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

originally posted by: LDragonFire
The fear this poor guy was feeling, 6 armed men pointing there guns at him a dog trying to get at him. The cops never tried to deescalate the situation, never tried to arrest him. Six verses one, and not one thought "hey if we put our guns down he might surrender"! In a country that has epidemic problems with mental health, I guess this tactic is the cure?

Its unbelievable that no charges for these police officers. They murdered this poor man in a parking lot they never intended to arrest him.

I wonder what would have happened if the cops and dog backed off some distance in order to de-escalate the situation and give the man some time to think about his current actions?

Nah, we don't have time for this. Killem!

a reply to: jacobe001

But that would be reasonable. Remember we need to be reasonable because we are obviously being unreasonable for these poor cops.

I'd like to thank areyouserious2010 for attempting to calmly discuss the sides of this.

Like areyouserious pointed out earlier that there are real cases of police abuse of authority that need to be taken into consideration and dealt with before situations like this get dragged through the mud for 2 years now.

The flip side to this... They taze/beanbag/"net gun" this guy and it doesn't work and he guts somebody right there on the street... Then this little lynch mob would be calling for the "useless cops" to hang for not doing anything.

Our police forces are so underfunded and undermanned that you can't expect them to call in mcguyver to defuse every situation. ESPECIALLY WITH DEADLY INTENT, they don't mess around with that.

I've seen police in Russia handle a suicide risk that was armed with HAND GRENADES and pistols with only one officer with his gun drawn out of 10 or more.... It ended in the man taking his own life(in spectacular fashion) without injuring any officers or bystandards.... Were they in the right? Absolutely not. They got amazingly lucky that in this case the man decided to contain his destruction to himself and you SHOULD NEVER put lives at risk based on luck.

More times then not.. A mentally ill man armed with a knife in a threatening manner will end in harm to others then not IF IT WASN'T HANDLED. Maybe they shoulda just let him go home?

I've heard of more situations then I can even remember that are so much more grey area then this instance that never get questioned. The angle of this video is to remeniscient of war movies firing squads. That's where the initial shock is coming from and add that to te recent hate for authority and you get this little lynch mob.


America needs to get its head out of its ass and unify. If America crumbles and decides to war amongst ourselves its our own fault. The entire world looks up to the United States as the beacon of the future and what have we done? Divided ourselves instead of handling things maturely. We throw fits like little kids in front of news cameras instead of keeping a cool head and letting facts talk.

We have 10-20 years to get our act together and get a handle on some very serious issues or the world we know is going to look a lot different. POLICE BRUTALITY certainly is an issue we need to wrangle.. But the situation in Saginaw was not a case of police brutality.

Life is big and mature... People die.. Police have to do hard things sometimes and they need our support. These guys are out there for us, for the most part police are good people trying to do good and they have to deal with just astonishing situations daily. The police became the enemy when we made them the enemie remember that.the police aren't going anywhere any time soon so instead of vilifying them all and creating the 2 sided tension maybe we can all work together to help keep these things from happening?

Petition for more taxes for mental illness? I know michigan has cut mental illness coverage by A LOT.

I don't know how anyone could expect police to unreasonably risk their lives for others when most can't even make eye contact with a cop in uniform. We treat them like an occupying force when they actually work for us, talking and working together is the only way out of this one that I can see, if we keep vilifying them and dividing ourselves its not going to lead anywhere good I promise that.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
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.

I would be more interested in seeing his history of violence with the general public rather than police officers as you cited since there are way to be many instances shown today where violence is the first tactic used by many but not all police in todays America.

My concern is more for the general public and the majority of American's to which I was hoping my tax paying dollars was being put to use for when employing police as well.

And closing in with guns drawn and a dog on the leash is not de-escalating the situation. That is meeting force with greater force.

Using your logic, the suspect was trying to de-escalate the situation by telling you to step back with his knife drawn.

originally posted by: mindseye1609
I'd like to thank areyouserious2010 for attempting to calmly discuss the sides of this.


America needs to get its head out of its ass and unify. If America crumbles and decides to war amongst ourselves its our own fault. The entire world looks up to the United States as the beacon of the future and what have we done? Divided ourselves instead of handling things maturely. We throw fits like little kids in front of news cameras instead of keeping a cool head and letting facts talk.

No-one wants to take responsibility for their actions and realize we are all in this together and everyone wants to blame it on everyone else.

Bankers
Investors
Home Owners
Employers
Employees
Police
Politicians
Unions
Frustrated Citizens

I'm sure this list could go on and on.

In regards to this thread, there are many things they could have done differently. They could have backed up some distance and called backup with some of their toys like they do many times.

But no, We don't have time for this. It is his problem and we are not RESPONSIBLE for what happens to him.

a reply to: mindseye1609

What do you have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to the police or something? That was a sad post you just did there.

a reply to: Another_Nut


Hitler died by his own hand and the Holocaust was stopped, but the Nazis still won. Many of Hitler's biggest backers were powerful, elite American families and corporations and none of them were punished after the war. Quite the opposite, instead they came to rule the country.

a reply to: FraggleRock

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

If I have offended you I apologize. "Misinformed" was not meant as an insult, it was meant to say you may have bad information.

We are talking about human beings not robots.

I agree with the fact that we are talking about human beings and not robots. The police are human beings who have the same strengths and weaknesses as everyone else. The police go through the same physiological changes as everyone else when presented with an extremely stressful, "fight or flight," situation. This is why we cannot expect them to do superhuman things when presented with such situations.

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.

You are correct. And I would say that not trying to approach the guy and disarm him by hand is using common sense and logic.

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.

In matters such as this, the word of law enforcement carries more weight because they are the people who are put into these positions. They are the people who have numerous encounters with violent people.

Also, people realize that laws governing use of force cannot be too restrictive. So much that it micromanages how the police approach every situation. That is just not possible. Every situation is different an must be handled accordingly. In some instances, the police are able to bring the situation to a peaceful conclusion. In others, they end like this. There are millions of factors that play into the decision making that cannot be micromanaged.

a reply to: mindseye1609


Are you insane? I would argue there is not ONE SINGLE good cop in the entire country, and that's because regardless of their intentions, whenever real brutality/excessive force/criminal with badge behavior happens in their precinct, ALL of the cops rally around the bad cop and protect him. THAT is why so many people are fed up with these abusive rapists and murderers with badges, they continually protect the bad ones rather than agressively investigating these cases, making arrests and getting the bad elements out of the police force.

I live in a town of 2800, a very quiet community with no violent crimes here in 20 years. My new neighbor is the new cop hire, and after talking to him for 20 minutes there is zero doubt in my mind he will kill a citizen of this town within the next 24 months. He's just waiting for, and will probably end up creating, an excuse to murder someone.

This is sickening and more common than it should be. I am still surprised by the public and how the common view is that police are the good guys. People should fear the police, and ALWAYS expect the worse. I was pulled over last Christmas on Christmas day. The officer immediately pulled me out of the car violently and cuffed me. Screaming in my face with spittle flying all over the place he screamed, " DO YOU KNOW WHAT 85 MILES AN HOUR IS?!?" This guy was looking for trouble, and with my knowledge of what police do, I feared for my life. I was dressed decent, spoke respectfully, and complied 100% in all forms and in my mannerisms. I thought that I was going to die that day, or at least be beaten half to death.

If it wasn't for my friend in the car who works with LEO's, I am sure I would either not be telling this story, or telling a different story all together.

Something needs to change with the way our mostly bogus victimless laws are "enforced".

Wolves and Sheeple

a reply to: BASSPLYR

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.

Exactly, yet when it comes to police officers some here argue that they should take unreasonable risks to disarm the person.

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.

I don't know if the officers claimed he was charging at them. But, it is clear that at the exact moment they opened fire, the man was moving towards the officers on the left. So it is not unreasonable for them to have perceived the guy as closing the distance between himself and officers. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this was perceived as an act of aggression and the police acted accordingly.

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.

A stagger can turn into a sprint in a fraction of a second. And what does it matter if he was staggering, walking or charging. He was beginning to close the distance. What for? To give the cop a handshake? No, his intent is implied in this situation.

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.

And if the officer missed? If the officer's gun jammed? If the first few shots did not incapacitate the attacker? All of these situations would lead to the officer potentially being seriously injured or killed.

You are taking the 21 foot rule and saying it applies only to one certain situation. This is incorrect. The 21 foot rule only established a range when someone who is armed with an edged or blunt object is an immediate danger. Specifically because a stagger can turn to a sprint in a fraction of a second.

It works both ways. If a person is greater than 21 feet away, it would be tough for an officer to articulate the person is an immediate threat to them if they decided to shoot them. But if the person closes to within that range, in an instant the person can be on top of you and stabbing you.

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.

And how is 10 feet not arbitrary? What studies have been done to give empirical data to show that this is correct? So, you are saying that less than half the distance of the 21 foot rule is acceptable. So at that distance if a person can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds, a person at 10 feet could do it in roughly .75 seconds? It takes a fraction of the second for an average person just to realize they are under attack and attempt to take action. So, now the officer is REALLY behind because action is faster than reaction. I think this distance is unacceptable just based on this very basic appraisal.

You are choosing to downplay the actions the man took just before he was shot. He clearly took a few steps towards the officers on the left. You call it a stagger. The guy didn't appear to be drunk or unbalanced based on his aggressive stance he was holding. One thing is clear, when the man started to close the distance between himself and the officer on the left, the officers perceived this as a threatening move and responded accordingly.

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

What are you talking about? Knives are sharp and cut things. People better than most things. What else is relevant to this discussion?

a reply to: jacobe001

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

I remember the incident being discussed on ATS when it happened.

I think you should find a less biased source to read up about what happened.

a reply to: Another_Nut

holy sh#t I clicked the link/video got to the parking lot had to shut it down couldn't watch it.I just could not watch it happen!
something is definitely not right in American when things like this are happening everyday, no excuse at all
God bless the Family

a reply to: Sremmos80

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?

Police are not added to all fire calls, just as fire is not added to all police calls.

And, like I said, it would depend on the policy of the local fire department. Some have a policy of "staging" close by during violent calls and won't respond until the scene is rendered safe by the police.

And, like I said, it was less than a minute from the time the video started until they shot the man. That would not have been enough time for the fire department to set everything up.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm just saying it couldn't have been used in this situation. I would hope these kinds of ideas do come to mind when police are in these situations.

a reply to: jacobe001

I wonder what would have happened if the cops and dog backed off some distance in order to de-escalate the situation and give the man some time to think about his current actions?

Nah, we don't have time for this. Killem!

Again, it was less than a minute.

And, what would have happened if the police backed off and he attacked one of the people taking video? Then whose fault would it have been? The police.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

But that would be reasonable. Remember we need to be reasonable because we are obviously being unreasonable for these poor cops.

It wasn't an unreasonable idea. Claiming the officers handled it inappropriately and should be charged with murder because they did not "back off" is unreasonable.

There is asking why it was not handled one way or another, and listening for an explaination, and then there is second-guessing, Monday Morning Quarterbacking, arm chair Generaling, demanding an explanation why it was not handled exactly how you claim you would have handled it if presented with the same situation.

They are completely different.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: butcherguy

that happened after the first shot.

No, the series of events started when Mr. Milton's family failed to get him the mental help he needed.

It continued when Mr. Milton walked out the front door of wherever he resides armed with a knife and a mental disorder.

It continued when he got into the altercation at the store where he refused to pay for coffee and spit on people.

It continued when he was confronted by the police and he decided to display said knife, take an aggressive stance and threaten the officer.

It ended when he took a few steps in the direction of the officers to the left of the screen and the police shot him for it.

The video clearly shows the guy started to walk towards the officers on the left before they shot. Do not go by the audio because it clearly says at the bottom of the screen that the audio is taken from a separate source and it cannot be relied upon to match up with the video.

Look at the man's actions. He takes one or two steps towards the officers on the left and they shoot.

Like the rounds fired after he fell and continued even though he was immobile.

Again, it takes a fraction of a second for the brain to realize he is no longer a threat and tell the body to stop shooting him. As you know, a person can fire one or two times in a fraction of a second. Multiply that by eight people.

Nope...The executed guy turned to his right and looks to have taken a cautious step parallel to the cops on the left side...Looked as tho he was going to try to leave...They had tasers... They had a dog...They chose to execute him...

A lot of those police look really, really out of shape...if healthy body, healthy mind is something to hang your hat on then these cops must be seriously deranged.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: junglimogli

There is no excuse..plain and simple .. the criminal cops are out of control in America ..

How do you excuse the actions of the person that was shot? How can you completely disregard those actions and find complete fault in the actions of the police?

Because they could easily have subdued him without killing him...Aside from the dog, and the tasers, they have bean bag guns they could have subdued him with...

a reply to: jacobe001

I would be more interested in seeing his history of violence with the general public rather than police officers as you cited since there are way to be many instances shown today where violence is the first tactic used by many but not all police in todays America.

First, I applaud you qualifying that with the "many, but not all police."

Second, if you are interested, most states have Judiciary Case searches where you can see someone's previous court cases. That may shed some light on your question.

And closing in with guns drawn and a dog on the leash is not de-escalating the situation. That is meeting force with greater force.

I will agree with that characterization. But who escalated the incident to the point of deadly force?

Why should it only be the responsibility of the police to deescalate the situation? The man was given ample opportunity to deescalate the situation by dropping the knife but he chose not to. He could have dropped the knife and ran away and it most likely would not have ended in him losing his life.

He had several options to deescalate the situation and increase his chances of not being hurt by the police. He chose not to take those other options. Lets not forget that.