Houston Officer Fatally Shoots "Threatening" Double Amputee Who Turned Out to be Holding a Pen

On Saturday a Houston, TX police officer fatally shot a mentally ill man in a wheelchair who had one arm and one leg. The victim was a resident of a group home and had a history of mental problems. The caretaker of the place was the one who called police at 2:30 am because the as-yet-unnamed man was causing a "disturbance."

Things are a bit fuzzy so far, since the incident is fresh, but the story is that the wheelchair-bound man somehow cornered one officer Matthew Jacob Marin, a 5-year veteran of the force, who has one previous fatal shooting in his career. The victim was threatening Marin, and in fear for his and his partner's life, the officer fatally fired. Marin is now on the traditional three-day administration leave.

This brings up a lot of questions, namely, how did Marin not realize that the man was waving what turned out to be a pen? And even if he didn't recognize it, and if the victim indeed ignored pleas to calm down and stop acting aggressive, how fast did the officer turn to using lethal force on a mentally ill man with half of his limbs missing? And how fast is too fast, considering that one party was an armed agent of the government, and the other was a wheelchair-bound double-amputee with mental problems?  

A spokeswoman for the department, who we can assume wasn't present at the incident, said the pen came "within inches to a foot” of the officer. Certainly someone in a wheelchair is capable of harming an officer, and an aggressively-thrust pen can do some damage, but it would be preferable that the officer were harmed while trying to do his job, namely, defuse the situation, rather than once again rely on officer safety as first priority. Anyone can prioritize their own safety over someone else's, if that is what cops are doing as well, what good are they? If cops have the power to use lethal, legal force, shouldn't that power come with an obligation to risk their safety and lives so that incidents like this don't happen?

The police spokeswoman said "The officer was forced into an area where he had no way to get out."

[Update at 11:52 pm]: Courtesy of the twitter of Robert Fellner, this CNN report that clarifies a few things about the shooting: Most importantly, the police officer who shot the man in the wheelchair was not the one cornered, but rather his partner was edged in " this darkened room" while being menaced by the pen-wielding double amputee. This makes the fact that the firing officer was unable to tell that the "weapon" was merely a writing implement more credible. Still, the story is bizarre and demands a lot more answers than the public may ever get. It's hard to fathom how the officer couldn't have used any of the myriad non-lethal means that should have been at his disposal. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fluffy||

    You could bring in an entire wheelchair basketball team and they couldn't "corner" me for shit.

    I can see thinking the pen is a weapon. I can't see not be able to defeat the nefarious wheelchair driver by the simple expedient(s) of jumping on a couch or a desk or finding a flight of stairs.

  • Paul.||

    I think it comes down to whether the cop wants to shoot the assailant or not.

    And I think we can't ignore training.

    It seems that cops are trained to connect two dots with a very short line: Do you feel threatened. If "yes", shooting to kill is justified.

    I'm sure a wheelchair-bound amputee could make me feel "threatened" quite easily. The question is, could I just sort of step out of the way and avoid the threat. And even if I can't, is death a reasonably possible outcome?

    When we see so many otherwise well-meaning cops shoot people under such razor thin circumstances, something bigger is going on here.

  • oldtimer||

    Of course. The pen is mightier than the sword.
    This is the first time I recall when that was taken to imply a physical threat.

  • ||

    I've got to ask you about the Penis Mightier.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    "I'll take The Rapist for 200 you filthy bastard!"

  • ||

    i'm sorry, but thisis some weak fucking sauce. I mean, jesus christ, kick the wheelchair over and then move. or something. i mean for christ's sake.

    cops, just like ANYBODY else are allowed to use "reasonable force" and there is a metric assload of case law about what is and isn't reasonable. contrary to the statements in this article, cops are not the only ones who can and do take their safety into account when using force. i have responded to scores of UOF incidents with "civilians" everybody from home owners detaining burglars or car thieves, store security officers detaining shoplifters or robbers, etc. etc.

    and GENERALLY speaking, the concepts are the same GIVEN an analogous situation. most of the time people wank about double standard it's because they are comparing two completely disanalogous situations

  • ||

    in many respects, and according to case law in many respects, noncops actually have MORE leeway under the penal code to use force, and a greater level of force than cops do, when faced with a similar threat. i've posted tons of examples, the most obvious one being the case in kelso oregon where a neighbor saw a probable burglar running away from his neighbor's house THAT HE KNEW TO BE UNOCCUPIED. at best, he had a fleeing NONVIOLENT felon who had committed a nonviolent crime. He shot him with a bow and arrow in the back. prosecutor declined charges, but as the prosecutor (and case law) says - if it was a cop, it would have been a guaranteed bad shoot under tenn v. garner

    but all that meta shit aside, i am sorry, but due process concerns aside (iow, i'm more than happy to let the process play out ), it's not merely that this case LOOKs like a bad shoot. it's more than that. it's that i'm hard pressed to imagine ANY scenario that fits the stipulated facts where the cop would have been justified.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I was trying to figure how this could have been justified. Obviously someone in a wheelchair could, what, break an ankle or a knee? A pen driven exactly in certain spots could do damage, but being done with a guy in a wheel chair seems even more unlikely.

    And yes, citizens use excessive force and that is bad, too. But it is worse when a cop does it, simply because they SHOULD be the people you call to diffuse something and whenever possible, with minimal violence.

  • ||

    the justification for deadly force is rather simple. at least the self or others defense (there are other examples where deadly force is authorized, like shooting somebody during a prison escape and a few others where the below factors don't apply but they are not the case here, so we'll ignore them)

    in other for deadly force to be authorized, cop or "civilian" , the shooter must reasonably believe that the person they are about to shoot presents a threat of serious bodily harm if not apprehended. it need not be IMMEDIATE or IMMINENT btw. (common misconception).

    serious bodily harm means it doesn't have to be something that would kill you, but it's far more than a mere ouchie, black eye, etc.

    if a the shooter reasonably believes the person they are about to shoot just committed a crime involving such force, then they can shoot the person if the person is fleeing IF they reasonably believe a failure to apprehend them will result in further danger of serious bodily harm

    prior to tenn. v. garner, cops could sheet "fleeing felons". tenn. v. garner recognized that the felonies must involve deadly force or threatened deadly force and there is reasonable cause to believe further deadly force will happen if they are not apprehended.

    example: bank robber robs a bank and says he has a gun. cop arrives. guy is running away. cop yells "stop or i'll shoot". guy keeps running. justified? yes (the general theory is that warnings, when practicable are preferred).

  • ||

    counterexample: guy shoplifts 20,000.00 worth of merchandise (jewelry) stuffs it in pocket and runs away bla la. justified? no

    this officer's previous shooting btw, involved a guy who was in the process of stabbing somebody when the officer shot, so as far as i know, not remotely questionable

    the article does not say what crime, if any the officer had reasonable suspicion (at least) to believe the wheelchair bound guy had commitetd prior to arrival, fwiw.

    but the issue comes down to this. would a "reasonable person" being presented with the "threat" of the man in the wheelchair waving what (according to police, the officer could not tell what the guy was waving around) the guy was waving around, believe that if he did not shoot, that he was about (in this case imminence would apply) to receive serious bodily injury?

    iow, the question is (and this is the same for cops or civilians)

    did the officer reasonably believe that if he did not shoot this guy, that he would be placed in imminent risk of SERIOUS bodily injury.

    a lot of other factors might be relevant CIVILLY (did the officer use poor tactics and basically corner HIMSELF and let the guy put him in a situation where he had no route to escape), but the above question is the only one relevant CRIMINALLY

  • ||

    btw, to clarify the part about immediate or imminent, where it does not HAVE to be immediate or imminent, those refer to cases where the guy is either fleeing (bank robbery) or moving to a position of cover etc.

    if the guy is CONFRONTING the cop (or civilian), then yes - it must be perceived as IMMINENT before the shootign is justified.

    that's a REALLY important point.

  • sloopyinca||

    counterexample: guy shoplifts 20,000.00 worth of merchandise (jewelry) stuffs it in pocket and runs away bla la. justified? no

    You misspelled strawman at the beginning of that post.

    hth

  • ||

    You misspelled strawman at the beginning of that post.

    Exactly what argument or person is he misrepresenting? He's just using a simple hypothetical.

  • sloopyinca||

    in other for deadly force to be authorized, cop or "civilian" , the shooter must reasonably believe that the person they are about to shoot presents a threat of serious bodily harm if not apprehended. it need not be IMMEDIATE or IMMINENT btw. (common misconception).

    Bullshit, because if I said I shot somebody because I believed they were a threat, I better have some corroborating evidence or my ass would be on trial.

    I think the smart play here is to take this to a grand jury. They'll know whether or not this guy should go to trial a lot better than his boss and co-workers will.

  • ||

    I better have some corroborating evidence
    the shooter must reasonably believe
  • Generic Stranger||

    And you'd need the corroborating evidence to prove that you had a reasonable belief.

  • ||

    And you'd need the corroborating evidence to prove that you had a reasonable belief.

    Yeah, but sloopy is acting like dunphy claimed otherwise. I certainly think some sort of evidence you can point to is part of what makes a belief "reasonable".

  • Chris Mallory||

    Citizens should have more rights than government employees. Don't like it? Quit and get honest work. I am sure you are qualified to pick up cans on the side of the road. Maybe.

  • ||

    trolling tra la la

  • sloopyinca||

    He's trolling because he says something you disagree with? Geez, you have thin skin. I know it's redundant to say that about a cop, but there you are.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's not trolling. At worst, it's a mild jab at your profession after expressing a perfectly lucid and reasonable point of view (that cops, having been placed in positions of authority over the general public in certain areas, should be held to a higher standard).

    Presumably you're aware of Peel's principles of policing.

  • ||

    I'm not sure "citizens should have more rights than government employees" is the same thing as "cops... should be held to a higher standard". I'D certainly consider him to be trolling if he responded to ME that way.

  • ||

    contrary to the statements in this article, cops are not the only ones who can and do take their safety into account

    Where does she say non-officers don't or can't do that? For someone who complains about inaccurate articles, your post doesn't point out an actual error she's made here.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yeah, I think the subtle point she's making is that there's little to nothing heroic about LEO prioritizing their own safety.

  • ||

    It has nothing to do with heroism, it has to do with doing your fucking job. Last I heard, it wasn't the police's job, when called about a disturbance, to end that disturbance by killing the disturber. Diffuse, maybe arrest, but killing is sort of the worst-fucking-case-possible scenario. That's like an IT person cleaning up a downloaded virus by smashing the computer with a baseball bat.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    the point is that cops are allowed to use REASONABLE precautions for their safety, but the precautions, especially if they create alarm or affront etc. must be related to the fact pattern known to the officer.

    example: if i stop a car for speeding, i cannot draw my gun when approaching the car, and certainly cannot point it at the person, etc.

    it doesn't matter if that would make the traffic stop safer.

    otoh, if i am stopping a car for RS of an armed robbery, then I *am* justified in drawing my gun and issuing commands to the driver at gunpoint, etc.

    the facts and circs known to me justify the heightened use of safety procedures (in this case having a gun drawn and ready)

    similarly, if i am felony stopping a suspected armed robber and he reaches for his waistband, he will likely get capped.

    if i am just talking to a guy and he does so, i will generally NOT be justified in doing so

    whether a cop or a "civilian" , the issue of using tactics to improve safety must be related to the fact pattern known to the shooter

    my point is that GENERALLY speaking, the standards are looser for the civilian. i'm not making a normative argument about whether it should or shouldn't be the case. i am saying it IS the case.

  • ||

    officer safety is a very complex subject. it's one that reasonoids make snarky little comments about, but for us it literally often makes the difference between no injuries (to any party present) and serious injuries or death.

    the science of officer safety has gotten much much better. look at shooting tactics pre - newhall massacre for example.

    and yes, cops have the authoritah to issue reasonable demands for officer safety.

    example. if i go to a dv, we have the authoritah to seperate the two people and to "make the scene safe(r)". example. if the husband and wife are arguing and the husband is standing in the kitchen, do i have the authoritah to tell him i need him to step into the living room so i can talk to him? yes. why? because i know that kitchens are full of knives and shit and it's a very minor inconvenience to have him walk 10 ft towards me, but makes the scene much safer. it's REASONBLE and it's related officer safety. and i'm sure there are some people who would be like "this is my house. you can't tell me i can't stand in my kitchen etc" and those are the kind of circs where you are going to see shit escalate and possibly an arrest made.

  • ||

    cops have the authoritah to issue basic commands like that. in many cases, the person being issued the order has NO idea why the order is given, and that's fine, but cops don't need ot issue a 20 page dissertation on why. the person simply need comply. you can tell me to "fuck off slaver" all you want, but we have that authoritah and we use it for safety, not to be dicks.

    it is WAY better to quell shit early and (like in the kitchen case) minimize access to the knives than NOT to do so and when shit goes sour, you might have a shooting as the guy reaches for the knive block (maybe he was reaching for something else next to it, but you'll never know) where it won't happen if you simply "make the scene safe(r)"

    basic shit like that.

    we should and do take risks all the time. i wear a medal on my uniform because i and one other officer went into a burnign building to pull people out when the fire dept wasn;'t there yet. i weighed safety with the goal (save lives) and made that determination.

    cops do that shit all the time, and in most cases get no recognition. it's not merely "our job" .

  • John C. Randolph||

    cops have the authoritah to issue basic commands like that.

    Oh, blow it out your ass. You're not my boss, you're not my owner, and I have no legal duty whatsoever to obey a usurping motherfucker like you.

    -jcr

  • sloopyinca||

    the science of officer safety has gotten much much better. look at shooting tactics pre - newhall massacre for example.

    So officer safety is a "science" now? Jesus tapdancin' Christ. You people sure take yourselves seriously, don't you.

    Question: is civilian safety a "science" as well?

  • sarcasmic||

    Question: is civilian safety a "science" as well?

    Civilian safety is pretty simple. Submit and obey, or die.

  • Rasilio||

    Dunphy here is the problem.

    Until Law Enforcement appears on this list...

    http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2.....p00000058

    Then cops are going too far in favor of their own safety.

    I'm not even saying that it should be anywhere near #1 on that list but if it is more dangerous to be a taxi driver than a cop then it is pretty clear that we have some slack that can be let go on the officer safety front.

  • sloopyinca||

    the point is that cops are allowed to use REASONABLE precautions for their safety, but the precautions, especially if they create alarm or affront etc. must be related to the fact pattern known to the officer.

    But that's not right. They should have to be related to the fact pattern in reality. The officer can say he thought anything was happening (i.e.: I thought he had a gun, a knife, was coming at me, was reaching for a gun, etc), but if a reasonable person would not think that, the officer should be held responsible.

    Again, there's a simple solution to all of this. Every time there is a shooting like this, it should go before a grand jury in the community the offense happened in, and the officer should be treated the same as any other person. Period. Full stop.

    You want to be considered reasonable? Go through the same process any other person would go through if they shot a man in a wheelchair to death that was holding a pen.

  • ||

    The officer can say he thought anything was happening (i.e.: I thought he had a gun, a knife, was coming at me, was reaching for a gun, etc), but if a reasonable person would not think that, the officer should be held responsible.

    I think the issue here is that there isn't a good way to tell if the "fact pattern" known to the officer is reasonable or not. That's one of the reasons why recording the police has become such a big thing. This way we don't have to rely just on the officer's recollection as much. Considering how many times I've seen posts here that mention how the officer account is considered more reliable than the non-officer account, more video-recording of officer behavior is a good thing.

  • John C. Randolph||

    it should go before a grand jury in the community the offense happened in, and the officer should be treated the same as any other person.

    Why, that's crazy talk! Next thing you know, we'll be hearing calls for equal protection under the law or something!

    -jcr

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    YOU JUST CAN'T LET ME GET MY DIG IN, CAN YOU?

    If only the state and its agents hadn't been driving toward effectively monopolizing lawful use of lethal force. Any of us could go shoot the amputee making a lot of noise in the middle of the night. We don't need to spend a lot of tax dollars on salaries and pensions (but apparently not training and supervision) to get that done.

  • ||

    I'll chase you 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round Perdition's flames before I let you get your dig in!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Epi, you cocksucker. You're going to have to do your own dirty work now, do you hear me? DO YOU?

  • Slithery D||

    Please don't continue her misappropriation of "diffuse" when she means "defuse." You're not spreading the problem around, you're preventing it from exploding.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I keep doing that!

    Maybe if I finish watching "Danger UXB" the curse will be lifted.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    You've started but not finished Danger UXB? Shame! Shame!

  • ||

    I didn't even notice that. Lucy tricked me! That'll teach me to trust her grammar and/or homophones! NTTAWWT.

    (No homophone)

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Hehehehe.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    coffee meet monitor.

  • Robert||

    You mean "defuse", unless you mean that spreading the disturbance around will dilute it.

  • Robert||

    I'd like a job fucking.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Let me ask you something there, Barney Fife: If you saw one of your Brother Donut Grazers pointing a gun at the head of a pen-wielding double amputee in a wheelchair, would you draw your own weapon to protect the disabled citizen from the berserker in uniform?

    Search your conscience.

    -jcr

  • sarcasmic||

    Search your conscience.

    I believe shedding one's conscience is a prerequisite for wielding a club and a gun for the state.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    HE WAS COMING RIGHT AT ME!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    they SHOULD be the people you call to diffuse something and whenever possible, with minimal violence.

    "The Police aren't here to CREATE disorder, The Police
    are here to MAINTAIN disorder"

  • Robert||

    "preserve"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The victim was threatening Marin, and in fear for his and his partner's life, the officer fatally fired. Marin is now on the traditional three-day administration leave.

    So two fine officers of the LUH get themselves cornered by a cripple holding a pen and shoot him?

    I would be more embarrassed by that story than the one where I just kick him and the chair over.

  • Virginian||

    So is it possible that now the cops are just trying to see who can get the most obviously bad shoot and still avoid prison time? Maybe there's some kind of secret pool that the police unions make every officer contribute to.

  • ||

    which is of course ridiculous since officers who commit unlawful force are routinely tried for same. heck, some who DO NOT commit unlawful force are tried, (usually political reasons).

    you may believe this myth that officers are running around getting bad shoots and getting away with it, but that;s simply rubbish.

  • Virginian||

    Who you gonna believe, dunphy or your own lying eyes?

    Fuck off pig. Seriously.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon," Silva told The Associated Press.

    The wheelchair-bound amputee cornered *both* Marin and his partner such that both were potentially in danger?

  • juris imprudent||

    He was a whirling dervish, what with only having one arm to roll his chair about. Speaking of which, if he was wielding a weapon, he wasn't terribly mobile at that moment, was he?

  • Robert||

    "please to calm down"
    "diffuse the situation"

    Dictated to speech recognition ware?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Nope, my brain is just like that. Fixing.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Lucy, you are lucky the comentariate doesn't charge for your editing. But you are still my favorite.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Based on the description of events, they had him surrounded. Why didn't the second cop just walk up behind the wheelchair and pull it backward far enough to allow the cornered officer rat to escape?

  • ||

    Good idea. That would be the perfect vantage point to snap his neck, instead of wasting a bullet.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm amazed, absolutely amazed, that this would surprise any of you.

    Cops will continue to act like they are above the law until they are held accountable for their actions. I only pray that the next dozen people the cops kill in immoral (but within policy) ways are the sons or daughters of US Senators and/or Congresspeople. Again, I don't wish that on them out of malice, but I know it's gonna happen at least a dozen times between now and Thanksgiving. It might as well happen to the only assholes that can put a stop to this brutal madness.

    Fuck this guy and fuck the HPD if he is not charged with at least voluntary manslaughter.

  • Robert||

    This is not acting like they're above the law, it's more like they're hiring guys who are scared shitless to be cops. I'm sure he'd've done the same, sooner or later, if he'd been in some other job where he carried a gun. It's like he joined the force as therapy to overcome his fears or something. 2nd fatal shooting in 5 yrs. is pretty extreme. I'm sure his partner was horrified.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Police spokeswoman Jodi Silva said the man cornered the officer in his wheelchair and was making threats while trying to stab the officer with the pen. At the time, the officer did not know what the metal object was that the man was waving, Silva said.

    The first instinct for police departments always seems to be to circle the wagons. Basic human nature coupled with a job supposedly dependent on authoritative posturing makes this a problem for an agency tasked with investigating itself. It's very difficult for these types of organizations to retract protestations of innocence. In this case, however, I think the Houston crew is going to have to admit their justifications were bullshit.

  • sloopyinca||

    If a "civilian" had shot a cop pushing his way into his house because he wasn't sure what the cop was holding in his hand, he'd be up on capital murder.*

    *If the other cops on the scene didn't turn him into Swiss cheese first.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Cops will continue to act like they are above the law until they are held accountable for their actions.

    But- if they actually have to consider whether their actions are legal, or justifiable, they will be prevented from acting, and millions of innocent people will die!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Legal and justifiable aren't necessarily the same thing, or even similar things.

  • Russell||

    Serves Houston right for using the Monty Python Blck Knight scene as a police training film

  • sloopyinca||

    This guy had less a chance of dying than that chicken I removed from the coop a couple of hours ago.

  • robc||

    Trebled penalties for government employees committing crimes on the job. Its the only way.

    Of course, you still have to have a fucking DA who will press charges.

  • robc||

    Im wanting to know why the other cop didnt arrest his partner for the bad shoot?

  • sloopyinca||

    Because this was real life instead of a comedy sketch.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Didn't you see? His partner was in imminent peril. Marin was probably profusely thanked by his partner for saving him from the ravages of a wheelchair-bound cripple with pen in tow.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Im wanting to know why the other cop didnt arrest his partner for the bad shoot?

    Professional courtesy.

  • A Serious Man||

    I'll be charitable and say that perhaps the cop couldn't tell whether the guy in the wheelchair had a pen or a knife, but in any case why would he use lethal force instead of say a taser or a baton?

  • ||

    again ,this is why i suggest (if you are truly interested in this subject), you read some case law. it will answer many of these questions.

    that aside, MY POINT is that even assuming he reasonably believed the guy HAD a knife... he was in a fucking wheelchair and minimmally ambulatory. maybe i'm wrong, but imnsho, i don't see that as presenting a significat enough threat to warrant deadly force.

  • ||

    he was in a fucking wheelchair and minimmally ambulatory

    THIS. There's really no getting around this.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's really no getting around this.

    That's what Officer Marin said.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It may have been a tactical pen for all we know. Those things are no joke.

  • ||

    I heard it was an assault pen.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    He probably used Teh Internets to purchase it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Capable of writing emotional armor-piercing letters.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the science of officer safety has gotten much much better.

    "Shoot everybody" doesn't sound very scientific to me.

  • ||

    for those interested in understanding UOF issues vs. merely just wanking, i suggest a good start is tenn v. garner.

    in brief, just like everything else in ... THE LAW(tm), there is a balancing test between often competing concepts.

    and imo, the body of case law that protects both civilians (quote and unquote) and cops in the use of force is on the whole REASONABLE. can it be missapplied? absolutely.

    should bernie goetz have been tried? nope. but fortunately, the jury saw through the bullshit, recognized the self defense aspect and he was acquitted (but still convicted for the carrying a gun w/o a permit thang)

    i believe zimmerman is another example of politics trumping reason (tm) and that's why he got indicted.

    two of my good friends (cops) were criminally tried in the last 3 years for assault. imo, these incidents were not assault, but the prosecutor imo (and one case was blatantly political imo) felt he needed to make a "point" and they suffered. but they were acquitted.

    cops aren't running around wantonly using excessive force. as the stats i have provided show... it's quite heartening how often we can defuse situations w/o force or with a very low level of force.

  • ||

    the problem is that force ALWAYs looks ugly. it looks double bad when it's uniformed agents of the state hitting people with sticks, no matter how justified. there is no way around that.

    ultimately, i (and i think most people here) support that cops should have the right to videotape their traffic stops, etc. and "civilians" should have the same right. sunshine is the best disinfectant. solid evidence will help protect those cops wrongly accused (whether through outright lies, or just bad circs) and will help bring cops to justice who abuse force.

    in the instant case, i am actually looking forward to reading the followups. if the guy is charged, it will be interesting to read those. one last point. we will ALWAYS have excessive force. even if you have cops who 100% are trying to do the right thing always, who are well trained, who are provided with adequate equipment and backup (lol. yea right), we are still fallible. what amazes me isn't how often cops step over that line, but given incredible pressures, how often we DO NOT.

  • ||

    i just think back to N30 where the dipshit protesters were dancing around in front of my partner and calling him a "fucking NI**er" over and over and screaming that they'd just got done "fucking his wife" and they forgot to pay, how much did they owe him, etc. and he just stood there and took it. in most cases, if it was a noncop and he had belted one of those morons, no prosecutor would even consider charging him, since that's about as "fighting words" exception as you can get. but we HAVE to be better at dealing with provocation . and we are. i see it every day.

    hopefully, justice will be served in this wheelchair case.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Yes, doing what you're paid to do is usually the point of a job. If it hadn't been his job to stand there and keep the peace, the best course of action probably would have been to leave. Assaulting people who are yelling at you can get you hauled in on charges if you're a citizen. Believe it or not, beating the piss out of someone is a frowned on action.

    But then again I'm just a lowly citizen, not a wundercop...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    for those interested in understanding UOF issues vs. merely just wanking, i suggest a good start is tenn v. garner

    Yes, life is more sacred than property...except when cops are involved. Then it's "open fire."

  • ||

    Yes, life is more sacred than property...except when cops are involved. Then it's "open fire."

    Wow, that sure would be a nutty belief. Good thing it's not he said.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Read the case the Dunphinator cites because that's what happened. Kid robs house, cop spots robber, shoots him in the head as he attempts to climb a fence to flee. His haul? Ten whole dollars.

    While Justice White at least tapped the brakes on the idea of death as seizure via the Fourth Amendment, when Edward Garner was shot, he was within Tennessee state law and department policy. And I'm not inclined to give Dunphy or anyone else a pat on the head for not doing something they shouldn't have been doing to begin with (such as shooting people in the back or cripples in wheelchairs).

  • robc||

    One point you seem to be missing...you dont always have to use the maximum justified force.

    I can legally shoot a robber in my house, but if he is 12 and clearly unarmed and I can subdue him easily, its not a good idea, even though its legal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They should have called the PET team.

    Why are the police acting as the PET team, here?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I suppose it's helpful to know how completely outrageous the situation has to be before Fosdick will even consider not towing the thin blue lion.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Just wait for the cop to be exonerated by his fellow cops. Then he'll defend it to the hilt.

  • PowerBottom||

    I read about this earlier this weekend. I knew it would eventually show up here, and I'm glad it did. I'm wondering what it's going to take to show how out of control most police departments are. I'm reminded of Captain Picard talking about the Borg. "The line must be drawn HERE! This far, NO FURTHER!"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Of course, as Fearless has also informed us many times, once the perp has refused to submit to the dominance of the baboons, nothing else matters.

  • buybuydandavis||

    You guys don't understand - this was the Black Knight, and he's Invincible!

  • buybuydandavis||

  • sloopyinca||

    So let me present you with the correct fact pattern:

    A one-armed man has a cop cornered with a pen in his only hand, and the officer cannot get away.

    OK, how is he both cornering the officer and endangering the officer with the pen at the same time? It's as simple as that. If the cop can articulate how he was both cornered and endangered by a one-armed man in a wheelchair, I'll be happy to listen. Barring that, I'd say he needs to be put on trial and a jury ought to decide if his excuse creates reasonable doubt or not.

    This case could be a turning point if the public outcry is intense enough. Seriously. No reasonable person in the world would accept the cop's story because it is not only intellectually implausible, but is physically impossible.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Maybe it's a mentally controlled hoverwheelchair.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Holy shit, these things keep getting even more ridiculous.

    And dunphy, I don't give a shit about learning case law. If case law says this cop shouldn't get the death penalty, case law is wrong.

    Also: damn this weekend is even worse for my football picks than last week. At least 8 underdogs winning.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    With that Raiders kick, make it at least 9.

  • sloopyinca||

    Only one player in the Pick-em has over 1/2 the games right. Only one. I've never seen that happen.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    There's still time. We might be able to get that up... to 5.

  • RBS||

    I have concluded that I am fucking terrible at picking NFL games. I love when dunphy breaks out his "case law" because law enforcement never cherry picks from opinions or anything. I also enjoy when he cites some state law decision like it means something in another jurisdiction.

  • Xenocles||

    "Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon," Silva told The Associated Press.

    At least this time the spokesman used the active voice. I read so many of these things where the story goes that "the officer's weapon discharged," as though the whole thing were just a tragic accident.

  • Jerry on the road||

    Don't Houston cops have flashlights?

  • ||

    as i have said, imo this case appears major screwed up and at least based on what i have learned thus far, appears clearly unjustified. that aside...

    how well DO cops do when presented with disturbed EDP's, violent EDP's, homicidal and/or suicidal EDP's?

    reason.com provides a valuable function

    they take cases where it appears that cops screwed the pooch bigtime, do a more thorough investigation than NBC, Fox, etc. would do... for a # of reasons. they don't have to cram a bunch of stories into a 1/2 broadcast, etc., and they push the story, get it out there, and get people talking and thinking. that's a very good thing.

    many of the problems i see firsthand with modern policework, such as the overmiltiarization of the cops over the last few decades, the substantial overuse/misuse of tasers, are covered here, for example. and on the whole, the reportage is pretty good. fwiw, i read the nation also, and i think their reportage is quite good as well, although obviously they have different emphases and underlyging core beliefs/visions.

    cases like the instant case, which appears SERIOUSLY messed up are thus exposed to a broader audience than would otherwise be true, and are also looked into with more depth than many other media outlets would give the story. that's CLEARLY a WIN

  • ||

    it's natural and understandable, especially for those who already have preconceived biases against police (heck, nearly everybody here has preconceived biases about govt. and that it's too pervasive, intruding , since that's a core belief of libertarians. police are thus part of the machine. furthermore, many more clearly have immense hostility towards cops) to see these stories and only become more convinced that something is rotten here in denmark.

    However, what people will naturally fall prey to is the Spotlight Fallacy. given that at least some of these incidents highlighted here ARE actual misconduct/grievous misconduct once the "whole story' gets out, what does that say about how LEO's handle (let's stick to this narrow subject) EDP's (Emotionally Disturbed Persons) IN GENERAL?

    THAT is really the question. no matter how well they handle these case on the whole, you will always have some total fuckups (not necesasrily malice but just fuckupedness) and even some total evil shit. that's going to be true because even given well trained, conscientious, well meaning cops, some of them are going to screw up sometimes. THAT is inevitable how those screwups are DEALT with is of course, key but that's another topic. and in the latter case, how are THESE people dealt with and how common are they?

  • ||

    so, just consider that these incidents happen all the time. based on my extensive experience, literally dealing with hundreds of very volatile calls involving extremely disturbed EDP's (and incuding arrest of EDPs for everything from attempted murder to arson, to rape, etc.) and seeing how well they are handled ALMOST every time, and also based on what i learned in grad school (counseling psychology), i'm confident that cops overall handle this stuff very well, heck i think many salty street cops are better at defusing and interviewing than many MHP's, certainly those with less than 5 yrs on.

  • ||

    you can disbelieve, but at least consider - go to a citizen's academy, do some ridealongs with your local PD, and even APPLY as a reserve officer. make a difference. i will suggest that most who have a profoundly negative view of how we handle these type of calls, you will be quite amazed at how well we do, in reality.

    and again, consider the power of the spotlight fallacy.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    these are the exceptions to be sure, but police in general are way too quick to forgive and forget their own for their mistakes and it gets to be terrible PR and the reason you see so much anger here and elsewhere. Bad cops should be ruthlessly weeded out and blacklisted from ever having a badge anywhere ever again, but routinely this is not the case and so while the instances are not common, they are repetitive.

    Combine that with politicians creating an environment where cops are told to enforce things that are patently rediculous, using them as their own personal vendetta militia for a myriad of absurd laws and you breed an environment of immediate distrust in police.

    Police are essential to a modern society. Its a pity they get played like pawns and are isolating themselves more and more to deal with the fact.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It's also possible there was a faith healer in the vicinity, who would have rendered any attempt to take advantage of the attacker's limblessness futile.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    L A T

    "They both attempted to separate the suspect from the officer, but the suspect continued to swing this object at both officers," police spokeswoman Jodi Silva told ABC 13 in Houston. "The other officer, officer Marin, in fear of the safety of his partner and the safety of himself, discharged his duty weapon, striking the suspect."

    Neighbors told the Houston Chronicle that they heard a single shot about two minutes after police arrived.

    They obviously exhausted all other alternatives.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What all of you fools fail to realize is that the cop was defending himself against Cripple Wolf.

    Part man.
    Part wolf.
    100% crippled.

  • Xenocles||

    I may have picked the wrong defense tonight, but I'm okay with that.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Hard for any defense to do much when the refs won't call offensive holding on anyone.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fuck. I had Boldin and the Ravens D and my opponent (in my cash league) had Rice and I was up 8 pts coming into the game. I figured I'd be fine until 10 minutes ago.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    What's the Over on Al Michael's mentioning Torrey Smith's loss again?

  • Xenocles||

    When you put it that way I think it's 1.

  • John||

    Things are a bit fuzzy so far, since the incident is fresh, but the story is that the wheelchair-bound man somehow cornered one officer Matthew Jacob Marin, a 5-year veteran of the force, who has one previous fatal shooting in his career.

    How do you have two fatal shootings in five years? Most cops don't have one in five careers.

  • Virginian||

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012.....p=trending

    Actually the other shoot was him walking on a guy who was stabbing someone to death. He told the guy to drop the knife, and the guy didn't. That's a text book example of a good shoot.

  • John||

    True. It just seems odd that he would have two of them in just five years

  • ||

    i like to analogize poker and law enforcement. in both (see game theory) they are games of limited information. in poker, there is often a question of whether given a certain circumstance , what the Pareto Optimal strategy is. Ditto, in law enforcement. also, in both, stuff is done from a process analysis, not a result analysis viewpoint. this is why galfond invented "galfond dollars", where you can compute your "winnings" given the odds vs. the results which of course depend on variance.

    in regards to this guy, variance applies as well. i recall the hand at the WSOP years ago, where one guy had a royal flush. and other had quad A's. lol. it was 1 in less than billion or something.

    one of my instructors in the police was famous (so to speak), because his FIRST day on the street he helped a woman give birth (this was way back before modern EMT's etc.) in the field. In the SAME SHIFT, like an hour later, he took a life (got in a shooting)

    cops can go through their whole career and do neither. the most extreme. he did BOTH. in one shift

    variance

  • ||

    however, we DO take statistical disparities into account when keeping track of possible problem officers. in other words, our software tracks frequency of occurrence in all sorts of incidents (level 1 use of force, level 2 use of force, complaint of rudeness,, vehicle collision) etc. and looks for statistical outliers

    a statistical outlier does NOT mean misconduct, but it's an anomalie that should be looked into

    and of course, you have to look at other factors. some distrcits have literally 2-3 times the frequency of uses force. because they have tons of scumbags living in them.

    you want to look at the stats and correlate them to how many stops the person made, how many arrests, etc.

    just like i don't see it here, but i think reason SHOULD look into it, is TRENDS in cops UOF. are shootings going up or down when compared to Part I crimes, for example. most articles will say stuff like "it seems bla bla bla police shootings" instead of actually looking at STATs to see if it is or isn't a trend

    and of course given sufficient # of officers, you WILL have some pretty astounding anomalies like that.

    like if you play poker long enough, you will get dealt pocket A's 3 times in a row.

    that's a VERY unlikely occurrence, but given sufficient "n" (i used to multitable) it's a near certainty

  • sloopyinca||

    like if you play poker long enough, you will get dealt pocket A's 3 times in a row.

    You know about as much about statistics as you do excessive force...not too much.

    If you play poker long enough, you will still be as likely to get pocket aces three times in a row as you are the first day you sit down at a table.

  • Xenocles||

    That's true for the hand-to-hand probability; the probability of an event occurring increases with the number of trials run because it's a cumulative measure.

    Put simply, your chance to do something is higher if you get three tries rather than one, even though the odds of the event happening on any particular try are constant.

  • sloopyinca||

    But every time you don't hit pocket aces three times in a row, you're starting over at your first game again. Past # of games doesn't matter to what you are doing in the present or future (unless the most recent past game you were dealt pocket aces).

    It's only true if you're playing multiple trials at the same time. IOW, if you have 100 games going simultaneously, your chances of hitting pocket aces 3 times in a row are 100x more likely than they are if you play 1 game that has 100x as many hands as the other games that you are playing.

  • sloopyinca||

    Where am I more likely to get pocket aces three times in a row?
    A) One game where I'm dealt 300 hands
    B) One hundred games where I'm dealt 3 hands each

    I'd have to think it is B.

  • Xenocles||

    I'd have to think it is B.

    My intuition is that it's the same. If in case B you reset the "in a row" counter after each game, the chances for B should decrease.

    Let's use "A" for a hand with pocket aces and "X" for any other hand. Let's say you play fifteen games instead of three hundred -

    XXAAAXXXXXXXXXX has the same probability as
    XXA AAX XXX XXX XXX (where a space represents the break between games).

    You should be able to see that with the set of rules I described, that would not count as a hit and that the first character of the group has to be an A in order to count. That's a limiting condition, and it should be intuitive that it would reduce the probability.

  • ||

    Sloopy you're misreading dunphy's words (troll!):

    like if you play poker long enough, you will get dealt pocket A's 3 times in a row.

    In other words, if you play many games, one of those games is likely to have pocket A's three times in a row.

    He didn't say your chances of getting pocket A's three times in a row in your next game increases after each game.

  • Xenocles||

    For an event with non-zero probability, the probability of it occurring always approaches one with enough trials. The set of trials might be "all the hands dealt in the casino tonight" or it might be "all the hands I see in my lifetime," but the math is the same - it's a cumulative distribution function.

  • ||

    we have a particular precinct that has a much much higher incidence of police UOF versus the others, while having a similar population.

    the kneejerk response would be "culture of corruption" or some other institutional problem.

    however, it became pretty clear that when you look at factors of drug use, part I crime occurrence, etc. etc. that it SHOULD have, given equally fair police response about twice the UOFs and twice the officer involved shootings

    look at these stats btw that show some aspects of people involved in cop shoots

    http://www.sdcda.org/office/ois_review_rpt.pdf

    page 11

    show me a district with high use of amphetamines, i'll show you a district that has high OIS (officer involved shootings).

    "Drugs and/or mental health issues were very common in the officer involved shootings, occurring in 77% of the cases (154 of 200 total). "

    so, despite the fact that at any given time, most people have no drugs "on board", 3/4 of the time cops shoot somebody, they got drugs on board.

    in only 4 cases did they have opiates on board. in 64!!! cases, they had meth/amphetamines on board

    and both drugs are PRETTY popular.

  • ||

    that's astounding, but not really, when you recognize that when cops have to shoot somebody, it's very related to that person's recklessness, violence towards the officer, paranoia, willingness to obey commands, etc. etc.

    people on meth (setting aside the issue as to does meth ATTRACT these type of people to become users or does meth MAKE its users INTO these kind people) do the kind of shit that gets them shot.

    people on opiates don't. people on opiates are chilling, on the nod. people on amphetamines are doing (often violent) crimes, etc.

    looking at drugs from a harm reduction and danger to society angle, - CLEARLY meth is a problem drug - FOR OTHERS who come into contact with meth-heads. OPIOIDS are a problem largely for the user. (OD, etc.). granted, opioid users tend to do a LOT of property crimes, but NOT violent crimes. the latter is what get people shot

    oh, and alcohol was found on board less often than meth (49) and second overall.

    hmmm...

    this is yet another strong piece of evidence that cops are not arbitrary, etc. in who they shoot. they are shooting people correlated with violent, non-cooperative, assaultive, etc. behavior. and these drugs correlate exactly with what you'd expect.

    Note: PCP shows a very low # but PCP is also VERY VERY uncommon. in 2 yrs undercover, i'd never met anybody who had ever done PCP.

  • sloopyinca||

    Don't forget, John, that this "wheelchair-bound man" that cornered this officer with a pen only had one fucking arm.

    Did he have the pen in his hand and a (one-of-a-kind) foot-operated wheelchair (that operated by a single foot since the guy didn't have two of those either), or did he have the pen in his mouth while he spun around in circles? Was it a round room he had the guy cornered in, or was the cop cramping up from an OD of Krispy Kremes?

    This is a textbook unnecessary shoot. And unnecessary=criminal when a non-cop shoots someone. Therefore, if there is justice in Texas, this cop will be charged and tried for either second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter with a handgun enhancer.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Wow - this one has everything. Plus the Patriots slapping the Ravens around on TEEVEE (so far).

    *throws another pack of popcorn in the microwave*

  • ||

    Unfortunately for my Fantasy team, the Pat's D are getting sla[[ed around themselves.

  • Xenocles||

    I played the Ravens and benched the Pats.

  • ||

    I should have started my Redskins. Hindsight is 20/20. In foresight, I made the right decision.

  • sloopyinca||

    You have both of those defenses?

  • Xenocles||

    I know, right?

  • ||

    Yeah well I dropped the Broncos for Redskins. I think it'll turn out to be the right choice.

  • sloopyinca||

    Neighbors told the Houston Chronicle that they heard a single shot about two minutes after police arrived.

    Did these cops not get training on getting rid of witnesses or charging them with obstruction so their testimony is disregarded? Jesus Christ, what kind of police academy are these guys running where simple courses like "Witness Intimidation 101" or "Murder Management 112" aren't taught in the first semester (of the single semester program required to be a cop)? Pikers.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Funny story.
    I took my niece and nephew out to Subway restaurant, and the elderly couple ahead of us ordered "a sandwich". The poor clerk, who was not a native english speaker, was working alone had to explain how the system worked to them. I think the couple were confused by all the choices. I think she was ready to kill herself, or the couple, or both.

  • ||

    oh, and here's a link to "galfond dollars". galfond dollars takes variance out of the equation, which makes it a powerful tool... from a process analysis standpoint. very similar to the kind of game theory logic you can apply in police tactics.

    this is a simplified article on it, btw. the "real" article was in a deadtree publication.

    http://www.thepokerbank.com/st.....s/g-bucks/

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    This all seems a lot less important after you watch the "Gang Nam Style" video.

    IT'S A TRICK TO INNOCULATE THE MASSES FROM PAIN!!! RUN, GO TELL THE OTHERS!!

  • sloopyinca||

    Instapoll: Based on this and recent threads, do you think dunphy is losing his mind:
    A) Yes
    B) No
    C) What mind
    D) Sloopy is a troll

  • ||

    All of the above.

  • Silver Fox||

    I vote C. Dunphy doesn't have a brain.

  • ||

    E) Dunphy is a bullshit artist

  • Generic Stranger||

    C. Those walls of text imply poor impulse control and self discipline.

  • Silver Fox||

    Those walls of text imply poor impulse control and self discipline.

    Just the sort of thing police departments around the world are looking for—

    I see what you did there.

  • ||

    B)

    I don't always agree with him, that's all. That you want to be an ass every time he types something, no matter how cogent it is, only reflects on you.

  • sloopyinca||

    Because I point out his love for a separate system of justice for cops than the rest of us is hardly "being an ass". Why don't you go back and read the threads he comes on and defends "procedure" over an equal system of justice and you'll understand why I (and a plethora of others on here) get so pissed off that I engage and destroy his arguments.

    Oh, and if you want to know what his sense of justice is, ask him if a cop should be held accountable for breaking a law if he hasn't been retrained on its implementation...and then ask him if a "civilian" should be held accountable for a law he was unaware existed when he broke it.

    Sorry, but you might want to do a little research before you take sides on this one, because I'm hardly alone in what I think about officer dunphy here. I'm just more vocal and engaging.

  • ||

    Except that's not what I'm talking about. It's threads like this, where the first thing he says is that he doesn't think it's justified, and what response does he get? People jump all over him, accuse him of believing the exact opposite of what he just said he believed about this case.

    And other threads too, where he's mentioning case law or drug information, and some people just dismiss it all. I can understand disagreement with use of force (UOF) issues, I don't agree with him a lot on that either. But when he mentions case law, and people just ignore it or act like he's lying, or he says stuff like "based on what you say, it's probably (drug)" and people tell him to "fuck off", just for giving us information about relevant laws and drug effects. THAT'S the sort of crap I'm talking about, and you do it as much as anyone here.

  • ||

    Xenocles, if you are interested in probabilities, download poker stove.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PokerStove

    you can check probabilities for various circumstances (cards face up, cards burned, etc.) and especially because you can establish (monte carlo simulation as well) probabilities against RANGES of hands

    if you want to compete against the modern generation of poker players, you gotta consider your hand vs. your opponents' range

  • sloopyinca||

    Why would you think he needs that? I'm no poker genius, but I can calculate the odds pretty easily. Same goes for blackjack, although it's a different process due to the dealer being one's only opponent and more cards showing on the table.

  • sloopyinca||

    That would be for single deck. Obviously, with multiple deck blackjack, it's more a memory exercise in what's been played in addition to what your odds are vs the dealer's of having a higher hand and/or busting if you or he hits again.

  • Xenocles||

    I've never applied myself to learning the specific numbers, but I am interested in the concepts.

  • sloopyinca||

    They're pretty basic. I've been teaching my kids blackjack theory for a couple of years. They're both bored with their math classes now that they're well ahead of the shit they're teaching in 10th grade (son is in 7th and daughter is in 9th). I figured this would keep them interested in practical math.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Pokerstove is really nifty. And free, which is nice.

    As I said when I brought up this shooting in the other thread, I'd give 11/10 pick 'em whether the cop even gets indicted. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he were no-billed. Which is disgusting, but there you are.

    It's going to depend on how much of a stink gets put up about the killing. We do indict officers for shootings from time to time, but it has to be a really bad one. Google-fu is failing me, but one cop went up for two years for plugging an 11 year old in the back of the head when the cop was trying to, IIRC, investigate a stolen game console in an apartment. He told the kid to get up, kid wouldn't, cop tried to arrest kid, kid kicked cop in groin, cop got on top of kid, drew weapon, and the weapon discharged into the kid's skull. Accidental discharge and dead kid.

    OTOH, you can be pulled over for driving your parents' car, get shot in your front yard after the cop shoves your mom to the ground, and no foul. At least the G.J. indicted the guy.

  • sloopyinca||

    He told the kid to get up, kid wouldn't, cop tried to arrest kid, kid kicked cop in groin, cop got on top of kid, drew weapon, and the weapon discharged into the kid's skull. Accidental discharge and dead kid.

    Weapons don't discharge unless someone practices poor trigger discipline. This cop was responsible for his weapon and instead used it to shoot a kid in the back of the head. Sounds like Oscar Grant all over again...including the weak sentence.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Oh, I'm just relating the story how it appeared in the paper as the HPD officer was telling it in court. Me? I think the cop got pissed that the kid kicked him in the balls, tried to beat down the kid while holding his pistol, and while pissed off, accidently-on-purpose shot him in the back of the head.

    Horrible that he only got two years. I want to say---again, can't find the damned story---that he pled down to something lower than manslaughter. Anyway, I'm sure that my story of accidental discharge would get identical weight as his from the D.A. and jury.

  • ||

    Hey dunphy, know any good illegal gambling joints in the Seattle area?

  • Xenocles||

    You don't need illegal ones, the area is full of Indian casinos on both sides of the Sound.

  • ||

    no. when it comes to poker, i go to snoqualmie. i have a few friends in north bend, so it's a perfect location to go after.

    WA state does not have "real" no-limit cash games. they have spread limit, and they only have spread limit at the indian casinos, like snoqualmie and muckleshoot.

    muckleshoot makes me want to be carrying my gun, plus my friends are in north bend, so fuck muckleshoot

  • Xenocles||

    Clearwater runs no-limit tournaments occasionally - or they used to, anyway.

  • ||

    like i said, no limit CASH games are illegal here (they call it spread limit and limit the # of reraises etc.)

    no limit TOURNAMENTS are fine, since there IS a limit (closed system), which is your buy-in

    i prefer cash games over tournaments. i prefer deep stack small ball poker. tournaments can become all-in donkfests.

    but yea, plenty of no limit tournaments in WA.

  • C. Anacreon||

    A long-time work colleague who had retired about ten years ago passed away this weekend. His widow actually wanted company yesterday, and there ended up being a potluck in their backyard, with a lot of people who used to work with this guy in the 80s and 90s. The location was Marin County, California, legendary home of the ultraliberals.

    It ended up with a lot of folks sitting around a big table, and after awhile, rather than reminiscing about the deceased, the conversation turned to politics -- or their version of it. The stoopid burned and burned but I kept quiet in respect for my departed friend.

    Best comments:

    "Didn't you feel really tingly and excitedly hopeful from the stirring speeches of the Democratic convention?" (Much nodding and agreement)

    "Maybe the Democrats can win back the house as well as the Senate and Presidency. Then all this Republican standstill will stop and they can finally pass some bills to get us out of this recession." (Much nodding and refrains of "oh, wouldn't that be wonderful."

    I found that if you smile and keep your mouth shut no one will think you have a problem with what they are saying. Wow, though, I practically had to sew my lips together. This went on for a good half-hour until the widow actually brought the subject back to her dead husband.

  • sloopyinca||

    "Maybe the Democrats can win back the house as well as the Senate and Presidency. Then all this Republican standstill will stop and they can finally pass some bills to get us out of this recession." (Much nodding and refrains of "oh, wouldn't that be wonderful."

    What, like they had for two full years a scant 22 months ago?

    And I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your friend.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    "Didn't you feel really tingly and excitedly hopeful from the stirring speeches of the Democratic convention?" (Much nodding and agreement)

    Please tell me that's a paraphrase and not reported verbatim.

  • C. Anacreon||

    verbatim, sadly

  • sloopyinca||

    Jesus, this is some good fucking chicken I just made. I mean fucking excellent chicken.

    There's something to be said for killing something and eating it.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    There's something to be said for killing something and eating it.

    That's what she said.

  • Issei Sagawa||

    There's something to be said for killing something and eating it.

    I agree.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    like they had for two full years a scant 22 months ago?

    Booooosh vetoed all their great works.

  • sloopyinca||

    Bush looms large...

  • C. Anacreon||

    Thanks. He was actually a good guy and surprisingly pretty moderate -- it must have been tough on him not to call out these ninnies himself sometimes.

    Yes, it would have been so easy to point that 22-month-ago thing. But it would have been similar to saying something to slightly challenge an anti-American screed while in a European bar (a mistake I have made before, coincidentally when already very paranoid, after just having done rails of coke with the bartender in the back room). It just would have opened scrutiny and everyone would have been surrounding me within minutes.

  • johnl||

    Was it an electric chair? He could have held a weapon in his one hand and also used the same hand to steer. And there was no way to know that was a pen, rather than a sonic screwdriver.

  • Mainer2||

    Another written tic in these articles, the officer is always a "veteran". In this case a 5 year veteran, which I suppose one could argue is relatively experienced, at least no longer a tyro. But the word veteran implies a level of seasoning and experience of, I don't know....15 years, 20 ? The worst I've seen, the Union Leader refered to a 3 year veteran of the force. In other words, a novice. A green kid in his early twenties.

  • Generic Stranger||

    They're using it as a cheap "respect" booster.

  • ||

    much like when a cop shoots a person who served in the military, they refer to the guy as a "former marine"

    funny how that works, huh

  • Generic Stranger||

    There's a bit of a difference between calling a greenhorn a "veteran" and calling a former marine a former marine, you fuck bucket. One is actually justified.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    A football player in his second season is referred to as a "veteran". It's an oddity of the language, nothing more.

  • robc||

    There is no such thing as a former marine.

  • Homple||

    dunphy says, "did the officer reasonably believe that if he did not shoot this guy, that he would be placed in imminent risk of SERIOUS bodily injury."

    It would be fascinating to learn by what mental process the officer could plausibly come to believe that a guy with one arm and one leg in a wheelchair brandishing a pen placed the officer or anyone else in risk of serious bodily injury.

  • sloopyinca||

    If the HPD operates like departments in dunphy's neck of the woods, the officer in question will have three days to figure out the answer to that before he is required to make a statement...and that statement cannot be used against him to press charges, only for internal disciplinary action.

    That's a far cry from what you or I would face if we claimed we shot a one-arm/one-legged guy in a wheelchair because he "had two of us cornered with a pen and we were ascared for our lives!"

  • Generic Stranger||

    But THAT'S PROCEDURE! Therefor it's automatically right!

    hth

  • sloopyinca||

    And herein lies the double-standard, and the evil it causes.

  • ||

    you either believe in rule of law or rule of man

    rule of law means yes- cops and others are protected for following procedure, and punished for violating it. many of these procedures are part of law, others are part of case law.

    if i arrest somebody and custodially interrogate them,i have to read miranda

    why?

    procedure. the scotus at one point in time decided that. it doesn't matter whether you or i LIKE it, or whether it leads to good results or bad results. it is what it is.

    if you believe in rule of law, you accept that many rules/procedures can in many circ's lead to suboptimal or even bad results.

    OJ was guilty as fuck. but he was found not guilty. procedure (double jeopardy ) says he coudlnt' be tried again

    you want to have it both ways. you of course want cops to follow procedure (miranda, limitation on UOF etc.) but you are not willing to then accept that when cops (or others) FOLLOW procedure, that you can't punish for bad results

    this something you simply can't grok. there's no wiggle room. fine. if you don't think cops should be protected by procedure, then they shouldn't be punisjhed for violating it, given a good result

    is it ok for a cop to violate a warrant requirement as long as it leads to a good result and they catch the bad guy with the murder weapon? no. illegal search is illegal search. procedure was violated.

    contrarily, you accept that if cops FOLLOW procedure, then you can't fault them for it.

    it works both ways

  • sloopyinca||

    We just want the same procedure to apply to the cop that would apply to a non-cop. That's what you don't understand, dumbass.

    If we don't get three days to craft a statement, why should a cop? If we don't get the opportunity to keep all of the evidence or have access to it when something like this happens, why should the cop? If we're subject to a grand jury but a cop is subject to an IA investigation, where is the equality and fairness in that?

    You're a scumbag because you value policy and procedure over righteousness and equality. You and your ilk are a part of the problem instead of the solution. And the day can't come too soon for your corrupt system to be dumped on the ash heap of history.

  • ||

    If we don't get three days to craft a statement, why should a cop? If we don't get the opportunity to keep all of the evidence or have access to it when something like this happens, why should the cop? If we're subject to a grand jury but a cop is subject to an IA investigation, where is the equality and fairness in that?

    I feel that this is a legitimate criticism. Why should there be procedures designed to protect officers over civilians, rather than procedures that treat everyone in a given situation the same?

  • sloopyinca||

    Of course it's legitimate. That's why he'll never respond to it and will go off on wild tangents about poker odds.

    But you wonder why he's so reviled here by the overwhelming majority.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Police officers are forced into potentially dangerous situations that they don't have an option to retreat from as a non-cop would. So I'm OK with a little bit of benefit of the doubt for them.

    As dunphy has stated several times, there's not much doubt in this case to extract benefit from. The officer's explanation would have to be way more detailed and seriously stunning for him to not deserve prosecution for this.

  • ||

    i readily agree. unless there is some smoking gun (or smokign pen), this seems to me to reach criminal status under the model penal code. i can't speak for the laws in texas, but i would assume their laws are similar.

    i am reminded of the BART shooting when i had to spend tons of time explaining why it was not murder, but WAS 2nd degreee manslaughter. i also recall only one person who agreed with me, Balko

    however, even if he didn't, i'd rather be wrong and in a minority (especially here) than in a circle jerk, but wrong.

    fwiw, UNfortuntely to some extent cops DO have an option to retreat. i mean clearly there ar situations where they SHOULD NOT RETREAT but should move forward. some cops are fucking cowards. they should turn in their fucking badges

    columbine is a good example. they were TRAINED btw, to wait for swat. that was the bullshit back then , prior to ASAP training. i say fuck that. kids are getting shot - you go in and save the kids

    and if you get shot, too fucking bad

    cowardice is one absolute sin i cannot ever abide. i deal with cops who are lazy, sloppy, unmotivated, etc. but cowardice? imo, absolutely unacceptable. get anotjher fucking job

  • ||

    darius, i address this below. i haven't responded to sloopy and 4 other people here, and haven't for weeks. imo, they have no integrity, and are not discussing issues in good faith. they also devolve to personal attacks, etc. this is the only reference i will make to this, but that is why. i mentioned it a few weeks ago. even by mentioning him NOW, i am kind of engaging him so this will be the last time

    the question is a good one, and i answer it below. it's just when a question comes from sloopy, i don't read it.

    its made posting here much better. there are other people i can learn from and exchange ideas with. but to me, integrity is first and foremost and from what i have seen, he has none

  • sloopyinca||

    Awwwwww, does somebody need their diaper changed? Does someone think another person that dissects their arguments and demolishes them is a troll? Does he think another person that exposes his hypocrisy lacks integrity?

    Hahaha. You're nothing more than a thin-skinned pussy. I've had people rip me apart on here and I engaged them because I'm not a cowardly douchenozzle like you are.

    Chump!

  • Silver Fox||

    they have no integrity, and are not discussing issues in good faith.

    Shorter Dunphy: They keep holding my feet to the fire on this issue!

    they also devolve to personal attacks, etc.

    Shorter Dunphy: I hate accurate portrayals of my character!

    Really Dunphy they're not at fault here you are. You just can't seem to say that police officers should be treated the same way civilians are, if not moreso when they abuse their powers [which happens a lot]. You really can't.

    [Unless you have and I missed it somewhere?]

  • Homple||

    Mr. Dunphy, the dead guy had one arm and one leg and was wheelchair bound and was "armed" with a [procreating] pen and the officer has two arms and two legs and was obviously able to walk and run and dodge and jump and....

    I'm achingly curious to find out what Procedures can conceivably justify this killing and how the officer can possibly demonstrate how he followed them.

  • ||

    are you blind? i said in this thread and in previous threads that i find this cop's excuse LAUGHABLE and i clearly think it was a bad shoot

    stop listening to the trolls for fuck's sake.

    the very post i made was in response to the author and i said i thought the officer's case was 'weak sauce" and i couldn't imagine how it could ever be justified.

    seriously. stop listening to the trolls.

  • ||

    He was aggressive, threatening, not following orders, violent toward officers... exactly the type of behavior which you listed above as "why cops have to shoot".

    Do you troll yourself (beside licking your own asshole)?

  • ||

    those factors are not dispostive. again, you can twist my words all you want. it just makes you a troll.

  • sloopyinca||

    those factors are not dispostive. again, you can twist my words all you want. it just makes you a troll.

    Anything that cuts against your narrative you consider trolling. Your style of argumentation is stale and tired. You are the troll, Buckaroo Banzai. You and your bullshit lies and defenses of unequal systems of justice.

  • ||

    If they aren't "dispositive", why did you list them as reasons "why cops have to shoot"?

    No need to "twist your words"; you convict yourself by them.

  • Silver Fox||

    It's really fun watching Dunphy - he weaves his own rope and then hangs himself with it.

  • ||

    i have explained this before.

    wherher a shoot is justified, just like a search, a terry stop, etc. etc. is based always on the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES

    numerous circumstances , even together, may not rise to the level of RS or PC or to justify a shoot.

    this is equally true with noncop shootings.

    they are not dispositve because there has to be MORE. this is what gets boring about discussing criminal and const law here, is if you have to constantly repeat yourself because of the general ignorance of case law.

    again - TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES'

  • ||

    TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES

    So the "person's recklessness, violence towards the officer, paranoia, willingness to obey commands" doesn't make it so "cops have to shoot somebody"; it was just bullshit.

  • ||

    obviously not, in some circs.

    again, this is const. law 101. i'm not going to be your instructor. google "use of force" and totality of the circumstance" or ask a legal professor (but god, not obama), . that's how these decisions are made.

    i've testified to this stuff literally hundreds of times. i've taught it. it's not controversial.

    that's why i suggest people read some of these arbitrator reports, or the LED links i have provided. that way, you can DISagree with the state of the law as it is, but FIRST you will understand it.

    i'm sorry if that sounds arrogant, but this is not rocket science.

    i can provide examples, but i already have done so. go to google. look it up. learn about it.

  • ||

    "Police officers are trained to make a decision in a microsecond", says Spokane PD Maj. Frank Scalise.

    Trained to make a decision in a millionth of a second.

  • ||

    that's pretty wizard

    mebbe major frank burns/scalise should do some reading

    http://www.forcescience.org/

  • ||

    We're not talking about things unique to an arresting officer of the state, dunphy (e.g. Miranda readings, etc.). We're talking about procedures governing investigations of force or other misconduct (several days before a statement must be made, etc.). Why are there special rules for officers in these matters?

  • ||

    we have discussed this ad nauseum. in brief, cops have the same or STRICTER standards vis a vis physical force than noncops.

    where there SEEMS to be a double standard is when people compare disanalogous situations. for example, in arrest situations, WHETHER MADE BY COPS OR CITIZENS there is rather broad force latitude. it has nothing to do with the "doer". it has to do with the ACT - making an arrest

    bounty hunters, store security, etc. are well aware of the rules and i work with them frequently

    as to the statement, i will explain why it is disanalogous.

    if you shoot somebody (justified or not) and i ask you what happened, you are not compelled to answer (5th amendment.) fwiw, i have responded to several self defense incidents involving citizens and guns (one was a shoot most were a point and prone out) and in evrey case they DID give a statement. and in none of those cases were they charged

    but listen really carefully here, because this is the crux of the issue

    *****************************
    the statement that some agencies allow the cops 3 days to make are ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPELLED STATEMENTS.

    there *is* no such thing as an administratively compelled statement when you shoot somebody.

  • ||

    (cont)

    these are special statements that CAN be mandated and NOT violate the 5th amendment by doing so. AS LONG AS the statement is not used, referened, etc. in the criminal trial.

    so, there is no analog in a non officer of the state. they CANNOT be compelled to nmake a statement.

    if the investigating officers believe the case will likely go criminal, they usually will NOT take a compelled statement because it can munge up the criminal trial if they don't set up a proper chinese wall (look it up).

    so, again. there are special rules, because it's a SPECIAL STATEMENT. it is a compelled statement. there IS NO compelled statement if a noncop shoots somebody, because it would violate the 5th amendment

    let me know if you understand the distinction, because it's critical and it's something most people understandably are not grokking

  • sloopyinca||

    And ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!! go the goalposts.

    If a "civilian" shoots someone in a situation like the one chronicled here and refuses to say anything, he's going to be taken in and held until his attorney shows up and bails him out. Yes, he has 5A protections, but so does the cop. That said, they are going to take this to a grand jury and proceed straight to trial unless he gives a compelling defense. That will not happen to the cop, whose co-workers will investigate whether or not he committed a crime and whether or not he broke a departmental rule. If he follows the departmental playbook and union guidelines, he can be exonerated in a criminal investigation (the rest of us would not get) because his statement could only be used to determine if he broke departmental rules.

    You really don't see how this is a separate system of justice for cops and non-cops? If you can't then maybe you're not a disingenuous fuckbag, you might be retarded instead.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Whoa whoa whoa dunphy. You're stealing a base here. Non-cops don't have the option of making a special statement that can't be used against them in a criminal trial, so I don't see how the cops have it any worse off.

    Hell, if I could be guaranteed immunity from prosecution, I'd make any compelled statement they want me to.

    if the investigating officers believe the case will likely go criminal, they usually will NOT take a compelled statement because it can munge up the criminal trial if they don't set up a proper chinese wall (look it up).

    Well isn't THAT convenient!

  • ||

    it's not a beneficial option, tulpa. it's a MANDATED statement.

    they are NOT guaranteed imumunity. what it means is that the cops cannot use the STATEMENT against them in court

    becaise of the 5th amendment.

    it is not a benefit to cops. the statement is taken so the ADMINISTRATIVE investigation can occur, which can result in discipline and firing

    but under our constitution, you cannot compel a statement from somebody against their will, to be used in criminal court.

    that's true of cops and everybody else

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If the investigators screw up (intentionally or otherwise) it is effectively immunity.

    At best it's a red herring, since the non-cop doesn't have a police job to lose so the fact that they can't be compelled to make a statement that can cause them to lose their police job is irrelevant. They'll probably lose their "civilian" job while sitting in jail waiting for their trial.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    in arrest situations, WHETHER MADE BY COPS OR CITIZENS there is rather broad force latitude. it has nothing to do with the "doer". it has to do with the ACT - making an arrest

    Not quite... non-cops don't get qualified immunity....

  • ||

    im aware of that. non cops also(generally) cannot detain under reasoanble suspicion. and i ahve pointed that out several times. just like cops don't get absolute immunity, like judges who sign fucked up warrants.

    as i have explained ad nauseum, there are factors that work against AND factors that work for police. qualified immunity is clearly such an example. however, qualified immunity has nothing to do with penal jeopardy, just to make that clear.

  • entropy||

    Look dude.

    If following procedure to the letter gets a wheelchair bound double amputee shot by 2 full grown cops with functional legs, then the procedure is FUBAR.

    So if we shouldn't hold the cop accountable fine. Fire the asshole that wrote the procedure and re-write it for being unacceptable. The brass should take responsibility and get canned.

    There has to be accountability.

  • entropy||

    For murdering the handicapped, no less.

    This is not ok for anyone to have done, and not a cop. When this has happened, whether procedure was followed or not, something has gone very very obviously wrong. So either procedure wasn't followed or procedure is deeply, deeply flawed and inadequate.

    For us to fall back and say the cops OK because he followed the book, and the book doesn't get immediately reformed, you're basically just saying sometimes in the course of normal events handicapped people just get popped in the head because they look scary, and we just have to accept it.

  • Homple||

    I hope we get to see the officer's explanation. It can't fail to be a treasure of narrative and ratiocination for civilization to cherish.

    Please, Reason, follow this for us non-Houstonians.

  • ||

    and as i said, if you would stop listening to trolls, i already said in this thread that the shooting clearly appears UNjustified.

    so stop listening to the trolls

    i haven't see anybody defend this shooting in this thread.

    some people like to argue for the sake of arguing. if there is somebody in this thread who is defending what these officers did, i am not aware of it. are you?

  • Silver Fox||

    i haven't see anybody defend this shooting in this thread.

    No, we just see you blathering about how each situation is unique and how it should be responded to is different even if there are similarities or ... something.

    Honestly, I don't know what you were flapping your cyber-gums about - I wasn't paying you any attention until now.

  • ||

    i was actually conversing with the thread's author who asked a question, which i answered

  • Silver Fox||

    Just this thread or the whole post?

    Did you answer any question about how officers should be held to a higher standard than us poor yobs and when they screw up the penalties must be higher than if us same yobs committed an act like shooting cripples in a wheelchair? Yet?

  • ||

    i am not, and have not spoken normatively. i am speaking descriptively.

    if i was to speak NORMATIVELY, i would be talking about erasing 1/3 of the penal code, making the rules of search and seizure much stricter (in most areas), restoring gun rights to all misdemeanor DV defendants, and a whole bunch of ther stuff

    when i say whether a shooting is justified, that's not a moral statement. that's a legal statement. i'm not going to hop down the normative bunny trail right now

    i will say - again - from what i know from the article, the cop was not justified, and likely should be criminally charged (id have to know the texas penal code and some more facts to e certain, but it certainly appears to be a prima facie case of an unlawful killing, whether it's Man I/II or Murder I/II i;m not schooled enuf in texas law to have an answer for that

  • Silver Fox||

    Fine. The cop in this case was wrong. Fine. We get it.

    But why do you have to trot out examples where cop shooting is justified?

    Are you aware that doing so nullifies your earlier statement that shooting a hardly dangerous disabled man in a wheelchair was not justified?

    Even when you criticise cop shootings you still end up defending cop shootings.

  • ||

    exactly. i was saying he WAS NOT justified? can you fuckign READ?

  • ||

    Some people here aren't as interested in separating the wheat from the chaff.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yes we are. That's why we're calling for a grand jury. Notice that he's calling it "unjustified" or "weak sauce" but falls well short of calling it criminal or worthy of a criminal investigation the rest of us would be subject to? That's why we all hate this fuck. He's still not calling for an equal system of justice for the cop who killed this man.

  • sloopyinca||

    In a fair and equal system of justice, unjustified=criminal. In today's system, it means he will be disciplined internally while a "civilian" would face a trial and imprisonment if found guilty. That's hardly what I'd call equal protection under the law.

  • Silver Fox||

    Some animals are obviously more equal than others.

  • ||

    Darius, let's continue this down here. less confusing with threading:

    you said: "We're talking about procedures governing investigations of force or other misconduct (several days before a statement must be made, etc.). Why are there special rules for officers in these matters?"

    if you shoot somebody (justified or not) and i ask you what happened, you are not compelled to answer (5th amendment.) fwiw, i have responded to several self defense incidents involving citizens and guns (one was a shoot most were a point and prone out) and in evrey case they DID give a statement. and in none of those cases were they charged

    but listen really carefully here, because this is the crux of the issue

    *****************************
    the statement that some agencies allow the cops 3 days to make are ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPELLED STATEMENTS.

    there *is* no such thing as an administratively compelled statement when you shoot somebody.

    these are special statements that CAN be mandated and NOT violate the 5th amendment by doing so. AS LONG AS the statement is not used, referened, etc. in the criminal trial.

    so, there is no analog in a non officer of the state. they CANNOT be compelled to nmake a statement.
    okking

  • ||

    if the investigating officers believe the case will likely go criminal, they usually will NOT take a compelled statement because it can munge up the criminal trial if they don't set up a proper chinese wall (look it up).

    so, again. there are special rules, because it's a SPECIAL STATEMENT. it is a compelled statement. there IS NO compelled statement if a noncop shoots somebody, because it would violate the 5th amendment

    let me know if you understand the distinction, because it's critical and it's something most people understandably are not gr

  • ||

    so, in brief, the alleged "special rules" refer to a civilly compelled statement. noncops, since the cops cannot compel them to make a statement HAVE no such rules, because there IS no noncompelled statement.

    when an officer shoots somebody, there are several concurrent investigations, that do not occur when a noncop does one

    jurisdictions vary, but:

    there is an internal affairs investigation. they investigate policy issues, not criminal amtters, and they may consider the compelled statement. they also may consider various other types of evidence that are NOT admissible in a criminal trial, such as many forms of hearsay.

    there is often an oversight board investigation (civilian review board in some places, etc.). they are also privy to the compelled statement, usually

  • ||

    there is a (in my county) Death Inquest. these are mandatory per county code for ANY officer caused homicide. they are RARELY done when noncops shoot people. they are a fact finding body, not a "court" and their job is to determine the asnwers to numerous questions, and they may pass this information on to the DA.

    also, there may be, and there will often be at least a reviwew, a FEDERAL investigation under civil rights codes (color of authority), which usually do not apply in noncop trials. think rodney king. they got found not guilty in local courts (simi valley), so since the federal govt. is an "independent sovereign" they ALSO got to prosecute AFTER the first acquittla. it is not considered double jeopardy, even though jeopardy (risk of imprisonment) exists EVEN THOUGH it clearly is. that's a negative factor that works AGAISNT the cop

  • sloopyinca||

    And tell us again how a "civilian" would be treated if the cops showed up and a man was standing over a dead body in an overturned wheelchair that had one arm and one leg. Would that citizen have likely gone home that night if he gave the same story the police did? Especially if the neighbors said he entered the house and they heard a gunshot two minutes later? Or if the fact pattern didn't make sense: a one-armed man managed to operate a wheelchair and brandish a weapon at the same time and put two separate peoples' lives in danger causing one of them to shoot him even though he could not discern what the one-armed man was holding and was not immediately in front of the man.

    Would he? I think not. And neither does any sane individual with an IQ over 75.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    if you shoot somebody (justified or not) and i ask you what happened, you are not compelled to answer (5th amendment.)

    Sure, I believe that. And I'll even pretend to be surprised when you hit me with that BS obstruction of justice charge.

  • ||

    when you are willing to discuss this like an adult, get back to me. this is the kind of obfuscatory fantasyland crap that bores me.

    a suspect cannot be charged for not speaking with police, APART from that he must give his name, etc. in certain circs (like in a state with a stop and id statute. my state has no such statute). in those states, given RS, the cops can require you give your name and dob.

    but in no case, can the cops compel you to incriminate yourself TESTIMONIALLY

    (in some caes they can require same via direct evidence, but miranda v. arizona in most jurisdictions has been found to pertain to testimony)

  • ||

    darius, ball is in your court. you asked about the delayed statement, and i offered an explanation

    it is a sitution that does not occur with noncops, sicne noncops cannot be COMPELLED to give a statement to the police. COPS CAN BE COMPELLED

    given the compulsion, it cannot be used against them in criminal court. it can be used in civil and administrative issues. i am also pretty sure it can be used to impeach statements made in criminal trial (just like a statement a cop takes outside of miranda) can be used against the defendant IF the defendant makes statements in court that contradict their nonmiranadized statement

  • sloopyinca||

    Dunphy gets demolished again and he finally comes out and says he won't engage me and some others ever again because we have no integrity.

    The man that refuses to call a criminal act a criminal act because the job the perpetrator holds has a lot of gall to question peoples' integrity that desire nothing more than equal protection under the law.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Maybe that wouldn't happen if you toned down the insults and explained your position in a civil manner. Did the manners your mama taught you vanish into thin air the moment you logged on to the Internet? It's a common occurrence.

    He was totally justified in calling out the one who claimed that if you refuse to talk to cops you'll be charged with obstruction. That's just dishonest nonsense.

  • ||

    tulpa, i am just not interested in devovling into discussion of personalities. ever since i plonked about 5 people here, it's simply much better. it's like Usenet redux.

    again, even referencing this policy, is in a sense violating it. i've learne a lot from a lot of people here, and i am having a good time

    i got at least 3 more weeks off work, chillaxin'. i can't lift ANY weight (well, 10 lbs lol), i was down 30 lbs of bodyweight, and I've already gained a fair amount back since surgery, since im not vomiting everything up. life is good.

    i enjoy threads like this. it's why i'm here. i LIKE having discussions wit people i disagree with, because i can often learn, recognize my position was wrong, and reassess.

    i used to be against RKBA. i used to be pro drug war. my mind was changed by experience (as a cop mostly) and the people i have met both in cyberspace and in real life (back in the usenet days we would go to powerlifting contests etc. together. and interestingly when oaround peopl ein person, the conversations were way more polite and fruitful . the internet just affects some people in a weird way. that's kewl.

