CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

Blaster said:
I would say yes, you should probably cooperate and act precisely as the police want you to when you have a firearm in your possession, legally or otherwise.

Having a CCW doesn't excuse you from being responsible for both parties.

That said, if what is quoted as having happened is what did happen, that he announced his CCW as he was reaching for his wallet/ID, then the officer most likely could not process the situation in time and fired out of panic after hearing the word 'gun'. If so then this is extremely poor training (or handling) and the officer should face at a minimum manslaughter charges, the dept should be fined, and a mandatory retraining program should be forced on all officers in the district.

Even if the cop is hysterical in the video, it doesn't excuse any potential negligence on the drivers part that would have lead up to this happening.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree you should. And it sounds to me as if he meant to comply, but maybe didn't do so exactly right. Announce you have a CCW: correct you have to do that. Show the cop your license: correct you have to do that. I guess the best thing to do would be to have the license out on your lap, or dashboard before the police even get to your door?

On the other hand, unless and until, someone actually has a weapon in their hand*, its always unjustifiable for LEO to shoot based on the assumption that there will be.

Unless there is a lapel video recording though its just he-said/she-said. There won't even be a trial.

*barring some sort of extreme circumstances that I'm sure one of our posters will come up with if I didn't put this clause in and still probably will

ETA: I'm unclear on what the underlined means
 
Last edited:
No attempt was made to give the driver any sort of first aid, instead he was held at gun point and they watched him die. The female passenger, who was clam and cooperative was treated like she was a danger to all of those armed police officers.

The US police force have repeatedly shown themselves to be trigger happy cowards who do not care about consequences.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
But what he'll get is paid administrative leave until the issue blows over.

What you suggest doesn't even happen when cops kill someone in cold blood. The issue is always "complex," and we need to "gather all the information," then press conferences are issued about how "mistakes were made," possibly "of a racial nature," and everyone involved keeps mumbling until the spotlight moves on.
Click to expand...

No, I agree. I'm talking what I'd like to see. I don't know how to do that, because it's political wagon circling. How does one break the cycle?
 
Something doing the rounds on FB "We live in a world where trained police officers are allowed to panic and act on impulse but untrained civilians are expected to stay calm and follow directions while a gun is pointed in their face."

And as to what can be done: a good starting point might be this article link

as an Air Force officer and pilot I knew the way safety investigations are conducted, and I was thinking that this was going to be conducted this way. Yet within 48 hours I got the message: The police had cleared themselves of all wrongdoing. In 48 hours! They hadn’t even taken statements from several eyewitnesses.
......
In April of this year we passed a law that made Wisconsin the first state in the nation to mandate at legislative level that police-related deaths be reviewed by an outside agency.
......................
I’m not anti-cop. And I am finding that many police want change as well: The good officers in the state of Wisconsin supported our bill from the inside, and it was endorsed by five police unions
Click to expand...
 
Blaster said:
No, I agree. I'm talking what I'd like to see. I don't know how to do that, because it's political wagon circling. How does one break the cycle?
Click to expand...
It's already happening. The sad thing about all these killings is that they aren't a new thing. Cops have ALWAYS done it, and lied about it, and gotten off more-or-less scot free. But civilian cameras are increasingly common, and sunlight is still the best disinfectant, so people and politicians are gradually coming around.

If you want to speed it up, find a high-profile case where the officer's buddies clearly act as accomplices to the crime, and charge them as such. There'll be a lot more pushback on that front, because it's an assault on one of the basic principles by which police officers conduct themselves. Even the "good" cops would rather shelter a murderer in their ranks than be labeled a snitch.
 
In April of this year we passed a law that made Wisconsin the first state in the nation to mandate at legislative level that police-related deaths be reviewed by an outside agency.

This is misleading. Every department is required by DOJ and various case law to have use-of-force reviews and reporting within the agency and use-of-deadly-force reviews by an independent agency. I don't know how many are legislative versus administration regulation or promulgated down form the state as opposed to up through the jurisdiction, so I'll accept for argument that the quote is facially correct.

For metro departments, use-of-deadly force reviews (I think)can be conducted interagency by an internal affairs department, but these departments cannot (or aren't supposed to) kind of co-mingle with everyday policing or police.

