Tosh.0 production assistant accidently killed by LA police
138 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518398]Thought about it for longer than a second actually. Just because we have differing opinions does not mean I put zero thought into it. [/QUOTE]
What do you mean by execute civilians on a hunch? It implies the officer didn't have a good reason to think the man was the suspect and that there was some sort of malice behind the act.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44518507]What do you mean by execute civilians on a hunch? It implies the officer didn't have a good reason to think the man was the suspect and that there was some sort of malice behind the act.[/QUOTE]
No it implies that he only thought the guy was maybe the suspect and didn't really know, but decided to shoot him before figuring it out. And if that is how a police officer is supposed to react then maybe we should be rethinking our current system.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518555]No it implies that he only thought the guy was maybe the suspect and didn't really know, but decided to shoot him before figuring it out. And if that is how a police officer is supposed to react then maybe we should be rethinking our current system.[/QUOTE]
yes the guy coming at you whom you believe to be carrying a deadly weapon, lets just ask him nicely to stop, that'll work
(FYI: the cop didn't know he wasn't the suspect at the time so you don't get to say "well he didn't have a knife")
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;44518565]yes the guy coming at you whom you believe to be carrying a deadly weapon, lets just ask him nicely to stop, that'll work
(FYI: the cop didn't know he wasn't the suspect at the time so you don't get to say "well he didn't have a knife")[/QUOTE]
Then I guess we need to seriously rework the system and find alternatives to shooting everything.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518588]Then I guess we need to seriously rework the system and find alternatives to shooting everything.[/QUOTE]
well right now, lesslethal options aren't 100% effective 100% of the time
if the suspect is believed to have a knife, person matching suspects description comes at officer, officer is allowed to respond in kind to that knife, meaning lethal
it sucks, but that's procedure
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518555]No it implies that he only thought the guy was maybe the suspect and didn't really know, but decided to shoot him before figuring it out. And if that is how a police officer is supposed to react then maybe we should be rethinking our current system.[/QUOTE]
He had about a second to decide if the guy was a threat or not. Thats why I am saying you haven't thought about the situation and all the factors that play into it. Im not sure how we are going to take human instinct and reaction out of out current system.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518588]Then I guess we need to seriously rework the system and find alternatives to shooting everything.[/QUOTE]
Whats your solution? Police dont "shoot everything", theres a use of force continuum.
most fp members' propensity to victim blame in police shooting situations is ridiculous. a guy got shot by multiple policemen because he supposedly moved in a suspicious way. the guy had been in some sort of standoff against a knife-wielding nutter and took his first chance to get the fuck out of that situation and yet people here have the audacity to say "well you shouldn't run at armed police!!". yeh next time i'm locked in a house with a knife-wielding madman i'll try to remember not to run toward the people who are supposed to be there to save my life
there's too much of this "well they acted according to protocol!" mentallity. maybe you should start questioning the protocol
[QUOTE=Code3Response;44518634]Whats your solution? Police dont "shoot everything", theres a use of force continuum.[/QUOTE]
By continuum do you mean shoot if you feel threatened, don't shoot if you don't feel threatened?
questions like: "why is every policeman armed with a sidearm? why does every policeman come to a situation like this with no non-lethal alternative? if they do have a non-lethal alternative but protocol says it's too shit to use in most situations, why the fuck do they have such a shitty alternative? why don't they having something better?"
we saw the same shit in that thread about the homeless dude who got gunned down with ARs. too many people said "WELL don't turn to run from police IDIOT! they acted according to protocol!". the question should be: "why the hell is the protocol for this situation to turn up with nothing but guns?"
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518688]By continuum do you mean shoot if you feel threatened, don't shoot if you don't feel threatened?[/QUOTE]
The law says the following (where I'm from):
[quote](1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.[/quote]
and this is what I mean by the continuum
[img]http://canadianawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Use-of-Force-Model.png[/img]
[editline]11th April 2014[/editline]
Thats a generic one. Departments have their own specific ones.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44518679]most fp members' propensity to victim blame in police shooting situations is ridiculous. a guy got shot by multiple policemen because he supposedly moved in a suspicious way. the guy had been in some sort of standoff against a knife-wielding nutter and took his first chance to get the fuck out of that situation and yet people here have the audacity to say "well you shouldn't run at armed police!!". yeh next time i'm locked in a house with a knife-wielding madman i'll try to remember not to run toward the people who are supposed to be there to save my life
there's too much of this "well they acted according to protocol!" mentallity. maybe you should start questioning the protocol[/QUOTE]
Iv seen one person in this thread "victim blame"
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44518693]questions like: "why is every policeman armed with a sidearm? why does every policeman come to a situation like this with no non-lethal alternative? if they do have a non-lethal alternative but protocol says it's too shit to use in most situations, why the fuck do they have such a shitty alternative? why don't they having something better?"
we saw the same shit in that thread about the homeless dude who got gunned down with ARs. too many people said "WELL don't turn to run from police IDIOT! they acted according to protocol!". the question should be: "why the hell is the protocol for this situation to turn up with nothing but guns?"[/QUOTE]
i'm not saying the protocol is "good" or "correct"
i'm saying that according to the current protocol, i can understand how this happened
[QUOTE=Code3Response;44518634]Whats your solution? Police dont "shoot everything", theres a use of force continuum.[/QUOTE]
Also as for my solution, which probably has some terrible flaw you can point out, would be to have at least one deputy in that situation armed with a non-lethal weapon, drawn and ready to go (like their guns were). He's got buddies with real guns, so if a beanbag or tazing doesn't drop the guy right away, then they can shoot him. It just seems ridiculous that they weren't even prepared to use non-lethal force.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518398]After the LASD kills the wrong man, they blame the murder on the original suspect? I really don't think they should be able to just pin the murder on this guy. If I'm committing some petty crime (I'm aware taking hostages is not a petty crime, this is an example) and a police officer kills someone else while responding, does that become my fault?[/QUOTE]
actually yes, that's how law works in california. you assume full responsibility of the death of somebody whether or not you're the person who killed them, simply because you were committing an illegal act and if you weren't committing the illegal act, the person most likely wouldn't have died.
[editline]11th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518768]Also as for my solution, which probably has some terrible flaw you can point out, would be to have at least one deputy in that situation armed with a non-lethal weapon, drawn and ready to go (like their guns were). He's got buddies with real guns, so if a beanbag or tazing doesn't drop the guy right away, then they can shoot him. It just seems ridiculous that they weren't even prepared to use non-lethal force.[/QUOTE]
you don't use non-lethal when there's a call for a knife-wielding suspect, and then you see somebody run out the door with blood coming out from their neck and somebody chasing them.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44518880]actually yes, that's how law works in california. you assume full responsibility of the death of somebody whether or not you're the person who killed them, simply because you were committing an illegal act and if you weren't committing the illegal act, the person most likely wouldn't have died.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that the interpretation of felony murder that includes people killed by the police is controversial, and according to wikipedia it's been abolished in many countries. Yay America.
Read this [URL="http://fox6now.com/2014/02/14/man-charged-with-felony-murder-after-friend-shot-killed-by-police/"]article[/URL]. I think it shows the problem pretty well.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518997]It seems to me that the interpretation of felony murder that includes people killed by the police is controversial, and according to wikipedia it's been abolished in many countries. Yay America.
Read this [URL="http://fox6now.com/2014/02/14/man-charged-with-felony-murder-after-friend-shot-killed-by-police/"]article[/URL]. I think it shows the problem pretty well.[/QUOTE]
i don't see the problem. both seay-ali and turner were co-conspirators in a robbery which led to turner being shot and killed.
Abolished is not the word you're looking for. Many states have it on the books.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44518880]you don't use non-lethal when there's a call for a knife-wielding suspect, and then you see somebody run out the door with blood coming out from their neck and somebody chasing them.[/QUOTE]
Why not? A quick bean bag, if nothing happens in a second take him out. They made a split second decision, but the guy wasn't teleporting, there was some time. I think we could have a system in place where non-lethal was attempted at the very least.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44519046]Why not? A quick bean bag, if nothing happens in a second take him out. They made a split second decision but the guy wasn't teleporting. I think we could have a system in place where non-lethal was attempted at the very least.[/QUOTE]
because you don't take chances. period.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;44519037]Abolished is not the word you're looking for. Many states have it on the books.[/QUOTE]
Actually it's exactly the word I was looking for since many countries have abolished it.
[editline]11th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44519058]because you don't take chances. period.[/QUOTE]
And that's why an innocent man is dead and the people meant to protect him are the ones who killed him. Pretty much sums up the whole two pages of conversation. The cops don't want to take chances, even if that means endangering civilians apparently.
Alright but even if they don't have to protect you it would be nice of they didn't kill you. And I know I may have come off as a cop hater. I'm not. I have a problem with the system and protocols, not the individual officers.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44514878]this is what you don't do if you're in a situation where you're surrounded by police.[/QUOTE]
Except when you're trying to escape your captor.
Whatever happened to waiting until the suspect open fired or was visibly armed before firing?
[QUOTE=Falubii;44518398]Thought about it for longer than a second actually. Just because we have differing opinions does not mean I put zero thought into it. The other thing I don't get:
After the LASD kills the wrong man, they blame the murder on the original suspect? I really don't think they should be able to just pin the murder on this guy. If I'm committing some petty crime (I'm aware taking hostages is not a petty crime, this is an example) and a police officer kills someone else while responding, does that become my fault?[/QUOTE]
ANYTHING that happens as a result of you committing a crime is considered to be your fault.
For instance, if you rob a bank and a hostage has a heart attack, that qualifies for a first degree murder charge. In practice, it would likely to be reduced to manslaughter, but legally it fits the requirement for first degree.
Likewise if you are in a high speed chase and a COP CAR broadsides a civilian and kills or injures the civilians, you are on the hook for that as well.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44519204]Cops in the US have no duty to protect you at all. They don't have to give a flying fuck about your wealthfare, they exist to enforce laws. What you see here is the result of a system that says "yea you don't have to get PID (positive identification), because fuck it right?[/QUOTE]
They who shot him was trying to save the other guys life. Apparently he did give a flying fuck about someone
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44519058]because you don't take chances. period.[/QUOTE]
i dont get it. i raise this point in almost every thread like this and it always gets a tonne of dumbs because yes it's kind of silly to compare totally different countries
but why not take chances
in the uk the police take chances every day in every single situation. they probably predominantly take these chances because the life of the criminal is still has a very highly regarded worth in this country, so much so that unless the situation involves a criminal with a firearm, the response almost always never includes firearms
i don't know why this is or why it's so successful here but i can imagine it's something to do with the image the police want to convey. it's the image of a fair fight and of protection for the population, not just about enforcement and control. when [I]one guy[/I] who was a known gangster and probably was armed moments before his death was shot in london a few years ago there was massive uproar against it. maybe that's a bit extreme but it just goes to show how the mentality of the UK public differs so much to the US, where here we demand a full explanation and investigation into why a single, admittedly terrible person was killed... yet in the US this happens like once a month if not more and the general consensus is just "oops well the victim was a bit dumb i guess oh well that's protocol cya next month"
if the US police took more 'chances' instead of turning up with military-grade equipment to deal with stuff like a homeless guy possibly armed with a knife then maybe there'd have more respect for the police and there wouldn't be this somewhat-justified "fuck tha police" attitude, which pretty much doesn't exist in this country at all
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44519459]Apparently they didn't because they didn't get PID. Tell me why do we hold cops to a lower standard than the military? If someone in the military kills without PID, they get court marshaled, and jailed, when a cop shoots without PID it's an "accident", and they go on paid leave for a few weeks.
Why do we let the police get away with this shit?[/QUOTE]
He had a couple seconds to react, in an very close contact and sudden situation. You really don't have time to try and get a good look at whats in the guys hands.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44519508]Because the US lost it's fucking mind and allowed the police to be "private entities", and further lost its mind and allowed them to buy military grade equipment and vehicles. All of a sudden the police are more PMC than they are police, and they suddenly get into the mindset of "we're the military" not "we're the police, we exist to enforce laws and protect people".[/QUOTE]
i dunno how true that is for your average dude armed with a glock on the beat and i feel it's a bit mean to say that about the thousands of people who genuinely joined the police to do good for their communities... but still i can see why you would have that mindset for the insitution as a whole, especially after seeing the sort of guys roaming round boston post-marathon bomb and the situation during the hunt for dorner. that shit was scary. also the DEA is one of the most frightening things on the planet
-snipninja-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.