Here's the problem with the "would you wait to see what it is" thinking.

 

The picture I saw had the victim down in his firing stance with both hands extended with whatever it was - gun , shoe, whatever. There was an officer right in front of him in a firing stance and appeared to be only a few feet away. He obviously waited long enough for the guy to get whatever he had out of his pockets, go into his stance, and point it outward with two hands and still no shot. Like the Tulsa shooting, one officer fired a taser and the other fired a bullet.

 

So the question will be asked: Why didn't the taser guy shoot? Did he see it wasn't a real gun? Was he frozen in fear despite it being a real gun?

 

My sister and I are having this exact same conversation right now.

My sister and I are having this exact same conversation right now.

 

Do we all agree that if they allowed him to pull something out and get into his stance and have a picture taken before any shots were fired that the officers had a good opportunity to get a read on what was in his hand? To the point that they obviously determined it was something potentially dangerous and, thus, the decision to fire was made? The picture tells me they had the chance to determine that it wasn't , for example, a shoe or a book, right?

Have the police said what was actually in his hands?

Sidenote: Having witnesses say his hands were straight up only to have a picture of him in a shooting stance hurts the credibility of every future case. Unless it's on video you just can't believe anyone.

Sidenote: Having witnesses say his hands were straight up only to have a picture of him in a shooting stance hurts the credibility of every future case. Unless it's on video you just can't believe anyone.

No doubt.

Do we all agree that if they allowed him to pull something out and get into his stance and have a picture taken before any shots were fired that the officers had a good opportunity to get a read on what was in his hand? To the point that they obviously determined it was something potentially dangerous and, thus, the decision to fire was made? The picture tells me they had the chance to determine that it wasn't , for example, a shoe or a book, right?

 

I'm unsure because the picture captures that one moment. We don't know how fast he pulled his hands out and got into his stance. He makes his motion and a decision has already been made by both cops on how to react. One with a taser and the other with a gun. We don't know what was said by anyone. We just have that still picture and based on that picture alone I understand why the officers acted how they did even though they both chose different weapons. I don't think we will ever get an answer as to why they chose their particular weapon but I am curious to know.

Sidenote: Having witnesses say his hands were straight up only to have a picture of him in a shooting stance hurts the credibility of every future case. Unless it's on video you just can't believe anyone.

 

Other witnesses saying their phones were confiscated needs to be confirmed also. I'm not sure I believe that either. Doesn't that violate the 1st and 4th amendments? I think I read that somewhere. Possibly in the link I posted.

I'm just waiting for the first "videographer" to get plinked by a stray and see the fallout thereafter.

Other witnesses saying their phones were confiscated needs to be confirmed also. I'm not sure I believe that either. Doesn't that violate the 1st and 4th amendments? I think I read that somewhere. Possibly in the link I posted.

I saw where the local PD tweeted that the "phone confiscation" rumors are not true.

 

We have images of the incident unfolding, but no pics of officers stealing cell phones? I have a hard time believing it.

I'm unsure because the picture captures that one moment. We don't know how fast he pulled his hands out and got into his stance. He makes his motion and a decision has already been made by both cops on how to react. One with a taser and the other with a gun. We don't know what was said by anyone. We just have that still picture and based on that picture alone I understand why the officers acted how they did even though they both chose different weapons. I don't think we will ever get an answer as to why they chose their particular weapon but I am curious to know.

Without any further footage, no way to tell if they chose weapons at the same time. My guess is the taser could have been readied well before the other officer had to unholster his service weapon as the event escalated.

I saw where the local PD tweeted that the "phone confiscation" rumors are not true.

 

We have images of the incident unfolding, but no pics of officers stealing cell phones? I have a hard time believing it.

 

Same here. That would be an epic conspiracy and no way they confiscated every single phone in the area without someone getting video or pictures of it. Damn near impossible.

Without any further footage, no way to tell if they chose weapons at the same time. My guess is the taser could have been readied well before the other officer had to unholster his service weapon as the event escalated.

 

This is true too.

Several schools of thought. The first thing to remember is, different departments are trained in different ways when it comes to force. So you can't compare this one to Charlotte or Tulsa unless all three departments are trained the same way.

 

If he refused to show his hands and be compliant or was reaching into his pockets and still not complying, one officer draws a gun in case the deceased comes out with a gun. If he does not, you still have the officer with the taser. The officer and his safety is covered either way.

 

We don't know (yet) if the officer already had his gun drawn or if it was a draw and fire situation, which would explain why the one officer already had a taser drawn.

 

Officers perceive different threats in different ways.

 

The biggest question I have is why were the police called in the first place? The sister said he was acting erratic and not himself. So why would this be a reason to call police? Does he get violent when he acts this way? I think this was a situation the police should not have been put in to begin with.

 

There is a common thread between the shootings in Tulsa, Charlotte, and El Cajon -- mental illness/intoxication.

 

It is likely Crutcher was under the influence of PCP in Tulsa. Brown suffered from a head injury. The latest had mental health issues.

 

These are not coherent people who may or may not understand an officer's orders. These officers are in a tough spot.

 

The biggest question that no one has an answer for is what is the best way for the police to deal with non-compliant mentally ill people and still stay safe?

Goodness...just going by that picture, that guy was just asking to be shot.

Scribe's last point is spot on. How are officers supposed to deal with mental illness suspects? Are they well-equipped i.e. trained to do so? Is there a better technique?