Alton Sterling: Video 'shows US police shooting black man'

[Seth]

What disappoints me about the American police, is that they are so lax in shooting white people.

They must get plenty of opportunities every day, but they are clearly risking their lives by not shooting first, when white people get uppity.

Come on, you peace officers !! Lets get out there and shoot some white ass !

They shoot plenty of white people.

That’s not to say officers weren’t killing white people. Indeed, some 44 percent of all those killed by police across the 33 years were white.

[Seth]

Yeah. Honestly, I'm surprised some neighbourhoods/ghettos don't go all guerrilla warfare on the cops. Seal the cops in and massacre them. I've seen how it's done in da movies. It's surely only a matter of time, yeah?

Prophetic words, as it turned out.

As for shooting a man on the ground in the back - don't they teach cop restraining techniques and joint locks, or is shooting the sucker just less hassle than breaking a sweat?

Did you bother to watch the video, in which the cops both tasered and wrestled with the suspect before finally shooting him?

Have YOU ever wrestled with someone who wants to kill you, or someone on PCP or another drug? I have. And I would have been legally justified in shooting the addict in the head as he tried to bite my thumb off, but I didn't. When the FBI investigated the lumps on his head where I hit him with my flashlight repeatedly (and not very damned hard because I didn't want to bash his brains out) while trying to get him to quit biting my thumb, which were reported by the jail deputies, when they heard the story and saw the bandages and stitches in my thumb they said "That's all we need" and got up and left. On the way out the door one of them said "I'd have shot him, I'm amazed you didn't." And that was the end of the civil rights investigation.

If you haven't, then shut the fuck up because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Which is clear since you didn't notice that they didn't shoot him in the back, they shot him in the front because he was LYING ON HIS BACK while wrestling with them, which put the cops in danger of having him grab one of THEIR guns and put him in a position to grab for his pocket-gun. Pretty fucking hard to do a joint-lock on someone lying practically under a car, on his back, who is violently resisting being arrested.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. Honestly, I'm surprised some neighbourhoods/ghettos don't go all guerrilla warfare on the cops. Seal the cops in and massacre them. I've seen how it's done in da movies. It's surely only a matter of time, yeah?

Prophetic words, as it turned out.

As for shooting a man on the ground in the back - don't they teach cop restraining techniques and joint locks, or is shooting the sucker just less hassle than breaking a sweat?

Did you bother to watch the video, in which the cops both tasered and wrestled with the suspect before finally shooting him?

Have YOU ever wrestled with someone who wants to kill you, or someone on PCP or another drug? I have. And I would have been legally justified in shooting the addict in the head as he tried to bite my thumb off, but I didn't. When the FBI investigated the lumps on his head where I hit him with my flashlight repeatedly (and not very damned hard because I didn't want to bash his brains out) while trying to get him to quit biting my thumb, which were reported by the jail deputies, when they heard the story and saw the bandages and stitches in my thumb they said "That's all we need" and got up and left. On the way out the door one of them said "I'd have shot him, I'm amazed you didn't." And that was the end of the civil rights investigation.

If you haven't, then shut the fuck up because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

How about you go and fuck a dead cat? No one gives a shit about your bollocks stories. You've been busted making shit up in the past, and I'm guessing this is no different. Go tell your story to your right wing nutjob mates.

[JimC]

I'm wondering what Seth thinks about the other shooting, of the guy in the car complying with a request to show identification. If there was some justification for shooting the guy on the ground, who may well have been reaching for his gun, there seems to be none in the car shooting...

[pErvinalia]

I'm wondering what Seth thinks

Yeah, I often wonder that too...

[Brian Peacock]

Did you bother to watch the video.

Nope. Don't see why I should have to either.

Have YOU ever wrestled with someone who wants to kill you.

Why is someone resisting arrest necessarily motivated to kill the officer - which you assume or imply here?

Outside of my sporting activities I've had little cause to fight, and in handful of situations where I have one could hardly say they where fights to the death. This lends as much weight to my opinions as it does to yours - which is none.

And I would have been legally justified in shooting the addict in the head as he tried to bite my thumb off, but I didn't.

Now this actually speaks to the issue, but only to say the that the justificatory bar for taking a life is set too low and biased in favour of those in positions of authority (even of the self-declated type) with an itchy trigger finger.

If you haven't, then shut the fuck up because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You do not seem to be aware that you have neither the responsibility for nor the authority to prescribe either the content or timing of my remarks. No doubt this will come as a bit of a shock to you.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm wondering what Seth thinks about the other shooting, of the guy in the car complying with a request to show identification. If there was some justification for shooting the guy on the ground, who may well have been reaching for his gun, there seems to be none in the car shooting...

But "he may well have been reaching for his gun" is all the justification one needs.

[pErvinalia]

I'm wondering what Seth thinks about the other shooting, of the guy in the car complying with a request to show identification. If there was some justification for shooting the guy on the ground, who may well have been reaching for his gun, there seems to be none in the car shooting...

But "he may well have been reaching for his gun" is all the justification one needs.

And being black..

[Seth]

Did you bother to watch the video.

Nope. Don't see why I should have to either.

Generally, those who wish to make informed comments rather than making stupid, uninformed bloviations based on willful ignorance actually view the evidence when it's available.

Have YOU ever wrestled with someone who wants to kill you.

Why is someone resisting arrest necessarily motivated to kill the officer - which you assume or imply here?

Nobody but you said "necessarily." Such situations are highly fluid and the degree of force authorized to effect an arrest is proportionate to the degree of force being used to resist arrest, and that authorized use of force can change from "minimal force using voice and authority" to "deadly force is authorized" in a split second. The basic rule is that because the police have the authority to take you into physical custody because they have probable cause to believe a crime is being, has been or is about to be committed, regardless of how little you want to be arrested, they are authorized to use all reasonable and necessary force to effect that arrest, but may only use deadly force under the circumstances mentioned above...just like a civilian. But they are under no obligation to let you go merely because you might get hurt or killed while you are resisting arrest, which is a crime in and of itself regardless of the underlying suspicion and even if the probable cause to arrest you in the first place does not exist!

The law REQUIRES one to submit peaceably to arrest, whether or not it's justified, and to take complaints of illegal arrest not based on probable cause before a judge or jury. The law does NOT permit anyone to adjudicate their own guilt or innocence and tell the police "I ain't going to let you arrest me, I'm going to shoot you if you try." Doing so is a crime.

Which is not to say that I'm convinced that the officers in this situation were actually justified in using deadly force, but then again I'm not convinced that they didn't. A jury needs to examine all the evidence and make that determination.

Outside of my sporting activities I've had little cause to fight, and in handful of situations where I have one could hardly say they where fights to the death. This lends as much weight to my opinions as it does to yours - which is none.

Wrong.

And I would have been legally justified in shooting the addict in the head as he tried to bite my thumb off, but I didn't.

Now this actually speaks to the issue, but only to say the that the justificatory bar for taking a life is set too low and biased in favour of those in positions of authority (even of the self-declated type) with an itchy trigger finger.

Wrong again. The standard for the use of deadly physical force in defense of a person is exactly the same for both police officers and civilians. I'd have been equally justified in killing him as a civilian. The metric is a reasonable belief that one is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, which definition includes "the loss of any limb or body part." See what happens when one makes stupid, ignorant comments without doing one's homework...

If you want to let some fucker bite your thumb off, go right ahead, but around here it can get you killed, and should.

If you haven't, then shut the fuck up because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You do not seem to be aware that you have neither the responsibility for nor the authority to prescribe either the content or timing of my remarks. No doubt this will come as a bit of a shock to you.

Don't need either to tell you to shut the fuck up. Now shut the fuck up.

[Seth]

I'm wondering what Seth thinks about the other shooting, of the guy in the car complying with a request to show identification. If there was some justification for shooting the guy on the ground, who may well have been reaching for his gun, there seems to be none in the car shooting...

But "he may well have been reaching for his gun" is all the justification one needs.

And being black..

In this case the officer most likely would have been justified in pulling his gun and for all we know did so a split second after this photo was taken.

