If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
So now the Stockton PD is in full "damage-control" mode over this BS right here ...
Silva, the Stockton PD public information officer, said the 16-year-old was taken to the station, his mother was called and Mayfield "was cited for trespassing in a bus lane and for resisting arrest."
"We also want to emphasize that, you know, early on, people were saying the kid was jaywalking and that was definitely not the case here," he said. "He was not jaywalking. He was walking in a bus-only lane, and there's a big difference. That's trespassing."
However, Mayfield has a copy of a citation that explicitly says the word "jaywalking," Duncan said.
Mayfield will appear in juvenile court on a later date to answer to the charges, Silva said.
Mayfield "obviously plans on pleading not guilty," Duncan said, adding that the family has also filed a formal complaint against the officers involved in his arrest.
So this kid was given a citation for "jaywalking" .... but subsequently charged with "trespassing in a bus lane and for resisting arrest"? Interesting. I think this pretty much sums the situation up quite succinctly ....
His name is Emilio Mayfield and we now know that moments before he was confronted, assaulted, and arrested by police on the morning of Wednesday, September 16, he was catching public transportation to his local school.
In his first interview after the brutal and excessive assault, Mayfield opened up about what happened on that Stockton, California street and how he sees himself in spite of it all.
“I see myself as a great young man, successful in school. I feel traumatized. I was beaten and slammed on the floor."
Both Mayfield and the police also now confirm that he was not "jaywalking" as had been previously reported, but that he simply stepped into a lane adjacent to the sidewalk that was reserved for busses. No curb exists between the sidewalk and this lane and Emilio, according to eyewitnesses, stepped in the bus lane for about two seconds when he was confronted by an officer for doing so.
What's completely preposterous is attempting to rationalize how in the hell a 250-pound officer with his night stick drawn ended up on top a kid on his way to school because he stepped in the bus lane. This case is the epitome of excessive force and likely would not have happened to anyone other than a young black boy.
There you have it good people. This kid was trying to catch the freaking bus to go to school. And this officer crooked-ass cop hassled and arrested him for stepping in the bus lane to get on the bus! Something that millions of people who rely on public transportation do all day everyday.
That video needs to have a disclaimer. Joe Six-Pack in the U.S. most likely has no idea the average street "Bobbie" is unarmed unless you are an "Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO). They have to use batons and pepper spray.
That video needs to have a disclaimer. Joe Six-Pack in the U.S. most likely has no idea the average street "Bobbie" is unarmed unless you are an "Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO). They have to use batons and pepper spray.
That video needs to have a disclaimer. Joe Six-Pack in the U.S. most likely has no idea the average street "Bobbie" is unarmed unless you are an "Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO). They have to use batons and pepper spray.
Didn't you notice how they didn't beat the shit out of him with their batons though? Or call another 10 cops so they could all sit on him and beat him with batons together?
I don't think they even hit him, the batons were deployed more defensively.
The point is thats how its done. You protect the guy you're arresting to some extent because like it or not he is a citizen too. You try to not hit him. You don't get all pissy because he isn't respecting your authoritah.
I'm not suggesting that UK cops don't get uppity about that too, they absolutely do. But they seem to be far less likely to get violent about it beyond what is needed to take someone into custody.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Didn't you notice how they didn't beat the shit out of him with their batons though? Or call another 10 cops so they could all sit on him and beat him with batons together?
I don't think they even hit him, the batons were deployed more defensively.
The point is thats how its done. You protect the guy you're arresting to some extent because like it or not he is a citizen too. You try to not hit him. You don't get all pissy because he isn't respecting your authoritah.
I'm not suggesting that UK cops don't get uppity about that too, they absolutely do. But they seem to be far less likely to get violent about it beyond what is needed to take someone into custody.
Let's assume for the sake of argument none of the knife wielders in that video were mentally ill, or were legit defending themselves from attempted murder by the police. We can address those, but for now, let's discuss protocol for when that's not the case.
All the knife wielders in the video did two things. They refused to drop the knife, and were behaving aggressively with it.
At a minimum they were all cases of assault with a deadly weapon, I'd say some would qualify as attempted murder.
