• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cop shoots suspect, mistakes gun for tazer

Erod said:
I'm saying that if you don't take PCP and start a police chase, this probably won't happen to you.

.
Click to expand...

I am shocked and amazed that a real conservative would hold this viewpoint.
The dead man was selling a handgun, clearly defending the 2nd amendment, when jack-booted gov't thugs took his life.
I'm not certain why you're excusing this travesty.
Maybe the dead guy's complexion has some bearing on your inexplicable support for the cops?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I didn't notice anyone else mention this previously, but this is very similar to the BART cop in San Francisco who killed a young man when he mistakenly shot him with his gun rather than his taser. That BART cop was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 2 years in prison less time served. The BART was also sued and settled for just under $3 million with the family of the victim.

Seems to me this is what will happen in this case as well. Considering the officer involved here is 73, by the time he's tried, convicted, and sentenced, he may be looking at what amounts to a life sentence if he lives to serve any time.
Click to expand...

He may even get off without jail time but the dept and city/county will be settling a very sample civil suit.
 
I'd like answers to a few questions:

1. What was the gun Harris was selling hot?

2. If it wasn't hot, why did he run?

3. Did he ever sell a hot gun before?

4. If he did sell a hot gun before and the weapon was used in a crime or to possibly kill someone, did he apologize to the victim's family?
 
So what kind of charge are we looking at? Manslaughter? Gross negligence?

I actually feel a little bad for the cop. He shouldn't have been on the street and I blame his chain of command for permitting it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I didn't notice anyone else mention this previously, but this is very similar to the BART cop in San Francisco who killed a young man when he mistakenly shot him with his gun rather than his taser. That BART cop was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 2 years in prison less time served. The BART was also sued and settled for just under $3 million with the family of the victim.
Click to expand...

The BART case was more egregious in my opinion.
The BART cop's Taser handle and gun handle were dis-similar, not easily confused.
In this particular case, from what I've seen and read, the 73 yo's Taser and gun are very similar.
 
Madness. Even though I'm largely protected by my race and gender, the more the murders that happen, the more afraid I become of police officers.
 
ggwilder said:
Madness. Even though I'm largely protected by my race and gender, the more the murders that happen, the more afraid I become of police officers.
Click to expand...

Why, will your race and gender no longer be cover for your criminal activity?
 
Peter King said:
Well, being a man who regularly mistakes left for right and right for left, I must say in a very tense situation maybe an untrained person could do but a trained police officer? That is a big, huge, fatal mistake to make.

I cannot think how someone mistakes a taser for a gun but if it is an honest mistake he should not be prosecuted but should be fired IMO.
Click to expand...

Did you look at the pic? The grip is just like a gun's. Add a great deal of stress and activity to that....
 
CRUE CAB said:
I have no issue with a drugged out moron getting a lead sandwich.
Click to expand...

CRUE CAB said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Because you are removing both due process and the laws in which the Police are also to abide by based entirely on the nature of the crime and the suspect. With your line of thinking that means if someone runs from the Police they are not necessarily deserving of a "lead sandwich" but if they are a "drugged out moron" then they do. That is classic unequal application of the law, all it takes is being a "drugged out moron" and that person is undeserving of basic rights under the law we afford to everyone. Not just those we agree with.
 
ksu_aviator said:
It is not justification, but it does go to shared responsibility. Had he not been dealing guns and drugs, he would not have been running from the cops and he wouldn't have been shot. Like I said above, it still is partially the officer's fault. He still has some liability in this. But so does the victim.
Click to expand...

Disagree. The cop is the responsible and professional adult here. It is his job to protect the citizens, including the fleeing suspect. It is his job to determine the appropriate force for the circumstance. He is the one that is supposedly trained on the various scenarios, including the fleeing suspect. I don't know about you, but I leaning toward the idea he used a little too much force, which is a result of his bad judgment.

Though its not a particularly good idea to run from the law, as you set up circumstances of the other guy's bad judgment, the idea that the suspect is culpable is a bit over the top.

BTW, the other exasperating factor here was that the suspect was black. In case you haven't seen a trend here, all of these situations that have been discussed on DP have been white police officers shooting at unarmed black men. Maybe I am the only one seeing the pattern. It would be interesting for someone to check that out: is there a pattern?
 
Lursa said:
Did you look at the pic? The grip is just like a gun's. Add a great deal of stress and activity to that....
Click to expand...

Yes, but the gun and the taser are hopefully on 2 different sides of the body.

And police officers are trained to realize the difference between the two, one causes injury and is used to apprehend and the other not so much.
 
Lursa said:
Did you look at the pic? The grip is just like a gun's. Add a great deal of stress and activity to that....
Click to expand...

I imagine they will re-evaluate their reserve officer program...You can't tell me that his age and the fact he was reserve wasn't a factor.
 
Peter King said:
Yes, but the gun and the taser are hopefully on 2 different sides of the body.

And police officers are trained to realize the difference between the two, one causes injury and is used to apprehend and the other not so much.
Click to expand...

I realize that, however the affects of stress are very significant and very difficult to train for. I'm not excusing it but I do question a 73 yr old guy out there on the front lines with the potential of being placed in such stressful situations.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because you are removing both due process and the laws in which the Police are also to abide by based entirely on the nature of the crime and the suspect. With your line of thinking that means if someone runs from the Police they are not necessarily deserving of a "lead sandwich" but if they are a "drugged out moron" then they do. That is classic unequal application of the law, all it takes is being a "drugged out moron" and that person is undeserving of basic rights under the law we afford to everyone. Not just those we agree with.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that he'd 'like' to remove due process and the law (for people he specifically designates). Or at least remove the accountability of cops for being bound by them.
 
Lursa said:
I realize that, however the affects of stress are very significant and very difficult to train for. I'm not excusing it but I do question a 73 yr old guy out there on the front lines with the potential of being placed in such stressful situations.
Click to expand...

You are right, 73 year old people should not be armed street cops. To have someone that old working on your force is insane IMO. Maybe someone like that could work the desk or type out stuff but not wrestling with people on the street, mistaking your taser for your gun.
 
Lursa said:
Is there another thread on this? This is a few days old.

Very sad but...the reserve deputy was 73 yrs old? Yowzaa. There's a reason that people are supposed to...even forced to...retire at a certain age.

Maybe they should reconsider the configuration of tasers to be so similar to guns. Are they all like that? I have seen some that arent but they werent police issue.
Click to expand...

wash state patrol mandates retirement no later then 65 IIRC

Were the tazers you saw actually tazers? I ask because there is some confusion between tazers which fire a projectile attached to electrical wires over a distance, and stun guns which are contact weapons. Directly touch then, I haven't seen any taser models that aren't at least partially shaped like a pistol because accuracy is important for it to work, and a handgun type grip is the easiest to aim.
 
Tsunami said:
A taser is supposed to be considered lethal force, so theoretically the decision to use one should also allow the use of a firearm. It's not the mistake that was at fault here, it was the decision-making.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you believe the officer made a conscience decision to use his firearm on the suspect instead of mistaking his firearm for his tazer?

Personally, I'd like to see the shooting from another perspective, perhaps from the mini-cam of one of the other police officers on the scene. From the available footage in the OP, it's difficult to determine conclusively if the officer who shot the man was the same officer who picked the gun up off the ground. But if it was the same police officer, it's difficult for me to believe he didn't know he had his gun in his hand and not his tazer. But again, the video footage doesn't show which of the officers on the scene fired the shot. All we know is whomever did it quickly realized their mistake.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Because you are removing both due process and the laws in which the Police are also to abide by based entirely on the nature of the crime and the suspect. With your line of thinking that means if someone runs from the Police they are not necessarily deserving of a "lead sandwich" but if they are a "drugged out moron" then they do. That is classic unequal application of the law, all it takes is being a "drugged out moron" and that person is undeserving of basic rights under the law we afford to everyone. Not just those we agree with.
Click to expand...

Show a violent tendency, and I dont care. You get what you give. You become a drain on society by being a drugged out moron. You have lost your basic rights.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Show a violent tendency, and I dont care. You get what you give. You become a drain on society by being a drugged out moron. You have lost your basic rights.
Click to expand...

And with that I rest my case, you become the decision maker for whom does and does not have rights based on your exclusive judgments. Or, a clear cut case of unequal protections under the law.
 
OrphanSlug said:
And with that I rest my case, you become the decision maker for whom does and does not have rights based on your exclusive judgments. Or, a clear cut case of unequal protections under the law.
Click to expand...

He lost being equal to me when he shot up.
 
CRUE CAB said:
He lost being equal to me when he shot up.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to that opinion, but that opinion is devoid of all reality when it comes to our laws.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
wash state patrol mandates retirement no later then 65 IIRC

Were the tazers you saw actually tazers? I ask because there is some confusion between tazers which fire a projectile attached to electrical wires over a distance, and stun guns which are contact weapons. Directly touch then, I haven't seen any taser models that aren't at least partially shaped like a pistol because accuracy is important for it to work, and a handgun type grip is the easiest to aim.
Click to expand...

Must have been 'stun guns.' Contact weapons.

Meh, they managed to make TNG phasers without pistol grips, I'm sure we could do the same with tasers :mrgreen:
 
OrphanSlug said:
You are welcome to that opinion, but that opinion is devoid of all reality when it comes to our laws.
Click to expand...

And even outside of the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom