St. Louis Officer Involved Shooing Sparks More Protests

[SimsDaniel916]

Once again, we have a city in protest over a shooting. An off duty police officer was aggressively approached and this suspect then led the officer on a foot chase. During this chase, the suspect fired a handgun at the officer three times, the officer responded by firing his gun [17 times] and killed the suspect.

 

Regarding the 17 shots by the officer, this is easy to criticize now but when you are being shot at and you get the feeling that you will die if you do not eliminate the suspect trying to end your life, the adrenaline would pump in and everything you learned in training would be overcome by the thought of you loosing your life in those very seconds. It is also important to note that this shooting took place on the move during a foot pursuit, the officer and the suspect were not standing next to each other and it was dark out.

 

Now, regarding the previous Brown case, I had a [little] understanding of why people would protest as several of the details were unknown. This time around, a officer was shot at so he shot back and eliminated the suspect. People are seriously protesting over a officer shooting back a suspect would have killed him other wise? Finding that to be beyond ridiculous.

 

[source: https://gma.yahoo.com/unrest-st-louis-police-officer-shoots-kills-man-061859179--abc-news-topstories.html]

[AlienTwo]

Police have dangerous jobs. It's time they, and all their apologizes, like you Sims, accept that. Their JOB is to put themselves in danger, so they have absolutely no right to shoot whenever they feel threatened. It's ridiculous, and if you were a man of color I'm sure your opinion would be different. They risk their lives every time they encounter the cops as well, but they have no rights to shoot if they feel threatened.

[D- Ice]

Police have dangerous jobs. It's time they, and all their apologizes, like you Sims, accept that. Their JOB is to put themselves in danger, so they have absolutely no right to shoot whenever they feel threatened. It's ridiculous, and if you were a man of color I'm sure your opinion would be different. They risk their lives every time they encounter the cops as well, but they have no rights to shoot if they feel threatened.

You've hit the nail on the head.

The excuse of being under threat has far too long been used to excuse disproportionate use of force by police in the US. It's simply unethical to use deadly force for anything but an absolute risk to life that cannot be avoided any other way - something which doesn't seem like the case here.

It seems increasingly like police are using deadly force when suspects don't comply and/or present minor threats to police - like moving in too close.

 

I believe police officers' judgement of threat - and whether is was absolute and unavoidable - should be scrutinised in the US more, rather than blindly accepted.

 

Regardless of where you stand on the subject, it is creating increasing amounts of public outrage, protests etc in the US. It would be interesting to see how it all develops.

 

EDIT: Since the off-duty police officer was working as private security, he had no right to chase the man outside of the property he was guarding.

It's also interesting to consider if the officer knew the other man's gun jammed or if he was fleeing - in which case deadly use of force would be unjustified.

Edited October 9, 2014 by D- Ice

[Creed Bratton]

The excuse of being under threat has far too long been used to excuse disproportionate use of force by police in the US. It's simply unethical to use deadly force for anything

It's not just unethical, it defeats the very idea that their jobs are dangerous. If you use that argument as an excuse to shoot every time you feel threatened, and you get away with it every time, then you don't have a dangerous job. You have the easiest job in the world. One that lets you shoot anyone who does something that you don't like. And all you have to do is say that you felt threatened. We've seen cops get away with obvious murder because of that argument. They clearly don't have dangerous jobs. THEY ARE THE DANGER! (no cookies for reference, everybody knows).

[161isaiah161]

17 times to kill him? Jesus he's a bad shot if I've ever seen one

[SimsDaniel916]

He didn't just feel 'threatened' he was being shot at! The officer was in a situation where he either shoots back or dies.

[AlienTwo]

He didn't just feel 'threatened' he was being shot at! The officer was in a situation where he either shoots back or dies.

That's not the case all the time, that wasn't the case in Ferguson and that wasn't the case in the other STL shooting directly after. 17 times? That's more than self defense, that's overkill.

[SimsDaniel916]

 

He didn't just feel 'threatened' he was being shot at! The officer was in a situation where he either shoots back or dies.

 

That's not the case all the time, that wasn't the case in Ferguson and that wasn't the case in the other STL shooting directly after. 17 times? That's more than self defense, that's overkill.Did I say this is the case all of the time? No, I did not. I'm clearly reffering to the matter at hand in St. Louis.

 

Also, you have no right to say 17 shots is overkill. It was dark and the officer and suspect had a reasonable amount of distance between themselves all happening during a foot PURSUIT while the officer is being fired open. When his life is flashing before him, I'm sure his shot count was low on his worries.

 

Do you honestly think that the officer thought to himself, "Hmm, I being shot at but since I have already fired several times to defend myself from being gunned down I should stop." No, he fired as many times as he needed in order to eliminate the threat and stop himself from being gunned down.

Edited October 9, 2014 by SimsDaniel916

[AlienTwo]

 

 

He didn't just feel 'threatened' he was being shot at! The officer was in a situation where he either shoots back or dies.

That's not the case all the time, that wasn't the case in Ferguson and that wasn't the case in the other STL shooting directly after. 17 times? That's more than self defense, that's overkill.

Did I say this is the case all of the time? No, I did not. I'm clearly reffering to the matter at hand in St. Louis.

 

Also, you have no right to say 17 shots is overkill. It was dark and the officer and suspect had a reasonable amount of distance between themselves all happening during a foot PURSUIT and while the officer is being fired open. When his life is flashing before him, I'm sure his shot count was low on his worries.

 

 

Once again, we have a city in protest over a shooting. An off duty police officer was aggressively approached and this suspect then led the officer on a foot chase. During this chase, the suspect fired a handgun at the officer three times, the officer responded by firing his gun [17 times] and killed the suspect.

You are making this out to be one of many incidents, not discussing the microcosm of this singular shooting.

 

Plus, he was off duty. This citizen doesn't have a right to shoot at some random dude F*CKING CHASING HIM DOWN THE STREETS OF STL???

[SimsDaniel916]

 

 

 

He didn't just feel 'threatened' he was being shot at! The officer was in a situation where he either shoots back or dies.

 

That's not the case all the time, that wasn't the case in Ferguson and that wasn't the case in the other STL shooting directly after. 17 times? That's more than self defense, that's overkill.

Did I say this is the case all of the time? No, I did not. I'm clearly reffering to the matter at hand in St. Louis.

Also, you have no right to say 17 shots is overkill. It was dark and the officer and suspect had a reasonable amount of distance between themselves all happening during a foot PURSUIT and while the officer is being fired open. When his life is flashing before him, I'm sure his shot count was low on his worries.

 

Once again, we have a city in protest over a shooting. An off duty police officer was aggressively approached and this suspect then led the officer on a foot chase. During this chase, the suspect fired a handgun at the officer three times, the officer responded by firing his gun [17 times] and killed the suspect.

 

You are making this out to be one of many incidents, not discussing the microcosm of this singular shooting.

 

Plus, he was off duty. This citizen doesn't have a right to shoot at some random dude F*CKING CHASING HIM DOWN THE STREETS OF STL???

You're really trying to defend the piece of sh*t that tried killing a police officer? How pathetic. It is known that the suspect first approached the officer and the officer stated that he was police. Edited October 9, 2014 by SimsDaniel916

[D- Ice]

 

The excuse of being under threat has far too long been used to excuse disproportionate use of force by police in the US. It's simply unethical to use deadly force for anything

It's not just unethical, it defeats the very idea that their jobs are dangerous. If you use that argument as an excuse to shoot every time you feel threatened, and you get away with it every time, then you don't have a dangerous job. You have the easiest job in the world. One that lets you shoot anyone who does something that you don't like. And all you have to do is say that you felt threatened. We've seen cops get away with obvious murder because of that argument. They clearly don't have dangerous jobs. THEY ARE THE DANGER! (no cookies for reference, everybody knows).

 

I completely agree. It is also vital they accept a level of professional risk in their jobs. Being overly cautious will prevent them from carrying out their jobs properly, and will have negative consequences (people unnecessarily shot).

Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals face the danger of needle-stick injuries daily, which can potentially transfer dangerous pathogens. Though no one would accept them reducing the use of needles for their own safety. I similarly studied in an in-patient psychiatric ward, where one patient had stabbed a Healthcare Assistant a few days earlier. No physical restrictions (i.e. stray jacket) were placed on him, as it was thought to adversely affect his treatment; all professionals at the ward accepting the professional risk that comes with their jobs.

[AlienTwo]

 

 

 

 

He didn't just feel 'threatened' he was being shot at! The officer was in a situation where he either shoots back or dies.

That's not the case all the time, that wasn't the case in Ferguson and that wasn't the case in the other STL shooting directly after. 17 times? That's more than self defense, that's overkill.

Did I say this is the case all of the time? No, I did not. I'm clearly reffering to the matter at hand in St. Louis.

Also, you have no right to say 17 shots is overkill. It was dark and the officer and suspect had a reasonable amount of distance between themselves all happening during a foot PURSUIT and while the officer is being fired open. When his life is flashing before him, I'm sure his shot count was low on his worries.

Once again, we have a city in protest over a shooting. An off duty police officer was aggressively approached and this suspect then led the officer on a foot chase. During this chase, the suspect fired a handgun at the officer three times, the officer responded by firing his gun [17 times] and killed the suspect.

You are making this out to be one of many incidents, not discussing the microcosm of this singular shooting.

 

Plus, he was off duty. This citizen doesn't have a right to shoot at some random dude F*CKING CHASING HIM DOWN THE STREETS OF STL???

You're really trying to defend the piece of sh*t that tried killing a police officer? How pathetic. It is known that the suspect first approached the officer and the officer stated that he was police.

 

I'm defending my right as a US citizen not to get shot by police because they "think" I "might" pose a threat. I understand you have a connection to Law Enforcement and this is why it's such a prickly pear for you, but you need to take your rose colored glasses off and really look at the relationship between cops and civillians right now... it's un-healthy and getting worse. Incidents like this make it sooo much worse. If we don't start demanding accountability for officers who are, for all intents and purposes, above the law, how are we supposed to respect and listen to them?

Edited October 9, 2014 by AlienTwo

[Dottie]

17 times to kill him? Jesus he's a bad shot if I've ever seen one

Probably a storm trooper in disguise

[sivispacem]

SimsDaniel916- if you can't have a debate without reducing every counter argument against your points to straw men, then please don't engage in one in the first place. It is perfectly possible to be critical of what was a shooting involving a private security guard who just so happened to be a police officer, and pose the question of whether he either overstepped his authority or engaging in disproportionate violence against someone potentially no longer posing a threat, without supporting the apparent criminal perpetrator. If you can't understand that then please extricate yourself from the discussion

[make total destroy]

It is known that the suspect first approached the officer and the officer stated that he was police.

 

Is it? According to the police chief, the officer passed the group, made a u-turn, got out, and approached them on foot. The group took off, the officer followed, some sort of 'struggle' took place--my God, this language sounds familiar --then the 'suspect', supposedly brandishing a .22, opened fire on the officer, who then proceeded to fire 17 shots, striking the 'suspect' 13 times. But don't feel bad, the 'suspect' was 'known to law enforcement', which therefore justifies his death, or whatever.

[immature shitposter]

doesn't matter if the cop was write or wrong, police state still wins either way

[GunWrath]

I like the cousin's version 'He be had a sammich, he weren't armed'.

 

Another one bites the dust.

[make total destroy]

 

Another one bites the dust.

What's your handle over on Stormfront?

[Special Members]

I like the cousin's version 'He be had a sammich, he weren't armed'.

 

Another one bites the dust.

Has anyone ever told you that you're a f*cking maniac?

[GunWrath]

Oh, you.. the typical ShootDopeNotPeople.

[make total destroy]

[AlienTwo]

I love crackers.

 

Not police crackers, just normal salty made of wheat product crackers.

[GunWrath]

I prefer Ritz. Such golden awesomeness.. that even your mouth explodes into a riot.

[RandallFlagg00]

People calling excessive force for shooting a man shooting at the police... Only GTA Forums. Well, at least I wish it were only here.

[theadmiral]

 

 

Another one bites the dust.

What's your handle over on Stormfront?

 

It's GunWrath, actually. Go check it out.

[AlienTwo]

People calling excessive force for shooting a man shooting at the police... Only GTA Forums. Well, at least I wish it were only here.

I don't think you read the article... besides, wouldn't the Walkin' Dude support this type of chaos?

[gtamann123]

 

 

 

 

 

Another one bites the dust.

What's your handle over on Stormfront?

 

It's GunWrath, actually. Go check it out.It Can't be GunWrath because that's my username over there Edited October 10, 2014 by gtamann123

[GunWrath]

I would imagine admiral is over there harassing someone like he does here.

 

But I assure you, I'm no member of a site or organization such as skin heads, KKK or any other white only fronts. After SDNP posted about Stormfront was actually my first time ever seeing that site and I browsed through, some pretty funny stuff in there, joke wise. Should check it out if you have a bit of humor.

[gtamann123]

I think my favorite part about that site is when people are having serious conversations about home electrical wiring or television shows seemingly oblivious to the fact they have "Hitler Was Right" or "Certified ni**er Lyncher" in their signature

Edited October 10, 2014 by gtamann123

[DJ Arrt]

if you were a man of color I'm sure your opinion would be different

Well, coming from a black teenager who's actually paranoid about being profiled, I would reluctantly have to agree with OP based off of what we currently know.

 

Approaching the suspect could have been handled better, but that doesn't justify trying to shoot at someone because you're trying to get away from them. The 17 shots were excessive, but so was the suspect.*

 

*Based off of current information. Subject to change as we get more info.

Edited October 10, 2014 by TheBlackPeterParker.