Is it totally beyond the pale to think of these as grounds to shoot someone? If not why not?
A guy with a knife isn't a threat to you until he is within a couple of feet. A trained cop if they can't persuade him to lie down and surrender, or taze him should surely be able to wing him by shooting him in the leg or something don't you think? Especially if there is three of four cops as in some of the US examples.
No doubt someone will just dismiss it as protocol which in turn is to protect the life of the cop first and foremost, but if you aren't so busy pointing your gun at someone, its much easier to run away if they charge at you. The protect part of protect and serve still applies to criminals to some extent, but especially to the mentally ill.
There is a growing sense that American cops tend to rush headlong towards overly violent solutions to their problems. Their treatment of heavily outgunned knife-wielders only adds to this.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The argument against shooting to wound is it ends up as more dangerous.
It is when your target has a gun. Its less dangerous when running away a bit is an option.
Originally Posted by subego
Hitting center mass on a moving target is harder than it seems. Hitting extremities is very hard.
Its easier when you have three or more cops with crossing angles of fire I bet.
Surely a riot shield is a better way to deal with someone waving a knife? Easy to protect yourself with minimal risk, easy to herd and disarm your target with minimal lethal risk to him.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Are you proposing all cops carry riot shields all the time?
The danger from shooting to wound is from the increased amount of lead the policy would let fly, shot at an easily missable target. Bullets which miss keep going.
Are you proposing all cops carry riot shields all the time?
The danger from shooting to wound is from the increased amount of lead the policy would let fly, shot at an easily missable target. Bullets which miss keep going.
I was thinking it wouldn't hurt to keep a shield or two in the trunk.
You have to evaluate these things on a case by case and a guy waving a knife in a crowded street is a threat to others anyway, though shooting to kill is every bit as dangerous in a crowded street and a taser would seem a better bet in those circumstances.
The point is there is all manner of simple, cheap equipment that could have saved the lives of those perpetrators and some of it police already have on them or have easy access to.
Tasers, pepper spray, riot shields, a lasso, a baseball bat, a sword even would have allowed them to easily and safely penned them in and disarm them without fatality.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
A dedicated 'knife shield' wouldn't have to be as heavy or large as a bullet-resistant riot shield. A dustbin lid made of clear plastic that can fold in half or even quarters would be enough to safely protect from 99% of knife attacks (when you already know where the attacker is).
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I was thinking it wouldn't hurt to keep a shield or two in the trunk.
You have to evaluate these things on a case by case and a guy waving a knife in a crowded street is a threat to others anyway, though shooting to kill is every bit as dangerous in a crowded street and a taser would seem a better bet in those circumstances.
The point is there is all manner of simple, cheap equipment that could have saved the lives of those perpetrators and some of it police already have on them or have easy access to.
Tasers, pepper spray, riot shields, a lasso, a baseball bat, a sword even would have allowed them to easily and safely penned them in and disarm them without fatality.
The "problem" with the riot shield is it's the rare occasion where it makes more sense to take the time to go to the trunk rather than engage the person with the knife.
As for the other options, I'd like it if cops had and used things like pepper spray (eets some bad sheet!), or tasers, but I also find it hard to get on their case if they opt for a stronger response when someone is legit trying to kill them.
The "problem" with the riot shield is it's the rare occasion where it makes more sense to take the time to go to the trunk rather than engage the person with the knife.
As for the other options, I'd like it if cops had and used things like pepper spray (eets some bad sheet!), or tasers, but I also find it hard to get on their case if they opt for a stronger response when someone is legit trying to kill them.
What about people who are mentally ill? Its ok to shoot them?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
As has been shown so many times before, think long and hard before calling the police for people undergoing mental distress.
Delaware police say officers fatally shot an armed man in wheelchair after responding to a call that he had a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Wilmington police said in a news release that they encountered the man Wednesday afternoon “armed with a handgun.”
Authorities say a shooting occurred and the man died at the scene. The news release did not elaborate, and police would not release any additional information. The races of those involved weren’t released.
According to a city spokeswoman, police Chief Bobby L. Cummings went to the scene and met with neighbors and relatives.
The Delaware Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust is investigating and will determine whether the officers acted within the law.
