Random Politics & Religion #07

Standard Training is to shoot center mass. You shoot to stop the threat. Sometimes the threat dies in the process.

When adrenaline starts pumping you get tunnel vision. You rely on that training to do what you are supposed to do. Which is aim center mass. You aren't able to calmly think about shooting him in the arm or leg. If you reasonably believe a person is a threat to you, and that person is in the act of committing a forcible felony, or will commit one; you have the clear to stop that threat with force.

Aggravated battery to a police officer is a class 2 felony in cases where contact does not cause bodily harm. He was resisting arrest and had a firearm on him, and he was reaching toward his right hand side pocket (which the gun was in). Things could of turned even uglier.

We have no idea if the police know this guy or not. But based on identification they could have known about his prior record.

The average cop just wants to come home to his/her family. I like how people say "could of, would of, should of" in situations like this. When they have no idea what police go through, and they have no firearms training at all.

"Better him than me." Applies in this scenario.

I know things are different in Europe, but in the U.S. we have a certain set of laws (varies by state) on what can justify homicide in a defensive scenario.

As for the right to resist unlawful arrest. The place to do it is in court, not on the street. I mean how stupid can people be, how do they think that will turn out for them. Honestly? Go for it if you really want to, let me know how it turns out.

Personally I'd comply, and get a lawyer. Have your day in court, prove the *** wrong; and get a settlement. On the plus side you won't be bruised up(as much), or have any extra holes you weren't born with.

Right to resist varies on the state. It is legal in Louisiana but this wasn't an unlawful arrest. There is no brandishing law in Louisiana, but it can fall under Assault with a deadly weapon which is a felony. That alone would give reasonable grounds to justify an investigative stop/probable cause.

Also illegally carry a concealed firearm is another crime. Look more probable cause to go with the reported assault with a deadly weapon/brandishing.



Tell me what made this an unlawful arrest?

As for carry in Louisiana.

Open carry is legal without a permit.
While concealed carry requires a license. Something tells me this "fine and upstanding gentleman" wasn't open carrying. Nor did he have a license to do so because he would of gotten flagged through the system. Plus the pistol was found inside of his pocket.

http://www.lsp.org/handguns.html

Also what if they did know him? You saying "maybe they didn't." is just as hypothetical.

Also kinda lmao

He sure crossed a lot of those off his bucket list already with that criminal record of his.

If you want to feel bad for a violent felon/sex offender be my guest.

Unnecessary wall of text that I have little interest for.
Guy was resisting arrest? Was the easiest situation to shoot to wound and not kill. I understand if someone across the street pulls a gun you aim for the best target, but while the guy is under you and squirming with difficulty no less? Or the one who was at point blank too and in a car so couldn't even more away or anything.

Incompetence is never an excuse.

Like I said:
Standard Training is to shoot center mass. You shoot to stop the threat. Sometimes the threat dies in the process.

When adrenaline starts pumping you get tunnel vision. You rely on that training to do what you are supposed to do. Which is aim center mass. You aren't able to calmly think about shooting him in the arm or leg. If you reasonably believe a person is a threat to you, and that person is in the act of committing a forcible felony, or will commit one; you have the clear to stop that threat with force.

I don't expect you to understand though. I doubt you are in that line of work.

Also for anyone else who says "TLDR"

Maybe this will suit your attention span. Look shiney!

It's not a problem of attention. It's not a virtue to lack the capacity to synthesize.

Again, chances are they were completely unaware of his transgressions. There is no evidence suggesting they did. The rule is 'innocent until proven guilty' and as such had no legal grounds to attempt an arrest.

They made an arguably illegal attempt, he arguably legally resisted, and they killed him for it after they had him held down and essentially neutralized as a threat.

I don't enjoy people being killed, no matter how shitty they are. I mostly feel bad for his kids, but he didn't deserve to die.

And again, if a guy is at 50 cm from you and you are trained individual there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to aim for an arm. If you panic so easily that you can't even do that then you're not fit for this job.

When asking about things like the law, or law enforcement training. You do realize the fine print is the most boring, and mundane thing in existence right?

Like if you actually read a law or ordinance page by page, it kind of makes you want to bang your head against the wall.

Unfortunately things like this require the facts/actual laws, and you can't just go with feels or emotions. At least in this country.

Another irrelevant answer.

In the end the totality of the circumstances will be looked at.

Also I'm calling it now, there won't be any charges filed against the police. There might be civil charges against the department but the police acted appropriately. Just like the whole Micheal Brown thing.

People are going to need a massive tube of preparation H after this investigation/verdict is over with. Expect more riots and "protests."

If you want to blame anyone for our legal system, blame Britain. It's what our legal system was initially based off of. <.<

Darn those pesky laws!

Indeed.

Especially when the people responsible for creating and upholding them get to ignore them.

Like in this incident.

I'm not sure how I can explain it then. My first response was too long to read.

Europeans just don't understand American law and policing.

At least not without taking a long boring class, which is way worse than my wall of text.

It was just full of completely irrelevant points that had nothing to do with what I said.

And I wasn't looking for any explanation if you still don't get it. I was showing discomfort at the behaviour.

Some what relevant. Sorry about the whole fox thing.

https://youtu.be/yfi3Ndh3n-g

Police Departments around the nation should open those classes to the public once a year so the public can see just how stressful the decision process can be.

Step in the ring if you think you got what it takes.

There are many reasons why you don't aim for an arm or leg. Officers are trained to only use their firearms when deadly force is deemed necessary. Adrenaline, drugs, etc. are factors in why a bullet to the arm or leg might not stop a target, and arms and legs tend to be harder targets to hit anyway since they move more. You don't want to risk bullets flying past the target and putting other people in danger.

I once witnessed a guy that was clearly high on drugs being taken down by police. He didn't have a weapon, so the police used tasers. He eventually had to be taken down by multiple officers and hog-tied because the tasers did nothing to him. Anyone who's been shocked by one of those knows that tasers HURT. If that wouldn't stop you, neither would a bullet to a limb unless it was a lucky bone-breaking shot.

tl;dr: If killing someone isn't your only option as an officer, you don't pull the weapon, period. None of this arm/leg shot argument crap from people who clearly have never been in such a situation before.

I agree with you.

Also the guy on the ground was most likely tased before the shooting. The police tried using less than lethal means for his compliance. They had no obligation to use live ammunition on a limb.

Also about the arm and the leg thing. One word: Arteries.

They would bleed out pretty fast and be just as dead.

I'll always remember one episode of COPS where there were like 10 cops in this guy's living room and the commander of this "takedown" is talking. He's like "He's in there, high as hell on PCP. We want to take him alive but he has a shotgun. If you do start shooting, keep shooting because he won't even feel it."


Eh, if you can do your job and not kill, cool. For any actual good-guy cop, taking a life will haunt them for a long time (something that's often forgotten), and if it's well publicized (like most of these cases are) it will haunt and follow them for a long long time.

I fully agree with "if you pull your gun, be prepared to kill" but if you can manage not to kill, it's probably the better alternative.

I get aim for center of mass from a distance but in close-quarters, shooting in an arm or leg is not a bad thing. And yes, arms/legs have arteries. The person might still die, but they're less likely to die.


---

For the people that keep bringing up his criminal record which only reflects on the kind of person he was, not on whether the cops had reason to kill him that day.

You're basically saying that if he was the same large (thus intimidating) individual, doing the same activity, reported for the same action (flashing a gun at a homeless man) but was legally allowed to have the gun, that the cops wouldn't have the right to shoot. Where's the logic in that?

Only his actions that day bear any weight on whether he deserved to die. Previous actions/decisions affect the consequences he might face from courts and such.

Even if he was a legal carrier, the moment he brandished he would no longer be a law abiding citizen. Threatening somebody with a deadly weapon is probable cause for the police to ruin your day. Even if he was a licensed carrier, if he went for his gun he could of been shot because it would be perceived as a threat to the police.

You should take a concealed carry course, they explain how to interact with police during traffic stops and after a defensive gun use.

One of the strange things about this though is their utter shock, in the video, that he has a gun. I brought this up before now, but did they not realize he had one? Did dispatch not convey this?

Otherwise, I agree completely, but people keep talking about his record as if it's a factor in the police's actions and it really has no place.


I've never been a cop, security guard, or in the military but I have taken a CC course. My preferred gun was a para ordnance .45 warthawg. just random fyi

[/quote]

This is very very interesting. And sad too.

First, you better be absolutely damn certain you've done nothing that justified the arrest before you go so far.

Second, it's not like being arrested is that horrible. Crazy to think an innocent person might take a cop's life just to avoid an inconvenience.

Third, I wonder how that works into states where deaths as a secondary result of your crime are hung on you? Lets say you're carrying a kilo of coke, but the cop has no reason to arrest you because he doesn't know this and etc etc. You kill him, the coke is found later... are you suddenly guilty of his death?

The main issue with both sides of this is that we are missing some information. What happened before he was pinned? What was the initial reaction once the police showed up on scene. Even though the body cams fell off the video and audio is still very valuable.

Also you raise a good point about dispatch. Information and an officer safety notice should of been conveyed to the officer's that responded.

You are right though at the moment his criminal record shouldn't matter. But truthfully it irritates me how the media is making him out to be an angel and a family man. I think it should be pointed out since some idiots are donating to his gofundme page. Misinformed people donated nearly half a million.

Also about your ccw not a bad choice. The classes I've attended covered police interactions and put a huge emphasis on what to do, how to act, etc.

Yeah, they always do this. Most of these people (of any color) have moderately bad records, or very bad records but the media loves the ratings they get.

Michael Brown 'was a good kid that was on his way to college', nevermind the video from earlier that day where he strongarm-robbed a convenience store. Just like we're talking here, that incident doesn't mean he deserved to die, it only speaks for the type of person that he was.

The only way I can see the homicide of a LEO being justifiable: Is if there is a "no knock" raid at the wrong house. Home owner is startled in the middle of the night, sees intruders and shoots the door kicker with his 12 gauge/rifle/pistol.

Especially if the raid was warrant-less.

Military training, when you fire your weapon you always fire to kill the enemy.

For what it's worth, it seems to depend on what state you're in. Unlawful arrests are considered assault and battery and are considered the same in regard to how you can retaliate. Some places you can get off completely free. Others get you charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Unlawful arrests generally seem to mean they're kidnapping you off the record. Rules seem to be bent pretty damn hard in those cases with a lot of rights being stripped away and they can get away with it because you're not actually supposed to be there.

I don't think they can retroactively charge you for stuff like that? But I'm no expert.

You just made a great argument for first degree murder with a life sentence.

How was it premeditated? 1at degree murder means it was planned. Where is the maliceaforethought? If the police deployed a teaser they did not have the intent to kill.

Now if they get charged with anything it would be manslaughter.