tvc184

Just two officers? Out of curiosity, how many people have you handcuffed while they were fighting? I am sure you can share your experience on how two officers, and with very little force, can handcuff a person that does not want to be handcuffed. I can assure you that if this was not a shooting and they used the force needed to get him into custody, you would be complaining of the force used. Oh yeah, and the guy was not was subdued. If he would have submitted to the handcuffs, as is required by law no matter the charges, he would have been subdued. I guess you think subdued (and I have never seen any legal bearing of that word) means touching. I can assure you that having a person on the ground and touching him is not him being subdued. At the very least he will be resisting until he gets on his stomach so they can handcuff him behind the back. But, I will await your explanation on how easy it is to take someone into custody, by placing both hands behind the back, having them touch or almost touch each other (handcuffs are not very wide) and then holding them there for several seconds in order to place the cuffs on broth wrists and all this while the person continues to struggle by keeping those hands from touching behind the back. The law enforcement community awaits your expertise.

I'm not sure how cool you have to be to say he has a handgun license and was stopped for a traffic charge. If it was some detailed explanation under stress I would call nonsense also.

And as always, realizing that most states have laws that require compliance with officers or that in itself is a crime. I have said it many times in these forums, TX law for example says you can get up to a year in jail if you resist (and do not injure the officer which is a felony) arrest even if the arrest is unlawful. Again, it is simple, you complain in court or in lawsuits, not by fighting with the police.

Now I am reading that the deceased did not have a weapons license and he was not pulled over for a taillight out. Of course the girlfriend spit that out while the guy was dying. Why was he pulled over? An armed robbery had taken place not far away and this guy fit the description. According to some unconfirmed reports that I read the officer's recording (not the after the fact one by the girlfriend... making an alibi perhaps) that the officer ordered the guy not to move or to stop moving. Again, none of this is confirmed except that guy being stopped as a robbery suspect which I believe was put out by the state police. IF.. the "what if" game.... If these things are true, does it change some of the opinions that the officer is guilty and there seems to be no need for an investigation? Let's say the officer was pulling over a guy and maybe girl that he believes just committed an armed robbery, he ordered the guy not to move and then the guy did move and was shot.... does it change the "let's build the gallows and hang the officer now" which seems to have prevailed in some of the posts? Also and without knowing the truth of any of these, does it tend to make sense on the idea of let's see what the investigation shows before we convict? If only the armed robbery suspect is correct and the handgun license facts change, that alone would tend to change the dynamic of the incident completely from what has been portrayed.

I think you hit the nail square on the head. Obviously there are bad cops but very few. I have seen recent stats that show an average of 2% of officers even kill anyone in the line of duty in an entire career. I am not sure about those but they seem to be in line from that I have seen. That is not only unlawful or improper uses of deadly force but all of them, with most being ruled lawful That probably leaves well less than 1% of all officers ever being involved in a wrongful use of deadly force. Think about that. Over 99% of officers likely will never be involved in an unlawful death. Feel free to compare that to any other profession and any area of misconduct. And I completely agree that it takes a special person and some should not be in the profession. If it was up to the police, they would weed most of them out. Politicians sometimes get in the way of removing many of those officers. They also fall far short of money needed and not in salary but in training. I would be willing to bet that a majority of officers fire their weapons on duty once a year at annual qualifications. Any other training falls on the officer to purchase his own ammo, weapons, range membership, etc. Even in that actual firing of weapons, there is little training on use of force in general. I doubt that we will see any of those politicians stepping up and making those moneys available anytime in the near future.

The only procedure is to shoot until the threat is over. Not the television fire a single shot and step back and take notes if it appears to have stopped any potential attack. Officers are trained to fire multiple shots very quickly. The last officer involved shooting that I saw locally was 7 shots in around 2 to 2.5 seconds. There is not a lot of time to step back and view the results of shots fired and assess whether more are needed. To do so is to increase the risk of death to the officer. Maybe the first or second shot ended the incident but in less than another second and a half there simply is not time to make that judgment. The officer did not start the incident. The deceased (like almost always) started the sequence of events that ended in him being shot, not the officer.

Based on what? You have no facts at all other than the guy was shot. Speculation isn't a fact and the girlfriend's statement isn't a fact. What happens when (assuming he had it) the officer's recording is made public? Let's play "what if". What if the officers said give me your driver's license and within a second opens fire with no other commands? Yeah, the officer probably overreacted. What if the officer says give me your license and sees the guy reaching toward the gun and the officer yells "Don't do that!". Then "Stop!! Stop NOW!!" and the guy keeps reaching and then the officer opens fire? What if the officer says give me your license and opens fire within a second but the guy lunged for his weapon? Does the audio then completely change the scenario? Can the officer be totally wrong when seen one way and completely correct in another.... all changing only on the officer's words and actions? Can even the time frame look bad on the officer if the suspect lunged for a weapon when truthfully, the officer did say give me your license? As you note, the facts are not out yet you 100% agree that the officer was wrong. Jumping to conclusions on both sides is equally wrong. Looks bad? Sure. Is bad? How do we know at this point?

At least one officer dead.

Bullets13 has a sister on duty right now at Dallas PD. He has made contact with her after the shooting.

The black eye might be from the fact that the video never shows what happened before. In the car for example we see nothing but the aftermath. In BR we see very little as the videos are too far away or do not show the critical parts. The officers may be right and they may be wrong but people are drawing sides based on wishful thinking.

It appears that the officers were possibly shot by a sniper. Maybe three down. It has to be the officers' fault for being in uniform. I wonder if the community will be outraged.

Maybe 3 officers shot.

Very true because it is not good for survival to shoot second.

I don't know that the officer was wrong and neither do you. In any case, point out any post that I have made that said the officer was in the right. I'll be waiting.............

Two officers just shot in Dallas at protest.

Training. The last shooting locally where I watched the video, an officer fired 7 shots in about 2.5 seconds. It sure isn't TV where one hit is a kill and the man goes down.

Really?

They need you on that investigation then so you can show them how to prove the case.

Do you have a concealed carry? If so you went to the classes. The law clearly says that officers can disarm you. What part of a license gives a person the authority to reach for a weapon while speaking with an officer?

This will fall on deaf eyes but how do you know the officer was wrong?

The problem at reviewing the MN video is that the video is almost meaningless. It shows nothing but a guy was shot and we know that without a video. Knowing almost nothing about what happened and people have already made a judgment which is ludicrous.

A carry license = crooked cops? That might make some kind of rational sense to someone but not me. What does having a concealed carry license have to do with this guy getting shot? Are you saying that if he didn't have a license, the officer would have been justified?

Chris Rock did a pretty funny skit a few years back that has probably been seen about 100 million times on how not to get shot by the police. While it is funny, the message is clear.

So what?

Did he really die "because he had a gun"? I would agree 100% it's a cop walked up and said you've got a gun and shot him. From what I saw on the video the officer ordered him to the ground, then tackled him to the ground when he refused and he still continue to fight and during that fight the officer yelled that he found a gun. Even when they found the gun (supposedly since we do not know) and an officer pulled out a gun, the guy continued to fight. That is not being killed because you have a gun. Killed because he had a gun is nothing but a smoke screen.