Gun Ownerships and Police Shootings---- two tragedies this week

[poppy]

In Minnesota, a black man was pulled over for a traffic stop. He told police he was reaching for his license and that he had a gun in his vehicle. At this point the officer fired.  The black man was shot and died.

 

In Baton Rouge, a black man was tackled by police (the "before" of this scene is a little unclear).  As they were tasing him, one of the police said "Gun!" (apparently he spotted the suspect's weapon).  The black man was shot by police an died.

 

Apparently both guns were perfectly legal and were not used in a threatening manner.   We know this because are videos of both incidents.... I won't link, they are graphic and disturbing.  Easily google-able.

 

Firearms, like it or not, are legal. What do you think should be done about having a firearm in police presence?  

Even leaving race out of the equation, it is a very disturbing week.

 

 

[Aura]

Tragedies like these actually encourage more gun ownership, IMO. To many people, they indicate that police cannot be trusted, so therefore, you can't depend on them. You have to be willing to protect yourself.

 

Couple this with perceived "gun grabbing" actions by politicians, and many people respond with an attitude of "OMG! They really ARE trying to oppress us! I'd better get me a gun so I can protect myself and my family before I don't have the chance!"

 

The entire justice and legal system is screwed up, but one place to start would be to properly train police to police (and not act like soldiers in enemy territory) and establish proper checks and balances to weed out and prevent "bad apples."

[fairfarmhand]

Here's what I've been told in my cc class. When you get pulled over, you tell the officer "I have a firearm in my bag. I am licensed to carry it" With BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL.

 

The officer will then instruct you on what to do. I've not been pulled over since I started carrying, but my sil said the cop said "Get the gun set it on the dash of the car. Which she did." and the traffic stop proceeded as normal.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In Minnesota, a black man was pulled over for a traffic stop. He told police he was reaching for his license and that he had a gun in his vehicle. At this point the officer fired. The black man was shot and died.

 

In Baton Rouge, a black man was tackled by police (the "before" of this scene is a little unclear). As they were tasing him, one of the police said "Gun!" (apparently he spotted the suspect's weapon). The black man was shot by police an died.

 

Apparently both guns were perfectly legal and were not used in a threatening manner. We know this because are videos of both incidents.... I won't link, they are graphic and disturbing. Easily google-able.

 

Firearms, like it or not, are legal. What do you think should be done about having a firearm in police presence?

Even leaving race out of the equation, it is a very disturbing week.

I don't believe the gun in the Louisiana shooting was legal.

[Aura]

Here's what I've been told in my cc class. When you get pulled over, you tell the officer "I have a firearm in my bag. I am licensed to carry it" With BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL.

 

The officer will then instruct you on what to do. I've not been pulled over since I started carrying, but my sil said the cop said "Get the gun set it on the dash of the car. Which she did." and the traffic stop proceeded as normal.

 

But isn't that what the guy in Minnesota did? And he still got shot!

[Guest]

Here's what I've been told in my cc class. When you get pulled over, you tell the officer "I have a firearm in my bag. I am licensed to carry it" With BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL.

 

The officer will then instruct you on what to do. I've not been pulled over since I started carrying, but my sil said the cop said "Get the gun set it on the dash of the car. Which she did." and the traffic stop proceeded as normal.

This would totally work for me, a 40yo, middle class white woman in a van. This issue is about cops and race.

[poppy]

Here's what I've been told in my cc class. When you get pulled over, you tell the officer "I have a firearm in my bag. I am licensed to carry it" With BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL.

 

The officer will then instruct you on what to do. I've not been pulled over since I started carrying, but my sil said the cop said "Get the gun set it on the dash of the car. Which she did." and the traffic stop proceeded as normal.

 

The poor man in Minnesota disclosed his firearm and was shot 4 times.  I don't know what his hands were doing (no video of that part) but it shouldn't matter.  No keeping both hands on the wheel shouldn = get shot 4 times.

 

If you watch the video... I am absolutely amazed at the presence of mind of his companion, who takes the video. The officer still has a gun pointed into a car and is yelling at her to keep her hands visible (as she holds the phone and talks into the camera).  She calmly and politely reponds to everything he says, even calling him "sir". She's clearly in shock -- it's odd to watch her talk into the camera instead of turning to comfort her dying boyfriend. But then, she was probably hyperaware of the need to keep hands visible, no sudden movements, etc.  I can't put myself in her shoes but I'm very proud of her, wherever she is, for documenting this, and for managing to survive it.

[umsami]

I think if you're a POC, you can't win.  Let's be honest, the NRA is not talking about POC legally owning and carrying weapons.  It's for white folks (and I say this as a blonde haired (at the moment), blue-eyed, fair skinned fat white woman).  If you're a POC with a gun, even if legal, it's viewed as even more threatening than being a POC without a gun.

 

It just keeps escalating.  The more average citizens have guns, the more likely police are to encounter a gun, the more likely a shooting.  It seems like police in other countries can disarm situations with a lot less violence because they know that the perps are less likely to have a weapon.   As I don't see the US getting rid of guns, I'm not sure what the answer is.  You can't tell police not to carry weapons in this country.  Taser vs. gun is not a good idea either.  I really don't know.  I fear we're going to see a lot more shootings like this.

 

Of course, we also have to add to the fact that usually police officers involved in deaths of POC are not convicted.  So, what is the motivation for them to change behavior?  Very little....although I think expensive wrongful death settlements could also change things.

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by umsami

[Slojo]

In Minnesota, a black man was pulled over for a traffic stop. He told police he was reaching for his license and that he had a gun in his vehicle. At this point the officer fired.  The black man was shot and died.

 

In Baton Rouge, a black man was tackled by police (the "before" of this scene is a little unclear).  As they were tasing him, one of the police said "Gun!" (apparently he spotted the suspect's weapon).  The black man was shot by police an died.

 

Apparently both guns were perfectly legal and were not used in a threatening manner.   We know this because are videos of both incidents.... I won't link, they are graphic and disturbing.  Easily google-able.

 

Firearms, like it or not, are legal. What do you think should be done about having a firearm in police presence?  

Even leaving race out of the equation, it is a very disturbing week.

I will continue to call "open carry" and "conceal carry" defacto laws that only apply to white people. I think people of color need to be very skeptical about believing that those laws were intended to apply to them. I actually don't think race can be left out of the question (not that you are advocating that). I think race is very central to this particular question and we shouldn't, out of our discomfort, shunt it to the side. 

 

Tragedies like these actually encourage more gun ownership, IMO. To many people, they indicate that police cannot be trusted, so therefore, you can't depend on them. You have to be willing to protect yourself.

 

Couple this with perceived "gun grabbing" actions by politicians, and many people respond with an attitude of "OMG! They really ARE trying to oppress us! I'd better get me a gun so I can protect myself and my family before I don't have the chance!"

 

The entire justice and legal system is screwed up, but one place to start would be to properly train police to police (and not act like soldiers in enemy territory) and establish proper checks and balances to weed out and prevent "bad apples."

Maybe... but it's never a winning prospect to turn your gun on a cop (which, for the record, happened in neither of these cases). I hope people are not buying guns as a response to a potential shoot out with the cops. I thought this was about personal protection against "the bad guys," which aren't supposed to be the cops :huh: (but I can't keep the pro-gun arguments straight anymore, seems like an ever-widening set of reasonings about why the monster that is our out-of-control gun culture continues to need to be fed. How did the presence of a personal weapon HELP the situation in these cases? It didn't. 

 

This is a police reform issue. Can people stop sending petitions to ABC to fire the actor Jesse Williams now? Can we admit that body cameras alone aren't a fix? They tend to "dangle" in such situations -- the presence of cameras only means we bear witness to the injustice, not that it actually changes. :crying:

Edited July 7, 2016 by Slojo

[kahlanne]

In Minnesota, a black man was pulled over for a traffic stop. He told police he was reaching for his license and that he had a gun in his vehicle. At this point the officer fired.  The black man was shot and died.

 

In Baton Rouge, a black man was tackled by police (the "before" of this scene is a little unclear).  As they were tasing him, one of the police said "Gun!" (apparently he spotted the suspect's weapon).  The black man was shot by police an died.

 

Apparently both guns were perfectly legal and were not used in a threatening manner.   We know this because are videos of both incidents.... I won't link, they are graphic and disturbing.  Easily google-able.

 

Firearms, like it or not, are legal. What do you think should be done about having a firearm in police presence?  

Even leaving race out of the equation, it is a very disturbing week.

 

Actually the man that was shot in Baton Rouge was a convicted felon with a long list of arrests, one being as a sex offender. I believe a warrant was out for his arrest for failure to register as sex offender.  Under current gun laws he cannot legally carry a gun.

 

As for not using the gun in a threatening manner, that is not clear either. The original call to police was a man fitting Alton's description and location using a gun in a threatening manner. As for his using it against police in a threatening manner, that remains to be clarified. He definitely had a gun, was resisting arrested, was tazed twice, and even resisted while pinned to ground on his back by two officers that told him repeatedly to stop moving or they would shoot. He had at least once in the past tried to resist arrest from officers.

 

 

Wanted to clarify things a bit as I live outside Baton Rouge and it is a hot topic now. There have been many protests and vigils which have all been nonviolent which I hope stays this way.

 

 

As for your question, my understanding is if you are going to be arrested, first and foremost no sudden movements. Do exactly what police ask. Put hands up in clear site and tell officers you have a gun and where it is located without moving around. Even if you don't feel you did anything wrong, tell officers, allow them to secure the gun so their life doesn't feel as easily threatened. There is no excuse to resist arrest in my opinion. An arrest site is not the place to prove you innocence, even if resisting would accomplish it which it won't, save it for a court of law.

[Katy]

Both of those cops have got to be charged with murder.  Hopefully that will make more cops slow down before reacting, because let's face it, both of them were responding to the IDEA of a gun, not an actual threat.  That might be second degree murder, or third degree murder depending on state laws, but in both cases it is murder.

 

The girlfriend having the presence of mind to livestream that video was completely brilliant.  And impressive. If she hadn't had the presence of mind to videotape that cop having a meltdown, he never would have been found guilty.

 

FTR, I'm one that's routinely on the side of police, automatically, solely because there are so many in my family, and all of them get sued by criminals for some farce or another routinely.  But in these cases there is no question, these incidents were murder.

 

Hopefully more departments will increase training about this sort of scenario, because there is no excuse.  Fear isn't enough to pull a weapon, only threat.  And in this case there was no threat.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Katy

[Katy]

Actually the man that was shot in Baton Rouge was a convicted felon with a long list of arrests, one being as a sex offender. I believe a warrant was out for his arrest for failure to register as sex offender.  Under current gun laws he cannot legally carry a gun.

 

As for not using the gun in a threatening manner, that is not clear either. The original call to police was a man fitting Alton's description and location using a gun in a threatening manner. As for his using it against police in a threatening manner, that remains to be clarified. He definitely had a gun, was resisting arrested, was tazed twice, and even resisted while pinned to ground on his back by two officers that told him repeatedly to stop moving or they would shoot. He had at least once in the past tried to resist arrest from officers.

 

 

Wanted to clarify things a bit as I live outside Baton Rouge and it is a hot topic now. There have been many protests and vigils which have all been nonviolent which I hope stays this way.

 

 

As for your question, my understanding is if you are going to be arrested, first and foremost no sudden movements. Do exactly what police ask. Put hands up in clear site and tell officers you have a gun and where it is located without moving around. Even if you don't feel you did anything wrong, tell officers, allow them to secure the gun so their life doesn't feel as easily threatened. There is no excuse to resist arrest in my opinion. An arrest site is not the place to prove you innocence, even if resisting would accomplish it which it won't, save it for a court of law.

 

The new video that came out last night or this morning makes none of that so clear.  His arms were being kneeled on when he was shot.  

 

[umsami]

Actually the man that was shot in Baton Rouge was a convicted felon with a long list of arrests, one being as a sex offender. I believe a warrant was out for his arrest for failure to register as sex offender.  Under current gun laws he cannot legally carry a gun.

 

As for not using the gun in a threatening manner, that is not clear either. The original call to police was a man fitting Alton's description and location using a gun in a threatening manner. As for his using it against police in a threatening manner, that remains to be clarified. He definitely had a gun, was resisting arrested, was tazed twice, and even resisted while pinned to ground on his back by two officers that told him repeatedly to stop moving or they would shoot. He had at least once in the past tried to resist arrest from officers.

 

 

Wanted to clarify things a bit as I live outside Baton Rouge and it is a hot topic now. There have been many protests and vigils which have all been nonviolent which I hope stays this way.

 

 

As for your question, my understanding is if you are going to be arrested, first and foremost no sudden movements. Do exactly what police ask. Put hands up in clear site and tell officers you have a gun and where it is located without moving around. Even if you don't feel you did anything wrong, tell officers, allow them to secure the gun so their life doesn't feel as easily threatened. There is no excuse to resist arrest in my opinion. An arrest site is not the place to prove you innocence, even if resisting would accomplish it which it won't, save it for a court of law.

 

Way to blame the victim.  

 

He did not pull a gun on anybody.... two videos show that.  The owner of the store said that he was not bothering anybody and was welcome to sell CDs there and had been doing it for years.

 

He was not attacking anybody as a sex offender.  His sex offender label goes back to getting his 14 year old girl friend pregnant when he was 20.  Not ideal, but once again, this was 17 years ago.  No reason to shoot the man.  He and the woman continued to co-parent their son until he was killed. 

 

Owning an illegal gun should not get one shot, especially if one is not threatening anybody. 

 

BTW, a homeless man who had kept approaching Alton for money called 911 on him.  Sterling showed his gun to him in a way to get him to leave him alone.  That got him killed. 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

The new video that came out last night or this morning makes none of that so clear.  His arms were being kneeled on when he was shot.  

 

 

Then again you gain a reputation for being someone that can't be trusted...it's no wonder.

 

There is almost always more to these stories than the headlines let on. 

 

Not saying he should have been shot, but he wasn't exactly a mind your own business and keep your nose clean sort of person either.

[SproutMamaK]

But isn't that what the guy in Minnesota did? And he still got shot!

 

Yes, that's exactly what he did. The police officer asked him for his licence and registration. He said (basically) "okay, but I want to let you know that I have a licenced gun by my wallet." The police officer then shouted at him to put his hands in the air, which he did. He was shot as he was raising his hands.

 

His 4 year old daughter was also directly behind them in the backseat. As in, right in the line of fire.

[poppy]

 

 

As for your question, my understanding is if you are going to be arrested, first and foremost no sudden movements. Do exactly what police ask. Put hands up in clear site and tell officers you have a gun and where it is located without moving around. Even if you don't feel you did anything wrong, tell officers, allow them to secure the gun so their life doesn't feel as easily threatened. There is no excuse to resist arrest in my opinion. An arrest site is not the place to prove you innocence, even if resisting would accomplish it which it won't, save it for a court of law.

 

If a police sees a sudden movement, does that mean it's OK to kill? If someone resists arrest, does that mean it's OK to kill?

I almost wrong "is it OK to shoot", but, we know police are trained to shoot to kill.

Isn't the whole point of having police officers to have someone who is trained to keep a level head in a crisis? It seems to me to be their most basic job function.

 

I'm not sure the Baton Rouge guy was resisting arrest. It's not clear. He was moving because he was being shot with a taser gun.  It is impossible to be still while being tased.

[kahlanne]

The poor man in Minnesota disclosed his firearm and was shot 4 times.  I don't know what his hands were doing (no video of that part) but it shouldn't matter.  No keeping both hands on the wheel shouldn = get shot 4 times.

 

If you watch the video... I am absolutely amazed at the presence of mind of his companion, who takes the video. The officer still has a gun pointed into a car and is yelling at her to keep her hands visible (as she holds the phone and talks into the camera).  She calmly and politely reponds to everything he says, even calling him "sir". She's clearly in shock -- it's odd to watch her talk into the camera instead of turning to comfort her dying boyfriend. But then, she was probably hyperaware of the need to keep hands visible, no sudden movements, etc.  I can't put myself in her shoes but I'm very proud of her, wherever she is, for documenting this, and for managing to survive it.

 

I haven't had access to the internet/news until yesterday and this sounds appalling. I haven't seen the video and am not sure I want to. Sad.

[poppy]

 

Actually the man that was shot in Baton Rouge was a convicted felon with a long list of arrests, one being as a sex offender. I believe a warrant was out for his arrest for failure to register as sex offender.  Under current gun laws he cannot legally carry a gun.

 

The police didn't know who he was when they killed him.  They killed him because he had a gun, in an open carry state.

[Slojo]

Then again you gain a reputation for being someone that can't be trusted...it's no wonder.

 

There is almost always more to these stories than the headlines let on. 

 

Not saying he should have been shot, but he wasn't exactly a mind your own business and keep your nose clean sort of person either.

Having a messy past SHOULD NOT be a reason to be gunned down while being pinned down. There is almost always some reasoning why people want to add in elements that are not germane to this issue itself (Freddy Gray, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner we had to hear about the flipping PARENTS of Tamir Rice... now our parents' past also gets to be included in reasons why it was "understandable" to get shot dead? Really, I can't keep up). If he has a past to be dealt with, then, umm, I don't know, ARREST him. 

 

What is the point of bringing up the "he was no angel" trope (ala Mike Brown) argument? Maybe it's to make us all feel like it could never happen to us.  :unsure: Okay. Do we all feel better now?

[kahlanne]

Way to blame the victim.  

 

He did not pull a gun on anybody.... two videos show that.  The owner of the store said that he was not bothering anybody and was welcome to sell CDs there and had been doing it for years.

 

He was not attacking anybody as a sex offender.  His sex offender label goes back to getting his 14 year old girl friend pregnant when he was 20.  Not ideal, but once again, this was 17 years ago.  No reason to shoot the man.  He and the woman continued to co-parent their son until he was killed. 

 

Owning an illegal gun should not get one shot, especially if one is not threatening anybody. 

 

BTW, a homeless man who had kept approaching Alton for money called 911 on him.  Sterling showed his gun to him in a way to get him to leave him alone.  That got him killed. 

 

 

 

Not blaming the victim. Just stating facts. The call that was made was because a man fitting his description was threatening with a gun. Regardless of who made the call or why, this is the reason they were called. This is the information the police have when sent out.

 

As for the arrest, I only stated what is known without a doubt. The man was resisting arrest and had been tazed. He was pinned on his back by two officers and told multiple times to stop or they would shoot. One even said it after he placed the gun on his chest. Yes, his left arm was visibly pinned. I cannot tell for sure about the right. I believe the gun was in his pocket at time of shooting but did hear cop say he has a gun. This is the reason people are divided. It isn't undeniably clear. I am skeptical on the police's actions enough to understand the outrage on both sides. There is every reason for people to expect a police officer to not shoot unless last resort after their life is placed in imminent danger. There is a reason to believe it didn't happen in this case. And there is outrage from the other side that says police put their lives in danger to protect people from criminals and never know if that day will be the last. We don't understand what is like to have to make a snap decision between enough force to save your life and others and not enough and losing lives possibly your own. It is difficult when looking at it from this perspective why a criminal thinks resisting arrest is ever a good idea.  I don't think any case of resisting arrest has ever helped the person being arrested. This isn't victim blaming. Everyone should have their day in court to prove their innocence whether it be Alton or the police.

 

[poppy]

Saw this online today.....

A black man is killed by cops & media prints his prior records.  A white teen rapes a girl & media prints his swim times.

[kahlanne]

Yes, that's exactly what he did. The police officer asked him for his licence and registration. He said (basically) "okay, but I want to let you know that I have a licenced gun by my wallet." The police officer then shouted at him to put his hands in the air, which he did. He was shot as he was raising his hands.

 

His 4 year old daughter was also directly behind them in the backseat. As in, right in the line of fire.

 

This is the type of case that everyone should get behind. In this case once it is gone to trial, the officers should be given the most harsh punishment allowed. Other police should use them as an example of what happens when police break the law. Incredible.

[kahlanne]

If a police sees a sudden movement, does that mean it's OK to kill? If someone resists arrest, does that mean it's OK to kill?

I almost wrong "is it OK to shoot", but, we know police are trained to shoot to kill.

Isn't the whole point of having police officers to have someone who is trained to keep a level head in a crisis? It seems to me to be their most basic job function.

 

I'm not sure the Baton Rouge guy was resisting arrest. It's not clear. He was moving because he was being shot with a taser gun.  It is impossible to be still while being tased.

 

No it isn't ok.  I never said it is. What I did say is it is never okay to resist arrest. It doesn't help the situation. By saying this I am not condoning the police officer's actions. I can believe it is wrong to resist arrest and still feel the police didn't have enough reason to shoot to kill. Personally, I understand why they felt their life was threatened but if he didn't actually have access to a weapon, I don't believe it justifies their shooting him. The problem I have is was he going for his gun or theirs? Would their have been time to stop him in another way considering tazing and wrestling him to ground was not quickly allowing his arrest.. What if he was successful and got one of the guns. It is a split second decision for him and them. Yet in the end, the police should be investigated to see if their actions were from their lives in imminent danger or whether they committed a crime themselves. They should not be judged as murderers and criminals and sentenced before their trial any more than Alton should have.

 

I have never been tazed or seen anyone with my own eyes tazed so I don't know what that looks like. Maybe that is the case and if so the officers should be held accountable and punished to the harshest rule of the law.  However, if he had to be tazed twice before even getting on the ground, it tells me that at some point he was resisting. Does this mean he should be shot? No, but stating he was resisting arrest isn't justifying their actions only stating the circumstances leading to their actions.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Having a messy past SHOULD NOT be a reason to be gunned down while being pinned down. There is almost always some reasoning why people want to add in elements that are not germane to this issue itself (Freddy Gray, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner we had to hear about the flipping PARENTS of Tamir Rice... now our parents' past also gets to be included in reasons why it was "understandable" to get shot dead? Really, I can't keep up). If he has a past to be dealt with, then, umm, I don't know, ARREST him. 

 

What is the point of bringing up the "he was no angel" trope (ala Mike Brown) argument? Maybe it's to make us all feel like it could never happen to us.  :unsure: Okay. Do we all feel better now?

 

I agree, but like anything else in life if you act like an ass you get treated like an ass whether or not that's ultimately fair.

 

I think there is a point to bringing it up.  It does not justify it, but it makes me wonder about all of the details of the incident.  If the guy gets in trouble often (major trouble) has he suddenly turned cooperative?  I have my doubts.

 

And why in hell should a felon have a gun? 

[Pawz4me]

I saw the video (the one that was available yesterday) of the Baton Rouge incident. It was horrendous.

 

I'm choosing to not watch the Minnesota video.

 

I don't know what the answer is. I think I'm about 80 percent or so "we have GOT to stop law enforcement from over-reacting" and 20 percent "but they're in the heat of the moment and their lives very well may be at stake."

 

Obviously (to me) there is a great need for more training, and probably better screening of who is allowed to become a LEO, and continued screening periodically after the initial one.  Beyond that . . . I've got nothing but  :crying:

[justasque]

 

I have never been tazed or seen anyone with my own eyes tazed so I don't know what that looks like. Maybe that is the case and if so the officers should be held accountable and punished to the harshest rule of the law.  However, if he had to be tazed twice before even getting on the ground, it tells me that at some point he was resisting. Does this mean he should be shot? No, but stating he was resisting arrest isn't justifying their actions only stating the circumstances leading to their actions.

 

 

Watching the video gives you some idea of what it's like to be tazed.  

 

These situations escalate quickly, and the police should be prepared (trained) to deal with people who are still processing what is happening (and reacting accordingly) without killing them.

 

If people are legally allowed to openly carry firearms, it obviously makes things much more challenging for law enforcement to determine when the presence of a gun is a threat to their safety.  If the very presence of a gun is an accepted reason for law enforcement officers to kill, and thus a gun is serious risk to the life of the person carrying, then it may be time to revisit open carry laws, for the safety of LE and those who are considering carrying.

[TechWife]

Actually the man that was shot in Baton Rouge was a convicted felon with a long list of arrests, one being as a sex offender. I believe a warrant was out for his arrest for failure to register as sex offender.  Under current gun laws he cannot legally carry a gun.

 

As for not using the gun in a threatening manner, that is not clear either. The original call to police was a man fitting Alton's description and location using a gun in a threatening manner. As for his using it against police in a threatening manner, that remains to be clarified. He definitely had a gun, was resisting arrested, was tazed twice, and even resisted while pinned to ground on his back by two officers that told him repeatedly to stop moving or they would shoot. He had at least once in the past tried to resist arrest from officers.

 

 

None of this means he deserved to be shot by the police. Especially since he was lying on the ground and they were physically restraining him at the time. 

[Murphy101]

I know what should be done bc it's law in our state and at least two other states that I'm aware of and part of the classes for CC permits.

 

When approached by police they are required by law to disclose that if they are a LICENCED CC permit carrier whether they have their weapon on them or not, whether the cops even ask or not. If they have their weapon on their person or in their vehicle/home, they are also required by law to disclose where it is located, but NOT to pull it out. For example, if they were to be pulled over for speeding, they should immediately inform the officer that they are CC and in addition to giving license and registration, they are to show their permit and state where in the vehicle their gun is.

 

If this is followed in a calm manner, there is zero reason for a CC person to end up shot by police.

[kahlanne]

The police didn't know who he was when they killed him.  They killed him because he had a gun, in an open carry state.

 

No they didn't know who he was. I never said they did. I was clarifying who he was for the op who stated he had the gun legally which because of who he was and his past arrests, he legally could not carry yet chose to do so despite the laws we already have present.

 

As for why they killed him, your statement is your opinion but not mine. There are many people in my state that carry a gun, legally and illegally, of all different races. Not all who do are killed. Honestly, open carry scares me. I don't know the person carrying intent and that frightens me. Not only that but you also take a chance of being misunderstood if you open carry or the gun taken from you and used against you or someone else.  It wouldn't be worth the risk for me to open carry if I even had a gun.

 

If you want to know my opinion of why he was shot, I believe that a call was made about a man threatening someone with a gun. I believe that when he was confronted, he resisted arrest and had to be tazed. I believe he continually resisted arrest. I also believe that it isn't a clear cut case and for the reason my next opinions may change as more information comes out. I believe it is odd that both police body cameras were dislodged and broken which make me doubtful on their actions. I believe that the cops were dealing with a man that feels it is okay to resist arrest as evident in the past. Yes, they might know this at the time but it shows a pattern of behavior that allows me to believe their view on this part of the arrest. So I take their side on the fact that he resisted. I believe that they did their job where it pertains to what they were saying to Alton. They told him to not move. They warned him before shooting. However, at this time, after watching the videos, this is where I stop taking their side. I think that at the moment that they shot, they acted out of fear rather than imminent danger. I do think that it could have changed seconds later and been a justified shooting but being that it appears he didn't have access to a weapon, I don't believe they should have shot. I feel for the police as a second later they could have been in imminent danger if he had gotten his gun and they possibly could have lost their life but I just cannot justify a shooting until that happens. (not the police losing life but the criminal actually having access to weapon) I don't believe they went there with intent to kill a guy with a gun. I believe Alton escalated the situation by not doing as he was told. The police were fearful and trying to do their job with good intentions but under the circumstances they let fear take control. Again, my opinion may change as new information comes to light.

[TechWife]

Not blaming the victim. Just stating facts. 

 

Yet many of the facts are irrelevant to the incident in question. 

[Murphy101]

Way to blame the victim.

 

He did not pull a gun on anybody.... two videos show that. The owner of the store said that he was not bothering anybody and was welcome to sell CDs there and had been doing it for years.

 

He was not attacking anybody as a sex offender. His sex offender label goes back to getting his 14 year old girl friend pregnant when he was 20. Not ideal, but once again, this was 17 years ago. No reason to shoot the man. He and the woman continued to co-parent their son until he was killed.

 

Owning an illegal gun should not get one shot, especially if one is not threatening anybody.

 

BTW, a homeless man who had kept approaching Alton for money called 911 on him. Sterling showed his gun to him in a way to get him to leave him alone. That got him killed.

 

Come again? A guy with an illegal gun threatens a homeless man with it... And he is the victim? Why? Bc everyone understand those beggars are so annoying so of course the guy didn't mean anything by it? Having a difficult time buying that.

 

No, he might not have deserved to be shot, but he sure set himself up for it, by cop or other gun source, by having an illegal gun and purposely using it to intimidate others. I don't care about his past beyond these two major contributing points to his death. That aside, shooting a man that's already pinned to the ground seems stupidly pointless to me. I'd need more details to explain its justification.

[poppy]

 

 

No they didn't know who he was. I never said they did. I was clarifying who he was for the op who stated he had the gun legally which because of who he was and his past arrests, he legally could not carry yet chose to do so despite the laws we already have present.

 

I am the OP.  I should have said "the gun was legal as far as the officers who killed him knew".

 

[kahlanne]

None of this means he deserved to be shot by the police. Especially since he was lying on the ground and they were physically restraining him at the time. 

 

Didn't say it did justify it. I was only stating the facts that lead up to his shooting. Whether or not the police had reason to shoot or not should be investigated but they deserve to have their "time in court" just as Alton did. He won't get his but they should. I understand the outrage that has come from this case. I am proud that they have been able to protest peacefully. I hope it continues. I hope that the investigation is thorough and justice is served.

[justasque]

I believe that when he was confronted, he resisted arrest and had to be tazed. I believe he continually resisted arrest. 

