Quote :

"wasting time is justification for killing anyone?"

Did they set out to kill him? Looks like the gave him every opportunity (3 hours of intervention) and after such negotiations failed, the police hatched a plan to take control of situation with less lethal force (flashbang, bean bags, K9). The lethal option still has to be on the table and was used when the suspects actions dictated such.

Quote :

"you contain the guy and wait for him to give up"

In a city of half-a-million people, how long do you wait? How much attention do you give the guy? How many officers do you take off the street? The guy had 3 hours to give up and they had a less lethal plan in place.

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ...]

4/8/2014 7:41:41 PM

you wait as long as it takes, and at the very least you don't shoot him for being startled by a flashbang. they had ranged weapons, there is no need for them to be so close.

raleigh has 437k people, how long do cops have to wait before they can kill someone in a city with 437k people?

4/8/2014 8:13:50 PM

So when you get startled by a flashbang (this one had no affect on the guy) your first instinct is to drop all your stuff, shuffle about and then reach into your pockets and pull out 2 knives and take a fighting stance? Interesting.

4/8/2014 8:18:44 PM

you mean immediately drop your stuff then then reflexively cover your balls as a dog is trying to bite them? yeah, most people will probably react that way.

but that's not when they shot him, they shot him when he turned to walk away

if this is how they are training officers to act, its no wonder that police murder so many people each year.

Quote :

" The guy had 3 hours to give up and they had a less lethal plan in place."

oh, i see the problems. cops think ar-15's are less lethal.

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 8:29 PM. Reason : i can't wait for the revolution, fuck the police]

4/8/2014 8:25:42 PM

LOL "nothing wrong with that shooting"

God we are fucked

4/8/2014 8:38:00 PM

i'm still trying to wrap my head around him using the 3 hour wait as justification for murder. that's the kind of thinking i assumed cops had, but its pretty surprising to see one offer it like its a completely reasonable explanation

4/8/2014 8:41:26 PM

I wonder if I can get away with shooting ppl at work who keep me waiting for 3 hours

4/8/2014 9:04:58 PM

Lulz

4/8/2014 9:23:09 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/lapd-officers-monkey-wrenched-cop-monitoring-gearin-patrol-cars/

Quote :

"The Los Angeles Police Commission is investigating how half of the recording antennas in the Southeast Division went missing, seemingly as a way to evade new self-monitoring procedures that the Los Angeles Police Department imposed last year. The antennas, which are mounted onto individual patrol cars, receive recorded audio captured from an officer’s belt-worn transmitter. The transmitter is designed to capture an officer’s voice and transmit the recording to the car itself for storage. The voice recorders are part of a video camera system that is mounted in a front-facing camera on the patrol car. Both elements are activated any time the car’s emergency lights and sirens are turned on, but they can also be activated manually. According to the Los Angeles Times, an LAPD investigation determined that around half of the 80 patrol cars in one South LA division were missing antennas as of last summer, and an additional 10 antennas were unaccounted for. Citing a police source, the newspaper said that removing the antennas can reduce the range of the voice transmitters by as much as a third of the normal operating distance. The Police Commission, an independent body that oversees LAPD policy, was only notified of the situation two months ago. Neither the commission nor the LAPD immediately responded for comment."

Quote :

"Sid Heal, a recently retired commander who evaluated technology during his decades-long tenure at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, reiterated an obvious point: "No one likes to be monitored," he noted by e-mail."

4/8/2014 11:40:55 PM

if they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about, right?

4/9/2014 8:49:42 AM

with all of the non lethal means to subdue someone, I think lethal force was excessive in that situation.

4/9/2014 9:37:22 AM

^seriously, he was turning to run away. i believe the cops said that they had to kill him because the dog was in danger. the cops put the dog into harms way intentionally so that is ridiculous.



