UT - James Dudley Barker, 42, Salt Lake City, killed by LE, 7 Jan 2015

[tlcya]

I admit to having difficulty with the "before things get out of hand" aspect being applied to this case.

Officer calmly in a normal tone of voice asks Baker what he is doing.

Baker responds taking care of my business or doing my business (difficult for me to hear which) in an irritated tone.

Officer asks what business and name of the business (again very calmly, normal tone, body language is standing still facing Baker, hands at sides)

Baker responds with some stuff I have a hard time hearing accurately - someting to the effect of officer needs to leave him alone, not officer's business what he is doing, trying to make a living (Baker's tone is increasingly loud, his facial expression is angry, confrontational, his head comes forward in a challenging manner)

Officer appears to be requesting that Baker step down from the unknown citizen's porch and come discuss the matter with him, explains that neighbors are concerned by his presence there (again, tone still calm and measured, polite, no cursing from officer, his hands come up to waist high in front of him, palms down, and lower slightly to emphasise his words) officer asks baker to calm down and simply come and talk with him, let's straighten this out.

Baker responds by telling officer to leave, get back in his car and leave (more agitated, more physically agressive in his demeanor and raises his hand and seems to point right in officer's face or perhaps is gesturing strongly toward officer's vehicle on the street behind officer, not known)

Officer begins to call for backup, (his demeanor and tone are still calm, based on the appearance of his shadow which can clearly be seen throughout the entire confrontation as it is cast directly onto the increasingly agitated Baker)

As officer is calling for backup Baker attacks with shovel.

Why is not the grown butt man Baker not just as responsible for keeping this situation from escalating? How are the officer's questions, actions and tone escalating this situation?

Can someone please explain because I am quite frankly lost.


How would officer have acted differently WHILE still effectively performing his job of investigating a call of suspicious individual on private property and keeping things from "getting out of hand"?

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Finding it difficult to comprehend the reluctance to see the 'before' things got out of hand aspect. No one is saying LE should not protect themselves, yet that accusation is there towards those trying to look at what could have taken place. Not understanding that.

This is a good example of where you and I differ on what we choose to focus on. I think that things were way out of hand, before the individual even encountered the officer. I prefer to discuss what "we" as a society can do to help to prevent others from getting to the point of engaging in criminal behavior and ending up incarcerated or deceased from bad choices.

That is why it is hard to have a meeting of the minds with so many on these issues. The problem starts long before and goes untreated and then it progresses.

Many victims of crime, especially violent crime that survive their attacks, are also left with lifelong scars that can have a effect on all aspects of their lives. Many of the perpetrators of violence have been themselves victims of violence.

There were over 1,000,000 violent crimes committed in the US in 2013. Many lives were affected by individuals that committed these crimes.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls

That is just one year. The chart above shows many years.

We must be more preventive and work on the roots that lead up to these problems so that we have a healthier society. That is where I wish to focus.

 

[sunflowerchick]

SBM and BBM

I am not sure that these civilians who attack the LE can be compared to animals. Animals, of course, have no idea what it means to attack the vet. They are acting on instinct.

Actually this is a great comparison. It is exactly that... instinct. The problem lies in what I mentioned before. Citizens no longer understand their rights and cannot be assured that their rights will be upheld so they instantly go into a defensive mode when approached by LE and I believe that is what happened here. I think this man with the shovel didn't understand why he was being questioned, didn't know what his rights were and therefore felt a need to attack as opposed to cooperating. It is instinct. The adrenaline starts flowing and animal nature kicks in.

I have NEVER said LE doesn't have a right to defend themselves when needed. What I have said is that LE should be trained to avoid the need to defend themselves. In watching the video, it just strengthens that for me. I think if the officer had "backed down" and waited for back up instead of getting into a pi**ing contest over the gentleman giving his name and showing paperwork, the whole situation could have been avoided. It seriously was like watching a couple of 5 year olds. "I'm not giving my name." "Yes you are." Nu-uh, uh-huh etc. etc. Also mentioning "If you don't give your name, you can be arrested" instantly raises the defense level of the suspect. They know that and they continue to do it anyway. These are trained professionals. That should not happen.

 

[popsicle]

So... he didn't know right from wrong? and the right to keep his hands to himself? gmab

 

[sunflowerchick]

I didn't say that either. Obviously it is wrong to attack the officer. But AGAIN as trained professionals LE could try some reasoning and human decency instead of just asserting brute force and authority? Please do not twist my words to imply meaning that wasn't there.

 

[SStarr33]

I didn't say that either. Obviously it is wrong to attack the officer. But AGAIN as trained professionals LE could try some reasoning and human decency instead of just asserting brute force and authority? Please do not twist my words to imply meaning that wasn't there.

He did try and the guy want nutso on him.

 

[sunflowerchick]

He did try and the guy want nutso on him.

This is where we disagree. IMO there was nothing in that conversation indicating any kind of mediation, understanding or attempt to "meet in the middle". It was all authority and threats.

 

[SStarr33]

This is where we disagree. IMO there was nothing in that conversation indicating any kind of mediation, understanding or attempt to "meet in the middle". It was all authority and threats.

Stolen from ticya's excellent recapitulation of the video above post 141:

Officer appears to be requesting that Baker step down from the unknown citizen's porch and come discuss the matter with him, explains that neighbors are concerned by his presence there (again, tone still calm and measured, polite, no cursing from officer, his hands come up to waist high in front of him, palms down, and lower slightly to emphasise his words) officer asks baker to calm down and simply come and talk with him, let's straighten this out.

The cop handled the situation perfectly and I think he should have been fired if he hadn't shot the crazy man.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

SBM and BBM



Actually this is a great comparison. It is exactly that... instinct. The problem lies in what I mentioned before. Citizens no longer understand their rights and cannot be assured that their rights will be upheld so they instantly go into a defensive mode when approached by LE and I believe that is what happened here. I think this man with the shovel didn't understand why he was being questioned, didn't know what his rights were and therefore felt a need to attack as opposed to cooperating. It is instinct. The adrenaline starts flowing and animal nature kicks in.

I have NEVER said LE doesn't have a right to defend themselves when needed. What I have said is that LE should be trained to avoid the need to defend themselves. In watching the video, it just strengthens that for me. I think if the officer had "backed down" and waited for back up instead of getting into a pi**ing contest over the gentleman giving his name and showing paperwork, the whole situation could have been avoided. It seriously was like watching a couple of 5 year olds. "I'm not giving my name." "Yes you are." Nu-uh, uh-huh etc. etc. Also mentioning "If you don't give your name, you can be arrested" instantly raises the defense level of the suspect. They know that and they continue to do it anyway. These are trained professionals. That should not happen.

BBM: Here was arrested in Dec. 2013 for disturbing the peace and failing to give police his identity. So....he should have learned from that I would think.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33042457

He was arrested and booked into the Salt Lake County Jail in December 2013 for disturbing the peace and failing to give police his identity, according to a Salt Lake County Jail report.

I found a little more, that may come out later in the media or investigation so I won't elaborate.

Humans are required to maintain self control. "Instinct" for the majority of humans would be to cooperate.

Comparing animals instincts to humans could be used as a defense in many crimes, but I don't think it would get anyone very far.

 

[SpriteGal]

The only thing I think the officer should have done differently is telling the guy to put down the shovel down, while talking to him. He should have realized that could be used as a weapon very quickly if things de-escalated, and they did. But as soon as the guy started beating him with the shovel, he was justified in using lethal force. He just didn't poke him with the shovel with with literally about to beat him , and possibly to death. IMO

 

[katydid23]

This is where we disagree. IMO there was nothing in that conversation indicating any kind of mediation, understanding or attempt to "meet in the middle". It was all authority and threats.

The cop does not have to 'meet in the middle.' The officer does have all of the authority. The man was on private property and had been asked to leave by the homeowner and refused. What does 'meet in the middle' even mean? He NEEDED to turn over his ID. No meeting in the middle allowed. Sorry.

 

[sunflowerchick]

Again, I disagree. It has been my experience that those who have had prior run-ins with LE become MORE defensive as a result, not less so. There is a school of thought among criminals that once you are in the system, you won't get out.

 

[sunflowerchick]

The only thing I think the officer should have done differently is telling the guy to put down the shovel down, while talking to him. He should have realized that could be used as a weapon very quickly if things de-escalated, and they did. But as soon as the guy started beating him with the shovel, he was justified in using lethal force. He just didn't poke him with the shovel with with literally about to beat him , and possibly to death. IMO

Now THIS I can agree with. He absolutely should and could have asked him to put down the shovel. He didn't. He failed at that point. And AGAIN I never said he didn't have a right to defend himself. I just said that should have been avoided at all costs.

 

[SStarr33]

Again, I disagree. It has been my experience that those who have had prior run-ins with LE become MORE defensive as a result, not less so. There is a school of thought among criminals that once you are in the system, you won't get out.