The "problem" with the riot shield is it's the rare occasion where it makes more sense to take the time to go to the trunk rather than engage the person with the knife.
As for the other options, I'd like it if cops had and used things like pepper spray (eets some bad sheet!), or tasers, but I also find it hard to get on their case if they opt for a stronger response when someone is legit trying to kill them.
"Oh shit, you had a concealed knife! Will you wait a sec? I need to get something from the trunk."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's simply logical, since you're twice as likely to be stabbed in the UK than in the USA. (.21 /1k vs .11 /1k)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Oh shit, you had a concealed knife! Will you wait a sec? I need to get something from the trunk."
I'm thinking the backup that arrives in four or five cruisers like that video in Stockton with the unarmed teenaged jaywalker maybe a couple of the backup guys can grab a shield before taking up his position in the firing squad.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
No, but the response in terms of numbers was ridiculous. A knife guy got shot in my video, but I'm guessing since there was at least three cops there that backup was called at some point.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
What about people who are mentally ill? Its ok to shoot them?
Under certain circumstances. Obviously, if possible, a more gentle response is what's wanted.
Ultimately as cold as it may seem, I think you have to look at this like a math problem. What percentage of knife attacks are committed by the mentally ill vs. not? The higher percentage of mentally ill, the more reasonable it is to ask police to consider that the default.
That said, I'd imagine we have a higher percentage here, because most people who aren't mentally ill and want to **** with someone just get a gun.
That and people who aren't mentally ill will tend to put the knife down when faced with three or four cops pointing guns at them and threatening to shoot.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Are killings what we want to compare, or injury plus killings?
I don't know if we want to ignore getting stabbed but not killed.
This may not apply, but in combat, the ratio of casualty to death is about 10:1.
Oh, there are a multitude of ways to look at it, and the truth is, there may not be any fair comparison. Do I want to look at raw police deaths? Deaths attributed to only knives? Include woundings as well? There's a lot of different ways to approach the subject.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's simply logical, since you're twice as likely to be stabbed in the UK than in the USA. (.21 /1k vs .11 /1k)
I'll rely on actual evidence over 'logic' thanks. Sometimes logic doesn't account for other factors.
For example, you're less likely to die from being stabbed. And while European police may be twice as likely to be stabbed (Source?), it's simply logical that they're a lot less likely to get shot.
He clearly wasn't very bright, or sober. He might well be an alcoholic.
The impression I've gotten is UK knifings in general are alcohol fueled. My understanding is bouncers are at a very high risk of knifings. That doesn't seem particularly common over here.
Without doing any research my assumption would be that stabbings by knife are mostly teenagers in gangs in London, domestic violence and the occasional mugging.
Bouncers are probably more likely to get stabbed with broken glass or random objects to hand. People don't tend to carry knives without some kind of reason, especially if they are going out drinking. You'd usually have to be pretty drunk to go after a bouncer because like the cops he will usually be in radio contact with 10 more large men who are all within a short distance and will kick your head in before they start wondering whose side they ought to take.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Virginia police officials are investigating an incident captured on video that appears to show a black man complying with an officer's demands, yet the officer still uses a Taser on him.
The video, which was posted to Facebook, shows a Fairfax County officer, who was not identified, with his Taser out and aimed at the man. The officer tells the man to place his hands on the officer's car, which the man appears to do. The officer then fires his Taser, striking the man, who screams and falls to the ground.
The officer then begins yelling at the man to roll over. An onlooker yells to the cop, "What'd you do that for?"
"A gentleman just happened to be walking down the sidewalk, and the cop pulls up in front of him and tells him to turn over [sic]. And as soon as he has his back turned toward him, he Tasers him. He didn't see it coming," a witness told Fox 5. "He told him to turn around. He turned around, he complied. And boom, he popped out his Taser and he shot at him."
According to the news station, the man, who was not identified, has been charged with grand larceny and the Fairfax County Police Department is investigating the officer's action.
This certainly doesn't happen every day. I strongly suspect it's the result of all the national attention this issue has received over the last couple of years. Juries are starting to simply take a cop's word as gospel. Evidence and common sense are starting to matter.
