When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible

[R011]

9 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I watched the vid. Did you watch the video?
 

 Make a case for why a pot of boiling water is not a serious threat. 

When it's nowhere near the cop, she's not trying to throw it, and he can still back off.  He made no attempt to deescalate, just went right to deadly force..

[Skywalkre]

51 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I watched the vid. Did you watch the video?
 

 Make a case for why a pot of boiling water is not a serious threat. 

You're saying you watched the vid and responded with this post...

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Hang on. She was holding the boiling water was she not? Is that unarmed?  She expressed an intent to throw it on the officers did she not? 

Can a pot of boiling water thrown on a person cause significant bodily injury? 

Egregious would be an unarmed person standing in their window with no weapon. This was not that. She was not simply standing there.

...when it's unclear if she's even holding the boiling water still (it's unclear if she drained it, put the pot down, even had it in her hands still from the grainy vid) even though you're certain she is (the indictment states she had set it down).  You're claiming "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" translates to a threat to throw the water?  You're saying her saying sorry and ducking behind the counter and the officer moving closer to her is her threatening him?  You're claiming a women, kneeling/ducking/whatever could easily throw boiling water (IF SHE EVEN HAD IT) the distance covered in that vid?

Give me a fucking break...  There are times when you're just wrong and should shut up and duck out of a conversation.  This is one of those moments for you.

ETA - And none of the above factors in the before or after of the entire vid.  They were called to the house because she called 911 fearing there was someone sneaking around outside her house.  The conversation was cordial and polite.  There wasn't a hint of hostility til the cop says, in his ever so professional way, "you better fucking not or I swear to God I'll shoot you in the fucking face" after her rebuke comment (which isn't a threat).  Afterwards the cop claims she was coming after him with the boiling water which is clearly not the case after watching the video.  He also instructed his partner not to get the first aid kit to help her.

Nothing about the shooter's story holds up.  He lost his shit, pulled out his firearm, and pointed it at the woman over a common, everyday phrase black women use.

Edited July 24 by Skywalkre

[EchoFiveMike]

What is it with black people and boiling water?  And craziness?

That cop is a madman.

When are municipalities just going to do without rather than hiring maniac gypsy cops?  

In much of America, actual Americans are better off without paying for cops.  S/F....Ken M

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

You're saying you watched the vid and responded with this post...
 

...when it's unclear if she's even holding the boiling water still (it's unclear if she drained it,

So you watch the video but claim knowledge and admit lack of the same knowledge. How Stuart of you. 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

put the pot down, even had it in her hands still from the grainy vid) even though you're certain she is (the indictment states she had set it down).

The point is that the video seems to indicate she was NOT unarmed but seemed to be holding a pot of hot water.

Simple question. Is a pot of hot to boiling water likely to cause severe injury if thrown at someone’s face?
 

Yes or No?  

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

 You're claiming "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" translates to a threat to throw the water? 

What does it mean to you? 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

You're saying her saying sorry and ducking behind the counter and the officer moving closer to her is her threatening him?  You're claiming a women, kneeling/ducking/whatever could easily throw boiling water (IF SHE EVEN HAD IT) the distance covered in that vid?

Ability - she’s holding a pot of scalding hot water, she can sling that.

opportunity -She’s proximate to the officers  

jeopardy - She indicated a threat verbally. Certainly seems to do so to me. 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Give me a fucking break...  There are times when you're just wrong and should shut up and duck out of a conversation.  This is one of those moments for you.

Then make the fucking case logically and expand/explain instead of acting like w child who doesn’t understand basic deadly force law.  Its part of the test of deadly force. Its a set of criteria with the ability/opportunity/jeopardy test.

Come on, I know you’re more informed than the typical news reporter who doesn’t know the first thing about deadly force law. And you’re not a BLM activist. 
 

If she’d picked up a knife and said I’ll rebuke you in the name of Jesus, how is that different or not? Holding a gun, the same. Holding a cross? 
 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

ETA - And none of the above factors in the before or after of the entire vid.  They were called to the house because she called 911 fearing there was someone sneaking around outside her house. 
 

