Alton Sterling

[wizards8507]

What an awful analogy.

The real question isn't if the guy ever committed a crime, but whether the police were justified in shooting him at that moment. The jury is still out but I'm inclined to go with no.

We're commenting on different questions and that's why we have different answers.

Question 1: Did the police act rightly or wrongly?
Question 2: Were the police motivated by racism?
Question 3: Was this man an innocent victim?

The media's answers are 1) wrongly, 2) yes, 3) yes. They need to portray this man as an innocent victim in order to perpetuate the narrative that police like to kill black people just for funsies. My contention is that innocent people don't get murdered by the police, period. The worst case scenario is that criminals who deserve some police response get an excessive police response. I am in no way challenging the legitimacy of Question 1. I am challenging the legitimacy of Question 3 and the way it is being abused to stir up an emotional response.

It's a dangerous message to tell young black kids that they can go do crime and that the police are the bad guys if they respond too harshly. While it does not excuse poor police behavior, it's a far healthier message to council young people not to put themselves into these situations in the first place. To use a sports analogy, a bad call by the referees is a problem, but the coach's instructions to his team is to get over it and win by a large enough margin where the bad call doesn't jeopardize the outcome of the game. Don't leave it up to the ref.

To be fair to wiz, he's literally being portrayed as a "gentle giant" (direct quote) and "nice and respectable" (another direct quote) despite:
1. Doing multiple years for a sex offense.
2. Being arrested for aggravated battery and destruction of property, showing he has a criminal record and history as a violent offender.
3. Being arrested for domestic abuse.
4. Being arrested for illegal drug possession.
5. Being arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.
6. And he was illegally carrying a firearm when the above arrest occurred.

When people talk about gun control, the people they mean to keep them away from are the Alton Sterling's of world. He's obviously not a "good guy"... that does not in the slightest mean he deserved to die... but yeah, the narrative wars are quite disingenuous, so I think I get where Wiz is coming from.

Exactly this.

 

[tussin]

We're commenting on different questions and that's why we have different answers.

That analogy was a direct response to my question if Sterling's priors excuse the police's actions.

Question 1: Did the police act rightly or wrongly?
Question 2: Were the police motivated by racism?
Question 3: Was this man an innocent victim?

The media's answers are 1) wrongly, 2) yes, 3) yes. They need to portray this man as an innocent victim in order to perpetuate the narrative that police like to kill black people just for funsies. My contention is that innocent people don't get murdered by the police, period. The worst case scenario is that criminals who deserve some police response get an excessive police response. I am in no way challenging the legitimacy of Question 1. I am challenging the legitimacy of Question 3 and the way it is being abused to stir up an emotional response.

I agree with your views on Questions 2.

Regarding the bolded, Sterling suffered the legal consequences of his prior transgressions. A criminal past does not make a man perpetually guilty.

At the time of his death, Sterling appears to have been innocent of crime, especially those that could reasonably cause an officer to shoot. I'm not sure why his criminal history has any bearing on this specific case (although I understand why you would point to it when critiquing the media narrative).

 

[wizards8507]

At the time of his death, Sterling appears to have been innocent of crime, especially those that could reasonably cause an officer to shoot.

I disagree. The 911 call alleged that he was threatening people with a weapon and then he proceeded to resist arrest. Resisting arrest while armed is exactly the kind of thing that can reasonably cause an officer to shoot. Note that I am not saying they were definitely justified. I'm saying that they were possibly justified depending on what further details we learn.

I'm not sure why his criminal history has any bearing on this specific case (although I understand why you would point to it when critiquing the media narrative).

If you mean "case" as in the legal issue of whether the police acted wrongly, you're correct that it has no bearing. But if you mean "case" as in "societal event," I think it's an important distinction. This incident is being covered from an emotional perspective. From an emotional (as opposed to a logical or legal) perspective, it looks and feels much worse when this is portrayed as an innocent man gunned down while minding his business than a criminal gunned down while he was out doing crime. I'm very concerned about police misbehavior, but I'm also very concerned about the us-versus-them mentality being cultivated by activists groups that will further erode the relationship between communities and law enforcement.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

How to not be shot by the police:

1. Don't be a criminal.

Ignorant post. Lots of people are shot by the police that are not criminals. This man may have been a criminal, does not mean deserved to be shot, but plenty are shot that are not criminals at all.

 

[calvegas04]

Ignorant post. Lots of people are shot by the police that are not criminals. This man may have been a criminal, does not mean deserved to be shot, but plenty are shot that are not criminals at all.

plenty of people are shot by police that are not criminals?

 

[Booslum31]

Ignorant post. Lots of people are shot by the police that are not criminals. This man may have been a criminal, does not mean deserved to be shot, but plenty are shot that are not criminals at all.

I don't think this is true. But then again...I don't know what constitutes "plenty".

 

[ShawneeIrish]

plenty of people are shot by police that are not criminals?

Indeed. More are shot in unjustified shootings that may have been related to a crime, but people are also shot as innocent bystanders, mistaken identity, etc.

Chicago police trained to not shoot innocent people, but it still happens - Chicago Tribune

Bystander mistaken for suspect shot by police after man opens fire on officer | fox13now.com

Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House - ABC News

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/01/georgia-police-shoot-man-kill-dog-wrong-house

Las Vegas Cop Shoots Innocent Man in Gas Station (VIDEO)

Police: N.Y. officer fatally shoots unarmed man - CNN.com

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">THIS A EVEN CLOSER VIEW ! Now YOU TELL ME WHO WAS WRONG ! He need JUSTICE ! So Sad ! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RIPAltonSterling?src=hash">#RIPAltonSterling</a> ���������� <a href="https://t.co/5qnEtbxiDY">pic.twitter.com/5qnEtbxiDY</a></p>— QUE DAWG (@Football_Animal) <a href="https://twitter.com/Football_Animal/status/750800625592479744">July 6, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I have lots of thoughts.

 

[ACamp1900]

Care to share them? Bc that video won't play for me...

 

[IrishLax]

Care to share them? Bc that video won't play for me...

I mean... not really. Would rather let people watch and process on their own. I'll opine later. I see a lot of different opinions from people watching the same video. It's an extremely good look from close up.

Here's another embed:
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">THIS A EVEN CLOSER VIEW ! Now YOU TELL ME WHO WAS WRONG ! He need JUSTICE ! So Sad ! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RIPAltonSterling?src=hash">#RIPAltonSterling</a> &#55357;&#56911;&#55356;&#57342;&#55357;&#56911;&#55356;&#57342;&#55357;&#56852; <a href="https://t.co/5qnEtbxiDY">pic.twitter.com/5qnEtbxiDY</a></p>— QUE DAWG (@Football_Animal) <a href="https://twitter.com/Football_Animal/status/750800625592479744">July 6, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ACamp1900]

Yep, no words....

 

[pumpdog20]

Gun appears to be in his right pocket, and it can be argued that it looked like he was reaching for something with his right hand.

 

[pumpdog20]

Cops were wearing body cameras, that "fell off" during the struggle but kept recording. Suspicious or no?

That cell phone video tells me nothing except that further investigation is warranted and hopefully there will be justice depending on where facts lead.

I still fail to understand why one cop needed to empty a clip into him, if the "6 to 8" shots thing is correct.

I'm guessing the officers carry a mag with 13-15 rounds of 9mm. So no, he didn't empty his clip on him. Also, that's a big dude hyped on adrenaline, that's not a 1-2 shot situation

 

[Irish YJ]

To me, looks like he was grabbing for something. If I'm a cop answering a 911 call about an armed suspect... I'm on high alert. I'm already thinking about my life... The guy is huge. The guy was armed and appeared to be reaching with his right arm for something. There happens to be a gun pulled out of the pocket he appears to be reaching for. If you argue he wasn't reaching, there's still too much grey to say this was a "bad" shooting. While the loss of life is horrible, there's nothing on that video that would make me question the intent or integrity of the cops.

 

[Irish YJ]

Found that out the hard way. I highly recommend avoiding it.

While I recommend avoiding it.... I'd recommend people not have opinions unless they see it.

 

[IrishLax]

While I recommend avoiding it.... I'd recommend people not have opinions unless they see it.

Agreed. Why I posted it.

Look, I might be wrong on this, but after watching more than once...

1. No officers draw a gun until the one identifies him reaching for a weapon saying "he's got a gun!" Then the officer draws his weapon. Happens at 6 second mark.
2. They then warn him not to move... emphatically. In fact they seem panicked.
3. He then seems to reach with his right hand towards the pocket with the gun. Hard to see.

Watching that video the only thing that seems clear to me is that he was resisting arrest and struggling, and the cops sure as hell don't look like they wanted to shoot him.

With that being said I've seen cops take down armed suspects multiple times and not kill them. So there's a big part of me that is still all "wtf just happened?" because it really doesn't seem like their lives are in immediate danger there but it's also hard to see. Whole thing is so fucked up.

 

[GreyWorm]

The cops are pathetic. I won't say it's racism, bc I have never spoken or spoken to anyone that knows them, but if you're a cop and have a man pinned 2-on-1 and feel the need to shoot someone that many times in the chest, then you probably picked the wrong profession and should get whats coming to them.

Just tragic.

