This is why police can sometimes seem trigger happy

"Chief Jon Belmar said. “Ofc. Snyder, we believe at this point in the investigation, gave the suspect some commands because he couldn’t see his hands. The suspect produced a pistol and he shot Ofc. Snyder point-blank. It was an immediately fatal wound.”"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st-louis-officer-fatally-shot-in-early-morning-gunfight/

It would have been better for this officer if he had shot first and asked questions later.

you sure he didn;t plant the gun on the perp?

MGonz said:

It would have been better for this officer if he had shot first and asked questions later.

No. Never.

I would like to know the extent to which police can disengage a bit in some of these cases so that they can assume a position where they can protect themselves without having to shoot preemptively. Police almost always have the upper hand in terms of getting backup and reinforcements, so if they can back off and keep the suspect covered without having to make the arrest immediately, I hope they do so.

MGonz said:

"Chief Jon Belmar said. “Ofc. Snyder, we believe at this point in the investigation, gave the suspect some commands because he couldn’t see his hands. The suspect produced a pistol and he shot Ofc. Snyder point-blank. It was an immediately fatal wound.”"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st-louis-officer-fatally-shot-in-early-morning-gunfight/

It would have been better for this officer if he had shot first and asked questions later.

It looks like the police do frequently respond this way.

2016 citizens killed by police 882, police killed in the line of duty 97

Extremely misleading statistic because some portion of the people killed by police (I would say the vast majority, but we can discuss the exact percentages) are indeed doing something wrong at the time they were killed. While there is never a justification to kill a police officer so none of those are justified.

Well, that one case should sway everyone. Way to work those stats. Good one, Zoinks.

Then there's this guy:

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional/ga-deputy-fired-for-racist-facebook-posts-targetin/nskWb/

....

2016 citizens killed by police 882, police killed in the line of duty 97

How many of the 97 were killed in traffic or other accidents?

Robert_Casotto said:

you sure he didn;t plant the gun on the perp?

The facts will come out, as they tend to do. But In the absence of more facts, that's your initial reaction? Really?

In the absence of more facts, my reaction is that this was a justifiable shooting, and I'm thankful that we have people who put themselves on the front lines to protect the community.

BaseballMom said:

Robert_Casotto said:

you sure he didn;t plant the gun on the perp?

The facts will come out, as they tend to do. But In the absence of more facts, that's your initial reaction? Really?

In the absence of more facts, my reaction is that this was a justifiable shooting, and I'm thankful that we have people who put themselves on the front lines to protect the community.

You are misreading this. The officer is dead. No joke, no matter what Casotto says.

As evidenced with the Boston Marathon bomber and the more recent NYC/NJ bomber, when officers want to bring in an armed suspect alive, they can.

Hahaha said:

As evidenced with the Boston Marathon bomber and the more recent NYC/NJ bomber, when officers want to bring in an armed suspect alive, they can.

That's not really a fair observation. Unless we have some information of outcomes when the police have to take armed suspects into custody, it is difficult to draw conclusions. The cases we hear about, for the most part, are those where the suspect is killed or, less commonly, a police officer is shot.

jerseyjack said:

How many of the 97 were killed in traffic or other accidents?

Traffic accident (total for auto, motorcycle, struck by vehicle, vehicle pursuit): 30

Gunfire: 42

Vehicular assault: 10

Heart attack: 6

Assault: 2

Drowned: 2

1 each: stabbed, accidental gunfire, animal related, 9/11-related illness, aircraft accident

Source: Officer Down Memorial Page

tjohn said:

Hahaha said:

As evidenced with the Boston Marathon bomber and the more recent NYC/NJ bomber, when officers want to bring in an armed suspect alive, they can.

That's not really a fair observation. Unless we have some information of outcomes when the police have to take armed suspects into custody, it is difficult to draw conclusions. The cases we hear about, for the most part, are those where the suspect is killed or, less commonly, a police officer is shot.

I think it's a fair observation. Why shouldn't they aim to take all armed suspects without fatal injury? In the recent publicized cases of police shootings the "suspects" were not actively shooting - they were either assumed to be armed or in a proportedly "defensive" position.

Hahaha said:

I think it's a fair observation. Why shouldn't they aim to take all armed suspects without fatal injury? In the recent publicized cases of police shootings the "suspects" were not actively shooting - they were either assumed to be armed or in a proportedly "defensive" position.

You clearly have never fired a weapon under a stressful situation. I spent 6 years as a police officer in the 80's and I will never fault a cop for shooting center mass. I will however fault some of them for poor judgement, poor tactics, ignoring protocol, and responding based on racial bias. I'm not sure what the training is like now, but based on the training I received, many of the shootings that we hear about involve the police not following the established procedures that I was taught. And I am also referring to the times that the police are shot. Maybe training has changed but when I hear of these situations, I'm shocked at the way the situations play out.

Hahaha said:

tjohn said:

Hahaha said:

As evidenced with the Boston Marathon bomber and the more recent NYC/NJ bomber, when officers want to bring in an armed suspect alive, they can.

