Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, December 1, 2009
Crime Police Briefing: How a Cop Killed Clemmons
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:20 AM
Police from around the region briefed press in South Seattle about how a lone officer stopped and killed Maurice Clemmons, who police suspect of killing four Lakewood police officers on Sunday morning. Clemmons, who was carrying a gun stolen from one of the officers, was spotted near a stolen silver Acura at about 2:45 a.m. near South Kenyan Street and Renton Avenue South. Police say Clemmons had been receiving assistance from family members and friends, who are now being rounded up and arrested, but by this morning, Clemmons was alone.
Assistant Chief Jim Pugel said a Seattle police officer “was patrolling this area when he came across an unoccupied stolen vehicle. The officer radioed the location and license plate, and he then detected some movement behind him and got out of his car." Then the officer “recognized the person who was approaching him as looking like … the possible suspect of the tragic homicide in Lakewood." The officer then asked man to show hands his, but, Pugel said, “the person would not show his hands and began to run away… and would not stop.”
“The officer fired several rounds,” Pugel continued. “All indications are that he is deceased.”
Pugel said a gun recovered from the suspect had the “identical serial number” to the one taken from one of the murdered officers. The Seattle officer who shot Clemmons was not injured, but, Pugel said, “This person did know how to use a weapon. It is a good thing he did not get that weapon out, because we know our suspect was not afraid to shoot cops.” The officer who shot Clemmons will be put on administrative duty during an investigation.
“Everything indicates right now that this is the person we were looking for who killed the four officers in Lakewood,” Pugel told reporters.
Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said officers have arrested three people for “rendering criminal assistance” to Clemmons. He said they had provided him a place to stay, cell phones, and money, and they were attempting to get Clemmons out of the state. “We arrested a person who believe was the driver of getaway vehicle, and today we are looking to pick up more people who aided and abetted and tried to hamper our investigation,” Troyer said. He hopes to arrest a total of six or seven people for assisting Clemmons.
“They are going to pay for it,” Troyer said.
Before he was killed tonight, Clemmons was badly injured, having been shot squarely in the gut on Sunday at the coffee shop where he allegedly murdered the officers. “The suspect did have the gun taken from Lakewood officer and did have a gunshot wound,” Troyer said. “After looking at the wound, I was surprised he survived it. He was shot dead center in the middle,” said Troyer, pointing toward his navel. The injury “was going to get him if he didn't get treatment.”
Troyer saved a few barbs for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who earlier today blamed Washington courts and law enforcement for releasing Clemmons from jail on bail. “The tragedy happened out here had nothing to do with any ball that was dropped” in Washington, said Troyer, noting that Huckabee had commuted Clemmons’s sentence when he was governor. “We are concerned is that he was blaming us for something he knows we had nothing to do with.”
Lakewood Police Chief Brett Farrar said, "We can close the page and we can begin the healing process."
2
Congratulations to the Seattle Police Department -- and to the unnamed officer in particular -- for correcting one of God's more egregious mistakes. JRC
3
Guy may be suspect in crime, shows no weapon, runs from the police and is gunned down by them? They couldn't aim for his legs or something?
Granted, this guy was a piece of scum and I would be happy to see him executed by the State of Washington but only after a proper trial. The police don't get to act as judge, jury and executioner.
I understand the emotion the officers must have been going through but criminals are innocent until proven guilty in our country and the police don't get to murder someone because they suspect them in a crime without extraordinary cause.
Granted, this guy was a piece of scum and I would be happy to see him executed by the State of Washington but only after a proper trial. The police don't get to act as judge, jury and executioner.
I understand the emotion the officers must have been going through but criminals are innocent until proven guilty in our country and the police don't get to murder someone because they suspect them in a crime without extraordinary cause.
4
It seems odd that someone with an almost-certain-to-kill-you sort of pre-existing gunshot wound to the abdomen could run away.
5
"The officer who shot Clemmons will be put on administrative duty" while everyone buys him a lot of drinks.
6
RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
...(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
Shooting to wound would actually be illegal. The logic goes something like this: shooting someone with a gun is always "deadly force", even if the wound caused isn't lethal. Shooting to wound would mean that the officer believed something less than deadly force would suffice, but that he used deadly force anyway. Thus, by the officer's own judgment, the shooting would be deemed unnecessary.
It doesn't always play out that way in court. Seattle cops have pretty wide latitude to shoot anyone they want.
But that's the formal logic for not shooting to wound.
Guy may be suspect in crime, shows no weapon, runs from the police and is gunned down by them?
RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
...(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
They couldn't aim for his legs or something?
Shooting to wound would actually be illegal. The logic goes something like this: shooting someone with a gun is always "deadly force", even if the wound caused isn't lethal. Shooting to wound would mean that the officer believed something less than deadly force would suffice, but that he used deadly force anyway. Thus, by the officer's own judgment, the shooting would be deemed unnecessary.
It doesn't always play out that way in court. Seattle cops have pretty wide latitude to shoot anyone they want.
But that's the formal logic for not shooting to wound.
7
For some, revenge is a dish best served via a service revolver.
I have to confess to being torn about it. yes, the guy deserved a trial. Yes, people who kill cops rarely do well during their capture. yes, I imagine the police feel alot better today. Yes, I think the guy was insane and we do not put insane people to death for crimes they commit.Yes, I figure some civil rights have bee trampled right over.
Yes, I am glad it is over, one way or another.
I have to confess to being torn about it. yes, the guy deserved a trial. Yes, people who kill cops rarely do well during their capture. yes, I imagine the police feel alot better today. Yes, I think the guy was insane and we do not put insane people to death for crimes they commit.Yes, I figure some civil rights have bee trampled right over.
Yes, I am glad it is over, one way or another.
8
The proof is a gun of one of the killed officers? So let me get this straight. Clemmons walked into the coffee shop, killed four officers, but before leaving, and AFTER being shot, stopped, and grabbed one of the officer's guns? Hmmm. Sounds a little convenient, evidence-wise.
9
What is up with the family trying to protect this guy? Didn't he rape one of their 12-year-old relatives?
10
The best part of the news this morning was the Lakewood Chief of Police warning that the police are now going to be very cautious and people should be careful while approaching them for now on.
Yeah, that's nice, really nice and I feel much much safer already.
Yeah, that's nice, really nice and I feel much much safer already.
12
@9: blood, a code of no snitchin', dislike of the po, and possibly his stolen service revolver pointed at them.
14
I know that I want to be a police officer when I am done with high school but if I was in the guys position I probebly would have done the same thing. Expecially already knowing he is a crazy person for thinking that he was going to get away with this.
15
@3: My understanding, and I could be wrong about this, is that actually shooting someone in the leg (head, whatever) is much more difficult than video games, tv, and movies make it out to be. I think @6 is right and there was probably no attempt to.
16
That particular area has very poor lighting so im not surprise that some details of what happened may be a little sketchy now, but they're saying that they did find a gun that belong to the officers in him.