Irrelevant. Mentally ill people who do weird things like throw boiling water on folks never call the cops because they hear things outside. 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

The conversation was cordial and polite.  There wasn't a hint of hostility til the cop says, in his ever so professional way, "you better fucking not or I swear to God I'll shoot you in the fucking face" after her rebuke comment (which isn't a threat). 

How is rebuke you not a threat? 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Afterwards the cop claims she was coming after him with the boiling water which is clearly not the case after watching the video. 

She went to the stove. Turned it off, then picked up the pot. That WOULD qualify. Did you watch the same video?

You sound like the folks who don’t understand the Tueller Drill and claim someone holding a knife was unarmed. 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

He also instructed his partner not to get the first aid kit to help her.

Because its a head wound and a tourniquet would not help. A quick clot bandage might help sorta but not that much with an open head wound from a bullet where there is gross internal damage. What’s he gonna do, pour hemostatic granules in the skull? 

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Nothing about the shooter's story holds up.  He lost his shit, pulled out his firearm, and pointed it at the woman over a common, everyday phrase black women use.

Rebuke while holding an arguable weapon? Thats routine? I have never heard that out of a black woman. Certainly not in any polite nonthreatening situation. 
 

They asked her to turn off the stove. She could have done that and then left the pot alone. Its unclear to me why she felt the need to pick up the pot of water and advance towards the officers. If it was to offer them a cup of tea, maybe say that instead?

Edited July 24 by rmgill

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, R011 said:

When it's nowhere near the cop, she's not trying to throw it, and he can still back off.  He made no attempt to deescalate, just went right to deadly force..

Its a ranged weapon, not a contact weapon. Can you not sling the contents of a pot across a room? 
 

Would burns to the face, neck and hands result in a serious injury? 

Edited July 24 by rmgill

[Skywalkre]

Holy shit, you're still defending this cop...

I'll get to the rest of this tomorrow but here's a starter - look up what rebuke means and look up what that phrase means.

[rmgill]

32 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Holy shit, you're still defending this cop...

No, I am asking you to test the points I make and respond logically. Not go “REEEE!!” like a BLM activist. 

32 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

I'll get to the rest of this tomorrow but here's a starter - look up what rebuke means and look up what that phrase means.

‘Where are you going?’

‘Stepping away from your pot of boiling water.’

‘Ill rebuke you in the name of Jesus’

 

That seems like a loaded statement when that comes up. Its not, ‘Oh, sorry, let me put it down. ‘ or ‘oh, I am going to make some Tea, would you like some?’
 

Its not disarming, its escalatory.  It strongly implies a threat.

Perception is the key in deadly force. 
 

Here’s your homework, explain how boiling water can’t cause severe burns. 
 

Also, heres a refresher on use of deadly force.

 

Edited July 24 by rmgill

[R011]

9 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Holy shit, you're still defending this cop...

I'll get to the rest of this tomorrow but here's a starter - look up what rebuke means and look up what that phrase means.

If someone approached me with something that could be used as a weapon and said that, I'd be concerned that they might use it, ambiguous as that phrase is.  Immediately pulling a gun and opening fire as a first response, though, is a gross overreaction.

Edited July 24 by R011

[R011]

9 hours ago, rmgill said:

So you watch the video but claim knowledge and admit lack of the same knowledge. How Stuart of you. 

The point is that the video seems to indicate she was NOT unarmed but seemed to be holding a pot of hot water.

Simple question. Is a pot of hot to boiling water likely to cause severe injury if thrown at someone’s face?
 

Yes or No?  

What does it mean to you? 

Ability - she’s holding a pot of scalding hot water, she can sling that.

opportunity -She’s proximate to the officers  

jeopardy - She indicated a threat verbally. Certainly seems to do so to me. 

Then make the fucking case logically and expand/explain instead of acting like w child who doesn’t understand basic deadly force law.  Its part of the test of deadly force. Its a set of criteria with the ability/opportunity/jeopardy test.

