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

a reply to: BASSPLYR

SO you think I make these judgments from the comfort of my home and that I've never been out in the real world and dealt with a guy with a knife before when a few posts back I told you I have. I have even been cut by a knife before that someone else was using against me. Your argument is that the police are the only ones who know how the world works. When the citizens say ....ehhh we could have handled that better so there is no excuse for a trained professional to have done such a crummy job.

Well, since we are in an internet forum, anyone can make any claim they want and not have to provide any proof more than their word on such a claim.

And the fact that you yourself said you were cut in your alleged "encounter" shows just how unreasonable the approach you describe was.

You're completely paranoid and off base if you see that guy as charging the police. Like I said the police really did have all the time in the world. They had the advantage. They chose the easy path. One would even say the lustful path. It sure seemed like they had itchy trigger fingers there. They wanted a reason to shoot. When the mature response is to look for reasons not to shoot. Christ nurses in mental homes deal with more dangerous knife wielding people and come up with better solutions.

You keep claiming I said that the guy was charging the police. I have not said he was charging the police. Please stop making the false claim.

We get it. The cops did nothing wrong. Their training tells them to just over react. Take no reasonable risks. Just hose em at the slightest excuse. Sadly their training does teach them this. So everything in this video is OK. Besides the DA couldn't prosecute them. There's a loophole where cops don't have to be reasonable and do indeed get to just shoot people nearly on a whim. SO yeah. let em loose bruce they did nothing wrong. This whole video shows that the training, although efficient is lacking. That's the general message the public are trying to tell you. DO a better job. The cops rushed that one. They could have done many different things. Like maintain their line and keep the safe distance. if he charges then. the n ok shoot. But not advance slowly towards him. And when he goes back to his same position at the same range. Don't shoot. Keep your cool. Hold your safe position. Like I said this is 101 regardless of the weapon. Know your range. The cops didn't adhere to that at all. You know set up a loose cordon. Those work too. Pressuring a scared person is not just unproductive it's literally stupid. Especially when time is on your side, which it was there.

What makes you think you represent society when giving your opinion on the matter?

But keep going on with the guy bum rushed them in a full out sprint or was even preparing to. Doesn't matter if the police cronies let them off. They sorta do that all the time. It's called corruption. It's rampant in case you didn't know. For a long time now too. Besides if they didn't find no fault the polices reckless actions would have bankrupted the city when the lawsuit settled.

Again, I never said the guy bum rushed them.

There were no "police cronies" making the decision on whether to charge the officers or not. The elected State's Attorney did that. The reason is because after reviewing the incident, the State's Attorney found no laws were broken.

Let's say the State's Attorney did charge all of the officers who fired with murder having the same facts he was presented with. The case would go in front of a Judge who would then dismiss the case based on a prima facia review of the evidence in a motions hearing. The attorney bringing the charges can then face severe penalties.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort, while like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution.

Link

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

From the American Bar Association

As you can see, filing charges against a person, without those charges being supported by probable cause, is a very serious offense that could lead to the disbarring of the attorney, or possibly even criminal charges.

The requirement of probable cause to charge someone with a crime is also derived from the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The probable cause requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched."

Source
To charge someone with a crime would require an arrest and/or arraignment. An arrest is viewed as a seizure of a person under the 4th Amendment.

This part is to you personally, with no disrespect.

Look, I get it that we disagree. Even though we do disagree, I respect your viewpoint.

I will not keep debating the same positions with you over and over and over again.

I say this to save both of us some time and frustration.

Simply put, we are either going to have to come up with new aspects to debate about or we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. I make no claims that I have somehow won the debate. You have passionately argued your side and I have argued mine. I feel it is up to the reader to determine who they agree with.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: khnum

No apologies your country cant liberate a can of beans without blowing the living crap out of it first,this guy would of probably survived with Canadian or Australian police.

Ok? There are millions upon millions of people who aren't speaking German right now because the US decided to blow the living crap out of stuff and liberate a few people.

Let's try to stay on topic.

I missed your argument.

Did you have one?

This tells me all I need to know about you.
WW2 wasn't like movies, America swoops in and saves the day and are home by tea time.
I guess Russia, Britain and the likes just stood back and watched while Steve McQueen took on everyone and
at the end there is a big explosion and Hitler died.
It was far more complex and Brutal ugly war.

I'm pretty sure some Americans would agree with my assessment, I have nothing against USA but to say if it wasn't for... We'd be speaking German, belittles the 60 million that died for one reason or another.

Did this police force have access to a non'lethal alternative such as this?

a reply to: Taggart

This tells me all I need to know about you.
WW2 wasn't like movies, America swoops in and saves the day and are home by tea time.
I guess Russia, Britain and the likes just stood back and watched while Steve McQueen took on everyone and
at the end there is a big explosion and Hitler died.
It was far more complex and Brutal ugly war.

How can you claim to know my entire position about the subject from one response to one person on said subject?

My response was tailored to the clear insult on the United States and how they "liberate" people. If you would go back, read and comprehend the context, you would have seen that.

Just for reference Khnum said this:

No apologies your country cant liberate a can of beans without blowing the living crap out of it first,this guy would of probably survived with Canadian or Australian police.

As you can see, my comment was meant to show we are pretty lucky the United States did blow the living crap out of a few things to "liberate a can of beans" because if the United States didn't we may all have been mandated to eat Frankfurters with those beans.

I'm pretty sure some Americans would agree with my assessment, I have nothing against USA but to say if it wasn't for... We'd be speaking German, belittles the 60 million that died for one reason or another.

No where did I claim the United States was solely responsible for winning WW2 in my comment.

If there were an insult on Russia or the UK's methods of liberating people, you could make the same comment. Just replace Russia or UK for the United States.

hey so a poll ATS. Everyone chime in. The action of the police in this specific instance. Heavy handed or not?

I say heavy handed and unreasonable.

Don't care if there are crony laws that support this type of thing to protect their brethren. Like I said I am aware there are loop holes that allow for unnecessary murder by dim witted (in this instance) police in this country. It's still indicative of a very serious problem with the US police training. That's the general public opinion if you haven't asked folks on the streets lately.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Very heavy handed and sadly 'by the book'
I think that book needs a re write

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Very heavy handed and sadly 'by the book'
I think that book needs a re write

Agreed.

originally posted by: RayVon
a reply to: Another_Nut

Gun'S don't kill people....Idiot DO!!

THE POOR BASTARD!!

that's what cops are trained to do...if they are frightened and fear for their life as all 8 or 9 of these policemen were, and especially if the guy is black, (because they are all criminal thugs), just shoot the MF'er

from now on for all black people, if a policeman approaches you...you have to realize he would rather shoot you than deal with you....best thing to do is act like he is your master and you are the slave, so don't frighten him into killing you.

So has anyone heard what the administrative outcome of this was? Any investigations? Press conferences by the Police Chief in charge of these yahoos?

It will be pretty hard to explain away this video as 'whoops'.

a reply to: signalfire

2012 article

But no wrongdoing was found and nothing was done

The


Defense wins again

a reply to: Another_Nut

This could happen to anyone. If the cops pull their weapons on you, and aim follow their orders completely and make yourself seem like a little of a threat as possible. Right or wrong this is the wrong time to try and argue something. They don't care what you have to say, and they will kill you. Wait until you are with a lawyer or are out of jail to argue your point. Don't do it here. Because you could get executed like this guy. I really feel sorry for the mentally ill, because they don't , or can't act like normal people in this situations. Why cops in a situation like this couldn't have used non-lethal means really angers me.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

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.

Although no military grade weapons were used in this video, I'm sure they were close at hand. I'm surprised one of the officers didn't want to "sight in his gun" and use this as the perfect opportunity. I guess I should have implied that I was referring to the militarization across the board, not just in this incident. Yes, you are right. There is a large backdrop behind them that appears clear. You can't rule out a ricochet, or a stray shot (as I believe it was cited that they missed damn near all of their 47 shots).

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.

To answer, no. I do not. I know that at the basic, infantry level, soldiers are considered little more than machine operators to the military. That doesn't make them bad guys, in fact usually the opposite. However, soldiers do get one more thing that police officers might not benefit from and that is combat experience. These guys live in the # 24/7, they hone their craft and their skills with weapons. If you gave me a choice between a 10 year veteran cop from Anywhere, USA or a basic rifleman who has served in combat to cover my back, I think we know who we would most likely pick. Also, huge consideration should be given to the fact that soldiers (most of the time, don't think I forgot which forum I am replying in!) aren't the ones that are armed and in our public's face most of the time. This might be a typical 'Murican way to think, but as long as they are over there and not over here, I can't draw a correlation between how many rounds our military expends in operations and police officers using too much force in a US city.

I applaud your honesty in this statement. Unfortunately, this point of view, although honest, is shunned by many here.

I'm sorry if that's an unpopular view here, but to me it's just another nail in the coffin. Most are smart enough to know right from wrong, but they want to push the envelope as far as they can, and see what they can get away with. It's all out there to see.

I appreciate the input, areyouserious. I don't tend to get very heated in my argument, and you pointed out some good holes in my messages. I look forward to your reply.

Many police forces carry Glocks, so I looked...
us.Glock

GLOCK Pistols for Military It all started right here—in the military. To survive in this fiercely competitive business we had no choice but to raise the bar as high as our engineering skills and advanced technologies would allow. So we did, and we’ve never stopped. Because, if your primary goes down, you can’t afford to have any doubts about your secondary. Durability? Check! Reliability? Check! Accuracy? Check! It must be a GLOCK.

Other [police forces prefer Smith and Wesson. Smith and Wesson makes a line of handguns that are named M&P..... Military and Police.

M&P

Maybe that is why someone might think that cops have military weapons.

a reply to: Another_Nut

These pigs should all lose their jobs and should never be accepted by society again. This is disturbing that everyone is just like eh the mentally unstable guy deserved he had a knife. That's like saying it was acceptable for the Chinese military to run over that college student with a tank because he had an idea of freedom. By the way that was Tiananmen square and that was the greatest oppression of free ideas and rights in China and guess what it is coming here next because the cops are now getting tanks and other military equipment so look out because we are the evil people who need to be controlled by the smart police officers because they are definitely the pinnacle of moral judgment. Hahahah not specially these blue pigs raping little children and killing people for fun