Racial Tension in the U.S.

[The Human Q-Tip]

Its less than a page. I am the one who introduced the concept of civilians with guns and how they are treated into the conversation.

meanwhile you and wraithe are attacking me the poster like I have no right to post.

I was going to respond, but this is a complete trainwreck.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

well looky here. I make a post supporting a black mans right to carry a gun and 4 people gang up on me and make a blatant attempt to exclude me from the conversation that I introduced

 

[Wrathe]

People here are literally fucking insane. Think like rural Ohio... and then on steroids.

Hehe, I feel ya. I grew up in rural Ohio. Like, these folks will CCW to church, but I've just honestly not seen issues of the crazies here at all. What type of stuff are you having from your CCW folks there?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Hehe, I feel ya. I grew up in rural Ohio. Like, these folks will CCW to church, but I've just honestly not seen issues of the crazies here at all. What type of stuff are you having from your CCW folks there?

Same thing I've seen. I'm down in rural Ohio pretty often -- my wife's family is from Dover. Lots of guns, but nobody playing Rambo.

 

[Tornicade]

I actually said "The armed white guys wearing uniforms... Got it." In response to you. Where you've pulled this from, I have literally no clue. My premise for why this isn't an issue is because he wasn't going to show up to a shootout and shoot the other armed cops.



If a cop pulls up to an active shooter situation, regardless of skin color, the officer will be pulling there standard issue pistol, and shooting when applicable. The lack of a call in, the clear orders about who was engaging police, exacerbate a non-situation that you're trying to make about race.



Do you though? Officer arrives to a situation in which he's exiting a vehicle, from behind two officers, and watching what he presumes is a perp based on the dispatch walking towards two officers with a gun. This probably happened in, what, five seconds? The other officers don't see him as a threat (they did originally) once they realize who it is. Within five seconds to responding, with no assist from the officers who have it "under control", he's supposed to take everyone's temperature on the situation given what was occurring and what was dispatched? Please.



The officer who was shot is a civilian. His job doesn't matter when you're not being paid to do it. His lawyer (the one he hired) will attempt to collect from the city, and the union won't smack his wrists.

So, based on your logic; if an officer is dispatched to a shootout, he should show up, and get out, and try to figure out if a shootout is occurring?

You've also contradicted yourself. First, he arrived after the detain and release. Now he saw it happen. All within the same post...

It's not institutional racism. It's not an officer targeting innocent black people. It's an unmitigated risk in a situation that would not have happened, if the situation was under control and updated through dispatch.

1st a law enforcement officer is never off duty.
2nd. the Radio is a tool not a justification to shoot people
3rd. The officer made an inaccurate assessment. he did not issue any commands to the suspect or if he was on the radio informa the detectives that a suspect was walking toward them .
4th. Even if there had been gunshots. the officer needs to assess where the threat is coming from.
5th. There was a streetlamp right at the shooting scene. There is no mention or reference that's the on scene officers were turned around or had their guns drawn. from the reportsit is more likely at least one of the officers was facing the "citizen"
6th . the officer apparently was out of hearing range but within shooting range. otherwise he would of heard the officers tell the citizen to get up. Indicating that the officer may have ben over 50 yards away from the suspect when he fired.
7th : shots fired on the radio does not entitle an officer to shoot just because something looks weird.
8th. Once again if an Off Duty Cop complies with law enforcement officers at the scene and gets shot following their instructions.. what chance does a non off duty person in this scenario have.
9th. The issue with profiling is that when a suspect is "black" all Black people are therefore suspects. this isn't the case when a suspect is "white".
10th. The officer was in fear for his safety in a controlled crime scene with no indications of any threat outside of a black man walking towards 2 fellow officers.


“You’re never off duty,” said Cox, who now works as a police officer at Midland Memorial Hospital. “You’re in a constant state of readiness. You’re always watching.”
https://apps.texastribune.org/unholstered/off-duty/
“You still have the same authority,” explained Howard Williams, a former police chief in San Marcos and a criminal justice lecturer at Texas State University. “Just because you’re off duty doesn’t mean you’ve given up that authority.”

as far as what the officer is supposed to do when arriving on the scene.

Follow safety procedures. Officers must identify any dangerous situations or people to keep themselves and other individuals safe.

The responding officer(s) should:

• Ensure that there is no immediate threat to other responders— scan the area for sights, sounds and smells that may present danger (e.g., hazardous materials such as gasoline). If the situation involves a clandestine drug laboratory, biological weapons, or radiological [opens in pop-up window] or chemical threats the officer should contact appropriate personnel/agencies before entering the scene.
• Approach the scene in a manner that maximizes the safety of victims, witnesses, officers and others in the area.
• Survey the scene for dangerous persons and control the situation.
• Notify supervisory personnel and call for assistance/backup.

• 
  

• 
  http://www.csitechblog.com/crime-scene-investigation/

Secure and control people at the crime scene. Officers should control, identify and remove people from the crime scene.

