So, we now live in Mega-City and the cops just dispense Judge Dredd justice as they go?

I was hoping someone would say 'no' and then I'd feel better for like a day and a half.

What a bummer.

This is the harsh reality of existence in this country...on this planet.

That movie and others alike are straight indoctrination and conditioning for the minds of the masses. Entertainment? Yeah, right...

This really seemed like the reaction of a bunch of frightened, untrained, not very intelligent goons. Wow. WTF?

[deleted]

Land of the thief. Home of the slave.

;(

I feel obliged to post this song now.

Yep. Unkkkle motherfucking Sam God damn.

You might like this song as well.

Heard it not too long ago. Had to admit, it was definitely worthy. I am, I will definitely admit, very much opposed to the vast majority of rap music. I generally absolutely hate about 99% of it. And the main reason for it is because the vast majority of it is not as conscious and working toward improvement as the composition you linked.

Another piece that I feel is also worthy is this one.

Actually, their actions are consistent with existing case law.

They suspect (possibly correctly) that this person has just killed someone with a weapon, and he does not drop the weapon when "commanded" to do so. He therefore is a genuine threat and does not cease to be a threat.

Lethal force is allowed in this scenario.

One might argue that should change, but it is the way it is now.

Actually, their actions are consistent with existing case law.

Indeed they were...and yet what I said still very much stands, unfortunately.

They suspect (possibly correctly) that this person has just killed someone with a weapon, and he does not drop the weapon when "commanded" to do so. He therefore is a genuine threat and does not cease to be a threat.

He had his hands up, and did not have a gun in either one of them. He (according I guess to what the report or whatever said) had a knife in one of them (though I couldn't see any such thing - possibly due to the grainy quality of the video). He made exactly no effort to even attempt to throw that knife (since his hands were, again, up), which would have been the only real way he could have caused anyone around him further harm.

So now...how exactly was he a threat to any of the police officers that were standing with guns drawn and pointed about 10-15 feet away from him?

Lethal force is allowed in this scenario.

But it doesn't actually seem to qualify in the area of "genuine threat" - not with two or three cops that all have their guns drawn on him. Let's be realistic here.

One might argue that should change, but it is the way it is now.

I guess what I'm saying is that even within the context of the existing code, these people acted more like...well, a bunch of frightened, untrained, not very intelligent goons.

As I said from the beginning, my initial description still very much stands, unfortunately, even after taking your comments into consideration.

As I said from the beginning, my initial description still very much stands, unfortunately, even after taking your comments into consideration.

In your mind, perhaps.

However, these decisions are made by courts, and you'll need to examine how the courts handle these cases to reach an understanding of how this will be handled.

The standard is 'objectively reasonable', and the analysis is applied from the point of view of the officer.

The primary areas of consideration are:

1. the severity of the underlying crime (murder or attempted murder)

2. the threat the suspect poses (returned to the scene, with the weapon, intention unclear)

3. the level of resistance (failed to disarm)

I don't think you will find a court in this country that agrees with you.

The cops walk.

In your mind, perhaps.

...as well as in the mind of anyone making an objective, unbiased assessment.

However, these decisions are made by courts, and you'll need to examine how the courts handle these cases to reach an understanding of how this will be handled.

I'm in no way talking about how the courts or the "system" handles these types of situations. I know exactly how they're handled. That in no way makes them valid, however. I'm, again, talking about and making mention of what the objective facts revolving around the situation were.

The standard is 'objectively reasonable', and the analysis is applied from the point of view of the officer.

The fact that it's applied from the p.o.v. of the officer does not take away from the fact that someone standing 10-15 feet away from the cops with their hands up - even if they happen to be holding a knife - is zero match for and zero threat to two or three cops with guns drawn pointed at the individual in question. It's a bit of a common sense thing.

The primary areas of consideration are:

1. the severity of the underlying crime (murder or attempted murder)

2. the threat the suspect poses (returned to the scene, with the weapon, intention unclear)

3. the level of resistance (failed to disarm)

I don't think you will find a court in this country that agrees with you.

The cops walk.

Of course the cops walk. It's never been may argument whether the cops do or don't. They will absolutely walk.

We're not talking about that, however - or at least I'm not nor have I ever been. I'm talking about whether or not the cops in question did or did not appear/act like brainless buffoons with guns.

I would say they absolutely did.

I'm talking about whether or not the cops in question did or did not appear/act like brainless buffoons with guns.

They did what they are trained to do.

There is this strange logic floating around that these cops are somehow breaking policy or law. In fact, they are doing what they are trained to do with the confidence that the courts will not hold them accountable.

In a nutshell, they are doing what we pay them to do.

They are armed and extremely dangerous.

They did what they are trained to do.

So, again, the answer is YES. They did indeed appear/act like brainless buffoons with guns.

There is this strange logic floating around that these cops are somehow breaking policy or law.

I can see how many would think this, but I don't now, and never did. They ultimately did nothing really against their policy.

It's just that their policy is caustic and sucks.

In fact, they are doing what they are trained to do with the confidence that the courts will not hold them accountable.

100% correct.

In a nutshell, they are doing what we pay them to do.

Also correct, unfortunately (UNFORTUNATELY).

They are armed and extremely dangerous.

Correct and agreed.

They reported he had a knife in his hands and wouldn't respond to commands but I just see a guy with his hands up posing no immediate threat. Didn't see a knife in his hands but the video's not the best quality. Crazy how he was gunned down, seems a taser could've done enough to immobilize him.

A taser would have sufficed, I would think.

Assuming he still held the knife, use of lethal force is allowed.

I think a lot of people don't really understand how killer cops operate - these guys are well within the bounds of justifiable homicide (as police).

Did it ever occur to you that it's not possible to make out fine details like that on a grainy, low-resolution video?

seems a taser could've done enough to immobilize him.

Suspects can easily withstand a fully charged taser, especially if they're on drugs or the officer missed. Suspect had plenty of time from getting hit with the taser to going down to lunge at the officer with the knife.

"Suspects can easily withstand a fully charged taser" jesus I'm curious where you even got this belief. I can easily withstand a kick to my balls if you mean i'll probably be alive afterwards, disregarding the "writhing on the ground in pain" part.

The reason tasers were introduced in the first place is to help subdue a suspect non-lethally. There may be some people who are able to withstand the shock of this for whatever reason, but who're you kidding. Tasers are still potentially deadly.. Another article questioning taser safety. If you're unsure how tasers work, know that a current runs through your body and, depending how strong, not only inflicts pain but can cause effects ranging from a slight tingling to loss of muscle control, even to death.

To choose to use live rounds or a taser, each presents its own dangers. After this quick search, I'm kinda questioning the use of a taser now too. Thinking why not tranquilizers? Truth is all these methods to subdue can be potentially dangerous because it's already in a dangerous situation. But, a taser's purpose is to stop non-lethally so they can be tried and punished if guilty. I can't imagine how "simple" it would be stop a person by shooting him non-lethally.

I do agree though that while watching that video (cannot confirm if he actually had knife in hand or is agitated) it felt completely possible for the suspect to lunge as he was shuffling forward.

Even if he had a knife, they fired like 8 times. Just pop his kneecap if you are in a real danger, which wasn't the case here since the guy was just standing there.

This video just shows that the police is really scared.

Also reminds me of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bRPZLKyU4I

The cop who was in the fountain was fully aware that man had a knife before he climbed into the pool.

This isn't Hollywood, there's no such thing as shooting to incapacitate. It's impractical, no matter where you hit on the body you're likely to sever an artery and cause massive bleedout in under a minute anyway. You shoot to kill.

I didn't say that shooting him in the knee is the best solution, I merely said that it is better than emptying two magazines into that guy.

No matter where you get your firearm training you are trained to aim for center mass and 'only shoot what you plan to destroy'.

You attempt to clip someone, you have a big change of missing. That bullet will keep going, it can hit someone else. Things get much worse.

Its fucked up it went that way. But whether you get self defense training, go in for a CHL, your a cop, or even going into a target range for a debriefing they're all going to tell you that. Its one of the 4basic rules

Just pop his kneecap if you are in a real danger

Police are not operating under any theory of self defense in cases like this.

They are entitled to use lethal force to eliminate a threat.

When he didn't drop the knife, he gave them the option of killing him. And they did.

[deleted]

He'd just murdered a college student at that minimart, then he returns, still holding the knife, he puts his hands up but, he doesn't drop the knife when they shout at him to drop it while he takes a couple of steps toward the police... Whether he was on drugs, or he froze, this does not look like it was unjustified. If he'd dropped the knife, then we'd have another story.

and the college kid was white so this is a racist attack

Suicide by cop. He has a knife and is squaring off with the police he is within a few feet of them and someone with a knife is dangerous within 21 ft.

Don't expect the mouth breathers in this sub to understand what 21ft means, only bad cop! Killing another innocent stabber! He was just about to turn his life around!

You have no idea what the 21ft rule means. That is only used in cases where cops are surprised with guns holstered. 21ft rule does not mean shit when cops are drawn and approaching the guy. This is a perfect case for using a taser, you have multiply cops with guns already drawn, one should of called for 'tazer' while others keep their guns on suspect. This is the exact scenarios that where talked about when tazers where being implemented into the police force. They are meant to be used only as alternatives to lethal threat. Not as they are used today as ways to subdue unarmed people. You can read official forums on the 21ft rule and why you are the mouth breather who doesnt know what it is about.

Ok: In the time it takes to realize an imminent threat of death, decide to shoot, raise a gun, aim, squeeze the trigger without jerking or pushing the gun off target, an attacker can run 21 ft and slash you. The 21ft rule is, if your attacker is over 21 ft away, you can negotiate. Under 21 ft, you will be cut to ribbons before you can react.

The "another innocent stabber" is a poke at all of the outrage against cops for hurting or killing criminals that have just killed or robbed innocent people, like Mike Brown. There are plenty of examples of police killing really innocent people, like Eric Garner, but that doesn't seem to be what we focus on. This video is about a guy (allegedly) stabbing an innocent college student, then getting shot by police. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the stabber.

I am sure that with the guns drawn and aimed on the suspect that they would get off many shots before he covered 21 feet

The 21ft rule is, if your attacker is over 21 ft away, you can negotiate.

The police are not operating under self-defense here.

They are eliminating a threat using lethal force as police officers, and they are not outside the law.

police officers state thugs

FTFY

You can take that position if you want, but you should develop an understanding of how the law actually applies.

Comments to the effect that the shooting here is clearly unjustified do nothing but demonstrate the ignorance of whoever posts them.

If you do want to criticize this case, you should be attacking the jurisprudence on application of lethal force by police, and criticism should be directed at the supreme court.

Exactly. The guy is already known to have used the knife. There are 3 things cops must know/see before they can use deadly force. The suspect not obeying commands is Intent. Despite the language barrier. Really... if you can't understand that the police are in front of you, guns pointed, then they have to think something is up. Another thing is the weapon, a knife is really easy to hide and he just used it to stab someone!! So they have to assume Capability. That he has the weapon on him. Lastly, a knife is considered dangerous from up to 21 feet away. Why that much I don't know but we get these policies because someone somewhere has done some crazy shit to make it that way. But anways, the officers were most likely less that 21 feet away. Giving them the last part, Opportunity. Sounds fucked up but that's really the way a case is considered justified or not. Despite this and that and the humane thing to do and yadda yadda.

Yea with the camera being that far away you can't really tell what's going by his side where the officer is. Hopefully more videos will appear but as for the justifications, they still remain. Without proper video showing that he didn't even move or he was rebalancing or something along the lines of that then they can say whatever they want to save themselves. Im not saying that video isn't proof, it's just showing a large portion of what's happening behind that car. I wouldn't have even shot with a partner that close to the guy. Could of been any number of crazy things.

the distance from the door (where the cops are at)to the edge of the building(where the assailant is at) is less then 21 feet. no red box either, there is a pay phone and empty wall space.

the point is though while "supposedly" holding the knife he did take at least two steps forward. while they are so quick to use guns instead of the physical combat training to disarm an assailant is beyond me... laziness?

but really its suicide by cops. the idiot stabbed someone then returns to the scene of the crime and approaches cops with guns drawn rather then submitting.. thats just a Darwin award right there.

This guy is willing to take in 3 police officers that have guns drawn with a knife.... Why do the officers have to put themselves in harms way to disarm someone that intends to do harm. Those officers want to make it home to their families without stab wounds why should they have to disarm someone who isn't listening to the officers to put down the knife and why is he trying to attack them. It sucks the dude had to die but that's the choice he made.

It's their fucking job. If they wanted a get home guarantee, they should have become shoe salesmen.

Just a little free information for you:

The 21ft rule is a worst case scenario but counts when the gun is holstered. It's 21 because it's believed an attacker can sprint 21 feet and stab the officer quicker than an officer can draw, ready the weapon and fire

Myth busters accurately recreated this, please watch, it's interesting:

http://youtu.be/cGzeyO3pGzw

Yes it seems so but when they are given information that a weapon is present (doesn't have to be seen) and even worse the weapon has been used on someone then they have to approach with a higher mindset. Not saying what they did was the correct way to handle it, maybe they could of used lesser means but that's for the courts to decide I guess

Oh I was not referencing this case at all, I just saw an opportunity to share my knowledge. :)

21ft rule only applies to being surprised with gun in holster. Does not apply to when guns are drawn.

Punch yourself in the eye with a screwdriver. Might fix you.

He tried to murder someone; fuck him. Save your sympathies for unarmed civilians.

they did ask him to drop the knife and he may have stabbed someone. the 20 rounds dispensed was a bit too much.

while I'm against the shoot first ask questions later approach the assailant was either incredibly dumb or just wanted a suicide by cops.

its too evident that cops these days will use firearms rather then the combat training they receive to deal with situations as such. So why risk it once the cops have their guns out? if there was a language barrier thats not an excuses to make a poor choice on either sides..

oh gee, i better give them the knife I'm holding(supposedly due to bad video quality making that part verbal testimony only) and if i walk real slow like I'll be .. well dead.

[deleted]

If two people with guns are screaming at you while pointing guns at you, I'm pretty sure anyone can figure out what to do next.

[deleted]

Maybe hit the ground and put your hands behind your back?

The guy stabbed someone in the store then came back, I think something is not right in the head with him. Does not mean he deserves to be shot, but still who the fuck goes back or keeps the knife in their hand?

If I was approached by cops speaking a language I did not understand and had a knife in my hand I would drop that shit as well as hit the ground.

[deleted]

Guess you missed the part in the video where the cop says wait we got a guy right here, is that him? Then the clerk of the store says yes and runs back in.

[deleted]

So if someone handed you a knife and said here take it to the cashier as you claimed could have happened, would you not put the knife down after having guns pointed at you?

Even if you had no idea what they where saying? Instead you take a few steps towards them.

It sucks someone had to die, but someone with a knife in the area already stabbed someone and now here is someone with a knife, not responding to officers commands and moving like he may come at them.

Suicide by cop is a thing, and yes some cops recently have seemingly gotten away with murder in different situations then this.

The cops can't tackle or disarm every person in hand to hand combat like you see in the movies. Their actions are supposed to be based on the suspects. Suspect hold weapon still and advances towards officers that is seen as a lethal action and met with a lethal action.

[deleted]

I am not cheering them on. I think the cop in NY who used the choke hold is more guilty than the 3 officers involved here.

Did all 12 shots hit the guy? 3 officers fired shots that means 4 shots by each. This is not the movies and was in a town where officers do not shoot people all the time. Training for this situation and actually being involved with it are two different things.

OP's linked article notes

Scales said it was the first officer-involved shooting since he joined the department 21 years ago.

and

“They were talking in the parking lot to a witness, and he pointed and said, ‘There he is right there,’” Svenson said. “The officers commanded him to show his hands, and he presented a knife. That’s what resulted in him being shot.”

The investigation includes a review of both interior and exterior surveillance video, plus interviews with members of the Moore and Bermudez-Arenas families, people who were at the store at the time and the police and fire personnel who responded, Svenson said.

He said members of the Bermudez-Arenas family were being cooperative.

He deserved to be shot if he was stabbing someone at random.

[deleted]

No, unfortunately. I'm a big supporter of the judicial system and fair trials, but if someone is being harmed by someone else for whatever reason, it's your duty and right to use whatever tools you have available at that moment to stop them from doing that, even if it involves lethal force. You can't wait for a trial to decide if it's okay to shoot or not, cause then the victim would already be dead.

The jury of his peers bit is supposed to be the time when it's determined if self-defense was justified or not.

Yeah, that's murder. The cops are never in any danger. He's not advancing. His hands up.

This is unjustifiable.

Watch the video again. He's definitely shifting weight between either foot. Look closer.He is approaching the officers, even if with tiny steps. If the guy really did refuse to drop the knife, with that approach, it can sound reasonable.

But, I also have a bunch of questions. There were three officers, one suspect. The third officer who ran out the store and around the car, he couldn't come up from behind with a surprise takedown? They couldn't have confronted the suspect from a slightly further distance if they felt endangered? Why did the officer in front also advance towards the "armed" suspect? What would qualify as a threatening advance?

In fact, what can be considered threatening behavior? Was it a threat when Eric Garner mustered the words "I can't breathe"? Was it life endangering when Levar Jones reached for his license? Was it absolutely traumatic for the trooper when Robert Leone "broke a trooper's fist with his face"?

While each case comes with its own intricacies, whether justifiable or not, if the police believe you to be guilty, there is no guarantee for the preservation of your life, even if you are innocent.

Threatening behaviour is when you stand right next to multiple officers with a knife in your hand. I'm not saying the cops were in the right here, nor was his death justifiable, but both parties were acting a little stupid.

The shituation's all muddled.

watch it again, he does advance by at least 2 paces while supposedly holding the knife(which the video quality makes impossible to tell)

is not unarmed combat and disarming an assailant mandatory training for an officer? after watching i would guess they skipped that for more gun training >_>

This is unjustifiable.

You misunderstand applicable law.

Completely.

I am sure that with the guns drawn and aimed on the suspect that they would get off many shots before he covered 21 feet

The 21ft rule is, if your attacker is over 21 ft away, you can negotiate.

The police are not operating under self-defense here.

They are eliminating a threat using lethal force as police officers, and they are not outside the law.

Just a little free information for you:

The 21ft rule is a worst case scenario but counts when the gun is holstered. It's 21 because it's believed an attacker can sprint 21 feet and stab the officer quicker than an officer can draw, ready the weapon and fire

Myth busters accurately recreated this, please watch, it's interesting:

http://youtu.be/cGzeyO3pGzw