Did you watch the video?  This one was taken by a bystander.  This one, which is from a different angle, is from the shop owner's cell phone.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by justasque

[TechWife]

Didn't say it did justify it. I was only stating the facts that lead up to his shooting. Whether or not the police had reason to shoot or not should be investigated but they deserve to have their "time in court" just as Alton did. He won't get his but they should. I understand the outrage that has come from this case. I am proud that they have been able to protest peacefully. I hope it continues. I hope that the investigation is thorough and justice is served.

 

Irrelevant facts aren't part of the lead up to the shooting.

[Murphy101]

The Minnesota video I tried to watch only shows after the shooting. It doesn't show what led up to it. It's a video of her saying what happened.

[TechWife]

 I believe that when he was confronted, he resisted arrest and had to be tazed. I believe he continually resisted arrest.

 

Yet, they had complete control of his body at the time. He was on the ground and an officer was kneeling on top of him, pinning his hands. He could not have reached his gun. Resisting arrest isn't justification for shooting someone. 

[Guest]

The Minnesota video I tried to watch only shows after the shooting. It doesn't show what led up to it. It's a video of her saying what happened.

Which is why that cop will never see the inside of a jail cell.

[TechWife]

Come again? A guy with an illegal gun threatens a homeless man with it... And he is the victim? Why? Bc everyone understand those beggars are so annoying so of course the guy didn't mean anything by it? Having a difficult time buying that.

 

No, he might not have deserved to be shot, but he sure set himself up for it, by cop or other gun source, by having an illegal gun and purposely using it to intimidate others. I don't care about his past beyond these two major contributing points to his death. That aside, shooting a man that's already pinned to the ground seems stupidly pointless to me. I'd need more details to explain its justification.

 

Yes, he is a victim because he was needlessly shot by the police.  Any past actions on his part don't negate the truth of that fact. 

[Murphy101]

Did you watch the video? This one was taken by a bystander. This one, which is from a different angle, is from the shop owner's cell phone.

I couldn't watch the first one bc I'm the last person on earth without a YouTube account so I couldn't verify that I'm over 18. Lol

 

The second one ... It doesn't show the shooting. It does show that the cop pulled out his gun. Which was a stupid move *from what I could see*. After that, it's hard to tell how or why the gun goes off. They are wrestling with the guy in the ground, officer pulls intimidation by pulling gun and pointing at chest, then there's some more wrestling and we hear the gun go off. It's unclear to me what was said or if the first shot was intentional or even if it was triggered by the guy on the ground. But the error starts with the cop pulling his gun in that situation. Not only did it reduce his ability to help his partner (?) keep the man down, it brought his gun within reach of the man, which could have got either of the cops shot too.

[poppy]

Did you watch the video? This one is from the shop owner's cell phone.

 

I hadn't seen it. That's horrible.

 

For those who don't want to watch...Alton was pinned under 2 officers. His legs are jerking around in a seizure-like way (assuming that's from tasing....) 

One officer shouts "he has a gun" and the other says "If you move I swear to God...."  and a breath later he shoots 4 times. 

As Alton is bleeding and obviously dying, an officer reaches deep into Alton's front right pocket to extract the gun. 

 

This video from a different angle shows what "resisting arrest" looked like. Alton was standing a few feet from the officers, not moving. They screamed "get on the ground".  He didn't instantly get on the ground.  So they tackled him. After that he's pinned.  Then shot. The whole thing takes about 10 seconds. 

[Murphy101]

Which is why that cop will never see the inside of a jail cell.

Nor should he without proof he committed a crime. A woman taking a video of herself saying he is an awful cop is not proof of a crime.

 

We can't decry a lack of justice by demanding it be tossed aside for cops. Personally, I'm a big fan of due process based on evidence for everyone, cop or otherwise.

[poppy]

I couldn't watch the first one bc I'm the last person on earth without a YouTube account so I couldn't verify that I'm over 18. Lol

 

The second one ... It doesn't show the shooting. It does show that the cop pulled out his gun. Which was a stupid move *from what I could see*. After that, it's hard to tell how or why the gun goes off. They are wrestling with the guy in the ground, officer pulls intimidation by pulling gun and pointing at chest, then there's some more wrestling and we hear the gun go off. It's unclear to me what was said or if the first shot was intentional or even if it was triggered by the guy on the ground. But the error starts with the cop pulling his gun in that situation. Not only did it reduce his ability to help his partner (?) keep the man down, it brought his gun within reach of the man, which could have got either of the cops shot too.

 

It doesn't show the shooting? What??

[Slojo]

Which is why that cop will never see the inside of a jail cell.

Wait! What? The only camera doing any recording was a private citizen's camera? Where was the officers' body camera or the car camera that is supposed to be recording traffic stops...you know, the cameras that are supposed to record the events leading up to the altercation? Oh, never mind. 

[Murphy101]

It doesn't show the shooting? What??

As in, there is a scuffle and I can't see who is pulling the trigger.

 

Not that it matters. I already stated I think the cop was stupid for pulling the gun out at all. Regardless of what happened afterwards, THAT was the key error, IMO bc that is the moment he lost control of the situation.

[justasque]

I couldn't watch the first one bc I'm the last person on earth without a YouTube account so I couldn't verify that I'm over 18. Lol

 

The second one ... It doesn't show the shooting. It does show that the cop pulled out his gun. Which was a stupid move *from what I could see*. After that, it's hard to tell how or why the gun goes off. They are wrestling with the guy in the ground, officer pulls intimidation by pulling gun and pointing at chest, then there's some more wrestling and we hear the gun go off. It's unclear to me what was said or if the first shot was intentional or even if it was triggered by the guy on the ground. But the error starts with the cop pulling his gun in that situation. Not only did it reduce his ability to help his partner (?) keep the man down, it brought his gun within reach of the man, which could have got either of the cops shot too.

 

There should eventually be three other videos - two from the police body cameras (which even if they "fell off" should give the background sounds), and the security camera footage from the store, which the police confiscated.  Between these five videos, a clearer picture of the incident should emerge.  (ETA:  Assuming, of course, that these additional three come to light...)

 

But I think that even with the two videos we've seen so far, it's clear that the man was on the ground, restrained by police, making it unnecessary to kill him at that point.

 

I am thankful for the police who put their lives on the line every day.  But they need training in deescalation techniques so that these incidents can be minimized, which will keep both police and the public safe (or at least safer).

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by justasque

[happi duck]

I am so tired of the advice to behave perfectly around cops and the implied sense that if one doesn't perfectly comply then being killed is a reasonable outcome.

[poppy]

As in, there is a scuffle and I can't see who is pulling the trigger.

 

Not that it matters. I already stated I think the cop was stupid for pulling the gun out at all. Regardless of what happened afterwards, THAT was the key error, IMO bc that is the moment he lost control of the situation.

 

You think Alton Sterling, while being strattled by an officer and tased, shot himself in the chest 4 times?

[SproutMamaK]

The Minnesota video I tried to watch only shows after the shooting. It doesn't show what led up to it. It's a video of her saying what happened.

 

And the officer stating that the reason he shot the man 4 times was that "He MOVED! I told him not to move!" after he'd told him to both get his licence and put his hands up. (And then putting her in cuffs in front of her 4 year old daughter who just witnessed the death of her father.) He did not at any time reach for his gun; not even the officers involved are claiming that. She said what happened and right there in the video he didn't deny it; just tried to justify it. Because, you know, he moved. After being instructed to move.

 

Honestly, your continual defense of the cops in the deaths of these men sickens me, so I'm out of this thread til I can cool down. I'm so angry and disgusted right now.

[kahlanne]

Yet many of the facts are irrelevant to the incident in question. 

 

Which would that be?  The resisting arrest, tazing that didn't subdue, multiple warnings from the police to stop moving or they would shoot which was ignored (some in part possibly due to the tazing as another poster mentioned), or the fact that original call was placed because he was threatening someone with a gun which was on his persons when the police arrived and during the struggle? Again, this doesn't justify the shooting in the least but it is facts that lead up to the shooting.

 

Or maybe it was his past criminal record that you don't like being brought up and feel it is irrelevant. Was it relevant on that night at the time of shooting to the two officers. Probably not as they more than likely didn't know who he was at the time. However in learning all the facts of the case, it is relevant that he wasn't just some good guy trying to get by selling cds as the media first portrayed him. He is that guy to many but also has a lengthy arrest record one of which included resisting arrest. He hasn't lived his life as a law abiding citizen, that informed the cops of his gun, allowed them to secure it, and allowed them to cuff him and place him under arrest without struggle. Nor was he a law abiding citizen LEGALLY carrying in an open carry state.  This doesn't justify his shooting but does give us insight into him as a person, a more well rounded view.  Just as I want to know if the police officers in question have had any other actions brought against them. If they have ever had a history of abuse of justice or breaking the law themselves.  Learning about both will give insight into how the situation happened, what led to the shooting, and whether or not it was justified. People are angry that the police played judge and executioner yet are we really doing much better by choosing to not take the time to look at all the facts or only those that push along our own agenda regardless of which side you fall?  We have the time to step back and take a hard look at all evidence including both of their pasts before making a decision. The police only have seconds to decide whether a guy with a gun who is resisting arrest is actually going to use it if they get their hands on it. This doesn't mean they can shoot everyone with a gun that resists arrest but it definitely makes their job so much harder and not one I want. You may hate me for saying so but in the case where all evidence isn't clear or all the details are not in, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to what appears to be a law abiding citizen (which an officer is until proven guilty in court of law) than to a known criminal that resists arrest. However the flip side is that if the evidence supports the officer as being in the wrong and broke the law, I am all for the punishment being more harsh than a regular citizen and for public shaming of that individual.

 

With all that being said, in the original topic she stated that the guy had a legal gun which made my reply as to his past arrests and felony extremely relevant. He didn't just own a gun but brandished it about to threaten someone even though he shouldn't have access to one under our current gun laws. Keep in mind those laws did not keep him from attaining a gun nor did it keep him from using it threateningly.