If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Forget for a moment that this cop fired 41 times at an unarmed man sitting in a pickup truck that was stuck between two police cars. Let's consider for a moment the fact that 38 of those shots missed   (opposingviews.com) divider line 313
    More: Scary, Officer Tuter, patrol cars, Dallas County  
•       •       •

12550 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2013 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-13 09:52:58 AM  
At least this idiot got fired and charged.
 
2013-11-13 10:11:32 AM  
Professionalism.
 
2013-11-13 10:14:24 AM  
Put cameras on every last one of them.
 
2013-11-13 10:25:13 AM  
"More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...
 
2013-11-13 10:30:20 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: At least this idiot got fired and charged.


2wolves: Professionalism.


Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.


mediablitz: "More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...


THIS

I wonder if he would have been charged if the dead die was brown.
 
2013-11-13 10:34:05 AM  
More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred


Welcome to earf
 
2013-11-13 10:34:32 AM  
So he stopped to reload 3 times?
 
2013-11-13 10:34:40 AM  

mediablitz: "More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...


So one advantage to this being a repeat is we already have a theme song.

thecelebritycafe.com

Nice work, cops.
 
2013-11-13 10:34:53 AM  
This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.
 
2013-11-13 10:36:08 AM  
so this is the farkwit with horrible aim I played with last night in battlefield 4

/no boom headshot for you
 
2013-11-13 10:36:28 AM  
He was mad wasn't he?

Got wonder if the other officer who had to take cover behind his car to keep from getting hit by this idiot was screaming for him to stop shooting the whole time.
 
2013-11-13 10:38:02 AM  
matthershberger.com
 
2013-11-13 10:39:00 AM  
FTFA:  The chase began when Tuter noticed the pickup, which had been involved in a chase in nearby Sachse a few mights before.

Mights indeed.
 
2013-11-13 10:39:26 AM  
Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civili an s-since-911/172029/
 
2013-11-13 10:39:48 AM  
He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.
 
2013-11-13 10:41:21 AM  

lennavan: mediablitz: "More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...

So one advantage to this being a repeat is we already have a theme song.

[thecelebritycafe.com image 300x450]

Nice work, cops.


From yesterday? Really?
 
2013-11-13 10:41:43 AM  
Impressed.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-11-13 10:43:44 AM  
FTA: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm. Three of those shots hit Allen, killing him. But 38 of Tuter's shots missed their target.

That's because cops are crappy shooters and are not even within the same league as your average CCW holder.

/amirite?
 
2013-11-13 10:45:12 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


Unfortunately, they somehow only charged him with manslaughter.
 
2013-11-13 10:45:21 AM  

FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

 
2013-11-13 10:45:30 AM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


No.

This guy, therefore something seriously wrong with the way cops are hired, trained, and retained.
 
2013-11-13 10:46:43 AM  
You guys can only play the, but all cops aren't like this only a few are, card before it starts to make you look like an idiot.
 
2013-11-13 10:47:17 AM  
Crooked ass cops.
 
2013-11-13 10:47:28 AM  
He'll never see the inside of a prison. The judge will come up with some BS to avoid sending him in like declaring that sending him to prison won't stop other people from committing the same crime so the cop is free to go.
 
2013-11-13 10:48:21 AM  

skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.


Cool! A police apologist! Here's another interesting tidbit from the article:

According to the FBI's report, there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault - 658,231 compared with 521,196 arrests.

Gotta clean these streets up and get those pot smoking beatniks in jail!

/How long you been on the force Officer Friendly?
 
2013-11-13 10:48:37 AM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

If the police have to come and get you, they're bringin an ass-whoopin with them.

Since they're now saying he didn't try to ram the cops it sounds like the shooting was probably not justified, but I'm sick of TFAs switching straight into "poor innocent victim" mode. (Oh, he has kids? So does, like,  everybody). Why was he running from the cops again? "Allen had pending charges of evading arrest, drug possession and assault at the time of his death." (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/tag/michael-vincent-allen/ ) Half hour chase exceeding 100MPH? Don't give me this bullshiat like he was some upstanding citizen minding his own business. The police being wrong doesn't make the person they're after right.
 
2013-11-13 10:48:43 AM  
The charge is just manslaughter, but I wonder why there are not 50 addon charges.

Perjury, official oppression, vandalism, reckless discharge,
 
2013-11-13 10:49:02 AM  

Mikey1969: lennavan: mediablitz: "More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...

So one advantage to this being a repeat is we already have a theme song.

[thecelebritycafe.com image 300x450]

Nice work, cops.

From yesterday? Really?


No, from 1999.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Skin_%2841_Shots%29
 
2013-11-13 10:49:07 AM  

knobmaker: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

No.

This guy, therefore something seriously wrong with the way cops are hired, trained, and retained.


Straight out of high school from the high school football team?
 
2013-11-13 10:49:24 AM  

Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?


Probably only twice. He probably had 15-round mags.
 
2013-11-13 10:49:51 AM  

Road Warrior: Crooked ass cops.


...are out of control in the US
 
2013-11-13 10:50:37 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


He's not charged with murder, only manslaughter.  Yes, Texas has a hard-on for frying people, but he's not seeing the chair.  Even if he's found guilty, I'm betting they're only going to see this as a minor blemish on a fine law enforcement career.  He'll be out in 5 years and will get his gun back.
 
2013-11-13 10:50:39 AM  

PsyLord: FTA: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm. Three of those shots hit Allen, killing him. But 38 of Tuter's shots missed their target.

That's because cops are crappy shooters and are not even within the same league as your average CCW holder.

/amirite?


Now better, that's for certain. Of course, if a cop can't manage a single unarmed man with only 10 rounds, why are we demanding people in self-defense situations be limited to 10?
 
2013-11-13 10:51:04 AM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


How many times does it have to happen before we are allowed to notice a pattern?
 
2013-11-13 10:52:23 AM  

Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?


Seriously. This cop needs to do some serious hard time.
FFS - his fellow cops were hiding in fear of their life.
 
2013-11-13 10:52:28 AM  

FarkedOver: Cool! A police apologist! Here's another interesting tidbit from the article:

According to the FBI's report, there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault - 658,231 compared with 521,196 arrests.

Gotta clean these streets up and get those pot smoking beatniks in jail!

/How long you been on the force Officer Friendly?


Yo Cheech, the utter failure that is the war on drugs does nothing to validate your 5,000 killed by cops number. Certainly they've killed innocent people before, but your source is crap.
 
2013-11-13 10:53:10 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: At least this idiot got fired and charged.


In Texas, no less. Normally he'd get a paid vacation, especially if the victim is blah.
 
2013-11-13 10:53:19 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times.


Three times with a ten round clip and starting with one round chambered, which suggests he only stopped reloading when he ran out of clips.
 
2013-11-13 10:53:50 AM  
Manslaughter?
30.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-13 10:54:00 AM  

the_foo: Since they're now saying he didn't try to ram the cops it sounds like the shooting was probably not justified


Also, the other cop on the scene didn't fire a single shot.  That's probably a pretty good indication for you.
 
2013-11-13 10:54:31 AM  

the_foo: FarkedOver: Cool! A police apologist! Here's another interesting tidbit from the article:

According to the FBI's report, there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault - 658,231 compared with 521,196 arrests.

Gotta clean these streets up and get those pot smoking beatniks in jail!

/How long you been on the force Officer Friendly?

Yo Cheech, the utter failure that is the war on drugs does nothing to validate your 5,000 killed by cops number. Certainly they've killed innocent people before, but your source is crap.


Hey John Law, if you read the article:

Because individual police departments are not required to submit information regarding the use of deadly force by its officers...

Maybe we need more accountability for these meatheads that are given guns and badges.
 
2013-11-13 10:56:23 AM  

the_foo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

If the police have to come and get you, they're bringin an ass-whoopin with them.

Since they're now saying he didn't try to ram the cops it sounds like the shooting was probably not justified, but I'm sick of TFAs switching straight into "poor innocent victim" mode. (Oh, he has kids? So does, like,  everybody). Why was he running from the cops again? "Allen had pending charges of evading arrest, drug possession and assault at the time of his death." (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/tag/michael-vincent-allen/ ) Half hour chase exceeding 100MPH? Don't give me this bullshiat like he was some upstanding citizen minding his own business. The police being wrong doesn't make the person they're after right.


Perhaps he knew enough about the local Police department to understand that if they caught him, he was a dead man no matter what.
 
2013-11-13 10:56:35 AM  

FarkedOver: A police apologist!


Oh, look. You got called on your BS so you just make shiat up. What a shocker.

Post a legitimate source or STFU with your INFOWARS-wannabe horsehiat. It's not exactly hard. They even have the goddamn CATO work on the subject in your garbage article, you only had to click one more link and copy that URL instead to not be a raging retard.

knobmaker: This guy, therefore something seriously wrong with the way cops are hired, trained, and retained.


Three of the first six comments before I posted were generic biatching about all cops, so, yea.

These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.

Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Nobody cars that Office Jerkass was mean to you because you were being a dickbag, that's not really a problem, especially not in the face of this type of shiat.
 
2013-11-13 10:56:41 AM  

vygramul: Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?

Probably only twice. He probably had 15-round mags.



If I had to bet, I'd say he only reloaded once.  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.  20 plus one and another full mag equals 41 rounds.
 
2013-11-13 10:57:05 AM  

FarkedOver: skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

Cool! A police apologist! Here's another interesting tidbit from the article:

According to the FBI's report, there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault - 658,231 compared with 521,196 arrests.

Gotta clean these streets up and get those pot smoking beatniks in jail!

/How long you been on the force Officer Friendly?


and there is another reason why pot heads will never get legal weed.
 
2013-11-13 10:57:19 AM  
Texass is the biggest shiathole in the world. We really need to apologize to Mexico and beg them to take it back.
 
2013-11-13 10:57:28 AM  

the_foo: The police being wrong doesn't make the person they're after right.


It's a good thing nobody is claiming that, then.
 
2013-11-13 10:57:38 AM  

the_foo: Since they're now saying he didn't try to ram the cops it sounds like the shooting was probably not justified, but I'm sick of TFAs switching straight into "poor innocent victim" mode. (Oh, he has kids? So does, like, everybody). Why was he running from the cops again? "Allen had pending charges of evading arrest, drug possession and assault at the time of his death." (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/tag/michael-vincent-allen/ ) Half hour chase exceeding 100MPH? Don't give me this bullshiat like he was some upstanding citizen minding his own business. The police being wrong doesn't make the person they're after right.



How should they write about a deceased person who hadn't done anything to warrant being deceased?
 
2013-11-13 10:57:40 AM  
So he gave the guy 38 warning shots?  He had plenty of time to exit the truck and lie down on the ground.
 
2013-11-13 10:58:00 AM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


Why didnt the other cops shot him? Tase him?
In no universe was this cop anything other than a MAD DOG shooting at an innocent civilian.
If the person shooting the gun was a CIVILIAN, the other cops would have put him DOWN.

So yes, all cops are bad until they stop cops like this in the act of shooting innocent civilians.
/no, he was innocent until proven guilty.

Ned Stark: How many times does it have to happen before we are allowed to notice a pattern?

This

Snarcasm: The charge is just manslaughter, but I wonder why there are not 50 addon charges.
Perjury, official oppression, vandalism, reckless discharge,


Funny how cops get a pass on piling on charges. Why is that?

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


He is only being charged with manslaughter, so no death penalty.
 
2013-11-13 10:58:11 AM  
If you're a cop that was actually fired (and not just given a two month paid vacation).......

When you're indicted by a Grand Jury...............

When you're held at an unusually high bail....................

All while in TEXAS................


OooooooBOY, did you ever F up if even Texans think that was a bit excessive, Officer Oink!
 
2013-11-13 10:58:14 AM  
When groups like CATO say that cops are the problem, then you know that cops are the problem.
 
2013-11-13 10:59:26 AM  
Here is an interesting kickstarter project: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1850434439/puppycide-the-document a ry

Apparently the police kill a dog every 98 seconds in this country.
 
2013-11-13 10:59:27 AM  
never, ever run from cops.

kushsmoke.com
 
2013-11-13 10:59:31 AM  

Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?


Only once if he used this:
ecx.images-amazon.com
/and had a full mag with one in the hole.
 
2013-11-13 11:00:01 AM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


Home Depot have a sale on broad brushes?
 
2013-11-13 11:00:08 AM  
Hey John Law, if you read the article:

Because individual police departments are not required to submit information regarding the use of deadly force by its officers...

Maybe we need more accountability for these meatheads that are given guns and badges.


That's fine, but that's not what you started off talking about. I absolutely would like more accountability of law enforcement, but FFS can you stay on topic for more than one post in a row? You posted info from a crap source, and everyone that calls you on it isn't a cop.
 
2013-11-13 11:00:28 AM  

knobmaker: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

No.

This guy, therefore something seriously wrong with the way cops are hired, trained, and retained.


Cops are like politicians, the ones who really want the job are the ones you really don't want to have the job.
 
2013-11-13 11:00:33 AM  

skozlaw: FarkedOver: A police apologist!

Oh, look. You got called on your BS so you just make shiat up. What a shocker.

Post a legitimate source or STFU with your INFOWARS-wannabe horsehiat. It's not exactly hard. They even have the goddamn CATO work on the subject in your garbage article, you only had to click one more link and copy that URL instead to not be a raging retard.

knobmaker: This guy, therefore something seriously wrong with the way cops are hired, trained, and retained.

Three of the first six comments before I posted were generic biatching about all cops, so, yea.

These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.

Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Nobody cars that Office Jerkass was mean to you because you were being a dickbag, that's not really a problem, especially not in the face of this type of shiat.


You are awesome and thank you for your common sense. If I could I would make you cookies.
 
2013-11-13 11:00:35 AM  
Isn't that more shots than the whole German police force fired in a year?
 
2013-11-13 11:01:21 AM  

mediablitz: "More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...


This is soon going to be a major problem for the police and courts. Stories of incidents where police are shielded from their abuse of power are no longer confined to friends and family of the victims but can get national attention, and there is no shortage of then. If they keep this up for much longer the public will have virtually no faith in the police either on patrol or when they testify in the courtroom.

All for the sake of protecting cops who abuse their power and break the law.
 
2013-11-13 11:02:21 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: At least this idiot got fired and charged.


I won't consider it over until he's taking blah weenor up the hiney in the prison shower every night. This creep might still get to walk free.
 
2013-11-13 11:02:26 AM  

Ned Stark: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

How many times does it have to happen before we are allowed to notice a pattern?


Patronizing people with illogical bullshiat is his profession.

He's a lawyer.
 
2013-11-13 11:02:54 AM  
"Who's driving shooting at the car, Stevie Wonder??"
 
2013-11-13 11:03:22 AM  

alice_600: and thank you for your common sense


You might wanna go... learn. Just plain learn. You seem to be in need of it.
 
2013-11-13 11:04:32 AM  
The police need to be recorded every single second they are on duty.  Internal Affairs needs to be replaced with a civilian oversight commission.  The thin blue line must be destroyed.
 
2013-11-13 11:05:45 AM  

Ned Stark: How many times does it have to happen before we are allowed to notice a pattern?


I don't know. Ask CATO. They've been on this for years and have actually been producing useful information and arguments about the problem. One of the few useful things they've ever done.

The key here is that there's a difference between a pattern and a solid color and a lot of farkers in this threads seem to have a hard time understanding that. Notice how CATO, however, doesn't run around pretending that EVERY cop is like this. Because that doesn't help. Because it's not true.
 
2013-11-13 11:05:53 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.


GPS too
 
2013-11-13 11:06:23 AM  

generallyso: How should they write about a deceased person who hadn't done anything to warrant being deceased?


They might try some nuance.
 
2013-11-13 11:06:31 AM  

PsyLord: That's because cops are crappy shooters and are not even within the same league as your average CCW holder.


This is a pretty common theme, but I do have anecdotal evidence that some of the law enforcement in my area are not actually that bad at shooting.

My range's last USPSA match of the year was last weekend, and someone persuaded a whole contingent of LEO's to stop by and shoot it with us.  They did not do too poorly, in fact some of them were reasonably competitive in their divisions.  I had been all spun up to chortle to myself about how terrible the professionals were, and I was pleasantly surprised.

Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.


It seems like this should be easy to market to the cops themselves.  "Are you tired of being dragged up on bs he-said/she-said accusations of brutality ect, well our patented tamper-free wearable camera system will provide you with unimpeachable record of your behavior."  It would only work for the relatively honest ones, but in spite of fark hate, I think there is still a majority of cops who do their jobs professionally.  (Or at least, every single one that I have encountered in my region)
 
2013-11-13 11:07:10 AM  
Police and judges need mandatory maximum sentences. It's their job to know better.
 
2013-11-13 11:08:09 AM  

FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civili an s-since-911/172029/


People who use bullshiat statistics?  FTFA: ~~Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it's estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year.

For the record, I think this cop belongs in the "pig" category and should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
 
2013-11-13 11:09:58 AM  

skozlaw: Notice how CATO, however, doesn't run around pretending that EVERY cop is like this. Because that doesn't help. Because it's not true.


So you're being a big crybaby over hyperbole because you wanted to defend the cops. Gotcha.
 
2013-11-13 11:10:19 AM  
FarkedOver:This guy, therefore something seriously wrong with the way cops are hired, trained, and retained.

Straight out of high school from the high school football team?


It's not that. I think the issue is that US laws have made everyone a criminal and promoted the idea that dangerous armed villains are lurking everywhere. That's rubbed off on police and they've come to see themselves as under siege. Giving police military gear is a downward spiral. We wouldn't have been given light tanks and machine guns unless we needed them and since we need them we need to use them.
 
2013-11-13 11:11:15 AM  

FilmBELOH20: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civili an s-since-911/172029/

People who use bullshiat statistics?  FTFA: ~~Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it's estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year.

For the record, I think this cop belongs in the "pig" category and should spend the rest of his life behind bars.


Because police departments are not required to do so!

We can just take their word on it that they are doing a fine upstanding job.
 
2013-11-13 11:11:51 AM  
Wrong subby, he hit with all 41 shots, just not the intended target.  All bullets gotta end up somewhere.
 
2013-11-13 11:12:37 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: It's not that. I think the issue is that US laws have made everyone a criminal and promoted the idea that dangerous armed villains are lurking everywhere. That's rubbed off on police and they've come to see themselves as under siege. Giving police military gear is a downward spiral. We wouldn't have been given light tanks and machine guns unless we needed them and since we need them we need to use them.


It's also a problem that police departments are the first place returning veterans are turning to for a job.  They should work in any other field that doesn't involve a weapon.
 
2013-11-13 11:16:01 AM  

FarkedOver: The police need to be recorded every single second they are on duty.  Internal Affairs needs to be replaced with a civilian oversight commission.  The thin blue line must be destroyed.

I totally agree. Cops only have to be truthful when they are under oath (in court, talking with a judge).
The need to get a confession from a possible suspect overrules  citizen's rights. The public should demand that the right for complete truth and accuracy in legal matters should be greater than a police officers' right to privacy.

 
2013-11-13 11:16:07 AM  
Yes, yes it seems like a lot of bullets missed, except when you factor in he was using a pistol, was jumped up on adrenaline, and the guy had partial cover.

Anybody who has never fired a gun, much less a pistol, in a life or death situation where your adrenaline is making your heart want to come out of your chest and your hands are shaky would say that 41 round with 38 missing is bad marksmanship.

Any body who has is surprised seven of those rounds from a pistol found their mark. There is a reason the Army spends a lot of time teaching people how to shoot and how to act calmly under very scary conditions. There is also a reason they use automatic weapons, because pretty much humans suck at shooting when scared or excited and more lead toward the bad guys is better than less.
 
2013-11-13 11:17:25 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Wrong subby, he hit with all 41 shots, just not the intended target.  All bullets gotta end up somewhere.


Which is the definition of missing.
 
2013-11-13 11:17:52 AM  

Mentalpatient87: skozlaw: Notice how CATO, however, doesn't run around pretending that EVERY cop is like this. Because that doesn't help. Because it's not true.

So you're being a big crybaby over hyperbole because you wanted to defend the cops. Gotcha.


Yea, how stupid I am. Thinking a problem should be approached with verifiable facts instead of whiny hyperbole. How dumb I am.
 
2013-11-13 11:18:08 AM  

6655321: I totally agree. Cops only have to be truthful when they are under oath (in court, talking with a judge).
The need to get a confession from a possible suspect overrules citizen's rights. The public should demand that the right for complete truth and accuracy in legal matters should be greater than a police officers' right to privacy on the job.



There. That's better.  I don't care what they do when they are not wearing the badge.
 
2013-11-13 11:20:35 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Yes, yes it seems like a lot of bullets missed, except when you factor in he was using a pistol, was jumped up on adrenaline, and the guy had partial cover.

Anybody who has never fired a gun, much less a pistol, in a life or death situation where your adrenaline is making your heart want to come out of your chest and your hands are shaky would say that 41 round with 38 missing is bad marksmanship.

Any body who has is surprised seven of those rounds from a pistol found their mark. There is a reason the Army spends a lot of time teaching people how to shoot and how to act calmly under very scary conditions. There is also a reason they use automatic weapons, because pretty much humans suck at shooting when scared or excited and more lead toward the bad guys is better than less.


If you carry a gun, I hope your marksmanship is better than your math.
 
2013-11-13 11:20:58 AM  

FarkedOver: Here is an interesting kickstarter project: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1850434439/puppycide-the-document a ry

Apparently the police kill a dog every 98 seconds in this country.

 Apparently, facts aren't your strong suit.
 
2013-11-13 11:21:09 AM  

skozlaw: How dumb I am.


As long as you're aware, and also Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-11-13 11:21:13 AM  

MythDragon: Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?

Only once if he used this:
[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x339]
/and had a full mag with one in the hole.


No.
 
2013-11-13 11:21:15 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: a life or death situation


for the guy he murdered, sure...
 
2013-11-13 11:22:04 AM  

Carousel Beast: Apparently, facts aren't your strong suit.


Apparently, you don't give a shiat about accountability.  At least other people do.
 
2013-11-13 11:22:23 AM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


Well, this guy plus the other cops who lied about it minus all the cops who stepped forward to tell the truth...

Therefore all cops.
 
2013-11-13 11:23:24 AM  

sirgrim: RedPhoenix122: Wrong subby, he hit with all 41 shots, just not the intended target.  All bullets gotta end up somewhere.

Which is the definition of missing.


When you fire 41 shots, you're not missing anymore, you're causing collateral damage, including possibly hitting bystanders.  This is why you don't fire 41 shots, you make sure you hit you're f-ing target.  People who spray and pray piss me off.
 
2013-11-13 11:23:59 AM  

RedPhoenix122: you're


Your.  Farking A I'm tired.
 
2013-11-13 11:24:58 AM  
LOL An honor graduate of the government training you hoplophobes want to inflict on law abiding gun owners.
 
2013-11-13 11:25:15 AM  
www.thegirlsstuff.com
 
2013-11-13 11:28:15 AM  

FTFA:

The other officer at the scene fired no shots and actually took cover behind his squad car as Tuter continued to pump bullets at the immobilized pickup truck.


I notice none of his accomplices are being charged. If this wasn't a government criminal all parties in accessory would be facing the same murder rap.

Also note that none of his coconspirators tried to stop him from committing murder.

... but he's the "one bad apple" amirite?!
 
2013-11-13 11:29:04 AM  

the_foo: generallyso: How should they write about a deceased person who hadn't done anything to warrant being deceased?

They might try some nuance.


You'd need to give them a dictionary first.
 
2013-11-13 11:31:25 AM  
Bam! Bam! Bam!

!www.quickmeme.com
 
2013-11-13 11:32:33 AM  

the_foo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

If the police have to come and get you, they're bringin an ass-whoopin with them.

Since they're now saying he didn't try to ram the cops it sounds like the shooting was probably not justified, but I'm sick of TFAs switching straight into "poor innocent victim" mode. (Oh, he has kids? So does, like,  everybody). Why was he running from the cops again? "Allen had pending charges of evading arrest, drug possession and assault at the time of his death." (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/tag/michael-vincent-allen/ ) Half hour chase exceeding 100MPH? Don't give me this bullshiat like he was some upstanding citizen minding his own business. The police being wrong doesn't make the person they're after right.


The inverse of that statement is true, also. Victim blaming isn't any more righteous than criminal defending, ya know. He wasn't innocent, but he should not have been killed, and definitely not shot at forty-one farking times.
 
2013-11-13 11:32:56 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.


LOL remember that incident in PG county MD where seven police cruisers responded to a scene and the suspect somehow got beaten to a pulp? Turns out, somehow, all seven dash cam "malfunctioned." What are the odds?
 
2013-11-13 11:34:43 AM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


Not all cops, just the VAST majority of them.  I've worked with many cops over my professional career, sometimes on their side, sometimes against them.  I've gotten to know many of them personally and consider some to be my friends.  Nonetheless I know exactly zero cops who haven't committed perjury (we call it "testilying" in the bidness),, violated people's civil rights, or intentionally covered up for a dirty cop at the expense of innocent civilians
 
2013-11-13 11:34:49 AM  
skozlaw


This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.
"All" is a silly term, but answer us this. How many of his partners in this murder tried to stop him? None? Then yes, all of this group which indicates a problem with everyone under this department/training team.
 
2013-11-13 11:37:00 AM  

The WindowLicker: My range's last USPSA match of the year was last weekend, and someone persuaded a whole contingent of LEO's to stop by and shoot it with us.  They did not do too poorly, in fact some of them were reasonably competitive in their divisions.  I had been all spun up to chortle to myself about how terrible the professionals were, and I was pleasantly surprised.


Yes, they are the public face of the police. I'd bet a large portion of their job is to keep practicing so that they can show off how great the cops are, rather than be on the street.
And then you have your other cops that proudly and publicly admit that the ONLY time their gun leaves their holster is when they have to qualify once a year... Which would be bad enough, until it gets much worse when you see what the yearly qualification tests actually are.
 
2013-11-13 11:39:53 AM  

skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.


Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.
 
2013-11-13 11:40:22 AM  
Remember the cop who killed the double amputee for recklessly brandishing a ball point pen? Apparently the wheelchair was coming right at him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/brian-claunch-houston-shot- ma tthew-marin-police-cleared-disabled-amputee_n_4218889.html

I do not engage with the police, and I tell my children not to engage with the police.
 
2013-11-13 11:41:21 AM  
skozlaw


This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


www.upl.co
www.upl.co

7 triggermen (murderers)

Dozens lied to cover up

Thousands (from multiple departments) lined the street calling them heroes.


Not all, but not "one bad apple" by any farking means.
 
2013-11-13 11:41:32 AM  
That's about right.
 
2013-11-13 11:41:42 AM  

Madbassist1: Remember the cop who killed the double amputee for recklessly brandishing a ball point pen? Apparently the wheelchair was coming right at him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/brian-claunch-houston-shot- ma tthew-marin-police-cleared-disabled-amputee_n_4218889.html

I do not engage with the police, and I tell my children not to engage with the police.


Never talk to the police.  Nothing good can come of it.
 
2013-11-13 11:43:30 AM  

Pharque-it: Isn't that more shots than the whole German police force fired in a year?


We let out our government sector violence in a small, steady stream.

Germany saves it all up, and then, a couple times a century...watch out.
 
2013-11-13 11:43:38 AM  

Biff_Steel: Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.

LOL remember that incident in PG county MD where seven police cruisers responded to a scene and the suspect somehow got beaten to a pulp? Turns out, somehow, all seven dash cam "malfunctioned." What are the odds?


CSB: In my county, the cameras on officers and car cams save all their data to a central hard disk in the cruiser, and the hd is changed out at the end of each shift. However, the officers were never taught that you can't eject the hd while the write light was on the device. Over 80% hd failure for over a year, before the software developer said, "Who taught you guys how to use the tech?" After a full administration of blank stares, they began training the officers on the tech they were using. One year later, they still had a 25% failure rate which, years later, is still considered acceptable. Their tech officer has never had a computer class or certification in his lifetime, having learned all he knows from his home computer which is not even running the same OS as his office PC. I've been told this is incredibly common in the police tech industry.
 
2013-11-13 11:44:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.


TASER has a personal video recorder meant to be worn by law enforcement but for some reason it's being adopted more slowly by police departments than their other products.
 
2013-11-13 11:44:50 AM  

FarkedOver: Maybe we need more accountability for these meatheads that are given guns and badges.


Pshaw. Accountability is only for welfare recipients, not America's Heroes!
 
2013-11-13 11:45:22 AM  

Magorn: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

Not all cops, just the VAST majority of them.  I've worked with many cops over my professional career, sometimes on their side, sometimes against them.  I've gotten to know many of them personally and consider some to be my friends.  Nonetheless I know exactly zero cops who haven't committed perjury (we call it "testilying" in the bidness),, violated people's civil rights, or intentionally covered up for a dirty cop at the expense of innocent civilians


Your anonymous unsourced claim is just that, but it helpfully illstrates the REAL problem: that there seem to be few to no enforcable and measurable standards that can be leveraged to find and eliminate dirtbags like this guy until it's too late.

Pity so many are busy whining about their personal grudges instead of contacting legislatures and local government leaders.
 
2013-11-13 11:47:03 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Anybody who has never fired a gun, much less a pistol, in a life or death situation where your adrenaline is making your heart want to come out of your chest and your hands are shaky would say that 41 round with 38 missing is bad marksmanship.


I've never fired in a life or death situation, but (as a pistol instructor) I'd still say that missing ~93% of your shots is a bad score.  If you shoot that poorly, then your training was inadequate for the circumstances in which you were expected to perform.
 
2013-11-13 11:47:52 AM  

Mentalpatient87: alice_600: and thank you for your common sense

You might wanna go... learn. Just plain learn. You seem to be in need of it.



I have learned. I learned a lot possibly more than you have ever learned and one of them is that not everyone is after your god damn pot stash. The only reason you hate the cops is because they are doing something your parents never did. Make you behave in public.
 
2013-11-13 11:48:41 AM  

skozlaw: Pity so many are busy whining about their personal grudges instead of contacting legislatures and local government leaders.


Nobody in this thread has enough money to contact a legislator. Your obstinate insistence that you're right and there is something wrong with everyone else is disingenuous. Anectdotal evidence does not equal data...except when there is a lot of it...with citations.

But go on with your bad self. Its obvious by your handle that you either work in law enforcement, or wish you did. Ergo, a waste of time trying to convince.
 
2013-11-13 11:49:45 AM  

vygramul: PsyLord: FTA: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm. Three of those shots hit Allen, killing him. But 38 of Tuter's shots missed their target.

That's because cops are crappy shooters and are not even within the same league as your average CCW holder.

/amirite?

Now better, that's for certain. Of course, if a cop can't manage a single unarmed man with only 10 rounds, why are we demanding people in self-defense situations be limited to 10?


I'm guessing they are assuming the general public are better shots and don't need the extra five. This story is (anecdotal) evidence in support of that argument.
 
2013-11-13 11:49:57 AM  

cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.


You know that sounds very delusional right?
 
2013-11-13 11:50:10 AM  

cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.


I've never had a bad experience with a cop, but we give them way too much authority and far too little oversight. Is anyone really surprised when shiat like this happens and their buddies (including judge and lawyer coworkers) get them off the hook? I dont hate cops but I am sickened by what the institution of law enforcement has become.

/never had a bad experience with TSA either but I actually do hate them
 
2013-11-13 11:51:17 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.

TASER has a personal video recorder meant to be worn by law enforcement but for some reason it's being adopted more slowly by police departments than their other products.


It's no fun electrocuting people when it can get you in trouble.
 
2013-11-13 11:51:48 AM  

Madbassist1: Remember the cop who killed the double amputee for recklessly brandishing a ball point pen? Apparently the wheelchair was coming right at him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/brian-claunch-houston-shot- ma tthew-marin-police-cleared-disabled-amputee_n_4218889.html

I do not engage with the police, and I tell my children not to engage with the police.


That's gonna end really bad or really ironic when they go to college and become police officers.
 
2013-11-13 11:51:56 AM  

skozlaw: Magorn: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

Not all cops, just the VAST majority of them.  I've worked with many cops over my professional career, sometimes on their side, sometimes against them.  I've gotten to know many of them personally and consider some to be my friends.  Nonetheless I know exactly zero cops who haven't committed perjury (we call it "testilying" in the bidness),, violated people's civil rights, or intentionally covered up for a dirty cop at the expense of innocent civilians

Your anonymous unsourced claim is just that, but it helpfully illstrates the REAL problem: that there seem to be few to no enforcable and measurable standards that can be leveraged to find and eliminate dirtbags like this guy until it's too late.

Pity so many are busy whining about their personal grudges instead of contacting legislatures and local government leaders.


The police are a tool of the state.  You want us to contact the state and tell them to reign in their dogs?  Yep, that'll happen.
 
2013-11-13 11:52:16 AM  

RedPhoenix122: sirgrim: RedPhoenix122: Wrong subby, he hit with all 41 shots, just not the intended target.  All bullets gotta end up somewhere.

Which is the definition of missing.

When you fire 41 shots, you're not missing anymore, you're causing collateral damage, including possibly hitting bystanders.  This is why you don't fire 41 shots, you make sure you hit you're f-ing target.  People who spray and pray piss me off.


Missing and collateral damage are not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-11-13 11:52:29 AM  

the_foo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

If the police have to come and get you, they're bringin an ass-whoopin with them.

Since they're now saying he didn't try to ram the cops it sounds like the shooting was probably not justified, but I'm sick of TFAs switching straight into "poor innocent victim" mode. (Oh, he has kids? So does, like,  everybody). Why was he running from the cops again? "Allen had pending charges of evading arrest, drug possession and assault at the time of his death." (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/tag/michael-vincent-allen/ ) Half hour chase exceeding 100MPH? Don't give me this bullshiat like he was some upstanding citizen minding his own business. The police being wrong doesn't make the person they're after right.


So, summary execution then?
Is that what's right here?
 
2013-11-13 11:54:30 AM  
Not expecting much of a welcome here, but. . .

I am a LEO, been on the force for a little over 2 years now.   I'm with a small police department in a small semi-rural town.  We've never had an officer-involved shooting, and the number of times officers have even had to draw their guns is pretty small.  No, we don't have tasers (no budget for them).

I just had my annual weapon qualification a couple of weeks ago.

In case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined).  Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards.  Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards.  Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards.  Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards.  Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds.  Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards.  Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head.  Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77.  49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.  The reasoning was explained to me that if you are a really hot shot and get into a shooting, someone could sue saying "you're such a great shot, why didn't you try to "shoot to wound", or shoot the gun out of his hand. . ." and if you're a marginal shot they could sue saying you're such a poor marksman that the reason the person is now in paralyzed was you couldn't even shoot to kill (in other words, whatever you do, a lawyer will use it against you, so no record is kept other than passing the minimum mandated standard).

By policy you have 3 tries to qualify before you have to be relieved of your weapon (and your peace officer status would be under review for failure to qualify, in other words your job would be in serious danger).  In practice over 90% of officers qualify the first time, and the other 10% qualify the second time.  I've never seen anybody fail more than once.

I know some agencies/departments around here make it more difficult by requiring multiple consecutive qualifications to count.  That means you'd have to shoot that course, then do it again a second time, or even a third time, and need the consecutive passing scores to stay qualified.

Not exactly super-marksmanship, but it means you can reliably hit and incapacitate a human target at the normal range a police officer would encounter a criminal at.
 
2013-11-13 11:55:42 AM  

RedPhoenix122: sirgrim: RedPhoenix122: Wrong subby, he hit with all 41 shots, just not the intended target.  All bullets gotta end up somewhere.

Which is the definition of missing.

When you fire 41 shots, you're not missing anymore, you're causing collateral damage, including possibly hitting bystanders.  This is why you don't fire 41 shots, you make sure you hit you're f-ing target.  People who spray and pray piss me off.


Indeed. Send them back to revolvers. Make your shots count.
 
2013-11-13 11:57:29 AM  

AgentPothead: You guys can only play the, but all cops aren't like this only a few are, card before it starts to make you look like an idiot.


Yet people still point out that only 1% of muslims are "extrmists".

Either a group represents the whole or it doesn't.

I'll let you choose.
 
2013-11-13 11:58:05 AM  
This is why cops should not be aloud to have guns.
 
2013-11-13 12:00:59 PM  

elysive: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

I've never had a bad experience with a cop, but we give them way too much authority and far too little oversight. Is anyone really surprised when shiat like this happens and their buddies (including judge and lawyer coworkers) get them off the hook? I dont hate cops but I am sickened by what the institution of law enforcement has become.

/never had a bad experience with TSA either but I actually do hate them


The problem though with domestic abuse cases is sometimes it can be hard to prove who was doing the hitting and provoking the hitting. There are some cases where it's he said, she said. There are some women's shelters who demonize men to the point where you feel you have to abort your next kid if he's male because he'll just rape all day long.

The shelter I worked at pissed me off to the point I quit because their program didn't empower and teach women how to protect their children. It was just making the victim always, the victim and never really recovering and realize that yeah there were signs but I didn't pay attention or control myself because I was in LOVE!"
 
2013-11-13 12:02:03 PM  

FarkedOver: skozlaw: Magorn: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

Not all cops, just the VAST majority of them.  I've worked with many cops over my professional career, sometimes on their side, sometimes against them.  I've gotten to know many of them personally and consider some to be my friends.  Nonetheless I know exactly zero cops who haven't committed perjury (we call it "testilying" in the bidness),, violated people's civil rights, or intentionally covered up for a dirty cop at the expense of innocent civilians

Your anonymous unsourced claim is just that, but it helpfully illstrates the REAL problem: that there seem to be few to no enforcable and measurable standards that can be leveraged to find and eliminate dirtbags like this guy until it's too late.

Pity so many are busy whining about their personal grudges instead of contacting legislatures and local government leaders.

The police are a tool of the state.  You want us to contact the state and tell them to reign in their dogs?  Yep, that'll happen.


Works for fundies why not everyone else?
 
2013-11-13 12:02:47 PM  

alice_600: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

You know that sounds very delusional right?


That is precisely what the way they want you to see it. The first move of ant predator is to discredit and/or disable the victim.
it warms my heart to see independent thinkers like yourself regurgitating this Bullsh*t.
Carry on good citizen!
 
2013-11-13 12:03:22 PM  
You have to admit, this was a highly emotionally charged situation.  After all, there was some maniac with a gun shooting all over the place.
 
2013-11-13 12:05:11 PM  
Forgetting all the other terrible things wrong with this cop's performance;

officers in most places aren't trained nor required to have any accuracy at range. Back in the day they'd qualify on a range dumping X rounds into a target at ~20yds.

Today, police firearm qualification tests for most involves a series of maneuvers/scenarios and most action involves firing inside of a 5 yard range.

And this makes sense, as most of their interactions requiring force take place at close range.

/There is still no excuse for this guy.
 
2013-11-13 12:05:48 PM  
This happened earlier (last year?) when that one ex-cop went on a rampage in California, when a cop fired a bunch of shots at a couple women in a truck and didn't even kill either of them. Sadly, I am piss-poor at remembering names.
 
2013-11-13 12:08:24 PM  

knobmaker: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

No.

This guy, therefore something seriously wrong with the way cops are hired, trained, and retained.


Yet there are those who would have us believe that only these trained professionals should be armed.
 
2013-11-13 12:10:18 PM  

alice_600: Madbassist1: Remember the cop who killed the double amputee for recklessly brandishing a ball point pen? Apparently the wheelchair was coming right at him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/brian-claunch-houston-shot- ma tthew-marin-police-cleared-disabled-amputee_n_4218889.html

I do not engage with the police, and I tell my children not to engage with the police.

That's gonna end really bad or really ironic when they go to college and become police officers.


You arent as clever as you think you are.
 
2013-11-13 12:10:32 PM  

alice_600: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

You know that sounds very delusional right?


In a thread where a cop is facing charges for killing a guy, you're doubting her story of cops...not killing someone?

???

The farking FBI was helping criminals murder our fellow citizens not all that long ago...why would you assume she's delusional about some podunk cops acting in a chickenshiat manner?

/I'm fine with good cops.
//drop the hammer on the bad ones.
 
2013-11-13 12:12:12 PM  

Silverstaff: By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.  The reasoning was explained to me that if you are a really hot shot and get into a shooting, someone could sue saying "you're such a great shot, why didn't you try to "shoot to wound", or shoot the gun out of his hand. . ." and if you're a marginal shot they could sue saying you're such a poor marksman that the reason the person is now in paralyzed was you couldn't even shoot to kill (in other words, whatever you do, a lawyer will use it against you, so no record is kept other than passing the minimum mandated standard).


I have a huge problem with this. Just because a lawyer might use your data against you is not a good reason to essentially destroy records. This is just a small example of exactly what's wrong with the law enforcement in this country.
 
2013-11-13 12:13:21 PM  

skozlaw: Ned Stark: How many times does it have to happen before we are allowed to notice a pattern?

I don't know. Ask CATO. They've been on this for years and have actually been producing useful information and arguments about the problem. One of the few useful things they've ever done.

The key here is that there's a difference between a pattern and a solid color and a lot of farkers in this threads seem to have a hard time understanding that. Notice how CATO, however, doesn't run around pretending that EVERY cop is like this. Because that doesn't help. Because it's not true.


Every cop is not like that. Every cop is, however, complicit in it, as are the preponderance of prosecutors, judges and legislators. Same issue with the "Christians" in this country. The moderates and decent ones still identify with, support and protect the extremists among them.
 
2013-11-13 12:14:17 PM  

JoieD'Zen: alice_600: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

You know that sounds very delusional right?

That is precisely what the way they want you to see it. The first move of ant predator is to discredit and/or disable the victim.
it warms my heart to see independent thinkers like yourself regurgitating this Bullsh*t.
Carry on good citizen!


Well what do you want me to do now? I can't go back in time and correct it?  I can't say "bad cops, no biscut!" I can't hate the cops they saved me from a mother who tried to kill me when she didn't want me to go into my Dad's custody.
 
2013-11-13 12:16:11 PM  

alice_600: Well what do you want me to do now? I can't go back in time and correct it? I can't say "bad cops, no biscut!" I can't hate the cops they saved me from a mother who tried to kill me when she didn't want me to go into my Dad's custody.


You can admit you're biased and too obstinate to change your position.
 
2013-11-13 12:16:22 PM  
Some of you cop apologists are just making yourself look stupid.  If I wasn't hungover it'd be easier to text out my well-reasoned response on my way to work. Hold on...getting pulled over.
 
2013-11-13 12:17:20 PM  

Madbassist1: Its obvious by your handle that you either work in law enforcement, or wish you did.


Or maybe it's my first initial and part of my last name.

But, no, I'd love to know since you didn't actually bother to read any of my other posts, what, exactly, do you think I'm arguing for or against?

cryinoutloud: [brevity]


And in a country of over three hundred million there are thousands of stories like yours, but that's still not actual data and it's still not an appropriate or intelligent way to formulate an opinion on or approach the problem.

Most of us accept that there is a problem. There is, in fact, considerable real data that proves it. Nobody is seriously debating that.

The problem we have with the debate that's actually happening is that too many people have done what you have: ignored the real data and instead focused on your emotional connection to the issue. That's not going to accomplish any real reform. Not on this or any other issue.

Running around screaming that you hate the cops and they're all pigs and they're all out to get you and terrorists and blah blah blah isn't going to accomplish shiat except getting reasonable people to ignore you and deaden them on the issue, guaranteeing the problem is NEVER addressed.
 
2013-11-13 12:17:45 PM  

Madbassist1: alice_600: Madbassist1: Remember the cop who killed the double amputee for recklessly brandishing a ball point pen? Apparently the wheelchair was coming right at him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/brian-claunch-houston-shot- ma tthew-marin-police-cleared-disabled-amputee_n_4218889.html

I do not engage with the police, and I tell my children not to engage with the police.

That's gonna end really bad or really ironic when they go to college and become police officers.

You arent as clever as you think you are.


But I know it's pissing you off.
 
2013-11-13 12:18:37 PM  

alice_600: elysive: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

I've never had a bad experience with a cop, but we give them way too much authority and far too little oversight. Is anyone really surprised when shiat like this happens and their buddies (including judge and lawyer coworkers) get them off the hook? I dont hate cops but I am sickened by what the institution of law enforcement has become.

/never had a bad experience with TSA either but I actually do hate them

The problem though with domestic abuse cases is sometimes it can be hard to prove who was doing the hitting and provoking the hitting. There are some cases where it's he said, she said. There are some women's shelters who demonize men to the point where you feel you have to abort your next kid if he's male because he'll just rape all day long.

The shelter I worked at pissed me off to the point I quit because their program didn't empower and teach women how to protect their children. I ...


Well, my post really wasnt about domestic abuse, but since I replied to one I'll bite. Women and domestic violence victims should be empowered. They should be taught no holds barred how to protect themselves and should learn how to protect those under their care (accepting responsibility for another can be empowering itself). However, the suggestion that victims somehow provoke and deserve abuse is a load of horse shiat. That's what you're suggesting because to us normal people "who provokes the hitting" isnt a thing and shouldnt be a police consideration.

Even if I initiate an argument, it does not excuse my partner from strangling, beating or otherwise abusing me.
 
2013-11-13 12:20:36 PM  

Madbassist1: alice_600: Well what do you want me to do now? I can't go back in time and correct it? I can't say "bad cops, no biscut!" I can't hate the cops they saved me from a mother who tried to kill me when she didn't want me to go into my Dad's custody.

You can admit you're biased and too obstinate to change your position.


As long as you admit that you are the same.
 
2013-11-13 12:20:44 PM  

alice_600: JoieD'Zen: alice_600: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

You know that sounds very delusional right?

That is precisely what the way they want you to see it. The first move of ant predator is to discredit and/or disable the victim.
it warms my heart to see independent thinkers like yourself regurgitating this Bullsh*t.
Carry on good citizen!

Well what do you want me to do now? I can't go back in time and correct it?  I can't say "bad cops, no biscut!" I can't hate the cops they saved me from a mother who tried to kill me when she didn't want me to go into my Dad's custody.


You sound paranoid. No Mother would try to kill her own child.
 
2013-11-13 12:20:44 PM  

stuffy: This is why cops should not be aloud to have guns.


Can they be whispered to have guns?
 
2013-11-13 12:24:13 PM  
Who are any of you to judge?
This is the ultimate alpha male job. It's for the toughest and strongest, both mentally and physically. They live by a warrior's code, something most of you cannot begin to understand
 
2013-11-13 12:24:37 PM  

JoieD'Zen: No Mother would try to kill her own child


Note: I am neither supporting nor condemning alice_600's post, but is this a joke? Do you really believe that?
 
2013-11-13 12:24:38 PM  
Most recreational shooters I know around here hate when cops show up at the range because they are generally lousy shots and try to disregard range safety rules.

They do get amused when cops show up to participate in shooting contests because they typically get pwned by 50 year old fat guys.
 
2013-11-13 12:24:59 PM  

skozlaw: Running around screaming that you hate the cops and they're all pigs and they're all out to get you and terrorists and blah blah blah isn't going to accomplish shiat except getting reasonable people to ignore you and deaden them on the issue, guaranteeing the problem is NEVER addressed.


Hey for the record (and I know you arent addressing me directly here), U dont hate cops, I dont think they're pigs and terrorists. But if you willingly choose to keep company with people who can kill you on a whim with no repercussions, when you cannot deal the same hand. You're just a farking fool.

/Cops also lie. All the time. Read any number of police reports. They all read the same because cops use the same phrasing that they know justify their actions.

/yeah its anecdotal,

//its farking evidence no matter how much you wish it weren't
 
2013-11-13 12:25:09 PM  

alice_600: elysive: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

I've never had a bad experience with a cop, but we give them way too much authority and far too little oversight. Is anyone really surprised when shiat like this happens and their buddies (including judge and lawyer coworkers) get them off the hook? I dont hate cops but I am sickened by what the institution of law enforcement has become.

/never had a bad experience with TSA either but I actually do hate them

The problem though with domestic abuse cases is sometimes it can be hard to prove who was doing the hitting and provoking the hitting. There are some cases where it's he said, she said. There are some women's shelters who demonize men to the point where you feel you have to abort your next kid if he's male because he'll just rape all day long.

The shelter I worked at pissed me off to the point I quit because their program didn't empower and teach women how to protect their children. I ...



Yeah, why can't you just tell all those domestic violence victims that their stories are completely delusional like you want to?  God! It's like they don't even want you to help!
 
2013-11-13 12:26:54 PM  

alice_600: Madbassist1: alice_600: Well what do you want me to do now? I can't go back in time and correct it? I can't say "bad cops, no biscut!" I can't hate the cops they saved me from a mother who tried to kill me when she didn't want me to go into my Dad's custody.

You can admit you're biased and too obstinate to change your position.

As long as you admit that you are the same.


I'm not. I've never had a bad experience with a cop. Been railroaded by the courts before, but not cops.

I just have eyes and can see. My opinions are not pre-formed. Read my post about the cop who murdered the poor bastard in the wheel chair. Here in Houston, thats just another day. Cops kill about 20-30 a year down here. I don't talk to them.
 
2013-11-13 12:26:54 PM  

Silverstaff: but it means you can reliably hit and incapacitate a human target at the normal range a police officer would encounter a criminal at.


"but it means you can reliably hit an incapacitated human while in a normal rage for a police officer"
 
2013-11-13 12:31:23 PM  

doubled99: Who are any of you to judge?
This is the ultimate alpha male job. It's for the toughest and strongest, both mentally and physically. They live by a warrior's code, something most of you cannot begin to understand


thecasaofelhanlo.files.wordpress.com
FARK YEAH!
 
2013-11-13 12:32:49 PM  

danvon: JoieD'Zen: No Mother would try to kill her own child

Note: I am neither supporting nor condemning alice_600's post, but is this a joke? Do you really believe that?


Earlier in the thread Alice_600 had made the statement that someone's believable experience with the police sounded paranoid.  JoieD'Zen is responding to that post in like kind.  I'm sure that's not his actual belief.
 
2013-11-13 12:38:25 PM  
alice_600:
That is precisely what the way they want you to see it. The first move of ant predator is to discredit and/or disable the victim.
it warms my heart to see independent thinkers like yourself regurgitating this Bullsh*t.
Carry on good citizen!

Well what do you want me to do now? I can't go back in time and correct it?  I can't say "bad cops, no biscut!" I can't hate the cops they saved me from a mother who tried to kill me when she didn't want me to go into my Dad's custody.


Help me understand this comment.  Because you can't go back in time and correct what the cops did to this woman, terrorizing her further after suffering abuse, you have only the choice of attempting to discredit her story?  How about not responding at all?  Is that possible?  Or you could have met her anecdote with your anecdote of the cops saving your life and it would have been zeroed out...instead you went the extra mile and called her delusional.  There is no planet on which that seems reasonable.
 
2013-11-13 12:39:42 PM  

Silverstaff: Not expecting much of a welcome here, but. . .

I am a LEO, been on the force for a little over 2 years now.   I'm with a small police department in a small semi-rural town.  We've never had an officer-involved shooting, and the number of times officers have even had to draw their guns is pretty small.  No, we don't have tasers (no budget for them).

I just had my annual weapon qualification a couple of weeks ago.

In case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined).  Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.


We use the same type of target and scoring basis, but we qualify 4 times a year using a 30 round course. Most of the shots are from within 7 yards since most police shootings take place within that range. We also involve movement while shooting, and at least one course of fire is from behind cover. Also, at least one course involves a "failure drill," that is, you set your gun up so it doesn't fire. Usually it involves something like placing a magazine with two rounds in it, then firing six. After you fire three rounds (2 in the mag, one in the chamber) your gun fails to fire and you must reload. One qualification is done at night - in fact I have night qualification this week.

Unlike your department, we do track scores. I generally shoot in the high 80's, low 90's.
 
2013-11-13 12:41:55 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


Actually it would make sense if he had 10 round mags and he carries with 10 in the box and one in the pipe.  Then he would only have to change mags 3 times.  Which was probably all the ammo he was carrying.
 
2013-11-13 12:43:51 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: At least this idiot got fired and charged.


QFT. When a cop commits a criminal act, even in the line of duty, he should be arrested and charged like anybody else - if that simple idea was consistently and immediately applied, at all times, I guarantee the esteem in which people hold cops would jump upwards overnight.

Imagine it. Instead of having cops lie, cheat, and steal to protect each other, even at the expense of the lives of other people, cops would hold each other to the same standard that they're supposed to be upholding. Whistleblowers would be celebrated for maintaining the ethical integrity of law enforcement. Cops that positively support and uphold the law, even amongst themselves, would live by example and improve the community as a whole, instead of treating themselves as separate from the community and maintaining a militarized "us vs. them" mentality.
 
2013-11-13 12:48:12 PM  

FormlessOne: QFT. When a cop commits a criminal act, even in the line of duty, he should be arrested and charged like anybody else - if that simple idea was consistently and immediately applied, at all times, I guarantee the esteem in which people hold cops would jump upwards overnight.

Imagine it. Instead of having cops lie, cheat, and steal to protect each other, even at the expense of the lives of other people, cops would hold each other to the same standard that they're supposed to be upholding. Whistleblowers would be celebrated for maintaining the ethical integrity of law enforcement. Cops that positively support and uphold the law, even amongst themselves, would live by example and improve the community as a whole, instead of treating themselves as separate from the community and maintaining a militarized "us vs. them" mentality.


Did you notice that you're posting in a thread based on a story where a cop WAS "arrested and charged just like everybody else?"
 
2013-11-13 12:49:03 PM  

Callous: Actually it would make sense if he had 10 round mags and he carries with 10 in the box and one in the pipe. Then he would only have to change mags 3 times. Which was probably all the ammo he was carrying.


Someone mentioned that upthread, and it makes sense.

Well, the math makes sense. The actions of the cop don't.
 
2013-11-13 12:50:07 PM  
Like the cops in GTA 5. Those bastards will open fire on you after they hit you walking across the street.
 
2013-11-13 12:50:41 PM  

FormlessOne: I guarantee the esteem in which people hold cops would jump upwards overnight.


You'd owe a lot of people a lot of money the next day when the claims started to roll in

The problem goes far beyond that anyway. Enforcing the same basic laws is a no-brainer, of course, but cops are charged with a greater responsibility than your typical corporate desk-jockey and should be held to an appropriately higher standard. That should include standard metrics for job performance, routine evaluations to prove competency in relevant skills and routine physical and mental evaluations to ensure fitness for duty. The departments as a whole should also routinely undergo independent external audits to ensure quality record-keeping and they should be routinely reviewed to ensure that things like use-of-force are being applied appropriately.

The first problem you'd immediately slam into with all this, though, is that if you're going to demand higher quality cops, they're going to - perfectly fairly - demand higher compensation and communities are going to balk pretty hard at that.
That's probably the single biggest problem. Everybody always wants high quality everything right up until the point they get the first cost estimate.
 
2013-11-13 12:55:43 PM  

budrojr: Earlier in the thread Alice_600 had made the statement that someone's believable experience with the police sounded paranoid. JoieD'Zen is responding to that post in like kind. I'm sure that's not his actual belief.


Ah. Thanks.
 
2013-11-13 12:56:00 PM  

manimal2878: MythDragon: Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?

Only once if he used this:
[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x339]
/and had a full mag with one in the hole.

No.


No what? Five-seveN magazine don't hold twenty rounds? 20+21 doesn't equal 41? You should never carry a pistol with a round chambered? Cops don't use FN products? This particular cop wasn't using a 5-7?

What are you 'no'ing?
 
2013-11-13 12:56:54 PM  

skozlaw: The problem goes far beyond that anyway. Enforcing the same basic laws is a no-brainer, of course, but cops are charged with a greater responsibility than your typical corporate desk-jockey and should be held to an appropriately higher standard. That should include standard metrics for job performance, routine evaluations to prove competency in relevant skills and routine physical and mental evaluations to ensure fitness for duty. The departments as a whole should also routinely undergo independent external audits to ensure quality record-keeping and they should be routinely reviewed to ensure that things like use-of-force are being applied appropriately.


hmmm. I guess I wasnt reading your posts. At least not all of them. That's a reasonable position.
 
2013-11-13 12:57:38 PM  

lennavan: the_foo: Since they're now saying he didn't try to ram the cops it sounds like the shooting was probably not justified

Also, the other cop on the scene didn't fire a single shot.  That's probably a pretty good indication for you.


Not as good as the video showing the other officer diving for cover when this guy decided to empty his clip (multiple times if the count is accurate).
 
2013-11-13 01:00:29 PM  

CruiserTwelve: FormlessOne: QFT. When a cop commits a criminal act, even in the line of duty, he should be arrested and charged like anybody else - if that simple idea was consistently and immediately applied, at all times, I guarantee the esteem in which people hold cops would jump upwards overnight.

Imagine it. Instead of having cops lie, cheat, and steal to protect each other, even at the expense of the lives of other people, cops would hold each other to the same standard that they're supposed to be upholding. Whistleblowers would be celebrated for maintaining the ethical integrity of law enforcement. Cops that positively support and uphold the law, even amongst themselves, would live by example and improve the community as a whole, instead of treating themselves as separate from the community and maintaining a militarized "us vs. them" mentality.

Did you notice that you're posting in a thread based on a story where a cop WAS "arrested and charged just like everybody else?"


Well I wouldn't say he was arrested and charged just like everyone else.  Everyone else would have had about 40 charges dumped on them in addition to 2nd degree murder or something more serious than manslaughter.
 
2013-11-13 01:03:24 PM  
2nd Amendment heroes like Lanza are indeed better shots.
 
2013-11-13 01:05:21 PM  

skozlaw: Ned Stark: How many times does it have to happen before we are allowed to notice a pattern?

I don't know. Ask CATO. They've been on this for years and have actually been producing useful information and arguments about the problem. One of the few useful things they've ever done.

The key here is that there's a difference between a pattern and a solid color and a lot of farkers in this threads seem to have a hard time understanding that. Notice how CATO, however, doesn't run around pretending that EVERY cop is like this. Because that doesn't help. Because it's not true.


We have stereotypes for a reason. You profile for a reason. Don't be a hypocrite and you may see more people siding with the fair ones. Sadly, the fair and honest cops are few and far between in most people's experiences.

Please don't shoot me.
 
2013-11-13 01:07:19 PM  

elysive: alice_600: elysive: cryinoutloud: skozlaw:


Well, my post really wasnt about domestic abuse, but since I replied to one I'll bite. Women and domestic violence victims should be empowered. They should be taught no holds barred how to protect themselves and should learn how to protect those under their care (accepting responsibility for another can be empowering itself). However, the suggestion that victims somehow provoke and deserve abuse is a load of horse shiat. That's what you're suggesting because to us normal people "who provokes the hitting" isnt a thing and shouldnt be a police consideration.

Even if I initiate an argument, it does not excuse my partner from strangling, beating or otherwise abusing me.


No and you're right my fault.
Do cops make mistakes? Yes, I do agree that yes they do.
Do I think we should hold them accountable yes but within reason. We shouldn't regulate them to the point that they can't act in times of danger or in times when they are needed to protect the people there. I'm sorry for what happened to her but I have in my life dealt with a woman who kept saying when I came in contact with her again that my Dad would nail her to the bed and rape her.
Then I have to point out that never happened and the nails holes are actually from when I was a teenager and I used those screw in hooks to hang up tussie musies garlands (fragrant dried flower and herb arrangements) on rope.
 
2013-11-13 01:07:55 PM  

FarkedOver: skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

Cool! A police apologist! Here's another interesting tidbit from the article:

According to the FBI's report, there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault - 658,231 compared with 521,196 arrests.

Gotta clean these streets up and get those pot smoking beatniks in jail!

/How long you been on the force Officer Friendly?


5000 killed since 9/11 comes out to ~417 per year. Including federal agencies there are ~800,000 LEOs in the US. That works out to (I think) one half of one ten thousandth of one percent. Look, it's awful and reprehensible, and the rules protecting the police from the consequences of their actions should be changed, but let's not pretend it's some sort of epidemic.
 
2013-11-13 01:08:20 PM  

skozlaw: The first problem you'd immediately slam into with all this, though, is that if you're going to demand higher quality cops, they're going to - perfectly fairly - demand higher compensation and communities are going to balk pretty hard at that.
That's probably the single biggest problem. Everybody always wants high quality everything right up until the point they get the first cost estimate.


It's not the pay that deters qualified applicants, it's the work conditions. You work nights, weekends, holidays and you work outdoors in every kind of weather. You are also at risk of being assaulted and even killed for just doing your job. If you can somehow change those conditions you'll get better qualified cops.

Having said that, most cops still do an excellent job in spite of the conditions. Yeah, there are too many bad cops, but the good ones still far outnumber the bad. The bad cops get all the publicity though.
 
2013-11-13 01:11:44 PM  

MythDragon: Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?

Only once if he used this:
[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x339]
/and had a full mag with one in the hole.


Oh, the lovely, elegant, accurate and fun to shoot FNH Five-seveN.  apart from ammo costs of course.
 
2013-11-13 01:13:02 PM  

GranoblasticMan: Silverstaff: By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.  The reasoning was explained to me that if you are a really hot shot and get into a shooting, someone could sue saying "you're such a great shot, why didn't you try to "shoot to wound", or shoot the gun out of his hand. . ." and if you're a marginal shot they could sue saying you're such a poor marksman that the reason the person is now in paralyzed was you couldn't even shoot to kill (in other words, whatever you do, a lawyer will use it against you, so no record is kept other than passing the minimum mandated standard).

I have a huge problem with this. Just because a lawyer might use your data against you is not a good reason to essentially destroy records. This is just a small example of exactly what's wrong with the law enforcement in this country.


After reading about how some prosecutors have tried to send people up the river by splitting hairs to demonize someone, I am fine with pass/fail grading.  If you don't believe me read some of Massad Ayoob's books on the cases he's dealt with.  Or even better watch his DVD called "Cute Lawyer Tricks".
 
2013-11-13 01:13:36 PM  

ReverendJynxed: We have stereotypes for a reason.


Yes.  That reason is intellectual laziness.  Rather than try to understand each individual and the consider nuances of each context, it's much easier to just understand the world in stereotypes.

ReverendJynxed: You profile for a reason.


Laziness.  Rather than try to approach each person as an individual and consider the nuances of each context, it's much easier to just profile.

ReverendJynxed: Sadly, the fair and honest cops are few and far between in most people's experiences.


Why is it do you think, that we don't read more articles about how fair and honest cops are?

I once got pulled over for going 82mph in a 65mph zone.  The cop pulled me over and asked for my license and registration.  I provided them.  He then wrote me a ticket.

WOW BEST STORY EVER, SO THRILLING

I have more just like that if you want.
 
2013-11-13 01:14:49 PM  

FormlessOne: Tr0mBoNe: At least this idiot got fired and charged.

QFT.
When a cop commits a criminal act, even in the line of duty, he should be arrested and charged like anybody else - if that simple idea was consistently and immediately applied, at all times, I guarantee the esteem in which people hold cops would jump upwards overnight.


CruiserTwelve: Did you notice that you're posting in a thread based on a story where a cop WAS "arrested and charged just like everybody else?"


Did you notice that the bit he Quoted For Truth acknowledges precisely that?
 
2013-11-13 01:16:01 PM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


I haven't read the whole thread yet, so that certainly could be an accurate summary of the thread... That I don't know.

But what I do know is that the lesson of stories like this is: there should be an inverse relationship between the power we grant someone in our society and the amount of trust we give them to go along with it - and the more power, the greater the penalties should be for abusing that power (the opposite is more often true now). Police have a LOT of power over the average citizen, we should take their unverified word for events as infrequently as absolutely possible.

Since this is an age where video cameras are so cheap and ubiquitous I think it's well past the time where we started requiring all police encounters to be recorded on video. This will keep both police and citizens safer. Police who abuse their power, lie about a crime or get trigger-happy should be dealt with harshly.
 
2013-11-13 01:16:04 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Did you notice that you're posting in a thread based on a story where a cop WAS "arrested and charged just like everybody else?"


If a regular person shoots at someone 41 times and murderers them in the middle of the street in front of witnesses the safe money is they won't be charged with just manslaughter.
 
2013-11-13 01:19:15 PM  

mongbiohazard: I haven't read the whole thread yet, so that certainly could be an accurate summary of the thread... That I don't know.


An accurate summary of this thread about an isolated incident. Just like every other cop thread.

/  Actually is an isolated incident. Usually the cop skates outright.
 
2013-11-13 01:20:12 PM  

Hawnkee: Impressed.


Thank you for the public burst of laughter.

/I think I peed a little
 
2013-11-13 01:22:46 PM  

ReverendJynxed: We have stereotypes for a reason


Yea, because you didn't care enough to find out the facts so you formed your opinion on what you imagine is happening instead.

This isn't a discussion about whether redheads are evil, it's a discussion about a real problem in which real, actual data exists. If you're going to act on a stereotype in a situation like this instead of the available data I'm going to call you a dolt and leave it at that because that's all that needs to be said.

It's bad enough when people act on prejudices in the heat of the moment, it's entirely inexcusable when they do it willfully because they don't want to limit themselves to available facts.
 
2013-11-13 01:23:05 PM  
see this is why we need higher capacity magazines, if it takes a cop 41 rounds to hit a guy 3 times then the rest of us need a little extra help. Wait how about grenades?
 
2013-11-13 01:27:11 PM  

FarkedOver: The police need to be recorded every single second they are on duty.  Internal Affairs needs to be replaced with a civilian oversight commission.  The thin blue line must be destroyed.


easy enough to fix
life in prison for police who lie on reports or on the stand
TADA
 
2013-11-13 01:30:21 PM  

Snarcasm: The charge is just manslaughter, but I wonder why there are not 50 addon charges.

Perjury, official oppression, vandalism, reckless discharge,


Because it's still just a homicide, not a Really Bad Homicide.
 
2013-11-13 01:30:37 PM  
"For only the second time in 17 years, a Dallas County, Tex.,  grand jury has indicted a police officer...."  FTA


Trust me. That number needs to be at least QUADRUPLED. Annually. Just here in the Dallas/FT. Worth "Metroplex" area alone. However, Garland is well known for having the worst cops in Dallas county. Plano and Richardson cops are assholes but way WAY less trigger happy.

I hope this is the same Garland pig who killed my friend's dog recently.
 
2013-11-13 01:31:15 PM  
 
2013-11-13 01:33:03 PM  
How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.
 
2013-11-13 01:35:45 PM  
Silverstaff
2013-11-13 11:54:30 AM


Not expecting much of a welcome here, but. . .[/quote
How cute a qualification system with no record-keeping and thus no accountability. I'm convinced you're part of a completely up and up department.
 
2013-11-13 01:36:53 PM  

craigdamage: I hope this is the same Garland pig who killed my friend's dog recently.


Hey now, that's just anectdotal outrage, not real data! You cant be relating your true life experiences they don't count, cause DATA!!!
 
2013-11-13 01:38:03 PM  

pancakeface: Hawnkee: Impressed.

Thank you for the public burst of laughter.

/I think I peed a little


I live to serve. :)
 
2013-11-13 01:40:34 PM  

alice_600: The problem though with domestic abuse cases is sometimes it can be hard to prove who was doing the hitting and provoking the hitting. There are some cases where it's he said, she said. There are some women's shelters who demonize men to the point where you feel you have to abort your next kid if he's male because he'll just rape all day long.


The incident I'm talking about was witnessed by a whole bunch of people (tourist town, middle of summer), three of whom called the cops. One of them said, "it looks like someone is trying to abduct a child here" (he was). The clerk of court witnessed him hitting me, and called the police also. The police came and got him, took him next door and kept him there for a long time. Then they let him go. they never even talked to me, since I guess they'd already decided that they were going to cover it up. I had bruises and cuts and our son was freaking out. This was several months after I'd left him, so don't start that shiat about "so how 'bout you leave him, idiot?"

The incident report disappeared, if there ever was one. Let alone not even arresting the bastard for a domestic. The 911 calls disappeared. None of the cops would even admit to me which one of them had interviewed my ex, why they'd let him go, what was said, or even admitted that they'd taken him in, when I was standing right there watching it happen. When I went directly to the police later and told them that I wanted the incident report or I'd take them to court and get it verbally, that's when the harassment started. The clerk of court just sighed and said, "That's how it is around here." And that's how it is. She was actually a friend of mine.

And if you think that's delusional, I won't even try to tell you some of the other stuff that happened to me because of my ex. You're the delusional one if you think that people aren't corrupt as fark, or that even "authority figures" won't take the easy way out if trying to help someone will mess up their busy, important, professional lives.

/I don't know if it was you who said I sounded delusional, don't feel like reading everything because it pisses me off. fark the cops.  I can't even watch a police car go by anymore without rolling my eyes.
 
2013-11-13 01:43:38 PM  

JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.


Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.
 
2013-11-13 01:43:56 PM  

jaybeezey: AgentPothead: You guys can only play the, but all cops aren't like this only a few are, card before it starts to make you look like an idiot.

Yet people still point out that only 1% of muslims are "extrmists".

Either a group represents the whole or it doesn't.

I'll let you choose.


Your point has merit.

Or at least it will when we have a nationwide structure of gun-toting Muslims entrusted to protect us, operating outside the laws we are expected to live under, with proven abuses against American citizens being revealed weekly.
 
2013-11-13 01:45:39 PM  

Biff_Steel: Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.

LOL remember that incident in PG county MD where seven police cruisers responded to a scene and the suspect somehow got beaten to a pulp? Turns out, somehow, all seven dash cam "malfunctioned." What are the odds?


zero
there is no chance that all 7 malfunctioned
not in the real world

those 7 cops need to die. it is the only way to be sure.
/sorry for all you boot lickers who think that 7 camera could all break on the same day and the one suspect was a threat to 7 jackboots
 
2013-11-13 01:50:51 PM  

"More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"


i2.wp.com

 
2013-11-13 01:51:54 PM  

Madbassist1: Remember the cop who killed the double amputee for recklessly brandishing a ball point pen? Apparently the wheelchair was coming right at him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/brian-claunch-houston-shot- ma tthew-marin-police-cleared-disabled-amputee_n_4218889.html

I do not engage with the police, and I tell my children not to engage with the police.


So, what happens if you HAVE to engage with the police?  Say, a family member is murdered?
 
2013-11-13 01:52:03 PM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.


Interesting that  the other cops (who took cover during the shooting) didn't bust this guy. It was the dash cam that busted him.

This is not the story of one bad cop. It is the story of several. One was just worse than the others.
 
2013-11-13 01:53:41 PM  

Another Government Employee: So, what happens if you HAVE to engage with the police? Say, a family member is murdered?


You have the right to remain silent.
 
2013-11-13 01:54:17 PM  

FarkedOver: skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

Cool! A police apologist!


LOL guess who has a hair trigger and authority issues?
 
2013-11-13 01:55:16 PM  

trappedspirit: FarkedOver: skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

Cool! A police apologist!

LOL guess who has a hair trigger and authority issues?


LOL Who?

/why are we laughing out loud?
 
2013-11-13 01:57:41 PM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

The other officer at the scene fired no shots and actually took cover behind his squad car as Tuter continued to pump bullets at the immobilized pickup truck.


So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

And.....

Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle. But dashboard cam video showed that the reverse was actually the case.

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

Yeah.... one bad apple my arse.
 
2013-11-13 02:00:10 PM  

FarkedOver: Another Government Employee: So, what happens if you HAVE to engage with the police? Say, a family member is murdered?

You have the right to remain silent.


True that.

But...

Assuming you did not do it, how would you feel to know that who did would never see the inside of a courtroom? (And assuming you aren't an "eye for an eye" vigilante.)
 
2013-11-13 02:03:38 PM  

SpectroBoy: Yeah.... one bad apple my arse.


And, yet, the word several stubbornly refused to mean "all"...
 
2013-11-13 02:07:36 PM  

Another Government Employee: Assuming you did not do it, how would you feel to know that who did would never see the inside of a courtroom? (And assuming you aren't an "eye for an eye" vigilante.)


If you're a family member, you're one of the first people they are going to gun for.  Better to lawyer up immediately.
 
2013-11-13 02:08:19 PM  

vygramul: Now better, that's for certain. Of course, if a cop can't manage a single unarmed man with only 10 rounds, why are we demanding people in self-defense situations be limited to 10?

Lulz, don't make sense here.  It will not be stood for.

Nick Nostril: I'm guessing they are assuming the general public are better shots and don't need the extra five. This story is (anecdotal) evidence in support of that argument.

That makes so little sense that I'm guessing you'll be given a federal appointment from Feinstein very soon.
 
2013-11-13 02:08:35 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


I'd be OK with this. The cop murdered the guy in cold blood. Screw this "Manslaughter" nonsense. The cop has proven he is a deadly threat to society, and thus he needs to be permanently removed.
 
2013-11-13 02:09:23 PM  

SpectroBoy: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

Interesting that  the other cops (who took cover during the shooting) didn't bust this guy. It was the dash cam that busted him.

This is not the story of one bad cop. It is the story of several. One was just worse than the others.


I think the problem is that when choosing between a random civilian and a colleague, cops will tend to side with a colleague. This is not unique to their profession; we all tend to do it to at least some degree. Members of our tribe outrank unknown, random persons. The consequences of bad behaviour and subsequent coverup by cops are not the same as union auto workers covering for each other, or IT professionals doing the same, but the underlying reasons are not much different.
 
2013-11-13 02:13:40 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Unfortunately, they somehow only charged him with manslaughter.


Because it's important to hold cops to a lower standard than the rest of us little people.
 
2013-11-13 02:14:14 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.
 
2013-11-13 02:19:46 PM  

Another Government Employee: (And assuming you aren't an "eye for an eye" vigilante.)


Well there's your problem.
 
2013-11-13 02:19:52 PM  

doubled99: Who are any of you to judge?
This is the ultimate alpha male job. It's for the toughest and strongest, both mentally and physically. They live by a warrior's code, something most of you cannot begin to understand


LOL WHUT?
Are you high?
 
2013-11-13 02:22:25 PM  

mediablitz: "More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...


In their defense, stress and combat does WIERD things to human perception, especially once the heart rate gets up above 175 BPM or so.  It's ENTIRELY possible that he thought he saw what he's saying he saw.

On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace
 
2013-11-13 02:22:45 PM  

ThatGuyOverThere: vygramul: Now better, that's for certain. Of course, if a cop can't manage a single unarmed man with only 10 rounds, why are we demanding people in self-defense situations be limited to 10?
Lulz, don't make sense here.  It will not be stood for.

Nick Nostril: I'm guessing they are assuming the general public are better shots and don't need the extra five. This story is (anecdotal) evidence in support of that argument.
That makes so little sense that I'm guessing you'll be given a federal appointment from Feinstein very soon.


I think you have reading comprehension issues. The statement is simple and direct (if cynical)
 
2013-11-13 02:26:40 PM  

capt.hollister: I think the problem is that when choosing between a random civilian and a colleague, cops will tend to side with a colleague. This is not unique to their profession; we all tend to do it to at least some degree. Members of our tribe outrank unknown, random persons.


You're claims are valid in a purely "armchair psychology" way, but it just isn't anything close to a valid comparison.

I can say without hesitation that I draw the line LONG before motherfarkers get killed.

I would turn my own mother in if she reloaded whilst shooting at an unarmed man for ramming our car.
 
2013-11-13 02:27:06 PM  

alice_600: and there is another reason why pot heads will never get legal weed.


A couple of states would beg to differ with you...
 
2013-11-13 02:30:18 PM  

FarkedOver: trappedspirit: FarkedOver: skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

Cool! A police apologist!

LOL guess who has a hair trigger and authority issues?

LOL Who?

/why are we laughing out loud?


"WE" aren't.  At least, you don't seem like the laughing type.
 
2013-11-13 02:32:12 PM  

trappedspirit: "WE" aren't. At least, you don't seem like the laughing type.


Ok great! Thanks for your contribution.  Have a great day!

L O L
 
2013-11-13 02:32:19 PM  

Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.


So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?
 
2013-11-13 02:35:02 PM  

GanjSmokr: alice_600: and there is another reason why pot heads will never get legal weed.

A couple of states would beg to differ with you...


As a non pothead posting from Seattle, etc...
 
2013-11-13 02:35:55 PM  

RINO: 5000 killed since 9/11 comes out to ~417 per year. Including federal agencies there are ~800,000 LEOs in the US. That works out to (I think) one half of one ten thousandth of one percent.


That's 1 per 2000 LEOs, per year.

That's 0.05% annually.
 
2013-11-13 02:39:20 PM  

budrojr: Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.


He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.
 
2013-11-13 02:39:54 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


Police are supposedly trained to resist "in the heat of passion" actions, and they should be judged against a higher standard accordingly.
 
2013-11-13 02:40:42 PM  

This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?


Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?
 
2013-11-13 02:41:12 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


Here's your premeditation:  Stopping to reload the gun.

And then firing at least another 20 shots into an unarmed, trapped, non-responsive person sitting in a stopped car.

At the very least, shot number 41 had 40 shots of preplanning and, arguably, passed the line into criminal intent.

Especially for a police officer.
 
2013-11-13 02:43:18 PM  

lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?


How did you manage to get his attorney on the stand?
 
2013-11-13 02:43:35 PM  

CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.


You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.
 
2013-11-13 02:44:41 PM  

AFKobel: lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?

How did you manage to get his attorney on the stand?


The same way he managed to assert a LEO can't prove he passed the marksmanship standard.  I defiance of all logic, I imagined it to be true.
 
2013-11-13 02:45:19 PM  

lennavan: So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today? You drove? Let me see your score. You don't have your score? Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?


The first time my motions kill someone, we can discuss my bar exam results.
 
2013-11-13 02:47:39 PM  
He should just say that he thought it was his taser and he'd pulled his gun by mistake. That worked for some subway cop who shot some poor slob who was already handcuffed and face down on the ground. Seems like authority is an antidote for just punishment.
 
2013-11-13 02:47:41 PM  

SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.


There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.


They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene? More likely the other cop at the scene testified against the shooter which is why he was indicted.

Get your facts straight.
 
2013-11-13 02:49:58 PM  

Pangea: capt.hollister: I think the problem is that when choosing between a random civilian and a colleague, cops will tend to side with a colleague. This is not unique to their profession; we all tend to do it to at least some degree. Members of our tribe outrank unknown, random persons.

You're claims are valid in a purely "armchair psychology" way, but it just isn't anything close to a valid comparison.

I can say without hesitation that I draw the line LONG before motherfarkers get killed.

I would turn my own mother in if she reloaded whilst shooting at an unarmed man for ramming our car.


Absolutely, and you are not the only one. That is why I said they tend to act one way as opposed to stating that they always act that way. I wasn't trying to describe an absolute rule where none exists.

In the case in TFA, the police have turned against one of their own. Even the colleague who was with the indicted cop at the scene appears to be willing to testify against him, however his reaction at the time of the incident wasn't strong enough to cause him to turn against a fellow cop as the latter fired shot, after shot, after shot at an unarmed civilian. An unarmed civilian died because a bad cop shot him and a good cop did nothing to stop the bad cop.
 
2013-11-13 02:50:07 PM  

lennavan: AFKobel: lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?

How did you manage to get his attorney on the stand?

The same way he managed to assert a LEO can't prove he passed the marksmanship standard.  I defiance of all logic, I imagined it to be true.


I get it, but his comment was in response to one individual's comment about how no record of the score was kept.   The response to no record of the score being kept, is, something along the lines of, "that doesn't mean no record of pass/fail wasn't kept, based on the score."

Comparing someone being unable to produce their score, after discovery request, to someone being asked, on the spot, to produce their automobile licensing testing results, is, in a word, ludicrous.
 
2013-11-13 02:53:10 PM  

hitlersbrain: He should just say that he thought it was his taser and he'd pulled his gun by mistake. That worked for some subway cop who shot some poor slob who was already handcuffed and face down on the ground. Seems like authority is an antidote for just punishment.


that asshole cop did 2 years ... with no gun upgrade because the judge tossed it... farkers
best part, the cop lied on his first report .... really???
asshole
 
2013-11-13 02:53:40 PM  

CruiserTwelve: SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene? More likely the other cop at the scene testified against the shooter which is why he was indicted.

Get your facts straight.


Possibly off topic...
How do you feel about requiring all 'patrol' officers being required to wear body cameras?
 
2013-11-13 03:00:00 PM  

This text is now purple: lennavan: So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today? You drove? Let me see your score. You don't have your score? Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?

Fark me, I just realized how dumb my comment was.  Can I crack a joke and hope to move on?  Here, here's my joke:The first time my motions kill someone, we can discuss my bar exam results.


Hehe, good one.  High five dude, glad we could work it out.
 
2013-11-13 03:02:19 PM  

CruiserTwelve: SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene? More likely the other cop at the scene testified against the shooter which is why he was indicted.

Get your facts straight.


If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?
 
2013-11-13 03:04:42 PM  

Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.


Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.
 
2013-11-13 03:05:07 PM  

Madbassist1: If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?


THIS
charge the other cop on the scene with conspiracy after the fact and aiding and abetting.
 
2013-11-13 03:05:11 PM  

CruiserTwelve: SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied?


In the article?  Police initially said Tuter opened fire after Allen rammed a patrol car trying to pin him into the dead-end street. However, police dashboard video later showed that it was Tuter's patrol car that crashed into the truck, not the other way around.
 
2013-11-13 03:10:38 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.


Classic.  Exactly the type of douchiness one would expect.

Also: "Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle."  Do you think the word "police" refers to the one police officer?    It would be shocking to learn that the other police officer is the one who turned this guy in.

You tell people to get their facts straight... and then invent your own.   Well done, champ.
 
2013-11-13 03:11:41 PM  
ITT: Cops protecting other cops...... SHOCKING!
 
2013-11-13 03:14:27 PM  

CruiserTwelve: budrojr: Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.

He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.


The fact that I have an opinion about this that differs from yours does not mean in any way, shape, or form that I'm emotionally invested in this or angry about it.  My opinion is that he is getting special treatment due to his status as a police officer (hence the singular manslaughter charge with no additional charges instead of murder and a wagonload of additional ancillary charges).

I disagree with you and hold that what he did should be construed as murder.  Look up the law in Texas where that's concerned.  He knowingly and intentionally caused the death of another person (he fired 41 shots, it's not like he didn't know what would happen), and/or intended to cause serious bodily injury while committing an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.  Manslaughter only requires that his actions were reckless and caused a death.  What he did went beyond reckless and was way out of line with what was expected for the situation.  He could try the heat of passion defense, but if I were on the jury I wouldn't be buying it.  He should have started out being charged with murder, then defended or pleaded down to manslaughter.  Manslaughter would be appropriate if he had fired a warning shot or two which ricocheted into his head, killing the driver.  This cop wasn't just reckless, he was murderous.
 
2013-11-13 03:16:31 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter.

And no, your own ricochets don't count towards making the situation life-threatening...


/likes good cops
//despises incompetent trigger happy assholes, whether or not they're wearing a badge.
 
2013-11-13 03:17:22 PM  

CruiserTwelve: The bad cops get all the publicity though.


Not always.

Just most of the time....
 
2013-11-13 03:17:24 PM  

This text is now purple: RINO: 5000 killed since 9/11 comes out to ~417 per year. Including federal agencies there are ~800,000 LEOs in the US. That works out to (I think) one half of one ten thousandth of one percent.

That's 1 per 2000 LEOs, per year.

That's 0.05% annually.


Thank you. Fancy mathamaticals were never my strong point.
 
2013-11-13 03:18:14 PM  

budrojr: CruiserTwelve: budrojr: Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.

He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

The fact that I have an opinion about this that differs from yours does not mean in any way, shape, or form that I'm emotionally invested in this or angry about it.  My opinion is that he is getting special treatment due to his status as a police officer (hence the singular manslaughter charge with no additional charges instead of murder and a wagonload of additional ancillary charges).

I disagree with you and hold that what he did should be construed as murder.  Look up the law in Texas where that's concerned.  He knowingly and intentionally caused the death of another person (he fired 41 shots, it's not like he didn't know what would happen), and/or intended to cause serious bodily injury while committing an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.  Manslaughter only requires that his actions were reckless and caused a death.  What he did went beyond reckless and was way o ...


Don't be ridiculous.

He clearly knows better than everyone else.

You're just wrong.
 
2013-11-13 03:21:33 PM  
The second cop should probably be charged with negligence, or dereliction of duty, for not shooting the first one.
 
2013-11-13 03:21:42 PM  

RINO: This text is now purple: RINO: 5000 killed since 9/11 comes out to ~417 per year. Including federal agencies there are ~800,000 LEOs in the US. That works out to (I think) one half of one ten thousandth of one percent.

That's 1 per 2000 LEOs, per year.

That's 0.05% annually.

Thank you. Fancy mathamaticals were never my strong point.


Wow, guess not.

I think you said it was this:

0.00005%

And it was this:

0.05%

I think you were off by a factor of one hundred brazillion, but I'm not strong at maths either....
 
2013-11-13 03:22:22 PM  

alice_600: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

You know that sounds very delusional right?


If this happened in the county that I believe it happened in, not only is it not delusional, but pretty goddamned common. I'm guessing in a county in extreme Northern California (no I'm not stalking you, cryinoutloud, you mentioned living there once and I'm from up the road 20 miles or so) where both the Sheriff Department and the local police are primarily good-ol'-boy networks. I hope it wasn't there, but I'd totally not be surprised.
 
2013-11-13 03:23:20 PM  

PunGent: And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter


I was taught the same thing.  Never reload, and your first words to the cops are "I was in fear for my life".
 
2013-11-13 03:24:57 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: PunGent: And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter

I was taught the same thing.  Never reload, and your first words to the cops are "I was in fear for my life".


Never reload?  Well, time for me to go buy some hi cap magazines.
 
2013-11-13 03:28:50 PM  

AFKobel: Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.

Classic.  Exactly the type of douchiness one would expect.

Also: "Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle."  Do you think the word "police" refers to the one police officer?    It would be shocking to learn that the other police officer is the one who turned this guy in.

You tell people to get their facts straight... and then invent your own.   Well done, champ.


Ah, as opposed to the classy tone you took in your original "as you like to say" rebuttal.

I'm not sure what "facts" regarding proving premeditation I'm supposed to glean from either the collision of vehicles (regardless of who initiated the contact) or the claim by "police" - typically a reference to the organization itself, coming from what was submitted in the report(s) - that contact was initiated by the victim.

Once again, before making asinine claims about who is wrong on legal definitions, it would behoove you to learn what they mean yourself, chump.
 
2013-11-13 03:30:33 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.


You don't know what intent means, do you, champ?

I will say this. When the police officer stopped to reload his firearm, he had the opportunity to stop and at least see what he was doing. His failure to do so was a demonstration of his intent which was to kill the other person. If not his first clip, his second or third reloading would clearly show his intent was not merely to take the suspect into custody.
 
2013-11-13 03:31:39 PM  

PsyLord: Marcus Aurelius: PunGent: And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter

I was taught the same thing.  Never reload, and your first words to the cops are "I was in fear for my life".

Never reload?  Well, time for me to go buy some hi cap magazines.


Try using a real gun instead.  I carry a .357 revolver with a 6" barrel.  You only need one shot.  And the noise alone will cripple most assailants.
 
2013-11-13 03:34:57 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Once again, before making asinine claims about who is wrong on legal definitions, it would behoove you to learn what they mean yourself, chump.


Also pay attention to whom you are speaking, dumbass.
 
2013-11-13 03:41:25 PM  

Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.

You don't know what intent means, do you, champ?

I will say this. When the police officer stopped to reload his firearm, he had the opportunity to stop and at least see what he was doing. His failure to do so was a demonstration of his intent which was to kill the other person. If not his first clip, his second or third reloading would clearly show his intent was not merely to take the suspect into custody.


Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Once again, before making asinine claims about who is wrong on legal definitions, it would behoove you to learn what they mean yourself, chump.

Also pay attention to whom you are speaking, dumbass.


Once again, intent and premeditation (the latter being necessary for a murder charge) are not the same thing. You can have intent without premeditation but cannot have premeditation without intent.

Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.
 
2013-11-13 03:41:51 PM  

Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.


FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?
 
2013-11-13 03:45:35 PM  

hammettman: He's not charged with murder, only manslaughter. Yes, Texas has a hard-on for frying people, but he's not seeing the chair. Even if he's found guilty, I'm betting they're only going to see this as a minor blemish on a fine law enforcement career. He'll be out in 5 years and will get his gun back.


Around 40 years ago, two cops pulled a couple of mexican kids (brothers) out of bed and "questioned" them about $8 stolen from a vending machine.  (As it turns out, these kids were not involved in the vending machine robbery.)  The cops started playing "Russian Roulette" with the kids, putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger, until they killed one of the kids while his brother watched. Google for Santos Rodriguez for more details.

The cop who shot him didn't spend 5 years in prison, and the other one didn't get charged at all.

Another Dallas area cop shot and killed an unarmed man and his excuse was "I meant to turn on my flashlight, but I accidentally shot him instead".  He was never charged, and as far as I know he's still a cop.

This guy might get some time, but I doubt that he will be there for over a year.  It took them over a year just to file charges and arrest him.
 
2013-11-13 03:47:20 PM  

JuggleGeek: This guy might get some time, but I doubt that he will be there for over a year. It took them over a year just to file charges and arrest him.


Put the cop in general population.  The matter will be solved.
 
2013-11-13 03:51:47 PM  
With marksmanship like that, I think he ought to be charged for attempting to murder everyone else in the vicinity.
 
2013-11-13 03:54:05 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: With marksmanship like that, I think he ought to be charged for attempting to murder everyone else in the vicinity.


Send him a bill for the bullets too.
 
2013-11-13 03:54:54 PM  

This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?


Where did I say that I couldn't prove I passed the marksmanship standard?

If you'd read my full post, I noted that they note specifically that the only thing they don't record is the numeric score.  They do record if you passed or failed.

If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.
 
2013-11-13 03:56:42 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?


I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.
 
2013-11-13 03:58:21 PM  

Silverstaff: If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.


Do they preserve a copy of the targets themselves?

Because I strongly suspect I could subpoena my marked and scored test from my various certification tests.
 
2013-11-13 04:02:51 PM  

This text is now purple: Silverstaff: If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.

Do they preserve a copy of the targets themselves?

Because I strongly suspect I could subpoena my marked and scored test from my various certification tests.


I just want you to know, you are the best lawyer ever.  There is absolutely no precedence for subpoenaing a marked/scored test from a police officer.  Medical doctors also take scored tests and make life/death decisions, and there is no precedence for subpoenaing those either.  But you sir, you Mr. Internet Lawyer, STRONGLY SUSPECT.

I bet you are the first lawyer ever to have thought of this.  You're a genius!
 
2013-11-13 04:17:01 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.


Really?

with malice aforethought - originally carried its everyday meaning - a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, champ.
 
2013-11-13 04:18:34 PM  

lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.

Do they preserve a copy of the targets themselves?

Because I strongly suspect I could subpoena my marked and scored test from my various certification tests.

I just want you to know, you are the best lawyer ever.  There is absolutely no precedence for subpoenaing a marked/scored test from a police officer.  Medical doctors also take scored tests and make life/death decisions, and there is no precedence for subpoenaing those either.  But you sir, you Mr. Internet Lawyer, STRONGLY SUSPECT.

I bet you are the first lawyer ever to have thought of this.  You're a genius!


Oh, sure, we can demand radar gun records but not SHOOTING records?

Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-11-13 04:27:37 PM  
ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.


Probably because I'm such an idiot and so completely anti-gun that I didn't even understand that a round and a bullet were the same thing, until a couple years ago.

 Seriously.

/right? A round and a bullet are the same thing?
//I should probably just shut up
///but at least we can all agree i'm an idiot
 
2013-11-13 04:29:19 PM  

GanjSmokr: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.


ACTUALLY, clips are synonym for magazines. pretty much everyone on the planet understand that clips are used as a synonym. This of course gets get nuts frothed into a lather, which is a side benefit.

/words can have MORE than one meaning. meanings CHANGE over time. I hate it as much as the next guy, but words like decimate now have to opposite meanings. shudder.
 
2013-11-13 04:32:52 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.

Probably because I'm such an idiot and so completely anti-gun that I didn't even understand that a round and a bullet were the same thing, until a couple years ago.

 Seriously.

/right? A round and a bullet are the same thing?
//I should probably just shut up
///but at least we can all agree i'm an idiot


After your reply, I wouldn't consider you an idiot.  Just someone who isn't completely informed and who sounds like they are open to learning.

I've got way more respect for someone who can admit they were wrong about something than someone who buries their head in the sand and insists they are right no matter what information they are presented.
 
2013-11-13 04:37:53 PM  

GanjSmokr: I've got way more respect for someone who can admit they were wrong about something than someone who buries their head in the sand and insists they are right no matter what information they are presented.


Amen, brother.
 
2013-11-13 04:39:11 PM  

namatad: GanjSmokr: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.

ACTUALLY, clips are synonym for magazines. pretty much everyone on the planet understand that clips are used as a synonym. This of course gets get nuts frothed into a lather, which is a side benefit.

/words can have MORE than one meaning. meanings CHANGE over time. I hate it as much as the next guy, but words like decimate now have to opposite meanings. shudder.


I know some people have decided that those 2 words are synonyms but they really aren't.  They still actually mean different things.

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-fi re arm.html
 
2013-11-13 04:41:20 PM  

GanjSmokr: I know some people have decided that those 2 words are synonyms but they really aren't.  They still actually mean different things.

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-fi re arm.html


NO
clips now has two meanings
1) the old bullet clips which you linked to
2) a magazine

strange, we use so many other words with multiple meanings. I know, I hate it when the language changes, but it is done. Kind of like gay meaning happy and male homosexual. Decimate meaning killing 10% and killing 90%.
 
2013-11-13 04:47:25 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?


The cops may need to reload,  it's reasonable that they have extra loaded magazines available.  It's nice to have several mags at the range, you can then fill them at once and concentrate on shooting.    If a magazine breaks the cop would have spares until the broken magazine was replaced.
 
2013-11-13 04:47:35 PM  

namatad: GanjSmokr: I know some people have decided that those 2 words are synonyms but they really aren't.  They still actually mean different things.

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-fi re arm.html

NO
clips now has two meanings
1) the old bullet clips which you linked to
2) a magazine

strange, we use so many other words with multiple meanings. I know, I hate it when the language changes, but it is done. Kind of like gay meaning happy and male homosexual. Decimate meaning killing 10% and killing 90%.


OK.  You win.

Because you said so, we'll all be stupid and lazy and just pretend that the 2 words that are meant for 2 different pieces of hardware that function differently from one another are synonyms.
 
2013-11-13 05:07:35 PM  

ptpark: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

The cops may need to reload,  it's reasonable that they have extra loaded magazines available.  It's nice to have several mags at the range, you can then fill them at once and concentrate on shooting.    If a magazine breaks the cop would have spares until the broken magazine was replaced.


yah
the problem wasnt that this cop had spares, the problem was that this cop is INSANE.
 
2013-11-13 05:14:23 PM  
3 divided by 41 = .0731707317%   Does that meet the qualifying criteria of his police force?
 
2013-11-13 05:30:17 PM  

Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.

Really?

with malice aforethought - originally carried its everyday meaning - a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, champ.


And you'd still be wrong. I find it highly amusing you're unable to comprehend not only the contextual difference between what you're quoting and what you're arguing in regards to the case at hand, but also failing to recognize the applicable part of the above definition (wherever the fark you pulled it from).

For the final time, since you're either intentionally being obtuse or you're just outright ignorant of criminal statutes: the intent to kill someone does not necessarily indicate premeditation. You can keep arguing until you're blue in the face that reloading a gun somehow, miraculously, defying all logic, common sense, and reasonable understanding of the English language, indicates premeditation, and you would still be wrong.

I've bolded for you why that is, and if you don't get it this time, you're about as hopeless as it gets.
 
2013-11-13 05:49:15 PM  

Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?


Wow. True this ..
 
2013-11-13 05:51:34 PM  

PunGent: And no, your own ricochets don't count towards making the situation life-threatening...


i141.photobucket.com

Disagrees
 
2013-11-13 06:37:21 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


First off, he won't be found guilty of murder because he's not being charged with murder.  Secondly, although I personally think he will (and should) be found guilty of manslaughter, he does have a possible legal defense at his disposal if he can claim severe mental/emotional distress with the situation.  He WAS involved in a lengthy and dangerous chase.  It's entirely possible that at the end of it he did think he got rammed instead of the other way around, and despite being boxed in, if he thought he saw the driver reaching for a weapon, he would start shooting.  The fact that he missed so many times against a close stationary target would actually lend credence to the fact that he was distressed at the time.  Hard to say what might come of it.  It's likely he'll end up plea bargaining and getting a far too short of a sentence out of it.
 
2013-11-13 07:05:01 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: /right? A round and a bullet are the same thing?
//I should probably just shut up
///but at least we can all agree i'm an idiot


It's better to admit idiocy and work to fix it than demand that "YOU KNEW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT AND IT'S CRAZY GUN NUTS LIKE YOU THAT MURDER BABIES BECAUSE THE REST OF US DON'T LIVE IN YOUR LITTLE PARANOID WORLD."

Seriously though, good job on asking for clarification.  Considering I have guns that take clips, guns that take mags, and some clips to help me refill my mags... using the wrong word to somebody like me is like saying that your ford focus is a ford f350.  Well yes, you pack your shiat in the back of both and sit in the front of both and drive both of them to where you want to go... and they serve the same over all purpose in the same way... But now when you demand restrictions on a "focus" because no civilian should have that much towing capacity in a 4x4 truck, and then say your opinion matters because you are an expert in the world of internal combustion engines...

tldr, I'd rather deal with an uneducated person who actually asks to understand what we're talking about than a knowitall who actually knows very little

/still a chevy guy
 
2013-11-13 07:17:09 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


It's always reassuring to find out that our law enforcement "professionals" don't know the laws they're upholding.

1st degree murder requires premeditation. 2nd degree murder doesn't.

Also, Texas doesn't have 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. Just "murder" and NO required premeditation to be charged with murder.  In Texas the "heat of passion" argument is brought up at sentencing, and if believed, results in a 2nd degree felony instead of a 1st.
 
2013-11-13 07:17:14 PM  

AFKobel: Here's your premeditation:  Stopping to reload the gun.

And then firing at least another 20 shots into an unarmed, trapped, non-responsive person sitting in a stopped car.

At the very least, shot number 41 had 40 shots of preplanning and, arguably, passed the line into criminal intent.

Especially for a police officer.


The Grand Jury apparently disagreed with your argument.
 
2013-11-13 07:25:07 PM  
Wow, a police officer charged for once?
i265.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-13 07:25:42 PM  
Madbassist1:
If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

Not necessarily. Police shootings are routinely very heavily scrutinized by the police and by the DA. Sometimes they have a "shoot team" that investigates police shootings. They would have looked at the video anyhow. It's not fair to assume that the other cop lied. His testimony may have got the guy indicted even without the video.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?

You're changing the scenario. This wasn't a cop coming across you unloading your Glock into a car. It was the culmination of a police pursuit with a uniformed officer firing at the suspect. The other cop may have believed the shooter saw a gun that he didn't see. Nobody expects the other cop to make the assumption that this was a bad shooting in the few seconds that this event took.
 
2013-11-13 07:36:32 PM  
budrojr:
My opinion is that he is getting special treatment due to his status as a police officer (hence the singular manslaughter charge with no additional charges instead of murder and a wagonload of additional ancillary charges).

Although the article doesn't specify any additional charges, he may have been indicted on other charges or they can be added later by the prosecution. News articles don't always go into great detail.

I disagree with you and hold that what he did should be construed as murder.  Look up the law in Texas where that's concerned.  He knowingly and intentionally caused the death of another person (he fired 41 shots, it's not like he didn't know what would happen), and/or intended to cause serious bodily injury while committing an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.  Manslaughter only requires that his actions were reckless and caused a death.  What he did went beyond reckless and was way o ...

Whether you or I disagree is irrelevant. The Grand Jury indicted him for manslaughter based upon the facts and their interpretation of the law.  Maybe they gave the guy a break because he was a cop. I don't know and either do you, but I'm not willing to make that assumption.

I will, however, add this: It's very difficult to get a conviction on a cop involved in a duty-related shooting. Jurors tend to give every benefit of the doubt to cops involved in these incidents. Whether right or wrong, it's a fact that prosecutors and police have to live with. I wouldn't be surprised to see this guy walk.
 
2013-11-13 07:42:09 PM  

Shaddup: It's always reassuring to find out that our law enforcement "professionals" don't know the laws they're upholding.

1st degree murder requires premeditation. 2nd degree murder doesn't.

Also, Texas doesn't have 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. Just "murder" and NO required premeditation to be charged with murder.  In Texas the "heat of passion" argument is brought up at sentencing, and if believed, results in a 2nd degree felony instead of a 1st.


I'm not a cop in Texas so excuse me. The point is, the Grand Jury, whose job it is to determine if the facts fit the law, decided to indict for manslaughter. Your argument is with them, not the police.
 
2013-11-13 07:57:26 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Shaddup: It's always reassuring to find out that our law enforcement "professionals" don't know the laws they're upholding.

1st degree murder requires premeditation. 2nd degree murder doesn't.

Also, Texas doesn't have 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. Just "murder" and NO required premeditation to be charged with murder.  In Texas the "heat of passion" argument is brought up at sentencing, and if believed, results in a 2nd degree felony instead of a 1st.

I'm not a cop in Texas so excuse me. The point is, the Grand Jury, whose job it is to determine if the facts fit the law, decided to indict for manslaughter. Your argument is with them, not the police.



Way to address my first point. Where exactly are you a cop, considering you think 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder BOTH require premeditation? This would be 2nd degree murder anywhere else.

Considering the lack of information, can you say for sure that the grand jury had the option to indict for murder? I'm guessing they didn't because the prosecutor took it easy on him. FFS, the prosecutor asked for farkin $10,000 bail. I had a higher bail for a farkin bar fight.
 
2013-11-13 08:20:31 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226.


City of Dallas issues the Sig P226

City of Garland, which this officer was working for, issues the Glock 22.
 
2013-11-13 09:17:59 PM  

Shaddup: Way to address my first point. Where exactly are you a cop, considering you think 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder BOTH require premeditation? This would be 2nd degree murder anywhere else.


But you just pointed out that Texas doesn't have a 2nd degree murder statute. Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe you don't have one except to try to make me look uninformed about the law. That, again, would be pointless because the Grand Jury indicted for manslaughter, not murder. The only meaningful interpretation of the law in this case was that of the Grand Jury.

Considering the lack of information, can you say for sure that the grand jury had the option to indict for murder? I'm guessing they didn't because the prosecutor took it easy on him. FFS, the prosecutor asked for farkin $10,000 bail. I had a higher bail for a farkin bar fight.

It's possible the Grand Jury wasn't given that option. As I said earlier, the prosecutor has an uphill battle trying to convict this guy since he was an on-duty cop at the time of the killing. Right or wrong, juries don't like to convict cops for job-related incidents. Maybe the prosecution knew they'd never get a conviction (or an indictment for that matter) for murder and asked only for a manslaughter indictment.
 
2013-11-13 10:19:10 PM  

trappedspirit: PunGent: And no, your own ricochets don't count towards making the situation life-threatening...

[i141.photobucket.com image 288x216]

Disagrees


IT WAS AN ICICLE!
 
2013-11-13 10:23:09 PM  
CruiserTwelve [TotalFark]

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene?
You believe that one officer drove both squad cars?

I thought police claimed to be trained observers.

That's some totalfark level idiocy you have there.
 
2013-11-13 10:48:07 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Madbassist1:
If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

Not necessarily. Police shootings are routinely very heavily scrutinized by the police and by the DA. Sometimes they have a "shoot team" that investigates police shootings. They would have looked at the video anyhow. It's not fair to assume that the other cop lied. His testimony may have got the guy indicted even without the video.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?

You're changing the scenario. This wasn't a cop coming across you unloading your Glock into a car. It was the culmination of a police pursuit with a uniformed officer firing at the suspect. The other cop may have believed the shooter saw a gun that he didn't see. Nobody expects the other cop to make the assumption that this was a bad shooting in the few seconds that this event took.


CruiserTwelve: Madbassist1:
If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

Not necessarily. Police shootings are routinely very heavily scrutinized by the police and by the DA. Sometimes they have a "shoot team" that investigates police shootings. They would have looked at the video anyhow. It's not fair to assume that the other cop lied. His testimony may have got the guy indicted even without the video.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?

You're changing the scenario. This wasn't a cop coming across you unloading your Glock into a car. It was the culmination of a police pursuit with a uniformed officer firing at the suspect. The other cop may have believed the shooter saw a gun that he didn't see. Nobody expects the other cop to make the assumption that this was a bad shooting in the few seconds that this event took.


FTA  "Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle. But dashboard cam video showed that the reverse was actually the case."

The cops here lied about who rammed who, so, no reason to think they're telling the truth about the pursuit, either.
 
2013-11-13 11:03:27 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Shaddup: Way to address my first point. Where exactly are you a cop, considering you think 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder BOTH require premeditation? This would be 2nd degree murder anywhere else.

But you just pointed out that Texas doesn't have a 2nd degree murder statute. Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe you don't have one except to try to make me look uninformed about the law. That, again, would be pointless because the Grand Jury indicted for manslaughter, not murder. The only meaningful interpretation of the law in this case was that of the Grand Jury.

Considering the lack of information, can you say for sure that the grand jury had the option to indict for murder? I'm guessing they didn't because the prosecutor took it easy on him. FFS, the prosecutor asked for farkin $10,000 bail. I had a higher bail for a farkin bar fight.

It's possible the Grand Jury wasn't given that option. As I said earlier, the prosecutor has an uphill battle trying to convict this guy since he was an on-duty cop at the time of the killing. Right or wrong, juries don't like to convict cops for job-related incidents. Maybe the prosecution knew they'd never get a conviction (or an indictment for that matter) for murder and asked only for a manslaughter indictment.


I'm not trying to make you look uninformed. You're doing a bang-up job of that by yourself.

Answer a simple question, one that I asked in my original post. Does it take premeditation to qualify for murder? Not in Texas, but where you're supposedly a cop. Here's a hint, it doesn't, never has, never will. YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter. You're farking wrong. WAY WRONG.

Aside from your law-breaking bretheren, you're the main reason the general public distrusts your ilk. We know the law and our rights better than those trusted to uphold/defend them. But then again, most of us have to have more than a GED to have our jobs.
 
2013-11-13 11:06:30 PM  
EVERY time a cop says "he rammed me" or "he tried to run me over" it's because the person was trying to escape and the officer placed himself or his car in the way and/or deliberately caused the incident. Their cars are huge and they do not pay for them. It's the oldest trick to arrange the situation to accuse said person of "attacking a police officer" which bears extraordinary punishment and excuses any reaction.
 
2013-11-13 11:42:14 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Whether you or I disagree is irrelevant. The Grand Jury indicted him for manslaughter based upon the facts and their interpretation of the law.  Maybe they gave the guy a break because he was a cop. I don't know and either do you, but I'm not willing to make that assumption.

I will, however, add this: It's very difficult to get a conviction on a cop involved in a duty-related shooting. Jurors tend to give every benefit of the doubt to cops involved in these incidents. Whether right or wrong, it's a fact that prosecutors and police have to live with. I wouldn't be surprised to see this guy walk.


The grand jury indicted him for manslaughter based upon the charges that were set before them, not because they had a choice as to whether it be murder or manslaughter.  The facts and interpretation of the law would have allowed for an indictment for murder, but the grand jury was brought manslaughter, so they indicted for manslaughter.  Regardless of whose fault it is, the guy is not being charged with what he should be charged with.  I'm not saying maybe, I'm saying he was definitely cut a break, and the reason is that he was a cop.  Nobody else would have fired 41 rounds at someone for ANY reason and started their defense at manslaughter.

I'll agree that it's going to be difficult to get a conviction on him.  Not because of juries that are sympathetic to police, but rather because evidence will end up missing, or the prosecutor will do a very bad job of prosecuting.  There are lots of ways for the system to work in favor of the cop while still giving the public the illusion that they actually give a crap about what the guy did.
 
2013-11-14 12:39:11 AM  

OnlyM3: CruiserTwelve [TotalFark]

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene?

You believe that one officer drove both squad cars?

I thought police claimed to be trained observers.

That's some totalfark level idiocy you have there.


Read my post again.
 
2013-11-14 12:42:51 AM  

budrojr: I'll agree that it's going to be difficult to get a conviction on him.  Not because of juries that are sympathetic to police, but rather because evidence will end up missing, or the prosecutor will do a very bad job of prosecuting.  There are lots of ways for the system to work in favor of the cop while still giving the public the illusion that they actually give a crap about what the guy did.


What's the point of discussing this issue if you already know the outcome?
 
2013-11-14 12:48:57 AM  

Frederf: EVERY time a cop says "he rammed me" or "he tried to run me over" it's because the person was trying to escape and the officer placed himself or his car in the way and/or deliberately caused the incident. Their cars are huge and they do not pay for them. It's the oldest trick to arrange the situation to accuse said person of "attacking a police officer" which bears extraordinary punishment and excuses any reaction.


Did you see the recent thread in which the cop killed a guy at the termination of a pursuit? The video starts with the driver stopping, then deliberately backing into the cop.

And doesn't it make sense that a person being pursued by the police would ram a police car if that is the only means of escaping? If the cop car wasn't in the way, the guy would just drive off. The cops don't block the guy's escape route as an excuse to kill him, they block his escape route to prevent him from escaping.

Yeah, cops that jump in front of a fleeing vehicle are creating the danger to themselves and that's inexcusable. However, it does not justify being intentionally run over by the bad guy.
 
2013-11-14 01:58:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.


You'll end up with more cops in prison than black people.
 
2013-11-14 02:02:14 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Yes, yes it seems like a lot of bullets missed, except when you factor in he was using a pistol, was jumped up on adrenaline, and the guy had partial cover.

Anybody who has never fired a gun, much less a pistol, in a life or death situation where your adrenaline is making your heart want to come out of your chest and your hands are shaky would say that 41 round with 38 missing is bad marksmanship.


First off a car door is concealment not cover. It's not going to stop a bullet. Second, a moran who freaks out and starts wildly firing bullets all over the place in a populated area is exactly the type of person you want patrolling your neighborhood, right? Third, military training is the last thing cops need. A cop's primary training should be in how to de-escalate situations not how to best lay down covering fire.
 
2013-11-14 08:20:26 AM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.

Really?

with malice aforethought - originally carried its everyday meaning - a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, champ.

And you'd still be wrong. I find it highly amusing you're unable to comprehend not only the contextual difference between what you're quoting and what you're arguing in regards to the case at hand, but also failing to recognize the applicable part of the above definition (wherever the fark you pulled it from).

For the final time, since you're either intentionally being obtuse or you're just outright ignorant of criminal statutes: the intent to kill someone does not necessarily indicate premeditation. You can keep arguing until you're blue in the face that reloading a gun somehow, miraculously, defying all logic, common sense, and reasonable underst ...


You're a farking idiot, aren't you?Let me bold (once again, you moron) the important part. I even made it big for you (also again). farking nincompoop.
 
2013-11-14 12:25:43 PM  

Shaddup: Aside from your law-breaking bretheren, you're the main reason the general public distrusts your ilk. We know the law and our rights better than those trusted to uphold/defend them.


So ridiculously true that it's downright pathetic.  On all points you made there.
 
2013-11-14 01:10:28 PM  
Shaddup:  YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter.

That's not what I said. That's how you intentionally misinterpreted what I said so you could support your misbelief that cops are stupid and evil. That's how most of these cop threads I post in usually end, and why I rarely take part in them any more. If you can't have a rational, honest discussion I see no sense in responding to you again. Good day sir.
 
2013-11-14 01:23:25 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Murder requires premeditation.

 
2013-11-14 03:11:18 PM  

Shaddup: YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter. You're farking wrong. WAY WRONG.


CruiserTwelve: That's not what I said. That's how you intentionally misinterpreted what I said so you could support your misbelief that cops are stupid and evil


Gecko Gingrich: CruiserTwelve: Murder requires premeditation.


ZING!

Must be more of that special selective imagination/memory that cops have...
 
2013-11-14 03:26:51 PM  

CruiserTwelve: That's not what I said.


You do realize that we can all read what you said, don't you?

/what a farking idiot.
 
2013-11-14 06:43:29 PM  

JuggleGeek: You do realize that we can all read what you said, don't you?

/what a farking idiot.


I was speaking in generalities because different states have different elements in their statutory definition of murder. Shaddup chose to define my general statement in a very specific manner, which is quite obviously not how it was intended. Yes, in general, murder requires a higher level of intent than manslaughter. That's why they have different statutes to cover the different levels of intent. Murder generally requires some specific intent while manslaughter requires only general intent or even negligence. Obviously some states define this differently in their statutes, which is why I was speaking generally. Those that are unable or unwilling to understand these legal nuances might define my response as "YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter." That's a misinterpretation, likely intentional in this case, of what I said.

This is what happens at the end of every one of these threads. I make a statement, people intentionally misinterpret it and go on a rant about how stupid cops are. I understand that some people can't hold an intelligent, rational discussion when cops are involved, so I learned long ago to stop posting in these threads. Once in awhile I fall into the trap again. Fortunately I'm capable of learning from my mistakes.

I've always been more than happy to engage others in intelligent discourse. When you, or others, decide to join me in such discourse I'll be glad to oblige you. However, this childish "gotcha" kind of conversation is pointless to both sides.
 
2013-11-14 06:46:54 PM  

CruiserTwelve: I was speaking in generalities because blah, blah, blah...


I am willing to concede that you may have *meant* to say something else, as long as you are willing to concede that you didn't.
 
2013-11-14 07:30:35 PM  

CruiserTwelve: That's how most of these cop threads I post in usually end, and why I rarely take part in them any more. If you can't have a rational, honest discussion I see no sense in responding to you again. Good day sir.


What a great excuse to weasel out of the conversation when the heat is on.
 
2013-11-14 08:56:49 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Frederf: EVERY time a cop says "he rammed me" or "he tried to run me over" it's because the person was trying to escape and the officer placed himself or his car in the way and/or deliberately caused the incident. Their cars are huge and they do not pay for them. It's the oldest trick to arrange the situation to accuse said person of "attacking a police officer" which bears extraordinary punishment and excuses any reaction.

Did you see the recent thread in which the cop killed a guy at the termination of a pursuit? The video starts with the driver stopping, then deliberately backing into the cop.

And doesn't it make sense that a person being pursued by the police would ram a police car if that is the only means of escaping? If the cop car wasn't in the way, the guy would just drive off. The cops don't block the guy's escape route as an excuse to kill him, they block his escape route to prevent him from escaping.

Yeah, cops that jump in front of a fleeing vehicle are creating the danger to themselves and that's inexcusable. However, it does not justify being intentionally run over by the bad guy.


I'm not talking about what happens. I'm talking about the intent the police ascribe to the subject in hindsight. Police pursuits happen quickly and the "box in you in" maneuver happens so fast that escaping person happens to collide or come close to collision while intending to escape.

Police falsely report the intention as one of direct attack on the police. It's disingenuous when police claim that the subject intended to collide as an attack on police as a primary motivation.
 
Displayed 313 of 313 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report