View Full Version : I hope the press got their fact completely wrong on this one.
IF not, then I can't imagine how the shooting was appropriate.
...
Police said an officer was on patrol when he spotted a man sitting on the sidewalk, whittling, and approached him.
The officer told the man to drop the knife several times, police said, but instead of doing so, he stood up. When the man refused to heed to his commands, the officer opened fire and hit the man.
The unidentified man was fatally injured. Nearby witnesses said they heard as many as five shots being fired.
"It was rapid succession of five or six shots, straight to the chest. It was point blank," said one witness who wished to remain anonymous.
...
http://downtownseattle.komonews.com/content/whittling-man-fatally-shot-police
CarlosDJackal
08-31-10, 14:20
There is not enough information to form an intelligent opinion. :confused:
- Did the subject make a Furtive Movement?
- Did the subject say something that would give the Officer the impression that his life was in danger?
- Was there something in the past where these two individuals have had negative interactions?
- Did the subject have a known history of violent behavior that the officer was aware of?
thats a pretty over-simplified version of what i heard-
the officer saw a bum (he was, and looked like, a bum- and it DOES made a difference) with a knife, whittling on a stick. knives over 3.5" are illegal in seattle, the officer intended to check the length. pulls over, begins walking toward the man.. the man gets up with the knife in front of him, acting like he's going to stab the officer.. the officer was heard by witnesses ordering him to stand down several times, the man kept coming while holding the knife in an attack-like position, so the officer shot him a few times.
i don't have a link... i could have read it anywhere, but i'm pretty sure that's what the seattle times reported.
i have no opinion either way... we're still preliminary, and it sounds like a good shoot so far.
Littlelebowski
08-31-10, 14:38
The officer will be acquitted.
Littlelebowski
08-31-10, 15:00
"Furtive movements" cover a lot and seem to be very much in vogue nowadays. Lots of folks killed over "furtive movements."
acting like he's going to stab the officer.. the officer was heard by witnesses ordering him to stand down several times, the man kept coming while holding the knife in an attack-like position,
That sheds a whole new light on the incident. Thanks for the details. I am pretty sure most here would open fire on a bum aggressively advancing with a knife.
The officer will be acquitted.
Even if acquitted, criminal prosecution can ruin a person's life.
Littlelebowski
08-31-10, 15:02
That sheds a whole new light on the incident. Thanks for the details. I am pretty sure most here would open fire on a bum aggressively advancing with a knife.
Agreed. A "furtive movement" is one thing but that seems pretty clear cut.
rubberneck
08-31-10, 15:02
At the risk of drifting this thread I found this part of the story absurd:
According to city code, it is unlawful for anyone to "carry concealed or unconcealed on his or her person any dangerous knife, or carry concealed on his or her person any deadly weapon other than a firearm."
Just so I get this straight it's ok to carry a concealed firearm but it is illegal to have an unconcealed knife greater than 3.5 inches? That makes perfect sense.:blink:
How about... He's whittling a piece of wood, leave the guy alone.
How about... He's whittling a piece of wood, leave the guy alone.
we often read articles like this and think, "well shit- i would have shot the ****er too." but that ignores the whole part about cops roving loose in the world, ****ing with people because they might be in violation of knife length laws.
which is bullshit.
CarlosDJackal
08-31-10, 16:29
"Furtive movements" cover a lot and seem to be very much in vogue nowadays. Lots of folks killed over "furtive movements."
"Furtive movement" is something that was beat into us in the Academy and something I have always kept in my consciousness whenever I was in uniform. I did so because I need to make sure that any movement I see is deliberate in its intent.
There has been a lot of folks killed because of this. But there has also been a lot of folks who committed "Suicide by Cop" with the help of furtive movements. It's been pretty much their main means (primarily because "Shoot me!!" just wasn't enough of an invitation to get shot).
Littlelebowski
08-31-10, 16:31
"Furtive movement" is something that was beat into us in the Academy and something I have always kept in my consciousness whenever I was in uniform. I did so because I need to make sure that any movement I see is deliberate in its intent.
There has been a lot of folks killed because of this. But there has also been a lot of folks who committed "Suicide by Cop" with the help of furtive movements. It's been pretty much their main means (primarily because "Shoot me!!" just wasn't enough of an invitation to get shot).
There's just no black or white, is there? It's an on the spot decision.
we often read articles like this and think, "well shit- i would have shot the ****er too." but that ignores the whole part about cops roving loose in the world, ****ing with people because they might be in violation of knife length laws.
which is bullshit.
Or maybe he was doing his job????? maybe a citizen called in on a homeless man sitting with a knife, maybe he was just going to check to see if he had warrants ???????
ThirdWatcher
08-31-10, 17:52
http://downtownseattle.komonews.com/content/whittling-man-fatally-shot-police
As the thread spirals into the abyss............
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012764459_copshooting31m.html
The man stood up and advanced toward the officer, ignoring several "loud commands" to stop and drop the knife, Witt said.
and
About an hour after the shooting, an agitated, disheveled man walked up to the scene demanding to see his "street brother," apparently referring to the dead man.
"I want to see my street brother for the last time," the man shouted at officers.
As he became increasingly agitated, officers asked him to step back onto the sidewalk.
At least one officer drew his gun. When the man appeared to pull an object from his pocket, officers wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him. He was taken away in a patrol car.
Let me throw in my .02 cents here. I used to live north of Seattle and was a bail bondsman there for 4 years. I know this area well and there is a lot of street trash around. Homelessness, pan handling and other problems are rampant (at least during the time I was there).
The homeless people can be very aggressive in that area. I have seen them harrass people while pan handling to the point where they were scared not to give money.
Several years back there was a retired fire captain from Seattle who was stabbed to death by a homeless man near the Kingdome.
In addition several years back there was a homeless guy that used to wander the area with a duffle bag. Inside it was samurai sword that he carried around. I commented to a SPD officer once that I didn't understand how he could just wander around like that considering the city's moronic ban on fixed blade knives and knives over 3.5" (another thing to remember is that the laws vary from county to county and city to city). His response was that he was harmless. That was until he wigged out and started acting out on a street corner during rush hour traffic. That prompted the SPD SWAT team and fire dept. being called out and traffic being backed up for around 4 hours. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtRgweQxXi8)
He was finally taken into custody. I believe that he was also declared mentally incompetent.
So not sure what to make of this incident. The officer may well have been justified or he could have overreacted. From what I remember about Seattle they seem to have a fairly thorough review process and I wouldn't see that he'll just walk away. They are fairly liberal there.
I think the primary lesson here is don't believe everything you read in the newspaper - there's usually a lot more to the story than what gets printed initially. I'd be willing to bet that the "homeless" guy wasn't whittling with a boy scout jack knife or he wouldn't have attracted all that attention in the first place.
BS laws and jokes about bringing a knife to a gunfight aside, a person armed with a knife is nothing to sneer at, they can do a lot of damage if they know what they're doing. You can't react faster than someone can act.
I'd be willing to bet that the "homeless" guy wasn't whittling with a boy scout jack knife or he wouldn't have attracted all that attention in the first place.
BS laws and jokes about bringing a knife to a gunfight aside, a person armed with a knife is nothing to sneer at, they can do a lot of damage if they know what they're doing. You can't react faster than someone can act.
Extremely well spoken, good perspective. Right down the middle of the common sense line.
You have probably all seen this before, but here is what can happen when a police officer attempts to disarm an attacker with a knife:
http://www.orlandokuntao.com/mf_armed_assailant.html
I was gonna write a whole littany of reasons why the speculation that's been posted here is along the same lines as the media but I won't... More info pertaining to the death of this man.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012772525_williams01m.html
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Times-Man-shot-by-officer-was-armed-with-a-3-inch-blade-101926398.html
It is entirely possible that he overreacted. But, I will say this. The media in Seattle is crap and they love to spin stuff. Back in 1997 I was involved in a shooting outside of Ft. Lewis. The story in the Seattle P.I and Times was full of misinformation.
So was the coverage by King5 and Komo4.
Maybe this guys was just carving wood. But, I have seen first hand how the people down in that area have made the place unsafe. Not only by their aggressive panhandling, drinking, and fighting. But, they leave syringes and shit and piss all over down there. The Downtown Business Association was pleading with SPD back in the mid-90's to do something because it was hurting business and tourism.
