Late to the conversation, but all I've got to say is "Red Dog Squad."

Cops inside the perimeter have built their own little fantasy world where the few good folks don't give a shit anymore than the many bad folk. They live in the house that Peter built. Now suque it.

All we know from the article posted was it was tinted Tahoe. Maybe in the Land of the Lakes all the cops drive 4wd SUVs, but where I live maybe less than 5% of police vehicles are anything other than sedans.

Not if they don't have to.

 

Question for the cops.

Realizing a subject could always have another gun, but do you normally approach a subject to cuff that has made himself prone on the ground that you KNEW had a gun without first having him  move the weapon away?

Let them get shot for looking like a fucking criminal then.





 

Actually, it is all about what he believed.

His gun was empty after the third shot, so you are lying when you say he tried to kill the officer after that third shot.  He threatened to kill the officer, he did not actually have the ammo to do so.  Kind of like Dirty Harry in the opening scene, if you will.



The circumstances were that the man had been followed and ambushed by multiple attackers in different vehicles.  He acted and survived.  The cop with the tattoos almost got killed because he chose to adorn himself like the criminals he arrests.  



The other people had not been chased and ambushed by multiple attackers in different vehicles and saw a uniformed police officer, they probably did not see the tattoo's as someone who has a knee in their back would.



Thomas should walk.  



The officer already wears a vest, he can wear long sleeves so he looks like a cop.





 

It certainly doesn't tell you he's a crook as you are assuming.

Do you think it was a conflict of interest for a member of the grand jury that failed to indict himw to be a wife of an officer from that department?

Incorrect.



 

 [/quote]

More often than they should I think.  Doesn't change my view of it any nor do I think because they do, we should to.  


On another note:
I find it odd to see that the officer that shot through the closed door is clearly defended on the basis of being amped up to far to get it right over just what there was a potential for.  Yet the guy that just got  ACTUALLY FUCKING SHOT AT does not seem to be getting nearly that level of consideration.  Come on.

[/quote]

I thought the autopsy report said the door was open.

I've also seen plenty of thugs riding in old police cruisers, spot lights and all.

He didn't try to shoot him in the face, his gun was empty.  He threatened to shoot him in the face with an empty gun.  Something you would do if you thought the guy on the ground was trying to kill you.



 

if he was able to see the cop get out of his truck (since part of his "excuse" is that the cop wasnt in a cop car) and he thought it was
a cop enough to comply with commands initialy, he saw the uniform. there is no question at all that he saw a fully uniformed offier approching him.

stupid is not a legal defence.

so should cops start shooting civilians because the have tatoos? only criminals have tatoos right?
no good reason for ANYone to get a tatoo if they arnt a criminal. infact tatoo shops should just be illegal.

Not QUITE correct, actually.



Generally, though, soldiers are strongly discouraged from getting tattoos that would be visible in the hot weather PT uniform.

Yup, that's totally what he said.

LOL

You are correct, Sir. I've seen cleaner thugs out of Uniform than in uniform inside the ring.

ETA: Long sleeve shirts are against the law in Georgia. You'll get shot if you're caught wearing them.

So Roach was jumping in to protect his drug turf?????

you watch too much tv.  according to the article Thomas was actively trying to shoot the officer even tho his gun was empty.
despite what you may have learned from watching such fine educational films as dirty harry, trying to kill a cop, even if your gun is empty, is still trying to kill a cop.
everyone else also believed he was still trying to kill the cop as they responded by trying to kill him, several times.
hitting him with an SUV, trying to shoot him with the officers gun, and then beating him in the head with it.
it took several civilians to rip him off of the cop and subdue him.

Cops shouldn't have visible tattoos, a bone through their nose, or baggy pants hanging below their waist line with their fucking underwear hanging out.
 

that's what I try to tell my wife, and she tells me I need to grow the hell up.

 

having some marine tattoos and having a bone through your nose are quite different things. tho I'm sorry that you harbor such prejudice

Incorrect??? They don't have long sleeves in Georgia?

A perfect example of ink discrimination. So inkie can't be cops huh?

As former .mil, with visible tats, I understand where you are coming from, but I've worn my dress uniform many a time.





 

Walks like a duck quacks like a duck MUST BE A DUCK.

If you see a blinged out Tahoe who do you think is driving it Mother Teresa or some banger.



I vote banger and I'm going to pay extra attention to it as it is a perceived threat.



Stereotypes are Stereotypes for a reason most of the time they are right.[span style='FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'']
<o:p></o:p></?xml:namespace>

As you say, this is 2012...and we have enough knowledge of human psychology and violence to know that there are a wide range of physiological and psychological reactions that naturally occur under the strain of close-range lethal combat.  Most normal people probably haven't been in a firefight.  Most normal people probably haven't read anything by LTC Grossman, or Mas Ayoob.  Which means they simply don't have anything close to an appreciation of stress responses, the forms they take, and the actions that may naturally occur after a fight.

We know that a large percentage of individuals involved in a gun fight will naturally tend to experience tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time dilation, etc.  There's enough evidence out there by now that if a store owner fights his way out of an ambush and runs off down the street, we can pretty safely assume that his heart rate is massively elevated, he's probably functioning under what could be considered a degree of impairment, and his reactions are going to be slanted in favor of an aggressive response rather than calm rational analysis.  It's human nature, and it's what keeps people alive through a life-or-death situation.  

Into this steps a cop, driving a personally-owned vehicle, who appears on-scene instantly, and has certain visible characteristics that can be considered suspicious under the circumstances.  He must attempt to make a split-second decision to understand the scene unfolding around him, and necessarily react to what's going on.  He focuses in on the store owner as the suspect, and treats the owner as such.  Of course the bystanders are going to instantly think "He's a cop" when the officer got out of the car - because they haven't just survived a shooting, their physiological state of arousal is low, and they have no paranoia of survival to make them suspicious of unexplained details around them.  

You've got two armed individuals who both mistakenly believe the other to be a threat, and both are willing to use lethal force to defend themselves.  As the article points out, the only good thing in this whole clusterfuck was the fact that the officer wore his vest that day, and everyone left the scene alive.

I think he meant that AR 670-1 doesn't say EXACTLY what you said, despite how tattoos are actually treated in practice.

As always, commanders may add to, but not take away from 670-1. In the units I was assigned to soldiers were discouraged from getting visible tattoos. Soldiers that already had them were tolerated as long as they weren't extremist, indecent, sexist, or racist, though big tittied bitches were generally tolerated.

and thats shy he should got prison. everything said "COP",  cop dressed like a cop, acted like a cop. tattoos do not make you a criminal.
a banger dosnt shout "freeze! drop the gun!!! get down on the ground!!"  then move in and begine to handcuff you.
Banger starts shooting at you from his SUV, does not give commands to give yourself up.

I'm withholding judgement on the tattoo question until I see pictures of the officer's forearms.

I had one going in, and got one in tech school.



Got an LOR for the second one, but fuck it, I love me some ink.



got out of the .mil, and went into LE.



visible ink never fucked me.



 

Either do I. But opinions and being disgusted about ink discrimination didn't stop that cop from getting shot. And, with the amount of people who [evidently] identify tats with hoodlums... I'd be wearing long sleeves if I was a cop with ink all over my arms

And there we have the crux of the matter. Bad situation and I firmly believe that both were acting in good faith. I can't say how I would react myself but the victim's account is certainly plausible and that is what would make it hard for me to convict.

The only thing I'm saying with any confidence is that I'm glad everyone is okay and I hope the victim doesn't spend a quarter century locked up with dirtbags for making a really bad choice. Further, I think that the few folks in this thread that are claiming he KNEW he was shooting a cop are absolutely wrong.

...

Interesting.  So, to summarize your argument: the guy should have ignored what the cop looked like (the tattoos) and instead focused on what the guy looked like (the uniform).  And he should have only focused on that part of his appearance that could have been easily purchased from a uniform shop.  You must teach me your techniques of logic, master, for I find them infathomable.