Video shows moments before North Miami Police shot unarmed man

[GMDino]

(07-22-2016, 10:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: "I was going to shoot the white guy, but at the last second I just couldn't, so I winged the black dude."

Let's imagine he had killed the guy he shot.

How does that excuse that he was trying to shoot the other guy work out?

It's not about race...it's about incompetence and lack of accountability.

[Rotobeast]

(07-22-2016, 10:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Let's imagine he had killed the guy he shot.

How does that excuse that he was trying to shoot the other guy work out?

It's not about race...it's about incompetence and lack of accountability.

I agree that there needs to be accountability.
But before we lynch this gentleman, let's wait to see if the sights were off on the rifle.
To me, that would explain why the officer said that he didn't know why he shot the guy.
I don't think he should have fired at all, but I think there is more to the story.
Heck, the arms-master may have botched a trigger job.
Still, the dude should have used proper trigger discipline.
So, I think he deserves punishment, but cannot imagine to what degree yet.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(07-22-2016, 10:25 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I agree that there needs to be accountability.
But before we lynch this gentleman, let's wait to see if the sights were off on the rifle.
To me, that would explain why the officer said that he didn't know why he shot the guy.
I don't think he should have fired at all, but I think there is more to the story.
Heck, the arms-master may have botched a trigger job.
Still, the dude should have used proper trigger discipline.
So, I think he deserves punishment, but cannot imagine to what degree yet.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Two men were surrounded by officers with their guns drawn.

One laying on his back, arms in the air, explaining what is going on.  The other playing with a toy truck.

They had time to put a pair of binoculars on what was in his hand.

And one guy shot the wrong guy he was aiming for.

No excuses are acceptable.

[Rotobeast]

(07-22-2016, 10:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Two men were surrounded by officers with their guns drawn.

One laying on his back, arms in the air, explaining what is going on.  The other playing with a toy truck.

They had time to put a pair of binoculars on what was in his hand.

And one guy shot the wrong guy he was aiming for.

No excuses are acceptable.

I was in no way attempting to completely excuse the situation

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(07-22-2016, 10:37 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I was in no way attempting to completely excuse the situation

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I see no way to excuse any of it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2016, 03:04 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I have a huge amount of respect for what you do.  That being said, what is your opinion on why so much of this seems to be happening?  For lack of a better word it seems to me some (lEO's) are a bit more gung ho than is needed.  I don't know you personally, but I do know you through these boards and you seem like the kind of officer that I preferred pulled me over.  That also being said, I've encountered some real D-bag officers.  If I remember correctly you were in the military, so was I.  And I remember a lot of guys that were idiots that I wouldn't trust with a potato gun (I think that was a movie quote but can't remember which one)  Any way my point is I understand your defensive position for LEO's, but something has to give.  What is a good start?

Ok, a few things.  I have said several times in the past, well before this became a national issue, that many LEO's back east are poorly trained.  That would be one place to start.  You are absolutely correct, there are some absolute asshats in any department/organization.  Much like every other profession some people are competent some people are great at their job and some people are bad at it.  Much like any other job some people are pleasant human beings some people are neutral and some people are jerks.  Even the pleasant person can have a bad day or encounter someone who manages to push their buttons.

As to how to fix it, not all of that can come from LEO's.  Training everyone up is important.  Stressing the need to use your verbal skills before moving on to anything physical.  I found very quickly that simply validating a person, even if they were being unreasonable, resulted in an instant deescalation on their part.  Some of it needs to come from the community.  If you're given an instruction follow it.  Unless the officer is trying to strip search you or throw you in a trunk just comply.  You don't know all the reasons for the order and sometimes we don't have the time to explain or shouldn't.  If you are treated unfairly then you'll win your case in court, but don't try and win it on the street.  Stop shoving cellphones within inches of an officer's face.  If you're part of a crowd of onlookers don't insinuate yourself into the situation (this happens all the time now).  If you want to film, fine, just keep your distance.  It's now become a thing to openly challenge every single thing an LEO does.  It doesn't solve anything it merely exacerbates the situation.

Lastly, the media needs to start reporting responsibly on these instances instead of sensationalizing for click bait purposes.  The internet is both the best and worst thing that has ever happened to the media.  Everyone can be a news source so much less falls through the cracks.  The other edge being that there's almost limitless competition so legit media sources resort to crass sensationalism in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.  For every Tamir Rice there's a Mike Brown that unjustly gets conflated with them.  Mike Brown's narrative couldn't be more false and yet his mother is speaking at the DNC.  Really?

While this is a problem, any bad shoot is a problem, it is not nearly the problem that it has been blown up to be.  Far more people die of medical malpractice every year, but unless it's Joan Rivers dying you don't hear about it.  Literally millions of police/civilian interactions occur every year that end peacefully.  Millions of traffic stops, millions of arrests, etc.  The Guardian UK has a project called "The Counted" in which they list every person killed by law enforcement for the year.  You read their list and you find yourself saying, good shoot, good shoot, good shoot, point being almost all of them are solid shootings.  They even, likely to inflate numbers, include killing by LEO's not on duty, which to me is inane but whatever.  You always hear, police have killed X people this year.  That number is a bullshit number and means nothing to me.  If the number of good shootings and X are the same then who gives a shit?  It means the police are doing their job properly.  It's the difference between X and the number of good shootings that should concern you, me and everyone.  Using the total number is yet another example of how this whole problem is represented in a way to make it seem like a far greater problem than it is.

[Belsnickel]

(07-22-2016, 10:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As to how to fix it, not all of that can come from LEO's.  Training everyone up is important.  Stressing the need to use your verbal skills before moving on to anything physical.  I found very quickly that simply validating a person, even if they were being unreasonable, resulted in an instant deescalation on their part.

We had one of our campus officers who spent roughly 25 years as a city cop here talking to our office the other day and he mentioned this being the most important thing, and every cop I've ever met that was worth their salt said the same. Dialogue is the first, and the most valuable weapon in a LEO's arsenal. Most of the time, the longer an officer talks to someone in a potentially violent situation the less likely that situation will result in violence. Obviously there are outliers in this data set, but it is true for the vast majority of cases, and this is the type of stuff that is ignored.

But like you said, there are people that are good at the job, and there are those that are not. The important thing to remember with officers, and this is not directed at you, just in a general statement, is that an escalated situation results in the same mental reaction that anyone has: fight, flight, or freeze. Through training you can try to get people to overcome that, but not everyone will, and you'll never know if it has truly worked until they get put into a situation where they are really tested. It may result in an unfortunate outcome, but there is really nothing you can do to guarantee it won't happen. Should bad shoots like that result in investigations and potential disciplinary actions or even charges? Absolutely, you screw up there are consequences. But you just can't guarantee a cop will be perfect in that situation no matter what you do.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-22-2016, 10:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: "I was going to shoot the white guy, but at the last second I just couldn't, so I winged the black dude."

It's a lawyered statement.  His career as a cop is clearly over.  This is about "reasonable doubt" trying to keep the guy out of jail.

No idea why that might be a better argument than an accidental discharge.  Problem is you have the witness saying the officer said he didn't know why he shot him.....although maybe a better/easier thing to say than "the gun shot you...I was aiming for the other guy"

The other problem is they cuffed the guy - if you were aiming for the other guy, or it was an accidental discharge, why did you cuff him? Would seem to be a very bad statement, legally speaking.

[GMDino]

(07-22-2016, 01:20 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a lawyered statement.  His career as a cop is clearly over.  This is about "reasonable doubt" trying to keep the guy out of jail.

No idea why that might be a better argument than an accidental discharge.  Problem is you have the witness saying the officer said he didn't know why he shot him.....although maybe a better/easier thing to say than "the gun shot you...I was aiming for the other guy"

The other problem is they cuffed the guy - if you were aiming for the other guy, or it was an accidental discharge, why did you cuff him?  Would seem to be a very bad statement, legally speaking.

Guns don't kill people...  

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-22-2016, 10:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ok, a few things.  I have said several times in the past, well before this became a national issue, that many LEO's back east are poorly trained.  That would be one place to start.  You are absolutely correct, there are some absolute asshats in any department/organization.  Much like every other profession some people are competent some people are great at their job and some people are bad at it.  Much like any other job some people are pleasant human beings some people are neutral and some people are jerks.  Even the pleasant person can have a bad day or encounter someone who manages to push their buttons.

As to how to fix it, not all of that can come from LEO's.  Training everyone up is important.  Stressing the need to use your verbal skills before moving on to anything physical.  I found very quickly that simply validating a person, even if they were being unreasonable, resulted in an instant deescalation on their part.  Some of it needs to come from the community.  If you're given an instruction follow it.  Unless the officer is trying to strip search you or throw you in a trunk just comply.  You don't know all the reasons for the order and sometimes we don't have the time to explain or shouldn't.  If you are treated unfairly then you'll win your case in court, but don't try and win it on the street.  Stop shoving cellphones within inches of an officer's face.  If you're part of a crowd of onlookers don't insinuate yourself into the situation (this happens all the time now).  If you want to film, fine, just keep your distance.  It's now become a thing to openly challenge every single thing an LEO does.  It doesn't solve anything it merely exacerbates the situation.

