How did this happen: Officer charged with killing unarmed driver lying facedown

[there4eyeM]

In her situation, what would be the reason you would think a person would not show his/her hands?

I don't know about today but the Marine Corps of the 1950s did not permit Woman Marines to serve in combat line companies. The reason for that is thorough testing had determined that women are neither physically nor psychologically capable of enduring the rigors of sustained combat conditions.

Where the civilian police occupation is concerned, while there are exceptions ordinary women are generally not capable of physically restraining ordinary men. That is a simple, natural fact. And for that reason female police officers should not be assigned to certain patrol functions, nor should they be assigned to patrol alone.

I know nothing more about the topic situation than is described here. But it readily occurs to me that if the cop had been a physically adequate male rather than a female he might not have needed to use his firearm to restrain that subject.

I often watch the tv ride-along documentary, COPS in which I have seen more than one example of female police officers being tossed around by male subjects they were trying to arrest -- and were it not for the intervention of male officers there is no question that these females would have been disarmed and completely overcome. In several other situations the female officer's first resort was to draw her firearm.

If I were a supervisory police official, unless a subordinate female officer could demonstrate exceptional physical competence I would not permit her assignment to ordinary patrol functions, or to patrol in certain high-risk areas, or to patrol alone. There are many other functions which female police officers are better suited to.

On COPS I've also seen many examples of male police officers who simply are not physically suited to the police occupation. So it's not only women cops who are not up to the task.

Good points and apt to my question earlier. In fact, knowing what can happen in this type of situation, she may even have fired by accident and nervousness.

 

[westwall]

They don't have to. There is no requirement to be shot at or shot in order to shoot back. And if the perp is running for cover in order to be able to take up a position to shoot at you, absolutely you can shoot them in the back. You think if a guy is firing on a cop and he quickly turns his back that cop is going to immediately stop firing?

I just don't get where some people think that the only justified shooting is if the perp is in your face with bullets flying at you. Um no. Fear for your life is all that is required. What if the guy goes and hides after you exchange gunfire with him, and you find him hiding behind your boat, weapon drawn facing the other way so his back is to you? You don't think you can shoot him in the back, knowing that he can turn in a half second and put a round between your eyes?

I get it now. Since y'all are afraid of certain peoples, you want to be able to shoot them without any consequences. Pretty transparent that that's what all the "stand your ground" laws are intended to do. I shouldn't be surprised, because y'all are anti-american on every other issue as well.

"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

Blacks have benefited more from the stand your ground laws than anyone else.

link?

By the figures provided here blacks who make up 15% of the population have been responsible for a third of the SYG cases.


Stand your ground law Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy Tampa Bay Times

I'll try to decipher those statistics more when I have time, but regardless; if murderers are going free, that isn't helping the community. It just encourages more chaos.

No, people defending themselves and their property are not being prosecuted by politically motivated DA's. That is the result of those laws. You should be thankful, the poorest members of society...you know, the ones who can't afford a good attorney, are the ones who benefit the most from these laws.

 

[MikeK]

So of course the white cop felt scared enough to kill. Black people are sceery.

I don't know if the White police tendency to use deadly force against Black subjects is as much the result of fear as predisposition based on previous experience and observation.

What I mean is many (not all) Blacks seem inclined to belligerently physical resistance to police attention. Either they simply don't know when it's time to keep their mouths shut or they respond to questions with demonstrative, arm-waving anger and challenging posture. I watch the tv documentary, COPS, a lot and I see this time and time again.

Blacks, especially those within the age range of adolescence to mid-40s (violence capable) need to learn the best way to respond to police (especially White police) attention is with calm, emotionally neutral, physically passive manner. This has far less to do with racism than unfamiliarity with normal Black behavioral habits. (Unfamiliarity is not racism.)


Vigorous protest, especially when emphasized with physical gestures and emotional vocalizations, is provocative and will further antagonize a cop. Saying "Sir" isn't necessary. Calm, passive conduct is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excellent comment, mikek.

 

[MikeK]

Excellent comment, mikek.

Thank you.