Police defend fatal shooting of UW student

[Empty Hands]

Based upon my own experiences with myself and my own kids, I always wonder where the hell this stuff actually happens. I was really concerned when my kids started school, but now that my two oldest are in the 6th and 7th grades, I can honestly say that they are receiving a much better education than I did 25 years ago.

It's a constructed reality that "everyone knows" is true and no one has bothered to confirm by looking at the data. See also: crime is lower now, not higher, child kidnapping is incredibly rare and less common now, not more common, etc.

 

[tellner]

Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.

Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.

 

[Archangel M]

Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.

Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.

And what does that have to do with THIS shoot?

 

[tellner]

Just saying that it's not surprising at all that the cops will close ranks and defend it. "Police defend shooting" isn't news. It's absolutely routine. "Police denounce shooting" would be news because it is damn near unheard of. You might as well start a thread saying "Sun rises in East!"

 

[Archangel M]

How Not to Get Killed by the Police: Be Aware of How You Look

Today in our recurring instructional series How Not to Get Killed by the Police, we’ll be looking into the way your appearance affects the mood of the animals in blue.Through exhaustive study we have come to the conclusion that your appearance, i.e. what you’re wearing, how you present yourself, etc. have a strong effect on the behaviors of feral hordes of police officers. Certain clothing items and accessories have more profound effects than others.

There is a common misconception that body piercings and certain haircuts can set off wild police officers, but this is simply not the case. Most police officers are no more than mildly amused by foolish looking jewelry and hair. A vintage Nazi uniform accessorized by what is most likely a functioning Mauser rifle, on the other hand, will most likely send police officers in the area into a shooting frenzy. To significantly increase your chances of being killed in a shooting frenzy by untamed police officers, make sure your Mauser rifle is loaded with blanks and be sure to fire it in the vicinity of any feral police officers you may find.

 

[Empty Hands]

How Not to Get Killed by the Police: Be Aware of How You Look

Anti-hippie filter? Jesus Christ. Yet another in a long line of Internet Tough Guys.

 

[grydth]

Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.

Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.

in all fairness, there are folks on both sides who will take one side automatically. The challenge is to look at each instance on its facts.

For many, the police can never get it right. Here, for some, it is why'd you shoot the gunman so quickly; at Virginia Tech, it was why'd you take so long to shoot the gunman?

I think every police shooting needs to be examined, but on its own facts. If we don't examine them, we have a police state where anyone can be shot for any reason - or none at all. However, no indictments of police may also mean the police involved shot really terrible people out of necessity. When the police do respond appropriately, they should be commended as the heroes they are.

Let's not forget something - most victims of guys with guns in Nazi uniform aren't themselves. They are most often some Jewish family at synagogue or some Hispanic man who gets stomped at a county fair. I'm not about to condemn a police officer who risks his life to prevent the Fourth Reich in my country/

"A good shoot" to me sounds like those euphemisms the British would coin in World War I to describe mass slaughters with airy terms. I know an officer who justifiably shot an attacker.... and it haunts him, as I suspect it does many. I doubt he - or the two officers involved here - would say there was anything good about it.

 

[arnisador]

I know an officer who justifiably shot an attacker.... and it haunts him

I believe this, and I think it explains a lot of the default reaction that tellner identifies. If one is in a position where one may justifiably shoot someone who, in the end, turns out to have posed no actual danger--well, that's a very hard thing to do psychologically. It's one thing to logically accept that it was justified and necessary and another to live with it, and a hardened attitude is not surprising as a defense mechanism.

As a law-abiding citizen, I appreciate those who protect me at the risk of their physical and mental health. I know both threats are real and serious. But it's also important that citizens ask and asnwer the question: Who watches the watchmen?

 

[jks9199]

Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.

Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.

You're off base with your rant this time. The drunk idiot pointed a rifle at cops. Cops rightly dropped his ***. There is no way to know in any reasonable system if a gun is loaded with blanks or live rounds -- and there's no reason why a cop should have to jeopardize their lives by trying to be certain.

The fact that no cop has been indicted doesn't mean that some cop should have been and wasn't; you can't make that leap on the facts in evidence. It could simply mean that no cop has had a bad shoot. Nor does it mean that they are covering up dirty cops because no one has been fired; you don't know who resigned before being fired, or those who were disciplined in some way other than being fired.

 

[arnisador]

The drunk idiot pointed a rifle at cops. Cops rightly dropped his ***.

"The drunken individual pointed a rifle at the officers. The officers were correct to fire in their and others' defense."

It sounds a lot different that way--respectful, rather than insulting. To describe killing a drunken student as having "rightly dropped his ***" makes it sounds as though the LEOs were glad to do it, which I find highly unlikely. If depersonalizing suspects works for you, OK...but it sounds awful from here. I agree that, based on what I've read of the incident here, they made the only reasonable decision. I agree that the individual is ultimately responsible for the actions that led to his demise (assuming he was not so mentally ill he could not be held responsible for his actions). But do we agree that this was a tragedy for all involved?

 

[shesulsa]

I'm having a serious case of deja vu here.

 

[Archangel M]

Well if saying it that way makes you feel better. The end result is the same.

 

[arnisador]

Not to the other citizens.

 

[sgtmac_46]

"The drunken individual pointed a rifle at the officers. The officers were correct to fire in their and others' defense."

It sounds a lot different that way--respectful, rather than insulting. To describe killing a drunken student as having "rightly dropped his ***" makes it sounds as though the LEOs were glad to do it, which I find highly unlikely. If depersonalizing suspects works for you, OK...but it sounds awful from here. I agree that, based on what I've read of the incident here, they made the only reasonable decision. I agree that the individual is ultimately responsible for the actions that led to his demise (assuming he was not so mentally ill he could not be held responsible for his actions). But do we agree that this was a tragedy for all involved?

'Drunken ARMED student'.......but whatever way sounds easiest to swallow......it's really just arguing over proper tone at this point.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Lots of people do something stupid and dangerous at some point in there lives. That the police were justified doesn't mean this isn't a tragedy. And with a student at the U. of W., the dismissive Dennis Leary line doesn't apply--this kid, acting stupidly while drunk, could've gone on to do very important things. I've worked with some very well-regarded scientists and most of them drank (or more) in college.

The shooting sounds well-justified. When someone drinks and drives and dies, I figure that they should have known better--but I can still empathize with their family, who knew them from childhood and have a much broader view of the whole human being.

Chlorine for the gene pool? Eliminate every physician/surgeon in your town who got drunk in college and choose from what's left. Eliminate every teacher in your schools who smoked weed in college and only let your kids be taught by the remainder. College professors? I didn't drink or do drugs in college. That's one.

People make mistakes. They must live (or die) with the consequences, but your comment is much too harsh.

I don't waste time trying to sound suitably deferrent to those who's stupidity gets them killed.....you're welcome to if you like, but he's still a Darwin Award nominee......the lesson should be clearly learned by others, and not sugar coated as a 'tragedy' which makes it sound less like his fault....lets be clear, THIS CLOWN got himself killed. It is tragic......tragic STUPIDITY!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Some of these comments detract from the lesson by going overboard. It's one thing to say it's fair, but another thing to say it's good. An habitual drunk driver in a single-car accident isn't quite the same as a drunk college kid. In either case, learning from the tragedy is beneficial but celebrating the death is inappropriate.

No they don't.....suicides used to be buried at the crossroads as a message to others. THAT might be going over board.

Pointing out that tragic stupidity has consequences, and refusing to de-emphasize the 'stupid' part and emphasizing the 'tragic' part isn't going overboard.

And a HABITUAL drunk driver in a single-car accident ISN'T the same as a drunk college MORON armed with a gun, who points it at police who show up.....that isn't just a 'drunk college kid'.

And we aren't 'celebrating' it.....we are ridiculing the stupidity of it. Ridicule SHOULD be the rational response to terminal stupidity....thus endeth the lesson!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Of course they defended it. Defending the cop is a spinal reflex for almost anyone in law enforcement. It doesn't matter how egregious the shoot was. If an officer did it and wasn't actually hired by the Mob to pull the trigger it was a good shoot.

Looking at the major cities within 500 miles I note that in the last at least six years there hasn't been one single shooting by a police officer that resulted in an indictment or the officer being fired for breaking the rules. Not one. Human beings being fallible even a bunch of really good guys will screw up at least once in that time. To believe otherwise is astronomically improbable.

Do you have any comments about THIS particular case, or are you just wanting to ramble vague incoherent anti-cop accusations in general? That's a rhetorical question, I know the answer.

Just saying that it's not surprising at all that the cops will close ranks and defend it. "Police defend shooting" isn't news. It's absolutely routine. "Police denounce shooting" would be news because it is damn near unheard of. You might as well start a thread saying "Sun rises in East!"

And it's not surprising which side your knee-jerk breaks as usual......

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not to the other citizens.

To other citizens with a sense of personal accountability it's just fine.....it's a simple lesson most folks get......don't point a rifle at responding police officers......it tends to draw fire. It's so simple a caveman can get it.

And when a supposedly intelligent adult FAILS to get it......it's tragic STUPIDITY! I'm not sure why the rest of us should feel the need to display a suitably contrite attitude in the face of it......if this moron had died in some similarly moronic drunken action, like trying to slide a guide wire with his bare hounds, i'd still be ridiculing the stupidity of it........perhaps someone will get the message.....'Man....I don't want to do something that when I die, people will be saying...WHAT A MORON!'

 

[shesulsa]

When you lose your humanity ... it's time to get another job.

If the only way to stay sane on your job is to discard your humanity ... then it might be a job not suited to you.

I am awe-struck and disappointed at the inability to reign in swagger out of respect for the dead.

I'm done.

 

[Archangel M]

When you lose your humanity ... it's time to get another job.

If the only way to stay sane on your job is to discard your humanity ... then it might be a job not suited to you.

I am awe-struck and disappointed at the inability to reign in swagger out of respect for the dead.

I'm done.

Ohhh the humanity!

Try working in (or hanging out at) an ER..or at an Ambulance company...or a professional Firefighting company. To name a few other places.

What do you base your professional opinion (or opinion of professions and how you think they should act) on? I think you make many assumptions about people and how you think they perform their jobs based on their opinions as posted on an internet forum...or a joke they find funny.