White Cop Acquitted of Killing 2 Unarmed Black People

[DocM]

I've already explained how UK cops deal with that. You either back off and get them later, or you use a rolling roadblock to stop the vehicle. Neither require bullets.

Rolling roadblocks aren't always possible, especially in fast moving situations where the public is at risk. This time the cops actually were trying to protect the public (from a dangerous vehicle.) Make up your mind.

So, so much for 'To protect and serve' huh? Irrespective of what some court decides, a policeman's job is to uphold the law and protect innocents. If you're not doing that, you're no longer a cop, you're a soldier.

See above. Sometimes there's little practical difference between cop and soldier. Color of uniform, who writes their paycheck..

And opening fire solves that problem, does it? Perhaps instead you should consider addressing the root causes of your problems; institutionalised racism, poverty and poor education.

Opening fire certainly can stop a dangerous situation before a victim or bystanders get hurt or killed.

With virtually all social groups it's the sociopathic 2-3% that cause 99% of the trouble. The vast majority of poor, uneducated and minority people aren't the problem, and blaming their "class" dishonors them.

[FloatingFatMan]

Opening fire certainly can stop a dangerous situation before a victim or bystanders get hurt or killed. If a citizen comes upon a rape/attack in progress they should have the right to take action vs. waiting 10-15m for cops to arrive. Fact is, they do.

With virtually all social groups it's the sociopathic 2-3% that cause 99% of the trouble. The vast majority of poor, uneducated and minority people aren't the problem, and blaming their "class" dishonors them.

 

All opening fire does is exacerbate an already bad situation, which is why you've been getting the civil unrest after police shootings, lately.  There's only so much the "masses" will tolerate. If you -ever- want your society to come out of where it is now, you need to start addressing the root causes behind why such sociopathic behaviour is happening. 

[DocM]

All opening fire does is exacerbate an already bad situation...

If the situation already puts innocents at risk your trade would be to let the perps finish with the victim? Nope. Bad tradeoff.

As for the demonstrations, some incidents warrant them and some do not, and calling an outside agitated riot a demonstration is a rather creative definition.

Many of the agitators that wound people up to rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore were the same union backed anarchists that started the worst of the Occupy "demonstrations."

[theyarecomingforyou]

This time the cops actually were trying to protect the public (from a dangerous vehicle.) Make up your mind.

Executing suspects when they're unarmed and the vehicle surrounded isn't 'protecting the public' - it's endangering it. They were members of the public too and the police certainly didn't protect them. There is no way that anyone can justify the firing of 137 rounds at two unarmed suspects who were being chased because of a turn-signal infraction.

 

A stationary vehicle isn't dangerous. Chasing a vehicle makes it dangerous, which is why police in the UK back off whenever vehicles enter residential areas - they use helicopters to follow the suspects and coordinate policing up ahead to safety apprehend them. The entire situation here was a result of the police actions, culminating in the needless death of two people. In no other developed country would the situation have panned out the same way.

[DocM]

>

There is no way that anyone can justify the firing of 137 rounds at two unarmed suspects who were being chased because of a turn-signal infraction.

They were pursued because the vehicle backfired causing the perception of shots fired.

How many cops present? A few cops firing the standard volley or two can add up to a lot of rounds fired. No one has time to say "hey! George, Tom and Fred fire everyone else observe."

A stationary vehicle isn't dangerous. Chasing a vehicle makes it dangerous, which is why police in the UK back off whenever vehicles enter residential areas - they use helicopters to follow the suspects and coordinate policing up ahead to safety apprehend them. The entire situation here was a result of the police actions, culminating in the needless death of two people. In no other developed country would the situation have panned out the same way.

Far as I can tel Cleveland doesn't have a chopper, only the Ohio State Police and at $4m+ a pop plus pilots, upkeep, training and fuel (tens of thousands of $/hr to opetate) not many of them.

[FloatingFatMan]

I've heard gunfire, and I've heard cars backfire.  I'm not likely to mistake the two.

[DocM]

I've heard gunfire, and I've heard cars backfire. I'm not likely to mistake the two.

Not so. It depends on the firearm.

A car backfire has a single pressure wave.

A firearm can produce a single or double pressure wave.

The difference is if the projectile is subsonic or supersonic. Many, if not most, common handguns are subsonic.

The tone of the firearm is partly velocity and partly caliber dependent. A large bore subsonic round, or a large guage shotgun, sound very much like a backfiring car.

Per a study done by BAE and the FBI.

Now add the boom echoing around in a canyon of structures & vehicles and you frequently can't tell one from the other without sound analysis gear.

[Guest]

There is something VERY wrong with your society if a car making bad sounds is mistaken for shots being fired.

 

Also well done, for a country that has so many people that are against racism and with who you cannot even joke about it, you sure like to fuel that racism as much as possible.

[FloatingFatMan]

There is something VERY wrong with your society if a car making bad sounds is mistaken for shots being fired.

 

Also well done, for a country that has so many people that are against racism and with who you cannot even joke about it, you sure like to fuel that racism as much as possible.

 

Personally, I would say that there's something very wrong with ANY society that deems such a police response to be acceptable.

[Wyn6]

Personally, I would say that there's something very wrong with ANY society that deems such a police response to be acceptable.

It's really all been said before and we've argued this to death and will continue to do so. In every one of these threads, no matter what facts are or are not at hand, there are those that immediately, without fail come out to justify these murders.

 

The fact is, it's not acceptable... at all. And, it really is sad that some people think so. We have enough murderers and destroyers in the world. Adding those who claim to "Protect and Serve" to that list, makes a mockery of civilized society. I understand cops are people too, and that they are subject to the same type of behavior as the rest of us. But, defending that behavior because they have badges is abhorrent.

 

U.S. policing is very dark ages. Unfortunately, that's due to our culture as a whole. I bet if there were a means to 100% take down a suspect with non-lethal force regardless of situation, there are those that would be against it. Again, that's sad. At some point we need to reevaluate the role of law enforcement in our country. Many of these incidents are avoidable, first by the suspects and then by the police.

[Anonymous1b]

Just like the selfleless soldier who falls on a grenade to protect hs squad doesn't expect it to go off? Grow up.

At that point, with so many shots fired, how was he to tell from which direction they were being fired? For all he knew some shots were coming from inside the vehicle. See soldier example above.

It's certainly easy to tell who's been trained for and/or in such situations and who hasn't.

 

So, you're telling me he selflessly rode out to rescue his friends when 100 shots had already been fired? Also, let's say he did. You need to fire 15 shots at point blank range to kill two people? At a distance, I would have had no problem with it but since he was literally standing over their heads, 15 is a bit much, no?

 

 

Are you kidding me? If he can't tell which side is firing, how the hell does he determine when to shoot?

[LaP]

Many of these incidents are avoidable, first by the suspects and then by the police.

I might be wrong but looking at this from the outside (i'm canadian) i think a part of your population has lost confidence in the authorities and this lead them to resist arrest for no reason other than not trusting the police officers. Are they wrong or right about their lost of confidence i don't know but i don't think it really matters this is still a problem that need to be addressed as it could potentially becomes a far bigger problem that it is right now. When people don't trust the authorities in a country (right or wrong it doesn't really matter) it's rarely a good thing. From all the videos i've watched about the subject it looks like police officers in USA probably need better training.

[FloatingFatMan]

From all the videos i've watched about the subject it looks like police officers in USA probably need better training.

 

I don't think there can be any argument against that.

[DocM]

So, you're telling me he selflessly rode out to rescue his friends when 100 shots had already been fired? Also, let's say he did. You need to fire 15 shots at point blank range to kill two people?

>

Besides them leading the cops on a 20+ mile chase through the city, providing mass quantities of probable cause under the circumstances, the cop was acquitted because after 100+ other rounds had been fired into the car it could not be established beyond the shadow of a doubt that his 15 rounds actually killed them.

Forensics can't work miracles. Many bullets will go completely through, and tactical rounds expand so much that if they go through and hit something else they're near useless for matching to a specific firearm. Even if you can match them you cannot tell if the people were alive at impact.

If the prosecutor had charged him with mutilating 2 corpses it would have been a slam dunk.

[wakjak]

Besides them leading the cops on a 20+ mile chase through the city, providing mass quantities of probable cause under the circumstances, the cop was acquitted because after 100+ other rounds had been fired into the car it could not be established beyond the shadow of a doubt that his 15 rounds actually killed them.

Forensics can't work miracles. Many bullets will go completely through, and tactical rounds expand so much that if they go through and hit something else they're near useless for matching to a specific firearm. Even if you can match them you cannot tell if the people were alive at impact.

If the prosecutor had charged him with mutilating 2 corpses it would have been a slam dunk.

And if he can't kill two people from point blank range with 15 bullets, what a god damn joke of a police officer he is.

I know you like to justify all police action but quit playing the holier than thou attitude, sometimes the police are in the wrong even when you won't admit it.

And yes even when the justice system utterly fails and is a damn laughing stock to the rest of the world.

[DocM]

His accuracy only matters in that many cops can't hit their own ass with both hands due to a lack of regular range training, which could be viewed a mitigating factor in this case.

Yeah, let's convict people in spite of the evidence to look good to places which in many ways are far worse

[Emn1ty]

It's always unfortunate when the truth is thrown aside for political agenda.

[Anonymous1b]

Besides them leading the cops on a 20+ mile chase through the city, providing mass quantities of probable cause under the circumstances, the cop was acquitted because after 100+ other rounds had been fired into the car it could not be established beyond the shadow of a doubt that his 15 rounds actually killed them.

Forensics can't work miracles. Many bullets will go completely through, and tactical rounds expand so much that if they go through and hit something else they're near useless for matching to a specific firearm. Even if you can match them you cannot tell if the people were alive at impact.

If the prosecutor had charged him with mutilating 2 corpses it would have been a slam dunk.

 

So, you do agree that he 'mutilated 2 corpses', i.e. shot them far too many times and showed extreme aggression, whether while they were alive or to their corpses? If you go back to my original post, the whole point was that while the police probably did have probable cause, this officer's action showed undue and excessive violence. I referred to that as proof that the police need to be better equipped and trained to deal with such stuff. I didn't even make it a race issue and alluded to the fact that it could just have been the cop's own psyche that was responsible.

 

That he would keep shooting, even after they were dead, was precisely my problem.