“The dramatic video shows the moment Boise police officer Rob Rainford shot and killed Noel Rodriguez this past June,” Studio News. “Prosecutors say Rodriguez made himself a clear and immediate danger to law enforcement and that Rainford was justified in the shooting. ‘That vehicle is a deadly weapon. If that vehicle breaks loose, there is no doubt it can cause significant bodily injury or death,’ said Deputy Chief Eugene Smith of the Boise Police Department.”
The police report says Mr. Rodriguez was delusional, armed with a wrench and a screwdriver. It claims that he posed a deadly threat to an officer behind the truck (who probably shouldn’t have been there) and around the vehicle. In short, one wonders if there was another way to end the incident without shooting the driver. I wasn’t there, but it sure doesn’t look like the vehicle was about to break loose to me.
Anyway, before you come down on me like a proverbial ton of bricks for accusatory armchair quarterbacking, check out this link from last night’s Daily Digest: Military-Trained Police May Be Less Hasty To Shoot, But That Got This Vet Fired. As a former reserve cop I can attest to the fact that many police officers use physical and psychological intimidation as their go-to interface with suspected perps, which can escalate a situation dramatically.
So the question here isn’t so much do cops want to shoot people as much as do cops know how not to shoot people? Shouldn’t they be trained in de-escalating dangerous situations and finding non-lethal solutions whenever possible?
Contain and take cover is sometimes the best way, but police tend to be goal driven and management is cost driven, so no overtime and wrap up the situation asap so we can get back to paperwork and sensitivity training. County sheriffs and their deputies are often the best examples of common sense police work, and most in touch with the public in my opinion.
“… and wrap up the situation asap so we can get back to …”
This right here is the fundamental problem. For no justifiable reason, most cops are grossly impatient. Someone coined the term “contempt of cop” to describe when police ratchet up their attitude and violent response so quickly without any justifiable reason.
Perhaps not so obvious is the down side of being patient: nasty, violent criminals will perceive your patience as weakness.
The only answer that I see requires that police have decent discernment skills.
If police encounter a mom who is drunk (to the point of endangering people) in public with a baby in a stroller, recognize that mom will be extremely sensitive to the disposition of her child. Rather than immediately punching the mom in the face and tackling her to the ground when she is reluctant to jump into the back seat of a police car, do the honorable thing: work with her to get a trusted person on scene to take care of her child. Then watch how much more willing she is to get in the back of the police car. If she still resists at that point, then go ahead and “manhandle” her without beating her.
If police roll up on a man with a club who is swinging violently at innocent people, then by all means be impatient. Otherwise, take the time to try and talk the man down.
Drunk mom with a baby in a stroller? The only use for a police car there should be to get the mom and baby home and with someone to keep an eye on both.
The law is a tool, not a god to be worshipped with sacrifices hauled in at every opportunity.
“If police encounter a mom who is drunk (to the point of endangering people) in public with a baby in a stroller, recognize that mom will be extremely sensitive to the disposition of her child.”
Sorry, not so interested in my tax dollars being wasted babysitting for scumbags. Arrest the mom for child endangerment, deposit the kid at CPS, fill out the paperwork.
From what I can see(only from what I can see), I think they were absolutely justified. That truck could have easily broken loose. He was armed in the cab. He was running from the police. I think they showed much restraint by not emptying all of thier magazines. When you escalate a situation like that, which he did, all bets are off
As a former cop I hate to be an armchair quarterback – you can NEVER understand all circumstances of a situation from a video. Leaking these only leads to people making (at best) half informed decisions of what took place. “Hands up, don’t shoot”, etc… It causes undue anger, violence, and hatred. That being said…
I can only speculate, BUT… the last version of the video shows the cop behind the truck removing a hitch and then the driver exerting all of the truck’s power in reverse in what I perceive to be an attempt to run the cop over. So there’s attempted murder of an officer right there.
Played a stupid game, won a stupid prize.
Everyone expects the cops to have a a crystal ball. They don’t have the benefit of seeing different angles from cameras before making their decisions. There are plenty of times when they have made questionable calls but this isn’t one for me. Then click the link on the report and see if that doesn’t add something to the story.
All the more reason for them not to be armed.
Citizens should be armed, not government employees.
So citizens lose their rights when they work for their government?
If they’re (you’re?) giving up qualified immunity then we’ll talk. Until then the dichotomy is real.
ETA: Responding to Lud, btw.
> Everyone expects the cops to have a a crystal ball. They don’t have the benefit of seeing different angles from cameras before making their decisions.
Neither do regular people who get shot by cops.
And cops are supposed to be trained for their jobs – at least they’re paid for it, and allotted time for it. Regular people don’t get paid for, or are allotted time to, train to coddle the cops.
So when a cop tells someone to give them their ID, and then shoots them when they try to take that ID out of their pocket, for example, the blame is squarely on the cop – the only thing that the person is supposed to know is to do what the officer tells them. The onus is on the cop to give them commands, executing which doesn’t make the cop paranoid.
But realistically speaking, given that we apparently cannot even convict a cop who shot a man running away in the back, on camera, and then tried to tamper with the evidence, also on camera; and not even of murder, though it is clearly appropriate, but of manslaughter! – cops don’t need to know shit. They can do whatever they want to you, and they’ll get away with it.
Of course, they’ll be treated accordingly, too.
i just think about it like this: there are thousands of police interactions everyday, eventually there is going to be a perfect match up of rookie, ill trained, or malicious police officer and dumbass, intoxicated, or also malicious citizen. When those 2 meet up, that’s when we get a video like this. Some PD’s are better than others. It would be nice to be able to do some kind of quantitative search to see what areas have the least amount of controversial incidents to see if maybe those PD’s are doing something different.
I think this pretty much sums it up.
The problem is that there’s no accountability. Sure, some cops are better than others. But those that suck, get away with it. And those that don’t, still cover the asses of those that do. And their PDs and their unions stand behind them all the way.
So there’s no material incentive for a cop to be a better one. They won’t suffer any substantial consequences for being a “bad apple”, and they know it.
“Armed with a wrench and a screwdriver”? While driving?
So he was in the truck, and there were basic tools in the truck, like the ones most of us carry in our trucks, and that makes him “armed” with them? Are we all “armed with a tire iron” every time we get in our vehicles?
Well, the talk about him being armed was after the guy was executed for being an idiot / negligently murdered (take your pick), so they’re performing for the cameras. Thus the talk about being armed and at the very end yelling “don’t move” before they let his corpse dump out onto the street.
Read the report, he had already stabbed another cop with the screw driver earlier.
OK, then retaliation is another possible motive for shooting him.
Look at it like this: If you or I found ourselves in a similar situation, would we end up in prison instead of the proper finding of self defense? Thoughts?
One cop, nine shots. Even if he thought he saw a gun, what was going on here?
I think this answers your question, at least about one cop.
And yes, I should probably wait until the investigation is over. But – nine shots???
I think mag dumps are the training regime of the day. Most officers these days continue firing until slide lock, and then reload. There was an incident up here in the north where a suicidal young man robbed a bank (with an airsoft pistol), and then pretty much stayed in the area until the police arrived. Three cops fired thirty two shots, killing the perp. I commented to a County Marshall that I thought that was an awful lot of shots fired (several of which went astray), and his response was “Not enough.” So nine shots is unsurprising, and something we’ve seen quite often in these scenarios. Another example was the shooting in Chicago, where the perp, a young black male with a knife, was shot by a single police officer (out of about 10 on the scene) who was standing behind a patrol car. Without sound, the video isn’t too remarkable, as this wasted young man was waving his knife around as he walked down the middle of the street. However, the sound track revealed that the officer shot 5 to 7 shots, the perp goes to the ground, and then the cop emptied his weapon into him. I have little doubt but that the shooting will be found by the jury in the murder trial to have been unjustified. However, the issue of emptying handguns into a subject seems to be on the rise, and is a questionable technique, when the rule for cops, as it is for us, is shoot until the threat stops. I realize these incidents take place in a matter of seconds, but it still seems excessive force is being applied.
Definitely need more info there… as it is, it basically reads like:
Cop: Show me the bad man with the gun.
Witness: *points to old man*
Cop: *shoots and kills old man*
I’m a de-escalate kind of guy. But it takes all kinds to make the world go ’round. Sometimes we need physical/psychological intimidation kind of folks in our law enforcement.
Like the military, LE is made up of all kinds of personalities. In this instance, I believe the response was appropriate and justified.
Yeah some cops are trigger happy. Chiraq is paying put over 5million bucks for 2 separate shootings this week. “But he ran from me!” “He had a cellphone shaped gun!” ?Nothing compared to the $18000000 from the gal shot while phoning…
Looks more like the officer was stinger hitch happy. I mean, yeah it was a dandy stinger hitch and all, but at least they could have waited until AFTER they shot him!
Seems like that cop had more balls then brains. Easier to install a new radiator then replace a crushed arm or leg.
I have to wonder how the police in England would have handled that. I would have poked holes in the tires with a knife or with bullets. Then ?
WAITING FOR THE SITUATION TO COOL DOWN AND DEESCALATING WITH VERBAL COMMUNICATION.
Contain or disable the threat and deescalate. A vehicle motor needs oxygen to run. Will a fire extinguisher kill the motor? How about a EMP weapon to fry the electronics under the hood? http://www.tgdaily.com/security-brief/67629-pentagon-eyes-advanced-emp-grenades
Europe is going to be a Muslim country in the next 2 generations – thanks in part to their extreme unwillingness to use force as a means of maintaining law and order.
I like the fire extinguisher idea.
You need to go back and watch reruns of the myth busters show…
Too many movies for you. The highway patrol still uses the PIT maneuver to crash cars and tack strips to blow the tires.
We haven’t got the Star Trek stuff yet or Wed be using it.
Nowadays, there are certain behaviors that earn an instant death sentence/execution among certain law enforcement jurisdictions. This is just the way it is and isn’t going to change without BLM style riots and retaliatory tactics, which isn’t going to happen. This will be the only way cops with think twice prior to their next execution.
Cops scare me for a reason. Every one of them. I’m the one quietly slipping out the door whenever one of the local LEOs arrive at the LGS.
You musta missed a couple of photos in the post office.
I only run when the tax collector comes in.
To answer the question: yes, they are.
If all I saw was this video, there would still be a lot in my mind about the necessity to shoot. But if you read the whole case up the point when this video starts, it becomes pretty obvious that there were few, if any, options left.
But as the question, sure, some cops are trigger happy. Some people are just like that. I haven’t found any evidence to show that most cops want to shoot someone. However, many officers are trained to draw their weapon as soon as they think there might be danger. You are a hell of a lot more likely to shoot someone once you’ve drawn your gun. You are really much more likely to shoot someone once you’ve pointed it at them. And yet, we still often see officers talking to people while they have a gun pointed at them. That is, we see officers pointing a gun at someone they are not sure they want to kill.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t have a lot of complex thoughts when someone is pointing a gun at me. They start with “trying to kill me”, and end with “shoot them”.
Cops get scared so they point guns at people. That’s their training. People get scared when cops point guns at them, and they stop doing rational things that might otherwise calm the situation down. That’s human nature. You aren’t going to train human nature away, but you can train away sworn officers deploying their firearms prior to being sure of a threat.
“Are Cops Trigger-Happy?”
I don’t know.
Maybe you should ask Charles Kinsey…
If there was every a case that proves my point above, the Kinsey case is it. After the shooting, the officer was asked by two different people, including Kinsey, why he shot. In both instances, the officer responded “I don’t know.”
I know why. He was pointing his rifle at Kinsey. He was aiming at Kinsey. And his training taught him to shoot what he was aiming at.
Cops here, when was the last time you went to range and spent the majority of your time drawing, aiming, and then NOT firing? I’m guessing that’s not how your training time and money is spent, not shooting.
So if you train to pull your weapon any time there might be a threat, and you are trained to shoot what you are aiming at, and you are aiming at someone, what do you think is going to happen? You are responding to your training.
We need to focus on only drawing on an immediate threat.
I have to wonder who’s handling the Kinsey case… John Podesta?
There have been AT LEAST three “explanations”, none of them sensible and all of them mutually contradictory.
It all points to the level of contempt which cops have for the public at large, ESPECIALLY cop unions.
Gross generalization is gross… and generalized.
Don – You post with the “voice of experience” but I’d prefer the term “action-oriented” to “goal-oriented”. All too often, officers respond with “We gotta DO something!” when the best course of action is to back off for a moment, re-assess the situation, and come up with solutions which will de-escalate the situation rather than putting themselves in harm’s way. As Gen. James Mattis wisely advised his Marines, “Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
Yup, like that exactly….
Some are, some aren’t.
The root of most issues with policing, other than the existence of the laws which they are tasked with enforcing, is the low pay, low requirements, bureaucratic bean counting nature of it all held against the impossible expectations the public has on them.
Why do cops suck? No money to train. I don’t want to pay to train cops!
Of course the other end of this candle, giving them fewer laws to enforce, is rarely presented as an option.
Either get more employees, better employees or reduce the workload of the employees you have.
Cop have plenty of budget in my parts. Plenty of salary. Plenty of benefits. Plenty of overtime. Plenty of pension. Lot more plenty than most.
Lots of arbitrary in that assessment.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, just noting that your statement has very little objective substance.
Sounds like Thin Blue Line envy to me.
Maybe you should apply to the academy, show em how it’s done and have a steady paycheck with all those lavish benefits.
That low pay and benefits thing may be true is some places, but not most large departments. Texas DPS salaries are at 80k and above, Austin PD is usually higher than that. Cops in most major metros are in the top quarter of wage earners.
Absolutely unjustified shooting.
Have you read the whole case?
He was not a threat when he was shot, the cop should spend the rest of his days in prison.
1 – Murder 2 (the worst case scenario) rarely results in life in prison.
2 – Realistically, this is Manslaughter at worst.
3 – A attacker wielding a 3 ton gas power battering ram is a threat, regardless if he is presently having success in killing you with said weapon. You don’t wait until someone is being run over to consider him a threat – either he is trying to attack, or he is not. He was actively trying to attack (gas pedal to the floor) when he was shot.
4 – Cut the emotional hyperbole, and be objective about the situation. Agree or Disagree, but don’t exaggerate. No one is going to respect the objectivity of your post by you pilling on the Feelz.
Trigger-happy, I’m not sure but I’ll agree with my late father and my brother-in-law (both NYPD), badly trained.
All police have a chip on their shoulder because they know if they do do something wrong or outside their authority, they’ve got a big union and a slick lawyer backing them up in court. You make an example out of a cop that is legit guilty of wrongdoing or negligence, like the woman cop in Oklahoma that shot that black guy who was hopped up on PCP, and throw them in Rikers or Pelican Bay, they’ll be very hesitant to shoot next time until they know without a doubt their life is in danger.
But if the moving vehicle is a weapon is becoming a precedent, then the next time a Somali on a Jihad gets into a car and is armed with a knife and is running people over shouting allahu akbar out the window, I shouldn’t face any charges if I shoot him, right?
Though it would be nice if the world worked on such absolutes there’s simply too much gray area to be “without a doubt their life is in danger”. It’s obvious you don’t deal in anything making the same decisions as a LEO or any profession that requires such critical thinking but let’s put it this way. Your home is invaded 10 times by armed individuals. 9/10 they just take some of your crap and leave before they get caught. Ok. You didn’t get hurt and you just put some material possessions. But 1/10 times they kill you, and then take your crap. Now, entering back into your dreamland, you would know the exact time and place the poorer of the outcomes would be and be without doubt your life was in danger and defend yourself. Real world, you don’t know when this event will, if ever, happen and therefore couldn’t possibly be without doubt your life was in danger. So you defend you life when, to the best of you knowledge, it is in danger.
I suspect we see the bad ones reported on a lot more than the good ones, but even so, I am afraid of them.
Isn’t that (the late) Freddie Mercury? /
Congratulations to the brave warrior cops who took out an incredibly vicious miscreant armed with deadly hand tools. The most important thing for police officers is to get home safe at night even if they have to kill everyone they see in order to do so.
The nation can sleep well because of dauntless men like these. May the officer be rewarded with two weeks off and a medal.
I think this is a good shoot. There were 4 cops, all giving commands, and dude actively trying to move his truck into the cops and/or their vehicles. Could they have maybe done things differently? Sure. Is this a completely bad move made by the officer? I don’t think it is.
Two or more ways this could’ve been handled, and the way it did get handled is one of those ways.
In general, I think that police could take more time and avoid shooting people. Having said that, we put police in to more dangerous situations with our current laws and we should look at how the current legal environment (drug prohibition) have created the police force we have today.
In this circumstance, I don’t know that there were alternatives. The suspect was actively trying to get his truck loose (the truck is a deadly weapon) and he had brandished contact weapons in the car. The officers would have had to expose themselves to the contact weapons to remove the guy from the truck. Shooting out the tires doesn’t really make the vehicle less dangerous in the short term (in fact, it could cause the tires to start a fire faster and make the situation more dangerous). This situation looks justified.
The issue I have is that the guy’s truck, albeit a potentially dangerous weapon, was obviously pinned front and back by patrol cars and not going anywhere, as demonstrated by the cloud of tire smoke kicked up when he he tried to move it by flooring the gas. HAd he emerged from the truck with a screw driver, the shooting would have obviously been justified, but while seated is his truck it is questionable.
I’m shocked,that a criminal, does something criminal and winds up dead.
Not all lives are precious. America is a better place without Noel Rodriguez.
Shoot first, justify later.
Making sure all those wannabe operators get home at the end of their shift is way more important than actually thinking in a situation or anyone or thing that gets in their way.
Fully convinced society would be better off without any cops. The scum would essentially eliminate each other & the rest of society is more than capable of policing themselves.
It’s easy to sit here in my chair and say, after thinking about it for a while, “Shoot the truck, not the man.” However, it is not asking too much that if you shoot a man you be absolutely 100% sure beforehand that you ought to. I think the stress and adrenaline and gun-pointed-at-suspect combined to cause tragedy here.
This is waaay too complicated of an issue for a yes or no answer. You can only train so much. Experience is a bigger part of succeeding in any career field. The story about the military guy probably means he had a lot of experience reading people.
This particular shoot looks bad to me, but there are obviously others above who disagree with me. There are plenty of bad shoots where the cop beats charges simply because he/she was a cop. There are good shoots where the cop gets crucified in the court of public opinion because he/she was a cop even though it was clearly self defense.
There are those that will always blame the cop after a shoot and those that will always take the cop’s side. That is why policing has become just another polarizing issue to help divide a conquer the electorate. That is also why there will be no meaningful changes in policing or general criminal justice reform in the near future.
Once upon a time it was common to hear police officers describe their job as a social worker with a gun.
Haven’t heard that one in a long time now.
A lot of the problem is with the big brass: They have ranks to fill, and so they run ads that look like a video game with door kicking and shooting. Not with cops consoling a bereaved survivor.
So, they get what they ask for, a bunch of young ex-gamers who subconsciously think that the shooting is where the points are.
These days there isn’t much of anywhere for a person with a degree in social work to go, perhaps they’d be more interested in an offer from the local PD than they might have been back in the day.
Folks will still get shot, sometimes that’s the only way things are going to end, but maybe a few less would be shot if the officer’s first instinct was to talk.
Wow. Looks like we need all the armchair commandos here on our local police force.
Didn’t watch the video. Doesn’t matter as this is ONE incident. Most cops will tell you the most dangerous call is a domestic dispute where they are usually trying to de-escalate the situation.
De-escalation works….Unless it doesn’t. You can’t know in every situation what the outcome will be to your actions. Not saying they should start out abrasive which will usually escalate the tension.
Anyone who has ever tried to manhandle some one for their own good will tell you you can get hurt quick. Drunks that appear to comatose can launch a pretty mean attack. Delusional people often have mood swings that can be deadly.
Once in college, we tried to put a guy in a shower to bring his 105 fever down. There were 5 of us and many bruises and one broken nose.
You wanna handle a drunk or druggie….go ahead and get you some. I’ll watch and laugh from my armchair and tell you what you did wrong.
Yup, so SHOOT ’em!!!
This kind of Paramilitarizied police ideology is incompatible with the US citizenry, a Free society, US Constitutional-Bill of Rights, or the 2nd Amendment-! Just ask “The open carry folks…..”
There is much angst and consternation against prosecutors and grand juries who refuse to bring charges against police officers, even when incontrovertible evidence is presented. Even with incontrovertible audio and video evidence, prosecutors are loath to prosecute rogue law enforcement personnel.
Let’s examine the reasons why it is so difficult to prosecute thug cops:
Most prosecutors are former police officers or have extensive dealings with police departments and have ongoing relationships with police departments in their respective jurisdictions. They are friendly with the judges in their jurisdictions, as well. This, along with “absolute immunity” makes it easy for them to “cover up” police abuses and behavior. Prosecutors cannot be sued for malfeasance…it takes a judge (who prosecutors are friendly with) to bring charges on a rogue prosecutor (which almost never happens).
In addition, prosecutors guide the actions of grand juries. Prosecutors are not required to introduce any evidence to grand juries, (can and do) easily “whitewash” the actions of rogue cops. On the other hand, prosecutors can (and often do) go after honest citizens who seek justice outside official channels…prosecutors have ultimate power and are not afraid to use it…their immunity sees to that.
Another aspect to a grand jury’s inability to prosecute bad cops is the fear of retribution…cops drive around all day, have nothing but time, have access to various databases, and can easily get the names and addresses of grand jurors…this, in itself can be a powerful deterrent against grand jurors who “want to do the right thing” and prosecute bad cops. There are many cases of cops parking in front of grand jurors’ residences, following them around, and threaten to issue citations to them, in order to “convince” them to “make the right decision”…the “thin blue line” at its worst…
The whole system has to change.
Eliminate absolute and qualified immunity for all public officials. The fear of personal lawsuits would be a powerful deterrent against abuses of the public.
Any funds disbursed to civilians as a result of official misconduct must be taken from the police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
Grand juries must be superior to the prosecutor; ALL evidence must be presented to grand jurors. Failure to do so must be considered a felony and subject prosecutors to prosecution themselves.
No police agency can be allowed to investigate itself. Internal affairs departments must be restricted to minor in-house investigations of behavior between cops. All investigations must be handled by outside agencies, preferably at the state level.
Civilian police review boards must be free of police influence. Members of civilian review boards must have NO ties to police departments. Relatives of police would be prohibited from serving…Recently, the “supreme court” threw police another “bone”. The court ruled that police are not responsible for their actions if they are “ignorant of the law”…now, let’s get this straight–honest citizens cannot use “ignorance of the law” as an excuse, but cops can??
Revolution is sorely needed…..
Here are some solutions to reign in the “bad apples” of the “thin blue line”:
1. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials–not just police and firefighters. Include prosecutors, judges, other court officials, CPS and building code enforcers.
2. Eliminate all public-sector unions. Especially police and firefighter unions. Unions are not needed in the public sector, as WE, the taxpayers pay their salaries and benefits.
3. Require all public officials to be “bonded” and carry “malpractice insurance” as a condition of employment. No bond or malpractice insurance–no job.
4. Prohibit “internal affairs” investigations for all cases but those involving disputes between police officers. All investigations should be handled at the state level.
5. Prosecutors must be subordinate to the grand jury. Withholding evidence that could prove or disprove misconduct by public officials should be a prosecuted as a felony.
6. Any awards to citizens as a result of “official misconduct” should be paid out of the offending department’s pension funds. You can be sure that if police pension funds were threatened, you would see a “clean-up” in a hurry.
7. Require body and dash cams to be used at all times. No citizen interaction permitted without functioning equipment. Obtain equipment that cannot be turned off. All interactions between officials and citizens must be put on the internet “cloud” and must be publicly accessible. Tampering with equipment should result in permanent dismissal.
8. Establish a 50-state publicly-searchable database of police, fire and public officials who should NEVER hold a position requiring the “public trust”.
9. Drug testing for police should be mandatory and include testing for anabolic steroids. You know damn well that many cops “bulk up” with steroids. Steroids cause changes in a person’s mental state, as well, making them more aggressive. Hence, the need to testing for steroid use.
10. Police must be restricted to the types of firearms that the citizenry is “allowed” to possess. This would help “encourage” anti-gun states (New York, New Jersey, California) to “loosen up” their restrictions on civilian firearms ownership–magazine capacity limits, etc. Citizens deserve the same (or even better) firepower than police…
These solutions would go a long way in curbing the abuses that presently exist.
The police officers who cannot live with the above restrictions on their behavior can seek another line of work…
I second the motion.
I’m a licensed construction engineer, involved in many lawsuits related to ongoing construction or after beneficial occupancy.
Single frame from video is very misleading.
Photos can be very misleading.
Eye witnesses will be wrong as much as right.
Memory gets more accurate with time, but it’s not always correct, just more detailed.
My guess: Body cams will clear nothing up, just confuse us more.
There was a recent youtube video of two cops from Scotland visiting the USA. I think it was on a Boston public transit system, where an altercation broke out between some of the passengers. These two Scottish cops defused the situation, not being armed.
It would behoove this youtube video be used as a training exercise for American “law enforcement”.
It might interest some to know that American “law enforcement” is being coached by Israeli trainers who teach American cops Israeli methods for handling “civilians”…(shoot first, reload, and ask questions later)…(demand a person’s ID and then shoot them for reaching for it)…
American law enforcement should be disbanded and privatized…
Don’t care how they do it “over there”. They have subjects not citizens.
Don’t think I’m ready to see private “regulators” that do the bidding of the corporation that hires them. You are obviously not a student of history.
Funny how the cops over there treat “subjects” better than the cops here in the US treat “citizens”.
If you wanna live like a European, don’t let plane door hit you in the ass.
You can live free-ish over there until the government decides to change what few rights you have.
America isn’t perfect but we’re way ahead of second place. If Folks like you leave it will improve our odds.
Sayonara , write when you get work.
Ah, so the price of freedumb is to be assaulted by hyper-violent government-badged goons.
Another howler from the bootlicker crowd. 🙂
Private “regulators” would have MORE responsibility to their “clients”, unlike the official “immunity” that our government-run “regulators” have today. As private regulators would be under private contract, they could be dismissed for misbehavior, unlike the present situation today…
Privatize the police. Security services are not a right. Here’s how the private sector would function: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2IbjhV00as
So how many more chances should he get to kill a cop before you shoot him? He reversed it into the cruiser, knowing damn well the cop was there. That’s attempted murder. And now, with that resume, you are going to assume we can talk him down like an english bobby? We are fond of saying that guns don’t kill people, so why doesn’t that translate into “homicidal maniac just tried to kill me so homicidal maniac is himself the deadly weapon not the car he’s driving?” Do cars kill people, now? Oooooor is this just more cop bashing?
Yes yes, we know cops and their bootlicker cheerleaders think the mere act of driving a car in close proximity to a cop is attempted murder, deserving an immediate death sentence.
Just ask Samantha Ramsey. Oh wait, in that case, the cop actually hurled himself onto the windshield and shot her in the head. Never mind.
I’m not going to get real deep into this one but it seems to me that the public wants things both ways and the cops are damned if they do damned if they don’t.
On the one hand people bitch and moan about this dumbfuck getting himself shot (that’s what happened ladies, put on your big girl thongs and deal with it). On the other hand if he had managed to flee the scene and had hurt or killed innocent folks then people would be going after the cops for not getting him off the streets fast enough especially since the camera shows they had the perfect opportunity to let this idiot explain himself to St. Peter.
Yes, cops have different ROE than a civilian does but part of that comes with good reason. To some extent they are there to protect law abiding members of society and allowing crazed maniacs to escape an easily controlled situation and harm other people they are failing in that job. People who have their brains on the pavement generally don’t present a threat to the public.
Consider: a guy robs a bank Heat style but doesn’t open fire or point his rifle at the police because he knows what happened to Val Kilmer’s buddies when Kilmer smoked a cop during that robbery/escape. So the cops kinda let him do his thing looking for the PC, non-violent, snowflake approved way to end his tomfuckery. Well, that doesn’t work, shit goes sideways and now this asshole has hostages that he’s executing to try to get his demands met. Probably should have busted him in the grape before he took hostages, right? Yeah, well it’s too late for that and now you can pretty well guarantee not only are people going to scream bloody murder that the cops should have stopped this dickless fuck when they had the chance but that there’s a pretty big lawsuit inbound on the department’s position to boot.
So no, in this video the cops are not trigger happy IMHO. They should have shot him in the damn head. Twice.
“To some extent they are there to protect law abiding members of society”
Wrong, they have zero legal obligation to protect anyone, i.e. to zero extent.
I do like how your entire post hinges around a false statement and a Hollywood fantasy. Typical bootlicker garbage.
As usual your typing skills exceed your critical thinking skills.
I never commented on the legal requirements placed upon the police via court cases that have found that they have no duty to protect an individual member of the public. I commented on their general raison d’etre. The fact that you can’t distinguish the difference is really pretty fucking pathetic.
As for the rest of your comment; again critical thinking escapes you. This is called a “hypothetical situation” which I am using to illustrate a point which I have done using a well known cinematic work. Might what I picked be a bit extreme? Sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that people bitch to no end when the police don’t show up exactly on time when shit’s hitting the fan.
Just for you, another film gem:
Reality check: what you and the cops consider their reason to exist is directly contradicted by legal fact and their actual behavior in public, as in, they don’t protect and serve anyone except themselves and their government masters.
The proper term for your hypothetical situation would be a totally construed and manufactured scenario which bears no relevance and no semblance to reality.
“Critical thinking skills”
Good one, since you are literally taking the cops at their word.
“It claims that he posed a deadly threat to an officer behind the truck (who probably shouldn’t have been there)”
If you mean tactically, I concur. But there is no legal basis to the statement and the legal justification for deadly force does not care unless the officer has no legal right to be there or is not carrying out his duties lawfully.
” Military-Trained Police May Be Less Hasty To Shoot, But That Got This Vet Fired”
I’m familiar with that story. When every cop is hired (at least I’m assuming it’s every cop nowadays) they have to, in some way, attest that they are willing to take a human life in the line of duty. There comes a point in a ‘potential’ deadly force scenario when failure to use deadly force is dereliction of duty for an officer. I’m not going to sit here and say he should have been fired… but I don’t have a huge problem with it, either, given the circumstance. Letting one’s self be shot (or giving the bad guy a chance to shoot your partner) surrenders more weapons to him and puts everyone in harm.
Looks like cops are also vile sadists on top of being trigger happy
Looks like some San Diego cops are also vile sadists: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4031810/Disturbing-bodycam-captures-harrowing-moment-naked-unarmed-man-mauled-nearly-minute-K-9-rips-leg-officer-PETS-makes-NO-attempt-pull-off.html
Dallas PD is having a tough time filling the ranks right now. I hear they are 30 people short on the next academy class. Instead of wasting effort questioning what the police officers did why don’t you head on over to the posted link and live up the good life down in Dallas as a police officer. You know, shooting people who stabbed an officer and is armed with a deadly 1.5 ton vehicle currently trying to run you over for “trigger happy” reasons. Or pulling in the money just making sure you get home at the end of the night. Hell if the pay / benefits are so great it’s likely an upgrade for you. And you can show them all the errors of their ways, using your extensive Call of Duty experience. Step up people! You can make a difference!
It is cute when people actually think a single person can change an entrenched system that corrupts everything it touches.
Also since cops are paid with taxpayer money and are supposedly held accountable to civilian oversight (hahahaha), police critics can affect all the change they want by simply cutting off the feeder at the trough without ever putting on a uniform to dispense violence for politicians.
Not in this case. One round and down clown. Thats not trigger happy in the slightest.
Latest news relating to this question: Unarmed man carrying a Crucifix shot and killed. He was shot just feet from his front door, in a neighbor’s driveway, at about 12:49 a.m. Monday, Dec. 12th. His family says was suffering from early-stage dementia. The Crucifix was mistaken as a gun.
Perhaps things would have turned out different if the military veteran police officer who got fired for not shooting sooner had been the one involved.
This is an example of why some cops may tend to be trigger happy:
This video shows the kind of scenario that cops have in mind when they shoot first:
Info for this video from the Daily Mail.
Bodycam video shows car theft suspect shooting two cops with a hidden gun after being asked repeatedly to take his hands out his pockets. Khari Gordon, 22, shot Captain Michael Schulman and Officer Jeffrey Martin. The Lavonia Police officers stopped him on suspicion of stealing a car. Bodycam video shows Schulman asking him to take hands out of pockets. He shot the father-of-two under his armpit before turning gun on Martin. Martin, also 22, suffered a gunshot wound to his right hand in the incident. Gordon fled on foot and was arrested in woodland several hours later.
By parity of logic, videos like this one should make citizens trigger happy against cops: