Justified Force? Police tase suspect 4 times and then Shoot Him

[Kentak]

Yes, the following is pure hindsight and armchair quarterbacking, but, it was obvious the Taser was having an effect. Couldn't 3 or 4 of the six cops gotten into position to grab the guy's arms as soon as the juice went off after the second or third juicing?

das--even a scumbag deserves his day in court and shouldn't be shot in a confrontation with LEO just because he's not complying with orders. Had he come off the stairs at the officers with his hand still in his pocket, I'd have a completely different opinion about this. Still, I wasn't there and I'm not saying the cops were wrong. This would be a situation where a third party video would be very helpful.

K

 

[buzz_knox]

The officers ordered Hale to take his hands out of the front pockets of his hooded sweat shirt.

"About a second later, they Tasered him," Mixson recalled. "He was just sitting there. He didn't do anything."

Did he wait one second, two seconds, three? What is the proper balance between moving fast enough to not get tasered, and moving slow enough not to get shot?

And I'm sorry if the cops came to your door, because you were a person of interest, but did you comply with them? I'm sure you did everything they asked you to do right? After all you didnt do anything wrong did you?

Yes. And I waited longer than a "second later" to comply in order to be sure they knew I wasn't doing anything funny. When I get my wallet out in a traffic stop, I move in rather exaggerated fashion so they can track everything I do and see I'm not threat. It takes longer than a second to do that too.

 

[das028]

"Neither did this guy apparently."


Actually he didnt show his hands when asks

 

[das028]

Buzz, I thought we were going to wait for facts?

 

[Biker]

Really folks, why is he a scumbag? Two tours as a combat vet, CCW, no record and he's a *prospect* for the Pagans - not a patch holder which means that he likely knows little if anything about club "bidness".. I've put on miles with a lot of clubs including a few Pagans. Mostly good folks, but some bad.
I suppose that I should condemn all Catholic Priests because a few are corrupting young boys? An extreme example, I know, but the principle is the same. I spent a lot of years as a 1%er and met a lot of good people along with a few bad ones.
Nowadays I'm more like a 2.5%er, heh heh...6 guys jump out of an SUV and draw down on me and demand to see my hands, I'll comply *slowly* so as to not get shot. Apparantly, that'll get ya dead anyway.

Biker aka Scumbag (I guess)

 

[das028]

Master, enough with the what ifs ok? What if I pagan, who is high on drugs, yet has no criminal record, and served in the sand box, rapes your daughter!

You know buddy, we could go on with what ifs all day. Stupid post bro!

 

[das028]

"Biker aka Scumbag (I guess)"

Well you said it!

 

[das028]

BTW, I think I'm done here fellas. My head hurts!!!

Have a nice one

 

[Biker]

Yup. Guess so...

Biker

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Thread lock in 3...2...1....

Seriously, guys, the thread started out ok, but it seems to have digressed into throwing insults. I suggest you all leave out the insults if you don't want the thread closed. Some of us believe that the shoot was wrong, some think it was justified. Calm down.

 

[buzz_knox]

Buzz, I thought we were going to wait for facts?

We have the statements of eyewitnesses to the event. While eyewitnesses do not produce the most valuable of testimony, they are all we have here. While not sufficient to indict someone, they do provide sufficient evidence to warrant investigation into what occurred, particulary in light of the decedent's absence of a criminal record, only recent involvement in the gang, and the absence of any ranged weapon found on his body. An investigation could easily find that things happened different than what the eyewitnesses reported. That's why vindication or indictment should not come until after an investigation is concluded.

I would note that the article that discusses their testimony is the same source you derive the decedent's biker membership, and upon which you base your declared satisfaction in his death. Perhaps you should wait to get more facts before relishing his demise?

Actually he didnt show his hands when asks

So you have facts other than what was in the article to support this, or just the article? You really need to take a stand; you can't just accept the article as true when it supports your prejudice, and demand more facts when it goes against your position.

 

[crucible]

Actually he didnt show his hands when asks

You mean not fast enough right? I guess he could have moved a lot faster then-and shot 12 times instead of only three.

But then again, an Iraq war vet that's law abiding enough to have a Virginia CCW was a bad enough guy to deserve getting killed for not moving fast enough. Right?

C-

 

[glummer]

This whole thing smells, just on the facts from the police.
His residence had been searched, but the owner (not Hale) was the only one charged?
So they watch Hale?
And he puts Tupperware in his vehicle, so he's "preparing to flee"?
What is it that he's not allowed to "flee" from?
And why are 6 non-uniform cops primed to appear, and ready to draw down on, a mere "person of interest"? What is it that justified the display of weapons, at all? Were they arresting him? Did they have a warrant? They don't say so.
And since when is a hand in the pocket, with no other evidence of danger, a "deadly force" level of threat to 6 armed men?

Asked if Hale ever threatened the officers, Elliott said in an interview last week: "In a sense, when he did not comply with their commands" to show him his hands.

If that quote is accurate, the speaker ought to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, and his remains left to rot in the gutter.

 

[Biker]

Just to be clear, "putting on miles" with a club doesn't mean that you are a patch holder with that club, it means that you rode with some members and shared beers on runs. Don't need any misunderstandings.
I've put on miles with the local cop club but I'm not a cop.
Good Lord...gotta be careful around here.

Biker

 

[Coronach]

First of all-

Knock it off with the insults and personal attacks, or this thread gets put down.

Secondly:

I stand corrected. I forgot Mr. King was tased. Still, Tasers are a great non-lethal option that should be available to all LEO's.

King was hit with an earlier version of the Taser, that was decidedly less effective. Had LAPD been carrying the current version, chances are much higher that King would have been subdued without significant incident.

The Taser is a wonderful tool, when used properly. I'm not sure that either tool (Taser or handgun) was used properly in this instance. I'm perfectly willing to wait for more facts, but it ain't really looking good from here.

Mike

 

[Erebus]

Wow this has gotten thick.

Right now I have to go with the word of the uninvolved witness. He didn't know anyone involved and seems quite passionate that what he saw. The fact that most of the witnesses didn't want to be identified or interviewed by the reporters leads me to believe they are afraid of some kind of repercussion.

Sounds like the cops tried to convince the witness he didn't see anything. Which leads me to believe they know what he saw wasn't good for them and tried to run interference.

What bothers me is that he never even stood up. He was seated or laying down(while getting zapped) up to and during getting shot. How is a seated person a threat to 6 armed and standing people?

Clearly he was having difficulty recovering from the tazing as evident by the vomiting.

Had the weapon been displayed it would be a different story, had he stood up AND moved toward the officers it would be a different story.

But from the witnesses description he was totally overcome from the moment of the first tazering. And never fully recovered.

So unless this witness had it out for the cops(and that is very possible) than it appears the cops showed him the overkill they told him they would.

I am usually one of the first to jump to the cops defense. But good Lord so far I don't see much to defend. The "In a sense, when he did not comply with their commands" was a stupid thing to say.

I'm not nearly ready to convict these cops of murder on this one sided witness statement. But I certainly hope their justification for deadly force is something better than a "Well kinda..." statement.

 

[glummer]

Erebus

But I certainly hope their justification for deadly force is something better than a "Well kinda..." statement.

I haven't heard a justification for ANY force at all. What, exactly, were they trying to do?

 

[Erebus]

I haven't heard a justification for ANY force at all. What, exactly, were they trying to do?

Good point, neither have I.

 

[gc70]

Moral of the story, Dont get involved with drugs, dont get involved in gangs, ands be a productive member of society, and the police will have no reaon to include you as a person of interest.

Add to that "don't get a CCW" because you would not want anything to put the police "on edge."

 

[Deanimator]

Moral of the story, Dont get involved with drugs, dont get involved in gangs, ands be a productive member of society, and the police will have no reaon to include you as a person of interest.

The funny thing is that Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond followed exactly that advice, and they're both DEAD, shot to death by the NYPD. Both of them were COMPETELY unarmed too.

 

[scurtis_34471]

I've seen a few members post in a few different threads the idea that having a run-in with the cops is proof that you did something. This is based on two very faulty ideas: 1. The cops never get the wrong guy and 2. ALL police are upstanding people with good intentions. Cops are human. They make mistakes. They are also like any other group and have their share of bad apples. The fact that a cop shows up to question someone or comes to your house with a warrant or tasers you does NOT prove that you did anything wrong.

There is another thing that bugs me about some of the comments I read too. Whether or not the guy was a drug user, gang member or "scumbag" is completely irrelevant. To say this is +1 for the good guys regardless of the circumstances is to say that it would be OK for the police to just shoot people on sight. The ONLY thing that is relevant is whether or not the subject did anything to justify the use of deadly force at the time the force was applied and it seems pretty clear that the answer is NO.

I personally think there is a lot more going on here than what meets the eye. There is no way that six plain-clothed police officers are going to fan out and surround someone like that just so they can ask a few questions to a "person of interest." That is massive overkill. Two I could see, but six? That sounds more like a tactical deployment than an interview. Here is another question that the article does not answer: Did they identify themselves as police officers and produce adequate identification to back up that claim before they started issuing orders? If someone walks up to me, says they are a cop and starts issuing orders, I'm asking to see a badge. I am not going to ASSUME that anyone who claims to be a cop is a cop. If they don't show me a badge, I am going to consider them a potential hostile. The burden of identification is on the police. Nothing they tell you to do is a "lawful order" unless they provide positive identification.

 

[Derby FALs]

BTW, I think I'm done here fellas. My head hurts!!!

Have a nice one

I bet it does.

 

[Zoogster]

It appears to me that him being issued a ccw was thier justification for treating him as armed and deadly. Had he actualy had a gun they would of course never mention where it was and would leave it implied that it was in the sweater with his hands regardless of where it was.
This is one of those examples of how registering (for ccw) and following the law to the letter makes police approach you and treat you even more inhumanely.
I agree that tasers need to be phased out, they need to show nerve damage statistics or heart rythm problems etc for the bleeding hearts to grab onto and help end there use. Using a taser as permission to execute is quite easy, even someone with a weapon will fall on it or be unable to drop or toss it away thus permitting thier execution. When you hand someone a human off switch for compliance and tell them it is safe non lethal force it is going to be widely and routinely used even if unnecessary simply to make it safer to arrest a disabled person.

Whether he was a military veteran, a father of 2, with a clean record allowing him to posses a ccw makes no difference (sarcasm.) He had a CCW permit on file and therefore deserved to be treated as armed and dangerous with less rights than everyone else.

 

[Master Blaster]

It appears to me that him being issued a ccw was thier justification for treating him as armed and deadly.

I doubt the police knew this in advance, or even had any idea who he was at all. they were watching the house for additional Pagans to show up and do something illegal, having arrested the owner and searched the place a couple days before. So when they saw an unknown person loading stuff in a car, they thought Ahhhaaa more drugs, and then the surveillance guy called in the SWAT....execution team to make a killing....errrrr arrest of an unknown potential criminal......

and the rest is a matter of some dispute...

 

[Zoogster]

Just to be clear, "putting on miles" with a club doesn't mean that you are a patch holder with that club, it means that you rode with some members and shared beers on runs.

I think part of the problem with things like this being justified is that the people that work safely in an office that hires nobody with criminal records where many are passive and they feel safe and protected away from all the 'evil' are in control of our media and public perspective. Others share similar lifestyles and understand this perspective even more.
That somehow anyone around anyone 'bad' in any way must be choosing to go down a negative path. Somehow the negative aspects of our society are supposed to magicly change while the 'good guys' never associate or find ourselves anywhere near them to give any influance or otherwise have a positive impact on thier lives.

Simply having a friend that lives with someone of interest, and visiting them, or if your a strong willed individual your bad. Good guys are passive and submissive, always avoiding and hiding safely in thier homes far from anyone bad or at thier job making a living. No good guy not a cop has a strong demeanor or morals or ideas that they are passionate about or gets involved with scum.

So guilty by association is common simply because we as a society and our media paint the image that anyone who is a good guy avoids every aspect of society that could be suspect of any wrong doing. It disgusts me that people want problems to 'just go away' yet look down on good people around the problems in a position to fix some of them or change some for the better.

After all according to this perspective there is no grey areas in society, someone is either a bad guy or a good guy. No good guy has bad guy family members, associates, friends, or co-workers, or anyone they run across that enjoys a similar hobby to them. Choosing to be a good guy puts you in a safe bubble that as long as your a pascifist that hides and sneaks around with no assertiveness and remains submissive not just physicaly but mentaly to any and all authority allows you to remain a good guy. This is our perspective through the law and media we allow to exist of the ideal good guy.

So people like this 'bad guy' are seen as unfortunate but just results for scum that chose to associate with 'bad guys' and therefore was one himself.