Police Abuse

Cops Shoot 19-Year-Old San Jose Woman After Mistaking Power Drill For an Uzi and Nothing Else Will Happen

|

Woman brandishing power drill before being shot by cops
cellphone video screencap

While the mainstream media is trying to fit surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a convenience store of some cigars into the various narratives it's been constructing since protests and riots in Ferguson, Missouri, propelled the police shooting of an unarmed Brown into the national news cycle, the regular succession of police, or "officer-involved," shootings continue.

Earlier this week, for example, officers from the Los Angeles Police Department shot and killed a mentally disturbed 25-year-old they said later maybe might have been in a gang. In San Bernardino County, a newspaper employee died in police custody after being tased. Police claim the employed, married, father of five was a suspect in an attempted burglary. It's reported cops are "aggressively" seeking people who may have recorded their interaction with the victim.

And yesterday a 19-year-old woman in San Jose was shot and killed by police after they mistook a power drill she was brandishing for an Uzi. ABC 7 news reports:

San Jose police spokesperson Albert Morales says officers arrived at the scene with caller information that gave them reasonable concern their lives might be at risk. 

"We had a call, somebody with an Uzi, threatening to kill family members—a very, very serious situation, very dangerous situation for our officers. We had communication with this person. Unfortunately, I guess at some point those communications either broke down or the officers felt threatened in some form or fashion."

Officers who did respond had specialized training to deal with the potential the person may have mental health issues. 

There was no one else in the home outside of which the 19-year-old was shot so it's unclear how the 911 call was so botched. Without media attention, don't expect that call, or much more information, to be released. None of these cases appear to be gaining significant media or community attention, so the stories will remain murky, uncertain. It's likely each one will be ruled justified, with little information being shared before then. The victims appear, or are depicted, as mentally unstable. Cops claim in each case that they felt threatened, and residents are expected to give police the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, the other side insists on counting cops who died because things fell on them or they were involved in accidents as "killed in the line of duty" to push the perception of cops working in a "war zone" not of their own making.

Calls by politicians like Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) that Ferguson be a "turning point" are largely hollow. Cummings voted against an NDAA amendment in June that would've limited transfers of military gear to local police departments, and none of the establishment activists who have attached themselves to the situation in Ferguson seem to be doing anything to focus people's attentions on the systemic problems behind police brutality, starting with the propensity of most fatal police shootings to be ruled justified in a process shrouded in government secrecy and privilege.

We shouldn't have to read these kinds of stories and speculate about what happened, there ought to be a transparent process trusted by the public that can come to an understandable conclusion, whether you end up agreeing or not. Instead, cops and prosecutors act almost like a team during investigations of police shootings—it shouldn't be surprising given that they do operate as a team in pretty much every other part of their jobs. And police generally control the narrative of a shooting, painting themselves in the most positive light possible and victims in the most negative light possible. Without an engaged national media they often get away with it.

The indictment of Gov. Rick Perry (R-Tex.) for trying to force a district attorney charged with drinking and driving out of office is illustrative here. A district attorney who drinks and drives shouldn't be allowed to keep that job, given how often a district attorney prosecutes drunk drivers. And it's rich to see a prosecutor charge a governor with "coercion" for threatening funding if a DA embroiled in a scandal wouldn't resign, when prosecutors coerce defendants into plea deals all the time. Is Perry enjoying widespread support for trying to force a DA that damaged her reputation out of office? Of course not, the DA is a Democrat so a significant amount of Democrats will back her. Her job is to monitor public integrity. It would seem her job should obligate her to resign after being charged with drunk driving. But prosecutors and cops will act in their own self-interest, especially when their jobs are on the line. And so bad actors are incentivized to help each other. Add partisan tribalism into the mix, and you have a recipe for a big old heap of nothing else happening.

NEXT: WATCH: Ferguson Protesters React to Michael Brown Robbery Footage

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.

  1. “Those tools of war have no place on our streets..”

    1. That’s quite sad, actually. Now I feel bad.

    2. Remember folks, only law enforcement officers have the maturity, training and sense of responsibility to shoot innocent unarmed civilians.

