CA - Mario Woods, 26, shot by LE, San Francisco, 2 Dec 2015

[i.b.nora]

"The Commission is now set to come up with a new draft of the SFPD's use-of-force policy, which will include recommendations around Tasers, on February 3."

http://sfist.com/2015/12/10/police_commission_meeting_about_mar.php

 

[bluesneakers]

[video=twitter;675429014295588864]https://twitter.com/abc7newsBayArea/status/675429014295588864[/video]

This is from a few days ago so there's no watching live available. I just wanted to share the images.

 

[i.b.nora]

The Controversial "Rule" Police Rely on to Shoot and Kill Supsects (sic)

Did Laquan McDonald, Mario Woods, and others die because of a police training myth from the 1980s?
—By Jaeah Lee | Mon Dec. 14, 2015 6:00 AM EST

Interesting article on the "21 foot rule".

"The concept originated with a March 1983 SWAT magazine article, "How Close Is Too Close," by Dennis Tueller, a retired lieutenant and former firearms instructor with the Salt Lake City Police Department. "Let's consider what might be called the 'Danger Zone' if you are confronted by an adversary armed with an edged or blunt weapon," Tueller wrote. Tueller conducted a series of tests and found that in the time it took for the officer to unholster, aim, and shoot his gun—1.5 to 2 seconds—the attacker could cover a distance of 21 feet.

Tueller never called this idea a rule, but that's how it became known. "The '21-foot rule' concept spread throughout the law enforcement community almost like a virus," Ron Martinelli, a retired cop and forensic criminologist, wrote in a March 2015 Law Officer article about the so-called rule. "Tueller never imagined when he designed his simple firearms training drill that, 30 years later, the 21-foot rule would eventually become a police doctrine that is taught and testified to hundreds of times a year.""​

 

[katydid23]

[video=twitter;675429014295588864]https://twitter.com/abc7newsBayArea/status/675429014295588864[/video]

This is from a few days ago so there's no watching live available. I just wanted to share the images.

That is such a waste of time and energy. Maybe those marchers could volunteer to tutor young inner city kids or help make lunches for elderly shut-ins. The amount of time and energy that has been put into these marches, could be massively helpful in a productive way in their communities. It is sad, imo.

 

[bluesneakers]

Interesting.

Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid?

Because of a prevalent misinterpretation, the 21-Foot Rule has been dangerously corrupted.

"Unfortunately, some officers and apparently some trainers as well have 'streamlined' the 21-Foot Rule in a way that gravely distorts its meaning and exposes them to highly undesirable legal consequences," Lewinski says. Namely, they have come to believe that the Rule means that a subject brandishing an edged weapon when positioned at any distance less than 21 feet from an officer can justifiably be shot.

For example, an article on the 21-Foot Rule in a highly respected LE magazine states in its opening sentence that "a suspect armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat." The "common knowledge" that "deadly force against him is justified" has long been "accepted in police and court circles," the article continues.

Statements like that, Lewinski says, "have led officers to believe that no matter what position they're in, even with their gun on target and their finger on the trigger, they are in extreme danger at 21 feet. They believe they don't have a chance of surviving unless they preempt the suspect by shooting."

BBM: This might explain all the "I was in fear of my safety" comments we hear.

 

[EllieBee]

That is such a waste of time and energy. Maybe those marchers could volunteer to tutor young inner city kids or help make lunches for elderly shut-ins. The amount of time and energy that has been put into these marches, could be massively helpful in a productive way in their communities. It is sad, imo.

Speaking out against injustice and in favor of one's civil rights is never a waste of time, IMO.

Sad to have to even post that.

 

[Sparky]

MOD ALERT

Please stop the bickering, name calling and bashing LE.

It's against WS TOS and won't be tolerated.

If you haven't read TOS or you need a refresher, they can be found here.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

Thank you.

 

[RoiPD86]

Are you aware that most LE officers who have been on the force for any length of time have complaints on their record. People report officers over any little petty thing. One cannot really judge an LE officer by complaints on his/her record. Complaints don't change the facts of this case.

Having been in LE for a number of years I can corroborate this statement. We live in a Nation where so many are unable to take responsibility for their mistakes and blame others. Frivolous complaints come into every precinct often. Dishonest people are a plenty. I like to think they are close relatives to the imbeciles who are hit in minor accidents, get out and inspect the damage, then get back in the car and feign traumatic injury to the officer who responds. All in hopes of a settlement. I guess people who think they can file frivolous complaints with no merit believe they will receive some type of fulfillment. Oh, how sad when their lies don't bring back any bacon........

 

[bluesneakers]

Speaking out against injustice and in favor of one's civil rights is never a waste of time, IMO.

Sad to have to even post that.

Saving lives is the most important cause I can think of.

 

[EllieBee]

I just got here tonight as well, but stand by my assertion that every American citizen is entitled to express their discontent through peaceful protest.

Nobody is required to agree with the position of those protesting, but it remains their Constitutionally protected right.

Believe you me, I am not a fan of some of these "rights", especially those that have been misinterpreted (IMO), but I am a HUGE fan of our Constitution. Tolerance is not an easy thing to achieve, but it is essential if we are to live together peacefully as American citizens. Sometimes ya gotta take a deep breath and think to yourself, "if I am to be tolerated, I must tolerate".

IMO, this is how it works. In my faith, there is something called the Golden Rule. Essentially it says "treat other folks like you'd like to be treated". I think it's a darned good rule.

JMO.

 

[i.b.nora]

Here is either an updated or new article regarding some background on two of the officers involved in the Mario Woods death.

http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2...-complaints-for-officers-who-shot-mario-woods

Prior Excessive Force Complaints for Officers Who Shot Mario Woods
SF Weekly
Posted By Doug Brown on Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:38

“At least two of the five San Francisco police officers who shot and killed Mario Woods on Dec. 2 had been previously accused of using excessive force, including the beating of a Bayview man while he was in handcuffs, court records show.

While working as a police officer in Antioch in 2009, Officer Nicholas Cuevas shot two suspects in the back who, he claimed, were trying to ram his police cruiser with their car.

In San Francisco, Officer Charles August led a group of officers in the beating of a man outside a Bayview liquor store. The man, who was never charged with a crime, claimed to be handcuffed during part of the alleged beating, according to court records.

In another incident, August was accused of choking Kevin Lamar Hopkins, who was also shackled in handcuffs at the time, so hard Hopkins spat up blood, according to another lawsuit.

The city settled August’s first lawsuit in 2012. The city recently settled the second lawsuit filed against August for an undisclosed sum.

The lawsuit against Cuevas, brought by a plaintiff who is charged with murdering two jewelry store employees in San Francisco during a 2013 robbery, is still pending.​

These are facts. I personally do not know if the officers prior actions are relevant in this Mario Woods case, or not. But, if there is a court case, this information will be included I would imagine.

 

[bwt42]

I just got here tonight as well, but stand by my assertion that every American citizen is entitled to express their discontent through peaceful protest.

Nobody is required to agree with the position of those protesting, but it remains their Constitutionally protected right.

Believe you me, I am not a fan of some of these "rights", especially those that have been misinterpreted (IMO), but I am a HUGE fan of our Constitution. Tolerance is not an easy thing to achieve, but it is essential if we are to live together peacefully as American citizens. Sometimes ya gotta take a deep breath and think to yourself, "if I am to be tolerated, I must tolerate".

IMO, this is how it works. In my faith, there is something called the Golden Rule. Essentially it says "treat other folks like you'd like to be treated". I think it's a darned good rule.

JMO.

I believe in the Golden Rule. Unfortunately, some protesters don't. Or at least they don't believe in treating others the way I do. JMO

 

[EllieBee]

It is kind of hard to compare the UK to the US in terms of policing. Last weekend, in just two days, 27 people were shot in Chicago. Two of them died. That is probably more people shot in two days than have been shot in the UK in years.

Prolly because of all the guns and all. Where guns ain't, we find far fewer gun deaths....freaky!

But, you know.

 

[katydid23]

Here is either an updated or new article regarding some background on two of the officers involved in the Mario Woods death.

http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2...-complaints-for-officers-who-shot-mario-woods

Prior Excessive Force Complaints for Officers Who Shot Mario Woods
SF Weekly
Posted By Doug Brown on Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:38

“At least two of the five San Francisco police officers who shot and killed Mario Woods on Dec. 2 had been previously accused of using excessive force, including the beating of a Bayview man while he was in handcuffs, court records show.

While working as a police officer in Antioch in 2009, Officer Nicholas Cuevas shot two suspects in the back who, he claimed, were trying to ram his police cruiser with their car.

In San Francisco, Officer Charles August led a group of officers in the beating of a man outside a Bayview liquor store. The man, who was never charged with a crime, claimed to be handcuffed during part of the alleged beating, according to court records.

In another incident, August was accused of choking Kevin Lamar Hopkins, who was also shackled in handcuffs at the time, so hard Hopkins spat up blood, according to another lawsuit.

The city settled August’s first lawsuit in 2012. The city recently settled the second lawsuit filed against August for an undisclosed sum.

The lawsuit against Cuevas, brought by a plaintiff who is charged with murdering two jewelry store employees in San Francisco during a 2013 robbery, is still pending.​

These are facts. I personally do not know if the officers prior actions are relevant in this Mario Woods case, or not. But, if there is a court case, this information will be included I would imagine.

So an armed robber, who shot and killed 2 jewelry store employees , tried to escape the scene, and rammed his car into Office Cuevos's vehicle, and he was shot by the officer. Then he sued the officer? What a great guy. I hope he gets NOTHING in his lawsuit.

 

[bluesneakers]

So an armed robber, who shot and killed 2 jewelry store employees , tried to escape the scene, and rammed his car into Office Cuevos's vehicle, and he was shot by the officer. Then he sued the officer? What a great guy. I hope he gets NOTHING in his lawsuit.

Different incidents. Check the dates.

While working as a police officer in Antioch in 2009, Officer Nicholas Cuevas shot two suspects in the back who, he claimed, were trying to ram his police cruiser with their car.

The lawsuit against Cuevas, brought by a plaintiff who is charged with murdering two jewelry store employees in San Francisco during a 2013 robbery, is still pending.

 

[i.b.nora]

This is new:

The SFPD Institutes New Policy on Drawing Guns—and Police Union Objects
Police Officers Association not buying new ruling that pointing a gun at someone constitutes “use of force.”

San Francisco Magazine
Joe Eskenazi | Photo: Ramin Rahimian | December 14, 2015

“But, perhaps in hopes of mollifying its legions of critics, the department on Friday quietly recategorized its firearm policies. According to a Departmental Bulletin issued late in the day, pointing a gun at a person is now considered "a reportable use of force." Any officer who finds him or herself "intentionally pointing" a firearm at someone must report the action to a supervisor, explain his or her rationale in writing, and, at the time of the incident, explain to the person with a gun pointed his or her way why this is happening—“if circumstances permit.”

“Not surprisingly, the December 11 bulletin was followed by a missive issued on December 12 by San Francisco Police Officers Association boss Marty Halloran. In a letter to Suhr, the union chief complained that tighter regulations “may constitute a change in working conditions for our members.””

*

“For those hoping to reform the SFPD in the wake of the Woods shooting, the union's ongoing response has provided a wakeup call: Not only are the department's longstanding issues a cultural matter and a policy matter and a training matter and an attitudinal matter—they are also a union matter.”​

- See more at: http://modernluxury.com/san-francis...and-police-union-objects#sthash.XzvbD0gR.dpuf

I have thought for a long time one of the biggest hurdles to achieving any kind of reform in our police departments is the existence of the union, and San Francisco seems to be no exception.

I happen to like Greg Suhr very much and he is the best Police Chief, in my opinion, in a very long time. I do not want to see him resign, I want to see changes and reforms so we don't automatically go around killing people 'just because'. If anything, I personally would like to see the demise of the police unions. They have become loathsome and unbearable.

 

[katydid23]

So cops should not have unions to support and back them?

 

[i.b.nora]

So cops should not have unions to support and back them?

What do you think about “According to a Departmental Bulletin issued late in the day, pointing a gun at a person is now considered "a reportable use of force." Any officer who finds him or herself "intentionally pointing" a firearm at someone must report the action to a supervisor, explain his or her rationale in writing, and, at the time of the incident, explain to the person with a gun pointed his or her way why this is happening—“if circumstances permit.””?

 

[katydid23]

What do you think about “According to a Departmental Bulletin issued late in the day, pointing a gun at a person is now considered "a reportable use of force." Any officer who finds him or herself "intentionally pointing" a firearm at someone must report the action to a supervisor, explain his or her rationale in writing, and, at the time of the incident, explain to the person with a gun pointed his or her way why this is happening—“if circumstances permit.””?

I think it is a complex issue. And I think the Union's questioning the need for a report for a few reasons. One problem is it might put cops at risk. Sometimes they pull their guns if they are in a sudden, dangerous unknown situation. Will they be hesitant to do so in the future and be harmed because of it? And will writing a report put them in a detrimental situation?

 

[i.b.nora]

Of course its a complex issue, that goes without saying. So, we agree on that.