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

a reply to: areyouserious2010

And you clearly don't understand the 21 foot rule. I learned it too. It ONLY repeat ONLY applies to holstered guns, Not a gun already drawn on a guy with a perfect bead.

Furthermore you keep saying they only had a minute to deal with the situation. I think what you mean to say is that they only had a minute before they said damn we don't have all day to deal with this like adults lets shoot the guy. You guys say he was hostile and went to go on a stabbing spree towards the cops. I see a guy stammering around who took two half steps in the general direction 40 feet away from the cops and they got froggish and fired because they are trained poorly for this sort of situation. And reacted poorly.

Yeah I did get pricked a few times with the knife. I was lucky it wasn't a large one. If I had known he was armed I wouldn't have simply walked right up to him, with out maybe a stick or taser that shoots people from 15 feet away. But either way I was still able to manage the situation without resorting to lethal force. You can say well the cops don't want to take the risk of being stabbed. OK fine take away all their hazard pay. We're paying them for a reason. Don't want a risky job then don't take it.

Finally, I do know how tasers work. I'm saying 99% of the time the 145lb old man is going to fall like timber. He may still be holding the knife while he's locked up. but chances are he won't. He will definitely not be in any condition to do anything with the knife afterwards. He's not on PCP he's mentally disabled and the cops knew this. Besides once he's down you can just step on the forearm and I don't care what you are on the person will let go. It's physics.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

Who doesn't need practice?

a reply to: FraggleRock

If dealing with a single individual with a knife without a flurry of gunfire is an unreasonable risk then law enforcement is worthless. We give them the tools to avoid using deadly force as a coverall and they, along with their supporters, give every excuse not to use those tools. Instead they arm themselves with weapons of war.

I think you may be misinformed as to how use of force works.

Every use of force continuum in the US dictates a "one step above" response. Officers may be equipped with less lethal means, like pepper spray and tasers, but no where is it mandatory that these means are used when officers are confronted with lethal force.

These use of force policies are made to fit within State and Federal Law.

If so many reasonable people thought these laws were unjust, why don't they petition their legislature to change said laws. Some would say it is because the entire system is corrupt. I would say it is because there are enough reasonable people who look at this situation and find fault in the guy wielding the knife, and not with the police.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

There is no logic in your query. The shooting was unwarranted. The man was NOT within arms reach. Reminds me of the end of 300 when Xerxes has Leonidas killed. Apologists like yourself are part of the cancer, you must be either

A. a cop

B. married to a cop / related

C. a sociopath

Maybe it's just Stockholm syndrome / battered wife syndrome> Embrace the tyranny while it lasts. It never ends well with occupying forces.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

And you clearly don't understand the 21 foot rule. I learned it too. It ONLY repeat ONLY applies to holstered guns, Not a gun already drawn on a guy with a perfect bead.

Then show me the rule which applies to an officer who already has his gun drawn on a person wielding a knife.

What would you say it is? 10 feet? Arm's reach? At what distance is it justified to shoot someone who is attacking you with a knife? And why is that not an arbitrary distance?

The study was done to show an empirical "danger zone," which is widely accepted, of how close is too close when dealing with someone with a knife. And it clearly shows that 21 feet is a clear and imminent danger based on the time it takes a knife wielding person to close the distance and begin attacking you. Gun drawn or not.

Any reasonable person would agree with this assessment. Honestly, I believe most would say if there is a crazy guy armed with a knife they don't want to be anywhere near him let alone have to deal with him.

a reply to: DarthFazer

You can speculate all you want but it does not change the fact that you have not brought a legitimate argument to the conversation.

I don't take it personally when people argue with me. We have differing opinions and that's ok. The best argument will win.

I also don't take it personally when people resort to name-calling and speculation as to my character. Those people don't have anything intelligent to add to the conversation. Others know that.

A couple questions to those that support this?

1) Did the suspect have a history of being armed and dangerous and in killing others? It appears they know who he is so they must know this.

2) If he has no history of murder, then based on the video, who do you think civilians would be more fearful of in regards to violence as the first option?

3) If the dog is not to be used in apprehending the suspect or people with knives or guns, then what are they to be used for? For people that are not armed and pose no threat? If the dogs life is worth more than humans, then why do so many cops kill others dogs as we have seen?

4) If the gun is the first thing to be used, instead of tasers, beanbag guns, and assortment of other toys, then should those toys not be taken away that tax payers are paying for?

5) Does it appear the cops are trying to escalate or de-escalate the situation in this video by having their guns drawn and ready to shoot, and what would the common persons reaction be with a gun pointed at them?

a reply to: areyouserious2010


Yeah taking a couple half step's away from the cops is a empirical arbitrary threat

WRONG they gave him a count down a "ultimatum" within a certain amount of time until firing.

Not even close to the same thing

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: DarthFazer

You can speculate all you want but it does not change the fact that you have not brought a legitimate argument to the conversation.

I don't take it personally when people argue with me. We have differing opinions and that's ok. The best argument will win.

I also don't take it personally when people resort to name-calling and speculation as to my character. Those people don't have anything intelligent to add to the conversation. Others know that.

I just did


Again he stumbled away from the cops, hence the shooting was unwarranted. Would you also argue that running away from police while armed justifies being shot ? It's the same thing.

a reply to: jacobe001

1) Did the suspect have a history of being armed and dangerous and in killing others? It appears they know who he is so they must know this.

The police chief, with access to his history, said this:

Thomas' office and the Michigan State Police are investigating Hall's death. Saginaw Police Chief Gerald Cliff said Hall was "known to be an assaultive person" with "a long history" of contacts with law enforcement, "not only with police from our department but with the county."

CNN
I would take that as a yes to a history of being dangerous.

2) If he has no history of murder, then based on the video, who do you think civilians would be more fearful of in regards to violence as the first option?

There are countless murderers in prison who did not have a history of murder right up until they killed someone.

3) If the dog is not to be used in apprehending the suspect or people with knives or guns, then what are they to be used for? For people that are not armed and pose no threat? If the dogs life is worth more than humans, then why do so many cops kill others dogs as we have seen?

Again, do you suppose they would have just stood there and let the guy stab the dog to death? No, the guy would have started stabbing the dog and then they would have shot him. So, the dog's life is needlessly wasted to achieve the same result.

4) If the gun is the first thing to be used, instead of tasers, beanbag guns, and assortment of other toys, then should those toys not be taken away that tax payers are paying for?

You could try to make that argument. But I think many would disagree with you.

There are countless incidents where these tools are used successfully. You are making the case to take these tools away based on this one incident where the officers may not have even had access to them.

5) Does it appear the cops are trying to escalate or de-escalate the situation in this video by having their guns drawn and ready to shoot, and what would the common persons reaction be with a gun pointed at them?

The incident was escalated when the man pulled the knife. The police reacted to his escalation by pulling their firearms. The police tried to deescalate the situation by ordering him to drop the knife. He refused.

What would your reaction be if you were acting aggressively and holding a knife and the police order you to drop it while pointing guns at you? My reaction would be of self preservation and I would immediately drop the knife and follow commands so I did not get shot.

They gave him ample opportunity to drop the knife. A little less then a minute to be exact. He decided not to drop the knife and then walk towards the officers.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

 You think police should put themselves in situations of unreasonable risk. I.... do not.

And this is where your argument falls apart

Putting your self in danger is exactly what cops do. That's why they are armed

"Unreasonable" implies reasoning skills which the cops obviously had none of

And then you imply we are not reasonable people

And mythbusters is for busting the myths we were all taught , like your 21 foot myth

They busted it

Unholster , cock , you are ded

Bead drawn , they are ded

Unless you can't hit a target, in which case you shouldn't be armed

a reply to: DarthFazer

Yeah taking a couple half step's away from the cops is a empirical arbitrary threat

WRONG they gave him a count down a "ultimatum" within a certain amount of time until firing.

Not even close to the same thing

Did we watch the same video?

Just before he is shot, the guy takes a few steps in the direction of the police on the left. If you want to argue that your perception is that he stumbled that's fine. But he clearly did move towards the officers on the left before he was shot.

I heard no countdown on the video I watched. Please provide the source of the video where you can hear the police "counting down." Also, this the first time it was mentioned in this forum. Unless you have uncovered some kind of new evidence, I don't think the countdown exists.

a reply to: DarthFazer

I just did


Again he stumbled away from the cops, hence the shooting was unwarranted. Would you also argue that running away from police while armed justifies being shot ? It's the same thing.

Again, no he did not. He moved towards the officers on the left just before he was shot.

If you are seeing things that didn't happen, I am not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

I'm not misinformed and I'd appreciate you refrain from making assumptions.

We are talking about human beings not robots. The guidelines in the form of the use of force continuum are just that, guidelines. I would expect that human beings could operate within a certain level of logic and common sense. It's like I said, we give them the tools and they have every excuse not to use them. All because it's not mandatory.

I'm sure many reasonable people have tried to change things legislatively but it's quite a task when the word and influence of law enforcement carries more than that of any group of civilians simply by default. I would certainly hope that enough reasonable people could find fault with both parties. Fault the mentally ill fellow for wielding a knife and fault police for only looking to lethal force because their guidelines don't suggest otherwise.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

I've seen your mentality before

a reply to: Another_Nut

And this is where your argument falls apart

Putting your self in danger is exactly what cops do. That's why they are armed

"Unreasonable" implies reasoning skills which the cops obviously had none of

Nope.

un·rea·son·a·ble
ˌənˈrēz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
adjective
not guided by or based on good sense.
"your attitude is completely unreasonable"
synonyms: uncooperative, unhelpful, disobliging, unaccommodating, awkward, contrary, difficult; More
beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.
"an unreasonable request"

It would be unreasonable to ask an officer to place himself in a situation that most likely would result in serious injury or death.

The police are not paid to put themselves in unreasonable danger.

And then you imply we are not reasonable people

You certainly are making an unreasonable argument and demand of police officers.

And mythbusters is for busting the myths we were all taught , like your 21 foot myth

They busted it

Unholster , cock , you are ded

Bead drawn , they are ded

Unless you can't hit a target, in which case you shouldn't be armed

You keep going with this broken argument. Read up on the subject. The findings were based on the amount of time it took for a person, armed with a knife, to close a distance of 21 feet and attack a person armed with a handgun.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

Nobody wants to go near a crazy guy with a knife. Unless they are being paid to do so and do so in a reasonable manner. Claiming the guy was charging you is not the same thing as a guy who is taking half steps in various directions and one of them happens to be sorta in your general direction.

21 foot rule established that a guy in a full out charge can cover 21 feet in 1.5sec. Not some guy staggering around. Nowhere did he do a charge at any of the police. So no it doesn't apply here at all.

Whoopy a guy can charge 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. A guy with a .40 pistol aimed at another man can send a bullet that covers 950 to 1440 feet in one second. 21 feet vs 1440 feet a second. you do the math. Stop taking the 21 foot rule and it's findings out of context and applying it to this video. If the guy HAD charged that would be different. He clearly didn't.

In my opinion if the guy is walking at you and refuse orders once he gets within 10 feet fine shoot him. But staggering around taking half steps in no particular direction and he stumbles once in your direction is not the same thing as walking directly at a guy.

You keep forgetting I probably know more about how knives work than you do. I'm not buying your excuses for these cops.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I suppose they did come up with a plan.

"When we get tired of standing here, we all shoot him"

Like this:

thinkprogress.org...

Officer Bryon Vassey was one of three officers from different North Carolina precincts to respond to a call by the family of 18-year-old Keith Vidal last month. The teen, who suffered from schizophrenia and weighed just 90 pounds, had apparently picked up a small screwdriver and wasn’t putting it down. But his parents say the two other officers already had the scene under control when Vassey walked in. They say the third officer simply tased Vidal, then took out a firearm and shot him dead, saying “we don’t have time for this.”

Killem all and let god sort them out.
Who cares if they are our fellow mericans

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Apparently my copy paste didn't grab.
It was the idea about having the fire department blast the guy with water and cops follow

I bet there is some logistics that would have to be ironed out but fire is able to respond just as fast to 911 calls as police correct? I am under the impression they are first one the scene most of the time correct?

originally posted by: DarthFazer
a reply to: Another_Nut

He was at least 20 feet away, not a threat to anyone and then "pop pop pop" one trigger happy pig sets off the firing squad

No tazers , no mace

A gang land execution in cold blood done by a bunch of fat cowards.

That about sums it up neatly. No O.J. treatment there..of course he was just a tiny little man with a knife doing a funny dance, that must have been absolutely terrifying for those multiple cops. R.I.P. that man, the Lord Giveth, and those above the Lord taketh away...I presume a holy book in not used in court any more.

This one is for the 'professor of law'