WA - Pasco police shoot man after he threw rocks at cars and at them, resisted, fled

[TrackerSam]

There were 3 of them just a few feet away from him, so easy to just rush him and gang tackle him. IMO. And we're not arguing what the law allows LE to do. They were so close to him. If they were afraid of him, they shouldn't have gotten so close to him - two more steps and they could have grabbed him.

 

[Portabella]

There were 3 of them just a few feet away from him, so easy to just rush him and gang tackle him. IMO. And we're not arguing what the law allows LE to do. They were so close to him. If they were afraid of him, they shouldn't have gotten so close to him - two more steps and they could have grabbed him.

If they were afraid of him, I don't understand why, they were close enough to see he had no weapon in his outstretched hands....I understand that adrenaline also works against the officers, and once one decides to use deadly force others may take that as a cue to also unload their weapon. But I do agree, regardless of rocks being thrown etc, a takedown was possible in this situation.

I do also agree that wounding is not an option, when you put your finger on that trigger its to shoot "center mass". I really am on the fence here. IMHO

 

[Woodland]

BBM

Are you saying the public at large is not better off? A violent meth addict that was throwing large rocks at traffic, hoping to cause an injury or an accident. Why wouldn't they be better off? He was full of rage and hatred and wanted to hurt strangers. Why would the cops allow him to run away, knowing he would try and harm someone else. That would be their fault if he assaulted the next person he saw.

You said that in your opinion, cops will 'harass and kill 'again. Are you saying the cops harassed this guy?

As for public backlash, I think so far the public is backing and supporting the cops. There is a loud and active minority that claims to speak for the public. but they are a very small percentage, imo.

Regarding the bolded and underlined statement - still looking for some accurate stats - do you have any? Opinions are fine - but they are just opinions.

 

[katydid23]

Regarding the bolded and underlined statement - still looking for some accurate stats - do you have any? Opinions are fine - but they are just opinions.

The largest protest, by far, was the one in NYC, for Eric Garner. MSNBC said there were 20-30 k protesters. There are 8.5 million people in NYC. So that means that , in the largest nationwide protest, there were .25 to .35 % of the local population, willing to protest.

So .35% is the highest turnout nationwide for any of the protests. That is not my opinion, that is mathematically accurate.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/thousands-protest-against-police-killings

That was on the biggest and best turnout. Usually the turnout would be about .o25%.

 

[al66pine]

If they were afraid of him, I don't understand why, they were close enough to see he had no weapon in his outstretched hands....I understand that adrenaline also works against the officers, and once one decides to use deadly force others may take that as a cue to also unload their weapon. But I do agree, regardless of rocks being thrown etc, a takedown was possible in this situation.

I really am on the fence here. IMHO

bbm sbm

bbm1
Does seeing 'no weapons in his outstretched hands' translate into no weapons on suspect? Not necessarily, imo.

bbm2
Before falling off fence, I'd like more info, esp more video, before & after.

 

[Woodland]

With all due respect katydid23 - you have not presented any stats. Some figures, but not stats.

For decades there has been a study/saying in the business world - for every person that complains about a service or product, there are dozens that do not. The 'dozens' represent a figure back in the late eighties when I first heard this - wonder what that reflects today?

So if that study has any basis, 20 to 30 thousand protesters multiplies into many more people supporting the cause, but are saying nothing. Much like many readers here - they have an opinion but do not share.

 

[katydid23]

With all due respect katydid23 - you have not presented any stats. Some figures, but not stats.

For decades there has been a study/saying in the business world - for every person that complains about a service or product, there are dozens that do not. The 'dozens' represent a figure back in the late eighties when I first heard this - wonder what that reflects today?

So if that study has any basis, 20 to 30 thousand protesters multiplies into many more people supporting the cause, but are saying nothing. Much like many readers here - they have an opinion but do not share.

Okay, so lets say there are dozens more that are silent. How much higher does that .35% go up then?

 

[Woodland]

35% of 8 million is a voice or no voice in your opinion?

In my opinion - 35% of anything is a voice since it could in fact be higher.

If a company had 35% of a market - they would be considered golden.

 

[katydid23]

35% of 8 million is a voice or no voice in your opinion?

In my opinion - 35% of anything is a voice since it could in fact be higher.

If a company had 35% of a market - they would be considered golden.

35% ??? Where did that figure come from? The protests are at a rate of .35%. Less than 1%

 

[Woodland]

Well, I guess you win on the stats. 20 to 30 thousand protesters in NY means little - according to you. Scary imo.

 

[al66pine]

With all due respect katydid23 - you have not presented any stats. Some figures, but not stats.
For decades there has been a study/saying in the business world - for every person that complains about a service or product, there are dozens that do not. The 'dozens' represent a figure back in the late eighties when I first heard this - wonder what that reflects today?
So if that study has any basis, 20 to 30 thousand protesters multiplies into many more people supporting the cause, but are saying nothing. Much like many readers here - they have an opinion but do not share.

Perhaps a Private Forum is a better place to discuss decades-old study/saying about business world topic
not related to WA LE's use of deadly force against one man in Feb 2015. JM2cts and I could be wrong.

 

[katydid23]

Well, I guess you win on the stats. 20 to 30 thousand protesters in NY means little - according to you. Scary imo.

20 to 30 thousand on ONE DAY. The rest of the protests brought out about 200 at the most.

So yes, 20 thousand, in a city of 8 million, means that less than 1% were feeling like marching. You may think it is scary that I don't see it as that significant. On the other hand, I think it is scary that you don't think it is significant that 99.6% of the rest of the city did not protest. jmo

ETA: Also, that was MSNBC's count. So I think it was probably a bit less than they estimated. LOL

 

[Woodland]

Unfortunately you don't know what 99.6% of the opinion is.

 

[katydid23]

Unfortunately you don't know what 99.6% of the opinion is.

No, I don't. But apparently the remaining 99.6% did not feel strongly enough that cops were KILLERS that they needed to march that day.

 

[Woodland]

I agree - 99.6% of NY did not march that day, according to you - and the opinion of NY citizens stats from that are? Unknown or known in your opinion?

It's an unknown stat to date imo, unless someone can show otherwise - not something to be pressed upon others - including disadvantaged teens.

 

[al66pine]

"Originally Posted by al66pine It's difficult for LEO to determine when his use of force has "overcome actual resistance" of the suspect.
Rinse and repeat.
Does each officer have the right to employ WA use of force/self defense statute? ITS.
Can LEOs determine which of three or four officers this suspect will attack or continue attacking first? IDTS.
Do LEOs have time to play Rock-Scissors-Paper among themselves, to determine 'designated shooter' to use force, to fire weapon? IDTS."

Is there a little exaggeration here?

'Rinse & repeat' is not an exaggeration, refers to a repeating sequence of events (can't think of more exact term).
Pointing out that after each bullet of sequence of rounds fired, LEO reassesses whether there use of force is warranted, under law.
Conceivably could be repeated several times.

'Rock-Paper-Scissors' is not an exaggeration, but a flippant reference to idea about time being
available to LEOs to discuss, plan, or debate with each other about use of force strategy against suspect.
The sentence was followed by IDTS, indicating IDon't Think So - about time being available for this.

 

[Woodland]

Maybe someone could organize a march for NY LE - that would be interesting imo.

 

[katydid23]

Not speaking for Woodland or anyone else here.
Depending on type of 'disadvantage,' as a broad generalization (although disadvantaged kids group could be in any area),
personally I w/hesitate, perhaps be scared, to regularly go to crime-ridden areas and perhaps of some of the kids themselves.

Thanks, katy, for your time & effort in doing that.

No problem. I enjoyed it. I did it for many years but am retired now. Worked in South Central LA with kids 'at risk' of not graduating. We helped many graduate, but way too many did not.

Woodland was not concerned with my safety, imo. She thinks it is 'scary' that the kids have to be in contact with me and my scary views, most likely.

 

[al66pine]

From Woodland post #6
"Has LE been given a license to 'take out' anyone they suspect of being a meth addict?
Is that what a majority of US citizens want LE to do on their behalf? ...Jmo." sbm bbm

I read ^this^ as your belief it was fact, not a question. If I misread, I apologize.
LE has not "been given a license to 'take out' anyone they suspect of being a meth addict"; it is not factual.
As a statement, ^it^ is an exaggeration.

We're all entitled to form our own opinions but not to present them as facts. JM2ctsand may be wrong.

 

[StephanieH]

My ex-husband (kids' dad) is mentally ill. A few weeks ago, my daughter called 911 because he was off his meds, paranoid, and lunged at her. Now my ex is my ex for many reasons, but he would not normally try to harm his child. (It was a result of being off of his meds along with what turned out to be a systemic infection.) My daughter told the police there were no weapons other than kitchen cutlery, but he was not armed.
The police came to the house and he did try to hit them. They DID NOT SHOOT HIM. Instead, they held him down with legal, non-lethal force until the medic gave him a sedative. They then brought him to the hospital.

See? Police can handle being "threatened" without lethal force. Thank goodness. It went exactly as it should have gone and my ex is now getting medical and psychiatric care.