The responding officer(s) should:

• Control all individuals at the scene — prevent individuals from altering or destroying physical evidence by restricting movement, location, and activity while ensuring and maintaining safety at the scene.
• Identify all individuals at the scene, such as:

Suspects. Secure and separate.

Witnesses. Secure and separate.

Bystanders. Determine whether they were witnesses, if so treat as above, if not, remove from the scene.

Victims/family/friends. Control while showing compassion.

Medical and other assisting personnel.

• Exclude unauthorized and nonessential personnel from the scene (e.g., law enforcement officials not working the case, politicians and media).

• 
  

• 
  

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

8th. Once again if an Off Duty Cop complies with law enforcement officers at the scene and gets shot following their instructions.. what chance does a non off duty person in this scenario have.

I'd say if he gets up and doesn't have a gun in his hand, his odds go up dramatically. And since the stories characterize the cop who was shot as "armed", it seems that wasn't the case here.

I can tell you that if I was ever at a crime scene and had a gun drawn for personal protection or any other reason, and cops showed up, the very first thing I would do (assuming there's no bad guys still plugging away) is drop my gun and hold up my hands.

 

[DJTJ]

Hehe, I feel ya. I grew up in rural Ohio. Like, these folks will CCW to church, but I've just honestly not seen issues of the crazies here at all. What type of stuff are you having from your CCW folks there?

Uh, me personally? It's weird. Going to the desert to shoot guns is a regular occurance.

As in, not a range. How more people who are out on ATVs and UTV don't get hit is beyond me... Just people literally in large deserts shooting guns.

 

[Tornicade]

I actually said "The armed white guys wearing uniforms... Got it." In response to you. Where you've pulled this from, I have literally no clue. My premise for why this isn't an issue is because he wasn't going to show up to a shootout and shoot the other armed cops.



If a cop pulls up to an active shooter situation, regardless of skin color, the officer will be pulling there standard issue pistol, and shooting when applicable. The lack of a call in, the clear orders about who was engaging police, exacerbate a non-situation that you're trying to make about race.



Do you though? Officer arrives to a situation in which he's exiting a vehicle, from behind two officers, and watching what he presumes is a perp based on the dispatch walking towards two officers with a gun. This probably happened in, what, five seconds? The other officers don't see him as a threat (they did originally) once they realize who it is. Within five seconds to responding, with no assist from the officers who have it "under control", he's supposed to take everyone's temperature on the situation given what was occurring and what was dispatched? Please.



The officer who was shot is a civilian. His job doesn't matter when you're not being paid to do it. His lawyer (the one he hired) will attempt to collect from the city, and the union won't smack his wrists.

So, based on your logic; if an officer is dispatched to a shootout, he should show up, and get out, and try to figure out if a shootout is occurring?

You've also contradicted yourself. First, he arrived after the detain and release. Now he saw it happen. All within the same post...

It's not institutional racism. It's not an officer targeting innocent black people. It's an unmitigated risk in a situation that would not have happened, if the situation was under control and updated through dispatch.

it isn't a contradiction if both scenarios are presented and I try to address both scenarios

once again. I don't give a damn about the radio. The radio doesn't decide to pull the trigger and an officer is expected to assess the scene once they get there..

first off. I posted the article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...12026319da7_story.html?utm_term=.963187e7b67f

ST. LOUIS — An off-duty black St. Louis police officer’s race factored into him being mistakenly shot by a white officer who didn’t recognize him during a shootout with black suspects this week, the wounded officer’s lawyer contends.

The 38-year-old black officer was off duty when he heard a commotion near his home and ran toward it with his service weapon to try to help his fellow officers, police said.

St. Louis’ interim police chief, Lawrence O’Toole, said the incident began when officers with an anti-crime task force followed a stolen car and were twice fired upon by its occupants. One suspect was shot in an ankle and was arrested, along with another teenager who tried to run from police, O’Toole said. A third suspect is being sought.

When the off-duty officer who lived nearby heard the commotion and arrived at the scene to help, two on-duty officers ordered him to the ground but then recognized him and told him to stand up and walk toward them. As he was doing so, another officer arrived and shot the off-duty officer “apparently not recognizing” him, police said.

The police department hadn’t disclosed the names of the officers as of Saturday. It described the black officer as an 11-year department veteran and said he was treated at a hospital and released. The officer who shot him is 36 years old and has been with the department more than eight years.

I guess this is an okay mistake too? Black guy with a gun... shoot him

notice the article I posted did not say what the observer observed before shooting.

other reports indicated the shooting officer witness the Citizen detained and released.

That's even worse than the initial scenario.


the Citizen was shot because he was black.

The officer who shot. did not see a drawn weapon. he did not hear gunshots. the citizen was not running. There was no other reason for him to shoot.

unannounced shootings while not under duress or threat is not acceptable conduct and certainly not a justified shooting.

the fear defense by officers involved in shootings is being abused. the officers are expected to be the ones who maintain their composure in the situations.

perhaps "fear of safety" is another phrase for "white Privilege" or "cop entitlement..


If internal police shooting investigation units continue to side with the cops instead of the facts Black communities are going to continue to distrust the police and act in fear whenever they get pulled over.


Heck on Livepd this man almost got shot cause he was trying to hide his Viagra induced woody

 

[Tornicade]

I'd say if he gets up and doesn't have a gun in his hand, his odds go up dramatically. And since the stories characterize the cop who was shot as "armed", it seems that wasn't the case here.

I can tell you that if I was ever at a crime scene and had a gun drawn for personal protection or any other reason, and cops showed up, the very first thing I would do (assuming there's no bad guys still plugging away) is drop my gun and hold up my hands.

the question is would you stand up when they told you to get up and come talk to them.

 

[DJTJ]

the question is would you stand up when they told you to get up and come talk to them.

He would get up and not have a weapon.

Still don't see the difference?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

the question is would you stand up when they told you to get up and come talk to them.

I'd put my gun away first -- I would not walk to them with the gun in my hand. That's freaking basic safety as far as I'm concerned, and not just because they're cops.

And you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that the cop should have shot the off-duty cop. What (I think) we're saying is that it is understandable to see how this could have happened given the facts. The mistake made by the shooting cop wasn't based on race - it was based on the mistaken assumption that the guy with a gun in his hand wasn't a cop. Or at very least, that is a reasonable inference given the facts as we know them. Of course, it is possible that this cop would have made a different decision if the suspect was white, and this off-duty cop had been white, but there is no possible way to know that. \

What we do know is that he thought the guy with a gun wasn't a cop.

 

[David.]

I'd put my gun away first -- I would not walk to them with the gun in my hand. That's freaking basic safety as far as I'm concerned, and not just because they're cops.

And you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that the cop should have shot the off-duty cop. What (I think) we're saying is that it is understandable to see how this could have happened given the facts. The mistake made by the shooting cop wasn't based on race - it was based on the mistaken assumption that the guy with a gun in his hand wasn't a cop. Or at very least, that is a reasonable inference given the facts as we know them. Of course, it is possible that this cop would have made a different decision if the suspect was white, and this off-duty cop had been white, but there is no possible way to know that. \

What we do know is that he thought the guy with a gun wasn't a cop.

Ya ya ya but he was black.

 

[Tornicade]

I'd put my gun away first -- I would not walk to them with the gun in my hand. That's freaking basic safety as far as I'm concerned, and not just because they're cops.

And you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that the cop should have shot the off-duty cop. What (I think) we're saying is that it is understandable to see how this could have happened given the facts. The mistake made by the shooting cop wasn't based on race - it was based on the mistaken assumption that the guy with a gun in his hand wasn't a cop. Or at very least, that is a reasonable inference given the facts as we know them. Of course, it is possible that this cop would have made a different decision if the suspect was white, and this off-duty cop had been white, but there is no possible way to know that. \

What we do know is that he thought the guy with a gun wasn't a cop.

so why didn't the shooting officer state in his report he was in fear for his safety because the man had a gun..if that was the case.

that's a good question to ask and that the officer shot should be asking.

was the gun in his hand? was tit holstered? was it holstered? did the shooting officer see it?

The shooting officer didn't indicate any of these conditions.

The Lawyer says
This is the first time that we are aware, that a black professional, in law enforcement, himself being shot and treated as an ordinary black guy on the street. This is a real problem. In the police report, you have so far, there is no description of threat he received. So we have a real problem with that. But this has been a national discussion for the past two years. There is this perception that a black man is automatically feared.

Why wouldn't the shooting officer indicate he saw a gun and that's why he shot. The shooting officer didn't indicate this.

it may very well be the shooting officer didn't know about the gun until after the fact.


All seven officers present have been placed on administrative leave. while the investigation has been under process.

I don't see any reference to what radio communications were made and not made amongst the officers.

perhaps dj could provide a source.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

so why didn't the shooting officer state in his report he was in fear for his safety because the man had a gun..if that was the case.

How do you know what he said in this report? The local news story stated that the officer said "he was in fear of his safety", which at least implies he saw a gun.

 

[Tornicade]

How do you know what he said in this report? The local news story stated that the officer said "he was in fear of his safety", which at least implies he saw a gun.

Rufus Tate JR discussed the report with the local new agency. so far it hasn't been refuted.

"In the police report you have so far, there is no description of a threat he received. So we have a real problem with that. But this has been a national discussion for the past two years. There is this perception that a black man is automatically feared," Tate said.

the report may be revised later but for now. the lawyer has concerns because the officers did not state why he was in fear for his safety. nothing in the report outlines a reason for fear.
There has been no information provided on Radio chatter. despite DJ absolving the officer for that reason.
There has been no indication that the gun was a factor.. one would believe the shooting officer would of put that tidbit in his initial report.

there was more than just the two officers on the scene at the time the shooting officer arrived.

What is clear is that officer who was shot. complied to officer orders to get on the ground and that the officers told him to get back up and it has been reported he had his service revolver but its not indicated where it was or if the shooting officer had seen it.

and it has been reported the shooting officer saw the man detained and released although apparently he didn't understand or see that the man had been released by his peers who were closer to the situation.