patrick.net

Thank you for finally coming around to my pov...
Robert Sproul says

SoftShell says

It only takes one kid with one semiautomatic to put every cop in america on edge

Damn it to Hell Tex, them cops are even jumpier than you are.

Homeboy says

Vicente says

Looking at the timeline, the shooting took place awfully goddamn fast:

That doesn't necessarily prove anything. It certainly would take less than 10 seconds for a person to shoot a policeman. If you're saying that cops must count to ten before they shoot back at someone pointing a gun at them, I can't say I agree.

You seem to be missing my point. Rolling down the street in a car....

Radio in
2 seconds, Get out of car
1.5 seconds, Draw gun
3 seconds, Shout commands
??? seconds, Await response ?

I wasn't there, but let's ASSUME he's carrying the toy muzzle down. As he turns, he's raising both hands and the muzzle describes an upward arc that looks to nervous cop like RAISING TO FIRE.....

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM

Only senior officer fires, rookie does nothing. Let's say 4 seconds firing time.

Now they radio in about shots fired.

I don't see how the kid had even a millisecond to comprehend what was going on before he was looking down at his chest watching his life end.

Veteran liked to write articles for SWAT magazine, teach firearms, and talk about the need to have a "mean gene".

In a 2008 article written by Gelhaus for S.W.A.T. Magazine, the officer warned against hesitation in deciding to use a firearm lethally.

"Today is the day you may need to kill someone in order to go home," he wrote. "If you cannot turn on the 'mean gene' for yourself, who will? If you find yourself in an ambush, in the kill zone, you need to turn on that mean gene."

He once shot himself in the leg, it would have been a shame for him to retire with the only person he shot having been himself. Looks like he finally got that gunfight he wanted to play & win, too bad it turned out to be with a kid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/erick-gelhaus-cop-shooter_n_4173593.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

REpro says

Robert Sproul says

Or mandatory blood draws under restraint for suspected drunk drivers as is happening in a few states?

In CA if a person is suspected for DUI and refuse to take breathe test is arrested and blood test is taken by force.

RU sure? Isn't it more like "refusal to take test == automatic admission of guilt of DUI"?

Straw Man says

RU sure? Isn't it more like "refusal to take test == automatic admission of guilt of DUI"?

Not necessary, a friend of mine did refuse due to severe asthma condition.

Vicente says

You seem to be missing my point.

I don't believe that I am.

Vicente says

Radio in

2 seconds, Get out of car

1.5 seconds, Draw gun

3 seconds, Shout commands

??? seconds, Await response ?

Even considering that you pulled these numbers out of your ass, that leaves 3.5 seconds for the suspect to turn around and point the gun at them. Had it been real gun, you could have a dead cop. If 3.5 seconds is long enough for the cop to shoot the suspect, it is ALSO enough time for the suspect to shoot the cop. So AGAIN, if you believe the police must count to ten, or count to ANY number before shooting, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. What you seem to be saying is that the cop deliberately murdered the suspect even though he didn't believe his life was in danger. What's the motive?

Vicente says

Only senior officer fires, rookie does nothing. Let's say 4 seconds firing time.

Well that's a separate issue. Yes, the fact that only one officer fired, and fired 7 shots, is worthy of investigation. But the timeline alone is not proof of melfeasance.

Homeboy says

Even considering that you pulled these numbers out of your ass, that leaves 3.5 seconds for the suspect to turn around and point the gun at them.

I didn't pull the number out of my ass, they are reasonable guesses. Once upon a time I designed practical pistol courses, so I have more than a passing acquaintance of how long various events in pistol handling take.

Bullet wounds were on the side, so doesn't appear he even completed turning.

He put 7 of 8 rounds on the kid, so he wasn't doing "spray and pray". So I would expect 3+ seconds for that which you didn't account for. Let's say 2.5 seconds to complete firing 8 aimed rounds, so back up that 10 seconds by that amount. Which leaves little time for someone to understand what is going on and react reasonably.

2+1.5+3+x+2.5=10, leaves x as 1 second.

Let me give you a simple example, quick draws. Everyone thinks they can be FAST and react immediately if they train. The fact is simply that from the moment you hear a beep even on a calm range situation, the time delays to even perceive that beep and start initiating muscle movement are significant. A really good response is ~1.5 seconds. A *really* good response time would be just under a second. That's someone who practices a LOT and has turned it into nearly muscle response very little cognition.

13-year old kids are spastic to start with. Expecting one to understand what is going on with a shout from behind and absolutely no time to take it in... well that apparently ends in death when Sgt. Farva is on the other end of the gun.

The training of police these days is IMO to shoot first and ask questions later. The citizen response ordinarily seems to be if a kid ends up dead well they must have been asking for it, so why change anything. You have a bunch of twitchy veterans and SWAT guys roaming the streets and they train to come into a room and kill everything that might "look like a bad guy", which is not good training IMO. Police death rates of ANY type on the job are not in the top 10, it is not as dangerous a job as they would have you think. Dangerous job? Fisherman!

Vicente says

Police death rates of ANY type on the job are not in the top 10, it is not as dangerous a job as they would have you think.

Yet Officer Friendly is always ready to escalate the violence in the name of "officer safety".
This is how they recruit the right testosterone poisoned authoritarians for the job:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/w_rKA6ROAVk

Vicente says

I didn't pull the number out of my ass, they are reasonable guesses. Once upon a time I designed practical pistol courses, so I have more than a passing acquaintance of how long various events in pistol handling take.

Oh, I didn't realize you "designed practical pistol courses". Well then, I guess everything you say must be gospel. LOL. If I had a nickel for everyone on the internet who imagined himself to be an "expert" on a subject, I would be a millionaire.

Vicente says

Bullet wounds were on the side, so doesn't appear he even completed turning.

Well then that would be important evidence to consider. However, you didn't mention that before. You only argued that the shooting "took place too fast", and that is what I took issue with. So don't confuse the issue.

Vicente says

Which leaves little time for someone to understand what is going on and react reasonably.

The issue is not whether the suspect "had time to react reasonably"; the issue is whether the officer believed his life was in danger. As I said, it takes but a second to fire a gun. It does not require an extended amount of time or contemplation. So to expect police to always wait for some "reasonable action" from a suspect who is pointing a gun at them rather misses the point. They could be dead in the time it takes them to contemplate. If the shooting was unjustified, so be it. But the mere fact that it happened "fast" does not prove that.

It's interesting that you take ONE part of the USA Today article completely to heart - the part about the 10 seconds, even though you don't really know the sequence of events. Did he get out of the car and draw his gun at the same time? Does that really need to be two separately timed events? Was the second call made AS the shooting was taking place? Does it really take 3 seconds to fire seven shots? No, it could be done faster than that. I think you make a LOT of assumptions, based on taking this vague "timeline" to heart, but then completely ignore the sentence in the article which says,

Witnesses say at least one of the deputies took cover behind an open front door of the cruiser, and one yelled twice "drop the gun."

Notice that is says WITNESSES say "drop the gun" was yelled twice. Not the cops, the witnesses. So why is ONE part of the article gospel to you, yet another part seems to be beneath your notice?

Vicente says

13-year old kids are spastic to start with. Expecting one to understand what is going on with a shout from behind and absolutely no time to take it in... well that apparently ends in death when Sgt. Farva is on the other end of the gun.

It's a tragedy, but was it malicious? I think you're making a lot of assumptions that haven't been proven yet.