What’s so hard to understand? Yet another person in America was killed because he had an encounter with an American law enforcement officer. That is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

The above is my gut reaction. After thinking about it, though, I am bothered by the conduct of the victim. Running several times from the police was not the way to handle the situation. I wonder why he did that. Then again police rely way too much on the things they carry that can hurt & kill people.

I think it was better in the old days when cops would chase & tackle somebody & cuff them. Let it end there.

…Running was beyond stupid.

Let me consider your proposal to OK the shooting of all stupid people.

No. I don’t think this ends well.

Actually, the cops just don’t give a fuck if they are “caught” on camera brutalizing someone. It ain’t like they’re gonna get arrested or nuttin’.

On top of that, in answer to both random guy and Deoxy: There are many reasons someone might run from someone claiming to be police, and almost none of them rise to the level of requiring deadly force. Remember, the cops do have other resources to catch people. They have cars, radios, many times they have helicopters. They have investigative powers, they have warrants. If some guy on the street that they want to talk to runs away, the idea that they should shoot him is ludicrous unless there are very stringent other circumstances, like they have personally seen that guy shoot, stab, maim, or otherwise violently harm someone else.

I agree in the basic sense that the police can have the power of deadly force. But there really needs to be a high threshold for it, and police just don’t meet it in these stories (but do in other stories).

Read all about it here:

http://www.advocatescouncil.us/

No, they don’t. Or to be more accurate, they don’t need to be able to shoot people in situations where anyone else is not allowed to shoot people. Any job that requires its agents have the power to shoot non-threatening individuals, is a job that’s better off not being done.

What do you think about the castle doctrine? If there is a burglar in your house, you have the right to shoot them – you do not have to wait until they threaten you. There is a huge gray zone here. Under certain circumstances, it makes perfect sense to shoot a “non-threatening” person.

In this particular case, there are a lot of questions. The big one: why did this guy run away from the cop? Why not stop and talk, and clear the situation up? Running was beyond stupid.

Suppose that he had been the criminal, and ran away. Should the cop just let it happen? Really? This is exactly where I would expect the cop to shoot the guy – in the legs, if possible, but definitely bring him down.

There is probably more to this story than we currently know.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/10/scottsdale_chick_fight_caught.php#more

That’s not something you can take for granted anymore.

No, they don’t. Or to be more accurate, they don’t need to be able to shoot people in situations where anyone else is not allowed to shoot people. Any job that requires its agents have the power to shoot non-threatening individuals, is a job that’s better off not being done.

Apparently they have a screening system that can identify a comment about dog sex and it doesn’t like it.

Maybe a lucky sysadmin was looking at the logs just then. Squinting his eyes, he mutters “What in the hell? Nope.”

Apparently they have a screening system that can identify a comment about dog sex and it doesn’t like it.

Now, most of the outrageous CEO salaries are at companies I would never invest in…for this and many reasons.

However; Unions shouldn’t hang their hat on a catch-phrase of “We’re not as bad as CEOs.” Let’s be done with that low-hurdle shit and actually try to accomplish something.

-The police need to be able to shoot people. Seriously, if the police tell you to stop, and you instead run away, if you can just GET AWAY a noticeable portion of the time, then the incentive is to run.

-The police abuse the crap out of the powers they have and are almost never punished for it.

Unfortunately, I must go with the second one, but it makes me angry. I WANT the police to have the power and authority they need to do their job well, and I WANT people to be rewarded for cooperating and making it easier to catch the actual dangerous criminals in our society… but I can no longer trust the police with the power they really should have.

When they’ve lost someone like me, they’re pretty far gone.

Standard police procedure when they kill an innocent man. Dehumanize him in the public’s eye by referring to him as an “animal”, a “suspect” or a “subject” instead of “a person”, “a citizen” or just “a man”.

Next step is to drag whatever skeleton might be in his closet out and flaunt it to the public, even if it’s something so trivial as a jaywalking ticket or some time spent in a rehab. If he so much as visited a therapist he will be slandered as having “mental issues”. Never mind that nothing from his past had anything to do with what happened that night or that the cops would not have had any way to know about it when they killed him.

I would love to see the report from the ATM robbery to see just how closely he “somewhat matches the description”. Or was the ATM robbery simply seized upon after the fact as they tried to cobble together justification for their cold blooded deed?

Non-sequitur, and your assertion that they may not be able to get a job afterwards is completely baseless.