T1B

mvscal wrote: Once upon a time, being calm, cool and collected in chaotic and potentially dangerous situations was a virtue that was aspired to by all who found themselves in such situations.

But it's such common sense, I'm baffled that anyone would have a problem with it, it's the cornerstone of functioning organisation, police or otherwise

Dr_Phibes wrote:...functioning organization.

Functioning is a matter of perspective, wouldn't you say?

Moving Sale wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:
So what if it wasn't a flame thrower or a grenade?

So he wasn't likely to take out two cops at that distance. You can't just yell Dangerous Weapon and blast away. It's not a talisman. Totality of the circumstances is the proper lense to use. See Whizzer White's opinion in Tenn. v. Garner.

He could take out one, and that's one too many.

And you're correct that a knife isn't a talisman....it's a deadly weapon:

88 wrote:Have the police officers involved in the 7-11 shooting given any explanation for why they fired?

To the DA, haven't seen a public statement. Welcome to Oregon.

And so many rounds?

15.

The dash video certainly appears to show the now-dead suspect quite a distance away from the officers and not doing anything particularly threatening at the moment he was shot.

According to the DA, he "appeared to take a step forward." Welcome to Oregon.

Can someone link me up with a story confirming that the officers have already been cleared in that shooting?

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... _five.html

I'll save you the read -- it went down a couple of days ago. And I'm sure if you or I pumped 15 rounds into someone who "appeared to take a step forward," the DA would go to bat just as hard for us, right?

That seem nearly impossible, since it happened less than a month ago.

Welcome to Oregon, where no cop has ever, ever done anything wrong. Just ask Kendra James, who had a cop blast her in the back of the head, execution-style, because she moved the car a couple of inches. At the time of that incedent, the Portland Police were discharging rounds at a rate of over double any other police department, despite a relatively low rate of violent crime in the city (the incident in McMinnville obviously wasn't in Portland, and Minimac isn't even a burb, it's south... but it's the same throughout the state -- cop shoots someone, it's "no questions asked").

Diego in Seattle wrote: He could take out one, and that's one too many.

Let me know when you find a relevant link. The Tueller Principle doesn't even vaguely apply here. There were 3 cops with guns already drawn, against someone who wasn't closing at speed.

FAIL.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not shedding a tear for the "undocumented" POS who randomly walked up to a guy he had no prior contact with and stabbed him to death -- it saved the people of Yamhill County a bunch of money. But when we enable law enforcement officers to be judge, jury, and executioner with no accountability, our system has failed miserably.

And mvscal nails it -- if you're a complete and utter panic-prone pussy, you chose the wrong line of work.

Diego in Seattle wrote:
He could take out one, and that's one too many.

BTW, from your article (I was already familiar with the Tueller Principle):

First, develop and maintain a healthy level of tactical alertness. If you spot the danger signs early enough, you can probably avoid the confrontation altogether. A tactical withdrawal (I hesitate to use the word "retreat") may be your best bet, unless you're anxious to get involved in a shooting

Maybe you should consider withdrawing your foot from your ass. A non-knife-lethal distance could have easily been maintained, but the juice monkeys (and the mandatory bulldyke) wouldn't have any of it. If they had any training, their pussy asses threw it out the window.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:
So what if it wasn't a flame thrower or a grenade?

So he wasn't likely to take out two cops at that distance. You can't just yell Dangerous Weapon and blast away. It's not a talisman. Totality of the circumstances is the proper lense to use. See Whizzer White's opinion in Tenn. v. Garner.

He could take out one, and that's one too many.

And you're correct that a knife isn't a talisman....it's a deadly weapon:

Look asshat. Your stupid link was about one officer who didn't have his gun drawn. There was a part about drawing first but it never said how much safer that made you. And what about two other officers with guns drawn? How does that change the equation? You asked for a case which proves that having a "deadly weapon" is not the be all and end all. Don't ask for links if you are not going to ever address the link.
I do have to admire your moxie. I don't think anybody has ever taken on mvs, dins and myself almost single handedly.
That right there might tell you how tenuous your stance is.

Moving Sale wrote:I don't think anybody has ever taken on mvs, dins and myself almost single handedly.

That is a pretty unholy triumvirate.

And yeah, I think that tells you all you need to know about your stance.

I guess that makes me Pompey.

Moving Sale wrote:I guess that makes me Pompey.

He was the short one who owed everything to his parents' wealth, right?

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:I guess that makes me Pompey.

He was the short one who owed everything to his parents' wealth, right?

And the other two had more in common with each other than they did him.

Fuck history, I was running short-smack.

So the trust fund smack was a throw away?

It does pale next to the stature thing.

Roach wrote:That video is All anyone needs to know about the situation to form a judgement.

Yes, it is. The video documents the entire encounter, dumbfuck.

Roach wrote:
Well sure enough then. That video is All anyone needs to know about the situation to form a judgement. Right counselor?

Videos can be misleading, but you have yet to produce one scintilla of evidence that this video is misleading. You got nothing. Not one eyewitness statement. Not one video technician. Nothing, but a lot of cop jizz on your chin.

If you have any evidence that this vid is misleading go ahead and hook me up. Until then you might not want to yell 'bode.

And my point was you bungled your point when you didn't point out HOW this vid is, or even might be, misleading. We have all seen the vid. The burden is now on you to tell me why I should not believe my lying eyes.

The video clearly shows the entire encounter from when the stupid piggies first notice the victim to seconds later when they mow him down in a hail of gunfire as he stands there with his hands up.

You've got nothing but cop cock up your ass.

You ask how mvs knew there was no de-escalation.
He said the vid.
You got your panties in a bunch about how the vid was not enough and there may be evidence of de-escalation that is not on the vid. While technically true, it is meaningless with out an offer of proof from you as to why that might be.
Do you HAVE to? No, but you will look like a stupid cop sucking asshat if you don't.

Roach wrote: The vid alone cannot prove that, so his statement was idiotic. And I think logic huff 'n puff boy will admit that if he is honest.

Bullshit. The vid proves, to some degree of certainty, that you are sucking cop cock. The question then becomes, what degree of certainty does it provide? It provides enough certainty for someone like mvs or myself to call the pigs in this vid asshats. The burden then shifts to you to show that the vid is somehow misleading. That’s how argument works. Don’t like it? Go fuck a can of mace.

No I looked at the vid and decided that there was enough on it to call the cops in this case criminal scum. Just as I looked at the "I can't breath" vid and decided that that cops was far less culpable and I expressed how I was ok with no true bill in that case even though it appears to be CNH to me.

Roach wrote:By the same measure then, your reaction to the video proves, to some degree of certainty, that you hate cops.

Which is completely irrelevant. You keep saying videos can be deceiving as if anyone gives a fuck. We aren't talking about videos in general. We are talking about this specific video.

Now what, exactly, is deceiving about it? Is he not just standing there with his hands in the air when he was shot?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? We know all we need to know about this case from watching the video, unless you have something specific that can tell us why it is ok to shoot a guy with his hands up. Your idiotic contention that mv is somehow out of line in this case because he is relying on this vid is asinine.

Moving Sale wrote:Are you being obtuse on purpose? We know all we need to know about this case from watching the video, unless you have something specific that can tell us why it is ok to shoot a guy with his hands up. Your idiotic contention that mv is somehow out of line in this case because he is relying on this vid is asinine.

MS;
Please state whether the suspect is holding a weapon. If you accept that he is, please explain why you fail to acknowledge the fact in your description above (and thus mis-characterized the situation).

Unlike the cop haters in this thread, I was OK with the MB and EG cops walking, but this one? I realize that the video is not the greatest, however, I see 3 cops with weapons pulled, at various angles and one nog with his hands up. I did not detect any movement of said nog towards the popo, nor any reach for what might have been a weapon. They told him to hit the deck and a second or two later gave him a 9mm assist in doing so.

Racist?

Can't say. But definitely a case of badge monkeys gone wild.

Diego in Seattle wrote: MS;
Please state whether the suspect is holding a weapon. If you accept that he is, please explain why you fail to acknowledge the fact in your description above (and thus mis-characterized the situation).

He is holding a weapon. It is irrelevant due to his distance from three cops who all have guns drawn and his hands are up. Hands up don't shoot. Or said another way... Hands up = don't shoot. This renders my description a proper characterization and your characterization of my discription as a mis-characterization, as a mis-characterization. Now that's a proper IKYABWAI.

Moving Sale wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: MS;
Please state whether the suspect is holding a weapon. If you accept that he is, please explain why you fail to acknowledge the fact in your description above (and thus mis-characterized the situation).

He is holding a weapon. It is irrelevant due to his distance from three cops who all have guns drawn and his hands are up. Hands up don't shoot. Or said another way... Hands up = don't shoot. This renders my description a proper characterization and your characterization of my discription as a mis-characterization, as a mis-characterization. Now that's a proper IKYABWAI.

The way that I characterized your statement the first time was the proper characterization. SYHTFOTW

Whether the suspect was holding the knife at his side or above his head is irrelevant. He not only did not follow the officers' commands, he also stepped forward (or advanced on the officers). At that point the officers were justified in using deadly force, whether the knife is being held above the head or by his side. And that's why the DA ruled that it was a justifiable homicide.

So you would like to add as evidence that he "stepped forward." My question to you would be, how much roid monkey jizz is on your screen, or is it eyes? He did no such thing. Is he perfectly still? No. Does he need to be? No?
The camera does not show his feet. As I discussed with roach, this kind of thing happens. Does that lack of clarity render what you can see moot? Again the answer is No. Would you like to try again you fucking amateur?

His hands are up. Again, it's not a grenade, the knife is less dangerous because it's pointed in the air. He does not need to be shot because he didn't follow commands to the letter. Unless you want to hook me up with a case that says he does.

mvscal wrote:Now just what exactly an extremely furtive gesture is as opposed a regular old furtive gesture is a mystery.

that was going to be my question, what constitutes an extremely furtive gesture?