Man Calls 9-1-1 After Finding Girlfriend Stabbed, Cops Show Up, Kill Him

[BoberFett]

I'm just saying the cops certainly took at least a few minutes to arrive. So take a minute after you've called the cops, shake yourself off, start thinking and get things in order as much as possible.

I guess it's a difference in expectations. I've heard enough cop horror stories like these to know to roll out the red carpet for them and take every precaution if I call. Forget the fact that they're cops, think of them as random guys with guns that you're calling to your house because you think you might need armed assistance, and there's no guarantee that the details of the situation are communicated clearly. Expect them to be on a hair trigger, and expect them to be dumb and under-trained. It shouldn't be that way, but that's reality in a lot (not most, but a lot) of cases.

Yeah, them denying the family access is some low, low bullshit. It's speculation, but it looks like they were trying to prevent him from making a statement of some sort.

Fuck. That.

Think of them as random guys with guns? If that's how they should be thought of, they shouldn't have guns.

Thanks though for confirming that cops are the biggest gang of thugs around.

 

[irishScott]

Fuck. That.

Think of them as random guys with guns? If that's how they should be thought of, they shouldn't have guns.

Thanks though for confirming that cops are the biggest gang of thugs around.

I agree, and if I was made benevolent dictator of the United States for a day it's one of the many things I'd strive to fix. But unfortunately I have nigh zero influence on police policy at any level.

I wouldn't say all cops are thugs, I've met plenty of smart, friendly cops and have actually had positive interactions with them at traffic stops and the like. Hell I've shot with some at the range and they're great guys. But if I ever have to dial 911 I don't have the luxury of requesting John and Gale. So hope for the best, be prepared for the worst. It's also the reason that I won't be going to any police station to "answer questions" without a lawyer in tow, and if arrested I'm keeping my mouth shut, no matter what they tell me, until one shows up.

 

[Zorba]

I'm just saying the cops certainly took at least a few minutes to arrive. So take a minute after you've called the cops, shake yourself off, start thinking and get things in order as much as possible.

I guess it's a difference in expectations. I've heard enough cop horror stories like these to know to roll out the red carpet for them and take every precaution if I call. Forget the fact that they're cops, think of them as random guys with guns that you're calling to your house because you think you might need armed assistance, and there's no guarantee that the details of the situation are communicated clearly. Expect them to be on a hair trigger, and expect them to be dumb and under-trained. It shouldn't be that way, but that's reality in a lot (not most, but a lot) of cases.

Yeah, them denying the family access is some low, low bullshit. It's speculation, but it looks like they were trying to prevent him from making a statement of some sort.

I agree with what you are saying, but it is fucking bullshit that you have to protect yourself from the police when you've called them for assistance.

With how many dogs are getting killed by the police, I say unless there are bite marks, the cop should be kicked off the force. As it stands right now, even as a white guy in a middle class area I am not sure I'd call the police because I don't want my dog killed.

Just watched a dash cam video of two cops killing a black guy on the side of a busy highway in Oklahoma, supposedly he had a knife he wouldn't drop (couldn't see it in the video). Two cops well out of reach of the guy, and the only thing they can thing of to do is kill him. No taser, no mace, no club, just shot him. It is just crazy.

 

[Subyman]

We're not talking about someone going through the drive-through and getting annoyed because there are pickles on your burger when they specifically asked for no pickles and becoming afraid to get takeout food.

These are people with fucking guns and a license to use them whenever they want with seemingly reckless abandon. You call them for help, and you roll the dice on whether or not you'll live to see tomorrow. When they do kill you for any number of reasons (they had a bad day, you looked at them funny, their finger slipped) there aren't consequences, the blue wall of silence covers for them and your killer goes home to see their family every night while you're 6 feet under.

I don't care if it happens one time per year. It's not acceptable for MY GOVERNMENT to kill people and shrug their shoulders like it was no big deal.

I'd like to see the dice that represents a 1 in 100,000,000 odd.

 

[Pulsar]

I agree with what you are saying, but it is fucking bullshit that you have to protect yourself from the police when you've called them for assistance.

With how many dogs are getting killed by the police, I say unless there are bite marks, the cop should be kicked off the force. As it stands right now, even as a white guy in a middle class area I am not sure I'd call the police because I don't want my dog killed.

So now the police have to get bit before they can shoot? That's idiotic.

 

[Linux23]

Well, at least we know what the outcome of the investigations are going to be. A ham sandwich is STILL more valuable than the life of an African american. But good shoot though right?

 

[master_shake_]

http://www.cbs46.com/story/30386697/grand-jury-recommends-no-indictment-in-kevin-davis-shooting

no grand jury indictment.

shocking lol j/k

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.cbs46.com/story/30386697/grand-jury-recommends-no-indictment-in-kevin-davis-shooting

no grand jury indictment.

shocking lol j/k

Never call the police. That is the lesson. That guy would of had better luck trying to talk down some guy with a knife who just stabbed his girlfriend.

 

[Sunburn74]

Absolutely disgusting. This HAS to change. The problem is how.

 

[momeNt]

Absolutely disgusting. This HAS to change. The problem is how.

Privatize the police force. This way the justice department has no government worker bias?

I think there might be a little bit too much comradery between justice and enforcement, somehow have to sever that tie.

 

[JSt0rm]

Privatize the police force. This way the justice department has no government worker bias?

I think there might be a little bit too much comradery between justice and enforcement, somehow have to sever that tie.

You need special prosecutors that only take these police cases. That way they will never be in a tit for tat situation that the regular prosecutors are in.

 

[notposting]

Couple of interesting reads, not directly about this case, but similar and some overall principles at play:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...odies-everything-thats-wrong-with-drug-raids/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

 

[Thanatosis]

We're not talking about someone going through the drive-through and getting annoyed because there are pickles on your burger when they specifically asked for no pickles and becoming afraid to get takeout food.

These are people with fucking guns and a license to use them whenever they want with seemingly reckless abandon. You call them for help, and you roll the dice on whether or not you'll live to see tomorrow. When they do kill you for any number of reasons (they had a bad day, you looked at them funny, their finger slipped) there aren't consequences, the blue wall of silence covers for them and your killer goes home to see their family every night while you're 6 feet under.

I don't care if it happens one time per year. It's not acceptable for MY GOVERNMENT to kill people and shrug their shoulders like it was no big deal.

:thumbsup:

 

[Thanatosis]

They acquitted the guy who paralyzed that old indian man for not speaking english, again. It seems like there are either a lot of former law enforcement who often end up on juries, or there is a large group of americans willing to allow them to commit crimes with impunity.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...accused-assaulting-indian-grandfather-n457521

 

[Sunburn74]

Honestly I have no idea how this will change. I think a cop will have to accidentally kill a senators kid or some thing. It just is so politically treacherous to even bring up the topic of maybe curbing police misconduct

Special prosecutors or maybe just referring police to military courts and not civilian courts. Really don't know what's the best way to go...

 

[Joepublic2]

No offense to Kevin Davis, but I don't give a shred of shit to anyone who says "He's a great guy" "He's the most nicest person in the world" "He makes joyous babies out of miracle cloth". When it comes to any news story, this is the same tired babbling we hear every time. Everyone says that. Hell, people said that shit about the Columbine shooters.

Let the evidence sort it out, and then make judgment. Any judgment based on pretense is showing a lack of faith in freedom and liberty.

WTF I mean even if he's literally the scummiest person alive he's still entitled to the due process of law. There's literally no way this is morally defensible. The cops sound like they were poorly trained and retarded tbh because in a situation like this I would ascertain what was going on before I starting shooting people and I have no training for dealing with situations like this. Your job is to protect the public not yourself I mean shouldn't that be why you're a cop in the first place?

 

[Jaskalas]

Change starts when the American people care about being slaughtered.
Thus far... we're a-okay with it.

 

[Darwin333]

They acquitted the guy who paralyzed that old indian man for not speaking english, again. It seems like there are either a lot of former law enforcement who often end up on juries, or there is a large group of americans willing to allow them to commit crimes with impunity.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...accused-assaulting-indian-grandfather-n457521

Or the more probably reason is that the prosecutors, who must work very closely with the police in order to win their cases, purposefully "throw" the case. I can't imagine it's hard for them to intentionally be shitty at their job and throw the defense all the bones you possibly can.

 

[Darwin333]

Honestly I have no idea how this will change. I think a cop will have to accidentally kill a senators kid or some thing. It just is so politically treacherous to even bring up the topic of maybe curbing police misconduct

Special prosecutors or maybe just referring police to military courts and not civilian courts. Really don't know what's the best way to go...

As has been suggested, a special prosecutor who is completely independent of and never ever has to work with the police is what is required. As it stands if they try to prosecute a cop or convict them on what they should be convicted on their career is basically over and there goes that nice mid-6 figure job in the private sector somewhere down the road.

 

[Humpy]

It seems like there are either a lot of former law enforcement who often end up on juries, or there is a large group of americans willing to allow them to commit crimes with impunity.http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...accused-assaulting-indian-grandfather-n457521

I've served on a grand jury for a month and on a 3 week medical malpractice jury. The other jurors as a whole absolutely believed every word of anyone with authority (cops, doctors) and would disregard the word of anyone without (the accused, civilian witnesses, patients). It was pissening. Even if the testimony was clear that it was an estimate or opinion or assumption it became incontrovertible fact during deliberation.

If somehow I'm ever faced with the choice, I will never leave my fate in the hands of a jury.

 

[Linux23]

I've served on a grand jury for a month and on a 3 week medical malpractice jury. The other jurors as a whole absolutely believed every word of anyone with authority (cops, doctors) and would disregard the word of anyone without (the accused, civilian witnesses, patients). It was pissening. Even if the testimony was clear that it was an estimate or opinion or assumption it became incontrovertible fact during deliberation.

If somehow I'm ever faced with the choice, I will never leave my fate in the hands of a jury.

In other words people are dumb as fuck?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

In other words people are dumb as fuck?

It's not dumb, it's a cognitive bias towards authority, which is something much worse given the circumstance, and something you're much more likely to find in people who show up for jury duty.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's not dumb, it's a cognitive bias towards authority, which is something much worse given the circumstance, and something you're much more likely to find in people who show up for jury duty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

[Humpy]

It's not dumb, it's a cognitive bias towards authority, which is something much worse given the circumstance, and something you're much more likely to find in people who show up for jury duty.

In the malpractice case I think the jury had authority bias and they were also exceptionally stupid.

A doctor performed a pectus excavatum surgery to fix a sunken chest and the rib bones didn't heal/reattach as expected leaving the patient with a floppy rib cage.

The judge gave us two basic instructions before deliberation, first decide if the doctor was negligent and then, if so, decide on how much to award the patient. We were also allowed to split the blame by percentage between the two parties.

It was 11-1 that the doctor was not negligent, that the surgery was done correctly and that the healing problem could not have been predicted. I thought the doctor was partially responsible because I doubted that the surgery was shown to be necessary/beneficial in the first place. But whatever, I was OK with it because I wouldn't have awarded much in damages anyway.

But it wasn't over. The rest of the jury insisted that we now had to decide on the damages. They couldn't wrap their heads around the if/then jury instructions. So they decided to award $600,000 to the patient even though they just decided there was no negligence.

OK. I asked how can there be an award if there was no negligence? Good point Humpy! they mumbled. So they decided to change the decision that the good doctor did nothing wrong and instead decided that he was 50% to blame and the patient was 50% to blame because of his inability to heal.

So if they are both equally to blame why does one of them have to pay $600,000? I asked. Silence. Finally the UPS guy on the jury rose up from his slumber on the other side of the room and half yelled about the ridiculous discussion having gone on for far too long he needed to go home.

That was it. We went in and read the verdict, the lawyers shook there heads in disgust, the judge slammed his little hammer and we all went home.

tl/dr: Cool Story Bro.

 

[master_shake_]

In the malpractice case I think the jury had authority bias and they were also exceptionally stupid.

A doctor performed a pectus excavatum surgery to fix a sunken chest and the rib bones didn't heal/reattach as expected leaving the patient with a floppy rib cage.

The judge gave us two basic instructions before deliberation, first decide if the doctor was negligent and then, if so, decide on how much to award the patient. We were also allowed to split the blame by percentage between the two parties.

It was 11-1 that the doctor was not negligent, that the surgery was done correctly and that the healing problem could not have been predicted. I thought the doctor was partially responsible because I doubted that the surgery was shown to be necessary/beneficial in the first place. But whatever, I was OK with it because I wouldn't have awarded much in damages anyway.

But it wasn't over. The rest of the jury insisted that we now had to decide on the damages. They couldn't wrap their heads around the if/then jury instructions. So they decided to award $600,000 to the patient even though they just decided there was no negligence.

OK. I asked how can there be an award if there was no negligence? Good point Humpy! they mumbled. So they decided to change the decision that the good doctor did nothing wrong and instead decided that he was 50% to blame and the patient was 50% to blame because of his inability to heal.

So if they are both equally to blame why does one of them have to pay $600,000? I asked. Silence. Finally the UPS guy on the jury rose up from his slumber on the other side of the room and half yelled about the ridiculous discussion having gone on for far too long he needed to go home.

That was it. We went in and read the verdict, the lawyers shook there heads in disgust, the judge slammed his little hammer and we all went home.

tl/dr: Cool Story Bro.

no negligence but malpractice monies anyway.

sense, this doesn't make any.

and that's a real issue isn't it.

the "fuck this shit i wanna leave" attitude.

that's not justice, it's impatience.