Make no mistake, if she charged me and I had a weapon I would put that bitch in the ground.

And then I'd go to prison.

10/22/2010 2:06:32 PM

^^OK, fair enough. I see what you're saying and agree.

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2010 2:07:00 PM

And I meant "suicide by cop", not death by cop, though hopefully that was clear.

10/22/2010 2:07:47 PM

raiden: At least in respect to Afghanistan that is how they were.

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2010 2:09:43 PM

Also I'd expect somebody who deals with those situations on a weekly basis to be more adept at handling them, regardless of the stress level.

10/22/2010 2:11:12 PM

^The police do handle these situations on a weekly basis.

?

10/22/2010 3:11:33 PM

I was continuing the discussion surrounding the comparison between a police officer's duties and an active soldier's duties while at war in a war zone. Specifically the possibility of, potential for, and frequency of situations requiring the exchange of weapons fire.

Not even close.

?

Also, update

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8496195/

Quote :

"... she “made a strongly and clearly worded statement, threatening to kill the officer” and then “quickly reached toward the lower portion of her garment and immediately charged at the officer.” “The officer ordered the suspect to stop before firing multiple shots, as the suspect continued to charge,”..."

10/22/2010 5:40:58 PM

OH GOD NOT A CLEARLY-WORDED STATEMENT!

10/22/2010 5:54:52 PM

^^So what do you do in that situation, indy?

"Stop! Or I'm gonna be real upset with you!"

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2010 5:55:20 PM

Take a step back and use those tasers they love so dearly.

10/22/2010 6:02:33 PM

Eh. If I ever tell an officer (or anyone else) that I'm going to kill them and then charge them, I expect (and deserve) to be shot. Why would you expect any less?

10/22/2010 6:09:37 PM

So you're saying that you're suicidal? Do we need to dispatch an officer to your residence for a welfare check? Do we need to arrest you to protect you from yourself? Why are you resisting? You're not thinking clearly. Why aren't you letting us arrest you and treat you like a felon for the rest of your life?

10/22/2010 6:16:01 PM

I'm really and truly believe that police should be required to wear audio and video recording devices at all times. It would do a hell of a lot of good to deter abuse of authority, police brutality, false claims of police brutality, and would offer an unbiased view of events that could be entered as evidence when needed.

Hopefully that day is coming soon.

10/22/2010 6:18:03 PM

^I think you're right. We definitely need to do something like that. They have extraordinary amounts of power, and they carry firearms...they need to be monitored. And they should probably get paid more, too.

^^^I hope to goodness you don't ever have a loved one with a mental illness get gunned down by the police.

Quote :

"dakota_man: I was continuing the discussion surrounding the comparison between a police officer's duties and an active soldier's duties while at war in a war zone. Specifically the possibility of, potential for, and frequency of situations requiring the exchange of weapons fire. Not even close. ?"

So because we don't live in a dangerous war zone, we can expect the police to kill unarmed people more often? That don't make no sense.

I mean, you're claiming that our police are less prepared for "situations requiring the exchange of weapons fire" so it's unfair to compare them to military personnel. You're basically admitting that our police are inadequately trained, and that inadequacy does result in the avoidable deaths of unarmed people.

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM. Reason : sss]

10/22/2010 7:00:38 PM

Anyone who's read my stuff before knows that I tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt in most situations but crap like this:

Quote :

""... she “made a strongly and clearly worded statement, threatening to kill the officer” and then “quickly reached toward the lower portion of her garment and immediately charged at the officer.”"

really gives you the feeling that someone fucked up. I think if there were better and more open communication between the cops and the public, and less lawyer speak, they might find they get more support from the people.

Cops definitely need to get and have cameras and mics on their person too. It really would help clear so much of this up; something like one of these http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERAXON.aspx . But I think it would also need to be managed and stored by a third party. Too often you hear that the dash cam wasn't working or the 911 tape got lost, and there's always the suspicion that it's not lost or broken, it's just too damning. A third party management group would be help alleviate that, but I'm not sure how you would fund it without running the risk of tying it to one side or the other.

10/22/2010 7:26:22 PM

^
Yes, it is quite obviously that the shooting was unwarranted.
Why do you think police oppose wearing cameras?

Quote :

"So what do you do in that situation, indy?"

Quote :

"Take a step back and use those tasers they love so dearly."

Exactly.

I mean, what???
Are some of your heads so big that you don't think cops should take steps back? (or as you would call it, "retreat like a pussy"...)
Have you ever watched professional fighting? Moving back or away from the attack is not a pussy move. It's called dodging. Only stupid animals never take defensive evasion moves during life-or-death fights.
disco_stu seems to think that it's somehow out of the question:

Quote :

"Or turn my back and run???....Are you really suggesting that police officers should run away from threats?"

Yes disco_stu. There is no middle ground between shooting an attacker and running away (for good).

God damn, some of you are fucking stupid.

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2010 9:20:08 PM

Two of the cops involved are twin brothers. The other is a female.

10/22/2010 9:54:34 PM

This is so fucking sickening. Too many people (usually Republicans - and I say that as a registered one) are going to be defending these police, saying that they "have a tough job", or something similar, as if that gives them an excuse to end a person's fucking life because a goddammed woman is running towards three fucking police officers. You fuckers just have a hardon for authority (yet probably bitch about Obama and people who aren't "pro-life" like you).

I'm sorry, but there is not a whole lot of gray area here. All three officers clearly all had their firearms out prior to the woman charging, or else there is no way in hell that all three drew their weapons, fired, and hit in the time it took for the woman to charge them. If it did, then they were hella far away, and that is just even more reason they shouldn't have shot. If they DID all have their firearms out beforehand...fucking WHY? There are THREE of them (them, as in...you know...physically fit men and women who had multiple non-lethal tools at their disposal), and you are going to tell me that a single woman escalated the situation so seriously that she needed to be shot? I mean, I hate Michael Moore, but I thought he had a pretty (sadly) good point, when he handed out bright orange wallets to black people on the streets of NYC, after a black guy was shot reaching for his wallet. I'm sorry, but you can't give passes to people who outright end someone's life.

One of the main reasons that I hate tazers is that there are clear rules when you can and cannot use deadly force. The same cannot be applied to tazers (even though they are deadly in their own respect). It is sad to see that those lines are all of a sudden getting blurred by a bunch of douchebag cops who were probably nothing more than stupid high school bullies on a power trip.

/drunk rant

10/22/2010 10:13:38 PM

^Dude, you're totally right. I didn't think of it that way, but they totally took the blurry rules around tazers and applied them to actual firearms.

10/22/2010 11:58:08 PM

Quote :

"^I think you're right. We definitely need to do something like that. They have extraordinary amounts of power, and they carry firearms...they need to be monitored. And they should probably get paid more, too."

You've made a good argument for private defense agencies, and under the system we have right now, law enforcement doesn't exactly attract "the best and the brightest." A lot of police are unintelligent, not to mention physically out of shape. Bad decision making is rampant. Many of the best cops end up advancing within the bureaucracy, rather than patrolling the streets.

On some level, I empathize with cops. I can see how being a target and often finding yourself in life-threatening situations would put you on edge. At the same time, cops (as part of their job) have to enforce several immoral laws, and I can't respect them for doing that. I agree with Kurtis636, police should be monitored constantly. Just based on the WRAL article, I don't know if the police acted appropriately or not. There aren't enough details for me to say, but if these people had been recorded, especially in video, it'd be a much easier call to make.

10/23/2010 12:23:22 AM

No private defense agencies!

You yourself said we got a lot of immoral laws...why would we wanna create a profit motive to enforce them? And not just any profit motive but one connected to government funds! That's crazy!

(I know I'm not using "profit motive" in the classically correct sense, but you know what I mean.)

10/23/2010 12:37:48 AM

There already is a profit motive in law enforcement, and it absolutely is connected to government funds. When the cops bust some big drug dealer, who happens to have a whole lot of cash on hand, have you ever wondered what happens to the money? Most of the time, it's supposed to go to schools. In some states, though, the majority of the money has ended up going to the very police force that investigated and carried out the arrest.

Bureaucracy, not excluding the law enforcement variety, favors continued regulation and legislation. It keeps people in a job. As long as there is a government-sanctioned "police industry," that receives federal backing, we will be less free. There will be a structural bias towards prohibition and social controls. Personally, I don't see how private defense could work. I don't like the idea of rogue agencies enforcing stupid laws and perpetual battles between the various police forces. It seems like out of anarchy arises government, and you might as well accept that some government is necessary. The task is keeping it from overstepping its bounds, which is why you have a constitution.

10/23/2010 1:51:57 AM

?

On these last two exchanges, it doesn't seem that you and I have disagreed. You're just sort of lecturing me about obvious ideas as if we do disagree.

I mean, I'm aware that the police keep a lot of the money they seize--for like a month on here, that's all the boys could talk about. And, yes, some government is necessary. And, absolutely, it's a horrible idea to have rogue agencies enforcing stupid laws and fighting perpetual battles between one another.

And I never said I wanted to privatize the police force. I just pointed out that they have a lot of power and they carry firearms, and they should probably be monitored more closely, and you apparently also agreed with Kurtis636 that they should be monitored. This is not an argument to privatize the police.

So why are you messing with me?

[Edited on October 23, 2010 at 9:10 AM. Reason : messing, not fucking. no more cursing.]

10/23/2010 9:09:44 AM

I'm not, I was just pointing out that you (unknowingly) made a good argument for a privatized police force, even though I myself am not sold on the idea. As long as law enforcement is an arm of the government, it will be rife with incompetence, inefficiency, and senseless violence. In a free market, policy salary would probably be determined by effectiveness, rather than seniority.

10/23/2010 10:39:05 AM

And now the story will disappear...

10/23/2010 11:01:49 AM

So, can I make up thread titles that are absolute lies as long as it's talking shit about the establishment?

10/25/2010 9:33:59 AM

If a civilian had confronted her and shot her in the same manner they'd be sitting in a jail cell waiting for their bail hearing right now.

10/25/2010 12:38:16 PM

^ Not if this were the case:

Quote :

""... she “made a strongly and clearly worded statement, threatening to kill the officer” and then “quickly reached toward the lower portion of her garment and immediately charged at the officer.” “The officer ordered the suspect to stop before firing multiple shots, as the suspect continued to charge,”...""

10/25/2010 12:49:37 PM

Quote :

"strongly and clearly worded statement, threatening to kill the officer"

really?

10/25/2010 1:08:09 PM

Officers say she sounded very articulate.

10/25/2010 2:04:10 PM

She even used a mid-atlantic accent.

Civilians have a duty to retreat(in this state) whenever possible. Do police?

10/25/2010 2:16:47 PM

^No, G.S. 15A-401

Quote :

"(d) Use of Force in Arrest. – (1) Subject to the provisions of subdivision (2), a law-enforcement officer is justified in using force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary: a. To prevent the escape from custody or to effect an arrest of a person who he reasonably believes has committed a criminal offense, unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or b. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. (2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby: a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony."

15A-401(d)(2)(a) applies to this incident.

10/25/2010 2:27:03 PM

Quote :

"Yes disco_stu. There is no middle ground between shooting an attacker and running away (for good). God damn, some of you are fucking stupid."

Yes, like people who don't even read the premise of the GOD DAMNED ORIGINAL POSTER!

Quote :

"She even used a mid-atlantic accent. Civilians have a duty to retreat(in this state) whenever possible. Do police?"

10/25/2010 2:36:35 PM

Quote :

"To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;"

She was going to kill them with her crazy lady powers. Thank goodness they got the jump on her.

[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 5:11 PM. Reason : l]

10/25/2010 5:10:48 PM

Would saying, I'm going to kill you and then I reach into my pants not be the imminent use of deadly force?

When does an officer get to use deadly force then, After the gun is pointed at him/her?

10/25/2010 5:29:46 PM

Depends on what's in the pants, doesn't it?

She obviously didn't have a gun. If we're to believe the officers' accounts then what was she reaching for? Who "pretends' to reach for something that isn't there (other than crazy people, k?) Could've been a gun, mace, a knife, some prayer beads, or some medication for all we know. Or she might not have reached for anything at all and the officers made that up just to cover their asses. Either way, officers perceived a threat when no actual threat existed and this lady will probably die as a result of the incident.

I hope if I ever get killed "reaching for something that's not a lethal weapon" people don't say I deserved it.

10/25/2010 6:22:35 PM

If this was LA there would be riots by now.

10/25/2010 6:33:26 PM

Quote :

"Depends on what's in the pants, doesn't it?"

No, because you might end up paying the ultimate price to find out. There doesn't have to be an actual threat in your face to justify deadly force and in a rapidly evolving situation, its what a reasonably trained officer thinks.

Can an officer shot an unarmed man? Yes, but you have to articulate why. Nowhere in N.C.G.S does it say there has to be a weapon/knife/bomb/etc.

[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ...]

10/25/2010 6:49:59 PM

Quote :

"She obviously didn't have a gun."

Obviously? Sure we know now that she didnt have a gun but is it really obvious that she didnt at that time? I think youre making a very bold assumption.

Quote :

"I hope if I ever get killed "reaching for something that's not a lethal weapon" people don't say I deserved it.""

If you reach for something in your pants after threatening the lives of officers or others, then yes people will likely say that you deserved it.

[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 6:59 PM. Reason : 0]

10/25/2010 6:59:29 PM

Quote :

"Who "pretends' to reach for something that isn't there (other than crazy people, k?) "

Presumably the same people who go charging at guys pointing guns at them?

Quote :

"If this was LA there would be riots by now."

Because what better way to demonstrate that not everyone the police encounter should be treated like dangerous animals than by acting like dangerous animals...

And to be fair, LA riots every time the weather changes. A riot in LA is about as meaningful as a politician's apology.

10/25/2010 8:14:59 PM

At this point I think it's safe to presume that.
Oh wait,

10/25/2010 8:59:57 PM

I was not aware that people in LA rioted very often.

I mean, if you consider the amount injustice they have endured with a corrupt police department that has killed hundreds of civilians, they actually show some restraint when it comes to getting their riot on.

10/25/2010 9:27:23 PM

Quote :

"Civilians have a duty to retreat(in this state) whenever possible. "

Really?
Link?

10/25/2010 9:42:13 PM

That's actually not true. North Carolina is actually a "stand your ground" and NOT a "duty to retreat" state.

Quote :

"§ 14-51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence. (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section."

10/25/2010 9:51:02 PM

That's what I thought...

10/25/2010 9:59:23 PM

FALSE

The above only applies in your home. In public your only option is to run unless you are completely surrounded. In Florida you can stand on the sidewalk and blow their brains out.

10/25/2010 10:00:22 PM

^
The above says, "a home", not, "your home". Are you sure?

Quote :

"Really? Link?"

10/25/2010 10:30:37 PM

Some states, you don't even have to think someone is going to physically harm you...as long as you think they are in the process of committing a felony.

I don't mind the idea of a castle doctrine, but wayyy too many states have made their laws so lax that it gives off the impression that they just want to blow someone the fuck away and not have to worry about getting in trouble for it.

10/25/2010 10:55:18 PM

Christ, some of you around here don't know the first thing about Law Enforcement.

But being the benevolent radio guru that I am here is some of the audio from the incident.

You have to fast forward to about the 21 min mark to hear the incident go down.

http://www.qsl.net/ke4znr/RPDmp3/October21stRPD.mp3

Oh and most Raleigh PD crusiers are outfitted with video cameras & the officers wear mics for audio.

10/26/2010 7:16:07 PM

Your link does nothing.

10/26/2010 7:36:09 PM