Luckily we have cameras in Louisville

[*bfine32*]

..or we might have acted like the folks in Ferguson.

Officer Nathan Blanford used deadly force on a Black man on 13 June 2015. These were the early "eyewitness" accounts:

Quote:Witnesses told various media on Saturday that the officer approached the man aggressively, his hand already on his gun, and alleged that Manyoun never swung the pole at him.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/14/3900128/video-shows-man-fatally-shot-swinging.html#storylink=cpy

Unfortunately for those with an agenda, we actually have cameras here in Louisville:

http://bcove.me/cgyryfs9

[JustWinBaby]

I was wondering when this was going to pop-up.  Funny how different these threads are set-up based on who started it.


Anyway, since when does a flagpole justify the use of deadly force?  That's a new one for me.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2015, 05:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I was wondering when this was going to pop-up.  Funny how different these threads are set-up based on who started it.


Anyway, since when does a flagpole justify the use of deadly force?  That's a new one for me.

It is also "funny" what questions are asked based on who asks them.

This Officer was under attack and in threat of personal physical harm. This man had also just assaulted a lady.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-20-2015, 05:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is also "funny" what questions are asked based on who asks them.

This Officer was under attack and in threat of personal physical harm. This man had also just assaulted a lady.

I don't think a flagpole rises to the level of assault with a deadly weapon.  And I don't think the officer was in serious danger warranting the use of a firearm.

The question wasn't a trick or anything of the sort.  Do you think his life was threatened by a flagpole?  It's a simple yes or no.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2015, 05:52 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think a flagpole rises to the level of assault with a deadly weapon.  And I don't think the officer was in serious danger warranting the use of a firearm.

The question wasn't a trick or anything of the sort.  Do you think his life was threatened by a flagpole?  It's a simple yes or no.

He was in danger of personal injury and yes possibly death. You don't think it is possible to stab someone of perhaps cause severe injury to the neck and windpipe with a flag staff? An Officer is not required to retreat. 

Shouldn't the question be why "eyewitnesses" claimed the man didn't even swing the flag pole?

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-20-2015, 05:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He was in danger of personal injury and yes possibly death. You don't think it is possible to stab someone of perhaps cause severe injury to the neck and windpipe with a flag staff? An Officer is not required to retreat. 

Shouldn't the question be why "eyewitnesses" claimed the man didn't even swing the flag pole?

^This

[SunsetBengal]

(06-20-2015, 05:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He was in danger of personal injury and yes possibly death. You don't think it is possible to stab someone of perhaps cause severe injury to the neck and windpipe with a flag staff? An Officer is not required to retreat. 

Shouldn't the question be why "eyewitnesses" claimed the man didn't even swing the flag pole?

Clearly, another case of the evil police, seeking out and attacking law abiding citizens.

[JustWinBaby]

Sorry, I usually defend the police...but a drunk swinging that flagpole doesn't justify the use of deadly force, much less after it snaps in half when he swings it.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-20-2015, 07:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sorry, I usually defend the police...but a drunk swinging that flagpole doesn't justify the use of deadly force, much less after it snaps in half when he swings it.

Well, in the old days, he could have simply shot him in the leg.  But now, if a shot criminal lives, the officer is sued for everything.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2015, 07:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sorry, I usually defend the police...but a drunk swinging that flagpole doesn't justify the use of deadly force, much less after it snaps in half when he swings it.

Absolutely nothing a crazed man could do with the jagged end of a flag staff....

What do you suggest this officer should have done; took his beating, dropped his gun, assumed the fetal position?

The man that was attacking him had already attacked a lady earlier in the day.

FWIW, there is really no longer a debate locally about whether the officer was justified in using his firearm. The latest issue is the FOP President calling out the "race baiters" that tried to turn this into something more than it was.  

[GMDino]

(06-20-2015, 05:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He was in danger of personal injury and yes possibly death. You don't think it is possible to stab someone of perhaps cause severe injury to the neck and windpipe with a flag staff? An Officer is not required to retreat. 

Shouldn't the question be why "eyewitnesses" claimed the man didn't even swing the flag pole?

Sometimes eyewitnesses are wrong.

Sometimes police use what should be the method of last resort when they feel "threatened".

Sometimes they are right...sometimes they are wrong.

[*bengalfan74*]

(06-20-2015, 07:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sorry, I usually defend the police...but a drunk swinging that flagpole doesn't justify the use of deadly force, much less after it snaps in half when he swings it.

And you're really serious - wow !

[JustWinBaby]

(06-20-2015, 07:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Absolutely nothing a crazed man could do with the jagged end of a flag staff....

What do you suggest this officer should have done; took his beating, dropped his gun, assumed the fetal position?

The officer immediately went to his gun when a tazer, baton or pepper spray should have been his first move in this case.  A flag pole is very unwieldy, not a close-quarters dangerous weapon and not effective as a weapon, period.

The police chief said the officer "didn't have time to switch to a less lethal weapon"...and therein lays the problem - he went to his gun first when he had opportunity to go to a less lethal weapon.

But Louisville police don't mess around.  They have a reputation for shooting first and asking questions later.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2015, 09:21 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The officer immediately went to his gun when a tazer, baton or pepper spray should have been his first move in this case.  A flag pole is very unwieldy, not a close-quarters dangerous weapon and not effective as a weapon, period.

The police chief said the officer "didn't have time to switch to a less lethal weapon"...and therein lays the problem - he went to his gun first when he had opportunity to go to a less lethal weapon.

But Louisville police don't mess around.  They have a reputation for shooting first and asking questions later.

The LEO did not "immediately go for his gun". He approached the guy with nothing but his radio. Guy started flailing his arms, LEO still doesn't draw his side arm. Guy disregarded instruction and started to leave. LEO followed and still doesn't draw his side arm. Guy grabs a weapon and charges at LEO, LEO finally draws weapon in hopes of deterring the guy while retreating. Guy doesn't heed the warning and continues his assault on the LEO as the LEO retreats. When finally pinned against his car and being attacked the LEO fires.

If you are one that "usually defends" the LEOs; they don't stand a chance.   

[JustWinBaby]

(06-20-2015, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The LEO did not "immediately go for his gun". He approached the guy with nothing but his radio. Guy started flailing his arms, LEO still doesn't draw his side arm. Guy disregarded instruction and started to leave. LEO followed and still doesn't draw his side arm. Guy grabs a weapon and charges at LEO, LEO finally draws weapon in hopes of deterring the guy while retreating. Guy doesn't heed the warning and continues his assault on the LEO as the LEO retreats. When finally pinned against his car and being attacked the LEO fires.

If you are one that "usually defends" the LEOs; they don't stand a chance.   

This does nothing to refute the fact the LEO could have "drawn" a less lethal weapon.  Good effort otherwise.

[*bfine32*]

(06-21-2015, 04:18 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This does nothing to refute the fact the LEO could have "drawn" a less lethal weapon.  Good effort otherwise.

Why would I refute something that happened and IMO and that of the law the LEO made the right call? He didn't draw any weapon until he was charged by a crazed man swinging a weapon; then he had to make a split second decision. My 1st instinct might not have been to unsnap and reach for my pepper spray or a 1 foot Baton to combat a 6  foot flag pole; apparently, that is what you would have considered the proper escalation of force. The LEO was in danger of personal harm and had every right to defend himself with up to and including deadly force.

Going back to the OP: If yours is the type of reaction we get  when we see film of what happened; imagine the reaction with no film and witness statements of "He approached aggressively with his gun already drawn and the victim never swung the flag pole." 

What do these LEOs do that you "usually defend?" Take a couple bullets to the gut before they return fire?

[fredtoast]

Funny that Bfine only brings up an issue like this when a camera provides evidence to exonerate an officer.

I haven't seen him getting so excited when a video shows an officer acting improperly.




People need to stop taking sides and realize that cameras are good for EVERYONE.

[*bfine32*]

(06-21-2015, 12:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Funny that Bfine only brings up an issue like this when a camera provides evidence to exonerate an officer.

Well I was waiting for the usual suspects that concern themselves with LEO's actions to post it. But for some reason this one that exposes eyewitnesses blatantly lying didn't seem interesting enough

Quote:I haven't seen him getting so excited when a video shows an officer acting improperly.

Admittedly I didn't get "so excited" and really not sure I have here. But I freely admitted the LEO in the swimming pool video acted inappropriately. I think that's the only other one posted on this MB.

Let me know when folk quit "taking sides".

[BmorePat87]

Based only on what is posted here and not the links, sounds justifiable. A pole can knock someone out and there's always a chance of death with that. Officer needs to look out for himself and the innocent public.