1 minute ago, Kilyin said:

 

Naw, shooting someone five times is shooting to kill. There's really no other outcome in that scenario.

 

Exactly stopping the threat. You shoot until the threat is down then you reassess the situation. If the subject no longer poses a threat then you render aid to the suspect or other officers. A deadly force encounter is not shoot to wound someone its shoot until there is no longer a threat.

1 minute ago, Mags said:

 

Exactly stopping the threat. You shoot until the threat is down then you reassess the situation. If the subject no longer poses a threat then you render aid to the suspect or other officers. A deadly force encounter is not shoot to wound someone its shoot until there is no longer a threat.

 

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. Sounds like homeboy was probably better suited to be a mall security guard, not a police officer.

51 minutes ago, Mags said:

 

Exactly stopping the threat. You shoot until the threat is down then you reassess the situation. If the subject no longer poses a threat then you render aid to the suspect or other officers. A deadly force encounter is not shoot to wound someone its shoot until there is no longer a threat.

This. Seems as though everyone forgets this right here. When shots are fired by an officer, it's game over. There are no more chances. You're done for, and you probably deserve it. Rest in pieces.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

Real life ain't like the movies. You shoot until the threat stops. If it takes more than one bullet, so be it.

 

People react in all kinds of different ways when they are shot, and the physiological and psychological processes the shooter goes through must be taken in account as well. Read up on the OODA loop.

 

I figured the officers would be no-billed.

6 hours ago, Mags said:

UPDATE!!!! Oklahoma DA won't charge officer in deaf man's killing.

 

 

I rest my case

 

 

 

 

 

Good 'ol American police officers doing what they do best, shooting people and getting away with it.

 

5 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

This. Seems as though everyone forgets this right here. When shots are fired by an officer, it's game over. There are no more chances. You're done for, and you probably deserve it. Rest in pieces.

 

This was a deaf and mute guy, and you're saying he probably deserved it?  Christ, this country is in even worse condition that I thought.

 

I'm done with the idiocy that is this topic, and I'm done defending police officers.  I was on their side, but more and more this bullshit happens and they aren't held accountable.  I'm someone of special needs, and it never ceases to blow my mind how YOU have zero empathy or care for anyone with special needs.  This guy had a metal pipe for COMMUNICATION, not as a weapon.  Cops have become true gunslingers, and this case not only helps show that, but it helps show just how stupid America is when it comes to people with special needs.  Growing up I was bullied a lot and went through so much shit.  I thought as I got older and time passed that we'd be more understanding and know the signs.  NOPE!  Good 'ol HOME OF THE BRAVE is still as ignorant as ever.

You certainly must know far more details than the Prosecutors Office that investigated the case, or must of been there, because you apparently know more than what has been released to the public, too be making all these broad generalizations and to be able to discern the motives and actions of all involved.

3 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

 

I'm done with the idiocy that is this topic, and I'm done defending police officers.  I was on their side, but more and more this bullshit happens and they aren't held accountable.  

C'mon... A few of them them make mistakes so you decide to blame them all? 

 

The story is utterly disgusting however. As far as stopping the threat... There're certain options.

 

 

 

Typical example of why people think police officers are somehow above the laws and can do whatever they want to people, including shooting down a poor guy who had done absolutely nothing.

9 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Good 'ol American police officers doing what they do best, shooting people and getting away with it.

 

 

This was a deaf and mute guy, and you're saying he probably deserved it?  Christ, this country is in even worse condition that I thought.

 

I'm done with the idiocy that is this topic, and I'm done defending police officers.  I was on their side, but more and more this bullshit happens and they aren't held accountable.  I'm someone of special needs, and it never ceases to blow my mind how YOU have zero empathy or care for anyone with special needs.  This guy had a metal pipe for COMMUNICATION, not as a weapon.  Cops have become true gunslingers, and this case not only helps show that, but it helps show just how stupid America is when it comes to people with special needs.  Growing up I was bullied a lot and went through so much shit.  I thought as I got older and time passed that we'd be more understanding and know the signs.  NOPE!  Good 'ol HOME OF THE BRAVE is still as ignorant as ever.