      1. I’ve had a few violent encounters in my life, seems funny how all of them ended without a shooting. I recall finding myself in a bad situation over a girl I didn’t even want; a monster that looked like Brian Bosworth wiped the pavement with me. It hurt, but nobody had to die. Let me tell you, I left his knuckles plenty bruised and battered.

        Must police violence escalate so often from a problem to a shooting? Nothing about state violence is like individual violence, not scale, and not the manner in which it escalates. I’m sure someone better versed than me has written something eloquent on the subject.

  2. Everyone knows that Uzis are available on every street corner, and cost about 20 bucks, so I am sure they were frightened!

    1. And of course the fact that submachne guns are rarely used in crimes (becuase theyare expensive, hard to conceal, and carry a,federal rap) doesn’t get widely disseminated because the gon comtrol lobby desperately needs people to believe that gun control laws are supposed to curb widespread ownership of military type,srms that are already effectively impossible to buy casually.

      1. And of course the fact that submachne guns are rarely used in crimes (becuase theyare expensive, hard to conceal, and carry a,federal rap) doesn’t get widely disseminated because the gon comtrol lobby desperately needs people to believe that gun control laws are supposed to curb widespread ownership of military type,srms that are already effectively impossible to buy casually.

        To be fair, you just conceded the effectiveness of federal gun control while knocking the effectiveness of federal gun control.

    2. This story here is why, when the police showed up at my friend’s garage to investigate a noise complaint, when I turned around and saw them, I dropped the impact chisel on the ground and put my hands up.

      Fuck taking chances with those trigger happy morons.

  3. You know, [b]can the media start pointing out the rules of engagement used by the military in these articles?[/b] Come on, Reason. It’s not hard to find.

    These aren’t militarized cops. These are trigger happy cowards. A soldier in Afghanistan needs PID and has to use EOF before he shoots. A cop on the dangerous streets of San Jose? They just need to feel threatened.

    1. By real, perceived, or imaginary threats.

  4. Whites don’t riot–they vote. I hope all the whites in San Jose vote out those who want to militarize and make the police less accountable for their reprehensible actions. But considering this is California (land of the crazies, where I live, unfortunately) I suppose that’s too much to ask. Sigh…

    1. It’s too much to ask anywhere in the country.

      So, whites don’t riot. Maybe they should start. Maybe things would actually change in this country. There’s a lot more whites than blacks, after all, and whites have that whole white privilege thing going for them.

      I’m tired of the Ferguson case being used as a typical race baiting issue. It’s about people not trusting cops when they use force because they so often use it excessively. This happens more often to people of color, but it also happens to whites. And white people aren’t doing anything about it at all.

      I’d argue what white people who ignore the problem are doing is just as much of an injustice as some looting in Ferguson amidst understandable anger.

      1. Having dealt with police a few times in my life, I know firsthand how they abuse their power. Just two years ago I was arrested for drunk driving (yes, my fault entirely) but the police I dealt with in jail were total assholes–and I’m as white as snow. Until most people have to deal with police directly they’ll never understand how much power these thugs wield. As long as it’s happening to someone else, they don’t care. Unfortunate…

        1. I got a DUI 20+ years ago. The cop that arrested me was totally cool. Didn’t put me in general lock up and let me call my girlfriend to come pick me up as soon as I was processed. Didn’t impound my car.

          Then I got to court and the fucker had lied his ass off on what happened. Claimed I nearly hit pedestrians (which he never said when I was arrested and which the passengers in my car also said was bullshit) was belligerent with him and some other bullshit that eludes me now.

          That’s when I realized that they’re all institutionally liars, even if you think that you’re dealing with one of the ‘good ones’.

          1. the ratio of good cop to bad cop is about 0.00000001 out of 100.

      2. The problem is that the media doesn’t push stories of police brutality and murder unless there is a racial angle to them.

        Most people have no idea that frequently the cops murder innocent people and in the isolated cases that they do hear about just assume that the victim needed killin.

        1. “The problem is that the media doesn’t push stories of police brutality and murder unless there is a racial angle to them.”

          THIS. The only reason the Zimmerman event got so much attention was because of the name Zimmermen. They ran with the story because they thought they had a white on black violence event.

          If George’s last name was Gonzales the media would have yawned and nothing much else would have happened.

          1. I just want to see the stats of how many times a cop is unjustifiably killed by us peasants versus how often the cops unjustifiably kill peasants. I think the differential would be staggering enough to rapidly deflate every argument for more police powers, personnel and resources that will ever be made.

            1. I looked up the statistics for police killed in the line of duty. It averages around 165-200 per year. This also includes officers killed in traffic accidents, so not all are killed by another person.

              They just had an article last week that an average of 400 people per year were killed by police. And this is only for the departments that report to NCIC. I think that accounts for around 1/3 to 1/2 of departments. So the actual number is probably higher.

              1. That’s about right. And neither number is very high compared to other causes of death. Both numbers have remained fairly steady over the last few decades, so it’s not like we’re having an escalating problem either.

                That’s why voters really don’t care very much, in particular as long as crime rates generally keep going down (which they do).

                A bit more accountability would be nice, like body cameras and dashcams. Independent reviews of killings would probably also be good. Finally, the federal government should stop pushing military hardware on police departments. That’s really all most people care about.

      3. Riots only harm innocent third parties. They destroy neighborhoods and give cops another excuse to use more violence.

        We don’t need more riots, we need more Chris Dorners.

        1. Chris Dorner, who murdered an innocent woman because he felt her father did not adequately represent him when he was fired?

          1. Fuck that guy anyway, amirite?

        2. “Riots only harm innocent third parties.”

          Not so fast.

          If you live in an area that has continued to ratchet up police presence, and you vote to ratchet up police presence, you aren’t an innocent bystander.

          1. Something tells me that the judicious analysis conducted by a rioting mob is less than adequate in determining how just it is that your property is being destroyed and stolen.

          2. Hey! Think of all those broken windows that need fixing!

      4. So, whites don’t riot. Maybe they should start.

        Because that’s been working so well for the African American community, right?

        And white people aren’t doing anything about it at all.

        I live in a city that’s mostly white and Asian. I can’t remember a police killing. I don’t feel threatened by our cops. I do go and vote in municipal elections. Seems to me we are doing something and it’s working.

        The people of Ferguson couldn’t even be bothered to go to the polls; voter turnout for African Americans in the municipal election was 6% there. Are you saying that “white people” should come in, override Ferguson’s local political processes, and fix things for them? Which rights to self-determination would you like “white people” to take away from the people of Ferguson?

        they so often use it excessively

        The statistics don’t seem to bear that out.

        http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=703

        1. Sounds like nation building, and the success that has been.

        2. The statistics don’t seem to bear that out.

          I’ll start from the bottom up with that gem of a post. Did you actually read the particulars of the survey you just posted? It included anyone who had contact with the police in the last year. That includes traffic stops and ‘other’ reasons as well as actual arrests.

          That data is worthless.

          I live in a city that’s mostly white and Asian. I can’t remember a police killing. I don’t feel threatened by our cops. I do go and vote in municipal elections. Seems to me we are doing something and it’s working.

          You can’t remember. Well, thanks. That clears a lot of things up. Thanks for your anecdotal story lacking in any specific details.

          Whites and Asians don’t feel threatened by cops. Cops largely don’t feel threatened by either of those groups, as well.

          If the police and other minority groups go into an interaction not trusting one another, you are going to have issues. And it is both sides.

          1. Because that’s been working so well for the African American community, right?

            Yup, because they riot all the time. It’s absolute anarchy nation wide!

            White people can pretend it’s just a black issue if they want. Their neighborhoods, by and large, aren’t police as heavy handedly as black communities, but have an actual interaction with a cop and we’ll see how you feel about them.

            Real stats (not the ridiculous survey you posted above) show blacks are arrested and convicted of some of the same crimes at higher rates than whites despite similar percentages of offenders. In other words, if you are white and use drugs, you are far less likely to be arrested than someone black. You are more likely to have a tougher punishment.

            Progressives are wrong on a whole lot, and overplay the race card. But the liberal use of the word ‘thug’ and high and mighty attitude a lot of white conservative types take on these issues is very revealing.

            1. White people can pretend it’s just a black issue if they want.

              It’s not a racial issue at all; it’s you who keeps making this about race.

              As far as you (or I) are concerned, you should act as if police have a license to kill you if you threaten them, threaten someone else, or run away from them. Didn’t your parents teach you that as a kid? Mine sure did.

          2. Did you actually read the particulars of the survey you just posted?

            Yes: it shows that most people overwhelmingly don’t have any problems in their day-to-day interactions with police.

            You can’t remember. Well, thanks. That clears a lot of things up. Thanks for your anecdotal story lacking in any specific details.

            I’m sorry you are unfamiliar with common English idioms. “I can’t remember” means “it has been many years”.

            If the police and other minority groups go into an interaction not trusting one another, you are going to have issues. And it is both sides.

            You seem to fundamentally misunderstand interaction with cops; no wonder you’re scared.

            Cops are big, stupid guys with too much testosterone, a bad attitude, guns and a license to kill. You don’t touch them. You don’t contradict them. You don’t run away from them. When they tell you do to something, you do it. When they try to arrest you, you comply. You don’t debate constitutional or legal issues with them. If they do something wrong, you complain to your representative, file a complaint, and/or get a lawyer.

            If you live by those rules, you can exist in the same fearless universe as everybody else. If you don’t, well, don’t expect much sympathy.

        3. Well, blacks are largely stupid and impulsive, that’s why they riot. When whites do it, it’s called a revolution.

    2. California? Democrat wins.

    3. “Whites don’t riot–they vote.”

      Which makes them irrelevant to the political process. Politics is about who wants it more.

    4. If a white lady falls from a police shooting in the suburbs, does she make a media sound?

  5. Shoot first, avoid questions later.

  6. This is why we need a federal law making all power drills have orange tips, so the cops can tell the difference.

    1. But but but, we’ll all just paint our Uzi tips orange.

      1. I own airsoft guns. Quite a few. I play airsoft, and enjoy the sport quite a bit.

        Several of my guns only have orange tips because I put orange stickers on the ends. Otherwise, they are completely realisting and unable to be identified without close inspection.

        I was testing my new Echo 1 AK in the field by my house one night, and accidentally pegged my neighbor. Apologized and showed him the gun. He thought it was cool. Nothing else happened.

        My friends and I were out playing in a field in town, nothing official, jsut for fun, when a county sheriff shows up. Says he was called because a bunch of military guys with guns were going into the woods with guns. Soon as he saw the orange tips he okayed us to keep playing and drove away. Nothing else happened.

        It turns out that orange tips aren’t the answer. Police with patience and a willingness to ask questions before killing are the answer. It didn’t occur to me at either example that my life was in danger. Now, though, I’m surprised I came out of those situations with zero bullet wounds.

        1. *realistic

          Don’t know where that “ing” came from.

        2. turns out that orange tips aren’t the answer. Police with patience and a willingness to ask questions before killing are the answer.

          That would just be the desirable outcome of enforcing laws against cops that apply to everyone else. As it stands, cops are institutionally incentivized to shoot first and ask questions later. Whereas if they could not claim immunity for their actions by virtue of their costume, they would each have an incentive to not wantonly kill people.

    2. What’s not clear is whether the “painted black” feature is one of the drill as purchased, or was done subsequent to purchase. If it was subsequent to purchase, then after watching the video I conclude this to have been a case of suicide by cop.

  7. Did anyone tell Lyle the Ed wrote this article?

    1. *that

    2. he’s too busy from his outpost in Syria.

    3. Hey, I’m here and see all of you.

      Ed is fooling himself and others if he thinks he’s not trying to certain events into a certain special narrative to him.

      He’s a propagandist and a pitiful one at that.

      1. Not trying to . . . . . certain events?

        What did I miss? Spin? Weave?

        Help me out here, Lyle. I need to know if I should mock you.

  8. “It would seem her job should obligate her to resign after being charged with drunk driving.”

    Nope. charged =/= convicted.

    1. Guilty plea == convicted.

    2. And it wasn’t just a routine DUI, she was belligerent, they had to put a spit guard on her, and she tried to use her position to intimidate the cops into letting her off.

  9. What’s up with that first, incomplete paragraph? Did the editor just give up in frustration?

    1. That is a mess. I just thought me english was getting worser.

  10. Maybe she was carrying one of these. http://www.everydaynodaysoff.c…..-Drill.jpg

  11. I don’t know where to drop this, so here it is: http://news.msn.com/crime-just…..t-suspects

    1. I invoke my right to be guilty, officer.

  12. Is Perry enjoying widespread support for trying to force a DA that damaged her reputation out of office? Of course not, the DA is a Democrat so a significant amount of Democrats will back her.

    Other Democrats would keep mum about this, lest they give their opponents an opportunity to pain them as defenders of drunk driving.

  13. I guess at some point those communications either broke down or the officers felt threatened in some form or fashion.

    Welp, good enough for me!

    Seriously, “I guess”?

  14. I take it that “partisan tribalism” is code for “the victims were Caucasian”?

    1. Only if you’re from Planet Gawker

  15. When I first saw the video I knew it was a drill not a gun. How in the hell could a cop, 15 feet away, not tell? Then again, this is California – where every gun is an Uzi, so why not drills too?

    1. Multiple other cops on scene that did not feel the need to pull the trigger. So by the “reasonably believed she had a gun” metric, this cop should be pretty well screwed.

      Of course, when they pull the cops into the interview room, they’ll probably all say they felt in imminent danger but inexplicably held their fire even though the woman was,less than 20 feet away from them and the “weapon” was plainly visible.

      1. All the cops were hustled into a police interview room so they could get their stories straight.

    2. When I first saw the video I knew it was a drill not a gun. How in the hell could a cop, 15 feet away, not tell? Then again, this is California – where every gun is an Uzi, so why not drills too?

      Big city cops are astoundingly ignorant of firearms. That’s why they’e always shooting people holding Airsoft guns, water guns, garden hose nozzles, etc. They’re ignorant morons.

      Here’s a question though. If there were five fucking cops there, how come there wasn’t one with a beanbag gun, and one with a Taser. If I’m trying to talk a suspect out of the house, and I have five cops, then I’m going to have them armed with different weapons so I have more options.

    3. In NY, wallets look like guns.

      1. You know what though, that poor bastard died because of an actual misunderstanding. A dark night, a sudden movement, him matching the description of an armed serial rapist. The Diallo shooting was at least arguably an honest mistake. This one just isn’t. That is clearly not an Uzi. Not even close.

    4. And every dog is a pitbull.

  16. Police1 chimes in with their usual level of sympathy and intellect.

    http://www.policeone.com/offic…..ed-family/

    Their story says it is the woman herself that called the cops, by the way.

    1. So essentially the police are now a suicide enablement agency.

    2. I see that DCM is posting again. He’s about the only cop on that site worth a damn.

  17. How many Uzis have an electric cord hanging from their handgrips?

    Perhaps this was a case of suicide by cop. The woman calls 911 knowing that 5 or 10 cops will show up. She knows out of any 5 or 10 cops, there is one nervous nelly and one macho nutjob who will shoot for any reason. And the shooter knows that blue loyalty is the ultimate protection so why not let fly? Perfect storm. And by all means, let’s arm these nutjobs with military weapons while we’re at it.

    1. Yeah, I have to agree on the suicide-by-cop premise. Why paint a drill flat black and wave it around/point it at people like she did?

      1. I don’t want my tax dollar subsidizing other people’s suicides.

      2. There’s a million reasons why, all of them stupid.

        Under no circumstances does this mean she should have been shot and killed.

  18. Can you imagine this set of cops showing up on the set of Tool Time?

  19. I actually own a registered full automatic UZI submachinegun and it looks nothing like what is pictured there.

  20. This happened two or three blocks from my house. They had the streets blocked off for several hours and Blossom Hill Rd. is a fairly major thoroughfare.

    Apparently, the cop is unable to distinguish a battery power tool from an Uzi at 15 feet.

    1. The new professionalism, totality of circs, and of course the paramount concern for officer safety.

      Did I miss one?

    2. Might wanna hold off on that DYI deck you’re thinking of building given the LEOs in your neighborhood.

  21. I think it was a suicide-by-cop incident. The cops are pretty reliable that way.

  22. How much longer are the American people, black, white, green or grey going to let this kind of crap keep on happening? LEOs aren’t the judge and jury, yet they shot unarmed women, men, children, and family pets who just happen to look crossed eyed at a them. Now our government has armed them with better weapons than what we had in Vietnam, and take them on a raid, where two or three LEOs would have went alone only a few years ago, without even a bullet proof vest, and at the most besides their service rifles a shotgun or two.

    I don’t see how we can any longer classify the majority of our police forces as caring LEOs who are there to protect and serve. Instead it appears that they are a gang of thugs that will lie, and do whatever else is necessary to protect their own, and by with murder. Maybe its time we started using the RICO Act against police forces.

  23. The real pity is that this occurs with increasing frequency, but do we rally around the baby burned in a botched no knock raid over some pot plants, or the grandmother shot dead during a no knock raid on the wrong address? No, we rally around a violent refrigerator sized thug who attacks police after a strong arm robbery.

  24. We shouldn’t have to read these kinds of stories and speculate about what happened, there ought to be a transparent process trusted by the public that can come to an understandable conclusion, whether you end up agreeing or not.

    Police should wear body cams and all interrogations and detentions should be recorded. Shootings and killings by police should be investigated by an outside organizations. I think that’s in the interest of both police and the public. It’s also the only thing that really can and should be done at the state and federal level.

    Otherwise, it’s up to each municipality to set their own rules on how their police operate. However, the majority of Americans are far more worried about police not being able to protect them from violent criminals than police shooting them, which is why they generally support giving more guns and power to police.

    1. ^This.

      Functioning body cams should be required when any officer is interacting with the public. Any non-functioning body cam should cause the burden of proof to fall on the officer, not the citizen.

    2. Cops should only be allowed to shoot people for the same exact reasons that would allow non-police to shoot people. I can’t shoot someone for for general non-compliance, so it should be a cop. I can’t bludgeon someone with a stick because they mouthed off to me, then neither should a cop be able to do so. Sadly that’s a radical idea…

      1. Cops can’t shoot anyone for general non-compliance either. Cops can’t bludgeon someone with a stick because someone mouthed off to them, either.

        Because they have done it doesn’t make it correct, or by procedure. So I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to push here: do you want to be able to do these things, or do you not want cops to ever be able to do these things.

        1. Cops can’t shoot anyone for general non-compliance either. Cops can’t bludgeon someone with a stick because someone mouthed off to them, either.

          Is that so? So no one has ever been shot for fleeing the police? Cops don’t hit people who say things? They do so with impunity. I mean fuck, people get charged with assault of a police officer just for putting their arms up to defend against the officer’s attack.

          do you want to be able to do these things, or do you not want cops to ever be able to do these things.

          It’s very very simple. I want the same laws that apply to me, to apply to cops. So when determining whether I committed assault when I punch someone in the face, would be the same exact law to determine whether a cop just committed assault. No qualified immunity, no thin blue line privileges.

        2. “Cops can’t shoot anyone for general non-compliance either. Cops can’t bludgeon someone…”

          ~ I Callahan

          Cops do it all the time. Perhaps you don’t the difference between the rather English words can’t and shouldn’t.

          Cop Busts Party, Teens Flee, Cop Kills Girl

          and

          Cops vs. Cameras: The Killing of Kelly Thomas

          You seem quite subnormal, clueless, in fact. Oh my, how I would enjoy meeting your mommy and daddy to see what pieces of work they must be.

          You know, apples fall near to the tree.

          1. ‘Cop Kills Girl’
            Thank you for the nut punch, Smack! May I have another?!

            1. Hey now, have some sympathy. It’s tough being the bearer of reality.

  25. As I remember, Mayberry was a lot safer town once Andy took away Barney Fife’s bullets.

    1. Sarah Brady, is that you?

  26. Why do cops have guns at the ready anyway? Why aren’t all guns locked within the trucks of cop cars? Why shouldn’t watch commanders decide if guns need to be drawn?

    Do cops really need access to lethal force guns at their ready? Don’t they have Taser? guns for self-defense? Didn’t Taser? guns replace beat-you-over-the-head truncheons?

    Don’t cops have IQs that register a paltry 104, on average? Should those with IQs of 104 on average even have access to guns as work tools?

    As long as police have statewide and national labor unions, legislators of the respective states won’t investigate and legislate in effort to bring in commonsense and adult supervision to policing. Worse, none dare prosecute cops after-the-fact in what often are wrongful death murders.

    When split-second decisions of life and death arise, it’s not good enough to let those with IQs of 104 decide. In-the-field cops should be deprived of the decision to use guns rather than other means. Cops lack suitable intellects to decide life and death matters for others.

    “very dangerous situation for our officers…the officers felt threatened …”

    Feeling threatened and working within a dangerous situation aren’t good enough reasons to murder anyone. Besides, anyone with commonsense would consider those ordinary occupational hazards for policing. Such hazards do not give rise to justifiable homicide by any people who believe in justice.

    1. Why shouldn’t watch commanders decide if guns need to be drawn?

      You’re a cop. A belligerent, high, angry and large man is coming at you, saying he’s going to rip your head off. You have about 5 seconds of time.

      Do you:

      a. Radio your commander to come quickly
      b. Run away
      c. Shoot to protect yourself

      If you do “a”, you will be likely dead before your commander gets there. If you do “b”, you’ve told the criminal element there will be no repercussions for any criminal acts.

      I guess that leaves “c”.

      Now I do believe that policing has become too militarized. That said, this last week’s events have now convinced more people that the police DO need to be heavily armed. You guys lost ground on this one.

      And if you think the IQ’s of cops should be higher, maybe your towering intellect could help? Go and join, and show the rest of those rubes how it’s done. Comments like yours show the complete ignorance of someone who has never been in that situation.

      1. You’re a cop. A belligerent, high, angry and large man is coming at you, saying he’s going to rip your head off. You have about 5 seconds of time.

        Do you:

        a. Radio your commander to come quickly
        b. Run away
        c. Shoot to protect yourself

        If you do “a”, you will be likely dead before your commander gets there. If you do “b”, you’ve told the criminal element there will be no repercussions for any criminal acts.

        I guess that leaves “c”.

        The difference is that option C being utilized by a cop carries almost no threat of life destroying prison time. Whereas if you were a regular peasant, the standards are higher. Cops should only have the right to protect themselves in the same instance that regular people would have the right to protect themselves.

        If Mr Joseph P Noncop shot Bob on the street and then later claimed the guy was threatening him physically, Joseph P Noncop would go to prison short of any evidence to provide that reasonable doubt. His cousin on the police force, Johnny P Copface in the same situation would receive some level of immunity for his actions even if an investigation was done and revealed the shooting was unjustified.

        1. The difference is that option C being utilized by a cop carries almost no threat of life destroying prison time.

          Why the hell should it? If I’m a cop, and someone comes after me in this fashion, and I’m in fear of my life, why shouldn’t I be able to neutralize him?

          Whereas if you were a regular peasant, the standards are higher. Cops should only have the right to protect themselves in the same instance that regular people would have the right to protect themselves.

          You brought this up before, but unless you’re in England, this isn’t true. Stand your ground laws are on the books in MANY states, for example. If the above scenario happens, I have the same right to protect myself as that cop. I think you’re arguing a strawman here.

          If Mr Joseph P Noncop shot Bob on the street and then later claimed the guy was threatening him physically, Joseph P Noncop would go to prison short of any evidence to provide that reasonable doubt.

          You’re claiming that Joe Noncop shot Bob on the street, but you give no information as to the circumstances. You hint that something different happened than in the above scenario, but you don’t say what. What if the above scenario DID happen? Is Joe Noncop going to jail if the evidence points to that being the case? Of course not, especially if the circumstances are clear.

          Immunity is a different argument. Not applicable here.

      2. Under your scenario, you pull out your Taser. You might run away.

        People say all manners of things. That doesn’t mean people follow through.

        Again, under your scenario, based on your description and fantasy shared with us here, “the belligerent, high, angry and large man”, who would make you shit your pants, but likely not the rest of us, isn’t brandishing a gun, he doesn’t have a knife or even a bit of roadside gravel.

        Facts remain. On average, cops have paltry IQs leaving them with intellects not suitable to make life and death decisions for others on-the-fly.

        Good luck with your scary, hostile, big man fantasies!

        1. Two things:

          1. No one has EVER died from being tazed:

          http://electronicvillage.blogs…..tates.html

          2. Are you really saying that the “fantasy” I stated was made up? You do understand that that is the very situation that some are saying happened in Ferguson?

          So good luck, with your scary, black-helicopter, the cops are going to kill us all fantasies!

          1. You commit one red herring after another. You fail at arguing.

            I posited:

            (1) Why do cops have guns at the ready anyway? Why aren’t all guns locked within the trucks of cop cars? Why shouldn’t watch commanders decide if guns need to be drawn?

            (2) Should those with IQs of 104 on average even have access to guns as work tools? When split-second decisions of life and death arise, it’s not good enough to let those with IQs of 104 decide. Cops lack suitable intellects to decide life and death matters for others.

            You failed to put forth an argument against reality ? cops aren’t bright enough, on average, to use guns as a work tool. Instead you put forth a big, scary burly man fantasy culled from the deep recesses of your mind.

            And now you introduce the red herring of people having died of Taser strikes. Well people have died from choke holds, from billy club strikes, from mere fright over being arrested.

            Dopey cops, which describes most of them, are too stupid to use guns at work. That’s the reality.

            Good luck denying reality every day of your living!

      3. So the entire world of possible action is limited to a b and c? How about taz, how about pull out that club you’ve been trained with and be ready for a confrontation…

    2. “When split-second decisions of life and death arise, it’s not good enough to let those with IQs of 104 decide.”

      Honestly, you’re a fucking idiot, so you really should stop referencing IQ.

      An IQ of 104 is well within average, and your contention is that the average person can’t be trusted to own firearms for self defense because they’re too stupid to recognize the threat of death or grievous bodily injury.

      That you would even ask a question like “Do cops really need access to lethal force guns at their ready?” is so fucking stupid, it can’t even be put into words. Cops have the same right to self defense as any other citizen, and while there are undoubtedly some who shouldn’t have access to firearms at any time (just like regular citizens), the vast majority are capable of recognizing a serious threat (just like regular citizens), and employing the force necessary to stop the threat (just like regular citizens).

      The problem isn’t armed cops; the problem is lack of accountability when cops utilized deadly force. They need to be held to the same or higher standard as any regular citizen when utilizing deadly force, not DENIED the use of deadly force. Locking their firearms in a trunk, or requiring approval from some distant commander effectively denies them the ability to counter a deadly threat. Just because they’re cops doesn’t mean they’re required to take an ass-beating every time they are called to apprehend someone who doesn’t want to be apprehended.

  27. While the mainstream media is trying to fit surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a convenience store of some cigars into the various narratives it’s been constructing since protests and riots in Ferguson, Missouri, propelled the police shooting of an unarmed Brown into the national news cycle, the regular succession of police, or “officer-involved,” shootings continue.

    Can you say run-on?

  28. Very very very dangerous situation. Police are in very very very much danger. And we very very very much need to kill a few innocent people to be sure we can reach the highest level of JBT safety. Let’s just call it a cost of doing State business.

    Seriously though, there is no place in a just and good society for unregistered power tools. The common good dictate we should register first before buying anything pointy and spinny. I call this the pointy and spinny registration act. I hope everyone will sign the petition to free our neighborhoods of dangerous pointy and spinny objects.

    1. That being said, at the end of the day, this… re-emphasizes the need for common-sense power-tool control laws.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.