Graphic Video Released in “Firing Squad” Style Police Killing of Milton Hall

a reply to: Domo1

Fists can just as easily be used as a deadly weapon. So can hammers, umbrellas, canes, shopping bags full of canned goods...

If potential threat of deadly force is enough to warrant public execution, then we all better get used to walking around with empty hands in the air.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Domo1

Fists can just as easily be used as a deadly weapon. So can hammers, umbrellas, canes, shopping bags full of canned goods...

If potential threat of deadly force is enough to warrant public execution, then we all better get used to walking around with empty hands in the air.

Correct. Anyone driving a car is a deadly threat too. They might start shooting us for any reason that they please. Who will stop them, anyway? They can do whatever they want and there isn't a thing we can do about it.

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

wtf are you doing about it? shouting at randoms on ATS ain't helping.

ALthough I think the cops reacted poorly in this situation. I can say that a edge weapon within arms reach is extremely dangerous. You don't want to get cut. For instance when I got tagged with a knife I was lucky the guy was using it wrong. It was a small knife about two inches in blade length (which is plenty long) and he was jabbing at me with it. I parried the jabs and didn't realize because his wrist was whipping out the knife was flicking me in the upper fore arm on the inside where the elbow meets. The tip just got me and they didn't go deep. Although one of them did go in about 1/2 and inch and knick the vessel that the doctors take blood from on the inside of your elbow. My whole arm turned black for a month. Cause the blood got under the skin. That was from a small knife. By a guy who didn't know what he was doing. SO the argument that its just a knife is weak. Knives are very dangerous. when they are within range. Not so much when the guy is 40 feet away and the movements he's doing aren't indicative of an actual attempt to try any thing as hostile as a charge. the cops could have, if they were thinking at the time, backed up two half steps and maintained their range. which is what the were probably taught in the academy. But They didn't. they didn't want to be the adults in this situation, which they are paid to be. They didn't want the time to defuse the situation, which would be the rational thing to do. They couldn't be bothered to handle the individual situation. to them it was a this guy is a waste of time, f it shoot em. Whichever excuse to expedite the situation. Even a civilian could have come up to a better solution in this case.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: areyouserious2010

Good choice on your name. That phrase comes to mind nearly every time I read one of your posts. Considering your history on ATS, though, maybe BendOverBackwardstoDefendPolice would have been more appropriate.

LOL

Absolutely spot on!!

a reply to: bringmecoffee
Why did they not just set the dogs on him until it was safe to approach?

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: bringmecoffee
Why did they not just set the dogs on him until it was safe to approach?

Because to them the dogs life is more important than the human one.

Liberal way of thinking really

a reply to: Domo1

You can call it stupid all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. That situation is that military equipment is being put in less than perfect hands. As someone pointed here earlier, they fired nearly an entire box of shells In a residential high-traffic area. This is not good. There are so many ways for that to negatively impact someone's life that I can't even begin to list them. Not ALL cops are dumb, and having worked in the field (911 dispatcher) can say that most cops I have met are smart guys. I was in a Sheriff's Dept (County Level Law Enforcement for those who don't know) working right next to the Deputies, and in my rural area you normally need to have former police training and experience before you can be considered above the Local (city) level. So they were smart, experienced guys (not all of them, every department has that bullied, power hungry turd who is only there to get revenge for himself and mine did..) and for the most part seemed to be on the level. However, as of late in my country the police seem to be putting on a more and more shameful display. There were so many non-lethal ways the OP's situation could have ended.

www.mlive.com...

What I see is a hiring policy that purposefully hires people that score LOWER on a test. The better you do, the less they want you. Why is this? It's because they don't want THINKERS. They don't want the people who will question the things they do, aka whistleblowers. A high IQ does not equal over-qualification, believe me I'm sure we all know a few people that prove this.

These people are taking an exam to become Police Officers. To me this indicates a willingness and a desire to work on a police force. Basically, if you're there to take the test, it's because you want to join the force. Rejecting someone who scores in the high range because you think they will leave the job is ridiculous. If they get sick of it and leave after so long, it's not going to be because they were "smart". You either take to the job or you don't, and I'm sure there is a proportionate number (if not higher) of cops who didn't score well and have left to back this up.

Anybody here who went to take this test would instinctively want to score the best score they possibly could, unless you knew the policy. So I feel that he was treated unfairly.

I would just like to add that Police Officers sign up for this, they are thoroughly trained, though some obviously phoned it in during training, and should be held to a higher standard. No matter what you think about this guy and his knife, he and WE deserve better from our Police. Not enough training on how to use their words, and too much straight to the firepower.

a reply to: WP4YT

Ok, so the guy gets a cop with the knife. He maybe bleeds a bit, nothing a trip to the hospital can't fix. It's a dangerous job, they know what they signed up for. Oh, but no, can't let the wussie cops get a scratch or break a nail.

Don't take this personally, but this is by far the worst argument I have seen yet.

You are making the argument that because they are police, and "signed up" for it, they are expected to allow themselves to be seriously injured by a person with a knife.

It is my opinion, no it is a fact, that we do not pay police officers to be punching bags, pin cushions or targets for firearms. We pay police to enforce the law and take any and all necessary precautions any person would while doing so.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I assure you I was attacking the message, not the messenger.
But I wasn't trying to persuade the messenger, either.

As I said before, I have no desire to debate details with you. You assert that the deceased was posing imminent deadly threat to the officers, and I insist that he would have needed to be within a few yards to pose such a threat. We will only continue to disagree from there.

Fair enough. I respect your point of view but obviously I disagree.

If you change your mind, I welcome the discussion.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Fists can just as easily be used as a deadly weapon. So can hammers, umbrellas, canes, shopping bags full of canned goods...

If potential threat of deadly force is enough to warrant public execution, then we all better get used to walking around with empty hands in the air.

Yes, all those objects have the potential to be used as a deadly weapon.

That does not give an officer the justification to use deadly force against someone just for holding those objects.

It is how the person is currently using those items and what their perceived intention is.

It do not think you can argue the man's intentions in the video were to use the knife for anything other than aggression.

You could argue defense, but I would say, based on the story, he was the first to display the knife when confronted by the police officers. Also, if you are arguing defense, it is illegal and against the morals and norms of society to try to defend yourself against a legal arrest. This is called resisting arrest which is codified and prohibited in every State and would move the actions from defense to aggression against the police officers.

a reply to: butcherguy

Correct. Anyone driving a car is a deadly threat too. They might start shooting us for any reason that they please. Who will stop them, anyway? They can do whatever they want and there isn't a thing we can do about it.

Again, I feel that you are reaching with this argument.

Again, it is not the potential of everyday objects that justifies the police using deadly force.

It is how the object is currently being used and the intent of the person using it.

a reply to: TiedDestructor

Because to them the dogs life is more important than the human one.

Liberal way of thinking really

How would this be considered a "liberal" way of thinking?

a reply to: southbeach

Why did they not just set the dogs on him until it was safe to approach?

There are many reasons.

Like I already said, maybe the K9 officer did not want to put the dog in a position where it was very probable he/she would be very seriously injured or killed. Based on the guy's aggressive fighting stance, he was waiting and ready for a fight. It states in the article he was actually asking for the dog to be let loose. With this in mind, it is my opinion that the guy would have absolutely used the knife on the dog. The police would not have stood by and watched as the guy stabbed the dog to death with the knife and would have retaliated by shooting him. This would give the guy ample time to stab the dog severely injuring or killing it. This would also have exposed the dog to friendly fire from the police officers.

So in this situation, we have the same result. The guy is shot but now we have a needlessly dead dog.

Also, like I said, it is not required for the police to exhaust all other options in the use of force continuum before using deadly force if deadly force is justified.

Also, like I said, maybe the K9 officer did not want to provoke the man into getting shot by releasing the dog. Maybe he hoped the show of force would cause the guy to come to his senses and drop the knife before it was necessary to shoot him.

We will never really know without the testimony of the officer and this is speculation. But with these scenarios in mind, I for one do not find his decision unreasonable.

Well this whole thread could go in circles opinion wise. It seems the main disagreement is regarding if the mans actions justified lethal force. Ultimately it doesn't matter what our opinion is the cops have the authority to kill when they see fit. It would appear that the police in this instance were wrong according to most of the people who have reviewed the footage here at ATS. Some are in support others against. The majority against. If it went to a court of law with jurors these cops would probably hang if the jury received the same data we ATS members did. They obviously would get more info then what is presented here. Personally I feel the police were froggish in this instance and screwed up and are guilty of voluntary and criminally negligent manslaughter. If it were a civilian worried about his or her own safety in this same instance under the same circumstances it would clearly be either murder or voluntary manslaughter. With or without the findings of the "21 foot rule" wonder if I can shoot somebody if they are passed out at the dinner table holding a steak knife after a large dinner since he's approaching 21 foot proximity to me but isn't clearly doing anything that construes hostility.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Another_Nut

46 shots in 5 seconds. I hope the cowards rot in eternal hell.

For Milton, may he RIP, another innocent person murdered at the hands of state-sanctioned terrorist thugs.

Holy Crap. They had PLENTY of time to Taser him!
WTF!!!!!!!!!!(Whiskey Tango Foxtrot)

a reply to: Ensinger23

You can call it stupid all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. That situation is that military equipment is being put in less than perfect hands.

First, what are you classifying as "military" equipment? A handgun? Anyone over the age of 21 who is not prohibited can possess a handgun. From what I saw, only one of the officers had a rifle and the rest had handguns.

I would hardly classify a handgun as military equipment. If you would make that classification, the military issues knives. Based on your logic, the man armed with the knife was also equipped with military equipment.

Second, do you really think the military is "perfect hands?" The military expends 100's of millions of rounds of ammunition, tank rounds and missles to only kill around 10's of thousands of enemy combatants. This is not a "dig" on the military it just shows that the military does not hit everything they shoot at either, especially under stressful conditions.

As someone pointed here earlier, they fired nearly an entire box of shells In a residential high-traffic area.

It was a shopping center so that would make it a "commercial" zone. And the backdrop was reasonably clear. Like I said before, very rarely will you find a completely "clear" backdrop.

Not ALL cops are dumb, and having worked in the field (911 dispatcher) can say that most cops I have met are smart guys. I was in a Sheriff's Dept (County Level Law Enforcement for those who don't know) working right next to the Deputies, and in my rural area you normally need to have former police training and experience before you can be considered above the Local (city) level. So they were smart, experienced guys (not all of them, every department has that bullied, power hungry turd who is only there to get revenge for himself and mine did..) and for the most part seemed to be on the level.

I applaud your honesty in this statement. Unfortunately, this point of view, although honest, is shunned by many here. You are absolutely correct that there is such a thing as a power hungry cop that does the job inappropriately and there usually is at least one in every department. And these types are a problem and it is the responsibility of every police officer to identify and weed out these types.

There were so many non-lethal ways the OP's situation could have ended.

There are but were they available to the officers? For argument's sake I do not consider trying to physically restrain the guy a valid non-lethal option for the officers.

What I see is a hiring policy that purposefully hires people that score LOWER on a test. The better you do, the less they want you. Why is this? It's because they don't want THINKERS. They don't want the people who will question the things they do, aka whistleblowers. A high IQ does not equal over-qualification, believe me I'm sure we all know a few people that prove this.

These people are taking an exam to become Police Officers. To me this indicates a willingness and a desire to work on a police force. Basically, if you're there to take the test, it's because you want to join the force. Rejecting someone who scores in the high range because you think they will leave the job is ridiculous. If they get sick of it and leave after so long, it's not going to be because they were "smart". You either take to the job or you don't, and I'm sure there is a proportionate number (if not higher) of cops who didn't score well and have left to back this up.

Anybody here who went to take this test would instinctively want to score the best score they possibly could, unless you knew the policy. So I feel that he was treated unfairly.

Look, I agree with your sentiment that only the best, most qualified, should be accepted to be police officers.

But I think the notion that every or most departments have a policy of not hiring people because they are too smart is false.

It is clear that there was a police department who adopted this idiotic policy, based on previous discussions here where a lawsuit was cited, but each department is different.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Ultimately it doesn't matter what our opinion is the cops have the authority to kill when they see fit.

...as long as it is legally justified.

If it went to a court of law with jurors these cops would probably hang if the jury received the same data we ATS members did.

First, if no crime was committed then the officers should never be charged with a crime.

Even if it was presented to a Grand Jury, I do not think they would indict the officers.

Even if 51% of the Grand Jury decided to indict and it went to court, there is no way 12 people would unanimously find the officers guilty.

Personally I feel the police were froggish in this instance and screwed up and are guilty of voluntary and criminally negligent manslaughter.

I respect your opinion.

Police Departments should be equipped to deal with these types of situations to give officers an option other than lethal force.

But it is not, and should not be, mandated that police try non-lethal means in this deadly force situation or they be charged with murder.

If it were a civilian worried about his or her own safety in this same instance under the same circumstances it would clearly be either murder or voluntary manslaughter.

You may be correct but you are comparing apples to trains here.

First, a citizen would not be called to deal with the man in the first place for the initial altercation in the store. The police are.

Second, a citizen could find themselves in a situation where they are confronted by a man with a knife. But, it would fall on the concealed carry laws of the State they are in. Some States require a person to attempt to retreat from the situation before using their weapon if possible. Some States require the person, who is carrying a concealed weapon, to personally be in danger before using their weapon. Meaning, they cannot use their weapon to protect someone else aside from maybe their family. Some States have a "stand your ground" law, made famous by George Zimmerman, where you are NOT required to retreat.

Each State has it's own codified laws pertaining to concealed carry. I can guarantee you this though. If anyone was LEGALLY carrying their handgun and a person, armed with a knife and making aggressive threats to use the knife on them or their family, began to close at the same distance they would be justified to shoot said person.

With or without the findings of the "21 foot rule" wonder if I can shoot somebody if they are passed out at the dinner table holding a steak knife after a large dinner since he's approaching 21 foot proximity to me but isn't clearly doing anything that construes hostility.

You are clearly disregarding the fact the man was acting aggressively and his intentions were clear that he would have used the knife as a weapon.

The intention of the attacker in the "21 foot rule" is implied and the rule clearly does not apply to anyone holding a sharp or blunt object without said intent.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

It's clear the man had a knife in his hands. It's not clear that he intended to use the knife to assault the police.

I see , clearly I may add, that the guy is surrounded by the police, because he is brandishing a knife. THe police do not maintain their line on him, in fact it's obvious in the video they start advancing momentarily on him. The police dog trots up a few feet towards him and he quickly retreats a few steps to get AWAY from the dog. The dog is pulled back, he sees this and walks back to his original position. No charging, no deadly intent.

their nerves got to them and open up on the guy, showing a lack of discipline. A lack of cool under pressure. And maybe a failure in training. You will say No no the training is perfect that's what they are supposed to do. And I believe they were trained to just say F it and open up at the slightest provocation. To me that's bad training. Will it save their lives. Sure. I can shoot people all day posing minimal threats to me and save my skin sure. It will work for me to. I'll never get injured with that mentality either. Unfortunately I have to be an adult and think things through hand use better judgment or I would be in living in a brand new, very secure apartment with my new roommate who I would have to repeat to each night "No Tyrone!!!! I'm Bi-Lin-Gual it doesn't mean what you think it means!!!!!"

Also, lets talk about crappy firearm discipline. They shoot once, twice, the guy drops the knife sticks his hands up doesn't advance. Nope too late kiddo we get to kill you now legally right or wrong. shoot three times, four times, five times. six times. seven times. eight times. He's now a slack sack on the ground. Shoots 9 times. shoots ten times. I would shoot more but I ran out of ammo. That's piss poor firearm discipline. The military doesn't teach it like that. Most gun instructors don't teach it like that. And I could spend a day with a novice at the range and they would leave with better discipline and judgment then that. Rational people in that situation would not have acted like the police did in this instance.. That's why ration people are upset about this incident.