[Edited on April 9, 2014 at 10:44 AM. Reason : s]

4/9/2014 10:26:29 AM

using dogs is one of their strategies for an excuse to escalate force. its reflex to protect yourself when a dog is jumping at you, and they can then use that as evidence that you were fighting back or resisting so they can beat or kill you. its the same with a taser, when you get shocked your muscles contract which they then use to show that you are resisting so they can continue to beat you even if you are not a threat.

4/9/2014 10:47:17 AM

Why didn't they just bean bag the shit out of him when he was alive. Instead of using bullets?

4/9/2014 1:01:14 PM

Everyone saw that he had knives right?

And again, did he get shot in the back, yes. But two (2) things are in play. First, reaction to the threat; it takes time for your brain to process the stimulus and then to react to that stimulus given multiple responses (shoot or no shoot, run up or stay put) see Hick's Law. So, by the time the decision is made to shoot, the man has already turned. Still a good shot because the threat was present.

Second part of this equation: After the flashbang goes off, the guy pulls a knife out his pocket. So the man is now armed with knife, he has a stabbed people in the past (this was known to the officers) and has made threats to harm people. How do you handle the situation now? What if the guy runs down the other side of mountain armed with knife in an agitated state?

Under NC law, its a good shoot:

Quote :

"who by his conduct or any other means balded stance, armed with a knife, made threats, known history of violence indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay"

That is just one prong; I think it fits under two others.

And the reasonable standard is of a trained police officer; not a reasonable person.

There a good shoots and bad shoots, just like in the civilian world and cops do get punished for shit. But you have to view a lot of these shootings in the context of trained police officer, not as untrained citizen or concealed carry.

I know I won't change any opinions on here, just trying to give these guys the support that is warranted.

I have been in that guys shoes before and been subjected to a criminal investigation (SBI and DA's Office) as well as the internal investigation for a shooting. I was cleared, but it brutal to hear the critics in the media, from people in the community and in a couple of cases from other officers. However, t the end of the day, I know that my situation saved lives and was cleared by all.

4/9/2014 5:59:22 PM

He had knives... on an empty hill surrounded by cops with rifles

4/9/2014 8:22:03 PM

Quote :

"And again, did he get shot in the back, yes. But two (2) things are in play. First, reaction to the threat; it takes time for your brain to process the stimulus and then to react to that stimulus given multiple responses (shoot or no shoot, run up or stay put) see Hick's Law. So, by the time the decision is made to shoot, the man has already turned. Still a good shot because the threat was present. "

It sounds like you're saying they were spooked and shot him because he just started moving? That makes it even less justified. How was he supposed to comply with them to lay down, as it appears he was doing?

Quote :

"What if the guy runs down the other side of mountain armed with knife in an agitated state?"

Um, he wasn't going to move very fast, so you just chase him and surround him again. If he doesn't comply, you bean-bag him, etc. The cops had one job: to apprehend this guy. It took them three hours and they end up shooting the guy to death. That is a massive failure on their part.

4/9/2014 10:38:23 PM

Quote :

"How was he supposed to comply with them to lay down, as it appears he was doing?"

He pulled out a knife. How is that complying? He had three hours to comply. They took action and he pulled out a knife and took an offensive stance with it. How is that compliance?

Quote :

"The cops had one job: to apprehend this guy. It took them three hours and they end up shooting the guy to death. That is a massive failure on their part."

I will concede this to an extent. The best result would have been that he surrenders, they get him the mental help that he needs and nobody gets hurt. There plan may not have been tactically sound or it could have given the options they had. Its easy to quarterback this now.

That being said, in the moment that counts (the deadly force encounter) - despite the fact that the overall mission may have been a cluster - the shoot is good.

4/10/2014 6:38:59 AM

if by "good" you just mean "legal" then I don't think that most of us are disagreeing, I'm saying that the fact that its legal (and not controversial among LEO) is a problem and is evidence of our police state. that shooting was not necessary, so it is not "good".

4/10/2014 8:51:37 AM

Quote :

"He had three hours to comply."

the amount of time has nothing to do with whether or not deadly force should be acceptable, imo.

