No, Really, the Cops Should Shoot Guys Who Fight. (Oh, and Schutze Has a Radio Show.)

Categories: Media, Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Nowadays every Monday morning at 7 am I'm on KNON Radio 89.3 doing a radio version of "Get Off My Lawn," pretty much the same thing you see here except that I'm naked.

If like a lot of people you find that the effect of "Get Off My Lawn" doesn't last long enough into the day and you need to re-crank, you can get another blast any old time by listening to podcasts of the naked radio version.

So this morning on KNON we got back into last week's fatal shooting by a police officer of James ("G-Code") Harper at Dixon and Bourquin Streets.

Mainly we discussed when, if ever, police officers are justified in shooting and killing fleeing suspects. In this case, more specifically, we were talking about fleeing and fighting suspects. This guy fought the cop, jumped a fence, fled, fought the cop again, jumped another fence, fled, fought the cop again, all down the block.
Three fences. Witnesses said Harper fought violently with Officer Brian Rowden before and after each leap. Finally, as Rowden told investigators, he was exhausted, beat up, over-heated and worried Harper was going to get the best of him, so he shot him.

Many of my callers on KNON said they felt the shooting was unjustified, that nothing Harper did deserved a death penalty and that Rowden should have used his Taser or martial arts or something or should have simply given up the chase and called for back-up, in which case Harper would have gotten away.

My position is pretty simple. Harper did not get a death penalty. He got shot. Death penalties are in court. Getting shot is what happens when you fight with a cop. And should happen.

Fuck Tasers. And martial arts. In a real knock-down drag-out fight, those are just good ways for the cop to screw up, miss, piss somebody off even worse, embolden the bad guy by letting him see you're not taking him down to the ground and wind up getting shot and killed yourself.

It's not supposed to be a fair fight. It's supposed to be a totally unfair fight. The cop is supposed to win. Every time.

Look, I'm not an idiot or a Nazi. I'm not talking about fights that the cops start because they've gone dog-crazy. We all know that happens. You've seen the video. I've seen it on the street. When that happens those cops should be busted, put on trial and, if convicted, tossed in the slammer like anybody else who attacks a human being unjustifiably. I get that. You get that. We all get that.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the guy who's running because he's on parole and he just got caught at a dope house. Rather than give up, he fights the cop. Where do we think this stuff goes?

Some people want to make a big deal about whether Harper had a gun and where on his body he got shot, like this was an Olympic sporting event with all kinds of gentlemanly rules of fair play for both contestants.

I opened the show this morning talking about where it goes. It goes to January 23, 1988, the day a 25-year-old Dallas officer named John Glenn Chase got into a scuffle on the sidewalk in downtown Dallas with a homeless man named Carl Dudley Williams, 34. Williams got his hands on Chase's service revolver.

On his back on the sidewalk with Williams holding his own gun over him, Officer Chase pleaded for his life: "Don't shoot me," he said. "I'll help you in any way I can."

A voice or voices in the crowd -- later it was disputed how many -- shouted "Shoot him!" Williams shot Chase once in the face, walked off a few paces, came back and shot him twice more in the head. Chase died.

That is exactly where every fight with a cop goes in the mind of every policeman and policewomen out there, if they allow somebody to get the best of them in a fight. One of my callers this morning suggested that in the Dixon Circle case last week Officer Rowden shot Harper because Rowden was embarrassed about losing a fight. I think that's an absolutely crazy-headed suggestion.

Put yourself in Rowden's shoes. You've got a gun. This guy keeps beating on you. You can feel yourself fading. Does anybody honestly believe your thought process is, "Oh, this is so embarrassing. If he bests me in fisticuffs, I shall never again be able to hold my head amongst my teammates."

What kind of crazy-ass shit is that? That's not what you're thinking. You're thinking, "If he gets over on me and gets this gun, I'm going to wind up on my back pleading for my life, and he's going to shoot me in the face."

Why do you think that? Because that's what it is. That's real life. That's what really happens, not some imaginary theoretical crap like you've got an Olympic panel of judges grading you from one to ten on how well you employ your Taser: "Lovely pirouette ... and fire! ... oh, too bad! A miss. That will cost him dearly with the judges."

It's not supposed to be a fair fight. It's not supposed to be a fight. If you make it a fight, the cop needs to win, quickly and decisively, every time. If you make it a hard fight, you get shot. That's not the death penalty. That's, you get shot.

Anyway, to see me naked, tune in to KNON 89.3 next Monday at 7am. I'm told it's causing wrecks on the freeway.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
124 comments
Thinkonit
Thinkonit

Let's see, since you're going to act like a moron, I'll dumb it down for you.  His fists were his attempt at non-lethal force.  There's no requirement, nor should there be that the officer should have to go through a check box form before escalating the use of force.  I tell you what, I will give you a baton, tazer and pistol then I'm going to start wailing on you to the point where you think you're going to lose consciousness.  But before we begin, I want you to sprint full speed and jump several fences before I commence to pummeling you so you're nice and tired.  Now let's see you sit there and go "Wait a minute Mr. Drug Dealing Felon who has already ran from the police, can you please stop assaulting me so I can get my baton?  Then if that doesn't work, look over at the ref and call time out while you get your tazer.  And remember, in your world it has to be non-lethal, no strikes to the head with your baton to stop me from beating you senseless.  Now you can call time in and try the tazer.  Oops, in the barrage of strikes that I am raining down on your skull, you missed.  OK, Ollie Ollie all in free, now you can use your gun.  You ain't going to make it through that. 

 

 I love that you want to sit here and expect everyone to believe that you are going to go toe to toe, to the point of losing your life, in a fight because you wouldn't use a weapon against an unarmed man.  To quote you " BullS%&t".  Maybe it's your life experiences that you are drawing upon?  Maybe in your world, you can't comprehend a man using a weapon against an assault?  Maybe the little hair pulling and slap fights that you have been involved in won't allow you to see that a man who doesn't want to go to prison WILL KILL YOU with his bare hands to avoid it. 

I like you quoting me too.  You're right, the fact that he had a large wad of cash while standing in front of a drug house where drugs were found on the yard DID NOT have any role in the officer chasing and eventually having to defend himself.  The fact that he thought he was chasing a FELONY KIDNAPPING SUSPECT did.  That information is just the proverbial icing on the cake to show that this guy was up to no good, broke parole by hanging around at a drug house, more than likely was selling dope and did not want to go back to prison.  That motivated him enough to run and assault an officer to the point of FORCING him to defend himself with deadly force.

If you are going to act smart, at least Google legal procedure before spouting off.  What kind of simple minded dimwit actually thinks that police have to get a warrant before making contact with suspects when responding to a 911 report of a kidnapping?  Do you think they have a warrant vending machine at the station and when they get a call, they hustle down to the station, put in a couple of quarters, punch the "kidnapping" button then respond to the scene where they suspects would have in all likelihood already left the scene or killed the victim?  There is no warrant requirement to respond to a 911 call for help.

I think I addressed the majority of the rest of your response by turning that situation around on you.  As long as you play by the rules that you want this officer to follow, I'm available anytime to see if you make it to your tazer, much less your gun while I play Mike Tyson with your face. 

Unfortunately, officers must assume that anyone maybe armed.  Not just criminals, there are too many incidents involving mentally unstable people who injure or kill not only police officers but their spouses, children who are at school and even theaters full of people.  For you to act like we don't live in a violent world that has forced not only our police officers but everyone to be on guard is disingenuous and shows that you are either disgruntled due to a perceived wrong done to you involving police or you're an idiot that needs to move to a peace commune somewhere in California hills where your reality can become more plausible.    

I will have address your "innocent until proven guilty" theory.  A judge or jury determines your guilt or innocence.  Your suspect could've faced a judge had he not forced the officer to act and defend himself.  If he had just ran, he still could have his day in court.  He chose to assault the officer to the point that he felt the need to defend his life.  Your suspect forfeited that option.  You throw all these "choices" that the officer had at his disposal, what about your suspect?  Did he not have the choice to surrender at the scene?  Did he not have the choice multiple times while climbing fences and running to give up and take this incident to court?      

I noticed that you said in one of your posts that you don't "follow blindly".  So then explain why you took unsubstantiated hearsay that the suspect was shot in the back and used that as a big part of your argument?  Do you always let yourself be led by the nose by a bunch of other people who weren't there and also didn't see what happened?  Now that the ME has shown that the suspect was shot facing the officer, you still want to cling to your theory that your poor suspect was just trying to get away?  Don't confuse this statement with the hearsay that you ran with, it is an opinion.   Do you think the angle of penetration for those rounds might be in an upward direction?  Then what will your defense be Matlock?  Oh, I shouldn't insult a fake TV attorney like that, he knew that you didn't need a warrant to respond to a 911 call.

While I've enjoyed the banter back and forth with you, I have other things to do today.  Plus I learned a long time ago to only argue so long with an idiot because you can't win an argument with someone lacks the capacity to realize when they're wrong.  

One last piece of advice, don't get into a battle of wits with anyone, much less me.  You lack the necessary equipment for said battle.

 

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

OK, first deal with the facts.  The facts are that 1.  The officers were responding to a reported kidnapping (that's a felony).  2. When they show up,  this guy bolts.  3.  This officer gave chase on based on a reported felony offense.  4.  The suspect fights him and says "You will have to kill me".  5. The officer shoots him after repeated efforts to take him down without using deadly force have failed.  6. After the fact the suspect is found to be a parole, has a "wad of cash" in his pocket and drugs are found in the yard of the house he ran from. 

 

I know the first thing that someone like "prestidigination" will say.  "The report said it was Hispanic male suspects".  Believe it or not, people freak the hell out when they see something like this occur.  Officers get bad info all the time.  Turns out that apparently this was a false report sent to disrupt a drug house.  The officer did not know that and was acting on the info he had been given at the time.

