|
tsa posted:Cops not wanting to shoot their friend has nothing to do with the blue line and everything to do with human nature, there must be a lot of beep boop robots that post here to have this conversation go on for more than a couple posts. But that's ideologues for you.  Please tell us more! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:I can't figure out how to make this link a normal, non-paned page but here's a WaPo article on the former BPD cop talking about what we'll be reading about in the DoJ report that will be handwaved away as, I don't know, some stupid Facebook meme? Go read this Jarmak, then come back. It is overwhelmingly a systemic issue to the point where your cops aren't cops. The shooting before, during and after is a massive Blue Wall issue, but not the only issue. You keep trying to nail everything to a single point of failure in order to shift the goal post in your favour, but it doesn't work that way. The shooting highlighted a massive combination of issues. You have the lack of mental health monitoring and treatment of police. Blue Wall protecting the cop while he was abusing his wife leaving her few options to break the relationship let alone do it safely. During the shooting the officer's training or lack thereof broke down as they once again as they could no longer asses the situation objectively leading them to incorrectly prioritize and protect the wrong person. Things go into WTF territory when they fail to stop him when he shoots her the second time more than likely breaking procedure in any jurisdiction. They then continue to fail by not rescuing the hostage in a timely manner to render medically assistance even when the perpetrator has been clearly shown to be a threat. After the arrest they completely botch the optics of the situation by hugging him instead of treating him in a neutral manner which runs counter to procedure(he might go for your gun!) and is yet another Blue Wall issues that does nothing but reinforce how hosed up the situation was handled. The lack of oversight means nothing will be learned, the department and police everywhere will wash their hands of the situation. The two officer will no doubt keep their jobs despite failing it on such a fundamental level that could be considered negligence. The only good thing the cops did was getting the kid out of the way, but even then they did it in disregard for the ex-wife and prioritizing the perpetrator. Like virtually anything else it was a chain of failure and had the issue been handle properly at almost any point in the chain we be might not be here blasting the police about it. Having you and Dead reckoning doing your utmost to nail it down to a single issue so you can "Win" is absurd. You are mis-prioritizing and blowing up singular points in order to form any defence or derail no manner how asinine or illogical it might be when time and time again it has been shown entire series of events have been inexcusable. When we bracket this shooting with other shootings, it shows how wide and deep the failure goes just on police shootings, let alone every other systemic justice issue that is decimating your country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
All that matters is the officer coming home at night to his/her family, and that's all police advocates will care about for the foreseeable future. There is a crime wave you see. Keep Safe Brothers in Blue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Theres so many conflicting accounts of what happened with this story. After he shot his wife the first time, was the little girl still in the car? How long after the first shots into the wife did he let the girl go? And then, how long after the police had the girl did he fire the second shots? Here's the rough timeline: Cop chases ex-wife in car She swipes a cop car, where some cops were doing something unrelated She crashes He stops his car, hops out, and shoots at her a few times, with their 7 year old in the passenger seat By this time, the other cops are there. They get the kid out of the car The cop shoots at his ex-wife again four more times over eight seconds (this is roughly two to three minutes after he shot her the first time) They try to talk him down for 30 minutes while building a scrap book They slide the scrap book over to him, and he surrenders The bolded part here is why most people here are saying "why the gently caress didn't they do anything?" Not as in there was nothing wrong with the way they acted the rest of the time, this part is just the most egregious. Lemming fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Thanks. You said they made him a scrap book, but the other reports said they just slid a mobile phone over with photos on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Thanks. Yeah, it's a joke, because they spent the 30 minutes finding pictures to load on a phone while the ex-wife of their friend bled out in the driver's seat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yeah, it's a joke, because they spent the 30 minutes finding pictures to load on a phone while the ex-wife of their friend bled out in the driver's seat. Hey now, it only took 20 minutes before they even asked about helping the victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Thanks. According to the one witness statement we have so far it appears the second shooting happened somewhat contemporaneously with the cops taking the 7 year old out of the car. From the statement you can read into it anything from he shot her the second time as the cops were leading the kid away to he shot her as soon as the kid was clear and the standoff resumed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Can't we all agree the only people that cops should shoot are other cops
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:According to the one witness statement we have so far it appears the second shooting happened somewhat contemporaneously with the cops taking the 7 year old out of the car. From the statement you can read into it anything from he shot her the second time as the cops were leading the kid away to he shot her as soon as the kid was clear and the standoff resumed. http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/eyewitness_to_cops_fatal_shooting_of_his_ex-wife_s.html quote:In all that time, while police officers had their guns trained on him, they didn't fire a shot, even when he fired off that second round of bullets into the Jetta, the witness said. Seems like regardless of how they got the kid out of the car, they weren't out of position or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Lemming posted:http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/eyewitness_to_cops_fatal_shooting_of_his_ex-wife_s.html Yes that was what I was sourcing for my comment, way to grab a statement from the end of the narrative generalizing the entire 30 minute event and act like it was said describing the specific instant I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes that was what I was sourcing for my comment, way to grab a statement from the end of the narrative generalizing the entire 30 minute event and act like it was said describing the specific instant I'm talking about. According to the narrative you're supposedly using, the shooter ordered the cops to take his kid, and only after the kid was removed did the shooter take the gun from his head, walk around to the front of the car and shoot his victim. According to that same narrative, officers had their guns trained on the shooter during this entire process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:According to the narrative you're supposedly using, the shooter ordered the cops to take his kid, and only after the kid was removed did the shooter take the gun from his head, walk around to the front of the car and shoot his victim. So you think the officer that was retrieving the kid literally kept his gun trained on the guy the entire time he was doing that or do you think maybe his partner covered him during that and the witness statement generalizing the entire 30 minute ordeal shouldn't be read to mean "literally every second of the entire 30 minutes both officers had their guns trained on the guy"? Besides that my point wasn't that they were necessarily out of position more that they might have been distracted with getting the kid out when the second shooting occurred because its pretty unclear from the statements we have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So you think the officer that was retrieving the kid literally kept his gun trained on the guy the entire time he was doing that or do you think maybe his partner covered him during that and the witness statement generalizing the entire 30 minute ordeal shouldn't be read to mean "literally every second of the entire 30 minutes both officers had their guns trained on the guy"? It's important to use this article as evidence, except when it makes the cop look bad, then let's second guess everything. It clearly says they have guns pointed at him when he's firing for the second time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2015/06/22/colin-boone-sentencing-excessive-force/29106285/quote:A former Des Moines police officer will spend up to 63 months in federal prison for kicking a man in the face and breaking his nose following a 2013 traffic stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:That reminds me, wasn't there a legal case where it was decided that police aren't actually required "to protect and serve"? I heard something like that years ago. May have been another country. Maybe Warren v. District of Columbia or Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:That reminds me, wasn't there a legal case where it was decided that police aren't actually required "to protect and serve"? I heard something like that years ago. May have been another country. Yes, I don't remember it off the top of my head, but basically it determined that the police don't have an affirmative legal duty to actually do their job. If I remember correctly the context was that someone sued the cops for waiting for backup instead of going in after an active shooter or hostage taker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Which is not scandalous. It's not criminal for the Fire Department to fail a rescue or to not make it on time to the call, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
In the case of the cop who shot his wife that is being discussed, even after the second time he shot her (multiple times), it's inexcusable for them to spend any substantial amount of time "talking him down" even after the daughter was rescued because the presence of the guy and his gun, even if he's pointing it at himself or at no one, prevents emergency medical personnel from entering the scene and extracting the wife, as the scene is not secured. No one can assume that she was dead unless, as previously stated, her head was obviously blown off her shoulders or something. Even if she was silent and not moving. Any amount of time beyond the briefest attempt to give him an opportunity to surrender himself substantially reduced her odds of survival if she was still alive. In major trauma scenarios minimizing the time to transport the patient to definitive care (surgery, placed on a ventilator, blood transfusion etc.) is critical, minutes can make a big difference and a half hour of avoidable delay can be the whole game. So even if the longest period of time was after the second time she was shot, it's still a huge problem. If the reason the officers didn't fire on their colleague was because of a threat to themselves, such as he was shooting at them from such a place that they had a high risk of adding their own deaths to the toll without an excellent chance of neutralizing him, that would be a bit more understandable, but the story doesn't seem to read like that, seems more like they were trying to prevent him shooting himself without much regard for his victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, I don't remember it off the top of my head, but basically it determined that the police don't have an affirmative legal duty to actually do their job. If I remember correctly the context was that someone sued the cops for waiting for backup instead of going in after an active shooter or hostage taker. Something like that quote:Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So you think the officer that was retrieving the kid literally kept his gun trained on the guy the entire time he was doing that or do you think maybe his partner covered him during that and the witness statement generalizing the entire 30 minute ordeal shouldn't be read to mean "literally every second of the entire 30 minutes both officers had their guns trained on the guy"? Also, according to eye witnesses, he went back around to the front of the car, opposite the side the officers were on, in order to shoot his wife again. So, they would have had to shoot through the car the ex-wife was in. Y'know, assuming the eyewitnesses are able to accurately reconstruct a shooting in detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:
You do realize that in hostage situations, that is the standard procedure right? Shooting suspects is wrong unless it's the suspect I want shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
tsa posted:Cops not wanting to shoot their friend has nothing to do with the blue line and everything to do with human nature, there must be a lot of beep boop robots that post here to have this conversation go on for more than a couple posts. But that's ideologues for you. It's really sad to see people lamenting these police were not more trigger happy just to prove some stupid point. Isn't that what we should want? This in-group/out-group effect, as applied to the black public, is called structural racism
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Anora posted:Don't most killing happen between people who know each other? Do you seriously not get the difference between shooting someone you know with murderous intent and shooting out of necessity? In your world, is someone waking up and saying "I hate so and so, I want them dead," the same as saying "holy poo poo, so and so has a gun...I need to stop him....but...poo poo...I don't want him to die" the same thing? the corruption issue that needs to be investigated and punished here is the failure to address the clear domestic violence buildup that was happening right under their noses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You do realize that in hostage situations, that is the standard procedure right? Including hostage situations where the hostage is rapidly bleeding to death?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:In the case of the cop who shot his wife that is being discussed, even after the second time he shot her (multiple times), it's inexcusable for them to spend any substantial amount of time "talking him down" even after the daughter was rescued because the presence of the guy and his gun, even if he's pointing it at himself or at no one, prevents emergency medical personnel from entering the scene and extracting the wife, as the scene is not secured. The reason, as announced at the scene, was "you taught us everything we know Sarge"  Including, I presume, how much to value a woman's life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Including hostage situations where the hostage is rapidly bleeding to death? you're right...in a situation like that, they should have just opened fire. Because opening fire in a hostage situation always goes well. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18378370-cop-in-ny-shooting-that-left-hostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you're right...in a situation like that, they should have just opened fire. Because opening fire in a hostage situation always goes well. quote:Then Smith pointed his gun at one of the officers, who fired eight rounds, Azzata said. Your example is actually just another of an officer not giving a poo poo about a hostage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you're right...in a situation like that, they should have just opened fire. Because opening fire in a hostage situation always goes well. That's not remotely similar, and you didn't answer the question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
I wonder what the response would have been if the ex-wife was brandishing a gun and the officer was sitting in his patrol car bleeding out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No one has said they didn't gently caress up. What people are objecting to is the line of thought that says "well they shot so and so without any hesitation, so why not this guy?" Clearly there's a lot that could and should have been done differently. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I wonder what the response would have been if the ex-wife was brandishing a gun and the officer was sitting in his patrol car bleeding out. Or if the officer decided to open fire on his fellow officers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Do you seriously not get the difference between shooting someone you know with murderous intent and shooting out of necessity? In your world, is someone waking up and saying "I hate so and so, I want them dead," the same as saying "holy poo poo, so and so has a gun...I need to stop him....but...poo poo...I don't want him to die" the same thing? Do you not get that it's their job to make tough calls like that? What if the murderer cop had a bomb, or was walking down the street shooting at random people? Should they let him do that stuff too, because he's their friend?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Anora posted:Do you not get that it's their job to make tough calls like that? What if the murderer cop had a bomb, or was walking down the street shooting at random people? Should they let him do that stuff too, because he's their friend? What if they thought the murderer had a gun pointed at them and they were actually wrong? I thought shooting the person in that situation was wrong, according to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:What if they thought the murderer had a gun pointed at them and they were actually wrong? I thought shooting the person in that situation was wrong, according to this thread. There's a difference between "think he has a gun", and actively has a gun and is using it on civilians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Anora posted:There's a difference between "think he has a gun", and actively has a gun and is using it on civilians. so whether or not something was correct depends upon an after the fact analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so whether or not something was correct depends upon an after the fact analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Got it. What do you think the reaction of the cops would have been if the same chain of events happened that day, except that instead of a cop it was a black civilian (heck maybe even a black cop)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:What do you think the reaction of the cops would have been if the same chain of events happened that day, except that instead of a cop it was a black civilian (heck maybe even a black cop)? Look, just like "it's hard" to shoot your friends, "it's easy" to shoot black people. But some people in this thread refuse to acknowledge this simple fact of reality 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
I mean really it's not really an "active" shooter situation unless the gunmen is actively pulling the trigger at that moment. Cops should give shooters the full benefit of the doubt during the fractions of seconds between the individual shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
What the apologists are also not getting is many of these "feared for his life so had to waste him" situations got to that point because the cop was demanding immediate compliance and escalated to a physical then violent confrentation. Idiot kid with no license who didn't get out of the car? There was zero threat to anyone if he didn't get out immediately but since he didn't cop gets pissy and starts screaming orders. Since he didn't put his hands in the right spot fast enough he gets tazed and freaks out. Where was his 30 minutes to keep the situation calm and non-violent? When he was laying face down aside from not putting his arms in the right position nobody was in any danger. Why does scared kid only get 15 seconds before the tazer comes out from angry screaming cop? No empathy for a teenager who doesn't instantly comply? No trying to calmly talk to the kid and explain exactly what is happening, he either follows screaming cops orders in seconds or out comes the punishment. It's laughable to invoke 'empathy' because they knew him since there seems to be over and over and over situations where showing a non-cop the slightest bit of empathy could easily keep a situation from turning violent rather than just start waving your gun/tazer and someone and screaming at them. Where's that supposed empathy in imagining you've gone from doing nothing wrong (most if the time) to armed rear end in a top hat yelling at you, empathy would make you realize being that person you've gone from zero to "holy poo poo angry cop pointing a gun and screaming what the gently caress what the duck what the gently caress" and maybe you won't be 'beep bop robot' and calmly follow directions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