17
@4:
"It seems odd that someone with an almost-certain-to-kill-you sort of pre-existing gunshot wound to the abdomen could run away."
Crazy people sometimes display superhuman strength.
@3:
"They couldn't aim for his legs or something?"
OK, you're a cop, you've got a killer in your sights, and he's running from you. He may or may not be armed.
You shoot him in the legs, and he goes down.
When you get to him, he rolls over and blows your head off.
I don't think so.
"It seems odd that someone with an almost-certain-to-kill-you sort of pre-existing gunshot wound to the abdomen could run away."
Crazy people sometimes display superhuman strength.
@3:
"They couldn't aim for his legs or something?"
OK, you're a cop, you've got a killer in your sights, and he's running from you. He may or may not be armed.
You shoot him in the legs, and he goes down.
When you get to him, he rolls over and blows your head off.
I don't think so.
19
@3 @4 during the briefing it was said that Clemmons went in a counterclockwise direction around the car from the officer. This makes sense if his intention was to fire on the officer with the gun, he would have wanted a defensive position to avoid further gunshot wounds. I will also make the assumption that he was doped up for the pain which would allow him to function and 'run'.
@8 Clemmons scuffled with one of the officers that he killed in the coffee shop. That officer was able to wrestle away/knock loose Clemmons' gun, It was suggested in the media that Clemmons may have been able to use that cops gun to kill him before escaping.
Best to wait for all the details to come out - but of course that isn't the way of commenting boards and hence Slog.
@8 Clemmons scuffled with one of the officers that he killed in the coffee shop. That officer was able to wrestle away/knock loose Clemmons' gun, It was suggested in the media that Clemmons may have been able to use that cops gun to kill him before escaping.
Best to wait for all the details to come out - but of course that isn't the way of commenting boards and hence Slog.
20
I see, said the blind man to his deaf wife. The headline to this post and the tone of most of these comments reflect a mostly anti police bias that exist in certain quarters of this city and with the Slog when ever it's convenient.
The Slog and many of it readers, like the lemmings that they are, bash the police as sure as the sun comes up and the sun goes down.
The early reports, if true, indicate the Officer RECOGNIZED the suspect and given that he was known to be involved in an ongoing serious felony that fact gave the officer the right to shoot to kill to protect himself and others.
It's easy for neophytes to second guess about what should of been done or to conjure up some civil rights violation, but I would suggest that you wait for the facts to come out before you start with that familiar tone of condemning and picking apart the police. Or perhaps we should of sent Mr Clemmons over to your house so you could reason with him about how he should give himself up to the authorities.
The Slog and many of it readers, like the lemmings that they are, bash the police as sure as the sun comes up and the sun goes down.
The early reports, if true, indicate the Officer RECOGNIZED the suspect and given that he was known to be involved in an ongoing serious felony that fact gave the officer the right to shoot to kill to protect himself and others.
It's easy for neophytes to second guess about what should of been done or to conjure up some civil rights violation, but I would suggest that you wait for the facts to come out before you start with that familiar tone of condemning and picking apart the police. Or perhaps we should of sent Mr Clemmons over to your house so you could reason with him about how he should give himself up to the authorities.
21
I'm glad he is dead. If you have ever had to go through the hell that I have had to go through where someone took the life of someone you love. And then on top of it you have to live through a lenghty and costly court proceeding that can last years with no guarantee that a conviction will be reached. Even if convicted the sentence could be light or the guy released early *cough* Huckabee. All the while you are angered that one day that person could be back on the street because they can convince some parole board member that they have discovered Jesus and repented. I'm not saying that I am against due process of the law. I just know that the families of the victims will be at least comforted in the fact that this dispicable person will no longer harm them or anyone else every again.
23
@3,
Let me guess. You don't own a gun, right? Have you ever even fired one? you've obviously never attempted to shoot at a moving target.
Hitting a moving target is difficult, even in the best of circumstances. A handgun isn't particularly accurate (almost any rifle is more accurate than any handgun). And in this case it was dark, making everything worse.
Police are taught never, ever to attempt to shoot-to-wound. If (and it is a big IF) drawing a weapon is justified, police are trained to shoot to kill. No exceptions. Shoot-to-wound is strictly for Hollywood and video games. Not real life.
Let me guess. You don't own a gun, right? Have you ever even fired one? you've obviously never attempted to shoot at a moving target.
Hitting a moving target is difficult, even in the best of circumstances. A handgun isn't particularly accurate (almost any rifle is more accurate than any handgun). And in this case it was dark, making everything worse.
Police are taught never, ever to attempt to shoot-to-wound. If (and it is a big IF) drawing a weapon is justified, police are trained to shoot to kill. No exceptions. Shoot-to-wound is strictly for Hollywood and video games. Not real life.
24
What was the evidence against Clemmens? Witnesses? Camera footage? Being "black and scruffy"? I have read all the related articles in the Times, PI, and Stranger, but no where read why the police were looking for this man. His record definitely indicates that he was evil, but nothing I've read specifically indicates that he killed four cops on Sunday, except that it's the accepted story by the police and media. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
25
Most of the time I would agree that shooting a fleeing suspect by a cop is bad but criminal. However, if the cop had a positive ID on Clemmons, he refused to follow directions, and it is obvious that he is armed and very dangerous, the cop had to shoot him to stop him from getting cornered in someone's home, or getting other cops/SWAT team members shot, storming his new hideout. Clemmons wasn't going to come out of this alive, anyway. He didn't want to go back to prison...
The Cop should be commended, he stop a desperate and dangerous man. If the cop didn't stop him, the septicemia that would had killed Clemmons as well, should had been commended and given a medal, from Clemmons bullet wound.
The Cop should be commended, he stop a desperate and dangerous man. If the cop didn't stop him, the septicemia that would had killed Clemmons as well, should had been commended and given a medal, from Clemmons bullet wound.
26
It was dark, the officer was ALONE, suspect is known for delighting in killing cops, and hasn't much to lose with a bullet already in his gut. Yeah right the officer should "aim for his legs" and take his chances. Sheesh.
27
i'm glad it's over, HUGE thankyou to all the cops and especially this lone guy who got Clemmons.
Sure it is unfortunate that the guy was gunned down but what else is a cop in that situation supposed to do? No other choice.
And btw, WHY would a middle-aged black man run from the police on a night like last night? Death wish.
Sure it is unfortunate that the guy was gunned down but what else is a cop in that situation supposed to do? No other choice.
And btw, WHY would a middle-aged black man run from the police on a night like last night? Death wish.
28
One wonders if the prosecutor will give a tray at accessory after the fact for those who helped him. Their cooperation seems to have gone way beyond aiding a fugitive. They were helping evade capture. They should all get 20 years for that. There's obviously some rotten DNA here, and it belongs in prison.
30
The cop knew that Clemmons was armed with possibly two guns because the dead cop's gun was taken after he was killed. Clemmon's had already declared war on cops by killing 4 of them, without knowing them personally, or having just a personal vendetta against the 4 that he chose earlier. Knowing this, the cop was totally justified in shooting to kill. Clemmons had to be stopped, and the cop knew that he would be the next victim if he didn't take him down. A wounded leg wouldn't have stopped Clemmons from shooting him back. Only 2 shot up lower arms would be able to prevent him from shooting, and that is way too hard to aim for. I say hurray and bravo to the brave policeman who worked at grave danger to himself to keep us safe.
31
i don't believe in a death penalty but it's too obvious that many police officers believe in a death penalty with no trial.
32
There will be an investigation, as well as an inquest. There will be plenty of time for everybody's questions to be answered.
33
@21
I feel for you but let me tell you that I have the opposite of your situation.
A friend of mine was murdered a few years ago, in a mass killing. The person who did it then killed himself. At least for me, I would have rather had the murderer go through a court proceeding and be sent to jail for life. Never knowing exactly why he murdered my friend was worse than watching a trial proceed.
Another thing is I don't believe in Hell. I would have liked to see the person punished in this life, regardless of what happens in the next.
I feel for you but let me tell you that I have the opposite of your situation.
A friend of mine was murdered a few years ago, in a mass killing. The person who did it then killed himself. At least for me, I would have rather had the murderer go through a court proceeding and be sent to jail for life. Never knowing exactly why he murdered my friend was worse than watching a trial proceed.
Another thing is I don't believe in Hell. I would have liked to see the person punished in this life, regardless of what happens in the next.
34
I can't say that learning it is procedure for police officer's to always "shoot to kill" is comforting. If there was anyway that this death was due to mistaken identity it would be tragic. Even if it's a murderer, I don't think i can morally agree with the ideology behind making it advisable to kill rather than capture an individual.
35
People! HOly crap - the man was Clemmons, and he was obviously attempting an ambush of a lone police officer, and given his recent behavior, he almost certainly had intent to kill.
36
Dear @3 and the rest of you dimwitted critics of this brave lone cop's actions,
Hmmmmmm, let's see, the "suspect" was shot in the stomach while committing MURDER which means he left his DNA in the form of his BLOOD at the scene of his initial CRIME.
The cop who shot him to death did so after positively IDing him. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that they might be considering comparing the dead "suspect's" DNA/BLOOD to the DNA/BLOOD at the MURDER scene.
Case closed.
Naysayers need to STFU. Seriously.
Hmmmmmm, let's see, the "suspect" was shot in the stomach while committing MURDER which means he left his DNA in the form of his BLOOD at the scene of his initial CRIME.
The cop who shot him to death did so after positively IDing him. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that they might be considering comparing the dead "suspect's" DNA/BLOOD to the DNA/BLOOD at the MURDER scene.
Case closed.
Naysayers need to STFU. Seriously.
37
I mean, as much as it's disquieting to think of all the potentially corrupt cops who could misuse the power, this tragedy more than any should remind us all that cops are human.
To be sitting in his car, alone, and see a guy approaching the window like that - that's creepy. But what if he was just going to ask for directions to the nearest gas station? Then he probably wouldn't have started running away. It seems to me like the cop followed his instincts. When normal citizens follow their gut instincts and promote justice, they're applauded. Cops get criticized. Because of the elevated power of cops, we want them to be perfectly democratic and just - or rather, moreso than normal citizens. But shoot, (no pun intended), look what happens to investment bankers and politicians when we ask THEM to be perfectly fair, rationale, objective actors. Obviously anyone in such a position of power should be more conservative than liberal in exercising their power... but uh, give the guy a break.
Furthermore, the whole "shoot to kill" policy is a little bit whack. I don't know anything about it other than what I've read on the comments. However, shooting to kill would be a good policy in some situations... Plus again, cops are humans. If you have a gun, and policy says you can use it to wound suspects... that's corruptible. Killing someone is a substantially graver act, and it seems like the 'shoot to kill' policy relies on basic human nature.
Plus, like the exasperated cops on the news kept saying, dispensing too much information can infringe upon their investigation. If they're still sweeping for evidence or searching for other suspects that aided Clemmons, we're probably lacking some details.
To be sitting in his car, alone, and see a guy approaching the window like that - that's creepy. But what if he was just going to ask for directions to the nearest gas station? Then he probably wouldn't have started running away. It seems to me like the cop followed his instincts. When normal citizens follow their gut instincts and promote justice, they're applauded. Cops get criticized. Because of the elevated power of cops, we want them to be perfectly democratic and just - or rather, moreso than normal citizens. But shoot, (no pun intended), look what happens to investment bankers and politicians when we ask THEM to be perfectly fair, rationale, objective actors. Obviously anyone in such a position of power should be more conservative than liberal in exercising their power... but uh, give the guy a break.
Furthermore, the whole "shoot to kill" policy is a little bit whack. I don't know anything about it other than what I've read on the comments. However, shooting to kill would be a good policy in some situations... Plus again, cops are humans. If you have a gun, and policy says you can use it to wound suspects... that's corruptible. Killing someone is a substantially graver act, and it seems like the 'shoot to kill' policy relies on basic human nature.
Plus, like the exasperated cops on the news kept saying, dispensing too much information can infringe upon their investigation. If they're still sweeping for evidence or searching for other suspects that aided Clemmons, we're probably lacking some details.
38
@24, he was shot at the scene and left a gun at the scene which was traced to him. The blood at the scene was his. When shot, he had a prior hole in his gut from having been shot, and had the revolver of one of the murdered police officers. I am not having a problem with the evidence in this case. The hole in his stomach is pretty damning evidence.
Also, there were quite a few witnesses, including the barista who initially spotted the gun and ran; the witnesses have been absolutely consistent in identifying him.
I wonder if the SPD prohibits cops from collecting rewards in cases like this? The cop who shot him probably can't collect the $125,000 reward. Still, I imagine he'll never have to buy his own liquor again.
Also, there were quite a few witnesses, including the barista who initially spotted the gun and ran; the witnesses have been absolutely consistent in identifying him.
I wonder if the SPD prohibits cops from collecting rewards in cases like this? The cop who shot him probably can't collect the $125,000 reward. Still, I imagine he'll never have to buy his own liquor again.
39
God damn it, Dominic, you are possibly the closest thing to a legitimate reporter The Stranger has, so when you say:
"Before he was killed tonight, Clemmons was badly injured, having been shot squarely in the gut on Sunday at the coffee shop where he murdered the officers."
I have to cringe. You got it right in most of this post, but until he is found guilty, Clemmons allegedly murdered those cops.
"Before he was killed tonight, Clemmons was badly injured, having been shot squarely in the gut on Sunday at the coffee shop where he murdered the officers."
I have to cringe. You got it right in most of this post, but until he is found guilty, Clemmons allegedly murdered those cops.
40
Oh, and from what the Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman is saying, they're gonna go after the friends and relatives with both barrels - accessory to capital murder of this sort carries serious penalties, up to life in prison.
42
Lots of dumbasses on the Slog today. Cop killers never reach trial not because the cops are playing vigilante, but because they know that the suspect is willing TO KILL THEM. You do not second guess, you do not shoot to wound (this isn't a movie); you put them down. Like it or not, there are situations, however rare, when a confident cop must shoot first and ask questions later.
Pin a medal on his chest.
Pin a medal on his chest.
43
@ 39) Thank you. I did miss that, and it's fixed now. However, the piece is clear--again and again--that Clemmons is a "suspect" in the investigation. (And forgive me, it was the middle of the night. You may notice that I haven't slept much.)
44
@3 for the win.
We all know this was a revenge killing by the cops. After seeing what they did when they "searched" the houses of his relatives and their neighbors, it was obvious the cops were going to execute him.
I'm not saying it wasn't justified. But it won't make you feel better, no matter how much you think it does now.
We all know this was a revenge killing by the cops. After seeing what they did when they "searched" the houses of his relatives and their neighbors, it was obvious the cops were going to execute him.
I'm not saying it wasn't justified. But it won't make you feel better, no matter how much you think it does now.
45
@15 is correct.
I was qualified as a marksman on a number of pistols, and quite frankly, they're not very accurate. You shoot for the center of body mass, unless they have body armor when you shoot for the part that doesn't have armor.
By the way, if you think being in the army is like call of duty II you're on drugs - you try jumping buildings when you're carrying 70 kilos, it's not as easy as they make it.
I was qualified as a marksman on a number of pistols, and quite frankly, they're not very accurate. You shoot for the center of body mass, unless they have body armor when you shoot for the part that doesn't have armor.
By the way, if you think being in the army is like call of duty II you're on drugs - you try jumping buildings when you're carrying 70 kilos, it's not as easy as they make it.
46
@39, no, Holden probably has it right. Whether or not Clemmons is a murderer is unrelated to whether or not he is found guilty of the murders. Truth and justice are separate matters. Clemmons will never stand trial, obviously, but I feel okay, based on the information currently available to me, with calling him a murderer.
47
@44
We don't all know that. This cop, once he recognized Clemmons, had a damn good reason to believe that this guy was armed and approaching the car to kill him, and he was ALONE, and the guy wasn't cooperating . . . wtf else was he supposed to do?! Let him GO? Seriously, what was the alternative non-"revenge"-killing scenario here?
I'm a good hand-wringing Seattle liberal like the rest of you, and I understand the concern, but the cop did the right thing in this case. If he had just seen a guy who looked like Clemmons walking on the sidewalk and opened fire, that would be fucked up. But that's not what happened.
We don't all know that. This cop, once he recognized Clemmons, had a damn good reason to believe that this guy was armed and approaching the car to kill him, and he was ALONE, and the guy wasn't cooperating . . . wtf else was he supposed to do?! Let him GO? Seriously, what was the alternative non-"revenge"-killing scenario here?
I'm a good hand-wringing Seattle liberal like the rest of you, and I understand the concern, but the cop did the right thing in this case. If he had just seen a guy who looked like Clemmons walking on the sidewalk and opened fire, that would be fucked up. But that's not what happened.
48
@47 - I'm not saying this specific cop didn't do his job.
I'm just saying we all knew the cops were going to damage innocent people's houses and property and harass them until they could make sure Clemmons was executed without trial.
As to the actions of that one cop, I prefer to think they were being prudent and not acting irrationally like most of the police were. But we'll never know.
If he has a clear conscience, he can sleep with it. If not, well, there you have it. We weren't there.
I'm just saying we all knew the cops were going to damage innocent people's houses and property and harass them until they could make sure Clemmons was executed without trial.
As to the actions of that one cop, I prefer to think they were being prudent and not acting irrationally like most of the police were. But we'll never know.
If he has a clear conscience, he can sleep with it. If not, well, there you have it. We weren't there.
49
@44/48, your holier than thou sentiments are wack. "But it won't make you feel better", maybe it won't make YOU feel better but it certainly made me and a whole lot of others (judging by many of the comments here) feel better. Stop speaking for others based on how you feel, it undermines anything valid you might have to add to the conversation.
50
I thank the police professional who shot him, and would like to take this opportunity to point out that single occupancy of police cars/police patrols WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A TEMPORARY solution to a police shortage.
The fact that this situation still exists reflects badly upon the governance of this and any other locale which continues it.
Patrols should always have at least two individuals at all times. Today, with economic circumstances continuing to get worse (and to all you fools out there who believe foundationa-supported NPR and their broadcasts that the worldwide financial crises is over, start reading!!!!), crazy and stupid people will continue to see their chief enemy as the police, as they are the most visible object of authority out there.
Your real enemy is in the senior management suites of JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, KKR, etc., and Citigroup and Bank of America.
Please.....catch a clue!
The fact that this situation still exists reflects badly upon the governance of this and any other locale which continues it.
Patrols should always have at least two individuals at all times. Today, with economic circumstances continuing to get worse (and to all you fools out there who believe foundationa-supported NPR and their broadcasts that the worldwide financial crises is over, start reading!!!!), crazy and stupid people will continue to see their chief enemy as the police, as they are the most visible object of authority out there.
Your real enemy is in the senior management suites of JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, KKR, etc., and Citigroup and Bank of America.
Please.....catch a clue!
51
"I'm just saying we all knew the cops were going to damage innocent people's houses and property and harass them until they could make sure Clemmons was executed without trial."
Seriously Will, STFU.
52
I'm just glad he got the right guy and didn't get hurt. I sure wouldn't risk my life or the life of innocent bystanders by letting this guy get his weapon out and start blasting. It's not like the criminal has the right to a couple free shots. The officer not only had every right and reason to use deadly force, but a duty to do so, to protect his own life and the life of others. Just imagine if the guy had shot the officer and a couple of bystanders?
Anybody who is asserting that any evidence is planted, or that it was an execution is out of their mind. Every officer knows this is an ultra-high profile case and everything has to be done by the numbers, and SPD is very, very good about following police procedure. It was good training, quick thinking, and some damn good luck.
Anybody who is asserting that any evidence is planted, or that it was an execution is out of their mind. Every officer knows this is an ultra-high profile case and everything has to be done by the numbers, and SPD is very, very good about following police procedure. It was good training, quick thinking, and some damn good luck.
53
So disgusting. Thank god I don't live somewhere where police officers shoot people for running away.
54
What is this "shoot to kill" policy everyone is going on and on about? It is certainly not codified into RCW 9A.16.040 and is well, just plain ridiculous. The statute merely sets out an affirmative defense to homicide. So basically, if a police officer shoots and kills someone the statute defines the circumstances under which that killing is legally excused it does not command an officer to shoot to kill if they use their weapon. And the legal definition of deadly force is not “using a gun” it is defined as using an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. Now what is considered “serious bodily injury” can get dicey in interpretation, but there is NO law on the books or defined in case law that says an officer must intend to kill every time they fire their weapons, just that it must be reasonable when they do kill someone.
The legal test for whether or not any force applied, not just deadly force, is an "objective reasonableness test" and is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not any statute. The Supreme Court has held in that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Tennessee v. Garner placed stringent restrictions on lethal force, authorizing such force only when officers’, or the lives of others, are in imminent danger and when lesser force, including something like shooting a fleeing felon in the leg would be insufficient to ameliorate this danger posed by the fleeing felon.
So what we have is a legal standard that trumps any state statute. The statute thus, merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the force was objectively reasonable if the situation falls into any of the statutorily defined circumstances. Even then a police shooting can be found to be unjustified. Say I am Bernie Madoff and I am walking away from a police officer that has stopped me. They positively identify me and know I am committed some pretty horrendous felonies, they are about to arrest me and I take off running in the other direction. The police know I am a fleeing felon and that I carry a Swiss army knife so they shoot me in the back, but they could have stopped me from running away in some other fashion even maybe just shooting me in the leg. That would not be reasonable, and those police could, not saying they would, be charged with murder or a lesser form of criminal homicide.
In sum, the police are in theory supposed to use the least amount of force necessary to apprehend a suspect. This shoot to kill crap, really does not have much of a legal basis and is pretty ludicrous. So never fear the police at least are not supposed to run around intentionally gunning down criminals if they can avoid it.
More...
The legal test for whether or not any force applied, not just deadly force, is an "objective reasonableness test" and is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not any statute. The Supreme Court has held in that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Tennessee v. Garner placed stringent restrictions on lethal force, authorizing such force only when officers’, or the lives of others, are in imminent danger and when lesser force, including something like shooting a fleeing felon in the leg would be insufficient to ameliorate this danger posed by the fleeing felon.
So what we have is a legal standard that trumps any state statute. The statute thus, merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the force was objectively reasonable if the situation falls into any of the statutorily defined circumstances. Even then a police shooting can be found to be unjustified. Say I am Bernie Madoff and I am walking away from a police officer that has stopped me. They positively identify me and know I am committed some pretty horrendous felonies, they are about to arrest me and I take off running in the other direction. The police know I am a fleeing felon and that I carry a Swiss army knife so they shoot me in the back, but they could have stopped me from running away in some other fashion even maybe just shooting me in the leg. That would not be reasonable, and those police could, not saying they would, be charged with murder or a lesser form of criminal homicide.
In sum, the police are in theory supposed to use the least amount of force necessary to apprehend a suspect. This shoot to kill crap, really does not have much of a legal basis and is pretty ludicrous. So never fear the police at least are not supposed to run around intentionally gunning down criminals if they can avoid it.
55
This is exactly how it should have gone down, if he was able to get out of the state he could have been on the run for many many years. In Arkansas there is the case of Euphrates Whitt, it's almost identical to this case, was shot in the abdomen, was assisted by family and was on the run for 2 years. Because this guy killed 4 cops, he was more heavily sought after, which is understandable. I commend the work done to find this criminal, he would have received the death sentence anyway, happy it came much sooner for him.
56
He wasn't shot for running away, he was shot because he walked into a coffee shot and murdered four people. He was shot because he was approaching a police officer and refused to show his hands when asked to do so. It isn't like Clemmon's face is unfamiliar - I'm willing to bet that every cop in the Puget Sound area has studied the mugshot.
57
I am in no way saying this shooting was not justified. I am only commenting that this "shoot to kill" policy people have gone on and on about is legally incorrect and their evaluation of use of force issues is deeply flawed.
59
The idea that those who murder police officers can justifiably be murdered for fleeing is beyond my comprehension. Why have a justice system?
60
@59 because allowing them to escape can lead to the death of more people. This isn't a fucking purse snatcher. It is someone who is willing to take a life with no provocation. Their life is forfeit.
62
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a joke reference to Jean Charles de Menezes or Operation Flavius. Otherwise, you should maybe read some of your own country's newspapers from time to time.
Alli_Cat
The legal definition of deadly force is not "using a gun" but, as far as I'm aware, using a gun would pretty much always be defined as deadly force because in nearly every situation I can imagine shooting someone would be likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. This is probably why the Seattle Police Department Manual explicitly defines deadly force as, "The intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury. (RCW 9A.16.010) "
Under those circumstances, if you shoot, and it can be demonstrated that you fired with the intention of wounding rather than killing, it can obviously be inferred that you employed deadly force in a situation where something less than deadly force was required. You follow?
The upshot is that if an officer fires his or her weapon at someone, they are only to do so with intent to kill. Any other use of a firearm would be a per se inappropriate use of deadly force.
So disgusting. Thank god I don't live somewhere where police officers shoot people for running away.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a joke reference to Jean Charles de Menezes or Operation Flavius. Otherwise, you should maybe read some of your own country's newspapers from time to time.
Alli_Cat
And the legal definition of deadly force is not “using a gun” it is defined as using an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
The legal definition of deadly force is not "using a gun" but, as far as I'm aware, using a gun would pretty much always be defined as deadly force because in nearly every situation I can imagine shooting someone would be likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. This is probably why the Seattle Police Department Manual explicitly defines deadly force as, "The intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury. (RCW 9A.16.010) "
Under those circumstances, if you shoot, and it can be demonstrated that you fired with the intention of wounding rather than killing, it can obviously be inferred that you employed deadly force in a situation where something less than deadly force was required. You follow?
The upshot is that if an officer fires his or her weapon at someone, they are only to do so with intent to kill. Any other use of a firearm would be a per se inappropriate use of deadly force.
63
@59: You can't be serious. This wasn't some random black man walking down the street. He was immediately recognized as the killer of four cops, he was known to possess a gun (taken from one of the dead officers), and he refused to show his hands when ordered to. In a split second he could have pulled that gun and killed another yet another officer. Or he could have escaped and put many more lives in danger.
On this one I'm squarely on the side of the cops.
On this one I'm squarely on the side of the cops.
64
It seems like there is a likely chance the gun was planted by the police after shooting and killing the guy. Granted, this guy was a murderer, but I don't think that means we should suddenly trust the cops... especially on the 10 year anniversary of them violating half of Seattle's rights during the WTO protest.
65
@31 and this guy let those cops have a chance at life? he gave them the death penalty with no warning.
Take another bong rip, shut your trap and leave the heavy thinking to others brainiac.
Take another bong rip, shut your trap and leave the heavy thinking to others brainiac.
67
I think this is one of those times when you need to cut the cops some slack and move on. This is not a bad outcome for everyone.
68
I have mixed feelings. First my heart goes out to the families of the murdered police officers. I hope they have a sense of closure and can begin the long, hard process of healing. This was a horrible crime. Like some, I would have preferred to see Clemmons stand trial. No doubt he would have been found guilty. But here are my concerns:
1. Why so much hysteria and media coverage? Why has this local story gone national?
2. Why of all the crimes committed in this state did this crime foster vigilantism?
3. If Clemmons was considered armed and dangerous and there was a statewide manhunt, why was that officer alone? Where was his partner?
4. Why did the officer who reported the crime repeatedly dehumanize Clemmons by calling him "this person" instead of Clemmons, the suspect, or some other normal police jargon?
5. If the suspect was unarmed, then why was he shot--for walking counterclockwise? As payback for shooting 4 officers?
6. Why the subtle racial subtext, comparing Clemmons to Willie Horton. In other words, scary dangerous black man let loose on good white citizens by liberal white male politician, whose career is subsequently ruined.
1. Why so much hysteria and media coverage? Why has this local story gone national?
2. Why of all the crimes committed in this state did this crime foster vigilantism?
3. If Clemmons was considered armed and dangerous and there was a statewide manhunt, why was that officer alone? Where was his partner?
4. Why did the officer who reported the crime repeatedly dehumanize Clemmons by calling him "this person" instead of Clemmons, the suspect, or some other normal police jargon?
5. If the suspect was unarmed, then why was he shot--for walking counterclockwise? As payback for shooting 4 officers?
6. Why the subtle racial subtext, comparing Clemmons to Willie Horton. In other words, scary dangerous black man let loose on good white citizens by liberal white male politician, whose career is subsequently ruined.
69
@64
Do you also think that it's likely that 9/11 was an inside job?
Have you ever taken a homeopathic remedy?
Did you vote for Ralph Nader at any point?
I'm conducting a study. Answer for the sake of science, please.
Do you also think that it's likely that 9/11 was an inside job?
Have you ever taken a homeopathic remedy?
Did you vote for Ralph Nader at any point?
I'm conducting a study. Answer for the sake of science, please.
70
64: "Granted, this guy was a murderer, but I don't think that means we should suddenly trust the cops... especially on the 10 year anniversary of them violating half of Seattle's rights during the WTO protest."
Geez. Oh yes, I'm sure the Seattle PD and the Pierce County Sheriff had the gun ready to be whisked to wherever this guy was to be planted, as all the other evidence wasn't going to be enough, AND I'm sure they had a conversation like:
"Well, we'd better plant a gun, 'cause nobody will believe us that Clemmons is the guy"
"Aw, don't you remember? It's the WTO anniversary!"
"Well, in that case, screw it!"
Again, geez.
Geez. Oh yes, I'm sure the Seattle PD and the Pierce County Sheriff had the gun ready to be whisked to wherever this guy was to be planted, as all the other evidence wasn't going to be enough, AND I'm sure they had a conversation like:
"Well, we'd better plant a gun, 'cause nobody will believe us that Clemmons is the guy"
"Aw, don't you remember? It's the WTO anniversary!"
"Well, in that case, screw it!"
Again, geez.
71
myself above: Apologies for my crappy writing. My mock conversation makes no sense, but I think you get the idea.
72
@68, are your questions serious?
Your first question about the story going national for starters. Did you get the memo about this being the worst case of cop killing in state history?
Question 4. How is calling someone "this person" dehumanizing them? Last time I checked a person = human.
I could go on but frankly it's just plain frustrating work.
I get the sense that you are either willfully ignorant or just don't expose yourself to very much in the way of information/current events. Either way it's just this kind of quasi-informed/wrong-headed liberalism that makes the left look bad.
Your first question about the story going national for starters. Did you get the memo about this being the worst case of cop killing in state history?
Question 4. How is calling someone "this person" dehumanizing them? Last time I checked a person = human.
I could go on but frankly it's just plain frustrating work.
I get the sense that you are either willfully ignorant or just don't expose yourself to very much in the way of information/current events. Either way it's just this kind of quasi-informed/wrong-headed liberalism that makes the left look bad.
73
@judah: the Menezes case, awful though it was, made the headlines because it was so vastly anomalous, and public feeling was clearly against the police action. Operation Flavius was the SAS, not the police force. Each occurred in the wake of large scale terrorist operations; they were not responding to local isolated murders by one insane guy. By and large, we don't do this deadly force crap.
@60: 'his life was forfeit'? Says who? I'm astonished at the level of satisfaction with this outcome. I understand that in killing those officers, the guy punched a giant hole in the social contract, but you all seem so willing to crawl through after.
@60: 'his life was forfeit'? Says who? I'm astonished at the level of satisfaction with this outcome. I understand that in killing those officers, the guy punched a giant hole in the social contract, but you all seem so willing to crawl through after.
74
You said that you don't live in a place where police officers shoot people for running away. You were wrong.
Yes, that's because you're the subjects of an overweening nanny state where nobody has guns.
As it happens, I have many complaints about American gun laws, but I am extremely disinclined to accept criticism on the matter -- or any matter tangential to it -- from someone whose country is covered one end to the other in video cameras, where suspects can be held for nearly a month without trial, and where a box cutter is considered an offensive weapon.
I lived in the UK for almost two years and liked it quite a bit, but my observation while I was over there was that none of you have the faintest appreciation of American culture or our tendency toward slightly reckless fatalism. I find the British attitudes on the second count particularly appalling, given that there is a good argument to be made that the American glamorization of violence was sustained through the civilizing influence of 20th Century capitalism by the two world wars we had to fight on your behalf, and the Cold War that followed. To put it another way, perhaps if the people of Western Europe hadn't made cowardice and diplomatic incompetence quite such a cultural destination point, we Americans might have scaled back our fascination with things that go bang. In any event, it seems tacky of you to give us shit for the very tendencies that have saved your country and your culture on no fewer than three occasions in the last 100 years.
But thanks for your comments about how terrible our police officers are after four of them have just been murdered. Please do come out and visit sometime.
More...
the Menezes case, awful though it was, made the headlines because it was so vastly anomalous, and public feeling was clearly against the police action.
You said that you don't live in a place where police officers shoot people for running away. You were wrong.
By and large, we don't do this deadly force crap.
Yes, that's because you're the subjects of an overweening nanny state where nobody has guns.
As it happens, I have many complaints about American gun laws, but I am extremely disinclined to accept criticism on the matter -- or any matter tangential to it -- from someone whose country is covered one end to the other in video cameras, where suspects can be held for nearly a month without trial, and where a box cutter is considered an offensive weapon.
I lived in the UK for almost two years and liked it quite a bit, but my observation while I was over there was that none of you have the faintest appreciation of American culture or our tendency toward slightly reckless fatalism. I find the British attitudes on the second count particularly appalling, given that there is a good argument to be made that the American glamorization of violence was sustained through the civilizing influence of 20th Century capitalism by the two world wars we had to fight on your behalf, and the Cold War that followed. To put it another way, perhaps if the people of Western Europe hadn't made cowardice and diplomatic incompetence quite such a cultural destination point, we Americans might have scaled back our fascination with things that go bang. In any event, it seems tacky of you to give us shit for the very tendencies that have saved your country and your culture on no fewer than three occasions in the last 100 years.
But thanks for your comments about how terrible our police officers are after four of them have just been murdered. Please do come out and visit sometime.
75
@judah: you were able to cite two cases over a period of nearly 20 years. One was entirely irrelevant - the SAS is part of our armed forces, not our police force - and the other not only anomalous, but the subject of ongoing enquiry. We tried it your way - once, with the Menezes case - and everybody hated it. It made it abundantly clear that people neither feel, nor are, safer when police are armed and ready to shoot fleeing suspects. So no, I don't live somewhere where we shoot people for running away.
I have lived in the States - in Seattle, no less, which is where I picked up the habit of reading the Stranger - and I agree that one of the largest cultural differences is the perennial American fascination with things that go bang. Unlike you, however, I tend to agree with the more usual historical reading - that the American civil war is probably the greater basis for it.
Seattle policing I found heavy handed and, on occasion, racist and homophobic, much like policing in other areas of the States I stayed in (principally SF and New Orleans) - and of course the racism of police forces here in the UK is also a matter of record. That does not in any way condone the murder of police officers, but thanks for throwing that straw man my way.
I have lived in the States - in Seattle, no less, which is where I picked up the habit of reading the Stranger - and I agree that one of the largest cultural differences is the perennial American fascination with things that go bang. Unlike you, however, I tend to agree with the more usual historical reading - that the American civil war is probably the greater basis for it.
Seattle policing I found heavy handed and, on occasion, racist and homophobic, much like policing in other areas of the States I stayed in (principally SF and New Orleans) - and of course the racism of police forces here in the UK is also a matter of record. That does not in any way condone the murder of police officers, but thanks for throwing that straw man my way.
76
@75
So, in spite of the fact that someone was shot by police in London, you don't live somewhere where that happens -- because the public reacted adversely. Let me ask you this, Ms. Sunshine, would the public have reacted adversely if Menezes had actually been armed? Maybe somewhat less so. If he had actually killed someone? Less still. If he had killed four police officers in cold blood not 24 hours before? Interesting question. We'll probably never know.
Yes, you're almost certainly right. It wasn't the sustained state of military readiness that we maintained for 65 years, during which time your country socialized healthcare and supported half its population on welfare. It must have been the four year conflict that happened almost 150 years ago. Well spotted.
How did it compare to policing in Belfast, I wonder?
Oh, no, see, I wasn't suggesting that you condoned the murder of police officers. I was suggesting that maybe, as an outsider, it might be polite for you to hold your fucking tongue about how senselessly violent our police force is until at least a week after four of our officers were gunned down in cold blood. Sorry if I came at that sideways.
So, in spite of the fact that someone was shot by police in London, you don't live somewhere where that happens -- because the public reacted adversely. Let me ask you this, Ms. Sunshine, would the public have reacted adversely if Menezes had actually been armed? Maybe somewhat less so. If he had actually killed someone? Less still. If he had killed four police officers in cold blood not 24 hours before? Interesting question. We'll probably never know.
Unlike you, however, I tend to agree with the more usual historical reading - that the American civil war is probably the greater basis for it.
Yes, you're almost certainly right. It wasn't the sustained state of military readiness that we maintained for 65 years, during which time your country socialized healthcare and supported half its population on welfare. It must have been the four year conflict that happened almost 150 years ago. Well spotted.
Seattle policing I found heavy handed and, on occasion, racist and homophobic,
How did it compare to policing in Belfast, I wonder?
That does not in any way condone the murder of police officers, but thanks for throwing that straw man my way.
Oh, no, see, I wasn't suggesting that you condoned the murder of police officers. I was suggesting that maybe, as an outsider, it might be polite for you to hold your fucking tongue about how senselessly violent our police force is until at least a week after four of our officers were gunned down in cold blood. Sorry if I came at that sideways.
77
Seattle policing I found heavy handed and, on occasion, racist and homophobic, much like policing in other areas of the States I stayed in (principally SF and New Orleans) - and of course the racism of police forces here in the UK is also a matter of record. That does not in any way condone the murder of police officers, but thanks for throwing that straw man my way.Are you saying US police are more racist, or just that you consider all police to be racist?
It's difficult to compare our two nations in this field -- Guns make a huge difference in this equation. For what it's worth, I think this suspect would have been treated exactly the same if he had been white. All cop killers are treated equally harshly by the police force.
78
@judah:
'So, in spite of the fact that someone was shot by police in London, you don't live somewhere where that happens -- because the public reacted adversely. Let me ask you this, Ms. Sunshine, would the public have reacted adversely if Menezes had actually been armed? Maybe somewhat less so. If he had actually killed someone? Less still. If he had killed four police officers in cold blood not 24 hours before? Interesting question. We'll probably never know.'
Well, no, we do sort of know, because we have very often in the UK debated the appropriateness of the use of firearms in different situations, including their use as a response to terrorism (the Menezes case), in response to armed gangs, in response to individual murders, and we've usually erred on the side of caution, because the UK public doesn't want the police to be armed when the vast majority of UK citizens are not. As you've pointed out, police here have on occasion been heavy handed - to use your example, policing in Belfast was pretty unpleasant for a long time, though the presence of the armed forces there relieved the police of the need to carry guns - but use of this kind of force has in almost every case been the subject of enquiry, judicial review, all sorts of civil cases, resignations from various police chiefs, etc. Government nad police are very aware that they are not supported in the use of lethal force towards the vast majority of suspects. Basically, anyone who isn't an armed terrorist on the way to carry out something heinous, we'd rather you arrested them, thanks.
As for your complaint about the second world war and its impact on American consciousness, I'm not really sure how I'm suposed to take that seriously. The right to bear arms was sacrosanct long before, and 'sustained military readiness' and the right to bear arms are not easily conflated in my imagination. Which may of course be lacking. But your wider point seems to be 'butt out', right? Well - no. I don't want to, sorry. The loss of individual police officers should not make the question of how to police these kinds of situations moot; quite the reverse, in fact.
More...
'So, in spite of the fact that someone was shot by police in London, you don't live somewhere where that happens -- because the public reacted adversely. Let me ask you this, Ms. Sunshine, would the public have reacted adversely if Menezes had actually been armed? Maybe somewhat less so. If he had actually killed someone? Less still. If he had killed four police officers in cold blood not 24 hours before? Interesting question. We'll probably never know.'
Well, no, we do sort of know, because we have very often in the UK debated the appropriateness of the use of firearms in different situations, including their use as a response to terrorism (the Menezes case), in response to armed gangs, in response to individual murders, and we've usually erred on the side of caution, because the UK public doesn't want the police to be armed when the vast majority of UK citizens are not. As you've pointed out, police here have on occasion been heavy handed - to use your example, policing in Belfast was pretty unpleasant for a long time, though the presence of the armed forces there relieved the police of the need to carry guns - but use of this kind of force has in almost every case been the subject of enquiry, judicial review, all sorts of civil cases, resignations from various police chiefs, etc. Government nad police are very aware that they are not supported in the use of lethal force towards the vast majority of suspects. Basically, anyone who isn't an armed terrorist on the way to carry out something heinous, we'd rather you arrested them, thanks.
As for your complaint about the second world war and its impact on American consciousness, I'm not really sure how I'm suposed to take that seriously. The right to bear arms was sacrosanct long before, and 'sustained military readiness' and the right to bear arms are not easily conflated in my imagination. Which may of course be lacking. But your wider point seems to be 'butt out', right? Well - no. I don't want to, sorry. The loss of individual police officers should not make the question of how to police these kinds of situations moot; quite the reverse, in fact.
79
@jigae - I agree, there's no real way of comparing the relative levels of racism in the US and UK police forces. From what I understand, they do
fairly different jobs, and here the Stephen Lawrence case - as a result of which the Metropolitan force, London's police, were found to be institutionally racist and a law was passed requiring them to make some quite profound changes - has had a big impact. We stil have pretty gruesome stopa nd search stats, though, young black men are 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched than young white men. And the justice system still discriminates, too - black defendants are up to 3 times more likely to be given custodial sentences than are white defendants for the same crimes.
fairly different jobs, and here the Stephen Lawrence case - as a result of which the Metropolitan force, London's police, were found to be institutionally racist and a law was passed requiring them to make some quite profound changes - has had a big impact. We stil have pretty gruesome stopa nd search stats, though, young black men are 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched than young white men. And the justice system still discriminates, too - black defendants are up to 3 times more likely to be given custodial sentences than are white defendants for the same crimes.
80
@jigae - I agree, there's no real way of comparing the relative levels of racism in the US and UK police forces. From what I understand, they do
fairly different jobs, and here the Stephen Lawrence case - as a result of which the Metropolitan force, London's police, were found to be institutionally racist and a law was passed requiring them to make some quite profound changes - has had a big impact. We still have pretty gruesome stop and search stats, though: young black men are 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched than young white men. And the justice system still discriminates, too - black defendants are up to 3 times more likely to be given custodial sentences than are white defendants for the same crimes.
fairly different jobs, and here the Stephen Lawrence case - as a result of which the Metropolitan force, London's police, were found to be institutionally racist and a law was passed requiring them to make some quite profound changes - has had a big impact. We still have pretty gruesome stop and search stats, though: young black men are 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched than young white men. And the justice system still discriminates, too - black defendants are up to 3 times more likely to be given custodial sentences than are white defendants for the same crimes.
81
Well, there's one place where your distinction doesn't hold up: in the United States, we don't allow our armed forces to operate within our borders. So you have armed men who shoot people inside the UK, but they're not cops they're soldiers. That distinction is cosmetic when they're operating inside your borders.
Well, there's one strawman. We'd rather arrest them too. But it's pretty much impossible to arrest someone who's armed and who has shown a willingness to kill you. Still, on balance, most people here would have preferred to see this man stand trial.
The history of right to bear arms is complicated; sacrosanct is certainly overstating it.
The loss of individual police officers doesn't make the point moot; the fact that you're not part of our political community is what makes your perspective on this moot. The officers who were murdered weren't your public servants; their death doesn't threaten your community; the standards of where you're from simply don't apply here. So my wider point was that your voice is irrelevant and your criticisms arrogant and inappropriate. Obviously you're technically empowered to express your opinion, but common sense would suggest that maybe you should restrain yourself until a decent interval has passed.
More...
to use your example, policing in Belfast was pretty unpleasant for a long time, though the presence of the armed forces there relieved the police of the need to carry guns
Well, there's one place where your distinction doesn't hold up: in the United States, we don't allow our armed forces to operate within our borders. So you have armed men who shoot people inside the UK, but they're not cops they're soldiers. That distinction is cosmetic when they're operating inside your borders.
Basically, anyone who isn't an armed terrorist on the way to carry out something heinous, we'd rather you arrested them, thanks.
Well, there's one strawman. We'd rather arrest them too. But it's pretty much impossible to arrest someone who's armed and who has shown a willingness to kill you. Still, on balance, most people here would have preferred to see this man stand trial.
The right to bear arms was sacrosanct long before, and 'sustained military readiness' and the right to bear arms are not easily conflated in my imagination.
The history of right to bear arms is complicated; sacrosanct is certainly overstating it.
But your wider point seems to be 'butt out', right? Well - no. I don't want to, sorry. The loss of individual police officers should not make the question of how to police these kinds of situations moot; quite the reverse, in fact.
The loss of individual police officers doesn't make the point moot; the fact that you're not part of our political community is what makes your perspective on this moot. The officers who were murdered weren't your public servants; their death doesn't threaten your community; the standards of where you're from simply don't apply here. So my wider point was that your voice is irrelevant and your criticisms arrogant and inappropriate. Obviously you're technically empowered to express your opinion, but common sense would suggest that maybe you should restrain yourself until a decent interval has passed.
82
@66- I agree. Reagan orchestrated the dismantling of the public mental health system, which might have been where Mr. Clemmons would have been.
83
As far as I,m concerned, this officer deserves a medal. It was obviously Clemmons, the cop knew it, knew he was in danger of being murdered like the other officers, and did just exactly what he had to do. Why the persecution? You would expect him to put his life on the line for you. Why can't he protect his own? Personally, I'm glad we don't have to waste another penny on this scum who had no respect for the law or life. If we lived in a just and intelligent world, it would be all done with except the paper work.
85
Shoot to kill has nothing to do with what police officers do. It is called shoot to stop. Aim at largest body mass available. When suspect stops you stop shooting. End of stupid discussion. Now the crucial point is that the officer recognized Clemmons who was the chief suspect in the murder of 4 police officers even though for public consumption was referred to as a person of interest. That means suspect! Nowadays officials have to use pc language. All i can say is thank god the officer shot the right guy or the officer would have been up on murder charges. As a police officer you have to not only make life and death split second decisions that effect the general public but also that could ruin that officer's life even if he or she acts in good faith. The officer could not afford to be wrong in this situstion even if he acted in good faith.
86
I just don't get why people even ask why anyone "shoots to kill" rather than wound. If I want to put a screw into a piece of wood I don't use a hammer because that's not what hammers are used for. In accordance with that line of reasoning, I don't shoot things I don't want to kill. Is that a difficult concept for people to understand?
87
Who will be interrogating the Officer who killed the (now deceased) park suspect? The question needs to be raised. If the suspect simply turned and ran then was the firing of multiple shots excessive? Of course there will be a grey area in regard to this (and, yes, I am glad that Mr. Clemmons has been stopped), but one needs to be sure that the Law is obeying and sticking to the Law when seeking out suspects. We can not allow our law enforcers to be murderers and get away with it. "Shoot to Stop" may prove to be a good "guideline" to follow, but if a suspect turns and runs (according to the Officers' statement), then is firing bullets at the runaway- which I'm assuming are hollow point ammunition that are designed to shatter when entering an object (therefore causing the greatest amount of damage) - really necessary, if they simply turned and ran?
In an effort to keep
the
discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is
available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
Penn Jillette Thinks Lindy West Is a Cunty Cunt! by David Schmader
-
House Hearing on Gay Marriage by Eli Sanders
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
It's Not Over Until We Say It's Over by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Tower of Label by Dan Savage
-
Which Kind of Bus Person Are You? by Megan Seling
-
Yesterday's Best Arguments Against Gay Marriage by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Nahum 1:2-6 by Goldy
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (85) RSS