No charges for Missouri cop who shot unarmed teenager

[Tannedbaldhead]

This is a bad example of poor police practice in that the kid was carrying what an officer could quite justifiably consider to be a firearm.

That said, if you are signed on to newsfeeds like Huffington Post, The Young Turks and Raw News you will see on a near daily basis unjustifiable shootings of unarmed civilians on a near daily basis. You will also see savage beatings for being deaf and not responding to police commands, wearing headphones whilst jogging and not responding to an order to halt, ignoring a command to tuck in your shirt tail. Cops arrest and arrest hard fire crews and ambulance crews far defying police commands whilst carrying out there own more important lifesaving duties. Cops are also very good a shooting unagressive looking dogs whilst searching the wrong house or garden. (Wait till you hear this. If they do shoot your dog they also feel justified in telling you if you so much as look at an officer the wrong way you'll get shot youself. Heard a chief of police pontificate along the lines of "Yeah it seems harsh but you shoot a guys dog he gonna be sore. When everyone has a gun I'm not gonna tollerate someone being that sore at police officers. Yeah we shot his dog, yeah he has no criminal record. But the safety of my officers is paramount and that man needs to know where he stands".

Something is very wrong over there.

[Matt Harper]

Tannedbaldhead said:

This is a bad example of poor police practice in that the kid was carrying what an officer could quite justifiably consider to be a firearm.

Wrong thread, McSharpton.

[Tannedbaldhead]

Matt Harper said:

Tannedbaldhead said:

This is a bad example of poor police practice in that the kid was carrying what an officer could quite justifiably consider to be a firearm.

Wrong thread, McSharpton.

Oops, this isnt the small kid shot for the toy gun this is the big big kid who threatened a highly trained officer armed with a baton, taser and mace to provide a proportionate response to threat rather than several shots to the torso, neck and chest? I stand corrected. That said, he was a scary big assed big kid and like the 12 year old with a toy gun not the best example of an unjustified killing of an unarmed civilian by a US law inforcement officer. Everything else I said however still stands true.

[XCP]

I think some parts of eastern Europe are at least as overtly racist as the US.

[AreOut]

White teen killed by black cop in Alabama mirrors Ferguson

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/wh...

why no riots over this? I do understand that person on LSD was very annoying to the cop(or anyone) but that's not the reason to kill him ffs.

[Tannedbaldhead]

AreOut said:

White teen killed by black cop in Alabama mirrors Ferguson

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/wh...

why no riots over this? I do understand that person on LSD was very annoying to the cop(or anyone) but that's not the reason to kill him ffs.

Guy was naked. How can someone confronting a naked man have a first resonse of drawing a gun on him. Where's the concealed weapon? up his ass? Why couldn't the officer use his baton, mace or taser? It's not a race issue it's an armed police shooting unarmed civilian issue.

[anonymous-user]

Tannedbaldhead said:

Oops, this isnt the small kid shot for the toy gun this is the big big kid who threatened a highly trained officer armed with a baton, taser and mace to provide a proportionate response to threat rather than several shots to the torso, neck and chest? I stand corrected. That said, he was a scary big assed big kid and like the 12 year old with a toy gun not the best example of an unjustified killing of an unarmed civilian by a US law inforcement officer. Everything else I said however still stands true.

AreOut said:

White teen killed by black cop in Alabama mirrors Ferguson

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/wh...

why no riots over this? I do understand that person on LSD was very annoying to the cop(or anyone) but that's not the reason to kill him ffs.

Yet juries, who had the full facts and are positioned better to make a judgement than say, people on a forum, concluded there were no case to answer. In both cases.

[Jasandjules]

I do feel this thread title should be changed to "No charges for cop who shot unarmed bloke who was attacking him"

[Tannedbaldhead]

La Liga said:

Tannedbaldhead said:

Oops, this isnt the small kid shot for the toy gun this is the big big kid who threatened a highly trained officer armed with a baton, taser and mace to provide a proportionate response to threat rather than several shots to the torso, neck and chest? I stand corrected. That said, he was a scary big assed big kid and like the 12 year old with a toy gun not the best example of an unjustified killing of an unarmed civilian by a US law inforcement officer. Everything else I said however still stands true.

AreOut said:

White teen killed by black cop in Alabama mirrors Ferguson

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/wh...

why no riots over this? I do understand that person on LSD was very annoying to the cop(or anyone) but that's not the reason to kill him ffs.

Yet juries, who had the full facts and are positioned better to make a judgement than say, people on a forum, concluded there were no case to answer. In both cases.

Imagine if in Scotland an ARV turned up at Stirling Uni for a spaced-out naked druggie student on campus who for reasons best known to himself had decided he was a were-wolf and started biting inocent passers by. Now imagine the armed officers confront the naked man and decide not to shoot him twice mid torso but fire 16 or 17 rounds from a Glock into the man's chest, neck and head. It would never happen. Our police are so much better than that. If it did happen and it made court he's be jailed. USA is a funny place.

I wouldn't trust a US jury based on some of the bullst I've read in forums and YouTube comments. Things like a deaf guy pictured with abhorant facial bruising from a police beatdown for failing to comply with instructions and then you read in response from Billy-Bob "Cops weren't to know he was deaf. He was lucky they didn't shoot him when he didn't respond". A couple of Billy-Bobs on the jury and US cops are going to kill and walk

Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Saturday 29th November 20:37

[rambo19]

When the white lawyer mark saunders was shot by police in chelsea, I don't remember gangs of white people rioting.
When jean charles de menezes was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of brazilians rioting.
When harry stanley was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of scots rioting.

It just seems to me, that whenever anything bad happens to a black person, it's always to do with their colour.
It's time for parts of the black community to stop blaming everyone else for their problems.

[Tannedbaldhead]

rambo19 said:

When the white lawyer mark saunders was shot by police in chelsea, I don't remember gangs of white people rioting.
When jean charles de menezes was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of brazilians rioting.
When harry stanley was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of scots rioting.

It just seems to me, that whenever anything bad happens to a black person, it's always to do with their colour.
It's time for parts of the black community to stop blaming everyone else for their problems.

The Lawyer was a fare shoot. As for the other two considering there were no consiquences perhaps a riot shouldn't be out of the question (should such shootings have been a more common occurence). It would be the only way the public can temper the behaviour of those who police us. I'd also like to see proper decent riots where the crowd focus like a laser on the police rather than this aquisitional nonsense where the goal of the riot is to gain a set of Nikes, an iPhone and a flat screen TV.

Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Saturday 29th November 20:58

[whoami]

Tannedbaldhead said:

The Lawyer was a fare shoot. As for the other two considering there were no consiquences perhaps a riot shouldn't be out of the question should that be the only way the public can temper the behaviour of those who police us. I'd also like to see proper decent riots where the crowd focus like a laser on the police rather than this aquisitional nonsense where the goal of the riot is to gain a set of Nikes, an iPhone and a flat screen TV.

And do what?

[anonymous-user]

Tannedbaldhead said:

Imagine if in Scotland an ARV turned up at Stirling Uni for a spaced-out naked druggie student on campus who for reasons best known to himself had decided he was a were-wolf and started biting inocent passers by.

We have completely different approaches. The Americans are "hands-off and contain", which we're "hands-on and pile on". Primarily this comes from weapon retention issues. If someone gets hold of you, they can get your gun. This isn't an issue for 99.9% of UK officers since they don't need / have one.

Was it reasonable to use a less lethal option? (I don't consider pepper spray viable from what's described) Perhaps, but without knowing everything it's not possible to say. The issue with single-crewing armed officers (I assume he was) is that 'number 2' isn't there to try the less lethal option with the lethal fail-safe.

Tannedbaldhead said:

Now imagine the armed officers confront the naked man and decide not to shoot him twice mid torso but fire 16 or 17 rounds from a Glock into the man's chest, neck and head. It would never happen.

Are you still drawing parallels with the Gilbert Collar incident? I assume not as that's not what occurred from reading the link provided.

Tannedbaldhead said:

I wouldn't trust a US jury based on some of the bullst I've read in forums and YouTube comments.

I wouldn't trust conveniently writing off US juries based on those things, either.

[Tannedbaldhead]

whoami said:

Tannedbaldhead said:

The Lawyer was a fare shoot. As for the other two considering there were no consiquences perhaps a riot shouldn't be out of the question should that be the only way the public can temper the behaviour of those who police us. I'd also like to see proper decent riots where the crowd focus like a laser on the police rather than this aquisitional nonsense where the goal of the riot is to gain a set of Nikes, an iPhone and a flat screen TV.

And do what?

Sorted it. Was on my smart phone and couldn't read all of what I was typing and it got a bit disjointed.

[Jasandjules]

Bear in mind that the officer may also have in mind that the person may well be high as a kite on goodness knows what. That means that pepper spray/tasers will have little effect. Actually, just one or two bullets may have little effect in some circumstances. Don't get me wrong, I do believe the police in the USA tend to fire off far too many rounds - at least whenever I see the camera car footage etc.. But if that IS the way they are, then surely you know absolutely not to f**k with them?

[Tannedbaldhead]

Jasandjules said:

But if that IS the way they are, then surely you know absolutely not to f**k with them?

That's the justifaction for beating deaf people, joggers wearing earphones, people with mental health problems, the guy with no criminal record but shares a name and date of birth with a wanted felon and is sick of being subjected to hard arrests and snaps, the guy who red mists cause his safely chained dog has just been shot by a lost police officer who has wandered into his yard and doesn't take kindly to being barked at.

Everybody know cops beat you' sorry ass if you don't comply therefore if you' ass gets beat it's you' own damn fault.

Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Saturday 29th November 21:46

[AreOut]

La Liga said:

et juries, who had the full facts and are positioned better to make a judgement than say, people on a forum, concluded there were no case to answer. In both cases.

the problem is they work for the same company as those policemen

[Murph7355]

Tannedbaldhead said:

That's the justifaction for beating deaf people, joggers wearing earphones, people with mental health problems, the guy with no criminal record but shares a name and date of birth with a wanted felon and is sick of being subjected to hard arrests and snaps, the guy who red mists cause his safely chained dog has just been shot by a lost police officer who has wandered into his yard and doesn't take kindly to being barked at.

Everybody know cops beat you' sorry ass if you don't comply therefore if you' ass gets beat it's you' own damn fault.

Out of genuine interest, out of all interventions the police have to make in the US, how many fall into the categories you note?

It strikes me as being pretty easy to suggest they should be perfect from the comfort of one's armchair. Which isn't to suggest better standards aren't worth striving for...but a sense of perspective can too often go out of the window.

What's your stance on the specific topic of this thread? Shooting justified? Rioting justified?

[Tannedbaldhead]

Murph7355 said:

Tannedbaldhead said:

That's the justifaction for beating deaf people, joggers wearing earphones, people with mental health problems, the guy with no criminal record but shares a name and date of birth with a wanted felon and is sick of being subjected to hard arrests and snaps, the guy who red mists cause his safely chained dog has just been shot by a lost police officer who has wandered into his yard and doesn't take kindly to being barked at.

Everybody know cops beat you' sorry ass if you don't comply therefore if you' ass gets beat it's you' own damn fault.

Out of genuine interest, out of all interventions the police have to make in the US, how many fall into the categories you note?


It strikes me as being pretty easy to suggest they should be perfect from the comfort of one's armchair. Which isn't to suggest better standards aren't worth striving for...but a sense of perspective can too often go out of the window.

What's your stance on the specific topic of this thread? Shooting justified? Rioting justified?

Shooting probably justified. If someone that size was about to thump me and I had a gun in my hand it may well end up going bang. Question is whether regardless of it being justified or not are there tactics and methodology (two man crews, better self defence training, a different tone of engagement etc) where shootings like this can be avoided?

Rioting? Justified? I couldn't comfortably say that. What I can say is that from the perspective of the communities subjected to a confrontational approach from police and who's members are taking a lot of beatings and shootings it serves a purpose. It raises the public profile and makes the political class uncomfortable. Should it result in a different Policing approach, different training, different tactics, a less confrontational tone of engagement then justified or not, from the perpective of the communities suffering poor policing, rioting works.

As to your question regarding how many police engagements are of this confrontational nature you need to be aware many USPDs have recruit from services policies and new starts are trained as such https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3NlnBixyqE . I wonder how many of our own BiBs look upon the interactions these rookies are having with the Full Metal Jacket wanabe drill sergeants as good training for interaction with the general public? When you see how modern US cops are conditioned it's no surprise to see where their "don't you eyeball me boy" term of initial engagement and lack of sensitivity comes from. It's not bad apples. It's systemic.

[Matt Harper]

Tannedbaldhead said:

Shooting probably justified. If someone that size was about to thump me and I had a gun in my hand it may well end up going bang. Question is whether regardless of it being justified or not are there tactics and methodology (two man crews, better self defence training, a different tone of engagement etc) where shootings like this can be avoided?

Rioting? Justified? I couldn't comfortably say that. What I can say is that from the perspective of the communities subjected to a confrontational approach from police and who's members are taking a lot of beatings and shootings it serves a purpose. It raises the public profile and makes the political class uncomfortable. Should it result in a different Policing approach, different training, different tactics, a less confrontational tone of engagement then justified or not, from the perpective of the communities suffering poor policing, rioting works.

As to your question regarding how many police engagements are of this confrontational nature you need to be aware many USPDs have recruit from services policies and new starts are trained as such https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3NlnBixyqE . I wonder how many of our own BiBs look upon the interactions these rookies are having with the Full Metal Jacket wanabe drill sergeants as good training for interaction with the general public? When you see how modern US cops are conditioned it's no surprise to see where their "don't you eyeball me boy" term of initial engagement and lack of sensitivity comes from. It's not bad apples. It's systemic.

Pretty much all of this demonstrates that you haven't the faintest idea what you are writing about. You clearly watch far too much TV and have become some kind of self-proclaimed authority on policing matters in a country you have zero understanding/experience of.

You are entitled to your opinion - misguided as it may be, but the prescriptive nature of the rubbish you have written here makes you appear to be a bit of a dick. The Met Police training academy at Hendon, (which my daughter attended vs watched on TV) is rather similar to the video clip you posted above.

Educate yourself before telling us all how it is in the US please.