Come on, I know you’re more informed than the typical news reporter who doesn’t know the first thing about deadly force law. And you’re not a BLM activist. 
 

If she’d picked up a knife and said I’ll rebuke you in the name of Jesus, how is that different or not? Holding a gun, the same. Holding a cross? 
 

Irrelevant. Mentally ill people who do weird things like throw boiling water on folks never call the cops because they hear things outside. 

How is rebuke you not a threat? 

She went to the stove. Turned it off, then picked up the pot. That WOULD qualify. Did you watch the same video?

You sound like the folks who don’t understand the Tueller Drill and claim someone holding a knife was unarmed. 

Because its a head wound and a tourniquet would not help. A quick clot bandage might help sorta but not that much with an open head wound from a bullet where there is gross internal damage. What’s he gonna do, pour hemostatic granules in the skull? 

Rebuke while holding an arguable weapon? Thats routine? I have never heard that out of a black woman. Certainly not in any polite nonthreatening situation. 
 

They asked her to turn off the stove. She could have done that and then left the pot alone. Its unclear to me why she felt the need to pick up the pot of water and advance towards the officers. If it was to offer them a cup of tea, maybe say that instead?

Opportunity:  Not even close.

Jeopardy:  Ambiguous at best.  "Rebuke" doesn't usually mean 'assault".

Edited July 24 by R011

[R011]

9 hours ago, rmgill said:

Its a ranged weapon, not a contact weapon. Can you not sling the contents of a pot across a room? 
 

Would burns to the face, neck and hands result in a serious injury? 

A range of a couple of feet at most - less than the distance between the officer and the woman and there was a counter between them to impede her advance should she have tried..  A range that could have easily been extended if the cop backed up

ETA:  And when the shots were fired, she had ducked down behind the counter and couldn't possibly have thrown the pot or water at them if she wanted to.  No threat at all when killed.

Edited July 24 by R011

[rmgill]

I can see a much larger threat range for a pot of water slung at the officers. Hold the pot sling it, the water will go more than 2 feet. 
 

As to what we can see, I am unable to see the ducking down clearly. 
 

I still don’t see the argument of unarmed and absolutely not a threat as being remotely valid. 

[Skywalkre]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

 "Rebuke" doesn't usually mean 'assault".

It doesn't mean it ever.  It's kind of an archaic word (I only ever heard it in church) but this whole discussion is just highlighting how few even understand what it means.  To jump to "it's a threat" in an environment where nothing threatening is happening is absurd.

[Skywalkre]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

The point is that the video seems to indicate she was NOT unarmed but seemed to be holding a pot of hot water.

I love how you skipped over the part where the indictment states she had set it down while clinging to a video that's grainy and hard to make out as indicating she has it (at best it's hard to tel, and hard to tell if she had dumped it out already if she does have it).

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Simple question. Is a pot of hot to boiling water likely to cause severe injury if thrown at someone’s face?
 

Yes or No? 

This is just absurd in the context of the video.  Yes, boiling water is dangerous.  However, there was no hint she was going to attack them.  The officers told her to take it off the stove and she did.  Then as soon as she picks it up the shooter freaks out.

Someone on reddit put it best.  This incident would be like if a cop walked onto a busy street with oncoming traffic and opened fire on the cars approaching him because he feared for his safety.  Yes, a car can be a deadly weapon, but in that context the use of force makes no fucking sense (just like here).

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

What does it mean to you? 

...

She indicated a threat verbally. Certainly seems to do so to me.

This is where your argument falls apart.  That word does not indicate a threat.  That phrase does not indicate a threat.  To imply as such, and to interpret it like that (such as the officer said), just highlights one's ignorance.  If you want to embrace that ignorance, then knock yourself out, but that doesn't change reality.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Then make the fucking case logically and expand/explain instead of acting like w child who doesn’t understand basic deadly force law.  Its part of the test of deadly force. Its a set of criteria with the ability/opportunity/jeopardy test.

