I don't fully agree there. I know LEO that have been involved in a shoot, and I know a couple LEO's who were responsible for helping to investigate another dept after a shoot. All of them that I talked to had no issues claiming if a shoot was a bad shoot.

Very broad brush you are painting with. Is there room for corruption, yes, yes there is. But there is room for that same corruption regardless of who's hands you put the power into.

Very broad indeed.

If you look at the amount of 'justifiable' shootings that involve candy bars, compliant unarmed subjects, doors kicked in @ 3am without notice and 'surprised' when a homeowner opens a door, etc..

I could make a pretty long list, but this isn't the thread for that.

The gov't answers to the people, there's no reason why you can't have a citizens review board that determines disciplinary measures, MANDATORY grand juries for all police involved deaths, etc. NOT like Seattle, who has/had one, but the chief said 'I don't care, I'll do what I want'...

If only there was something where a broad section of the population could judge actions, like... I dunno. a Jury...

Problem is, when charges are never filed, it's kinda hard to get a jury trial. I'll use Birk as an example. No PC/RAS to even stop a man, but shoots him when he fails to comply, when the guy is half deaf and half drunk... Imagine OC'ing and someone yells 'Hey you!'... you turn around, and you get shot... Justified? Yep! 'He was armed and he turned toward me suddenly! I was afraid for my life!' Bullshit? Completely.

And with qualified immunity, as soon as the agency says 'It was justified, proper procedure was followed', there goes your ability to sue.

So you have a group of people (the corrupt/overstepping cops) that think they can do whatever they want, and a lot of the time, they can.

This is why I said I bet it was the same cop that opened fire first, both times... Because it's usually that ONE guy, who's all gung ho and an adrenaline junky, that wants his fix. Once one cop fires, the others will assume a threat exists and fire as well.... yay for 'training'.. and in testifying, it won't be 'I shot because he shot', It'll be a coordinated story between the officers 'I was in fear of myself/others being injured', because no one wants to get hung out to dry.

I expect the same if not higher level of scrutiny with the gov't use of deadly force than I do with a shooting involving Joe Blow.

Even if it wasn't malicious, and you just made a shitty call... I expect there to be consequences, but there rarely are.

I agree that it's the 1% causing issues, but what happens when 20% are willing to tell a lil white lie to cover a friend, or look the other way?

Look back years ago, before I was born. People still did stupid shit... But you had entire agencies that might've fired a couple dozen rounds a YEAR while on patrol...with no pepper spray... no tasers.... only a baton, a flashlight, and a gun (and later on, radios).

Why have police shootings escalated so much? Yeah, we could say a percentage (probably most of it) comes from more stupid people, but in those statistics is hidden a dangerous realization that the police are getting more aggressive, more militarized, and more likely to shoot first instead of try a peaceful resolution.

When all you do is train and train and train to use your gun, to use military tactics, etc.. what are you gonna do? You've got your toys, and your MRAPs, and your super cool ninja outfits......It's human nature to want to use them.

I remember (can't remember where), a NAVY seal saying that most SEALs don't even see action. Most just train and train and train, then they're put on alert, get all geared up and ready for action, then get disappointed when they get told to stand down.. They want an opportunity to practice what they train for.. Sound familiar?

I don't mean to drift off topic, but it's a societal problem, not caused or fixed by one thing. Limited gov't would eliminate most of these 'bad policing' issues.

You need officers walking beats, saying 'Hi' to the people in the community, and sitting down and having lunch with them, just like you would anyone else.... Instead of being a part of the community, many distance themselves from it... If I know Officer Johnny on a personal basis, if I screw up, I'm not gonna try to run, or beat him up.. likewise, if officer Johnny sees me screw up, he's gonna be impartial but understanding and not pull his gun out and say "LEMME SEE YOUR #(%&ING HANDS RIGHT NOW!...

A lot of it just boils down to respect, and anyone who DEMANDS it, gets none of it from me. It's earned.

You should run for president. You seem to have it all figured out.

He could pretend to be president. Works for people rejected by the cops right? Just pretend, super citizen power is just as powerful.

He's pretty much right. I mean, that's literally textbook examples of community policing and public relations.

Still, it's all black and white....
Police force should be held accountable for negative actions.
Public should be held accountable for negative actions.

Difference being, that many do not want to be held accountable.
All this started with some idiot tossing rocks. If, said idiot, wasn't tossing rocks, there wouldn't have been ANY negative action by police officers.
Did someone deserve to die from tossing rocks at cops, no. Arrest should have been promptly made and all would have been good.
Unfortunately, the rock thrower took his own life into his own hands by being stupid. He took a chance with his own life and lost.

We aren't talking about some inadvertent weapon firing, innocent bystanders shot, oops wrong person shot. We are talking about someone that did wrong and took a chance.
It is utterly disappointing to see so that some people do not understand that it is ones own responsibility to not do bad things. And if you do bad things, the outcome, whatever it may be, is your responsibility to bear.

Now, I'm going to head out and run across four lanes of freeway traffic. When I get hit, I'm suing the driver for hitting me, and the state for not setting a speed limit that would allow an idiot to make it across the freeway without being hit.
Fuck this world's going to shit.

To be more analogous to the Pasco situation, the police would stop you from running across four lanes of traffic...by shooting you in the fucking back.

I'll agree with your closing sentence, although it could be argued that in a world where the death penalty is meted out for throwing a rock, "has gone" should replace "'s going".

Who is right?
Who is saying he's right?

Whaaaaattt??? Take responsibility for my own actions, when I can shift blame and accountability for those said actions to someone else. It's not my fault. Never.

Fixed it. Gotta blame someone. It couldn't be froggers fault. Or maybe it was froggers fault............ yeah, that's it.

A guy runs a red light and hits me. Who is right?
I get out and beat his ass. Who is right?


What? You mean you can overreact to a situation and make the wrong choice?!

Edit: by your logic...I can beat his ass, and he's responsible for it... it wouldn't have happened if he didn't run the light, therefore anything that happens after that falls on him..

Good point......guess that's why there are police and neither you nor I are one. Let the authorities dish out the negative reinforcement.
But, someone hits me, then runs, guess what?
Next bullshit example......

I looked at the video. From what I saw, it was NOT a good shoot. Now the flip.. I watched the video. I wasn't there.

So.. My armchair credentials are only going to get me so far...

That's your choice. I'd choose to follow if safe to do so and affect an arrest, using reasonable force to do so.

You choose how you do or do not react. Just as I, and just as the officers did.




A man robs you at gunpoint..... He gets your cheap watch and your expensive necklaces which you hate to wear but it was a gift from your wife so you have to wear it..both are covered by insurance... he runs away and throws his gun down a sewer grate...you shoot him the back as he's running and after you saw him ditch the gun.

The guy brought upon himself right?

Morally speaking... I'm indifferent.... some good but some bad.... coin toss..

Legally speaking.... you're gonna be in hot shit because
he wasn't a threat at the time the shots were fired.


Yes, like dipshit throwing rocks, he may have been a threat at one time... but once that man is running away, and no longer a threat....using lethal force to stop someone is a no-no.

Yes, a part of me feels no sympathy for doing stupid shit, but at the same time it's not up to LE to shoot someone because they may have been a threat previously.

Holy strawman arguments batman... It's circular.. For every cite, link, scenario somebody posts, somebody will post a rebuttal scenario, repeat.... Threads going off the tracks can sometimes be corrected.. Stay the course.