So What Do You Make Of This?

[youngmafbog]

http://news.sky.com/story/1412586/video-police-shoot-black-man-as-he-surrenders

Both officers firing, and one officer is Black as I understand from the tv news

The deceased has previous for shooting troopers but it appears did not have a weapon.

[ladybirder]

Just seen it on Sky News. Not sure what to make of it yet. But the cop on the right of the screen doing all the shouting seemed to be in a blind panic.

[anotheoldgit]

Why is it not reported when a white person is shot and killed by the police, or don't they shoot white people?

[retrocop]

I suppose it is the law of averages. Those who come to the notice of police and are persistent law breakers are more likely to meet the police more often than those who are law abiding.

[DTCwordfan]

One less to go to court.

[DTCwordfan]

Just to clarify that, you do not get out of the car like that when pulled over in the States - the 'best practice' is put the interior light on at night time and place your hands high up the wheel. It's non-threatening.

Do not, do not, reach for the glovebox for anything.

He asked for it by going against this.

[PankySmooch]

He has previous for shooting troopers?

Job well done then.

[andy-hughes]

DTC - "One less to go to court."

One less what?

One less innocent-until-proven guilty American citizen?

[DTCwordfan]

One American that has on the record that he has shot a state trooper before (and that info would have been available inside the police car when the registration was queried), gets out of the car and starts to move towards them, and a practice of even getting out of the car that is not recommended over there.

Get real Andy-Hughes, they were well in their rights to plug him, especially if they thought he was bearing arms.

[andy-hughes]

PankySmooch - "He has previous for shooting troopers?

Job well done then."

Are you for real?

[andy-hughes]

DT - "One American that has on the record that he has shot a state trooper before (and that info would have been available inside the police car when the registration was queried), gets out of the car and starts to move towards them, and a practice of even getting out of the car that is not recommended over there."

A little clarification goes a long way.

[retrocop]

innocent in so much as he may have had an alibi for the bonfire plot.

[DTCwordfan]

And have you ever lived in the States, - I have and do know the recommended practice. Furthermore, a tip, if you ever get pulled over at night and do what I mentioned above so that you are perceived as not being a threat, it's likely you'll get a verbal warning or a minimal fine if you were, say, speeding. Been there, done that.

[andy-hughes]

DT - "Get real Andy-Hughes, they were well in their rights to plug him, especially if they thought he was bearing arms."

The law does not allow for action on the basis of what you think someone might or might not do - only if that action is clearly being carried out, or is about to be carried out.

" ... in their rights to plug him ..."

I think you are watching too many James Cagney films.

This, tragically, is real life, and deserves a little more respect that some pulp script throwaway line.

[DTCwordfan]

They just don't take chances - why? Isn't that obvious, so many police officers have been plugged before on offering that so called 'clarification.'

You, as a driver pulled over at night, (or even the day), just don't mess around over this.

[andy-hughes]

retrocop - "innocent in so much as he may have had an alibi for the bonfire plot."

You can't shoot someone for what you think they may be about to do, or what they have done before - the law does not work like that.

[DTCwordfan]

Frankly you are the one living in cloud cuckoo land - or is that called the UK?

[jim360]

That may be how it works in practice DTC but it is hardly ideal if only a precise set of actions results in you not being shot. Imagine if it were a newcomer to the US who never knew the "rule" you describe, but naturally thought that, hey, the police have stopped me, they'll probably want to see my ID that's in the glove compartment so I'll just get tha -- and then bang, they are dead, which is OK becuaase he "might" have been reaching for a gun.

Possibly even, that is what some people are doing. It's a sad state of affairs, though, when the police can claim that this was likely enough to justify firing.

[dave50]

Always play the race card when in trouble.

[retrocop]

Well you cannot possibly comment as you were not there. The officers may or may not have responded according to police procedures at the time. This man was a potential threat as he had form for shooting officers when challenged. As he was a persistent law breaker he should of known better to behave in any other way than DTC described. If one firearm was observed in the car then there may have been others. If you are told to stay in the car with your hands exposed but you choose to disobey the advice then you pay the consequence. At least there are not two more dead State troopers .

[DTCwordfan]

I didn't say that it was or was not a bad state of affairs, Jim. Indeed it is. However, that's life over there and I suspect AH has never lived there. You just don't do it. Yes, one could even say, shoot to maim would be better but then I guess liability etc comes into it.

It can even go one stage further. My city of residence, two cars with road rage, one pulls up at the lights and gets out of the car, the other a Merc driver pulls out his pistol and plugs him, dead.

Doesn't even get to court (i) 'He was threatening' (no visible sign of a gun) and (ii) the Merc driver was a lawyer. I could go on and on but it's really the old adage of 'shoot first, ask questions later.'