How shooting an Unarmed 13yr old Boy became legal

[FreakinDJ]

This really shocked me to find out

Once the officer has decided to arrest, detain or perform an investigatory stop - the Citizen's Rights to Due Process Ends at that point.

And I learned an new Buzz Phrase - "Waste Band Shootings"

The old standard was a substantive due process four part test which was to determine if the use of force “shocked the conscience”: “(1) the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of the injury inflicted; and (4) ‘[w]hether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’”

That seems pretty straightforward from a public perspective, because it is a I-know-it-when-I-see-it criteria. The court in Graham v. Connor found that an objective standard based on Fourth Amendment seizure jurisprudence was more applicable to police use of force, since the civilians was essentially being seized, and thus ruled:

“Today we make explicit what was implicit in Garner’s analysis, and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force — deadly or not — in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a ‘substantive due process’ approach.”

https://medium.com/p/74a4da37a0ae

The gives police here in Calif a lot of wiggle room because ALL investigations of Officer Involved Shootings are kept secret - BY LAW

Its only in a few cases around the country where citizens have video taped police actions that these actions are ever challenged

My advice to American Citizens is once you see officers - START RECORDING

The life you save my be your child's

[TBF]

1. Interesting stuff -

we gave up a lot under the Patriot Act, but some of it is just police procedure and how the courts have shaped it that we should all know about. Thanks for the OP.

[beerandjesus]

3. The Patriot Act is a great boogeyman, but the realy culprit is the Drug War

Not for a second to minimize what the Patriot Act has wrought, but most of this shit was pioneered and instituted in the Drug War. The 4th Amendment was pretty much dead long before 2001, thanks to creative shit like asset "forfeiture". This puts a finer point on it, but this has been going on for decades.

[TeamPooka]

36. Prohibition is a failed public policy. nt

[Ikonoklast]

59. Not in the least. From the perspective of those that benefit, it is a huge success.

LEO's get to buy APC's and other nifty toys, private jails get filled and corporations make huge profits, judges get bribed to find every kid guilty, drug cartels literally print money.


The rest of us lose our civil liberties a little with each passing day.

[TeamPooka]

60. I speak for the general citizenry not the special interests.

[FreakinDJ]

12. The suspension of Citizen's Rights is disturbing

The officers Motives are completely irrelavent

[TBF]

31. I agree. nt

[LuvNewcastle]

2. Cops have virtually been given carte blanche to do anything they want

to you when you have an encounter with them. That's why they're so cocky all the time, and they routinely lie and cover up for each other. I agree with the OP, the only things we have to defend ourselves against them are our video phones, and they've even got a law against recording cops now. We're fighting an uphill battle against law enforcement. They're just as much the enemy as the criminals; in fact they very often are criminals themselves.

[loli phabay]

4. ngasd.

[BlueinOhio]

8. True

Whole criminal activity from drugs to prostitutes. Here in Ohio they let known criminals run loose because they use them for informants. So these criminals control whole villages. So how to handle it? They will not arrest themselves and if anyone stands up to them they are harassed and arrested

[LuvNewcastle]

10. That's awful.

Corruption is rampant in this country, and it goes all the way to the top. It's so bad that when we see it, we have to figure out who is honest enough to trust with the information, otherwise either nothing will be done about it or it will come back and we'll have to pay the consequences for reporting it. A good man is especially hard to find in the government and the legal system, especially.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Can't wait for this to be applied to CCW Holders

"I was performing a Citizens Arrest and he reached for his waste"

I was in fear he had a weapon is all they have to say to LEGALLY Gun people Down in the streets

[ReRe]

14. Yeah, we have a police state...

... I have always told my kids to stay away from cops. "If you ever find yourself in a group where illegal activities might be taking place, get the hell out of there pronto." Obey all traffic laws so a cop won't stop you. Just stay the eff away from cops. All sons are grown now and none of them have ever had a brush with the law, except in a couple no-fault auto accidents. And I will say it here... stay the fuck away from cops.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. Excellent advice.

I don't have anything to do with them, even socially. I don't trust them and I talk to people I don't trust, at least in real life. I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say on tv or anywhere else.

[ReRe]

24. Oh, well....

... I'm going straight to hell if you're counting the internet.

[LuvNewcastle]

25. Well, I guess email and instant messages don't count.

[Orrex]

5. What is proper procedure when someone points an apparently real weapon at a cop?

I'm not asking about the recently slain child nor about the cop who shot him. I'm asking about procedure.

Given your apparently authoritative knowledge of the subject, I look forward to your succinct, simple and well-supported answer.

[B Calm]

6. +1

[FreakinDJ]

9. They are now being directed to shoot first

Ask questions later

My question to you is did you read the entire article cited

[Ranchemp.]

18. Bullshit!!!!

Cops are trained to use deadly force only if they perceive a deadly threat to themselves, their partner, or the public, also, cops aren't trained to shoot to kill, they're trained to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.

Are there bad cops out there that use force too quickly? Yes. Do police depts. try to cover up a bad officer involved shooting? Once again, yes. But the majority of the nations police forces are just trying to do a difficult job and every cop I've ever worked with or interacted with, has no desire to ever have to draw their weapon and shoot someone.
Most cops will go through their whole career without ever drawing their firearm, much less shooting someone.

But your saying that cops are directed to shoot first and ask questions later is patently false and unless you can provide links or proof of that, then your credibility is in question.

[FreakinDJ]

20. You can't really believe that

33% of ALL police shootings involve UNARMED Citizens

http://m.chron.com/news/article/One-in-three-police-shootings-involve-unarmed-1651275.php

Read some of Gelhaus's own writing on what a "Percieved Threat" can be. Its only limited by the police officer's immagination as his own writings describe

[Orrex]

28. You are being intellectually dishonest

33% of ALL police shootings involve UNARMED Citizens

Um, no. The article states that 33% of 189 shootings involved unarmed citizens, and those 189 shootings were by law enforcement agencies local to the Houston area. To assert a universal trend based on such a tiny sample is intellectually dishonest.

Further, it is sloppy and lazy to post a link to a six page article without citing a relevant passage. You are, in effect, outsourcing your research responsibilities to anyone unfortunate enough to read your post, and this is at least the third time that I've seen you try this trick in the past 24 hours.

If you have statistics from somewhere within that article that support your claim that "33% of ALL police shootings involved UNARMED Citizens," then it is up to you to provide it. It's not the reader's responsibility to make up for your half-assed argument.

[FreakinDJ]

30. Your not liking the article makes it no less truthful

Other studies asses the number at 20% which is still completely unacceptable

Defend that

[Orrex]

32. Citation, please

Again, you are asking me to do your research for you, which is intellectually dishonest.

Post an excerpt of these "other studies" that supports your claim, and then provide a link so that readers can review those studies. Your failure to provide even minimal documentation of your claims is lazy, sloppy and irresponsible.

[Ranchemp.]

37. I know and believe that for a fact.

LE is not trained to shoot to kill, that's a fucking Hollywood myth, just like shooting the gun out of a criminals hand,
LE is trained to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.

There are unjustified police shootings, I'm not denying that, I'm also not denying that depts. will attempt to justify a bad shoot, that's fact, but to say that police policy is to shoot first and ask questions later is a pure lie.

[FreakinDJ]

39. Are you calling me or the author a liar

Because he is an attorney who investigates officer involved shootings for a living

And even he is advocating against the practice - that was the point of his article

[Ranchemp.]

40. I'm calling the author a liar,

police policies are not to shoot first, I know of no LEA with that policy, if that were true, not only would the DoJ be all over it, every civil rights group would be screaming bloody murder lead by the ACLU, an org. I have the highest regards for.

[FreakinDJ]

44. Even Gelhaus's own writings

Describe the "Perceived Threat"

And I'm paraphrasing here

"Just as when your hunting you will not see the whole animal"

Now tell me 1 Gun Safety/Hunting Instructor that would say that. It has always been stressed to be proof positive about what you are shooting at BEFORE you pull the trigger

[Ranchemp.]

46. Perceived threat is not shoot first and ask questions later, despite what he may think,

perceived threat is recognizing a threat and being prepared to deal with it, not perceive a threat and shoot, although there are cops that will do so, but in no way is that any LEA's policy.

[FreakinDJ]

48. No your just Wrong

They are instructing officer to shoot if they have a future percieved threat

And Cops are being CLEARED of Wrong Doing and are following procedure for doing so

[Ranchemp.]

49. You couldn't be more wrong, just as this so called lawyer is wrong.

But you have your mind made up and no one, not even those of us in the know, are going to change your mind.

Have a great day, btw, I'm now skeptical about the shooting of the 13 yo, I think that cop has some splaining to do.

[questionseverything]

53. glad to see you are coming around

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023919316

[Orrex]

51. Citation, please

They are instructing officer to shoot if they have a future percieved threat.

You have made this claim several times and havne't supported it. Who is giving these instructions?

If you have an actual source for this claim, then you need to provide that source, otherwise you're asking us to take your word for it.

And if you're asking us to take your word for it, then you really need to be aware that your word doesn't carry much weight at this point.

[FreakinDJ]

64. Deadly Force Authorized For Any Perceived Threat

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/135053/Dallas_On_High_Alert_For_Bush_Library_Opening__Deadly_Force_Authorized_For_Any_Perceived_Threat/

With the United States Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Graham v.
Connor,12th e significance of that intent gave way to the "objective reasonableness"
standard of the Fourth Amendment in cases where
"seizures" are deemed to have occurred.13
One of the obvious problems created by a reasonableness standard
is determining the appropriate level of reasonableness. Research
results have indicated that police officers, especially street
officers, are able to assess what is good police work and when force is
excessive.'4 This may explain why most accusations of excessive force
are denied at the department level.

http://deadlyforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Reasonable-Man.pdf

This type of shooting drills includes the mental preparation and physical followup training that trains the officer to shoot two rounds at body mass and one round into the head of the sus pect. When encountering two suspects, double tap both suspects, and while still covering the second suspect, fire one round to the head, return to the first suspect and fire a round to the head. This "failure drill" routine is known as the double back.

http://www.policek9.com/html/react.html

[Orrex]

70. In other words, you don't have a citation

This was your claim:

They are instructing officer to shoot if they have a future percieved threat.

The excerpts that you posted do not support this.

The first citation is 20 years old and discusses how "reasonableness" is determined as it pertains to police conduct. It specifically does not indicate that "they are instructing officers to shoot if they have a future perceived threat."

The second citation is more recent but gives only a very general suggstions about how cops might respond to suspects who are wearing body armor. It specifically does not indicate that "they are instructing officers to shoot if they have a future perceived threat."

In short, the citations don't support your claim, nor do the excerpted documents themselves.

You're getting closer, in that you're actually providing citations, more or less. Now you need to work on providing relevant and supporting citations.


Care to try again?

[FreakinDJ]

71. Wow - Major Denial Issues

Help is available

Any claim you might have had of legitamacy has gone out the window

[Orrex]

74. How so?

The citations that you offered clearly do not corroborate your claim. The sticking point here is not my alleged "denial issues" but rather your inability to formulate and support an argument.


You're very eager to make wild claims about police procedure, and you post these as if you have some authority to speak on the subject, but you don't actually seem that knowledgeable, you don't back up your assertions in any real way, and you don't answer reasonable requests for clarification.

[Logical]

35. LOL, explain shooting all the dogs. nt

[Ranchemp.]

38. I don't have to explain anything, I wasn't there for any of them

except for the one time I had to shoot a doberman that was attacking one of my team members.

[Logical]

41. Ok, your a cop. Makes sense now. Nt

[Ranchemp.]

45. I tried to PM you but unfortunately every time I click o My Inbox,

I get this message that says Parse Error on line ..........
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but this thinking that police policy is to shoot first and ask questions later is so stupid.
Yes, there are cops out there who think like that, and they need to be removed, but to my knowledge, there are no LEA's, local, state or federal who have that policy, and to be pushing that line is unacceptable and really gets my dander up so excuse my passion on this.

[Scootaloo]

54. Yes, there are cops who think like that

And there are plenty of those cops who ACT on that thought. And the department, by default, finds no wrongdoing. The union, by default, refuses to allow their dismissal. The courts, by default, refuse to convict, or give only light sentences on the very rare occasions a cop is convicted - and remember the case has to actually make it to a judge first!

So long as good cops cover for the bad cops, all cops are bad cops. A bad cop is a threat to public safety and well-being. And if the departments and their "buddies" aren't going to fix the problem, then what recourse does the public have to protect themselves, do you think?

[Ranchemp.]

55. You make very good points,

but I do disagree that all cops are bad cops.
The attitudes that defined what happened to Officer Serpico in the NYPD is still prevalent today, but that's starting to sloooowly change, not fast enough for me, and I'll be long retired before there is a noticeable difference, but it is starting to change.

[Scootaloo]

57. Disagree all you like, it's the truth

Isn't harboring a fugitive, or aiding and abetting a crime? Those people who do so are criminals, yes? Okay so then, so are the officers and departments who cover for and protect rabid cops.

I'm sure there are one or two officers in every precinct who do do their best, and are decent people. Sadly they are outweighed by the pressure of "go along to get along" and "you'll never get that promotion if..."

[Ranchemp.]

58. It's much better at the federal level

than at the local or state level, we operate under much more stringent policies than local/state LEA's, we have true oversight, not like the local/state agencies that will investigate themselves, which is the recipe for the coverup.

[FreakinDJ]

42. So your a cop saying the attorney who investigates cops

Is a liar

I think we all here need some thing a little more substantive then your ranting to believe you

[Ranchemp.]

43. He's a liar if he's saying that police policy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

There is no such policy in any police regulations period.

[questionseverything]

56. and yet we see it over & over

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10358

just like we have started seeing strip searches and anal probes all over country for minor infractions of the law

[VADem1980]

63. I thought I smelled bacon in this thread.

Cops are all scumbags, worse than most of the so-called criminals!

[Ranchemp.]

67. Real classy.

But I've been called a lot worse by far tougher people.

[Orrex]

72. Also, bacon is awesome.

[Ranchemp.]

73. Absolutely,

I love bacon, eggs, sausage, hash browns and toast with jelly, and a glass of orange juice in the morning. Yum yum.

[loli phabay]

65. man just walk away from it, your talking to zealots there is no point.

[Ranchemp.]

66. Of course you're right,

but it's hard to walk away when I see bullshit like this being pedaled.

[loli phabay]

68. its just not worth it.

[Ranchemp.]

69. Your right,

and I'm going to take your advice and walk away from this.

[Orrex]

26. Citation, please

Please show documentation indicating that police are being instructed to shoot first.

Given your exhaustive knowledge of the subject, I'm sure that it wil be easy for you to provide this relevant citation.

My question to you is did you read the entire article cited

I'll answer your question to me after you've answered my question to you.

[FreakinDJ]

29. From the above linked article

ut Ross comes from the camp which stands solidly behind Graham v. Connor.He is not alone in mindset when he suggests that department policies and training “should direct an officer to respond to the pre-assault threat cues of an assault without waiting for the actual assault to commence.” That’s right — shoot to kill because you think you will be assaulted at some point in the near future.

Honestly this guy certainly qualifies as an expert in this subject

[Orrex]

33. You are misreading that citation, either deliberately or carelessly

Ross comes from the camp which stands solidly behind Graham v. Connor.He is not alone in mindset when he suggests that department policies and training “should direct an officer to respond to the pre-assault threat cues of an assault without waiting for the actual assault to commence.” That’s right — shoot to kill because you think you will be assaulted at some point in the near future.

The part that you seem to identify as the trump card ("shoot to kill because you think you will be assaulted at some point in the near future&quot is the author offering an editorialized paraphrase of an indirect and summarized quote of Ross' opinion, and you are presenting this as if it's Ross' actual opinion.

That's how a straw man works. That's how propaganda works. That how intellectual dishonesty works.


You're making slow progress, in that you managed to cite a semi-relevant passage, rather than demanding that your readers do your homework for you. Now you simply need to work on selecting material that actually supports your argument in a reasonable, intellectually honest fashion.

Good luck!

[FreakinDJ]

47. Then what is a "Waist Band Shooting"

I'm sure the first question asked is "Where is the Gun"

You lost that argument

[Orrex]

50. It's a term apparently coined by the author of the article

Why don't you ask them, if you're having trouble figuring it out?

And given your history of hidden posts, missing citations and unanswered questions, you're in no position to tell anyone that they've lost an argument with you. In fact, you haven't even articulated an argument.

[bemildred]

19. I suggest close examination of the situation and prayer.

But go ahead, grab your gun, see what happens, then you'll know for sure.

[The Wizard]

7. Ever since 9-11

we've become a nation of uniform worshipers that believes anyone in uniform is a hero, and as such exempt from due process and commensurate sanctions. Remember the inappropriate response to Occupy. The unwarranted and unpunished use of pepper spray (chemical weapon) against innocent people exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition their government has been abridged and abolished. We are on the path to self destruction.
Because we have abandoned our Constitutional rights, we have ceased to be the country our founders envisioned. It looks like bin Laden is the real winner.

[BlueStreak]

13. Do they even recognize a statistic called "UN-justifiable homicide"?

As far as I can tell, virtually all police action shootings are placed into the "justifiable homicide" category.

[FreakinDJ]

16. Exactly - the FBI considers ALL police shootings Justified

And by the criteria most police dept. Have adopted - they are

Like I said I can't wait for this to be applied to CCW permit holders. People can be gunned down for cutting some one off in traffic

[hooptie]

27. UN-justifiable homicide is usually called

something like murder, or manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

[BlueStreak]

34. And how often do police investigete themselves and come to that conclusion?

Approximately ... NEVER.

[mountain grammy]

15. This is an excellent article, thank you.

Not only have the courts allowed and encouraged the police to overreact, new laws have allowed non law enforcement civilians to overreact. We shoot first and ask questions later and that's ok. The laws and courts have given us a lawless society. Amazing

Back to the wild, wild west!

[FreakinDJ]

17. The NRA is the New KKK

This is going to be horrific

[mountain grammy]

21. the entire Republican Party is the new KKK.

and I agree.. this is already horrific as the body count of innocent civilians rises daily.

[FreakinDJ]

23. This is going to escalate very badly

[Th1onein]

52. THIS needs to be changed.

"ALL investigations of Officer Involved Shootings are kept secret - BY LAW"

These officers are PUBLIC SERVANTS and what they do IN OUR NAME canNOT be kept SECRET. It belongs to US, the citizens, who pay for their services.

[FreakinDJ]

61. Unfortunitly by Law kept secret to protect the police officer

Can you think of anything more disturbing then that

[Th1onein]

62. No, I can't think of many things more disturbing than that.

These are PUBLIC employees and everything that they do should be open to the PUBLIC, which is their EMPLOYER. It's like hiring a lawyer who keeps everything secret until the verdict comes in.