- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,733
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- here
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Sheriff’s officials said Thompson was unarmed but did not follow deputies’ orders when they found him and may have reached for his waistband as he ran toward an armored vehicle. Deputies used less-lethal weapons as they tried to subdue him, but Thompson was shot when he charged toward them, officials said.
Man shot to death by L.A. County deputy was not a carjacking suspect, officials say
Obey or die. This needs to stop.
No one will be jailed over this. But protocols have to change. No more justifying deadly force based on the flawed perceptions of officers. These incidents give good cops a bad name and make ethical police work more difficult.
Man shot to death by L.A. County deputy was not a carjacking suspect, officials say
Obey or die. This needs to stop.
No one will be jailed over this. But protocols have to change. No more justifying deadly force based on the flawed perceptions of officers. These incidents give good cops a bad name and make ethical police work more difficult.
Why on earth would anyone charge toward police officers? You KNOW they will take you down.
We'll never know why he ran, because he's dead now. He was an unarmed, mentally handicapped man lying on a lawn. The police were inside an armored vehicle and had fired non-lethal projectiles at him. No doubt, he was running blindly, terrified for his life. That tends to happen when a military force descends on you without provocation. The inescapable fact is, this guy presented no credible threat to the police.
Like I said in the OP, protocols have to change — and soon. "Shoot first, ask questions later" doesn't cut it.
What protocols need to be changed that would've changed what happened here?
First, we change the standard for culpability. Justification for shootings should be based on the factual evidence in a case and not on the perceptions or mental state of the officer. Police should have to justify every bullet they fire based on an ACUTAL and not just perceived threat.
We need clear-cut guidelines on the deployment of armored vehicles and SWAT-style forces.
We need greater training emphasizing deescalation and empathy and not just officer safety.
And we need accountability when the wrong man gets gunned down.
How do THEY know he's no threat?
Well, for one, they are sitting inside a tank with full body armor and military-grade weaponry, and he was a guy with no weapons at all.
The police showed up with a friggin tank to a report of a guy lying on the wrong lawn and started pelting him with non-lethal bullets. Their actions provoked this incident.
Had they just calmly walked up and spoken to him, no one would have been harmed. Had they let him go, no one would have been harmed. Had they let him pound his fists on the side of the tank, no one would have been harmed.
Do you really believe they had to shoot him? Because THAT should be the standard: "I had no other choice." Anything less than that is unacceptable in a free society.
First, we change the standard for culpability. Justification for shootings should be based on the factual evidence in a case and not on the perceptions or mental state of the officer. Police should have to justify every bullet they fire based on an ACUTAL and not just perceived threat.
We need clear-cut guidelines on the deployment of armored vehicles and SWAT-style forces.
We need greater training emphasizing deescalation and empathy and not just officer safety.
And we need accountability when the wrong man gets gunned down.
It has to be perceived threat, since demanding an actual threat puts officers into the position of having to allow a potential threat to continue just because they aren't 100% sure that the gun the perp. is waving around isn't a realistic toy.
"Why didn't you shoot that guy who pointing his gun at my daughter and threatening to shoot her?"
"Because I wasn't 100% sure that the gun was real, that it was loaded and that he was serious about his threat."
Charging at police officers IS an actual threat.
Like what?
De-escalation, for sure. Empathy?
What accountability do you want?
We'll never know why he ran, because he's dead now. He was an unarmed, mentally handicapped man lying on a lawn. The police were inside an armored vehicle and had fired non-lethal projectiles at him. No doubt, he was running blindly, terrified for his life. That tends to happen when a military force descends on you without provocation. The inescapable fact is, this guy presented no credible threat to the police.
Like I said in the OP, protocols have to change — and soon. "Shoot first, ask questions later" doesn't cut it.
So they knew he had no weapons? If they were in an armored vehicle, I see no reason to shoot.
Except the police officer wouldn't have a chance to explain why he didn't shoot because he's probably be dead.
It has to be perceived threat, since demanding an actual threat puts officers into the position of having to allow a potential threat to continue just because they aren't 100% sure that the gun the perp. is waving around isn't a realistic toy.
"Why didn't you shoot that guy who pointing his gun at my daughter and threatening to shoot her?"
"Because I wasn't 100% sure that the gun was real, that it was loaded and that he was serious about his threat."
An unarmed man is not a threat to a tank.
As for accountability, if you shoot an unarmed man based on mistaken identity, your career is over. Go become a carpenter.
This case doesn't seem to rise to the level of criminality, but if I were this guy's family member, I would want justice.
After he shoots your daughter, then he knows that the threat is real and then he can shoot the perp.
Anyone can have a weapon. Having a weapon is legal. Let's not create a standard where police are allowed to shoot anyone at any time because they MIGHT be armed.
Again --- put yourself in the police officers' position and not thinking in hindsight ---- how do you know someone ISN'T armed?
That's not a reason to shoot ---- there has to be a threat. Charging at a police officer is a threat, no? i.e. Michael Brown
Responding with force to someone pointing a weapon — even a replica — at another who is in distress is much different than "he might have reached toward his waistband."
Well in this case, a man with no criminal record is dead. That OK because someone's hypothetical daughter could be shot in an imagined scenario. What should be done about this very real use of deadly force on an innocent?
So where do you draw the line between threat and potential threat?? Does the officer have to wait until he sees a gun in the perp's hand before he shoots? That's the problem with the idea of "actual threat", you have to define it terms that can be applied in the second between "reaching for his waistband" and "pulling out his gun".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?