That's not really a fair observation. Unless we have some information of outcomes when the police have to take armed suspects into custody, it is difficult to draw conclusions. The cases we hear about, for the most part, are those where the suspect is killed or, less commonly, a police officer is shot.

I think it's a fair observation. Why shouldn't they aim to take all armed suspects without fatal injury? In the recent publicized cases of police shootings the "suspects" were not actively shooting - they were either assumed to be armed or in a proportedly "defensive" position.

Unless we know the outcomes for hundreds or thousands of police encounters with armed suspects, it is hard to judge anything.

Please reread the whole thing- The Cop not the perp was shot and killed. the comments here look like you think the cop killed the perp.

So yeah, I guess the cop did plant a gun after he was dead.

jeffhandy said:

Hahaha said:

I think it's a fair observation. Why shouldn't they aim to take all armed suspects without fatal injury? In the recent publicized cases of police shootings the "suspects" were not actively shooting - they were either assumed to be armed or in a proportedly "defensive" position.

You clearly have never fired a weapon under a stressful situation. I spent 6 years as a police officer in the 80's and I will never fault a cop for shooting center mass. I will however fault some of them for poor judgement, poor tactics, ignoring protocol, and responding based on racial bias. I'm not sure what the training is like now, but based on the training I received, many of the shootings that we hear about involve the police not following the established procedures that I was taught. And I am also referring to the times that the police are shot. Maybe training has changed but when I hear of these situations, I'm shocked at the way the situations play out.

No I haven't. But I'm not a police officer. Officers are trained to deal with stressful situations. That's the very nature of the job. So when I hear officers involved in deadly shootings of unarmed [black] men say they acted because they felt "threatened", I wonder whether that's a failure of training or innate racial bias or more likely, both.

This is indeed is a fair statement. And to be clear, NOT ALL OFFICERS are "trigger happy." Many put their training to use on a daily basis and many retire w/out brandishing their weapon or firing a shot.

A friend (white) who lives outside of Boston has a teen son who suffers from mental illness. They've called the police many times because he can be dangerous to others. Each time, the police have been able to calm the situation, talk to him and the parents and stabilize. The last time this occurred, he had some type of weapon - a hammer or a screwdriver, and was flailing at everyone, including police. They tased him during that incident.

Because of what I've read and witnessed on the news and internet videos, I honestly believe that if a black male teen with the same mental disorder were to brandish a weapon of any kind, he would be instantly shot by officers. The officers who were able to tame the above situation, IMO, were trained properly in the art of deescalation. Many officers who shoot first and don't bother to use their training, are the ones we need to worry about the most. I don't believe that officers go off to work to shoot and kill black kids, men, people BUT...bias and fear sets in and the mix of the two is extremely dangerous.

My question is: at what point does your training supersede your bias to the point that you can effectively do your use a Taser instead of a gun? Because it does seem that many angry, threatening white teens/adults walk away alive from a police confrontation while black teens do not. And, in many occurrences, the black teens/adults were in no way hostile, mouthing off, etc., and were in compliance when shot.

Hahaha said:

As evidenced with the Boston Marathon bomber and the more recent NYC/NJ bomber, when officers want to bring in an armed suspect alive, they can.

This conversation hits home for me in the deepest way. My nephew, my "first born", is 16 and has autism. He goes to a boarding school for kids on the spectrum focused on building life skills and limited vocational training. He's in a safe, supportive environment where the community around him understands and respects his disabilities. However, when he's 20 or so, he'll have to leave his school for the "real world".

He's never been violent but I worry for him. I worry because he is a sweet kid who doesn't get all the verbal and nonverbal cues people use - especially people in authority. I watched the video of the black male care giver shot in the street while walking with his black male autistic patient - who was carrying a toy truck. And I cried because that boy with the truck could have been my nephew.

Apollo_T said:


So yeah, I guess the cop did plant a gun after he was dead.

N.Y.C. cops have a term for this: "Dropsy."

jeffhandy said:

You clearly have never fired a weapon under a stressful situation. I spent 6 years as a police officer in the 80's and I will never fault a cop for shooting center mass. I will however fault some of them for poor judgement, poor tactics, ignoring protocol, and responding based on racial bias. I'm not sure what the training is like now, but based on the training I received, many of the shootings that we hear about involve the police not following the established procedures that I was taught. And I am also referring to the times that the police are shot. Maybe training has changed but when I hear of these situations, I'm shocked at the way the situations play out.

This post is worth re-posting.

Below is exactly what I was talking about in my post.

I have a friend who is a Boston Police officer; nearly killed by his own; big story in the 90's. His mantra is training is the most important tool an officer can use. Many don't. No excuse for it. Ever.

LOST said:

jeffhandy said:

You clearly have never fired a weapon under a stressful situation. I spent 6 years as a police officer in the 80's and I will never fault a cop for shooting center mass. I will however fault some of them for poor judgement, poor tactics, ignoring protocol, and responding based on racial bias. I'm not sure what the training is like now, but based on the training I received, many of the shootings that we hear about involve the police not following the established procedures that I was taught. And I am also referring to the times that the police are shot. Maybe training has changed but when I hear of these situations, I'm shocked at the way the situations play out.

This post is worth re-posting.