 

First of all, the law states that police officers can chase suspects, especially those who they have probable cause (ie report to 911) to believe they are engaged in felony level criminal activity.  Thank god for that or every criminal would just take off running.  Where would we be then?  The law also clearly states that a peace officer has no duty to retreat and that a suspect cannot resist arrest, EVEN if that arrest is unlawful.  In this case, it was not.  The suspect was told to stop and he didn't.  Ball was in his court and he chose this course of action.  Before you make up another BS arguement, that clause was put in there in case the officer did not know he was acting illegally, that sometimes happens.  If you know a search/arrest is illegal and the officer in his mind thinks he is within legal parameters, you don't have the right to try to kick his ass.  That's what you tell the judge and then file lawsuits about.  

 

But back to the issue at hand.  To begin with, it's not part of an officer's job to go straight to his fist.  Nowhere does it state that it is part of an officer's job to take an "ass whooping" like your very simplistically state.  These physical altercations cause life threatening and career ending injuries for both officer and suspect.  You also like to make the rediculous comparison to you getting into a street fight and having "the right" to shoot the other guy if you start losing.  If that scenario took place, you would've brought yourself there.  No one called you to come help someone in need.  Next, you have no sworn duty to uphold the laws of this state.  This officer did. and those laws include chasing bad guys so that they can't hurt the rest of us.  I doubt very seriously if you have the nuts to run into a situation like what was reported to this officer given the fact that you would prefer him walk away and let the poor drug dealer go.  Besides that, I know damn well that if this officer had beat the living hell out of this suspect in that back yard, people like you would be the first ones raising hell about the "illegal use" of force and "police brutality". 

 

You also like to point out that the suspect was unarmed.  To begin with, at what point did he step through a metal detector for the officer who was chasing him so that he KNEW that the suspect was unarmed?  In the officer's mind this suspect is armed until he is under control and can be searched to make sure that he is not.  Your poor suspect took that option away from this officer by beating him and telling him "You will have to kill me".  Secondly, that suspect WAS NOT UNARMED!  The officer had a slew of weapons that we as a society gave him the right to carry and use.  He gave the suspect multiple chances (I would say 2 or 3 fences worth) to surrender.  The suspect did not.  He chose to fight, he chose the consequences that came with that decision.  God bless or good police officers and also thank you for the idiots like the ones who posted on here.  They keep them employed.

 

prestidigination
prestidigination

Everyone defending the actions of the police will have to find a way around a plain simple and time tested truth.

 

Shooting an unarmed man is a cowardly act. Shooting an unarmed man in the back is a despicable one.

rufuslevin
rufuslevin

I am disappointed that the police did not just go back and shoot all the rest of the drug dealers in the house....make a good clean sweep of it at the time, same a call back to the neighborhood for any more "domestic violence"....heck, gotta bunch of rabid gorillas running loose out of their cage...just plank them on the spot with the 9 millimeter.

Flabbergasted
Flabbergasted

Please, everyone, read how DPD Officer Ronald Baker was murdered--with his own weapon, in 1984.  NOT using deadly force caused his death. Had he used deadly force FIRST, oh, the howling and calls of racism there would h av e been. But no, he used restraint, calm and humanity. He was killed for it. Shot multiple times and run over twice.  His murderers were tracked to Arkansas, where they killed themselves.  So, what was it all for? He left behind a little girl and a pregnant wife. He was 24. Harper should not have run. Harper should not have fought the arrest. Harper was a grown man, and his decisions ended his life.  

PerryMoore
PerryMoore

The way you are going after your loyal readers, one of them will soon have your shotgun in his/her blogheaded hands, and you will be the poor fellow on the ground.

johnc
johnc

Articles like this is why, I suppose, you have no legitimacy in this town.  It's a shame. If the facts are as stated, Rowden had no business shooting a fleeing man.  He should be charged, if those are the facts, and your explanation is embarrasing. 

engmofo
engmofo

7am godamnit I'm still hung-over then!!!

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

I don't have a quibble with the situation as you present it.  However, what's weird is how the officer engaged Harper.  Was Harper lying in ambush or what he grabbed as he scaled the fence?  I think that is more likely, and in that case, the tazer would have been available.   You wouldn't allow the officer to shoot him as he's jumping the fence (nor would I.)  But, the officer had three chances to engage the fleeing Harper.  When does he lay back, keep up the chase without engaging?   When does he reach for the tazer?  Why fight a guy who reportedly whooped you twice earlier?   I wish he'd tazed him, monitored him or let him go. 

