|
Kalman posted:From the article you posted as evidence of your claim: Ahahahahahahaha you didn't even read the whole article and you're acting all high and mighty about it. God bless the internet. Edit: I even clearly excised the relevant part of the article for you and that wasn't enough. Do you need someone to go to your house and point at the words directly? Lemming fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jul 13, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Kalman posted:From the article you posted as evidence of your claim: The 'nearly a half hour' is probably someone writing it down wrong but there are exact times in the line above. 11:30 to 12:17. Also, the 'nearly a half hour' was the spokesman for the prosecutors office. The prosecutor himself said that it took 30 minutes for the pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Ahahahahahahaha you didn't even read the whole article and you're acting all high and mighty about it. God bless the internet. Higher priority to minimize bad actors in the justice system I guess. I would like to see one of the local papers do a story on 9-11 calls to homes of all officers in the department and see if any other women are at risk. edit: Well that was easier than expected. Emailed the journalist and he replied 12 minutes later. quote:Great idea, DARPA. Will check it out. DARPA fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Ahahahahahahaha you didn't even read the whole article and you're acting all high and mighty about it. God bless the internet. The article says that the event took 51 minutes. The prosecutor says it took 30 minutes, and also that the photos took 30 minutes. I'll fully admit that I don't know when the prosecutor was accurate and when he wasn't, but I do know that I don't actually think that what he said is necessarily going to turn out to be accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The article says that the event took 51 minutes. The prosecutor says it took 30 minutes, and also that the photos took 30 minutes. Where does the prosecutor say the entire event took 30 minutes? He says that the murderer was in a stand off with the cops for about half an hour, and the photos took about half an hour. This makes sense because the standoff they're referring to is the period after he shot his ex-wife, then they got the kid out of the car, then he went back and shot his ex-wife some more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
If the active shooter policies aren't applicable, then what is the police best practice when a person has shot their only hostage and is standing over them? Not to mention that the shooter was threatening to kill any aid workers who would like to save that person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Where does the prosecutor say the entire event took 30 minutes? He says that the murderer was in a stand off with the cops for about half an hour, and the photos took about half an hour. This makes sense because the standoff they're referring to is the period after he shot his ex-wife, then they got the kid out of the car, then he went back and shot his ex-wife some more. Except that the cops arrived right away and witnessed the first shooting, so the timeline doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
could someone post a link to an article about the incident?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:could someone post a link to an article about the incident? Eyewitness saw woman shot by off-duty Neptune cop Neptune cop charged with shooting, killing ex-wife in front of daughter Neptune cop had threatened wife with gun before, divorce papers say What cops gave Neptune officer to get him to surrender during fatal shooting IN DEPTH: Blue wall of silence in Seidle case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Crazy person does crazy thing? Why is this in the criminal justice thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Crazy person does crazy thing? Why is this in the criminal justice thread? Because that crazy person was allowed to shoot someone while the cops said kind words to try and call him down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
And he's totally not going to be convicted because the fact people struggled to shoot someone they know means he's going to get away with murder. Also, having worked with more than a few prosecutors whose extemporaneous speaking skills blow, I can say odds of a prosecutor loving up a timeline are pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:There's a difference between a person's informal definition of active shooter (someone who is actively shooting someone else) and whatever the gently caress strawman you're constructing this time. The argument over this term began because someone was attempting to using this "informal" definition to apply the police policy regarding the actual definition. Also using the term "active shooter" in an "informal" way in the context of a conversation where the actual term of art is extremely relevant just flags you to anyone with a modicum of training as not having the slightest idea what you're talking about. Sorry if the adults wanting to have an actual conversation about the incident and treat words like they have actual meanings is getting in the way of your raging against the machine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
But Jarmak, google tells me that this procedure it what you do for a completely different scenario and the words sound the same to me. So stop being a jackboot fascist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Crazy person does crazy thing? Why is this in the criminal justice thread? Because the cops in this case just stood around and watched while this particular crazy person, who is a cop, shot up his ex-wife. He'd already shot her some before the police got there, mind you, but they let him shoot her up a bit more. Then, instead of forcing the murderer, who is their colleague, to surrender, or shooting him so they could provide medical assistance to the injured woman bleeding to death in the car, they spent 30 minutes compiling a photo album of his kids. When he surrendered they gave him hugs and told him they loved him. The woman they allowed him to murder died in the hospital.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because that crazy person was allowed to shoot someone while the cops said kind words to try and call him down. So we're doing the, "Here is what police should have done in that life or death situation" thing again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:So we're doing the, "Here is what police should have done in that life or death situation" thing again? Yes. There are people who believe that police should be held accountable for their actions, even in life or death situations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:So we're doing the, "Here is what police should have done in that life or death situation" thing again? At least this time it was an actual life or death situation instead of 'black man = imminent threat of nuclear explosion'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
I keep listening to the eyewitness statements and they're saying he rammed her car, jumped out and shot her, and then put the gun to his head when police officer approached. I don't get it, they're saying he shot her before the cops even got there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I keep listening to the eyewitness statements and they're saying he rammed her car, jumped out and shot her, and then put the gun to his head when police officer approached. Cops can't decide if someone's dead or not, they should have acted as if she was still alive, yet they let him shoot at her more times after they were already there. Then instead of quickly neutralizing him while calling for medics they spent a half hour making a collage of pictures of his children to calm him down. e: note that she died at the hospital, not at the scene
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I keep listening to the eyewitness statements and they're saying he rammed her car, jumped out and shot her, and then put the gun to his head when police officer approached. He did shoot her before the cops got there, though that first time cops were in the area anyway so they showed up very quickly afterwards. After they showed up is when he started putting the gun to his head, though at some point he stopped doing that long enough to shoot the (still alive at this point) victim again. Terraplane fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The argument over this term began because someone was attempting to using this "informal" definition to apply the police policy regarding the actual definition. Also using the term "active shooter" in an "informal" way in the context of a conversation where the actual term of art is extremely relevant just flags you to anyone with a modicum of training as not having the slightest idea what you're talking about. In the interest of bringing balance to the 'sperg can we just agree to call him "shooty shooty bad man" and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
I guess I just don't get it. If they start a shootout in that crowded neighborhood, and a young black kid gets hit in the crossfire, you guys would have the exact opposite opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I guess I just don't get it. If they start a shootout in that crowded neighborhood, and a young black kid gets hit in the crossfire, you guys would have the exact opposite opinions. I doubt it. Stopping an armed murderer who has just shot someone is something that I think everyone supports. Someone getting caught in the crossfire is unfortunate, but that underscores the importance of stopping an armed murderer from continuing to shoot people in a populated area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I guess I just don't get it. If they start a shootout in that crowded neighborhood, and a young black kid gets hit in the crossfire, you guys would have the exact opposite opinions. There's always a risk to bystanders when shooting. That's part of why shooting on flimsy pretexts is bad. This wasn't a flimsy pretext. This is not complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I guess I just don't get it. If they start a shootout in that crowded neighborhood, and a young black kid gets hit in the crossfire, you guys would have the exact opposite opinions. Ya totally, if they started firing someone could have gotten killed!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I keep listening to the eyewitness statements and they're saying he rammed her car, jumped out and shot her, and then put the gun to his head when police officer approached. Then he shot her again. After he put the gun to his head then took it away from his head, walked around to the front of the car and shot her again. Then the cops waiting for 20+ minutes before even asking if she was ok, then they took her murderer's word for it that she was dead. She later died in the hospital.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:There's a difference between a person's informal definition of active shooter (someone who is actively shooting someone else) and whatever the gently caress strawman you're constructing this time. That's literally the argument Lemming made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Ok, just to confirm: Your 'argument' is that you would have done things differently in those police officers' shoes? An from their perceived incompetence, according to D&D's Hostage Situation Handbook, you're extrapolating that it was actually cronyism that led to this woman's death, and not the careful, delicate handling of the situation that saved her daughter's life?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Then he shot her again. After he put the gun to his head then took it away from his head, walked around to the front of the car and shot her again. I think she was only pronounced dead at the hospital (because that's where there was someone who was able to pronounce her), is there a source that says she was alive at any point after they finally got her attention? The important thing is that she could have been alive, and her chances of surviving went down every minute they delayed. That's all the officers needed to know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:The important thing is that she could have been alive, and her chances of surviving went down every minute they delayed. That's all the officers needed to know. That's all anyone in this thread needs to know, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
So police respond to gunshots and see, let's say, a black teenager. They think there is another black teenager in the car, possibly shot. Possibly bleeding. There is a kid in the car too. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot the kid if they draw their weapon. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot himself or them if they draw their weapon. They have no way to know the extent of the injuries to the teen in the car. Shoot the gunman or talk him down?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's literally the argument Lemming made. Yes, because in this case the "term of art" is bad and uses words that people would use anyway. An active shooter could be a guy with a knife. If you're making the distinction that he wasn't an "active shooter" in the legal or police or whatever sense, that's one thing, but since a lot of this conversation is related to the timeline, as in whether the cops should have done something because of whether or not the guy was actively shooting, it's perfectly reasonable to say "why didn't the cops do anything about this guy when he was an active shooter?" This conversation is not just limited to former or active cops, prosecutors, or military people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yes, because in this case the "term of art" is bad and uses words that people would use anyway. An active shooter could be a guy with a knife. If you're making the distinction that he wasn't an "active shooter" in the legal or police or whatever sense, that's one thing, but since a lot of this conversation is related to the timeline, as in whether the cops should have done something because of whether or not the guy was actively shooting, it's perfectly reasonable to say "why didn't the cops do anything about this guy when he was an active shooter?" This conversation is not just limited to former or active cops, prosecutors, or military people. Ok. Then don't pull up the official police protocol on active shooter response if you don't want to be stuck with the police definition of active shooter which is probably on page one of the loving protocol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:and not the careful, delicate handling of the situation that saved her daughter's life? Her daughter was out of the car before the second shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Her daughter was out of the car before the second shooting. Report I read said simultaneous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So police respond to gunshots and see, let's say, a black teenager. They think there is another black teenager in the car, possibly shot. Possibly bleeding. There is a kid in the car too. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot the kid if they draw their weapon. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot himself or them if they draw their weapon. They have no way to know the extent of the injuries to the teen in the car. Shoot the gunman or talk him down? IRL, likely shot dead upon arrival at the scene. More likely, if we navigate out of the current climate, guns are drawn by LE already while trying to talk shooter down; if he threatens victim again, drop him like a bad habit. Not the "perfect" scenario, but the victim seems to be more important at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So police respond to gunshots and see, let's say, a black teenager. They think there is another black teenager in the car, possibly shot. Possibly bleeding. There is a kid in the car too. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot the kid if they draw their weapon. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot himself or them if they draw their weapon. They have no way to know the extent of the injuries to the teen in the car. Shoot the gunman or talk him down? They should arrive at the scene and assess the situation and act accordingly (obviously). If the gunman starts shooting into the car again, right in front of them, like in the case we're talking about, they should shoot him. The thing that stands out about this case is that normally, yes, there's a lot of nuance and uncertainty and second guessing and bad information. In this specific case, a man shoots someone right in front of cops, and the cops make him a figurative scrapbook and then give him literal hugs. Edit: ActusRhesus posted:Ok. Then don't pull up the official police protocol on active shooter response if you don't want to be stuck with the police definition of active shooter which is probably on page one of the loving protocol. Right, and the guy Dead Reckoning was responding to didn't do that. The derail started thirty loving pages ago, and a different layperson said the words "active shooter" which set him off again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Her daughter was out of the car before the second shooting. Thanks to the way cops were handing the situation. Is "heroes" too strong a word?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thanks to the way cops were handing the situation. Is "heroes" too strong a word? Good loving Christ!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:04
|
|