In Arkansas, every use of deadly force (even those not resulting in death) and every death in custody must be reported to and investigated by the Arkansas State Police. Use of force by the ASP is coincidentally reviewed by an ASP task force and the local jurisdiction. It's also a common occurrence that a grand jury will investigate where factual disputes exist.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
It's already happening. The sad thing about all these killings is that they aren't a new thing. Cops have ALWAYS done it, and lied about it, and gotten off more-or-less scot free. But civilian cameras are increasingly common, and sunlight is still the best disinfectant, so people and politicians are gradually coming around.

If you want to speed it up, find a high-profile case where the officer's buddies clearly act as accomplices to the crime, and charge them as such. There'll be a lot more pushback on that front, because it's an assault on one of the basic principles by which police officers conduct themselves. Even the "good" cops would rather shelter a murderer in their ranks than be labeled a snitch.
Click to expand...

Which leads us to a few questions. First, what constitutes a "good" cop? You'd think it was one that would not participate in any such cover up, but it turns out, not so much?

Second, what is the correct office to turn to here? At the moment, I'm thinking an independent DA that does not have to work with the local PD all the time, since we've seen local DAs get frozen out for any such prosecution. For that matter, recall the hysterical reaction to Bill Di Blasio saying that he taught his black son to be careful around police. I'm not so certain that the DOJ is the department to turn to, either - how often to they handle basic murder/manslaughter cases?
 
AdamSK said:
Yes, SG's summary of the incident appears accurate. My sympathy to Mr. Jones. It is good that the trooper is going to jail.
Click to expand...

But what did Mr. Jones do wrong to cause this to happen? He really should have done things differently and not gotten shot I am sure. Just go back to the thread here from the time that happened.

[URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283366]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283366[/URL]
 
Cylinder said:
In April of this year we passed a law that made Wisconsin the first state in the nation to mandate at legislative level that police-related deaths be reviewed by an outside agency.

This is misleading. Every department is required by DOJ and various case law to have use-of-force reviews and reporting within the agency and use-of-deadly-force reviews by an independent agency. I don't know how many are legislative versus administration regulation or promulgated down form the state as opposed to up through the jurisdiction, so I'll accept for argument that the quote is facially correct.

For metro departments, use-of-deadly force reviews (I think)can be conducted interagency by an internal affairs department, but these departments cannot (or aren't supposed to) kind of co-mingle with everyday policing or police.

In Arkansas, every use of deadly force (even those not resulting in death) and every death in custody must be reported to and investigated by the Arkansas State Police. Use of force by the ASP is coincidentally reviewed by an ASP task force and the local jurisdiction. It's also a common occurrence that a grand jury will investigate where factual disputes exist.
Click to expand...

Hmm the police department here was essentially exonerating themselves almost immediately after fatal shootings until a DOJ investigation a few years back.
 
lobosrul said:
Hmm the police department here was essentially exonerating themselves almost immediately after fatal shootings until a DOJ investigation a few years back.
Click to expand...

I believe the idea is that the local prosecutor counts as the independent agency.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Too many potential fuses for the situation to go horribly bad VERY quickly: Black guy, CCW, armed, jumpy cop also armed, car stop situation...

...and it did go wrong.

Heck, I'm NEVER going to hire a car again in the USA if this is how they issue tail-light tickets!
Click to expand...

This is the situation now, unfortunately. I don't think Americans are aware of how much the world sees the USA as a downward spiralling nation of armed bigots at war with their brown population. My wife is a member of an organization that has annual meetings rotating among different cities around the USA, and this year it was in Atlanta.

So... this is the year she stayed home. "I'm a black woman with a medical degree. Pretty much the definition of uppity negro who needs to be put in her place. It's not worth the risk." Her Muslim and Jewish coworkers all made the same decision. I think only two of the 40 people in her department went this year, versus 30 who went to the one in Honolulu.
 
Saw this rant yesterday (before the latest killing), and it's dead on right.

https://twitter.com/OnlyHipHopFacts/status/750736351675445248

As long as cops are unwilling to step up and lead the way, people are going to judge them. I've said this all the time, when you have bad people in your profession, the right thing to do is to get rid of them. Doctors need to lead the way to rid the world of bad doctors. Lawyers need to lead the way to get rid of bad lawyers. And cops need to lead the way to get rid of bad cops. And if they aren't going to do it, then they are part of the problem.

