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

[Guest]

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.

Well you can reread everything I have posted in defense of these men and feel better then. But I am not an open carry advocate, I advocate only for lawful concealed carry and home defense. I think the police were wrong here and have stated that repeatedly.

 

It hasn't made the news here locally. And as far as I can tell the gun groups I know of are not condemning the men for having firearms in their vehicles. Since they were not lawfully discharging them in self defense it doesn't really line up with the normal advocacy angle but that doesn't mean it isn't on the Twitter feeds. I don't know and don't follow any social media.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[kahlanne]

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. 

 

Never said it was justified. Matter of fact, I said just the opposite. I did say I want to know all the facts on both sides. And I have pointed out multiple times that I didn't list his arrest record as a means of justification for the cops actions but to show the op that the gun wasn't legal as she originally assumed. It wasn't until after people said I used it as a justification that I pointed out that I only want to know all facts about the person being arrested, the person doing the arrest, and everything that led to the altercation which many times takes days to know it all.

 

As for Martha Stewart, she may have a record but does it include resisting arrest which is what Alton was accused of in this case and had a history of. (Edited to add that Alton's previous arrests probably were not known to the officers at the time of arrest and are irrelevant to the cops decision to shoot but become relevant when deciding how much trust I automatically give the perpetrator over the cop initially. (before visible evidence or other non-biased testimony.)

 

I am not looking for reasons why a black person deserved to die. And to insulate that I am racist because I want more facts before making a judgement than you do is insulting. To be honest, I think people who jump to conclusions without asking for all the facts and waiting on all the evidence are no better than a cop that decides to take matters in their own hands and become judge and executioner. The mindset is the same even if the outcome is not. I don't condone a hasty, fear ridden excuse as a reason for a cop to be shot and not allowing Alton his day in court. If the cop has a history of abuse, please bring it to light for all to see. With more video showing the scene, it is becoming more difficult to believe that Alton had the gun in his control and warranted being shot. I also won't condone what other cops have gotten away with or fear that this cop will get away with murder as an excuse to find them guilty before it even goes to trial and to demonize innocent people for disagreeing with you or wanting more information. If the reason you are doubtful that the people wanting this information will find the cop guilty because of history of others not doing so, then I am sorry you have a set biased in your heart against a large portion of the population based on the actions of some.  Wait, somewhere I have heard that reasoning being disputed before....where is it...oh yeah...racism.  I don't judge all blacks because some are criminals any more than I judge all cops as bad because some are. I take it as a case by case basis and hope that the evidence is clear one way or the other. Until then I will probably make a decision that will change or solidify  as more facts become available.

Edited July 7, 2016 by kahlanne

[frogger]

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.

 

I remember listening to a man that was a retired police officer speak of this on NPR. The training is different than when he started. It is more law enforcer rather than peace officer and he said the rise in shootings and aggression was bound to happen. I wish I could remember the name of the show and officer so I could refer people to it. I also realize training and recruiting and corruption are different in different departments.

[Murphy101]

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.

From the lawful responsible gun ownership advocate perspective:

 

Someone had a gun illegally and met a violent end, which is not surprising. Violence is how it usually ends when someone combines guns with illegal, tho usually it's not because a cop did the shooting.

 

Thus the focus is on the cops and their wrong doing, not so much that someone who had a gun illegally ended up dead.

[kahlanne]

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.

 

I am not a gun owner. My husband hunts and has rifles to do so but that is it. I do not like the idea of open carry for many reasons. One being it would make me uncomfortable to see and not know the person's intent. I can see it being a hindrance to police as well. Having to field calls about a law abiding open carrying citizen not acting dangerously takes time and energy that can be used elsewhere. Maybe I am wrong but I can see people being scared even if that person isn't doing wrong and calling the police out of fear of what they might do. Then you have the issue of does this allow a person to take advantage of the gun you are openly carrying. Will a criminal be able to remove the gun from your persons and use it when he otherwise wasn't armed. Like I said, too many variables for me to be comfortable but I realize I don't have to be comfortable or agree with the law but obey it and teach my family to do the same. Concealed carry doesn't scare me as much but I personally have no interest in getting a permit.

 

For myself, the reason I wouldn't want to use Alton as an example of what happens when cops abuse gun laws is because he was not doing it legally. I am well aware that the officers didn't know that at the time but for me to be outraged at the abuse of this law would require the person to be lawfully owning and carrying the gun regardless of cops knowledge of this at the time of the arrest. There are better people to use as an example of police abusing this right than a felon with illegal gun. Many may disagree with me though.

[ktgrok]

 

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.

 

And that girl who got raped shouldn't have gotten drunk at a party, right?

[Katy]

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.

 

I think this depends on the state.  Each state has different gun and policing laws.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

From the lawful responsible gun ownership advocate perspective:

 

Someone had a gun illegally and met a violent end, which is not surprising. Violence is how it usually ends when someone combines guns with illegal, tho usually it's not because a cop did the shooting.

 

Thus the focus is on the cops and their wrong doing, not so much that someone who had a gun illegally ended up dead.

 

The focus is on the cops and their wrongdoing because it seems the police didn't see the gun (in his pocket, not in his hand) until they were pretty much already in the process of killing him. They'd only just been told he had a gun. Would it really have made a difference if the gun was legal, in this scenario?

 

So is it not meant to be surprising that "violence is how it usually ends" when somebody else says you have a gun? We know what suicide by cop means. Is this murder by cop? Because we wouldn't want that to catch on. "Officer, he scared me with a gun!" Officer freaks out and kills the guy, then checks whether he really had a gun, whether it was legal, and whether he was really planning to shoot the LEO magically from his pocket without his hands free?

[frogger]

I think though that your last sentence makes the rest...a bit irrelevant. Not completely since all police departments have to follow the rights and such outlined in the constitution. But since all the tens of thousands of different departments all have different laws to enforce, different standards for recruitment, different types of training, and all face different types of threats, I just don't think saying "training is different from when I was a cop and is more about law enforcer than peace" really means much of anything. Which training is different? How different are the threats? Etc etc etc.

He was talking about his department specifically from the time he got in to the time he retired but it does look like a trend. Things don't happen in a vacuum.

[poppy]

From the lawful responsible gun ownership advocate perspective:

 

Someone had a gun illegally and met a violent end, which is not surprising. Violence is how it usually ends when someone combines guns with illegal, tho usually it's not because a cop did the shooting.

 

Thus the focus is on the cops and their wrong doing, not so much that someone who had a gun illegally ended up dead.

 

Criminals gonna die *shrug* is what it boils down to, then.

What about Minnesota? 

[Katy]

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.

 

Of course it does, because innocent people who are well-trained in what to do in that situation don't act that way.  Police are trained, over and over and over again in exactly what they have to do in a shooting incident.  And a man reaching in a pocket, not showing a gun, is NOT justification for killing.  He didn't say he saw a gun.  He was shrieking, in the heat of the moment, about telling him not to reach.  That video is proof of that cop's mental state seconds after the fact. In almost every recent case (except the one in Chicago), my assumption has been that the police were justified.  It might not be fair, but they have a right to protect themselves and others.  In these two cases, there was no need to protect anyone because neither of the cops that pulled the trigger saw a gun.  In both cases they heard about a gun and got trigger happy.  Trigger happy is not justifiable, it is homicide.  And in both cases they are EXTREMELY trained to know the difference.

 

Both cops are going to get fired and going to jail.  And they should.

[Veritaserum]

Police officers are not authorized to be judge, jury, and executioner. It is unacceptable for citizens to die at their hands. There are almost no instances in which I could fathom a justifiable shooting. In fact, we have many, many examples of white *active shooters* being taken into custody alive while a black man who *might* have a gun (even if he has it legally!) gets shot.

[kahlanne]

Can I ask, is there a video of the Minnesota man that shows from the beginning or at time of shooting? I only saw the one after the fact of his wife and child. When I was speaking of the past actions of a person being relevant to the case in my mind, this is a perfect example. Here seems to be a man that obeys the law, no history of arrests, and according to the wife was doing exactly what he should in this instance. What we all should do yet he was killed. If there is no other proof showing otherwise, that cop should be tried and convicted of murder with the harshest penalty allowed in that state. I believe this woman's account about her husband more easily because of who he was and his past actions even over the what I assume the officer will say. Why? Because the past actions of the guy and the way the wife could control herself in a horrific circumstance makes me believe that acting in defiance of the officer's commands would have been out of the ordinary for him/her.   It seems more like a cop got scared because he has a job that causes his life to be in danger and freaked with the mention of a gun. He acted on impulse and an innocent man lost his life. Definitely should be held accountable for his actions.

[poppy]

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.

 

Her actions were entirely logical since this shooting was part of a well-established pattern of unarmed black men being killed (7x more likely than unarmed white men)

You'll notice that these cases only get talked about if there is a cell phone video.  That woman, and the witnesses at the Baton Rouge shooting, know this as well.

 

 

The Lousiana officers body cameras "fell off during the incident" with Alton Sterling. Can you believe what rotten luck those fellows have, to both lose their body cameras?

[Veritaserum]

Even as a white woman, I get anxious when I see a cop patrolling. I don't know if that officer is a peace keeper or if he's on a power trip. I've been pulled over or helped by very kind police officers. I've also been pulled over and asked unnecessarily antagonistic questions that escalated the situation in a matter of seconds.

 

"I'm afraid I will be killed by police."

 

Video:

https://www.facebook.com/KevOnStage/videos/10153675168668309/

[Murphy101]

The focus is on the cops and their wrongdoing because it seems the police didn't see the gun (in his pocket, not in his hand) until they were pretty much already in the process of killing him. They'd only just been told he had a gun. Would it really have made a difference if the gun was legal, in this scenario?

 

So is it not meant to be surprising that "violence is how it usually ends" when somebody else says you have a gun? We know what suicide by cop means. Is this murder by cop? Because we wouldn't want that to catch on. "Officer, he scared me with a gun!" Officer freaks out and kills the guy, then checks whether he really had a gun, whether it was legal, and whether he was really planning to shoot the LEO magically from his pocket without his hands free?

Not sure where you are going with this. The focus IS on the cops' wrong doing. Where it should be. Are you saying it shouldn't be?

 

Does not really matter where the gun was or if there even was one. The cops in the BR case did not act as they should have. They might have been on higher alert bc it was a gun call, but I still don't think their actions were right. As I've said repeatedly.

 

This had nothing to do with open carry laws. The gun was illegal and the man was not compliant with the law. And still it was the cops fault bc pulling his gun out at that time added more danger for everyone. Thus, again, this is about cop wrong doing.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Murphy101

[Veritaserum]

"Telling a Black Man to respect police so they don't get killed is like telling a woman to dress appropriately so they don't get raped." -- Eman Musik

[Lang Syne Boardie]

From the lawful responsible gun ownership advocate perspective:

 

Someone had a gun illegally and met a violent end, which is not surprising. Violence is how it usually ends when someone combines guns with illegal, tho usually it's not because a cop did the shooting.

 

Thus the focus is on the cops and their wrong doing, not so much that someone who had a gun illegally ended up dead.

You said ^^^ which I interpreted to mean you thought there was some justification/karma/fault on the part of the man for possessing an illegal gun, as doing so usually ends in violence, but that people should focus on that as well as on the cops and their wrongdoing. So I responded this (below) pointing out why the focus is on the cops and not on the legality of the gun. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Sorry!

 

The focus is on the cops and their wrongdoing because it seems the police didn't see the gun (in his pocket, not in his hand) until they were pretty much already in the process of killing him. They'd only just been told he had a gun. Would it really have made a difference if the gun was legal, in this scenario?

 

So is it not meant to be surprising that "violence is how it usually ends" when somebody else says you have a gun? We know what suicide by cop means. Is this murder by cop? Because we wouldn't want that to catch on. "Officer, he scared me with a gun!" Officer freaks out and kills the guy, then checks whether he really had a gun, whether it was legal, and whether he was really planning to shoot the LEO magically from his pocket without his hands free?

 

Not sure where you are going with this. The focus IS on the cops' wrong doing. Where it should be. Are you saying it shouldn't be? (No, I thought YOU were saying that.)

 

Does not really matter where the gun was or if there even was one. The cops in the BR case did not act as they should have. They might have been on higher alert bc it was a gun call, but I still don't think their actions were right. As I've said repeatedly.

 

This had nothing to do with open carry laws. The gun was illegal and the man was not compliant with the law. And still it was the cops fault bc pulling his gun out at that time added more danger for everyone. Thus, again, this is about cop wrong doing.

I see. I thought you were not placing the blame entirely with the police. Again, apologies.

[Murphy101]

Criminals gonna die *shrug* is what it boils down to, then.

What about Minnesota?

I don't have enough information about Minnesota. All I know about it is the woman is taking a video of herself calmly talking about it while her boyfriend bleeds to death next to her. I have no idea what, if anything, provoked the cop to shoot or know anything about what was happening before she started her video. If it was a legal gun carry and or if the cop went trigger nuts, then I certainly hope he faces prosecution and justice under the law for it.

 

The shrug is all you, not me.

 

Being a pragmatic realist does not mean one thinks something is acceptable, simply that it's not surprising or unexpected.

[Veritaserum]

It SHOULD be surprising and unexpected for an officer of the law to KILL a citizen, regardless of whether or not that citizen is being polite and compliant.

[Veritaserum]

All I can think of right now is seeing my brother-in-law or nephew show up in one of these snuff films while people justify their deaths.

[Pam in CT]

re Police Training Matters:

Of course it does, because innocent people who are well-trained in what to do in that situation don't act that way.  Police are trained, over and over and over again in exactly what they have to do in a shooting incident.  And a man reaching in a pocket, not showing a gun, is NOT justification for killing.  He didn't say he saw a gun.  He was shrieking, in the heat of the moment, about telling him not to reach.  That video is proof of that cop's mental state seconds after the fact. In almost every recent case (except the one in Chicago), my assumption has been that the police were justified.  It might not be fair, but they have a right to protect themselves and others.  In these two cases, there was no need to protect anyone because neither of the cops that pulled the trigger saw a gun.  In both cases they heard about a gun and got trigger happy.  Trigger happy is not justifiable, it is homicide.  And in both cases they are EXTREMELY trained to know the difference.

 

Both cops are going to get fired and going to jail.  And they should.

 

 

Katy, I agree with this... and if after the due process and a fair trial that Martha rightly calls for, the bolded turns out to be true, it will go a long way towards restoring racial and LEO trust.

 

I hope and pray that evidence does not disappear.  That due process is followed.  That charges are not dropped or reduced without explanation.  That a fair trial before an unbiased jury and judge takes place.  And that, if evidence warrants, you prove to be correct.  

 

 

 

 

In the meantime, Police Training Matters.

[Murphy101]

Her actions were entirely logical since this shooting was part of a well-established pattern of unarmed black men being killed (7x more likely than unarmed white men)

You'll notice that these cases only get talked about if there is a cell phone video. That woman, and the witnesses at the Baton Rouge shooting, know this as well.

 

 

The Lousiana officers body cameras "fell off during the incident" with Alton Sterling. Can you believe what rotten luck those fellows have, to both lose their body cameras?

Idk if I can believe it or not. How stable are the cameras? Are they well known to not stay on in a scuffle? And if so, why are they continuing to use POS cameras that can't handle the situations they are specificly being worn to document?

 

I have no issue with her taking the video. All for it. I just don't think it shows anything more than her perception/statement after the fact.

 

The cop sounds freaked out, which I don't presume as guilt of murder either. Any even moderately decent human should be freaked out about shooting someone, justified or not.

[Audrey]

Criminals gonna die *shrug* is what it boils down to, then.

What about Minnesota? 

Plain and simple.  They were both murdered for being black.  If they'd been white, they'd both be alive because they'd have been perceived as less and/or no threat.  Black = threat in this Bizarro-world cop land.  It's like we've time warped back to the 50's but the lynchers wear blue instead of white hoods.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Audrey

[Ravin]

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. 

 

This is 100% illegal in some places, defensible in others. In some places, the right to defend oneself with lethal force includes a duty to retreat unless you are in your home. In others, you have the right to "stand your ground" and where lethal force is warranted, a lesser measure, such as revealing one's gun in a "defensive display", may also be allowed and is distinct from brandishing/threatening.

For example, the Arizona statute reads:

 

 

 

Defensive display is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another person's use or attempted use of unlawful physical or deadly physical force. A defensive display is not required before using or threatening physical force, in a situation where you would be justified in using or threatening physical force.

 

That STILL wouldn't necessarily fit the facts regarding showing the weapon to the homeless guy, but then we will never know the whole story on that.

 

The only information about the victims in these two cases that is relevant is what the cops ACTUALLY KNEW at the time they shot them. 

 

I actually think a lot of LEOs have undiagnosed PTSD that may contribute to bad snap decisions, in addition to subconscious biases about race, how people dress, the neighborhood they are working in, the car a person is driving, etc. Regular psychological evaluations and treatment when needed should be a requirement of the job, IMO, along with anti-bias training and regular retraining on de-escalation.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ravin

[poppy]

I don't have enough information about Minnesota. All I know about it is the woman is taking a video of herself calmly talking about it while her boyfriend bleeds to death next to her. I have no idea what, if anything, provoked the cop to shoot or know anything about what was happening before she started her video. If it was a legal gun carry and or if the cop went trigger nuts, then I certainly hope he faces prosecution and justice under the law for it.

 

The shrug is all you, not me.

 

Being a pragmatic realist does not mean one thinks something is acceptable, simply that it's not surprising or unexpected.

 

I don't think the shurg is on me."Someone had a gun illegally and met a violent end, which is not surprising. Violence is how it usually ends when someone combines guns with illegal, tho usually it's not because a cop did the shooting."  Passive voice, making a murder sound inevitable, is a shrug to me. 

 

  Picture someone else in this scenario.  How about..... Robert Downey Jr.  Criminal record. He's standing next to police. Cop scream at Robert "get down" and he doesn't. Cops tackle him (which not reasonable). Then tase him. Then shoot him.  Would your response be "It is not unusual for criminals to have unfortunate encounters with police?"

 

As for Minnesota, I havent' heard anyone say the shooting was justified.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Plain and simple.  They were both murdered for being black.  If they'd been white, they'd both be alive because they'd have been perceived as less and/or no threat.  Black = threat in this Bizarro-world cop land.  It's like we've time warped back to the 50's but the lynchers wear blue instead of white hoods.

 

While the number of blacks killed by police is disproportionate compared to blacks as a % of the population, I do take issue with the position that only blacks are shot by the police.  Whether someone is white or black, if a gun appears during a confrontation with a cop, there is a high likelihood of being shot (and I am not saying all those shootings are justified).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Of course it does, because innocent people who are well-trained in what to do in that situation don't act that way.  Police are trained, over and over and over again in exactly what they have to do in a shooting incident.  And a man reaching in a pocket, not showing a gun, is NOT justification for killing.  He didn't say he saw a gun.  He was shrieking, in the heat of the moment, about telling him not to reach.  That video is proof of that cop's mental state seconds after the fact. In almost every recent case (except the one in Chicago), my assumption has been that the police were justified.  It might not be fair, but they have a right to protect themselves and others.  In these two cases, there was no need to protect anyone because neither of the cops that pulled the trigger saw a gun.  In both cases they heard about a gun and got trigger happy.  Trigger happy is not justifiable, it is homicide.  And in both cases they are EXTREMELY trained to know the difference.

 

Both cops are going to get fired and going to jail.  And they should.

 

I am not sure your last sentence is true.  Based on your summary of the mental state of the officers involved, you actually have the start of a compelling case for the officers acting in what they perceived to be self defense, which is the usual standard under most state laws.  They could possibly still be fired, but a criminal conviction is not a given.

Edited July 7, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Murphy101]

I don't think the shurg is on me."Someone had a gun illegally and met a violent end, which is not surprising. Violence is how it usually ends when someone combines guns with illegal, tho usually it's not because a cop did the shooting." Passive voice, making a murder sound inevitable, is a shrug to me.

 

Picture someone else in this scenario. How about..... Robert Downey Jr. Criminal record. He's standing next to police. Cop scream at Robert "get down" and he doesn't. Cops tackle him (which not reasonable). Then tase him. Then shoot him. Would your response be "It is not unusual for criminals to have unfortunate encounters with police?"

 

As for Minnesota, I havent' heard anyone say the shooting was justified.

No. Murder is not inevitable. I never said it was. But there's no doubt that combining illegal anything with a gun is highly likely to end very badly. No one is surprised by that bc the odds are stacked in that direction.

 

Don't even get me started on the double standard the rich/famous get over general citizens. It's a mockery of justice.

[Ravin]

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.

 

It happens to indigenous people at even higher rates than blacks. And Alaska has lots of them.

[Ravin]

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.

 

The standard is generally a reasonable person with the professional training and background taken into consideration. It is not a subjective standard.

[Aelwydd]

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.

 

You're probably right. If she'd have put the phone down and leaned over her boyfriend's body to comfort him, or try to assist him, she'd most likely have been shot too.

[Lb20inblue]

You know what makes the situation in MN even more depressing. In the state of MN, the law doesn't require disclosing that a concealed carrier is permitted or armed.  Which means he was going above and what he needed to do.  He did everything right. Other than be black in an affluent part of town.

 

Right is right and wrong is wrong.  In this country, most people of color know that the second amendment isn't there to protect them.  I have yet to see the NRA voice any support for the victim as a law abiding gun owner. There was a literal shoot out with biker gangs and not one person was killed or even thrown in jail. 

 

Also, for those who keep  saying he should of followed the law, just remember that Martin Luther King did everything right, and he was shot dead as well.  His suit, his flowery language and his submission didn't save him from the bullets. 

 

I am frustrated.  I am mad.  I have the right to be frustrated and mad.  I am happy that many of you will never have to go through the consistent fear of police.  Thank God for it.  Because the injustice in this country affect me and my family simply because of the color of our skin. We are college educated with a few masters degrees, but to some cops, we are just another black scary person.  

 

 

 

 

[Paige]

Plain and simple.  They were both murdered for being black.  If they'd been white, they'd both be alive because they'd have been perceived as less and/or no threat.  Black = threat in this Bizarro-world cop land.  It's like we've time warped back to the 50's but the lynchers wear blue instead of white hoods.

 

I disagree that we can know someone of another race wouldn't be shot. The odds are that the cop wouldn't have been so jumpy around a white person, but it's not always the case. There was an unarmed white kid killed by cops recently too and I know I've seen other stories come up here and there. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/dylan-noble-country-boy-shot-by-fresno-cops-loved-everybody.html

 

This is an everybody problem. IMO, black men are being shot more often because of racism, both personal and systemic, but everyone is getting shot because cops shoot people. I am white, middle class, and my kids are as well, but I definitely teach my kids how to respond if they are pulled over or have an interaction with a police officer. I tell them to be polite, do what they are told, never do anything to escalate the situation, and keep their hands visible. I actually just had that conversation with my DS tonight. I also told him that if he is with a black or other non-white friend and they have an interaction with the police, it might be a little more tense and his job is to always think about how to keep his friends safe and NOT escalate. 

[Audrey]

While the number of blacks killed by police is disproportionate compared to blacks as a % of the population, I do take issue with the position that only blacks are shot by the police.  Whether someone is white or black, if a gun appears during a confrontation with a cop, there is a high likelihood of being shot (and I am not saying all those shootings are justified).

In these two cases, those guns never appeared until AFTER the men were shot.  Many other cases of completely unarmed black men being murdered by cops, too.  It's absolutely a race issue and absolutely wrong.

[Aelwydd]

You know what makes the situation in MN even more depressing. In the state of MN, the law doesn't require disclosing that a concealed carrier is permitted or armed.  Which means he was going above and what he needed to do.  He did everything right. Other than be black in an affluent part of town.

 

Right is right and wrong is wrong.  In this country, most people of color know that the second amendment isn't there to protect them.  I have yet to see the NRA voice any support for the victim as a law abiding gun owner. There was a literal shoot out with biker gangs and not one person was killed or even thrown in jail. 

 

Also, for those who keep  saying he should of followed the law, just remember that Martin Luther King did everything right, and he was shot dead as well.  His suit, his flowery language and his submission didn't save him from the bullets. 

 

I am frustrated.  I am mad.  I have the right to be frustrated and mad.  I am happy that many of you will never have to go through the consistent fear of police.  Thank God for it.  Because the injustice in this country affect me and my family simply because of the color of our skin. We are college educated with a few masters degrees, but to some cops, we are just another black scary person.  

 

Lb20, I agree.  I would add that people who think they are safe because they're not black or Latino or whatever, should realize that a militarized police force all dressed up with shiny weaponry is less and less likely to be choosy with who they shoot.  Each murder--yes, murder--of a black or Latino person by a police officer that goes unpunished emboldens them to go another step further down the road.  Until it's not just racial groups, it's economic classes, and then it's religious affiliations, and then it's young teenagers, and then it's females dressed a certain way, all the way until it's anyone who dares step out of line.  

 

As I shared in the other thread, I am afraid of the police because I don't know who is "good" and who is "bad."  To me, randomized killings like these last two cases mean no one is safe. You're right, even MLK wasn't safe; who is going to top his exemplary behavior?  

[Matryoshka]

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.)

 

So if the cops had shown up at the house of that senior Navy official who was brandishing his gun around basically to just drive home his 'punk kids get off my lawn' shtick, it would have been totally no surprise if the cops had shot him?  'Cause somehow I don't think so.  

 

He is under investigation, but I don't think if the cops had shown up he would have been in any danger of being shot.  

[Audrey]

I disagree that we can know someone of another race wouldn't be shot. The odds are that the cop wouldn't have been so jumpy around a white person, but it's not always the case. There was an unarmed white kid killed by cops recently too and I know I've seen other stories come up here and there. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/dylan-noble-country-boy-shot-by-fresno-cops-loved-everybody.html

 

This is an everybody problem. IMO, black men are being shot more often because of racism, both personal and systemic, but everyone is getting shot because cops shoot people. I am white, middle class, and my kids are as well, but I definitely teach my kids how to respond if they are pulled over or have an interaction with a police officer. I tell them to be polite, do what they are told, never do anything to escalate the situation, and keep their hands visible. I actually just had that conversation with my DS tonight. I also told him that if he is with a black or other non-white friend and they have an interaction with the police, it might be a little more tense and his job is to always think about how to keep his friends safe and NOT escalate. 

I agree that everyone should be extra cautious around cops. 

 

I go even further and say that I treat cops like the enemy.  They're the ones with guns and licenced to kill.  They get away with murder.  The cops in the two cases in this thread will get away with their murders, too.  It happens all the time.  It mostly happens to non-white people, but it definitely does happen to all groups of people.   I don't trust a cop not to shoot to kill.  I tell my kid that if he ever gets confronted by a cop, just put your hands up slowly and start begging them not to kill you.  I hate cops.  I mean that.  Absolutely hate them.  These kinds of things just verify why I hate them.   And, if someone has a loved one who is a cop and wants to tell me how offended they are that I hate all cops and how their special loved one isn't a murdering racist, then good for you.  You know a cop who isn't a killer.   It doesn't change how I feel.

[Murphy101]

Lb20, I agree. I would add that people who think they are safe because they're not black or Latino or whatever, should realize that a militarized police force all dressed up with shiny weaponry is less and less likely to be choosy with who they shoot. Each murder--yes, murder--of a black or Latino person by a police officer that goes unpunished emboldens them to go another step further down the road. Until it's not just racial groups, it's economic classes, and then it's religious affiliations, and then it's young teenagers, and then it's females dressed a certain way, all the way until it's anyone who dares step out of line.

 

I think it ALREADY is like that.

Far too often being poor, young and or "too" religious is leading to way too many deaths and prison or other penalties regardless of race.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Murphy101

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Police officers are not authorized to be judge, jury, and executioner. It is unacceptable for citizens to die at their hands. There are almost no instances in which I could fathom a justifiable shooting. In fact, we have many, many examples of white *active shooters* being taken into custody alive while a black man who *might* have a gun (even if he has it legally!) gets shot.

 

Of the active shooters arrested, how many had a gun in hand when the police arrived?  I also believe a large number of active shooters have not been taken alive.  Would you not say those shootings were justified?

[Aelwydd]

I think it ALREADY is like that.

Far too often being poor, young and or "too" religious is leading to way too many deaths and prison or other penalties regardless of race.

 

Yeah...exhibit A....the increasingly violent reaction that protesters of any ilk or affiliation (conservative or liberal, secular or religious) are met with from police in "riot gear."  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In these two cases, those guns never appeared until AFTER the men were shot.  Many other cases of completely unarmed black men being murdered by cops, too.  It's absolutely a race issue and absolutely wrong.

 

In the Minnesota case, if** the officer perceived he was reaching for a gun, under the law he was justified in shooting.  He may have violated his professional standards, but he would meet the legal criteria.

 

I am still a bit unclear as to what the officers in LA saw.  If the suspect placed his hand in his pocket and the officer saw the butt of a gun, then in theory they could have a justified shoot.

 

**I am using "if" as I do not know what the officer will claim, or if what they claim is even true.  Self defense is a much greyer area than many believe.  And contrary to what someone posted above, I do not know of any state that places a "duty to retreat" on the police.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

FTR, the best way to reduce officer involved shootings starts with discontinuing the over policing of certain neighborhoods.  Stopping the "war" on drugs and the militarization of the police would help as well.

[Susan in TX]

In these two cases, those guns never appeared until AFTER the men were shot.  Many other cases of completely unarmed black men being murdered by cops, too.  It's absolutely a race issue and absolutely wrong.

 

It isn't just a race issue. An unarmed WHITE man was shot and killed in our city. There was ZERO media coverage. There was no trial. The police were given the routine administrative leave and that's that.

 

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Police-Fatally-Shoot-Person-in-Duncanville-229558431.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/

 

And in the same city a situation with a black teen that did not result in the teen getting shot.

http://cw33.com/2015/01/09/dont-shoot-teen-armed-with-fake-gun-duncanville-cop-holds-fire/

 

 

 

Susan in TX

[Murphy101]

FTR, the best way to reduce officer involved shootings starts with discontinuing the over policing of certain neighborhoods. Stopping the "war" on drugs and the militarization of the police would help as well.

Yes. Count me in the camp of not thinking any kind of "war on" our own citizens is good for democracy or justice. Not to mention it's doomed to failure from the start.

[Entropymama]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Are we still talking about Minnesota? He hasn't been found guilty yet. 

 

I live in Minnesota and I'm appalled. I know the facts aren't all in, but if what we've heard so far is true I can't imagine that officer not going to prison. If he were a civilian there would be no question. Which, I suppose, is at the heart of the issue. 

 

FTR, I was a police dispatcher years ago and the culture seems to have changed significantly. We had four officers shot and killed during the time I worked there. Only two suspects. It was much more accepted by the officers that their job was dangerous and they might be shot. It was a risk they took knowingly. It seems that now that has changed to 'save yourself if you feel threatened'. I may be wrong, since I'm no longer on the inside, but that's my take. 

[poppy]

In the Minnesota case, if** the officer perceived he was reaching for a gun, under the law he was justified in shooting.  He may have violated his professional standards, but he would meet the legal criteria.

 

I am still a bit unclear as to what the officers in LA saw.  If the suspect placed his hand in his pocket and the officer saw the butt of a gun, then in theory they could have a justified shoot.

 

**I am using "if" as I do not know what the officer will claim, or if what they claim is even true.  Self defense is a much greyer area than many believe.  And contrary to what someone posted above, I do not know of any state that places a "duty to retreat" on the police.

 

So if you have a legal weapon and he doesn't like the way you look or "feels" like you are dangerous-- he can kill you. In other words, even if the victim did exactly as we've been told (was just informing the officer that he had a firearm), the shooting was still justified.   See, now this is the sort of thing I would have thought would get the attention of gun owners.  

[mom2scouts]

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.

 

The Sterlings gun was not only illegal, but it was NOT an open carry. He had in his his pocket and that is not legal in an open carry state. He would need to be licensed for concealed carry. Open carry advocates will not defend someone carrying concealed without a license, especially when he's not allowed to carry at all. I think you misunderstand open carry.

 

The only fatal police shooting in my town in 20 years was last year and it was a WHITE man who did not have a gun. There wasn't any regional or national media attention and when the family protested in front of the police station, most people just ignored them and supported the police. Although I do think there's a problem in some areas, I think we rarely hear about police involved shootings that don't involve minorities. I've also been told by police officers that they know some cities aren't willing to pay for ongoing training for their officers and that needs to change.

 

The shooting of the man in the car is disturbing. If he correctly told the officer he was legally carrying and then reached for his wallet after being told to provide ID, I can't imagine why the cop would shoot him. Did the officer panic? Was he thinking about the gun and forget that he just told the man to show ID? I think that cop will have a harder time proving he didn't make a deadly mistake.

[Susan in TX]

And why isn't anyone talking about this police shooting of an unarmed man in Fresno California that happened just a month ago?

 

Susan in TX

 

[frogger]

Is the reason white deaths are not publicized because it is easier to keep a majority of the population in control if they are told it is only an issue for some people? I don't know but I do know more whites are killed by cops than blacks yet we never hear about it. Part of this is the white population is larger and therefore by sheer numbers there is bound to be more incidents and I have seen a lot of evidence of cops that seem obviously raciest too but why do you never hear about white people killed by cops when there is so many more of them. I guess it doesn't get the ratings?