4/10/2014 12:25:27 PM

Legal means it's good because USA #1 America

4/10/2014 12:45:01 PM

Of all the police brutality things I have ever heard of this one for some reason does not make me feel that bad for the "victim".

4/10/2014 12:50:16 PM

in Germany in 2011, only 85 bullets were fired at people (49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed)

4/10/2014 1:24:34 PM

Quote :

"He pulled out a knife. How is that complying? "

He may or may not have been about to comply and lay down. The point is we'll never know because they shot him to death.

4/10/2014 2:39:20 PM

US Justice Department Scathing Report Cites ‘Excessive Force’ by Albuquerque Police
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/us/albuquerque-police-report-justice-department.html?referrer=

Fuck cops

[Edited on April 10, 2014 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2014 6:18:05 PM

^If they aren't doing basic shit like reporting a chokehold (he the fuck uses that anyways outside of deadly force?) then shame on then. I won't sit here and try to defend egregious bullshit from agencies and officers. But, I have also been there when it comes to a lot of incident and see stuff from a different angle than a 30 second youtube clip.

[Edited on April 10, 2014 at 9:23 PM. Reason : ...]

4/10/2014 9:22:15 PM

There is ongoing battle between ranchers in NV and Federal Agents that has drawn some right wing militia types:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/tense-video-feds-taser-pro-nevada-rancher-protester-during-clash/
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/expect-to-see-a-band-of-soldiers-militia-members-arrive-at-nevada-ranch/

[Edited on April 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2014 10:06:30 PM

Cops killed a Tosh.0 assistant producer because he was running from a guy with a knife

4/11/2014 6:19:12 AM

Amuerica Fuck Yeh!

4/11/2014 8:49:02 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/04/11/tosho-production-assistant-accidentally-killed-by-police/

4/11/2014 12:58:29 PM

what's the real story behind that ranch?

I'm inclined to side with the people on this until I hear of a real crime and reason for the actions of the federal government.

4/12/2014 9:00:17 AM

I don't really get the rancher's case.

4/12/2014 11:58:35 AM

I'll attempt a grandiose paraphrase:

Rancher in Nevada had been told in 1993ish he could no longer let his cattle graze on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, due to some endangered turtle.

Rancher didn't listen, citing instead his family's use of the land (which they do not own) over 100+ years, as well as claiming the US doesn't own the land and has no right to it's administration. He continued to let his cattle graze on the land, and stopped paying for the grazing rights.

Over the last 20 years, this has gone to more than one court of law, and in every case the law has sided with the BLM. He has been ordered to cease and desist, and to pay back all the money he owes to the federal government. He has ignored the courts, and continued to let his cattle to graze on the public land.

Recently, after 20+ years of fighting with this guy through the courts, the BLM has decided to use their 'nuclear option' and just seize the guy's cattle.

That's the point where the guy started screaming bloody murder about the feds and the gubment, got the attention of a bunch of "militias" and has been trying to escalate this whole thing into another Waco.

The potential for another Waco has all the Fox News (and friends) type outlets foaming at the mouth for a violent end to this confrontation so they can spoon feed it as fuel to the hyperpolarized right.

4/12/2014 1:08:57 PM

The BLM has decided to back down now. I wonder if the right realizes the grazing fees came from a Ronald Reagan executive order:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/21486b.htm

4/12/2014 1:18:38 PM

This is a lot different than Waco, the government was in the wrong at Waco but doing things right here

4/12/2014 2:52:49 PM

so the land wasn't even seized from him? It's been federal land for a century, and his family just used it, and the feds just didn't care until 20 years ago?

what's his case for the feds not owning the land or having rights to its administration?

[Edited on April 12, 2014 at 3:51 PM. Reason : if there's not more to it, i'm disappointed that the feds backed down from this stupid fuck.]

4/12/2014 3:50:11 PM

Wow, so this is the end of it? They're letting that asshole win?

4/12/2014 4:01:59 PM

I doubt they are giving up entirely, just avoiding a gun battle

4/12/2014 4:13:43 PM

Just write off his debt, hand him a hefty tax bill for all the income he now has to claim, then throw him in jail for tax evasion when it doesn't pay it. No more grazing. Stupid turtles are saved. Feds save face.

4/12/2014 4:22:43 PM

The Feds are backing off to ensure the safety of their workers.

They're not done with this asshole. Walk away and let all the nut job militia people go home, then blitzkrieg in and arrest him with zero showdown.

4/12/2014 4:47:52 PM

Quote :

"so the land wasn't even seized from him? It's been federal land for a century, and his family just used it, and the feds just didn't care until 20 years ago? what's his case for the feds not owning the land or having rights to its administration? "

This is basically how I feel. My folks (who exclusively watch Fox News) were all up in arms about it until I politely explained that the feds have been dicking with him for 20 years and have numerous court orders saying dudeman has to pay, and then they were like "oh, when you put it that way..."

I mean, shoot, if this guy can keep using the land free of charge, no questions asked, simply because his family has use it for 100 years, then what about all these people we have on "reservations"...

4/12/2014 7:10:41 PM

Here are the larger issues:

1. Why the hell does the BLM and other federal agencies still control so much land in the West? Control meaning road closure, harassment, usurpment of local officials, not just ownership.

2. If they are trying so hard to protect the desert tortoise they could spend some coin on the conservation center instead of jobs program armed rangers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/25/desert-tortoise_n_3813133.html

3. Even if the rancher legally doesn't have a leg to stand on, it is kind of comforting to see a group of citizens forcefully stand up to the FEDS and get a (probably short-term) victory.

4/12/2014 9:59:33 PM

Quote :

"3. Even if the rancher legally doesn't have a leg to stand on, it is kind of comforting to see a group of citizens forcefully stand up to the FEDS and get a (probably short-term) victory."

hey gun nuts, this is the kind of thing we are talking about when we make fun of you

4/12/2014 10:04:43 PM

^welp, considering the reach of government, 'gun nuts' from all corners of society are glad they do have a mode of defence against tyranny

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/on-mlk-holiday-walking-for-civil-rights-and-the-second-amendment/2013/01/15/c00f816c-5f54-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

4/12/2014 10:29:25 PM

^another great example

4/12/2014 10:37:21 PM

Do you frequently ridicule civil rights advocates?

Citizens in a small section of the country do not like how they are being governed LOCALLY. Within this concept called federalism, they supposedly could shove out the offending state and local leaders.
Today, however, non-elected bureaucrats appointed by congressman from Maine to Hawaii have a say in Nevada's affairs.

4/12/2014 10:58:00 PM

You're right, your armed militia will make a difference

4/12/2014 11:02:57 PM

Quote :

"militia"

ISWYDT

4/12/2014 11:15:29 PM

don't respond to dtownral. He's a known troll here.

4/13/2014 12:09:42 AM

Quote :

"1. Why the hell does the BLM and other federal agencies still control so much land in the West?"

Because the Federal government was the original land owner after it killed off and drove away all the Native Americans who originally inhabited the area, and the Federal government has never sold it to anyone.

Quote :

"Control meaning road closure, harassment, usurpment of local officials, not just ownership."

Because we have an established precedent in this country where the Federal government trumps state and local government, and the BLM's primary mission is to protect the public land entrusted to it.

It shouldn't matter who owns the land, except for the fact that Bundy doesn't. If we took "Federal Government" as the land owner in this example and replaced it with "private land-owning citizen", would all the militias have driven out? It would just be a case of one guy letting his cows graze on another guy's property. If "private land-owning citizen" got pissed and started seizing Bundy's cows, no one would have given a shit except Bundy, and he would still been in the wrong.



[Edited on April 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM. Reason : Apparently 86% of Nevada is owned by the US]

4/14/2014 8:30:14 AM