Step 1: Admit there is a problem. You have to admit that someone screwed up in order to fix it.
 
lobosrul said:
Yes I agree you should. And it sounds to me as if he meant to comply, but maybe didn't do so exactly right. Announce you have a CCW: correct you have to do that. Show the cop your license: correct you have to do that. I guess the best thing to do would be to have the license out on your lap, or dashboard before the police even get to your door?
Click to expand...

This is a common problem, and has contributed to several incidents escalating: conflicting or vague instructions, which cannot be obeyed correctly by the suspect.

Usually it's when more than one LEO is giving instructions: "Freeze" "Hands above your head" "Kneel Down" "Hands against the Car" - whatever the suspect does, three of the LEO will see him directly violate their direction, and are justified in shooting.

In this case, the victim had been given a script for when you're pulled over. The LEO was not going by the script. Now everybody's improvising and trying to interpret intentions.
 
Mumbles said:
Which leads us to a few questions. First, what constitutes a "good" cop? You'd think it was one that would not participate in any such cover up, but it turns out, not so much?
Click to expand...
The "good" cops are the vast majority of the police force who are not the rare "bad apples" what do the actual racist murdering. Of course, the meaning of the bad apple metaphor - that as long as there's a single bad apple remaining, there are no good apples - is the precise opposite of what they want it to mean, but that's the rhetoric.

Second, what is the correct office to turn to here? At the moment, I'm thinking an independent DA that does not have to work with the local PD all the time, since we've seen local DAs get frozen out for any such prosecution. For that matter, recall the hysterical reaction to Bill Di Blasio saying that he taught his black son to be careful around police. I'm not so certain that the DOJ is the department to turn to, either - how often to they handle basic murder/manslaughter cases?
Click to expand...
Yes, those are interesting and important questions. I don't know what might work, only that nothing we've tried so far has.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
The "good" cops are the vast majority of the police force who are not the rare "bad apples" what do the actual racist murdering. Of course, the meaning of the bad apple metaphor - that as long as there's a single bad apple remaining, there are no good apples - is the precise opposite of what they want it to mean, but that's the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

And then there are the snitches who report it when their partner murders someone. They get driven out of the department right quick. Good cops just cover for the bad ones, it doesn't make them bad after all.
 
Wudang said:
Something doing the rounds on FB "We live in a world where trained police officers are allowed to panic and act on impulse but untrained civilians are expected to stay calm and follow directions while a gun is pointed in their face."

....
Click to expand...

Very true, except it only happens in the USA, no where else in the world. Americans need to get their heads around that.

THIS ONLY HAPPENS IN THE USA AND IT HAPPENS REGULARLY.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
The "good" cops are the vast majority of the police force who are not the rare "bad apples" what do the actual racist murdering. Of course, the meaning of the bad apple metaphor - that as long as there's a single bad apple remaining, there are no good apples - is the precise opposite of what they want it to mean, but that's the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I think the extension of 'bad cop' was to what skeptics have come to call 'fellow travelers' in other contexts. "All Muslims share responsibility for every terrorist attack, if they do not immediately and publicly renounce their religion."

The cops who do not quit in disgust, by the same reasoning, are signalling their complicity.


Beelzebuddy said:
Yes, those are interesting and important questions. I don't know what might work, only that nothing we've tried so far has.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's hard to identify a truly independent party. The state is pretty united in their interest to obtain a high volume of convictions, which makes LEO and the DoJ and DA strongly interdependent and chummy.
 
paulhutch said:
I'm simply going by this direct quote from the article linked in the OP:


I have not watched the video, I'm simply going by the article quoting the girlfriend. If she was wrong, or misquoted and he was not reaching in his pockets/glove-box at the time he said he had a gun then of course my comment does not apply.

I think I heard her say the exact quoted words on NPR this morning but hey if there's any evidence she was misquoted or wrong I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

I have seen the video three times now. Your quote is not quite correct:
Bad idea, telling a cop at a stop that you have a gun while you are reaching for something the cop can't see. A more experienced cop would likely have told him to stop reaching and get out of the car. It's far safer to tell the cop either before or after, but not while, reaching for your ID.
Click to expand...

She said to the cop, "you told him to get his ID, he was reaching for his wallet, he told you he had a gun and a permit" or something close to that. The cop argued saying "I told him not to move his hands" and the girlfriend tells the cop that is not what he, the cop, said.

Clearly it was what the cop mistakenly assumed, but this is just like the Tamir Rice case, the cops don't give people time to comply before the cops shoot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom