I'm not saying it's any less dangerous, I'm saying the danger with operating heavy machinery isn't reduced by being ready to shoot someone if something goes wrong. In policework, it can be, hence more accidental shootings.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
d8lock
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 684
Nice load of bullshit answer. You try to make an excuse for this cop that is the only one that pulled the trigger. That should be clear enough even for you and your teaparty friends.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
I'd never shoot unless I saw a gun. And I'd expect to go to jail otherwise.
Fuck an innocent, unarmed man is dead. What extra proof could you possibly need?
It's not just me, the cop's actions were not found improper, not even enough doubt to warrant charges and a trial.
And after seeing the newer bodycam footage I was right, the cop did have a rifle which does explain a few things like why only a single shot and even why only him, because at a distance of a hundred feet+, handguns shouldn't have been discharged particularly if a rifleman is on site and positioned. An Officer with a rifle was the officer on site who was best equipped to take action with the least risk of missing and hitting someone else. A single shot, clean and on target, not misses to hit someone else nearby.
I don't even know what the teaparty is, really, past them being some sort of activist group that got themse4lves arrested frequently and are pretty much forgotten, or was that occupy wall-street? Whatever, don't care, they are all forgotten flashes in the media shit pot.
Perhaps it's best if you don't become a Police Officer. His actions passed the investigations performed on the incident. I can't tell you why Finch did what he did, but his actions got him shot and killed. That is what should be obvious to you.
In 2014 there were almost 11 million arrests in the USA, and there were almost 1,000 Police shootings, and 90 of the people shot were unarmed. The math says that the Cops shoot 1 in 11,000 arrests, and that one in 122,222 are shot by cops and unarmed at the time. Not all of these shootings were fatal.
Someone said that there are bad apples, I agree, there are some scumbags who join the Police because they want a chance to kill someone "legally". But I think this is a relatively low number, and I think that sooner or latter, they get caught, charged, and go to prison. We do prosecute bad cops and they do go to prison. Some get over, but it's not because we just turn a blind eye or sweep things under the rug, not as a rule. I think it's wrong to say so, and I am not going to let it go unchallenged.
You and I are not cops, we were not trained by the Wichita Police Academy, present at Mr. Finch's home, and faced with that situation. We do not know all of the information nor have we seen all of the body cam footage. But you think it's obvious what happened and what you would do or wouldn't do.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
His actions passed the investigations? Of course they did. Didn't I tell you that many innocent unarmed civilians are killed by police in the USA and that barely ever one of those shitty cops face jail time?
Your procedure is so full of shit a cop can imagine a weapon and get away with murder. Which is the only reason they are so trigger happy: they get away with it most of the time.
But that ain't surprising seeing that people like you support such actions and defend them.
And yes, I make a HUGE deal of somebody getting shot when he has no weapons on him. It is a huge deal. Somebody innocent was murdered for no damn reason, and nobody is going to be punished for it. Well, wrong: the State will have to pay liabilities worth millions of dollars. But the directly responsible of taking said live? nothing.
Why are you saying "Your procedure ..." Are you another foreigner who thinks any of us give a fuck what people from other countries think? 1 person out of 11,000 arrests are shot by cops and that means 10,999 out of 11,000 are not shot at by cops. Also, 90 out of 1,000 were armed, meaning that 900+ out of a 1000 shootings were armed, and over 600 of those were with guns.
You should get some perspective, the US arrested almost double the population of Finland in 2016. Yes, we arrested every man woman and child in Finland, and half of the twice. You simply don't actually understand what all this means but you think you do and for some fucking reason you think you have a right to complain to us about it.
When was the last time that you had to defend anything about your country to an American? Is it because your country is a paradise of freedom and perfection in government, or just because Americans don't see it as our business what happens in your country and how your people deal with your own problems?
Or am I mistaken and you are an American and think that "our procedure" isn't your procedure because you couldn't be responsible as a citizen for what your government and country does?
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
Isn't this news about a swatting case in the USA?
