAT point, there is no reason to kill the kid. None. His hands are up, he's unarmed, he's surrendered.

your concern for black on black crime is touching, thanks. Of course, one can focus on more than one thing at a time. One can both want to solve that issue, and not like it when the cops kill unarmed black men on what is a fairly routine basis. There was more than one that happened this week you know, it's just this one that's gotten all the attention.

unarmed robbery suspects don't deserve to be shot dead.

The fact that you had to change my quote in your opening sentence is all we need to know about how strongly you feel about your stance on this subject. FWIW, I stopped reading after your misquote.

Strong armed robbery is a violent act as is fighting with police. He's lucky the store clerk didn't own a gun or he probably would've never made it out of that store alive. And then of course that too would've been enough for the fine people of Ferguson to start looting and rioting.

Bottom line - reasonable people of all colors would be just as outraged over this kid's death as the blacks in Ferguson if he wasn't fighting with police and/or committing strong armed robbery. And based on the video of his crime - he looks very comfortable while committing this robbery. The eye test tells me this wasn't his first rodeo.

The difference between our positions is that frankly I could care less if the kid was a saint or the devil himself but I do expect police officers to not shoot a person who has surrendered. If it comes out that this young man was killed in the midst of his altercation with the police. Tough luck to his family. Sorry he shouldn't have assaulted the police officer. But if it turns out, as mentioned by eye witnesses, that he was killed not during but after the altercation with the police officer, I will be outraged. Last I checked, assaulting a LEO doesn't carry a death sentense

 

[qazplm]

Re: I find this curious

this is your direct quote:

"Any time you involve yourself in violent criminal activity you run the risk of being killed"

So apparently you think the word violent means something here. A wide swath of criminal activity has an element of violence to it. Robbery, theft, assault so all of those it's ok to shoot to kill...the death penalty, without a trial for stealing some cigars. The "violence" here was taking some cigars, with no weapons, without even a punch.

Of course, none of this is relevant because the cop approached a kid HE DIDNT KNOW WAS A SUSPECT solely because he was walking in the street, then shot him to kill him AFTER he'd already been shot once, after he'd surrendered.

So just so I'm clear, doesn't matter to you at what point the cop takes the kid's life, after all he resisted so too bad, you forfeit your life. Subdued? Doesn't matter, shouldn't have resisted, probably a criminal anyways. Absolutely ridiculous position and glad you stopped reading because the reality is, anything written falls on deaf ears with you anyways.

You weren't "outraged" before this video came to light, you wouldn't have been "outraged" if there was no evidence at all the kid had done anything wrong, be honest about your leanings. Glad you can tell "eye test" folks and figure out their entire past history. You should call the local cops, you could help them solve a lot of crimes with your eyeballs.

 

[qazplm]

Re: I find this curious

clearly for him it does. I mean that's beyond obvious. In fact, for him ANY crime involving "violence" means if you are killed, too bad.

Surrendered? Let's be honest, he doesn't believe the other witnesses, I mean they are probably all criminals too, and why not just trust the cop? Of course, no one disputes what happened after any struggle in the car. The police haven't, the location where the body was found was 30-40 feet away from the vehicle, of course, why are you arresting someone for walking in the street to begin with? None of that matters, he's a thug who deserved to be killed for some people, good riddance.

Shot once? Surrendering? Who cares? He should have been shot by the store owner if he had a gun, because as we all know, the right to own a box of cigars > someone's life.

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: I find this curious

Originally posted by atmafola:

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

Originally posted by qazplm:
so you think "anytime you engage in criminal activity you run the risk of getting killed?"

So, steal some cigars, police can shoot you?

The problem with this is the cops themselves say the actual cop who shot him had no idea he was a suspect in ANYTHING. He just didn't like them walking in the street, and that led to the shooting the kid.

Let's assume the kid was resisting, then ran away, case law is pretty clear EVEN THEN you cannot shot the person running away unless they are a clear threat to seriously injure or kill the officer or the general public. This kid was neither.

But let's say the first shot was still ok nonetheless (in the back no less).
the kid turns around with hands up. At THAT point, there is no reason to kill the kid. None. His hands are up, he's unarmed, he's surrendered.

your concern for black on black crime is touching, thanks. Of course, one can focus on more than one thing at a time. One can both want to solve that issue, and not like it when the cops kill unarmed black men on what is a fairly routine basis. There was more than one that happened this week you know, it's just this one that's gotten all the attention.

unarmed robbery suspects don't deserve to be shot dead.

The fact that you had to change my quote in your opening sentence is all we need to know about how strongly you feel about your stance on this subject. FWIW, I stopped reading after your misquote.

Strong armed robbery is a violent act as is fighting with police. He's lucky the store clerk didn't own a gun or he probably would've never made it out of that store alive. And then of course that too would've been enough for the fine people of Ferguson to start looting and rioting.

Bottom line - reasonable people of all colors would be just as outraged over this kid's death as the blacks in Ferguson if he wasn't fighting with police and/or committing strong armed robbery. And based on the video of his crime - he looks very comfortable while committing this robbery. The eye test tells me this wasn't his first rodeo.

The difference between our positions is that frankly I could care less if the kid was a saint or the devil himself but I do expect police officers to not shoot a person who has surrendered. If it comes out that this young man was killed in the midst of his altercation with the police. Tough luck to his family. Sorry he shouldn't have assaulted the police officer. But if it turns out, as mentioned by eye witnesses, that he was killed not during but after the altercation with the police officer, I will be outraged. Last I checked, assaulting a LEO doesn't carry a death sentense

You're getting all bent out of shape over this kid's death and you don't even know what happened or if the policeman was justified? Sounds reasonable.

As I tell the young people I coach/mentor - bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people. And I classify those who commit robbery and fight with police as bad people. And I'm certainly not tearful at the thought that they are no longer with us.

 

[qazplm]

yes

any bad person who dies, no biggie. Doesn't matter the degree of bad, or that we as a society have made neither of the crimes you describe capital crimes.

You don't know what happened or if the policeman was justified anymore than he does, but you seem pretty clear on which side you are on, so your admonition is beyond disingenuous.

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: I find this curious

Originally posted by qazplm:
The "violence" here was taking some cigars, with no weapons, without even a punch.

LOL - OK. I guess physically assaulting a store clerk while committing a robbery isn't violent; nor is assualting a police officer and attempting to gain control of his gun during said assault.

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: yes

Originally posted by qazplm:
any bad person who dies, no biggie. Doesn't matter the degree of bad, or that we as a society have made neither of the crimes you describe capital crimes.

You don't know what happened or if the policeman was justified anymore than he does, but you seem pretty clear on which side you are on, so your admonition is beyond disingenuous.

A young man the size of a small mountain had just committed strong armed burglary then moments later assaulted a police officer and attempted to go for his gun. Damn right I know which side I'm on.

Your outrage over this criminal's death is laughable.

 

[qazplm]

I guess I'm confused

you tell someone else in this thread to wait and find out all the facts, yet you've clearly decided. Which is it?

So you've got all the facts down so tell me at what point when he was shot to death was he forcibly grabbing a gun?

"Physically assaulting" someone. Yes he forcibly grabbed the guy. For that he clearly deserves to die.

 

[atmafola]

Re: I find this curious

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

The difference between our positions is that frankly I could care less if the kid was a saint or the devil himself but I do expect police officers to not shoot a person who has surrendered. If it comes out that this young man was killed in the midst of his altercation with the police. Tough luck to his family. Sorry he shouldn't have assaulted the police officer. But if it turns out, as mentioned by eye witnesses, that he was killed not during but after the altercation with the police officer, I will be outraged. Last I checked, assaulting a LEO doesn't carry a death sentense

You're getting all bent out of shape over this kid's death and you don't even know what happened or if the policeman was justified? Sounds reasonable.

As I tell the young people I coach/mentor - bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people. And I classify those who commit robbery and fight with police as bad people. And I'm certainly not tearful at the thought that they are no longer with us.

Well said, I am not getting all bent about the death of this kid. I am getting bent about the manner of his death - as described by eyewitness and not repudiated by police so far.

on second thoughts, I am deleting majority my post. Everyone has a different outlook to life. Nothing makes mine more valid than anyone else. All I really care about and hope we can agree on is that LEO should not be judge, jury and executioner even if the person is a suspect in a crime.




This post was edited on 8/15 8:14 PM by atmafola

This post was edited on 8/15 8:29 PM by atmafola