Outrage after video captures white Baton Rouge police officer fatally shooting a black man

[estesbob]

In 2006 the FBI warned about the white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. I’m thinking that they were correct and were roundly ignored.

thegrio.com/2015/05/12/fbi-white-supremacists-law-enforcement/

So?

 

[sallybutler]

Were you there? Do you know all of the facts? Do you know the legal requirements for the use of deadly force? Do you know the perceptions in the officers’ minds? Do you know what was said? Why does race matter, unless you desire it to matter? Are you accusing white officers solely because they are white? Isn’t that racist in itself? (Think about it) Or, are your emotions once again being manipulated by a biased, for-profit media?

Virtually all of the fatal incidents of recent times, when examined in excruciating detail have been found to be justified. Instead of whipping yourself into a frenzy, why not pray for all involved and wait for all of the facts to come out?

How about “another citizen shot by the government officials”?

 

[esieffe]

I think it would be in the best interest of all people, when they are given demands by the police, to follow it without question at once. No “Why this, what have I done, I was just…” None of that. Just do what they say, then be an activist later if you were wronged.

If we don’t follow this rule, even if we are being wronged, we might not live long enough to fuss about it. After all of this, it is common sense to act is if our life depended on immediate compliance with their instructions.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The indictment of the officer who shoot him is premature. I do not think anyone has suggested the gun was planted. Even the owner said he had a gun, though he said it was in the man’s pocket. The initial caller said he had a gun and been threatened. If he was armed, as seems to be the case, and if he refused to obey the orders given to insure everyone’s safety, I doubt there can be any criminal action on the part of the officer who shot him. Depending exactly on where the place the gun, it may be a completely justified act of self-defense. Police are under no obligation to be shot at first by an armed gunman and only then return fire.

The guy was totally immobilized on the ground, and they shot him at point blank range. Gun or not, he was not a threat to them, and even if he was I would not be comfortable with a police force that can’t deal with a situation like this without killing people. I mean they had the guy on the ground. How on Earth would he get the gun out and manage to shoot them? How could they not deal with it without killing the man?

There’s another thing here that I think people ought to discuss as well. The police tackled him to the ground for what was a petty and victimless crime (selling bootleg CDs). Even if he had responded with violence, this would have been self-defence. If a couple of vigilantes go around attacking people for petty crimes, nobody here would argue that it would be wrong for the victim to respond with violence. Give those two vigilantes uniforms and state approval to attack people, and it’s fine. Why? People shouldn’t have to just accept being attacked by cops.

I swear, for all of their lip service to liberty, Americans would be the first to defend the existence of a police state. Or maybe it’s only okay if the violence is against minorities or poor people.

 

[estesbob]

The guy was totally immobilized on the ground, and they shot him at point blank range. Gun or not, he was not a threat to them, and even if he was I would not be comfortable with a police force that can’t deal with a situation like this without killing people. I mean they had the guy on the ground. How on Earth would he get the gun out and manage to shoot them? How could they not deal with it without killing the man?

There’s another thing here that I think people ought to discuss as well. The police tackled him to the ground for what was a petty and victimless crime (selling bootleg CDs). Even if he had responded with violence, this would have been self-defence. If a couple of vigilantes go around attacking people for petty crimes, nobody here would argue that it would be wrong for the victim to respond with violence. Give those two vigilantes uniforms and state approval to attack people, and it’s fine. Why? People shouldn’t have to just accept being attacked by cops.

I swear, for all of their lip service to liberty, Americans would be the first to defend the existence of a police state. Or maybe it’s only okay if the violence is against minorities or poor people.

The 911 call said he was threatening people with a gun so there is a little more involved than selling bootleg CDs. Nobody is condoning the violence and one shooting does not a police state make. Id rather be stopped by the police here any day than be stopped by the police in Mexico

 

[J_Peterson]

So?

The FBI were concerned about something and that something seems to be happening. If this was the first black man killed in strange circumstances by police then you’d have a point.