Well, if you're down with reacting out of anger and you're support of law enforcement has ceased, you have that right. Just know that American support for police is continuing to rise regardless, and you're in the very minority that somehow don't support the men and women that keep you safe at night. I'll provide the links and statistics if you like, just let me know. 

 

In defense of law enforcement, officers have no way of knowing if you have any sort of mental disability or even physical disability. What are the chances that officers are dealing with someone that's pretending to be mentally challenged? Has it happened before in this country? Does it still happen? How would officers know that someone is deaf or mute? They probably deal with plenty of individuals that pretend not to be able to hear or comprehend. Picking up the pipe was a terrible decision regardless, because now officers see that as a potential weapon. Sorry man, but if I'm an officer I'm going home to my family, mentally disabled or not. I'll still continue to wear my Blue Lives Matter bracelet and thank every officer I see. Because America supports its police.  

4 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Typical example of why people think police officers are somehow above the laws and can do whatever they want to people, including shooting down a poor guy who had done absolutely nothing.

People don't think that police officers are above the law. If they did, police wouldn't have some of the highest approval ratings of all time in this country. 

15 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

People don't think that police officers are above the law. If they did, police wouldn't have some of the highest approval ratings of all time in this country. 

 

Pretty sure those approval ratings are going to GREATLY vary depending on the department, the location and the population asked. Like, for example, between a rich neighborhood, and a poor neighborhood. Approval ratings, like many stats, can be interpreted differently to serve an agenda. Either way.

 

The point is, the man, Mr Sanchez, wasn't a threat. Never had been. The shooting wasn't justified. And never will be. The officer just happens to have the convenient invisible police armor that protects with from prosecution even though he KILLED a man for no valid reason, which makes him a murderer. Next time there are protests against police officers, remember this case, it'll give you an idea why people might have the urge to protest against the police.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Hystery

53 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Pretty sure those approval ratings are going to GREATLY vary depending on the department, the location and the population asked. Like, for example, between a rich neighborhood, and a poor neighborhood. Approval ratings, like many stats, can be interpreted differently to serve an agenda. Either way.

 

The point is, the man, Mr Sanchez, wasn't a threat. Never had been. The shooting wasn't justified. And never will be. The officer just happens to have the convenient invisible police armor that protects with from prosecution even though he KILLED a man for no valid reason, which makes him a murderer. Next time there are protests against police officers, remember this case, it'll give you an idea why people might have the urge to protest against the police.

I understand what you're saying, but according to Gallup, they don't really vary at all. Most whites and non-whites support the Police, and statistically speaking, poor neighborhoods are more likely to be majority non-white. Doesn't matter what their political party is, political belief, age, demographic, or region of the country. A majority of every group that fall within these categories support the police, though some majorities are notably larger than others. So like I said, America supports its police. 

 

As as far as the topic of discussion goes, I'm not saying that the police are always right. Because they aren't. I'm just saying that in this particular case, there were too many uncertainties and variables. It's a shame that a man lost his life, but tough world. In a country where people would put nails into doughnuts and bring them into a police station, can never be too careful. 

I don't agree with every single shooting a good majority are bad, but a good majority are legal and justified based on law. No officer ever wants to be put in these situations. In this case its unfortunate for both sides, but the man had a weapon.

 

 

In reply to that. A lot of people have never been in these types of situations ever. lawyers, and the public sometimes take days and weeks judging an incident that a human had to make a split second decision on.  Everyone has a right to have there own opinion, but at the same time until you have been put in one of these situations your opinion is invalid. 

 

There is no reason for anyone to hold a long metal pipe when walking towards the police what so ever. Yes the man was deaf, but he could see weapons pointed at him.

 

So my question to everyone is the guy kept walking towards the officers with a pipe. The guy then gets to one of the officers and starts striking him in the head with a pipe then what do we do at that point? Now we have an officer knocked out from a pipe now what do they need to do?  And no the other officers can't shoot because they are worried about hitting that other officer with a bullet. 

 

 

Everyone wants to say what should've happened, but no one has been put into that situation.  For instance people say you should have tased him? Ok what if the taser was ineffective now the guy is even closer to me with a pipe. Or what if the guy had a heart condition, and died from the taser. Then people would have been like oh you didn't have to tase him.. So its  a lose lose situation. I guess police are supposed to not do anything, and just leave? I don't know . Society watches a lot of NCIS, lethal weapon etc. this stuff on tv is no where close to reality.

5 hours ago, Mags said:

So my question to everyone is the guy kept walking towards the officers with a pipe. The guy then gets to one of the officers and starts striking him in the head with a pipe then what do we do at that point? Now we have an officer knocked out from a pipe now what do they need to do?  And no the other officers can't shoot because they are worried about hitting that other officer with a bullet. 

I'll answer that for them. They'll say that it's what the officer signed up for because he/she knew the risks when they joined. 

TASER.

 

The lieutenant on scene had his taser out. The sergeant pulled out his gun instead. Would he have used a taser first and THEN a gun if it failed, the innocent man would still be alive today. That officer is just a trigger-happy cowboy without a doubt. 

30 minutes ago, Hystery said:

TASER.

 

The lieutenant on scene had his taser out. The sergeant pulled out his gun instead. Would he have used a taser first and THEN a gun if it failed, the innocent man would still be alive today. That officer is just a trigger-happy cowboy without a doubt. 

What if he had heart problems, and died due to the taser? 

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

TASER.

 

The lieutenant on scene had his taser out. The sergeant pulled out his gun instead. Would he have used a taser first and THEN a gun if it failed, the innocent man would still be alive today. That officer is just a trigger-happy cowboy without a doubt. 

Please elaborate to the class on what exactly a taser failure is. The purpose of the taser, to my understanding, is to demobilize the suspect and make them easier to detain. If the taser fails—wouldn't a taser failure imply that it's too late for any other alternative at that point? If the taser failed and officers are now required to resort to lethality, wouldn't it already be too late? An officer is already either hurt or killed at that point because the inefficiency of the taser resulted in a lethal solution. By that time–someone's already hurt. 

 

Lol funny how everyone always scatters when numbers are pulled. I wish bug spray worked as well as facts did. 

Edited December 11, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

Less-lethal weapons should only be used in high-risk situations when lethal cover is available to the deploying officer.

 

I've seen tasers fail just as many times as successful deployments.

6 hours ago, Mags said:

What if he had heart problems, and died due to the taser? 

 

What if he had a bulletproof vest under his shirt? What if he was on drugs and the bullets shot at him didn't have much effects? Doesn't make sense to make suppositions like this. If he had heard problems and died due to the taser, then it'd have been an accident, not a damn execution. If you happen to use a taser and the victim dies from it, it's bad luck. If you happen to discharge your gun against someone who wasn't a threat (with many witnesses literally screaming the guy was deaf and thus couldn't hear the police officers' commands), you're a murderer and shouldn't be a police officer.

 

6 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

wouldn't a taser failure imply that it's too late for any other alternative at that point?

 

No, it wouldn't. Let's take this particular case here. Mr Sanchez waves his pipe around himself (and not towards the officers, so if they analyze this as a threat to them then maybe it's already a hint they're too much of a scaredy cat and shouldn't be an officer), the lieutenant already on scene has his taser out. The sergeant comes in, and pulls out his gun. Fair enough. Then his role should have been to WAIT for the taser to be used, and then if no effect on the man was seen, he could have discharged his weapon, would Mr Sanchez have happened to be a threat (even though he wasn't, he was a bloody deaf guy like you and me for fuck sake). Especially when considering he was the lower officer in ranks there and had no authority to make such a call.

 

It's the principle of trying to:

1/ Defuse the situation

2/ If situation cannot be defused, trying to take the suspect in custody

3/ If suspect resists, using non-lethal meanings to get him in custody

4/ If suspect resists still and shows to be an actual threat (because nowadays, officers would feel life threatened just if someone yelled at them), then use lethal weapons to get him down.

 

Cops aren't here to shoot around and take down bad guys. They're supposed to be here to defuse situations and try to keep everyone alive. Yes, even criminals, I know it might sound surprising, but technically, their objective is to bring the criminals in alive so they can be judged and punished according to the crimes they commited. Not to execute them as if we turned back in time to the wild west.

