Brickbat: Look for the Union Label

Portland, Oregon, Mayor Sam Adams says he will fight an arbitrator's ruling that the city rehire police officer Ron Frashour. Frashour was fired two years ago for fatally shooting an unarmed man in the back, but Frashour's union appealed his termination.

Brickbat Archive

Comments

[Res Publica Americana]

No problem. Rehire him, and then make his home address public information. See what happens.

[Suthenboy]

I can assure you that that is covered somewhere in the union's rules.

The only debate about Frashour should be to decide what prison he goes to. Welcome to the union twilight zone.

Allowing public employees to unionize might just be the worst decision in our country's history. As I recall, when that idea was being tossed around everyone except the unions, socialists included, thought that unionizing public employees would result in disaster.

That is how government decisions are made; list all possible solutions, then choose the worst one possible.

[guitargeek]

FDR would agree:

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

[db]

The fetishization of the nobility of Government purpose is interesting to note here.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

the union issue aside, the vast majority of police disciplines are NOT taken to arbitration (established in the previous article)

but the ones that go to arbitration, the ARBITRATOR is the decider.

she did a great report, and it makes clear why frashour's firing was not justified.

the chief will LOSE and his unitary executive thing is disgusting. he's not the king. it is not his decision

fuck him.

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

read it. THEN form an opinion. instead of PREjudging , get the FACTS, then make an informed decision.

god forbid

[Vapourwear]

How DOES jackboot polish taste?

[ant1sthenes]

Is making the arbitrator's address public covered?

[Longtorso]

If only MNG or Joe were around to defend this by saying STFU, it's a contract, which is sacred (except when we don't like a contract - you know - if it's for mere business or something).

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it's defensible.

the arbitrator gets the final say as to whether the firing was justified or not

the arbitrator's report is detailed and compelling

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

and the police chief has no authority to go against the ruling

he will lose

[Fist of Etiquette]

Campbell, distraught and suicidal over his brother's death earlier that day, emerged from a Northeast Portland apartment with his back toward officers and his hands behind his head.

Officer Ryan Lewton, who said he was trying to get Campbell to put his hands in the air, fired six beanbag rounds at him. Campbell turned and ran toward a parked car. Frashour fired a rifle shot at Campbell, killing him.

It sounds like the beanbag shots were to bird dog him, get him to run and justify the shooting. Who the hell wouldn't run for cover when repeated hit with projectiles?

Sit Frashour behind a desk, sans gun and with no interaction with the public, if you have to hire him back. He can do paperwork.

[db]

Hire him back to clean the toilets.

[Generic Stranger]

Fuck that shit. Send his ass to prison for the rest of his miserable pig fucking life.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Apparently that's not an option.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

he didn't even violate DEPT POLICY, let alone the law.

he could be fired for the former, but since he didn't violate it, per the arbitrator he needs reinstatement and back pay

the Chief can play his unitary executive bullshit all he wants, but the arbitrator is the "Decider" not this craven, revenge seeking cop-o-crat

remember, this is the city that disciplined an officer for selling T SHIRTS with a message they disagreed with "smoke em don't choke em".

the arbitrator ruled against the PD on that bogus discipline case too

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

read the arbitrator's report. there was no law violation by frashour, and no policy violation

[Generic Stranger]

1) your link still doesn't work.

2) HOW THE FUCK IS SHOOTING AN UNARMED, NONTHREATENING MAN IN THE BACK NOT FUCKING STRAIGHT UP MURDER? The fact you are even trying to defend this shit is why nobody here takes you seriously, you fucking asshole.

[WTF]

Wait, wait, I bet I can guess dunphy's answer: it's not murder, because procedures were followed, therefore justified UOF. hth

Amirite?

[Almanian's Evil Twin]

he didn't even violate DEPT POLICY, let alone the law

Procedures. WERE. Followed.

QfuckingED W. Duh!

[Dunphy (the real one)]

the law was followed

you want a double standard. when cops break the law you want them punished and when cops FOLLOW the law you want them punished.

and you can't even see the irony and absurdity there.

[WTF]

Are you actually arguing that the law allows cops to shoot unarmed, unthreatening people in the back, even though a 'civilian' would be arrested and charged for murder for the same act, and then complaining about a double standard?

Jeebus titty fucking christ, talk about irony-impaired.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

http://tiny.cc/fjshjw

i don't give a shit if uninformed bigots take me seriously

you are uniformed. you do not KNOW THE CASE FACTS

read the fucking report. then you can agree or disagree, but you will be doing so armed with FACTS

UOF's are based on the totality of the circ's

you don't know the totality, but feel free to draw conclusions from ignorance

if i am not taken seriously for 1) knowing the law (which most people here don't) and 2) arguing from a position of knowledge vs. arguing from ignorance, i take that as a badge of honor

fwiw, i posted a link to this report WEEKS ago back when this case was first mentioned

[Generic Stranger]

the law was followed

No, if the law were followed this cop would be in jail for murder.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the arbiter's report that justified the shooting. NOTHING.

I'm an atheist, but I almost wish there were a hell, so people like you can go to the special level where they stick child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

[Vapourwear]

Sure you do, or you wouldn't still be posting your shit, Shitface.

[BarryD]

They HAD to shoot him in the back with a rifle. It was to make sure he wouldn't try to commit suicide.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i haven't read the PPD's collective bargaining agreement, but every one i have read makes it clear that any such actions are the equivalent of punishment, and you can't punish an officer for doing nothing wrong.

per the arbitrator, he was wrongfully terminated. he WILL get back pay, to include average overtime earnings based on his work history and he must be (if this contract is like the others i have read) reinstated to the same position (if practicable) that he was working in upon being fired.

fortunately, due process and contracts don't allow such petty power plays by police chiefs to punish an officer because they don't agree with the arbitrator.

frashour may have an option to take a different assignment, but i will be a clause is in there that will require the PD to reinstate him to his previous position. he will also be credited with seniority and pension payments for the time lost while he was unjustly fired

[Fist of Etiquette]

They can argue it's not a punishment. If you're serious about protecting the public from an armed employee with questionable judgment (at best), try everything.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

they will lose. i've read plenty of case law regarding this shit

they CANNOT punish him

you cannot punish an officer who didn't do anything wrong, and per the arbitrator, he violated NO policy (or law) .

that kind of petty bullshit is exactly what reasonoids rail against, when it's not a cop. like some guy who criticizes the govt. getting an audit in retaliation, or some shitstain cop writing a guy a ticket because he's schtupping the cop's ex or whatever

i haven't read PPD's contract, but i will bet that (99% certainty) they MUST reinstate frashour (assuming practicality, which in a dept portland size - it won't be an issue) to his previous position, and he will also get seniority for the time he was out unjustly fired, etc.

it's called fairness and due process

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

[Fluffy]

Any line of employment where your supervisor can't discipline or fire you for poor performance unless that poor performance rises to the level of criminal activity will naturally be full of fuck-ups who act with impunity.

It's like a private security company employing a guy who routinely takes a shit in the middle of the floor at the site of his assignments, but saying as long as there are no criminal convictions he can't be fired. It's absurd.

If there's any reasonable nexus between the performance of job duties and a firing, the firing should withstand arbitration. If it doesn't, you need a new system of arbitration.

