Police

Teen Fatally Shot by Police Officer at Suburban St. Louis Gas Station

|

Anonymous Argentina

In Berkeley, Missouri—a suburb of St. Louis located just a few miles from Ferguson—18-year-old Antonio Martin was fatally shot by a police officer on Tuesday night. From the St. Louis County Police Department: 

At approximately 11:15 PM on December 23, 2014, a police officer with the City of Berkeley was conducting a routine business check at the Mobile Gas Station located at 6800 N. Hanley when he observed two male subjects on the side of the building.

The Berkeley Police Officer exited his vehicle and approached the subjects when one of the men pulled a handgun and pointed it at the officer. Fearing for his life, the Berkeley Officer fired several shots, striking the subject, fatally wounding him. The second subject fled the scene.

The Berkeley Police Department requested the St. Louis County Police Department's Crimes Against Persons Unit to handle the investigation. St. Louis County Police Detectives have recovered the deceased subject's handgun at the scene.

Search4Swag/Twitter

At a press conference Wednesday morning, St Louis police chief Jon Belmar provided more details. According to Belmar, the officer involved was a six-year veteran of the Berkeley police department. He had shown up at the Mobile gas station in response to a call about theft (Belmar said it's unclear whether Martin and his friend fit the description of the suspects or whether the theft had taken place at the gas station). When Martin produced a 9 millimeter pistol, the officer "produced his service weapon and fired what we think at this point was three shots," said Belmar. One shot struck Martin, one struck the tire of the police car, and the other is still unaccounted for. 

While the officer's car did have a dashcam, it's uncertain whether it was turned on. The officer also had a bodycam, but he was not wearing it at the time. However, there is video footage from the gas station cameras, which Belmar showed at the press conference (and can be seen below). Here's audio of the police dispatch following the shooting. 

Belmar said an ambulance arrived at the scene, and Martin was pronounced dead. Bystanders, however, are reporting that an ambulance was not called quickly enough (or perhaps at all), and Martin lay bleeding out for 30 minutes after he was shot. His body was removed after two hours.

In the time between the shooting and the release of the video footage, several hundred people gathered in the Mobile gas station parking lot, where tension was high. Conflict broke out between cops and the crowd at several points. According to Belmar, bricks were thrown at officers and "we had three explosive devices that were used … directly next to a gas pump." Four people were arrested for assaulting officers. 

Police deployed pepper spray, but did not deploy tear gas or flashbangs, said Belmar. On social media, rumors of both had been circulating, along with assertions that Martin had been unarmed. "I've already seen on social media that this officer killed him in cold blood," said Belmar. "Well, that's not what you're going to see on the video." 

Actually, it's pretty hard to tell what's happening in the video, which captured the events from across the parking lot. Martin can be seen raising his arm, and then the video stops. Belmar said police have video of Martin being shot, but won't release it out of respect for his mother.

It's clear at least one witness had a good view of what went down, so hopefully we'll get a more complete picture in time. There also may be video from other, closer cameras that is yet to be released. 

Video from after the shooting: 

UPDATE: Here's a slowed down and zoomed in look at the important part of the video:

NEXT: North Korea loses in D.C. Circuit

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. While the officer’s car did have a dashcam, it’s uncertain whether it was turned on. The officer also had a bodycam, but he was not wearing it at the time.

    Fire him.

    1. He should certainly be in trouble. Also, if the police have video of the kid that shows him having a gun, and they aren’t releasing it, they are dumb as posts and should be replaced on the public payroll by so many potatoes, since root vegetables at least don’t make active mistakes.

    2. Fire him.

      LOL. C’mon, Jord. You don’t understand the pressures that our Heroes in Blue(tm) are under. I’m sure that given the totality Of circs that it was a good shoot. At least the officer got to go home that night. Now, off to bang Morgan Fairchild…

      1. I apologize to you all for this…I hadn’t read downthread to see the metric ton of non-satirical pig manure that was dropped on this thread.

    3. Oh, fer fuck’s sake.

      Two official copcams, and neither was
      “working” or “turned on”.

      Yeah, he should be fired, regardless of whether this was a good shoot or not. Until they start getting fired for not using these things, they won’t use them (consistently).

      1. Ding, ding, ding…

        Yeah, it’s one thing to bell the cat, but entirely another thing to make him keep it on.

    4. Idiot

    5. The convenience store got it. Apu +1 Barney 0. Slurpee inventory protection system out performs cop surveillance system.

    6. The cruiser’s dash cam is automatically activated with the emergency lights, which were clearly not on. Given the tensions in the community, I can understand why a lone cop would not want to draw attention to himself with flashing lights on a routine petty larceny call.

      There is no policy yet in place requiring officers to wear body cameras. There is one under consideration:

      http://www.cityofberkeley.us/A…..e/Item/639

      STL County Police chief Delmar says the officer was given the body cam at the beginning of his shift, but had not taken the time to put it on before he got the call leading to the shooting.

      1. Now don’t be clogging this discussion up with a lot of reason. The new default is that there can absolutely never ever be a legitimate use of force by the police.

  2. Animals will be animals. Nevermind the FACT that the PUNK THUG tht was shot PULLED A GUN ON A POLICE OFFICER. Typical jungle mentality. Cut off all their welfare and make them get educations and JOBS.

    http://www.Anon-Wayz.tk

    1. Bit rot has struck another anonbot.

      It’s sad how quickly they burn out.

      1. Someone moderated away the anonbot comment I replied to, now I look crazier than normal!

        1. Must be a slow news day – usually they can’t be bothered to deal with ‘Bot.

          1. But not slow enough for them to take the time to come up with actual AM Links.

        2. I saw it before it was removed, so I can vouch for you.

          Did you find the anonbot’s message mean-spirited and human-like in its intensity?

        3. Someone moderated away the anonbot comment …

          One shot struck Martin, one struck the tire of the police car, and the other is still unaccounted for.

          Hmmm… Perhaps the unaccounted bullet. ENB, what are you trying to hide?

          1. You know DK, I’m fairly certain that I saw someone who looked suspiciously like ENB near the Krassy Gnoll just before that third shot rang out.

          2. Are there any grassy knolls in the vicinity?

  3. … when he observed two male subjects on the side of the building.

    Spidermen?

    1. Can’t be, their reflexes and spider sense didn’t properly warn them.

  4. Fucknut pulls gun on cop and gets shot… Yawn

    And protesters still protest … As they did in the local case where Dep Miller shot a man, high on crack who pointed a gun at him. Protesters said cops planted the gun

    The guys own girlfriend in the car with him during the shooting admitted on tape she saw him place the gun in the Center console earlier and cops later traced the stolen gun’s path supporting how he got a hold of it

    WE ARE WINNING

    Booya Bernie Kerik

    And BOOYA national review

    http://m.nationalreview.com/ar…..-c-w-cooke

    1. Dunphy,

      Curious how you feel about the Tamir Rice shooting.

      Cops pull up and within two seconds shoot the 12-year-old dead.

      Good shoot?

      1. I’ve said several times bad shoot and possibly murder

        And quoted it more than once

        First on Nov 26th

        Cheers

        1. Possibly?

          1. I don’t know all the facts. Probably or possibly whatever floats your boat, dood

            Deal

            I made that statement primarily based on video

            As more facts come out it may become ‘certainly murder’ or ‘certainly manslaughter’

            Hth

            1. If a regular dude with a gun shot a kid with BB gun out of fear for his own life, he’d be jailed while awaiting an inevitable indictment for at least the most minimal homicide criminal charges. It’s indisputable that the treatment of these two different shooters would be different, which is precisely the problem if you advocate the rule of law.

        2. You also say that shooting a homeowner for answering his door at 2am with a gun is justified.

          Fuck off you fascist piece of shit

          SMOOCHES

          1. No

            I said answering the door to uniformed cops when you have a gun IN YOUR HAND means you have nobody but yourself to blame for getting shot

            Which is why no cops were punished (last I checked) and why even among anticop bigots outside rarefied hit and run climate – nobody gives a fuck about that shitstAin douchenozzle

            Hth

            1. Which is why no cops were punished

              Also, that baby had it coming when cops tossed a flash grenade into his crib, since no cops were punished.

              1. Nobody gives a fuck about that shitstAin douchenozzle baby!

                /dunphy

            2. So answering the door to someone at 2am who doesn’t announce themselves as a cop is an executable offense in your eyes? It’s fun to keep tweeking you on this because other people have effectively destroyed you on this issue. But its fun to watch you twist you fascist sack of crap

              SMOOCHES

              BOOYA

            3. I said answering the door to uniformed cops when you have a gun IN YOUR HAND

              Which is perfectly legal. And which, in the absence of anything else, does not constitute good cause to shoot someone in self-defense.

              means you have nobody but yourself to blame for getting shot

              This really strikes me as a way of saying the shooting is justified, he deserved to get shot, etc.

              1. Forget it RC, it’s all about the officer safety. Nevermind the blatant disregard for non-LEO safety.

            4. And you continue to lie about the incident. The cops were not in uniform, did not identify themselves, and shot the guy with no provocation.

              Also, if someone answers the door to uniformed cops merely with a in their hand, but don’t point it at them or threaten them, the cops are solely to blame if they shoot. And the cops were not punished because law enforcement is corrupt and evil, and the investigators acted in bad faith and ignored the law and evidence. Which you know and condone.

              1. squirrels ate “gun” between “a” and “in”

            5. They weren’t uniformed dumpster 2.0 and they didn’t identify themselves beyond pounding on the guy’s door.

              This guy isn’t dumpster, there are theories as to who he might be, but I suspect it’s Tulpa. Tulpa always complains that we stop responding to him, but dumpster, no matter the depths of depravity he plumbed always got a shitton of action.

    2. Fucknut pulls gun on cop

      At this point, I have no corroboration that’s what happened.

      When we get corroboration, we can talk about whether this was a good shoot or not.

      I give even odds there was no gun, and the arm being raised is the corpse-to-be starting to video the officer in anticipation of the coming encounter.

    3. And the cop had a body cam and didn’t use it, had a dash cam and it was turned off. The cop may well have been totally justified in the shooting, in which case he needs a commendation. He was also stupidly negligent in not using the cameras available to him, and for that he needs a letter of reprimand.

      Whether you want to admit it, police have pulled some astonishing acts of thuggish idiocy in recent years. They have forfeited a great deal of public trust, which situation has been aggravated by Poverty Pimps like Al Sharpton and their racist rhetoric. But ignoring the problem and chanting “Thin Blue Line” doesn’t fix the problem.

      Cops need to use video to document their actions wherever possible. They need to be aware that lying in the hopes that no contradicting video will turn up is going to make things worse.

      And they need to stop showing up on Internet sites like this and spewing bullish*t out of (admittedly fun) third rate action films like COBRA.

      1. He was also stupidly negligent in not using the cameras available to him, and for that he needs a letter of reprimand.

        Reprimand, hell. The shooting needs to be shown as justified, and then the cop needs to be fired for putting the department and force at large in the position of having to do so. Jordan has the right of it, whether or not he reacted appropriately he wasn’t acting professionally.

        1. If I’m reading the available news right, they are saying that there exists video that shows the kid had a gun, and that there is a witness also stating the same. The Department should ALWAYS have to justify any shooting. If the version of events I’m seeing is right, then they are able to do so.

          That said, IF the shooting is justified, then I don’t want the cop fired. For one thing, that would be a slam-dunk of a wrongful termination suit, and I don’t hate the local taxpayers that much. I DO want him disciplined. He SHOULD have made sure that both cameras were active, and he should face consequences for not doing so.

          1. Well said. And if it was something technical like the dashcams are connected to the lights that needs to be changed. Best thing would be they stay on the whole shift and can’t be turned off outside of the station.

      2. -1 Disease, +1 Cure

    4. Here’s something to think about officer Dumpy. When criminals get the impression that they are going to be shot in the back while fleeing, or beaten to death while handcuffed, they are more likely to pull out a gun, and start shooting.

  5. White officer shot black man in Milwaukee the other night. Haven’t seen much on that. Too cold to protest?

    1. 40%= 40%

      Hth

    2. No the shooting was in April. The news that no charges were filed against the cops that came out the other day.

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/…..-shooting/

    3. Or so overtly justified that even Sharpton won’t touch it?

  6. 1) we will continue to lawfully and reasonably defend ourselves and our fellow man

    2) the vast majority of the public will continue to support us

    3) contrary to ignorati claim – police unions will remain vibrant and powerful

    Dunphy
    (I can breathe just fine)

    1. 3) Proves how much of a statist fucknut you truly are. And how disingenuous you are about holding bad cops accountable. I have no further use for you. BTW, I’m a former LEO, and you’re a fucking joke.

      1. I have held cops accountable myself

        By lawsuit, as has my Union

        And I’ve testified against them to IIU too

        Sorry, idiot

        I’ve never tolerated police misconduct

        1. Where do you find the time to testify in between power surfing and getting pegged by Morgan Fairchild?

          1. I thought it was Morgan freeman?

            1. No, Morgan Spurlock.

        2. He’s too busy gurgling cum @ PoliceOne

        3. I’ve never tolerated police misconduct

          Uh-huh Tulpa.

          Of course, the real dumpster admitted to committing at least one felony using the color of his badge.

    2. Yeah, I’ve reached the point where it’s just not worth my time responding to Dunphy.

      Boilerplate: Dear N00bs and lurkers, Dunphy is a mendacious piece of shit which is why the regulars here won’t respond to his claims.

      1. But I’m bored and its funny to twist him into one of his pointless rants

        BOOYA

        SMOOCHES

        hth

      2. Remember, everyone, you can’t spell “The artist known Dunphy” without “we shit on truth”.

      3. Dear regulars – in environments ( like almost everywhere) that are not primarily composed of ignorant anticop loons, no such conclusions are drawn eg Volokh.com, scotus blog and the real world

        COPS ARE WINNING

        Bernie Kerik
        James Woods
        Thomas Sowell

        And the general public are supporting us, and we continue to hold bad cops accountable while serving the public (almost always) honourably

        Hth

        1. we continue to hold bad cops accountable

          Jeff Follmer agrees

          1. All of those Philadelphia cops who were caught on-camera shaking down store owners also agree (none were punished).

            Also, the Philly cop who decked a woman out of nowhere and was rehired after being fired agrees.

            1. See, to Dunphy, there’s no difference between “we got away with it” and “we were 100% justified in what we did.”

              1. See, to Dunphy, there’s no difference between “we got away with it” and “we were 100% justified in what we did.”

                You don’t understand! These investigations are rigorous and impartial! Cops are held to a higher standard! Prosecutors would never go easy on the cops just because they’re on the same team! Cops don’t get any special treatment! So if their actions are ruled as justified then they were absolutely justified!

          2. if they did that part more often, the accountability aspect, a lot of the skepticism would dissipate.

        2. COPS ARE WINNING

          Which is why you feel the need to come here and defend your corrupt profession.

          Yawn.

        3. Bernie kerikk? The one convicted of corruption and tax fraud?

        4. Bernie kerikk? The one convicted of corruption and tax fraud?

          1. But I repeat myself.

    3. we will continue to lawfully and reasonably defend ourselves and our fellow man

      So long as you and your fellows shoot people who are not posing a threat to the life or safety of others, this is a lie.

      contrary to ignorati claim – police unions will remain vibrant and powerful

      Dunno what you are talking about. Around here, we see police unions as vibrant and powerful – and that’s the fucking problem.

      (I can breathe just fine)

      So now we’re mocking people who were killed by cops even though they broke no law and begged for mercy while the cops were killing them.

      Nice.

      1. OK, hold it. That man DID break the law. The law is abysmally stupid, and breaking it in no way justifies the use of violence against him, much less a form of violence that is against Police Department regulations. But he DID break the law.

        The likes of Dumbpig – I mean Dunphy – and Sharpton gloss over inconvenient facts with facile lies. That makes things worse.

        DON’T.

        1. But he DID break the law.

          What law did he break? The details are a bit foggy – was he a convict prohibited from owning a gun?

          1. He was selling loose cigarettes. That is (for some unfathomable reason) against the law. As I said, the law is asinine, but saying he wasn’t breaking it softens the ground under us.

            1. He was not selling loose cigarettes at the time of his murder.

            2. He was NOT selling loose cigarettes. The cops knew him because they caught him selling loosies in the past. He was a known and easy target for the police to bring in.

            3. He wasn’t selling loose cigarettes on the occasion of his murder.

              1. Didn’t NY outlaw having diabetes inside the city limits during the Bloomberg administration? There’s your crime right there!

            4. For those who stumbled on this sub-thread and haven’t a clue what is being discussed, despite the now-permanently engrained meme of “Garner was selling ‘loosies'”, the police were in fact called because of a fight. Garner apparently broke up the fight. When police arrived they decided to take the man they knew from previous encounters into custody. This is probably why he protests his arrest and begins backing away. Others were apparently trying to tell the police that Garner was the hero in this scenario, not the villain, but it didn’t seem to help.

              1. OK, this is radically different from the version I am familiar with. IF TRUE, then the cops murdered him because they knew he had, in the past, violated a severely stupid law. Murdered, because they had no grounds for introducing potentially lethal force to the encounter. That’s worse than I thought it was by an order of magnitude, and it was bad enough as it stood.

              2. “Others were apparently trying to tell the police that Garner was the hero in this scenario”

                That’s the problem. Much like the Mafia, police don’t allow competition for their “services”.

    4. 1) we will continue to lawfully and reasonably defend ourselves and our fellow man

      So be it, but there’s nothing reasonable about having more of a right to defend yourself than others, which is currently the case.

      2) the vast majority of the public will continue to support us

      ad populum.

      3) contrary to ignorati claim – police unions will remain vibrant and powerful

      Vibrant? But it’s telling that you view this as a moral good.

      I can breathe just fine

      It’s easy to breath when you’re strangling plebeians for not bowing to your commands.

      1. I agree with most of your argument, but I do have to pick a nit with #1. Shouldn’t we consider the injustice the fact that the right to self-defense afforded police isn’t recognized as universal?

        1. houldn’t we consider the injustice the fact that the right to self-defense afforded police isn’t recognized as universal?

          Sort of. Granted, people’s right of self-defense is infringed under present circumstances, I can’t honestly say that we should universalize a right to kill without consequence or to steal or to extort. The fact is that such crimes cannot be universalizable without the non-survival of those held to such moral standards, it’s an invalid ethic.

          Also keep in mind that if you believe all valid individual rights should be universalizable, there cannot logically exist a state with a peculiar right to expropriate property and enslave.

        2. Police have far more than merely the right to self-defense.

    5. Dunphy
      (I can breathe just fine)

      Christ you’re vile.

      1. Mocking the last words of a dying man pleading for his life.

        Says all you need to know about the mindset of these fuckers.

        1. Maybe this new dead guy can be mocked by a retired LAPD officer with a parody song that takes delight in violence? Stay classy LEO’s.

          “Two men took to fightin’

          And Michael punched in through the door

          And Michael looked like some old Swiss cheese

          His brain was splattered on the floor

          “And he’s dead, dead Michael Brown

          Deadest man in the whole damn town

          His whole life’s long gone

          Deader than a roadkill dog.”

          1. It’s a good thing my nuts are completely numb at this point.

          2. Who gives a shit abut Michael Brown? he was a punk and a thug. We are better off without him. Not like that poor Garner fellow, who did nothing wrong.

  7. 1) we will continue to remain unaccountable under the law

    2) our public support is dwindling by the hour

    3) police unions are precisely the problem

    Tamir Rice is no longer breathing.

    1. Rice was a bad shoot and possibly murder as I said a month ago

      But my point stands and WE ARE WINNING

      BOOYA POLICE

      BOOYA POLICE UNIONS

      BOOYA NRO

      1. Cleveland police union defends fired cop, saying others did far worse

        CLEVELAND, Ohio — A Cleveland police officer fired after a drunken bar fight where he lost his service weapon and badge and didn’t tell his supervisors about it for days has returned to the force after a federal arbitrator ruled his firing was excessive.

        Daniel Flannery won back his job in part because the head of the union that represents Cleveland police officers argued that there are officers on the force who have done much worse and were not fired.

        Specifically, CPPA president Jeffrey Follmer referred to separate cases in which:

        -one officer pulled his wife out of her car and fired off eight shots into it because he did not want her to get the car in a divorce settlement;
        -another got drunk and threatened his girlfriend with a shotgun;
        -another officer shot his gun “in a threatening manner” while intoxicated;
        -an officer pulled his gun during a drunken wedding fight;
        -a female officer smeared animal feces on her own apartment walls during a rent dispute, and told her landlord to pick her keys up at the department’s gun range;
        -another officer fled the scene of an accident after he hit a man on a motorcycle.

        1. BOOYA police unions

          /dunphy

          1. You betcha. Git this fine upstanding hero another gun and badge and git him back out there “protecting and serving”.

        2. So?

          It’s called past precedent and due process

          For example an agency doled out 3 day suspension for a dui over a dozen times for different officers with clean records

          Then fired one for the exact same thing

          Guess whether they will lose at arbitration

          Unions and binding arbitration hold copocrats accountable for unEQUAL treatment and due process violations

          And are USUALLY A FORCE FOR GOOD

          however they Also offer a necessary opposing voice to management, in a field where management routinely throws officers under the bus for political reasons

          1. So all you care about is that cops are all held equally unaccountable. Fuck the public that pays their checks and has to endure being victimized by them, right?

            1. Cops are generally held quite accountable

              But yes, equal treatment matters

              In the real world

              Which is why we (and I)

              WIN

              in the court of public opinion

              In binding arbitration

              And in civil court

              You, otoh win In your mind, the only venue apart from Stormfront maybe where bigotry and ignorance is so reinforced

              1. The majority of the public being ignorant about the power fellating evil dwelling inside you does not grant you the moral high ground. Nothing in the universe can make the crimes you advocate, into something other than crimes.

              2. Yep, when a cop pulls another cop off a handcuffed suspect and is fired instead of the cop beating the suspect then we are quite aware of police accountability in the real world. When a cop drops a flash bang in a crib and mangles a baby and faces no consequences then we are again aware of police accountability in the real world. When police shoot a man in Walmart for holding a toy gun that is for sale in that Walmart and faces no trial then AGAIN we are aware of police accountability in the real world.

                SMOOCHES

                BOOYA police acoountability

              3. in the court of public opinion

                Argumentum ad populum.

                In binding arbitration

                Which you just previously agreed allows unions to force departments to rehire cops who commit crimes like DUI, assault, etc. In other words, you agree that police unions make police officers less accountable.

                And in civil court

                No, this is where cops lose often, and lose big. Ask the city of Chicago about that.

                1. No, this is where cops lose often, and lose big. Ask the city of Chicago about that.

                  Well, the cops don’t really lose there; their employers do.

              4. Cops are generally held quite accountable

                How the hell do you say that when the very subtopic you’re saying that on is an example of a police officer avoiding accountability?

              5. Need to just quietly start hiring hit men to deal with bad cops.

          2. 3 day suspension for a dui over a dozen times

            It’s comforting to know that our boys in blue only get suspended for negligent crimes that the average joe would go to prison for.

      2. You won’t win by shooting dead 12-year-olds playing in the park Dunphy. No matter how pumped up you are about police unions they can only shield you from accountability up to a certain point.

        Also, you sound like a frat boy coming down from a kegstand with this “Booya” shit. Just reinforces the perception that you fuckers have no class, and have been reduced to the level of uncouth, braying college freshmen.

      3. How old is this….person?

        1. …person?

          1. …dunphy. He can’t be a grown-ass man, can he? Who writes/talks like that past the age of, say , 21?

            1. He’s gotta be a 14-year-old stuck in 1993.

              Booya? Seriously?

              1. I guess we did get a new dunphy meme out of this whole thing to add to “totality of circs”, Morgan Fairchild, champion surfer/bodybuilder, American superhero and nonsensical acronyms.

                I, for one, am planning on having a very BOOOYA Christmas.

                1. I had a very BOOYA morning before the wife left for work.

                  1. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that BOOYA sounds an awful lot like the noise a Frat boy makes delivering his offering to the Porcelain God?

            2. He’s a body builder, surfer who runs around naked screwing Morgan Fairchild. He’s also the super heroist boy in blue ever who only stands for good and justice. Just ask him

              SMOOCHES

              BOOYA naked surfing

              hth

              1. I’ve never been a body builder in my life

                The lies are never ending

                Proof of stupidity and Lack of reading comprehension in some cases and outright lies In others

                Ironically, I’ve playfully made fun of them on many occsions

                1. I’ve never been a body builder in my life

                  Powerlifting, brah. Totally different sport. Not like the bigorati can be bothered to brush up on your facts.

            3. Who writes/talks like that past the age of, say , 21?

              A cop? TOTALITY OF CIRCS

              1. His posts have a Shriek-like quality to them.

            4. Who writes/talks like that past the age of, say , 21?

              A sockpuppet?

              He’s not the real Dunphy and he’s probably not even a cop.

            5. I would put money on Dumpy being SQURSLY ONE.

            6. Who writes/talks like that past the age of, say , 21?

              The blue heroes, that’s who.

      4. What exactly are you winning? You are supposed to serve and protect. So in the right circumstances you should trade your life for a civilians. Not protect yourselves at all costs. Scumbag.

  8. So every time a teen of color is mowed down by cops it’s going to make national news now? It’s like the broken windows theory for journalists.

    1. teen of color

      Modern diction… *head explodes*

  9. Thomas Sowell getting it right as usual

    Sharpton: 60 White House invites

    Sowell: zero
    (According to NRO conmenter at least)

    60 times for a racist, lying, defaming (cop and prosecutor), race huckster, anti Semite, murder inciting, arson inciting, homophobe (‘Greek homos stole African culture’)

    http://m.nationalreview.com/ar…..mas-sowell

    http://m.nationalreview.com/ar…..mas-sowell

    1. Doesn’t matter how many times you attempt to be reasonable (drink), you are still an ass licking fascist piece of shit.

      Have a nice day

      Smooches

      1. I AM REASONABLE

        which is why I am in accord so often with reasonable people a la volokh

        And so often in disagreement with bigots a la you

        Hth

        1. I AM REASONABLE

          Shouting something does not make it so.

          Of the comments you’ve made, I see 30% cheerleading for police (suggesting a strong hint of bias), 30% rambling non-sequiteurs and 30% personal insults. (10% left unclassified for brevity).

          What a reasonable person would do with a breaking story such as this is to wait for the facts to come in before drawing conclusions. Though if there is video that shows a firearm in the decedant’s possession prior to the shooting, that should be released given the current climate of distrust for the statements of officers.

          1. Again, I rely on who agrees with me

            It’s damn good company

            And I look at who disagrees with me

            Red ipsa loquitur

            And I look at the results of my analysis

            My predictions come true over and over

            Your Ilk consistently see the opposite

            Another metric that your analysis is good – time proves it so

            It’s why I love poker

            Given sufficient # of hands, how much you win PROVES the validity of your edge and your edge comes from making better decisions
            Period

            If you do so you WILL win .., again

            Period

            There is not a single poker player on earth, given scores of thousands of hands AND winning record who hasn’t proved his edge is valid

            Hth

            1. When you predict that cops will never be held accountable for their actions then its easy to be proven right. Most of the people here say on a regular basis that cops can get away with murder or tossing flash bangs in children’s cribs and face no consequences. And they keep being proven right. They just aren’t part of the problem like you are.

              SMOOCHES

              BOOYA Qualified Immunity

            2. I’ll have to up raving non-sequiteurs to 40%.

            3. “There is not a single poker player on earth, given scores of thousands of hands AND winning record who hasn’t proved his edge is valid”

              You sound like an amature player, at best.

              The math of catching cards says that in the long run we all catch the same cards.

              However the long run can last several lifetimes and no one is sure to catch the same amount of key cards at key times as any other player.

              And what happens when you are unlucky when you have a lot of chips in front of you and then get lucky when you have a small stack ?

              The unit of measure, money, still deesn’t reflect the actual outcome of the cards evening out.

              My handle on Reason should speak to a poker player, if you are indeed one.

  10. Merry Christmas ENB:)

    1. ha, thanks. you know, we’re technically all off work today, but look, I am bringing you this news anyway because that is how much I love you. (And b/c I couldn’t really find any accounts earlier this morning that weren’t either blatantly cop fellating or talking about how police definitely planted the gun, etc., so I thought I’d try for factual middle ground.) (But now I am off to bake cookies.)

      1. Thanks ENB 🙂

        /bored dude at home

      2. You know who else ignored critical national events to go bake some cookies?…

        1. Martha Stewart?

        2. Judith Bunker?

          1. Edith?

            1. Shut up, Meathead!

            2. It was Edith – thanks for the correction.

        3. /raises hand

          Hillory Clinton?

          1. At 3AM…

          2. You may have just put some of us off cookies.

        4. Neville Chamberlain?

      3. Thanks for thinking of us shlubs at work. Happy Festivus!

      4. Awwww…thanks ENB.

        And thanks to you and the other writers who post here on their day off.

  11. I find the video unhelpful in determining what transpired.

    Additionally, the men were clearly walking through the parking lot, which contradicts the Police Department’s description of the encounter’s beginning: “… a police officer … observed two male subjects on the side of the building.”

    This small detail about the initial meeting may seem unimportant (and perhaps it is), but the police should be able to properly perceive reality and report details accurately. If they can’t or won’t, they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to have faith in their judgment.

    1. Dash cam off – check
      Remove body cam – check

      Tell whatever story I feel like now – check

      BOOYA body cams

      BOOYA Union

      1. Surveillance video check.

        1. Surveillance video kept from being released: check PLUS.

      2. Here was the police chief’s statement about the body cam during the press conference:

        “I will point out that the officer also had a body cam, but (something I didn’t have time to type fast enough about why he didn’t put it on at the station and had to get it later) … it was handed off to him during his shift, and b/c of that, right when it was handed to him he didn’t put it on and then the next thing you know, you’re here.”

        1. So the police chief is saying that the officer was handed the body cam and then was instanted teleported to the scene leaving him no time to put it on and activate it?

          BOOYA beam me up Scooty

  12. “Adult draws firearm on police officer is shot” is a much more accurate headline

    1. NEEDS MOAR PASSIVE VOICE. Try this:
      “Peacekeeper firearm discharged outside gas station, strikes would-be felon ambushing peacekeepers. Would-be felon succumbs to justice.”

    2. Currently lacking from evidence – proof that the decedant drew on the cop. The only known facts are that the decedant was fatally shot by the cop. Waiting on more evidence before determining what contributory actions the decedant may have made.

      1. FYI it’s *decedent*

        “One shot struck Martin, one struck the tire of the police car, and the other is still unaccounted for. ”

        Talk about waiting for the facts, I’d like to know how the hell the officer shot his own tire!

        1. I’m public skuul edumacated, forgive my speling errrs.

        2. We can’t know till all the facts are in, but it was probably due to the “adrenaline dump”. When adrenaline floods your system, you get super-strong, but also super-clumsy. This often leads to unintentional trigger-pulls. You also lose your sense of hearing, experience zoom/tunnel vision, perceive that it’s all happening in slow motion, and can feel as if you’re a mere spectator, watching yourself perform. I experienced these effects in the military. These sensory distortions usually warp your account of what happened, especially if you try to describe it immediately afterward. The most incredible example of this was Bernie Goetz, the so-called “Subway Vigilante.” Even days after the shooting, Goetz insisted to the cops that after all the would-be robbers were down, he walked over to one of them, said: “You don’t look too bad; have another,” and shot him again. His lawyers proved in court that this was physically impossible because Goetz was out of ammunition at that point. I think there was other corroborating evidence as well. Yet, totally against his own self-interest, Goetz told the cops that he did it. Training is one thing, experience is another, and almost every officer who fires a gun in a life-threatening situation is experiencing all this for the first time. None of which is intended to prove anything one way or another about the gas-station shooting, but as a possible answer to your question about why the cop shot his own tire.

        3. Yeah, I kept wondering about that. I’d like to think it was a ricochet but maybe the police car made a threatening move.

    3. Adult draws firearm on police officer

      Too early to say. Right now all we have is the killer’s word. And since when is that good enough?

      1. I agree with you, Mr. Dean.

        Evidently, however, the Berkeley Police Department seems to have learned from the mistakes of Ferguson’s department – they have released this information early:

        “… the 9 mm gun found on the suspect had five rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber…. the gun’s serial number had been filed off.

        … [The 18 year old dead man] had a criminal record, with charges including three assaults, armed robbery, armed criminal action and multiple uses of weapons since he was 17.”

        1. Yeah, this case is not worth fighting over. At some point in the distant future we can talk about whether or not a cop should unload on somebody, even a violent criminal with a record (not that the cop knew that at the time), for flashing a firearm at him.

          However, at the present time, we have to focus on the cases where public sympathy is lower. Even Tamir Rice is treading a fine line, what with that video of him brandishing his gun before he was shot (again, not that the cops knew that, but we are talking about the court of public opinion here). Eric Garner, Kelly Thomas, etc. are far more sympathetic examples and the lack of accountability (so far) in both of those cases is truly appalling.

          Absent the future revelation of exculpatory evidence, let this one go.

          1. Of course, the possibility that the narrative is completely made up is always there. I’m really saying don’t lump this case in with Garner, Kelly, et al. not “don’t investigate and let it be swept under the rug”.

        2. That’s helpful, no doubt.

          Of course, unless he had it in has hand when he was shot, its not a good shoot.

          Let’s see some more video.

      2. ” Right now all we have is the killer’s word. And since when is that good enough?”

        When the killer has a badge.

    4. No, because it’s ungrammatical and ambiguous.

      “Adult WHO draws firearm on police officer is shot”

      or

      “Adult draws firearm on police officer, is shot” (note: comma)

      or

      “Adult draws firearm on police officer AND is shot”

      1. Try:

        Serf draws firearm on cop, is shot.

        1. ciVillain looks
          hero’s gun discharges
          justice is done

  13. A teen or an adult? Words. Haha.

    1. Both. eighteen and nineteen are still teens, but legally fall under adult.

      1. It’s also okay if she looks 18 right? Right?

        1. Only if she’s older than she looks.

        2. Depends on the state.

    2. Depends on your audience.

  14. I have a body cam, too, it’s just never been in my possession and may not, in fact, exist.

  15. Note how anticop bigots fill in s vacuum (always) with anticop assumptions

    It doesn’t say (setting aside that preliminary media reports are frequrntly wrong on what they do say)

    That the officer turned off or didn’t turn on the dashcam

    It says it is unclear if it was on

    It doesn’t say he chose not to wear the bodycam

    It just says he had one but it wasn’t used

    Was it broken?
    Battery dead?
    He was not allowed to use it until trained?

    God only knows

    But anticop bigots, truthers, ideologues always do this

    SEIZE on a fact vacuum and ASSUME and fill it with unsubstantiated assertions most favourable to their metanarratives

    Radfems, truthers, Marxists, it doesn’t matter

    Just like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance it’s common

    Shitty cops who do shitty investigations DO THE EXACT SAME THING

    it’s how we get Duke ‘rape’ cases and Tawana Brawley (cop committed suicide? It must be guilt over his rspe of Tawana)

    BIGOTS cannot be objective and CANNOT observe themselves when they do it

    It’s also why lawyers in particular and defendants in general USUALLY do an awful Job at representing themselves

    These are tendencies even well meaning good people fall prey to but fateful bigots do to a larger extent

    Hth

    I have seen this SCORES of times here, from truthers, especially from ideologues and bigots and again even from otherwise rational well meaning people

    Sad

    It’s also why so many smart people make AWFUL futures traders btw

    1. Smells like bacon.

    2. Notice how fascist cops and their ass licking fans will …… well…… pretty much do whatever dunphy is blathering on about for the last several days

      SMOOCHES

      BOOYA knee pads

      hth

    3. The projection is strong with this one.

      Note how this particular cop tribalist always fills in the blank with pro-cop assumptions. Always gives the cops the benefit of the doubt.

      In the face of mountains of evidence that cops lie, that cops get the benefit of double standards, that cops who unquestionably break laws not only are not punished, but are not even out of a job.

      boo

      ya

      1. Every group has liars in it

        The American public knows the truth which is why we are winning

        They know we as a group loathe bad cops and most of us are the opposite

        That is why we ARE winning and it’s only going to get better

        The path of justice is arced, but it eventually hits the target and we are seeing that NOW

        it’s a BEAUTIFUL backlash against bigotry and ignorance and it’s seated in love and truth

        And they win in the end

        Hth

        1. which is why we are winning

          This says everything, people. The cops are at war with the general public. That’s how they see it, and that’s how they’re gonna play it.

          1. Or maybe a “reality video game” ?

            Same bottom line, of course.

            At the same time, I live near there (yeah, really *sigh*), and it’s easy enough to believe the officers’ stories. Also very easy to see why the folks nearby who showed up weren’t ready to believe official stories.

            And I suspect that the non-function of the police video cams will not factor into any official decision. The idea that if cams are off the officer must NOT be given benefit of the doubt hasn’t become official policy, at least around here, therefor no wrong-doing will be determined.

            And a local suburban municipality in St. Charles county, just across the Missouri River, was in the headlines two or three days ago trying to put the brakes on officer cams for various reasons, that didn’t make much sense to me, but clearly the officials weighing in don’t read HnR, and are uncomfortable with tying our brave officers’ hands by forcing them to act as if they are being watched every moment they are on duty.

            It’s going to be an uphill battle getting the idea “if your cam is off, your story is toast” to be the default.

        2. Dunphy,

          Given your training and experience, if the 18 year old was indeed going to shoot the officer, why do you think he didn’t do so immediately when the officer pulled into the parking lot?

          Why wait until the officer was in a position more conducive to his own defense?
          Why give the officer’s back-up more time to arrive?

          Given the young man’s stated criminal history, he probably knew how the local police operated.

        3. “The American public knows the truth which is why we are winning

          They know we as a group loathe bad cops and most of us are the opposite

          That is why we ARE winning and it’s only going to get better”

          Where are you talking about?

          Suburban San Diego?

          I’m not convinced that the American public in much of urban America knows that cops as a group loathe bad cops–or that they know most of the cops out there are the opposite of bad cops.

        4. They know we as a group loathe bad cops and most of us are the opposite

          So how come no cops stepped in to stop the beating of Kelly Thomas? I’ve never seen one of these mythical “good cops” step in to stop another from committing a crime.

          1. Because as was told by Reason yesterday, when a cop steps in to stop a beating on a handcuffed suspect the cop stopping the beating is fired and loses their pension while the beater keeps their job and retires with full benefits.

            1. Duh! That’s exactly the kind of bad cops, good cops like Dunphy loathe!

              Bad cops like Serpico give good cops a terrible name!

            2. Oh yeah, forgot about that one. The moral of the story is that good cops don’t stay cops for very long.

              1. BOOYA police unions

                BOOYA hero’s blue

          2. Good cops are weeded out of the force. Like that one who tried to stop her colleague from choking that guy and was fired. Or the guy in Austin who testified against the cops in a civil suit. Or the one in Mississippi (?) who exposed

            1. what?!? exposed what?!? Are you tying to dethrone Nikki with that cliffhanger?

              1. Aw shit – I was trying to Google up my recollection of some cop that exposed dirty dealings in his department, but couldn’t find the original article (I think it was on Balko’s site). Forgot to delete that section.

                BOOOYA!

                1. You will be joining me on suicide island with Hitler if you keep that up

                  BOOYA block quote fail

        5. They know we as a group loathe bad cops and most of us are the opposite

          Yet your ilk consistently go to the mats to protect them and laud your union for doing the same. That doesn’t make you appear disingenuous or anything.

          What I’ve always found funny is how people are quite supportive of the police as an institution, but almost uniformly acknowledge the last cop they dealt with was a complete raging hard-on regardless of how trivial the incident was, from traffic stops to ID checks. People for some reason can’t seem to see the pattern, excusing their experience as a one-off, but once they do there will be a push for reform.

          1. They do the same with public schools. Yeah all the other public schools suck, but the one my precious snowflake attends is okay.

            1. Isn’t that the opposite of the point he was making?

        6. Know who else used to rant about

          #winning ?

    4. It says it is unclear if it was on

      If it was on, would there not be video? If it was on, and there is video, why not release it for public scrutiny? Even being as secretive as police depts. have been known to be with this type of evidence, one would think that they would release any and all exculpatory evidence regarding an officer, if only to fellate themselves. I understand the need for internal investigation, but this video is public property.

    5. It doesn’t say (setting aside that preliminary media reports are frequrntly wrong on what they do say)

      That the officer turned off or didn’t turn on the dashcam

      It says it is unclear if it was on

      It doesn’t say he chose not to wear the bodycam

      It just says he had one but it wasn’t used

      Was it broken?
      Battery dead?
      He was not allowed to use it until trained?

      Notice that facist self styled cop is lying about the specifics of the cop’s video equipment.

      This isn’t one of your police reports, Dumphy, your lies aren’t accepted at face value here.

  16. Looking at the video, I don’t see any shooting. It looks to me like the last frame captures the moment just before the shooting, and what I see is a guy standing in front of the police car holding his arm up in a manner that is consistent with
    a) aiming a handgun
    b) pointing a finger

    aimed at the person standing by the driver’s door of the police car. Presumably this is the guy killed.

    So, the dashcam, if turned on, should have captured not only the audio, but the video of the man who was shot in the moments before the shooting.

    The other thing I found remarkable is that the business was clearly open, with customers entering and leaving. Moreover the police statement is at odds with the video

    1) The officer exited the vehicle and had a conversation with the group that lasted several seconds.

    2) The person I presume was the one who was shot turned away and walked away before turning and raising his arm.

    My guess is that this will be one of those maddening stories where what happened won’t really be known, the shooting will be ruled justified even though the police story won’t really jibe with the video evidence. There will be enough ‘evidence’ to support whatever prejudice people bring to the matter.

    1. IF he had a gun and pointed it at the cop then the cop was probably justified in shooting him. The problem is his story doesn’t seem to match the video. This makes me question any story told by police because they keep being contradicted by video. Even when they are justified in their actions they can’t help lie.

      1. Even when they are justified in their actions they can’t help lie.

        That’s the fucking insane thing. Sometimes the police have to shoot someone. But they can’t help themselves and need to close ranks and lie and distort, even when the totality of cics are crystal clear.

      2. “IF he had a gun and pointed it at the cop then the cop was probably justified in shooting ”

        What ? He was PROBABLY justified if the guy pointed a gun at him ? Probably ?

        Look, I’m no cop lover but let’s get real.

        I would personally love to torture the pricks who beat a helpless Kelly Thomas to death. I would make their death slow and painful while constantly reminding them that Kelly’s dad is watching them die and he has a smile on his face.

        But when a suspect points a gun at an officer he is right to shoot in self defense, just as you or I should be.

        1. What if the cop is pointing a gun at a citizen unlawfully?

          Does not the citizen have a right to self-defense that includes the right to use deadly force?

          1. Nope, the right to defend yourself against the criminal actions of a cop has not been upheld for about a hundred years since Bad Elk vs US. Our lovely judiciary since then has ruled repeatedly, that you the prole must submit, hope you survive and then hope that the cop’s crime comes out at a trial.

            1. Nope, the right to defend yourself against the criminal actions of a cop has not been upheld for about a hundred years

              In Texas, at least, there is a statute that specifically authorizes killing cops if they are threatening you without legal justification (paraphrase, can’t recall the exact words).

              1. Oh I am aware of that, but has it been used successfully? As you well know just cause there’s a statute (or a whole fucking Bill of Rights) acknowledging we peons right to do something doesn’t actually mean anything unless the Men in Black Robes say it does.

        2. I think no cop should be able to fire his weapon until he’s fired upon first. We may lose a few cops this way but we will keep alive a ton of innocent people and dogs. And maybe the hero’s in blue will think about less violent ways to subdue suspects instead of shooting people in pants shitting fear over someone reaching for their DL.

    2. It’s certainly to the policeman’s advantage when the available evidence consists mostly of the policeman’s own testimony.

      1. One very plausible scenario:

        The cop is dispatched to the gas station to deal with these guys.

        He encounters them, and gets out to talk to them. The soon-to-be-dead guy is carrying a weapon that is good for a few years’ stretch in prison. The cop says I am going to search you guys. The guy starts to walk away.

        The cop produces his gun and says stop and put your hands up. The guy turns around and thinking “Death first” produces his gun and is shot dead.

        That would explain how the cop was able to fatally shoot the guy before the dead-guy got a single shot off. It would also explain why the cop is lying; he didn’t have justification to pull a gun on the guy walking away from a voluntary interaction.

        And it makes sense in a twisty way; if the dead guy was a habitual violent felon, it was only a matter of time before the guy threatened, injured or killed another person in a manner where deadly force would be justified. Why punish a cop for getting a scumbag off the streets, albeit in a manner where he violated procedure?

        And the trust of non-cops in the truthfulness of cops is further eroded.

        1. Best account of what matches the video we have so far.

          1. I see a couple of other things in the video. The two guys are hanging out by the front door. Shortly before the police car enters the frame, they begin walking in the direction from which the car will approach. When the police car stops, they approach the car – seemingly on their own initiative. One of the guys splits off and moves away from the car and shading to the passenger side of the vehicle. This is a little bit suspicious. This is also the guy who purportedly has the gun and who ends up dead.

            If I was in the police car, I would describe myself as coming on the scene with two guys standing outside the building who approached my vehicle as I arrived. I would also have described the dead guy’s behaviour as “suspicious” – even if it was perfectly innocent. (maybe the kid was late getting home and didn’t want to stop and talk like his buddy did, who knows)

            I’m not sure what releasing this video is supposed to prove, other than “he wasn’t standing there with his hands in the air”. I guess in tense times that might make some sense. Still, they probably would have been better served putting out the whole thing. It will be available eventually anyway.

  17. I’m not big on social contract theory; if there is a social contract, it’s unilateral and only broken when the government doesn’t abide by the terms. And once the contract is broken, referring to the terms of the contract like people are supposed to abide by their side really doesn’t make any sense.

    I’m still bound to live by a contract you completely violated–why?!

    And the contract wasn’t broken because of one shooting in Ferguson–just like the contract in LA circa 1992 wasn’t broken by the Rodney King beating. Long before anybody had ever heard of Rodney King, the contract was broken by Daryl Gates’ militarization of the police, the LAPD, the prosecutors, the courts and the juries that protected them, the Drug War, etc.

    Doesn’t look like what’s happening around St. Louis is about any particular shooting either. Even if this was a justified shooting, the normal rules of the contract won’t really apply until the locals feel like the cops are abiding by the terms of their side of the contract again. And that will require big changes and time.

    1. The problem is Ferguson was almost certainly a good shoot and more clearly there was No PC to indict

      Again, RATIONAL govt critics like at Volokh, who wrote a great article – understand this

      Protest movements that are based on fundamentally unsound premises lose

      The civil rights movement won in part because we had truth on our side

      The protest movement does not

      Yes, there are bad cops and even good cops can fuck up and do a bad shoot BUT

      AS T SOWELL, James Woods, Bernie Kerik and the bulk of America understand

      There is no war on unarmed black men by cops, most cops do a good job, cops are not institutionally biased against minorities, and Ferguson was not how it is being portrayed

      As in the case of local officer Herzog, 80% of the time a guy gets a cops gun, he will shoot the cop, making such attempts crimes of deadly force (threatened) and cops will and should defend against them lest we have more Richard Gerzog’s and fewer OFC Wilsons

      1. “The problem is Ferguson was almost certainly a good shoot and more clearly there was No PC to indict”

        Again, you seem to have completely missed the point.

        It isn’t about any one shooting.

        It’s about all the thousands of people who have been hassled by the cops there over the course of how ever many years.

        The LA riots weren’t about Rodney King. They were about all the other shit the people of South Central had been subjected to by the police over the course of years by Daryl Gates and the LAPD.

        Whether this latest shooting was justified is irrelevant, too. The fact is that a significant portion of the people in that area do not see the police as legitimate.

        “‘Legitimacy’: the popular acceptance of an authority”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_ (political)

        The police didn’t lose their legitimacy with the people of Ferguson because of any one case. It was water torture over the course of years–driven by things like the Drug War, police unaccountability, etc. That’s the way you lose legitimacy, and the police in that area have completely lost it.

        1. ^^^ This repeated over and over again

        2. ^ Can’t stress enough how true this is, and how overlooked.

    2. Which is why social contract theory is really bullshit and was invented by someone justifying the absolute authority of a monarchy. Yea, he worked in some stuff about the right to revolt/tear up the contract, but at the end of the day that requires greater force than the government can muster. It is a theory that depends on which side has more power as there is no means for the people to escape the contract other than through force.

      That’s why progressives love it so much, really. It can be used to justify tyranny of the majority and statism to no end.

      1. Progressives don’t love social contract theory.

        The idea that people are not bound by the laws of government if the government violates our rights is anathema to the progressives.

        Social contract theory scares the shit out of progressives. Social Contract theory is the Declaration of Independence.

        “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

        —-Declaration of Independence, 1776

        “No justice, no peace”

        —-Angry Mob, LA ’92

        “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        —-Second Amendment, 1789

        “Fuck the police!”

        —-Unknown brick thrower, Ferguson 2014

        That’s all social contract theory to me.

        No doubt some people have used it to try to justify things that aren’t justifiable by way of social contract theory, but it should be obvious that it’s a unilateral contract. The obligations belong to the government–not me. The idea that we are no longer bound by certain obligations to the government if the government violates our rights scares the shit out of progressives.

        1. P.S. I’m more of a natural rights guy myself. But natural rights and social contract aren’t exactly mutually exclusive. I can claim a natural right to rebel against an oppressive government. The Declaration of Independence, persuasively, makes references to both.

        2. I don’t have any legitimate obligations to the government, period. There is no social contract. It’s really that simple.

          1. You have certain obligations under normal circumstances.

            You’re obligated to show up in court if you’re properly indicted for a crime.

            You’re obligated to turn over evidence of a crime if it’s demanded by the government by way of a proper subpoena.

            You’re obligated to refrain from shooting at police officers.

            There are other obligations, as well. But if the government is oppressive, at some point, at least some of those obligations disappear.

            1. You have certain obligations under normal circumstances.
              You’re obligated to show up in court if you’re properly indicted for a crime.

              An obligation to the victim of a crime maybe, but the state’s monopoly of judicial processes doesn’t legitimatize the state’s authority. Nor does the ability of the state to utterly destroy me, make their destructive power legitimate. I don’t have any legitimate obligations to the government, period.

              You’re obligated to refrain from shooting at police officers.

              I’m obligated by natural law and the rights of men not to transgress against others. The costume they wear is entirely irrelevant.

              You’re obligated to turn over evidence of a crime if it’s demanded by the government by way of a proper subpoena.

              I don’t have any legitimate obligations to the government, period. The fact that I will be murdered or kidnapped for not following these directives doesn’t necessarily make the directives ethically legitimate. One party unilaterally imposing sanctions on another is not a contract.

              There are other obligations, as well. But if the government is oppressive, at some point, at least some of those obligations disappear.

              Does the government expropriate property? Does it routinely create and enforce unjust laws?

              1. I don’t have any legitimate obligations to the government, period. The fact that I will be murdered or kidnapped for not following these directives doesn’t necessarily make the directives ethically legitimate. One party unilaterally imposing sanctions on another is not a contract.

                +1,000,000 Lysander Spooner!

              2. The state’s monopoly of judicial processes doesn’t legitimatize the state’s authority.

                The state’s obligation to protect our rights from criminals is one of the few things that might actually legitimize the state’s authority.

                Another thing that might legitimize the state’s authority is protecting the rights of the accused from law enforcement.

                In fact, if the state has any legitimate function at all, it’s to protect our rights. …from criminals, the police, foreign threats, etc.–first day, Libertarianism 101.

                “Does the government expropriate property? Does it routinely create and enforce unjust laws?”

                The observation that as the government becomes increasingly oppressive, at some point, our obligations to answer for crimes, comply with subpoenas, answer honestly when questioned as a witness, and not use violence to overthrow the government, etc.–is separate from the question of whether we’ve already crossed that point.

                Maybe you feel that we’re already past that point. That doesn’t mean there’s no such point. If Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and John Hancock knew about the income tax, they’d probably be screaming for another revolution. For me, at least, it hasn’t gotten to the point yet. If you read the Declaration of Independence, they’ve got a list of complaints–they reached that point.

                Give me liberty or give me death? I’m closer to give me liberty or I’ll whine, bitch, and moan about it.

                1. The state’s obligation to protect our rights from criminals is one of the few things that might actually legitimize the state’s authority.

                  That is an impressive Tony level question-begging, Ken!

                  Right off the top of my head I recall him arguing that the state’s obligation to provide health care legitimizes its authority over your lifestyle choices.

                  1. “I recall him arguing that the state’s obligation to provide health care legitimizes its authority over your lifestyle choices.”

                    Tony is wrong if he says that providing healthcare for everyone legitimizes the government’s authority.

                    But I am right when I say that if the government’s authority can be legitimized, it is only to the extent that it protects our rights.

                    Part of protecting our rights is by providing for a criminal justice system. I don’t see how even a libertarian criminal justice system could function justly without compelling certain things: the accused to appear for trial, the witnesses to testify, the people with evidence to turn it over to the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, etc. (but probably not much else).

                    I don’t see how the government can protect crime victims’ rights if it can’t compel accused criminals to stand trial.

                    I don’t see how the government can protect the rights of crime victims or the accused if it can’t compel witness testimony and compel the presentation of evidence.

                    My making those concessions is not like Tony’s providing healthcare for everyone legitimizing government. Tony’s claim is an arbitrary preference; defendants appearing in court, witness testimony, and evidence being available, on the other hand, are fundamental and necessary to the operation of a free and just society.

    3. There is no “social contract” – that’s just some bullshit people use to make other people do what “society” demands. If there was a social contract I’ve lost my copy and will assume not to do bad shit to others lest the do it to me first.

      1. You may not initiate aggression.

      2. “There is no “social contract” – that’s just some bullshit people use to make other people do what “society” demands.”

        Just because some people misuse something–and we should call them out on it when they do–doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t exist.

        Again, surely there is a point where the government becomes so oppressive that people have the right (and maybe even the obligation) to overthrow that government. The social contract is not bullshit when it is used to justify free people revolting against oppressive government–because the government broke the contract.

        In other words, the social contract legitimizes what happens when the government breaks the contract. That so many people from the left have used it to illegitimately justify forcing obligations on individuals that they never agreed to doesn’t take away from the legitimate aspects of the theory that support breaking the very laws that the left is trying to justify with social contract theory.

        See Locke’s social contract justification for the Glorious Revolution:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Two_Treatises_of_Government#Right_of_revolution

        I don’t see anything unlibertarian there anywhere. I see libertarian arguments in there essence, in that social contract theory, from which sprang the Declaration of Independence and, arguably, American libertarianism itself.

        1. “See Locke’s social contract justification for the Glorious Revolution”

          No, social contract isn’t being used by Locke, here, to justify forcing individuals to obey an oppressive king (or his government).

          Locke uses the social contract, appropriately, here, to argue that the contract justifies the people in sending an oppressive king packing.

        2. Any contract (even clever philosphy) is valid subject to the parties complying with the terms. I have no copy, and no one has a copy with my signature on it. Elizebeth Warren and other demagogues use the term “social contract” to cow the rest of us to comply with what they claim are terms of the contract.
          It’s fine to discuss Locke and the theory of governance. My point is just that watching every douche out there violate my rights and then claim I am still obligated to the terms . . . is bullshit.
          I agree – do not initiate aggression.

          1. “Any contract (even clever philosphy) is valid subject to the parties complying with the terms.”

            I keep using the word “unilateral”, and I’m not sure it’s being interpreted properly.

            I do not mean “unilateral” as in, “The American military is attacking Panama unilaterally”–suggesting that we’re doing it without allies.

            I’m using “unilateral” in terms of how I understand contract law uses the term unilateral. There is only one party that is obligated to perform in the contract–and in the case of the social contract, I’m saying the party that’s obligated is the government.

            An example of a unilateral contract of this type would be a reward poster. If I put up a poster around the neighborhood that reads, “Lost Dog, Reward $100”, you are not obligated to go look for my dog. However, if you do find my dog and bring it to me, I am obligated, under the terms of the contract, to give you $100. If I take the dog and refuse to give you the reward, you should sue me, take me to court, and win.

            …no, you never signed the contract, but the obligation is on me to perform–not you–because I did willingly promise to pay you $100 as a reward.

            This is the kind of social contract I’m talking about. The obligations are on the government to perform. If they don’t perform, then they have violated the social contract–and the contract is void.

            1. I’m not really sure you can have a “unilateral” contract. That’s a performance agreement. If I have a contract with my plumber to fix that leak, it isn’t unilateral – I have to pay him for his fulfillment. What you reference isn’t a contract. Contracts require more than one party to contribute.
              And as I do not have a copy of that contract – to know my obligations and those of others – then there is no contract. Anyway, happy holidays.

          2. We may still be obligated to respect each other’s individual rights, but the social contract–to whatever extent–becomes void.

            That’s what happened with the Rodney King riots in 1992. That’s what’s happened in Ferguson. That’s why law enforcement no longer enjoys legitimacy in Ferguson. The police broke the social contract there.

            Just because leftists often employ a perverse misuse of “social contract” to suggest that we’re obligated to do whatever 51% of the people say–is no reason for me to pretend a) that real social contract has no relevance or b) that they aren’t completely misusing and abusing it.

            Like I said, the social contract actually justifies breaking the law–that’s it’s true purpose. If majority rule is the social contract, how can social contract also justify breaking oppressive laws? You can’t use it to both justify throwing Rosa Parks and MLK in jail (majority rule) and then turn around and use social contract to justify Rosa Parks and MLK breaking the law, too.

            1. Well, I think we just are looking at different social contracts. I’d argue we don’t have a “social contract” with governing institutions rather these are the “unilateral” obligations that transfer authority for “legislated” goals. I have always understood the social contract to be between the members of society – don’t steel my stuff, I help find your dog if I can, we don’t initiate harm. The problem I call BS is when citizens – who have authority under the unilateral arrangement called government – start arrogating themselves power not in the agreement (the Constitution mainly)and berate those of us who don’t buy their BS are somehow obligate by some fantasy “social obligation”.

  18. I’m going to take a moment to make this crystal-clear

    Quite a ways back after Washington legalised marijuana the anticop Cynical bigots here claimed that the feds would do the same thing they did with medical marijuana and fight it at every turn and turn the victory into a defeat

    I tried to explain to sloopy and his minions That there are qualitative differences between medical marijuana and legalised marijuana and that they would mean that we would not face the kind of federal backlash and we would continue to win in Washington State and I would be able to say I told you so

    WELL

    ***I TOLD YOU SO

    NO FEDERAL BACKLASH AND ITS AN UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS

    BIGOTS HAVE POOR PREDICTIVE ABILITY BECAUSE, like MARXISTS THEY DONT UNDERSTAND PEOPLE AND THUS CANNOT PREDICT HOW THEY WILL ACT

    1. What does this have to do with anything?

      Are you just trying to show that you were right about something once?

      1. No, I and saying I am usually right BECAUSE my analysis is sound

        The bigots predictions fail (just like Marxists) because they don’t understand (primarily) people, as well as the issues surrounding their decisions however (continued in next post) I AM MAKING A SIMILAR PREDICTION WITH FUTURE I TOLD YOU SO FORTHCOMING…

        1. I think you’re usually because you so often utilize ALL CAPS to make your points. Who can argue with CAPS?

          1. Yes, the all caps thing certainly persuades me. No one would use all caps would had the slightest doubt in their correctness.

            What I don’t follow is why is Dunphy has this obsession with “winning” that appears constantly in his posts? He comes off like a 14 year old jock.

            1. Because, as so many here point out, pigs really think of all non-cops as the enemy.

    2. I’m going to take a moment to make this crystal-clear

      What your really saying is that you’ve been humiliated enough today so your going to change the subject and try and claim something that didn’t happen to prove your ability to see into the future.

      BOOYA The Amazing Kreskin

      1. Block quote fail

        /hangs head in shame

        1. You, sir, are worse than Hitler (but not worse than Nikki, because she is the worst).

  19. The guy in the video seemed to have the drop on the cop, if that was actually a gun he was pointing. You mean to tell me the cop was able to unholster his weapon, aim, and fire 3 shots off before the other guy even shot once? Unless the cop’s name was Doc Holliday, I’m not buying it.

    1. My guess is this is why the cop is lying; he drew his weapon when it wasn’t justified. He just got lucky and drew it on a habitual criminal (if the cops are to be believed) and not a pastor from Georgia.

  20. Here’s the next prediction:

    Cops and the vast majority of American people who support us are winning and we are only going to win bigger As this goes on

    !!!!!!!!!!

    The American people are fed up at this bigoted broadbrush bashing of an entire group of people based upon some completely justified incidents such as Ferguson and some others that while unjustified are not representative of the whole

    Just as the American people would not stand by for a broad brushed condemnation of persons by race et cetera because of the Horrendous actions of a few and especially considering that those few are generally held accountable .for their deeds, regardless of creed, gender, race, etc

    The more the anticop bigots push the more the backlash will increase and the people wearing NYPD’s T-shirts and I can breathe T-shirts et cetera are Going to be less of the silent majority and more of the vocal majority

    I realise many reasonoids live in a bubble of fellow travellers and can’t see the real world for what it is but if you’re willing to step outside and deal with the real salt of the earth Americans in the trailer parks in the suburbs et cetera you are seeing that there is a growing swell of fuck the protesters and fuck yea the police and we’re not going to see a reversal of this trend

    1. The more you post this the more I’m convinced you are terrified that the public is going to finally wake up and take away your special hero status. Its hilarious to watch you twist and convolute “facts” and then have people far smarter than me destroy you over and over again.

      SMOOCHES

      hth

    2. Why do you keep babbling about winning? What do you propose to win? What contest is being held that you may win?

  21. MY PREDICTION AS IN THE PREVIOUS POST IS SIMPLY THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO WIN

    1. Dunphy is Charlie Sheen, only not nearly so self-aware of his own mental illness.

  22. Merry Christmas, Reasonoids! Try not to get shot while you’re buying Skittles? in your hoodie!

    BOOYA Santa Claus!

  23. And I do hope that we continue to hold bad cops accountable and we continue to increase the proliferation of body cameras and other means to hold bad cops accountable and protect them from bogus protests such as Ferguson and again Unlikje the bigots who predict weaker police unions and a growing swell of distrust and hatred of the police we are going to see and opposite reaction we are going to see The kind of solidarity we saw after 911 when the country came together and said we are all New Yorkers and I hope we do not see some knee-jerk crap like we saw with the Patriot act et cetera because knee-jerk crap is bad which ever side it benefits the protesters or the police

  24. Why do people keep responding to Dunphy when he is quite clearly just trying to derail any discussion of these issues? Every comment section is nothing but arguments with him spanning hundreds of comments. He just keeps repeating himself. That’s just trolling, so why even bother?

    Regardless of whether he has a point or not, there’s no point in engaging him.

    1. Some of *us* are ignoring the honorless liar and admitted criminal.

      1. Not enough. I mean, nearly every strand of the past few comment sections is filled with him repeating the same crap and people responding in turn.

        He’s clearly trying to respond to every cluster of comments to keep it all on his issues. I wonder if he’s getting paid for it…new cop tactic.

      2. I tried to demonstrated what ‘reasonable’ looked like, but I forgot who I was talking to.

    2. After today he will be added to my Reasonable block list but I’m simply bored this am and he’s so easy to wind up its funny. Every comment he makes further shows his idiocy to lurkers.

    3. The points I make keep getting reinforced by data, courts etc

      And it will continue to happen, as in Ferguson and the brilliant Volokh article

      Hth

      I have corrected scores of false beliefs from ‘paid suspension’ to Garrity et

      Take some time to LEARN

      Hth

    4. True enough.

      1. Ah fuck sake. True enough to Brochetta not Dunphy.

  25. So in conclusion I look forward to saying I told you so six months or year from now when the primary result of all this Sharpton etc. nonsense is that the police get more public support and more empathy from the public at large and we continue to do our job even better than we have done in the past through body cameras etc. being able toroute out more of the bad cops and punish more of the bad behavior and protect more of the good cops!

    I LOOK FORWARD TO I TOLD YOU SO

    Merry Christmas
    Xxxxoooooo

  26. Belmar said police have video of Martin being shot, but won’t release it out of respect for his mother because it contradicts the officer’s lies.

    ftfy

    1. Thread winner ^^

    2. The point at which the video cuts off is odd, to say the least. I mean, if that’s a gun being pointed at the cop, the cop presumably doesn’t have his own weapon out. It’s been stated already, but that means this cop managed to get the draw somehow? I guess it’s possible this guy froze if he did have a gun. If he charged the cop, I’m thinking the two may have been going to the ground when the 2nd and 3rd shots were fired. How else did he hit the tire?

      It does look like a good shoot to me, though. That does seem to be a gun being held up, but the story released doesn’t 100% explain the situation as it unfolded.

      1. Thing is, even on those occasions where the cop’s actions would be justified, they are still compelled to lie. They lie by omission, they lie by exaggeration, and they lie by embellishment. They can’t help it. It’s a power thing. The prosecutors and judges know they’re lying. It’s an open secret. They have the power to commit perjury and send people to prison. Such power is so intoxicating that they can’t help but to lie even when there is no need.

        1. ^This is spot on.

  27. Okay, I’m done.

    Thanks ENB for giving me a place to relieve by early morning boredom.

    “Time to pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday”

    /bored dude

  28. I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment but police officers should not be allowed to carry weapons. It just leads to violent confrontations such as the one last night. In other countries police do not carry weapons and the outcomes are better.

    1. BOOYA unarmed cops here in Scotland

    2. The Peelian theory of policing is that cops are just like you and me but they are paid to do the job of keeping the peace full time. In principle, they have neither special privileges nor special restrictions apart from the rest of us.

      I think you could make a stronger case for cops not being issued service weapons by their departments. If an officer feels it necessary, then he can obtain and carry a firearm just like the rest of us. In most (all?) states, this would have to be accompanied by a significant gutting of a number of laws giving police special rights w/r/t firearms.

      However, the idea that cops should not carry at all is I’m afraid a complete “no sell” for a large swath of the voters. Lefties think cops should have guns because of the scourge of gun ownership, and righties think… well, really, the same thing.

      1. I’m perfectly okay with the police having to jump thru the same hoops as the serfs to be able to buy and carry a firearm. Those “gun free” cities would soon find themselves without a police force and then they would be without a tax base as everyone fled.

        1. Those “gun free” cities would soon find themselves without a police force and then they would be without a tax base as everyone fled.

          At least in this case we wouldn’t be on the hook for any pension obligations when the city went bankrupt.

          I’m actually really liking this idea, it sounds reasonable (drink) and it really ought not be controversial at all. Which, of course, means that it will be fought tooth and nail by entrenched interests and will end up being a fringe position that right-thinking people dismiss with a scoff.

    3. You’re joking right? Sorry, but although some cops abuse their position, totally disarming them, given the nature of some of the people they often deal with in America, is a terrible idea.

      They have a right to self defense too, especially given the rising resentment many feel towards cops.

      1. They can always quit if the job is too dangerous.

        Of course, like I said above, they should really just have the same firearms rights as the rest of us (i.e., they can go to a store and get a background check and put on a list like the rest of us, they can obey the 10- or 7-round limit just like the rest of us, they can go to jail for failing to follow proper firearm safety like the rest of us, they can post bail or spend a year in the clink waiting for trial after shooting someone like the rest of us, they can leave their gun in the car–ammo separately–when entering a courthouse, DMV office, etc. like the rest of us, so on and so forth).

        In other words, start with repealing LEOPA and similar laws, and don’t stop until the law draws no distinction between police and other citizens.

      2. Rising resentment brought on by their actions and the actions of police unions. Not to mention qualified immunity. Let them have guns with the same restrictions as the populace they serve then. They shouldn’t have a special right to self defense while others in their community don’t.

        1. Yes, I agree with that, FUQ, with the quibble that some of the resentment against the police is also due to the violence and stupidity of some of the people the cops deal with who just do dumb stuff i.e. the Mike Browns of our cities: the guy who reaches into his pockets when being told not to or continues to walk angrily towards a cop after being told to stop/get on the ground, reaches for the cop’s gun, etc.

          Just dumb stuff that’ll get you killed.

  29. Merry Christmas, dunph old boy, and I’m leaving under the tree my sympathy and solidarity with the NYPD cops who got shot. I know you refuse to accept these sentiments, but I’m not sure by what authority you do so – did the murdered officers’ families give you power of attorney to refuse the goodwill of the public?

    Of course cops get to shoot people who are trying to shoot them, it’s the application of this principle in individual cases which is the point at issue.

    Perhaps the cop acted right in this case, lord knows there are criminals who will suicidally threaten to kill people including cops.

    Merry Christmas and smooches to all!

  30. “won’t release it out of respect for his mother”

    well it’s nice to see the Patriarchy is alive and well.

    a mothers emotional state the evidence.

    -FFM

    1. i cant use greater than signs?

      < <<br /
      what fucking year is it? 92?

      -FFM

      1. Whoever wrote the Reason commenting software didn’t seem to understand that the backend is not supposed to interpret HTML and URL escapes put in the post intentionally. It is impossible to put a greater-than sign into your post, even if it is properly escaped (as &gt;), and heaven help you if you try to link to a URL with a space in it (it’s possible, but requires something crazy like replacing every space with &#37;20).

    2. Well, remember they buried “bin Laden’s” body quickly out of “respect” for his Islamic faith, rather than cart it back to the states where it could have been examined and verified, etc. Brought a tear to my eye that they had such deep respect for Enemy #1’s religious beliefs.

  31. The only thing I can see in the video is that the three guys approach the cop car as soon as he pulls up.

    It seems plausible to me that the three guys approached and were hassling the cop as he was getting out of the car. They seem to have the car and the cop surrounded at various angles, and were blocking the cop from approaching the store. In any case, it clearly wasn’t a friendly encounter. It was night time, one guy against 3 (maybe 4), probably behaving like dicks. If one of them pulled a gun, the cop would have been justified in shooting.

  32. And of course the animals will start looting and destroying their own neighborhoods. Nevermind the scum thug that got shot POINTED A GUN AT COPS. Time to ship all these welfare rats back to africa.

    http://www.AnonWayz.tk

    1. Ahhhh, good ole-fashioned racism.

      Refreshing when they just come out and say it, at least they’re not trying to hide their bigotry.

      Good for you.

      1. I miss the old anonobot. Sure he wanted to kill cops, and made some vaguely pedophiliac comments, but he seemed to be a cheerful sort.

        This one is more angry and vicious.

  33. From what little we have it sounds like the police were justified in the shooting. I’ll reserve the right to change that assessment as additional information becomes available.

    But, that brings us to the question of cameras. Assuming boomer is right, and the dashcam works automatically when the emergency lights are activated, I’d say it was good that there was no dashcam footage. Honestly, I think one of the bigger problems with police is that they treat every interaction with the public as an emergency in a life-or-death struggle. Would Sheriff Andy run the siren and emergency lights just to go over and ask a couple of characters some questions? Probably not.

    But, that leaves us with the more problematic question of the body cam. Now, I’ll be the first to say we should be pissed off that he wasn’t wearing the thing. It should be a requirement and not wearing it should be a fire-able offense. But, again assuming boomer is right, as of now it isn’t. So, that leaves judgement as the only grounds for firing. I’m sorry, but you’re going to have a tough time pushing that one through.

    On the other hand, I will say that the absence of body cam footage means that this matter is going to have to be thoroughly investigated. And I’d contend that the officer in question should be reassigned to a role with diminished public exposure until that investigation is completed. I’d say, shoveling horseshit at the stables for the SLPD’s mounted brigade sounds about right.

    1. The dashcam should be turned on whenever responding to a call.

      Here in MA, they got rid of the dashcams because there was a spate of prosecutions scuppered by dashcam video turning up that contradicted the police reports.

      I am of the opinion that the courts should view the failure of a police officer to turn on the dashcam and bodycam as if it were spoilation of evidence.

      1. Exactly. Any and all evidence obtained after that spoilation is thrown out. Any controversy surrounding the interaction between the police and the suspect is automatically erased, and the account of the police as to what actually occurred is dismissed and considered to be invalid.

      2. Well, again I’m working on the assumption that the dashcam is controlled by the siren and emergency lights function. (My apologies if I’m wrong about that.) Do you really think that the police should be responding to every call as an emergency? I can see that leading to a lot more idiotic police behavior than not. Perhaps it’s the technology that needs to be changed.

        1. All dascham manufacturers have models that can be manually activated.

          1. Do we know if this particular model was one of those?

            Not trying to play the Tulpa, but I can easily imagine that an automatically triggered model might have been used intentionally.

        2. Do you really think that the police should be responding to every call as an emergency?

          You realize that this is pretty much what they do now, right?

          I can see that leading to a lot more idiotic police behavior than not.

          And indeed, you are correct.

        3. My original comment regarding the function of the cruiser’s dashcam is based on what STL County Police Chief Jon Belmar said during this morning’s press conference.

          I didn’t hear any reporters ask if wearing a body camera is Berkeley PD policy this morning, and the link in my original post is all I can find online. Belmar commented the officer had it in his possession, but did not say he was required to wear or use it.

        4. Do you really think that the police should be responding to every call as an emergency?

          No but every call is much more likely to lead to somebody having to give evidence before a jury in a court of law than every moment driving around not responding to a call. Having an objective record being produced at the time of the incident is superior to depending on convincing testilying after the fact.

      3. The dashcam should be turned on whenever responding to a call.

        It should be on at all times. They do it with pilots (flight audio recorders) I see absolutely NO reason that pigs shouldn’t be on video/recorded from the second the punch in in the morning until the second they punch out. They are public servants with more power than god. We have every fucking right to monitor their activities.

  34. Here’s a close up video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO834d0LSW0

    You can see at the 43 second mark that the suspect (a man with a long record of assault and robbery) is clearly pointing what appears to be a gun on him.

    The cop’s family did not lose their father 2 days before Christmas, and some of your reaction is “fire him because he didn’t have his dashboard cam on?” Come on.

    1. I don’t think you can say anything “clearly” based on that low-rez video.

      What you can see could well be a gun. It could also just be his finger, or a phone, or anything. The resolution is just terrible.

      The corpse-to-be sure seems casual about it, though. For what that’s worth.

      1. I wrote he is clearly pointing “what appears to be a gun on him.” It could be a toy gun or a phone, but it bolsters the cop’s inevitable self defense claim.

        If a man protected his life by using a gun that he purchased without a background check (or let’s say he happened to be in a state that doesn’t allow concealed carry permits and he forgot to take the gun out of his car), your first reaction is to “throw the guy in jail?”

        It’s against the law to hire illegal aliens too. If the government rounded up half of Koreatown for doing that, I’m sure libertarians won’t be clapping in approval.

        Yeah, I get it, cops shouldn’t be off the hook for not following measure meant to keep them accountable. But since another video more than likely proves that he saved his lives and possibly others, I don’t why that’s the focus here.

        1. If a man protected his life by using a gun that he purchased without a background check (or let’s say he happened to be in a state that doesn’t allow concealed carry permits and he forgot to take the gun out of his car), your first reaction is to “throw the guy in jail?”

          I don’t know where you get that from postings, or how it is relevant to the situation here.

          since another video more than likely proves that he saved his lives and possibly others

          What video is that? If I see a video that shows this was, in fact, the situation, then I will call it a good shoot.

  35. some of your reaction is “fire him because he didn’t have his dashboard cam on?”

    Dash or body cam. And yes, he should be fired for unprofessional conduct and breaking department policy.

    1. Absolutely this. Everyone of us in the private sector lives with the certain knowledge that we will be fired if we don’t follow our employer’s policies. No one has a right to a job.

    2. Totally agree. While the shooting may have been justified, there’s no excuse for not having your dash cam or body cam on when you’re responding to a call.

  36. my classmate’s step-sister makes $76 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her payment was $15130 just working on the computer for a few hours. navigate to this site………..

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  37. Hey everybody. Hope you all have a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and/or whatever holiday you celebrate this time of year. And if you don’t celebrate anything, just have a great day.

    This thread is why I’ve disappeared. It’s just not,worth it anymore. Nothing changes and nothing will get better. We live in a cesspool of cop-worship and our society is eating itself up with hate and acceptance of a two-tier system of justice. It breaks my heart to know that the greatest pillar of American society (equal protection) has died.

    God Bless you all.

    1. Hey, sloop.

      I feel your pain, buddy, I really do.

      Take care, and drop in when you can.

  38. This case comes down to one fact which should be verifiable:

    What did the corpse-to-be point at the cop? There’s some reason to believe it was a gun, but I don’t have nearly enough corroboration to say what it was.

    And until I do, I’m officially taking the position that I don’t have a position on whether it was justified or not.

  39. Apparently black folks can do whatever the hell they want now.
    “That nobody would possibly blame Token for all this because in today’s day and age you can’t blame a black person for anything.” -Eric Cartman.

  40. Next time Dumm-phee tries to argue that the poh-poh don’t get suspensions with pay…

    http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/empl214.html

    CB

    1. In his defense, he doesn’t argue they don’t get suspensions with pay, just that’s it’s part of the collective bargaining agreement and is A-OK.

  41. “While the officer’s car did have a dashcam, it’s uncertain whether it was turned on. The officer also had a bodycam, but he was not wearing it at the time. ”

    Police should simply be fired if they can’t keep their cameras on.

  42. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  43. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  44. All you anti-cop fucktards are exhausting. Have there been bad instances of misconduct? Well of course, you fucking morons, but that doesn’t mean there is some sort of epidemic. Here’s some critical thinking homework for you. Step outside your agenda for a moment and ask yourself how many times per day cops all over the country interact with people and then ask how many instances of this sort of thing happen. Then, subtract all the instances where the “victim” is threatening, or attacking the cops. You end up with very little in the way of evidence that some form of large systemic issue exists. It akin to asking for harsher gun laws because 80 were used in murders on a given day, yet there are 200 million that weren’t. Stop being so voluntarily obtuse because it supports your preconceived narrative.

  45. I have faith …that…my mother in law woz like realy bringing home money part-time on their laptop. . there great aunt had bean doing this for under twenty one months and by now repaid the depts on there apartment and got a brand new Lexus LS400 .
    find more info ———— http://www.jobsfish.com

  46. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  47. Oh joy of joys. Yeah, he was definitely holding something that resembles a gun. Are we really going to have rioting everytime a cop fires a weapon even if he was completely justified?

  48. before I looked at the check of $5261 , I didnt believe that…my… neighbour could truley taking home money in their spare time at there computar. . there aunts neighbour has done this 4 only and just cleared the dept on their mini mansion and bourt Honda . site link….

    ?????? http://bit.ly/11Rw9PV

  49. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.jobs700.com

  50. just before I saw the receipt which said $5461 , I didnt believe …that…my mom in-law woz like they say actually bringing in money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this 4 only about twenty months and by now paid the mortgage on there house and purchased themselves a Audi Quattro . this link………..www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.