Officer A is walking down the street and X says something personal to A. Officer says X knows that's not true. Then X responds by screaming insults and obscenities at Officer A. Officer B tells X he shouldn't be so rude to A. X and B get into an altercation where B hits X. X tells B he's dead if he tries to shoot him.
A crowd of around 50 people begins to gather around A and B. The crowd begins to shout insults at B and throw objects at him. A call goes out for back up and 7 more officers arrive. One of the crowd tells the officers that the crowd will kill the officers if they shoot.
At this point, the crowd has grown to 300-400 people. The officers tell the crowd to disperse.
Instead of dispersing, the crowd becomes more rowdy and belligerent. They are throwing objects at the officers and taunting them. One member of the crowd threatens the officers with a baseball bat. Finally, something strikes one of the officers and knocks him down. That is followed by members of the crowd attempting to hit the officers. One of the officers is struck during the melee.
I should add that there had been agitation about "police brutality" among the locals, which contributed to why there was the taunting of the officers.
Additionally, most of the members of the crowd were not what people would call "solid citizens"--after all, they are threatening authority and willing to attack them and possibly kill them.
What should the officers do in your opinion?
- Retreat
- Use nonlethal force to stop the threat
- Fire their weapons into the crowd
Think about your answers to this scenario very carefully.
They should call in A-10 Warthogs and level the area. That's what you keep saying the government will do to its people if they get unruly.
ReplyDeleteNailed it, TS.
DeleteAlas, the question is not what would I do, but what would you do in this situation.
DeleteBTW, you are seriously demonstrating what I have said all along.
DeleteYou people cannot understand what I write.
I advocate shooting armed insurrectionists, there is quite a difference between that an unarmed individuals.
Of course, I have always thought that subtle nuances like that were lost on you and you have confirmed that belief.
REPEAT Alas, the question is not what would I do, but what would you do in this situation?
The only thing you nailed is that you are a pair of idiots.
If you weren't a pair of morons, you would know my answer would be to use non-lethal force if force were necessary to end the situation.
DeleteBut you are both morons.
And I am being nice here.
Hitting the sauce already, Laci?
DeleteI'd call a person who doesn't understand a facetious response a moron.
DeleteI wouldn't say you are dumber than a box of rocks, just not any smarter.
orlin sellers
They are not unarmed. You specifically called out that one of them was armed with a baseball bat, and you repeatedly said they used "objects" as weapons. Apparently I can understand what you write better than you can.
DeleteThey are not unarmed. You specifically called out that one of them was armed with a baseball bat, and you repeatedly said they used "objects" as weapons.
DeleteNailed it again, TS--thrown "objects" are, after all, a favored murder weapon among the goat rapists.
Thanks, Kurt.
DeleteYeah, thanks Kurt for showing us what a racist hater you are. "Goat rapists," that's cute.
DeleteActually, Mikeb, as it turns out, "goat rapists" is a racially neutral term, your obsession with race notwithstanding.
DeleteBut it occurs to me that I failed to address part of your accusation against me. I pretty effortlessly dispatched the "racist" component of that accusation to the scrapheap of ridiculous libels where it so clearly belongs, but have not dealt with the notion that I'm a "hater."
DeleteAnd you know what? I think I'll confess to that one. Yes, I think it is safe to say that I have a deep and abiding hatred for the kind of barbaric animals who would brutally kill a woman--a family member--by throwing bricks at her, because she married the man she loved, rather than her cousin, as her father commanded.
For the crowd who stood by and watched it happen, if my contempt and loathing don't quite reach the level of "hate" by some people's definition, it's got to be damned close.
So yeah--call me a "hater" if you want. Should I take that to mean that you do not hate such "people"?
And now it further occurs to me that perhaps I misunderstood the situation when I pointed out that "goat rapists" is a racially neutral term. Perhaps to your way of thinking, "goat rapists" is a defining characteristic of the Punjabi ethnicity, in which case it would be understandable for you to think of the term as "racist."
DeleteThe only problem is that this would say far more about bigotry on your part than on mine.
I advocate shooting armed insurrectionists, there is quite a difference between that an unarmed individuals.
DeleteYou're not fooling anyone, Laci. See, when you repeatedly wax gleefully about the mass killing power of the MLRS, which would slaughter scores (hundreds? thousands?) of non-combatants for every alleged "insurrectionist," you expose your morally and intellectually bankrupt eagerness for state sponsored massacre, with no regard at all to whether or not a the victims--or even a significant percentage of them--are your "armed insurrectionists."
"Actually, Mikeb, as it turns out, "goat rapists" is a racially neutral term, your obsession with race notwithstanding."
DeleteNot when you apply it to a particular group of people it isn't. And your embarrassment in making such a stupid remark and being called on it is evidenced by your flurry of 4 comments in a row.
Not when you apply it to a particular group of people it isn't.
DeleteThat doesn't make any sense, Mikeb. Any term applied to any two or more people, but not the entire human race, is applied "to a particular group of people."
And your embarrassment in making such [an insightful] remark and being called on it is evidenced by your flurry of 4 comments in a row.
Um--no. That "flurry" occurred over a period of almost sixteen hours, and one of the comments was on an entirely different subject, and directed at a different person.
A vastly better example of an embarrassment-spawned "flurry of comments" would be this one, this one, and this one, over a period of 15 minutes, saying basically the same thing over and over again.
Better luck next time, Mikeb.
Laci frequently does that, but you rarely if ever do, except when cornered and embarrassed, that is.
DeleteI "rarely if ever" post four comments in the same thread, over a period of 16 hours? I don't care enough to go to the trouble to look, but I doubt it's especially rare.
DeleteAs for my being "cornered and embarrassed," if this is a "corner" I'm in, it's a very roomy and comfortable one--I think I'll stay awhile, maybe have a nap; and I have exactly zero reason to be embarrassed, and am not.
The criminal thinking Kurt is not embarrassed by the fact that he is a criminal thinker, in fact he's proud of being a criminal thinker. He has no hesitation in saying he will take arms against the government just because he disagrees with it's laws, which were written and voted by the democratic process.
DeleteRetreat to the extent possible, use non lethal to the extent possible and effective. Use lethal force to the extent necessary, because unfortunately non lethal is not always effective, and un armed does not equal not dangerous. A fact that many here don't seem to understand.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
That's the perfect answer. The problem persists though, as to what constitutes "necessary" when talking about lethal response.
DeleteThe problem with the answer is all of those, possible, effective and necessary are all fluid and highly subjective, just as much as what constitutes necessary when defining a legal response. For example, what if you can see a way to retreat from your current situation but it will likely out you into another likely less defensible or worse position, do you retreat? Say you have pepper spray, do you have the time to wait for the spray to take effect? Or a tazer, are you far enough away for the tazer to work? Some, and I am curious as to where you stand on it MikeB, believe that you have to actually use the option and have it fail before you can move up to a higher level of force, and that's a problematic view because it puts people in more danger.
DeleteMikeZ
Yes, and that's why the castle doctrine and syg laws are a problem. When there's loss of life, especially if the guy who loses his life turns out to not have been armed, it should require overwhelming evidence that the shooting was necessary.
DeleteThe problem, with using evidence to prove it necessary, that if it comes out that the individual was unarmed, which is not the same as not a threat/not dangerous, is that is essentially after the fact proof that the shooting was not necessary. That sceneraio, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be wanting to include 20/20 hindsight and have the ability to Monday morning quarterback as they say. In law enforcement there is what is called the reasonable officers standard, which essentially asks, would an officer with similar training and experience, with the information available at the time with no hindsight and in similar circumstances to the original scenario find the officers response reasonable. You cant inject the because I would do it differently they are wrong. It's rare that you are going to get a case that is so iron clad that the loss of life will be considered necessary, from a trial perspectjve but there are cases where it is justified. Castle doctrine and stand your ground les have been so spun and mis represented it's ridiculous.
DeleteMikeZ
Castle doctrine and syg laws have created a mentality that makes people believe it's ok to shoot in some cases where they otherwise wouldn't have. This is a big problem. It's moving us in the wrong direction, and this applies to cops and civilians both.
DeleteWhy is 20/20 hindsight a bad thing only when it proves you wrong? Any analysis of a shooting involves 20/20 hindsight. That's all there is after the fact.
There's a lot wrong with using 20/20 hindsight when evaluating a lethal force encounter, an example is, some years ago. A robbery suspect had what appeared to be a gun in his waist band, it turned out to be a ratchet with a revolver grip attached to it, or the cases where an officer fires on a person with what turns out to be an airsoft gun, in all of these, technically they prove unarmed but is shooting them justified? 20/20 hindsight would render the shooting wrong but the totality of circumstances, all the information available to the officer at the time would rule it justified. There are numerous examples of the murky grey area circumstances that, at the time of the shooting would be justifiable but other information, whether it be a fake firearm, or mental illness, the suspect spearing to reach for a firearm, even with gang members who are known to carry wespons but don't have them during a particular encounter, can make a shooting "wrong". And just to be clear, I'm not advocating a shoot first ask later or trigger happy mentality, I am just attempting to illustrate the difficulty and complexity involved in deciding whether a shooting was justified or not, when a person is looking from the outside in.
DeleteMikeZ
I'm well aware of the difficulty. But that's exactly why the benefit of the doubt has to go to the unarmed person who is shot. Otherwise, we have trigger happy shooters claiming they feared for their life when they didn't.
DeleteLet me ask you this. Do you hold cops to a different standard than civilian concealed carriers?
Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that a shooting should be held as a bad shoot until proven otherwise? And you have no way of verifying the mindset or thought process of a shooter at the time of the event, your assumption appears to be that they are making things up to justify the shooting. In a scenario like the one given, the shooting would have likely been ruled justifiable, I don't hold cops to a different standard, if the totality of the circumstances available at the time of the shooting give every indication that a shoot was justifiable I don't care if they are in a uniform or not.. Number of people in the crowd, location, objects available to all parties concerned, relative sizes of people, mentality of both parties, raining and experience of both parties agression levels of both parties all come into play.
DeleteMikeZ
MikeZ, try to answer these questions honestly. If you were ever to shoot and kill an unarmed person in one of those 3-second nightmare situations, would you tend to describe things exactly accurately, or would you take some tiny liberty to make the shoot seem more justified? How about one in which in your heart you know you acted prematurely and unnecessarily, but it happened so fast that you really can't blame yourself and besides there are no witnesses. Would you tell the truth in the certainty that you'd go to jail and leave your family in a bind?
DeleteBecause I suspect those situations are not uncommon among all the so-called legitimate DGUs, I say yes to your first question. When an unarmed person is shot and killed the presumption has to be that the shooter acted unnecessarily, unless overwhelming evidence can be brought to show otherwise. It's only fair. After all, that's what the shooter does, right. He presumes the worst of the unarmed criminal. A punch in the face can be lethal, right? The attack COULD have been lethal.
When an unarmed person is shot and killed the presumption has to be that the shooter acted unnecessarily, unless overwhelming evidence can be brought to show otherwise. It's only fair. After all, that's what the shooter does, right.
DeleteWrong. Disgustingly, obscenely wrong. The presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt is for the person on trial. The person he or she shot is not on trial.
Besides, how can you expect every defensive shooting situation (specifically, every legitimate, truly necessary defensive shooting situation) in which the person shot had no firearm (which, remember, is not at all synonymous with "unarmed") to come with "overwhelming evidence" of the shooting's legitimacy? That's an impossible standard, one that would only be proposed by someone who has already decided on the verdict before the shooting even occurs.
Mike, two things here, one it is clear that you don't understand the psychological processes that take place in a deadly force encounter. This is likely to get spun and twisted so I'll make it as clear as possible, you are viewing it as the shooting being necessary, ie was it completely impossible for there to be any other outcome, and that's a standard that is pretty much impossible to achieve so with that standard your right, every shooting would be ruled unnecessary. Now we come to the scenario of whether a shooting is justified, which is in reality only a marginally easier to achieve standard but it takes into account the totality of circumstances, all of the factors I mentioned previously. My testimony would be of my perceptions, facts and circumstances at the time, my testimony would be to the conditions and behaviors that let me to the decision I made. And if you want to be honest, anyone involved in a shooting, whether justified or not, is going to have nagging questions at the back of their mind, such as, what if I had said to stop one more time, or what if he had been closer or further away or what if he hadn't been under the influence or any number of what ifs. I personnaly know several individuals who could kill me without a weapon nearly as fast as they could kill me with a weapon. You will almost never find overwhelming evidence that a shooting was necessary, but you will find the evidence as to whether or not it was justified. And it's problematic to view it in the binary necessary or not because what one person may view as necessary, for a number of reasons another won't view as neccesary. An example would be a 250 lb mms fighter attacks a cop, cop shoots said MMA fighter, was the shooting neccesary or not?
DeleteOr an example I have used before, Paul shot Andy on 4th st at 530 pm on febuary 3rd. Was a crime committed? Was the shooting Neccesary or Justifable?
MikeZ
As a continuation to my pending comment, the presumption of guilt will inherently taint the process, much like we ran into with the Rainey king scenario, the mike brown shooting, and much of your assumed reasoning behind criticism of Obama, if your already existing presumption IE bias is in a certain direction be it assumed racism or assumed wrongful shooting, your going to view everytjing through that lens and your going to essentially collect and filter all of the evidence available in a way that leads you too the conclusion you already want the scenario has to be approached from a more objective, this was the outcome, now taking into account all of the circumstances, behaviors and evidence available, why did it happen and was that why enough to make the what justified. Given everything leading up too and at the time of said event was the outcome justified. Using information found out after the fact is much like stacking the deck in one persons favor or another. And to restate a fact that I have stated before unarmed does not equal not dangerous.
DeleteMikeZ
Kurt and MikeZ sure wrote a lot without answering my two simple questions, two questions that call for a simple straight answer.
Delete1. If you were ever to shoot and kill an unarmed person in one of those 3-second nightmare situations, would you tend to describe things exactly accurately, or would you take some tiny liberty to make the shoot seem more justified?
2. How about one in which in your heart you know you acted prematurely and unnecessarily, but it happened so fast that you really can't blame yourself and besides there are no witnesses. Would you tell the truth in the certainty that you'd go to jail and leave your family in a bind?
Kurt and MikeZ sure wrote a lot without answering . . .
DeleteOh, please forgive me. I hadn't realized the question was directed at me. Now what would give me that idea:
MikeZ, try to answer these questions honestly.
But since we now know that when you said "MikeZ," you really meant "MikeZ and Kurt," I'm going to tell you that I utterly reject your "questions," as irrelevant. The duty of the juror is to presume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Any deviation from that makes a grotesque mockery of justice.
Ok, to answer your question clearly, I would testify to the circumstances as they were at the time, and the behaviors and events that led me to the decision I made.
DeleteThe second question is a nice little attempt at a trap, while if I were to fire upon anyone it would be justified given the entirety or circumstances, almost anyone who is been in a deadly force encounter, is going to to have the nagging wonder if it was 100% necessary. To your mind does that count as knowing they acted prematurely and unnecessarily?
MikeZ
That was pretty slick, Kurt, not to mention dishonest.
Delete"he duty of the juror is to presume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "
I wasn't talking about a jury trial where the bar is obviously set much higher. I was talking in the simple determination of whether a so-called defensive shooting is legitimate or not. But you knew that, didn't you?
MikeZ, forgive me but I can't believe that. You're really saying that you wouldn't stretch the truth even one little bit in order to make your DGU sound a tiny bit more justified? You're that rigidly honest?
DeleteThe second question was no trap, that's just your bullshit way of avoiding answering. Try again: 2. How about one in which in your heart you know you acted prematurely and unnecessarily, but it happened so fast that you really can't blame yourself and besides there are no witnesses. Would you tell the truth in the certainty that you'd go to jail and leave your family in a bind?
I wasn't talking about a jury trial where the bar is obviously set much higher. I was talking in the simple determination of whether a so-called defensive shooting is legitimate or not.
DeleteSo when you say this:
When an unarmed person is shot and killed the presumption has to be that the shooter acted unnecessarily, unless overwhelming evidence can be brought to show otherwise. It's only fair. After all, that's what the shooter does, right.
You're not talking about the jury, but just about what people (well, non-jury people--and only non-jury people) are "supposed to" think? What do you expect to gain from this, since you apparently don't expect it to effect the legal outcome?
But you knew that, didn't you?
Of course I didn't know that--there's no way my mind is going to come up with that kind of convoluted nincompoopery.
And yet another abject, utter failure on your part to pin "dishonesty" on me. You have heard of Einstein's definition of insanity, haven't you, Mikeb?
MikeB, I really don't care if you believe it or not, I can only speak to the reasoning behind a decision, whether you believe it or not doesn't really matter to me. And again to answer your question, I'm secure enough in my training experience, judgement, concience and morals that I would neither stretch the truth, not act unjustifiabky. Again whether you believe that or not doesn't reallh matter to me.
DeleteMikeZ
Follow the punishment the law allows. We don't kill criminals except for the most heinous crimes. We don't kill criminals for theft, burglary, shoplifting, etc., or even certain kinds of murder. Being inside your home committing a crime should not be an automatic excuse to kill, unless they turn and attack you. What ever happened to holding the criminal until the cops come? People are to quick to pull the trigger; a kill ideology brought on by gun loons and the NRA.
ReplyDeleteYou don't kill someone cowering in a corner because you don't think he should be in your home, and it's a little late when your daughter tells you she invited him in, after he's dead. You don't kill someone just because they knock on your door at 3am looking for emergency help. You don't kill someone just because they threw popcorn at you, or played their music to loud, but the NRA and gun loons defend these kind of killings.
Very good comment. Indeed many of these supposed necessary DGU shootings are anything but.
DeleteThe rooftop sniper should cap the agitator telling the police that the crowd will kill th if they shoot (instagating a riot) then shoot the guy with the baseball bat (preferably somewhere that leaves h im screaming in pain.... as a deterrent) then you start shootin ganyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask (or any mask) and after that anyone with moltov cocktails, bats, bricks or any other weapon.......
ReplyDeleteThe correct answer is for the officers to retreat rather than escalate the conflict.
ReplyDeleteArmed or not, they won't win against those numbers.
Laci based this 'hypothetical' on an actual.
The rest of you - Thomas, TS, Kurt the Super-idiot, and of course, Orlon fluff-for-brains Sillier - are completely wrong. And no, a rooftop sniper is not the correct response, nor is it one of the options, and no, nor is an assault vehicle either.
Y'all are dumber than a box of the proverbial.......
"The correct answer is for the officers to retreat rather than escalate the conflict."
DeleteJust like they did at the Bundy Ranch. Yeah, I can see that.
orlin sellers
What? It's wrong for the government to bomb it's own cities? How is the government supposed to get to use these fun toys against its people if they can't "escalate"?
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/09/so-you-really-want-to-take-on-us.html?m=1
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-10-warthog-attack-run.html?m=1
Poor Laci will be very disappointed. I also can't help but notice that you selected option 1, while Laci selected option 2. So I guess you have to throw him into the "dumber than a box of rocks" category too.
If you shot all the Guy Fawkes loosers first I guarantee you that you would only be shooting middle class college educated white males..... perfect social justice....
ReplyDeleteThere was no enforcement on the first night and all the protestors did was burn down minority owned businesses so all your peace.love and harmony was nothing but socialist tripe....
ReplyDeleteDog gone, it's very easy for you to say that there is a correct answer while you are on the outside looking in, and it's very easy for you to say that laci is correct as usual, when given the answer you want, but we again come to the fluidity of the situation, often an attempt at retreat will trigger the chase instinct in which the officers may get chased down and cornered, in the given scenario the intent to harm has been given and is already being carried out, in this scenario the option to retreat is limited as the officers are already being engaged. To adress anonymous, you seem to have a get shot first ask questions later mentality, if I am incorrect by all means let me know. I am not advocating for being trigger happy and killing someone at the drop of a hat, but there are scenarios in which the force is justified.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
It's the gun loon killers that have the shot first ask questions later mindset, and a trigger happy mentality. Those cases I cited, all the victims were unarmed and showed no aggressive attempt to attack the shooter, and you can add Martin. If you want to justify deadly force because someone threw popcorn, that's your gun loon mentality. I hope the courts keep putting these gun loon killers in jail. Sure some get off, but that happens when the victim is dead. Dead men tell no tales. The reports of police killings show the police certainly have the trigger happy shoot first ask questions later mentality.
DeleteBut you see, I gave the correct answer BEFORE knowing the historic context, and by using the correct reasoning of de-escalation.
DeleteMore force, as we have seen in Ferguson, only escalates not just the immediate violence but the continuing conflict rather than ending or at least reducing either.
Yes, there ARE situations where violence is the correct answer, but I haven't seen the pro-gunners here demonstrate an ability to identify those situations, or the optimal way to implement the violence either.
I would point out that both Gandhi and MLK believed that there were appropriate occasions for violence on the part of the protesters as well. Those concepts don't get nearly enough attention either.