sketchy9 said:

---

CAL6371 said:

---

Northside91- I think you have it right. The way to handle this type of situation is to calm everyone (suspects, fellow cops) down. This officer exacerbated the situation by extremely aggressive actions and demeanor. You have to take charge of the situation, but not be a total Adam Henry.The cop either was poorly trained or should never have been hired.
The stupid remarks by some about this being justification for shooting cops says more about their attitude to authority than anything else. Good cops hate these situations and know that some will paint all cops with the same brush.

---

If you say so. If they truly do, they should speak up. I won't hold my breath though.

---

Curious. What is their public forum? The main stream press has made up its collective mind. Politicians of every stripe want no part of them, "community groups" likewise. Do you honestly believe there's no internal conversation about this, and by internal I mean within police departments sheriffs' offices?

The police are fighting internal and external battles right now. Where it's going I have no idea. But "speak(ing) up" to audiences that have strong, negative convictions about their intentions is not a good use of their time.

Not in the defense of the murderer, but I wanted to point out that the guy barking out commands was different from the shooter and there were apparently 4 other officers who didn't fire their weapons.

This is a massive failure of training and procedure. The one positive takeaway is that body camera footage is shining a light on this and departments across the country can work to fix these issues. Doesn't bring anyone back but I believe over time it will make a huge difference.

CAL6371 said:

---

Oh - you mean they should go to the Press to complain about their fellow worker or their boss like you go to the Press when you think someone you work with has fouled up? Tell me about the times you have done that.

---

No one died when my co-workers screwed up.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Not in the defense of the murderer, but I wanted to point out that the guy barking out commands was different from the shooter and there were apparently 4 other officers who didn't fire their weapons.

This is a massive failure of training and procedure. The one positive takeaway is that body camera footage is shining a light on this and departments across the country can work to fix these issues. Doesn't bring anyone back but I believe over time it will make a huge difference.

---

Everone thought video would make a difference. It will only make a difference when there is a consequence for killing unarmed Americans. Life, liberty and happiness? The first is fundamental. When agents of the government can deprive you of your life at will--what other rights have any meaning? Taxation without representation? The problem now is the extra-judicial killings are there for everyone to see and the fact that there is no consequence has made the situation worse--it just sends a frightening message to people that: 1 you have no rights, 2. Your life has no value 3. Be very afraid of Big Brother/the police--comply, run away, it wont matter, your death will be justified and broadcast for all to see.

TY BearGoggles. I watched the video and read the articles too and it was clear that TWO peace officers were yelling at him - contributing to the mixed instructions. Loads of people have questioned why they didn't cuff the guy where he was laying. For the 2nd cop to cuff him he would have had to enter the "field of fire" or whatever. I'm surprised that the officer had an assault weapon. I would have thought a 9 mm handgun was in order for a report of a weapon in a hotel room (no shots fired). Better yet a bean bag shotgun or a tazer. And I would have let the guy talk some (though peace officers seldom believe people those they suspect of a crime). Something should have happened to defuse the situation.

Its not clear to me that the jury saw the video - something about it being prejudicial. I still don't get why a young pest control guy was in a hotel with his pellet guns with a woman he just met. Lastly - the guy got fired and I don't think anybody in law enforcement will be hiring him. He should have been convicted of something like negligent homicide and had his ability to own a weapon revoked as a minimum.

I call BS on the field of fire. Fire by whom?

Let's face it, a lot of the posts here are third-rate second guessing by people who have never faced,, been present at or even investigated a similar situation.

CAL6371 said:

---

BearGoggles - thanks for the clarification - I thought the shouter was the shooter.
I know of no criminal law the non-shooter violated. Being present and escalating a bad situation even against protocol or training is no crime as far as I know.

---

Most of us did. See the correction at the bottom of the article - WAPO (again) made a serious reporting error, this time naming the wrong officer.

CAL6371 said:

---

Oh - you mean they should go to the Press to complain about their fellow worker or their boss like you go to the Press when you think someone you work with has fouled up? Tell me about the times you have done that.

---

1. I'm not a sworn public official vested with the power to commit violence in the name of the state, if necessary (that's not a bad thing, it's what police are by definition)

2. Police officer unions seem to have no qualms about releasing public statements of support whenever their member officers are accused of serious crimes. Why not wait and see how things play out? Why not acknowledge that some things, while technically legal, fall short of a professional standard?

calumnus said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Not in the defense of the murderer, but I wanted to point out that the guy barking out commands was different from the shooter and there were apparently 4 other officers who didn't fire their weapons.

This is a massive failure of training and procedure. The one positive takeaway is that body camera footage is shining a light on this and departments across the country can work to fix these issues. Doesn't bring anyone back but I believe over time it will make a huge difference.

---

Everone thought video would make a difference. It will only make a difference when there is a consequence for killing unarmed Americans. Life, liberty and happiness? The first is fundamental. When agents of the government can deprive you of your life at will--what other rights have any meaning? Taxation without representation? The problem now is the extra-judicial killings are there for everyone to see and the fact that there is no consequence has made the situation worse--it just sends a frightening message to people that: 1 you have no rights, 2. Your life has no value 3. Be very afraid of Big Brother/the police--comply, run away, it wont matter, your death will be justified and broadcast for all to see.

---

Use of video is making a difference, just not in the way you expected. The video is showing us that police and the populace are not on the same page about how to interact during high stress crisis situations.

There are consequences for police killing unarmed Americans. Just like there are consequences for not complying with police instructions and instead doing something that reasonably looks like a threat to the officer.

MilleniaBear said:

---

I would have thought a 9 mm handgun was in order for a report of a weapon in a hotel room (no shots fired). Better yet a bean bag shotgun or a tazer. And I would have let the guy talk some (though peace officers seldom believe people those they suspect of a crime). Something should have happened to defuse the situation.

Its not clear to me that the jury saw the video - something about it being prejudicial. I still don't get why a young pest control guy was in a hotel with his pellet guns with a woman he just met. Lastly - the guy got fired and I don't think anybody in law enforcement will be hiring him. He should have been convicted of something like negligent homicide and had his ability to own a weapon revoked as a minimum.

---

Police are responding to reports of a person pointing a rifle out a window and you think they should show up with non-lethal weapons and weapons that put them at a tactical disadvantage? I am really trying hard to not appear to attack you personally - I appreciate that we're all having a civil conversation about this. So I'll say that idea is out there. Can you imagine if police showed up to the Vegas hotel shooting with non-lethal weapons? They would have endangered themselves, been ill equipped to stop the threat and the public outcry would be deafening. Police respond to calls not knowing how it is going to play out so they have to be equipped and prepared to stop the worst possible outcome.

FYI that according to the WAPO article linked above the jury was shown the video.

tequila4kapp said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I would have thought a 9 mm handgun was in order for a report of a weapon in a hotel room (no shots fired). Better yet a bean bag shotgun or a tazer. And I would have let the guy talk some (though peace officers seldom believe people those they suspect of a crime). Something should have happened to defuse the situation.

Its not clear to me that the jury saw the video - something about it being prejudicial. I still don't get why a young pest control guy was in a hotel with his pellet guns with a woman he just met. Lastly - the guy got fired and I don't think anybody in law enforcement will be hiring him. He should have been convicted of something like negligent homicide and had his ability to own a weapon revoked as a minimum.

---

Police are responding to reports of a person pointing a rifle out a window and you think they should show up with non-lethal weapons and weapons that put them at a tactical disadvantage? I am really trying hard to not appear to attack you personally - I appreciate that we're all having a civil conversation about this. So I'll say that idea is out there. Can you imagine if police showed up to the Vegas hotel shooting with non-lethal weapons? They would have endangered themselves, been ill equipped to stop the threat and the public outcry would be deafening. Police respond to calls not knowing how it is going to play out so they have to be equipped and prepared to stop the worst possible outcome.

FYI that according to the WAPO article linked above the jury was shown the video.

---

To pretend that 2 minutes into this the police are still thinking or afraid they are in a situation that in any way resembles the Las Vegas shooting is asinine. If police are trained to handle a frightened disoriented non threatening man on his hands and knees like a mass shooter then we need to fire whoever is making protocol because it's wrong.

CAL6371 said:

---

Let's face it, a lot of the posts here are third-rate second guessing by people who have never faced,, been present at or even investigated a similar situation.

---

This whole board is third-rate second guessing by people who have never played or coached college football. So what? It's a discussion.

sketchy9 - so you have never criticized a fellow worker to the Press but you expect cops to do so because they have the right to use violence - what is the logic of that?
Police officer unions and criminal defense attorneys often comment on the cases early on -so they should be deprived of their right to free speech? On what basis?

CAL6371 said:

---

sketchy9 - so you have never criticized a fellow worker to the Press but you expect cops to do so because they have the right to use violence - what is the logic of that?
Police officer unions and criminal defense attorneys often comment on the cases early on -so they should be deprived of their right to free speech? On what basis?

---

First of all, I never said anything about quashing police unions' speech. You conjured that up all on your own (and it's so out of left field that it makes me question what your motivation was).

This was all based on your assertion that the "good cops" hate stories like these because it makes them look bad. My counter was simple: prove it. Get rid of the blue wall of silence. Maybe tell your union head that knee-jerk statements of support of police killings be ended. These are concrete things that the so-called good cops can do that will demonstrate their good faith in not condoning rogue cops. It's not difficult, but it's never done.

75% of those killed by a person are killed by somebody they know. For the other 25%, they are killed by police 1/3 of the time. Think about the absurdity of that statistic and where that puts police in the ranks of threats to your life?

The current culture of acceptance of nearly all police violence is killing us. Other countries don't have these problems.

Dajo - would love to see the backup for your stats. It would be shocking it is weren't so apparent.

The culture of "getting home safely at the end of a shift" has replaced "to protect and to serve" and the end result is that innocents die when some police feel at all threatened, even if unreasonably so.

Dajo, does your statistic include justified shootings by the police, such as killing someone like the Vegas shooter and saving lives?

You seem to hold the police and police unions to a higher standard than any other organization or people.
You say tell "your" union - if you are referring to me, you are wrong - I was never a cop. I wouldn't put up with the abuse and jerks they have to tolerate on the street daily.
Get rid of the blue wall of silence - but not the movie industry's wall of silence, the wall street wall of silence, the Congressional wall of silence and how about the insurance industry's wall of silence etc. etc. Every large business and government agency or bureaucracy has a similar wall of silence. We have seen the movie industry and the new media's wall of silence temporarily punctured, but that's it.
Speaking, as you have of my motivation, why are you so concerned only about the cops wall of silence? Because they have the same rights to self defense that everyone in the nation has? Their job makes it more likely that they have to avail themselves of their right to self defense and defense of others than any other profession. Do you resent that?
Please recite you fights for piercing other walls of silence - or will you simply never admit you have done nothing in that area as well.

CAL6371 said:

---

You seem to hold the police and police unions to a higher standard than any other organization or people.

---

They should be. They literally have our lives in their hands.

dajo9 - other countries don't have this problem? Try the Israelis - in a recent public survey, 74% of Israelis said they thought the shooting of a Palestinian terrorist who had already been disarmed and was lying inured and helpless on the ground was justified. The Israeli soldier who had walked over to him and killed him was convicted in court of homicide, but the public there thought it should not have been a crime.
Life is becoming more tribal all over the world - the issue is not whether something is just, it is whose tribe are you in. I am in the tribe that worships justice - not just whose side are you on. I guess I am old fashioned - I told my son the other day that I am so old that I remember when the Republicans demanded high moral behavior of their candidates and the Democrats believed that due process was an important value.

dajo9 said:

---

75% of those killed by a person are killed by somebody they know. For the other 25%, they are killed by police 1/3 of the time. Think about the absurdity of that statistic and where that puts police in the ranks of threats to your life?

The current culture of acceptance of nearly all police violence is killing us. Other countries don't have these problems.

---

Minus an authoritative citation I'm calling BS.

2 minute Google search...

Total number of homicides in the US, per the CDC, for 2014 was just under 16k
(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

Total number of police related deaths for the same year is harder to determine. This Newsweek article explains it and using different sources puts the number somewhere between 350 (source:FBI) and 1400 (source: a private entity).
(http://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-each-year-480712)

That puts the rate at something between @2-8%, including justified killings. And considering that police interactions inherently skew toward the dangerous those numbers are absurdly low.

EDIT: I found your sentence structure to be misleading, but maybe that's my reading skills. 1/3 of 25% is @8%. I don't know why you just didn't say 8%. Still, even that number is at the very high end of the spectrum, using only a single private source for the number (i.e., high end outlier) and which includes justified deaths. Very misleading, IMO.

EDIT #2: The article isn't even written by Newsweek, it is written by a representative of the organization that came up with the highest number. What a joke by Newsweek. You'd think they could do some independent analysis and writing rather than publishing the thoughts of the person who obviously has a bias and financial interest in presenting a particular view.

Yogi Bear said:

---

I call BS on the field of fire. Fire by whom?

---

Fire from or through the door of the room the guy and girl came out of...there could have been a shooter who stayed in the room who could have shot through the door. You know, that same door that Barney and Goober loitered in front of for what seemed like minutes trying to get the key card to work, after snuffing the crying shlub who couldn't keep his balance/pants up, with the "you're f*&*d" rifle.

I would add that this happened in a state with strong gun rights, including concealed carry. There will be a lot of "good guys" packing in that state, and even "good guys" seen with their guns at and through hotel windows. Law enforcement needs to deal with this reality through means other than humiliating, yelled Simon Says demands to carry out gymnastic/contortionist moves while looking down the barrel of a "you're f*&%ked" gun.

what seems like a recurring theme in a lot of these cases is law enforcement officers (LEOs) being obsessed with compliance and the escalation of hostility when compliance doesn't happen. LEOs are there to protect and serve everybody (including themselves), but it seems like the main mission sometimes is to induce compliance by any means necessary. They have a hard job, but it just seems like a lot of these guys have short fuses and shouldn't be LEOs. some of these guys are clearly control freaks with poor impulse control (not speaking about all LEOs... just some of them).

sycasey said:

---

CAL6371 said:

---

You seem to hold the police and police unions to a higher standard than any other organization or people.

---

They should be. They literally have our lives in their hands.

---

Amen. Flip it around--if a group of armed young men barged into your hotel room, terrorized you and killed you--all with conclusive video evidence--in some states they might get the death penalty. Police are given tremendous power and with that power comes tremendous responsibility. They are agents of our government, not individual citizens. If they are not up to the responsibilty they should get into another line of work.

I'll add that the 2nd Ammendment is applied unequally in this country. IF Stavers actually had a (legally owned) gun in his hotel room, his killing wiuld not even be controversal.

CAL6371 said:

---

dajo9 - other countries don't have this problem? Try the Israelis - in a recent public survey, 74% of Israelis said they thought the shooting of a Palestinian terrorist who had already been disarmed and was lying inured and helpless on the ground was justified. The Israeli soldier who had walked over to him and killed him was convicted in court of homicide, but the public there thought it should not have been a crime.
Life is becoming more tribal all over the world - the issue is not whether something is just, it is whose tribe are you in. I am in the tribe that worships justice - not just whose side are you on. I guess I am old fashioned - I told my son the other day that I am so old that I remember when the Republicans demanded high moral behavior of their candidates and the Democrats believed that due process was an important value.

---

Can't say that I had Israel in mind when I made my statement. Help me out here - in your comparison, which segment of the American population is the Palestinians in Israel?

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

75% of those killed by a person are killed by somebody they know. For the other 25%, they are killed by police 1/3 of the time. Think about the absurdity of that statistic and where that puts police in the ranks of threats to your life?

The current culture of acceptance of nearly all police violence is killing us. Other countries don't have these problems.

---

Minus an authoritative citation I'm calling BS.

2 minute Google search...

Total number of homicides in the US, per the CDC, for 2014 was just under 16k
(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

Total number of police related deaths for the same year is harder to determine. This Newsweek article explains it and using different sources puts the number somewhere between 350 (source:FBI) and 1400 (source: a private entity).
(http://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-each-year-480712)

That puts the rate at something between @2-8%, including justified killings. And considering that police interactions inherently skew toward the dangerous those numbers are absurdly low.

EDIT: I found your sentence structure to be misleading, but maybe that's my reading skills. 1/3 of 25% is @8%. I don't know why you just didn't say 8%. Still, even that number is at the very high end of the spectrum, using only a single private source for the number (i.e., high end outlier) and which includes justified deaths. Very misleading, IMO.

---

The reason why it isn't misleading and is very appropriate is that for most of us, we have no fear of being killed by somebody we know. A lot of that is where you live and how you live.

For most of us, we only consider ourselves as being in the potential category of the 25%. So for most of us, if we are killed by a stranger, there is a 33% chance it will be the police doing it. Call bs, all you want, but we just saw it play out on the video of that poor victim in the hotel hallway.

dajo9 said:

---

75% of those killed by a person are killed by somebody they know. For the other 25%, they are killed by police 1/3 of the time. Think about the absurdity of that statistic and where that puts police in the ranks of threats to your life?

The current culture of acceptance of nearly all police violence is killing us. Other countries don't have these problems.

---

1. The way the 2nd Ammendment has been interpreted makes meaningful gun control impossible in this country. 2. For all of those other killings, our criminal justice system is VERY aggressive in prosecution--we have 2.2 million(!) people in prison (more than any other country on the planet, including large totalitarian countries like China)---only countries enforing medieval Sharia law execute as many people as the United States. Only police in countries where the government has publically ordered killing of suspects (the Philippines under Duerte, for example) come close to the number of extra-judicial killings as the United States

The problem is our laws are not being applied to the police, they can wct without consequence. Our Constitutional rights to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, innocent until proven guilty--our human rights to life and liberty, are not being protected and are now under open attack by the very people whose job it is and swore an oath to defend those Constitutional rights.

calalumnus - read the context - My comment about holding the police to a "higher standard" concerned sketchy9's demand that cops criticize their fellow officers to the press.
Read the whole series of back and forth comments.
For example, I believe that cops are rightly held to a higher standard of truthfulness under oath because of their crucial role in the administration of justice. But sketchy9 wants them to blast their coworkers - a truly unique demand I find absurd.

CAL6371 said:

---

calalumnus - read the context - My comment about holding the police to a "higher standard" concerned sketchy9's demand that cops criticize their fellow officers to the press.
Read the whole series of back and forth comments.
For example, I believe that cops are rightly held to a higher standard of truthfulness under oath because of their crucial role in the administration of justice. But sketchy9 wants them to blast their coworkers - a truly unique demand I find absurd.

---

Their job is to enforce the law--if they see a co-worker breaking the law, they absolutely should report them. That would be consistent with being in a profession with high ethics, personnal responsibility and itegrity. Ideally, police would be of such moral character that they would view those fellow officers who abuse their power, terrorize the public and vreak the law to be traitors to the cause.

However, that is the ideal world. In the real world, especially a macho culture like that of many police departments, it will not happen. There are many examples of officers who called out their fellow officers for racism, sexism, unlawful behavior and they were the ones attacked and forced out.

That is why I think body cameras, with annonymous tips, outside review and investigation plus outside prosecution if warranted (maybe just for departments/jurisdictions that have proven unable to self-police) is what is needed to restore faith in law enforcement in many communities.

Did any of the posters who criticized cops for not blasting each other in the press take into account that police officers often have to rely on other officers in their department for backup. In other words, they have to place their life in the hands of a fellow worker and he has to place his life in theirs. It is like combat at times - rapid life threatening dependence on each other. If you (officer #1) blast officer#2 in the press, the guy you rely on to back you up may be the officer you criticized or his best friend. Not a good situation to be in - is it?
Anybody want to continue to support sketchy9's proposal that officers should criticize each other in the press?

calalumnus - I totally agree that officers should report serious violations to their departmental superiors. It is the best way to deal with the issues and to get rid of problem officers. The press is an entirely different issue.

CAL6371 - about 150 police officers are killed each year (out of approx 900,000 on duty). 1,000 civilians were killed by police last year. Police officers assume some risk and have training to reduce their risk, but that doesn't support transferring that risk to innocent people like Daniel Shavers. I don't care why officers support each other even when they are committing heinous criminal acts, it causes the public to lose faith in the people sworn to protect them, and at this point can you really blame them? Since the advent of body cameras we have seen some truly horrendous images of rogue officers expecting people. There are a lot of good police officers who are being stained by the actions of a few and it's largely up to police departments and fellow officers to police themselves because juries don't seem to be doing so.

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

75% of those killed by a person are killed by somebody they know. For the other 25%, they are killed by police 1/3 of the time. Think about the absurdity of that statistic and where that puts police in the ranks of threats to your life?

The current culture of acceptance of nearly all police violence is killing us. Other countries don't have these problems.

---

Minus an authoritative citation I'm calling BS.

2 minute Google search...

Total number of homicides in the US, per the CDC, for 2014 was just under 16k
(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

Total number of police related deaths for the same year is harder to determine. This Newsweek article explains it and using different sources puts the number somewhere between 350 (source:FBI) and 1400 (source: a private entity).
(http://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-each-year-480712)

That puts the rate at something between @2-8%, including justified killings. And considering that police interactions inherently skew toward the dangerous those numbers are absurdly low.

EDIT: I found your sentence structure to be misleading, but maybe that's my reading skills. 1/3 of 25% is @8%. I don't know why you just didn't say 8%. Still, even that number is at the very high end of the spectrum, using only a single private source for the number (i.e., high end outlier) and which includes justified deaths. Very misleading, IMO.

---

The reason why it isn't misleading and is very appropriate is that for most of us, we have no fear of being killed by somebody we know. A lot of that is where you live and how you live.

For most of us, we only consider ourselves as being in the potential category of the 25%. So for most of us, if we are killed by a stranger, there is a 33% chance it will be the police doing it. Call bs, all you want, but we just saw it play out on the video of that poor victim in the hotel hallway.

---

I provided the data which proves the 25% of 33% number is wrong and misleading. If you are relying on some other data to support your position provide the cite. Otherwise it is dishonest to continue claiming that rate of police killings.

It is disengenuous to include police killings with the other random murders (your 25% category). Police have have virtually no criminal intent. Police interactions are not random. Stay out of trouble and follow police instructions and our risk of being killed by the police effectively 0% not 25% of 33%.