I guess one thing that goes against me is that cops have always killed black people but it’s only now that we are seeing it (thanks to cameras everywhere). Maybe white supremacists didn’t recently infiltrate law enforcement, maybe they were always there.

 

[pnewton]

The guy was totally immobilized on the ground,

Well the video is available so anyone that wants can go a see the movement I saw. I assume you know the definition of both “totally” and “immobilized”.

Gun or not, he was not a threat to them,

You do not now this. I have seen people more immobilized produce a knife and strike out on more than two people “immobilizing” them. A gun does not even need reach. Fortunately, the DOJ will investigate this. Yet your response, and that of others like it, or why civilian oversight is so dreaded by police. It is the ignorance, not the oversight that causes concern. Unless you have either been in that situation, or understand the dangers of such close quarter struggle, you cannot judge.

There’s another thing here that I think people ought to discuss as well. The police tackled him to the ground for what was a petty and victimless crime (selling bootleg CDs). Even if he had responded with violence, this would have been self-defence. If a couple of vigilantes go around attacking people for petty crimes, nobody here would argue that it would be wrong for the victim to respond with violence. Give those two vigilantes uniforms and state approval to attack people, and it’s fine.

I swear, for all of their lip service to liberty, Americans would be the first to defend the existence of a police state. Or maybe it’s only okay if the violence is against minorities or poor people.

I have quit reading the political threads because of the rhetoric of one certain political candidate. You would give him a run for the money in the regard. Police, by definition, are not vigilantes when exercising their job. They did not tackle him for selling CD’s. This incident is nothing like a police state, which shows a total lack of historical perspective.

If this was such a clear case of police brutality, factual errors and extreme exaggeration into the ridiculous would not be needed to show why they were in the wrong. Truth does not need exaggeration and false rhetoric.

 

[estesbob]

The FBI were concerned about something and that something seems to be happening. If this was the first black man killed in strange circumstances by police then you’d have a point.

I guess one thing that goes against me is that cops have always killed black people but it’s only now that we are seeing it (thanks to cameras everywhere). Maybe white supremacists didn’t recently infiltrate law enforcement, maybe they were always there.

There has been no evidence whatsoever that any officer involved in a shooting of a black has been a white supremacist. It is a slur against those who protect us on a daily basis

 

[lmachine]

New video. Graphic, of course, as any video of a homicide would be.

 

[lmachine]

After all of this, it is common sense to act is if our life depended on immediate compliance with their instructions.

Perhaps, but that’s a pretty strong indictment of police officers.

 

[pnewton]

The FBI were concerned about something and that something seems to be happening. If this was the first black man killed in strange circumstances by police then you’d have a point.

The FBI is correct that it would be a concern if it were to happen and this should be monitored, as it has happened in the past. But why does it have to be a black man that is killed. White people are killed by police. Black officers kill in the line of duty. Logic would dictate that evidence depends on facts, not what gets the most air time on CNN. Yes, there may be some institutional racism that has not been eliminated everywhere. But we will never get anywhere by relying on falsehoods and not looking at true facts. If we are serious about moving forward and not just getting up a nice anger cooking, then we need to be objective about where the biggest problems lie. Best case here, if the DOJ says the officers acted properly because this man did put lives in danger, I still have an issue with it, maybe. I will wait and see what transpired that lead up to the cell phone being turned on. It is not racism or use of force.

 

[Padres1969]

New video. Graphic, of course, as any video of a homicide would be.

Obviously the investigation will need to be completed before any indictments or other actions are taken.

That closer in video doesn’t seem to do the police any favors however.

Also as a side note… does anyone film properly with a camera phone? Landscape mode is your friend.

 

[pnewton]

New video. Graphic, of course, as any video of a homicide would be.

Thanks. The things that strike me is that this video still does not show what happened before. It does show the man struggling, that is he moves up from the shoulders up even as he is supposedly immobilized. It does not show a gun, nor the suspects empty hand, so there is nothing on that front.

 

[pnewton]

Obviously the investigation will need to be completed before any indictments or other actions are taken.

That closer in video doesn’t seem to do the police any favors however.

Also as a side note… does anyone film properly with a camera phone? Landscape mode is your friend.

Darkness also provides poor video. Security cams should be clearer, and not start in the middle.

 

[Padres1969]

Thanks. The things that strike me is that this video still does not show what happened before. It does show the man struggling, that is he moves up from the shoulders up even as he is supposedly immobilized. It does not show a gun, nor the suspects empty hand, so there is nothing on that front.

Actually it does show the second officer removing the gun from the suspect/victim’s pocket at the 0:33 mark.

 

[pnewton]

Actually it does show the second officer removing the gun from the suspect/victim’s pocket at the 0:33 mark.

I do not know how I missed that. I was so fixated on the first part trying to see through the blur. Yes, it does show empty hands as the officers move back. I do not know how this will play out. On one hand, he did have an illegal handgun and was struggling with the officers restraining him. This might give the shooter he was in fear of his life. On the other hand, he had not yet reached the gun and been able to get it out yet. I think the first may exonerate them legally, while the second may show them less than completent.

If “Raise your hands. Don’t shoot. Black live matter” is good advice, that goes double if you are armed and resisting arrest. His life was more important than any prison time he was facing.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

His life was more important than any prison time he was facing.

Sadly, with as terrible as the American prison system is, many former inmates believe that it’s better to die than go back.

 

[MT1926]

I think it would be in the best interest of all people, when they are given demands by the police, to follow it without question at once. No “Why this, what have I done, I was just…” None of that. Just do what they say, then be an activist later if you were wronged.

If we don’t follow this rule, even if we are being wronged, we might not live long enough to fuss about it. After all of this, it is common sense to act is if our life depended on immediate compliance with their instructions.

This shooting is a terrible thing, but when I saw the video I must admit this was my first thought. Neither video shows the beginning of the incident, which we need before passing judgement. My question is why would they have had to tackle him if he was cooperating? Sure there are good and bad people in every profession. However, the bad ones don’t give us the right to disrespect every other police officer. Whether we like it or not they are in a place of authority, give it to them and sort out the what’s and why’s later. If you are innocent and cooperative it will make things go much smoother. I had a run in with the cops 20 years ago. It was 10 at night and I came walking out of the garage to go back to the house and was surprised by 2 cops in front of me 2 coming up from behind and 2 more at the far ends of the ally with their cruiser lights on. They asked me to stop and answer a few questions because they received a call for a domestic disturbance coming from my house. I told them I just came out to the garage to get boot polish but they were welcome to come in to speak to my wife. They said they had to. We went into the kitchen I called my 6 month pregnant wife to the kitchen, she came in carrying our 1 year old with the 3 year old at her heels. The officers took one look smiled and said sorry to bother you. They thanked me for my cooperation, guessing they don’t get a lot of that on a real domestic disturbance call, and said they would have to open up a 911 investigation to discover where the call came from.

 

[pnewton]

Sadly, with as terrible as the American prison system is, many former inmates believe that it’s better to die than go back.

That may well have been his thought. It is a good debate for another time and place, and one I am somewhat sympathetic to.

 

[jmcrae]

I think it would be in the best interest of all people, when they are given demands by the police, to follow it without question at once. No “Why this, what have I done, I was just…” None of that. Just do what they say, then be an activist later if you were wronged.

If we don’t follow this rule, even if we are being wronged, we might not live long enough to fuss about it. After all of this, it is common sense to act is if our life depended on immediate compliance with their instructions.

This aligns with the advice I was given as a new teenage driver 40 years ago.

If you are stopped or questioned by the police, address them as “sir” or “ma’am” as the case may be, keep your hands in view at all times, hold still until they tell you you can go, and be absolutely calm and courteous at all times.

Especially if you’re not guilty of anything.

It’s not an indictment against the police that you can’t swear at them, threaten them and survive to tell the tale - it’s an indictment of our fellow citizens who do more than just swear and threaten.