Well, she's not quite dead yet.

It took three of them to kill her too.

Promotions expected for all involved.

10/21/2010 6:04:41 PM

ibtl

10/21/2010 6:11:45 PM

ibtNAACLU

10/21/2010 6:23:57 PM

dead or no dead?

ibtjumping to conclusions and police-hate

[Edited on October 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2010 6:27:42 PM

in after the ibtjunk

10/21/2010 6:32:08 PM

come on, at least a link

10/21/2010 6:36:12 PM

was she holding a pear?

10/21/2010 6:39:06 PM

BUT HOW DID THE WOMAN LOSE HER ARMS?

10/21/2010 6:40:30 PM

Links are for the weak.

Cops don't back up or run away. That's the legal duty of civilians. Cops are paid to stand their ground and slaughter mental patients. That's the American way.

10/21/2010 6:40:47 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8490520/



jus doin ma good deed for the day

10/21/2010 6:54:16 PM

I did not think an unarmed person charging at you is grounds to use deadly force, but I wasn't there.

10/21/2010 8:52:09 PM

This is some fucked up shit right here.

10/21/2010 10:07:37 PM

Cops here in Albuquerque roll the same way. I don't believe they've shot anyone unarmed this year, though. Well, not according to the official story.

10/21/2010 10:14:21 PM

^ Yeah. RPD needs to follow the same protocol. Carry 1 hand gun with a filed off serial number that is lacking finger prints, along with some wool gloves to take the gun and put it in the unarmed victims hand, as well as positioning the victim off camera.

10/21/2010 10:48:53 PM

I'm sure the news story was in error. Once they get their story straight I'm sure the woman's knife will appear. Of course, if she's black, they may not even bother to lie.

10/21/2010 11:11:47 PM

Just another in a long string of isolated incidents.

10/22/2010 3:04:03 AM

Im gonna withhold some judgement until some more information comes out, hopefully. I mean I understand cops have a pretty hard job rolling up to a scene where they cant be sure what to expect and must be ready for anything

but got damn it looks pretty bad at this point.

10/22/2010 8:36:25 AM

Why couldn't they have just maced her?

10/22/2010 8:40:20 AM

Sitatution: I'm holding a loaded weapon and crazy person charges me. What the hell are you suggesting I do here? Holster it, make sure it's secure so she can't grab it from me and kill me then find some friendly less than lethal way of subduing her? Or turn my back and run???

Or are you suggesting that because it's a woman she was actually no threat to the officer? Or are you assuming she didn't actually charge him?

Or maybe instead of trying to force her to surrender by threat of force they should have just tazed her to begin with, right? Or maced her? Or just beat her up? Are you really suggesting that police officers should run away from threats?

10/22/2010 8:53:26 AM

^
Try as you may, but you simply can't defend their actions.

No. You don't open fire on someone unless they reasonably endanger your life. She did NOTHING of the sort.
[as has been reported; based on the facts available]
End of issue. [until and if different facts arise] (STFU)


^^
Because they already knew that they were cops and therefore immune to law.
Why risk macing her and possibly allowing her dirty civilian hands to touch your bad-ass cop self?
Just waste her -- cops generally don't get arrested for murder, and are almost never convicted.
Murder the suspect, get a few months paid vacation administrative leave, transfer precincts, and continue...


Gotta love our system of justice! IT'S THE BEST!!!!!!111

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 9:25 AM. Reason : there]

10/22/2010 8:57:31 AM

Oh sweet, you were there and have all the details.

I personally think if I'm holding a loaded firearm someone rushing me IS reasonably endangering my life. Feel free to argue this point since none of us have the particulars of the situation.

10/22/2010 9:06:41 AM

Oh yeah. Better lock this thread until we have 100% of the truth.
How dare anyone attempt to make sense of the event based on the facts reported.


(OKay, I get it. You're trolling. There is nothing wrong with discussing the issue as it has been reported.)

Quote :

"I personally think if I'm holding a loaded firearm someone rushing me IS reasonably endangering my life."

lol
LOL
ROFL
LMOA
etc.
(good thing you're not a cop, you fucking idiot.)






REMEMBER YOU GUYS, WE CAN'T DISCUSS ANYTHING REGARDING THIS SHOOTING YET!!!

disco_stu HAS POINTED OUT THAT ONLY HE CAN SPECULATE AND COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT.
WHEN HE GETS "all the details" AND "the particulars" AND WHEN SOMEONE WHO WAS "there" JOINS THE CONVERSATION, THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN WE MAKE COMMENTS. THANKS disco_stu!!!!

10/22/2010 9:19:27 AM

Engaging and intelligent response to the premise, thanks indy.

So what is it about a person charging you while you have an unsecured lethal weapon that makes you feel that they're not a legitimate threat to your life? Do they only become a threat after they wrest the weapon from your grasp? Do the rules of engagement only change at that point?

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2010 9:40:28 AM

^
We don't have the facts yet. We can't talk about this issue. Remember?

10/22/2010 9:43:00 AM

You're not addressing my point which is entirely rhetorical and therefore are a fucking idiot.

10/22/2010 9:47:29 AM

Quote :

"So what is it about a person charging you while you have an unsecured lethal weapon that makes you feel that they're not a legitimate threat to your life?"

It's hard to discuss this rhetorically because there can be so many variables. Was she charging from across the parking lot? In which case, maybe a "Stop or I'll shoot" is enough. Was she 10 feet away and then charged by lunging for the gun? Then firing the weapon is probably warranted.

10/22/2010 9:53:52 AM

Quote :

"entirely rhetorical"

"I personally think if I'm holding a loaded firearm someone rushing me IS reasonably endangering my life." is rhetorical?

(haha fail)

10/22/2010 9:54:59 AM

Hypothetical would probably have been a better word to use than rhetorical but you knew what I meant.

OopsPowSrprs thanks for responding with more than retardation. I agree that there are definitely circumstances that would warrant lethal force against an unarmed person and there are circumstances where it would not be warranted.

10/22/2010 10:05:04 AM

nm

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2010 10:11:19 AM

^

Quote :

"Was she 10 feet away and then charged by lunging for the gun? Then firing the weapon is probably warranted."

10/22/2010 10:12:39 AM

Yea thats reasonable, but you wouldn't have the gun out without first having another reason to use lethal force.

10/22/2010 10:13:56 AM

Right. I was thinking more like she was lunging for it still in the holster or something.

Anyway, I guess the point is that a headline of "killing an unarmed woman" looks pretty bad at first but I can think of instances where it's justified.

10/22/2010 10:17:15 AM

Keep in mind it's not like they knew she was unarmed before they shot her.

10/22/2010 11:04:19 AM

Quote :

"In which case, maybe a "Stop or I'll shoot" is enough."

Unless it isn't.

10/22/2010 12:02:38 PM

FIVE SHOTS COULDNT DROP ME
I TOOK IT AND SMILED

10/22/2010 12:14:54 PM

Seattle cops have been off the hook lately.

10/22/2010 12:35:03 PM

Why were there unholstered weapons pointed at an unarmed person to begin with? Look, I don't know the details, but there are dned few instances in which an officer should ever draw down on an unarmed subject, let alon fire multiple shots at one.

10/22/2010 12:45:04 PM

This certainly makes the tazering incidents look a whole lot more desirable.

10/22/2010 12:46:52 PM

Quote :

""In which case, maybe a "Stop or I'll shoot" is enough.""

Not gonna speculate about what actually happened, but what if you do say "Stop or I'll shoot", and they keep running at you?

Wouldn't you shoot?

You warned them.

10/22/2010 12:51:40 PM

They coulda handled this situation a whole lot better. Two cops come up from the front and try to talk her down. One cop comes up from behind and cuffs her (tackles her first if need be). I'm pretty sure they do this all the time. Seriously, they take on 300 lb. dudes high on PCP without shooting them. Mental health calls are probably like half of what they do all day...and these guys dropped the ball big time (most police would agree, I imagine.)

I mean, three dudes draw their weapons on a crazy lady in a parking lot to do what exactly? Shout at her to stop acting so crazy? But she's crazy! How did they think that was going to go?

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2010 1:09:11 PM

Quote :

"and these guys dropped the ball big time (most police would agree, I imagine.)"

Actually, if past behavior is any indication other police will defend their actions regardless of the evidence.

10/22/2010 1:12:23 PM

Quote :

"This certainly makes the tazering incidents look a whole lot more desirable."

DON'T KILL ME BRO!

Quote :

"Seriously, they take on 300 lb. dudes high on PCP without shooting them. ...I mean, three dudes draw their weapons on a crazy lady in a parking lot to do what exactly? Shout at her to stop acting so crazy? But she's crazy! How did they think that was going to go?"

Exactly.
(When I agree with Bridget, it is clear that these cops were wrong.)


[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2010 1:29:16 PM

Quote :

"Not gonna speculate about what actually happened, but what if you do say "Stop or I'll shoot", and they keep running at you? Wouldn't you shoot? You warned them."

Possibly, but that wouldn't necessarily make it a justified shooting. Shouting, "It's coming right for me!" isn't really by itself a good reason for the use of lethal force. I'm not going to immediately condemn these guys, but I will say that it doesn't look good as far as being a justified shooting with the evidence currently available.

10/22/2010 1:31:19 PM

It can still have been justified at the time and an unfortunate mistake in retrospect.

10/22/2010 1:32:38 PM

^^^^True. It's a knee jerk reaction to defend their colleagues and talk about how challenging the job is/how us civilians don't know what it's like to have their lives in danger, blah, blah, blah.

But they also know they probably would have used their training/skills to handle a mental health situation without blowing away an unarmed woman in a parking lot. Of course, saying that out loud is difficult. If a friend of yours has made a huge mistake that resulted in the death of another human being, you're not gonna be like, "You screwed up, bro. Obviously, you're not cut out for the job."

And you'll be especially defensive if you have even an ounce of fear that you could make a similar mistake. Even if you're the best there ever was and always make the right call, you still don't get uppity enough to put down somebody else for making the wrong call in the worst way possible.

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : sss]

10/22/2010 1:33:40 PM

Quote :

"Shouting, "It's coming right for me!" isn't really by itself a good reason for the use of lethal force."

lol....





^
Again, she is right. (for once )
Although, I doubt her logic regarding cops and suspects makes up for her general apologist demeanor.

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2010 1:35:09 PM

Quote :

"It can still have been justified at the time and an unfortunate mistake in retrospect."

Not really. Combat Units operating in war zones have to know for a fact the individual has a weapon and is posing an immediate threat to them before they can open fire. Is it too hard to ask that police, who operate in a less stressful environment than a war zone, at least verify if the person is armed before they fire upon them?

10/22/2010 1:54:37 PM

Yeah, it's either justified or it's not. Granted it's much easier to determine in hindsight, but whether or not a specific shooting was a good one or not doesn't change over time.

10/22/2010 1:59:02 PM

Quote :

"Combat Units operating in war zones have to know for a fact the individual has a weapon and is posing an immediate threat to them before they can open fire."

That's not entirely correct, or at least it wasn't when I was in Iraq.

10/22/2010 2:04:32 PM

^^ I didn't suggest that it does change over time. An extreme example would be a justified shooting of an idiot with a plastic gun or some other death by cop scenario. In those cases I'd say the shooting may be justified based on the evidence available at the time, which is separate from the reality of the situation in hindsight.

[Edited on October 22, 2010 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/22/2010 2:05:40 PM