Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
If the police thought Diallo was a real threat because they THOUGHT he had a gun, they should have shot him at least two to three times. Smart self-defence would require the officers to try to disable the assailant while making sure that he is no longer a threat. If he persists, then you may have to shoot to kill as a last resort. 41 shots and 19 hits is real Overkill. And the pun is for real.
As for the lawsuit with that woman. I agree that the lawsuit with the gun manufacturer is totally ludicrous. And yes, I believe that it was an attempt to shift blame from the officers who killed her.
As for whether the officers should have been fired, yes, I believe so. This is a definite case of poor judgement causing a death of an human being. Just like Diallo. And just like that kid who got shot after getting lost on a way to a party.
Here is what all this boils down to: Great powers DEMAND Great Responsibilities. And when you have the power to determine life or death, you must have an EXTREME sense of judgement in order to know what is the proper and right thing to do while making sure no one is fatally injured as a result.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 16, 2000).]
posted
Tell me Tahna, if you shoot someone in the leg when they point a gun at you, does he become completely disabled and can't shoot at you? There's no 'stun' setting for a gun.
------------------ "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and have lived to tell about it." Sideshow Bob
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
There are many ways to disable and disarm an armed assailant while not killing him. Killing an assailant should be a last resort. And should not be execution-style (41 bullets on one person)
Keep in mind that I believe that these incidents are totally independant of gun-control. We're talking about cases where poor judgement resulted in the deaths of (not so) innocent people. They never deserved to die. Maybe that lady was going to put the gun aside while addressing the officers. Did the Officers have their guns drawn at the time? What about Diallo? Did he know English? Did he understand the officers? Was he trying to get ID to show to the officers who he was? Finally that kid. Why didn't the owner simply shut the door? Why did he have to shoot him when he was on the sidewalk?
Great Powers DEMAND Great Responsibilities.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
posted
Its my understanding from reading the local nespapers here in SoCal that the officers knocked on the window of the car to wake the woman up. At that point, she jerked awake (her precise movements here are unknown, based as they are upon the officers' recollections and perceptions) and grabbed for the gun. She apparently declined to drop the weapon as directed to by the officers. She was given that chance. All accounts agree on that.
This all reportedly occurred in the space of several seconds. Therefore, the police probably didn't have much time to step back and subject the situation to deep analysis. They directed her to drop the gun and she did not. The bottom line here is that when the officers knocked the woman held up a gun, and the officers felt under threat. If you don't want to get shot, don't hold up a gun! Keep your hands away from the gun!
I respect the opinions of others, but let's try placing the same great responsibility that those in authority have upon the rest of us. Just as the police do not possess the authority or right to brazenly walk around with guns drawn for no reason, neither does the general populace. Having a loaded weapon on one's lap is the same as having it drawn - it is out, easily accessible, and therefore ready for use; the police must act accordingly for their own safety, as well as that of the general public. If the deceased woman was afraid for her safety and had the gun for that reason, then she should never have gone to sleep in a car on a dark stretch of highway. Furthermore, the record is cloudy as to whether or not the weapon was hers and was validly registered in her name. I'm going from memory here, but I don't believe she possessed a valid concealed weapons carry permit, so she was breaking the law just by having the weapon physically on her person. At some point, personal responsibility must enter into the equation. She lacked personal responsibility, and unfortunately paid with her life. A tragedy? Yes! But, one that the victim bears responsibility for.
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
I still don't quite get how the 41 bullets happened. Count out 41. It's an awful lot. How the hell did it go on so long? I mean, surely even 20 is overkill. 41 just sounds stupid (I have visions of the poor guy being tossef around like a puppet as he's turned into cheese).
------------------ "Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be." Sol System
posted
The following is from a 27 June 1999 story written by Darryl Fears that appeared in the L.A. Times
quote:An autopsy showed Miller had a blood alcohol level of 0.13%, about 1 1/2 times the legal limit for driving. The two teenagers shouted but could not wake up Miller, who was lying back with the driver's seat reclined.
Miller also looked strange, both girls said later. Her eyes were rolling back in her head and she was twitching. One was concerned about her health, the other was not, according to police reports.
They noticed the Lorcin handgun on her lap. The Unocal mini-mart clerk, Euri Covarrubias, also saw the gun when he came out to help.
Staring into the car, the three people made an observation that police apparently overlooked when they arrived later, according to the district attorney's report: "Mr. Covarrubias, Ms. Joiner and Ms. King all expressed their concern that if Ms. Miller were startled, she might shoot them."
Police say the four officers went to the gas station after the dispatcher told them a woman was unresponsive in her car, with a handgun in her lap.
The officers spent several minutes knocking on the car window. They yelled and shook the car but failed to wake Miller, police reports said. Worried that she might be sick, they hatched a plan to smash the driver's side window with a baton and seize the gun.
Joiner said police brushed her aside when she tried to talk to them. She wanted to tell them her aunt was bringing a key.
When police shattered the car window, Miller bolted upright in her seat. The officers said they saw Miller reach for her gun, prompting them to fire 24 shots.
Miller was hit by 12 bullets and killed instantly.
A family member who watched the shooting in horror said she saw several officers exchange high-fives after Miller was dead. Another witness said officers made racially offensive statements when family members gathered to cry.
It seems to me that the four officers hatched a plan that was bound to end in failure and acted upon it before supervision arrived at the scene (a supervisor did arrive, but apparently just seconds before shots were fired). In the end they messed up pretty badly.
However, one does wonder what would have happened in this situation had a handgun not been involved. Clearly the four officers approached this situation with guns drawn and ready to fire. And just as cleary it took very little prompting to have them fire 24 times at Ms. Miller.
But then again, we all know how sacrosanct the handgun is.
------------------ Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Those symptons sound a bit severe for being jsut 1 1/2 times the legal limit for driving. If it's the same in the US as it is in the UK, the legal limit is *very* roughly 1.5 pints of normal strength beer. It sounds like she's had the equivalent of maybe 2 pints. Unless she was a complete lightweight, it sounds like she had something else wrong with her. People don't tend to throw-up after two pints. But if they did an autopsy, they'd have noticed any drugs, wouldn't they?
------------------ "Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be." Sol System
posted
According to a story dated 7 May 1999, Miller had "spent the day of the shooting with friends and had been drinking gin."
Also in the same story:
quote:"The police were called to a dangerous situation where there was no question that a gun was present," Trask said. "Their response to that situation was a hastily planned attempt to break out the window and grab the gun on the victim's lap, believing that some type of medical and/or safety emergency required their immediate action.
"It was a judgment call and a mistake in their judgment," Trask said.
Trask is the Riverside County Dist. Atty.
------------------ Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Thanks for posting the newspaper article. My memory on the timing of the police attempt to disarm the woman was admittedly hazy - my bad.
However, I still stand by my original statements about this tragedy never occurring if the woman had not had the gun out. And, the fact that she had been drinking and was nonresponsive only bolsters the contention that the officers did not know for sure what type of person they were dealing with, and therefore needed to use extreme caution, perhaps combined with force. Heck, if the woman's own friends were afraid that she might shoot them....
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
There's enough shared responsibility in that tragedy to go around. Just as it's irresponsible (and illegal) to drink and drive, it's irresponsible (and, once again, illegal) to have a gun on your person while you're intoxicated.
Similarly, the police. If their motives were good, their training is highly suspect. The woman, unconscious, was not an immediate threat to the safety of others. A supervisor arrived (reportedly) seconds before the shooting began. Did the officers on the scene advise him of their plan? Did they see him coming and decide to "impress" him?
As far as the number of rounds fired, there were four officers, and that amounts to six shots fired per officer. It sounds like a lot of bullets (and it is), but if each of several officers started firing as soon as they believed she might be preparing to fire, and were poorly trained (sounds like "pray and spray" tactics to me), it would be quite easy for them to put that many bullets downrange in a second or two. With a modern semiautomatic pistol, it's quite easy to, fire too many rounds if you're "excited". It's real easy to lose count of the shots fired, and easy to "double-squeeze". That's why "New York's Finest" are issued Glocks with extra-strong trigger springs -- to reduce the odds of unintended "extra" shots being fired. Still, poor training.
The fact that the woman's gun was inoperable is irrellevant. The officers, however foolish, could not have known this in advance. Otherwise, they would certainly not have fired. It only heightens the senselessness of this trajedy.
If the eyewitness accounts can be believed (and I have heard nothing to cast these accounts in doubt), the officers acted in truly reprehensible fashion after the shooting was over. This is also a matter of not only poor training, but is very likely symptomatic of other problems in that police department. If it comes to a lawsuit, there will be not only dismissals, but jail or prison time for some of those involved. If not, the judge who presides over the case will be plainly sending a message to the community: "The cops are more important than you. Deal with it."
posted
Clearly the police did not know if the gun worked when they approached the car to try and deal with the situation. Even the teenagers and the mini-mart clerk were unaware of the fact that the gun was inoperable and were fearful while approaching the car. That prompted them to call 911.
That the gun did not work becomes more relevant in light if this quote (from the 27 June piece, but earlier in the story....not posted before due to the length of the story).
quote:She was shot and killed by the four officers, some of whom said she reached for the gun. They also said Miller fired first, but they later recanted....
In an effort to shift the blame away from their bad plan and the results, the police officers distorted the facts and initially claimed she fired first.
The truth it seems is a foreign country
------------------ Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
THAT statement reminds me of something my mother used to do. Anytime I asserted something as fact, and was later shown to be wrong, whether I knew about it or not, she used to say I was lying. I ask you, is that a fair assessment?
Perhaps they believed she DID fire first. I point to the 'shot heard round the world' in Lexington and Concord. Or better, the story of the last battle between Arthur's and Mordred's knights.
(Nobody knows who fired first at Concord. At the last battle, so the story goes, terms for peace were being drawn up, when one man saw an adder poised to strike, drew his sword to kill it, and thusly started the final massacre.)
One trigger-happy fool, or a simple accident, in an already tense situation, and EVERYBODY believes they're being fired upon. And when you're fired upon, you react accordingly. In a real firefight, this means putting as many bullets into your opponent as possible. In a mistake... it means this.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Printer-friendly view of this topic
