• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Phoenix police revoke guy's white privilege

There would have been major riots if this guy was black.

There may very well have, particularly given the current environment. But that is no excuse for bad police conduct and unnecessarily killing a citizen.
 
Go look through my history on the subject of use of force then get back to me with your next lame ass, passive aggressive, bull**** question.

I do know and you are pro-police generally. This isn't about pro-police or anti-police - and race of the people is irrelevant to everything - and generally always is.

The human reaction time to visual stimulation is 0.25 seconds. And that is just for the brain to react. It still has to get the signal to all the nerves to actually get their body to do anything. Nerves are actually not that fast. An Atlas rocket is faster. Figure at least 1/2 second to fire - and that is if the person is fully already prepared.

Does that mean in 0.5 seconds you can stop someone from shooting you? No, not unless you hit the exact spot on their neck or shoot the gun out of their hands.

FACT - if at any time prior to the officer firing and the guy going down, if that guy wanted to shoot the officer in front of him he could have. Likely the officers would then shoot him too, but HUMAN inherent physical delays make it impossible to stop him.

Again, having a gun in your hand in public (a hallway is a public area) is considered brandishing unless use of deadly force is justified or such as hunting, target shooting etc. POINTING the gun at a person enhances it to assault with a deadly weapon.
 
What I "claim" has nothing to do with politics...so you can put that narrative back into whatever hole it came out of.

If I answer the door with a firearm, and walk out of my door into a public setting without pointing that firearm at anyone, its hardly brandishing....Arizona is an open carry state with no requirement for a permit.

You better read you state laws again. If you walk around in a public area like this was with a pistol IN YOUR HAND that is NOT covered by open carry - depending on your police and DA.

No sane police officer would keep being police if people could walk up to them with a pistol in their hand, finger on the trigger. Once the pistol is pointed at you - it's game over for you if they want it to be.

I am BIG on self defense rights against imminent danger. This was police answering a disturbance call of someone claiming it is or will become violent - followed by a man opening the door with a pistol in his hand after informed they are the police.

Give any good reason to answer the door to police holding a handgun? Explain your theory of why every police officer is required to allow anyone to shoot them who wants to. That you can just walk up to them holding a pistol and shoot them point blank in the head - and even if they see that person coming there is nothing the police can do about it.
 
Can I take this as evidence that conservatives have finally started caring about excessive use of force by police officers? Or is it only when it's against white people?

I do not see "excessive force." I see an very stupid man who got himself shot by the police.
 
Once again we see how the "progressive" non-stop 24/7 propaganda against the police taking hold even among conservatives. Just say something over and over and over - every day and night - day after week after month - the cops are murderers - and it takes hold.

EVERY rational person knows if you surprise the police at close range with a handgun in your hand you are very likely to be shot. This has been known for a very long time.

The intellectual dishonest is predictable and extreme too. EVERY TIME the question comes up of what would you do in a school shooting situation and you happened to be there - armed - most say if you let your gun be seen you'll probably get shot by the police so don't do it.

There is NO rational reason for someone to open the door to police holding a pistol in their hand. Ever. DO NOT APPROACH POLICE HOLDING A HANDGUN. This will get you shot. Always has. Always win. People now treat police like political figures, characters, not humans. Police are not willing to die for your dehumanizing police fully willing to sacrifice them for platitudes.
 
The hallway is a public area.

Open carry of handguns is allowed with permit as long as it is in a belt or shoulder holster. Licenses granted on a Shall-Issue basis.

Drawing a handgun or having it in your hand is brandishing - unless facing an imminent serious danger - and in any dangerous situation can be considered an imminent deadly threat to others.
 
"Deserve" isn't a relevant word.

Either he should have been shot, or he shouldn't have been shot, it's not a complicated question.

If he shouldn't have been shot, then it was excessive force.
 
I don't see him kneeling at all. I see him trying to hide his pistol behind his back.

What you just wrote is that anyone with a gun can murder you or anyone else - and you can't legally do anything until after they are already shooting you or others. Once a person points a gun at you - you live or die as they decide. What you want or do is 100% irrelevant to anything. There is nothing you can do.

Hollywood cop shows are not reality when it comes to shooting. People who believe Hollywood is reality actually believe you can INSTANTANEOUSLY evaluate a situation and person, send the nerve signal thru their body, fire and shoot - all in 0.00000000000001 seconds - and then 0.000000001 seconds later the other person is dead and can't harm you.

That is before you get to the "startle" and fear factor.

Too bad police are human, huh.

That isn't what I wrote and, as I have said before, I've been in this situation as a cop more than once so I have a pretty good idea of what happened in my head. I can't speak for everyone else but the resident did not come out of the apartment in an aggressive manner and when he recognized the presence of police he first puts his gun hand behind his back in response to the cop he sees. He then starts to go to his knees and puts his free hand up in a "surrender" motion. From the perspective of the shooter's body cam you can see see that the resident is almost completely on his knees when the cop shoots and other than putting the handgun behind his body the resident doesn't make any aggressive move beyond initially hollering something that sounds like "WHAT!" as he opens the door, likely expecting to see some neighborhood PITA.

It appears that all three parties were caught off guard and all three reacted to some extent but the cop that shot didn't stop reacting to "threat" even as the other two parties began to recognize what was happening.
 
Should I make a list of the Democrats and others on this thread claiming people have a constitutionally right to walk around in public with a pistol in their hand for future reference on gun control topics?
 
Once again we see how the "progressive" non-stop 24/7 propaganda against the police taking hold even among conservatives. Just say something over and over and over - every day and night - day after week after month - the cops are murderers - and it takes hold.

EVERY rational person knows if you surprise the police at close range with a handgun in your hand you are very likely to be shot. This has been known for a very long time.

The intellectual dishonest is predictable and extreme too. EVERY TIME the question comes up of what would you do in a school shooting situation and you happened to be there - armed - most say if you let your gun be seen you'll probably get shot by the police so don't do it.

There is NO rational reason for someone to open the door to police holding a pistol in their hand. Ever. DO NOT APPROACH POLICE HOLDING A HANDGUN. This will get you shot. Always has. Always win. People now treat police like political figures, characters, not humans. Police are not willing to die for your dehumanizing police fully willing to sacrifice them for platitudes.

I don't think this guy knew that it was cops at the door. I understand that the cops announced themselves as such but that's no guarantee that the guy inside heard it or understood what was said. When he came out it looked to me as if he was looking for someone that had been harassing people in the area before.
 
That isn't what I wrote and, as I have said before, I've been in this situation as a cop more than once so I have a pretty good idea of what happened in my head. I can't speak for everyone else but the resident did not come out of the apartment in an aggressive manner and when he recognized the presence of police he first puts his gun hand behind his back in response to the cop he sees. He then starts to go to his knees and puts his free hand up in a "surrender" motion. From the perspective of the shooter's body cam you can see see that the resident is almost completely on his knees when the cop shoots and other than putting the handgun behind his body the resident doesn't make any aggressive move beyond initially hollering something that sounds like "WHAT!" as he opens the door, likely expecting to see some neighborhood PITA.

It appears that all three parties were caught off guard and all three reacted to some extent but the cop that shot didn't stop reacting to "threat" even as the other two parties began to recognize what was happening.

If only police had a device where they could stop time and review a video of what happened so far too.

I am on extended leave, but the number of times I've approached people holding firearms (long guns/shotguns) is beyond counting, generally with a revolver or pistol in a holster. Also, for a while I trained/demonstrated to police the realities of reaction time delays. Even if I told them exactly what I was going to do - giving them time to be 100% prepared, they could not stop me from taking their sidearm and "shooting" them with their own sidearm IF they went for their gun - starting at 10 feet distance. I could even count it down - 3, 2, 1.

It is just biological fact.

Sure the officer could have shouted "DROP THE GUN!" Probably would have worked.

The difference of what I would do? I do not believe in the necessity to shoot to kill. At that range (what is that, 3-4 feet maybe) if I decided to shoot I would have fired for his right shoulder and upper arm. But almost no one agrees with me about that concept. I will only kill someone is truly necessary - but am VERY quick to physically disable men.
 
Strange, I've never seen you start any discussions like this about black people shot by the police.

I don't keep tabs on threads I start versus ones I merely comment on but the comments are there. I get it, you see "conservative" and start jumping to conclusions. It's all part of the "I'm a liberal and everyone else sucks ass" mentality some of you strut around with.
 
All in all, a reason to think twice before buying a gun. Its much more likely to get you killed than to protect you.
 
There may very well have, particularly given the current environment. But that is no excuse for bad police conduct and unnecessarily killing a citizen.

Should be social workers going out on that so they can be shot, anyway.
 
If only police had a device where they could stop time and review a video of what happened so far too.

I am on extended leave, but the number of times I've approached people holding firearms (long guns/shotguns) is beyond counting, generally with a revolver or pistol in a holster. Also, for a while I trained/demonstrated to police the realities of reaction time delays. Even if I told them exactly what I was going to do - giving them time to be 100% prepared, they could not stop me from taking their sidearm and "shooting" them with their own sidearm IF they went for their gun - starting at 10 feet distance. I could even count it down - 3, 2, 1.

It is just biological fact.

Sure the officer could have shouted "DROP THE GUN!" Probably would have worked.

The difference of what I would do? I do not believe in the necessity to shoot to kill. At that range (what is that, 3-4 feet maybe) if I decided to shoot I would have fired for his right shoulder and upper arm. But almost no one agrees with me about that concept. I will only kill someone is truly necessary - but am VERY quick to physically disable men.

The whole "stop time" thing is part of the problem we have when seeing these events on video. It's why evaluating these videos in a circumspect manner is so important.

The guy in the apartment came out as if he expected to find some punk that had been screwing around. As soon as he recognized "cop" he started backing off. The cops saw "guy with a gun" and both of them reacted appropriately at the start. The cop in front of the guy realized that his "suspect" was backing off but the cop that shot seemed to have "Threat! Threat! Threat!" going off in his head and couldn't shut it off. That's a problem because if you don't recognize that a threat is changing you can make a really bad decision.
 
The filth guns down all colors of people. That's what they do. Shoot first, ask questions later.
 
I didn't claim they should be charged. Though it is reckless to point a gun at someone. This man never pointed his gun at the officer and was in the process of putting it down when he was summarily executed by the State.

Sorry if I was inaccurate about your position on the Missouri couple.
 
The whole "stop time" thing is part of the problem we have when seeing these events on video. It's why evaluating these videos in a circumspect manner is so important.

The guy in the apartment came out as if he expected to find some punk that had been screwing around. As soon as he recognized "cop" he started backing off. The cops saw "guy with a gun" and both of them reacted appropriately at the start. The cop in front of the guy realized that his "suspect" was backing off but the cop that shot seemed to have "Threat! Threat! Threat!" going off in his head and couldn't shut it off. That's a problem because if you don't recognize that a threat is changing you can make a really bad decision.

Watching the video again for your specific point, the amount of time from when the officer who shot could see the firearm to when he fired is approximately 1 second.

Your expectation is that in that 1 second - answering a "disturbance" and "violence" call - seeing a shirtless man (not old man, woman, child) - that he fully "appraises the situation" to determine the level of "threat" from shirtless man opening the door to "this is the Phoenix police" holding a gun behind his back knowing they were police - though actually it is really only about 0.6 seconds - as it took 0.4 to actually mentally process and then to be physically able to pull the trigger.

DAMN you're a fast thinker! PhD in psychiatry too maybe to analyzing people by the back of their heads fully as to demeanor, motives of the unknown moment, and thus "threat" factor of the gunman for certain instantly? Beat Turtle Dude in shooting competition - where you also won the national "quick draw" championship? Have been extensively instructed with actual situational training of this exact scenario?

MOST police training that in potentially adverse party weapons situations - or even the unknown motive person who reaches into their coat or for something behind their back FAST and a worrisome look on their face to you? They teach that if the officer hesitates, does not consider threat unless clearly declared or transparent, the police dies. That they are to be prepared to shot and not to hesitate if you actually believe your life or that of your partner is at stake.

Then again, I would never, ever be willing to be an urban street patrol officer of a city police department. The range of instant decision demands for which your reaction will get you killed or get you imprisoned - and even possibly one or the other no matter you do - is now so vast no sane person would take the job, no matter how much they think they'd never be put into that situation. Oh, and do not profile the person - don't even consider if this is an 85 year old woman or someone who looks like a drugged out gangbanger grabbing for something under his jacket fast - no profiling allowed. Instantaneous decisions on an instantaneous surprise scary situation that may well destroy your life no matter what you do.

We don't know what would have happened if he didn't shoot and never will. Could the gunman have killed his partner if he hesitated? 100% absolutely. A person can twist that some other situation claiming then police may shoot anyone, but those are worthless posts.