 

6 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Lol funny how everyone always scatters when numbers are pulled. I wish bug spray worked as well as facts did. 

 

That's a really delusional assumption to make.

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

What if he had a bulletproof vest under his shirt? What if he was on drugs and the bullets shot at him didn't have much effects? Doesn't make sense to make suppositions like this. If he had heard problems and died due to the taser, then it'd have been an accident, not a damn execution. If you happen to use a taser and the victim dies from it, it's bad luck. If you happen to discharge your gun against someone who wasn't a threat (with many witnesses literally screaming the guy was deaf and thus couldn't hear the police officers' commands), you're a murderer and shouldn't be a police officer.

 

 

No, it wouldn't. Let's take this particular case here. Mr Sanchez waves his pipe around himself (and not towards the officers, so if they analyze this as a threat to them then maybe it's already a hint they're too much of a scaredy cat and shouldn't be an officer), the lieutenant already on scene has his taser out. The sergeant comes in, and pulls out his gun. Fair enough. Then his role should have been to WAIT for the taser to be used, and then if no effect on the man was seen, he could have discharged his weapon, would Mr Sanchez have happened to be a threat (even though he wasn't, he was a bloody deaf guy like you and me for fuck sake). Especially when considering he was the lower officer in ranks there and had no authority to make such a call.

 

It's the principle of trying to:

1/ Defuse the situation

2/ If situation cannot be defused, trying to take the suspect in custody

3/ If suspect resists, using non-lethal meanings to get him in custody

4/ If suspect resists still and shows to be an actual threat (because nowadays, officers would feel life threatened just if someone yelled at them), then use lethal weapons to get him down.

 

Cops aren't here to shoot around and take down bad guys. They're supposed to be here to defuse situations and try to keep everyone alive. Yes, even criminals, I know it might sound surprising, but technically, their objective is to bring the criminals in alive so they can be judged and punished according to the crimes they commited. Not to execute them as if we turned back in time to the wild west.

 

 

 

8

But here's the catch to all of this: You and I have no idea what would have transpired. Who's to say he wouldn't have charged at the officers? It seems unlikely but we don't know this man, and neither did the officers. He was holding a metal pipe. He was already a threat, whether he was deaf or not. Being deaf does not exclude you from the law. Anyone with half a brain should know that waving around a metal pipe at officers pointing weapons at you is the wrong answer, deaf or not. If I were him, I would have stayed exactly where I was (and probably got tackled or tasered).

 

From a personal perspective, I could care less about the welfare of a criminal. In my book, if the criminal is the only one that's hurt, it's a win. The victim is fine, the officer is fine, the public is fine, I see that as a good outcome. That may not necessarily be the case from a legal standpoint or even the officer's standpoint, but as a citizen, I see it as a win. As I've said numerous times, most Americans evidently agree with me on that considering the rising approval ratings of police everywhere in the country.

 

Quote

That's a really delusional assumption to make.

It's an evidential assumption to make. When someone presents an argument and they get no rebuttal, the implication is that the individual had nothing to defend with. A lot of times it just turns into ad hominem, and that's when the fun truly begins.

 

Edited December 11, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

I don't get it, really.

 

A police officer has a lot of tools at his or her disposal. A gun (a sidearm and/or an assault rifle), a Taser, a baton. handcuffs and, of course, his own body and mind. All these items are there for a reason. The reason is to help the said officer to subdue and arrest uncooperative people. The reason there's not only the gun is because the level of threat may and does vary in different situations.

 

Yes, there was a pipe and he was walking towards the cops. Who knows that could have happened?

 

He might have attacked the officers, yes. He might have thrown the pipe at them and run away. He might have worn a suicide vest or be an invulnerable cyborg.

 

My point is that EVERY ordinary situation might escalate to something potentially lethal. And I DO recognize that sometimes what looks like a cold heart murder is that was necessary and even for the best of everyone. I actually was involved in a similar situation though thanks God not as a police officer (or the dead guy lol).

 

In this case I can't see any suggestions for that, though. All I see is mays and mights. Yes, he might have been a threat. So maybe a preemptive air strike would have been a good measure? This is an exaggeration, of course, but this logic can bring us very far, because you can't be too careful, right?