On September 23, a St. Louis city jury acquitted 20-year-old Keyon Bennett, who is black, of all four felony charges for which he was charged, based on the testimony of a white city police officer. The jury did not believe that on June 11, 2014 Bennett pointed a gun at Officer James Zwilling before he fired one or possibly more shots at Bennett in the Greater Ville neighborhood. They did not believe that Bennett was carrying a gun at all, as Zwilling testified.
The other officer who assisted Zwilling that day was Officer Jason Flanery, who shot and killed VonDerrit Myers Jr. less than four months laterwhile working private security in the Shaw neighborhood on October 8, 2014.
The EYE talked with a juror after the verdict to hear why the jury came to their decision. Juror Sarah Stout told the EYE that all but two of the 12 jurors immediately agreed that the officer was not telling the truth. But it did not take long for the other two jurors to find holes in Zwilling’s story as well, she said.
And if they did not believe that Bennett had a gun and was threatening Zwilling’s life, then Zwilling illegally fired a gun at the backs of three young black men. That act could cost Zwilling his job, and he could even face criminal charges. To some of the jurors, that seemed like enough motivation for Zwilling to fabricate a story, Stout said – a story that could have wrongfully put Bennett in jail for many years had the jury believed the officer.
Prosecuting attorney Mobayonle Omolara Osundare showed photos taken by an evidence technician showing one gun on the seat of the car and the other in the field. The men did not have permits to carry the guns, Zwilling said. Osundare told The St. Louis American that there were no fingerprints taken from the guns found at the scene.
Zwilling’s supervising officer testified that only one bullet was missing from Zwilling’s weapon when he arrived. However, the evidence technician testified that he could not find the shell casing from Zwilling’s gunshot. The shell casing would confirm where Zwilling was standing when he fired his gun.
Bennett’s defense attorney Erika Wurst pointed to the evidence photo of the car where the gun was pictured on the passenger seat. She said it showed “lots of stuff” on the seats. She questioned Zwilling if the officers had touched anything in the car, and he said, “No.” If that was the case, Wurst said, the men would have been sitting on piles of things as they traveled in the car. Bennett said that those things were not on the seats when they got out of the car.
In Wurst’s cross examination of Zwilling, she said, “There are specific protocols for when you can use a firearm. … And if anyone found out that you shot your firearm at someone when you weren’t in fear of your life or someone else’s, there could be some serious consequences.”
Zwilling said, “Yes.”
“You could lose your job,” she said. “You could be demoted. You could be investigated by Internal Affairs. You could possibly be criminally charged for that.”
He said, “Right.”
The idea that the Bennett would have grabbed the gun from the seat when the police were only seconds behind them also seemed questionable to the jury, Stout said.
“It didn’t make sense,” she said. “When your main objective is to get away, we didn’t believe that he would grab it.”
Stout said that they didn’t feel Bennett was innocent of wrongdoing, but he wasn’t guilty of the charges. When the judge read the rules to the jury, he explained that the charge was resisting felony arrest, and the felony was having the gun and pointing the gun. It wasn’t resisting arrest for speeding away, she said.
“If we can’t find him guilty of pointing the gun, he can’t be guilty of resisting arrest for the charge we found him not guilty of,” she said. The jury also wondered why Zwilling’s partner, Flanery, didn’t take the stand in his defense.
“Someone said, ‘If that was my partner, I’d be so mad,’” Stout said. “None of us knew that he was the one who killed VonDerrit.”
When she read The St. Louis American’s report on the case, she said she literally gasped when she saw that Flanery killed Myers.
A grand jury here indicted the sheriff of Tulsa County on misconduct charges on Wednesday, and the sheriff’s lawyer said he will step down, six months after a volunteer reserve deputy accidentally shot and killed an unarmed man during an arrest.
Yeah I saw that one. Kind of hard not to be indicted when you shoot an unarmed man in the back while he's lying on the ground being taken into custody. On video.
Yeah I saw that one. Kind of hard not to be indicted when you shoot an unarmed man in the back while he's lying on the ground being taken into custody. On video.
OAW
No, that was the deputy. This is the guy in charge.
Top