 

Once (twice) he learned he was gonna fight to flee.  Twice he learned that he couldn't take him down alone.   He should've decided if he wanted to shoot him before he engaged him.  I'm not condemning the officer, we can learn better ways to approach the situation; just as we limit officer's pursuits in vehicles, the same principles apply in all modes of pursuit.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @Thinkonit They DO go through a checklist when in high speed pursuit.  He disengaged with Harper when climbing over the fence.   He had ample opportunity to change tactics/methods.  I don't know that the officer is guilty of gross wrongdoing; but he failed to act as wisely as he might have.  He'd likely agree with that.  We all need to take the lesson, and to formalize this pursuit policy, just as we have policy for high speed chases.   Those policies are to protect the cops, the suspects and the public.  Anytime an officer discharges his weapon, the public is in danger.   And, in case you think that an exaggeration, my father had a settle a case for the city when a robber was trapped in the grocery store next to Kels on Forest.  He had to settle with some guy who was shot miles from the scene in his home.  SWAT had tried to level the store, obviously someone missed.  There was no fight, the store wasn't moving.  Some "sharpshooter" missed with his rifle. 

prestidigination
prestidigination

I love it when people bluster back with poor unintelligible arguments and then run away saying they have no time to argue. Not that it matters. If you think that this shooting is justified, you are too far gone for help.

 

“His fists were his attempt at non-lethal force.  There's no requirement, nor should there be that the officer should have to go through a check box form before escalating the use of force.  “

Yes, yes there is. It's called procedure and the procedure for the use of deadly force is quite well documented and discussed

 

“I tell you what, I will give you a baton, tazer and pistol then I'm going to start wailing on you to the point where you think you're going to lose consciousness.  ---crazyness reduced-- OK, Ollie Ollie all in free, now you can use your gun.  You ain't going to make it through that.”

What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying the police could have used a radio at ANY TIME rather than the gun. You know, before each of those 3 fence jumpings by the officer would have been a GREAT time to call in to radio tail the suspect.

 

“I love that you want to sit here and expect everyone to believe that you are going to go toe to toe, to the point of losing your life, in a fight because you wouldn't use a weapon against an unarmed man.  To quote you " BullS%&t".” 

Who said I'd do anything like that. You are just making things up at this point. If I get hard enough to worry about it, I'd run or stay down. Like men have done since the dawn of time.

"Maybe the little hair pulling and slap fights that you have been involved in"

awww that's cute. An ad-hominem attack. Running out of arguments are we?

 

“won't allow you to see that a man who doesn't want to go to prison WILL KILL YOU with his bare hands to avoid it. “

Your reasoning is that of a brainwashed dolt (weee ad-hominem). Why did the officer not use his radio? Why not his tazer? Why not anything else? Why was his gun his first non-fist option? We pay for an entire police force yet this guy wants to play solo?

 

The fact that he thought he was chasing a FELONY KIDNAPPING SUSPECT did. You don’t shoot suspects no matter what they are accused of unless the use of deadly force is your only option. I you don’t get that, you may need to be locked up yourself as a psycho.

 

”broke parole by hanging around at a drug house, more than likely was selling dope and did not want to go back to prison. “

The cop did not know any of this and it was not a factor in his shooting the suspect. It’s also not a good reason to take a life.

 

“That motivated him enough to run and assault an officer to the point of FORCING him to defend himself with deadly force.”

What? He ran AWAY from the officer.

 

“I think I addressed the majority of the rest of your response by turning that situation around on you.  As long as you play by the rules that you want this officer to follow, I'm available anytime to see if you make it to your tazer, much less your gun while I play Mike Tyson with your face. “

If I’m running away from you, like this man was, you will have plenty of time.

 

“Unfortunately, officers must assume that anyone maybe armed.” 

If that is truly the case, then the possibility he is armed should not have been a factor in his decision since he is no more dangerous than anyone else. In other words, he presented no extraordinary threat.

 

“I will have address your "innocent until proven guilty" theory. “

Theory is it? Actually Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies)

 

“ A judge or jury determines your guilt or innocence.  Your suspect could've faced a judge had he not forced the officer to act and defend himself. “

Running away forces nothing from others

 

“If he had just ran, he still could have his day in court.  He chose to assault the officer to the point that he felt the need to defend his life. “

Utter nonsense. The officer was not actually close to the suspect when he shot. The shooting was from a distance.

 

“Your suspect forfeited that option.  You throw all these "choices" that the officer had at his disposal, what about your suspect?  Did he not have the choice to surrender at the scene?  Did he not have the choice multiple times while climbing fences and running to give up and take this incident to court?    “

We will never know. He’s dead now.

 

I noticed that you said in one of your posts that you don't "follow blindly".  So then explain why you took unsubstantiated hearsay that the suspect was shot in the back and used that as a big part of your argument? 

I don’t care if he was shot in the foot. This is a wrongful shooting simply because the office had other and better options available to him.

 

“Do you always let yourself be led by the nose by a bunch of other people who weren't there and also didn't see what happened?”

Not much more than you have with the shoot the thug crowd.

 

“One last piece of advice, don't get into a battle of wits with anyone, much less me.  You lack the necessary equipment for said battle.”

Any time any place. From your argument, I can see what you really have is bluster and boast with no real substance.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @Thinkonit so, you failed to consider when a tazer should've been used.  This was not a fight, but 3.  The officer only tried one non-lethal option (the worst one) and failed to reach for others.

prestidigination
prestidigination

@Thinkonit

“4.  The suspect fights him and says "You will have to kill me".  5. The officer shoots him after repeated efforts to take him down without using deadly force have failed.”