And I have plenty of perspective: the numbers I mention aren't absolutely big, they are relatively big. Criminals being shot isn't the issue at hand. Nobody really cares and police have the right to defend themselves. Innocents are the issue here. Not only because it is morally wrong, but because of the enormous economic liabilities caused by wrongful procedures.
Alright then, let me pose it to you this way.
The cops came and the interaction between those officers and the victim, Finch, happened based upon fictitious information, a real situation from false facts. But that interaction was separate from the reported situation, the reported killing and hostage situation was inside the house, and the interaction was outside on the porch.
Let's flip the script and run a test, Finch actually did kill his father, lock his siblings and mother in a room, pour gasoline all over the inside of the house, call the Police, admit to murder and threaten to kill more of his family. It's not false anymore, it's real.
Now put that in your head, and watch the video, and ask yourself if the cop committed murder.
I believe people are judging this man on information we all have learned after the fact, information not available to the cops at the time, and that this knowledge is coloring your judgement. Hindsight is 20/20, but to judge this officers actions you can't be fair and do it from hindsight. You have to put yourself in his situation. What happened on the porch was immaterial to what happened, or was falsely reported to have happened inside the home. The cops have to treat it as if it's real. You can't ask them to go out and do their job second guessing everything even though that is exactly what some departments are trying to adjust for.
We all sat here in these forums and listened to some people predicting that SWATTING was going to get someone killed. Now that has happened, it's a reality. I predict that in the future, some cops somewhere, because of their training, are going to react to the real thing, second guess the situation, and come up short and an Officer is going to get shot because they mistook a situation as a SWATTING.
Murphy's Law, if it can go wrong, it will go wrong.
If Andrew Finch had actually killed his father, this story would have been a news article for about one week and long forgotten by the media already.
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/
Last edited:
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,338
The issue is still the same thing. That cop that shot was defending himself from a perceived threat. The issue at hand is that after the fact it was found that the threat while perceived was not real. The line between the two isn't black and white it is gray.
While I can say the cop shouldn't have fired and from watching the video I still feel that way. I also do not have a sense of fear and duty to protect myself and others while watching the video comfortably from my chair.
I do not envy anyone in this situation, and I really don't think the cop is just laughing it off, he still had to go home knowing he shot and killed an unarmed person. When most cops never face such a situation.
If I think with my emotions, the cop should fry, but also he wouldn't have even been there had that prank call not been made.
If I think logically, then the cops were nothing more than tools that were manipulated into a situation that would never have resolved perfectly by those kids.
Someone should go to jail for the death of him, but the more I think about it, the more I feel it should be the source of the problem, the kids making the call.
These are really ugly situations because you cant have anything exist without mistakes and sadly some of those result in lives needlessly lost. If we beat down on cops so hard they fear every doing anything, what use are they then? If we give them no rules to follow then they become gangsters. So where in the middle should we meet?
Is it murder? No not from the cop side, involuntary man slaughter maybe (the bullet did miss him, it fragmented off the door frame and went into him from there).
But the kids making the call did so with the intent to harm, that should carry a heavier weight.
Basically nothing went right in this entire situation. And maybe I misread but it sounds like the victim knew he was going to be swatted? Need to check when I get home. Hell myself if someone told me I was about to be swatted, I would call the police station and report that, might help them approach my home in a better mindset.
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 10,054
No, the victim was completely unaware of the swatting. His address was found by the swatters, and then confirmed by gaskill (the one who was supposed to have been swatted), and then the act was carried out based on that false information.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
What would happen if a civilian shot another one based on a "perceived" threat? Yup, jail time. Why should it be different for policemen?
We aren't talking about a situation in which the victim claims to be armed to the teeth and is making death threats or other bullshit... but about a simple man, standing outside his home, without any evidence that he did anything wrong. Completely unarmed and harmless. Again, this isn't a situation in which the officers involved saw by themselves the victim commiting a crime or doing something that would imply him having a weapon or some other stuff that could be considered a threat. No. You get a phone call of somebody making horrible claims and, instead of going into the situation armed and ready but with the intention of learning more about it... you go in like its WW2, the information is verified and you have a mass murderer going on a rampage.
Yes, somebody should spend 20 years in prison for such a fuck up. I truly believe that. The same for that officer that killed that terrified, crying guy on a hallway for no reason at all. Those cops should burn, be made an example of, so that the whole police institution gets better.
And this isn't abandoning the police officers. No. This is telling them that they don't have the right to shoot somebody unless their life is REALLY at stake. The "he was reaching for a gun" is bullshit. If there is no gun, because, there is no threat. So suck it up, and if you gotta take a bullet then that is your job. Statistics also show that being a policemen isn't more dangerous than being in construction work. It isn't like cops are being killed left and right all day long. So there is no reason for them to act like its WWIII every time they are called into action.
An officer should never fire if he isn't facing a real threat. And if he isn't sure that the threat is real he shouldn't shoot whatsoever, or be sent to jail for manslaughter.
Just as a SWAT team shouldn't get into a house unless they are completely certain that they are assaulting the right one.
And no, if Andrew Finch had actually killed his father it wouldn't change a thing. He was unarmed and wasn't a threat when he was killed. The one that serves justice is the judge, not the police. The job of the police is to bring people so that they can face justice. Not to dispense justice by themselves. If somebody is a criminal let them face a judge and suffer based on the law.
Lastly, your law enforcement numbers don't show too much, IMO.
Looking at labour statistics in 2016 there were around 10M people employed in the counstruction industry, which had 2.000 fatalities on the job. According to a simple search you Google the USA has around 800.000 sworn officers, and 151 of those died in 2016.
All things considered, being a policemen isn't more dangerous than being in construction.
This is pure fabrication. You obviously do not have an understanding of self-defense laws, which vary throughout the US. In many places, reasonable belief of threat of death or serious bodily injury is sufficient.
d8lock
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 684
There have been several cases where a homeowner was defending their home from an intruder and went to jail for killing them. The only fabrication is your post.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
It isnt.
There is no self defense if you arent being attacked. And im not talking about a homeowner killing somebody that trespassed on his property. But about an individual unarmed, doing nothing wrong that is killed by a civilian because of a percived (ie fictional) threat. Jail time.
Two points:
1) This is an overbroad statement. As I said, laws vary. In some places there is a duty to retreat, etc.
2) Merely because "some cases" happened does not mean that those cases were correctly adjudicated nor that they are representative of ...anything, really...
My post stands.
I agree that if a person walks up to another that is picking out cereal at walmart and shoots said shopper in the head - which would be terrible - just for the hell of it, yes that would of course not be self defense.
I am also not on board with mere tresspassing being a justification for use of lethal force, without more information.
I would argue, successfully, that a "perceived threat" can be a reasonable or unreasonable belief. It matters which it is in the case at hand.
That's easy to say, but the reality is that mentality will lead to more officers being killed. If somebody reaches for their wallet really fast, an officer may shoot them, because they have seconds or less to determine if it's a wallet or a gun. If he waits to confirm it is a wallet and it's a gun, he dies. So instead, he may shoot someone reacting very quickly in a drawing-gun-like motion. Now if it was just a wallet, that's tragic that someone innocent had to be shot, but the alternative is if it was a gun, the officer would be dead. The police always prioritize their own safety first, so that inevitably leads to conflicts. Even if 99% of the time it's not a gun, all it takes is that 1% for them to be killed. Police prefer not to be shot 100% of the time, as unreasonable as that sounds.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
In any case no, that mentality won't get more officers killed. What it will do, is save countless innocent people shot for no reason than an officer being scared and shotting. People should be given a chance.
Also, police do what they are allowed to do. You start sending cops that kill innocents to jail (as it should be), then they will change procedure. It is the same as corporations not paying their taxes by using loopholes. Our cops don't shoot unless their lifes are in REAL danger simply because they go to jail otherwise. If you don't want to put your lifes at risk then don't be a fucking cop. That simple.
Ah! Acting like this also saves a lot of money. How much does an innocent victim cost for the taxpayers? Millions of dollars? Imagine that: you save hundreds of people per year and save hundreds of millions in the process. Win-win.
When I talk about somebody being innocent and perceived threat I tried to draw a clear line ((I failed, apparently). What I meant was this: if you are commiting a crime (trespassing, for instance) we can debate whether you should be shot or not. In any case you commited an ilegal act.
What I was trying to say is that if you are doing nothing ilegal, you are doing nothing wrong, you are unarmed, and somebody perceived a fictional threat and killed you, you should go to jail. Because if you are in your own private property, for instance, and don't have a weapon on you, your neighbour can't simply shoot you "because I feel threatened" without him going every time to jail. There wasn't an ilegal act in the first place that you could use to shield the shooting.
Which is why I stated that police should get the same treatment. A civilian leaving his house, doing nothing ilegal at the time, not having a weapon and getting killed should mean jail time absolutely every single time. Mistakes were made, so somebody should pay for it.
No man, you are completely wrong about this. First off, there is no equation that says "found a weapon = innocent" and "did not find a weapon = guilty".
Killing someone is homicide and so, some lawyer type will decide if there has been a crime, if you will be arrested, charged, etc. If they decide that there was a justifiable reason for the killing then it's mostly a done deal right there, no charges etc. It's possible that latter on, a grand jury may hear the case and charge the person, but it's also possible that they too will let it go.
If you think that just because someone shoots someone who doesn't have a weapon that it's automatically a conviction and prison time then you just don't know how things work at all.
And you never answered my question previously, are you a US citizen or not because earlier you made a comment like "your procedures ......" and that made me think you must not be an American, but then you talk like you are.
You didn't explain why. Again, say 1 out of 100 people who make real twitchy motions leading up from their hip actually have a gun and are intending to kill the officer. How does hesitating until he can confirm beyond a doubt that it's a gun in the suspect's hand save officer lives? An officer who shoots first is more likely to live. The officer who waits until he can confirm it's a gun dies. That's more officer lives lost. Nothing in what you said refutes that.
I'm not arguing this practice doesn't lead to more innocent people getting killed, that's the collateral damage. However, you did not explain how hesitating saves officer lives.
I think you're referring to someone else, I never said that. My point is an officer firing upon someone making rapid movements towards them similar to what a shooter would make does lead to increased officer lives being saved.prava said:
Last edited:
Again, I am telling you that your absolute comments are false. It's up to a jury, and you have no idea what a jury will find, and they don't always find the way you or I think they should. Your absolutes are mind numbing because they reinforce you false understanding of how things actually work in the US legal system.
We had a guy here in town, heard some noises outside in his back yard, he grabbed his gun and went outside and he saw lights on and heard voices and such in his RV that was parked in his back yard. He yelled at them and they ran out of his RV and jumped over the wall around his back yard. He fired at them as they were escaping, went to the wall, looked over, and shot again, but he never hit anyone, but the intruders, they shot back, the shots hit the wall, not the old man, and he quickly decided to stop shooting at them and they got away.
Now nobody was shot or killed that we know of, but both sides in this thing violated the law in one way or another. The old man was not charged. He discharged a firearm inside city limits, and worse, they were running away and he went to his wall and fired over it at them as they ran away. Old man is lucky he didn't actually hit anyone. Should he have been charged? It's up the City, they decide, and as far as I know they didn't arrest the old man or charge him for any crime. You just do not know how things are going to go, who will be charged, what a jury will do. You can go with the odds, the statistics, but absolutes are not a safe call at all.
Another incident, a kid was killed by a homeowner, the kid was drunk, trying to get home, crawled into the wrong backyard and tried to get the door open. The homeowner shot him through the door, killed him, no charges.
And you're idea that you have that there must be a crime to justify a shooting is also wrong.
And I'm going to take advantage of you a little and point out something you said, that I think you didn't mean to say;