Here's the article:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 … ds-up.html
And here's the video:
http://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-man-s … 49422.html
Of course the Media has to go into the history of the cops/victims pasts instead of just looking at the facts of the situation. Misdirection at its' finest. In any case, what are your opinions on this new set of protests?
Hinges on one question: was it reasonable for the officer to think that the use of lethal force in this situation was necessary to protect the public, his colleague and/or himself?
What is reasonable? The Supreme Court ruled in Graham vs. Conner (1989) that: 'All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.'
What is 'objective reasonableness'? The Court held that: 'The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation'.
The Court also held that in determining the level of force to use, a reasonable officer needs to consider the following questions:
1) What is the severity of the crime at issue?
2) Does the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer and others?
3) Is the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing?
My answers to those questions based on the video footage:
1) Don't know. What was the reason for the stop?
2) Subject clearly (from the camera's perspective) did not have a weapon in his hand when he was shot
3) The subject appears to be surrendering to the officer, placing his hands up and commenting that he will lie down on the ground.
However, if the officer states that (from his perspective) he genuinely believed the suspect had something in his hands, and genuinely believed the subject was exiting the vehicle to fire a weapon because he saw the suspect "reaching" then, based on the Supreme Court precedent (especially the rider about having to consider split-second decisions), I think it would be very difficult to get a court to agree that the officer's use of deadly force in this incident was not objectively reasonable.
Whether the Supreme Court decision in Graham vs. Conner was the correct decision is another story, but currently that is the legal precedent that applies to police officers' use of force.
The statement made by Walter Hudson, that "Reid complied with the officer and the officer shot him." isn’t true
First there was a handgun within reach that the cops confiscated, so they had to be on guard in case there was another gun, as I’m sure anyone here would be. Then, despite repeated warnings from the police not to move, the passenger got out of the car. I would see someone who disobeyed a direct order such as this, as a threat too. Plus it says that “Reid was shot as he raised his hands”. The officer probably saw the movement of his hands as a threat, especially after getting out of the car when he was told not to
For as many citizens, and cops as there are in America, shootings that are not justified are few.. even though you say “It's never ending” I don’t know how you can justify your statement, with millions of people, I see it as a rare occurrence
I’m certainly not condoning killing innocent people, or anyone for that matter, and I’m not crazy about the police, but everyone thinks they would react differently, and do a better job, until they are put in the same position. I hate it when anyone dies
Just my opinion
In the video it looks to me like the officer was struggling to keep the car door closed while giving orders not to get out of the car to the passenger, who forced the door open and was going to get out of the car when he was shot.
Interesting! I can see it. He definitely is told to stay in the car. However, the man said he was going to get out and lay on the ground with his hands up. He probably did not feel safe. Being in a car like that, anything can be construed as a move to grab a weapon. The police should have ordered them out and on the ground after they secured the weapon. Poor police work overall, in my opinion.
There 500'000 of police brute force actions on the internet, some have millions of hits.
And there's not 500,000 brute force actions that hit Aljazeera and the other news sources I get news from. I enjoy posting timely news articles to the forums.
"He probably did not feel safe."
I would have to say as well that the cop didn't feel safe either. Which one has priority in their "feelings"? Which one is more important to "feel safe"? I'd have to say the cop in both cases...threatening, or appearing to threaten, an armed man with the weapon pointing at me doesn't seem particularly smart no matter HOW threatened I might feel!
Police officer tells him not to move, he insists on getting out of the car after REPEATED orders to stay put. He had been in jail 13 years for firing on officers previously, what do you think his intentions were?
Why shoot to kill?
Many ways to skin a cat. Although who wants to skin a cat.
Because there is no other way to shoot, if you get shot, you may die, you may live, there is no way to use lethal force in a non lethal way, it's impossible. There is no shooting to wound in police work as I have posted dozens of times since this whole issue began back in August.
I thought the idea of the police was to lay down their lives for the public.
Not the other way round.
Not even close, I will die to protect someone if I must, not just lay down and die because someone threatens to use force against me to resist arrest or attacks me. You have some very strange ideas about police work. None of them accurate.
I loss my
middle class job of 38 Years as an artist to the
Took up law in security and private investications and found out that was more dangerious than being a cop.
Now going back to my
artwork to report the complete freak show.
I don't think there needs to be a limit on where someone can be shot. But I do believe there needs to be a limit on the amount of rounds that can be expelled in this situation. The first shot because you feared for your life, ok. The next 10? No. If you shoot someone in self defense, the first couple shots will hold in court. If you go beyond that you will be charged excessive force. There's no difference here. The "threat" was not a true threat. He did not possess a weapon (stated in the police report). 6 rounds is over doing it. In the military we were taught to fire a warning shot. Any movement after that would result in death (military faces worse conditions and they still show more restraint on actual threats than cops in America). The warning shows you aren't messing around. I digress. If you can't stop a threat without unloading your entire clip, you should not be a cop. A person can survive one or two shots, they cannot survive 14 or 50 like some of these other cases.
Also, your first comment shows an awful amount of bias and fallacy. Correlation does not prove causation.
While you can't see in the car it seems the passenger was refusing to comply with the officer who was shouting. How many times did the officer tell the dude "Let me see your hands!" 20? When an officer has a gun pointed at your head...seems to me...it's now time to TOTALLY comply with his demands. Appears to be black males.... Why was their a gun in the car? Hmmm Oh, and the dude who was shot was an ex-con so he certainly could not hv had legal carrying permit. hmmm
The gun was taken by the second officer. The man clearly has his hands up when he is exiting the car. The fact that he is an ex con has nothing to do with this situation. That only creates bias. Those cops have had complaints and violations pressed on them from 2010-2014 for abusive behavior. That obviously means these cops were just being malicious, right? No. The guy did not show himself as a threat. He had no weapon. Sure, you can say he failed to comply. So does that mean every person who protests in the street who fails to comply to a cop means they should be shot? He had his hands up and even stated he was going to lay on the ground and that there is no need to shoot. You can even tell that these cops have terrible training. They freak out and over react and use excessive force. They do not conduct themselves properly.
Really? He showed no threat? Which is more threatening - confined to a car seat, unable to reach the cop or outside, on his feet with hands free to grab?
My vote is on the second...
Oh you mean... in the car... where his hands cannot be seen. And any movement can be construed as reaching for a gun? The cop, after taking away their weapon, should have made them step out and lay on the ground just as he was trying to do. They over reacted. They are ill-trained. I have a marine behind me who just said the same thing. Stop defending shit cops.
Not only that, if he knew already this guy fires a gun at a cop and he is very nervios. Why did'nt the cop call for back up?
You haven't the faintest idea whether that cop over-reacted or not. Not the faintest.
That a cop shot and/or killed someone is NOT a reason to hang them. Sad that so many people simply do not recognize that simple fact; that they think they know every detail of what happened but instead have nothing but ignorance of the pertinent facts. Sadder even than that is that so many think they know all about being a cop without ever even been through the training program let alone years of experience.
AGAIN, when the cop has his gun drawn and he's aiming it your head...common sense says COMPLY. The dude got out of the car which is NOT what the officer was commanding him to do. That's provocation. Also, why was the glove-box open? - which clearly showed a gun. My guess is that the dude in the passenger seat was not expecting the cop to come on his side of the window. It seems the guy in the passenger seat was going to shoot the cop when he came to the driver side window.
Of further note... Black males also have a long, long history of pulling a concealed weapon on cops and shooting them. Would you like a few hundred links to support that statement?
So you showed your true colors by making accusations that would not stand up in a court of law. There's no proof or evidence to your statement. The records to this shooting show that he did not have a weapon on his person. The other cop on the passenger side acquired their weapon before anything even happened. And cops have a history of shooting unarmed civilians. Would you like me to link you the hundreds of links to support that statement? Again, that kind of thinking is neither here nor there, and does nothing in the face of facts. You wouldn't go to a court room and say this man is guilty because someone ten years ago did something.
"The records to this shooting show that he did not have a weapon on his person."
You sir, are showing your true colors. How in the heck was the officer to know he wasn't carry? The guy was shot BEFORE he was frisked.
"The other cop on the passenger side acquired their weapon before anything even happened"
I didn't see THAT in the video. REALLY? I saw the officer immediately draw his weapon and exclaim: "There's a gun in the glove-box!" I didn't see him reach in and get it. Your telling me that when the cop shot the dude...he was carrying TWO guns. I don't think so.
"And cops have a history of shooting unarmed civilians.
Those cops? Says who?
And he had both of his hands up in the video? Hard to grab a gun when both hands are in the air. The fact is, regardless of who's in the car, finding a gun does not give cops the right to react this way. The person could have a concealed license permit. It could be a registered gun, etc, etc. Also, you can read right? Go ahead and reread this quote from AP, "BRIDGETON, N.J. (AP) — With the dashboard camera in their cruiser rolling, police pulled a Jaguar over for running a stop sign on a dark night. But things suddenly turned tense when one of the officers warned his partner that he could see a gun in the glove compartment.
Screaming over and over "Don't you f---ing move!" and "Show me your hands!" at the man in the passenger seat, ********the officer reached into the car and appeared to remove a silver handgun***********
See the area I marked for you?
There were two cops on scene.
And again I will quote AP:
"The South Jersey Times reported this week that residents had filed seven municipal court complaints against Days since 2013 and two against Worley in that span for alleged abuses of power; all the complaints were later dismissed."
"all the complaints were later dismissed."
Says volumes, don't it?
Feddie, let's review the facts:
-officer sees a gun in an OPENED glove-box and warns his partner (why was the glove box open ? Only ONE possible explanation: the gun was going to be used).
-officer shouts numerous times to "show me your hands." Passenger does not comply
--passenger exits vehicle without being told to do so = provocation.
-officer makes split second decision to use deadly force based on actions by car occupant
Also, highly doubtful the officer extracted a gun from inside the car. This is breaking protocol. Officers should NEVER secure a weapon BEFORE they secure the person. You assume he pulled a gun from the car...I say he followed protocol.
"all the complaints were later dismissed."
Says volumes, don't it?
Yeah. Since cops are always charged for their crimes. Yup, yup, yup, yup. Ok.
One complaint, sure. Seven in one year? I call his innocence into question.
Your answer to number 1 has no credibility. Number 2 is refuted by the fact that you see the man's hands up in the video. Number 3, the man states his hands are up. I'm going to lay on the ground, no need to shoot, and again, with his hands up, obvious from the video. And I did not know protocol was to over react and freak out the people they have their guns aimed at? Screaming obscenities and yelling "I'm going to fucking shoot you," is not protocol. They are shit cops who failed to remain calm and collected during a situation where a human life could have been spared. If military personnel hold more restraint to ACTUAL threats (as in they do a warning shot followed by deadly force) why are cops not trained as diligently? And I did not ASSUME anything. I am giving you what I READ from Associated Press. So why don't you call AP up and tell them how they are such liars!!!!
Open glove-box has NO credibility? REALLY? If I were a cop...I would immediately see that as a direct threat . Seeing THAT gun created the chain of events that led to the shooting! Your biasness in this case refuses to allow you to see that.
You claim you can see his hands up? I can't, and for good reason. Let's use our common sense. How could the guys hands be up, freddie, if he is reaching down to open the door latch?! The guy, freddie, is making movements CONTRARY to the commands of the officer = provocation.
"failed to remain calm and collected "
Showing a cop a gun is a sure fire way to get ANY cop highly agitated.
Was the gun in the person's hand? What if those guys had open carry permits? No. Cred. I. Bility to your assumption. I'm glad you're not a cop. We have enough hot headed ones already. And that is fine to act on it as a threat, but they should also react calm and collected. I was in the military. I have seen people act the right way around rigorous situations. It comes from proper training, and these cops obviously lack the proper training. And his hands are up when the door is opened.
And what bias? The fact that these cops are ill-trained? Because I've seen calm and collected men and women in combat so I know how it should be? Civilians are not a direct threat until they are aiming a gun at you. That is not the case here. I don't care who those guys were. What they did. Where they came from. So, no, I don't have much bias, except for the fact that I would like to see cops better trained.
Also, it's interesting that everyone took into account how the cop felt in the situation, but takes no account of how the victim felt. As I said before, maybe he did not feel that being in the car offered the best way to handle the situation? Maybe he felt that any movement in the car would cause him to be shot. The cops were straight out hot heads. They were not calm and collected, and he probably thought laying on the ground with his hands up would be a better way of showing submission.
I will never get over how ignorant people are when it comes to police work and the use of deadly force, never. It is just staggering how ill informed and down right stupid people are or become when it comes to this subject.
Oh. Yes. Ignorant. Yup. Call a military vet ignorant on the ways of deadly force. Yup. Yup. Yup. Arrogance much.
Tell an 8 year Marine and an 18 year police vet *he* doesn't know when someone is way off base, yep, yep.
You were in the Navy, you MAY have popped off a few rounds from the deck of a ship, that has nothing to do with actual combat or police work. I knew you were all wet (pun intended) when you said that in the military you were taught to fire warning shots. Maybe that's what they teach a bunch of rust pickers, I don't know, but you would do that in actual combat once, because after that you would most likely be dead.
And it is more than just you who has no idea what he is talking about on this subject.
And you seriously believe that these cops handled this situation in the proper way? I'm sorry. I did not know screaming psychologically abusive dribble during a critical situation was the proper protocol. Is this how you conduct your police business in these situations? You seem to forget that they are not aiming guns at Iraqi extremists. They are aiming at civilians. U.S civilians. And "You were in the Navy, you MAY have popped off a few rounds from the deck of a ship" is an assumption. You have no idea who I am. Where I have been. What I have did. Assuming makes an ass mainly out of the person doing the assuming. You are also using fallacy to justify your argument.
Let us just agree to disagree. You have obviously made up your mind about my "ignorance," so no point in continuing. Please, take this gif to heart:
http://dc498.4shared.com/img/DcPhCLBc/s … _think.gif
Unless you were a SEAL, SWCC Crewman or a Corpsman who went Green-Side, the odds of a swaby seeing combat are next to nil, even EOD. Were you a SEAL, EOD or SWCC? Didn't think so.
And what showed me you have no idea what you are talking about is the quote below. This proves beyond a doubt to someone who actually has been there that you have never seen combat nor worn a badge, much less ever been in a deadly force confrontation. You can deny and insinuate all you want that you have been someplace, anyone who has seen combat either at war or in a law enforcement setting will know you are full of it.
No one who had ever been in an actual gun fight would say the following, it is ludicrous on it's face and has zero basis in reality, legal or otherwise.
I have seen a person with 6 hits to the torso of .45 ACP WALK to the RA unit.
And what if the first shot misses, or even the first two or three?
"Sorry officer, you've fired your allotted number of rounds for this situation, please holster your weapon and allow this aryan brotherhood/crip/blood/ms-13 gang banger(s) to beat you senseless now, thank you"
You know exactly bubkis about being in a gunfight. My conclusion as to your ignorance on this subject, as you can see, is well founded.
War solves nothing overseas or here. Been a security
The men I trained and lead are in
weapons, they are first
alone - no
I hitch hiked into 60
, 6 of them
with action happening. If
I had gun,
taking to all
My last posts were without
was a great
On top of that, if live by the sword, you will die by the sword
, putting everyone in greater danger.
by Don W 4 years ago
Another example of unreasonable (and therefore unlawful) force being used by a police officer who was evidently away on the day they covered "de escalation" at the academy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46-XTqXkzE
by mega1 9 years ago
How do YOU feel about that? Seemed like at least VOLUNTARY to me and now they're saying he will probably serve 5 years. What kind of message does this give police in Oakland? Man, I would not want to be there right now!
by deecoleworld 4 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
by rhamson 4 years ago
"Officer Ray Tensing fatally shot Samuel Dubose, 43, on Sunday after a struggle at a traffic stop over a missing license tag, Cincinnati police said. Dubose was driving away when Tensing shot him in the head, police said."Was the stop racially motivated? Did they both act appropriately...
by IslandBites 3 years ago
So, another one?South Florida police shoot an autistic man's black caretaker who was lying down with his arms raised."Sir, there's no need for firearms. I’m unarmed, he’s an autistic guy. He got a toy truck in his hand."He was shot anyway."When he hit me, I'm like, I still got my...
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like this. A cop approaches a suspect and gives the suspect some type of order. If the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|