Convicted School Shooter Escapes Prison, Wields Pitchfork, Captured Without Shooting

Brigid48 said:

Hands raised in surrender 25 feet away are more dangerous than a pitchfork? Get real.

Click to expand...

yes, when you are 1 cop, 1 huge guy is more of threat then if you are a dozen cops against one kid with a pitchfork.

When you are alone, if things go south, no one is there to back you up.

Brigid48 said:

I don't need to be. The white, escaped convict, holding a weapon, was not shot. The black man, raising his hands, 25 feet away, with no weapons, was shot dead.

Click to expand...

Raising his hands...or charging the cop. You don't know because you weren't there. We do know this though....what could Michael Brown have done to dramatically increase his chances of surviving the encounter with the cop? Same thing the white escaped convict did...obey the police.

nightflight said:

Because all cases and situations are exactly the same.

Click to expand...

This.

People have been really reaching to make the racist point stick. Pretty much every news story I read on Huffpost lately has the comments proving that.

Brigid48 said:

Actually I do know, because that's what the overwhelming majority of witnesses have said they saw, dear.

Click to expand...

Did the white escaped convict assault a police officer?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Vylo said:

yes, when you are 1 cop, 1 huge guy is more of threat then if you are a dozen cops against one kid with a pitchfork.

When you are alone, if things go south, no one is there to back you up.

Click to expand...

You are partially right. Being the only officer at a scene with a violent person puts the officer in a vulnerable position. For one, he or she can be disarmed and have their service weapon used on them or on other civilians. Ergo, when struggling with a firearm when someone is attempting to disarm you, some are taught to fire their weapon "dry."

But use of deadly force per the law is pretty similar for law enforcement and civilians. I say similar because law enforcement are given a bit more leeway to shot someone. For example, if a person is considered dangerous to other civilians while fleeing (meaning he might seriously harm or kill other civilians) an officer is allowed to shoot the fleeing person in the back.

For us civilians if you shot a person in the back, even in the middle of the night as they are fleeing your house as an armed intruder, you would get brought up on felony homicide charges.

But "deadly force" as it is called can only be used by security and law enforcement personnel in protection of one's life, the life of others, or as I was taught about two decades ago in Marine Security Forces (guarding tactical nukes, classified materials etc.)... "in protection of property." I'm not sure if law enforcement and civilian security guards can use deadly force in protection of property. Civilians can't under Wisconsin state law as I understand it.

A cop can't shot an unarmed man or child surrendering and posing no threat or serious bodily harm to the cop or others. That would be extra-judicial execution. Something a cop is not warranted by the city, state, or U.S. Federal Government to carry out.

However, if Michael Brown was charging at the officer, especially if the officer was not outfitted on his body with a stun gun, he may well have been warranted shooting Michael Brown. Especially in context of other things that may have given what the law calls "a reasonable person" grounds to fear serious bodily harm (not death) or death from another. Size of the person would matter. If the person had just assaulted you would matter too.

Given the cop did not have a "tight group" of bullet shots into Michael Brown, I suspect the cop was under stress. That stress could including a moving target. I've seen Marines on the pistol range shoot tight groups into stationary targets. They could fit a quarter (coin) over 2 or 3 of their bullet holes all grouped together. But some of those same Marines shooting at moving targets stress out and their shots are all over the place. I was never very good shooting the pistol even at a stationary target. Through practice I got well enough that drawing from the holster I could land all 2 or 3 shots in the upper body. But there would be no tight group. I could hit the moving targets the same. But sometimes when shooting, especially from jerking the trigger, if I was aiming at the targets head, I might more or less hit the target were a man's nuts might be.

The vast majority of law enforcement and military personnel, or just people in general, don't shoot very well under duress, when they have a person coming at them. This means most people will not fire "tight groups" into an attacking person. Many get what's called "tunnel vision" too supposedly. There's not much training that can overcome that. Experience with real life violent gun incidents might, but little controlled training can do. That said... it speaks well enough of a cops shooting skills if he or she can place all or the vast majority of his or her shots into the body of an attacker 25 feet away. The average civilian would likely miss all or most shots they fire while under the same stress, and hit innocent by standards.

Shooting a pistol accurately is a lot hard than they portray on TV shows. Aiming and hitting moving people in the leg (although major arteries are in the legs, besides bullets can travel upward into the body) is nearly totally fictional. It happens really, only on TV and in the movies.

The pitchfork by the way... would be a deadly weapon. Thus authorizing the use of deadly force by cops if even one of them felt threatened. Especially if the suspect is a known murderer.

I'm not white, and I got shot 3 times by a cop. I had a knife, but disarmed myself, and then quickly approached him to engage him but he shot me 3 times before I reached him. He did not have a stun gun on him.

My case was more justified than the controversy in Milwaukee over the cop shot a mentally ill man (black) 14 times (killing him) after they got into a big scuffle. The cop was right to shoot him, as the guy took the cops baton and hit over the head or neck with it supposedly. However, I have to question shooting the guy 14 times. The police chief of Milwaukee fired the cop, because according to the police chief while he was justified in shooting the man, he broke police procedure dealing with thew mentally ill by starting a confrontation with the guy. That's what the police chief says anyways. The police union is appealing the firing of the cop.

Recap: Officer's firing latest chapter in nearly six-month Dontre Hamilton story - TODAY'S TMJ4

MILWAUKEE - Wednesday's announcement that the officer who shot and killed Dontre Hamilton would be fired comes about five and a half months after the incident itself.


Was this excessive force, or justified use of force? That's been the question at the center of the investigation since April 30. Despite the officer's firing Wednesday, that question is still unanswered.

Click to expand...

Brigid48 said:

Actually I do know, because that's what the overwhelming majority of witnesses have said they saw, dear.

Click to expand...

And they never lie to cops, do they?

Ana the Ist said:

And they never lie to cops, do they?

Click to expand...

You could have been a slave. How would you have liked that?

Ana the Ist said:

And they never lie to cops, do they?

Click to expand...

Lie to them or about them?

If we're going to compare this to the Brown case (and I'm not sure why we are????), then we need to look at all aspects of the cases that may differ and not just the race of the people being pursued by law enforcement.

In the Brown case, we're talking about regular city cops...in the TJ case, it sounds like we're talking about a State Trooper.

Not to downplay the skills & training of a regular police officer, but if you research the key differences between the state troopers and regular police in most states, the troopers have more paramilitary-style training requirements and often act accordingly...and many of the state troopers here in Ohio (where I live) are former military...meaning they're going to be better-trained to handle threatening situations and situations that involve judgment calls involving their duty weapon and are more likely to keep a level head in high tension situations. A former marine is going to be better at being calm in a situation like than then a person who's simply had cadet training.

I can tell you from personal experience in dealing with members of both types of LEOs as a CCW permit holder...When I've been pulled over by a regular city cop (who knows I'm armed as soon as they run my plates), they're very nervous and seem jumpy and keep their hand on their gun the entire time...Troopers (while still keeping a watchful eye) seem very composed and cool/calm/collected during the traffic stop process.

(although, that might just be my personal experience).

...and I'm assuming when they send out a team to look for an escaped convict, they're likely to send out the best of the best correct (the more experienced officers in that realm)?...as opposed to a regular cop who's just doing his regular route and gets a possible shoplifting call...

It's almost like being surprised that a general practitioner who happens to be in a restaurant when another patron has a heart attack didn't handle the situation as well as a cardiologist would in a hospital setting (even though they're both technically doctors)

...and I saw one poster make reference to the story about the guy who was refused employment as a cop due to his test scores being too high. I think that all information should be presented about that. I'm not saying that was a right move, but let's tell the whole story. That was one particular locality, and in no way represents the hiring practices of police in general...and if research the case on other sites, there's more to the story than "the police don't want anyone who's really smart on the force" as the article would have you believe. It was a case where they set a range for the test scores due to the fact that they had been suffering high attrition rates for people who scored above a certain range and they were implementing that procedure in order to minimize their turnover rate...again, not saying that was the right move...but let's tell the whole story.

paul becke said:

You could have been a slave. How would you have liked that?

Click to expand...

Any of us could have been slaves. There were a lot of white and black slaves. What does that have to do with this story or article at all?

paul becke said:

You could have been a slave. How would you have liked that?

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with anything. Guess what? We don't have institutionalized slavery in the US. Nobody alive has experienced this. Being a descendant of slaves or not doesn't matter these days and it doesn't excuse people breaking the law whoever they are (cops or civilians).

nightflight said:

Click to expand...

C'mon now...he was just trying to hug the guy!

paul becke said:

You could have been a slave. How would you have liked that?

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't have liked it, but I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the topic at hand...

Ana the Ist said:

You seem to be working really hard to make this racial...

Here's the relevant part of the story...

"...Lane, convicted of killing three students at Chardon High School in the in 2012, did not threaten officers with the pitchfork,..."

This doesn't have anything to do with Michael Brown.

Click to expand...

It is hard to deny the fact that white male privilege still does exist.

seashale76 said:

Yeah- you ain't got a real clue about the US. Plus I don't buy that false narrative you've spun for a moment. I'll be honest- plenty of Europeans, Russians, and people from the Middle East I've met have all been way more outrageously racist to my eyes than most Americans I come across on a daily basis. The US is hardly the most racist place on the planet. Not by far.

Our people don't make 'chink' eyes in photos during the Olympics. Our people don't throw bananas at non-white people at soccer games. Our people don't close up shop when Oprah comes to buy a purse. Seriously. Get a clue.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of racism in the USA; while not systemic, white male privilege still does exist.

mpok1519 said:

It is hard to deny the fact that white male privilege still does exist.

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

mpok1519 said:

It is hard to deny the fact that white male privilege still does exist.

Click to expand...

No where did I say that it didn't...but that doesn't change the fact that these two cases have nothing to do with i each other.