Outrage Over Police Shooting

[bird1]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=5548815
I'm glad I was off for the weekend.

[kjlaw]

I can only shake my head. Sounds like it was a good weekend to be off.

[Ianl6]

Would those same people have been protesting if the 18 year old MAN had shot and killed a police officer.I very much doubt it i mean that policer officer would only be out risking his life for their safety.But would the ungratefull Bastards care about his wife children parents you bet your ass they wouldnt so why should any law abiding person give a shit about 1 armed criminal getting shot.Happily the officers came home safe.

[Star Man]

"How's your life in danger if somebody is running away from you."

What about the innocent that he runs up to first? The officers have to protect that person. If the suspect wasn't shot and he used the gun on the next person then the officer would be in as much heat and they would be demanding he be fired for not doing his job!

WHAT BS!!

[countybear]

Mr. Jackson, I am outraged too!!

As you have consistently made the public painfully aware, you believe that the police survive strictly by their ability to rampantly kill minority "children" just like in this case. You purport that the police take such pride in the deaths of their "poor", "innocent" "victims!" You allege that of course the police always carry "drop" guns with them, just to show evidence of justification when they find the perfect "victim" for their random and unrestrained violence. You (and others like you) have incited a heightened (yet statistically unsupportable) distrust of police officers everywhere. Your open and constantly publicized cries of injustice have brought about such civil disobedience and revulsion to authority figures (the police especially), that you have caused an undeclared war of disrespect, violence, and outright hatred against the ranks of the police, military, and the American system of government in general. If your goal is the increase of officer-involved shootings, it would appear by the spike in those numbers that you are succeeding. You, sir have certainly become spoke in the wheel of American violence yourself.

Un(holy) men like you, who will continue to bolster the public in their boldness, subversion, and refusal to comply with the orders of these "evil" police officers must certainly realize that you contribute to the number of tragic incidents which you use to self aggrandize and victim-monger. You intend to create a feeding frenzy whenever one of these senseless and atrocious deaths occur, because you use that frenzy to feed your own self-esteem and pad your own pockets. Without issues to take and allegations to make, you are truly worthless. You encourage the public to hate, resist, demean, and literally attack their very own defenders; to bite the very hands that nurture them. The unfortunate end result of your constant powerplays and political drama scripting is tragic in itself, as more and more worthy and ethical police officers flee the oppression which you create through the public, to shield themselves and their families from the radical and sickening poison that you inflict upon decency and order.

"Reverend" Jackson, you are a whore, who's price is publicity, but who's societal contribution is immeasurably increased bloodshed.

If I were you: I'd immediately gather my harem, Al Sharpton, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte', and the entire raucous cast of "Copwatch.com" and set sail for some far away island country where you and your band of merry men can settle in as fanatical and drug-crazed co-emperors of a new and progressive republic. One open to all who will subscribe to your ridiculous and useless philosophies of social justice.

[Trojan 42]

These people are total morons. Do they really believe that any police officer actually wants to shoot someone? They are pathetic!

[Angelous444]

I truely believe people like that should see what happens when an officer has to shoot someone. What legal and other processes that must be done....Then let them ask is it worth it.

What about the thought of knowing you killed someone only 18 and having to live with that fact for the rest of our life. Yeah...we are bloodlusting pigs who like to pop off rounds at whoever looks at us funny....We can cease fire when the kids stop carrying guns and drugs...As always I am going home at the end of my shift.

[Pretty Boring Civi]

I've noticed in the media that people who are upset over police shootings sometimes bring up "shot in the back" as proof that police had not been acting in self defense.

As someone who grew up around guns but never owned one (and only ever went target shooting a few times) is this point valid?

Or is it possible for a person who is being shot at in self defense to be shot in the back? I can imagine a scenario in which a suspect was pointing a gun at police (or anyone else, for that matter), then the police (or private citizen) fired on the suspect, but the suspect turned around to flee while being fired on, and ended up with wounds to the back.

Is that the sort of scenario that results in self-defense wounds to the back?

[Ianl6]

Mr. Jackson, I am outraged too!!

As you have consistently made the public painfully aware, you believe that the police survive strictly by their ability to rampantly kill minority "children" just like in this case. You purport that the police take such pride in the deaths of their "poor", "innocent" "victims!" You allege that of course the police always carry "drop" guns with them, just to show evidence of justification when they find the perfect "victim" for their random and unrestrained violence. You (and others like you) have incited a heightened (yet statistically unsupportable) distrust of police officers everywhere. Your open and constantly publicized cries of injustice have brought about such civil disobedience and revulsion to authority figures (the police especially), that you have caused an undeclared war of disrespect, violence, and outright hatred against the ranks of the police, military, and the American system of government in general. If your goal is the increase of officer-involved shootings, it would appear by the spike in those numbers that you are succeeding. You, sir have certainly become spoke in the wheel of American violence yourself.

Un(holy) men like you, who will continue to bolster the public in their boldness, subversion, and refusal to comply with the orders of these "evil" police officers must certainly realize that you contribute to the number of tragic incidents which you use to self aggrandize and victim-monger. You intend to create a feeding frenzy whenever one of these senseless and atrocious deaths occur, because you use that frenzy to feed your own self-esteem and pad your own pockets. Without issues to take and allegations to make, you are truly worthless. You encourage the public to hate, resist, demean, and literally attack their very own defenders; to bite the very hands that nurture them. The unfortunate end result of your constant powerplays and political drama scripting is tragic in itself, as more and more worthy and ethical police officers flee the oppression which you create through the public, to shield themselves and their families from the radical and sickening poison that you inflict upon decency and order.

"Reverend" Jackson, you are a whore, who's price is publicity, but who's societal contribution is immeasurably increased bloodshed.

If I were you: I'd immediately gather my harem, Al Sharpton, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte', and the entire raucous cast of "Copwatch.com" and set sail for some far away island country where you and your band of merry men can settle in as fanatical and drug-crazed co-emperors of a new and progressive republic. One open to all who will subscribe to your ridiculous and useless philosophies of social justice.

+1 very well said you hit the nail right on the head.

[Trojan 42]

I've noticed in the media that people who are upset over police shootings sometimes bring up "shot in the back" as proof that police had not been acting in self defense.

As someone who grew up around guns but never owned one (and only ever went target shooting a few times) is this point valid?

Or is it possible for a person who is being shot at in self defense to be shot in the back? I can imagine a scenario in which a suspect was pointing a gun at police (or anyone else, for that matter), then the police (or private citizen) fired on the suspect, but the suspect turned around to flee while being fired on, and ended up with wounds to the back.

Is that the sort of scenario that results in self-defense wounds to the back?

Absolutely right.
The suspect can be half turned, presenting most of the back and still be firing at you. Also in the time you make the decision to fire and squeeze the trigger the suspect can turn at the same time and be shot 'in the back'. Something the Media and the public should know about.

[Pretty Boring Civi]

Absolutely right.
The suspect can be half turned, presenting most of the back and still be firing at you. Also in the time you make the decision to fire and squeeze the trigger the suspect can turn at the same time and be shot 'in the back'. Something the Media and the public should know about.

Yes, you're absolutely right. And when departments, or even individual LEOs, discuss this issue with citizens, they have every right to point that out.

For my part, I blame the old westerns on my perception here (not that they weren't fun, just that they were a little simplistic ). My father used to love to watch them. And, according my recollections from childhood, "shot in the back" always meant murder. So when I read or hear "shot in the back," that's where my mind automatically goes.

As a regular person, that is what my mind focused on in the article. I had to actively engage my mind and try to imagine a scenario in which "shot in the back" might not equal murder. My guess is that most people (myself included) don't always engage their analytical faculties when they're receiving information.

I'm glad I thought through the situation before jumping to conclusions, I'm glad I asked the question here and, most of all, I'm very relieved that no officers were hurt in that situation.

[bayern]

ABILITY - OPORTUNITY - JEOPARDY If all three fit, deadly force is justified.

[snuffy2202]

Did the 18 year old ever think that if he had a job to go to and then went home and was so tired that all he could do is sit on the couch and watch TV until he went to bed that he would have been chased by the police in the first place and how is this for a run-on sentence?

[countybear]

I've noticed in the media that people who are upset over police shootings sometimes bring up "shot in the back" as proof that police had not been acting in self defense.

As someone who grew up around guns but never owned one (and only ever went target shooting a few times) is this point valid?

Or is it possible for a person who is being shot at in self defense to be shot in the back? I can imagine a scenario in which a suspect was pointing a gun at police (or anyone else, for that matter), then the police (or private citizen) fired on the suspect, but the suspect turned around to flee while being fired on, and ended up with wounds to the back.

Is that the sort of scenario that results in self-defense wounds to the back?

In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court stated that “deadly force” can be used when (1) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or to others, the suspect uses a weapon to threaten the officer, or there is probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serous physical harm; (2) it is necessary to prevent escape; and (3) some warning has been given. 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-1631.html

The landmark USSC decision in Tennessee v. Garner makes absolutely no supposition on gunshot forensics. No reference is made which refers to where a suspect is allowed or disallowed to be shot, only in the application of the force itself.

It is important to notice however, that an officer's judgement as to the application of deadly force is not strictly based upon defense of himself, but the likely threat that a suspect poses to the safety of others as well.

All such determinations must be tried against an "objective reasonableness" standard as specified in another landmark decision by USSC, Graham v. Connor (1989). This "objective reasonableness" standard basically means that the decisions made by the officer must only be weighed given the officer's own knowlege and perception of the circumstances present at the time of the incident.

[Jackalope]

Isn't it interesting how (according to the media) when a criminal uses a gun, it's the gun's fault, but when a cop uses a gun, it's the cop's fault?

[BEK]

And the community is always outraged. I have yet to see a headline "Community is thankful for police shooting" or "Community ecstatic that police shot and killed local drug dealer/murderer". I dont know a cop that wants to shoot someone, I know all cops are trained to do so and will if the situation comes up. The other thing that bothers me is that they pick it apart and have people analyze it and say "well the officers should have..." Do people not realize that by the time I say "hello", someone can have a gun raised at you and you have to make a decision.

[Pretty Boring Civi]

Thanks for the explanation, Countybear.

The decision whether or not to use deadly force seems incredibly complex, but you folks don't have time to analyze when you're faced with an actual situation. That's way more pressure than I have yet to face in my entire life, and I really respect that fact.

[bird1]

The westside of Chicago A.K.A the wild wild west is a community that sees violence on a daily baisis but no community outrage. It is not normal to go threw a day working in that district without handling a job of a person shot or worse, where is the community outrage then. It's alright to live in a community where drug dealers kill each other and innocent victims, but still no community outrage. A police officer defends him/herself in the course of their duties all of a sudden there is community outrage, That the officer involved planted the weapon and should be charged with murder. Here now come the Rev. Jackson and Sharpton saying the community is outraged at the police cause thats all we bloodthirsty cops do all day is drive around waiting to shoot someone. This community should look itself in the mirror before judging someone else. The last thing on our mind is to shoot anyone, but if i'm put in that situation i know i'm going home that night.

[ML Roak]

Pretty Boring Civi,
There is a lot of good info at the Force Science website about perceived back shooting, very good reading if you have a free evening http://www.forcescience.org/ . Lots of stuff about the actuall physics involved with the actual pulling of the trigger and the times that it takes to happen. A lot of officers have been hung-out to dry on good shoots because of old B-western movies.
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's back to work I go
ML Roak

"what is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women".

[bird1]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=5559467
Rev. Al Sharpton gets his two cents in