! So walking backwards is now a dangerous act for a cop?!? ;-) Even I give them the benefit of a doubt that they are capable of walking backwards, focusing forwards, and still knowing where they are. he had his car to guide him, and once behind it could easily move to his right, off the street....or just closed his car door.

Yes, the suspect MIGHT have jumped into the cop car if it's left open...and if it's keys are still in it might have tried to get away again. In my eyes, that's preferable to a certain homicide, but that's just me.

I didn't think closing the door would calm the suspect, I think it would make the officer 'safe'. The suspect could then be addressed with the backup that was there in seconds, not a lone, scared cop that felt threatened. Having the suspect continue to shuffle around seems preferable to what happened....but again, that's just me.

So lets agree we disagree then. It seems neither of us sees what the other does, and that's just fine. If everyone agreed about everything, what would we talk about? :-)
EDIT: and thank you for the reasonable, respectful discussion.

Second edit: interesting no one (including me) thought about tazer gunning him. I would have supported that the instant he put his hands down, or after the first time he's told to stay where he is but he steps forward anyway. I'm guessing, in the heat of the moment, it didn't occur to the officer either.

Yes, I was being extreme, over simplifying, and exaggerating to try to prove my point....but I still don't think this man was a 'deadly threat' requiring homicide to stop, because moving slowly away or shutting a door would have kept the officer 100% safe. Why is that not reasonable? Please, I do mean that as a real question, not a smarmy remark.

I agree with your point about them shooting a suspect that has them cornered, but not when they can simply walk backwards slowly and stay safe. The cop need not risk his life, I just want them to TRY to not kill people, instead of jumping at any excuse to do so. If they have a reasonable way out, which he did, I want them to use that every time...as long as that doesn't put them or others in deadly peril.
I continue to contend, he could have retreated or closed his door and been safe, and backup was there seconds afterwards to ensure that safety. If you think either of those is unreasonable, I would be interested in knowing why. Perhaps you would convince me I'm totally wrong.
Now, had the man actually been armed, I would change my position completely.

EDIT: Because I'm apparently in the extreme minority in my estimation, I changed the title.

Second Edit: I don't call that de-escalation. :-)

He could have backed away, or closed his door. Is that so hard?
The title said "shuffling in his direction", it did not portray him as a person randomly shuffling around shot for no reason.
You said it in the next sentence...the officer ALLOWED him to get too close, he had options to not let that happen that don't include homicide. That's the point I, and the Mexican government, wish to make clearly. There WERE other, non deadly options that keep the officer safe, they simply didn't try any of them and went with deadly force as a first option when verbal commands didn't work.

Stabbed or shot him with WHAT? His hands were empty, and in fact he was totally unarmed, and too drunk to win a fist fight.

Yes, moving towards the officer can be seen as threatening, but a threat that is easily avoided without using firearms in numerous ways, like walking back or closing his door, either of which would keep him 'safe'.

HOLY SHIT!!! Now just putting your hands down is a shooting offence! I'll simply disagree on that, and hope I'm not alone.

I'm flabbergasted that the officer is being seen as doing the right thing by people here for shooting instead of retreating to a safe distance, people who's opinion I value, no less, not just our local cop excuser. I watched again to see if I see what you guys do, and I just can't see it. I must admit, it seems I'm a minority in that...at least in this country.

I guess people better do exactly as the officer says, and if you have two officers telling you to do opposing things, (for example- "FREEZE" AND "GET ON THE GROUND"....which do you do?) well, you're hosed, because one of them can shoot you for not obeying, making you 'threatening'.
Oh.

Except that's it's not my assessment, it's the Mexican government's assessment.
EDIT: When the Federall'es (SP? Mexican police) say your cops are out of control, it's time to take another look.

It seemed to me that the guy was a belligerent drunk, who at one moment complies (standing with his hands on head), then turns to argue, tugs on his shirt collar (in a failed attempt to show he's unarmed, or telling the cop to shoot him there?) and shuffles slowly towards the cop. If he was trying to suicide by cop, he did it in a way that made it look totally unthreatening to me. No quick movements, hands on head, no weapon, no threats, no fists...where's the threat in a slow moving unarmed suspect?

I agree, once he was in arms reach and still advancing, he's a threat...but you must completely ignore the cop's ability to move away to make the killing in any way justified. The cop had every opportunity to keep safe distance by simply moving away slowly...why didn't he? Stand Your Ground?
EDIT:Or, the cop had the opportunity to close his car door and lock it, making him 100% safe against the unarmed drunk until backup arrived 20 seconds later.

I didn't see it that way, I (and others, including the officials in the Mexican government) saw a drunk, acting inappropriately, being belligerent when he sees the gun pointed at him and asking the officer "You gonna kill me?", to which the officer replies "no, I'm not going to kill you", then reports on the radio "He's saying 'kill me'". He did not say "Kill me.", he said "Are you GOING to kill me?" as I heard it.
I never saw him reach UNDER his shirt, only tug at the collar of his shirt, and at one point turn around and put his hands behind his back touching his shirt (but NEVER under his shirt). I don't know where that idea came from (except maybe from the cop's statement), please watch again.
I think if an unarmed man slowly advancing on you with hands on his head is a 'deadly threat to the officer's safety', we have HUGE problems, because that theory makes it legal to shoot anyone that comes near them....they don't know if they're armed and attacking, or just passing by, right?
Cops are supposed to de-escalate problems, not exacerbate them.

As for the 'murder' designation...if a citizen shot this man in the exact same circumstances, he should face murder charges. I don't give people a pass on homicide based on their job.

Agree that we disagree then.
I say statements about races are racist, since they are being divisionary by race. I say not all discrimination is discrimination against the target, but all discrimination is discrimination.
'Cry me a river' is not the same thing. If I heard him say 'little girls are all worthless bitches' but he really said 'some people think little girls are all worthless bitches, but they aren't' I would still think him a jerk for saying the offensive word to a little girl. I think that's closer to the topic. When a single word is the offensive remark, not the entire statement, context means less, and certainly not all.
When Mark Twain did it, yes it was racist, intentionally so, but also reflective of reality, so not wrong of him to portray racism as it existed.
As I said, most people tolerate a low level of racism, and intent also colors their response quite a bit. Because it's tolerable, even palatable, doesn't make a statement not racist.
Pryor was hilarious, and racist as shit! As I said, I think comedians get a 'pass' for being racist (EDIT: by which I mean SAYING racist jokes, not actually being racists) if they're funny enough. You are free to disagree, but you won't convince me his humor wasn't racist, not ever. That didn't make it not funny, or make him a bad person, it made him a comedian that used racism to expose and ridicule racism, as I see it. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you need him to be completely non-racist (a 1 on my earlier scale), then it's a big problem.
I don't need that from anyone, I just wish for a reasonable, non-hateful, non discriminatory (against people) level of racism from those around me (although even that can still be harmful, I know, but people are never perfect and I don't expect them to be).
Yes, I've heard people say that they would 'kill somebody', and didn't think they meant it. I tend to try and avoid those kinds of people, or at least correct them, as the unedited excessive anger is a sign of a lack of restraint. I wouldn't think them homicidal, anymore than I expect Pryor at a militant black panther rally, but I would think of them as lacking restraint and so possibly dangerous (at least somewhat unpredictable), just as I see Pryor as somewhat racist (ever hear him riff about honkeys? Hilarious...and SO racist!)

EDIT: BTW, Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman did a great episode about racism recently where they explained how even jokes between friends not meant or taken seriously can actually still tint how your subconscious sees race...making you (and those exposed) slightly subconsciously racist a little more each time you are exposed to negative portrayals, even when you know they aren't serious or realistic portrayals. It was a great and informative episode, I highly recommend it.

I'm not thinking in binary. There's gray area.

There's no debate about the fact that virtually everyone is somewhat racist. This isn't a debate about that.

I'm saying making any joke that is related to race isn't racist every single time, just as avoiding saying anything that could be construed as racist doesn't mean you're absolved of being a racist.

A joke that is actually racist is expressing an idea or feeling of one race's superiority over another directly or indirectly through humor.

Ironically making racial statements that I absolutely don't believe is NOT racist because I'm not expressing racial superiority. I'm pointing out the idiocy of racism and poking fun at racists.

About the random black person overhearing my joking, yeah, they'd be offended. Thank you for making my point. They'd be offended precisely because they heard those words out of context.

If you saw a grown man say this to a little girl sternly:

"...go cry me a river..."

You might be inclined to think he was acting like a jerk to her. But what if you had heard....

"It's a figure of speech. If you ever for example hear someone say 'go cry me a river', they don't actually mean one person's tears can be that much water."

It's the SAME THING. That man did nothing wrong, but you heard him say 'go cry me a river' to a little girl without context, it may look bad, when it's not.

Just because someone may get offended by hearing something out of context, it is not automatically something wrong with what that person said.

Even the dreaded N-word... Are you telling me that it was wrong and racist for Mark Twain to use it in The Adventures of Huckleberry Fin?

The one thing I would agree with you is that you also have to be mindful of context before saying the joke. Those racial jokes I make? I'm not going to say those in situations where there's a high likelihood that those statements could be overheard and misinterpreted. If I wanted to tell those to a black person, I'd make REALLY sure they knew I didn't actually believe the racial statement.

And you know what? Usually, it turns out fine. I've played that Louis CK thing for a black friend of mine, but I laid down the context first that it's Patrice O'Neal, etc. And they laughed hysterically at it.

Richard Pryor is considered by most comics as being a pioneer in using comedy to shed light and provide insights into racial tensions, etc., and actually is credited by many people far beyond just comedians to have helped further the cause of fighting against racism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048430

His use of the N-word wasn't racist. The use of the word was communicating that he was not Bill Cosby, not that there was anything wrong with Cosby's comedy, but it was to signal that he was talking more about reality, including the rough edges especially about racial topics, and there wasn't anything wrong with that either.

The kill somebody thing. You ever seen someone say something like, "My roommate AGAIN left all the lights on! I'm gonna kill him!"? My point there is you shouldn't call the cops because you think he's homicidal.

You tell me how this is racist...

Actual racist: "Black people can't be leaders."
Obama overhears it and responds: "Yeah, f'ing Obama!"

I'm pretty sure that despite Obama "playing around with" language that could be construed as racist, what he said would not be considered racist by pretty much anyone. It would be pretty damn funny actually because clearly Obama wouldn't sincerely say that about himself, nor black people, and it also pokes fun at that racist statement by pointing out there's a black person who is President of the United States, so clearly black people can be leaders.

Change Obama to David Duke, and yeah, it's now probably racist, and it's not funny at all.

Or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gHz-l40FNQ

Louis CK is saying that in response to Patrice O'Neal's factual account for the origin of a racial slur against Jewish people. Louis CK was very good friends with the late O'Neal, and he's not racist. O'Neal knew that. If you listen to the video, as soon as Louis CK starts his bit before anything that's faux-racist comes out, everyone is immediately laughing, including O'Neal, because they know he's about to insincerely say something horrifically racist to the face of a black person that had he been sincere, it would have been absolutely horrifying, but that's the point - he's absolutely not sincere. That's why it's absolutely hilarious and not racist because everybody knows Louis CK doesn't actually mean that at all.

Intent and context means a lot. When you take that context away, (other things said in that conversation, who is saying it, your knowledge about what they believe, previous conversations that might be references, etc.), the words can appear to be extremely racist, even when they're not.

How do I react when someone jokes about something that involves race? It completely depends on the context, and what I interpret the intent of it is. If I'm joking around generally with my friends like the above, and they say something like, "You know why black people smell? So blind people can hate them, too." We're in a situation we're joking, we already have had actual sincere conversations about race, I know he isn't racist, I know he actually believes that's 100% not true. How do I react? If I found the joke funny, I'd laugh because I'm taking it to mean he's making fun of what some racists believe because I know for a fact he doesn't believe that.

My father-in-law is a different story, because I know the guy, I know he's like a 5-6 on the racist scale, so I don't know if he actually believes black people generally stink or not, and generally inclined to believe he actually believes most or all black people smell. At the very least, I'm uneasy. I'm certainly not going to laugh at it. I'd probably show some kind of disapproval at the least. Completely different context because now, and here's the key, that may have been intended as an actual racist statement about black people. Once you go there, that's not funny.

So, if you consider me slightly racist because I make ironic racist statements as jokes, which I mean as mocking towards racists themselves, rock on. But you better be consistent in your outrage when someone exaggerates they're gonna kill someone when they get frustrated over something insignificant as an example. After all, that's playing around with words that are murderous and violent, so they must be a psychopath or homicidal!

Please note, that was sarcasm.

From what the police report, there were over 45 shootings by police in Chicago last year (well over 2% of the total shootings in Chicago, and 4% of shooting deaths by under .45% of the population), and well over 1/3 of those shot by cops were killed last year VS the average of only 17% of those shot by non-cops being killed, so if you're being shot, you sure don't want it to be a cop on the other end of that gun or you have at least twice the chance to end up dead over a non-cop shooting.

I think it's clear which group is most threatening per capita, and which group they usually threaten. "Blacks" are 32% of the 2700000 population, or about 864,000 people, from which there were 83 homicides, or less than .01% of that population...
The police have 12,244 from which there were 17 homicides, or .14% of that population...
...so it's 14 times more likely that any single officer will kill you than it is that any single black man will...14 times more likely!
So who's threatening now? Who's the biggest threat?

As I see it, the intent was obviously NOT to just injure him, it was to kill him with the vehicle. No question in my mind.
From the first cop's perspective, the action is NOT reasonable in the least...just listen to him on the radio, flabbergasted and disgusted at the second cop's actions.
This was FAR from a "safe resolution", it's only by chance that the man wasn't caught between the car and the cement wall it crashed all the way through....and crushing him to death certainly seemed to be the intent.
EDIT: If a citizen rolled his car towards a cop at 1/20 the speed seen here, he would almost certainly be shot and charged with attempted vehicular homicide...we've actually seen exactly that happen in other videos just because the brake lights went off, and the cops were "justified" in that case.

Anyone else find it odd that those who constantly rail against the overreaching powers of government are the same one's who consistently defend overtly violent cops as if they aren't the governmental enforcers? Can you say "disconnect"?

The cop has been cleared of all criminal charges, sending the message that if you're threatening to commit suicide, the cops will be glad to oblige and try to kill you and suffer no consequence for (attempted) homicide whatsoever.
Also sending the message that running down a human being at full throttle is an acceptable police tactic against a suspect that's already surrounded rather than trying ANY less lethal method.

New video shows that the man was holding the gun to his own chin, and newly released information shows that he didn't use the gun to commit crimes, he stole the gun at Walmart right before the video and only fired it into the air once (perhaps to unload it? More likely to prove it's loaded.).

It's getting really old, Mr. Po-po, and turnabout's considered fair play. You might think about that, and the fact that 10% of Americans are armed and have severe impulse control issues.

Anyway, it's pretty tough not to troll obama. This is a guy who meets with Google people every week, but can't be bothered with intelligence briefings. In fact, I think this is the first time I've seen him speak w/o a teleprompter...that's because he really likes this TV show. He can probably talk about golf w/o a teleprompter, too.

Of course, you guys...I'm sure you couldn't resist making comments about W...or did you just say positive things?

By the way, David Simon wrote one of the best crime stories ever written...Homicide, A Year on the Killing Streets. He followed the Baltimore homicide squad for one year. Awesome writer.

Yes, I understand they are taught to shoot to kill, I just think it's wrong to do so.
If it was an unavoidable situation of a single officer against a single offender, I would agree. Since there were 3, one of them could have safely moved to trying non-lethal force, with a double helping of deadly force instantly backing him up if it doesn't work. If not taser, bean bags, sticky foam, flash bang, etc. They have many means of non-lethal force that work almost every time. That should be the normal, daily way of doing it. That's why they call for backup. If they're just going to all shoot to kill anyway, why not just save time and money and do it alone? If they're only going to try lethal force, can we stop paying for all that non-lethal equipment we give them?
Shooting rapid fire and randomly in the direction of a 'perp' puts the public at risk. The first 5+ shots all missed him and flew down the street, I'm curious if anyone was hit.
If they don't even attempt non-lethal means of halting the criminal, there WAS a much better alternative. If lethal force is acceptable in any unknown situation, it's become a war of 'us vs them' where any police stop may end in one or both parties being killed because the cop wasn't sure he was safe, that's not a good outcome. When there are multiple officers, at least one should always TRY non-lethal force. If it's appropriate to have multiple guns drawn and pointed at a human's head, it's appropriate to try to taser them or bean bag them before shooting a full clip of live rounds.

If 'potential threat' is the only metric needed to justify homicide, every cop on the beat could be legally shot. They are all armed, and known to shoot to kill at the slightest provocation. Killing them would be self defense in every case if that was the only thing needed to make it acceptable, as they are all not just 'potential threats', but actual deadly threats known to be armed and homicidal.
That's why that theory doesn't work in my eyes. It leads to more killings, which leads to more fear, which leads to more killings, which leads to more fear.... Cops are trained and armed and given bullet proof vests, cut proof gloves/sleeves, and have massive backup. If they intentionally put themselves in a position where they are alone against an unknown threat, then kill out of fear of the situation they put themselves in, how is that not inappropriate? I really don't get it.
(I do get that sometimes (rarely) it's unavoidable, but most times a little patience and a little less 'contempt of cop- punishable by death' would diffuse situations that police instead often escalate into homicide because of a complete lack of patience or empathy, or out of anger because they were 'disrespected' by not having their commands followed instantly)

"Imagine yourself taking a stroll through Manhattan, somewhere north of 68th street, deep inside Central Park, late at night. It would be nice to meet someone friendly, but you know that the park is dangerous at night. That's when the monsters come out. There's always a strong undercurrent of drug dealings, muggings, and occasional homicides.

It is not easy to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. They dress alike, and the weapons are concealed. The only difference is intent, and you can't read minds.

Stay in the dark long enough and you may hear an occasional distant shriek or blunder across a body.

How do you survive the night? The last thing you want to do is shout, "I'm here!" The next to last thing you want to do is reply to someone who shouts, "I'm a friend!"

What you would like to do is find a policeman, or get out of the park. But you don't want to make noise or move towards a light where you might be spotted, and it is difficult to find either a policeman or your way out without making yourself known. Your safest option is to hunker down and wait for daylight, then safely walk out.

There are, of course, a few obvious differences between Central Park and the universe.

There is no policeman.

There is no way out.

And the night never ends."

How many violent criminals are in Norway's prisons? According to TYT, the U.S. has almost 10 times as many homicides as Norway, so I think it's safe to assume that U.S. prisons hold a much higher percentage of violent criminals. Coincidentally, violent criminals are far more likely to be repeat offenders.

Poverty is another factor to consider. Poverty and crime are directly correlated. Many people commit crimes out of desperation. After being released from prison, their situation doesn't change. Regardless of your skills, finding a job as an ex-convict isn't easy (hell, finding a job as regular citizen isn't easy these days) and the likelihood of getting one that actually pays more than minimum wage is pretty low. If "freedom" means living in a shithole apartment and barely surviving by doing tedious, demeaning and low-paying work (or even taking multiple jobs), is incarceration really any worse? You'll still be doing tedious work but you won't have to worry about paying for rent, water, electricity, food, gas, healthcare, insurance, etc.

So, what would happen if we made American prisons as nice and cushy as the ones in Norway? Would crime actually decrease? Or would criminals simply see prison as a mild slap on the wrist? Or even a step up from their current situations? If our current prisons aren't scary enough to deter people from breaking the law, would a spa-like prison be any more effective? Hell, there are already recorded cases of people intentionally getting arrested in the U.S. so they can go to prison and not have to worry about living on the street. If our prisons were as nice as Norway's, these cases would only become more common.

People like to focus exclusively on recidivism rates but those aren't the only statistics that matter. And if you really only care about recidivism, you should be all for the dealth penalty. After all, death row prisoners have a 0% recidivism rate.