CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

[alfaniner]

The traditional neighborhood parade has been cancelled because of this incident, citing "the forces are spread too thin". This was always one of my favorite parades to perform in (marching band) because it was short and I know very many of the people watching.

 

[quadraginta]

npr.org has the whole body cam video showing the cops shooting him. I don't know if posting the link of someone actually getting killed is OK here, but you can find it easily. I think it is pretty clear he wanted the police to shoot him.

<snip>

I don't think you are following the conversation here.

I'm not questioning whether or not he intended suicide by cop. I don't have any opinion on that one way or another. Unlike you and Ammonitida I don't think that the video makes that conclusion a slam-dunk.

Ammonitida offered the opinion that the shooting was 100% unjustified.

Was the shooting unjustified?

Yes. 100%

How can there be any debate? It's textbook suicide by cop.

​

My point is that if he was actually trying outright to provoke the cops into shooting him then that tends to lend a lot of weight to the argument that they were justified.

Is this what you are disagreeing with?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

I don't think you are following the conversation here.

I'm not questioning whether or not he intended suicide by cop. I don't have any opinion on that one way or another. Unlike you and Ammonitida I don't think that the video makes that conclusion a slam-dunk.

Ammonitida offered the opinion that the shooting was 100% unjustified.

​

My point is that if he was actually trying outright to provoke the cops into shooting him then that tends to lend a lot of weight to the argument that they were justified.
Is this what you are disagreeing with?

I said it looks to me like the guy wanted the cops to shoot him, which would make it justified. So we agree. I posted directions to the video of the shooting because it wasn't clear to me that everyone discussing it had seen it. I do confess I never feel good about cops shooting people who are already down on the ground and appear to be alive, but neutralized. It may be necessary and legal, but I can't see myself doing it if faced with a similar situation.

I don't really understand Ammonitida's comment about it being 100% unjustified as well as textbook suicide by cop, unless it means cops should be able to spot suicide-by-cop attempts and avoid shooting those who are trying to entice them into doing so. The problem with that is the first time the cops guess wrong they are dead.

 

[Ammonitida]

I don't think you are following the conversation here.

I'm not questioning whether or not he intended suicide by cop. I don't have any opinion on that one way or another. Unlike you and Ammonitida I don't think that the video makes that conclusion a slam-dunk.

Ammonitida offered the opinion that the shooting was 100% unjustified.

​

My point is that if he was actually trying outright to provoke the cops into shooting him then that tends to lend a lot of weight to the argument that they were justified.

Is this what you are disagreeing with?

I read the original question as asking if it was "justified". Clearly, it was.

It's certainly not comparable to the Sterling case which is much more murky since we can't see his right arm and the fact that there are two cops on top of him, though I doubt any charges will be brought against the officers over it.

 

[quadraginta]

I read the original question as asking if it was "justified". Clearly, it was.

<snip>

And just as clearly that was not the original question.

Was the shooting unjustified?

Yes. 100%

How can there be any debate? It's textbook suicide by cop.

​

Hence the confusion.

Read before responding, mebbe?

 

[Mumbles]

You have a habit of removing toys from their packaging ... and carrying them around the store (without the barcode attached) ?

Additional footage here, showing Crawford picking up the toy at roughly 0:20 - and not removing it from it's packaging.

Really, this has all been common knowledge for quite some time now.

 

[Mumbles]

We have to expect our cops to panic and be out of control, it is the public's responsibility to calm them down. Failure to do so gets what it deserves. This law abiding gun owner failed to properly account for police panic and died as a result as he clearly deserves.

There are a lot of problems with this premise (which usually goes unstated by the folks who rush to defend police in all circumstances), but I can see a rather obvious conclusion here.

These things go both ways. I see no reason for police to be granted such wide leeway in terms of using force, that anyone else shouldn't get as well. I do see some *need* for police to be allowed to use force, under limited circumstances, but nowhere near the level of "that teenaged girl talked back to me!" or "that girl wouldn't leave her seat in school!", or "that guy said the word 'gun'!"