WHOA! He used a Taser? a nightstick?  radio and backup?  radio car?  helicopter? Other than his fists, what exactly were his other methods of non- deadly force?

 

“ 6. After the fact the suspect is found to be a parole, has a "wad of cash" in his pocket and drugs are found in the yard of the house he ran from. “

After the fact information did not play any role in the officer choosing to shoot this man.

 

“Turns out that apparently this was a false report sent to disrupt a drug house.  The officer did not know that and was acting on the info he had been given at the time.”

So his warrant was not valid either? 

 

“First of all, the law states that police officers can chase suspects, especially those who they have probable cause (ie report to 911) to believe they are engaged in felony level criminal activity. “

Fine, chase away. Use the tools and police force at your disposal to bring the suspect to justice

 

“But back to the issue at hand.  To begin with, it's not part of an officer's job to go straight to his fist.  Nowhere does it state that it is part of an officer's job to take an "ass whooping" like your very simplistically state. “

It’s not part of their job to improperly use their firearm when other methods and courses of action are available. Deadly force is a LAST RESORT

 

“Besides that, I know damn well that if this officer had beat the living hell out of this suspect in that back yard, people like you would be the first ones raising hell about the "illegal use" of force and "police brutality". 

This may come as a surprise to you but what you know and what you think are different things.  I never suggested the cop shouldn’t have tazed, beaten, sprayed, or otherwise mess up the suspect. I’m suggesting he SHOULD have done those things instead of using deadly force. 

 

“In the officer's mind this suspect is armed until he is under control and can be searched to make sure that he is not.”

Innocent until proven guilty. If the cops treat everyone as an armed suspect, we have gone too far down the rabbit hole to recover.

 

  Your poor suspect took that option away from this officer by beating him and telling him "You will have to kill me". 

BullS%&t.

 

joseph
joseph

 @prestidigination You are really twisted.  The career criminal attacked the cop, lost.  The cop chased him across three fences. Calling that man a coward is criminal. You are sick.

PerryMoore
PerryMoore

Categorical Imperative: If a larger person chooses to fight me, it is my choice of weapons. I will leave the civil rights niceties to those that have never been in this situation.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @Diane1978 Did Officer Baker have tazers?  His life was over either way.  I wonder what his felonies were?  Were they crimes against people, or drug dealing?

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @Diane1978 Including the decision to strap on a gun and badge. Ronald Baker is not a reason to shoot first and ask questions later. There were two men in a car, he approached them, they killed him. That's all we really know.

Flabbergasted
Flabbergasted

 @johnc How do you flee while you are beating someone? When a COP tells you to STOP, fraking S----T----O----P. Period. Any adult with common sense knows that you can either fight, or you can  run. You cannot do both at the same time. Pick another argument.

jarhead1
jarhead1

@johnc He didn't shoot a fleeing man. He shot a fighting man.

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

 @scottindallas

 A foot pursuit is nothing like a high speed vehicle pursuit.  Climbing a fence does not constitute disengaging from the suspect.  There are policies and he followed them.  I think he would solidly disagree with you that he failed to act "wisely".  I want my cops chasing bad guys, not cowering down on the other side of a fence, calling for back up so that the suspect can run into the next house and take hostages or steal a car and lead officers on a high speed vehicle chase so he can run over your daughter playing in the front yard.  Cops make mistakes if that is indeed what happened in the case you referenced.  That doesn't mean we tie their hands behind their backs and let criminals run unchallenged.

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

 @prestidigination

 

Like I said "operor non oro per an idiot".

 

There I put some crap in Latin.  Am I smart now too?  I'm sorry, you can add the radio to the list of tools you can ask the ref to give you a time out for while the suspect is beating you. 

 

What I did was try to get you to think by substituting you for the officer and trying to make you see how rediculous what you think he should've done is.  Rational people can put themselves into the place of another and realize what they are going through.  Most sociopaths however lack this skill.   

 

You have no knowledge of the Dallas Police (or any departments) use of force policies because you're way off base.  So once again you know not what you speak of.  You have no knowledge of the laws of The State of Texas, they also outline also what he can do and he did.  Once again none of what you think should happen is required.  You have no knowledge of the case law involving police actions.  What happened here touches several of them from reported criminal activity, to approaching suspects, to fleeing suspects, to the use of force continium.  All tried and tested up to US District Courts and The US Supreme Court.  But I have a feeling you're smarter than they are so that won't matter to you either.   

 

Tell you what, let one of these parolee bastards break in your door.  You just stand firm and show them just how smart you are. Tell them how you think it's BS that the police chase them because they sell drugs, shoot up neighborhoods over drug deals and steal from people who actually work for a living.  Then explain to him how you support his efforts to get away from the police and how you think that they should have the right to assault a police officer when they won't stop chasing them. 

 

You don't like the police?  Don't call them.  You have that right.  Handle your own business.  I'm sure you will do fine.  In fact, post your address so that the criminals will know not to mess with such a far superior being. 

 

Here let me throw in some big words, ad valorum, e pluribus unum, ina gadda da vida.  Maybe some more latin, "stultus est non ferreus ut macula".  I will even give you a couple of good old fashioned Mel Brooks "harumphs" because you're smart enough to Google latin phrases.

 

I got to go know.  I have to interact with other people that don't inflate.  I think I hear your mom calling you up from the basement for dinner.  Your favorite, Mac&Cheese.   (not an ad-hominem attack, totally stereotyping you)

 

 

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @joseph The officer did not know he was a career criminal until after he killed him. The dead man did not attack a cop and loose. He ran from a cop, got caught, struggled, and got away. The cop couldn't catch him so he killed him.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @PerryMoore there's not a simple dichotomy here  He had many non-lethal options available.  He only tried one.  That's called  a false dichotomy, and thus, your argument is relegated to the fallacy bin.

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @PerryMoore You can run or you can fight. Pulling a gun is a cowards move. Bruises and broken bones heal. The dead stay that way.

Flabbergasted
Flabbergasted

 @prestidigination YOU KNOW NOTHING. Ron-- I went to high school with him and am still good friends with his brother,-- Ron walked up to a van with a man and WOMAN in it. They were arguing, and he thought she was in trouble. In fact, they had just burglarized a drug store and were debating their next move. Somehow, the man exited the van, got close to Ron, they scuffled, gun gets loose. Woman gives gun to man, and man shoots Ron several times. I read his autopsy report and investigation into the murder, so I know MY facts, unlike you.  The couple then ran over him with their van and backed up and ran over him again. Witnesses helped, and they were followed to Arkansas after switching vehicles, where they killed themselves. Had he been all racist and so on, he would have already drawn down on them when he approached. Or, he could have ignored what he thought was a woman being abused by her man. Ron was the good guy. Once, his partner was being strangled by a suspect. Ron COULD H AVE shot the man, but chose to hit the guy's arm with his lead-lined flashlight. I think he broke the guy's arm. That  last time, being the good guy got him killed. You have no idea how often policemen COULD shoot and DO NOT. Until you are a cop, you have no idea.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @Diane1978 It's impossible to fight trough fences, 3 of them.   Evidently, he was fleeing. 

johnc
johnc

The officer's life was no longer in danger once the man was fleeing. Should not be able to use deadly force in that instance.

prestidigination
prestidigination

@Thinkonit

Don't blame me for your lack of command of your native language. That’s your problem, not mine.

I’m getting that reading for comprehension was never a strong skill for you. When I said neo-pagan-raised-as-a-christian I was implying you had been raised a Christian and had rebelled to form your own morality. One clearly filled with hate and anger. So, while you seek professional help for you mental issues, I suggest you also visit your local grade school so you can learn to read properly.

You asked “how your suspect was shot in an "upward direction", and with an entrance/exit wound to the elbow from a round that then struck the chest?”

A reasonable scenario is that he was climbing over the fence away from the officer, the officer fired, the round went in his elbow, exited the elbow, and struck the chest in an upward direction. I know the explanation requires imagination so you can picture the angles in your mind. And I concede that this is asking allot from you, but if you try really hard, you might just get it. That is all.

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

 @prestidigination

 I should really stop but I'm hoping to show you that ignorant is no way to go through life.  First, just because you throw a $10 word in a sentance, it does not mean you're right.  I've been on point, you've been in the land of unicorns.  I also like you using these nice obsolete words to show intellegence and then follow it up with "I dunno".  Which version of the distionary is that one in? 

 

So he was climbing a fence when he was shot and that explains the wounds.  So what you're saying is then that the officer killed him in cold blood because he was on the other side of the fence from your fleeing suspect?  Or was your fleeing suspect not fleeing at all and he was climbing back over a fence to come after the officer?  I bet you were never very good at puzzles trying to put pieces together like that.

 

As for your assessment of my god comment, you once again draw from the realm of idiocy.  I've been to church twice.  Once when I was a kid and once because my buddy needed a fill in softball player and you couldn't play if you didn't pray.  It was a joke, god is too busy getting donations from televangelists to bother with you and I don't believe there is a vat of bullshit deep enough for you to drown in given my experience with you.

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @Thinkonit 

"You respond to your selective interpretation of my points, ignoring fact and inserting your reality."

If you had clear salient points to counter instead of angry noise...

 

"Explain how your suspect was shot in an "upward direction", and with an entrance/exit wound to the elbow from a round that then struck the chest?

I dunno, the simplest explanation would be that he was climbing a fence when he was shot.....

 

By the way, concerning your 'god' comment, that's exactly the kind of neo-pagan-raised-as-a-christian hate I've come to expect from you. But, I think I know why you cheer the killing of other people.. You are clearly full of anger, hate, and self delusion. Like I said before, you really should seek professional help.

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

 @prestidigination 

You respond to your selective interpretation of my points, ignoring fact and inserting your reality. 

 

Very interesting reading from the ME's report.  An entrance/exit wound through the elbow and into the chest,  The fatal wound coming from a round that struck "upward, right to left with no significant back and forth deviation".  Explain how your suspect was shot in an "upward direction", and with an entrance/exit wound to the elbow from a round that then struck the chest?  Maybe DPD purchases their bullets from the same place Lee Harvey Oswald did?

 

If it makes you feel better to think you've bested me bunch of rhetoric and false information, go on and think that.  I dealt with facts, not rumor, hearsay and the belief system of an imbecile.  If there's a god, you will trip and fall into a vat of bullshit and drown, thus removing yourself from the gene pool.  

 

Sometimes I do have to breath through my mouth so I don't smell the stench of people like you.  You can get back to making your lady suit now Buffalo Bill.   

 

 

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @Thinkonit Me? Selective reading? Really? I respond to your points one by one, you come back with noise and bluster without refuting a single point of mine yet I'm the selective reader. Ok mouth-breather, you go on with your gung ho kill 'em all attitude. I don't care to correspond with lazy, ignorant, trash like you any further.

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

 @prestidigination

 Just when I thought we had a little break through your selective reading skills brought us two steps back.  I said "guilty beyond doubt" and I said nothing about their conviction being based on accusation alone.  Not guilt based on the methods we had in the 70's and 80's that are getting overturned now. 

 

This guy was pretty damn talented to be running away from this officer and get shot in the chest and abdomen.  Missed his calling and should've been a cornerback or something. 

 

Since you're going to cling to your belief that he had other options even though you weren't there and have no idea what was ocurring, we will be at an impasse.  People do swing at cops, but most don't tell the cop they have to kill them. 

 

In case you haven't noticed, people like me do make the laws in this state.  We kill more trash than any other state (probably more than many combined).  F*** 'em.  You want to be a criminal and live, move to California or some other state that puts up with that crap.  Maybe you would be happier there too. 

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @Thinkonit Cops deal with violent people all the time. People take swings at them and try to fight them quite often. Most cops use a stun gun, mace, nightstick, or the radio to handle them. This cop didn't even try his other options before killing his suspect.

You have a nice list of reasons people should die. It's a good thing you don't make out laws. Take a look at how many people we have put on death row here in Texas that have been released due to DNA evidence. Taking someones life based on accusation and not evidence is one of the problems we need to address. With gung-ho kill em all types like yourself, it's going to be a hard fight.

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @Diane1978 The cops life was never in danger. If someone is running from you, shooting them does not save your life. He had ample opportunity to bring the situation to a non-violent end.

Flabbergasted
Flabbergasted

Defending a family is one thing. A cop has to make snap judgments. The cop saved  his own life. End of it. And i do not make light of your incident. I could have killed an unarmed intruder once, but did not. That does not mean it was wrong, had I done so. YOu don't know they are truly unarmed until AFTER.

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

 @prestidigination

 That's really not what you were saying from the beginning but OK.  There's a big difference to being somewhat of objector to taking a life and what you were doing which is saying the cop could've and should've done this that or the other. 

 

I also don't get where you say "All indications  are that the officer's hand was not forced".  He assaulted an armed police officer with no duty to retreat for chasing him for an alleged crime (initial 911 report).  The officer doesn't have to call another officer to catch the suspect.  I'd be willing to beat that he did call for assistance.  Pretty standard during a foot chase. 

 

That help didn't get there before the criminal forced his hand by assaulting him.  It doesn't matter if he had committed this reported crime or another one.  You don't run and you don't fight.  This isn't a situation where this particular officer had been harassing/threatening this suspect causing him to fear for his life and defend it.  He was trying to avoid prison.    

 

I didn't give him kudos, I thanked him for his service.  He did the job he was asked by the people of Dallas to do and that he swore to do.  He shouldn't be villified using false information and a personal belief system that is not within the operating parameters of his position (or even the norm for this society).  He also should not be blamed for the poor decision making process of a career criminal.     

 

If we want to touch on personal beliefs, you molest/rape a child, you should die.  You kill while robbing, stealing or raping, you should die.  You kill in cold blood, you should die.  Of course barring any legitimate mental issues or exigent circumstances and given that you are guilty beyond doubt.    

 

I also want my cops chasing suspects and putting them in jail unless that chase endangers others such as a high speed chase (and even then, the need to take the criminal off of the streets could justify said pursuit).  I don't want my cops retreating because some criminal challenges them.  You lose respect on the street, you're done.  I want my cops to go home at the end of every shift.  I don't want to see their family crying on TV because some waste of air took their life because they wanted to keep on selling dope, robbing and stealing and they didn't want the officer taking them to jail for their crimes. 

 

What about the family of the suspect crying on TV?  I will give you that some people are just worthless and maybe the family shared no responsibilty for their piece of crap kid.  Being in another public service related field, I can tell you that the vast majority of these criminals are a product of their environment and the failures of their parents/families.  Don't want your poor son to go to prison?  Raise him right.  Don't want a cop to shoot him defending himself while your baby tried to avoid going back to prison?  Should've started way back when the little bastard was getting in trouble as a child/young man.

 

Plain and simple, you want to roll the dice fighting with a cop, a person you see has a gun on their hip and who has the legal authority to bring you in, you run the risk or serious injury ot death.  He rolled craps and I have no problem with it.       

prestidigination
prestidigination

@Thinkonit

I never said the cop broke the rules. I said what he did was wrong. There are times when you have the opportunity to do something you shouldn’t yet still follow the rules. The right thing to do is usually not the easiest nor does it usually yield results quickly, but there is a reason we call it ‘the right thing to do’.

 

The bankers who knowingly used investor’s capital to their advantage and to our disadvantage committed, by and large, no crimes. It was all legal enough. They followed the rules too, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks these bankers did the ethical thing.

 

All indications are that the officer’s hand was not forced. In my view, he made the wrong choice. Unlike most of us, that jobs bad choices end not in the justice we expect but in tragedy and death. I don’t know your personal belief system, but the good ones tend to view all life as a sacred thing. That’s why I find the attaboy attitude obscene.

Thinkonit
Thinkonit

 @prestidigination

 There are rules for everything.  There are the actual laws and proceedures, which I whole heartedly believe this officer followed and there are the unwritten societal mores.  Like it or not, officers have the right to chase suspects until they or the officer gives out or they are caught.  There are also rules for the criminals.  They aren't supposed to run from the police.  If they do, they face charges. 

 

If they get caught during the chase and give up, they go to jail and live to sell dope another day.  If they fight, the officer is under no obligation to have the "fair fight" that you feel should have been an option for him.  Society has said that our police don't have to take a beating to give the criminal, who is the one who escalated this situation, a full range of non-lethal options. 

 

Police officers are taught use your verbal skills first.  Criminal ignored him.  Use hands on next.  This officer did that.  However, society (i.e. citizenry, courts etc.) has deemed that if a criminal uses his fists, you get to go up the scale and use things like tazers, batons and pepper spray. 

 

However, the criminal takes his own life into his hands at this point because society has also given that cop the right to go home to his family.  If he loses this fist fight, he could die in a backyard from this criminals hands or his own weapon.  Remember the female officer in East Texas who was knocked out with one punch by a male subject on a traffic stop?  He went for her gun in front of his own daughter and had it not been for the safety retention devices in her holster, I think he would have killed her. 

 

That's the reality police officers face.  That's what this officer faced in a back yard.  He's being beaten, he's exhausted, and he's facing a criminal hell bent on not going to prison.  Society has said he can use whatever means necessary to defend his life.  There's no time here and he is supposed to catch criminals, not call someone else on the radio to do it.  As long as the officer isn't endangering the general public by firing his weapon in a reckless manner, he's doing his job.  Since he struck only the suspect, that's a non-issue.

 

We all have rules to follow.  The criminal didn't and he paid for his decisions.  They were just that, his decisions.  I don't applaud the death of this guy but I feel he got what he deserved.  I do applaud this officer and I thank him for his service.  I thank him for standing between my family and people like this.  Since you say you had to take a life before, I would think you would be more compassionate for this officer whose life has now changed forever. 

 

Cops don't go to work hoping they get to shoot somebody and I'm sure this officer has to deal with this mentally because he had to take a life, but he also has to deal with you and others like you who armchair quarterback him from the comfort of your home over the course of days for the decision he had a few seconds to make while being assaulted. 

 

Like I started out with.  Actual laws and proceedures and societal mores.  This officer followed those laws and did his job and I think he's perfectly fine for the majority of society on the other.

prestidigination
prestidigination

 @Thinkonit I know a thing or two on this subject and it really doesn't matter the laws, procedures, or scenarios you present. I've been in this situation. I've shot an unarmed man. I was no-billed because the grand jury decided it was justifiable homicide in defense of myself and my family. That was 23 years ago and I've had my time to think about all the possibilities.

Shooting an unarmed man when non-leathal options are available to you is not the right thing to do.

If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm some child who doesn't know how the world works, that's fine. Just do one thing for me, at least ask yourself if you so strongly defend this shooting due to a lower than healthy regard for human life,  o maybe your views on justice, ethics, and proper conduct. There has to be a reason you applaud the death of another human being, no matter the mistakes they made in life.

rubbercow
rubbercow

@johnc @Sotiredofitall Sorry to say good riddance to bad rubbish. It is shocking to me that any reasonable person would argue that compliance with the laws that have been made in due course should be viewed as optional. This guy was a thug.

johnc
johnc

 @Sotiredofitall  @johnc Yes.  They will pick him up later.  It's shocking that folks are ok with this.  The guy is dead.  

 

And I support the police, but they should (and can) only use deadly force in certain, narrow circumstances.  This does not appear to be one.  

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...