Does this look justified? Pasco Police Shoot & Kill Man Throwing Rocks

[jlee]

how can a taser not be effective?

seriously has there ever been a case where it wasn't?

Yes.

 

[MarkXIX]

It's a good thing you were there so you know exactly what happened.

Yeah, good thing I was up north at the time. Good thing I saw the report come across and called him to see if everything was okay there. What's your point?

I had my own shit to deal with at the time, thank you very much.

 

[jlee]

Yeah, good thing I was up north at the time. Good thing I saw the report come across and called him to see if everything was okay there. What's your point?

I had my own shit to deal with at the time, thank you very much.

My point is you have a pretty unwavering opinion with your entire argument being based on 3rd party accounts and shitty cell phone video.

They went from "Oh shit, that Taser missed...fuck it, he's running, let's shoot at him!"

 

[skyking]

That looks bad. Not going to say more now, but it looks terrible to me.

 

[Udgnim]

guy threw rock, he missed, police see that he misses but react with gun shooting

unjustified

guy runs away, stands ground, brings up arm to what can be a throwing motion

justified

should have tasered him either way unless he's running straight at you with a rock

 

[MarkXIX]

My point is you have a pretty unwavering opinion with your entire argument being based on 3rd party accounts and shitty cell phone video.

That's the problem, there are too many people who want to sit back and observe ANY amount of bad behavior and just go right on ahead and say "Well, were you there? Nope, well then...." and dismiss it.

I pay these guys, they gotta do better. I want to know how much MORE I have to pay now because of their bullshit. How much is that civil suit and/or settlement going to cost me as a taxpayer? How about that business owner or car owner who has bullet holes from that first set of shots?

Point being, if it is more difficult and there's a higher standard for lethal force in a fucking war zone than there is right here in our streets, well, the train has gone off the damn tracks. The Army puts people who simply ordered people to shoot when they shouldn't have in prison and yet jury after jury let's officers like this get off easy. Look up Clint Lorance sometime. There's many more like him and these guys didn't directly kill anyone, they ordered it in a war zone and they're serving time because their piss poor decisions killed people. Police in this country should have the same standard held to them by the public and it just doesn't appear to be happening.

 

[Paladin3]

That looks bad. Not going to say more now, but it looks terrible to me.

That was my reaction at first. I know for a fact that cops are trained not to take any chances with their lives, so if something like taking to a rock to the head is about to happen then they are cleared to shoot.

If it were me, I would hope I would want to go hands on rather than shoot the guy, but it's hard to say I wouldn't shoot. I've got a family and I enjoy living. Would I be willing to risk all of that for a guy like the suspect in this story? Nobody gets paid that much.

I met a cop once who was injured and had to be retired from duty because he ran into a burning building and pulled someone out. It was a selfless act of heroism to save a life, but I don't think I want him taking a possible rock to the head without shooting back. I don't value the life of the suspect assaulting him that much over his.

 

[Paladin3]

That's the problem, there are too many people who want to sit back and observe ANY amount of bad behavior and just go right on ahead and say "Well, were you there? Nope, well then...." and dismiss it.

I pay these guys, they gotta do better. I want to know how much MORE I have to pay now because of their bullshit. How much is that civil suit and/or settlement going to cost me as a taxpayer? How about that business owner or car owner who has bullet holes from that first set of shots?

Point being, if it is more difficult and there's a higher standard for lethal force in a fucking war zone than there is right here in our streets, well, the train has gone off the damn tracks. The Army puts people who simply ordered people to shoot when they shouldn't have in prison and yet jury after jury let's officers like this get off easy. Look up Clint Lorance sometime. There's many more like him and these guys didn't directly kill anyone, they ordered it in a war zone and they're serving time because their piss poor decisions killed people. Police in this country should have the same standard held to them by the public and it just doesn't appear to be happening.

How much would taxpayers and society pay if crime went rampant? How much would it cost us if we suffered a breakdown in law and order? How much would it cost if the entire country was Detroit/Camden, NJ/St. Louis x10?

The difference between the police and citizens is that a citizen only has to protect himself. Cops are sent out to protect others from bad guys doing bad things. The have to actually stop the guy and take him into custody, not just protect themselves from him.

I wish everyone would just play nice and get along, but it's not going to happen. Someone has to keep order. Do you want to do it? Do you have some plan that will make all the bad guys play nice?

 

[jlee]

That's the problem, there are too many people who want to sit back and observe ANY amount of bad behavior and just go right on ahead and say "Well, were you there? Nope, well then...." and dismiss it.

I pay these guys, they gotta do better. I want to know how much MORE I have to pay now because of their bullshit. How much is that civil suit and/or settlement going to cost me as a taxpayer? How about that business owner or car owner who has bullet holes from that first set of shots?

Point being, if it is more difficult and there's a higher standard for lethal force in a fucking war zone than there is right here in our streets, well, the train has gone off the damn tracks. The Army puts people who simply ordered people to shoot when they shouldn't have in prison and yet jury after jury let's officers like this get off easy. Look up Clint Lorance sometime. There's many more like him and these guys didn't directly kill anyone, they ordered it in a war zone and they're serving time because their piss poor decisions killed people. Police in this country should have the same standard held to them by the public and it just doesn't appear to be happening.

Perhaps some of us like to wait for further information to come to light before conclusively deciding what actually happened.

Remember how public witness testimony varied so much from actual grand jury testimony in the Ferguson debacle? Same general idea.

 

[notposting]

They should have let him off with a warning.

And then gone after the real criminal: whoever was taking that vertical video.

"TURN THE CAMERA SIDEWAYS RIGHT NOW!" *ZZZZTTTT* whack whack whack

 

[jlee]

How much would taxpayers and society pay if crime went rampant? How much would it cost us if we suffered a breakdown in law and order? How much would it cost if the entire country was Detroit/Camden, NJ/St. Louis x10?

I wish everyone would just play nice and get along, but it's not going to happen. Someone has to keep order. Do you want to do it? Do you have some plan that will make all the bad guys play nice?

If everybody who thought they could do a better job would sign up, this whole problem could resolve itself. Somehow, they never seen to do it.

 

[skyking]

It looked bad just from the aspect of live rounds and that many people around. I don't want the police firing off rounds for a guy throwing rocks around me or my loved ones.

 

[MarkXIX]

If everybody who thought they could do a better job would sign up, this whole problem could resolve itself. Somehow, they never seen to do it.

Both of you are setting up bullshit arguments and you know it. That's okay, it's the internet, you can do that and it is okay.

No one is asking for cops to die needlessly. No one is asking officers to get LESS of anything other than to be LESS aggressive and resort to deadly force LESS. You know, that whole "To Serve and Protect" thing they all kind of agree to? They HAVE to accept that serve and protect refers to the population, not just themselves. They've lost focus and here's a whole generation of police management and leadership who had their "Vietnam" during Rodney King and 9/11 and thousands of hours of Youtube videos that convince them that they're going to die on the side of a road after watching a shooting uploaded from 1978 when officers didn't have body armor.

Imagine how much more money the police could have for less than lethal training and equipment and the increased range time and training time if their taxpayers weren't forking over so much money on damages in civil suits?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

That was my reaction at first. I know for a fact that cops are trained not to take any chances with their lives, so if something like taking to a rock to the head is about to happen then they are cleared to shoot.

If it were me, I would hope I would want to go hands on rather than shoot the guy, but it's hard to say I wouldn't shoot. I've got a family and I enjoy living. Would I be willing to risk all of that for a guy like the suspect in this story? Nobody gets paid that much.

I met a cop once who was injured and had to be retired from duty because he ran into a burning building and pulled someone out. It was a selfless act of heroism to save a life, but I don't think I want him taking a possible rock to the head without shooting back. I don't value the life of the suspect assaulting him that much over his.

dont think that just cuz a cop is on disability or was retired cuz of injury that its legit:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-cops-firefighters-massive-911-fraud-indictment/story?id=21445783

this scamming by the cops after 9/11 supposedly cost an estmated $400 million

public workers and their unions are experts at scam the taxpayers/system

 

[irishScott]

First, a rock thrown at that distance wouldn't have enough velocity to be unavoidable. If those cops have their adrenaline going and all their senses turned on and tuned in, they'd easily duck or mitigate the force of anything thrown.

Here's a story from a peer of mine from an experience they had in Afghanistan, Kandahar province. As they were driving through a village, a teenaged male stepped out and threw a large rock that hit the MATV gunner in the face and caused bleeding and injury. The vehicle team leader had the truck stopped, jumped out and put a shotgun slug in the kid's chest. I'm told at that point, everything stopped and immediately the locals became enraged, including the father who had run to tend to his boy.

Imagine dad's surprise when his son was not lethally wounded, instead hit from 20 or so feet away with a rubber bullet from that shotgun. Realizing his son was alive and after realizing that his son had in fact thrown a rock needlessly, injuring that US Soldier, he grabbed the nearest stick and started beating his kid's ass and then apologized for his son's disrespect.

Point being, war vets today have had the luxury of less than lethal training equipment and the value in it. Lethal force is not required as much as it seems to be used today. Alternatives exist. They tried and failed with a Taser. They should have tried again and again or employed other tactics but they didn't. They went from "Oh shit, that Taser missed...fuck it, he's running, let's shoot at him!"

Can anyone give me the statistics on police officers killed by thrown rocks? Anyone? Bueller?

Apples to oranges.

1. Kid throwing rock is different from adult throwing rock.
2. Soldier was likely wearing a helmet and other protective gear, the cops were not
3. Kid was not violently resisting arrest.

Let's say instead of rocks the bad guy had a 2-shot derringer. Say he fires both shots and misses, runs away and then when pursued turns and prepares to throw the pistol at the cops. Something tells me the internet wouldn't be whining nearly as loudly about his getting shot.

Now, what's the difference between a pistol shot and a blow with a rock above the shoulders? Absolutely nothing under the law. Absolutely everything the eyes of people who have never been hit with a softball-sized rock and lack the intellect to properly asses its potential effects.

All the guy had to do was let himself get arrested, keep his mouth shut and get a lawyer. Instead he decided to violently resist arrest and escalate to bringing rocks to a gun fight.

Cops are not under any obligation to risk potentially lethal injury to themselves in the name of "being nice". And saying "well they should have dodged" is asinine. Let me randomly throw rocks at you and see how many hits I can land, your adrenaline will be up, right? You should dodge every one with no issue! With 10 lbs of gear strapped to your belt!

 

[Paladin3]

Both of you are setting up bullshit arguments and you know it. That's okay, it's the internet, you can do that and it is okay.

No one is asking for cops to die needlessly. No one is asking officers to get LESS of anything other than to be LESS aggressive and resort to deadly force LESS. You know, that whole "To Serve and Protect" thing they all kind of agree to? They HAVE to accept that serve and protect refers to the population, not just themselves. They've lost focus and here's a whole generation of police management and leadership who had their "Vietnam" during Rodney King and 9/11 and thousands of hours of Youtube videos that convince them that they're going to die on the side of a road after watching a shooting uploaded from 1978 when officers didn't have body armor.

Imagine how much more money the police could have for less than lethal training and equipment and the increased range time and training time if their taxpayers weren't forking over so much money on damages in civil suits?

No, it's not a bullshit argument to ask you how you would stop folks using deadly force without using deadly force in return. I don't expect you to be an expert and have the answers, but I do expect you to answer one question:

As an officer tasked with stopping a suspect throwing softball-sized rocks, armed with a tazer that you tried but didn't work on the suspect, two officers have already been struck and injured by the rocks he's throwing, and you seriously wouldn't shoot him as he is about to throw more rocks at you? You'd just take the rocks to the head because you don't want to hurt him? You don't think you just might owe more to your loved ones and the society you are trying to protect than you do to the idiot who can't stop throwing rocks to save his own life?

And there is no right or wrong answer to that question. If you are willing to take a rock to the face to save this idiot then you are a far better person that me. If you are not willing to do so and choose to shoot, I don't think you are doing anything criminally wrong, which is what a lot of people believe. Cops have the right to protect themselves and shouldn't have to give up their lives or health to do their jobs.

 

[master_shake_]

surely the police of that town have some surplus army gear or an mrap waiting in the wings.

 

[MarkXIX]

No, it's not a bullshit argument to ask you how you would stop folks using deadly force without using deadly force in return. I don't expect you to be an expert and have the answers, but I do expect you to answer one question:

As an officer tasked with stopping a suspect throwing softball-sized rocks, armed with a tazer that you tried but didn't work on the suspect, you seriously wouldn't shoot him as he is about to throw more rocks at you? You'd just take the rocks to the head because you don't want to hurt him? You don't think you just might owe more to your loved ones and the society you are trying to protect than you do to the idiot who can't stop throwing rocks to save his own life?

Even Forrest Gump realized that people run out of rocks to throw! Simple fucking answer, yes, I avoided the one, MAYBE two more rocks this guy could have and direct two of my other officers to hit him with their Taser or we just fucking rush the guy! How hard is that?

I grew up with four brothers, we threw rocks at each other all the time! A lethal strike to the head from a thrown rock from 15-20 feet away is EXTREMELY unlikely!

 

[master_shake_]

fuck me they actually do!

 

[OBLAMA2009]

its pretty obvious those cops werent in fear for their lives, if they were they wouldnt be following the guy 10 ft behind him

 

[QueBert]

pussy ass cops, for my entire childhood I engaged in hundreds of rock throwing wars with my friends and nobody ever died. All you need to protect yourself is a trash can lid.

 

[jlee]

Both of you are setting up bullshit arguments and you know it. That's okay, it's the internet, you can do that and it is okay.

No one is asking for cops to die needlessly. No one is asking officers to get LESS of anything other than to be LESS aggressive and resort to deadly force LESS. You know, that whole "To Serve and Protect" thing they all kind of agree to? They HAVE to accept that serve and protect refers to the population, not just themselves. They've lost focus and here's a whole generation of police management and leadership who had their "Vietnam" during Rodney King and 9/11 and thousands of hours of Youtube videos that convince them that they're going to die on the side of a road after watching a shooting uploaded from 1978 when officers didn't have body armor.

Imagine how much more money the police could have for less than lethal training and equipment and the increased range time and training time if their taxpayers weren't forking over so much money on damages in civil suits?

It's not a bullshit argument. How many armchair police officers are on this forum who think they could clearly do a better job, and have never been in a "real" stressful situation in their life? Perfectly content to judge from the safety of a computer monitor, insistent that their e-badass-ness could easily subdue some "unarmed teenager" (who's got 60lbs of muscle on them) while getting punched in the head? You know just as well as I that the vast majority of people respond with knee-jerk anti-police reaction without due regard for facts. Look at Ferguson's grand jury testimony and compare it to the opinion of your average outspoken person.

This happened a few hours away from me not two months ago. 24yo, one year on the job - shot and killed. Not exactly 1978.

I was at Bruce McKay's funeral. Shot (and then ran over by a car) and killed 20 miles from where I worked.

I could count on one hand the use of force incidents I had over five years, so I don't need you to lecture me on what "they" need to know. On the other hand, I've never worked for a large agency and I've not worked (in LE) outside of New Hampshire. Perhaps my personal experience contradicts reality elsewhere.

I've been out since 2011. I loved law enforcement - but I don't miss the vicious media hanging over my head waiting for anything that could be perceived as a mistake - without bothering to determine factually if it was or was not.

 

[jlee]

pussy ass cops, for my entire childhood I engaged in hundreds of rock throwing wars with my friends and nobody ever died. All you need to protect yourself is a trash can lid.

Next time you see a crazy dude throwing rocks at cops, you should go up to him and take care of it yourself.

Because you're pro.

:awe:

its pretty obvious those cops werent in fear for their lives, if they were they wouldnt be following the guy 10 ft behind him

You want police in fear for their lives to run away? And let the person they're afraid of to continue onto the rest of the population unchecked?

Really?

 

[MongGrel]

pussy ass cops, for my entire childhood I engaged in hundreds of rock throwing wars with my friends and nobody ever died. All you need to protect yourself is a trash can lid.

:hmm:

:thumbsup:

 

[master_shake_]

off topic: do people in off topic ever venture to p&n?