Or, as yet another absurd example, this one here.

And, if policing is so terrifying that they need to be ready to blast people at any moment, then doesn't this both mean the same for other people, *and* mark police as roving threats to everyone's safety? In other words, how does this not justify shooting and killing police?

Personally, I'm against this "police are like angry bears protecting their cubs" view of police - it's amazingly insulting to police, and a clear argument for out-of-control violence. But I'm asking about the consequences of accepting that crappy idea.

 

[Ron Swanson]

So how often do you think the capital police hastle the white republican senators?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/13/the-senates-only-black-republican-just-got-real-on-race/

Excellent data ... basically he's rich AND part of the government and still gets hassled

Thanks for the info!

 

[Ron Swanson]

What's the point of issuing permits to be in possession of a firearm in public ... concealed, open, or whatever ... if simply admitting you have one is sufficient justification to instantly be gunned down on the spot by any jacked-up cop who loses his cool?

This is a VERY good point ... its like living in bizarre world

He wants to carry a legal firearm (we must assume form defence purposes) ... BUT his frequent interaction with local Police means he's going to DEFINATLEY get stopped again,

In this case he is more at danger from local Police Officers than from what ever (perceived?) threat he carries a firearm for

The concealed permit got him killed

BUT if he had of just shut up (no requirement to announce he has gun and carry permit in Minnesota) .. he'd be alive today.

Why would he announce his firearm when not required to do so ... Was he showing off? ... Just stupid (didn't read his own [half page] carry permit instructions?) ... Wanted to get shot? ... we'll never know?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Or, as yet another absurd example, this one here.

I wouldn't be surprised if that, or similar, things way more often than one would think. Black person gets stopped, asks why for, and subsequently gets arrested for obstruction - because the person dared to ask what it is about. This is why i tink that the oh-so-often presented numbers of high arrest rates compared to non-blacks are somewhat meaningless, unless they also show the various reasons for the arrests, and what became of the arrest later on.

It's easy to say "See, they get arrested twice as often! They are bad!". But what if then 3/4 of those arrests were unjustified?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Ron Swanson]

... a person gets stopped, asks why for, ...

I don't know the law word wide but everywhere in North America the Police are under NO obligation to tell you why your are being detained or arrested.

Your lawyer may be the first one to learn this.

That sounds wrong to me .. but it dose't matter it's the law.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Additional footage here, showing Crawford picking up the toy at roughly 0:20 - and not removing it from it's packaging.

Really, this has all been common knowledge for quite some time now.

Yes .. and for the record *I* don't feel it's right to be shot for stealing toys (of course) ... but it falls totally in the realm of "play stupid game win the stupid prize"

If I walk up to the precipice of a 3000 foot cliff and look over the edge (I've done this a number of times as a kid) and if I fall off? .. that's the stupid prize! ...

 

[Christian Klippel]

I don't know the law word wide but everywhere in North America the Police are under NO obligation to tell you why your are being detained or arrested.

Your lawyer may be the first one to learn this.

That sound wrong to me .. but it dose;t matter it's the law.

That may be so, but being asked a question still is no reason for arresting the person for alleged obstruction._That_ is the issue, not wether the cops answer or not, wether they need to or not.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Ron Swanson]

... being asked a question still is no reason for arresting the person for alleged obstruction....

Agree fully with that point

 

[jimbob]

I wouldn't be surprised if that, or similar, things way more often than one would think. Black person gets stopped, asks why for, and subsequently gets arrested for obstruction - because the person dared to ask what it is about. This is why i tink that the oh-so-often presented numbers of high arrest rates compared to non-blacks are somewhat meaningless, unless they also show the various reasons for the arrests, and what became of the arrest later on.

It's easy to say "See, they get arrested twice as often! They are bad!". But what if then 3/4 of those arrests were unjustified?

Greetings,

Chris

Have you read the US DoJ report into policing in Ferguson? It contains lots of examples like that.

 

[Ron Swanson]

... Or, as yet another absurd example, this one here....

Is it REALLY that absurd? ... The cop (obviously mistaken intros case) was in full belief the suspect had a warrant.

The suspect did not Identify himself and even said his name (only his first name) with an obvious "up-tone question mark" after it ... because nobody gives false info to cops right?

THEN he proceeds to start wresting with the cops??

When *I* am asked for my Identity from Police. I respond with my name and date of birth without hesitation (it's the law)

The other thing with the Taser is ... THAT is how it is SUPPOSED to be deployed .. at the START of an arrest to avoid wrestling and reduce possibility of injury to all parties.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't know the law word wide but everywhere in North America the Police are under NO obligation to tell you why your are being detained or arrested.

Your lawyer may be the first one to learn this.

That sounds wrong to me .. but it dose't matter it's the law.

So let's change the law.

 

[Mumbles]

Is it REALLY that absurd? ... The cop (obviously mistaken intros case) was in full belief the suspect had a warrant.

The suspect did not Identify himself and even said his name (only his first name) with an obvious "up-tone question mark" after it ... because nobody gives false info to cops right?

This is, again, similar to the "she was asking for it, wearing that short skirt" excuse. It's asking people for be ready for a cop to pop up and start asking random questions at any given moment, and if you answer with the wrong words, or the wrong tone, or you move "too fast" or "too slow", then it's your fault - and what constitutes the "wrong tone" or "wrong speed" are entirely at the individual cop's discretion.

The easy move for the cop, once the guy gave a name that didn't fit, is to say "Oh, you're Patrick? Do you have any ID?"

That didn't happen. And that's really just one good way to proceed. Asking for someone to confirm (not the guy standing right there, clearly", checking photos (they look nothing alike), asking for his last name, and so forth.

And if the cop truly thought he was dangerous, then why was he just walking up to him like that.

THEN he proceeds to start wresting with the cops??

No, the cop started wrestling with him. Again, most people don't simply comply with physical assault at a moment's notice - that's something that you need to train to do, and be prepared for even then.

When *I* am asked for my Identity from Police. I respond with my name and date of birth without hesitation (it's the law)

I doubt you'd be able to do this at a moment's notice, but even if you are, most people aren't.

Also, walking around constantly prepared for someone to jump out and start making demands, under penalty of arrest or violence, sounds horribly exhausting. The sort of thing that would cause people to just shut down, or lash out.

The other thing with the Taser is ... THAT is how it is SUPPOSED to be deployed .. at the START of an arrest to avoid wrestling and reduce possibility of injury to all parties.

It's too bad there was no reason to arrest him in the first place.

 

[Mumbles]

Yes .. and for the record *I* don't feel it's right to be shot for stealing toys (of course) ... but it falls totally in the realm of "play stupid game win the stupid prize"

Crawford was not stealing toys.

 

[Ron Swanson]

start asking random questions at any given moment,

He gave him THREE chances to simply state his name ... and he answered with his first name only posed as a question

I doubt you'd be able to do this at a moment's notice, but even if you are, most people aren't.

I live in a crappy area and yes it's happened a half dozen times ... not big deal, just let the constable know who you are, and keep your hands visible ... just basic curtesy and safety.

The easy move for the cop, once the guy gave a name that didn't fit, ..... And if the cop truly thought he was dangerous, then why was he just walking up to him like that.

Can't argue with that yes the cop was not preceding very un-logicaly ... seemed like a bit of a dick at least racist at worst.

Again, most people don't simply comply with physical assault at a moment's notice - that's something that you need to train to do, and be prepared for even then.

I suggest people in disadvantaged areas practice complying ... if you relax your arms when a cop grabs you it goes easier on everyone.

It's too bad there was no reason to arrest him in the first place.

Also cannot argue there ... poor police work .. and a waste of everyone's time .. very poor policing and procedures ... just lazy and not logical. .

My point is the young man being detained could have handled it better ... and YES I agree, THAT should NOT be necessary!, ... but frankly it just is