CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

Hlafordlaes said:
Given that it is stupid America that has guns and/or items looking like lethal weapons sitting unprotected on store shelves, the first stupid prize goes to the general public, who have yet to man up and start processing simple facts.

The next stupid prize goes to the racist caller who can see white shoppers look at merchandise, but thinks blacks who do so are criminal terrorists.

The next stupid prize goes to the cops for shooting a kid who had already dropped the toy.

The final stupid prize goes to non-analytical self-serving BS that justifies the death of innocents.
Click to expand...

All correct. A society where many do not think there is anything wrong with the police's actions in this case is a very damaged one.
 
It's apparently reasonable that a large portion of the population be armed with guns so that any chance encounter with a police officer escalates to a life and death confrontation, simply because the cops can't be sure whether or not they are armed.

These are third world problems, not something that you'd expect from "the worlds greatest and most prosperous country on earth".
 
Arcade22 said:
These are third world problems, not something that you'd expect from "the worlds greatest and most prosperous country on earth".
Click to expand...

The thing is, the US is the world's greatest and most prosperous third world country.
 
Nessie said:
The police just run in and shoot him :jaw-dropp.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that this took place in an "open carry" state - meaning that if he *had* been carrying an actual rifle, he would be perfectly within the law to do so.

I know. Personally, if I'm anywhere, and a bunch of guys walk in carrying military-style guns, I'm leaving immediately. But as the law currently stands, Crawford was perfectly fine doing what he was doing - and yet, neither cop was so much as taken to a trial, much less convicted.

Also, a second person died of a heart attack while fleeing in the ensuing panic.

The linked videos of the reporter and his gross exaggeration and lies about what Crawford had been doing with the gun help to partly explain the police's actions. But still, did they even enquire with the shop about selling toy guns?
Click to expand...

Well, the 911 caller was rightfully indicted - a month or two ago, as I recall, so that took over a year.

That shooting is one of the ones hanging in the background for this latest one.
 
It was suggested in another thread that perhaps we need a professional review group -- something like the National Transportation Safety Board -- that could come in, investigate these type of incidents and make recommendations.

The troublesome part of the Beavercreek Walmart shooting is, Beavercreek is a small town where there have only been two fatal police shootings in the town's history. Both times the officer who fired was Sean Williams. Both times there was another officer present but only Williams fired.

The first incident in 2010 was a domestic dispute involving a highly intoxicated retired Air Force sergeant. Williams claimed he was forced to shoot when Scott Brogli charged at Williams with a kitchen knife. Brogli's 17-year-old son was a witness to the shooting and I don't think he backed up the officer's story, at least not completely.

Is Sean Williams just very unlucky or is he a trigger happy cop? That seems to be a legitimate question and one the public has a right to have answered.
 
Mumbles said:
It's worth noting that this took place in an "open carry" state - meaning that if he *had* been carrying an actual rifle, he would be perfectly within the law to do so.

I know. Personally, if I'm anywhere, and a bunch of guys walk in carrying military-style guns, I'm leaving immediately. But as the law currently stands, Crawford was perfectly fine doing what he was doing - and yet, neither cop was so much as taken to a trial, much less convicted.

Also, a second person died of a heart attack while fleeing in the ensuing panic.

Well, the 911 caller was rightfully indicted - a month or two ago, as I recall, so that took over a year.

That shooting is one of the ones hanging in the background for this latest one.
Click to expand...

Since it is an open carry state there is no justifiable reason for the shooting at all. It has gone nuts. No wonder people are seeking revenge on the police.
 
One woman shot/killed, others injured last night over North. A child killed and 2 injured last weekend.

Yet BLM is having a protest against the police at a shopping mall in a predominantly white neighborhood. Hypocrites.
 
Christian Klippel said:
Thanks, i will read it in full in the next few days. From the excerpts you posted it seems to pretty much confirm my suspicions. Of course that report is for the Ferguson PD only, but looking at other reports regarding the treatment of black people by the police, it stands to reason that this problem is more widespread than some would like to admit.

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

As you say, there's no particular reason to believe that Ferguson PD was an outlier.

Indeed, if you look at the vehicle stop, search and arrest rates (which the DoJ report rightly flags up as evidence of racial bias) Ferguson is *better* than the average for the state of Missouri.

I'll try to dig that up later too.
 
Yeggster said:
When *I* am asked for my Identity from Police. I respond with my name and date of birth without hesitation (it's the law)
Click to expand...

Yeggster said:
That's a stretch in my opinion ... technically you're require to give first, last, middle initial, birth date, and home address as well ... maybe it's not common knowledge? ... but every kid in my neighbourhood knows this.
Click to expand...

FYI - In many states in USA you are not legally required to identify yourself to the police except when driving and a few other special circumstances. However when you do not identify yourself, if they have a reasonable suspicion, the police are allowed to detain you until they can identify and verify the identification.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/09/can-you-refuse-to-identify-yourself-to-police-officers.html

Of course the interaction always goes smoother if you do identify yourself fully when asked by police and refusal often leads to very inconvenient outcomes for you.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
As you say, there's no particular reason to believe that Ferguson PD was an outlier.

Indeed, if you look at the vehicle stop, search and arrest rates (which the DoJ report rightly flags up as evidence of racial bias) Ferguson is *better* than the average for the state of Missouri.