The expectation of instant perfection on extreme surprise situations after being informed this may be a loud violent situation in what appears a low rent apartment complex - is a standard I doubt 1 in 100 police or 1 in 100 adults could ever meet. That doesn't mean they would shoot. Most people would not. Most people would not even if they should because they can't shoot someone or go into full brain freeze or confused indecision.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Noise complaint led to the fatal police shooting of Ryan Whitaker

This story is a few days old but it doesn't look like it will get any national play so I'll just throw it out for discussion.

Basically you've got a couple living in an apartment complex. A neighbor calls in a noise complaint. The dispatcher asks if it's just noise or if there is violence. The complainant hedges a bit and then says something to the effect of "If it will get people her faster then it's violent". The cops show up and you damned sure can't hear any loud noise. The bang on the door and announce "Phoenix Police!" one time. The resident opens the door and has a gun in his hand though at his side. The cops react immediately, start shouting orders and the cop behind the resident unloads on him.

Video can be seen here -



This video has been edited for the news but gives footage from both cop's cameras.



I've got a couple of comments on this having engaged more than one person in similar, not exactly the same, circumstances.

First, when you are confronted with a situation like this your perception tends to get really intense and time seems to slow down a little. The cop that shot had plenty of time to recognize whether the threat was legitimate or not. I'm pretty comfortable that I would not have pulled the trigger in this situation because I saw the "threat" going to his knees instead of making any aggressive move.

Second, as far as the guy answering the door goes it's a good idea to ask who's there if you're unsure. Yeah, the person on the other side could be lying to you but it will at least give you some idea of what you'll be confronting. If you're going to be armed when you open that door then you better have a good reason to have your weapon in your hand.

My overall take is that the cop that shot screwed up and screwed up badly. I understand why he shot but part of the use of force continuum is that deadly force be used only when your life or the life of another is in imminent danger. I don't see a lot of justification for a rational belief of imminence.

Finally, I'd like to remind people that cops really do kill white guys too.


William J. Lewinski - Teaching Cops To Shoot First, Ask Questions Later
 
I don't think this guy knew that it was cops at the door. I understand that the cops announced themselves as such but that's no guarantee that the guy inside heard it or understood what was said. When he came out it looked to me as if he was looking for someone that had been harassing people in the area before.

I seriously doubt he heard them ID themselves...what a world we live in now :(
This is why I have cameras...I get to see who's there before I answer the door.
 
Finally, I'd like to remind people that cops really do kill white guys too.

And that reminder is in reference to what, exactly?
Oh wait, I think I found it!

It's all part of the "I'm a liberal and everyone else sucks ass" mentality some of you strut around with.

Yeah, I think you need to look in the mirror.
Yes, of course there's plenty of bad shoots on white people as well.
The overwhelming majority of shoots are good shoots, regardless of race, color or ethnicity and this liberal HAS been on record on at least a dozen of these threads arguing exactly that - - "do not fight the popo", "don't advance on a cop with a weapon unless you want to get shot", "anything that you start with a cop that begins with a dispute over their authority isn't likely to end well...for you", plenty of opinions along those lines.

I have cops in my extended family, two of the three are assholes, to be honest, but I defend them anyway, even when they sound almost exactly like your quote above. Still, I've known all three of them since we were all toddlers. The third one's a totally decent human being and although quite conservative I get along with him very well and our political stance boils down to a sort of friendly "arm punching" kind of relationship - - -

Him: "****ing commie"
Me: "****ing jackbooted fascist"
Him: "want a beer?"
Me: "yeah you owe me one, fascist prick"
Him: :lamo

We actually do manage to talk about a lot of stuff and he doesn't actually diss me, and in reality we're not really that far apart on a lot of things.
He's not actually a fascist prick, just an old school cop kind of guy who will give you his last dollar or his shirt if you need it.

The problem is police unions protecting rogue cops and crappy training from people like Lewinski who has ZERO background in law enforcement.
 
When I suggested that a few years ago I thought I was being sarcastic. Little did I know....

Yep, they hate police so much today, they want some twentysomething social worker going out on those type "nuisance" complaints. I'm sure that will calm down the wife beaters and gang bangers and drug dealers who will just hand over their guns when the girl arrives. OOPS. That's sexist. I meant when the BOY arrives

Dang that may be sexist too. When the non identified gender social worker calm things down person arrives.
 
Back
Top Bottom