Remember the Police officer that killed the unarmed man seeking help? The officer is now being charged (wsoctv.com)

JusticePorn

2996 ups - 1149 downs = 1847 votes

348 comments submitted at 11:06:12 on Oct 26, 2013 by Curtis_Boom

  • [-]
  • ArtAsylumBoy
  • 84 Points
  • 11:10:40, 26 October

Good. If these fuckheads want to insist that they're "highly trained" then they should start acting like it. This whole situation just reeked of cowardice and stupidity on the officer's part.

  • [-]
  • Strawberry_Poptart
  • 207 Points
  • 15:05:24, 26 October
  1. The guy kicked through the woman's door.
  2. There was a child in the house.
  3. He ran toward officers who arrived at the scene.

You all are making it sound like he was just casually strolling up to the officer with his hands in the air and asking for help.

Now, if dashcam video surfaces that shows that the suspect was slowly walking toward the officers, calling for help, and waving his arms, then by all means, commence with the online lynching.

However, having not been in the situation yourself, and not having access to all the facts, your comment comes off as biased and reactionary.

When an officer responds to a breaking and entering call, and the suspect runs toward them--in the dark--the officer has a split second to assess the threat. There was no way to know whether the man was armed until after the encounter.

You all make it sound like this guy is just another power-hungry, evil pig who lives for opportunities to get away with murdering black men.

The cop was probably just terrified for his own safety, and reacted accordingly.

It's not normal for a breaking and entering suspect to go running toward police. Usually they run away. When an officer encounters unusual behavior, which appears to be aggressive, they must assume that the suspect has intent to harm. They are likely altered in some way. (The majority of individuals who display unusual behavior during a police encounter are altered.) The minority are altered because of health or injury issues.

  • [-]
  • FuriousMouse
  • 111 Points
  • 15:29:32, 26 October
  1. The guy kicked through the woman's door.

I have this feeling that if the man actually had done that, the Police would have released a photo of the door to justify the man being shot.

  • [-]
  • El_Paco
  • 17 Points
  • 23:14:54, 26 October

I'd be willing to bet it was an exaggeration on the part of the woman who made the 911 call and/or misinterpretation on the part of the 911 operator.

The woman who made the call was probably scared that some random dude who seemed disoriented showed up at her door after 2 am.

  • [-]
  • fishchunks
  • 9 Points
  • 01:39:20, 27 October

Almost certainly, saying something like "He's kicking the door down" or "He is smashing the door down" would not be uncommonly heard if someone was REALLY banging hard on your door trying to get you to answer and if you were in a state of panic.

  • [-]
  • sixcharlie
  • 3 Points
  • 22:40:35, 26 October

Locked myself out of my house once, tried to kick my own door in. It is very much the opposite of easy. To do so after being in a car accident?

  • [-]
  • Strawberry_Poptart
  • 13 Points
  • 15:46:07, 26 October

The investigation is still pending. No one knows what really happened yet, except for the investigators.

  • [-]
  • trebory6
  • 11 Points
  • 17:50:48, 26 October

If that had happened, then the press would have at least gotten a picture of that.

  • [-]
  • usclone
  • 9 Points
  • 18:50:56, 26 October

... And this guy on Reddit. Duh.

  • [-]
  • Hippapalooza
  • 5 Points
  • 17:59:29, 26 October

Yes the "investigation". AKA buying time to cover our asses and hoping people forget about what happened.

  • [-]
  • sbdwiggi
  • 4 Points
  • 15:34:35, 26 October

If you watch the video in the link it looks like the door is off of the hinges when you first see it.

  • [-]
  • Discount06
  • 28 Points
  • 15:39:45, 26 October

I see the officers removing the door. Not sure what that means. A kicked in door wouldn't normally fail at the hinges.

  • [-]
  • BAXterBEDford
  • 23 Points
  • 15:49:24, 26 October

I'm guessing it was being removed for evidence. I didn't see much damage to it though.

  • [-]
  • FlashStep_
  • 29 Points
  • 16:07:38, 26 October

When a door is kicked in the damage is small and usually at the locking mechanism, therefore a camera shot from far off wouldn't reveal much damage. Not to mention the damage would be on the inside of the house where the lock would have busted through the decorative molding around the door.

The case could also be that she opened the door slightly to see what he wanted and when she cracked the door open he pushed it inwards a.k.a "kicked the door in".

I'm with the guy's comment up top, we don't really have any evidence, mostly speculative journalism which is usually sensationalized and filled with guess work so I will hold my breath for an actual report and evidence to be released to the public.

  • [-]
  • BAXterBEDford
  • 14 Points
  • 16:14:56, 26 October

You sound like you're describing how LE kicks in doors. A man that is disoriented after a car wreck would probably be just leaving marks on the outside towards where a kickplate would be at the bottom. Either way, there isn't much damage to be seen from the angle of the picture. And the fact that LE was compelled to arrest one of their own, which they do only when all attempts to either cover it up or sweep it under the rug are exhausted, doesn't support a door kicked in by the likes of a SWAT team.

  • [-]
  • C-C-X-V-I
  • 5 Points
  • 17:22:14, 26 October

Depends on the door. If it's a cheap one, you kick the center and it folds in.

  • [-]
  • ptgx85
  • 6 Points
  • 19:23:40, 26 October

I doubt that would happen to a front door, perhaps a cheap bedroom door. Unless of course you are the Hulk.

  • [-]
  • usclone
  • 0 Points
  • 18:52:48, 26 October

I feel as though you have a story you'd like to share with us.

  • [-]
  • C-C-X-V-I
  • 4 Points
  • 22:07:53, 26 October

Just knowledge you pick up growing up around shitty homes.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • rgeguypic
  • 4 Points
  • 15:44:20, 26 October

The cops could be removing the door for evidence, since a murder happened. Like maybe checking it in a lab for footprints. The woman could have just freaked out, and thought her door was kicked in and reported incorrect information. Who knows, right?

  • [-]
  • mg247
  • 3 Points
  • 16:12:36, 26 October

> since a murder happened

Everything you said is fine, except for the murder part. So far, it was a homicide. If they can prove that the officer maliciously intended to kill the man, then it would be deemed a murder. It might not seem like much of a distinction, but there's a big difference legally.

edit: misspelled a word

  • [-]
  • fishchunks
  • 0 Points
  • 01:37:57, 27 October

Wouldn't it be involuntary manslaughter? There was no malice aforethought (No cop goes to an incident thinking "I'm gonna kill someone!")

  • [-]
  • SonOfSlam
  • -1 Points
  • 18:28:21, 26 October

Still no justification for lethal force!

  • [-]
  • SonOfSlam
  • 2 Points
  • 20:29:47, 26 October

To the downvotes: How is a sign of a kicked in door justify lethal force?

  • [-]
  • Shotzo
  • 3 Points
  • 21:32:09, 26 October

Because you are pretending to know the whole situation while the evidence hasn't been released. Just wait before you make a conclusion about something so serious.

You would be a terrible juryman. Snap decisions about things like this are what get innocent people jailed and guilty people set free. We don't know yet so cool your jets. We simply do-not-know. Dashcams will be a help.

I do agree with Adamapplejacks though...

  • [-]
  • Adamapplejacks
  • -3 Points
  • 21:14:48, 26 October

because people on this subreddit are police apologists.

they're mainly wannabe police officers themselves, and see police as vigilant public servants capable of doing no wrong.

at least that's my theory.

  • [-]
  • Shotzo
  • 3 Points
  • 21:34:23, 26 October

While I think you are making snap decisions with nothing but news-reporter evidence, your second point sounds about right.

  • [-]
  • Not_the_brightest
  • 5 Points
  • 21:48:03, 26 October

There are two ends of that spectrum.

How about we get the FACTS before we make up our minds.

  • [-]
  • Adamapplejacks
  • 2 Points
  • 02:09:42, 27 October

i was simply stating a theory that i have about this subreddit in general based on comments that i see consistently disparaging anybody going against a cop, regardless the circumstance.

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 1 Points
  • 07:31:55, 27 October

Without clear video evidence (from a third party) I bet people here would be claiming this guy lunged or otherwise came at the innocent officers with the knife. Notice that the cop car is parked there with a perfect view of the whole incident yet it took a neighbor's surveillance cam to shed light on things.

  • [-]
  • Adamapplejacks
  • 1 Points
  • 09:08:45, 27 October

The police officer in question... I repeat... the police officer in question... was charged...

by the DA...

Again, I repeat...

The DA... CHARGED the police officer in question...

with killing an unarmed suspect.

How often does this happen?

Think about that for a second and then question the actual events of the situation.

And why hasn't any video been provided?

  • [-]
  • chechnyatx
  • 0 Points
  • 18:56:54, 26 October

Part of an on-going investigation.

  • [-]
  • SixWolfShirt
  • -1 Points
  • 17:23:29, 26 October

Does it really matter? According to the best information available to the responding officers, Ferrell had kicked in the door. They likely didn't have time to verify that fact prior to their interaction with Ferrell.

  • [-]
  • Llort2
  • -4 Points
  • 18:02:17, 26 October

The police kicked through the door afterwards to cover up the murder.

  • [-]
  • Hojeekush
  • 6 Points
  • 20:45:29, 26 October

Nothing you describe here warrants lethal force. The man was unarmed. If officers consider everyone to be potentially armed - thereby justifying the use of lethal force - then we're all fair game for target practice at the whim of a cop.

Your interpretation would be a grim reality.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • yusuka
  • 22 Points
  • 15:35:32, 26 October

What about the Dallas cop who just shot a mentally ill man and said he was "coming at him with a knife", when video shows the man had his arms down as the officer strolled towards him to try and execute him. Maybe you shouldn't take the word of someone who might be lying to protect and serve their own ass, particularly when there is a history of it.

  • [-]
  • SixWolfShirt
  • -3 Points
  • 17:10:50, 26 October

That was Seattle.

  • [-]
  • yusuka
  • 19 Points
  • 17:15:06, 26 October

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/10/dallascopsshotaschizophren.php

Sad that it happens often enough to be confusing.

  • [-]
  • BAXterBEDford
  • 21 Points
  • 15:42:04, 26 October

I will bet that the reason that the dashcam video hasn't been released is because it looks bad for LE. Otherwise it would have been on the first news broadcast right after it happened.

  • [-]
  • HittingSmoke
  • -14 Points
  • 16:56:46, 26 October

Jesus fucking christ... you people.

Pictures of the door and dashcam video will be available. To anyone, though a FOIA request. You know, how the media usually gets access to this stuff?

It's an active investigation. The dashcam video will be presented as evidence and after that will be available through proper legal channels as all dashcam video is.

  • [-]
  • ruffian357
  • 17 Points
  • 17:40:34, 26 October

Not true. Even in Detroit after the police shot and killed a 7 yo girl the tv footage was confiscated by police. Dash cam videos have a way of disappearing when it goes against the "official" story.

  • [-]
  • lowpokeS
  • 11 Points
  • 17:05:46, 26 October

Unless the dash cam mysteriously was broken or they "lost" the tapes.

  • [-]
  • BAXterBEDford
  • 5 Points
  • 17:46:29, 26 October

Who you calling "you people"?

  • [-]
  • SonOfSlam
  • 11 Points
  • 18:27:49, 26 October

Holy shit, the idea of police use of lethal force has become so fucking debased. Here's what the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner says about the use of lethal force: "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

A cop getting punched in the mouth by an unarmed person, particularly when with other officers is not a justification for using lethal force. They need to see a weapon, they need probably cause, which means ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF A WEAPON.

"Intent to harm" is not a justification for lethal force.

< There was no way to know whether the man was armed until after the encounter.

That's not how it works, legally. You don't assume they are armed and wait to find out afterwards.

I can't believe that post got gold.

  • [-]
  • BGYeti
  • -4 Points
  • 19:23:20, 26 October

Im sorry but you can't put a measure on what is threatening and what isn't, you can stop playing internet lawyer now.

  • [-]
  • SonOfSlam
  • 10 Points
  • 20:26:52, 26 October

The fact that his own department pressed charges against him is a good sign I think I might be on the right track here. You can stop being an internet holster sniffer any time as well.

  • [-]
  • metaranha
  • 17 Points
  • 15:42:18, 26 October

I'm normally all about giving police officers the benefit of the doubt in situations similar to this, but this situation to me isn't so cut and dry as you try to make it sound either.

The truth is that none of us were there that night, so we'll never know exactly what happened, but there are things that don't add up.

The first thing is, you say this:

>It's not normal for a breaking and entering suspect to go running toward police.

Which I would agree with, but if we're going to hang a man on what behaviors make the most sense, then saying this:

>The guy kicked through the woman's door.

is cherry picking your facts. It also doesn't make sense for someone who we know was in a car accident to aggressively try to break into someone's house. Again, maybe he didn't know anyone was in the house. All we know now is that an unarmed, man who's only overt crime was that he didn't immediately comply with an officer's orders, is dead now because of that officer's reaction to the situation.

Police officers know that they put their lives on the line for every beat, and I understand that. What I don't understand is why two officers shot a man to death rather than try to subdue him, and I think that you'll agree when I say that at best these two officers have a LOT to answer for when an innocent person dies by their hands.

  • [-]
  • ruffian357
  • 7 Points
  • 17:43:42, 26 October

Yes I do find it interesting that people think after almost being killed in and accident he would then try to break into someones house. I'm sure most saying that would be totally coherent after an accident where they had to kick out the back window to escape.

  • [-]
  • prakashweekend
  • 3 Points
  • 18:05:20, 26 October

Thats not necessarily the case. Being in a car accident can give you crazy amounts of adrenaline, allowing you to perform feats like kicking open your car door while still being disoriented, manic, and not in a proper state of mind.

  • [-]
  • ruffian357
  • 1 Points
  • 15:29:23, 27 October

That's the point I was making. Either way he did not deserve to die.

  • [-]
  • berserkerscientist
  • -10 Points
  • 17:58:22, 26 October

He was most likely drunk. And you are insane if you think cops should try and "subdue" some B&E suspect running at them. Just a quick karate chop on the neck, right? The woman screamed and called the police. This guy knew they were coming. Who raised this guy to run at the police after he tried to break into a house? If this was a white guy, he'd get a Darwin Award.

  • [-]
  • metaranha
  • 7 Points
  • 19:54:29, 26 October

Yeah, you speculate about his sobriety with no evidence to support your conclusion whatsoever. Meanwhile, I'm the asshole because I don't think the cops should be given carte blanche to just kill anyone who walks faster than snails pace in their general direction.

Totally sensible reaction.

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 2 Points
  • 07:38:36, 27 October

This guy didn't even walk. Best not be anywhere around trigger-happy cops.

  • [-]
  • metaranha
  • 2 Points
  • 12:48:24, 27 October

Woah, guy, did you not see how threatening he was there? He was probably backing up so that he could get a better shot at them with his not gun. They clearly had to kill him before he ran at them. The best way to deal with a threat is to kill it long before it does anything threatening.

(this sarcastic message has been brought to you by the letter F)

  • [-]
  • SonOfSlam
  • 12 Points
  • 18:31:04, 26 October

Good god, read my response about when lethal force is actually justified. Running at cops does not justify lethal force; being a suspect as you say does not justify lethal force. Someone screaming and calling the police does not justify lethal force. Cops go through training for how to subdue violence perps, that's part of the job.

Learn something you oaf.

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 2 Points
  • 07:39:37, 27 October

Why bother subduing anyone when you can show up, shoot them, and simply claim they came at you?. Consider that that officer was only fired (not charged with attempted fucking homicide) because a third party came forward with conflicting evidence to his report. The police have yet to release the dash cam video from that car parked with a perfect view of everything. Yet some people here expect us to believe that the dash cam is being withheld in this case for a good reason or as part of the investigation. Not because it may show there was no good reason to shoot an unarmed, accident victim, 10 times at close range. Don't forget that only one cop did all the shooting. So if there was such great danger (as in the scary black man was charging them), wouldn't the other officer have fired off a round or two?

  • [-]
  • SonOfSlam
  • 3 Points
  • 19:47:43, 27 October

The fact that we have people defending or justifying this guys actions, particularly by saying 'we weren't there, we can't know' while his own department is charging him, and the other cops who were actually there gave enough testimony to sustain those charges is empirical proof that there is a certain percentage of these holster sniffers who will attempt to legitimize any police shooting no matter the actual situation or evidence.

  • [-]
  • tinfang
  • 7 Points
  • 19:01:57, 26 October

According to those who have seen the video, the suspect was sitting on the sidewalk when the officers arrived, he got and walked to them. The officer shot him while telling him to stop from a distance of a couple feet.

It's murder not manslaughter.

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 1 Points
  • 07:33:13, 27 October

After seeing this video, I can actually see that happening.

  • [-]
  • -JuSt_My_LuCk
  • 7 Points
  • 19:27:00, 26 October

> There was no way to know whether the man was armed until after the encounter.

Exactly. Which is why use of deadly force was criminal.

  • [-]
  • loveyoupunkin
  • 6 Points
  • 20:06:17, 26 October

>There was no way to know whether the man was armed until after the encounter.

How about... oh I dunno looking at his hands? Cops have flashlights as well as headlights on their cars. If they weren't using any light in this situation they should go back to basic training. I'm tired of this bullshit cop mindset of "kill anything that moves towards me!". Cops now days shoot first and think after. Cops should have arrived at the scene with tasers and batons equipped not fucking guns. Guns should be a last resort for cops but sadly it's priority in almost every situation now days.

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 2 Points
  • 07:49:02, 27 October

>I'm tired of this bullshit cop mindset of "kill anything that moves towards me!".

Doesn't necessarily have to be moving towards them.

  • [-]
  • Strawberry_Poptart
  • -1 Points
  • 21:00:33, 26 October

The officer did try to use his Tazer, according to the report, but it was not effective.

  • [-]
  • annoyingrelative
  • 51 Points
  • 15:36:42, 26 October

>1. The guy kicked through the woman's door.

Not true, the 911 dispatcher added her own flair, which gave the officers the wrong idea.

>You all are making it sound like he was just casually strolling up to the officer with his hands in the air and asking for help.

>Now, if dashcam video surfaces that shows that the suspect was slowly walking toward the officers, calling for help, and waving his arms, then by all means, commence with the online lynching.

You've seen the video? Why are you assuming the cop to be telling the truth? There were at least 3 stories of lying cops this week alone.

>You all make it sound like this guy is just another power-hungry, evil pig who lives for opportunities to get away with murdering black men.

>The cop was probably just terrified for his own safety, and reacted accordingly.

Why are we hiring frightened clowns whose first instinct is to shoot? Why is using a gun instead of a taser better? Why not wait for backup? The guy had no weapons.

If you support law enforcement, why support this guy? He represents everything WRONG with modern policing.

I'm tired of Cops using the "threatened" excuse to shoot whenever they want with no consequences.

  • [-]
  • mechman39
  • 23 Points
  • 16:44:18, 26 October

AND the most valuable evidence we have at this point, is the fact that the officer is being CHARGED. Have you ever known a DA office filing charges on an officer for something other than blatant criminal activity? I sure haven't. Of course we have to wait till the investigation concludes, but it's safe to ASSUME the officer is in the wrong.

  • [-]
  • Adamapplejacks
  • 12 Points
  • 21:17:17, 26 October

the fact that people on this subreddit are ignoring this absolutely baffles me.

  • [-]
  • BlueBeanstalk
  • 6 Points
  • 19:26:40, 26 October

I would have deployed the taser, seeing as how we do not have evidence that he was shown to be armed. He showed himself as being dangerous, but without showing any lethal force, we are forbidden to employ lethal tactics.

If we are threatened by lethal force, we respond with lethal force. If we are threatened by less-than-lethal force, we respond with less-than-lethal force.

  • [-]
  • bryntheskits
  • 2 Points
  • 01:15:51, 27 October

>There were at least 3 stories of lying cops this week alone.

...which shouldn't impact on this story whatsoever since they are all separate incidents?

  • [-]
  • Strawberry_Poptart
  • 5 Points
  • 15:53:56, 26 October

Like I have been saying, we don't know all the facts. All we know is what has been reported.

As per usual, Reddit-at-large suffers from some serious confirmation bias.

Is it possible that the police report and statements have been fabricated? Yes.

Is it possible that the officer was being truthful? Yes.

Does it matter that three other police officers have been caught lying this week? No. I trust you are able to suss out the logical fallacy committed by associating the actions of individuals not involved in this incident to the actions of the police in question here.

As for the question about the Taser, the officer claims to have unsuccessfully deployed his Taser. This is not uncommon. sometimes the barbs catch clothing and don't make skin contact, or sometimes they completely miss, or sometimes the suspect is not affected.

>As the officers got out of their car, “Mr. Ferrell immediately ran toward the officers,” according to a police statement. It said Ferrell moved toward Kerrick.

>Little fired his Taser, but police said it was unsuccessful.

>Police said that’s when Kerrick shot Ferrell, who died at the scene.

>Police released an incident report Monday that shows that after the shooting, Kerrick said he had been assaulted. The report said he received minor injuries but refused medical attention. It does not indicate who assaulted him.

>But many questions remain, including the positions of Ferrell and the officers, whether the officers shouted commands and a detailed timeline of events. Police also have not explained why the Taser was unsuccessful.

>Police have not released the 911 recording or any video from the scene.

  • [-]
  • SmokesQuantity
  • 1 Points
  • 23:27:01, 26 October

"Like I have been saying, we don't know all the facts. All we know is what has been reported."

Says the guy who just cherry picked details in an attempt to defend the accused officers actions and clearly stated his assumptions of innocence.

  • [-]
  • annoyingrelative
  • -5 Points
  • 16:20:54, 26 October

>Does it matter that three other police officers have been caught lying this week? No. I trust you are able to suss out the logical fallacy committed by associating the actions of individuals not involved in this incident to the actions of the police in question here.

As opposed to your logical fallacy assuming the police are being truthful and are more reliable witnesses.

Riddle me this. Why did only one cop shoot the guy? There were other cops there who used judgement and common sense, and didn't fire 12 shots

>>Police have not released the 911 recording or any video from the scene.

Funny, how most departments release video immediately when their officers follow procedure.

You can support this cop, but a man is dead because of him. Don't forget that.

  • [-]
  • meoschwitz
  • 5 Points
  • 17:25:28, 26 October

> You can support this cop, but a man is dead because of him.

It's very telling that a person saying "wait for the facts before making judgement" is associated with defending the cop in your mind.

  • [-]
  • mannymix03
  • -7 Points
  • 16:55:11, 26 October

> Funny, how most departments release video immediately when their officers follow procedure. > You can support this cop, but a man is dead because of him. Don't forget that.

A man is dead because he tried to kick down a woman's door and ran at police when they told him to stop. Don't act like he was just strolling down the street when he was shot.

  • [-]
  • suparokr
  • 3 Points
  • 23:00:55, 26 October

FOR HELP!!!

  • [-]
  • wild_oats
  • 3 Points
  • 17:31:29, 26 October

Not good enough.

  • [-]
  • GetHighr
  • -5 Points
  • 16:31:07, 26 October

How about you stop defending someone you don't know, and wait for the dashcam footage to be released. There's a reason it's being detained, and it's most to do with Political reasons.

One time I ran towards a cop because my car battery died and I had no one in sight to help me except him, it was late at night too, but luckily I didn't get shot and the officer helped me out.

  • [-]
  • Iwannaliveonthemoon
  • -4 Points
  • 17:17:23, 26 October

That's a different scenario than a possible domestic violence or B&E in a closed space like a house. and /u/Strawberry_Poptart is perfectly right to defend in this case since many of the comments in this thread are about how cops are "fuckheads" and making a final judgement of what really happened when they weren't there and the investigation isn't even over yet.

There's already accusations that the dashcam footage must be damning of the cops because it wasn't released right away, or that the door wasn't broken down because they would have released a photo that shows that, and a bunch of other opinionated crap such as :

> I have this feeling that if the man actually had done that, the Police would have released a photo of the door to justify the man being shot.

> The fact that the officer has at least finally been charged indicates that LE's take on this is a fabrication of lies.

> As opposed to your logical fallacy assuming the police are being truthful and are more reliable witnesses. (When the argument was that while 3 cops this week have been caught lying, it does not prove that this cop is lying. No assumption that he is telling the truth, just that we don't know the truth.)

Oh, and because 12 bullets were fired he is also automatically guilty, because cops aren't trained to empty their clips or anything. (sarcasm)

The majority of people in this thread are so quick to jump on this and talk about how shitty all cops are and declare guilty before the trial even happens. It's not wrong to put out an opposing view when the majority voice is for immediate condemnation. We weren't there, and the majority of people on Reddit have never been in the position of being a police officer on the job not knowing what is going to happen on call, not always having all the facts, and having to make split second decisions. It gets read later on by people who make judgements based on the facts they read while sitting behind their keyboard. I heard the same stupid shit about the Aurora shooting when people said had someone had a gun in the theater, things would have ended differently and James Holmes would have been shot. real easy to say when not in that situation. Different scenario I know, but same concept.

  • [-]
  • reconditecache
  • 4 Points
  • 19:58:49, 26 October

I want to point out that while the situation may have technically allowed for the officer to open fire on the guy, the end result is a dead man who was completely unarmed and just recently in a car accident.

You do understand what police are for, right? That job is supposed to be a dangerous one. More dangerous than just being an armed citizen because cops are supposed to have the training to use only the minimum force to resolve a conflict. A regular asshole who works in a factory is allowed to panic and fire on a guy who in advancing on him. We have law to protect that because opening fire is reasonable.

Not so for an officer of the peace. Their responsibility is to not panic, not shoot first, and always try to handle an issue with the lease violence. That's why they exist. That's why we have police instead of just arming everybody.

And I'm pretty sure that the punishment for assault and breaking and entering isn't death, or do I need to look into why we have prisons?

Last edit (I promise!): It's entirely possible that the suspect tried to go to that house for help and the person wouldn't let them in, and the guy got so panicked that he started beating and kicking the door and begging to use their phone. The people inside were just too racist or something to even try reasoning with the guy.

It's also possible that he was a serial murder-rapist whose trunk was filled with torsos so when he got t-boned, he tried to break into the nearest house to get a new car and some new torsos.

I'd rather have a living rapist and an officer with a black eye, then a dead victim of racism. Even if you don't agree, do you at least understand my position?

  • [-]
  • Iwannaliveonthemoon
  • -2 Points
  • 01:39:02, 27 October

I do, the excessive force was totally uncalled for, but we also have to remember in a split second decision like that, there may not be enough time to clearly make out whether or not someone is carrying a knife while they are running at you at night. No cop is required to try to subdue someone they believe has a deadly weapon and intent to use it at close range. While I don't know if that is what happened here, it does happen.

  • [-]
  • Iwannaliveonthemoon
  • -2 Points
  • 17:20:19, 26 October

Oops, it was outside, my bad. And yes, this officer could be a racist piece of shit, but no one here is him.

  • [-]
  • BAXterBEDford
  • 1 Points
  • 15:45:10, 26 October

The fact that the officer has at least finally been charged indicates that LE's take on this is a fabrication of lies.

>I'm tired of Cops using the "threatened" excuse to shoot whenever they want with no consequences.

Me too. Oh hell... I'm feeling threatened right now by the construction workers next door! They have nailGUNS! Come Mr. Po Po, please shoot them for me.

  • [-]
  • Stepoo
  • 5 Points
  • 16:31:42, 26 October

Oh, come on. You're comparing someone doing their job in the daylight to someone who is suspected of trying to break into a house at night and then running at you. Do you not see the ridiculousness of your statement?

  • [-]
  • BAXterBEDford
  • 5 Points
  • 17:50:02, 26 October

OK, how about the cop that shot the obviously very happy dog that a person housesitting accidentally let out. All the dog wanted was to get back in the house. The cops first response: shoot the dog.

Law Enforcement has been taken over by a culture that has essentially made them a state run mob family. They don't protect and serve, they shoot and ask questions later.

  • [-]
  • GetHighr
  • -2 Points
  • 16:25:20, 26 October

Well said my friend

  • [-]
  • mehdbc
  • -5 Points
  • 16:43:50, 26 October

*THIS

  • [-]
  • riptide81
  • 7 Points
  • 17:23:46, 26 October

You should consider the fact that since charges are actually on the table that the evidence might not match the original Police story.

Forgive the rant:

I don't think the police are evil or wake up wanting to get involved in one of these situations. However, I do feel cases like this highlight both a training and general attitude/outlook problem.

I can understand what Officers in the heat of the moment genuinely thought they were dealing with. The problem is tunnel vision and confirmation bias. Once they get the call and the adrenaline is pumping they see what they expect to. We are told to sympathize with their mistakes caused by stress and yet the untrained civilian gets no such benefit of the doubt.

They are being trained and get themselves worked up to deal with the rare extreme situations. If you want credit for having a tough job then you're going to have to get your hands dirty once it a while. That means wrestling a suspect down, put yourself in a vulnerable position in order preserve life just like EMTs and Firefighters. The mantra seems to have changed from protect citizens lives at all cost to protect yourself first. I really don't take them risking their lives lightly but to me that was always the nobility of the profession, making the sacrifice. Now the attitude is it's better to er on the side of pulling the trigger then risk getting hurt in any way.

I know many academies show an infamous video of a cop getting killed during a roadside stop but how much time is spent on them overreacting?

Their training has become increasingly militarized. Tactics perfected for dealing with insurgents in Afghanistan are being applied to a domestic civilian populace. It has also become nationalized meaning a suburban or rural cop is following the same protocols as one working skid row in Detroit. The military spends a lot of time teaching people to overcome their basic instincts and not hesitate to kill.

A couple of Detectives used to go knock on the door to deliver a minor warrant now a full swat team kicks down the door in the middle of the night.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • BGYeti
  • 5 Points
  • 19:22:08, 26 October

According to the video he was slowly walking up to the cop but until I see it I will withold my judgement, you think after events like the Treyvon case people would actually wait for all the evidence instead of making snap judgements without having all of the evidence.

  • [-]
  • Joe_12265
  • 5 Points
  • 18:36:24, 26 October

The thread that runs through these stories is cowardice. In too many cases the theme is that officers shoot because they are afraid of possible threats rather than shooting because of actual threats.

You might say that cops have no obligation to take on an actual attack before shooting. I'd say that the essense of being a police officer is that you should be required to suffer an actual attack before you use deadly force. Meaning that I'll never see a shooting like this as legitimate. Even if this man was on PCP, had just killed 12 people, was covered in blood and was screaming "I'M KILLING PIGS TODAY" I'd still think shooting isn't justified until an actual attack occurs.

Why? Because they are cops, not executioners. They should be required to wait until they are actually being attacked physically before they can respond with force. By the way, this isn't all that different from the rules of engagement applied to US military forces deployed overseas. We ask soldiers overseas to exercise more restraint than police here at home.

But cast all that aside. The bottom line is that far too often the behavior of police betrays an abject cowardice on the part of people paid to be brave defenders of justice and freedom.

  • [-]
  • hackinthebochs
  • 7 Points
  • 16:51:44, 26 October

> The cop was probably just terrified for his own safety, and reacted accordingly.

Then why the fuck is this guy a cop? Where do these precincts scrounge up the pussiest of guys who unload their clips at barking dogs or unarmed men walking towards them briskly?

It's idiots like you that enable this kind of cowardice from these guys. If you can't handle being in a bit of danger without spraying 12 bullets, you should be nowhere near a gun or any form of authority whatsoever.

  • [-]
  • AL85
  • 5 Points
  • 16:15:48, 26 October

I know very little about this incident but even if all the points you've made are true there is still no excuse for killing him. If it had happened in Europe the police would have dealt with the situation without killing anyone. American police kill far, far too many American citizens. Police aren't supposed to kill criminals, they are supposed to apprehend them so that the criminal justice system can do its job.

  • [-]
  • AlexRValdez
  • 4 Points
  • 16:36:10, 26 October

>The guy kicked through the woman's door.

I would love to see your source on this.

  • [-]
  • meoschwitz
  • -3 Points
  • 17:36:52, 26 October

Whether or not he actually kicked through the woman's door, that is the call he was responding to. If that turns out to be untrue it's not the officer's fault.

  • [-]
  • AlexRValdez
  • 0 Points
  • 23:41:13, 26 October

I was simply pointing out that /u/strawberry_poptart made a statement that was untrue. The victim did not kick in the door.

  • [-]
  • mechman39
  • 4 Points
  • 16:41:09, 26 October

You're forgetting the point of this article. The DA PRESSED CHARGES ON THE OFFICER. This information alone should be enough to ASSUME the officer went overboard.

  • [-]
  • nhat8121
  • 5 Points
  • 16:57:18, 26 October

lesson learnt from you, dont run toward cops at night, you'll get shot b/c they're terrified. that's how i kill cops, run at them so fast b4 they can react, then do a tyson uppercut, dead. plz stop with your ridiculous nonsensical logic, and your nice long sentences with nice grammar like you know wtf u talking about.

  • [-]
  • xiopen3r
  • 6 Points
  • 15:32:28, 26 October

Why was there a need to shoot someone 10 times...? "Gotta make sure he stays dead?"

  • [-]
  • BuffaloFunk
  • 5 Points
  • 16:38:57, 26 October

Officers (and anyone with gun training for self defense) are generally taught, when you shoot, it is to kill and to kill only (when shooting at a person). You don't kneecap them (good luck aiming), you don't shoot at their feet, you shoot them. And you shoot them till your empty.

  • [-]
  • Azzmo
  • 4 Points
  • 17:39:59, 26 October

That policy seems weird as hell to me, especially since there are so many cases where an officer shouldn't have shot in the first place. I can only surmise that it was borne of the prohibition era where mobsters were in a partial war with cops?

Any idea why they created that policy?

  • [-]
  • SonOfSlam
  • 1 Points
  • 18:32:54, 26 October

Because a firearm is a lethal weapon, and there are (theoretically) other, non-lethal options; what happens if you try to 'kneecap' and you miss, killing them? Guns are pulled only (again) theoretically at last resort and the only option is to kill.

  • [-]
  • Azzmo
  • 4 Points
  • 18:37:51, 26 October

I guess the better question is why the policy isn't revised to reflect the fact that the nation's police seem to have fairly regular incidents of questionable gun behavior. "Shoot to kill" would only make sense to me if they almost never pulled their guns out. I realize that's not an answerable question, however, beyond "nobody thought to change it".

  • [-]
  • berserkerscientist
  • 1 Points
  • 17:59:17, 26 October

Dead cops.

  • [-]
  • Hyperdrunk
  • 2 Points
  • 18:22:17, 26 October

You shoot center mass until the person you are shooting at is no longer coming toward you.

That's the training.

  • [-]
  • LifeAccordingToMe
  • 2 Points
  • 16:08:58, 26 October

A large majority of officers are trained to shoot until empty. Thats why you will hear of 5 cops shooting 65 bullets at one suspect. Not necessarily the best thing to do in a densely populated area, but works for smaller communities.

  • [-]
  • bobsp
  • 4 Points
  • 16:05:04, 26 October

The report was fabricated. Can't take any of those "facts" at face value.

  • [-]
  • dirtymoney
  • 2 Points
  • 23:51:22, 26 October

cops are wizards at disneyfying their reports

  • [-]
  • Discount06
  • 4 Points
  • 15:35:54, 26 October

I don't understand why there were 12 shots fired.

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 1 Points
  • 07:54:16, 27 October

By one officer.

  • [-]
  • Lilbyte
  • 4 Points
  • 18:39:13, 26 October

He didn't kick down the door he knocked the lady thought it was her husband and when she opened the door she yelled closed the door and called the police. I know this because this is the gossip around Charlotte.

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 1 Points
  • 07:57:26, 27 October

Which makes sense because in an earlier article it was stated that there have been a string of burglaries in the area. In that context I can understand why she may have reacted that way to an unknown large black dude showing up at her doorstep in the dead of night. She couldn't have known he was simply seeking help after being in a wreck. Where she crossed the line is when she called 911 and said he tried to kick her door in. Where the cops went too far is when they saw this guy and one of them decided to unload 10 bullets into him.

  • [-]
  • wickedren2
  • 3 Points
  • 15:24:35, 26 October

No.

He did not kick through the woman's door. The 911 operator repeated the homeowner's frightened exaggeration. And so did you, despite it never happening.

Do not apologize for the actions of police if they use deadly force because their bias causes them to be scared or act with poor judgment.

  • [-]
  • Strawberry_Poptart
  • 9 Points
  • 15:34:38, 26 October

The operator's job is to relay information reported by the caller so that responders have as much information to consider when deciding how to act.

You obviously have never worked in public safety, so you can not appreciate how there is no time to consider whether a report is an "exaggeration" or not. You have to proceed ready to react to the worst possible scenario.

The information that the officer had was:

  1. Suspect kicked through door.
  2. Suspect running toward police.

You should also know that there have been a recent string of home invasions in the Charlotte area. Suspects are almost always heavily armed, and are often involved in organized crime.

The other common scenario is a domestic dispute, which have a high probability of turning violent.

It is not unreasonable for an officer to take the information given by dispatch and react accordingly.

While this situation is tragic, with the information as is currently presented, one cannot assume this is an open and shut case of "abuse of power by a racist cop", or whatever.

On a tangent, Redditors at large tend to castigate others for blindly accepting uncorroborated claims as fact i.e. Christianity. But whenever someone is killed by a police officer, the Redditl-at-large default setting is "fuck the po-lice", evidence and reason be damned.

  • [-]
  • wickedren2
  • 8 Points
  • 16:02:58, 26 October

As a society, who should shoulder the burden of protecting people with out regard to race: Police or black people?

You are arguing that if you appear threatening that police have some right to murder. Where is this loophole for shooting a citizen based on race that you are arguing for?

I disagree. An unarmed civilian seeking help would not be killed by the police that our taxes pay for.

The simple fact is that black people pay for emergency services as well. But instead of help they get shot. Should we give the cops a hunting license that you advocate. No.

But for the collective bias of the woman and the cop, the victim would not be dead.

  • [-]
  • devintodd
  • 6 Points
  • 17:37:51, 26 October

He did not kick in the door nor does the lady who called 911 say that he did. If he did kick in the door, why didn't he go in it? The lady slammed the door and called the police.

  • [-]
  • Strawberry_Poptart
  • -2 Points
  • 18:41:20, 26 October

Listen to the 911 call.

  • [-]
  • AnneFrankenstein
  • 2 Points
  • 15:47:41, 26 October

He should have made a better decision. He fucked up. That's it.

  • [-]
  • CamelsandDrpepper
  • 3 Points
  • 17:20:31, 26 October

Yea that door looked totally fine. There have been too many cases of 'Shoot first ask later'. What is the point of them carrying the night stick? Why have handcuffs? Plus 10 rounds is a little excessive dont you think for one person? Cops should never shoot to kill for 'Reacting accordingly' that justifys that it is okay for terrified cops to shoot who the hell ever. That justifys the children that have been killed for having plastic weapons. It isnt right. Hope the dash cam comes to light.

  • [-]
  • devintodd
  • 1 Points
  • 17:40:01, 26 October

There's a disparity between what information the police were given and what the lady actually says on the tape. She opened the door because she thought it was her husband coming home late. Once she realized it wasn't him, she closed the door and called 911.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -1 Points
  • 15:58:07, 26 October

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • BuffaloFunk
  • 3 Points
  • 16:39:47, 26 October

Actually, it's training.

  • [-]
  • bdubble
  • 1 Points
  • 17:16:58, 26 October

Strange, I'm 42 years old and consider myself reasonably educated and reasonably well read, and I swear I have never heard that word before in my life.

  • [-]
  • BallsDeepInJesus
  • 2 Points
  • 20:33:28, 26 October

In my thirties. Multiple degrees. Read well over 500 books. I actually googled it because I thought it might be a joke. The joke is apparently my vocabulary.

  • [-]
  • a_shootin_star
  • 2 Points
  • 22:27:34, 26 October

I have a Latin degree, so maybe that helps. I like to think I know a lot of words. But sangfroid got me a lot of hate mai, so I had to abandon ship.

  • [-]
  • BrownNote
  • 1 Points
  • 18:58:30, 26 October

I'm gonna be really confused if Baader-Meinhof starts happening with that word.

  • [-]
  • Never_cites_sources
  • 2 Points
  • 16:59:23, 26 October

So what you're saying is officers shouldn't be armed, so they have to opt for the less violent option? I agree wholeheartedly.

  • [-]
  • dbe
  • 1 Points
  • 23:56:53, 26 October

I know in some other countries, police aren't armed. I'm not sure that would fly in the U.S. where SO many people have guns.

  • [-]
  • aaron__ireland
  • 1 Points
  • 07:13:10, 27 October

True that we don't know 100% of the facts yet but since we on the subject.... even if all that mentioned in the post turns out to be true and accurate... A taser or a single shot would've sufficed. Twelve shots is really extreme. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that there was any damage to the complainants door or else we'd have seen or heard about it before now and from sources other than the radio transcripts a report isn't confirmed until it's confirmed by the officers. If I had to guess it'd be that the man was banging on the door and the person inside got spooked seeing a frantic black man banging on the door and overreacted and told 911 dispatch that it sounded like he was kicking the door down or that she thought he was and either the dispatcher didn't hear correctly or did a poor job of relating the facts to the responding officers. I also can't imagine that there would've been charges pressed at all if there were any evidence that the officer had been physically struck by the "suspect"

  • [-]
  • moving0target
  • -1 Points
  • 17:18:12, 26 October

Well said.

It'd be nice if everyone would reserve judgment until more evidence is released...but this is reddit. The cop is wrong.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -4 Points
  • 15:17:06, 26 October

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • juloxx
  • 2 Points
  • 15:28:32, 26 October

> For ever 1 that abuse power there are at least 100 who serve to protect.

BULLSHIT. Fuck off with that garbage. When you live in a country that has the highest incarceration rates (5% of the worlds population holds 25% of the worlds incarcerated community), that arrests more of its own than China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia maybe, just maybe you enforce corrupt policy

When arrest rates have risen 800% since the (failed) war on drugs started, and when there are more weed related arrests in the past year than all violent crime put together in the past year (and thats just weed), maybe, just maybe you arent protecting anymore.

They look at citizens as enemies who they are out to get rather than out to protect. Cops are necessary, dont get me wrong, but they do just as much harm as good under the current paradigm in which they operate. A prison industrial complex has influenced our law enforcement policy, and until cops see that and take a stand to it, they are corrupt little piggies

  • [-]
  • 9ty2
  • 2 Points
  • 15:39:52, 26 October

yeah i agree that its more than 1% of corrupt cops. but then again i have no idea the ratio, but 1/100 seems quite low for all the news we hear about it.

  • [-]
  • if_you_say_so
  • -1 Points
  • 15:32:23, 26 October

You can't blame the cops for enforcing laws. That's their job. Blame the lawmakers.

  • [-]
  • juloxx
  • 6 Points
  • 15:33:47, 26 October

good to know that as long as you take orders from someone you are absolved of responsibility, even if you are a key gear in perpetuating a corrupt system.

there are plenty of other jobs that someone can do that can better a community and dont involve throwing teenagers in jail to rot for years of their life because they gave someone mushroooms

  • [-]
  • meoschwitz
  • -1 Points
  • 17:35:21, 26 October

Police officers have to enforce the laws that we passed through our democratic political system. I sure as fuck don't want to live in a society where cops enforce their own personal morals on the rest of society.

  • [-]
  • juloxx
  • 4 Points
  • 17:38:13, 26 October

We didnt pass shit. Richard Nixon and his cronies did. There wasnt a vote to start a War on Drugs. Nixon used it as a move to silence political opposition during the 60's. Drug using communities were (and often still are) the most vocal groups protesting the Vietnam War.

  • [-]
  • meoschwitz
  • 0 Points
  • 17:48:57, 26 October

It still doesn't follow why you place the burden to fix the system on law enforcement officers. Your problem is clearly with the political system and the laws that have arisen from it, and you have just as much influence over changing the political system as the officers in law enforcement.

  • [-]
  • juloxx
  • 3 Points
  • 18:00:33, 26 October

They dont have to fix the system, but they sure as hell dont have to actively play into it (though we could get really deep and say we are all playing into it just by paying taxes).

They dont have to arrest an overwhelming number of kids and teenagers under the guise of "helping the community". I dont fucking do that, and unless you are a cop neither do you.

  • [-]
  • lakk
  • -7 Points
  • 15:44:30, 26 October

because that's what every cop does

  • [-]
  • juloxx
  • 1 Points
  • 15:45:39, 26 October

incarceration rates/statistics speak for themselves. Stay naive brother

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • meoschwitz
  • 0 Points
  • 17:40:14, 26 October

> They look at citizens as enemies who they are out to get rather than out to protect. Cops are necessary, dont get me wrong, but they do just as much harm as good under the current paradigm in which they operate. A prison industrial complex has influenced our law enforcement policy, and until cops see that and take a stand to it, they are corrupt little piggies

So let me get this straight. We, as a democratic society, create laws and then hire people to enforce them. Then when you decide you don't like the laws we've created you place the burden on the people we hired to enforce those laws to change them?

Not to mention, what does any of that have to do with the topic? Let's say you do the mental gymnastics to convince yourself that law enforcement officers bear the responsibility for making sure they laws they're enforcing fit your moral values, that still says nothing about whether or not law enforcement officers are abusing power.

  • [-]
  • juloxx
  • -2 Points
  • 17:58:10, 26 October

>We, as a democratic society, create laws and then hire people to enforce them.

pretty fucking naive if you think we as citizens have more of an influence with our lawmakers than private interests (at this point in time at least).

In addition, how come we have to follow these rules even though we have the former HEAD OF THE DEA saying that the government actively imports drugs into our communities. Obviously there is fuckery afoot. Why the fuck arent these pigs going after them. Oh thats right, those guys arent black enough

  • [-]
  • AnimalEyes
  • 0 Points
  • 19:51:31, 27 October

You really think the community made the laws around the drug war?

You really think that I, as an individual, have just as much power and sway in the political system as corporations and lobbyists?

No, just no...

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 0 Points
  • 15:35:16, 26 October

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • Chronic_Samurai
  • 5 Points
  • 16:06:22, 26 October

Police unions hire lobbyists to push legislatures to pass laws that are favorable for police. That is how you end up with laws like civil forfeiture where the police force can confiscate your property claiming it was used in some sort of drug activity with very little proof. Then sell it well being able to keep 100% of the proceeds. They do this so they can bloat their budget and increase salaries and buy armored personal carriers, full tactical gear for every officer, etc. Technically they don't write the laws, they just have enough power to get ones they want passed and politicians are happy to play along so they can be tough on crime.

  • [-]
  • damnit_darrell
  • -6 Points
  • 15:19:48, 26 October

Finally, someone who makes sense.

  • [-]
  • galt88
  • 1 Points
  • 16:40:10, 26 October

All too often, their split second threat assessment involves a firearm instead of pepper spray or a taser. The trigger happiness, in general, needs to stop.

  • [-]
  • barrypickles
  • -1 Points
  • 15:31:49, 26 October

Nope, ACAB

  • [-]
  • infected_goat
  • 0 Points
  • 23:33:12, 26 October

You also don't know what happened. You don't know that he kicked through the woman's door, you don't know that he ran at the cops. You base that on a radio conversation, and you take it as fact.

The truth is, just like the person you are responding to, you or anyone else won't know what happened unless we can see it from the dash cam that they haven't made public.

  • [-]
  • BanFauxNews
  • 0 Points
  • 23:52:41, 26 October

He shot him TEN fucking TIMES. He was UNARMED. And a cop was TERRIFIED for his safety? Maybe he shouldn't be a cop. Fuck these pigs, don't give them any respect, they don't deserve it. No cop is a good cop, they're all in a racket to protect each other.

  • [-]
  • SayWhat24
  • 0 Points
  • 00:18:12, 27 October

> The cop was probably just terrified for his own safety, and reacted accordingly.

Does shooting the man 10 times justify for fear of safety?

  • [-]
  • h0rse27
  • 0 Points
  • 00:27:30, 27 October

It's not normal for an officer to be charge in the act of his duties too. The DA's office seen the dash cam video and saw enough evidence to charge the officer so I'm willing to bet it didn't go down as the officer said.

  • [-]
  • Gern__Blanston
  • 0 Points
  • 03:48:17, 27 October

> There was no way to know whether the man was armed until after the encounter.

So just preemptively kill him in case he is armed?

  • [-]
  • Scuzzzy
  • 0 Points
  • 07:27:55, 27 October

>He ran toward officers who arrived at the scene.

Because the police would never shoot someone walking towards them or even simply standing and then lie about it.

  • [-]
  • ArtAsylumBoy
  • 0 Points
  • 12:13:28, 27 October

So warning shots are supposed to go through human bodies now?

  • [-]
  • SonnyScott
  • 0 Points
  • 17:25:05, 27 October

Police also have a baton.

  • [-]
  • Pake1000
  • -2 Points
  • 16:00:45, 26 October

They don't insist they're highly trained, just that they are trained. There's not enough money in their budget to train them the amount you believe they should be trained and there will never be that amount when everyone hates the idea of paying more taxes.

  • [-]
  • juloxx
  • 1 Points
  • 16:25:58, 26 October

>There's not enough money in their budget to train them the amount you believe they should be trained

where does all the money/property that they rob and steel from drug dealers go?

  • [-]
  • Pake1000
  • -2 Points
  • 16:32:48, 26 October

Not to the police, nor is it that much when you look at how much it cost to train people. $100k might be enough to train a small town to the amount people here expect.

  • [-]
  • Noctus102
  • 0 Points
  • 00:24:15, 27 October

It absolutely goes to the police. Thats how civil forfeiture works. You have no idea what you are talking about do you?

  • [-]
  • Pake1000
  • 0 Points
  • 01:58:57, 27 October

Not always. Depending on the amount, it can and often gets taken by the federal government (DEA) instead. If you're going to accuse someone of not knowing what they're talking about, I suggest you rethink that thought and instead of looking ignorant.

  • [-]
  • Noctus102
  • 1 Points
  • 02:08:32, 27 October

In response to

>where does all the money/property that they rob and steel from drug dealers go?

you said

> not to the police

However since the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 local police departments are able to keep up to 80% of assets seized. You are factually wrong there, so now you are changing it to, they dont always get it. You still seem to not know what you are talking about.

Edit - Hear, read this a see how silly you look.

  • [-]
  • Pake1000
  • 2 Points
  • 02:18:35, 27 October

Funny, I just posted the same link to show how silly you look thinking they get anywhere near 80% of the money.

  • [-]
  • Noctus102
  • 2 Points
  • 02:25:52, 27 October

That did confuse me at first lol.

  • [-]
  • Pake1000
  • 2 Points
  • 02:32:03, 27 October

Aye. When we both post the same link to prove the other wrong, we're being idiots.

  • [-]
  • Pake1000
  • 1 Points
  • 02:16:39, 27 October

> However since the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 local police departments are able to keep up to 80% of assets seized.

You really think they get up to 80% in actuality? In 1999, only about 30% went back to local departments.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html

The Federal government gets to choose how much goes back and they can choose anywhere between 0 and 80%, not the other way around. So yes, I'm still accurate. It doesn't go directly to the police. It's up to the Federal government to determine if the local police get a cut.

  • [-]
  • Noctus102
  • 1 Points
  • 02:23:59, 27 October

I said

> able to keep up to 80%

You reply with

>You really think they get up to 80%

Yes... Yes I do since that is a blatant fact. I never said everytime, or most of the time, I said UP TO.

Again, in your own comment you said they get

>anywhere between 0 and 80%

So... you agree with me then? They can get UP TO 80%?

Again, I never said they get to choose how much they keep, just that it can be as high as 80%. So not only are you straw manning my argument, you are doing it over semantics now, while at the same time saying the same thing I did.

But, since you yourself admit that local police can keep up to 80%, I am going to consider this conversation done.

  • [-]
  • Pake1000
  • 1 Points
  • 02:26:31, 27 October

Sure, they can legally get up to 80%, but they sure as hell aren't getting anywhere near 80% or even 50%, and many rarely get anything.

  • [-]
  • Striker2688
  • -69 Points
  • 12:20:24, 26 October

Oh... You sound so open minded and unbiased.

  • [-]
  • Achack
  • 22 Points
  • 12:49:53, 26 October

It pisses me off too. 10 bullets to deal with an unarmed man, how is that necessary unless they prove he was on some sort of drugs?

  • [-]
  • mechman39
  • 14 Points
  • 14:42:16, 26 October

There's a black man outside at 2am! Unload firearm!

  • [-]
  • Striker2688
  • -19 Points
  • 13:23:36, 26 October

Because hindsight is 20/20 and if you fire your weapon you shoot to kill. There is no such thing as warning shots or shoot-to-maim in policing.

  • [-]
  • piaband
  • 14 Points
  • 13:52:00, 26 October

How about you don't fire your weapon unless you are in grave danger? We will all see the video when it's released but I'm guessing they would've released it immediately if it.backed up the officer's claims

  • [-]
  • mwmwmwmwmmdw
  • 0 Points
  • 05:16:55, 27 October

watch this video and you can see how fast things can go from normal to shit when you are a cop and then talk to me armchair defense expert

  • [-]
  • piaband
  • 0 Points
  • 05:27:12, 27 October

That doesn't give cops the right to shoot an unarmed person. They are suppose to be trained to react to situations properly. If you don't think many cops habitually cross the line, we live in different worlds.

The guy was unarmed. That's the bottom line. The cop made a huge mistake. From the story, it also sounds like he lied on his report that he was hit by the guy. Like I said, the video will tell the whole story. Either way, he should lose his job. Criminal prosecution is the only question.

  • [-]
  • mwmwmwmwmmdw
  • 1 Points
  • 05:31:36, 27 October

based on the evidence presented so far the situation is grey at best i am pretty sure you have a bias against cops anyway like 95% of reddit so you have already made up your mind

  • [-]
  • piaband
  • 1 Points
  • 13:24:57, 27 October

That's why I've said we will see the video.

Cops are now crying about unfair treatment on Reddit. That's a high dose of irony right there

  • [-]
  • Striker2688
  • -7 Points
  • 14:45:51, 26 October

No, they only release videos once investigations are over no matter the result. Did the tox screen ever get released for the deceased? I never saw anything and I know reddit wouldn't upvote a post that makes the police look good. His actions seemed a lot like those of someone under the influence to me (including the wreck itself).

  • [-]
  • deepsandwich
  • -22 Points
  • 13:37:19, 26 October

Even on drugs it is easy to take down an unarmed person with non-lethal means... Unless you don't want to.

  • [-]
  • IShitMyself
  • 6 Points
  • 13:40:22, 26 October

Your comment is simply not true.

  • [-]
  • deepsandwich
  • -15 Points
  • 13:47:48, 26 October

You obviously have never worked with the mentally ill.

  • [-]
  • IShitMyself
  • 5 Points
  • 14:06:15, 26 October

You clearly have never heard of PCP

  • [-]
  • deepsandwich
  • -5 Points
  • 14:29:40, 26 October

Go work in a mental hospital and come back when you have any experience at all and we can finish this conversation.

  • [-]
  • masshole4life
  • 11 Points
  • 14:56:28, 26 October

Mental health worker here. While it is certainly true that it's absolutely possible to take down just about anyone using non lethal means, it is far from "easy". It often requires a lot of highly trained staff and results in serious injury for all involved.

The police may be "highly trained" but their training has to do with merely stopping a threat and saving everyone's ass except the perpetrator. Hospital staff are trained to stop the threat while considering the safety and rights of the person in crisis. It requires a bit more finesse than bashing a dude into the ground and punching him until he "stops resisting". The police have no incentive to have respect since their asses are covered no matter what they do to "protect the public".

I honestly can't say how realistic of an expectation it is to have the same guys who respond to gang shootouts do a hospital-style takedown on an unknown person. The police do not have the luxury of working in a secure facility and building rapport with patients for 40 hours a week, getting to know their triggers and patterns of behavior, etc. Their role is much different from mine, but I do agree that something must change. I just don't think it's as simple as you make it sound.

  • [-]
  • deepsandwich
  • -9 Points
  • 15:02:51, 26 October

Finally a fair argument. I will admit I should not have used the term "easy" when "doable" is more accurate.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • berserkerscientist
  • 2 Points
  • 14:38:29, 26 October

This is nonsense. My coworker worked with the mentally ill. One patient hid from a female orderly behind a bookshelf. When she came in, he ripped her jumpsuit from the collar to the waist--with his bare hands--and began assaulting her. It took 5 guys to get him off her.

You have obviously never worked at an institution.

  • [-]
  • deepsandwich
  • -5 Points
  • 14:50:44, 26 October

Using 5 orderlies to restrain a patient is very common, it is called a 5 point or 5 star restraint. The whole purpose behind using that many hands is to keep the patient from being injured in the process. Restraints can be done with 1 person but because it requires more force it is likely to injure the patient.

The reason every story of someone being attacked in an institution and their attacker being subdued by 5 guys is because that is standard practice not because patients are incapable of being restrained by one or two people.

Please, if anyone would like to argue this out that has actual experience, be my guest.

  • [-]
  • IShitMyself
  • 0 Points
  • 16:48:12, 26 October

I don't see how mentally ill is even in this conversation. I was talking about your "taking down someone on drugs is easy" comment. I don't see how your past experience in a mental hospital is relevant at all.

  • [-]
  • Rickles68
  • 7 Points
  • 13:10:54, 26 October

I agree with ArtAsylumBoy, its racial profiling at its worst. A black guy, especially in distress, is a criminal first and a citizen later. We need our police officers to have more self-control and a better ability to truly assess a situation. Two cops on the scene, with tazers, pepper spray, and clubs, had plenty of other options to try before shooting and killing an innocent man.

  • [-]
  • Striker2688
  • -19 Points
  • 13:22:49, 26 October

You were there? Tell me more about what the cop should have done.

  • [-]
  • JoshWithaQ
  • 6 Points
  • 14:32:21, 26 October

shoulda made me breakfast.

  • [-]
  • Rickles68
  • 2 Points
  • 14:59:50, 26 October

Your last two comments are pretty much worthless. In a discussion, people typically exchange ideas, opinions, perspectives, etc. All you are doing is whining and trying to provoke people. Bring something meaningful to the table, even if it's a differing opinion.

  • [-]
  • Striker2688
  • -6 Points
  • 15:36:42, 26 October

Just because you disagree doesn't make anything I said worthless. You are speculating, assuming, and guessing. If you think my comments are worthless I would be a little more introspective and realize what you are saying contributes nothing.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • FoodSurgeon
  • 0 Points
  • 15:04:53, 26 October

You are a cunt pig.

  • [-]
  • Striker2688
  • -5 Points
  • 15:24:57, 26 October

So eloquent.

  • [-]
  • FoodSurgeon
  • 6 Points
  • 15:26:46, 26 October

You're welcome cunt pig.