Alton Sterling

[pkt77242]

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.


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

I have not argued that the police are guilty of any crime just that calling it justified is jumping the gun, just like people calling the guy "innocent" are jumping the gun.

 

[Irish YJ]

I have not argued that the police are guilty of any crime just that calling it justified is jumping the gun, just like people calling the guy "innocent" are jumping the gun.

Very fair statement. I think the first vid led a lot of folks to scream "bad police". The second vid, and some of the other fact and data is bringing it back to center. There could be more info that can push it either way. Regardless, tragic and sad view of the reality either way.

 

[GoIrish41]

If the cops were wearing body cameras as a previous poster suggested, there should be video of the cops approaching the guy. Did they speak with him? Ask him if he was armed? Or did they just pounce on him? Seems like lots of mistakes were made. Brute force shouldn't be step 1. Did the guy they shot take a swing at the cops and then they subdued him? That would change the dynamic some, I guess. But from what I saw on the video I don't know if he was reaching for a gun. It certainly wasn't clear from the version I watched. He did seem to struggle with the cops, but they clearly were in control when the cop pulled his gun. Shooting him seemed unnecessary.

 

[Irish YJ]

If the cops were wearing body cameras as a previous poster suggested, there should be video of the cops approaching the guy. Did they speak with him? Ask him if he was armed? Or did they just pounce on him? Seems like lots of mistakes were made. Brute force shouldn't be step 1. Did the guy they shot take a swing at the cops and then they subdued him? That would change the dynamic some, I guess. But from what I saw on the video I don't know if he was reaching for a gun. It certainly wasn't clear from the version I watched. He did seem to struggle with the cops, but they clearly were in control when the cop pulled his gun. Shooting him seemed unnecessary.

I did not see "control". I'm not saying one or the other is wrong, but it was clearly a struggle. A struggle does not mean control.

 

[Wild Bill]

I think a reasonable person can assume he was reaching for that gun. It's going to be hard to prosecute the shooter.

 

[gkIrish]

I really don't want to watch that a second time but my gut reaction on my first and only watch was that it seemed like the guy was resisting slightly and was warned at some point and we can't see what happened to make the cop start shooting.

The cop saying "Fuck" after shooting seemed very genuine and seemed like the cop was not pleased that he shot him.

I don't believe there is enough on that video to conclude one way or the other what happened. Extremely disturbing either way.

 

[FearTheBeard]

I would say if you dont want to be arrested or shot then number 1. Dont threaten people with a gun. 2. If police show up you simply cooperate and put your arms up and tell them theres a gun in your pocket or whatever. Dont make sudden movements. Is that not common sense? Police arent robots and cant be expected to remain perfectly calm when their lives could be in danger. Sure, shooting probably wasnt necessary here, but if someones making a quick movement or has struggled and you know he has a gun then it's pretty reasonable to feel like your life could be in danger. Police have to look out for their own wel being too and it's going to result in situations like these. It all could have very easily been prevented had this guy not been threatening people or resisted/ made quick movements with a gun in his pocket. But i will say that i think more could be done to train police and prepare them for situations like these, but im not an officer and dont know what training they have.

 

[pumpdog20]

If the cops were wearing body cameras as a previous poster suggested, there should be video of the cops approaching the guy. Did they speak with him? Ask him if he was armed? Or did they just pounce on him? Seems like lots of mistakes were made. Brute force shouldn't be step 1. Did the guy they shot take a swing at the cops and then they subdued him? That would change the dynamic some, I guess. But from what I saw on the video I don't know if he was reaching for a gun. It certainly wasn't clear from the version I watched. He did seem to struggle with the cops, but they clearly were in control when the cop pulled his gun. Shooting him seemed unnecessary.

They did taze him first, so some type of situation occurred. Highly doubt they just came up to him and tazed him, but body cameras should get us that far at least. Also his right arm (where the gun might be) is free, so no they didn't have control of him.

 

[NDPhilly]

I really don't want to watch that a second time but my gut reaction on my first and only watch was that it seemed like the guy was resisting slightly and was warned at some point and we can't see what happened to make the cop start shooting.

The cop saying "Fuck" after shooting seemed very genuine and seemed like the cop was not pleased that he shot him.

I don't believe there is enough on that video to conclude one way or the other what happened. Extremely disturbing either way.

Basically agree with this. Sterling's criminal background of sexual assault with a minor, domestic violence cases, burglary and home invasion charges, drug dealing, and unlicensed gun possession is making it hard for me to sympathize for him though.

 

[NDdomer2]

Man alot happened in those couple seconds of no footage. But as others have said he was resisting and reaching before the officers weapon was pulled.

Something had to happen other than the shooting. Dudes pinned on his chest ends up on his back and the officer seemed like he was breathing heavily a whole couple feet away from where he started.

Crazy

 

[IrishLax]

If he wasn't illegally carrying a firearm as a felon on parole, this doesn't happen. If he wasn't resisting arrest, this probably doesn't happen.

But all of that kind of pales in comparison to the bigger picture, which is that I don't really care if he was reaching for a gun... if he wasn't armed and an active threat, I find it really hard to justify pumping someone full of bullets. Shooting him seems - at best - a panicked, premature overreaction to the situation.