Come on, I know you’re more informed than the typical news reporter who doesn’t know the first thing about deadly force law. And you’re not a BLM activist. 
 

If she’d picked up a knife and said I’ll rebuke you in the name of Jesus, how is that different or not? Holding a gun, the same. Holding a cross?

That case has been made and is pretty straightforward and obvious.  You're the one dancing around reality (and I'm still doubting you watched the vid) to claim otherwise.

A woman calls 911 because she thinks there's a prowler at her home.  Cops show up.  Conversation is cordial the entire time.  No animosity towards police.  They move inside house.  Cops ask her to take care of her boiling water.  She goes over to take care of it.  One cop freaks out (note from the vid the other cop doesn't), woman uses a phrase that does not constitute a threat, cop threatens woman, woman uses phrase again, cop pulls out his gun.  The woman says sorry and ducks for cover.  Cop moves towards her and opens fire.

This is murder, plain and simple.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Irrelevant. Mentally ill people who do weird things like throw boiling water on folks never call the cops because they hear things outside.

An innocent women is killed in her own house and you have the gall to imply she might have been mentally ill?  How does the vid support this?  You're telling me the 'training' these cops get is enough for them to make a qualified decision regarding this?  Oh, I get it... all the 'training' shit super cop got from the six agencies he worked with in 4 years made him a fucking psychologist.

Do you ever stop to listen to yourself?

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

How is rebuke you not a threat?

Simple... because that's not what the word means (alone or in the context of this phrase).

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

She went to the stove. Turned it off, then picked up the pot. That WOULD qualify. Did you watch the same video?

Who asked her to go to the stove?  From the vid the counter and sink were to the left of the stove, which is where she moved.  So maybe she was taking it off, maybe she was emptying it.  Both reasonable actions.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Because its a head wound and a tourniquet would not help. A quick clot bandage might help sorta but not that much with an open head wound from a bullet where there is gross internal damage. What’s he gonna do, pour hemostatic granules in the skull?

Oh, so now these super-psychologist-cops are also trained medics?  We don't know anything about her wound from the vid other than it's a head shot.  That phrase doesn't have any magical, mystical meaning in and of itself.  The cop who actually had his bodycam on the whole time could clearly see the victim.  Maybe he thought he could help.  Why are you downplaying the second cop on the scene who didn't freak out like a little bitch and actually tried to help the woman?

[Skywalkre]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

As to what we can see, I am unable to see the ducking down clearly.

Are you shitting us?

Here's the vid.  Start at 1:29:

You're saying... with a straight face... that she's not clearly ducking down?

[R011]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

I can see a much larger threat range for a pot of water slung at the officers. Hold the pot sling it, the water will go more than 2 feet. 
 

As to what we can see, I am unable to see the ducking down clearly. 
 

I still don’t see the argument of unarmed and absolutely not a threat as being remotely valid. 

And at what point was she holding to pot so she could "sling" it?  She was barely holding it at waist level.  And she was crouched behind the counter when she was shot so couldn't have thrown it anyway.

[R011]

17 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

.  The woman says sorry and ducks for cover.  Cop moves towards her and opens fire.

 

"ducks for cover".  IOW, at that point presents no threat at all no matter how one might want to take "Rebuke".

And as you point out, the cops asked her to pick up the pot.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

It doesn't mean it ever.  It's kind of an archaic word (I only ever heard it in church) but this whole discussion is just highlighting how few even understand what it means.  To jump to "it's a threat" in an environment where nothing threatening is happening is absurd.

Sure, if you ignore the pot of boiling water. 

 

45 minutes ago, R011 said:

"ducks for cover".  IOW, at that point presents no threat at all no matter how one might want to take "Rebuke".

And as you point out, the cops asked her to pick up the pot.

Did they ask her to pick it up or did they ask her to turn off the burner? Sorta two different things. 

 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Are you shitting us?

Here's the vid.  Start at 1:29:

You're saying... with a straight face... that she's not clearly ducking down?

Well if you refer to the other version posted a page back there's a lot of CC text at the bottom obscuring some of what is going on. And also, a chest cam view is NOT the same as the eyeball view of the officer now is it? 

Also, can you see her hands on the pot in the video? Because I can't because the one badge cam thats on in the AP version is way off to the right and turns away for a moment. So we see the stuff all over the counter and not her hands do we? SO are you asserting that YOU see her hands? 
 

Edited July 24 by rmgill

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

I love how you skipped over the part where the indictment states she had set it down while clinging to a video that's grainy and hard to make out as indicating she has it (at best it's hard to tel, and hard to tell if she had dumped it out already if she does have it).

Ok. So you cannot say from the video if she had or not? So you're being dishonest here? You asserted that we can see what's going on or can we not? 

Yes. It's hard to tell. Did she turn to the sink and have time to pour it out? 

And frankly that you cite the indictment as standup evidence is silly. Just because it's in an indictment doesn't mean it's facts in evidence. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

This is just absurd in the context of the video.  Yes, boiling water is dangerous.  However, there was no hint she was going to attack them.  The officers told her to take it off the stove and she did.  Then as soon as she picks it up the shooter freaks out.

No, they both back up because it clearly IS a weapon. She asks why and they assert twice. Then she asserts to rebuke them in the name of Jesus, I guess to her they're evil spirits? 

You're asserting you know her mind and her intent. How do you know this? 

Deadly force is based on perceived intent. I can see the potential threat. How many replies has it taken you to agree that boiling water IS dangerous? 

 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Someone on reddit put it best.  This incident would be like if a cop walked onto a busy street with oncoming traffic and opened fire on the cars approaching him because he feared for his safety.  Yes, a car can be a deadly weapon, but in that context the use of force makes no fucking sense (just like here).

That's a very bad comparison. This was an encounter in the home after another call and something was possibly up. The strange vehicle in the driveway that's just there is an odd set of details. Women have issues with asserting fear of someone that they let into a their home. One of the times I did a ride along with cop friend we had to go to a women's shelter because sometimes the women would let their unfortunate choices of men INTO the shelter through side doors. 

 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

This is where your argument falls apart.  That word does not indicate a threat. 

Rebuke in the name of Jesus indicates that the person considers the other to be an evil spirit. 

Does she seem entirely rational to you? 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

 

That phrase does not indicate a threat.  To imply as such, and to interpret it like that (such as the officer said), just highlights one's ignorance.  If you want to embrace that ignorance, then knock yourself out, but that doesn't change reality.

Sorry. Again, its perception. The cops are evil spirits to her? Doesn't that mean that? 

 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

That case has been made and is pretty straightforward and obvious.  You're the one dancing around reality (and I'm still doubting you watched the vid) to claim otherwise.

Maybe I just have a better eye for things that might be threats than you do? You DO seem to misunderstand the nuances of deadly force. You failed to admit the boiling water was a weapon. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

A woman calls 911 because she thinks there's a prowler at her home.  Cops show up.  Conversation is cordial the entire time.  No animosity towards police.  They move inside house.  Cops ask her to take care of her boiling water.  She goes over to take care of it.  One cop freaks out (note from the vid the other cop doesn't), woman uses a phrase that does not constitute a threat, cop threatens woman, woman uses phrase again, cop pulls out his gun.  The woman says sorry and ducks for cover.  Cop moves towards her and opens fire.

So, in Illinois is use of deadly force to stop someone with a weapon an affirmative defense? Do you even understand what that context of law means? 

Again, I'll note that women do weird shit when it comes to ex-boyfriends. They go from fearful to aggressive. Domestic violence calls are super dangerous for that reason. Did you even note the issue with the SUV in the driveway that is 'just there'? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

This is murder, plain and simple.

Sorry, you're not a lawyer. You've noted that repeatedly. I don't think you can make that assertion and more clearly than the Associated press can. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

An innocent women is killed in her own house and you have the gall to imply she might have been mentally ill? 

Here's a clue. 

Prowler call. Nothing there. Strange Car in the driveway, no known owner, just there and evasive answers. That gets the cop senses going. Did you even catch that detail? 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

How does the vid support this?  You're telling me the 'training' these cops get is enough for them to make a qualified decision regarding this?  Oh, I get it... all the 'training' shit super cop got from the six agencies he worked with in 4 years made him a fucking psychologist.

Well, you're a legal expert in your training. Oh, right your'e not. You make absurd assertions to law that aren't even founded. But allow for all manner of legal powers that aren't there. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Do you ever stop to listen to yourself?

Yes. And I've been looking at and pondering deadly force encounters and discussing them with experts for more than 30 years. 
 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Who asked her to go to the stove?  From the vid the counter and sink were to the left of the stove, which is where she moved.  So maybe she was taking it off, maybe she was emptying it.  Both reasonable actions.

You can turn a burner off and leave water on the stove. One need not pick it up and approach the officers with it? What was she doing? Was she going to set it on the counter that was full of stuff? Or in the chair with the red bag in it on that side of the counter? 
 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Oh, so now these super-psychologist-cops are also trained medics?  We don't know anything about her wound from the vid other than it's a head shot. 

Well, youre an expert from watching one video aren't you? You assert knowledge of her mindset and intent without any evidence. 

I'm asking for folks to talk it out. Steel man the cops view. I do that in every scenario. I also do that from the position of the person BEING shot. Because, in my case, as I've carried a firearm for nearly 30 years, means that I have to think about those things. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

That phrase doesn't have any magical, mystical meaning in and of itself. 

Bull crap, it's the definition of magical and mystical. Rebuke evil spirts. Entirely magical/mystical. In gaming circles rebuking undead is something one does to control them, but I don't think she's a lawful evil cleric about to roll D20 on her Turn/Rebuke ability, so I'll go with the rebuking evil spirits which implies she ascribes evil to the officers. Which when carrying a pot of boiling water CAN imply a threat. 

Again, I'll note, use of deadly force can entirely rest upon perception. You could be entirely in your rights doing something legal and lawful AND when someone else sees you they could perceive you as a threat and legally and lawfully shoot you. Yes. from your perspective, it's wrong. And that's why there's a LOT of training on shoot/no-shoot. 

I don't think you've thought this or other scenarios out enough to properly discuss it. You're certainly not in any sort of clinical mode to look at it from both sides. You just have the post shooting, high level you know everything view and you can intuit and think about things in slow, calm setting. You're in monday morning quarter back mode. 

 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

The cop who actually had his bodycam on the whole time could clearly see the victim.  Maybe he thought he could help.  Why are you downplaying the second cop on the scene who didn't freak out like a little bitch and actually tried to help the woman?

I think it was Ambulance Driver  (Kelly Grayson) who had a trainee with him when they rolled up on a decapitation type motorcycle accident on the road. There was a helmet with head in it several feet from the body. The new medic asked if he should start compressions. Kelly took a few moments before he composed a witty response. 

As far as I can tell, you're very much like that trainee. 
 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

And at what point was she holding to pot so she could "sling" it?  She was barely holding it at waist level.  And she was crouched behind the counter when she was shot so couldn't have thrown it anyway.

I can think of kinematics for this. Hold the handle, push with the off hand, sling with the right hand, rotate through like swinging a tennis racket. 

Or, as you crouch down, push upwards with the arms holding the saucepan to hurl the contents over the counter. 

Or crouch down with the water THEN hurl upwards to add velocity. 

I can see Tueller drill elements to this that you guys aren't taking into account. 

[Skywalkre]

33 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Bull crap, it's the definition of magical and mystical.

This reply highlights you just let go and weren't even thinking anymore.  That comment I made was in regards to head shots.  There was nothing from that section of my post referencing the woman's statements.

The fact you're willing to still stick with this is staggering.  Also telling no one else is willing to stick their neck out and agree with you.

A woman is dead in her own home, from the people who were supposed to be helping her, after she did nothing wrong and was never a threat.  That's egregious... and a tragedy.  This cop deserves to rot for the rest of his life... but given our system and the fact there are people out there like you who can somehow buy his defense he may just walk.  It's happened before...

[rmgill]

19 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

This reply highlights you just let go and weren't even thinking anymore.  That comment I made was in regards to head shots.  There was nothing from that section of my post referencing the woman's statements.

Sorry, hard to track what you're responding to sometimes. 

You weren't there. You have A video to go on. You can't make 100% assertions and you can't quantify the pot of boiling water as not a threat. Everything else is then up to a lot of questioning, steel manning and reflection. It's a lot of subjective. 

It's a touchy shoot, BUT as I noted, you can be 100% in your right and it's still not ideal. This can include people shooting cops who present as a threat. I've cited several instances before, with some going back to 1995. 

19 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The fact you're willing to still stick with this is staggering.  Also telling no one else is willing to stick their neck out and agree with you.

Or maybe they're just tired of arguing with your legal inexpertise? 

19 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

A woman is dead in her own home, from the people who were supposed to be helping her, after she did nothing

She did nothing, sure aside from approaching the officers with what is arguably a weapon. You need to go on some ride alongs with cops. Maybe look at some more domestic violence cases. Maybe run a FATS trainer system a few sessions. 

19 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

wrong and was never a threat. 

Again, you assert when you cannot. I've heard this before. I heard this from the people upset and accepting of the Rioting over Rayshard Brooks' killing. They asserted, 100% Brooks was not a threat. He didn't need to be shot. We heard the same about the Rittenhouse shooting. And the Martin/Zimmerman Shooting. 

I would have thought you'd have learned a thing or two from those cases. 

Look at data, discuss, wait for more data. But no, you've jumped to pronouncements and unknowable knowledge. 

If there's rioting across the US just in time for the Election will that make you happy? Because you know the media is going to spin this case. 

Edited July 24 by rmgill

[Murph]

20 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

What is it with black people and boiling water?  And craziness?

That cop is a madman.

When are municipalities just going to do without rather than hiring maniac gypsy cops?  

In much of America, actual Americans are better off without paying for cops.  S/F....Ken M

Gypsy cops are the curse of my profession.  I know because I did background checks for 20 years.  We tried to weed them out and were pretty successful in keeping them far far away from us.  The only one hired was because SAPD sealed all the records and refused to allow anyone to see them.  It finally took a District Court judge issuing an order for SAPD to cough up the records on this one guy (he was fired, and indicted).  

[R011]

58 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I can think of kinematics for this. Hold the handle, push with the off hand, sling with the right hand, rotate through like swinging a tennis racket. 

Or, as you crouch down, push upwards with the arms holding the saucepan to hurl the contents over the counter. 

Or crouch down with the water THEN hurl upwards to add velocity. 

I can see Tueller drill elements to this that you guys aren't taking into account. 

And at what point did she move to do anything like that?  How would she expect to hit hit anyone with a pot of water while cowering behind a counter?  What was stopping the officers from stepping back?

And jump throw from a crouch behind the counter without scalding herself?  Be serious.

Edited July 24 by R011

[Murph]

Purely based on the evidence in the video it looks bad, really really bad, and since he has already been indicted, there must also be more that we do not know (I hope).  

[rmgill]

1 minute ago, R011 said:

And at what point did she move to do anything like that? 

This is why I bring up the Tueller drill.

1 minute ago, R011 said:

How would she expect to hit hit anyone with a pot of water while cowering behind a counter?

I mean slinging the contents from the pot. It's a splash weapon. It tends to spread out.

1 minute ago, R011 said:

  What was stopping the officers from stepping back?

Go fill up a 5 quart saucepan of water. Take it outside, sling it around. How far can you sling it? Can you get it across the width of a room (outside, pace it off so you don't make your spouse or family irate because the walls are dripping). Yes, arm strength can factor in here. So figure a 150lb woman and not a 250lb man.