Cops kill CHL holder

[Fill]

the cops aren't releasing the 911 call, nor are they releasing the audio of the dispatch which recorded 'get on the ground'. Probably because there's a lot more to the recording than just that one bit of data. They can't release the audio because of an ongoing investigation, but they can release certain bits of information that cause a presumption of exoneration in the court of public opinion?

To me, it appears that they're putting their side of the story out, but refusing to release all the information. Smells fishy.

When I say he wasn't a threat, he obviously wasn't waving a gun around in Costco, nor did he have it out when he left the store. Unless you think his intent was to try and outdraw 3 cops who had already drawn their weapons, I'd say the outcome had a whole lot more to do with how the officers handled the situation than with what the victim did to provoke it.

[308Mike]

If you weren't there, you don't know. And if you were there, you ONLY know what you believe you saw and heard. And then memory plays games on you. I've seen it more than just a few times.

People make assumptions, memories are faulty, eye-witness testimony is faulty, the bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

You KNOW I hate dirty cops and BS investigations, but there's enough doubt here to make me wonder what REALLY happened - and for that, I'm reserving judgment. If the cops are dirty and shot an unarmed man for raising his shirt, FRY THEM - but I'm not seeing that here.

WE DON'T KNOW, and won't until more of the investigation is complete.

I have NO PROBLEM calling excessive force when I see it, but in order to see it in this instance, we need MUCH more information - PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

I've been on the receiving end of "excessive force" complaints before, and it isn't fun, but I did what was necessary and EACH TIME was ruled "Not Excessive - Within Policy" because I did what was the minimum necessary to get the job done. I can't say the same for some of the other people I worked with, but you have to learn to not take the shit personally. I've NEVER had an Internal Affairs investigation not go my way, and I've never called for a union rep to be there with me. I had faith that what I'd done was legal and proper given the circumstances - and apparently the department agreed with me (they even backed me on an international incident I created over impounding some Mexican embassy clown's car and he tried to claim "diplomatic status" for his vehicle, which wasn't covered. But that's another story.

All I'm asking is that we refrain from passing judgment until we know more about what happened. If they're guilty, fry them, but if not, we don't necessarily want them to walk, but perhaps have some kind of lessons/training evolve from the situation to try and ensure such a situation doesn't happen again (at least not if they can help it). The officers can only control so much, and the suspect controls the rest.

There is still much that hasn't been disclosed for a variety of reasons, none of which I'm privy to. We're going to have to wait to find out what they've discovered or figured out. Even things like this aren't cut and dried, especially when you have multiple witnesses saying different things.

[Netpackrat]

Assuming that they actually were shouting "drop it" at the guy, if it was holstered or in his waistband or whatever, the only way he could comply with that order would be to reach for it and pull it out....

We may not know what happened in this case for sure, and maybe we never will with any certainty, but it isn't too early to draw at least a couple of conclusions. One, Costco has a no guns policy, that I believe is nationwide (they even post the stores here in Anchorage). If you wanna shop at a membership warehouse while carrying, go to Sam's. Second, concealed means concealed. I'm going to go further, and say that maybe if one finds himself in a similar situation, that the best thing to do might be just to freeze with your hands in the air, even if the cop is shouting for you to do something different. Especially if there are more than one of them. They "probably" won't shoot you if you don't move at all.

[TheIrishman]

Frankly, regarding this case, I don't know WHAT to believe, except I DO BELIEVE for whatever reason, he failed to follow the officer's instructions:

Capt. Patrick Neville said an employee was talking to dispatchers and was close enough to the scene on Saturday that a recording of the conversation caught an officer clearly yelling, "Get on the ground."Police have refused to release the recording. Investigators hope to review store surveillance video, but Neville said he didn't know whether any video of the shooting existed.

Which was picked-up on the dispatcher's recording of the call made by a Costco employee.

We can't pick and choose certain portions of what's been reported because all that does is further distort the picture of the events that unfolded...

But that was also ONE recording. If other officers were yelling different instructions, they may have not been picked up. I'm not condemning the police, but the report you linked is doing the same thing IE picking one source instead of all and running with it.

PEOPLE ALSO LIE TO REPORTERS even though they told the cops one thing, they might not like them and told the media something else (for many people, lying to an authority figure during the course of a serious investigation like this would probably prompt them to tell the truth, but talking to the media is an ENTIRELY different story).

Absolutely true.

Eye witnesses are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate.Here's an experiment: Have 20 people watch the SAME staged incident. You'll get almost 20 DIFFERENT versions of the same incident - some elements might be the same for several of them, but descriptions will be all over the place, what was said will be changed, what they did and in what order will be mixed-up, etc., etc.

Police are not exempt from this either. They are human after all. While trained to pay closer attention to detail, adrenaline does the same thing to them as anyone else.

People are TERRIBLE witnesses.

Can't be any worse than image only,(as you stated)out of focus, time lapse video.

If you weren't there, you don't know. And if you were there, you ONLY know what you believe you saw and heard.

Again, only human badge or not.

[308Mike]

Again, only human badge or not.

ABSOLUTELY correct, which is why they collect evidence and not rely solely on testimony - because it may be contradicted by the evidence. Stuff like having the victim's blood sprayed across the gun would indicate it wasn't in its holster when he was shot, OTOH, blood sprayed on the gun which stops in a design which matches the opening edge of the holster indicates the gun was holstered when he was shot.

Perhaps he was holding out his wallet with his ID in it when he was shot multiple times, then his wallet might very well have blood spray on it - and NONE on his guns.

I'd REALLY like to know what is on the Costco tape. Since he's a CCW holder, I seriously DOUBT he'd be walking OUT of the Costco store with a gun in his hand, but I've seen normal people do weirder things completely out of the blue and TOTALLY out of character.

Cops are human and make mistakes like everyone else, but when things like this happens, it's a tragedy all the way around, mistake or not, nobody wins. And if he was holding his wallet and NOT a gun, those officers are having nightmares and wishing they could go back in time and change the way things happened (they probably are anyway, even if he was holding a gun).

Does anyone know if Las Vegas has a police review board to go over their shootings for the public's interest?

[Fill]

they do.

IIRC, they've not found an officer at fault in 34 reviews (or some such number) since inception in '99.

Edit - now with editorial link. still looking for where I read the '34 exonerations'

[Netpackrat]

they do.

IIRC, they've not found an officer at fault in 34 reviews (or some such number) since inception in '99.

Edit - now with editorial link. still looking for where I read the '34 exonerations'

I read that someplace too. It may have been in one of the links that I posted earlier.

[Termite]

......maybe if one finds himself in a similar situation, that the best thing to do might be just to freeze with your hands in the air, even if the cop is shouting for you to do something different. Especially if there are more than one of them. They "probably" won't shoot you if you don't move at all.

Interesting idea. I'd like to hear PawPaw's opinion on your idea, as he is a local LEO here in Cenla.

Hey D. Care to comment?

[Fill]

I'd opt for interlocking my fingers on my head, and slowly lowering myself to a prone position.

[308Mike]

If you don't move at all after freezing in place (with your hands up), and don't say anything either, the first thing they're likely to assume is that you don't speak/understand English or have a hearing problem. There should be only ONE person giving commands to the suspect to avoid conflicting directions - in that instance freezing in place would probably be the best thing until they calmed down and got their shit together and had only one person giving commands. If you don't understand the multiple commands, tell them you don't understand and ask that only ONE person give you commands and you won't move until they do so.

Chances are also good that although they won't shoot you, if you don't comply with verbal commands, they're likely to put you down with a tazer - but that's far better than being SHOT!