at least two people shot on carlton/dean tonight
Comments
-
stacy wrote: From the reports I have read the kid was NOT pointing it at the police officer nor was it in plain sight he was just running away from them.
From what I understood of the times article, he made the gun visible to the police, and didn't drop it until just before he was tackled (he ran halfway down the block with it). I can't think of any reason why he would hold on to the gun other than to intimidate. -
qtrain wrote: Higgins was shot because he pulled a fake gun while being pursued by undercover police, not because he matched a description. Nothing about ipods, nothing about being a suspect. Can we retire that canard?
i'll concede the iPod is not the direct reason for the shooting.
the "flashing" of the weapon is. but it is no way immaterial to the incident.
at the point of the confrontation the police were approaching someone that they thought might be a suspect in a reletively minor crime that included no actual violence (though certainly the implied threat, thereof).
yet, even the "flashing" is debateable. the police have certainly demonstrated to me a willingness to bend, stretch, or outright lie and make-up facts in order to protect themselves.
however, if i am being honest, i do believe that "flashing" took place. to a bystander watchign the incident, i imagine it would have looked like two punks approaching a third, the thrid showing his "gun" hoping it would end a confrontation, since he was out-numbered, and presumably out-sized, then the first two punks drew their guns, and the third ran.
we now know in hindsight that they were undercover cops, but its quite unlikely Higgins did. regardless of what they said, or say they said. They have to take that into account, the fact that they are under-cover, and thus not immediately identifiable as officers, and thus have to be held to a much higher standard before discharging their weapon.
perhaps they knew he was who he was, out on bail in a manslaughter case, and thus identifiable as a potentially violent criminal, but i'm not so sure. Man walks into a police station and says he's been mugged, gives a description, and the desk officer says, "Hmm. That sounds like Higgins." I don't think so.qtrain wrote:
i'm sorry, i truly did not intend condescention.jeezus christ, get some fucking perspective people.
You can make your point without being condescending.
i was attemtping to express outrage.
at the irresponsible behaviour of the police.
and, at the seemingly docile and uninformed, "cops are good; suspects are probably guilty" attitude that seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) to be prevailing in this thread.qtrain wrote: You seem to be arguing that either a "shoot second" policy or no guns for police would make everyone safer -- I'm not sure I agree. Would we be safer if police refused to engage anyone that was armed? Would we be safer if all you had to do was pull a gun to escape apprehension?
no, i understand the policy of arming police. i'm not sure that all police, in all situations need to be armed, but that's splitting hairs. i do beleive police should be trained much more extensively on the use of their weapons, and when to use their weapons, and how to negotiate situations without resorting to the use of their weapons.
not necessarily a "shoot second" policy.
but shooting to prevent escape is almost alway unecessary.
when confronted (and there is a line here between confronted, and "flashed", though admittedly this is a difficult situation) the police have a right to protect themselves up to and including the use of deadly force.
however, if the suspect is fleeing, he is obviously not an immediate threat.
if it turns out he's a know violent criminal, does that mean that there is a potential threat out there because he escapes? unfortunately yes.
but its less than the immediate and actual threat of 22 bullets flying through the air at 5 pm. -
qtrain wrote: [quote=stacy]From the reports I have read the kid was NOT pointing it at the police officer nor was it in plain sight he was just running away from them.
From what I understood of the times article, he made the gun visible to the police, and didn't drop it until just before he was tackled (he ran halfway down the block with it). I can't think of any reason why he would hold on to the gun other than to intimidate.
Thanks Q - puts it into a little more perspective -
Anonymous wrote: ...the seemingly docile and uninformed, "cops are good; suspects are probably guilty" attitude that seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) to be prevailing in this thread...
Are we reading the same thread? I know that there are a lot of posts on this thread, but I think that you should read them all before making a sweeping statement like the above. If everybody were in agreement, would we have 140+ posts on the subject? -
nybt wrote: [quote=Anonymous]...the seemingly docile and uninformed, "cops are good; suspects are probably guilty" attitude that seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) to be prevailing in this thread...
