I watched the video, the guy was completely complying. That cop acted like an idiot, even if he was reaching for a gun the officer has time before the gun comes out. The man had 0 intent or reason to shoot the officer and was also complying completely and should not have been considered a threat. There is something wrong with the criminal justice system with police officers constantly being acquitted, this murder is total proof of that.
Why didn't the officers just do the standard go up against the wall and then pat him down from behind?
How about lie on your back and then approach him?

Maybe paranoid cowards shouldn't be police officers?

Well if the cops were so scared of him moving at all why didn’t they have him lay on the ground and go forward with their guns to aimed right at him until they had him in cuffs?

Aren’t they usually trained to de-escalate the situation?

Ya, everything about the body cam video makes 0 sense to me.

We know he didn't have a gun. We know he didn't make any "dangerous" moves because he didn't pose any danger from any weapons because he didn't have any.

I'm only emphasizing the actual reality because we know that cops go into a situation based on probabilities. They didn't know he didn't have a gun, but false positives are just as deadly as false negatives and the ultimate goal should be to minimize false positives instead of blithely assert that it was possible that he had a gun, therefor case closed otherwise false positives will never be minimized. US police kill hundreds more innocent people a year than basically any other industrial country, while US cops have a much less deadly profession than telecommunication workers, fishermen, etc.

In the abstract he movement looks like he's going for a gun, but in the context of fully complying with officer's demands and the officer's seemingly being primed to punish any mistake maybe they could have known better. Maybe. Or maybe they should have done things differently so they don't end up in a situation where a man's pants falling down means his death.

They did all freak out when he put his hands behind his back.

You don't know the suspect's intent. All you have at the time is there is a guy with a scoped rifle pointing it outside a hotel window. It was a tense situation. Cops are not psychologists. They are a military police force filled with soldiers.

That is our police culture with a lot of people thinking you have nothing to worry about if you don't point a loaded rifle outside a hotel building. No, it shouldn't be a death sentence.

And America has far more homicides than any other country. Of course our police are going to be a lot more paranoid...especially going to a hotel with a report of a man waving a rifle!!!

He put his hands behind his back because that was his natural instinct to try and show that he wasn't dangerous, often officers ask you to do that. His whole demeanor was to try and show that he wasn't a threat.

No you don't. You put your hands where the cops to see you, unless you are handcuffed. He easily could have pulled out a weapon. Three cops were ready to shoot him when he put his hands behind his back.

We all now know now he wasn't at all dangerous. And the Las Vegas shooter was just a senior citizen who liked playing slots. Who also happened to point a weapon outside a hotel room.

This was an inst-acquital. That is the police culture. The cop said he would do the exact same thing if faced with the situation again.

Why didn't they perform a pat down? Once the two people are on the ground, why don't they approach them instead of making them crawl to the police? If this is SOP for this situation, then they need to fix that. Poor instincts. My guess it took a while to convince everyone there was reasonable doubt. No, he didn't. The suspect was an idiot, but he was complying. He was freaked out by the cop and the cop didn't help the situation acting the way he did. Maybe not murder, but definitely manslaughter. If we are going to allow people to concealed carry in this country, cops are going to have to assume a little more risk and not start shooting at the slightest provocation.

We have more gun deaths than probably every other country on earth combined.

What do you expect of our police? Every situation is high-risk compared to the rest of the world. Which is why we have a military police force.

Because to say he would do things differently would be an admission of guilt.

Here is a great pod cast that explains what the jury is instructed in reasonable force cases which covers a lot of these shooting cases. http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiol...easonable-man/

The procedure was stupid. They had the woman keep her hands in the air while crawling on her knees with her legs crossed. Try doing that without falling forward. Seriously, go try. I just did. It's not easy... Now imagine doing it while some nutjob who thinks he's Rambo screams at you about how close you are to dying, while pointing an assault rifle at you.

Now, remember, falling forward toward a cop in one of these situations is basically "asking" for it.

I would love to see where in the Mesa PD's procedures it talks about making suspects crawl toward you. I think this ******* was on a power trip and wanted to humiliate them.

Of course, reaching for your waistband is stupid. But, these cops repeatedly seem incapable of using context. He's begging you not to shoot him, he's sobbing, he's crawling, he's complied with everything... I mean, even, he walked out of the room... This interaction has not been one that is likely to lead to violent action from the suspect.

I will say I'm less bothered by this one than by some of the others that we've seen, but that has more to do with how bad the others are.

Yes, I have to agree.

You can also get 5,000 other cops to say they would have done the exact same thing too.

The police simulations include people reaching back and firing a gun.

How about anyone us receiving a call that there is person in a hotel room pointing a rifle with a scope out the window? Freak out central. Nobody is going to convict him of murder. This trial was done to appease the public.

I'm sure they didn't want to approach the open door because the room hadn't been cleared. Probably the only thing they got right.

Anyway, I thought this may have been bumped because of this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a1771351d85f

Anyone who even thinks that what happened in the video is anywhere near ok and that the jury verdict is understandable should face some kind of punishment. At least a large fine. Maybe a few weeks in jail. A few months picking up trash. I'm not kidding. I mean, the state having the power to do that would not be right, but in terms of justice, golfnutt's position here is so odious it's hard not to consider it criminal.

I don’t think it is ok, Micro, but it that is pretty SOP for our police. And you the video is a microcosm. You have to take into account the phone call (guy pointing a rifle outside the window) along with their training.

I think he personally, is not guilty. I don’t think he is innocent. I blame the amount of guns in this country which has necessitated a military police force. Just like this call.

Six para-troopers go to a hotel. Anybody really shocked that the guy was shot? They aren’t going to de-escalate a situation with AR-18 rifles. Don’t a point a rifle outside a window. It doesn’t mean death sentence, but you sure are playing with fire.

+1

hahaha where did you get that idea?

Thanks for the hot tip.

Do you really think the people in this thread are unaware of that???




You are literally having a different conversation than everyone else in this thread.

Cops adopting this defense:

Because I am siding with a unanimous jury that took 6 hours after a lengthy trial to acquit. Others watch 1 minute and think the cop should be executed. Ironic...

F that pig.

If you're saying it's not the biggest surprise in the world, fine. I agree, it's not. It's no foregone conclusion of course. We mostly see sensational cases in the news/internet, so outrageous outcomes may seem more likely than they actually are.

Either way, I don't care what the culture of the police department is here anymore than I care what the culture of the SS was in WWII. This officer gets no quarter afaic because it's part of police culture. While the system may share some liability, it's not a liability that gets apportioned and diminishes the cop's liability. He's fully liable. He not only chose his actions there he also chose the culture he joined. To back off from Poe's law there, his being a cop there is no more mitigating than being part of the Cosa Nostra would be for a mob hit.