A lot depends on the volatility of the situation and who the anger is coming from and is directed at, if indeed the armed individual is the suspect. In this case it superficially appears plausible that the guy with the gun was exercising his right to keep and bear arms (both a pistol and a rifle) but was otherwise not evidencing any hostile intent and that the guy pointing at him was concerned, which is why the police got involved. Not knowing the situation it's also plausible that this was a small incident in a larger peaceful gathering of armed individuals where a vocal minority of hoplophobes were attempting to stir things up.

We can't judge because we have no real context other than the photo, which shows ANOTHER police officer looking on and also taking no immediate action. This suggests that the officers did not fear imminent violence, nor were they INVOLVED IN a violent attempt to resist arrest, and therefore they had, up until the instant the photo was taken, no reason to believe that the armed individual posed an imminent threat to anyone. The officer's stance suggests that he was attempting to defuse the situation without the use of physical force.

However, for the armed individual to put his hand on his gun like that was incredibly stupid and could easily and justifiably gotten him shot dead on the spot.

So, your intimation that the guy would have been shot if he'd been black and didn't only because he is white is just more racist bilge.

In a previous situation a major newsmagazine published a close-up picture of a person carrying a rifle at a conservative political rally with the intent to suggest that only white guys carry guns at political rallys. But clever editing deliberately elided the fact that the individual involved was actually a black man who didn't, contrary to your assertion, get shot on sight just because he was openly carrying a firearm.

[Seth]

I'm wondering what Seth thinks about the other shooting, of the guy in the car complying with a request to show identification. If there was some justification for shooting the guy on the ground, who may well have been reaching for his gun, there seems to be none in the car shooting...

But "he may well have been reaching for his gun" is all the justification one needs.

Yes, normally it would be, but the evidence in hand suggests that the man killed had informed the officer he was armed and had a permit and had been told to produce it by the cop, who, it appears at this point, overreacted and shot the man as he moved to comply. This is a problem for any legally armed person that they have to consider, which is why I said I would NEVER reach for my permit when being held at gunpoint by the police. I HAVE done so when contacted by the police under different circumstances where the officer has not drawn his gun, but I'm very, very careful about it, move very slowly and clear every move with the officer.

The question I have is why did the officer have his gun out in the first place? He stopped the vehicle for a minor traffic infraction, which in and of itself DOES NOT justify pointing a weapon at someone (felony menacing if done without lawful authority), so I wonder what happened PRIOR to the shooting that might have set the officer on edge to the point where he felt it necessary to pull his gun...such as vocal resistance and belligerence from the occupants of the vehicle (which seems unlikely in this situation) or some other information he had at the time he drew his gun.

If he drew his gun merely because the occupants of the vehicle were black then he needs to go to jail for manslaughter at the least.

[laklak]

Yep, the guy in the picture is a stupid douchebag no matter what the circumstances. I'm most definitely NOT a supporter of open carry in general, too many chances for a simple misunderstanding to escalate into a clusterfuck of lethal proportions. Besides, the reason concealed carry works is you don't know who is armed.

[Brian Peacock]

Hmm. Interesting to hear Seth's views on the Philando Castile killing by officers who watched him die without offering aid after shooting him four times at close range with two others in the car, one of whom was a minor. However, I suspect the ultimate conclusion will go something like...

[laklak]

See his post above mine.

[Brian Peacock]

I did. But it looks very much like shooting someone who later turns out to be a bad black man is OK while shooting someone who later turns out to be a good black man is problematic. One wonders how much effort The Lone Voice Of Reason would put into justifying the shooting of Philando Castile if he later turned out to be one of those bad black man - and one might also be forgiven for thinking that as far as some police officers are concerned there isn't any other type of black man I'm not really picking Seth's scabs here (well, no much), but the whole shoot first and sort out the rights-and-wrongs afterwards approach is failing the wider community and police officers alike, and this is just the latest in a long line of high-profile killings where white authority figures are excused--and even comforted--for shooting unarmed black men and boys. And while this has been going on a long time there seems to be a general up-scaling of aggression and fear on both side since the Trayvon Martin shambles.