Are we reading the same thread? I know that there are a lot of posts on this thread, but I think that you should read them all before making a sweeping statement like the above. If everybody were in agreement, would we have 140+ posts on the subject?
thus the qualifiers "seemed", and "prevailing".
i did not position myself as some lone voice of reason against a monolithic line of thinking.
just that it seemed to me that most people posting seemed to think the cops actions were beyond reproach.
again, apologies to anyone i've offended.
and perhaps even most is an overstatement, but enough people seemed to be argueing that line. certainly a large enough minority to shock me considering where we are.
if this were the dailyhoustonsuburbs.com message boards i would quite understand the kill 'em all attitude some have posited. -
Anonymous wrote:
Now you done offended our Texans!!! Muk?!?!
if this were the dailyhoustonsuburbs.com message boards i would quite understand the kill 'em all attitude some have posited.
Most? Eh, who knows? If it is most, I would have to say that it's this case specifically. To quote myself-nybt wrote: ...I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt but he's currently under indictment for manslaughter. Don't you think that when you're under indictment, guilty or not, you'd try to keep your nose clean? Maybe? I'd stay as far away from the action as possible- I'd stay at home watching rentals, and I sure as hell wouldn't return 'em late.
-
nybt wrote: Now you done offended our Texans!!! Muk?!?!
You dun fukked up thar, Muk...now squeal like pig. Squeal boy, squeal! :P -
too lazy to deal with quotes within quotes again, but in response to your last post.
i thought your prior comments were certainly amongst the most reasonable, and i agreed with much of what you had to say.
regarding the self-quote: yes, absolutely. if only everyone were as reasoned in their thinking, there'd be a lot of trouble avoided in the world. for example if a Texan we all know had decided to stay home and keep getting drunk and snorting coke instead of running for office...but i digress.
my point is: Higgins: stupid? yes. punk? yes. mugger? murderer? probably, it sure sounds like it.
deserving of a bullet because of? no.
yes, it could be any one of us who is the victim of Higgins or someone like him, and hopefully its only our iPods, not our lives.
But, by the same token, anyone of us could have been a victim of the cops.
and, not just in the case of a stray bullet, but perhaps of an intended bullet if we resembled a suspect a little too much.
yes, i know there was the gun (even a fake one) involved in this case but there have been enough similar situations where there wasn't to make me think that the larger issue here is the protocals for police. -
yet, even the "flashing" is debateable.
He ditched the fake right next to where he was tackled -- I can't believe that he would pull it out after being shot twice.to a bystander watchign the incident, i imagine it would have looked like two punks approaching a third
I would agree, if they started chasing him before identifying themselves. It sounds like they were dressed like just about every other male in Prospect Heights under 30 (baggy jeans, hoodie), myself included -- if I saw someone like that pull out a badge and yell "Stop! Police!" before chasing someone, I would imagine that I was watching a police chase.if the suspect is fleeing, he is obviously not an immediate threat.
This is true only if the police decide not to apprehend them -- if someone is running, and holding a gun, you have to assume that they will attempt to use it if you get close enough to stop them. This brings back the question as to whether flashing a gun should be enough to stop police from pursuing... I'm not sure if that is an option that I want anyone to have.if this were the dailyhoustonsuburbs.com message boards i would quite understand the kill 'em all attitude some have posited.
Ignore Oiseau's fascist ranting. It's not representative. -
Its not clear to me if you are upset about someone commenting about whether Mr. Higgins deserved a bullet or that people supported the police action.
In the case that someone said he deserved a bullet, stop and realize people may be posting in a moment where they are concerned about their own or family safety on their block and frustrated not only by the procedure that let him back on the street but also an obvious lack of respect for the law by Mr Higgins himself.Anonymous wrote:
Nobody is cheering the police action, but I havent thought of a way it could have been handled better, how about you?
and, not just in the case of a stray bullet, but perhaps of an intended bullet if we resembled a suspect a little too much.
yes, i know there was the gun (even a fake one) involved in this case but there have been enough similar situations where there wasn't to make me think that the larger issue here is the protocals for police.