I'll try to dig that up later too.
Click to expand...

https://ago.mo.gov/home/vehicle-stops-report?lea=161

In Ferguson in 2015, Blacks were 1.39 times more likely to be stopped than whites, the average in Missouri as a whole was 1.61 times


Mind you this story form 2009 shows that Ferguson PD could demonstrate initiative... in thinking up reasons to charge someone,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...erguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

Arrest the wrong man, beat him up and then charge him with criminal damage - specifically, bleeding on Officers' Uniforms.
 
paulhutch said:
FYI - In many states in USA you are not legally required to identify yourself to the police except when driving and a few other special circumstances...
Click to expand...

As even the ACLU has advised, in cases where citizens do have the right to decline to produce ID, when the police HAVE NO reasonable suspicion with which to demand your ID, exercising that right is very likely to lead to your arrest. Nothing is more frustrating to a citizen then being arrested by a police officer who refuses to follow the law.

Again, I would like to see an NTSB-style law enforcement review agency formed that could objectively review these kinds of police actions. An example would be a police department that has a history of ID-demanding confrontations that lead to arrests that are later dismissed. Then an impartial review agency could step in and take a look. I think that would help a lot.

It's not 1966 anymore. :(
 
Last edited:
This seems to be of no relevance to this particular case (although it is useful in general) The officer asked Patrick "What's your name?" Patrick first asked why, and then answered, twice "Patrick". In other words, he answered the officer's question. Since the officer never asked for an address or an ID, Patrick likely didn't think he had to provide either.
 
jimbob said:
https://ago.mo.gov/home/vehicle-stops-report?lea=161

In Ferguson in 2015, Blacks were 1.39 times more likely to be stopped than whites, the average in Missouri as a whole was 1.61 times


Mind you this story form 2009 shows that Ferguson PD could demonstrate initiative... in thinking up reasons to charge someone,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...erguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

Arrest the wrong man, beat him up and then charge him with criminal damage - specifically, bleeding on Officers' Uniforms.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. Compared to state-wide number it is pretty clear that there is something really amiss in Ferguson PD. And in the county itself as well, compared to the nationwide figures.

Yes, i already knew about the case you linked to. It's simply astonishing that there were no perjury charges against the cops, in such a clear case. This goes to show that the problem goes much deeper than just the police.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Human nature is such that when a group is criticized, the group often gets into a siege mentality. To me, the behaviour of a lot of US police forces when faced with criticism, including the not ratting on a fellow cop, could be explained by this.
 
Mumbles said:
<snip>

The linked videos of the reporter and his gross exaggeration and lies about what Crawford had been doing with the gun help to partly explain the police's actions. But still, did they even enquire with the shop about selling toy guns?
Click to expand...


Well, the 911 caller was rightfully indicted - a month or two ago, as I recall, so that took over a year.

<snip>
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if I concur with "rightfully". Was it determined that the caller provided erroneous information maliciously.

Even if they had, I'm not sure it should matter.

This same feeble, lukewarm excuse for the behavior of the police has been proffered as a defense for the behavior of the cops in the Rice killing. I don't buy it.

911 calls by their very nature are going to be rife with errors and exaggerations. They are generally brief, rushed, and often being made by people in a state of near panic, panic, and/or hysteria. This don't even include any transcription errors made by the 911 operators themselves, who are at least as rushed and stressed much of the time.

If cops enter blindly into a situation ready to react based solely on the dispatch from a 911 operator, without doing even the simplest, most basic reconnoiter of the actual situation as it is actually presented when they arrive on the scene, then it baffles me how anyone could find the 911 caller culpable while at the same time holding blameless the cops who didn't even bother to assess the real conditions before they rushed in with guns blazing.

This is cop apologia at its very worst. Scapegoating anyone they can get away with while evading any responsibility for their own actions.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Given that it is stupid America that has guns and/or items looking like lethal weapons sitting unprotected on store shelves, the first stupid prize goes to the general public, who have yet to man up and start processing simple facts.

The next stupid prize goes to the racist caller who can see white shoppers look at merchandise, but thinks blacks who do so are criminal terrorists.

The next stupid prize goes to the cops for shooting a kid who had already dropped the toy.

The final stupid prize goes to non-analytical self-serving BS that justifies the death of innocents.
Click to expand...

It's easy to see that point of view :( ... I tend to agree on most points.
 
banquetbear said:
...do you live on an army base? Or a police state?

According to this cite:



http://svan.ca/police-rights/

If every kid in your neighbourhood "knows" they have to give first, last, middle initial, birth date, and home address: then they all "know wrong." But I very much doubt every kid in your neighbourhood knows this at all.
Click to expand...

You're required to identify yourself (verbally is fine) any time a cop asks ... it's the law.
 
jimbob said:
Human nature is such that when a group is criticized, the group often gets into a siege mentality. To me, the behaviour of a lot of US police forces when faced with criticism, including the not ratting on a fellow cop, could be explained by this.
Click to expand...

That could most certainly be a part, maybe even the biggest part, of it, yes.

What i found interresting about the Ferguson stats you linked to is the fact that rate of contraband found per search is higher for white people, the number of arrests OTOH is again higher for black people. So black people are stopped more often, searched more often and arrested more often, but contraband is less often found with them. This is a bit suspicious, i think.

I really think that such stats have to include the reasons for the arrests, split up in broad categories, and what became of them afterwards. It's easy to trump up charges to arrest someone. Then it shows up in the stats as just another arrest. But when shortly after the person is released, or in a trial it was found that the arrest charges were wrong, that number isn't taken off of the stats. I think that is problematic.

Greetings,

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom