• Video shows Utah police fatally shooting man from behind as he fled
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52753963]youre right, this situation would have been so much better if the suspect had pulled a gun[/QUOTE] Im not saying it would've been better, it would've been much worse. What I'm saying is police violence not getting fixed makes people turn to desperate solutions, even if they are ineffective and deadly. You fix the police issue, people feel less likely to turn to guns because they know they can depend on them. A lot of the gun problems today are because police are inefficient at their jobs, and a gun will even the odds that the suspect will be apprehended in some way. So if you fix the police issue, people won't need guns anyway.
Aaaaaaggh those screams as he lies on the ground bleeding, not a very nice way to go.
[QUOTE=Megadave;52754637]Im not saying it would've been better, it would've been much worse. What I'm saying is police violence not getting fixed makes people turn to desperate solutions, even if they are ineffective and deadly. You fix the police issue, people feel less likely to turn to guns because they know they can depend on them. A lot of the gun problems today are because police are inefficient at their jobs, and a gun will even the odds that the suspect will be apprehended in some way. So if you fix the police issue, people won't need guns anyway.[/QUOTE] I feel like you misunderstand the reason why people have guns or don't want to rely/depend on the police in the US at a pretty fundamental level and you seriously need to educate yourself before making such over the top claims.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;52753157]Here's a video showcasing multiple body camera POVs. The presence of the knife isn't clearly established because of the low quality, but he turns, his arm is raised with his right fist around his chest, and there is what appears to be a glint of something reflective near his hand. That [i]might[/i] just be the water in the gutter alongside the road, but it could very well be a knife.[/QUOTE] Looks pretty clear to me that it's from the laser. [url=https://media.giphy.com/media/l378n2yeZLv8fsK40/giphy.gif]Here's a gif[/url] of some frames where the gleam is visible. That's not a knife.
Well, buckle up for weeks more of getting your streets smashed up by protesters America.
It doesn't matter if he had a knife, he was running away from the officers. There is actually a similar question on the BAR exam... It's pretty cut and dry... you can't decide to shoot a person who is running away from you. They pose no threat... the man could have had an outstanding warrant for homicide instead of a probation violation or whatever it was for, and they [i]still [/i] couldn't have shot him. You absolutely cannot justify using lethal force against a person fleeing from you, especially when there were non-lethal options available.
[QUOTE=IceTea;52758633]It doesn't matter if he had a knife, he was running away from the officers. There is actually a similar question on the BAR exam... It's pretty cut and dry... you can't decide to shoot a person who is running away from you. They pose no threat... the man could have had an outstanding warrant for homicide instead of a probation violation or whatever it was for, and they [i]still [/i] couldn't have shot him. You absolutely cannot justify using lethal force against a person fleeing from you, especially when there were non-lethal options available.[/QUOTE] But he isn't running anymore when he turns and faces the officer chasing him, commiting to a defensive pose. [url]https://media.giphy.com/media/l378n2yeZLv8fsK40/giphy.gif[/url] (courtesy of Sherow) You can clearly see he has already pivoted towards the chasing officer. His right hand curves around his body and is pointing almost as if he is presenting a knife towards the officer. The video is impossible to see if he has anything in his hand. It's so damn shaky and low quality. Remember that when all this is going on, this is not what the officer can see. There's no stabilization built into the camera like we have as humans. What appears insignificant in the video can be clear as day to the officer, especially if it was a silver knife. We can sit here and argue, living 2,000 miles away from this event, but the only people that really know what happened are the officers that were there and the guy that was killed. Investigations that take place aren't just "Well they said he had a knife so he had a knife". Evidence is compared to what is given in verbal testimony by the officers and weighed against the facts discovered by the crime scene technicians that processed the scene. It's not like they shot the guy and left. This area was probably shut down for 6+ hours while an investigation took place. At first I thought this was a bad shoot, but once the second video POV was shown, my opinion changed.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52753531]Scare them off, get an opening and run, knowing they'd have no reason to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back when he's only armed with a knife It's not a good, rational move by any means, but it sure as hell is a better explanation than "he wanted to kill them by charging in the opposite direction"[/QUOTE] Umm, if someone is willing to threaten officers with a deadly weapon in an attempt to escape, they are a danger to the general public (because, if the police just let them run off, who's to say they won't hurt or kill a civilian to steal their vehicle, then hurt/kill more people driving recklessly in said vehicle, or any other number of potential outcomes when you have a person willing to take extreme action to avoid arrest). Not to mention at that range it takes hardly any time for someone with a knife to close the distance and potentially inflict a fatal wound, and even a person's body unaided can inflict serious injuries or outright kill. Perhaps more to the point: This was a criminal wanted for reportedly several warrants decides to continue their series of illegal, unnecessary, and stupid decisions by first attempting to flee from three police officers, and then turning in an aggressive manner towards said officers (potentially brandishing a weapon). Like, if they were wanted for theft it would be one thing, but being charged with assaulting someone doesn't leave much room for a moral grey area. Mind, that isn't to say anyone's death isn't a negative and something that should be avoided when possible. I just honestly don't understand the effort people are going through to defend this individual who continued to choose a path that was bound to lead to injury or death, while vilifying the officers who were put in the awful situation of having to make a split second life or death decision. [editline]9th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Berman Slick;52753713]So I just watched cops murder somebody who was running away in fear in slow-motion. The officer had more than a second, he had a few to chase him down, draw his weapon, and fire. He had 5 seconds, yelled "I'm going to shoot you" or "I'll fucking shoot you" without waiting for any response, then shot 3 times. He murdered the guy, didn't even give him a chance to surrender.[/QUOTE] He had a chance to surrender, when he was being peacefully arrested by the officers. He instead chose to bolt off, and then for whatever reason, make a threaten motion towards the officers that were pursuing him. He put himself in a life threatening situation by running, and ultimately triggered a lethal response from officers through his actions thereafter.
The desire to comb through the video--frame by frame--to find something, anything, to justify the killing is pretty crazy
[QUOTE=Flameon;52762105]The desire to comb through the video--frame by frame--to find something, anything, to justify the killing is pretty crazy[/QUOTE] Don't you mean combing through the video, frame by frame, to find something to incriminate the officer?
[QUOTE=Flameon;52762105]The desire to comb through the video--frame by frame--to find something, anything, to justify the killing is pretty crazy[/QUOTE] I can't speak for anyone else, but you won't see me defending cops just because they are cops. Quite the opposite in fact. I believe that police should be held to higher standards than ordinary citizens in their day to day life. What matters in situations like these is whether or not you can justify fear of great bodily harm or death. I'm perfectly fine with ordinary citizens defending themselves as well. Cops do end up in hostile situations more frequently, but intervening in crime is literally their job. The point being, if you can show a genuine fear for your life, there is no argument to be made that a shooting was unjustified. There's enough evidence here for it to be fairly open and shut. Unless evidence of the knife being an obvious plant turns up, there is no way these officers will be convicted of any crime because even the shitty video provides enough evidence for them to argue that they feared for their safety. They were attempting to arrest someone, which they had justification to do, and that person appeared to become hostile enough to attack them. What specifically is crazy about analyzing a situation? In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite. The desire to blithely gloss over minute details when doing so conveniently fits the story you want to hear seems pretty crazy to me. Isn't being rationally informed better than being ignorant?
[QUOTE=joost1120;52762125]Don't you mean combing through the video, frame by frame, to find something to incriminate the officer?[/QUOTE] Except there was no need for that, as you can see all that you need just by watching the video at regular speed. It was the folks defending the cop that started frame-combing to find wrong-doing on the victim's part, yet with the evidence they've presented so far (or lack thereof) they're not making a strong case. Especially considering that these people claiming Frame #X "clearly" shows a knife haven't taken the time to capture said frame and/or highlight what they think to be the knife.
if you carry a gun around and aren't interacting with the police you're perfectly fine and no threat to the public if you carry a gun around and are interacting with the police you're an imminent danger to the public. yep.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52762249]Except there was no need for that, as you can see all that you need just by watching the video at regular speed. It was the folks defending the cop that started frame-combing to find wrong-doing on the victim's part, yet with the evidence they've presented so far (or lack thereof) they're not making a strong case. Especially considering that these people claiming Frame #X "clearly" shows a knife haven't taken the time to capture said frame and/or highlight what they think to be the knife.[/QUOTE] That's not how criminal proceedings work though. It is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The default state is that the cops are innocent. There is no real question that they shot the man, but fear for one's safety is an affirmative defense against that. Affirmative defense essentially means, yes I did this thing that is normally criminal, but I was justified in doing so because of circumstances x, y, and z. The cops claim that they feared for their lives because the man possessed a knife and took an aggressive stance with it. In order to negate that defense, you must show that their fear is unfounded. It's nowhere near that simple, but that is the general gist. If you cannot negate the defense, then the shooting is justified, thus there is no criminal conviction. Again, I won't speak for anyone else. I never claimed that there definitively was a knife. I said it looks like there could be one. Given the context of the video, that is sufficient to cast doubt on any claims that they were not afraid for their safety, ergo there is nothing to criminally charge the officers with. If more information comes out and we find that the knife was planted, or some other weird detail comes out, things may change, but given the information currently available, this is not an unjustified shooting.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52762249]Except there was no need for that, as you can see all that you need just by watching the video at regular speed. It was the folks defending the cop that started frame-combing to find wrong-doing on the victim's part, yet with the evidence they've presented so far (or lack thereof) they're not making a strong case. Especially considering that these people claiming Frame #X "clearly" shows a knife haven't taken the time to capture said frame and/or highlight what they think to be the knife.[/QUOTE] So just because a 480p low light video doesn't show something conclusively means it isn't there? I'd like to see the counter evidence.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52762125]Don't you mean combing through the video, frame by frame, to find something to incriminate the officer?[/QUOTE] If there is something you might accuse the people critiquing the officers of it would be a hasty generalization, but this hyper interested attention to detail, freezing the video at certain seconds, slowing the video down, zooming in, etc etc, are used exclusively to justify the shooting, not to discredit it. the only people talking about time stamps and slowing the video down in this thread are the people defending the decision to shoot
What else do people expect the police to do, honestly? Just let a man with a warrant for arrest run away? I mean, this doesn't excuse what happened by any means, even I think it was the wrong reaction. Still, what did they expect???
All I see is that the cops had to make a split second decision, in which the man didn't simply run away, but turned around while going for his pocket. There have been enough cases where hesitation in this situation would lead to the death of a police officer.
Glad they had the shoulder cams on at least.
i wonder how much police shootings have gone up since hitting suspects with batons has fallen out of favor as a tactic
[QUOTE=Flameon;52762707]the only people talking about time stamps and slowing the video down in this thread are the people defending the decision to shoot[/QUOTE] So? Doesn't the fact that those people have references they can specifically point to lend credence to their arguments?
If he did in fact draw a knife, where was the knife after he was shot? It's not on the ground. It's not in his hands. He's not lying on top of it, though I don't know how the hell it'd end up there anyway. The police don't identify it or move it away, despite that being the first damn thing one does when one thinks there's a lethal weapon next to a downed suspect, because being shot does not guarantee they can't shoot or stab you. They don't even look for it. They don't even mention it. Sure seems like it was planted to me, might not even have been his knife.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52762600]So just because a 480p low light video doesn't show something conclusively means it isn't there? I'd like to see the counter evidence.[/QUOTE] So the 480p low-light video definitively proves he has a knife? "But they found a knife!" Yeah, and we've never caught officers planting evidence, either. [editline]9th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;52763113]So? Doesn't the fact that those people have references they can specifically point to lend credence to their arguments?[/QUOTE] Except nobody on "their" side of the debate sees the "knife" they mention, and nobody (to my knowledge) has taken the effort to frame-grab whatever specific frame where they "clearly" see a knife in his hand. I saw ONE gif on imgur at one point, but even then I couldn't see anything that even remotely looked like a knife, or anything at all really. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;52762564]That's not how criminal proceedings work though. It is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The default state is that the cops are innocent. There is no real question that they shot the man, but fear for one's safety is an affirmative defense against that. Affirmative defense essentially means, yes I did this thing that is normally criminal, but I was justified in doing so because of circumstances x, y, and z. The cops claim that they feared for their lives because the man possessed a knife and took an aggressive stance with it. In order to negate that defense, you must show that their fear is unfounded. It's nowhere near that simple, but that is the general gist. If you cannot negate the defense, then the shooting is justified, thus there is no criminal conviction. Again, I won't speak for anyone else. I never claimed that there definitively was a knife. I said it looks like there could be one. Given the context of the video, that is sufficient to cast doubt on any claims that they were not afraid for their safety, ergo there is nothing to criminally charge the officers with. If more information comes out and we find that the knife was planted, or some other weird detail comes out, things may change, but given the information currently available, this is not an unjustified shooting.[/QUOTE] I'm fully aware of that? We're discussing [I]what we see in the video[/I], and aside from the handful of people who are trying to tell us what specific frame of a blurry low-light video shows that there MIGHT be SOMETHING in the dude's hands, the video pretty clearly shows that he shot the dude with little (if you account for the guy turning around, which who wouldn't turn if you heard "I'LL SHOOT YOU!"?) to no justification for such lethal force.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52764703]So the 480p low-light video definitively proves he has a knife? "But they found a knife!" Yeah, and we've never caught officers planting evidence, either. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Police said they found a knife near where Harmon had fallen after being shot, [I]which is visible on video in the moments after the shooting[/I].[/QUOTE] From WaPo [QUOTE]It is clear from the different officers' comments on the remainder of the tape -- that KUTV is choosing to air only a portion of -- that an officer who did not fire also saw a knife. During the video officers involved never have a chance to discuss the shooting.[/QUOTE] From the local news [URL="http://kutv.com/news/local/body-cam-footage-released-by-police-in-fatal-shooting-ruled-justified"]station[/URL] The planting a knife take on this is completely unsupported.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52764911]From WaPo From the local news [URL="http://kutv.com/news/local/body-cam-footage-released-by-police-in-fatal-shooting-ruled-justified"]station[/URL] The planting a knife take on this is completely unsupported.[/QUOTE] Then why are those defending the cop pointing to frames where he's running in order to "prove" he has a knife when there's allegedly clear footage of a knife on the ground? And why has nobody bothered to share those frames to support their claim? A link to the WaPo source would be appreciated. And from the source you posted, it says that a knife isn't clearly visible in the video, and the only other person who saw the knife was the other officer who didn't fire. This would be fine if not that cops have been known to cover each other's asses before. Remember the officers who planted shit on that guys property to get him arrested? Whole bunch of 'em, all in on it. None of the still photos from the local news source you provided show any sign of a knife, either.
Why do people need mountains of evidence that the guy had a knife, but you require zero evidence that there was some conspiracy to plant one?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52768340]Why do people need mountains of evidence that the guy had a knife, but you require zero evidence that there was some conspiracy to plant one?[/QUOTE] Because the burden of proof should be on the side of those who took a life
[QUOTE=Flameon;52768933]Because the burden of proof should be on the side of those who took a life[/QUOTE] This functionally becomes guilty until proven innocent.
[QUOTE=Flameon;52768933]Because the burden of proof should be on the side of those who took a life[/QUOTE] Burden of proof always falls on the prosecution. Always. They do not care about what the internet thinks. If you want to challenge the facts of the case then you need to provide either reasonable doubt or counter evidence. The video is not the full length video and frankly they don't need to release the full thing anyway. Planting of a knife has sustained neither reasonable doubt or counter evidence. Because it wasn't planted.
Purely theoretically speaking, what would be the most ideal alternatives to lethal firearms? Presumably tasers or rubber bullets (which can still be a lethal firearm but provides lower likelihood, downside being scenarios deadly force actually is needed)? I feel like it should be discussed how many unnecessary deadly shootings can be avoided through alternative means, as well as if those alternative means are worth taking at all or not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.