headpatrolman
Smile you son of a bitch
Nobody should be targeted / assassinated / murdered for no reason whatsoever, whether it be a civilian (regardless of color), or an officer of the law.
My only problem with this whole mess is the prejudging of the officers actions in the two cases earlier in the week. The same thing happened in Fergusson and Baltimore and the officers were found to have acted appropriately and with no more than the necessary force. In fact even though nobody talks about it, in Fergusson, the BLM folks got what they wanted, a totally independent, detached, federal investigation, which found that the officer acted appropriately to the amount of force presented against him. Police officers have the right to defend their lives and bodies. They do not have to allow suspects to hurt or kill them. If officers feel they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death, they are justified to use deadly force in the protection of their lives or bodies. In, Baltimore, two officers have been acquitted and the City is most likely not going to pursue the charges against the rest, as it does not appear there is any evidence that there was any wrong doing, by the officers. The judge in the latest case stated it was ridiculous to charge the driver of the police van with the charges they did. He was angry and actually said the DA may have been biased or even negligent in the way that she charged the officers, with out regards to the facts / evidence, or lack thereof.
Regarding the Baton Rouge case (Sterling), I have seen and broke down the video in this incident. On its face I can say it looks bad. The man is on his back and the officers appear to be holding him down. But when you look at it closely, listen to what is said and put yourself in the minds of the officers, it is not nearly as damning. You have to realize, the officers were sent there, to specifically investigate Sterling, as it was reported he threatened someone with a gun. From the second they arrived, Sterling was uncooperative and would not comply with their commands. The police investigating a person possibly with a gun, have the right to give commands, for their safety, as well as the public, and it is a civilians duty to comply with those commands. Most people do not understand this. Even if you feel an officers commands are inappropriate or unlawful, you do not have the right to resist or not comply with those commands. In fact you must comply with those commands and then fight in court later, if you feel something inappropriate was done.
Quick example: in my career, I was on a call where we arrested a man on a warrant, he fought with us because he had paid the bail the previous day and the warrant should have been recalled and he should not have been arrested. A court administrator made an error and did not recall the warrant. During the incident, two officers were assaulted. The man was charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault on police. In the end it turned out he was right, we should not have been arresting him on the warrant. With regards to the assault charges, the judge ruled, the officers acted in good faith in attempting to make the warrant arrest as the warrant was active in the system. The man even though he knew he paid the bail did not have the right to resist the arrest and was found guilty of the assault on the police officers. He should have complied with the arrest, and then would have been able to take action against the court for failing to remove the warrant.
Getting back to the Sterling case. After they contacted him and he refused to comply with their commands, they decided to go hands on with him. He still resists as they attempted to get him under control. Even after he was taken to the ground, he continues to resist. At this point the officer are trying to roll him over onto his stomach, so they can get his hands behind his back and cuff him. Once again it is his duty to comply with the officers and he is not. You can hear one of the officers clearly say "he has a gun." You can see that Sterling is still actively resisting. Then you can hear the other officer clearly state, "If you move, I swear to god" he clearly has stress in his voice and anyone can realize he is saying if you move I am going to kill you. Police have a split second to make a decision to use deadly force. They cannot hesitate in that decision, as it had been shown time and time again, when they hesitate, they end up the ones getting killed. I believe the officer at that moment made the decision that if Sterling made any other move than what he was asked, that he was going to shoot. He felt that his life and his partners life were in jeopardy and he was not going to loose the fight. After shooting twice, in the chest, Sterling rolled over, now concealing his hands. He was then shot three more times, in the back, until he stopped moving and the perceived threat was over. This is how police are trained.
I believe once, the independent investigation is done, these two officers will be cleared. People are up in arms about the shots in the back, but they don't understand. The only standard that has to be met is that did the officers feel their lives or bodies were in imminent danger and were they justified in shooting. Once this is met it doesn't matter how many times they shot. They are justified in shooting until they feel the threat is over. I feel this will be the outcome.
Regarding the Minn. case I have not seen the full video, so I am not going to comment, and I feel neither should anyone else.
My only problem with this whole mess is the prejudging of the officers actions in the two cases earlier in the week. The same thing happened in Fergusson and Baltimore and the officers were found to have acted appropriately and with no more than the necessary force. In fact even though nobody talks about it, in Fergusson, the BLM folks got what they wanted, a totally independent, detached, federal investigation, which found that the officer acted appropriately to the amount of force presented against him. Police officers have the right to defend their lives and bodies. They do not have to allow suspects to hurt or kill them. If officers feel they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death, they are justified to use deadly force in the protection of their lives or bodies. In, Baltimore, two officers have been acquitted and the City is most likely not going to pursue the charges against the rest, as it does not appear there is any evidence that there was any wrong doing, by the officers. The judge in the latest case stated it was ridiculous to charge the driver of the police van with the charges they did. He was angry and actually said the DA may have been biased or even negligent in the way that she charged the officers, with out regards to the facts / evidence, or lack thereof.
Regarding the Baton Rouge case (Sterling), I have seen and broke down the video in this incident. On its face I can say it looks bad. The man is on his back and the officers appear to be holding him down. But when you look at it closely, listen to what is said and put yourself in the minds of the officers, it is not nearly as damning. You have to realize, the officers were sent there, to specifically investigate Sterling, as it was reported he threatened someone with a gun. From the second they arrived, Sterling was uncooperative and would not comply with their commands. The police investigating a person possibly with a gun, have the right to give commands, for their safety, as well as the public, and it is a civilians duty to comply with those commands. Most people do not understand this. Even if you feel an officers commands are inappropriate or unlawful, you do not have the right to resist or not comply with those commands. In fact you must comply with those commands and then fight in court later, if you feel something inappropriate was done.
Quick example: in my career, I was on a call where we arrested a man on a warrant, he fought with us because he had paid the bail the previous day and the warrant should have been recalled and he should not have been arrested. A court administrator made an error and did not recall the warrant. During the incident, two officers were assaulted. The man was charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault on police. In the end it turned out he was right, we should not have been arresting him on the warrant. With regards to the assault charges, the judge ruled, the officers acted in good faith in attempting to make the warrant arrest as the warrant was active in the system. The man even though he knew he paid the bail did not have the right to resist the arrest and was found guilty of the assault on the police officers. He should have complied with the arrest, and then would have been able to take action against the court for failing to remove the warrant.
Getting back to the Sterling case. After they contacted him and he refused to comply with their commands, they decided to go hands on with him. He still resists as they attempted to get him under control. Even after he was taken to the ground, he continues to resist. At this point the officer are trying to roll him over onto his stomach, so they can get his hands behind his back and cuff him. Once again it is his duty to comply with the officers and he is not. You can hear one of the officers clearly say "he has a gun." You can see that Sterling is still actively resisting. Then you can hear the other officer clearly state, "If you move, I swear to god" he clearly has stress in his voice and anyone can realize he is saying if you move I am going to kill you. Police have a split second to make a decision to use deadly force. They cannot hesitate in that decision, as it had been shown time and time again, when they hesitate, they end up the ones getting killed. I believe the officer at that moment made the decision that if Sterling made any other move than what he was asked, that he was going to shoot. He felt that his life and his partners life were in jeopardy and he was not going to loose the fight. After shooting twice, in the chest, Sterling rolled over, now concealing his hands. He was then shot three more times, in the back, until he stopped moving and the perceived threat was over. This is how police are trained.
I believe once, the independent investigation is done, these two officers will be cleared. People are up in arms about the shots in the back, but they don't understand. The only standard that has to be met is that did the officers feel their lives or bodies were in imminent danger and were they justified in shooting. Once this is met it doesn't matter how many times they shot. They are justified in shooting until they feel the threat is over. I feel this will be the outcome.
Regarding the Minn. case I have not seen the full video, so I am not going to comment, and I feel neither should anyone else.
Last edited: