Lets talk about this... pro's and con's


#21

I got to say, we are a pretty ill society that has so little regard for life that a stolen cup of coffee is worth a death sentence… Perhaps we should adopt sharia after all… at least the people get to live and their missing hand will clue everyone into the fact that he is a thief…


#22

I don’t think I was advocating that anybody should be tolerated stealing coffee. You’re right, the stolen coffee and the three inch Swiss Army knife was sufficient to warrant being filled full of lead, past lethal necessity even.


#23

Did the police know while the incident was unfolding that he did not have any other weapons in his possession that could have hurt them? Was the man’s intent one of compliance or aggression?

I did 10 years as an MP with 3 tours in Iraq. We were the police. You don’t get it until you have been in that kind of situation. One person fires, everyone opens up.

These decisions get made in split-seconds. Training and muscle memory kicks in. Someone enters the bubble, down they go. No one wants to kill someone else.


#24

Oh, I get it… working around a military installation as an active duty MP is a somewhat different scenario and I would suspect that the habit of ‘everyone opening up’ is more cover than defense… If you can see their hands… presumably one had stolen coffee and the other a 3" knife, I don’t care if he is carrying a fully automatic weapon, that hidden weapon was no immediate danger to anyone. Their was no reason to kill him…except for fear which, with several trained officers around, should not have been a problem or too much desire to pull the trigger on the part of one or more men…


#25

Yeah, that was stateside. You are a regular cop then. When Baghdad fell, we were their police force in an urban war zone. Everyone is armed, no one wears uniforms, and you have to process them through checkpoints daily. We were scared, but we weren’t lighting civilians up. I’m just saying that this guy failed to comply, he entered the bubble, then training kicked in. Maybe they need to adjust some tactics. The entire police force does not need to be disarmed.


#26

No, I don’t want to mislead you, I was never on the police force or military police. I one time in my home I locked and loaded to a noise in my house… I called for my daughter and son… I heard my daughter and son and told both to say in their rooms… only my son was not in his room and he didn’t call back… he was 15 at the time… the person was in my dark living room with a shiny object in his hand… Had I not taken that ‘split second decision’ to reposition myself and reconfirm the situation… I would have killed my son that night… he didn’t answer me because as he told me later, he heard me rack the slide and it scared him where he froze… Things can be handled differently… police can control a situation and most times do… sometimes they get scared… I get that… but in this case, I think a psych eval is in order…


#27

Here’s the video. Skip all of the standard “he wuz a gud boi he dindunuffin” crap.

Jump to around 1:05


#28

Ok. Not the way I would have executed that. I was basing my responses on the description of the event. I imagined a sidewalk setting after I read convenience store. I was picturing a tight quarters event. In this case the dude was in a vacant parking lot. They could have tactically circled him.

I stand corrected, the use of deadly force at that great of a distance between officer and subject should not have been authorized.

I still think the 9th circuit ruling is fucked.


#29

I’m thinking that 47 bullets to the knee cap would have put him down… both hands were always outstretched and visible.

When I first got to the UK their was an indecent where a man had fallen into a little park pond… the pond was about 3 feet deep… Two police officers saw him fall in and saw him face down it the water… They got on the radio and called for the response of a ‘water trained’ officer to ‘rescue’ the guy… of course he was dead at the scene… Health and safety prevented them from getting in the water because they might drown for the lack of training…

I understand police what to go home to their families … did you see the K9 officer before more than a couple of bullets had flown… he and his dog were repositioned well out of harms way…


#30

Some guys get into training drone mode. When dumb shit like that happens it’s usually because people do the right thing then get disciplined for not following protocol.

Example:

COP: I pulled the drowning man out of the water.

BOSS: Are you trained to respond to water events?

COP: No.

BOSS: You are in violation of official department policy. You are being demoted and will forfeit two weeks pay.

Once word spreads that people are getting screwed over, they fall in line and won’t life a finger if a regulation says not to.

Anyway, yeah that was not the way to handle that situation. If they hadn’t shot him I would have told you that you were watching a training exercise. K-9 you go first, then SWAT, then the fat sergeant, then the rookie.


#31

Nobody said anything like that, care to quote it? He was a homeless man who suffered from mental illness and wasn’t getting the care he needed. That information is readily available if you care to see it. You’re more exited by the shootout and the great threat that the 3" knife posed to 7 cops and a dog. But it’s incidents like this that have led us to rulings like the 9th circuits, so I’m afraid you’ll have to deal with it.


#32

More concerned with being the edgy cool guy than on what actually happened.


#33

Already seeing good results.

City Attorney Pete Holmes praised the court’s decision to rule against the police, claiming that the policy has already resulted in a 60 percent drop in use of force incidents this year, according to Seattle Met.

“On behalf of the city, I welcome this confirmation that constitutional policing and officer safety go hand-in-hand,” Holmes said.

IOW, without loosing a single officers life, 60% of the time cops have deescalated situations that they use to ratchet up force on, which proves the extra force isn’t necessary.


#34

And of course how did the police responding to a knife wielding person was mentally ill and not seeking death by cop?

Just curious, if a person approaching you with a knife in hand would you just sand there as they approach?

Why should any police officer put their life at risk?


#35

Again, the problem with this policy is that it WILL get cops killed… better hires, better training, better procedures. I think our police forces are hiring, as they always have, from the ranks of the military… As you well know, we have pretty much been at war for the entirety of some new hires lives and some of these guys have served faithfully on multiple tours… War zone tactics and good policing aren’t the same but forcing officers to work against their instinct in high pressure situations will get good people killed both civilian and those in uniform.


#36

Of course I suspect that police departments and officers have learned over time that a dead suspect will not sue…


#37

Well at least you can acknowledge the excessive use of force in that event, thanks.


#38

Of course the customer should be sued as the the rights of the would be robber were certainly infringed upon. Doesn’t matter that Flores stabbed him in the neck (Attempted murder) and the customer responded with like force.