Man Seeking Help From Police Shot, Killed By Officer
119 replies, posted
[QUOTE=alexisgondor;42198784]So wait, the 911 call that started this was about him just knocking on someone's door? Who the fuck calls the police over someone knocking on your door?[/QUOTE]
wait do we know what time of day this was?
If it was the middle of the night this could explain why pounding on the door could be worrysome, and why the situation of the dude running at them would have been harder to figure out for both parties. If it were daytime somebody likely would have been able to spot the dude's crash and helped him ASAP instead of him having to get out and walk to a house
[QUOTE=Scot;42201305]I know it's hard for you to understand, but there doesn't have to be any shooting involved[/QUOTE]
Then what do you suggest the police do? You are not to allow a suspect within close proximity of you as that decreases your situation control and can get you killed easily, compound this with the fact they are running at you.
Too many unknowns, too little time, threat or not a threat? By the time you are able to determine if he is or is not a threat , he would already be within your safe zone, and if you determined wrong, you get the idea.
[QUOTE=maqzek;42201319]Was it really self-defense?[/QUOTE]
Hmm, a guy charging at you, being a police officer, with unknown intent after you had drawn and attempted to fire a taser and it failed? From the officers perspective, he was defending himself.
[QUOTE=maqzek;42201303]I would agree with you if the shooter wasn't an officer, but man, you are there to uphold the law, so at least take some risks. I doubt a non-officer would be able to shoot at suspicious guy and get of the hook easily.
[/QUOTE]
If every officer took risks like this I'd say get them all full sets of military grade bullet proof armor (trauma plates) and some chainmail, to protect from people with handguns in their back waistband and knives.
Not very practical eh?
There is absolutely no excuse for this, no matter how you spin this. The woman shouldn't have assumed someone knocking on her door was a threat to her, just because it wasn't her husband. You can't say he didn't say anything to the police before they shot him, i.e. "My car crashed, help me" even though they were able to deliver verbal instructions to him, i.e. "stop", but I doubt we'll get the officers who shot him to admit that.
I feel really bad for the cop, in this case. I can't imagine what else would have been reasonable to do in the situation considering his partners taser malfunctioned, the lady made it out to sound like someone was trying to attack her or get in the house considering she hit the panic button on her alarm system, etc.
Didn't the article state pretty clearly that the other officer's tazer malfunctioned? So they wanted to use non-lethal force, but their utility for that was disabled.
How fucking paranoid has this country gotten that you call the fucking police when someone knocks on your door?
[QUOTE=deadoon;42201430]Then what do you suggest the police do? You are not to allow a suspect within close proximity of you as that decreases your situation control and can get you killed easily, compound this with the fact they are running at you.
Too many unknowns, too little time, threat or not a threat? By the time you are able to determine if he is or is not a threat , he would already be within your safe zone, and if you determined wrong, you get the idea.
Hmm, a guy charging at you, being a police officer, with unknown intent after you had drawn and attempted to fire a taser and it failed? From the officers perspective, he was defending himself.
If every officer took risks like this I'd say get them all full sets of military grade bullet proof armor (trauma plates) and some chainmail, to protect from people with handguns in their back waistband and knives.
Not very practical eh?[/QUOTE]
You're being a bit idealistic. This isn't Afghanistan, you don't need to shoot anyone who could pose a threat.
Shouldn't both officers have a tazer? Why only 1 was used?
I'm not saying officers should sacrifices themselves, but taking risks is part of the job. Using your logic, why not just bomb stuff instead of sending soldiers and/or special forces.
[QUOTE=Bentham;42201589]Didn't the article state pretty clearly that the other officer's tazer malfunctioned? So they wanted to use non-lethal force, but their utility for that was disabled.[/QUOTE]
He wanted help, they shouldn't have been using force at all.
IMO this country has a serious problem with roided-up cops going out every day looking for chances to bust heads and shoot people.
[QUOTE=maqzek;42201957]You're being a bit idealistic. This isn't Afghanistan, you don't need to shoot anyone who could pose a threat.
[/QUOTE]
Idealistic usually means good, you probably mean pessimistic, or realistic. Non lethal failed to do it's function so they resorted to lethal. If you are suggesting hand to hand, you are suggesting they put themselves in a situation where the risk is excessive due to any weapon they have on them or outside experience can have dire consequences to them.
[QUOTE]
Shouldn't both officers have a tazer? Why only 1 was used?
[/QUOTE]
3 officers, one was likely not in position to do anything yet, the other 2 draw non lethal and lethal respectively, if the non lethal fails, they do not need to drop their non lethal or put it away to draw their gun. Also only one officer fired, thus supporting this.
[QUOTE]
I'm not saying officers should sacrifices themselves, but taking risks is part of the job. Using your logic, why not just bomb stuff instead of sending soldiers and/or special forces.[/QUOTE]
If the munitions are accurate enough, and can decrease collateral and your own casualties over sending troops in, why not?
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42202102]He wanted help, they shouldn't have been using force at all.
IMO this country has a serious problem with roided-up cops going out every day looking for chances to bust heads and shoot people.[/QUOTE]
Police are not omniscient , they see a guy charging at them, their taser fails and they need to make sure he stops before he is within their safe zone.
How are they supposed to know he was merely looking for help considering the situation?
[QUOTE=deadoon;42202144]Idealistic usually means good, you probably mean pessimistic, or realistic. Non lethal failed to do it's function so they resorted to lethal. If you are suggesting hand to hand, you are suggesting they put themselves in a situation where the risk is excessive due to any weapon they have on them or outside experience can have dire consequences to them.[/QUOTE]
Arguably, lethal force failed to do its function as well considering the man was not actually a threat, nor accurately gauged as one.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;42202183]Arguably, lethal force failed to do its function as well considering the man was not actually a threat, nor accurately gauged as one.[/QUOTE]
A guy charging at you with unknown intentions, while you already have weapons drawn and had a taser pointed at you isn't a threat? That is new to me.
It did it's function it removed what they perceived as a threat.
[QUOTE=zerosix;42199671]I don't usually pipe up like this in threads about guns but I'm fucking sick of nutjob gun rights activists thinking it's ok that a man got killed like this. Like, there are people at the start of this thread saying "oh at least the officer was punished" the officer fucking killed a man, he should spend hard time in prison instead of getting off as lightly as he did.[/QUOTE]
[quote]One of the officers pulled out his stun gun, but it malfunctioned. Another officer then opened fire, police said.
Police have charged Officer Randall Kerrick with voluntary manslaughter -- a felony. He turned himself in Saturday afternoon and was being held early Sunday on a $50,000 bond.[/quote]
Read the article. The police attempted to stop him with nonlethal force but the taser failed. The officer who fired turned himself in and is facing felony charges. Sorry but we can't just throw a man in jail without giving him a trial.
So according to some of the logic here, we have to wait for the officer to get himself hurt/killed before he is actually able to do anything?
[QUOTE=thisispain;42199465]maybe police officers should be taught that not every single black man is a possible suspect. police profiling in action.[/QUOTE]
lmao
[QUOTE=deadoon;42202144]Idealistic usually means good, you probably mean pessimistic, or realistic. Non lethal failed to do it's function so they resorted to lethal. If you are suggesting hand to hand, you are suggesting they put themselves in a situation where the risk is excessive due to any weapon they have on them or outside experience can have dire consequences to them.
3 officers, one was likely not in position to do anything yet, the other 2 draw non lethal and lethal respectively, if the non lethal fails, they do not need to drop their non lethal or put it away to draw their gun. Also only one officer fired, thus supporting this.
If the munitions are accurate enough, and can decrease collateral and your own casualties over sending troops in, why not?
Police are not omniscient , they see a guy charging at them, their taser fails and they need to make sure he stops before he is within their safe zone.
How are they supposed to know he was merely looking for help considering the situation?[/QUOTE]
No, I do mean idealistic. Ideally, that's what they should've done, sure, but seeing as there's always room for error, you can't just blame everyone else and say it was done by the rules of engagement or something.
As for the tazer thing, sure, that works out too if it was a confirmed suspect or someone who they were ordered to stop. Seeing as they weren't even sure if it was the right guy, using a 2nd tazer seems pretty sensible. They weren't in a position where they couldn't move or run.
Because you can't bomb everything. Bombing can't solve everything.
I'm not sure why are you defending this, he turned himself in and was charged with excessive force usage, so it's pretty clear this isn't the right way to act, disregarding that this is obviously clear only after it happened.
I have no idea why I entered this thread expecting Facepunch to NOT instantly bash on the officer for doing his duty. It's just seething, roiling hate towards law enforcement officers up in here. Seems as though everyone is ignoring all the details and just picking and choosing. Why not start with the lady? She overreacted when a man ran to her house for help. A direct quote from the article reads "To her surprise, it was an individual that she did not know or recognize," Monroe told WBTV. "She immediately closed the door, hit her panic alarm, called 911.". All because a stranger was knocking on her door. If the woman hadn't been so alarmed or afraid, that could've prevented the man from dying. Moving onto the police officers, it is quite logical to have one officer draw non-lethal and another draw lethal. They had received a 911 call about someone "breaking and entering", and the man that they encountered had looked exactly like the suspect described in the call. This is where the man would've survived, had the woman not overreacted. When he approached the cops, when the tazer failed, lethal should not have been used until the man was properly identified to be a threat to the police. However, in the article, it is mentioned "The evidence revealed that Mr. Ferrell did advance on Officer Kerrick and the investigation showed that the subsequent shooting of Mr. Ferrell was excessive," in the sense of that he had approached the officers even when it is presumed they were yelling at him to stop. It is also stated that "Police used "charged" and "ran" and "advanced" in their description of what Ferrell did.", yet we can likely deduce that the man did not "charge" nor "run" at the officers, yet something closer to stumble, considering the car accident. The officers obviously showed excessive force by shooting and killing an innocent man that they had properly deemed as a threat, but remorse was obviously shown when the supposed "murderer" (which by all means, he is as he had killed an innocent man, yet had no intention to) turned himself in. The man COULD (but shouldn't) also be partially to blame, as it is never a good idea to approach an officer who has his weapon aimed at you, but blame obviously does not fall squarely onto the man who died as, after the crash, he would've likely been disoriented or dazed. In such a situation, when he saw the officers, he obviously believed them to be there to assist them, yet did not realize that they had weapons pointed at him, nor did he know that the woman inside of the house had dialled emergency services.
In the end, it was excessive force used in self-defense, not a cop hunting down an innocent man to slaughter him and offer his soul to the Chaos Gods.
[QUOTE=maqzek;42202604]No, I do mean idealistic. Ideally, that's what they should've done, sure, but seeing as there's always room for error, you can't just blame everyone else and say it was done by the rules of engagement or something.
[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry if I cannot understand what you mean by idealistically. If by idealistic you mean saying that they are omniscient and know if someone is a threat just by looking at them,then I think you are just plain delusional.
[QUOTE]
As for the tazer thing, sure, that works out too if it was a confirmed suspect or someone who they were ordered to stop. Seeing as they weren't even sure if it was the right guy, using a 2nd tazer seems pretty sensible. They weren't in a position where they couldn't move or run.
[/QUOTE]
The person was already confirmed to be the suspect as he fit the description.
Because turning your back on a suspect and disarming yourself temporarily sounds like a good idea?
[QUOTE]
Because you can't bomb everything. Bombing can't solve everything.
[/QUOTE]
Read what I said again, I specifically said if it decreased collateral(excess damage of environment and those not involved in the incident) and your own casualties(risk), there should be no reason not to use bombs or missiles. This still leaves room for situations where any of those factors is out of acceptable parameters.
[QUOTE]
I'm not sure why are you defending this, he turned himself in and was charged with excessive force usage, so it's pretty clear this isn't the right way to act, disregarding that this is obviously clear only after it happened.[/QUOTE]
They still need to investigate to see if he was in the right or in the wrong, just because you are charged with something does not mean it is applicable. I'd give it a 75/25 if he is let off or given minor punishment, vs given a full felony.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;42198890]Sigh, it's the rule of double tap. Shoot to kill, and shoot twice in rapid succession to be sure.
It's basically drilled into the minds of police officers so it becomes a reflex.[/QUOTE]
Don't stir up shit like this. They don't "double tap" to be sure to kill people. They're taught to shoot to disable. Either way the guy gets shot multiple times, but your connotations put professional law enforcement in a very horrific light.
[editline]asf[/editline]
I just don't understand how people have such a huge lack of empathy towards their local police departments. Do you really think they're completely naive to these sensationalist headlines? They fucking know that everyone's going to paint them in a bad light, so they're DRILLED on rules and safety to keep people from getting hurt.
At my department they're taught using a taser is just as bad as using a firearm, and if you're going to use either SOMEONE better fucking be in mortal danger. I'm sure this situation had plenty of evidence to shoot the kid for sprinting at cops, not hailing STOP commands.
[QUOTE=zerosix;42199625]maybe police offers shouldn't have guns so nobody would've been killed
[editline]15th September 2013[/editline]
as far as I'm concerned the officer is a murderer, if this happened in a country like the UK the officer would've had hand to hand training and would've known how to detain the guy, instead of just pulling out a pistol and shooting him dead on the spot[/QUOTE]
:slowclap:
You dont even know what goes on in your city when you make statements about taking away police guns. Go fucking tell that to an officer in the US and tell me how it goes.
[QUOTE=maqzek;42199374]I have to agree with yawmen here, kinda. You do shoot to kill, else you don't shoot at all.
I have to wonder if there was no other way to stop the 'suspect'. Shooting him should've been last resort, not 2nd after tazer malfunction. Do officers not get some sort of hand-to-hand combat training or anything?[/QUOTE]
I dont like the "Kill" mentality people have.
it's like you guys make it out to be it's easy to kill someone.
[QUOTE=Powerbrah;42204667]I dont like the "Kill" mentality people have.
it's like you guys make it out to be it's easy to kill someone.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty easy to kill someone. The insanely hard part is what comes after.
[QUOTE=areolop;42203433]:slowclap:
You dont even know what goes on in your city when you make statements about taking away police guns. Go fucking tell that to an officer in the US and tell me how it goes.[/QUOTE]
No thanks, they'd probably shoot me.
[QUOTE=Powerbrah;42204667]I dont like the "Kill" mentality people have.
it's like you guys make it out to be it's easy to kill someone.[/QUOTE]
That's because it is easy to kill someone. And if your life is in danger, no one in their right mind will think "shoot the limbs". You have to try to put yourself in the perspective of the officer.
North Carolina...black man/white cop...how else was this going to end? There a case recently(Roy Middleton/Florida) where a guy was shot by cops, and all he was doing was looking for something in his own car. But, being black, of course he was a suspected thief by default, so shoot first ask questions later. This is a common turn of events, especially in certain parts of the country.
Perhaps we should rely on the San Angeles police for protection instead.
How to confront a suspected criminal:
1. Surround suspect with multiple officers.
2. Tell him to surrender in a stern tone of voice.
3. Tell him to surrender in an angry tone of voice.
4. Confront suspect with hand-to-hand combat.
5. Find someone who's actually equipped to deal with the suspect.
The cop should have been charged with first degree murder. His story makes no sense, someone who was in a SERIOUS car wreck charges at a cop? Then the cops taser "fails to discharge" so he shoots him several times? That's bullshit he saw a black guy and shot him. That's what happened. THis type of crime is sickening when a man who is seeking help from the police is ruthlessly murdered. There's no way that he was a threat after being injured that badly. This cop was just a trigger happy racist. He needs to be put in prison for life.
I'll bet he does no prison time, gets off with probation and lives out his life as a bank security guard who is really a racist murderer.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42206364]The cop should have been charged with first degree murder. His story makes no sense, someone who was in a SERIOUS car wreck charges at a cop? Then the cops taser "fails to discharge" so he shoots him several times? That's bullshit he saw a black guy and shot him. That's what happened. THis type of crime is sickening when a man who is seeking help from the police is ruthlessly murdered. There's no way that he was a threat after being injured that badly. This cop was just a trigger happy racist. He needs to be put in prison for life.
I'll bet he does no prison time, gets off with probation and lives out his life as a bank security guard who is really a racist murderer.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you read the article or not but the officer was responding to call which suggested the man may have been dangerous. The officers the see a man running at them, not responding to calls to stop. Stop froathing at the mouth with racism accusations and maybe actually think about the situation.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42206364]The cop should have been charged with first degree murder. His story makes no sense, someone who was in a SERIOUS car wreck charges at a cop? Then the cops taser "fails to discharge" so he shoots him several times? That's bullshit he saw a black guy and shot him. That's what happened. THis type of crime is sickening when a man who is seeking help from the police is ruthlessly murdered. There's no way that he was a threat after being injured that badly. This cop was just a trigger happy racist. He needs to be put in prison for life.
I'll bet he does no prison time, gets off with probation and lives out his life as a bank security guard who is really a racist murderer.[/QUOTE]
Why do you even bring up race? Are you implying that if it was a white killing a white that it would be handled differently?
And at worst-case scenario this would be manslaughter, not murder.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42206364]The cop should have been charged with first degree murder. His story makes no sense, someone who was in a SERIOUS car wreck charges at a cop? Then the cops taser "fails to discharge" so he shoots him several times? That's bullshit he saw a black guy and shot him. That's what happened. THis type of crime is sickening when a man who is seeking help from the police is ruthlessly murdered. There's no way that he was a threat after being injured that badly. This cop was just a trigger happy racist. He needs to be put in prison for life.
I'll bet he does no prison time, gets off with probation and lives out his life as a bank security guard who is really a racist murderer.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any clue what first degree murder is?
Willful and premeditated.
Cops arriving at a situation with a suspect that was predicted to be dangerous does not count for premeditated, it was not willful as they had attempted to use less lethal force and it fucked up.
Best they could get would be voluntary manslaughter based on the situation, maybe second degree if they can prove he was not under distress for his actions, maybe.
Heres a better story on the same thing. Actually explains it. The officer is being charged.
[quote]CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Florida A&M University says an unarmed man who was shot and killed by a police officer in North Carolina was a former football player at the school.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg police say 24-year-old Jonathan A. Ferrell had apparently been in a wreck and was seeking help at a nearby house early Saturday. A woman answered the door and called 911.
Officers found Ferrell a short distance from the home and as they approached him, Ferrell ran toward the officers and was hit with a Taser. Police say he continued to run toward them when officer Randall Kerrick fired his gun, hitting Ferrell several times. Ferrell died at the scene.
Kerrick has been charged with voluntary manslaughter.[/quote]
[url]http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/6448566-NC-police-shoot-kill-man-officer-charged/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.