 

[pumpdog20]

If he wasn't illegally carrying a firearm as a felon on parole, this doesn't happen. If he wasn't resisting arrest, this probably doesn't happen.

But all of that kind of pales in comparison to the bigger picture, which is that I don't really care if he was reaching for a gun... if he wasn't armed and an active threat, I find it really hard to justify pumping someone full of bullets. Shooting him seems - at best - a panicked, premature overreaction to the situation.

You don't care if he was reaching for his gun? That makes zero sense.

 

[IrishLax]

You don't care if he was reaching for his gun? That makes zero sense.

Why?

 

[TDHeysus]

no f*cking way that dude should be dead...but of course, again, all the f*cking cops will have to say is that 'their live(s) was threatened' and boom! acquittal.

f*cking bullsh*t

EDIT: I just saw the uncut video(below), that is f*cking despicable

 

[GoldenDome]

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> ���������� <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>

Wow, this is pretty fuckin sad watching a person lose their life.

Prayers to the family.

 

[pumpdog20]

Why?

I'm struggling to comprehend how someone can get in confrontation sees their combatant reach for a gun, and that person says they wouldn't put an end to that threat.

Perhaps your comment is related only to the number of shots fired, but the situation is going to dictate that. I have no idea if excessive shots were fired, but considering the circumstances I don't think so.

 

[Buster Bluth]

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.


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

And you're supposed to be the Libertarian!?

Christ.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm struggling to comprehend how someone can get in confrontation sees their combatant reach for a gun, and that person says they wouldn't put an end to that threat.

Because the act of "reaching" requires an inference by the officer. It's clear that his arm goes from up on the car to down by his side. That's an indisputable fact of the video that could be "reachign for the gun."

But he was being pinned on the ground -- after being tazed which causes spasms -- and a person's arm naturally falls by their pocket if you put it at your side. So I'm confused how anyone in that officer's position can infer what he's doing, unless he's actually inserted his hand in his pocket.

Per eye witness accounts... which are notoriously unreliable... his hand never went in his pocket. I'm operating under the assumption though that he never did put his hand in his pocket and/or never grasped the gun based on the end of video and what witnesses said.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think a reasonable person can assume he was reaching for that gun. It's going to be hard to prosecute the shooter.

Reasonable people don't assume when something isn't so obvious and/or normal.

A guy has two cops on top of him, and others surrounding them, and he thinks he's going to blow them away and, what...run for it? One might say you'd have to be pretty irrational to attempt that, and maybe he was, but a reasonable person doesn't assume that's what he was trying to do.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If the cops were wearing body cameras as a previous poster suggested, there should be video of the cops approaching the guy. Did they speak with him? Ask him if he was armed? Or did they just pounce on him? Seems like lots of mistakes were made. Brute force shouldn't be step 1. Did the guy they shot take a swing at the cops and then they subdued him? That would change the dynamic some, I guess. But from what I saw on the video I don't know if he was reaching for a gun. It certainly wasn't clear from the version I watched. He did seem to struggle with the cops, but they clearly were in control when the cop pulled his gun. Shooting him seemed unnecessary.

This is my position as well. What get them all to this point? If you're assuming the guy has a gun...why are you so close to him?

 

[NDdomer2]

Reasonable people don't assume when something isn't so obvious and/or normal.

A guy has two cops on top of him, and others surrounding them, and he thinks he's going to blow them away and, what...run for it? One might say you'd have to be pretty irrational to attempt that, and maybe he was, but a reasonable person doesn't assume that's what he was trying to do.

It wouldn't be the first time a criminal would try something stupid to escape police custody.

That said a lot of different assumptions can be made, still not sure why this guy had to die.

 

[pumpdog20]

Because the act of "reaching" requires an inference by the officer. It's clear that his arm goes from up on the car to down by his side. That's an indisputable fact of the video that could be "reachign for the gun."

But he was being pinned on the ground -- after being tazed which causes spasms -- and a person's arm naturally falls by their pocket if you put it at your side. So I'm confused how anyone in that officer's position can infer what he's doing, unless he's actually inserted his hand in his pocket.

Per eye witness accounts... which are notoriously unreliable... his hand never went in his pocket. I'm operating under the assumption though that he never did put his hand in his pocket and/or never grasped the gun based on the end of video and what witnesses said.

I questioned your comment that you didn't care if he was reaching for his gun. None of the above is relevant to that comment.

 

[IrishLax]

I questioned your comment that you didn't care if he was reaching for his gun. None of the above is relevant to that comment.

It's all relevant, sorry you completely misunderstood what I said and apparently don't care to comprehend the follow up.

The TLDR is that I don't care if the officer thought he was "reaching for his gun" because that's not a threat. A threat is actually possessing the fire arm which he can't do unless he put his hand in his pocket.

 

[gkIrish]

It's all relevant, sorry you completely misunderstood what I said and apparently don't care to comprehend the follow up.

The TLDR is that I don't care if the officer thought he was "reaching for his gun" because that's not a threat. A threat is actually possessing the fire arm which he can't do unless he put his hand in his pocket.

I don't agree with this. You don't wait for the potential shooter to actually pull the gun out. If you have reason to believe he has a gun (i.e. the 911 call) the act of reaching for his pocket is enough to trigger a response (no pun intended).

 

[IrishLax]

I don't agree with this. You don't wait for the potential shooter to actually pull the gun out. If you have reason to believe he has a gun (i.e. the 911 call) the act of reaching for his pocket is enough to trigger a response (no pun intended).

Yes you do, IMO. Look at what just happened in Minnesota. Guy is trying to comply with officer instructions and get his wallet at a routine traffic stop. Gets shot 5 times because cop thinks he's "reaching for his gun." That's bullshit. That's shoot first mentality and it isn't fair to the victim.

I want someone to explain to me how you're supposed to lie on your back and not move without your hand going near your pocket. It's physically impossible. When you have a person pinned like that with guns drawn at point blank range you can ABSOLUTELY wait until he actually tries to go into his pocket (which, per eye witness accounts, he did not do). You can't just say "oh he put his arm down at his side, I can now execute him."

I've seen cops on the freaking TV show Cops disarm people with loaded guns all the time without pumping them full of lead in much more precarious situations. It's not OK infer and assume a threat. It should be standard rules of engagement similar to the military.

 

[Monk]

I don't agree with this. You don't wait for the potential shooter to actually pull the gun out. If you have reason to believe he has a gun (i.e. the 911 call) the act of reaching for his pocket is enough to trigger a response (no pun intended).

I agree with this.

Also you can see the officer who fired the shot roll or was pushed over the suspect. I would like to know if he started to move over the suspect before or after the first shot was fired. If it was before then I think it could be reasonable to say the suspect bucked him and then he fired his weapon. It is to hard for me to tell from the video.

 

[Monk]

Yes you do, IMO. Look at what just happened in Minnesota. Guy is trying to comply with officer instructions and get his wallet at a routine traffic stop. Gets shot 5 times because cop thinks he's "reaching for his gun." That's bullshit. That's shoot first mentality and it isn't fair to the victim.

I want someone to explain to me how you're supposed to lie on your back and not move without your hand going near your pocket. It's physically impossible. When you have a person pinned like that with guns drawn at point blank range you can ABSOLUTELY wait until he actually tries to go into his pocket (which, per eye witness accounts, he did not do). You can't just say "oh he put his arm down at his side, I can now execute him."

I've seen cops on the freaking TV show Cops disarm people with loaded guns all the time without pumping them full of lead in much more precarious situations. It's not OK infer and assume a threat. It should be standard rules of engagement similar to the military.

I guess the biggest question is how did he reach for his gun. I can see from the video it looks like he is moving his right hand back and forth while the officer is trying to grab his hand/arm. To me that kind of looks like he was trying to free his hand. What is he trying to free his hand to do? This is a lot of assuming on my part, but that is honestly what we are all doing. We do not know exactly what happened and how much force the suspect was fighting back with if any at all. It is a shitting situation all around.

 

[Irish#1]

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.

Both of these posts are spot on IMO. The only thing I would add, is that it appeared the guy was able to move the policeman to a point where the policeman was falling off of him. At that point I think the policeman fired as he thought he was going to be shot. JMO.

Sad to see a life taken, but why ever put yourself in a position where an action like this might occur?

 

[gkIrish]

Yes you do, IMO. Look at what just happened in Minnesota. Guy is trying to comply with officer instructions and get his wallet at a routine traffic stop. Gets shot 5 times because cop thinks he's "reaching for his gun." That's bullshit. That's shoot first mentality and it isn't fair to the victim.

I want someone to explain to me how you're supposed to lie on your back and not move without your hand going near your pocket. It's physically impossible. When you have a person pinned like that with guns drawn at point blank range you can ABSOLUTELY wait until he actually tries to go into his pocket (which, per eye witness accounts, he did not do). You can't just say "oh he put his arm down at his side, I can now execute him."

I've seen cops on the freaking TV show Cops disarm people with loaded guns all the time without pumping them full of lead in much more precarious situations. It's not OK infer and assume a threat. It should be standard rules of engagement similar to the military.

I am not familiar with the Minnesota case but did the officer have previous knowledge of a gun on the individual he was asking to reach for the wallet? I assume no because it was a routine stop. Completely different facts.

I'm not saying he was reaching for a gun, or that the cops didn't overreact. I'm saying if you wait for someone to actually pull a gun out of their pocket you are risking your own life and I wouldn't ask cops to do that, especially with a guy who has an extensive criminal background.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I am not familiar with the Minnesota case but did the officer have previous knowledge of a gun on the individual he was asking to reach for the wallet? I assume no because it was a routine stop. Completely different facts.

I'm not saying he was reaching for a gun, or that the cops didn't overreact. I'm saying if you wait for someone to actually pull a gun out of their pocket you are risking your own life and I wouldn't ask cops to do that, especially with a guy who has an extensive criminal background.

It's being reported in the Minnesota case that the deceased announced to the officer he was carrying and was licensed to do so.

If you have time look up and watch the video from that case. It was taken by the passenger in the car and broadcast live on social media as it happened.