Here we go again...

[Pwns]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/us/baton- ... index.html

Must we have a federal case every time a policeman shoots a black dude? I guess so, otherwise you might run the risk of being the next Ferguson or Baltimore.

[dbackjon]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/us/baton- ... index.html

Must we have a federal case every time a policeman shoots a black dude? I guess so, otherwise you might run the risk of being the next Ferguson or Baltimore.

I was just watching this video. Looks pretty bad for the police officer, but the video doesn't show everything. This is the type that does need to be investigated by an outside agency to ensure that the facts come out.

[Ivytalk]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/us/baton- ... index.html

Must we have a federal case every time a policeman shoots a black dude? I guess so, otherwise you might run the risk of being the next Ferguson or Baltimore.

I was just watching this video. Looks pretty bad for the police officer, but the video doesn't show everything. This is the type that does need to be investigated by an outside agency to ensure that the facts come out.

Like the FBI!

[Grizalltheway]

Thanks, Obama.

[ASUG8]

NAACP once again calling for the heads of the police chief and mayor before they even know all the details.

[Baldy]

I was just watching this video. Looks pretty bad for the police officer, but the video doesn't show everything. This is the type that does need to be investigated by an outside agency to ensure that the facts come out.

Like the FBI!

[89Hen]

A day after a video showed white officers pinning down and shooting a black man outside a convenience store in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, federal authorities are investigating the case.

Strange, my news never gives the race of a person involved, even when they are asking the public to keep an eye out for them.

[DSUrocks07]

NAACP once again calling for the heads of the police chief and mayor before they even know all the details.

Never let a public outcry go to waste to stay relevent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[ASUG8]

NAACP once again calling for the heads of the police chief and mayor before they even know all the details.

Never let a public outcry go to waste to stay relevent.

I'm not even saying that the NAACP won't eventually be justified in asking for this, but jeez at least let some facts from an investigation come in first. NAACP is always READY-FIRE-AIM.

[DSUrocks07]

Never let a public outcry go to waste to stay relevent.

I'm not even saying that the NAACP won't eventually be justified in asking for this, but jeez at least let some facts from an investigation come in first. NAACP is always READY-FIRE-AIM.

It's been their MO for years:

1) Public outcry with racial connotations occurs.
2) Make a public statement complete with ridiculous demands
3) ????
4) PROFIT!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[ASUG8]

I'm not even saying that the NAACP won't eventually be justified in asking for this, but jeez at least let some facts from an investigation come in first. NAACP is always READY-FIRE-AIM.

It's been their MO for years:

1) Public outcry with racial connotations occurs.
2) Make a public statement complete with ridiculous demands
3) ????
4) PROFIT!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

You think Sharpton and Jackson are in the air yet on their way to Baton Rouge?

[JohnStOnge]

If I understood something I heard on the radio while driving back from field work today Louisiana's Governor requested that the Justice Department become involved.

Yeah I just did a search on it and got this hit:

http://gov.louisiana.gov/news/statement ... aton-rouge

Today, I have called for the U.S. Department of Justice to lead this investigation going forward. The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the US Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana, and the FBI have agreed to work this investigation along with the Louisiana State Police assisting when asked.

So Louisiana's Governor immediately punted to the Feds on this one. Probably a good political move.

[dbackjon]

I was just watching this video. Looks pretty bad for the police officer, but the video doesn't show everything. This is the type that does need to be investigated by an outside agency to ensure that the facts come out.

Like the FBI!

LOL - since the FBI is headed by a Republican Appointee, beating that dead horse won't get anywhere

[Rob Iola]

New video out on NBC news, taken by the store owner - much clearer/closer/steady view.

Yikes.

[SuperHornet]

There's probably something institutionally wrong when two cops don't even recognize their own Deputy Chief of Police....

[DSUrocks07]

Apparently both officers claim that their body cameras "fell off of them" before the shooting occurred.

Luckily two people were there with cell phones to record the whole thing.

Clearly these cops were doing it wrong, the SOP is to harass and threaten anyone close by that has a camera or a cell phone and scare them off.

Cover of the NY Daily News:



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

All in all this does not look good, based solely on what I can see in the video. If he wasn't trying to get into his pocket then it isn't a justified shooting.

That said- I cannot tell from the video if the suspect is trying to get into his pocket, but I do know this- if he got his hand near his pocket, then all bets are off. He's already resisting, he's been identified as having a gun, and apparently the officers saw it printing on his pocket (that's not for sure). Officers know that he doesn't have to get the gun out, all he has to do is get his hand in there.

It is easy to Monday morning QB these things, but until you have been there and know what it is like to tunnel out in these situations you can never know how you would react. I have been in EXACTLY this same situation with a suspect and two other officers. I was the shift supervisor and we were called to a house by a man who said his stepson was in the house sitting on the couch and had threatened him with a pistol which was in his waistband, and he wanted the kid out of the house. We went in, saw the kid sitting on the couch, and asked him to stand up while I took on of his wrists and another officer took the other. He immediately began to fight with us and we went to the floor. He was on his face and trying to get his hands around to the waistband. He was sweaty and slippery and both of us were losing our grip on his arms as he was pulling his hands around underneath him. I thought to myself that he is going to get his hand on this gun and one of us is going to have to shoot him in the back, and that isn't going to look good at all. I started telling my officer who had the other arm to break his arm backwards at the elbow if he had to. About that time, the third officer (a smallish female) yells "I have the gun!" ------- While we were wrestling around with this guy she had snatched the pistol out of the guy's britches, and we had NO IDEA because she did not immediately say she had the gun secured. Once she realized we were contemplating having to either seriously injure or kill this guy was when she chimed in. That's when we released his arms and then I put him in a headlock while the other two officers cuffed him (once knowing he didn't have a gun we could let his hands go).

The moral of that story is that courts use a standard of what can be reasonably known to the officer at the time deadly force is used. Under that standard, we could have shot the guy (but I would NOT want to weather that legal storm) even though he was technically unarmed, if he had gotten his hands around to where we believed the gun to be. I think that if this case wind up being found to be justified, it will be because of the standard of what the officers could have reasonably known about the suspect, his weapon, etc, and exactly what he was trying to do with his hands. There most certainly are situations where a use of force that looks totally unjustified can actually be legitimate.

The problem I see here is that to the untrained eye this video looks like nothing other than a murder- and it might be one. But we put police in these situations by design and then expect them to perform perfectly. The least we can do is make sure that they are properly trained, and then get a good, thorough investigation- and if it comes down to a decision that could go either way, we have to err on the side of the police. If we can't do that, then we need to allow the police to decide for themselves whether or not to answer these kinds of calls-

BTW- note the Daily News headline in the photo above says that "His Hands Were Empty"- that is immaterial.

[DSUrocks07]

All in all this does not look good, based solely on what I can see in the video. If he wasn't trying to get into his pocket then it isn't a justified shooting.

That said- I cannot tell from the video if the suspect is trying to get into his pocket, but I do know this- if he got his hand near his pocket, then all bets are off. He's already resisting, he's been identified as having a gun, and apparently the officers saw it printing on his pocket (that's not for sure). Officers know that he doesn't have to get the gun out, all he has to do is get his hand in there.

It is easy to Monday morning QB these things, but until you have been there and know what it is like to tunnel out in these situations you can never know how you would react. I have been in EXACTLY this same situation with a suspect and two other officers. I was the shift supervisor and we were called to a house by a man who said his stepson was in the house sitting on the couch and had threatened him with a pistol which was in his waistband, and he wanted the kid out of the house. We went in, saw the kid sitting on the couch, and asked him to stand up while I took on of his wrists and another officer took the other. He immediately began to fight with us and we went to the floor. He was on his face and trying to get his hands around to the waistband. He was sweaty and slippery and both of us were losing our grip on his arms as he was pulling his hands around underneath him. I thought to myself that he is going to get his hand on this gun and one of us is going to have to shoot him in the back, and that isn't going to look good at all. I started telling my officer who had the other arm to break his arm backwards at the elbow if he had to. About that time, the third officer (a smallish female) yells "I have the gun!" ------- While we were wrestling around with this guy she had snatched the pistol out of the guy's britches, and we had NO IDEA because she did not immediately say she had the gun secured. Once she realized we were contemplating having to either seriously injure or kill this guy was when she chimed in. That's when we released his arms and then I put him in a headlock while the other two officers cuffed him (once knowing he didn't have a gun we could let his hands go).

The moral of that story is that courts use a standard of what can be reasonably known to the officer at the time deadly force is used. Under that standard, we could have shot the guy (but I would NOT want to weather that legal storm) even though he was technically unarmed, if he had gotten his hands around to where we believed the gun to be. I think that if this case wind up being found to be justified, it will be because of the standard of what the officers could have reasonably known about the suspect, his weapon, etc, and exactly what he was trying to do with his hands. There most certainly are situations where a use of force that looks totally unjustified can actually be legitimate.

The problem I see here is that to the untrained eye this video looks like nothing other than a murder- and it might be one. But we put police in these situations by design and then expect them to perform perfectly. The least we can do is make sure that they are properly trained, and then get a good, thorough investigation- and if it comes down to a decision that could go either way, we have to err on the side of the police. If we can't do that, then we need to allow the police to decide for themselves whether or not to answer these kinds of calls-

BTW- note the Daily News headline in the photo above says that "His Hands Were Empty"- that is immaterial.

With this and the Minneapolis situation, apparently both are said to be licensed carriers and informed the police of such.

Now from all the talks I had with police and the PSAs they show. If you are a licensed carrier you're supposed to immediately inform the police of such hand them your license and registration and THEN hand them your weapon.

So in the case that they were in the process of doing these things and the situation escalated from there, who is at fault?

What IS the proper procedure? Because from the look of things, once they knew that the men were armed the officers didn't know how to handle it properly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

All in all this does not look good, based solely on what I can see in the video. If he wasn't trying to get into his pocket then it isn't a justified shooting.

That said- I cannot tell from the video if the suspect is trying to get into his pocket, but I do know this- if he got his hand near his pocket, then all bets are off. He's already resisting, he's been identified as having a gun, and apparently the officers saw it printing on his pocket (that's not for sure). Officers know that he doesn't have to get the gun out, all he has to do is get his hand in there.

It is easy to Monday morning QB these things, but until you have been there and know what it is like to tunnel out in these situations you can never know how you would react. I have been in EXACTLY this same situation with a suspect and two other officers. I was the shift supervisor and we were called to a house by a man who said his stepson was in the house sitting on the couch and had threatened him with a pistol which was in his waistband, and he wanted the kid out of the house. We went in, saw the kid sitting on the couch, and asked him to stand up while I took on of his wrists and another officer took the other. He immediately began to fight with us and we went to the floor. He was on his face and trying to get his hands around to the waistband. He was sweaty and slippery and both of us were losing our grip on his arms as he was pulling his hands around underneath him. I thought to myself that he is going to get his hand on this gun and one of us is going to have to shoot him in the back, and that isn't going to look good at all. I started telling my officer who had the other arm to break his arm backwards at the elbow if he had to. About that time, the third officer (a smallish female) yells "I have the gun!" ------- While we were wrestling around with this guy she had snatched the pistol out of the guy's britches, and we had NO IDEA because she did not immediately say she had the gun secured. Once she realized we were contemplating having to either seriously injure or kill this guy was when she chimed in. That's when we released his arms and then I put him in a headlock while the other two officers cuffed him (once knowing he didn't have a gun we could let his hands go).

The moral of that story is that courts use a standard of what can be reasonably known to the officer at the time deadly force is used. Under that standard, we could have shot the guy (but I would NOT want to weather that legal storm) even though he was technically unarmed, if he had gotten his hands around to where we believed the gun to be. I think that if this case wind up being found to be justified, it will be because of the standard of what the officers could have reasonably known about the suspect, his weapon, etc, and exactly what he was trying to do with his hands. There most certainly are situations where a use of force that looks totally unjustified can actually be legitimate.

The problem I see here is that to the untrained eye this video looks like nothing other than a murder- and it might be one. But we put police in these situations by design and then expect them to perform perfectly. The least we can do is make sure that they are properly trained, and then get a good, thorough investigation- and if it comes down to a decision that could go either way, we have to err on the side of the police. If we can't do that, then we need to allow the police to decide for themselves whether or not to answer these kinds of calls-

BTW- note the Daily News headline in the photo above says that "His Hands Were Empty"- that is immaterial.

With this and the Minneapolis situation, apparently both are said to be licensed carriers and informed the police of such.

Now from all the talks I had with police and the PSAs they show. If you are a licensed carrier you're supposed to immediately inform the police of such hand them your license and registration and THEN hand them your weapon.

So in the case that they were in the process of doing these things and the situation escalated from there, who is at fault?

What IS the proper procedure? Because from the look of things, once they knew that the men were armed the officers didn't know how to handle it properly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I don't think the dude who got shot while wrestling around on the ground was in legal possession. His rap sheet is loooong.

[CID1990]

gotdamn double post again

[Gil Dobie]

Conceal Carry owners that I know, say, when you get pulled over, put your hands on the dash or steering wheel and tell the police where the gun is. Let them retrieve the firearm.

[CID1990]

All in all this does not look good, based solely on what I can see in the video. If he wasn't trying to get into his pocket then it isn't a justified shooting.

That said- I cannot tell from the video if the suspect is trying to get into his pocket, but I do know this- if he got his hand near his pocket, then all bets are off. He's already resisting, he's been identified as having a gun, and apparently the officers saw it printing on his pocket (that's not for sure). Officers know that he doesn't have to get the gun out, all he has to do is get his hand in there.

It is easy to Monday morning QB these things, but until you have been there and know what it is like to tunnel out in these situations you can never know how you would react. I have been in EXACTLY this same situation with a suspect and two other officers. I was the shift supervisor and we were called to a house by a man who said his stepson was in the house sitting on the couch and had threatened him with a pistol which was in his waistband, and he wanted the kid out of the house. We went in, saw the kid sitting on the couch, and asked him to stand up while I took on of his wrists and another officer took the other. He immediately began to fight with us and we went to the floor. He was on his face and trying to get his hands around to the waistband. He was sweaty and slippery and both of us were losing our grip on his arms as he was pulling his hands around underneath him. I thought to myself that he is going to get his hand on this gun and one of us is going to have to shoot him in the back, and that isn't going to look good at all. I started telling my officer who had the other arm to break his arm backwards at the elbow if he had to. About that time, the third officer (a smallish female) yells "I have the gun!" ------- While we were wrestling around with this guy she had snatched the pistol out of the guy's britches, and we had NO IDEA because she did not immediately say she had the gun secured. Once she realized we were contemplating having to either seriously injure or kill this guy was when she chimed in. That's when we released his arms and then I put him in a headlock while the other two officers cuffed him (once knowing he didn't have a gun we could let his hands go).

The moral of that story is that courts use a standard of what can be reasonably known to the officer at the time deadly force is used. Under that standard, we could have shot the guy (but I would NOT want to weather that legal storm) even though he was technically unarmed, if he had gotten his hands around to where we believed the gun to be. I think that if this case wind up being found to be justified, it will be because of the standard of what the officers could have reasonably known about the suspect, his weapon, etc, and exactly what he was trying to do with his hands. There most certainly are situations where a use of force that looks totally unjustified can actually be legitimate.

The problem I see here is that to the untrained eye this video looks like nothing other than a murder- and it might be one. But we put police in these situations by design and then expect them to perform perfectly. The least we can do is make sure that they are properly trained, and then get a good, thorough investigation- and if it comes down to a decision that could go either way, we have to err on the side of the police. If we can't do that, then we need to allow the police to decide for themselves whether or not to answer these kinds of calls-

BTW- note the Daily News headline in the photo above says that "His Hands Were Empty"- that is immaterial.

With this and the Minneapolis situation, apparently both are said to be licensed carriers and informed the police of such.

Now from all the talks I had with police and the PSAs they show. If you are a licensed carrier you're supposed to immediately inform the police of such hand them your license and registration and THEN hand them your weapon.

So in the case that they were in the process of doing these things and the situation escalated from there, who is at fault?

What IS the proper procedure? Because from the look of things, once they knew that the men were armed the officers didn't know how to handle it properly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I didn't answer your question-

Officers are trained to deal with people in legal possession. The MN cop used zero common sense or training. As a legally armed person you'll come away from your encounters with the police unscathed at a rate that gives you better odds of banging Giselle than getting shot.

In the LA case I don't think any of this really applies.

[YoUDeeMan]

Thanks, CID.

I was thinking along the same lines...a BIG guy has a gun...his hand/arm that is in the direction of the pocket with the gun can't been seen...and he is resisting arrest. If I am fighting for my life, and the clown is resisting, and he is getting his hand anywhere near that pocket, I would shoot him. ANYONE should shoot him.

His life or yours. That is what it comes down to when someone is resisting and they have a gun.

The guy has prior arrests, is known to have a gun, and is resisting arrest.

WTF?

There is a really simple rule to follow if you don't want to be shot: DO NOT RESIST.

I will always give the officer the benefit of the doubt.

That doesn't mean that there are not bad officers. But, if you resist, then you can't complain if you get shot.

[CID1990]

Conceal Carry owners that I know, say, when you get pulled over, put your hands on the dash or steering wheel and tell the police where the gun is. Let them retrieve the firearm.

That's also true of any traffic stop whether you are armed or not.

You want to immediately put a police officer at ease? Turn on the dome light (if it is dark outside) and put your hands in full view on the steering wheel.

You can be as black as you wannabe and you do that, you have zero problems. Period.

[DSUrocks07]

Conceal Carry owners that I know, say, when you get pulled over, put your hands on the dash or steering wheel and tell the police where the gun is. Let them retrieve the firearm.

That's also true of any traffic stop whether you are armed or not.

You want to immediately put a police officer at ease? Turn on the dome light (if it is dark outside) and put your hands in full view on the steering wheel.

You can be as black as you wannabe and you do that, you have zero problems. Period.

Something I always do

Doesn't help my nerves tho, especially when things like this happen. I sometimes worry that I may catch a cop on a bad day and if there's no body camera, I'll just become another statistic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk