police murder man in my town protests and demonstrations

[think]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PIz4WMml28[/yt]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_mrOJmLGCg[/yt]

the above videos I took when I was waiting for a bus..@ the train station..

and the local news report is here..


[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPbI8IN01lk[/yt]

I lived on throop ave by handy just down the street when I was going to college there in new brunswick..

the officer hit with the pipe and the shooting officer are fine now the man is dead here...

does anyone else have an opinion?

I live in a different part of new brunswick now..

I apologize for posting and then going to sleep but I will pick up this post tomorrow when I get up... unless I cant sleep..

 

[think]

cant seem to delete the other two threads that accidentally became reposts due to 1lack of sleep and 2 using the back and forward button to edit rather then the edit button :k but this is the one that has the three videos so I would really like to discuss this issue in this thread

sorry and thanks in advance for helping me with my mistake there..

 

[Captain Ice]

No prob. The other two are closed now and should drop off the front page quickly.

 

[RobertVA]

Things like this need some time for investigation, preferably by an independent agency (state police or federal LE agency if city officer). With today's technology there may be tests for things like the injured police officer's blood on the pipe or the shot man. I doubt the other officer would have been injured solely to add credit to a cover up.

The grounds for chasing the man are a separate issue. Even if the officers lacked sufficient reason to stop the man he had no right to attempt harming them or resist their efforts to interview and/or briefily detain him. Lack of probable cause or other mistreatment could have been debated peacefully later.

 

[clint g]

So how is this murder? Sounds like justifiable homicide.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I don't know enough details to form an opinion about the justification for approaching Deloatch in the first place or whether the officer's guns were drawn right away which might have scared him off, but the physical evidence of the officer's injuries mentioned in the video above and the audio of the radio calls from the incident do seem to corroborate the officer's story that Deloatch was hitting one of them with a blunt object of some sort (in the audio they say a "wooden stick"). The entire incident from start to finish is barely two minutes long, so I doubt they formed a convincing lie in that time and one beat the other officer to make it look like he was being hit by Deloatch.

Whether being hit by the stick constitutes a threat of serious bodily harm depends on where the officer was hit, how big the stick was, and whether the following officer who saw his partner getting hit was capable of judging that from his position and was capable of deciding whether he should try and wrestle Deloatch to the ground or whether his partner was in enough danger to warrant discharging his weapon. What was the light conditions, what did he hear, did he just see Deloatch standing over the officer raining down blows on him but couldn't get a clear glimpse at the weapon?

While it seems like there were possibly bad choices and mistakes made on both sides if the witness statements are true and there was no justification for the stop or guns being drawn instantly (if they really were), I can't agree with calling this a murder when it's seems pretty clear Deloatch was beating the officer with a stick when the other officer approached after leaving the car. But we'll have to wait and see for the investigation to be completed. If they provoked the confrontation or pulled their guns and chased Deloatch without cause, or opened fire without cause for using deadly force, it could be manslaughter, though.

Either way, it's a tragic loss of life.

 

[ares93]

As someone who has lived with police corruption basically all his life i do understand the inconsistencies that seem to riddle this case. And a police coverup is always a possibility in my opinion. But i have far too little information to go either way.

I can however state right now that that the shooting was not a knee jerk reaction. Police officers are trained to either fire a single round to incapacitate/cripple or a kill shot. A burst of three rounds that usually hits the target looking like a triangle. That is trained into every copper and it becomes an instinct. This guy was apparently an eight year veteran which leads me to believe that he knew full well what those shots would be fatal. A rookie might not have that instinct, but an eight year veteran almost certainly has it.

EDIT: Might i just add that i was trained by a former police officer. And I fire the same three round burst if I'm under pressure. Which basically prevents me from ever shooting a perfect ten during contests. *sigh*

 

[Chaos Descending]

Police officers are trained to either fire a single round to incapacitate/cripple or a kill shot. A burst of three rounds that usually hits the target looking like a triangle. That is trained into every copper and it becomes an instinct.

I'll be blunt, you're simply making things up.

 

[sidious618]

Police officers are trained to either fire a single round to incapacitate/cripple or a kill shot. A burst of three rounds that usually hits the target looking like a triangle. That is trained into every copper and it becomes an instinct.

I'll be blunt, you're simply making things up.

I don't know if I'd go that far but I am confused as to what he's trying to say. Cops only fire in bursts of three or they only fire once? Which is it?

 

[mtblillie]

Statisticly and Historically cops shoot until the subject is down. People seem to forget that cops aren't soldiers, they don't spend every moment they aren't in combat training, they are regular people that are working out on the street. Everyone thinks they are trained to pull the trigger in a precise manner, that if they pull out their firearm and expect to use it they are calm, cool and relaxed, and are trained to hit precisely with few shots fired, but it's just not true. If an officer pulls out his gun he is scared as hell, as well anyone would be. The firearm is a defensive tool, much more so than a law enforcement tool. People watch too much TV and think that real life is like the movies.

 

[ares93]

I'll be blunt, you're simply making things up.

Bollocks.

I don't know if I'd go that far but I am confused as to what he's trying to say. Cops only fire in bursts of three or they only fire once? Which is it?

One round incapacitates (Leg/shoulder/arm), the three round burst kills (chest). The three round burst is only used when in lethal danger to the public or a fellow officer. Lets say they need to stop someone wielding an smg in a crowd. Over here, they call it the "no option discharge" (crudely translated) since they are trained to avoid fatality outcomes.

I was told this by a police officer that would be the equivalent of a British (Detective) Inspector or an American Lieutenant (I think...)

 

[think]

Just because the officer doing the shooting was an 8 year veteran on my towns force he is not being consider for dismissal from his job some people want him to be fired. I agree a big investigation should go into to this. I have talked to people from both sides of the argument and am not sure which is better. If one is beating a cop with a stick then maybe one should expect some kind of response. Lesson being .. don't beat cops with sticks ,, it is unhealthy. It was kinda difficult around town these past days as that was the only topic.. I will keep everyone posted as what happens as best I can..

 

[clint g]

I'll be blunt, you're simply making things up.

Bollocks.

I don't know if I'd go that far but I am confused as to what he's trying to say. Cops only fire in bursts of three or they only fire once? Which is it?

One round incapacitates (Leg/shoulder/arm), the three round burst kills (chest). The three round burst is only used when in lethal danger to the public or a fellow officer. Lets say they need to stop someone wielding an smg in a crowd. Over here, they call it the "no option discharge" (crudely translated) since they are trained to avoid fatality outcomes.

I was told this by a police officer that would be the equivalent of a British (Detective) Inspector or an American Lieutenant (I think...)

No, cops aren't trained to shoot to incapacitate. They shoot to "Stop the threat", meaning shoot to kill. Every military and law enforcement agency in the country trains to shoot center mass because it is the largest part of the body. Shoot for a limb and you run the VERY high risk of missing the target completely; causing a ricochet or possibly hitting an innocent bystander. The only ones who MIGHT be trained to do other wise are specialized teams (SWAT, ESU) and even that may be stretching it. Who ever told you this one shot versus three shot thing was pulling your leg.

Putting this another way, when a cop pulls out his gun his only goal is to kill that target.

I'll go into more detail in regards to this. Cops are trained to do something called escalation of force.

At the bottom you have your physical presence. You then move up to command voice. Then putting your hands on the person. Then you have the use of mace. Next comes the the use of a baton or taser. The last step is lethal force, meaning using a firearm. It should also be noted that a cop can jump from one level to another if they feel the threat is high enough. Someone using a weapon on their partner is more than enough justification as far as this is concerned.

 

[Chaos Descending]

I'll be blunt, you're simply making things up.

Bollocks.

I don't know if I'd go that far but I am confused as to what he's trying to say. Cops only fire in bursts of three or they only fire once? Which is it?

One round incapacitates (Leg/shoulder/arm), the three round burst kills (chest). The three round burst is only used when in lethal danger to the public or a fellow officer. Lets say they need to stop someone wielding an smg in a crowd. Over here, they call it the "no option discharge" (crudely translated) since they are trained to avoid fatality outcomes.

I was told this by a police officer that would be the equivalent of a British (Detective) Inspector or an American Lieutenant (I think...)

You got sold a bill of goods, friend. Cops are most certainly not trained in any such manner at all.

 

[CaptainStoner]

EDIT: Might i just add that i was trained by a former police officer. And I fire the same three round burst if I'm under pressure. Which basically prevents me from ever shooting a perfect ten during contests. *sigh*

Wait. You feel so much pressure during contests, as if your life were in danger, that you automatically fire three rounds? Dude, lose the gun. Take up painting or something.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Sorry, I do not believe Mr. ares93.

 

[ares93]

^ S'alright, mate. You're not gonna burst in flames or anything.

Whether ya'll believe me or not, and no offense to you guys, but I'll take the word of DI I know personally than some random bloke on the internet.

And we shouldn't forget that there are massive differences between countries. In sweden, you're basically suspended for six months if you fire your service weapon. While in hungary, you fill out a form have a one hour session with a shrink and you're good to go.

I wont comment on the US or UK cause I'm not familiar with their procedures.

Wait. You feel so much pressure during contests, as if your life were in danger, that you automatically fire three rounds? Dude, lose the gun. Take up painting or something.

No, that's not what I said. I said that it becomes an instinct. The level of pressure is irrelevant. I don't have a bloody shotgun pointed at me during contests. Simply put, humans are creatures of habit.

 

[JoeZhang]

I wrote part of my PhD on police firearms officers, the basic principles are the same the world over - Officers are *never* trained to aim for arms and legs (because it increases the risk to the officer and the public) - that's a movie thing, also known as "training by Hollywood".

 

[ichab]

^ S'alright, mate. You're not gonna burst in flames or anything.

Whether ya'll believe me or not, and no offense to you guys, but I'll take the word of DI I know personally than some random bloke on the internet.

And we shouldn't forget that there are massive differences between countries. In sweden, you're basically suspended for six months if you fire your service weapon.....

I'm curious. What's the point of having a service weapon if you're not allowed to fire it?

 

[ares93]

Buggered if i know. But thats how it is. I know a guy who hasnt fired his service weapon in roughly 20 years. Firing range, yes. But never in the line duty.

But just to clarify, your allowed to use it of course. But youre on desk duty during the six month investigation. And youre lucky if you get desk duty, if you actually kill the person you shot at, your looking at something called "trauma leave". Which is basically a posh name for suspension.