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

[Mergath]

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.

So tell me, what kind of proof would there have to be for you to think punishment is reasonable? Are you saying that as long as there isn't a video of the actual shooting, cops can shoot and kill anyone they want?

[frogger]

You don't have to have a weapon to be killed by cops. The Thomas Kelly case made that clear. You can be a completely incapacitated (due to position and being held down) and brutally beaten to death and the police will get away with it. You don't have to be colored though that may statistically make your odds worse.

 

Police kill a lot of people every year. Some are in self defense and trying to stop a bad guy while others are not. As long as people will always give cops the benefit of the doubt we are headed for more trouble because there will be less weeding out of the bad apples.

 

If you are going to have a position of authority you had better be held to a higher standard not lower. That does not seem to be the case. I do not know enough about these cases to say one way or the other.

[Murphy101]

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.

I'm tired of people thinking one can go around with illegal guns intimidating people and expecting cops, or even the general citizenry, to respond politely. Acts of aggression tend to not garner pacifist responses.

 

The cop was in the wrong on the BR video not just bc the criminal ended up shot, but because it easily could have gotten anyone else shot too. It was reckless of the cop IMO.

 

I'm all for more cop training. Not because I have much sympathy of illegal gun owners using their guns to intimidate homeless people, but bc more cop training to handle similiar situations protects cops and law abiding citizenry too. For example, the general principle that one cannot as safely wrestle a man on the ground AND have an gun in hand should be basic training. To avoid aggressors from using the gun against the cop. To avoid misfire. To avoid scenarios like this one.

[poppy]

I really, really thought this thread was going to be about gun rights. Not "the police did the right thing".  Mind blowing.

[justasque]

 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. 

 

Did he "brandish it about" or did he simply show it to the other man?  

Let's be very, very careful with what we know and what we don't know.

[Murphy101]

So tell me, what kind of proof would there have to be for you to think punishment is reasonable? Are you saying that as long as there isn't a video of the actual shooting, cops can shoot and kill anyone they want?

Of course not. That's a ridiculous extrapolation of my stance that due process and sound evidence should be required to send any person to prison, most certainly this is even more true the more serious the crime.

 

We can't just send people to prison bc someone says they killed someone in cold blood. That's not justice. It's just vigilantism based in media judgements.

 

We shouldn't be sending anyone to jail for any crime based on that.

 

There should be more evidence to this than two people in a he said vs s/he said situation. Evidence is not restricted to videos either.

[Murphy101]

Did he "brandish it about" or did he simply show it to the other man?

Let's be very, very careful with what we know and what we don't know.

The current explaination is that he purposely used it to intimidate a homeless man to stop pestering/begging around him.

 

I have no idea if that qualifies as "brandishing" or not, but it absolutely does point to using his gun to threaten an unarmed person, a situation that was completely uncalled for.

 

And even if it was a legal CC, that would have been illegal use of a firearm. In my state, they aren't even supposed to be "showing" it like that bc it is a known threatening act. A person can't threaten people with their gun and then get pissed that someone takes their threat serious. Well, I guess they can, but that's extremely stupid and unreasonable and neither the law nor other people are obligated to presume they were not serious. And yeah, no surprise someone ends up shot at the end. (Tho in the case, again, I think the BR cop was in the wrong.)

Edited July 7, 2016 by Murphy101

[Katy]

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.

 

The part quoted on NPR's morning news bit was of her saying what had happened, the cop freaking out and admitting she was right.  He didn't say, "You were right, I murdered him," but he was practically shrieking about him reaching inside his pocket and it was quite clear he was not arguing or correcting her about the fact that he had just asked him for his ID.  IF the officer had seen him pulling out a gun, the shooting would have been justified.  The officer saw no such thing, because 1) he said he saw the suspect reaching in his pocket NOT pulling out a gun, and 2) his fingers were on his wallet.  The video is sufficient evidence there was not a credible threat, and shooting a suspect without a credible threat is murder.  Even if you're a cop.  Even if this is your 50th stop of the evening and you're overtired and afraid.

 

In this case the suspect did everything right and the officer did everything wrong, which resulted in a clearly preventable death without any justification.  That is the definition of homicide.

[kahlanne]

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.

 

So true and its sad. I have no problem with the black man's records being printed  for all to see. I also have no problem with the white teens arrests or past negative actions shown. In fact I think it should be. As for his swim times, I could give a rat's a** to his times unless it was used as a means to show how fast he could swim away from cops chasing him.  Seriously why would that matter. It was wrong. I haven't met a single person that sides with him and think it was a slap in the face to justice. Even so, his lack of negative media doesn't mean that the other's should not exist.

[Murphy101]

I really, really thought this thread was going to be about gun rights. Not "the police did the right thing". Mind blowing.

Well for my stance:

 

Minnesota - I have no idea. Not enough information/evidence to have an opinion.

 

Baton - I clearly and repeatedly said I thought the cop was in the wrong to pull out his gun in the middle of wrestling with a man on the ground. Regardless of who ended up shot, that was a stupid thing to do. Whether the cop was just stupid or also a stupid racist is yet to be determined.

[hornblower]

Of course not. That's a ridiculous extrapolation of my stance that due process and sound evidence should be required to send any person to prison, most certainly this is even more true the more serious the crime.

 

We can't just send people to prison bc someone says they killed someone in cold blood. That's not justice. It's just vigilantism based in media judgements.

 

We shouldn't be sending anyone to jail for any crime based on that.

 

There should be more evidence to this than two people in a he said vs s/he said situation. Evidence is not restricted to videos either.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting we skip legal proceedings and a proper trial? 

 

& as for your other point, the US has a history of convicting and executing people based on eyewitness testimony - which in so many cases has after the fact been proven wrong. Are you a supporter of The Innocence Project? http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/

[Guest]

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).

This is quite insulting. There are plenty of minority members of the NRA in both of the states I have lived in and they are equally embraced in the group for legal firearm ownership, training, and education. Insinuating motives for others that are wrong is unacceptable - the NRA isn't somehow analogous to neo nazis and there is no proof to back up your accusation that the leadership and members are only *really* voting for white people to have rights and access to guns. It's erroneous and insulting, especially when several of the most recent landmark cases for private gun ownership involved black men and women wanting to protect themselves and their homes in areas with high violent crime. NRA member dues and additional drives were hosted specifically to cover their legal fees all the way up the court system until it was resolved.

 

The police shootings were wrong based on the information I have seen. Gun owners need to declare a firearm and keep their hands on the wheel until instructed to get anything else, including a license, but there is zero need for shots to be fired if that is all that is being done. My husband has been pulled over while armed without incident and I cannot think of a shooting of a legal gun owner in a roadside stop here, even in our very ethnic neighborhoods. This makes me think it is a police culture issue in those departments or even issues personal to those cops, but our police and state troopers here deal with minorities and firearms all the time because any non-felon adult can carry and many rural villages have guns in the homes for hunting and leisure shooting too. It's so common up here I think the response is a bit different.

 

Now someone pulling a gun on one of our cops, especially if they appear drunk or high, can escalate to a police shootout. But I am not recalling any coming about through traffic stops in recent memory. Substance abuse and domestic violence combined with firearms seem to be the most problematic here.

 

These stories are very sad and I hope the departments investigate them thoroughly and fairly. Shooting someone who isn't actively threatening the life of another is completely unacceptable, no matter their skin tone.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Murphy101]

The part quoted on NPR's morning news bit was of her saying what had happened, the cop freaking out and admitting she was right. He didn't say, "You were right, I murdered him," but he was practically shrieking about him reaching inside his pocket and it was quite clear he was not arguing or correcting her about the fact that he had just asked him for his ID. IF the officer had seen him pulling out a gun, the shooting would have been justified. The officer saw no such thing, because 1) he said he saw the suspect reaching in his pocket NOT pulling out a gun, and 2) his fingers were on his wallet. The video is sufficient evidence there was not a credible threat, and shooting a suspect without a credible threat is murder. Even if you're a cop. Even if this is your 50th stop of the evening and you're overtired and afraid.

 

In this case the suspect did everything right and the officer did everything wrong, which resulted in a clearly preventable death without any justification. That is the definition of homicide.

There is a barge sized boat load of speculation in all of that presumptive mess. The video is evidence of nothing more than her saying her statement and him yelling back. The fact that he didn't yell exactly what you think he should have to justify himself doesn't mean he didn't act justly. We have zero idea if the man did everything right or not. That isn't in the video either.

 

If could be the cop just felt like shooting a black man and killed him in cold blooded murder. If so, then I hope evidence of such is brought to trial and he suffers the full force of the law. But there is little to nothing in that video to qualify as such.

[Murphy101]

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting we skip legal proceedings and a proper trial?

 

& as for your other point, the US has a history of convicting and executing people based on eyewitness testimony - which in so many cases has after the fact been proven wrong. Are you a supporter of The Innocence Project? http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/

Yes, actually I am. And it's why I stated that no one should go to prison bc of one person saying they did something. There needs to be more than that.

[Guest]

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.

This is all true, but unless he was presenting an active threat to the life of another with a deadly weapon or deadly force (like choke holding someone) shooting wasn't an appropriate response. That's the stocking point for me. Being a from means owning or even holding someone else's gun was a crime, full stop. But it wasn't something deserving a roadside death penalty on its own. There needs to be an investigation that is thorough and if an officer responded unacceptably for the given situation there must be reprimands, legal penalties, and possible restitution as well.

[Guest]

I really, really thought this thread was going to be about gun rights. Not "the police did the right thing". Mind blowing.

Why does it need to be about gun rights? Private citizens legally owning and discharging firearms aren't the ones breaking any laws here and doing anything wrong. That's an even bigger non sequitur from the original topic than talking about the (arguable, by some) improper actions of the police. These issues to me look like a police problem, not a citizen problem.

[Murphy101]

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

I have no idea. He was still putting up a struggle and the straddling wasn't containing his arms effectively.

 

Even if they struggled over the gun and he did somehow shoot himself the first time, I still think it is the cop's fault. He should have never pulled out his gun.. I got the impression the successive shots were reflexive but I could be wrong. Doesn't matter. Cop screwed up the minute he pulled out his gun while trying to wrestle the man.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

He had just been tased, I don't think he could be perfectly still.

 

 

 

 

Reading this thread is letting me know we still have a long way to go.

[Murphy101]

referring back to gun rights, how much of this is illegal though?

 

 

I think everyone knows that if person A (Al) starts pointing a gun at person B (Bob) for no reason and making threats...that's illegal.

 

But, if Bob walks up to Al out of the blue and starts asking for money, getting too close, not taking no for an answer etc, and then Al says "man, I got a gun and am not afraid to use it" while simply showing the gun, not even taking it out of the waistband or holster or whatever....is that kind of thing illegal? Technically, that's purposely using it to intimidate a homeless mad to get him to stop pestering him, but I don't know that it's necessarily illegal.

 

And, referencing my earlier post...is that something that is illegal in one place, but perfectly legal in another? Our country is huge and gun rights laws are not universal across it.

Yes. That is illegal in my state and Texas. This isn't the frikkin Wild West. If you are threatening someone with your gun, in any manner whatsoever, it is presumed the threat is serious. You don't even have to have the gun on your person. Or even actually own one at all. For example, they cannot tell someone, "I could go home, get my gun, come back and shoot you if you don't leave me alone." The law and certainly the person spoken to would have every reason to presume they might actually go home, come back and shoot someone. And if they did that and the police were called, the cops would also be right to presume they were a serious threat to lives. Because presuming otherwise would be a major naive risk of life and limb.

[Guest]

Him being a crotchety old man doesn't give the police the right to shoot him. Even being an ass doesn't. His legal right to own a gun and carry it, if he possesses that as well, is independent of their shooting him.

 

I'd argue that unless he has a gun in his hand and is moving to shoot them they should not have a weapon unholstered. Deadly force is to be met with deadly force. Less than deadly force is never to be met with deadly force. This is a police problem, not his problem, unless he makes a move with the firearm.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Veritaserum]

This morning I watched an interview with Castile's mother and uncle. She did everything she could to prepare her son for how to interact with police so that he wouldn't get killed. Parents of black and brown children (especially boys) all over the country have to do this with a frequency and care that I, as the white parent of a white son, do not. This is privilege. Castile's mother taught her son to comply. He did comply. He died anyway. You cannot justify that. There is no justice in that.

[Joules]

He had just been tased, I don't think he could be perfectly still.

 

So many videos we've seen lately of "resisting arrest" are actually videos of people being tased.  When you are electrocuted, your arms and legs flail around out of your control.  You can't cooperate then or for quite a while after.  I'm also beginning to suspect the phrase, "Sir, what are the charges?" is considered resisting arrest by some police (particularly if uttered by a person of color.)  

 

 

 

 

Reading this thread is letting me know we still have a long way to go.

I can't like this, but I feel that way, too.  The news has just made me so sad today.  I thought all of the videos and attention this issue was getting would result in better police behavior and training.  I am thinking I need a media fast  :crying:

[Murphy101]

I see nothing about these cases so far that have anything to do with law abiding gun carriers being allowed to have their permitted guns.

 

I see one video of a woman saying what awful thing just happened. I have no idea what or why or how the cop shot yet. I have no idea if the man shot was a legal gun owner or not. I have no opinion on this one without further evidence.

 

I see one video of a man who had an illegal gun he was using to intimidate people shot by a cop who should have never had his gun out to begin with. Common sense says you can't keep wrestling to pin a man on the ground while also pulling out your weapon. Maybe the police department there needs a basic gun safety course. Because whether the pinned guy got shot or the cops got shot or a passerby got shot, that huge screw up made it no surprise that someone ended up shot.

 

In the first video, if it went as she says, that's awful and hope the cop faces justice in the courts.

[kahlanne]

Ok, I have a question. A real question.  What is the law in regards to an officer being allowed to shoot? Is it just fear for his life as in a person going for their gun and resisting arrest? Or is it that their life or others must be in imminent danger as in they have access to a weapon and are acting dangerously? I am not asking what it seems to be but what the law actually is which I think should be the defining factor in this case. If it is the first then regardless of your feeling about the law, this is hard to determine unless it proven his actions were due to tazing. If not due to tazing and he was reaching toward pocket where gun was located, this might be reason enough for shooting if law allows. Not saying I agree with this. I think it should be imminent danger for an officer to shoot not just fear of danger. From the videos, especially the new angles, I believe the cops are in deep and rightly so if the law is the latter as the gun still appears to have been in his pocket.

 

 

 

 

 

[kahlanne]

referring back to gun rights, how much of this is illegal though?

 

 

I think everyone knows that if person A (Al) starts pointing a gun at person B (Bob) for no reason and making threats...that's illegal.

 

But, if Bob walks up to Al out of the blue and starts asking for money, getting too close, not taking no for an answer etc, and then Al says "man, I got a gun and am not afraid to use it" while simply showing the gun, not even taking it out of the waistband or holster or whatever....is that kind of thing illegal?  Technically, that's purposely using it to intimidate a homeless mad to get him to stop pestering him, but I don't know that it's necessarily illegal.

 

And, referencing my earlier post...is that something that is illegal in one place, but perfectly legal in another?  Our country is huge and gun rights laws are not universal across it. 

 

I would love to know the answer to this as well. I probably derailed the op topic so I apologize and want to get it back on track.

[fairfarmhand]

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.

 

Yes, you are right.

 

Cops are fallible human beings and can screw up mightily.

 

I don't know the answer.

 

[TechWife]

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.

 

The following things are irrelevant to the current incident: 

past arrests, convictions or warrants - The police did not know any of this when they approached this man, in any case, none of it justifies shooting him. Who is he as a person? The fact that he is a person is reason enough not to shoot him without cause. 

 

Resisting arrest - The details of this have not yet been determined, as far as I can see. In any case, at the time the man is shot, he is on the ground and already restrained by the police. The phrase "shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind, although that is probably more difficult. 

 

Having a gun - Having possession of a gun is not a reason to be shot in this country, even if you are not legally in possession of it. Yes, it's a hard job, yes, they need to be trained to do it. Yes, officers have to think and work very quickly because their lives are often at stake. Thousands of police officers approach people who are strangers and potential threats to them every single day and manage not to shoot them. I wouldn't be surprised if dozens of them resist arrest every single day, some of whom are in possession of firearms, and yet, the police manage not to shoot them. 

 

Using the gun in a threatening manner - This is not irrelevant, but it is worth noting that no evidence of this has come forward other than a 911 call and the transcript or the call itself has not been released. The news reports I've read state the man "showed" it to the homeless man. Showing a gun to someone in an open carry state is not illegal, I don't think. Again, the police didn't know that the person should not have had the weapon in the first place. Sure, if a citizen is concerned about something, the police should respond and investigate, I don't have a problem with that. But did he "brandish" the gun? Was this caught on the store video that the police have confiscated? No one knows.

 

Since you are concerned with the history of the people involved, what about the history of the man who called in the report? Is he reputable? Does that even matter if the man who called in the report felt threatened at the time? No, because what was going on at that time is what matters. If he felt threatened, he did the right thing by calling the police. The situation went downhill from there. 

 

I don't hate you, no worries. I realize that all of the details aren't in. Frankly, we will probably never know all of the details. But what we do know is that a white police officer (maybe more than one) shot a black man while they had him restrained. That is what we know. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by TechWife

[Murphy101]

Interesting. I had exactly that happen to me, but the kid was never charged with any sort of "threatening" or "intimidation" type of charges. He WAS charged with assault, but that's because he actually kicked an assistant principle, threw a punch at another teacher and spit on the school resource officer. But there was nothing related to "I'm gonna go home and get my daddy's gun to shoot you."

 

What if we replace "gun" with baseball bat or even martial arts? As in "man, I got a baseball bat in my car and not afraid to use it." Is that also illegal?

It can be. But it isn't illegal to own a baseball bat and you can see it coming. And yes actually, if one is good enough at martial arts, it can be pending how it's done. For example, while some other guy could get in a bar fight, if my nephew does, it would be felony assault bc he is considered a deadly weapon.

 

Do not confuse whether someone is charged with whether they committed an illegal act. There is not a legal mandate that says every illegal act must be charged

 

There's a certain political candidate as proof of that.

 

Every time someone speeds and only gets a warning is another. That they weren't charged with reckless driving doesn't mean going over the speed limit is legal.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Murphy101

[TechWife]

regarding what I bolded...do we actually know that though?  Someone with multiple arrests, a record of convictions, etc, by definition, does have a lot of interaction with police.  I haven't heard anything saying that the cops had no idea who he was, nor have I head anything saying that they have past history with him.  All I am saying is that I don't think it can be assumed that they didn't know any of his past history.  It's certainly possible that one or both of them knew him on sight. 

 

You are correct. It's possible the officers knew who he was when they approached him. I imagine if they recognized him when they arrived at the convenience store that it would be standard procedure that they notify someone or documented his identity before they exit their car. Or, maybe that's just common sense and not procedure. I imagine if that did occur, it will be part of the police records of the incident (recordings from dispatch, the officer's in car computer) I do think, however, that a fact like that would have come to light by this point in time. Of course, that's just my opinion. 

[Guest]

I think though that that is all how it's relates to gun rights. Having a legal gun, with all the proper permits, in your glovebox is not illegal. It's his right as an American citizen.

 

So the question becomes about how can those rights to own guns be exercised safely when, at the same time, cops can and do perceive that very action-stating that you have a gun, and reaching for your id and licenses, which happen to be in the same place as that gun-as a threat to their own lives?

But that's what I'm saying. This this state they *don't* result in shootings even though up to 1/4 of the vehicles on the road in the municipality, alone, have firearms in the vehicle or on the person of the driver. The rule of thumb for a gun owner to remains safe is that when the cop comes up to the window and immediately asks if you have any guns in the vehicle, you state you do, where they are, and await further instruction. Oftentimes they will ask you to exit the vehicle to talk safely on the roadside or if you are carrying it on your person they will ask you to step out of the vehicle, remove your holster with your gun inside, and set it on the hood of the vehicle with it pointing in a safe direction (away from the road, the cop, and yourself, usually toward the embankment).

 

Despite the high prevalence of guns AND ethnic minorities there is not a high prevalence of police on motorist shootings, either direction. Calmly answering questions and waiting for verbal instructions from the officer is the way to go, every time.

 

I do believe our police officers and state troopers have more training with this given the issues unique to this state. Any adult can be armed at any time, essentially. Familiarity with these stops and local culture seems to help the response and even in cases of gang and drug violence with guns it is rare to hear reports of the officers having to shoot the perpetrators in these cases. They can by and large disarm them and subdue them without lethal force.

 

This is why I believe it is an issue for these departments or individuals more than an issue with the gun owners. These rates are NOT consistent across cities and states. They vary wildly. I think that had much to do with the local atmosphere relating to minorities and guns. And even in places like Chicago they believe about 1200 individuals are responsible for over 80% of the local gun crime and profile accordingly to concentrate police effort on those areas and individuals. There is no reason to respond to every black or brown person pulled over as though they are a gang member when their own departmental data shows it's but a tiny fraction of the population.

 

Gun owners need to be responsible for their own safety in knowing local laws, their personal rights, and best practices around others who are not comfortable with firearms. That is important no matter your skin color. But I lay this squarely at the feet of the cops who unholstered their firearms without deadly force being used by the people they were stopping. Having an attitude, resisting arrest, or being a jerk are not lethal actions, and until one of those circumstances of lethality presents the cops need to be conservative with their use of force. That is on them and needs to be trained in and repeated as nauseum, and prosecuted harshly, until they get it.

 

If I ask any of the troopers I know personally, they will say the fastest way to escalate a conflict as an officer is to make aggressive moves, crowd the space of the person they are interacting with, or make a move toward their belts. Talking calmly and issuing clear instructions de-escalates conflicts, taking physical action escalates them. The quickest way to make someone panic, sober or impaired, is to pull a gun on them. So they take pains to never do that unless there are no other options. I get the feeling from some of these cases that this is NOT the ethos being taught and modeled in some of these precincts. And that is my biggest problem. Not someone owning or carrying a gun, because that is not and should never be a death sentence in and of itself. But rather the response of the officers in the situation needs to be critically examined, by video and testimony, to discern if their actions were justified or not.

 

Based on the data I've seen I lean toward 'not' but I am not on the jury and haven't reviewed all the evidence. I pray justice will prevail and wise heads will take control of the situation for the protection of the public AND the police.

[Paige]

I think the police have gotten too jumpy, trigger happy, and overall aggressive and they have some sort of bro code that is propping it up and escalating it. I think most police are good but the minority of real jerks is making things dangerous for everyone- police and civilians. 

 

I don't think being white protects me much. I'm sure being white, female, and small protects me somewhat, but I hold no illusions that a jerk in power wouldn't slam my head against the wall if he or she was having a bad day. I've seen too many videos of it happening to others. And that is a problem! When I was a kid, I never heard of stuff like this happening. Maybe it did and we didn't talk about it, but if so, it just means it's a problem we've been needing to deal with for a long time.

 

Maybe the solution is better training or psychological screening and support. Maybe not all cops need to be armed with lethal weapons. Definitely the bro code needs to go. If you are a cop working with someone who doesn't follow the law- don't cover for him. Power corrupts...maybe they need less power or layers of accountability. 

 

I'm not anti-cop and I think most are honest people who are trying their best to do a hard job, but that doesn't mean I can't see there's a problem with abuse of power.

 

 

[Guest]

And referring way back to person A and B, in every area I can think of where gun ownership by lawfully qualified individuals is legal and permitted, stating one has a gun in a conflict is legal. Removing the firearm from the holster if there is not an immediate threat of danger to the owner is not, and is considered brandishing. Unholstering a firearm is an act of aggression, even in defense of oneself, and only justifiable if there is a provoking, life threatening action by the other party *first*. This would be things like them waving a tire iron or gun, unlawfully entering your home, trying to enter or break into a vehicle you are visibly sitting in, or other violent criminal acts that compromise the immediate safety of your person in an active way. Verbal assaults don't count. Physical assaults do.

 

The rule I was taught was that when in doubt NEVER unholster your weapon, and never even give away its position on your body unless you have to while drawing it, so someone cannot charge you and try to take control of your firearm. Stating you possess one and know how to use it is legal. Brandishing definitions vary a bit by state because some states allow open carry and some do not, but generally speaking removing it from its holster to threaten or intimidate another person is illegal.

[kahlanne]

The following things are irrelevant to the current incident: 

past arrests, convictions or warrants - The police did not know any of this when they approached this man, in any case, none of it justifies shooting him. Who is he as a person? The fact that he is a person is reason enough not to shoot him without cause. 

 

Resisting arrest - The details of this have not yet been determined, as far as I can see. In any case, at the time the man is shot, he is on the ground and already restrained by the police. The phrase "shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind, although that is probably more difficult. 

 

Having a gun - Having possession of a gun is not a reason to be shot in this country, even if you are not legally in possession of it. Yes, it's a hard job, yes, they need to be trained to do it. Yes, officers have to think and work very quickly because their lives are often at stake. Thousands of police officers approach people who are strangers and potential threats to them every single day and manage not to shoot them. I wouldn't be surprised if dozens of them resist arrest every single day, some of whom are in possession of firearms, and yet, the police manage not to shoot them. 

 

Using the gun in a threatening manner - This is not irrelevant, but it is worth noting that no evidence of this has come forward other than a 911 call and the transcript or the call itself has not been released. The news reports I've read state the man "showed" it to the homeless man. Showing a gun to someone in an open carry state is not illegal, I don't think. Again, the police didn't know that the person should not have had the weapon in the first place. Sure, if a citizen is concerned about something, the police should respond and investigate, I don't have a problem with that. But did he "brandish" the gun? Was this caught on the store video that the police have confiscated? No one knows.

 

Since you are concerned with the history of the people involved, what about the history of the man who called in the report? Is he reputable? Does that even matter if the man who called in the report felt threatened at the time? No, because what was going on at that time is what matters. If he felt threatened, he did the right thing by calling the police. The situation went downhill from there. 

 

I don't hate you, no worries. I realize that all of the details aren't in. Frankly, we will probably never know all of the details. But what we do know is that a white police officer (maybe more than one) shot a black man while they had him restrained. That is what we know. 

 

 

On this we will have to disagree. I think it is relevant after the fact when judging the situation and all the actions that took place by both sides. I even stated that it wasn't something the officers knew but I personally like to have all the information about the reason for the cops being called down to every detail that can be found leading up to shooting. If it was out of the ordinary for him to resist arrest and he had no criminal history, I would expect more proof that he was doing so before believing the cops that he was resisting or going for a gun. If this is a pattern of a guy with lengthy record , I would believe the cops in regards to his resisting arrest unless there was irrefutable evidence otherwise. Same as I would like to know if the policeman has a history of abuse or acts of racism. If you don't feel the same, that is your right. Neither of us are court of law we are allowed to look at it all whether relevant enough for a trial or not before making our decision. The more information I have the better informed I am and more capable of making a decision. I am glad there are multiple angles of the shooting. When it started yesterday there was just one.

 

[Murphy101]

You are correct. It's possible the officers knew who he was when they approached him. I imagine if they recognized him when they arrived at the convenience store that it would be standard procedure that they notify someone or documented his identity before they exit their car. Or, maybe that's just common sense and not procedure. I imagine if that did occur, it will be part of the police records of the incident (recordings from dispatch, the officer's in car computer) I do think, however, that a fact like that would have come to light by this point in time. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Well I do think it would be both common sense and procedure to not pull your weapon in the middle of trying to help your partner hold down a guy too, so who knows. This could have been a large cluster of dumb.

 

I'm not surprised we haven't heard much from the cops/department yet. Details such as this would or should be released with the general report of the police investigation.

[TechWife]

O Neither of us are court of law we are allowed to look at it all whether relevant enough for a trial or not before making our decision. The more information I have the better informed I am and more capable of making a decision. 

 

 

 

Grand juries are made up of ordinary citizens. It's likely a grand jury will hear evidence in this case in order to determine if there is a reason to indict someone on criminal charges. When you combine grand juries and trial juries, it is evident that we are all part of the court system. 

[poppy]

I see nothing about these cases so far that have anything to do with law abiding gun carriers being allowed to have their permitted guns.

 

I see one video of a woman saying what awful thing just happened. I have no idea what or why or how the cop shot yet. I have no idea if the man shot was a legal gun owner or not. I have no opinion on this one without further evidence.

 

I see one video of a man who had an illegal gun he was using to intimidate people shot by a cop who should have never had his gun out to begin with. Common sense says you can't keep wrestling to pin a man on the ground while also pulling out your weapon. Maybe the police department there needs a basic gun safety course. Because whether the pinned guy got shot or the cops got shot or a passerby got shot, that huge screw up made it no surprise that someone ended up shot.

 

In the first video, if it went as she says, that's awful and hope the cop faces justice in the courts.

After the Orlando shootings did you say 'we have no idea what happened?'

 

I can't believe anyone can look at a video of a bleeding man with someone pointing a gun at him, know the shooter admitted he shot while panicked , and say 'I have no idea what happened'. The free pass given to police is absolutely beyond logic.

[Slojo]

On this we will have to disagree. I think it is relevant after the fact when judging the situation and all the actions that took place by both sides. I even stated that it wasn't something the officers knew but I personally like to have all the information about the reason for the cops being called down to every detail that can be found leading up to shooting. If it was out of the ordinary for him to resist arrest and he had no criminal history, I would expect more proof that he was doing so before believing the cops that he was resisting or going for a gun. If this is a pattern of a guy with lengthy record , I would believe the cops in regards to his resisting arrest unless there was irrefutable evidence otherwise. Same as I would like to know if the policeman has a history of abuse or acts of racism. If you don't feel the same, that is your right. Neither of us are court of law we are allowed to look at it all whether relevant enough for a trial or not before making our decision. The more information I have the better informed I am and more capable of making a decision. I am glad there are multiple angles of the shooting. When it started yesterday there was just one.

 

I still don't know how knowing he had a record gets you to any justifiable reason why someone, once pinned down, is considered a threat deserving to be shot in the moment. 

 

Martha Stewart has a record. Somehow I don't think she's going to show up on my FB as a hashtag (at least not for this). 

 

Okay, moving on to Minneapolis - what's the "all the information" context needed there? What's the context needed for a man with no prior record with an apparently registered gun getting shot in front of his four year old? What's the context we all really need to know? Some of this "waiting for all the information" stance is just denying the full implications of the injustice. As if the "reasons" will make this all okay, make us all feel so smug that we would never find ourselves in such a situation (well, you might not, but I've got black sons...)

 

Sometimes racism isn't a racial slur (would that the only thing any person of color had to deal with was an occasional racial slur) sometimes it's people looking for reasons why a black person deserved (or should have just done X to avoid having) to die. The list of "all the information" circumstances that must be considered before we can just give over to grief and anger, and a call for systemic change gets ever wider. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Slojo

[Murphy101]

Good god almighty. "Not saying he should have been shot". Are you freaking serious?? He should not have been shot. Period. Who the hell cares if he was a convicted felon, a priest, or your own teenage son. A person taxed twice, brought to the ground, held down, and was not going for a gun, does not deserve to die. That is not their job to be judge, jury, and executioner. Honestly, I find your thought that he wasn't a 'keep your nose clean ' type of person despicable. Really. You know that list? IMO, you're on it, lol.

 

Yes, it's worth it...

USUALLY people, and cops are people, shoot based on PERCEIVED threat. The man's history, regardless of his skin color, could have affected how much of a threat he was perceived to be by the police officers.

 

Again. It doesn't really matter though bc he shouldn't have been shot while they were wrestling him on the ground. Even tased twice it was still taking considerable effort of two not particuliarly tiny men to keep him down. Pulling out the weapon at that time was a danger to everyone in the area, including both cops (the one straddling him easily could have been shot too), risked losing control of the man on the ground and control of the gun as well. Thus it's no surprise to me someone ended up shot.

[poppy]

But that's what I'm saying. This this state they *don't* result in shootings even though up to 1/4 of the vehicles on the road in the municipality, alone, have firearms in the vehicle or on the person of the driver. The rule of thumb for a gun owner to remains safe is that when the cop comes up to the window and immediately asks if you have any guns in the vehicle, you state you do, where they are, and await further instruction. Oftentimes they will ask you to exit the vehicle to talk safely on the roadside or if you are carrying it on your person they will ask you to step out of the vehicle, remove your holster with your gun inside, and set it on the hood of the vehicle with it pointing in a safe direction (away from the road, the cop, and yourself, usually toward the embankment).

 

Despite the high prevalence of guns AND ethnic minorities there is not a high prevalence of police on motorist shootings, either direction. Calmly answering questions and waiting for verbal instructions from the officer is the way to go, every time.

 

I do believe our police officers and state troopers have more training with this given the issues unique to this state. Any adult can be armed at any time, essentially. Familiarity with these stops and local culture seems to help the response and even in cases of gang and drug violence with guns it is rare to hear reports of the officers having to shoot the perpetrators in these cases. They can by and large disarm them and subdue them without lethal force.

 

This is why I believe it is an issue for these departments or individuals more than an issue with the gun owners. These rates are NOT consistent across cities and states. They vary wildly. I think that had much to do with the local atmosphere relating to minorities and guns. And even in places like Chicago they believe about 1200 individuals are responsible for over 80% of the local gun crime and profile accordingly to concentrate police effort on those areas and individuals. There is no reason to respond to every black or brown person pulled over as though they are a gang member when their own departmental data shows it's but a tiny fraction of the population.

 

Gun owners need to be responsible for their own safety in knowing local laws, their personal rights, and best practices around others who are not comfortable with firearms. That is important no matter your skin color. But I lay this squarely at the feet of the cops who unholstered their firearms without deadly force being used by the people they were stopping. Having an attitude, resisting arrest, or being a jerk are not lethal actions, and until one of those circumstances of lethality presents the cops need to be conservative with their use of force. That is on them and needs to be trained in and repeated as nauseum, and prosecuted harshly, until they get it.

 

If I ask any of the troopers I know personally, they will say the fastest way to escalate a conflict as an officer is to make aggressive moves, crowd the space of the person they are interacting with, or make a move toward their belts. Talking calmly and issuing clear instructions de-escalates conflicts, taking physical action escalates them. The quickest way to make someone panic, sober or impaired, is to pull a gun on them. So they take pains to never do that unless there are no other options. I get the feeling from some of these cases that this is NOT the ethos being taught and modeled in some of these precincts. And that is my biggest problem. Not someone owning or carrying a gun, because that is not and should never be a death sentence in and of itself. But rather the response of the officers in the situation needs to be critically examined, by video and testimony, to discern if their actions were justified or not.

 

Based on the data I've seen I lean toward 'not' but I am not on the jury and haven't reviewed all the evidence. I pray justice will prevail and wise heads will take control of the situation for the protection of the public AND the police.

Police shootings against unarmed suspects isn't a problem universal to minorities--- it happens to black people. Google tells me that Alaska has a minuscule black population (less than 4%). So not exactly apples to apples.

[poppy]

USUALLY people, and cops are people, shoot based on PERCEIVED threat. The man's history, regardless of his skin color, could have affected how much of a threat he was perceived to be by the police officers.

 

Again. It doesn't really matter though bc he shouldn't have been shot while they were wrestling him on the ground. Even tased twice it was still taking considerable effort of two not particuliarly tiny men to keep him down. Pulling out the weapon at that time was a danger to everyone in the area, including both cops (the one straddling him easily could have been shot too), risked losing control of the man on the ground and control of the gun as well. Thus it's no surprise to me someone ended up shot.

At no point did Alton Sterling attack or use force against the officers. No point

[Murphy101]

After the Orlando shootings did you say 'we have no idea what happened?'

 

I can't believe anyone can look at a video of a bleeding man with someone pointing a gun at him, know the shooter admitted he shot while panicked , and say 'I have no idea what happened'. The free pass given to police is absolutely beyond logic.

Oh geez. There is a heck of a lot more evidence to the Orlando shooting than a woman on her phone saying he committed unlawful murder after the fact.

 

Also the cop never says he panicked. And nothing he does say makes me automaticly assume he panicked. He might have. I'm more than willing to believe it, but I will not presume his guilt based solely on that video.

 

That's not a free pass. It's due process and reasonable doubt.

 

By all means if he went trigger nuts, he should never own a gun, as a cop or civilian, and should suffer the consequences in court.

[Guest]

Yes. But we have a huge native population, a fair sized Hispanic population, and tons of Pacific Islanders of varying descents. Many immigrants, illegal and not. We also have abnormally large drug and alcohol use and the most lax firearms ownership laws in the nation, along with one other state.

 

These factors work together and are not insignificant. Black isn't the only color that matters??? Nonwhite population and local ethnic and crime dynamics are big factors that police forces need to work with and be aware of.

 

If we want to compare Minnesota is 5.2% black and Louisiana is 32%. Both places had these shootings, but the local race dynamics vary wildly. This is why I am saying it is more a police culture or individual issue than a gun owner problem.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Murphy101]

At no point did Alton Sterling attack or use force against the officers. No point

I have no idea why you are quoting me. I never said he did and I never said it was okay for him to be shot. I don't think it was even okay that the cop pulled his gun out.

 

ETA: oh because previous interaction with law enforcement does affect future law enforcement perception of threat? Of course it does. I have no issue with that.

 

If I know someone has a history of beating people up for example, I'm going to take a threat from them more serious than from someone who never has done that before. It doesn't mean either is okay. It doesn't mean anyone deserves to be shot. But of course the perception of threat from a person with a history of aggression is going to be higher. That's common sense.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Murphy101

[poppy]

Oh geez. There is a heck of a lot more evidence to the Orlando shooting than a woman on her phone saying he committed unlawful murder after the fact.

 

Also the cop never says he panicked. And nothing he does say makes me automaticly assume he panicked. He might have. I'm more than willing to believe it, but I will not presume his guilt based solely on that video.

 

That's not a free pass. It's due process and reasonable doubt.

 

By all means if he went trigger nuts, he should never own a gun, as a cop or civilian, and should suffer the consequences in court.

You think the woman who just watched her boyfriend get shot in front of their child calmly made up a story on the spot ? If you watch the video it's clear the shooting JUST happened. Poor guy hadn't even fallen over yet. That's just - again - illogical.

[poppy]

At no point did Alton Sterling attack or use force against the officers. No point

You said these shootings happen because an officer perceives a threat.

 

Watching the video it is clear the police officers are very charged up and emotional. I can believe that officer thought he was shooting for a good reason. So flipping what. An innocent man died because he was incompetent. Yes innocent. If a police officer shoots you when you are helpless , you are innocent.

[poppy]

Yes. But we have a huge native population, a fair sized Hispanic population, and tons of Pacific Islanders of varying descents. Many immigrants, illegal and not. We also have abnormally large drug and alcohol use and the most lax firearms ownership laws in the nation, along with one other state.

 

These factors work together and are not insignificant. Black isn't the only color that matters??? Nonwhite population and local ethnic and crime dynamics are big factors that police forces need to work with and be aware of.

 

If we want to compare Minnesota is 5.2% black and Louisiana is 32%. Both places had these shootings, but the local race dynamics vary wildly. This is why I am saying it is more a police culture or individual issue than a gun owner problem.

I have been to Minnesota and I have been to Louisana. They are extremely different places. The unifying factor here and in two dozen other cases I could name is police shooting unarmed black men dead. It's a national problem not regional.

 

I am not blaming gun culture for these deaths. What i I am wondering why open carry and gun rights activists aren't rushing to the defense of the murdered men here.

 

Even though Sterlings gun may not have been lawful, the fact that he had a gun led to his being shot in an open carry state. I would think that would upset open carry advocates.

[SKL]

Cops need much better training and discipline.

[Murphy101]

You think the woman who just watched her boyfriend get shot in front of their child calmly made up a story on the spot ? If you watch the video it's clear the shooting JUST happened. Poor guy hadn't even fallen over yet. That's just - again - illogical.

It's about as logical to me as seeing someone shot and bleeding to death next to me and calmly deciding the best thing to do is turn on my phone for video narration about it.

 

I didn't say she made anything up either.

 

It is entirely possible she believes her perception of events just as strongly as the cop believes whatever he will eventually say his perception was. Being an eye witness does not necessarily mean they are right about how they saw things.

[Murphy101]

You said these shootings happen because an officer perceives a threat.

 

Watching the video it is clear the police officers are very charged up and emotional. I can believe that officer thought he was shooting for a good reason. So flipping what. An innocent man died because he was incompetent. Yes innocent. If a police officer shoots you when you are helpless , you are innocent.

There were two different points of conversation going on.

 

A. One was the question of past behavior influencing police perception of possible threat level. Someone said that should never matter, which seems an unreasonable and ridiculous expectation to me.

 

B. The other was the question of whether THIS cop had a justified shooting. He did not. Regardless of perception of threat. Even if the man was a valid threat, in the middle of wrestling him to the ground is not the moment to add a gun to his proximity. Usually the goal is to keep a cop's gun away from arm reach of a threatening man, not put it right in front of him.

 

It is 100% possible to believe both A and B.

[QueenCat]

This morning I watched an interview with Castile's mother and uncle. She did everything she could to prepare her son for how to interact with police so that he wouldn't get killed. Parents of black and brown children (especially boys) all over the country have to do this with a frequency and care that I, as the white parent of a white son, do not. This is privilege. Castile's mother taught her son to comply. He did comply. He died anyway. You cannot justify that. There is no justice in that.

 

Very well said! It is so wrong that these parents have to have these conversations and we don't.