  • ||

    i can disagree or agree with you. as long as it's civil.

    what i like so much about volokh. com is that guys who know way way more in most (not all) aspects of the law are great teachers. it's give and take. they also respect my valueble experience - the real world application of law vs. the ivory tower. it's win/win

    i don't expect that here. people here REAALLY hate the police. remember for a long time, it was 'you are lying no way you are a cop', and the attacks change, but they are always attacks. that's boring

    so, i'm having fun and i'm going ot keep it it that way, spanx

    cheers

  • Generic Stranger||

    Here's the thing: early on people were fairly polite to dunphy. It's just that over time he has continued to defend some of the absolute worst behavior by cops every single time.

    Just about the only time he doesn't is when he doesn't even have the fig leaf of procedure to hide behind. Give him that much, though, and he defends outright murder by other cops.

    It's hard to remain civil with someone who defends actions like that; in fact, I argue that we really shouldn't. Such people should be ostracized, shunned and mocked until they either change their ways or hang themselves.

  • ||

    rubbish. first of all, right off the bat, the trolls were accusing me of lying about being a cop. that was about 90% of the responses, then it was hostility about its impossible to be a cop and a libertarian.

    but here's the thing. i have NO problem with most people here. i think they are plenty polite. i enjoy being here. it's just the small cadre of trolls. SINCE i started to ignore them, i have no problem with anybody here

    the argument that i defend the worst behavior is laughable. my positions are prettty consisting with what case law eventually determines, and that's because when i make arguments that are not normative, i am commenting on the law as it is, not the law as i (or you) WANT it to be

    the reality is i have been involved in use of force, to include shootings. i hate tons of first hand knowledge, tons of court experience, and i find it ironic that when i post in a place full of high powered lawyers (and fwiw, some of my good friends are defense attorneys.) i don't get the trolls. just here

    if you can't point out something i defend that is the "worst" , then go ahead. i'm not seeing it.

    again, i enjoy being here, i enjoy most of the people here, i learn a lot from them, and for those who are willing to open their mind, they can learn a lot from me. i am wrong on many occasions, and when shown to be, i have no problem admitting so . that's how adults learn

    regardless, i'm not complaining. there are some good people here with good posts

  • ||

    show me one case where i defend murder by cops. one

    fwiw, balko and i were the only ones here i recall who said the bart shooting was Man II not "murder"

    murder is a legal term. when iassess whether a homicide is murder, whether committed by a cop or anybody else, i apply the relevant law. my use of force decisions mean that in 20 yrs of police work, i have never been cited for excessive force, (which is rare), and i have a great record at using minimal force to gain compliance

    i will defend cops when they do the right thing

    but again, people need to distinguish the moral from the legal

    is it MORAL that a murderer gets off from a conviction because of some technicality? of course not. but it's THE LAW

    people support procedure here when it can be held against cops. i support it both ways. if cops are going to be judged, then they need to be judged under the rule of law, not the rule of men. i explain what the rule of law is. in some cases, i don't like it, in some i do

    look at the seth adams case. that one i got a lot of shit for. i read the final report. entirely justified. lawful, but awful

    again, enjoy being here. i hope you do, too. i enjoy learning from people, and i will continue to, when discussing police UOF - to rely on the law to judge... wait for it... legality

  • ||

    procedure means a lot of things get a bad result. guess what? our justice system is predicated on the belief better to let 10 guilty men go free, than to convict an innocent man. we require high rules of evidence, and we suppress evidence when the guy is obviously guilty because of technicalities

    but what i find to be the TRUE double standard is how stuff like miranda, fruit of the poisonous tree doctrines, and all the other procedural case law that protects criminal defendants is okey-dokey, but when case law is used to protect cops, all of a sudden it's just slavish adherence to "procedure"

    procedure - the LAW is the system. NOT rule of man.

    i personally hold myself ot a higher standard than the law does. when it comes to force and a lot of other stuff. that's me

    but won't hold people accountable for following the law, even if it leads to an unsavory result.

  • ||

    oh, with a few exceptions.

    i do hold the cops at columbine morally accountable for being fucking cowards

    and i do hold the seattle police chief at the time, and his watch commanders for ordering cops to let people riot because it would look bad on teevee for cops to be hitting people with sticks

    and kristopher kime died because a fucking cowardly police administration cared more about how shit looked on teevee, than in allowing cops to do the most important part of their job - protecting people

  • Generic Stranger||

    That's a bunch of fucking bullshit. When the law fucks up, we're suppose to call it out, find out the problem, and try to change the goddamn law or system. You, on the other hand, enthusiastically defend it. It has nothing to do with the rule of law, and everything to do you defending absolutely reprehensible shit cops do.

  • ||

    rubbish. i think a lot of laws should be changed

    prior to macpherson i said cops are too quick to tase people, and i still think in many dept's the policies are WAY TOO LAX

    i disagree with policies regarding force, i disagree with policies regarding the overmilitarization of police

    i disagree with civilian police drones

    i disagree with arizona immigration efforts by local cops

    you just keep lying. i strongly disagree with TONS of stuff cops do.

    but here's the rub. when you are judging cops, you judge them based on what the law IS, not what you or i think it SHOULD be. if you honestly think a cop, or anybody else shoudl be forced to comply with a standard that doesn't yet exist, that's insane.

    people are to be held accountable. - accountable to what the LAW IS

    in LOTS of cases, the law allows cops WAY too much leeway to use force, to search, etc.

    but that is a problem that needs to be addressed by changing the law. not punishing cops for following the law

  • Generic Stranger||

    Lets see, just off the top of my head:

    The cops who shot the completely innocent guy who answered the door with a gun,

    The trespassing cop (whose stated reason for trespassing was absolute bullshit) who murdered a guy because he asked him to leave his property,

    and my personal favorite, The Portland cop who killed a despondent, unarmed man who had threatened nobody because he ran away when the pig opened up fire on him for absolutely no fucking reason whatsoever.

    You're like a Penn State fan who defends Jerry Sandusky because if the University didn't discipline, then it must not have really been rape, because PROCEDURE!

    Fuck off and die, you goddamn pig. Preferably while choking on a doughnut.

  • ||

    ok, if you cant be civil, whatever.

    the 2nd case was the seth adams case. it was blatantly justified. not even close

    the first case, we don't know enough to KNOW it was justified, but i know that if you answer the door when the cops are knocking with a gun in your hand, a bad result is quite possible and it very well may be justified.

    as for the third incident, if you read the entire report, (which i diod), this despodent unarmed man made statements that he was armed, made threats to kill against the police, had a past history of violent behavior towards police, was wearing the same garb that was described as the one he uses to conceal his weapon, disobeyed lawful orders to stop based on all of the above, and was moving towarsd a position of cover.

    i personally would not have shot in the scenario. but under the case law, which is what we judge cops by- he was

    but when i assess these UOF's i do so with knowledge of case law, filtered with my past experience, both IN shootouts and witnessing others in shootouts, and most importantly based on the standards the law requires those using the deadly force to consider before pulling the trigger.

    a lot of the stuff you use to condemn him was determined ex-post facto. what is relevant is waht the shooter reasonably believed based on the totality of circs known to him when he puleld the trigger

    which are here:


    justified.

  • ||

    frashour shooting report:

    http://media.oregonlive.com/po.....other/City of Portland-PPA, Frashour, Arbitration Award.pdf

    very detailed, and presents a strong case that the firing was improper discipline

    regardless, i can respect those who disagree. that's what adults do. i also respect rule of law, even though i frequently don't like the result.

    there are several cases where cops have been exonerated from criminal charges where i think they WERE guilty.

    but if you can read that report and come to a different conclusion, i can respect that

    i would also suggest that it's a benefit for ANY critic of police UOF's to read this report, because it helps you understand what the LEGAL issues are, what the relevant case law is, and also what the cop is and isn't required to do.

    cheers.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The cops who shot the completely innocent guy who answered the door with a gun,

    According to the cops' story, he answered the door POINTING THE GUN AT THEM. Very different. I don't care if you're a cop or a "civilian", in my book if you peaceably knock on the door and someone answers pointing a gun at you you have a right to defend yourself.

    Yes, the cops may be lying, but if they are then they should definitely burn. There is no evidence that he merely answered the door with a gun in his hand. Either he answered brandishing or we don't know what happened.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It's hard to remain civil with someone who defends actions like that; in fact, I argue that we really shouldn't. Such people should be ostracized, shunned and mocked until they either change their ways or hang themselves.

    So basically you're saying that if someone disagrees with you it's OK to spew insults, curses, and unsubstantiated accusations at them, as long as it's something you feel passionate about?

    If dunphy's behavior is that really that reprehensible you can just let it speak for itself and the readers will recoil in horror. Or if you think it's subtle and needs to be pointed out, just calmly identify the problem for the readers without insulting or accusing him of anything unrelated. The shunning and ostracism will take care of itself and you won't look nearly as bad as people do when they pull out the insults.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    This article is WRONG

  • ||

    It's a journomercial!

  • Alex||

    Dunphy's "case law", where not being held accountable in the past is used as justification for not being held accountable in the future.

  • sarcasmic||

    Isn't that what "case law" is?

    A bad decision in the past is used as an excuse to make a bad decision in the present.
    It's much easier to repeat a bad decision than to admit fault.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    You're all laughing now, but when derpfee gets his disability retirement brought on by his chronic carpal tunnel syndrome, to be paid to sit at home by the citizens of his fine home state, I think we know who'll be laughing then.

  • H. Reardon||

    The officer suspected that he was the killer of Dr. Richard Kimble's wife = justified shooting.

    (No disrespect to the victim intended, btw)

  • sloopyinca||

    The fine people of PoliceOne chime in. Strangely enough it left out the neighbor's statement.

  • nike001||

    The speed with which your company grows depends on your ability to sell. If you can not sell, you will have fewer sales and limited growth. "Selling is our http://www.cheapfootballcleatstrade.org/ number one job ever. Escape from selling a lot of merchandise in person. More you sell, the more you learn." - James Cash Penny3.

  • nike001||

    energy to sustain by themselves in type for example they need to.That is why they may possibly be looking at physique shapers. Monster beats kopfh rer is http://www.drdrebeatsbydreaustralia.org/ altering as well as enhancing to satisfy the particular developing demand.Body shapers will be also recognised as Beats merely by dreand slimming bodysuits.

  • R C Dean||

    This makes the fact that the firing officer was unable to tell that the "weapon" was merely a writing implement more credible.

    I'm not sure that it makes the shooting more justifiable, though. You couldn't tell whether or not it was a weapon, so you shot just in case it was? I have a feeling a prole making that claim wouldn't fare well.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement