Minnesota Officer Involved in Fatal Shooting Posted on Facebook Found Not Guility - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52384037]No. I'm not aware of any policy in any department in the US that has a magdump part in it. It's always been shoot to stop the threat. Whether it's 1 bullet or 15. Whatever it takes.[/QUOTE] It is absolutely [I]not[/I] "shoot to stop the threat" - it is "shoot to [I]kill."[/I] Get this right for once. A police officer uses their gun to kill someone, not to stop them from being a threat. It is literally shoot to kill, because that is the only way to stop the threat.

[QUOTE=Quark:;52384632]It is absolutely [I]not[/I] "shoot to stop the threat" - it is "shoot to [I]kill."[/I] Get this right for once. A police officer uses their gun to kill someone, not to stop them from being a threat. It is literally shoot to kill, because that is the only way to stop the threat.[/QUOTE] But there was no threat. There was no intent of violence, there was no threat of violence, there was nothing. It was an imagined threat, and this officer shot to kill based on that [I]imaginary[/I] threat. That is total negligence and should, [I]at minimum[/I], ban them from working in law enforcement in any capacity in any state for the rest of their lives. Train cops to stop imagining threats and to clearly communicate. The responsibility is on the cop to communicate their requests/demands to the person. This cop failed at that, imagined a nonexistent threat, killed an innocent man, and then got essentially zero legal punishment.

[QUOTE=Jarokwa;52383475]seems to me 3-4 shots would have done the job just fine especially at that range.[/QUOTE] This is real life, not a fucking video game.

[QUOTE=Quark:;52384632]It is absolutely [I]not[/I] "shoot to stop the threat" - it is "shoot to [I]kill."[/I] Get this right for once. A police officer uses their gun to kill someone, not to stop them from being a threat. It is literally shoot to kill, because that is the only way to stop the threat.[/QUOTE] No, a lot of people stop being a threat after being shot. As being shot affects your body quite a lot. Adrenaline and the fight or flight response comes into major focus here. Some will choose to continue to fight, and most will simply attempt to flee or surrender if they cannot flee. What is taught to police and people who gain concealed carry licenses is to shoot until the threat stops. That could mean the threat is dead, or it could mean the person is no longer a threat. You don't keep shooting someone with a knife if they've fallen as a result of being shot a few times. A knife is only a threat if they can get in range of the defender or someone the defender is protecting. But someone with a gun can continue to be a threat even if they are no longer mobile. Each situation dictates the response. The [url=https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMYxKMh3prxnM_4kYZuB3g/videos]Police Activity YouTube channel[/url] has a lot of great footage. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGzR-7i5Pa8[/url] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4buDqSE3Vx4[/url] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHK41COLq6Y[/url] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L161LW6-R_A[/url] Notice in each the police will only continue firing while they still perceive they are at risk. And that they stop firing when they perceive they are no longer at risk. Dashcam from the shooting this topic is about. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMKcWz5nNoM[/media]

[QUOTE=Quark:;52384632]It is absolutely [I]not[/I] "shoot to stop the threat" - it is "shoot to [I]kill."[/I] Get this right for once. A police officer uses their gun to kill someone, not to stop them from being a threat. It is literally shoot to kill, because that is the only way to stop the threat.[/QUOTE] No, it's shoot to stop the threat. Always has been always will be.

The [URL="http://www.startribune.com/the-yanez-jurors-a-snapshot/428447093/"]jury was stacked from the start btw[/URL], for example at least one of them are related to members of the police. And the judge seemingly refused any attempts to remove jurors from the trial. The very best they could have hoped for was a hung jury judging from that line up.

[QUOTE=Streecer;52385476]The [URL="http://www.startribune.com/the-yanez-jurors-a-snapshot/428447093/"]jury was stacked from the start btw[/URL], for example at least one of them are related to members of the police. And the judge seemingly refused any attempts to remove jurors from the trial. The very best they could have hoped for was a hung jury judging from that line up.[/QUOTE] Because someone who is related to a police officer can't be objective? The prosecutor over-charged for the evidence they had. There is no other way this could have been ruled based on the charges and the evidence. Jurors can't just say "he's guilty because he deserves to go to jail", he has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what he's charged with. Like so many other cases, the prosecutor fucked this up by over charging.

[QUOTE=Streecer;52385476]The [URL="http://www.startribune.com/the-yanez-jurors-a-snapshot/428447093/"]jury was stacked from the start btw[/URL], for example at least one of them are related to members of the police. And the judge seemingly refused any attempts to remove jurors from the trial. The very best they could have hoped for was a hung jury judging from that line up.[/QUOTE] The outcome of this falls back on the prosecutor really. It was 10-2 not guilty and the two (neither of the african american jurors) were held up not on the evidence, but on the criminal elements of the charges.

Right, so the horribleness of the aftermath video aside, lets look at it objectively. The man told the officer he had a gun. The officer told him not to reach for it. The man reached for his wallet, while the officer was telling him not to. Officer shot him, thinking he was grabbing his gun. No matter how you twist it, the man was in the fault. These precautions are there for a reason. A few years back a female police officer was shot in the head and killed after a man she stopped took out his gun. The officer hadn't even spoken to him yet. And that's not the first time a police officer has been killed without reason. Look back at the murder of police officer Kyle Dinkheller. He stopped a Vietnam veteran in a routine check, and didn't shoot when the man got back in his van. The vet got out with an M1 carbine and shot the officer several times, before shooting him in the head from point blank range. The police has every right to take these precautions. Follow their orders during a stop and nothing happens. Reach for something, and the cop might feel like his life is on the line.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52385518]Right, so the horribleness of the aftermath video aside, lets look at it objectively.[/QUOTE] You're part of the problem. This officer shot an innocent black man because he was scared. This man was a licensed carrier and not a threat. As if he would've shot the police officer in front of his family for nothing. If you live in the Netherlands then I'm ashamed for you. You know how much effort the Dutch police puts in being part of the community, and how much they value restraint. Imagine if we had shitty police like this in our country, it would be terrible. And here you are, trying to validate the missaction of this spineless twat.

Seems like a trend of civilians dying due to human error in trying to do what they think they're supposed to.

[QUOTE=Black Pete;52385545]You're part of the problem. This officer shot an innocent black man because he was scared. This man was a licensed carrier and not a threat. As if he would've shot the police officer in front of his family for nothing. If you live in the Netherlands then I'm ashamed for you. You know how much effort the Dutch police puts in being part of the community, and how much they value restraint. Imagine if we had shitty police like this in our country, it would be terrible. And here you are, trying to validate the missaction of this spineless twat.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, you don't understand it. The US has a history of officers being shot for no reason. I explained that in the post. The man said he had a gun, and was told not to reach for it. He reached for something, and was shot. Whether he was a licensed carrier or not doesn't matter. He was told not to reach for anything, several times.

[QUOTE=Black Pete;52385545]You're part of the problem. This officer shot an innocent black man because he was scared. This man was a licensed carrier and not a threat. As if he would've shot the police officer in front of his family for nothing. If you live in the Netherlands then I'm ashamed for you. You know how much effort the Dutch police puts in being part of the community, and how much they value restraint. Imagine if we had shitty police like this in our country, it would be terrible. And here you are, trying to validate the missaction of this spineless twat.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter how innocent you are. If you have a concealed firearm and you've informed a police officer, you better damn well do everything they tell you to do - slowly - until you have surrendered the firearm to the officer. Yes, Castile's death is tragic and avoidable, but often culpability does not fall solely on the officer.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52383484]Once you start shooting, you don't stop. The point of shooting is to kill and if they are worth shooting once, they are worth shooting a dozen times. People can get shot many times and still be a danger so when you need to stop someone you play it safe and empty your mag.[/QUOTE] Except, you know, there was other people in the car who couldn't possibly be construed as a threat? Should a cop empty his mag on someone who pulls a gun on him while in the middle of a crowd? Seems to me the life of other innocent people should be taken into account here. It's already fucked enough that the tiniest possibility of a threat justifies the killing of a suspect, if a cop's life is held up to such a level that it matters more than innocent civilians you might as well ditch the "protect and serve" motto.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52384763]But there was no threat. There was no intent of violence, there was no threat of violence, there was nothing. It was an imagined threat, and this officer shot to kill based on that [I]imaginary[/I] threat. That is total negligence and should, [I]at minimum[/I], ban them from working in law enforcement in any capacity in any state for the rest of their lives. Train cops to stop imagining threats and to clearly communicate. The responsibility is on the cop to communicate their requests/demands to the person. This cop failed at that, imagined a nonexistent threat, killed an innocent man, and then got essentially zero legal punishment.[/QUOTE] So what kind of action is a cop supposed to take someone reaching where their weapon is when heavily instructed not to as? Just hope he doesn't have malicious intent? Literally every piece of CC education involving being pulled over recommends keeping your hands on the steering wheel and telling the cop where the weapob is. Because saying "I have a gun, I have to pull it out" and ignoring all of your instructions not to is a great way to get shot. Hell, I think its common sense not to keep your CC in the same pocket as your wallet, if it's not something that's taught at CC classes.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52386041]Except, you know, there was other people in the car who couldn't possibly be construed as a threat? Should a cop empty his mag on someone who pulls a gun on him while in the middle of a crowd? Seems to me the life of other innocent people should be taken into account here. It's already fucked enough that the tiniest possibility of a threat justifies the killing of a suspect, if a cop's life is held up to such a level that it matters more than innocent civilians you might as well ditch the "protect and serve" motto.[/QUOTE] I'd just like to offer my 2 cents here. I'm not sure about law enforcement, but military trains you to prioritize neutralizing the threat in situations where possible. You don't unload like hell if say a shooter is in a crowd of innocents, simply making threats with words and posture. However that changes if they're opening fire or god forbid have a bomb on them. They're a larger threat to the innocents nearby than you are, and you can't protect shit if you're dead because you were too cautious to suppress the threat before he got to you and kills you. As unfortunate as it sounds, that's simply how it has to be sometimes. As I've said though, that's merely how I've been taught, it could be different for law enforcement.

I think a better title for this article would be: [B]How to Start a Race Riot in Three Easy Steps[/B]

[QUOTE=MoopsiePook;52386344]I'd just like to offer my 2 cents here. I'm not sure about law enforcement, but military trains you to prioritize neutralizing the threat in situations where possible. You don't unload like hell if say a shooter is in a crowd of innocents, simply making threats with words and posture. However that changes if they're opening fire or god forbid have a bomb on them. [B]They're a larger threat to the innocents nearby than you are,[/B] and you can't protect shit if you're dead because you were too cautious to suppress the threat before he got to you and kills you. As unfortunate as it sounds, that's simply how it has to be sometimes. As I've said though, that's merely how I've been taught, it could be different for law enforcement.[/QUOTE] I'd say that depends on the amount of shots you fire at him. At some point firing more rounds towards an already hit perp only increases the risks for the civilians. Threat to the civilians you put at risk doesn't really apply here, anyway. The dude wasn't going to shoot the cop and then turn around and shoot his own fiancee and kid after taking half a dozen bullet at point blank range.

The comment about civilians was only brought up because you had brought up a scenario where a shooter was in a crowd in the first place. Of course shooting an unnecessary amount of shots is overkill, but I'm not trying to argue about how many shots need to be fired to take down the crook. It just needs to stop the crook before he can cause more damage, in the least amount of shots if possible.

I think what he meant by "Shoot to kill" was more along the lines of shooting until the target is down. Not just shooting once or twice, then looking to see if he's stopped or not. I don't think he meant that officers should execute the target when he's down.