Black Lives Matter: to the tune of $4 each

[Jhhnn]

Just like a guy who dances to the his cars trunk and pulls out an M1 while to cop watches. Sounds crazy.
I wasn’t there, I need more info on this

Wut?

 

[DarthKyrie]

I see some on here are arguing that cops should be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. Why should we allow cops to do something that our own military isn't allowed to do against "enemies"?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Wut?

I know it sounds crazy read here

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/black-lives-matter-to-the-tune-of-4-each.2547526/#post-39445420

 

[Jhhnn]

I know it sounds crazy read here

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/black-lives-matter-to-the-tune-of-4-each.2547526/#post-39445420

The situations are in no way similar. From the testimony it's obvious that the deceased posed no significant danger to the cops after the garage door closed. The notion that he did is absurd. Back off, call for backup, bring in the negotiating team.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The situations are in no way similar. From the testimony it's obvious that the deceased posed no significant danger to the cops after the garage door closed. The notion that he did is absurd. Back off, call for backup, bring in the negotiating team.

Its been proven the garage door could easily be shot thru.
Again not apologizing for the police, I simply don't feel comfortable with the story and whats been presented.

 

[IJTSSG]

Life is so much easier when lived from the cheap seats and with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[Kobota]

Life is so much easier when lived from the cheap seats and with 20/20 hindsight.

Life is so much easier when your job allows you to kill anyone you wish without any serious threat of consequences.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its been proven the garage door could easily be shot thru.
Again not apologizing for the police, I simply don't feel comfortable with the story and whats been presented.

Please. The notion that the deceased closed the garage door so that he shoot at the cops thru it is far fetched. It's an absurd premise on which to shoot the guy.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Please. The notion that the deceased closed the garage door so that he shoot at the cops thru it is far fetched. It's an absurd premise on which to shoot the guy.

Look neither of us were there either so to state anything is absurd is well....absurd.
Just did a google search Washington posts states a police photo shows a visible gun in his pocket. A grand jury decided to not persue charges and another jury found the Police 1% liable. I haven’t seen the jury evidence but a jury of our peers agreed.
I’m not passing judgement on this event at this time. The whole story just sounds so bizarre there has to be more.

 

[mect]

I see some on here are arguing that cops should be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. Why should we allow cops to do something that our own military isn't allowed to do against "enemies"?

Our own military isn't allowed to shoot at a person until that person fires at them first? Link? I'm not arguing that cops should just shoot whomever, whenever, but at the same time, the requirement that a cop has to wait until someone shoots at them before returning fire is equally ridiculous. In my opinion, if someone tries to draw a firearm on an officer, that is when the officer is justified to shoot (or if a person is charging at them with a knife or similar situation that could result in severe injury or death). But for me it is similar to hunting. If you shoot, you'd better be damn sure you know what you're shooting at. The police officer needs to be 100% certain it's a gun. For this case, I'm not certain of the details, but based on my current understanding of the situation, I think the officer would have been justified shooting when the man was first brandishing the gun. After the garage door closed? Nope, at that point the danger is passed.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Our own military isn't allowed to shoot at a person until that person fires at them first? Link? I'm not arguing that cops should just shoot whomever, whenever, but at the same time, the requirement that a cop has to wait until someone shoots at them before returning fire is equally ridiculous. In my opinion, if someone tries to draw a firearm on an officer, that is when the officer is justified to shoot (or if a person is charging at them with a knife or similar situation that could result in severe injury or death). But for me it is similar to hunting. If you shoot, you'd better be damn sure you know what you're shooting at. The police officer needs to be 100% certain it's a gun. For this case, I'm not certain of the details, but based on my current understanding of the situation, I think the officer would have been justified shooting when the man was first brandishing the gun. After the garage door closed? Nope, at that point the danger is passed.

What I am referring to was a result of the Cold War when the USSR and the USA were terrified that some minor incident between the 2 nations could trigger a nuclear war. Both sides put out directives to not fire unless fired upon. It also refers to dealing with civilian populations, because killing civilians is considered a war crime. As far as the cops go this rule should apply to them too, there is a reason why they wear a bullet-proof vest to protect the most vital organs. So unless the person shooting gets in a headshot or nicks an artery the cop is likely to survive.

 

[woolfe9998]

No, I just understand that a cop does a dangerous job, and that requiring a higher bar to using deadly force will result in more dead cops. I would prefer for no one to ever die of violence, but I know that simply will not happen. So, if given the choice between cops killing innocent people and cops being killed because they are required to be more cautious, I will chose the dead cop over the dead civilian.

So if an armed man is threatening a bystander with a firearm, the cops shouldn't fire first? Is it only the cop's life that has less value, or is it also that of a bystander at risk?

Or how about this situation. Armed man has a gun to the head of a cop. Cop's partner is nearby with service weapon drawn. Does he fire first or let the guy kill the other cop just to make sure he's serious about it?

I'm pretty sure if the law you want was to be implemented, there would be markedly fewer people interested in careers in law enforcement, particularly in major cities with high violent crimes rates. I suppose that's fine if you don't think adequate policing is necessary.

 

[dank69]

Look neither of us were there either so to state anything is absurd is well....absurd.
Just did a google search Washington posts states a police photo shows a visible gun in his pocket. A grand jury decided to not persue charges and another jury found the Police 1% liable. I haven’t seen the jury evidence but a jury of our peers agreed.
I’m not passing judgement on this event at this time. The whole story just sounds so bizarre there has to be more.

Why does there have to be more? Is it so far fetched to think they could field a racist jury from the FL jury pool?

 

[Jaskalas]

I wasn’t there, I need more info on this

Unloaded gun in back pocket. Closed door, cops firing blind through it.

I don't need to be there to know they, at minimum, were not justified in killing the guy. At worse, they actively murdered him. IMO, being lenient is if they spend less than 10-20 behind bars.

 

[Darwin333]

Obviously the cops should have waited to get shot at before shooting.

Or, I dunno, taken cover which they could have easily done instead of firing blindly into a home.

 

[Darwin333]

"Newman claims that Hill had time between the first shot and the final shot to place the gun in his pocket because the head wound (which made motor function impossible) occurred last."

Wow, that is just crazy. "Shit, I just got shot what do I do?" 1/100th of a second later "Oh, let me put my gun in my back pocket instead of dropping to the ground, dropping the gun and grabbing my wound, trying to run or any other normal, usually involuntary fight or flight, human responses."

 

[Jhhnn]

"Newman claims that Hill had time between the first shot and the final shot to place the gun in his pocket because the head wound (which made motor function impossible) occurred last."

Wow, that is just crazy. "Shit, I just got shot what do I do?" 1/100th of a second later "Oh, let me put my gun in my back pocket instead of dropping to the ground, dropping the gun and grabbing my wound, trying to run or any other normal, usually involuntary fight or flight, human responses."

It's all bullshit. The deceased was obviously trying to disengage by closing the garage door. It's a no-brainer.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes I can, and I can do it with good conscience. I don't support the bad guy firing first either. But I certainly can't face some parent and tell them that their kid is dead because some cop was having a bad day and decided to fire before he was sure that their kid was a danger. I simply will not support anyone using deadly force except in the last resort, and I no longer trust that a police office will use good judgment on when to use deadly force.

I'd be happy if they were required to see a gun first.

 

[Darwin333]

I’m sorry, but if someone has a gun and starts to point it at a cop, I have no issue with that cop firing first.

Now don’t get me wrong in that I am saying that happened here.

Even if the guy did raise the gun at the officers here, I can see it being justified IF they had fired while the dour was still open. Once that door was closed, the imminent threat was gone.

You and I aren't always in total agreement but in this case we absolutely are.

 

[The Merg]

You and I aren't always in total agreement but in this case we absolutely are.

Even a broken clock, right? Now who’s the time and who’s the clock? LOL!

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

Its been proven the garage door could easily be shot thru.
Again not apologizing for the police, I simply don't feel comfortable with the story and whats been presented.

True but the cops moving a few steps to either side would take them out of any danger while the "bad guy" can't see them at all. I also completely dismiss the notion that he had a gun in his hand and was able to put it in his back pocket between being shot the first time and being headshot. Even if he wanted to for "reasons", even if he could somehow resist the involuntary fight or flight response, how long did he have between the first and third shot? Go down to your local range and try doing this yourself while someone else fires off three shots, remember you can't start until after the first shot is fired, and I bet you find it rather impossible. Then remember you aren't actually getting shot either. The entire premise is absurd.

 

[Darwin333]

Is it only the cop's life that has less value, or is it also that of a bystander at risk?

I don't agree with his notion that cops should be forced to be shot at before they return fire, I think that is absurd. With that said, as it stands now unarmed and even completely innocent "civilian" lives have less value than a cops life.

I put civilians in parentheses because people and (most, if not all) cops alike seem to have forgotten that cops are civilians too.

 

[Darwin333]

Even a broken clock, right? Now who’s the time and who’s the clock? LOL!

- Merg

Now that we probably won't agree on so let's just pretend we do agree and enjoy this high note for a bit longer

 

[The Merg]

True but the cops moving a few steps to either side would take them out of any danger while the "bad guy" can't see them at all. I also completely dismiss the notion that he had a gun in his hand and was able to put it in his back pocket between being shot the first time and being headshot. Even if he wanted to for "reasons", even if he could somehow resist the involuntary fight or flight response, how long did he have between the first and third shot? Go down to your local range and try doing this yourself while someone else fires off three shots, remember you can't start until after the first shot is fired, and I bet you find it rather impossible. Then remember you aren't actually getting shot either. The entire premise is absurd.

We agree again, kinda... I think there is definitely a chance he had the gun in his hand when the door opened. My guess is that as he closed the door, he put the gun in his pocket and then was shot trough the door.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

We agree again, kinda... I think there is definitely a chance he had the gun in his hand when the door opened. My guess is that as he closed the door, he put the gun in his pocket and then was shot trough the door.

- Merg

I reject that premise as well, it just doesn't make any sense for him to be closing the garage door with one hand and putting the gun in his pocket with the other hand. Once the garage door was closed he was no longer in view of the cops so why would he be doing these two things simultaneously? If there was at least some time between the two events I'd have a different view but given the very short amount of time, I just don't buy it. There was a post above that said there is a police picture of him with the gun visible in his back pocket which may have been what the cop saw and is far far more plausible.

Regardless, we both do agree that once the garage door was down the imminent danger was over so the use of deadly force was no longer warranted.

Edit: Don't forget that it was the cop that made the assertion that he put the gun in his pocket between getting shot the first time and getting shot in the head.

Edit 2:

Newman also asserts that Destiny Hill's testimony should be disregarded because it is contradicted by the physical evidence. But the physical evidence supports the inference that Hill was not holding a gun when Newman shot him. A gun was found in Hill's back pocket, not in his hand. Newman claims that Hill had time between the first shot and the final shot to place the gun in his pocket because the head wound (which made motor function impossible) occurred last. But that conclusion requires us to draw an inference in favor of Newman, which we will not do at the summary judgment stage. See Gilmore, 738 F.3d at 272. We conclude that there is a genuine dispute about whether Hill was holding a gun when he opened the garage door.