The Latest Potentially-Explosive Racially-Charged Murder

[Avatar]

Since the company I work for is partnering with Google glass on this technology, that will help pay for part of my salary.

Hey, that's pretty cool. Not that I'm necessarily in favour of Glass, but still.

--A

[sgt.null]

our assistant police chief tells us that when they first installed the cameras in cars the typical officer hated them. they fell in love with the tech when they saw how it helped them in their efforts. both in proving crimes happened or disproving complaints from criminals and the public. I am certain that body cameras would do the same. with the benefit of weeding out those unfit for duty.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

According to The New York Times the DOJ is going to recommend that no civil rights violations/charges be brought against Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. So...the local grand jury no-billed him and now the DOJ is going to no-bill him, as well. That, I believe, is vindication twice over for ex-Officer Wilson.

I wonder what the "hands up don't shoot" crowd is going to think about this?

[SerScot]

Hashi,

Good question.

[Cail]

Exactly what they thought after the Duke rape case collapsed......This changes nothing for them.

[SerScot]

Cail,

When the Duke rape case collapsed and was shown to be false the people pushing the racial side tried to keep pushing but lost most of their traction. I suspect the same will happen here.

[Cail]

'Cause there's no way they'll call Obama and Holder racist for not prosecuting.....

[SoulBiter]

nypost.com/2015/01/21/video-shows-cop-fatally-shot-man-with-raised-hands/

This is out of control. I know cops have to be careful, but this 'appears' to be killing an unarmed man in co

Faintly on the video, Reid can be heard telling the officer, "I ain't doing nothing. I'm not reaching for nothing, bro. I ain't got no reason to reach for nothing."

Then one of the men in the car tells the officer, "I'm getting out and getting on the ground."

The officer again orders Reid not to move. Seconds later, Reid emerges from the car, raising his hands, which appear to be empty. Both officers fire immediately, shooting at least six rounds.

Bystanders start yelling at the officers, and other emergency vehicles arrive.

OK regardless of disregarding orders to not move, getting out of the car with your hands up, is not a reason to shoot someone.

[SerScot]

Soulbiter,

That officer was upset for a reason. I'd like more information before I say with certainty the officer did something wrong.

[SoulBiter]

Watch the video in slow motion....

The officer says stay in the car more than once.
The guy says, Im getting out and laying on the ground
The officer says,"no you are not, no you are not"
You can see the officer trying to keep the guys door shut with one hand, while holding his firearm in the other.
The officer backs away from the door,
The guy steps out and is raising his hands, flat facing the officer.
The officer discharges his weapon 4 or 5 times, the other officer just once.

Hopefully there will be some followup information, but in this case, the video suggests that the cop over-reacted.

[Zarathustra]

When I was young and didn't know exactly how to respond to being pulled over, I tried getting out of my car when the cops hadn't told me to do so. They freaked out and were very agitated, yelling at me to get back in my car and close the door. I did.

I can't imagine what would have happened if I'd disobeyed that direct order to stay in my car. I've since learned that this is considered threatening behavior, because you can do just about anything outside your car: lunge at the officer, grab his gun, etc. It doesn't matter if you have your hands up. If you're disobeying orders meant to protect the officer, you're not complying even if you're in this pose we all interpret as compliance. That's complete negated by the other actions, i.e. exiting the vehicle in direct contradiction of officer orders.

When you're confined to your seat, in a position that's difficult to turn around (you might notice they usually stand slightly behind you), you're much less of a threat ... especially if you keep your hands where they can see them. Apparently, these guys weren't doing that either. The cops said, "He has a gun in the glove compartment!" They warned over and over to stop reaching for it. The guy did not have his hands up in surrender while exiting the car, they were in front of him, where he could have grabbed for the gun.

These guys were idiots.

[SoulBiter]

The cops said, "He has a gun in the glove compartment!" They warned over and over to stop reaching for it. The guy did not have his hands up in surrender while exiting the car, they were in front of him, where he could have grabbed for the gun.

If you watch, you will see the officer take the gun and discard it behind him.

These guys were idiots.

Agreed. Its not illegal to be an idiot. It is however dangerous.

[Zarathustra]

Correct on both counts. He wasn't charged with a crime. He was shot in self-defense. The cop did nothing wrong.

[SoulBiter]

Not disagreeing that the guy was an idiot. Or that he did the wrong things. Mainly in not doing what he is told. Legally you are right. The cop has a lot of latitude in this situation to protect himself and other officers.

The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight.

(like watching the cam from the car after the fact)

The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments under tense and rapidly changing conditions.

But there is another piece to this. Before using deadly force, they have to conclude that other lesser alternatives have been reasonably considered and exhausted prior to the use of deadly force, to include disengagement

All legalities aside, it appears an unarmed man was killed because he wouldn't comply with their orders. Is non compliance a death penalty now? Administered on the spot?

[SoulBiter]

Not disagreeing that the guy was an idiot. Or that he did the wrong things. Mainly in not doing what he is told. Legally you are right. The cop has a lot of latitude in this situation to protect himself and other officers.

The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight.

(like watching the cam from the car after the fact)

The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments under tense and rapidly changing conditions.

But there is another piece to this. Before using deadly force, they have to conclude that other lesser alternatives have been reasonably considered and exhausted prior to the use of deadly force, to include disengagement

All legalities aside, it appears an unarmed man was killed because he wouldn't comply with their orders. Is non compliance a death penalty now? Administered on the spot?

[SerScot]

Soulbiter,

The thing is the officer doesn't know if the guy has a back up piece that he could reach for once he's out of the car. Did the officer go too far in hindsight, it can certainly be argued he did.

This is would have been a perfect time to deploy a tazer.

[Avatar]

Is non compliance a death penalty now? Administered on the spot?

Agreed.

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

That's why I wish that officer had or had used a Tazer. If the only thing the officer can do is say "Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again!" The. There isn't a very effective level of threat to induce someone to comply with the orders given. There has to be some level of force the officers may resort to in the event of non-compliance.

[Zarathustra]

Death isn't the "penalty" for noncompliance, it's the consequence. A penalty is punishment. A consequence is the effect of a cause. The man caused his own death. That's different from saying he deserved it. Like Michael Brown, he thought he could ignore the fact that an officer had a gun pulled on him and was yelling at him not to move. In a situation like that, the officer is perfectly justified in assuming that the perp has ill intent, and means him bodily harm. After all, this same guy was in prison for 13 years for shooting a cop. The arresting officer in that case is the same one who shot him his time. Maybe he recognized him and knew what he was capable of, and therefore his assumption of deadly intent (in disobeying a cop with a pulled gun) was even more accurate.

Black parents who are not teaching respect for authority--particularly law enforcement's authority--are setting their children up for 'suicide by cop.'

[Cybrweez]

"In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri."

Took notice for what reason? A made up one. There's a real problem we can see from the Ferguson episode, tho probably a good majority don't know what it is.

But at least all the posturing and stupid statements have lowered peoples' opinions about race relations.