What's obviously needed is Scott Walker type legislation applied to cops - throw out all existing contracts and standardize all police employment terms by comprehensive legislation.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

what evidence do you have that frashour engaged in poor performance

PPD can and does discipline and fire officers for poor perforamnce

the NEXUS in this case was that frashour acted in accordance with

1) dept policy
2) federal case law
3) state case law

in the shooting. you can't fire an officer for doing all 3

when officers violate the law, or dept. policy they should be punished

we agree

when they do NOT, they should not be punished

imo, frashour did not violate any law or policy

i base this on my assessment of the totality of the circs as outlined in the very detailed report

i totally respect somebody ARMED with that info coming to a different conclusion

i do not respect people who kneejerk when actual detailed info that allows for an informed opinion is out there, but ignored

go to source documents and stop letting short media summaries dictate your opinions

i've disagreed with arbitrators before. but in this case, i agree with her

read it and form your own INFORMED opinion

[Res Publica Americana]

Isn't the Nexus a fantastical realm of pleasure and joy you can fly into with a starship? Is that the domain these arbitration processes operate in, alongside the minotaurs and unicorns?

[Fist of Etiquette]

that kind of petty bullshit is exactly what reasonoids rail against

Not really. No one is entitled to their employment, and I don't recall any libertarians arguing for public sector unions.

[Fluffy]

There should be no such thing as a police contract.

All the terms of employment of every public employee, everywhere, should be set by statute.

The legislature should offer said terms, and anyone who doesn't like them should not apply. There should be no negotiation of any kind.

The simple fact of the matter is that all public salaries are appropriations. Appropriations are a legislative function. If the police want to form a lobbying group to lobby legislators for appropriations legislation changing their terms of employment, they should be free to do so.

iow, the first amendment doesn't mean anything to the city of portlan cop o crats because it's a cop promoting an un PC MESSAGE "smoke em don't choke em t-shirts"

I support higher first amendment protections for public employees than are established by current case law, but I would never create a first amendment right for public statements of intent to break the law. Translated into English, those T-shirts assert an intent to kill criminal suspects without due process as a political statement complaining about rules against choke holds. If you stand up in public as a police officer and announce your intent to murder suspects, you're out. That day. Sorry.

[Fluffy]

I would never create a first amendment right for public statements of intent to break the law.

Sorry, this is really badly worded. I would never create a first amendment right for public employees to maintain their employment after making public statements about their intent to break the law governing their employment.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it's a political statement like the tree of liberty quote. and if you understand the context of the case that precipitated the t-shirts, that would be clear.

it is highly offensive and a direct political commentary on a matter of public concern police UOF and is exactly the kind of speech the founders itended to protect by the first amendment
it is a satirical statement about the results of different uof techniques, as specifically related to a case that occurred.

"Against this backdrop of tragedy, two officers spat in the face of a city trying to grapple with these questions. On the very day Stevenson was buried, officers Richard Montee and Paul Wickersham sold as many as 30 T-shirts in the East Precinct parking lot, depicting a smoking gun and emblazoned with the slogan "Don't Choke 'Em, Smoke 'Em."

The black community was outraged.

"The opossum incident could almost be dismissed as a prank," says former City Commissioner Charles Jordan. "Now you're talking about something that was unbelievable."

Mayor Bud Clark fired officers Montee and Wickersham, but they were later reinstated by a federal arbitrator.

The six-member inquest found the cause of death to be criminally negligent homicide, but a grand jury cleared officers Barbour and Pantley of criminal charges. Pantley eventually left the force, but Barbour is still a police officer assigned to Northeast Precinct."

[Dunphy (the real one)]

your assessment of the t-shirt asseting an intent to break the law is ridiculous. it's a political statement no different than the "the tree of liberty" being watered etc. that the tea partier wore and all the liberals had a hissy fit

amazing the way you make the same bullshit argument.

it's no different than selling pro capital punishment t-shirts.

it's also satirical.

regardless, whether or not there should or shouldn't be police contracts, the DECIDER for whether an officer was wrongfully or justifiably terminated is the arbitrator - a NEUTRAL party, unlike the appointed politician - the police chief.

that's why they are the decider. they have MUCH more extensive training, extremely high standards of professionalism in these types of investigations and they are neither labor nor management. they are a third party

the arbitrator serves the people of portland in making a fair, impartial decision

the chief of police is beholden to the mayor. he';s a political puppet.

the arbitrator is beholden to nobody.

THAT's why they get the final say

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

[Fluffy]

The arbitrator is making his decision in a contract environment that controls the terms under which an officer can be fired.

So if the contract empowers officers too much, an arbitrator will as well. In fact, the better the arbitrator, the more he'll adhere to the contract - so if the contract is flawed, the "best" arbitrator is actually the worst.

"your assessment of the t-shirt asseting an intent to break the law is ridiculous."

The intent of the T-shirt is clearly and unambiguously to say that if people don't like police using choke holds, fuck you, we're just going to shoot people instead.

It's not just a political statement, because it's a statement of intent by an employee to break the rules concerning his employment. If the guy was selling tree of liberty t-shirts I'd stand up for him. But he's more in the position of an auto worker wearing a T-shirt saying, "Everybody should deliberately fuck up equipment on the line, and maybe burn this fucking place down!" That guy should be fired on the spot.

it's also satirical.

The auto worker's shirt might be satirical, too, but it's not the employer's job to figure out when you're joking.

[fried wylie]

but it's not the employer's job to figure out when you're joking.

Whether the autoplant burns down or not is pretty unambiguous...

[Fluffy]

Whether the autoplant burns down or not is pretty unambiguous...

It's a statement of future intent, so by definition the event will not have happened yet.

[fried wylie]

Schrodinger's T-shirt.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it's not within the employer's (THE GOVT) ***authority*** to fire officers for selling t-shirts because they don't agree with the political mesasge

if the cops were selling a legalize mj t-shirt, or some other cause you support, you wouldn't come to the same conclusion

the 1st amendment matters and the govt. as employer cannot fire an employee for expressing views that are on matters of "public concern" (which police UOF clearly is)

the guy died from a choke hold, and the officer was indicted iirc etc.

the point was, if you use the choke hold, you get prosecuted, so use a gun instead.

it's a message on a matter of public concern and is exactly the type of speech the 1st amendment is designed to protect

as for the arbitrator, they are a NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY

the police chief is an appointed politician

the arbitrator has extensive training and legal background to conduct these tyeps of investigation

most police chiefs do not.

i would rather a neutral third party have the final say, not a politician, as to whether a cop was justly fired or not

[fried wylie]

arbitrator has extensive training and legal background to conduct these tyeps of investigation

most police chiefs do not.

Yeah, what would police chiefs know about investigations...wait, what?

[Res Publica Americana]

You can't write this shit.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

you are joking right?

the police chiefs are appointed politicians

they may have extensive investigative experience, they may have next to none

it depends on their background.

again, this is an appointed position

arbitrators must meet extensive criteria on knowledge of the law, investigative practices, labor law, etc

these are people very skilled at what they do

http://tiny.cc/fjshjw

but again, a police chief is a politician

in cases like the frashour shooting, they are under immesne pressure to fire the officer because there is public outrage

there is no way they can act unbiased and stuff in such a situation

an arbitrator does not have political pressure. they represent the people.

as previous articles, cites, show the VAST majority of police discipline cases are not taken to arbitration. only a very small # go to arbitration

it's used sparingly.