 

[calvegas04]

man if he would have just followed the cops directions he would still be alive. Resisting arrest and looks like maybe reaching for a gun is not a good combination. I know its not a popular opinion but are the cops just supposed to wait and see what he is reaching for and what happens next?

 

[wizards8507]

man if he would have just followed the cops directions he would still be alive. Resisting arrest and looks like maybe reaching for a gun is not a good combination. I know its not a popular opinion but are the cops just supposed to wait and see what he is reaching for and what happens next?

Especially when the 911 call to which they were responding mentioned the gun specifically. They knew what was in his pocket.

 

[tussin]

I'm clearly no lawyer, but that seems like manslaughter (possibly involuntary manslaughter). You can't kill a guy for simply having a gun. I'm sure the defense will argue that he reached for it and the cops' lives were in danger, but I'm not buying it.

That cop panicked and killed someone that he shouldn't have.

 

[calvegas04]

I'm clearly no lawyer, but that seems like manslaughter (possibly involuntary manslaughter). You can't kill a guy for simply having a gun. I'm sure the defense will argue that he reached for it and the cops' lives were in danger, but I'm not buying it.

That cop panicked and killed someone that he shouldn't have.

If you are fighting to keep someone down and you see them reaching for a gun to shoot at you with. What do you do?

 

[tussin]

If you are fighting to keep someone down and you see them reaching for a gun to shoot at you with. What do you do?

That will be the defense.

If I am the prosecution, I say that is just a narrative to cover for the simple fact that the cop panicked and shot the guy. I watched on mute: Was it the cop who said, "He has a gun!", that shot him? Saying something like that causes paranoia and confusion.

Taking a step back, I think all of these cases point to the fact that cops, especially in major metropolitan areas, need to be better trained and, quite frankly, smarter. IMO, cops should all be college educated, go through state police type training programs, take yearly courses on safety and situational awareness, etc. If this means that they need to be paid more or we need to be taxed more, then so be it.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm clearly no lawyer, but that seems like manslaughter (possibly involuntary manslaughter). You can't kill a guy for simply having a gun. I'm sure the defense will argue that he reached for it and the cops' lives were in danger, but I'm not buying it.

That cop panicked and killed someone that he shouldn't have.

What? He didn't "simply have a gun." He had a gun and he was trying to use it while resisting arrest. That's EXACTLY when lethal force is justified.

 

[pkt77242]

If you are fighting to keep someone down and you see them reaching for a gun to shoot at you with. What do you do?

You are assuming that he was reaching for the gun. We don't know if that is true or not.

 

[tussin]

What? He didn't "simply have a gun." He had a gun and he was trying to use it while resisting arrest. That's EXACTLY when lethal force is justified.

Please stop saying that he was trying to use his gun as matter of fact. It's disingenuous.

 

[Irish YJ]

Agreed. Why I posted it.

Look, I might be wrong on this, but after watching more than once...

1. No officers draw a gun until the one identifies him reaching for a weapon saying "he's got a gun!" Then the officer draws his weapon. Happens at 6 second mark.
2. They then warn him not to move... emphatically. In fact they seem panicked.
3. He then seems to reach with his right hand towards the pocket with the gun. Hard to see.

Watching that video the only thing that seems clear to me is that he was resisting arrest and struggling, and the cops sure as hell don't look like they wanted to shoot him.

With that being said I've seen cops take down armed suspects multiple times and not kill them. So there's a big part of me that is still all "wtf just happened?" because it really doesn't seem like their lives are in immediate danger there but it's also hard to see. Whole thing is so fucked up.

F'd up for sure. Bad, sad stuff. But likely justified unless there's something we don't know or haven't seen.

 

[wizards8507]

You are assuming that he was reaching for the gun. We don't know if that is true or not.

That's not the legal standard. It doesn't matter if he was, in fact, reaching for the gun. All that matters is that the cops reasonably believed that he was reaching for the gun.

Please stop saying that he was trying to use his gun as matter of fact. It's disingenuous.

The fact is legally irrelevant. It's the officers' state of mind that matters in a self-defense case.

 

[pkt77242]

What? He didn't "simply have a gun." He had a gun and he was trying to use it while resisting arrest. That's EXACTLY when lethal force is justified.

You don't know that he was trying to use it. That is you applying your bias to the situation. We don't know what he was doing.

 

[Irish YJ]

Please stop saying that he was trying to use his gun as matter of fact. It's disingenuous.

I think it's fair to say at minimum that "it appears he reached for his gun". To say he wasn't as matter of fact is also disingenuous.

 

[wizards8507]

You don't know that he was trying to use it. That is you applying your bias to the situation. We don't know what he was doing.

Read my next post. We don't need to KNOW what he was doing. All that matters is that the cops reasonably BELIEVED that's what he was doing.