Lastly, the media needs to start reporting responsibly on these instances instead of sensationalizing for click bait purposes.  The internet is both the best and worst thing that has ever happened to the media.  Everyone can be a news source so much less falls through the cracks.  The other edge being that there's almost limitless competition so legit media sources resort to crass sensationalism in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.  For every Tamir Rice there's a Mike Brown that unjustly gets conflated with them.  Mike Brown's narrative couldn't be more false and yet his mother is speaking at the DNC.  Really?

While this is a problem, any bad shoot is a problem, it is not nearly the problem that it has been blown up to be.  Far more people die of medical malpractice every year, but unless it's Joan Rivers dying you don't hear about it.  Literally millions of police/civilian interactions occur every year that end peacefully.  Millions of traffic stops, millions of arrests, etc.  The Guardian UK has a project called "The Counted" in which they list every person killed by law enforcement for the year.  You read their list and you find yourself saying, good shoot, good shoot, good shoot, point being almost all of them are solid shootings.  They even, likely to inflate numbers, include killing by LEO's not on duty, which to me is inane but whatever.  You always hear, police have killed X people this year.  That number is a bullshit number and means nothing to me.  If the number of good shootings and X are the same then who gives a shit?  It means the police are doing their job properly.  It's the difference between X and the number of good shootings that should concern you, me and everyone.  Using the total number is yet another example of how this whole problem is represented in a way to make it seem like a far greater problem than it is.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There is nothing in your post that I really disagree with.  However the only thing that I would add or suggest to fixing the problem is maybe reviewing the selection process.  How do we get rid of the ass hats?  Also why is there a discrepancy in training regarding east vs west?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-22-2016, 01:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Guns don't kill people...  

Maybe he felt threatened of being run over by a toy truck.

[*bfine32*]

(07-21-2016, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In my opinion the Laquan McDonald case is by far the worst. It was the one who shattered the
one bad apple" myth by proving that not only did the shooter lie, but 5 other cops on the scene lied to protect him. And then the DA who knew they were all lying refused to prosecute or release the video that proved how the "Blue wall" works.

The most common defense I read about all these bad shootings (not the ones that are justified) is that "most cops are not like that". But apparently EVERY cop will lie to protect a murderer in their ranks and many times the DA's office goes along with them.

Seems like you are discribing the aftermath and not the actual shooting. If memory serves, McDonald failed to follow Officer's instructions and damaged government property in their presence.

Before anyone starts: I am not justifying the McDonald shooting; this one just appears to be a little less provoked.

[THE Bigzoman]

(07-21-2016, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In my opinion the Laquan McDonald case is by far the worst.  It was the one who shattered the
one bad apple" myth by proving that not only did the shooter lie, but 5 other cops on the scene lied to protect him.  And then the DA who knew they were all lying refused to prosecute or release the video that proved how the "Blue wall" works.

The most common defense I read about all these bad shootings (not the ones that are justified) is that "most cops are not like that".  But apparently EVERY cop will lie to protect a murderer in their ranks and many times the DA's office goes along with them.

What's the alternative, being a whistleblower against the most powerful public sector union in the country?

Seriously, there's a reason that republicans don't **** with these guys like they do with Teacher's Unions.

It's not uncommon for public service workers/politicians to throw one another under the bus when shit hits the fan. Police Unions don't because they don't have to.

Ironically, if they let the "one bad apple" take the fall, some cops that were killed would probably still be alive.

[*jason*]

(07-22-2016, 01:47 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There is nothing in your post that I really disagree with.  However the only thing that I would add or suggest to fixing the problem is maybe reviewing the selection process.  How do we get rid of the ass hats?  Also why is there a discrepancy in training regarding east vs west?

I was wondering why SSF thought that was. The discrepancy  in training that is. I know the LAPD and Chief Gates took a lot of shit years ago about their tactics. I'm sure a lot of things were reevaluated after that.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-22-2016, 10:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: I see no way to excuse any of it.

I was thinking the exact same thing. 

Then it dawned on me that it's easy for me to say that sitting in the comfort of my recliner at home. With the recent shootings (ambush style), it's actually pretty easy to see why a LEO would be nervous and capable of squeezing off an accidental round. Seeing two people in plain clothes, one black, one white and sitting on the ground playing with a toy...when do you ever see anything like that? 

If it were me, i'd be suspicious of every single call i responded to until everything was clear. Then i'd still be worried about keeping my head on a swivel so some punk ass ***** wasn't coming up behind me to try and put one in my head. 

Don't forget. Hindsight is 20/20.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2016, 11:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We had one of our campus officers who spent roughly 25 years as a city cop here talking to our office the other day and he mentioned this being the most important thing, and every cop I've ever met that was worth their salt said the same. Dialogue is the first, and the most valuable weapon in a LEO's arsenal. Most of the time, the longer an officer talks to someone in a potentially violent situation the less likely that situation will result in violence. Obviously there are outliers in this data set, but it is true for the vast majority of cases, and this is the type of stuff that is ignored.

Absolutely. 

Quote:But like you said, there are people that are good at the job, and there are those that are not. The important thing to remember with officers, and this is not directed at you, just in a general statement, is that an escalated situation results in the same mental reaction that anyone has: fight, flight, or freeze. Through training you can try to get people to overcome that, but not everyone will, and you'll never know if it has truly worked until they get put into a situation where they are really tested. It may result in an unfortunate outcome, but there is really nothing you can do to guarantee it won't happen. Should bad shoots like that result in investigations and potential disciplinary actions or even charges? Absolutely, you screw up there are consequences. But you just can't guarantee a cop will be perfect in that situation no matter what you do.

It's certainly a job in which every day could end up with you having to make a decision that could end your career.  Bad shoots should absolutely result in an investigation, they just shouldn't take place in a vacuum or in the armchair QB mode.  You really have to put yourself in the position of the officer involved knowing what they knew at that time.  I'm also a huge opponent of negative outcome bias.

(07-22-2016, 01:47 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There is nothing in your post that I really disagree with.  However the only thing that I would add or suggest to fixing the problem is maybe reviewing the selection process.  How do we get rid of the ass hats?  Also why is there a discrepancy in training regarding east vs west?

Sincerely, the selection process is extensive, there are many ways to wash out.  Getting rid of someone after their probationary period is difficult by design.  Peace officer positions are protected for political reasons, preventing a spurned politician from coming in and cleaning house.  Please trust that guys who endanger others are reported, it's just not a quick process.  I really hope some of you take this to heart, the job of an LEO carries the ability to break the laws they enforce.  Speeding, using physical force against others, using deadly force on others.  The fact that such otherwise illegal activities are within the remit of your standard LEO means participation in these activities have to be proven to be outside the scope of their normal duties.  The burden of proof is much higher for such actions than it would be for a civilian.  As far as the training discrepancy, I've generally found that the farther east you get the worse the training until you hit Ohio and then it begins to rise again.  I've found that the west coast tends to have better standards in training.  I have no concrete ideas as to why, possibly because they are newer organizations with a shorter history and less involvement with the old way of doing thing. 

(07-22-2016, 05:43 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: What's the alternative, being a whistleblower against the most powerful public sector union in the country?

Seriously, there's a reason that republicans don't **** with these guys like they do with Teacher's Unions.

It's not uncommon for public service workers/politicians to throw one another under the bus when shit hits the fan. Police Unions don't because they don't have to.

Ironically, if they let the "one bad apple" take the fall, some cops that were killed would probably still be alive.

This is an point I take issue with.  Why does the union protect any member accused of wrongdoing?  Because that's their job.  Fredtoast has had clients that he knew to be guilty, it didn't prevent him from doing his job and providing the defendant with a competent defense, for the same reason.  Every member pays their dues, thus every member is entitled to defense from the union by definition.  

(07-22-2016, 06:03 PM)jason Wrote: I was wondering why SSF thought that was. The discrepancy  in training that is. I know the LAPD and Chief Gates took a lot of shit years ago about their tactics. I'm sure a lot of things were reevaluated after that.

Actually, and I know many of you will scoff at this, the LAPD has been a model of training for decades.  High profile incidents aside the LAPD has been the template that many other departments follow.  Gates also invented the SWAT team, which is now a mainstay of departments nationwide.  Also, Anaheim PD is a nationally recognized PD in terms of effectiveness and training, their slavish deference to Disney notwithstanding.

I addressed your question above, but I readily admit I have no definitive answer.  Budget, history, culture I'm sure they all play a part.

[Rotobeast]

(07-22-2016, 10:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've found that the west coast tends to have better standards in training.  I have no concrete ideas as to why, possibly because they are newer organizations with a shorter history and less involvement with the old way of doing thing. 

You needed that training out there for......

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2016, 11:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: You needed that training out there for......

The way CA is going I'm hard pressed to rebut this.  

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2016, 10:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is an point I take issue with.  Why does the union protect any member accused of wrongdoing?  Because that's their job.  Fredtoast has had clients that he knew to be guilty, it didn't prevent him from doing his job and providing the defendant with a competent defense, for the same reason.  Every member pays their dues, thus every member is entitled to defense from the union by definition.  

You can not compare making sure someone has a fair defense to lying.  If I lie or suborn perjury I will lose my license.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2016, 11:00 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You can not compare making sure someone has a fair defense to lying.  If I lie or suborn perjury I will lose my license.

Where did I mention lying?  I said the union has a duty to defend every member regardless of their actions.  Just like you have a duty to defend the many clients who were guilty but refused to plea as such.  You have an amazing ability to make points out of thin air.  I'd be impressed if it wasn't so pointless.