[Fluffy]

it's not within the employer's (THE GOVT) ***authority*** to fire officers for selling t-shirts because they don't agree with the political mesasge

if the cops were selling a legalize mj t-shirt, or some other cause you support, you wouldn't come to the same conclusion

If the cops were selling a legalize marijuana t-shirt, I'd support them.

But if they were selling a t-shirt saying "Until marijuana is legalized we're going to refuse to enforce the law against marijuana" I'd say the city would be 100% entitled to fire them.

Public employees have the right to make protected political statements, with the exception of statements that make it apparent they intend to defy the rules governing their terms of employment.

"We don't like the choke hold rules so we're going to shoot people" is such a statement.

If they had t-shirts saying "Federal civil rights laws unfairly create double jeopardy for police officers" that would be a protected political statement. If they had t-shirts that said, "Federal civil rights laws unfairly create double jeopardy for police officers, so we're gonna shoot niggers and then hide the evidence and there's nothing you can do about it!" that would be a statement justifying firing.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

we're just going to have to disagree .

political statements need not be nice and clean and non-offensive

the reason the speech was protected was it was CLEARLY a political statement about a CLEAR matter of public concern.

there is no recommendation to commit a CRIME (murder)

it is EXACTLY the type of speech we need a first amendment to protect

but i get the impression we are probably not going to agree on this

fwiw, i have not been able to find the arbitrators report on the t-shirt case, which means i am not at all certain of my stance, i can only say that based ont he case facts i DO know, they should not have been fired

it would be nice to have a more educated opinion, and if anybody can find the report on the smoke em don't choke em case, i would be thankful

[fried wylie]

we're just going to have to disagree

Except, you and fluffy are not arguing opinions. You're arguing logical positions that result from the rational interpretation of expressions. There's actually a boolean result.

[Fluffy]

there is no recommendation to commit a CRIME (murder)

"Smoke 'em" is in the imperative tense, dude.

It is grammatically a command or recommendation.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

and "smoking " somebody is not a crime

do you grok that homicide is not a crime

murder is.

if you "smoke somebody" justifiably it's not a crime.

no specification is made. it's not an exhortation to murder, it's saying (essetntially), fi you re going to use force, use your gun, not the chokehold (because the officer in the case mentioned had negative results from the latter and was vilified by his agency)

[Fluffy]

if you "smoke somebody" justifiably it's not a crime.

If the suspect is one you would previously have subdued with a choke hold, sure it is.

The fact that you would have chosen to use non-deadly force proves that deadly force is not required.

That means that the statement is, "Since we can't use chokeholds, we're going to be forced to wrestle the occasional recalcitrant suspect and get our uniforms dirty. Fuck that, to teach you assholes a lesson we're just going to start shooting suspects instead, even if the situation doesn't call for deadly force."

[fried wylie]

If they had t-shirts saying "Federal civil....

Neither of those t-shirts sound like big sellers.

[mad libertarian guy]

it's also satirical

No it isn't.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i would suggest most people here opining haven't READ the arbitrator's report

it's online

the mayor is doing the unitary executive thing. iow, he's ignoring the rule of law. and of course the same reasonoids that continually criticize executive branch officials (e.g. Bush, Obama) for blatantly going against rule of law by executive fiat, will (double standard) be ok with it here.

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

it makes a compelling case that frashour was justified.

this case is a perfect example of the anti-cop bigotry and a REAL case of double standards.

iow, the unitary executive actions of the portland mayor are perfectly ok here? really? so, violating rule of law and the end justifies the means is ok, as long as it's a GOOD means (fire a cop?)

my prediction, the mayor/city will eventually cave (after much wasted money and time... and will just owe that much more back pay if not fines) or they will lose in court.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

and the reason the city of portland keeps losing these arbitrations is they have been WRONGLY firing officers. my favorite was the officer disciplined for SELLING T-SHIRTS. iow, the first amendment doesn't mean anything to the city of portlan cop o crats because it's a cop promoting an un PC MESSAGE "smoke em don't choke em t-shirts"

again, if you support the mayor here, then you are accepting EXACTLY what has been criticized in reason for years - unitary executives ignoring rule of law and due process

the ONLY difference between this and other unitary executive crap is you are down with what the mayor is breaking due process to DO, so the ends justifies the means

this is no different than when seattle mayor (illegally) by executive order tried to ban guns in city parks, contrary to law, and a lot of money was wasted, and he lost

this mayor will also lose.

again, i suggest most if not all people here who are convinced

[WTF]

FTA:

Officer Ryan Lewton, who said he was trying to get Campbell to put his hands in the air, fired six beanbag rounds at him. Campbell turned and ran toward a parked car. Frashour fired a rifle shot at Campbell, killing him.

You actually think this is okay? I guns run away from being hammered with beanbag rounds after he had his hands in the air, and it's okay to just shoot him in the back? Seriously?

[WTF]

'I guns' = 'a guy'

[Generic Stranger]

Of course he thinks it's ok. If they trained him to put Jews into ovens he'd probably fucking do it, all while blathering about fucking standard procedure.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

wow. how godwin'y

i think it's ok because unlike you, i researched before forming an opinion

i read the arbitrator's report which fills in the details to put it mildly

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

[Generic Stranger]

None of your links work, shit for brains. And I'd like to see YOU state just what was fucking justified about that situation.

Quite frankly, I don't see how shooting a surrendering unarmed man in the back because he ran from being gratuitously shot in the back with bean bags is that much less worse than killing someone because you don't like their religion.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

wow. personal attacks. how typical. insults. how typical.

here i did a tiny url

http://tiny.cc/fjshjw

[Generic Stranger]

Anyone who defends murders of innocent deserves nothing but contempt, you miserable catamite.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

again, personal attacks. you just belittle yourself

and fwiw, i support murderers go to prison and/or be executed

i support that lawful users of force do not, whether "citizens' or cops

[Generic Stranger]

I'm not the one defending a fucking murder, you jackass. There is absolutely nothing in the arbiter's report that absolves the cop from straight up murder, and you still defend him.

You are nothing but a puke stain, a blight on the ass end of the human race. Go fuck yourself with a rusty pike.

[Res Publica Americana]

I really don't get you, Dunphy. Where in that report is there an adequate explanation for what was done? I don't see it.

[Troy muy grande boner]

wow. how godwin'y

So tell me, pig, is there any law that you won't follow?

[Dunphy (the real one)]

personal attacks and name calling

yawn

[WTF]

Yep, procedures were followed, nothing to see here. It's really not the cop's fault his rifle discharged into an unarmed man's back.

[fried wylie]

It's practically impossible for bullets to remain at rest in a clip.

[Res Publica Americana]

Additionally, the bullets in the assault clip have transwarp propulsion technology built into them, so they fly really fast and hurt really bad. PEW PEW PEW PEW HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

/Journalism.

[fried wylie]

I'd developed a surface treatment for the slugs that makes them smooth to a monoatomic level, intended to improve penetration.

It worked too well and the bullets can actually slip right through a human body without a trace. Then through the wall behind them, and so on.....forever. ~40billion years till it reaches the edge of the observable universe.

[fried wylie]

*till it, where it = the test shot

[Res Publica Americana]

But they probably contain lead and hurt flowers and shit anyway, so let's ban it just to be sure.

/NYT.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

again, ignorance and snark.

the conclusion in your mind is already set. god forbid you read the report that details the case facts so you can make an INFORMED opinion

[Res Publica Americana]

Haven't about four of us here right now already read it? My opinion's just as informed as yours is, and it's the polar opposite of yours, too.

Unless you'd care to argue.

[fried wylie]

no dunphy, it's called having a sense of humor. so that there's SOMETHING to this thread besides your repetitive appeals to procedure, the authority of the arbitrator, and the ultrathreat to officer safety known as 'furtive gestures.'

[Dunphy (the real one)]

this the ridiculous double standard.

if an officer violates the 4th amendment,i don't call it a "repetitive appeal to procedure" when people say it was wrong

the 1st,4th,5th,etc. are part of procedure

if you are going to hold officers accountable for VIOLATING procedure and/or the law,that's GOOD

i do. i hope you do

but it's equally important to CLEAR officers when they DO conform to procedure and the law.like the officer in this case.

you want it both ways.if officers violate procedure, they should be punished.

but if they follow it,they should be TOO?

get real.

furtive gestures are a joke to you.considering the TOTALITY of the circs, the officer had every reason to believe that the guy's furtive gesture in this case was to grab a gun. he had a history of carrying one and being violent.he made threats he wanted to get into a shooting, etc.

READ THE REPORT.it's in there.

furtive gestures are not a joke. they are a punchline to you. to me, when my friend was shot in the head, it was likely pursuant to a furtive gesture. that's how he got his gun out

when clemons was shot (after shooting the 4 cops in lakewood) he made a furtive gesture (for the gun he was carrying after setting the cop up for an ambush with the stolen car).

if joe blow makes a furtive gesture, the cops are not and would not be justifying in shootinh him

but this was not joe blow. there were substantial case facts giving the officer REASONABLE CAUSE to believe he was armed and a danger.

[fried wylie]

furtive gestures are a joke to you.considering the TOTALITY of the circs, the officer had every reason to believe that the guy's furtive gesture in this case was to grab a gun. he had a history of carrying one and being violent.he made threats he wanted to get into a shooting, etc.

Belief and assumptions that a suspect is an armed threat sure is a goal-post-move from actually being threatened by an armed suspect.

[fried wylie]

not lead, gold. So they're not harmful to the environment, just the economy.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

again, read the arbitrator report

i am arguing from a position of knowledge. if you haven't read it, you aren't

PERIOD

it is THE critical document, which is far more detailed than this reason article or any other media report.

it's all in there.

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

there are two things

1) (opinion). is the arbitrator ruling correct? imo, as a use of force/firearms instructor, based on what i know of case law, etc. - yes

2) does the police chief have authoritah to go against the arbitrator ruling and refuse to reinstate frashour? absolutely not. that's fact, not opinion

this is no different than the unitary executive shit bush has pulled, or obama

it kind of reminds me of mayor newsom's power play to perform gay marriages (i 100% support gay marriage, but i do not support a SF mayor ignoring the law to force his city employees to break state law to perform sham gay marriages at the time).

if and when you read the arbitrtor's report and you STILL think he was justly fired, then there is something to discuss

[WTF]

I don't care what the arbitrator's opinion is, as I prefer to form my own, based on the facts, rather than argue from authority. The facts: An unarmed man exited the building with his hands behind his head and was shot 6 times with bean bag rounds. He, as anyone would have, became alarmed and ran toward a car to escape what he might have perceived as his imminent death. The police officer shot him in the back while he was trying to avoid dying. You seem to think this is just fine because 'procedures were followed' and the arbitrator says he should get his job back. I find that morally reprehensible.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i am not sying you have to agree with the arbitrator

i am saying if you have not read her REPORT, which cites evidence from both sides IN DETAIL, you are arguing from ignorance and have formed a conclusion from ignorance

here is the url

http://tiny.cc/fjshjw

arbitrators are wrong imo sometimes. in this case, i think she's right. you may or may not AGREE, but until you have read the COMPLETE REPORT, you only know a minimal amount of case facts and are concluding from a position of ignrance

if you read the report and disagree, groovy.

i'm just saying *i* agree with her

what is more important imo is that the mayor is trying to do a unitary executive thing and circumventing rule of law and seperation of powers.

the arbitrator is the neutral third party. they represent the people. the chief of police is a political appointee.

he doesn't make the decision

[Fluffy]

So what you're saying is that you can't actually SAY what the additional details are?

You're supposed to summarize the details and then post a link to the report as support of your statement. Not just post a link.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i've already spent a metric assload of time typing about this

it's not my job to summarize the report. i read it weeks ago when i first posted it

i have provided the link

http://tiny.cc/fjshjw

read it. ALL uses of force are based on the totality of circs, whether cops or "citizens"

i would TOTALLY respect people who think the shooting unjustified and/or criminal AFTER reading the report

but at least we are then disagreeing based on positions of knowledge

there are a LOT more case facts and relevant statistics (reaction time, etc.) in the report than in the media article

[WTF]

Okay, let's try this, and see if you get my point:

If I shot an unarmed man in the back, who was not threatening me, and who was running away from me when I shot him, and I afterward claimed he made 'a furtive gesture' (see, I did read the report), what do you suppose would happen? Think I might get arrested and charged with murder? Or maybe lose my job if I did in capacity as, say, a private scecurity guard?

[Dunphy (the real one)]

if you shot him BASED on knowing all the facts known to the officer at the time he shot (which you WON'T know until you read the report), i would suspect you would not be criminally charged.

but again, you are going to bring up poor analogies, since there is no way yuo would know about his texts that he sent saying he had a gun on him , the knowledge the officer had that he routinely carried the gun in a certain manner, and all the other case facts that gave the officer a REASONABLE belief that he was armed and that he was seeking a violent confrontation

you know literally about 5% of the relevant facts the officer knew that helped inform his decision to shoot

[Generic Stranger]

There is absolutely no way in hell a private citizen would get away with what that fucking cop did. The guy could have been fucking armed, could have just unloaded a clip in my general direction, and if I shot him in the back as he ran away I'd still fucking go to jail.

That's what you're not understanding, you licker of goat testicles. There is absolutely nothing in this case that absolves the cop. Absolutely nothing. If he weren't a cop, he'd be in jail. Period. The only reason he avoided a murder charge is because he has a fucking badge, and apparently that makes him better than the rest of us to jackboots like you.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i KNOW you believe this. i just know it's horseshit

i posted a link a ways back where some guy in kelso oregon shot a gun RUNNING away in the buttocks with a bow and arrow (deadly force) and he had NO reason to believe the guy was armed. NONE

the guy had broken into his neighbor's UNOCCUPIED house and then when he ran away, the neighbor shot him running away

NO indication whatsoever he was armed and nowhere near the case facts in this case

and the prosecutor made clear that while a "citizen" would not be charged with such a use of force, it WOULD be illegal *under tenn v. garner* for a cop to do it.

i could cite the case in the U district where a guy ran up to a pizza delivery driver's window in his car, and opened the door at which point the driver shot him. the guy ended up just being a goof high on acid, but the car driver thought he was being car jacked. no gun was seen, no weapon whatsoever, nor were any statements made

like i said, i have complete confidence you believe the shit you say, i just know it's wrong

if a "citizen" KNEW all the shit the officer knew and was in the same situation, he would be just as justified as the cop.

that would be unlikely w/o police radios and stuff to relay the info about his propensity to carry a gun, his threats to use one etc. which the officer knew BEFORE firing.

[Generic Stranger]

The prosecutor in that case didn't follow Oregon law, sorry. My guess is he didn't think he could get it pass a jury. Oregon law is very clear that it is not legal to shoot someone who is merely trespassing, or who has broken into an unoccupied building.

That guy won the fucking lottery. And lets not forget that the guy that got shot was actually doing something illegal at the time, unlike this guy.

On the other hand, cops get away with this all the fucking type. And you defend them every single fucking time. Apparently, you think your fucking Judge Dredd.

[Generic Stranger]

*the guy that got shot with the bow and arrow was actually doing something illegal.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

the prosecutor didn't charge the guy. period.

but i'm not claiming "double stanfdard' even though it IS, because under tenn v. garner, there is NO question an officer would not be justified in such a shooting and WOULD be charged if he shot some guy fleeing the scene under such circ;s

you can cite examples to cite your belief, and i can cite examples of my belief, which is that it works BOTH ways. sometimes, the cops get a beneficial double standard, and sometimes they get a detrimental one

but that aside, i'm done with the double standard rubbish, becauise it's the same bull over and over again

the case facts in this case are more than ample for discussion without bringing up this CONSTANT "double standard" canard

[WTF]

I did read the fucking report, and nothing in it justifies shooting a fleeing man in the back. The fact that you think it is okay is just unbelievable.

[generic Brand]

if you shot him BASED on knowing all the facts known to the officer at the time he shot (which you WON'T know until you read the report), i would suspect you would not be criminally charged.

That is fucking bullshit, dunphy. Cops are able to act the way they are BECAUSE they have use of force codes. George Zimmerman is a perfect example of someone who probably instigated an incident, things got out of his control, a person was killed, and then he claims his defense after the fact.

And he is being prosecuted for murder. The problem is that this cop does not go to trial.

It's not due process just by having an arbitrator negotiate his job back. Send him to a fucking trial and have the jury listen to the reports, then decide.

Double FUCKING standard.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

george zimmerman was charged purely based on political shit. i 100% agree

george zimmerman is being subject to INJUSTICE.

it does not follow that every "citizen" who uses force gets similar treatment

he happens to be one. just like some cops.

two of my friends were indicted for assault (on duty) in cases at least as bogus as zimmermans)

there is no double standard here.

the officer had reasonable cause. he had all kinds of info from the cad, and from other officers (cited below) that this guy had threatened suicide by cop, that he was routinely armed, that he carried his gun in his jacket, that he was getting his gun prior to exiting the apartment, and that he had past covnictiosn/arrests for violent crime to include murder

you point ot zimmerman. it's an injustice we agree

and both cops AND "civilians" get unjustly charged sometimes

[fried wylie]

a perfect example of the anti-cop bigotry

Man, it's too early to start playing the drinking game.

[Res Publica Americana]

The perfect solution that problem is stocking up on light beer, since it technically satisfies the requirement of the game (that it be an alcoholic beverage), but you won't get wasted before noon.

[Res Publica Americana]

*to

[fried wylie]

*takes notes*

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i've been informed my link does not work
here's the tiny url

http://tiny.cc/fjshjw

[Almanian's Evil Twin]

he didn't even violate DEPT POLICY, let alone the law

AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. Cause the Arbitrator blah blah contract blah blah supervisor exceeded authoritah so it's OK the guy got shot in the back.

Duh! Come on people! I read the artbitrator's report - IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE!!!one!! It's LEGAL to shoot non-threatening "civilians" in the back because...procedures....not trained...can't be experts in everything...something something...ARBITRATOR'S REPORT1111111won

[WTF]

No, no, Alamanian's ET, if you read the report it's because of 'FURTIVE GESTURE'!!!11!!!ZOMG!! SHOOT HIM!!!11!!!!

[WTF]

And let's all pretend we don't know that 'furtive gesture' is the magic phrase that justifies shooting an unarmed man, just like 'STOP RESISTING!' is the magic phrase that justifies a thug-scrum beating the living fuck out of people.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

again, more snarky arguments from ignorance. you wallow in ignorance

if you want to know the case facts, read the report. intelligent informed people can disagree

you may be intelligent, but if you have't read the report, you are not informed

[WTF]

I did read the report - where do you think I got the info on the claimed 'furtive gesture'? You simply want to claim I don't know the facts to lend some credence to your support for a murderer.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

fine. if you read the report, and you think he was not justified, i can respect that.

it's an informed opinion

i can disagree respectfully

your beg the question stuff "support for a murderer" is silly, but i realize it's rhetoric

[WTF]

i realize it's rhetoric

Okay, I'll cop to that one.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it's a fair cop, mate.

and actually, i'm pretty impressed with this discussion in general, with the exception of a few ninnies, it's been mature, intelligent and a good exchange of ideas.

i've also been watching poker videos for a few hours and need sleep

[Res Publica Americana]

I've officially read the entire report. I declare it. And I found absolutely nothing whatsoever that could be construed in any way as a justifiable action at all. Everything from first sighting to the endgame was a monumental fuck-up.

There. I'm officially (TM)(R)(C) OFFICIALLY prepared to argue from an informed point of view. So let's go.

Explain what in that report supports your position, Dunphy, and cite it.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

you are the one taking a position against the arbitrator. explain where she is wrong.

and like i said, two intelligent informed people can come to different conclusions about UOF's.

heck, the supreme court , the 9th etc. often has 5-4 decisions based on same

if you can , informed with all the facts in the report, conclude the officer wasn't justified, i RESPECT that.

i respect informed opinions.

i think the officer was justified based on the totality of the circs.

if you want to pick apart her conclusion, which i agree with, then tell me what conclusion of hers you DISAGREE with.

[Generic Stranger]

You have nothing. If you did, you'd have brought it up instead of just fellating the fucking arbiter, who has you have been informed follows the contract, whether it's broken or not, not the fucking law. You are morally, intellectually bankrupt, and it's pathetic that you don't see it.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

yawn. personal attacks.

arguments from ignorance and personal attacks.

grow up

[gulo gulo]

yawn. personal attacks.

And calling everyone who disagrees with you "bigots" isn't a personal attack

grow up

And that isn't either...

Funny you can tell people to grow up when you openly admit you post in your incoherent, grammatically mutated style specifically to irritate them.

[Cdr Lytton]

Don't leave out the context of the infamous Smoke 'em, Don't choke 'em tshirts. The officers sold them on the day of Lloyd Stevenson's funeral who died after being placed in a chokehold by police.

More on Stevenson's death:
http://www.wweek.com/portland/.....-1985.html

Just disgusting.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

yup. i mentioned that in my post about the timing

it was TOTALLY disgusting. free speech often is

that's not the point. the point is did the dept. exceed their authority by firing the officers who printed the shirts and sold them.

imo, yes.

im not defending their choice of speech or their timing

imo, it was FUCKING DISGUSTING

but it was also imo constitutionally protected

[Cdr Lytton]

Free speech is a red herring and wasn't applicable to those two. The arbitrator found that termination was excessive and downgraded it to 6 month suspension without pay, not that they couldn't be disciplined at all.

Free speech and other constitutional rights are often abridged in an employer/employee context even when the employer in a public entity.

[Cdr Lytton]

Dunphy is right about a couple of things. The city will be forced to rehire Frashour and the firing was a political gesture by the chief and mayor. PPB has a history of excessive force and a general lack of effective control and supervision of their officers. Rather than fix those things, the brass do these pointless firings (which get overturned) and walk away from why these incidents occurred in the first place.

Here's an employment screening quiz courtesy of the Portland Mercury for anyone wishing to join PPB:
http://www.portlandmercury.com.....fromMobile

[Dunphy (the real one)]

all police dept.s have a history of excessive force.

excessive force is a fact of life, because even well trained conscientious well meaning officers will go overboard sometimes

PPB also has a PRETTY GOOD record of disciplining bad cops. and like i said, the VAST majority of police discipline cases (as previously) cited are not arbitrated. the union acceppts them

you are correct. this case was a POLITICAL firing, and the arbitrator fortunately, was not subject to political pressure.

PPB is a pretty good dept. imo , but they are hardly free from having officers who have used excessive force.

[Cdr Lytton]

Actually, no they have a pretty poor record. This is one of the very problems highlighted in the city auditor's report a couple of months ago. Not only that, but PPB currently does not conduct any kind of regular performance appraisals and they're just now using a system to track discipline problems, complaints, and the like twenty years after an earlier audit recommended one. DOJ isn't poking around because they like the microbrews in Stumptown.

[Res Publica Americana]

For those able to open the report, read pages 18 to 25.

Here's a snippet:

Some witnesses
indicated that Mr. Campbell's hands remained behind his head and looked under his armpit at
officers. Others thought he dropped his left hand when he did this. The Grievant said he did not
hear exactly what Mr. Campbell said, but he observed that Mr. Campbell had a hostile and
angry look on his face. Officer Willard also described Mr. Campbell's demeanor as angry.

---------------

Hostile and angry looks. Wow.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

totality of the circs wow

Shortly before 1622 on January 29, 2010, emergency dispatchers directed police to
conduct a welfare check of Angie Jones' unit. The caller was concerned about the welfare of
Ms. Jones and her three children. Police dispatchers noted that Aaron Campbell might be in the
apartment and that he was suicidal, possessed a gun, had tried to kill himself and "poss[ibly]
wants to do suicide by police." Exh. Jt-9, at 677 (the CAD log). Mr. Campbell was extremely
distraught over the recent death of his brother.
Dispatchers pulled up Aaron Campbell's arrest record and dispatched that information. That
record included arrests for resisting arrest, domestic violence, and attempted murder using a
gun.

She verified that Mr. Campbell had a gun
which he kept inside a sock in the front pocket of the jacket he was wearing as he napped

Mr. Campbell next texted Jones, "don't make me get
my gun, I ain't playing."

The Grievant conversed briefly with Officer
Bocchino and at the same time heard the dispatch of Aaron Campbell's "Don't make me get my
gun, I ain't playing" text message. Officer Bocchino told the Grievant that Mr. Campbell was
armed with a gun and had threatened suicide by police

[Res Publica Americana]

I don't give a shit. The only circumstances I care about are the ones immediately surrounding the fatal shooting.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

that's wonderful, but it isn't how UOF (by civilians OR cops) are judged

they are always based on the facts and circ's known/reasonably believed by the user of force.

if i walk towards a random guy on the street who as i approach makes a move towards his waistband, am i justified in shooting?

no

if he is reaching for a gun, i'm fucked. i can't assume he is doing so.

if i am approaching a guy i suspect of armed robbery and he does so, can i shoot him?

yes.

it is not merely the acts IMMEDIATELY surrounding the shooting, it is the TOTALITY of the circs.

that's the metric i use (and the courts use, and the arbitrators use, and juries use) in making these judgments

[Fluffy]

Yeah, I'd have to say I don't care, either.

It's like saying if a poster here tells me they routinely CCW, as soon as I see them if they put their hand in their pocket I can shoot them.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

no, because having a CCW is not evidence that you are a violent fuckstick.

in fact, it's THE OPPOSITE

as i have explained, when i pull somebody over, if they tell me they have a gun and a CCW i am put AT EASE

in this case you have a guy with past violent arrests including murder

he makes threats of suciide by cop

he is said to carry a gun routinely in his jacket

he exits the building wearing that jacket

etc.

those ARE relevant case facts.

it's like traffic stops

if i stop a stolen car i do so at gunpoint

if i stop a speeder i don't

you can NOT care about relevant case facts, but i know i care about them, that it is what i am supposed to do, both to protect others, protect myself, and catch bad guys

and IF you have a CCW (fwiw, i almost never carry off duty, but i can), it would behoove you to know that what is relevant in shoot/no shoot situations is the totality of the circs, NOT merely qwhat is happening immediately surrounding the decision to shoot/'not shoot

if you are approached by joe random on the street and he reaches towards his waistband are you justified in drawin a gun?" of course not

if you are approached by a guy who has made threats to kill you , that you know routinely carries a gun in his waistband and as he is approaching you he's reaching, does that change the decision?

of course

[Res Publica Americana]

"With Mr. Campbell's refusal to put his hands in the air, Officer Lewton fired a round from his
beanbag gun and it hit Mr. Campbell, probably in his buttocks or thigh area."

"Witnesses generally agreed that at the point of being hit by the first beanbag round, Mr.
Campbell faltered or stumbled forward in some fashion and then straightened himself, more or
less as the Grievant described. He next began to run in the direction of his apartment and the
Volvo parked in front of it.

Officers agreed that the Volvo could be used as cover by Mr.
Campbell should he decide to start shooting at officers.
As Mr. Campbell ran, Officer Lewton fired five more beanbag rounds at Mr. Campbell. It is
not clear how many of those rounds hit Mr. Campbell or where those rounds hit him, although it
is known that one hit him in the back of thigh, above his knee."

This shit's pure satire.

[Troy muy grande boner]

Although other officers were armed, no other officer drew his gun or fired a shot, even
though they believed that from Grievant's perspective, the use of deadly force was justified.
Officer Boylan testified that he did not see Mr. Campbell as posing a risk of death or serious
injury as he did not see a gun. Officer Kemple testified that he did not see a gun so he "didn't
feel like [he] had enough to pull the trigger, so [he] didn't shoot." Tr. 783. He added, however,
that Mr. Campbell's taking cover moved the situation from a potential threat to an immediate
threat. Officer Willard, as stated previously, was convinced that Mr. Campbell was reaching for a
gun as he started running and believed at that point that Mr. Campbell posed an immediate
threat of death or serious injury. But he did not shoot and did not explain why.
The Association wove the "action/reaction" principle into much of its narrative. A number of
witnesses described that principle, which was a key consideration in the Grievant's decision to
shoot. This principle is based on the known fact that that the initiator of an action has an
advantage over the responder when it comes to firearms. Armed subjects can draw a weapon
and fire, even while running in the opposite direction, before an officer can respond, even an
officer holding a gun.

[Res Publica Americana]

I'll summarize what the report explains in plentiful detail about the shooting.

1) Distraught, inconsolable guy walks around erratically with his hand behind his head and mumbles some shit even the cops disagree about.

2) Because he wouldn't raise his arms all the way into the air when told to, they started shooting him with beanbags.

3) Pages and pages follow in the report explaining why the guy's reaction to the beanbags seemed "too methodical" to be a response to the pain, so the cops were reasonable in their suspicion that he was about to pull a piece on them.

4) Guy starts running towards home, gets fatally shot in the back.

[Res Publica Americana]

Dumbass badges initiates violent confrontation, kill the guy they're fucking with because he reacted to being shot by fleeing.

Yeah. This arbitrator's definitely a qualified. consummate professional.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

and you completely leave out shit like this
(see below) .

Shortly before 1622 on January 29, 2010, emergency dispatchers directed police to
conduct a welfare check of Angie Jones' unit. The caller was concerned about the welfare of
Ms. Jones and her three children. Police dispatchers noted that Aaron Campbell might be in the
apartment and that he was suicidal, possessed a gun, had tried to kill himself and "poss[ibly]
wants to do suicide by police." Exh. Jt-9, at 677 (the CAD log). Mr. Campbell was extremely
distraught over the recent death of his brother.
Dispatchers pulled up Aaron Campbell's arrest record and dispatched that information. That
record included arrests for resisting arrest, domestic violence, and attempted murder using a
gun.

She verified that Mr. Campbell had a gun
which he kept inside a sock in the front pocket of the jacket he was wearing as he napped

Mr. Campbell next texted Jones, "don't make me get
my gun, I ain't playing."

The Grievant conversed briefly with Officer
Bocchino and at the same time heard the dispatch of Aaron Campbell's "Don't make me get my
gun, I ain't playing" text message. Officer Bocchino told the Grievant that Mr. Campbell was
armed with a gun and had threatened suicide by police

[Dunphy (the real one)]

the officer knew he had past history of violent crimes, that he texted that he was going to get his gun, that he essentially threatened suicide by police, and that he was described as usually carrying a gun in his JACKET, which he exited the house

you leave out relevant details. how surprising

[Res Publica Americana]

Yep. Except there's no evidence he was going to do anything but wait for arrest or suicide by cop as he stood with his hands behind his head.

But what the hell, right? Instead of going in and taking the guy into custody, they started shooting at him, and when he reacted in the least threatening way possible (running away, as opposed to shooting back), he gets shot again -- but this time, it's with a real gun.

Yeah. Makes total sense.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i disagree there is no evidence. again, i read what the officer observed, what others observed, what his basis of knowledge was, etc. and imo it justified REAsONABLE belief he was reaching for a gun.

based on the TOTALITY of the circs, and that considering his past criminal history and current statements and actions this date, that it was reasonable to conclude he had a gun and he intended to use it.

i can respect your difference of opinion, but that's mine

[gulo gulo]

based on the TOTALITY of the circs, and that considering his past criminal history and current statements and actions this date, that it was reasonable to conclude he had a gun and he intended to use it.

Well, since the only real evidence you cite there (in your "totality of circs" nonsense) is his criminal background, you're making the claim that you can shoot people you believe may have a gun because you're aware they have a criminal background.

Which, of course, is illegal and ridiculous.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

no, it's not the only real evidence.

read the report. there were text messages, statementsby his girlfriend, observed past actions, etc.

you can gloss over the case facts, but they won't dissapear

[gulo gulo]

no, it's not the only real evidence.

I didn't say it was, please reread what I posted until you actually understand it.

[gulo gulo]

no, it's not the only real evidence.

What I posted was

Well, since the only real evidence you cite there

So the question is, are you incapable of reading for comprehension, or simply incapable of refuting my point so you lie about it?

[Fluffy]

Dunphy, the reason your position is specious is because it takes an already ridiculously light standard ("I thought I saw a gun in the suspect's hand!", which is bad enough) and lightens it even more, to "The suspect moved his hand in the direction of an area where a gun might possibly be."

That standard is just abysmally weak. It does literally mean that if a police officer sees a CCW holder walking down the street, moving his arms the way you naturally move your arms when you walk, he can shoot him dead on sight. Because every time your arms swing, they're "moving towards a gun".

Let's just declare a bright line standard that a gun has to be drawn. Then we can avoid a lot of self-serving claims on the part of the police.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

no, you are 100% missing th epoint

and again, a CCW cannot be assumed to be a violent person. that is not consistent with facts.

my arguemtn is consistent with case law and common sense. it's the shit i teach, and it's the shit i apply on the streets

if i am making a felony stop of an armed robber, and he reaches towards his waistband I CAN SHOOT

when i was stopped for armed robbery i certainly kept my hands in the air (i've told this incident before).

there is a reason why we do, and are justified in doing so, stops DIFFERENTLY of people accused of armed robbery vs. those accused of littering is because our reasonable belief about their being armed and violent is DIFFERENT

you can keep bringing up this specious CCW canard, but i work in a state where i deal with CCW'ers (and open carriers to a lesser extent) FREQUENTLY

they are not a problem

armed robbers, etc. ARE

i treat the two differently, and i make different assumptions and the law says i CAN do that

[gulo gulo]

my arguemtn is consistent with case law and common sense

Common sense tells you that shooting an unarmed man in the back was ok...

[Dunphy (the real one)]

case law and common sense says that based upon the entirety of the facts and evidence that shooting the man was justified yes.

also, as i have repeatedly explained, shooting somebody in the back contrary to teevee myht is not necessarily illegal or a bad shoot. in brief, it depends.

i've offered numerous examples where it's justified in past posts

[gulo gulo]

case law and common sense says that based upon the entirety of the facts and evidence that shooting the man was justified yes

Which was my point.

You genuinely think common sense says that shooting a man in the back is ok...

[Fluffy]

If I walk up to two men on the street who each have a holstered gun, and one of them has a history of violence and one doesn't, which of them is it OK for me to shoot before they draw the gun?

Trick question. The answer is neither.

[Whahappan?]

I don't believe you. I don't believe that you think the officer believed he was reaching for a gun, or posed any threat whatsoever. I don't think you believe that this was a "good shoot", or that the officer who shot the victim was in fear for his life, or anything remotely resembling such a state of mind.
In short, I don't think you are arguing in good faith, and I don't respect your purported opinion.

[Troy muy grande boner]

You read that folks, these fuckstick of an arbitrator believe that you can be running in the opposite direction draw a weapon, fire, before a pig holding weapon can fire the weapon.

Now that I have officially read this, it is fucking disgusting. I'd be willing to bet this arbitrator is a former pig himself.

No one saw a gun, but he could have.

This was a fucking murder, plain and simple.

You know Dunphy you pigs are some spineless cowardly cocksuckers. Really.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

yawn.

troll-o- meter : .01

[gulo gulo]

yawn. personal attacks and ignorance.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i wasn't aware i engaged in personal attacks. i attacked ideas generally not persons.

i certainly haven't called anybody spineless cowardly cocksuckers.

yawn

[gulo gulo]

i wasn't aware i engaged in personal attacks.

So you don't know what a bigot is?

Or are you lying?

[gulo gulo]

i wasn't aware i engaged in personal attacks

troll

i certainly haven't called anybody spineless cowardly cocksuckers.

Which means absolutely nothing when you're calling them bigots, trolls, and telling them to grow up.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

when people act like children, as you are, i damn well will

let the adults discuss issues and go back to yer mama's basement and have her lick yer ass for ya.

now THAT's a personal attack.

suck it

[gulo gulo]

when people act like children, as you are, i damn well will

Thanks at least for admitting you were lying when you posted this

i wasn't aware i engaged in personal attacks

[gulo gulo]

when people act like children, as you are, i damn well will

let the adults discuss issues and go back to yer mama's basement and have her lick yer ass for ya.

And by the way, it's obvious you're throwing this tantrum and attacking me because I pointed out that you lied and you're desperately trying to change the subject.

No one could accuse me of anything like acting like children, you just realize you're caught and need a cheap out.

[LTC(ret) John]

Why are you civilians arguing with the unmitigated force for good? Procedures were followed, arbitrations were held, rulings were made.

A pity about the dead dude, but he doesn't really enter into this, right? This is about the poor mistreated union member.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

the cop did the right thing. if cops should be punished for doing the wrong thing, they should not be punished for doing the right thing.

[gulo gulo]

the cop did the right thing.

Nope. He did the wrong thing, which everyone admits because he killed an unarmed man, it just so happens that the "wrong thing" may not have risen to illegality.

It says a lot about you though that you think killing an unarmed man is the right thing.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

no, the fact that he turned out to be unarmed does not mean the officer did the wrong thing, not under the law. what matters is what he reasonably believed

if i shoot somebody without any reason to believe he is armed or a threat to me and it turns out he actually had a gun in his pocket trained at me and was about to shoot me, it's still a bad shoot. i just happened to shoot a guy who was trying to kill me, but since i had no IDEA that was the case, it's unjustified.

if a warrant fails to find evidence, it doesn't vitiate the warrant, any more than a bad warrant is justified by finding a bunch of stolen guns

what is relaevant is what the cop reasonably believed.

the shootee in this case engaged in statements, behavior, etc. that placed him in a situation to get shot

i disagree with a lot of the meta tactics in this case. an excellent argument could be made the cops should have just walked away. we've done that many times. he had no hostages and if he was suicidal but stuck inside the apartment and not coming out, no reason to press the situation.

AGREED

but the individual officer didn't make that decision. he made a shoot decision that was reasonable, justified, and made in good faith

he did not do wrong

[Dunphy (the real one)]

there is one thing that is inarguable.

i say this as a firearms use of force instructor, and my opinion is backed up by numerous cases, to include this one

when ANYBODY makes any UOF decision, cop or noncop the totality of the circs are going to be the standard that's relevant in deciding whether that force is justified.

it's ALWAYS the case.

if i am stopping an armed robber suspect, i don't KNOW he's armed. he may not be the actual suspect (bad IDing , license plate # off by a few digits etc.), he may have dropped the gun, he may have been using a realistic looking but fake gun at the crime scene, etc etc.

but i am entirely justified in making the stop "felony stop" style, drawing my gun, and IF he is dumb enough to charge at me, even if his hands are open and empty, and/or he reaches for his waistband, generally speaking, i am justified to shoot

if i am approached a shoplifter suspect, i am NOT justified in making a felony stop, nor am i going to have my gun out and if he rushes me i am not justified in shooting him, etc

circs matter.

in this case, there were a metric assload of circs (already cited) about his statements about suicide by cop, his past history of violent crime to include like murder and shit, where he carried his gun (sock in jacket), etc. etc.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

those ARE relevant to the officer and he did take them into account, as he is legally allowed to in his shoot/'no shoot decision.

the fact as to whether he WAS or wasn't armed is not relevant to the justification of the shoot

what is relevant is what the officer REASONABLY believed whne he pulled the trigger

just like if a search warrant is based on good PC for stolen property, but no stolen property is found - that doesn't mean the warrant is therefore BAD

conversely, if the warrant is based on bogus pc, then the fact that stolen property, two homicide victims, and the body of jimmy hoffa is found do not retroactively justify the warrant.

i respect ANYBODY who reads the full arbitrator report and concludes the officer was not justified. i respect informed differences of opinion

i don't automatically agree with arbitrators, but in this case, i think a clear case is made for legal justification for deadly force.

[Fluffy]

what is relevant is what the officer REASONABLY believed whne he pulled the trigger

"I might be about to have my life be threatened a few seconds from now" is not actually the same as "My life is in danger." Just the same way as "That guy could possibly rob a bank tomorrow" is not the same as "That guy is currently robbing a bank."

That's why we should solve this problem by requiring the actual drawing of a gun.

[BarryD]

Most of us can be fired for doing something with extreme negative consequences, even when it was just a mistake. Nobody has to die, it needn't even be something that could possibly be deemed illegal. That's just how the world works.

[The Unknown Pundit]

One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three.

In three seconds, a guy goes from complying with LEO's to shot in the back by LEO's.

But it is all good, the guy made a "furtive" hand gesture... while on the run, after being shot at with bean bags. And since he owned a gun, he might have had it on his person, and he might have shot at someone.

Would of, should of, could of.

The main thing is that all the LEO's that day went home safely that night.

[LTC(ret) John]

By the strained logic I have seen in this thread, I could have killed whole villages of men in NE Afghanistan (starting with those #$% in Qarabaghi Robat) and followed up a couple of years later by shooting most of Basra and half of Baghdad.

I am saddened that foreigners, in a war, get better protection from deadly force than people in the US.

[BarryD]

Also, he was killed by a RIFLE shot. Rifles are far, far easier to shoot accurately at longer ranges than handguns; that's why you don't see snipers using pistols (duh).

If I have an AR (presumably what the cop had) pointed at someone center-mass, with my finger on the trigger, and he's running away, I can probably get a shot off before he can draw a concealable handgun, whip around and hit anything. And I don't believe there was any evidence that the guy is a fastdraw champion.

Granted, I'm an avid bird hunter, so I have a lot of practice at making fast shots at moving targets, but still...

[Dylboz]

It's just appalling and sadly ironic how often these so-called "welfare" checks where the ostensible concern is helping a guy who might commit suicide or even worse, "suicide by cop" turn into exactly that which they are supposedly there to prevent. How was this guy's welfare "checked?" He was alive when they got there. Now he's dead. Just like that poor old Marine in White Plains whose Life Alert cot him killed. Why wont they just fucking leave when the guy says, "hey, I'm alright, I don't want your heavily armed 'help,' please just go away." Apparently, we're not free to decline this kind of overwhelming and violent concern for our "welfare."

[BarryD]

When it was all over, the cops were able to fully ascertain his welfare, and report on it accurately. Another job well done!

[BarryD]

Well, I suppose the cop deserves to be commended, since it does not appear that he scoured the neighborhood looking for the guy's yorkshire terrier, so he could shoot it.