What is your experience with criminals?

 

[katydid23]

SBM and BBM



Actually this is a great comparison. It is exactly that... instinct. The problem lies in what I mentioned before. Citizens no longer understand their rights and cannot be assured that their rights will be upheld so they instantly go into a defensive mode when approached by LE and I believe that is what happened here. I think this man with the shovel didn't understand why he was being questioned, didn't know what his rights were and therefore felt a need to attack as opposed to cooperating. It is instinct. The adrenaline starts flowing and animal nature kicks in.

I have NEVER said LE doesn't have a right to defend themselves when needed. What I have said is that LE should be trained to avoid the need to defend themselves. In watching the video, it just strengthens that for me. I think if the officer had "backed down" and waited for back up instead of getting into a pi**ing contest over the gentleman giving his name and showing paperwork, the whole situation could have been avoided. It seriously was like watching a couple of 5 year olds. "I'm not giving my name." "Yes you are." Nu-uh, uh-huh etc. etc. Also mentioning "If you don't give your name, you can be arrested" instantly raises the defense level of the suspect. They know that and they continue to do it anyway. These are trained professionals. That should not happen.

I could not disagree more. Who cares if the guy understood his rights or not? That does not make it normal to feel the 'need to attack.' That is not a normal instinct. IMO< that is more likely drug fueled or a mental health issue. Not a normal human response to being asked for ones drivers license.

Cops ARE trained to avoid the need to defend themselves physically. but it is not always possible. Sometime you will run into an impulsive hothead that suddenly attacks.

I totally disagree with your description of this officer as a 5 yr old in a pi$%$^^ng match. I see NOTHING in the video to substantiate that accusation. IMO, he is calm and even in tone and makes no aggressive actions.

He was right to give the legal ramifications for not handing over the ID. That is exactly what he is supposed to do. You complained that the guy did not know his rights. But then when the officer informs him of his rights, you blame the officer for doing so. seems a bit unfair, imo/

Imo, it is also unfair to say that this kind of thing 'should never happen.' Of course it is going to happen. Even the best officer is going to run into belligerent and irrational. aggressive perps. One cannot blame the cop every time. This cop was calm, measured and set clear expectations. There was nothing that I could see that would have made the cop the one to blame. JMO

How about some accountability for the perps in these cases?

 

[sunflowerchick]

What is your experience with criminals?

Sorry I am not comfortable answering that question. I guess you can chalk it up to rumor or whatever.

 

[katydid23]

Again, I disagree. It has been my experience that those who have had prior run-ins with LE become MORE defensive as a result, not less so. There is a school of thought among criminals that once you are in the system, you won't get out.

It is up to the person to climb their way out. It is possible but takes hard work and dedication. No more drugs, no more theft.

Can't blame the cops for arresting people found with drugs or driving with suspended privileges.

 

[katydid23]

Now THIS I can agree with. He absolutely should and could have asked him to put down the shovel. He didn't. He failed at that point. And AGAIN I never said he didn't have a right to defend himself. I just said that should have been avoided at all costs.

HE FAILED? The cop failed? Nah, I think the perp failed at that point.

 

[sunflowerchick]

<modsnip> It is up to the person to climb their way out. It is possible but takes hard work and dedication. No more drugs, no more theft.

Can't blame the cops for arresting people found with drugs or driving with suspended privileges.

I never said I did blame the cops. The whole system is flawed.

 

[sunflowerchick]

The thing is I have never said the cop was wrong in defending himself. But I think it is important to understand WHY this keeps occurring across the country. It is becoming a real problem and I would hate to see it escalate more than it already has.

Yes, I think LE gets a bad reputation. In some cases that is horribly unjust. In other cases...well it isn't. I know I won't change anyone's mind here if you feel the need to defend the actions of this officer. Know that you probably won't change mine either. However you have given me some things to think about. Sadly, we will still disagree on the basics but I am open minded enough to consider that I *might* be wrong here.

My issue isn't with this specific case but with this growing epidemic of cop violence in general. All too often we just immediately say "the officer was justified" without looking at the facts. Even when the facts are presented, the officers are always found justified. Arguing here isn't going to change anything but I hope that as a whole society we can look at what we are doing wrong and work to correct it. That means that everyone has responsibility. All of us.

Whether this officer was justified or not doesn't matter. The end result is what matters. Another family and friends have lost someone dear to them. Somehow, somewhere this needs to stop.