or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 400

post #5986 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by AldenPyle View Post

Yeah, even assuming that she knew he was on PCP which seems very plausible, he never even reached inside his car. Shooting him on the grounds that he might have been about to reach in his car where there might be a gun, seems unreasonable.

That said, if I was a judge, I would probably be as lenient as possible, unless there are other circumstances.

I don't think you and the rest understand the point of my comment. The guy turned out to be on PCP, or at least he almost certainly turned out to be on it (I don't know if anybody's seen toxicology reports, whether it can be tested reliably, whatever). PCP makes people do nonsensical, crazy things. It makes them aggressive and paranoid. He could have said or done anything, or she could say he did, and it would be believable. If, for example, he'd said something like "I am going to get my gun and shoot you" before he reached into the car, it puts his actions into a different context.
post #5987 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Guilty until proven innocent.

There's nothing to say drugs were never at the very house you're living in. Civil forfeiture?

It's like talking to a stone wall. There's been a lengthy discussion of what probable cause means, and it's not "guilty until proven innocent." Did you not read it?
post #5988 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I don't think you and the rest understand the point of my comment. The guy turned out to be on PCP, or at least he almost certainly turned out to be on it (I don't know if anybody's seen toxicology reports, whether it can be tested reliably, whatever). PCP makes people do nonsensical, crazy things. It makes them aggressive and paranoid. He could have said or done anything, or she could say he did, and it would be believable. If, for example, he'd said something like "I am going to get my gun and shoot you" before he reached into the car, it puts his actions into a different context.

It only puts his actions "into a different context" on a post hoc basis and certainly could not have been part of the killing officer's decision as she had no way to know. As most people will swallow the bilge of a post hoc justification in this situation it is however a highly effective excuse for the killing for the willing to believe.
post #5989 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It's like talking to a stone wall. There's been a lengthy discussion of what probable cause means, and it's not "guilty until proven innocent." Did you not read it?

I'm saying I basically think cops tend to be liars in certain circumstances and PC is just manufactured a material portion of the time.
post #5990 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

It only puts his actions "into a different context" on a post hoc basis and certainly could not have been part of the killing officer's decision as she had no way to know. As most people will swallow the bilge of a post hoc justification in this situation it is however a highly effective excuse for the killing for the willing to believe.

First of all, the 911 caller (callers? I don't remember), said he appeared to be drugged out of his mind. Apparently it wasn't hard to tell.

But, again, the point is not whether she knew he was on drugs or not. It's that him being on drugs makes it more likely that he did or said irrational, paranoid, aggressive things. The sort of things that can give a police officer cause to shoot you when you're reaching into your car.
post #5991 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I don't think you and the rest understand the point of my comment. The guy turned out to be on PCP, or at least he almost certainly turned out to be on it (I don't know if anybody's seen toxicology reports, whether it can be tested reliably, whatever). PCP makes people do nonsensical, crazy things. It makes them aggressive and paranoid. He could have said or done anything, or she could say he did, and it would be believable. If, for example, he'd said something like "I am going to get my gun and shoot you" before he reached into the car, it puts his actions into a different context.

Obviously, PCP makes people behave irrationally and makes them potentially violent. If she had shot some random law-abiding citizens for putting their hands near a car window, she would be convicted for murder not manslaughter.

I concede my opinion does not take into account hypothetical flights of fancy. If those become relevant, I may reconsider.
post #5992 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

If, for example, he'd said something like "I am going to get my gun and shoot you" before he reached into the car, it puts his actions into a different context.

I don't think anyone would disagree... but it doesn't prove anything either
post #5993 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

If, for example, he'd said something like "I am going to get my gun and shoot you" before he reached into the car, it puts his actions into a different context.

You seem to forget she was temporarily deaf and could not even hear blaring police sirens. Anything he said therefore cannot be cause for her shooting, now can it?

Or maybe...she wasn't temporarily deaf but rather so laser focused on the perp things like blaring sirens were excluded from her sensory perception and she could hear him fart her concentration was so intense on him? Yeah, I think that's it. Gives her an excuse re: arriving backup while providing cause for shooting. I think we have the answer here.
post #5994 of 6095
"Behaving strangely" "nearing his car in potential reach of [a gun] [a pine air freshener]" "blocked traffic" "acting paranoid"...

"I experienced sensory failure and only saw this guy disobeying my commands and thus could literally not hear my four man backup feet behind me or the other squad cars ripping up with sirens blaring"

Oh OK. Was the ice cream you had for dessert the best ever that night or had your sensory disconnect worn off by then? The fuckin "Beethoven defense." Gimme a break. LD is spot-on: talk about spurious. Mizz Sheriff saw a giant scary black man not listening to her and went 0-100 and now he's dead. The crux of it is he was walking *away* from her. I could care less whether he was in reach of his car interior. Wait til he actually gets a gun out for christ's sake! *Had you not drawn and aimed already??* Similarly I could care less whether he was on PCP or not. He could have had 10% of the Peruvian GDP in his trunk and been more whacked out than Rick James on his birthday: she's still criminally moronic.
post #5995 of 6095


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/murder-is-way-up-if-youre-black/article/2603318

Don't worry guys, Obama's got this.
post #5996 of 6095
post #5997 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


I have not followed closely and maybe I'm just getting misled by semantics, but are you talking about the same thing? Or in the cases you reference are you talking about sensory loss resulting from the shooting itself?
My understanding is that the claim here is sensory loss (as Turk called it, "tunnel vision") pre-shooting presumably as a result of the generally stressful situation - which, as I understand the claim, contributed to the officer not noticing certain things that might ordinary be expected to undercut a perceived need to shoot.

 

My comment was that in stressful environments such as shootings, people claim sensory loss.  Even books written by soldiers talk about how they couldn't even hear the gun shots or noticed they were shot/hit by fragmentation.  I don't find it hard to believe that someone who has never been in a shooting claims to have sensory loss due to the high stress/adrenaline rush. 

 

That was my only comment - not whether or not the shooting was justified or anything else.

post #5998 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 

 

My comment was that in stressful environments such as shootings, people claim sensory loss.  Even books written by soldiers talk about how they couldn't even hear the gun shots or noticed they were shot/hit by fragmentation.  I don't find it hard to believe that someone who has never been in a shooting claims to have sensory loss due to the high stress/adrenaline rush. 

 

That was my only comment - not whether or not the shooting was justified or anything else.

 

There is a HUUUGE (*Trump pronunciation*) difference in having sensory loss when caught in the middle of a firefight and having sensory loss while in a quiet situation

post #5999 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post
 

 

There is a HUUUGE (*Trump pronunciation*) difference in having sensory loss when caught in the middle of a firefight and having sensory loss while in a quiet situation

 

I don't know if I agree.  A huge adrenaline rush or spike in stress can cause sensory loss or tunnel vision.  Someone who hasn't ever pointed a gun at someone may experience those things from that stress/adrenaline spike. 

post #6000 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 

 

I don't know if I agree.  A huge adrenaline rush or spike in stress can cause sensory loss or tunnel vision.  Someone who hasn't ever pointed a gun at someone may experience those things from that stress/adrenaline spike. 

 

I would think the person facing the gun barrel would have a spike in stress, not the person with the deadly weapon in control of the situation

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?