Don't know. But I would suggest there are active resistance to arrest, there are aggressive arrest by cops without much warning or instructions that may result in reactions (to pain, trying to breath, ..) that look like resistance, and shades in between. There are also people who are mentally ill and do not understand.
Like the black woman driving through TX who complied and died mysteriously in jail? Or the guy who complied and had his back broken in the back of paddy wagon, while cuffed? Yeah, have no idea why people might distrust these situations. But overall, I agree with you. It's going to go much worse if you resist our trigger-happy police state, if you're not white. If you think there aren't white drunk bubbas resisting arrest every damn day who never get shot, I have a bridge to sell you.
YES, IT IS UNREASONABLE! That is, unless you think it's ok for police to shoot people who legally carry firearms but haven't presented them. Having a gun in one's pocket isn't a present danger and doesn't deserve death. I'm not sure you understand the basic definition of "self-defense". There has to be a threat in order to have something to defend against. Though, in this new Minnesota case, apparently telling a cop that you have a gun legally and have a concealed carry permit is reason to start shooting...with a woman and child in the car.
Anecdotal only... I have a family member that should thank his stars everyday that he isn't black, because if the things we've seen in some of these videos justifies a cop shooting them, he is incredibly lucky to be alive.
I'm honestly baffled by this. Now it's just HAVING a gun IN YOUR POCKET that merits deadly force from a police officer against you?
I'm just asking a question. Plaxico Burress shot himself in the thigh with the gun was in his pocket. I have heard and read plenty of other similar such instances. BTW, recall that this guy was threatening someone with his gun.
Allegedly threatening someone with a gun. No proof of that. Store owner says it didn't happen and the person who reported it was a homeless person. Story is skeptical at best. But again, so what? A subdued person who has threatened someone with a gun has a gun in their pocket and now their life is just forfeit? Seems like a low standard for the death penalty.
I'm pretty sure if they wait this long, there's a huge risk in getting shot. They're not going to wait this long. "You have to wait until they shoot at your head in order to defend yourself." That's silly, would you wait that long? Now that I got through that... Typically I lean towards the police side of these things. But this really stinks of negligence on the part of the police (at a minimum). It seems they (or at least one) overreacted and shot when they shouldn't have (at least from what we can actually see). It seems this is happening far too often. Also, how do body cams fall off? Wouldn't that be like your bullet proof vest falling off?
In Afghanistan as an infantry rifleman in a Victor unit, yes... That was pretty much our ROE. I'm sure our LEO policing our very own citizens don't need more lax ROEs than service members fighting a foreign enemy?
Because of the **** they know has happened to people who complied. Really, even if I know I haven't done ****. I know the dice roll on my fate, once the officer engages, is more in my favor my disregarding my own rights and letting the officers have their way. 'Murica. **** yeah!
You are way smarter than to try to make the argument of the bolded part of your statement. C'mon man.
Dude was trying to put his hands up - how is that resisting? You don't even know what happened. Your bias is showing bigtime big mak.
Not enough information out yet to have an informed opinion. Would have to see/hear what the victim was doing with his other arm..ie, were the cops in reasonable fear for their safety? As for everything that led up to that point, also waiting on any analysis as to whether they followed proper procedure, or not. I do think those who are already calling out the cops are jumping the gun. Maybe they handled this improperly, maybe they didn't. But it certainly doesn't seem as cut and dried as some of the other incidents were cops have shot someone out there. So, let's see what the facts are. Also, while I'm not going to join the 'he had it coming crowd', I do think it is worth noting that in almost all of these incidents, the victim had committed a crime prior, and was resisting arrest. I think we need to evaluate these incidents in their entirety (and, yes, that can include history of black persecution by cops, but it should also include the specifics of that one incident).
This is a very tough video to watch. The second video that is out now with Mr. Sterling on his back shows his right shoulder come up and go down as the officer says he's got a gun. Sterling could have been reaching for the gun at that point. He was warned not to move by one officer, I can't make out what happened at that point to cause the officer to shoot him though. Hoping that there's more video to come out to provide evidence of the truth. If the cops were in the wrong, they need to go to jail. You can bet they will state that when he shifted his shoulder up and back down that he was trying to get his gun. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ckuUk9R5ES0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Come on, Granville. You think that case, in exactly those terms, is not on the minds of African Americans when they get pulled over? Really? That's my only point. Not arguing technicalities of by-gone tragedies. Yes, it is always best to comply completely (even like the poor guy in Minnesota who is now dead), but I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who is black, no matter how hard I try. The stark contrast of how we are treated is mind-numbing. Again, this new case was for a broken tail light. Such a horrible cliche. The only time I've EVER been pulled over for a broken tail light? When a college friend of mine dared me to wear these fake rasta dreadlocks, driving around Houston at night. I was pulled over in like 10 minutes for a "malfunctioning tail light" but was let alone immediately when cop saw I was some stupid white kid. EDIT: why on Earth would a man face down on the ground under two cops be trying to reach a gun? What the **** would he supposedly do with it, unless he was double-jointed? It just makes no sense to suddenly leap to "kill the guy." Hell, shoot his moving arm if you're so terrified of the guy. Jesus H.
The cops rolled up because there was a complaint of this guy brandishing a gun. So they went into the encounter with a reasonable assumption that he was armed. Of course, that makes the encounter seem all the more bizarre. They think he's armed and presumably he's not complying, so they go first for the tazer, and then tackle him, and then one calls out "gun" and they draw pistols. They knew about the gun from the start but started with nonlethal means of subduing him. Something happened in the scuffle to alarm them. Maybe he managed to get his hand down to his hip pocket? Obviously, he didn't manage to pull it out. It's hard to tell from the video just how close he may have gotten, or if he was even trying. I'm still not sure if I think they were justified or not. It needs investigation, obviously, and the investigators need to be transparent to the public so we can be assured its being done honestly. Yes, I think so. I recognize there's a point at which cops need to take measures to ensure their own safety, but it's not really justified to take a 'better safe than sorry' approach when 'safe' for you means 'sorry' for Joe Public. We need cops to consider everyone's safety and not only their own.
Not sure on this one. The victim had a gun and was resisting officers. On the other hand, officers had him on the ground but not in full control because he was resisting. So, if they are working on the assumption he is a threat because he is resisting, they don't have control of him, and the perp is possibly reaching for a gun in the process, then the response may be justified. The victim would have lived had he not resisted. He was a dumbass.
People will say they're trained to shoot for the body because it's easier to hit, and will stop the threat faster. That it's standard operating procedure. But damned if it wouldn't have worked great in this particular episode. Dude is pinned, his left arm is pinned, the gun is in his right pocket, and the only way he can possibly be a threat is if he can get that right hand into his pocket. One point blank shot in the arm would have incapacitated the threat. Oh well. It probably would have been a lawsuit if they deviated from SOP anyway.
