LV PD sure screwed up today...

[rsmccsman]

You are not supposed to cross the solid white line when merging. Lots do, but it is illegal.


Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

I know off topic, It was rush hour were were going about 5-10 mph I had my turn signal on, a courteous driver left me room and waived me over, so I went for it. The trooper came up from behind traveling in the emergency lane about 30 mph faster than traffic and pulled both me and the car behind me over who followed me, The on ramp we were at, the white line goes on a really really long way. I was always taught to merge early rather than wait to the last minute and was not paying attention to where the white line was. Like you said lots of others were doing it too. I know, No excuse. Like I said expensive lesson. Hopefully the judge will show compassion and reduce the fine and let me do traffic school as I have a pretty clean driving record, only one other ticket in last 17 years. Anyway I included this for the educational value of others. You hear that kids? Don't make the same mistake!

 

[MountainBear]

Doesn't sound from the transcript like a cover-up was high on their priority. They tried to hold people at the store to get witness statements. Still conflicting reports based on this and so-called eye witness statements, there's still not enough information to rip into anyone yet. We may never get enough information to know what really happened. I don't trust eye-witnesses as there are too many people with a desire to make the police look bad, and who are willing to lie to make that happen. So we'll see...

 

[ZachS]

Doesn't sound from the transcript like a cover-up was high on their priority. They tried to hold people at the store to get witness statements. Still conflicting reports based on this and so-called eye witness statements, there's still not enough information to rip into anyone yet. We may never get enough information to know what really happened. I don't trust eye-witnesses as there are too many people with a desire to make the police look bad, and who are willing to lie to make that happen. So we'll see...

So? There are also a lot of police officers willing to lie to make themselves look good. A dozen or two shoppers with a wide spectrum of attitudes toward the police, in aggregate, will be more truthful than three cops trying to avoid going to prison for manslaughter. The witnesses have no major incentive to lie, while the officers have every incentive. The shoppers will all have slightly different stories that will converge on the truth, while the officers will be able to get their stories straight before giving statements to the investigators - are other potential defendants in criminal investigations afforded this opportunity? I think not.

 

[marty8587]

my mother in law called from LV a week or so ago, saying she had heard some bad things in the news about PDX. The missing little boy and the cop extorting prostitutes. I guess no place is without contraversy. My daughter is a portland police officer so I tend to give the Police the benifit of the dought. I know they stick together and thats not a bad thing as that helps bring them home healthy at the end of thier shift. Hopefully the survalance tapes will throw some light on this.

 

[MountainBear]

So? There are also a lot of police officers willing to lie to make themselves look good. A dozen or two shoppers with a wide spectrum of attitudes toward the police, in aggregate, will be more truthful than three cops trying to avoid going to prison for manslaughter. The witnesses have no major incentive to lie, while the officers have every incentive. The shoppers will all have slightly different stories that will converge on the truth, while the officers will be able to get their stories straight before giving statements to the investigators - are other potential defendants in criminal investigations afforded this opportunity? I think not.

And there are lots of civilians who are pissed off because they got a ticket for not wearing their seatbelt or breaking some other law. All I'm saying is just because a few civilians say that it happened one way doesn't give enough information to condemn the police, which is something that a lot of people on the internet seem to like to do. Either civilians have a grudge, or they don't understand the laws. To them it may look like he wasn't doing anything wrong, but just because one hand it raised in surrender, doesn't mean that the other hand wasn't reaching for his firearm. Add a misunderstanding of law and standard procedures to someone who doesn't like law enforcement anyway (a large percentage of the population it seems) and stories start to skew.

All I'm saying is that let police officers be innocent until proven guilty, the same courtesy we allow the rest of the population. Just because they're cops doesn't mean they shouldn't get the same rights as everyone else...

 

[Atroxus]

I can't help but wonder if there are witnesses who are either unwilling to come forward or are just backing the police because they are afraid of them? I mean *IF* it really was an unjustified shooting, I imagine it would be pretty scary to witness the people who are supposed to uphold the law commiting murder.

 

[ZachS]

All I'm saying is that let police officers be innocent until proven guilty, the same courtesy we allow the rest of the population. Just because they're cops doesn't mean they shouldn't get the same rights as everyone else...

I don't think we need to worry about cops not getting the same rights as everybody else until that actually happens.

As it is, they get far more rights than everyone else - because of apologists like you. There's nothing wrong with supporting the police, but it is not a neutral position. Given the great leeway officers have in our current system, it's disingenuous to suggest that they somehow need to defend themselves against an onslaught of angry citizens.

 

[Father of four]

Lets remember we are on a firearms web site. This web site was made for discussion about firearms. There are Cops that are probably members here. We should watch what we post here so not to make them upset. They rarely do anything wrong and we should always give the Cops the benefit of the doubt over the citizen. Only a Officer of the Law can really see the truth. They are trained to see and know the truth, citizens are not.

Lets get back to firearm decisions.

 

[A2theK]

WTF? Are you a Blood or Crip Wannabe? Talk like that is pure BS/trash. Proponent of vigilante justice w/o any facts. Yeah, sounds like a gang-banger to me. I'm disgusted by your inappropriate, unsubstantiated comments.

Cops do the best they can, and while they deserve scrutiny, they also deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah like those rasict Mexican stomping SPD deserve the benefit of the doubt too huh. Or the deputies that confiscated a legal suppressor in Snoho Co? ...or the cop that shot his wife in Tacoma. People are people and bad ones slip in everywhere. D

An eye for an eye my friend. An "oops" can't bring back a dead person. Were did you get the gang reference anyway? I said she (his girlfriend) should follow-up. She was there next to him after all.

You and your stupid notion of "the benefit of the doubt" is what is making this a police state. Did they give this guy the benefit of the doubt? NO

Did he fire any shots? NO

Those cops are either too scared to perform or out to kill.

So go lick some more boots and watch Law and Order some more.

 

[A2theK]

There are Cops that are probably members here. We should watch what we post here so not to make them upset. They rarely do anything wrong and we should always give the Cops the benefit of the doubt over the citizen. Only a Officer of the Law can really see the truth. They are trained to see and know the truth, citizens are not.

...not to make them upset? Really?

You are joking right? What a crock of poo. I give up my rights to no one including the government and it's associated military/police.

Were you even born in the northwest? (..or Kalifornia or back east?) I'll bet on the latter given your attitude towards the bowing down to authority.

Back to the gun talk as you recommended - I wonder what gun those cops used to take that guys life after they tased him first? Is a taser more effective when you follow it up with 3-5 shots from a .40 or is a .45 better?

Did they see a muzzle on his gun and what kind was it?

 

[MountainBear]

I don't think we need to worry about cops not getting the same rights as everybody else until that actually happens.

As it is, they get far more rights than everyone else - because of apologists like you. There's nothing wrong with supporting the police, but it is not a neutral position. Given the great leeway officers have in our current system, it's disingenuous to suggest that they somehow need to defend themselves against an onslaught of angry citizens.

An apologist? Ehh, guess I've been called worse. I enjoy knee-jerk reactions like yours. Very entertaining. From the sounds of it you'd like to give cops less rights to make up for what you have perceived as years of giving them more rights. How about we just give EVERYONE the same rights? How about everyone is innocent until proven guilty. People like you enjoy ripping on police until you need them.

Cops screw up. It happens. There are of course bad apples in every profession. Speaking from experience, cops don't like bad cops any more than the public does. But not every incident of an officer involved shooting is a conspiracy to cover up a misdeed. People like you, Zach, who assume all cops are bad are worse than the people who assume all are good. I don't assume either...

You can continue to discuss this and comment on me if it makes you feel better Zach, but I find that there is no further use reading or contributing to this particular thread. I'm done. Man there are a lot of idiots on this sight. A lot of good people too, but damn, a lot of idiots...

 

[Father of four]

Yes A2thek I am joking. But many would love for us to do exactly what I posted.

 

[el gringo loco]

Since this occurred in Vegas, I suggest we handle this like the casinos would. Let's play the odds. The odds are that the cops and all of the witnesses will tell the truth about what they perceived. The odds are that all of these versions of the events will be very different. Police across the nation deal with events like this on a daily basis. They train for these events and learn to make observations that most people miss. Sometimes these events result in a shooting, sometimes they do not. But, the odds are that this shooting was justified. The odds are that there are huge pieces of this event that the witnesses of this event did not perceive that the officers perceived. These events do not occur in a vacuum and every bit of information the officers received on the radio, on a phone, or talking to evacuated customers contributed to the decision to pull the trigger. The odds are that this, like almost every police shooting, was legal and justified.

If there is video of the event, it will add another perspective, but it will by no means provide a 100% accurate depiction of the event. Surely the camera will answer some questions and establish some facts. However, the camera angle is not what the officers saw and the camera does not tell the whole story.

It has been proven time and time again that eyewitness testimony is some of the most inaccurate evidence that can be used. The use of video has also proven that police officers, soldiers and other trained observers that frequently operate within the cloud of adrenaline actually provide relatively accurate eyewitness testimony. Partially, this is because they, unlike the general public, are trained to make observations quickly under extreme pressure. This is also because they are are trained to separate what they perceived from what they inferred--something the general public is not so good at.

 

[86-0134]

Good chance they won't even get fired.

if he truly did point a firearm at the police he is a moron and deserving of the "dirt nap" he received.

 

[ZachS]

You can continue to discuss this and comment on me if it makes you feel better Zach, but I find that there is no further use reading or contributing to this particular thread. I'm done. Man there are a lot of idiots on this sight. A lot of good people too, but damn, a lot of idiots...

Everyone screws up. When the police screw up, it can be absolutely disastrous for the rest of us. That's why they need to be held to higher standards. Like, for example, airline pilots.


Portland Police aren't even randomly drug-tested after they're hired, nor after a deadly force incident..... They're held to a lower standard than other people whose mistakes can put the public in danger. Speaking the truth about this is not anti-police, and I'm curious why you think it is...

 

[Bruce]

It is good to see that the usual cop haters are all over this. I would like to point out that this happening in broad daylight in a large store might be a little more difficult to cover up then a shooting in a secluded location with only the three cops left as witnesses.
If you think any of the command people involved in this are going to cover up anything you are out of touch.

 

[MountainBear]

Everyone screws up. When the police screw up, it can be absolutely disastrous for the rest of us. That's why they need to be held to higher standards. Like, for example, airline pilots.


Portland Police aren't even randomly drug-tested after they're hired, nor after a deadly force incident..... They're held to a lower standard than other people whose mistakes can put the public in danger. Speaking the truth about this is not anti-police, and I'm curious why you think it is...

Okay, so I lied about ignoring the thread. Can't help myself. The reason I consider you people anti-police is that you are willing to condemn their actions without the full story. Should the police be held to a high standard? Absolutely. They wield an awful lot of power and should be accountable when they abuse that power. But when an incident happens, they deserve to be considered innocent until proven guilty, same as everyone else. The moment an officer involved shooting happens and some random person questions the shooting (regardless of their background or connection to the incident it seems), people on the internet seem to pile on without getting the entire story. If condemnation without facts is not anti-police, what is it?

 

[marty8587]

+1

 

[ZachS]

Okay, so I lied about ignoring the thread. Can't help myself. The reason I consider you people anti-police is that you are willing to condemn their actions without the full story.... If condemnation without facts is not anti-police, what is it?

I've made plenty of general comments in this thread about officers not being held accountable, not being held to the standards they should be, having incentives to lie (and sometimes lying) about their actions. I don't think that any of that constitutes condemnation of the police.


I've also said that these officers have a greater incentive to lie than a group of random Costo shoppers, which makes me trust them less. I also said that they probably won't get fired regardless of what happened, and that they'll have the opportunity to collude with each other before speaking to investigators.

I haven't said anything about their actions because, like you, I don't know what really happened. I just believe that the investigation will be stacked in their favor, as much as it would be stacked against a CHL holder who shot an armed person under similarly disputed circumstances. And I don't think that disparity is fair, just, or right.

If you believe that's a condemnation of these officers, than I'll proudly call myself a condemner - but judging their actions during this incident is not something I've tried to do.

 

[Bruce]

ZachS, getting fired after a bad shoot is the least of any LEOs concerns if they are involved in a bad shoot, also add trying to cover it up.