Dont forget, the monthly CB meetings are available for you to voice your thoughts and get response directly from the police. -
He ditched the fake right next to where he was tackled -- I can't believe that he would pull it out after being shot twice.
well, i don't know exactly what happened, obviously.
it could also be possible that upon getting shot, and realizing he would thus be caught, he attempted to ditch the gun. it may have been the first time he pulled it out.
i'm only speculating. more likely, i imagine when they approached him, he lifted his hoody to show the gun in his waistband as he learned from movies. the cops probably then drew their weapons, and he ran.
yes, at this point it is a terribly difficult decision the cops have to make. because as you point out, if he has a gun and escape seems unlikely, there is a good chance he will use it.
but, at this point, to my limited knowledge, they know only that they have an armed suspect in a mugging fleeing. they have to make a decision whether this individual at large poses a greater threat to society, then 22 bullets flying through the air.
all i'm saying is that i don't know how much that line of thinking is even explored by police forces. i know from an aquiantance who is a cop in another city its not. their standing directive is, if you see a gun, shoot the suspect once in the head, and then empty your gun into his torso.
in the grand scheme of things, the murder rate is really pretty low. and most people are murdered by someone they know. the chances of you or me being randomly killed by a stranger is thankfully pretty small. but the chances of someone getting hurt by those stray bullets is a little high for my taste, whatever it is.
in the interest of full disclosure, i should point out that this happened about fifty feet from my living room. i would affirm that this story occuring anywhere would upset me just as much, but it definately kind of hits home (thankfully, none of the bullets did). -
if the suspect is fleeing, he is obviously not an immediate threat.
On further thought, you're totally right here; I was way off base -- you cannot assume someone will use a gun just because they are holding one, especially if they're fleeing. The police are held to a higher standard, and that is that they fire only when directly threatened. It's possible that Higgins didn't threaten the cops in a way that justified them firing at all. I don't know why, but it's taken me a long time to see that.well, i don't know exactly what happened, obviously. it could also be possible that upon getting shot, and realizing he would thus be caught, he attempted to ditch the gun. it may have been the first time he pulled it out.
You can piece together a lot from the information in the times story. I think the only thing Higgins was thinking about before he got tackled was the bullet in his leg. -
qtrain wrote:
I can't say that I agree... I'm not saying that my stance is diametrically opposed either, but I can't say that I agree. If the cops don't do everything in their power to stop him, and something does happen ten minutes later (grabs a hostage because he thinks it'll increase his odds of escape) or a year later (assaults someone else) then it's their ass all over again. Armed and dangerous. You need to stop someone that's armed and dangerous... within reason. If five, or even one, person comes forward and says, "I was in the line of fire when they were shooting at him," then I say they used poor judgement. As it is, no one other than the suspect was hurt, so... I'm going to allow the cops, and their judgement, the same leeway that we're supposed to allow criminal suspects- innocent until proven guilty.if the suspect is fleeing, he is obviously not an immediate threat.
On further thought, you're totally right here; I was way off base -- you cannot assume someone will use a gun just because they are holding one, especially if they're fleeing. The police are held to a higher standard, and that is that they fire only when directly threatened. It's possible that Higgins didn't threaten the cops in a way that justified them firing at all. I don't know why, but it's taken me a long time to see that. -
qtrain wrote: you cannot assume someone will use a gun just because they are holding one
That is not true. If someone has a gun out you should assume they are going to use it. That's the first thing you learn when you get a gun: if you pull it out be ready to use it.
If he flashed a gun cops were 100% right to shoot. -
Captain M-
missed your post last time around.
thank you, its a good one.
i suppose, i'm not entirely sure what i'm angry about either, and it probably stems from the same concerns.
i can see (and hope) that the comment about Higgins deserving a bullet was a joke, and i am certainly guilty of more than a few in bad taste myself, so upon further reflection, i should leave it at that.
as for being angry at support of the police, no, not at all. i think the police deserve and need our support. however, i think they need our oversite even more.
i'm not certain i know what exactly the best approach hould have been in this situation, but i don't beleive fireing at a fleeing suspect is really in the running.
a second, seperate, but related point in response to your comment on Mr. Higgins' respect for the law, i would have to agree that it seems unlikely he has much. but, i'm not entirely sure we'll ever know. in Higgins mind,was he runnign from two undercover cops? or, was he running from two fellow "gangstas"?
regarding attending the community board, that is without a doubt a taste of my own medicine, as i am usually the one saying "do something about it". however, by way of excuse, i think policeing problems have a lot more to do with overall policy, as opposed to neighborhood relations, thus i don't have great optimism that attending would do any good.
as an earlier poster pointed out, when they questioned the cops on the street about events, and number of shots fired, they weren't exactly met with positive reactions. i fear that by the time any police representation makes its way to a community board meeting, the stories will have been sufficiently straightened. -
[quote=qtrain]
if the suspect is fleeing, he is obviously not an immediate threat.
On further thought, you're totally right here; I was way off base -- you cannot assume someone will use a gun just because they are holding one, especially if they're fleeing.
yes, as others have said. the fact that he had a gun, or what the police beleived to be a gun is the one mitigating factor for the police in my mind.
i would say i disagree with you here. if someone pulls a gun, then it is within the cops rights to assume he will use it.
but that is the real question here.
did he pull a gun? or, as i assume, "flashed" it by showing it in his waistband. did he do so after the dops identified themselves, presented thier badges, and drew their weapons? or, did he do it when he still beleived he was about to get shaken down by two bigger punks?
and, i don't think any of the rules are black and white, but even with a gun, if its holstered, and he's running away, i can't really countenance the shooting.
i don't agree with the points made by others about the possibility of him comiting crimes in the future being a justification. there's also a possibility that he cleans himself up, goes straight, and wins a nobel prize.
maybe i've been doing too much thinking out loud here, and i'm confusing my points, but simply put i don't think its permissable for a cop to fire his weapon unless he is under direct, immediate threat, or a member of the public is, at that moment.
and given that there is some possibility that Higgins was unaware that they were police, there are even bigger questions to be asked as we can not know how his behaviour may have differec if they were uniformed officers. which is another point, i think that "undercover" cops on the street is really just asking for trouble in the first place.
i realize in this case they were on their way to a meeting and happened to be passing by, but the uniform is a very important part of policing. -
Alex wrote: [quote=qtrain]you cannot assume someone will use a gun just because they are holding one
That is not true. If someone has a gun out you should assume they are going to use it. That's the first thing you learn when you get a gun: if you pull it out be ready to use it.
If he flashed a gun cops were 100% right to shoot.
I don't think it's that simple, but I guess it's up to me to prove it. A quick google search got me to a police training video called "Fire or Don't Fire: The Legal Question" that says "Officers will learn to recognize the three basic elements of imminent danger--present opportunity; physical capability; and manifested intent--that must all be present before using deadly force." I'll see if I can dig up the legal explanation of the three elements. -
Anonymous wrote: ...simply put i don't think its permissable for a cop to fire his weapon unless he is under direct, immediate threat, or a member of the public is, at that moment.
So... someone running down the street, gun in hand, is not an immediate threat to the public, but cops firing at someone running down the street, gun in hand, is?! That that logic doesn't wash for me... -
Ok, I found a pretty good link which describes the legal conditions for the use of lethal force in self-defense situations:
link
It would seem reasonable that cops would be held to that standard (which also applies to the defense of others), but I'll dig around further to see if I can back that up.
According to my understanding of the link, legally justifiable self-defense depends on ability (someone has a gun), opportunity (someone has a gun near you), jeopardy (someone has a gun near you and is threatening you), and preclusion (you had no choice but to kill the person who has a gun near you and is threatening you). The threat has to be current, immediate, and unavoidable. Immediate jeopardy may cease suddenly and unexpectedly when someone runs away. -
This was informative -- Understanding The Police Use Of Force
This indicates that police may properly use lethal force only when under imminent threat. The standard for judging reasonable responses was set in a supreme court case, Graham vs. Connor:The Court ruled that the key in determining if an officer's use of force is appropriate, is whether or not the force is reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances that are present. The Court also ruled that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20-20 vision of hindsight. Most importantly, the Court ruled that the measure of reasonableness must factor in allowances for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, and that such factors are important in determining the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
Chief Montgomery goes on to explain why you shouldn't expect much in the way of disciplinary action if an excessive force is not completely cut and dry. Kind of depressing.
In the Smith v. Freland case, the Court even went on to say, "We must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes reasonable action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure." -
qtrain wrote: This was informative -- Understanding The Police Use Of Force
Dont you think its a bit easy to say there was no "imminent threat", in a earlier post there is a fairly good description of events and it clearly states shots were fired upon Higgins once he "displayed" a firearm at 618 Dean Street.
This indicates that police may properly use lethal force only when under imminent threat. The standard for judging reasonable responses was set in a supreme court case, Graham vs. Connor:The Court ruled that the key in determining if an officer's use of force is appropriate, is whether or not the force is reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances that are present. The Court also ruled that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20-20 vision of hindsight. Most importantly, the Court ruled that the measure of reasonableness must factor in allowances for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, and that such factors are important in determining the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
Chief Montgomery goes on to explain why you shouldn't expect much in the way of disciplinary action if an excessive force is not completely cut and dry. Kind of depressing.
In the Smith v. Freland case, the Court even went on to say, "We must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes reasonable action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure."
At no point did Higgins attempt to surrender or stop.
Becasue he was running away does not make him a threat? he still from a PD perspective had a weapon and could turn at a moment notice and return fire, or perhaps could go around a corner and return fire from behind cover.
I agree with many that the number shots fired are a concern but one has to take a moment and consider what the cost might have been had he not been apprehended and his gun been real, becasue that is what the officers are faced with and many are failing to consider, worst case scenario falls in the PD hands.
It sucks you guys are making me write this becasue my experiences with PD have all been shitty and they have let me down everytime, but I have to say they were in the right here.
What exactly is it that the Police should have done? Or What is it that you are saying they did wrong? -
Anonymous wrote:
but that is the real question here.
did he pull a gun? or, as i assume, "flashed" it by showing it in his waistband. did he do so after the dops identified themselves, presented thier badges, and drew their weapons? or, did he do it when he still beleived he was about to get shaken down by two bigger punks?
If you are so willing to entertain the idea that he did not know they were the police, then you should give equal time to the possibility that he knew damn well it was the police becasue he robbed someone 15 minutes ago and being caught for robbery while on bail is not good and he would be willing to do "whatever" to keep from getting apprehended.Anonymous wrote:
How long do you think its takes to remove a gun from the holster and fire it? I dont think your point is fair from the point of the people that are trying to apprehend Higgins.
and, i don't think any of the rules are black and white, but even with a gun, if its holstered, and he's running away, i can't really countenance the shooting.Anonymous wrote:
True, but his immediate behaviour was more likely to get someone killed rather than positively impact the community, thats what people say as justified.
i don't agree with the points made by others about the possibility of him comiting crimes in the future being a justification. there's also a possibility that he cleans himself up, goes straight, and wins a nobel prize.Anonymous wrote:
This is a decent point but being marked its more difficult for them to get close and arrest people, that is why they go "undercover". I doubt that at no point did the police make themselves know, but I was not there. How many "excuses" can you give the guy before he is a threat to those apprehending him and the community?
and given that there is some possibility that Higgins was unaware that they were police, there are even bigger questions to be asked as we can not know how his behaviour may have differec if they were uniformed officers. which is another point, i think that "undercover" cops on the street is really just asking for trouble in the first place.
i realize in this case they were on their way to a meeting and happened to be passing by, but the uniform is a very important part of policing. -
Captain M wrote: Dont you think its a bit easy to say there was no "imminent threat", in a earlier post there is a fairly good description of events and it clearly states shots were fired upon Higgins once he "displayed" a firearm at 618 Dean Street... Becasue he was running away does not make him a threat?
Shots were fired when Higgins displayed the fake, but the cops continued shooting (22 shots in total) while chasing him down the block. You're using your own definition of "imminent threat" -- if you read the self-defense link I posted, it suggests that "imminent threat" or jeopardy can cease suddenly, such as in the case that someone is fleeing. There may be a different standard for the "line of duty," but I haven't found one.Captain M wrote: What exactly is it that the Police should have done? Or What is it that you are saying they did wrong?
I think they acted improperly by continuing to fire at Higgins while he was running. They were not facing an imminent threat, precluded from any other action than to use lethal force to save their own lives or anyone else's. This is based on my understanding of the use of lethal force from 20 minutes of Googling; that makes it a pretty weak argument, but it's based on something. Ideally, they would have stopped firing and continued the chase; if Higgins had made the slightest threatening move (even turning slightly as if to face them), open fire again. -
/ me
-
The cops themselves may or may not have been faced with an "imminent threat" when he ran, but this didn't happened in a vacuum- he (Higgins)was still an imminent threat to the people in and around the neighborhood. Your own research shows that they (the cops) are justified in using lethal force in the defence of others. Cops aren't there to simply "Protect and Serve" themselves- they're around to protect and serve the public. How is an armed robber running down the street not a threat?!
-
nybt wrote: The cops themselves may or may not have been faced with an "imminent threat" when he ran, but this didn't happened in a vacuum- he (Higgins)was still an imminent threat to the people in and around the neighborhood.
My understanding of the imminent jeopardy requirement is that you have to believe that someone is about to die. That wasn't the case as Higgins was running away. How else would it make sense that, in the example below, legal self-defense becomes illegal battery?Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.†This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent†person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending†yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.
It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!†is meaningful.
Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy†condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments. -
Another snippet:
Always remember:
1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictmentâ€â€Âand if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.
Knock your attacker overâ€â€Âthen keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slashâ€â€Âand keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,†a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim. -
I've already read through the links that you've posted, no need to post them again. Again, my point is- this isn't happening in a vacuum. Just because he's no longer a threat to you personally, it doesn't mean that someone else couldn't die a moment later. Read through those links again- it says to consider that a man with a knife, that is 20 feet away, is 1.5 seconds away from being lethal. That's at a stand-still with a knife. This kid's already running with a gun... in a residential neighborhood. Beyond that, the links also warns of being a Monday morning, arm-chair quarterback- it's really easy to question someones judgement when you weren't there for the 5 seconds it took to transpire. Think about that- it's probably taken you longer to read this post than the entirety of the "flashing" of the gun, the chase, and the take-down. I'm no big defender of the police, but in this case, I haven't seen or heard anything to make me question the decisions made.
-
I'm glad that we are at the root of the issue,
they acted improperly by continuing to fire at Higgins while he was running. They were not facing an imminent threat, precluded from any other action than to use lethal force to save their own lives or anyone else's
I will agree that "immenent threat" is absolutely gray area, it would seem that for this incident nybt, myself and others are seeing this from the PD point of view. Certainly there have been incidents in the past where PD was not in the right (...Zonga trial) and it benefits all to question what happened.
What bothers me about your point of view is that its very monday morning quaterback, you yourself agree that imminent threat was present at one point.Shots were fired when Higgins displayed the fake, but the cops continued shooting (22 shots in total)
Here you are googling articles and reading up on fine print, it takes you at lesat several minutes to read an article, you can stop bo back and look up definitions. The events as they unfolded in this incident happen in seconds. Its unreasonable to reasses the threat as non-dangerous until Higgins is clearly complying with police once the situation is at that level, which he clearly did not do. For you to expect the police to do so creates a dangerous precedent that provides safety to those who would endanger us. -
qtrain wrote: Another snippet:
Right, you are the only one who believes #3 is met because he has turned to run away.Always remember:
1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
You agree that at one point all points were met when he brandished the gun?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds