First off, I agree that the shooting in MO and the other linked one in NJ were justified.
But the first topic has no play here on BITOG, it immediately becomes a P topic, which is why I called it out. Its not a matter of my personal opinion, which may well agree with you.
And the second, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say. But your assumption is just that. You have your mind made up. "I think his mind was made up" was your comment more than once. OK, but coming up with hands up with two guns pointed is a pretty tough one to argue. In other words, why would anyone in their right mind come out with malicious intent? But then again, why would anyone in their right mind come out?
But "As I said previously, stupidity thins the herd." does not mean that a police officer has the authority or obligation to make that decision for the betterment of the population, even their own safety aside. In fact, such a mindset can be lead to justifying certain actions, which should not ever be the case. Only an absolutely current situational awareness should be the determinant of the behaviors undertaken for that specific interaction. Particularly if commentary such as:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Comply and you have a good chance of survival.
Disobey and you may get your fame on youtube, but you'll not see it from inside the cadaver bag.
Is portrayed here. I get it that to a felon this would be the absolute truth. For the good citizens of BITOG, of whom I assume are not felons, these scenarios should never even come into play for ANY interaction with police for any circumstances, even if someone does something illegal but has no prior conviction.
That said, as a law-abiding, respectful citizen, I deserve my constitutionally guaranteed innocent until proven guilty. That means I deserve treatment with the utmost respect, no weapons drawn, no expletives, no physical behavior, no aggressive behavior of any type, no excuses. The argument of an officer's right to life in no way trumps mine. And the UoF, or even remote consideration of the notion to consider UoF darn well better have good basis. The Felon in NJ sure did. The guy in MO sure seems to. But as more and more people feel threatened by officers' actions and behaviors even under routine circumstances, this is what causes the public at large's concerns (not mobs in cities) in my view and experience.
Ive also observed that there is a difference in the behaviors and actions/respectfulness/etc being stopped locally versus a state trooper. So there may well be some training/personality/other characteristics that play in to all this too.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The first one is a pretty big accusation.
The second does not necessarily justify the militarized, two officers pulling salary off my tax dollars for a speeding ticket style police-state as is being created in the name of officers' safety. Particularly if gun proliferation and violence issues are minimal and skewed/irrelevant.
I stand by my opinion in the first; do you not think the DOJ was directed by WH or other VERY high ranking administration, including the AG, to make sure every stone was overturned to appease the protestors? I have no objection, and actually expect, the DOJ to do a complete and relentless and thorough job in investigating ANY credible claim of rights violation. But I believe there was MOTIVE BEYOND UNBIASED OBJECTIVE REASON here. They wanted a reason to fry Wilson badly, and I believe that in my heart. This is an opinion, an accusation, I admit that. But it does not lessen in the face of the facts. How many civil rights violation claims are filed annually to the DOJ? Literally thousands; in every state, from police actions to crimial actions to civil employment, etc, etc, etc. How many civil rights issues are coverd by multi-media nationwide with this kind of visibility? Then ask yourself how many AG Holder personally visited and commented on at length?; a very precious few, including this one. He took an very specific interest in this case, either by his own accord or due to directive from WH admin. Do not let your common sense fail you here. Can I prove this? Nope. Does that diminish my theory? Nope. I am not stupid; I haven't survived 20 years as a cop and 25 years supervising in a union workplace by dumb luck. My gift of discernement and common sense have served me well. I stand by my "accusation" in this case.
As for the second point, we are not obligated to give up life for others, although at times it may be a noble thing we do in terms of sacrifice. Certainly we're not intending or expected to give it up for criminals.
I am going to refer to the other thread I started about the LEO shooting ... My comments in this thread are a tying of topics to your police-state comment.
The two-officer per vehicle policy is obviously situationally dependent; some deparments do it while others do not. I would completely disagree with your assessment here; this video is EXACTLY a PERFECT example of why multiple officers are used at times. How would this have ended if only ONE officer was confronting TWO suspects, with a gun presesnt, and and known felon present (who has a record of shooting at cops)? If anything, one could argue that MORE COPS may have averted this shooting. Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps if it wasn't "man on man coverage" (two for two), the suspect would have complied? But because it was equal forces; man for man, the suspect went for it. Had he been overwhelmed significantly, he may have seen the folly in his decision and chose to submit. But he didn't. And I'll offer the fact that the driver DID comply and was not shot. Talk about disparity of choices here.
I have no idea why there were two officers in that one vehicle. Perhaps it was trainng, perhaps policy for a high-crime area, perhaps it was a lack of vehicles down for maintenance? Don't know; don't care. That does not change the direct facts leading to the suspect being shot.
- suspect was known felon in control of a weapon; brings UoF up to deadly force
- suspect failed to comply with repeated commands; as many as 20 commands were given and they were not contradictory
- suspect made direct movement towards the officer in a threatening manner when warned to NOT do so
- suspect was inside the "21 foot rule" (the officer safety bubble accepted nationwide in UoF traning; the suspect was well within arms reach as a threat)
Your point of police-state traffic stops is moot. How would it alter the actions taken by the officer? Had there been more or less cops, the susepct MIGHT have surrendered, but I doubt it; I think his mind was made up. The suspect already had a gun aimed directly at him. Do you think more or less guns aimed at him would have changed his actions? We can only guess here; this is not a situation we get to erase and act out again. This isn't a kids game; there's no "do over".
The cop that shot him did so legally, in complete compliance with UoF doctrine, in reasonable defense of his life. And adding more or less officers would not have changed his actions. Cops are not mind readers; we react to your actions. If you fail to comply, you may lose your life. There are admittedly some bad cops; ones that are perhaps predisposed to violence and perhaps trigger happy. But that certainly isn't the case here. This suspect was shot because he did not comply after being given AMPLE opportunity to do so. As I said previously, stupidity thins the herd. I sbumit that the amount of cops in the car wouldn't have changed a thing here.
