Is this a good resolution to what may have been murder?

Indeed, how many cops are trained to recognize sign language?

Let's double our spending on research into non-lethal technologies.

Oh wait, that won't help very much?

This guy had not committed any murder, as far as we know, the police were not looking for anybody matching his description for any kind of felony, and as such, that justification does not apply.

edited 26th May '11 2:49:39 PM by blueharp

I'm not trying to justify what happened here, I'm only pointing out that you shouldn't condemn someone based on blanket generalities.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

The guy was shot in the back. Unless he was walking backwards menacingly, it's pretty much impossible for there to have been any kind of justification for shooting him. I know I wouldn't be able to react within 4 seconds. It takes a while to realize that the officer is even talking to you and not someone else, when you're not facing him anyway.

This is not a case of blanket generalities, but a specific incident.

If you wish to suggest somebody needs to temper their criticisms, because you feel they are doing so in an overly broad fashion, then I recommend you do so more carefully. Don't offer a justification if you aren't trying to justify it.

Besides, you're not entirely correct. Tennessee v. Garner offers some limitations to the use of deadly force.

edited 27th May '11 2:55:45 AM by blueharp

De Marquis: But that is a straw.
If you shout "Stop or I will shot you" to a guy that is running, it is different than shooting a random passerby in the back.
You SHALL judge people based on facts, and those facts may or may not be lose.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I thought Stop Or Ill Shoot was a myth?

Fight smart, not fair.

So cops can just shoot deaf men in the back?

I think the cop should either rot in jail or be executed, the harshest punishment available. When men kill cops, they're brutally punished. When cops kill men, they get slaps on the wrist. That's wrong: Authorities should never be held to looser standards than the public, or given special status.

They should be held to either the same standards or much more stringent ones.

In this case, nobody's life or property was at an immediate danger: The dude was not attacking anybody, as far as it can be told, and the cop has no claim to self-defense, since he shot a partially deaf man in the back.

If you shoot a man in the back, you can't claim he was attacking you.

edited 27th May '11 6:53:28 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I was specifically responding to Del's post #20, where he says "...You do not under any circumstances shoot 4 shoots at a person, and hit him in the back, without it being backstabbing..."

I'm disagreeing with him. There are cases where the police are justified in shooting people who are not actively threatening them, even in the back. And I will say that I think this is, in general, a good thing. I don't want to live in a community where they let serial killers escape just because they don't happen to be in the act of threatening someone. Obviously that probably doesn't apply here, but consider that we cant see what is happening at the moment of the shooting, so we really dont know what the victim was doing or why the officer felt threatened.

Therefore, I'm also claiming that we cant really condemn the police officer out of hand without knowing his side of the story. For the record, if it does turn out that the officer shot him unprovoked, then, yes he should be prosecuted. He may still be.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

De Marquis: BACKSTABBING YOU RETARD! BACKSTABBING! What part of the word did you miss?
Sorry for raging, but your ignorance over what I write is annoying.
BACKSTABBING IS TO SHOOT SOMEONE IN THEIR BACK, WHEN THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF YOUR PRESENCE. IT CAN ALSO HAPPEN WITH MELEE WEAPONS.
BACKSTABBING IS FINE IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT!.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NOT PRESENT IN THIS SITUATION, AND THE COP WOULD NEED THE HOBO TO TURN AROUND AND ATTEMPT A ASSAULT BEFORE HE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES CAN JUSTIFY THE 4 SHOTS.

Savage: I agree the cop should rot, for he did not comply with the present information. A warning shot, calling for help, or making sure the guy actually had gotten the warning IS what the situations information dictated.
Instead he shot 4 shots, in the back, of a innocent person that was not even wanted for anything.
We all agree justice has not been served.

edited 27th May '11 10:11:36 AM by del_diablo

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

@del: "...THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NOT PRESENT IN THIS SITUATION, AND THE COP WOULD NEED THE HOBO TO TURN AROUND AND ATTEMPT A ASSAULT BEFORE HE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES CAN JUSTIFY THE 4 SHOTS..."

How do you know this? The video doesn't tell us, and we can clearly hear the officer warning the victim. Maybe he did turn around and threaten him. If in fact that did not happen, and there are no other extenuating circumstances, then yes the officer is guilty of a crime. My only point is that right now we don't know.

By the way, you should consider moderating your tone. I think you may be risking the ire of a mod if you continue to use insulting and confrontational language in your posts, and many of us find all caps irritating.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Someone who shoots a man in the back should hang. Unless the dude is a suicide bomber or a serial killer or something.

If a dude is not actively threatening anybody, unless it's a manhunt for a serial killer or a suicide bomber or something, shooting someone in the back should land the cop in death row, then executed.

If people get screwed for killing cops, cops should be screwed for killing people.

edited 27th May '11 11:29:00 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

What do you think should happen if the cop simply makes a mistake, and thinks one of those conditions is occurring, although objectively it isn't (for example, the office may think the victim is being threatening, even though he wasn't intending to). What should happen then?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Then don't execute him. Put him in jail for ten years (he killed a guy wrongly), kick him out without any sort of benefit whatsoever and being a felon for the rest of his days.

If your mistakes in judgement kill innocent people, you should pay for those mistakes in judgement. Wearing a badge should not be an excuse for violating the rights of people, especially when we speak of fucking murder.

edited 27th May '11 2:07:44 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

De Marquis: We have 2 points of evidence:
1. The mans position after being shot implies did not face the cop.
2. If the man did indeed speak back, it is not on the security camera.
3. This is a extension of 2, if I said "bugger off" to a cop, would that mean they are legally allowed to fire at me? In any given situation?

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

Point to note: We aren't condemning the officer out of hand. We are condemning him with as full a set of knowledge as we have, which includes him offering his defense to the review board. Said review board was not convinced of it either. And they even had witnesses who say that the victim did not perform any threatening action.

Do you honestly expect us to withhold judgement to the point where we say nothing? I think you ask too much of us, but if so, you could express it far better, as the way you picked has been rather offensive, because you keep offering extraneous justifications that have no chance of being true. Not probably untrue, but zero chance.

Beyond that, how many serial killers do you think there are? What percentage is it of the number of police officers?

Maybe you think being murdered by a serial killer is a risk, but I consider the risk of being shot by a police officer to be enough that I don't want to live in a community where the police do not exercise severe restraint in the use of force. Restraint that goes far beyond what occurred here.

Sorry, but I'm more afraid of being assaulted by the police, or even shot, than I am of running into a serial killer.

But really, if you just want to say "I'd like to have more information" or something, try a more temperate expression of that desire yourself. Personally, I find the use of the word backstabbing to be a bit incorrect, but eh, I can't offer a better word so I let it go.

edited 27th May '11 12:37:31 PM by blueharp

The was just carrying a knife. I don't see what's so dangerous about that. I would be concerned if he were about to stab someone with the knife, but the victim was just crossing the street when the cop decided he was dangerous. If the cop felt he absolutely had to ask about the knife, he could have done so a lot more politely than yelling to get a DEAF man's attention and shooting him when he didn't comply.

This cop should be sentenced to murder, and then have his personal information posted on 4chan. That is my considered legal opinion.

Would you kindly click my dragons?

Didn't anyone else find it odd how disinterested the redhead in the beginning was? She saw the shooting and then continued walking.

edited 27th May '11 3:36:06 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Yes, I did note her presence, and wonder what she was thinking. "Don't look and it's not real" "Better not get involved"

Or did she not even notice?

edited 27th May '11 3:40:38 PM by blueharp

Im pretty sure she was the one saying he was not doing anything.

Please.

@Savage- That seems harsh to me, but OK. However, if a person is killed by a mistake in judgement, technically it isnt murder. And the duties of the Police inevitably place them at risk for such mistakes in judgement.

@Blue: If I have expressed myself in a way that you believe is offensive, then I apologize. However, I don't think I'm guilty of any of the things you are accusing me of. I have tried to express myself civilly, however, if you can point out the specific post in which I ask anyone to withhold judgement to the point of saying nothing, or where I have been intemperate, I would be happy to apologize. All I think I have done so far is express the opinion that we should not be so quick to judge the police officer.

On the other hand, it strikes me that what may actually offend you is the substance of my opinion. Perhaps you think I am defending a man who you believe has crossed the Moral Event Horizon, and who shouldn't be defended.

In that case, I'm sorry but I cant accommodate you. I cant change my opinion because I happen to believe in it.

edited 27th May '11 5:46:13 PM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

You may think you have only said "Don't be so quick to judge" but you have gone beyond that by offering your examples. If you had left those off, it would have been at least respectable because you wouldn't have been reaching beyond the facts to come up with excuses. Those come across to me as appeals to emotion*

, not reason, and when we're reacting to what is a reasonably clear set of facts, as clear as any of us on the Internet can expect to get, it's not reason to act as if we were condemning somebody out of hand. That's what offends me.

Note, being offensive is somewhat different from being uncivil. They are not always congruent.

edited 27th May '11 6:01:30 PM by blueharp

@joeyjoe - I did. I was like "WHAT THE FUCK LADY YOU SHOULD CALL 911 OR ASK WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON BECAUSE A GUY IS GETTING SHOT!"

Given how uninterested she looked as she walked by, I think that she is different from the lady who yelled at the police officer later.

Would you kindly click my dragons?

Nice to see you all know dick about the rules of lethal force and escalation of force.

Escalation of Force

---

1. Use like force on force. Ie if someone is punching you, you don't get to shoot them. You can use a number of tools and techniques escalate without resorting to gun fire.
2. Lethal Force is warranted only in situations where your life or the life of another are in immediate danger. Examples would be someone trying to use lethal force on you, kidnapping, or a rape in progress.

Exception to force on force is if an individual displays extreme martial prowess in unarmed combat and is inflicting lethal force injuries you may shoot them.

---

Lethal Force

---

1. The big one. Lethal force is the absolute last resort.
2. There are no warning shots. Lethal force is applied directly and immediately when it is used.
3. Lethal force is any force that causes severe or permanent physical injuries or death.

---

There are no warning shots because that can injure innocent by standers, officers, or even unintentionally the suspect.

You can not in most circumstances shoot someone in the back. There area few exceptions to the rule and they usually involve someone falling under the use of lethal force rules having their back to you and attacking someone or kidnapping/raping. You get the idea.

If your going to be shooting someone in the back you had better have a really damn good reason and solid proof to back it up.

edited 27th May '11 6:31:10 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I wonder what would have happened if the officer in question had had a taser to use.

They usually have tasers and or pepper spray.

Who watches the watchmen?