I was gonna write a whole littany of reasons why the speculation that's been posted here is along the same lines as the media but I won't... More info pertaining to the death of this man.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012772525_williams01m.html
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Times-Man-shot-by-officer-was-armed-with-a-3-inch-blade-101926398.html
It is entirely possible that he overreacted. But, I will say this. The media in Seattle is crap and they love to spin stuff. Back in 1997 I was involved in a shooting outside of Ft. Lewis. The story in the Seattle P.I and Times was full of misinformation.
So was the coverage by King5 and Komo4.
Maybe this guys was just carving wood. But, I have seen first hand how the people down in that area have made the place unsafe. Not only by their aggressive panhandling, drinking, and fighting. But, they leave syringes and shit and piss all over down there. The Downtown Business Association was pleading with SPD back in the mid-90's to do something because it was hurting business and tourism.
It's the classic liberal city mindset. They want the city to be cleaned up, but they don't want proactive cops aggressively going after small violations which often lead to bigger fish. Often, when the little stuff gets enforced that subjects city council members, the sheriff's constituents, and other important decision makers in the community and they don't want to be bothered with petty offenses or run the risk of something greater on their own records like a DUI. To them, police presence needs to be limited and they have no understanding of all the elements of policing that clean up a city. Instead, they often try to limit legal tools used in the process so that exceptions in the law are made for them. This is also a common problem in extremely far right wing communities. "By all means, police my community......but don't do anyting that might expose my own illegal contributions to society." The essence of a Republic is the rule of law.......everyone is subject to it or else there is inequality and corruption.
over a decade long run in with police and misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors and only ONE felony !!!
OH such a sweet innocent man
yeah I went to HS out near Seattle area and used to go down town all the time in the 80s and even back then it was why I had a CCW
only run ins I ever had that I avoided luckily were with bums !!!! such a friendly lot of fellows ! especially when they put on a BS front and cry OH I am a poor (whatever excuse) and now homeless
yeah quality people
dont know the full story nobody does ? but I do know most of the Seattle bums are not just nice lovey dovey people they are criminals and thugs and pretty much all of them have records !!!!
having a record and being a general piece of shit human being don't necessitate ****ing with 'em at any opportunity, contrary to the current SOP.
having a record and being a general piece of shit human being don't necessitate ****ing with 'em at any opportunity, contrary to the current SOP.
I agree :)
but with that kind of guy would you be a bit more on guard knowing his past ? and if something looked wrong ? chances are your guy might be correct ?
the police I know approach people who are known problems with a bit more guard than ones that they approach in general situations
if a police is pulling over a car
one is reported stolen vs one that did not use a blinker would he approach it dif ?
thats my thinking :)
I agree :)
but with that kind of guy would you be a bit more on guard knowing his past ? and if something looked wrong ? chances are your guy might be correct ?
the police I know approach people who are known problems with a bit more guard than ones that they approach in general situations
if a police is pulling over a car
one is reported stolen vs one that did not use a blinker would he approach it dif ?
thats my thinking :)
if it was as the report i read (and i'm not really following this story closely, admittedly), then i'm not saying the officer necessarily did anything wrong. like i said above, it appears to be a good shoot. you walk toward a cop with a knife in your hand, you get some bullets. anybody who doesn't realize that really probably deserves to have his genes pulled from the pool.
the SOP is the problem.
ChicagoTex
09-03-10, 19:50
the SOP is the problem.
I don't understand what you mean by this, can you clarify?
(Yes, I know SOP is Standard Operating Procedure, what I don't understand is what procedure or procedures you're specifically referring to).
arizonaranchman
09-04-10, 09:51
I'd wager it's a good shoot. In training officers are literally shown how a charging attacker with a knife standing 20 feet away who is determined CAN and WILL slash or stab the officer before he can kill the attacker. It's demonstrated in training over and over again. When you're finished you realize a guy 20' away with a knife is an EXTREME threat, let alone one closer.
Having seen first hand the hideous wounds by bladed weapons I'm far more fearful of a guy with a knife than a gun (who's within knife range). A handgun punches little holes in you. A blade will have your intestines all over the ground at your feet with one slash. A good knife fighter will have you filleted from top to bottom so fast you won't know what happened nor will you likely live to know.
Littlelebowski
09-05-10, 20:03
Apparently the guy killed actually did whittle a lot, pretty much for a living. He was also deaf in one ear. His knife was within the legal limit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38943388
UPDATE: An inquest has been ordered. http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington/Inquest-ordered-into-fatal-police-shooting-of-woodcarver-104740224.html
The King County Medical Examiner says Williams was shot in the side four times and was not facing the officer.
Another story that's pretty interesting detailing quite a few Seattle shootings & inquests: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/10/john_t_williams_court_inquest.php
This sounds like Las Vegas:
In the one known case of an unjustified finding made in the past 40 years at least - the shooting of a black man in 1971 - the officer was never charged with a crime.
Woodcarver's shooting by SPD officer ruled not justified in preliminary finding.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013160320_shooting15m.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/428438_shooting15.html
Woodcarver's shooting by SPD officer ruled not justified in preliminary finding.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013160320_shooting15m.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/428438_shooting15.html
Thanks for posting this. I had the sneaking suspicion that it would be ruled this way. It just sounded like a shit shooting form the beginning. The # of unjustified shootings, and how they have increased in the recent decade is alarming as hell. Even more alarming is how DA's deal with them...
Thanks for posting this... Even more alarming is how DA's deal with them...
You're welcome. Keep in mind this is a preliminary finding and the formal inquest has yet to be concluded.
I don't know much of anything about how their inquests are conducted up in the Puget Sound area but there has only been 1 unjustified shooting in the past 40 years in Seattle. From the initial findings it looks like this may be the second. I certainly hope the officer gets a fair shake and that justice is served whether it's in his favor or against.
For sure. Either way it goes it will be nice to know what happened.
At the risk of drifting this thread I found this part of the story absurd:
Just so I get this straight it's ok to carry a concealed firearm but it is illegal to have an unconcealed knife greater than 3.5 inches? That makes perfect sense.:blink:
Yes, that sort of legal framework is actually very common. You'll see many states and localities where (assuming you have a carry permit) you can carry as many handguns as you can hide on you, but you're breaking the law if you're also carrying a folder over X length, or certain types of blades, or a blackjack, or brass knuckles, and so on.
Not to take this thread even farther afield, but there is sometimes a "legislative history" explanation for this. I'll use Virginia as an example since I know it well. Back in the day (prior to roughly 1990), the majority of states had a statute that covered concealed weapons generally, which covered handguns, knives, blackjacks, saps, nunchucks, and so on. Carry permits were discretionary, but if you got one, it covered all of those things and you could carry whatever you wanted to carry.
When the wave of "shall-issue" legislation (starting in Florida in 1989) came about in 20+ states, one of the legislative compromises, or perhaps unintended side effects in some cases, was that the new "shall-issue" permits applied only to handguns - not the full range of items. So even though you were checked out and permitted to stuff your pants full of loaded handguns, the statutory language doesn't allow you to carry a knife.
Stupid but true in many places.
This is the first time I have seen his picture. I know who this guy is. He was well known in that area when I was there of that I am about 98% certain. I think he used to wear an OD green type jacket.
SWATcop556
10-16-10, 22:51
You have probably all seen this before, but here is what can happen when a police officer attempts to disarm an attacker with a knife:
http://www.orlandokuntao.com/mf_armed_assailant.html
FWIW those pictures in the link provided have been around for several years and have been reported as being a police officer. They are in fact a man who was attacked by his wife with a sword after he was found in bed with another woman. He WAS NOT an on duty LEO or affiliated with LE.
I'm not sure how the urban legend of him being a LEO got started.
It is still a good example of what a blade can do.
Alaskapopo
10-16-10, 23:58
Even if acquitted, criminal prosecution can ruin a person's life.
True but if its a good shoot the officer won't go through that and for the civil side the department protects you with their attorney's. Now if its a bad shoot your are up a creek without a paddle.
Pat
Alaskapopo
10-17-10, 00:07
we often read articles like this and think, "well shit- i would have shot the ****er too." but that ignores the whole part about cops roving loose in the world, ****ing with people because they might be in violation of knife length laws.
which is bullshit.
You mean being pro active and looking for violations. That is what we are paid to do. Enforce the law. If you don't like the laws (say knife laws) work to change them, talk to your congressman. But you can't fault an officer for being pro active in enforcing the laws on the books. (that is our job) What you call ****ing with people is simply enforcement. If people don't want to be bothered they should not break the law.
Pat
Now if its a bad shoot your are up a creek without a paddle.
Pat
Or... if it's a good shoot but it is ruled a bad shoot, the cop is also cooked. Just like courts, review panels can make mistakes, can be biased or can make decisions based in whole or in part on politics.
If you don't like the laws (say knife laws) work to change them, talk to your congressman.
This would be a Seattle Municipal Code violation, if it had been an illegal knife.
If people don't want to be bothered they should not break the law.
The knife was of legal length from the latest reports. So the real question is if you think a cop should be able to stop every person who is seen carrying a folding knife and jack them up, giving them verbal commands and then drawing a weapon if they dont comply, in order to measure the blade. I would say no.
Or... if it's a good shoot but it is ruled a bad shoot, the cop is also cooked. Just like courts, review panels can make mistakes, can be biased or can make decisions based in whole or in part on politics.
Or... if it's a bad shoot and it's ruled a good shoot. It goes both ways: http://www.lvrj.com/news/101234024.html?viewAllComments=y&c=y
Alaskapopo
10-17-10, 23:52
This would be a Seattle Municipal Code violation, if it had been an illegal knife.
The knife was of legal length from the latest reports. So the real question is if you think a cop should be able to stop every person who is seen carrying a folding knife and jack them up, giving them verbal commands and then drawing a weapon if they dont comply, in order to measure the blade. I would say no.
I am not speaking to this particular incident. But if we must go there. If the cop thought the knife was over length there is nothing wrong with him following up on that hunch but investigating further. Now if a psycho starts coming after the officer with a knife (rather the knife is legal or not) the officer is justified in defending themselves as would any citizen who is presented by an armed threat.
The officer has a duty to investigate. Investigating a possible crime is not jacking someone up.
Cops are people too and we make mistakes. I have pulled over people I thought were not wearing their seat belt to find out the seat belt was hard to see but on the person. Was I jacking them up? No I was enforcing traffic law. When I saw they had their seat belt on I apologized and let them on their way.
Hell even if the officer is totally wrong you do not have a legal right to threaten him with a knife. You don't have a right to refuse to drop a weapon when ordered by a police officer.
Say the blade is 1 inch long the officer asks to see it to measure it. The bum can file a complaint or a law suit about the officer making a mistake. But he does not have the right to use force to resist his investigation. Best plan is to follow the officers orders and let the court sort it out later. That way everyone stays safe.
Also back to verbal commands. Hell yes. If I order you to drop a knife you had better do it. That is a no brainier. We have lots of lee way from the courts when it comes to officer safety and for good reason. Refusing to drop or put down a weapon regardless of the situation is a good way to get a Darwin Award.
Terms in your post such as "Jacking Someone up" shows your anti leo bias. Now sure why you have gotten so bitter towards those in our profession. But I can tell you that common sense and obeying the law will keep you from having further negative interactions with law enforcement. I am not saying you will never be the victim of a police officer making a mistake. But if you use common sense and let the court settle it out later you will be fine.
Pat
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 00:13
Or... if it's a bad shoot and it's ruled a good shoot. It goes both ways: http://www.lvrj.com/news/101234024.html?viewAllComments=y&c=y
Not a perfect shoot but nothing in the report (other than biased reporting) shows it to be a clear cut bad shoot. The suspect was 6 foot tall 300 pounds and according to the report the officer saw what he believed was a weapon in his hands. Mistakes happen when decisions have to be made in milliseconds that involve life and death. Its unfortunate but its life. Say the offender had been armed and the officer would have hesitated he could have been the one that is dead now. Unfortunate yes. But from what I have read there is no enough there to crucify the officer by calling it a bad shoot as you have done.
It sounds like you have no understanding of what its like to be forced to make a life and death decision in the blink of an eye. Its not fun and I hope if you ever are faced with a decision like that and you make the wrong one that your peers have more mercy on you in their judgment that you seem to have on those of us working in law enforcement.
The point is its easy to second guess someone when armed with the facts after an incident has taken place from the safety of your key board. Its quite another to be the on in the situation that is rabidly evolving where lives are at stake.
I trust the court of law a lot more than I trust the court of public opinion which is where the media holds its cases.
Pat
Terms in your post such as "Jacking Someone up" shows your anti leo bias.
Pat you are so far off base here it isn't even funny. Pulling over and giving somebody verbal commands at gunpoint in order to measure whether or not a folding knife you spotted is under a 3 and 1/2 inch limit is the definition of chickenshit. Even if the guy hadn't been wearing headphones, deaf, mentally ill, or even just a drunk and stubborn fool, whatever the sum of the weird circumstances were in this situation that led to the cop shooting him. Cops in Seattle have more important things to do with their time then stop whittlers to measure their blade length, and if they don't they ought to whittle down the size of the force a bit until they do.
I am far from biased against cops. I agree with all your other comments about officer safety, no right to resist an investigation, and even your sentiments about changing stupid laws (although good luck with that in Seattle). But the bottom line is it is due to some combination of bad public policy and poorly exercised officer discretion that this incident took place.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 00:40
Pat you are so far off base here it isn't even funny. Pulling over and giving somebody verbal commands at gunpoint in order to measure whether or not a folding knife you spotted is under a 3 and 1/2 inch limit is the definition of chickenshit. Even if the guy hadn't been wearing headphones, deaf, mentally ill, or even just a drunk and stubborn fool, whatever the sum of the weird circumstances were in this situation that led to the cop shooting him. Cops in Seattle have more important things to do with their time then stop whittlers to measure their blade length, and if they don't they ought to whittle down the size of the force a bit until they do.
I am far from biased against cops. I agree with all your other comments about officer safety, no right to resist an investigation, and even your sentiments about changing stupid laws (although good luck with that in Seattle). But the bottom line is it is due to some combination of bad public policy and poorly exercised officer discretion that this incident took place.
1. If I missed it I apologized but its my understanding the officer did not pull his gun until he was threatened.
2. If there is a law on the books the officer has a right to investigate. That is not chicken shit.
3. Its up to the administration and the officers themselves to determine how to spend the time they have available between calls for service not yours. It may be that this officer knew this suspect to be a problem or chronic offender of more serious crimes. Who knows he has a right to investigate what he believes may be a crime. If there is no crime he can move on to something else. An example of this is traffic enforcement. A lot of people get mad when the police pull them over for seat belts, broken tail lights and other minor traffic offenses. But what they don't realize is that we make a lot of warrant arrests and DUI arrests out of stops like these that take real criminals off the streets. The honest citizens often get a minor citation, a fix it ticket or a warning while the crooks go to jail. But the good guys don't see what happens to the bad guys and they only see the inconvenience on their time.
4. As to the bad pubic policy and poor officer discretion being used. That is for people other than you and I to decide. It is not laughing matter when someone is killed. But rushing to judgment on the officer and the agency without all the facts is reckless. Let the system work. If their was wrong done I am sure it will be corrected. Everyone answers to someone and the police ultimately answer to the public we serve. If there are a lot of incidents of mistakes or wrong doing things will change.
5. Sorry for making an assumption that you were negative towards cops. That is what I personally felt after reading your post. Terms like "Jacking Someone Up" don't sound impartial to me.
1. If I missed it I apologized but its my understanding the officer did not pull his gun until he was threatened.
I have not read anything with that level of detail. All I know is the officer pulls over because he sees the guy walking with a chunk of wood and a small knife. He tells the guy to drop the weapon, his orders are not obeyed, he ends up shooting the guy 4 times from a distance of 9 feet according to one article (how they know with that level of certainty the distance IDK... powder marks or something on the skin that close?).
2. If there is a law on the books the officer has a right to investigate. That is not chicken shit.
Well this is really getting into splitting hairs here, because I totally agree that if a crime is being committed or reasonably suspected of being committed the officer has a right to investigate.
The reason why it is chickenshit is because carrying small to medium sized pocket knives is perfectly legal in Seattle and the knife ended up being of legal length.
I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I don't know that merely seeing a common tool like a pocket knife gives the officer the right to stop and search the person and measure the blade. This would be like stopping people coming out of a range or some other circumstance with lawfully openly carried firearms so an officer could run the serial numbers on the guns, measure the barrel lengths, etc., "just in case."
3. Its up to the administration and the officers themselves to determine how to spend the time they have available between calls for service not yours. It may be that this officer knew this suspect to be a problem or chronic offender of more serious crimes.
This guy had an extensive criminal record and was a street person in the area for a long time, so I think that is what happened. That is the reason why I called it chickenshit. No real reason to suspect a crime, might have just been using it as a pretext to make contact with a known dirtbag.
5. Sorry for making an assumption that you were negative towards cops. That is what I personally felt after reading your post. Terms like "Jacking Someone Up" don't sound impartial to me.
If I was walking through downtown Seattle wearing a small pocket knife or two (such as the Spyderco Delicas that I daily carry precisely because they are legal in all big cities in the state) clipped to the inside of my pant pocket(s) and I suddenly found myself getting verbal commands I would feel like I was getting jacked up. That is why I used the term.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 01:13
Well this is really getting into splitting hairs here, because I totally agree that if a crime is being committed or reasonably suspected of being committed the officer has a right to investigate.
The reason why it is chickenshit is because carrying small to medium sized pocket knives is perfectly legal in Seattle and the knife ended up being of legal length.
I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I don't know that merely seeing a common tool like a pocket knife gives the officer the right to stop and search the person and measure the blade. This would be like stopping people coming out of a range or some other circumstance with lawfully openly carried weapons so an officer could run the serial numbers on the guns, measure the barrel lengths, etc., "just in case."
I am not a lawyer either and I am not against pocket knives. My point is the officer saw what he felt was a violation. (turns out he was wrong it happens) He has a right to investigate that. Now if he makes a legal mistake say he does an illegal search. There is a legal remedy for that. The citizen will win in court and could sue. What there is not a remedy for is acting brash because one feels their rights are being taken away even if they really are. My parents taught me there is something called dead right. Meaning you could very well be the person in the right but if you are dead it does not matter. Maybe the officer should be charged or fired or what not. But the real mistake here was on the part of the homeless person. If he would have simply complied with the officer he would be alive today. (unless you believe the officer intended to murder him) If the officer was wrong in his enforcement of the law we can deal with that. But we can't bring someone back to life. We can debate on rather the officer made mistakes and what those mistakes are. But the biggest mistake is un deniable that of the homeless person.
As to the firearm issue. If a police officer has a legal reason to detain someone to speak with them such as a traffic stop or an investigative stop. (Terry stop) I see nothing wrong with running that persons firearm in NCIC to check if its stolen or has filed off serial numbers. I think you will be hard pressed to find case law disagreeing with me on that matter. Now if I just walk up to you and demand to see your firearm we have problems.
Pat
BrianS,
Here is a little fact that is rather ironic. The black guy that used to run around with the samurai sword (down in the same area Alaskan Way and the ports area) did so openly. It was often see sticking out of his green duffle bag. When I asked the SPD why they didn't arrest him (in light of SMC's gay ass knife code) they responded that he never bothered anyone.
BrianS,
Here is a little fact that is rather ironic. The black guy that used to run around with the samurai sword (down in the same area Alaskan Way and the ports area) did so openly. It was often see sticking out of his green duffle bag. When I asked the SPD why they didn't arrest him (in light of SMC's gay ass knife code) they responded that he never bothered anyone.
Yeah that is weird. Could be a sign of the times though, wasn't that back in the late 90s? Or maybe the fact this guy was relatively new at being a police officer is why he stopped to check the blade length on a bum's knife? IDK.
As far as the samurai sword guy is concerned, that dude is epic.
For those who don't know what we are talking about, the real "Afro Samurai" Tony Allison, here is an article and video:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970404&slug=2532232
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ze1x1Hlykc&feature=related
Just one more thought. On the one hand we are expected to obey nit-picky laws and overzealous nit-picky officers (new ones?) who seem to be on a power trip. On the other hand, the federal government refuses to enforce its own immigration laws. WTF?
Immigration cases being tossed by the hundreds
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7249505.html
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=278775474153&id=df0e89f09ee804e04621083d6b530aa7&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.markhillman.com%2fwp-content%2fobama-obey1.gif
Terms in your post such as "Jacking Someone up" shows your anti leo bias. Now sure why you have gotten so bitter towards those in our profession. But I can tell you that common sense and obeying the law will keep you from having further negative interactions with law enforcement. I am not saying you will never be the victim of a police officer making a mistake. But if you use common sense and let the court settle it out later you will be fine.
Pat
Pat:
1. Not everybody who disagrees with you or - gasp - has the audacity to question law enforcement practices has "anti-leo" bias. You seem to like to throw that label out whenever somebody questions an incident like this one or the practices that lead to it.
2. I'm not sure how common sense and letting the courts sort it out is going to help somebody when the "mistake" by the officer involves shooting the person, unless the courts have recently been endowed by the Creator with the ability to cure paralysis or resurrect people.
My parents taught me there is something called dead right. Meaning you could very well be the person in the right but if you are dead it does not matter. Maybe the officer should be charged or fired or what not. But the real mistake here was on the part of the homeless person. If he would have simply complied with the officer he would be alive today. (unless you believe the officer intended to murder him) If the officer was wrong in his enforcement of the law we can deal with that. But we can't bring someone back to life.
I'm not sure how common sense and letting the courts sort it out is going to help somebody when the "mistake" by the officer involves shooting the person, unless the courts have recently been endowed by the Creator with the ability to cure paralysis or resurrect people.
In all fairness to our friend Pat, his assessment as to how to avoid this issue was clearly stated. And while I don't like being told what to do needlessly either, I agree with him.
Not looking to die over a principle.
Not a perfect shoot but nothing in the report (other than biased reporting) shows it to be a clear cut bad shoot. The suspect was 6 foot tall 300 pounds and according to the report the officer saw what he believed was a weapon in his hands. Mistakes happen when decisions have to be made in milliseconds that involve life and death. Its unfortunate but its life. Say the offender had been armed and the officer would have hesitated he could have been the one that is dead now. Unfortunate yes. But from what I have read there is no enough there to crucify the officer by calling it a bad shoot as you have done.
I apologize for the thread drift but I do feel the need to address your comments. I wouldn't call making the facts of the case available to the public "biased reporting". When someone makes a critical analysis of someone being killed by an LEO it does not make them "anti-LEO" in any form or fashion. Like it or not officers do not act with impunity and that's the way it should be. If you don't like living under a microscope than you should pick a different job. With the amount of leeway that's granted officers and the amount of authority that they have over citizens I see nothing wrong with them having to answer for their actions while working.
Nevada law doesn't criminalize individual possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Each of the "controlled buys" the police set up with Cole involved amounts he could legally possess. The cops tried, without success, to bait Cole into selling larger amounts of marijuana, cocaine and guns. They had his apartment under surveillance, they knew there was a pregnant woman living there, they had probable cause to arrest him and yet they wanted to be Billy badass SWAT wannabes and conduct a raid rather than setting up a "buy", arresting him and then executing a search.
Just about everyone on this forum states that you should have a weapon mounted or hand held light to ID the possible threat prior to shooting, well guess who didn't? There are multiple reasons I consider it a bad shoot and here are a few:
1. Testimony from other officers and physical evidence contradict Officer Bryan Yant's story.
2. Cole had no criminal history and was actually out of state on May 19, when police claimed to have bought marijuana from him.
3. LVMPD was targeting a different man and "confused" Cole with the perpetrator and consequently killed him over selling less than 2oz of marijuana, a medicinal plant. Sloppy police work led them to kill a man guilty of holding a chapstick in his hand.
3. In Yant's affidavit, he mistakenly said Cole had a history of drug trafficking. Despite having a copy of Cole's California driver's license complete with a physical description and date of birth, Yant confused Cole with a Trevon Cole from Houston and California, who was seven years older, at least 3 inches shorter and 100 pounds lighter.
4. Yant's weapon mounted light failed and he decided he'd go charging in kicking in doors into a dark apartment regardless of the fact that he could not ID people or threats inside.
5. Only one of the six officers present during the raid heard Yant give verbal orders to Cole. That officer testified that Yant said nothing to Cole about his hands.
6. The bullet that killed 300-pound Cole traveled through his cheek and neck in a downward angle, leading the medical examiner to find it “highly unlikely” that Cole stood and stepped toward Yant, as Yant claims.
7. Both the medical examiner and homicide detective who investigated the scene believe that Cole was crouched over the toilet when he turned toward Yant.
8. "Unfortunately he made an aggressive act toward me. He made me do my job," Yant testified. Arrogant prick.
9. Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens noted that the evidence -- such as the position of Cole's body, the downward angle of the bullet through his cheek to his neck, and testimony from fellow officers who did not hear both a door kick and gunshot -- pointed toward an accidental discharge simultaneous with the door kick.
10. In the estimation of the medical examiner and homicide detective who investigated the case, Cole turned in Yant's direction while crouched over the toilet. But based on how Cole's body was found, the medical examiner found it highly unlikely that Cole took a step toward Yant, as the detective claimed.
11. Yant also said he had enough light to see Cole and his movements clearly, yet the senior officer at the scene, Sgt. John Harney, said the apartment was "pitch black."
Pertinent background info on LVMPD Officer Bryan Yant:
1. In 2002, an inquest jury ruled Yant's fatal shooting of Richard Travis Brown was justified despite a serious discrepancy between his story and evidence at the scene. From that incident:
The officer (Yant) continued to yell commands at Brown, who was on the ground, to drop his gun. Yant said Brown then tried to re-aim the gun at him. Yant fired another three to four rounds, killing Brown.
But crime scene analysts recovered Brown's handgun on the sidewalk, 35 feet away from where he had been shot.
How the gun wound up 35 feet away from Brown was never explored during the inquest. The jury took half an hour to find the shooting justified.
2. The following year, he shot and wounded a man armed with a knife and a baseball ball who had been hired to kill a dog that had killed another neighborhood dog. Yants claimed the man attacked him and that he mistook the bat for a shotgun, but the man said he was running away from Yants when Yants fired repeatedly, striking him once in the hip. Because there was no death in that case, no inquest was held, but the department's use of force board exonerated Yants.
3. Yant is also being investigated for lying about drug raids that never happened. He's a piece of shit and a disgrace to the uniform and the asshole's on a paid vacation using my tax dollars while he's being investigated: http://www.lvrj.com/news/officer-under-suspicion-101541563.html
Where is the statute that says we must instantly obey every shouted command of a police officer, and the punishment for failing to do so is death?
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 14:01
Pat:
1. Not everybody who disagrees with you or - gasp - has the audacity to question law enforcement practices has "anti-leo" bias. You seem to like to throw that label out whenever somebody questions an incident like this one or the practices that lead to it.
2. I'm not sure how common sense and letting the courts sort it out is going to help somebody when the "mistake" by the officer involves shooting the person, unless the courts have recently been endowed by the Creator with the ability to cure paralysis or resurrect people.
This. Every time anything related to LEOs gets questioned on this site, the questioner is automatically labeled as being anti
LEO with hysterical "armchair commando" and "you don't know what's it's like" comments. It would be nice to have rational discussions about this topic unless you really believe that those questioning these shoots are really just anti cop.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 14:36
Pat:
1. Not everybody who disagrees with you or - gasp - has the audacity to question law enforcement practices has "anti-leo" bias. You seem to like to throw that label out whenever somebody questions an incident like this one or the practices that lead to it.
2. I'm not sure how common sense and letting the courts sort it out is going to help somebody when the "mistake" by the officer involves shooting the person, unless the courts have recently been endowed by the Creator with the ability to cure paralysis or resurrect people.
1. The poster is not the one who decides rather he or she has an anti leo bias. Its the offended group. The may not realize that their posts come off that way but they do. Its like nicknames. You don't get to pick your own nickname. Those around you give it to you for better or for worse. It's one thing to engage in open honest conversation and quite another to throw labels and terms out like "jacking people up" which was used in this thread.
2. The point I made seems to have flown right over your head. If the man would have cooperated and followed the officers orders he would not have been shot. Any legal mistake the officer made in the law dealing with knives could have been sorted out by the court later. I can't spell it out to you any better than that. But I suspect you understood the first time I posted it.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 14:41
This. Every time anything related to LEOs gets questioned on this site, the questioner is automatically labeled as being anti
LEO with hysterical "armchair commando" and "you don't know what's it's like" comments. It would be nice to have rational discussions about this topic unless you really believe that those questioning these shoots are really just anti cop.
Its not the question but rather the tone that puts leo's on the defensive. If you read over the threads in question you can see a pattern of certain posts using language meant to inflame rather than simply engage in discussion.
As to the armchair commando and you don't know what it is like comments. They are true. A fair number of posts have no idea what its like to be forced with split second life and death decisions. Its one thing to look at a situation with all the facts after its over and chose the correct course of action and quite another to make that decision on the fly with limited information and the stress of possible death and great bodily harm. Not saying cops should always get a free pass. But people need to take the realities of the world into account before they crucify people.
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 15:00
"You don't know what it's like" doesn't fly all of the time and is being used as a catchall excuse. There is a high percentage of former and active military on here and from what I can see, the military is held to a higher standard much of the time by their own institution than the LEOs. Yes, decisions have to be made in an instant. Yes, people are going to question it. Would you rather they not? Would you rather the police be able to literally kill citizens with impunity using the catchall phrases "made a furtive movement," "in fear for my life," and so on?
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 15:33
"You don't know what it's like" doesn't fly all of the time and is being used as a catchall excuse. There is a high percentage of former and active military on here and from what I can see, the military is held to a higher standard much of the time by their own institution than the LEOs. Yes, decisions have to be made in an instant. Yes, people are going to question it. Would you rather they not? Would you rather the police be able to literally kill citizens with impunity using the catchall phrases "made a furtive movement," "in fear for my life," and so on?
With all due respect to the military its a different world. From what I have seen they do not hold their members to a higher standard. The standards for getting into the military have lowered over the last 10 years to the point where we have gang members and the mentally ill have been accepted. Standards to get hired as a police officer are much higher. We have to pass background investigations, polygraph examinations, psychological examinations. Often college is required. I have had to arrest my share of GI's at a rate no less than the normal citizen population. The military has had its share of egg on its face in recent years from the actions of its members. When those incidents happen I try and wait and withhold judgment until the facts are available. Such as the out rage people had a few years ago when a Marine shot a wounded terrorist who did not appear to be a threat in front of a news reporter. The facts later showed that his actions were justified.
As to the actions of police officers yes people are going to judge what we do. But the people doing the judging should have all the facts and have background on the law and what the job entails. In other words internal investigations at the department first and follow up with the DA's office and the courts. Frankly I give little weight to the opinion of a citizen who has half of the facts from the news and has absolutely no idea of what our job is and what we have to face. (this comment is not for you personally we have had our disagreements but I respect you as a person.)
Pat
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 15:41
My point is that with the military, once accused, the suspect will not have a local hearing and investigation conducted by members of their own unit. It's much more impersonal.
An example. Navy SEALs face more discipline in Afhganistan than police in Fairfax VA (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-discipline-for-seal-in-afghanistan-than-swat-officer-in-fairfax/)
What do you think about the Sal Culosi case, Pat? Do you think the officer that shot Sal was not negligent? Do you think drawn weapons were needed? Do you think the entire investigation was a wise use of taxpayer funds? Do you think that justice was served?
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 15:47
My point is that with the military, once accused, the suspect will not have a local hearing and investigation conducted by members of their own unit. It's much more impersonal.
An example. Navy SEALs face more discipline in Afhganistan than police in Fairfax VA (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-discipline-for-seal-in-afghanistan-than-swat-officer-in-fairfax/)
What do you think about the Sal Culosi case, Pat? Do you think the officer that shot Sal was not negligent? Do you think drawn weapons were needed? Do you think the entire investigation was a wise use of taxpayer funds? Do you think that justice was served?
I agree that members of the department close to the officers should not investigate. If the agency is large enough it should have its own internal affairs unit. If its a small agency like mine an outside agency should investigate. For example if we had an officer involved shooting we would ask the Troopers to investigate it. Officers are also held to a higher standard for their actions on and off duty as an example if I get a speeding ticket. Not only do I face the same fine and points as you would but I also face disciplinary actions from my department.
I don't know anything about the Sal Culosi case. Based on your posts it seems you have an obvious bias towards the military and are understanding when they make mistakes. You should use the same objectivity and compassion when judging the police.
Pat
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 15:49
With all due respect to the military its a different world. From what I have seen they do not hold their members to a higher standard. The standards for getting into the military have lowered over the last 10 years to the point where we have gang members and the mentally ill have been accepted. Standards to get hired as a police officer are much higher. We have to pass background investigations, polygraph examinations, psychological examinations. Often college is required. I have had to arrest my share of GI's at a rate no less than the normal citizen population. The military has had its share of egg on its face in recent years from the actions of its members. When those incidents happen I try and wait and withhold judgment until the facts are available. Such as the out rage people had a few years ago when a Marine shot a wounded terrorist who did not appear to be a threat in front of a news reporter. The facts later showed that his actions were justified.
As to the actions of police officers yes people are going to judge what we do. But the people doing the judging should have all the facts and have background on the law and what the job entails. In other words internal investigations at the department first and follow up with the DA's office and the courts. Frankly I give little weight to the opinion of a citizen who has half of the facts from the news and has absolutely no idea of what our job is and what we have to face. (this comment is not for you personally)
Pat
No offense taken but your last paragraph seems to be a strong argument for an open investigative process in police shootings, don't you think?
I came close to mentioning a couple of really reprehensible actions by police but I don't think we should get in a tit for tat argument here. For the most part, American LEOs do an admirable job. It is an American right and an American tradition to question authority. There are certainly many, many cases of the "thin blue line" closing over and hiding problems within ranks. Questioning the investigative process is our right whether LEOs like it or not. It's like we said in the Corps - USMC=U Signed the Mother****ing Contract. Folks questioning your use of deadly force on citizens is part of the job whether you like it or not. You should know what you're getting into when choosing employment.
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 15:53
That is true but its the same with the police. For example I get a speeding ticket. Not only do I face the same fine and points as you would but I also face disciplinary actions from my department. I don't know anything about the Sal Culosi case.
Read the article I linked to. Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901416.html) is the complete background. Basically Culosi was a non violent, clean cut optometrist who made bets at a sport bar on sporting events. A detective talked him into making an escalating monetary amount on bets until they could arrest him for gambling (he was not initially making bets this large until the detective started the undercover operation). They went to arrest him and an officer had a loaded condition 1 weapon pointed at him with his finger on the trigger. Said officer had a negligent discharge. The officer got 3 weeks without pay and removed from the SWAT team.
Do you think this is a wise use of the SWAT team? Read the articles before commenting.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 16:02
No offense taken but your last paragraph seems to be a strong argument for an open investigative process in police shootings, don't you think?
I came close to mentioning a couple of really reprehensible actions by police but I don't think we should get in a tit for tat argument here. For the most part, American LEOs do an admirable job. It is an American right and an American tradition to question authority. There are certainly many, many cases of the "thin blue line" closing over and hiding problems within ranks. Questioning the investigative process is our right whether LEOs like it or not. It's like we said in the Corps - USMC=U Signed the Mother****ing Contract. Folks questioning your use of deadly force on citizens is part of the job whether you like it or not. You should know what you're getting into when choosing employment.
The police are held accountable by themselves, the courts, and the public. This is a part of the job. What I am opposed to is people making judgments without all the facts and without taking all factors into consideration. For example if you read the comments posted in the online section of newspapers web sites on any articles involving the police you will see quite a few individuals that say ignorant things regardless of the content of the story. I have seen it time and time again. Usually those posters are people who have had what they perceive as negative treatment by the police because they were breaking the law. The police are held accountable whenever there is a shooting. There are several levels of review.
1. IA investigation
2. criminal investigation (DA)
3. Federal review if the facts warrant it. (FBI)
Pat
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 16:10
I'm not here to argue anonymous comments on newspaper articles with you and you should ignore that crap. Might as well argue with graffiti on the walls of buildings.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 16:12
Read the article I linked to. Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901416.html) is the complete background. Basically Culosi was a non violent, clean cut optometrist who made bets at a sport bar on sporting events. A detective talked him into making an escalating monetary amount on bets until they could arrest him for gambling (he was not initially making bets this large until the detective started the undercover operation). They went to arrest him and an officer had a loaded condition 1 weapon pointed at him with his finger on the trigger. Said officer had a negligent discharge. The officer got 3 weeks without pay and removed from the SWAT team.
Do you think this is a wise use of the SWAT team? Read the articles before commenting.
I read the article and its tragic. The use of a SWAT team does not bother me. But the lack of gun safety does. (finger on trigger) Rather you use a SWAT team or not should not matter so long as they are trained to a standard that you can trust. Here in Alaska the incidents involving SWAT usually end up with the suspect being taken alive even the most recent incident involving a cop killer who killed two police officers. So the mear fact the SWAT team is there should not elevate the risk.
In this case the SWAT officer violated a fundamental safety rule. Its worse still because SWAT officers are given more training than patrol and are held to a higher standard as a result of that training.
The officer however was not criminal. Officers are placed into dangerous situations rather than creating those situations as the offenders do so the standard of negligence is different.
For example if as a citizen you are playing with your firearm (horse play carelessness and what not) and you accidentally shoot someone. You created the problem. If as an officer you are called to a problem or have to perform an arrest and you screw up and violate a safety rule and kill someone. The officer while making a grave mistake did not set the events in motion. The situation was present already and he had to deal with it.
In this case the officer should have been disciplined like he was or maybe even fired depending on his past performance. (IE if he was a great officer and he ****ed up maybe he is worth saving but in most cases I would fire him) But he should not have been charged with a crime in my opinion. Same would hold true if it were a military situation and a soldier made the same mistake.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 16:14
I'm not here to argue anonymous comments on newspaper articles with you and you should ignore that crap. Might as well argue with graffiti on the walls of buildings.
That is true but if you are the officer involved it still drives you nuts. But your right such talk should be ignored.
Pat
1. The poster is not the one who decides rather he or she has an anti leo bias. Its the offended group.
So who died and left you as the spokesman for the "offended group" (whoever that is in this case)?
2. The point I made seems to have flown right over your head. If the man would have cooperated and followed the officers orders he would not have been shot. Any legal mistake the officer made in the law dealing with knives could have been sorted out by the court later. I can't spell it out to you any better than that. But I suspect you understood the first time I posted it.
Oh, I see that "I wasn't there so I won't judge" is only a one way street that applies when something is questionable, but when it's clear cut - at least according to the versions you like - we can speak in absolutes. That's convenient.
Nothing flew over my head, Pat. Not much does. My point had nothing to do with this particular incident and everything to do with your patently ridiculous comment that the courts will sort everything out later. That doesn't help the guy who gets shot by a cop unjustifiably - and that does happen, by the way.
The officer however was not criminal. Officers are placed into dangerous situations rather than creating those situations as the offenders do so the standard of negligence is different.
For example if as a citizen you are playing with your firearm (horse play carelessness and what not) and you accidentally shoot someone. You created the problem. If as an officer you are called to a problem or have to perform an arrest and you screw up and violate a safety rule and kill someone. The officer while making a grave mistake did not set the events in motion. The situation was present already and he had to deal with it.
Apples and oranges. How about a more realistic scenario where a private citizen draws an otherwise legal gun in public in response to a real threat - that he did not create - and has a ND that kills an innocent bystander.
Please tell me with a straight face that this person isn't going to get charged criminally and sued into oblivion.
In this case the officer should have been disciplined like he was or maybe even fired depending on his past performance. (IE if he was a great officer and he ****ed up maybe he is worth saving but in most cases I would fire him) But he should not have been charged with a crime in my opinion. Same would hold true if it were a military situation and a soldier made the same mistake.
I thought police were supposed to be held to a higher standard, and be accountable via the courts?
The police are held accountable whenever there is a shooting.
Obviously you didn't read my last post in this thread.
Officers are also held to a higher standard for their actions on and off duty as an example if I get a speeding ticket. Not only do I face the same fine and points as you would but I also face disciplinary actions from my department.
In the same way that you get upset that people paint LEO's with the same brush in a negative light, you're doing the same thing when stating that they're somehow held to a higher standard. The amount of DUI's, speeding and various other laws that are broken by LEO's every single day and covered up by their fellow officers and departments would contradict your statement. To give you a little better perspective on what I'm talking about try reading here: http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Also note that I'm not trying to slam LEO's in any sense of the word but they're not all angels and you trying to portray them as such is disingenuous to say the least.
Officers are also held to a higher standard for their actions on and off duty as an example if I get a speeding ticket. Not only do I face the same fine and points as you would but I also face disciplinary actions from my department.
That assumes that you get written up in the first place after the other LEO finds out your occupation.
Also, can you explain how 3 weeks off and being kicked off a team is being "held to a higher standard" when you just negligently SHOT somebody? That sounds like punishment for setting off a smoke bomb in the girl's high school locker room. "Sorry, Johnny - 3 week suspension and you're off the football team." Not the sort of thing you expect to see when you shoot someone and everybody, including you, agrees it was a screw up.
Everyone else is calling a bondsman, scraping together money for a criminal lawyer, and if they're lucky enough to have coverage that applies, putting their insurance company on notice of a possible claim.
Pat,
I am not going to wade into this situation. However, your statement about military standards being lowere over the years could be applicable almost anywhere. EVEN THE LOCAL POLICE. We have seen numerous examples of police officers trying to rip off drug dealers, people with questionables backgrounds being hired by NYPD, and even into the U.S Customs and Border Protection Agency.
So your assumption that police depts hire to a much higher standard is not true. Your agency may be an exception.
And just over the last few days Phoenix PD has been stung hard. One situation an officer allegedly shot and killed someone with no apparent reason (his partner has even stated that he was wrong and apparently the same officer also handed drugs to another officer to plant on a suspect backed by video evidence) and today another officer was arrested for domestic battery against his girlfriend.
With all due respect to the military its a different world. From what I have seen they do not hold their members to a higher standard. The standards for getting into the military have lowered over the last 10 years to the point where we have gang members and the mentally ill have been accepted. Standards to get hired as a police officer are much higher. We have to pass background investigations, polygraph examinations, psychological examinations. Often college is required. I have had to arrest my share of GI's at a rate no less than the normal citizen population. The military has had its share of egg on its face in recent years from the actions of its members. When those incidents happen I try and wait and withhold judgment until the facts are available. Such as the out rage people had a few years ago when a Marine shot a wounded terrorist who did not appear to be a threat in front of a news reporter. The facts later showed that his actions were justified.
As to the actions of police officers yes people are going to judge what we do. But the people doing the judging should have all the facts and have background on the law and what the job entails. In other words internal investigations at the department first and follow up with the DA's office and the courts. Frankly I give little weight to the opinion of a citizen who has half of the facts from the news and has absolutely no idea of what our job is and what we have to face. (this comment is not for you personally we have had our disagreements but I respect you as a person.)
Pat
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 20:06
So who died and left you as the spokesman for the "offended group" (whoever that is in this case)?
Oh, I see that "I wasn't there so I won't judge" is only a one way street that applies when something is questionable, but when it's clear cut - at least according to the versions you like - we can speak in absolutes. That's convenient.
Nothing flew over my head, Pat. Not much does. My point had nothing to do with this particular incident and everything to do with your patently ridiculous comment that the courts will sort everything out later. That doesn't help the guy who gets shot by a cop unjustifiably - and that does happen, by the way.
Well the fact is based on your posts a lot has gone over your head. As for the subject being shot unjustifiably. Regardless of the reasons for the initial contact if you approach an officer with weapon in your hand and refuse to drop it. Its not an unjustified shoot. This is not the only thread in which you have gone of the offensive against leo's. Its not a simple matter of questioning what happened. Its the manner in which you post. You intentionally say things to incite officers who post here. Just like an attorney in court trying to bait a witness. I have no problem discussing this topic with you but I am not going to tolerate being insulted nor have my profession insulted by you. If you wish to do that you can talk to yourself because I am not going to respond to those tactics from you further.
Good day.
Pat
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 20:10
Pat,
I am not going to wade into this situation. However, your statement about military standards being lowere over the years could be applicable almost anywhere. EVEN THE LOCAL POLICE. We have seen numerous examples of police officers trying to rip off drug dealers, people with questionables backgrounds being hired by NYPD, and even into the U.S Customs and Border Protection Agency.
So your assumption that police depts hire to a much higher standard is not true. Your agency may be an exception.
And just over the last few days Phoenix PD has been stung hard. One situation an officer allegedly shot and killed someone with no apparent reason (his partner has even stated that he was wrong and apparently the same officer also handed drugs to another officer to plant on a suspect backed by video evidence) and today another officer was arrested for domestic battery against his girlfriend.
There are bad cops out there. But generally the hiring process weeds out more problems due mostly to the polygraph and psychological exams. I admit not every department uses polygraphs. Most are required by their various state laws to use a psychological exam however. I wish the military employed these tests for basic recruits. But it would be very costly. I have the utmost respect for our armed forces. But they have suffered recently the same problem the police have to a degree. A good pool of qualified applicants. You speak of planting evidence. About 2 years ago I arrested a E6 in the Army for a simple crime (disorderly conduct) Anyway I get a call from a reporter a year later. It turns out this soldier was caught planting an AK on a civilian he had shot in Iraq. So there are plenty of bad soldiers as well. I suppose we will have to concede there are people in both of our ranks that tarnish both of our professions.
Pat
Well the fact is based on your posts a lot has gone over your head. As for the subject being shot unjustifiably. Regardless of the reasons for the initial contact if you approach an officer with weapon in your hand and refuse to drop it. Its not an unjustified shoot.
Which part of I'm not talking about this particular incident was unclear to you?
How about responding to my two more recent posts and explaining how it is that police are held to a "higher standard" when their punishment for negligently shooting somebody is 3 weeks off?
Well the fact is based on your posts a lot has gone over your head.
Such as ... ?
This is not the only thread in which you have gone of the offensive against leo's. Its not a simple matter of questioning what happened. Its the manner in which you post. You intentionally say things to incite officers who post here. Just like an attorney in court trying to bait a witness.
Where? Post the links to the other threads where I "go on the offensive against leos."
I have no problem discussing this topic with you but I am not going to tolerate being insulted nor have my profession insulted by you. If you wish to do that you can talk to yourself because I am not going to respond to those tactics from you further.
Good day.
Pat
Where have I insulted you or your line of work? I haven't said anything bad about you or said anything about cops in general being irresponsible, triggerhappy, bad, having ugly sisters, or anything else that's remotely insulting.
I do think that you get uncomfortable and defensive whenever somebody dares to question the actions of the police, and asks what should be simple questions - like mine about the "higher standard" to which you claim police are held.
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 20:22
That assumes that you get written up in the first place after the other LEO finds out your occupation.
Also, can you explain how 3 weeks off and being kicked off a team is being "held to a higher standard" when you just negligently SHOT somebody? That sounds like punishment for setting off a smoke bomb in the girl's high school locker room. "Sorry, Johnny - 3 week suspension and you're off the football team." Not the sort of thing you expect to see when you shoot someone and everybody, including you, agrees it was a screw up.
Everyone else is calling a bondsman, scraping together money for a criminal lawyer, and if they're lucky enough to have coverage that applies, putting their insurance company on notice of a possible claim.
A 3 week suspension is usually just one step before termination. Its not a light punishment. Generally after a long suspension like that the employees screw up even if minor will end his career.
As for the normal citizen who accidentally shoots a family member or friend. Generally they are not arrested. Their weapon is seized and a report is sent to the District Attorney who reviews the evidence and determines if the facts meet charging the person criminally. Basically the same thing that happens to a cop. Except we are also investigated by our own department for disciplinary reasons. When a cop makes a mistake that could be criminal there are two investigations. (criminal one and the employment one)
As for the ticket I have received a speeding ticket that I deserved. So my example was not hypothetical.
Pat
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 20:26
What statistical data makes you say that there are "plenty" of bad soldiers out there?
There are bad cops out there. But generally the hiring process weeds out more problems due mostly to the polygraph and psychological exams. I admit not every department uses polygraphs. Most are required by their various state laws to use a psychological exam however. I wish the military employed these tests for basic recruits. But it would be very costly. I have the utmost respect for our armed forces. But they have suffered recently the same problem the police have to a degree. A good pool of qualified applicants. You speak of planting evidence. About 2 years ago I arrested a E6 in the Army for a simple crime (disorderly conduct) Anyway I get a call from a reporter a year later. It turns out this soldier was caught planting an AK on a civilian he had shot in Iraq. So there are plenty of bad soldiers as well. I suppose we will have to concede there are people in both of our ranks that tarnish both of our professions.
Pat
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 20:28
Obviously you didn't read my last post in this thread.
In the same way that you get upset that people paint LEO's with the same brush in a negative light, you're doing the same thing when stating that they're somehow held to a higher standard. The amount of DUI's, speeding and various other laws that are broken by LEO's every single day and covered up by their fellow officers and departments would contradict your statement. To give you a little better perspective on what I'm talking about try reading here: http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Also note that I'm not trying to slam LEO's in any sense of the word but they're not all angels and you trying to portray them as such is disingenuous to say the least.
Everyday do you have a link to any stats showing how much this happens?
The reality is cops doing the behavior you are talking is much more rare than you are making it out to be.
This thread is going to deteriorate at this rate. We have moved beyond simple questioning to saying cops are corrupt and they drink and drive constantly and cover up for other officers who do the same on a daily basis. If those comments are not slamming cops in general then what is?
Later folks. Its going to be to difficult to continue in this thread without it turning into a pissing match. So for now we will have to agree to disagree.
Pat
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 20:30
What statistical data makes you say that there are "plenty" of bad soldiers out there?
It came from the same source that Irish used showing officers are drinking and driving, speeding and beating their wives on a daily basis.
Ok later.
pat
A 3 week suspension is usually just one step before termination. Its not a light punishment. Generally after a long suspension like that the employees screw up even if minor will end his career.
But he still has his job, he's not in jail, and he has sovereign immunity, right?
As for the normal citizen who accidentally shoots a family member or friend. Generally they are not arrested. Their weapon is seized and a report is sent to the District Attorney who reviews the evidence and determines if the facts meet charging the person criminally. Basically the same thing that happens to a cop. Except we are also investigated by our own department for disciplinary reasons. When a cop makes a mistake that could be criminal there are two investigations. (criminal one and the employment one)
1. That's not the scenario I presented.
2. That sure isn't how works around here. Well, not for us regular folks, at least. If you accidentally fire a gun inside of, or at, an occupied building in a manner that endangers a person, it's a felony and there was a guy in Northern VA who posts over on ar15.com who got charged for that recently when he had a ND, though he may have been charged with something lesser. He didn't even hit anyone. If you actually kill someone as a result, it's a Class 4 (mid-level) felony.
As for the normal citizen who accidentally shoots a family member or friend. Generally they are not arrested. Their weapon is seized and a report is sent to the District Attorney who reviews the evidence and determines if the facts meet charging the person criminally. Basically the same thing that happens to a cop. Except we are also investigated by our own department for disciplinary reasons. When a cop makes a mistake that could be criminal there are two investigations. (criminal one and the employment one)
Except that many/most statutes involving brandishing and discharging firearms have explicit exceptions for "law enforcement in the performance of their duties," which would seem to make it awfully hard to charge you for a mere ND. Then you have sovereign immunity for mere negligence as well, which tosses the civil suit as well. Which leaves you with 3 weeks off, and leaves me posting bail, defending criminal charges, and not getting the lawsuit against me dismissed on a pre-trial motion.
Littlelebowski
10-18-10, 20:43
I didn't know injusticeeverywhere covered the military.
Anyway, the facts of the matter is that we are at war on two fronts. We have literally hundreds of thousands of guys in uniform, actually seeing combat every day. Considering how many folks in uniform that are doing things every day that would be the highlight of a cop's career, I'm quite impressed with our military particularly considering the deployment schedule for the past 6 years. Cops get paid leave when they are involved in an incident, counseling, and get to go home every night. So you're not making making an accurate comparison here as the military is far more dangerous of a profession than LEO, especially considering that a garbageman in in more danger of being hurt on the job than an LEO.
I think the servicemen on here have held back admirably from your (I don't think intentional) insults based on anecdotal data. I strongly encourage you to consider joining a reserve military unit. I think then you would see exactly what level of quality of recruits we have nowadays and I do hope that you retract your statement on the quality of today's military recruits considering they are volunteering to put it on the line everyday in actual combat for a **** of a lot less pay and benefits than cops get.
I may be wrong about this, but when I was taking my CCW training here in AZ we were told that according to ARS if you have a negligent discharge within city limits it is a FELONY. Regardless of whether or not someone was injured or not.
I am sure that LEO's in Arizona would have sovereign immunity as well.
But he still has his job, he's not in jail, and he has sovereign immunity, right?
1. That's not the scenario I presented.
2. That sure isn't how works around here. Well, not for us regular folks, at least. If you accidentally fire a gun inside of, or at, an occupied building in a manner that endangers a person, it's a felony and there was a guy in Northern VA who posts over on ar15.com who got charged for that recently when he had a ND, though he may have been charged with something lesser. He didn't even hit anyone. If you actually kill someone as a result, it's a Class 4 (mid-level) felony.
I may be wrong about this, but when I was taking my CCW training here in AZ we were told that according to ARS if you have a negligent discharge within city limits it is a FELONY. Regardless of whether or not someone was injured or not.
I am sure that LEO's in Arizona would have sovereign immunity as well.
Does that include AD's? As nearly unlikely as it might be, if it does include AD's, that could include discharges that are of no fault of the carrier (due to damaged/worn parts).
It came from the same source that Irish used showing officers are drinking and driving, speeding and beating their wives on a daily basis.
Ok later.
pat
I referenced a website that posts news articles every day that substantiate what I wrote. I think I'll bow out of this discussion as well. Have a good evening everyone.
Everyday do you have a link to any stats showing how much this happens?
The reality is cops doing the behavior you are talking is much more rare than you are making it out to be.
Did you even both to read any of the news articles that I linked to? Have a good evening and stay safe.
The law doesn't specify. I am going by what the instructor stated in class. He happened to be a criminal defense lawyer, judge pro tem, and reserve police officer.
I have read the statute and I suppose that if they wanted to charge you, they could so.
In this situation I am referring to the situation that dbrowne1 mentioned in his post.
Does that include AD's? As nearly unlikely as it might be, if it does include AD's, that could include discharges that are of no fault of the carrier (due to damaged/worn parts).
Alaskapopo
10-18-10, 22:41
I didn't know injusticeeverywhere covered the military.
Anyway, the facts of the matter is that we are at war on two fronts. We have literally hundreds of thousands of guys in uniform, actually seeing combat every day. Considering how many folks in uniform that are doing things every day that would be the highlight of a cop's career, I'm quite impressed with our military particularly considering the deployment schedule for the past 6 years. Cops get paid leave when they are involved in an incident, counseling, and get to go home every night. So you're not making making an accurate comparison here as the military is far more dangerous of a profession than LEO, especially considering that a garbageman in in more danger of being hurt on the job than an LEO.
I think the servicemen on here have held back admirably from your (I don't think intentional) insults based on anecdotal data. I strongly encourage you to consider joining a reserve military unit. I think then you would see exactly what level of quality of recruits we have nowadays and I do hope that you retract your statement on the quality of today's military recruits considering they are volunteering to put it on the line everyday in actual combat for a **** of a lot less pay and benefits than cops get.
I will respond to this. My state lost two officers this year to a sniper. So yes being a leo is a dangerous job. I don't know of any garbage men or fisherman who were snipped this year. Also not all danger is lethal. I have been spat on, hit, bit and otherwise assaulted in the course of my job. The reason being a cop is not in the 10 ten of the most dangerous jobs is because of better police training and equipment vs in the past.
As for reserve units. I have one guy working for me right now who is a reserve. I also have several friends that are full time military. (Shoot with them in IDPA and USPSA) So I know about the quality of people in the military. (They have also told me the standards for allowing in new recruits has dropped dramatically)
I don't think my job is as dangerous as being on the front line in Afghanistan not even close. Do I feel my job any less important no. Our country needs both cops and soldiers.
The two officers who were killed this year really hit home with me. Their department and town is way smaller than mine. If it could happen to them it could happen to me. Sometimes you forget that you signed on the line accepting a job where your life may one day end serving your community.
Pat
John_Wayne777
10-19-10, 06:50
Another law enforcement thread on M4C.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.