TrickstaPriest

“That's the way it was. Privilege, which just means 'private law.' Two types of people laugh at the law; those that break it and those that make it.”

― Terry Pratchett, Night Watch

The article linked doesn't mention the deceased raising his gun, just the police finding it in his back pocket.
 
A detailed account of the event on another news site mentions him raising his gun, but does not mention the gun ending up in his back pocket.
 
I didn't see an account that lists both things. If there is one, I'll point out that getting shot in the head is not the same as being shot in the brain. If you look at a head from the front, only about 20% of that area is an instant kill if hit, meaning if a shot hits anywhere in the other 80%, it's possible to keep moving. Being 5x over the limit, it's quite possible he didn't get stunned by the shot. I once watched an extremely drunk man step into traffic, get clipped by a semi, spin around a couple times and keep walking. Pain wouldn't be a factor.
 
So, we have FOUR scenarios:
 
1. Guy opens garage door, starts to close it. Cops shoot him. Cops find gun in back pocket.
2. Guy opens garage door, points gun at cops, starts closing garage door. Cops shoot him.
3. Guy opens garage door, points gun at cops, starts closing garage door. Cops shoot him. Head wound is non-incapacitating. He puts the gun in his pocket in a confused state, and bleeds out (either through torso hit or brain hemorrhage kicking in.)
4. Guy opens garage door, points gun at cops, starts closing garage door. Cops shoot him. Head wound is instantly lethal. He dies. Cops lie about finding gun in back pocket.
 
Which of these is most likely? What is number 5 scenario that I didn't think of? Beats me.
 
Here's a story from a local news outlet:
 
http://www.wpbf.com/article/greg-vaughn-hill-jr-suspect-who-died-during-swat-standoff-identified/1320458
 
This was published soon after the shooting, so wouldn't include details that may have come out in the lawsuit. It doesn't mention the gun in a back pocket.
 
Here's coverage of the verdict from the Miami Herald:
 
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article212324564.html
 
It says: "Court documents allege Hill was found dead with an unloaded handgun in his back pocket."
 
Why use the word "allege" here? WTF? Either the police documented this or they didn't. If the police documented that they found the gun in his back pocket, then it should read "police reports allege" and if the allegation was brought up by the plaintiff, it should say "counsel for the plaintiffs alleged" . . . Crap reporting strikes again. "Court documents allege" is too vague to be useful, because in order to paint a clear picture, you need to know who said it.
 
So, now we're down to the Herald either using a grossly incompetent writer and editors, or trying to obfuscate the point.
 
This is exactly the kind of case and the kind of reporting that create backlash and detracts from legitimate concerns. (Including those of the family of the deceased in this case.)
 
But hey, click bait makes money these days
 

I'd say you're welcome, but frankly I think anyone who values sanity should stick up for Canada on this one.
 
And yes, you're right. Trump wants what Trump wants and screw the wrong done. His mix of ignorance, malice, and utter short sightedness offends me on levels I didn't know I had.

First off, Hermit, thank you for leaping to our defense.
 
National Security is pure administrative pretext. Trump wants tariffs for whatever reason has lodged in his, for want of a better term, "brain." There's a lot of opposition to them in the legislature, so classifying this as a national security measure allows him to apply them as an executive action.

Yep, lived in Michigan all my life (well, apart from one intolerable month spent in Florida doing asphalt sealcoating in July of 1983).  I've been incredibly lucky, even over the past decade, but I realize I'm the exception rather than the rule.  I'd have to be blind or willfully ignorant to think everything is sunshine and puppies here for everybody.  And also blind or willfully ignorant to think that always putting business interests above the citizenry is going to make things better for the people.

The more the tariffs' thing comes into play, the more I'm embarrassed. Not that I think all tariff's are bad, but these tarrifs are born of rationale regarding war and national defense? SERIOUSLY, what the....
 
We're doing this to Canada because of National Security?
1) The Term "National Security" has pretty much officially lost any meaning or credibility with this stunt if it hadn't already.
2) It's BLEEPING Canada! We take shots at each other, we joke, we sometimes grumble a bit about the other, but they're pretty much the best neighbors a country could ever be hoped to be blessed with on its northern border! They've had our backs more times than I care to count. Many Americans have family up there, and vice versa. And Coworkers and friends and so on. They're so much like us  in so many ways that Europeans often confuse them for Americans (Not nice, Euro guys, don't do that, it shakes them up terribly). They're peaceful (Barring , I am told, certain strong convictions on Hockey?) and unless there's a fight over some dead pig on an island again they are particularly peaceful with us.
3) They're a successful democracy. Aren't we supposed to ... you know, give points for that ? Lord knows we may fall out of that category ourselves. But seriously, shafting dictatorships, punishing autocracies, and boycotting goods from Putintania, I could understand. But while we pride ourselves on carrying the torch of liberty blazing for all the world to see, Canada has it's own more eco-friendly (and less likely to draw mosquitoes) lantern of freedoms.
 
God will punish America for its treatment of it's good neighbor, in fact, Justin Bieber is probably going to cut three more albums and move to Texas.
 
 
Good work, Trump. You ####weed
 
 
 
 

Can we take a moment to appreciate how Tony Stark and Stephen Strange have stepped up their game in this movie? They've obviously been working to upgrade their tech and sorcery (respectively) since we last saw them, and are now nearly on par with their comic-book analogues. Strange's one-on-one duel with Thanos was a highlight of the film for me.

I never said it made it better. I said it made it something less than police brutality. The decision process that led to the death wasn't the  result of malice or racism as far as I can see*, but due to bad policy and less than competent and confident officers.
 
 
 
Competence is certainly the issue. The fact that they were allowed to let their incompetence put them into the situation is the core of the issue. They should never have been allowed to not carry an additional less lethal option.
 
Here's how I understand the situation:
 
The woman called them to her apartment, claiming there was a burglary. Apparently, she also made a claim that she had gone to the store or somewhere else. These were both lies, as evidenced by video camera footage from her apartment building. Heard that on local news while driving to the thing in Seattle earlier. Dispatch was aware that the woman had called police to her apartment the prior week and threatened them with a pair of scissors, so sent two officers. I don't know whether the officers responding were informed of the prior incident or not. When the woman answered her door, she was armed with at least one knife (the article linked in this thread says two, local news has only mentioned one as far as I recall) and used vaguely threatening language towards the officers. ("Get ready .... rest censored by news), The latter part referenced in the article linked above. The woman had two children in the apartment with her. The officers ordered her to back off. One of the officers asked the other if he had mace/pepper spray, to which the reply was no. After the woman failed to comply, she was shot. I don't know if she took any actions that weren't on audio. The news hasn't mentioned that level of detail.  
So, what do I take from this?
 
The officers severely limited their options to respond to the situation. Had they been willing to take a small amount of risk and exercise basic teamwork, or even better interpersonal skills, they should have been able to resolve the situation either peacefully or without loss of life as a minimum. I think striving for "no loss of life" rather than "no loss of police life" is a pretty good goal, personally. But that's not how police in this country have been indoctrinated for a very very long time. I'm going to set that date as roughly the 80's and the war on drugs era. But back to the topic at hand:
 
Retreat does not seem to be an option. The officers were (I'm assuming, though I haven't seen hard confirmation) dealing with an armed, disturbed woman in a doorway. Had she been alone, just walking away may have been a reasonable temporary response. But she also had two children in the apartment with her. So, I'm fairly certain the officers didn't judge that to be a situation where they were going to yield the doorway and let the woman lock the two kids in with her in an agitated state while armed. It's about the only sound judgment I can see that they may have shown.
 
So, how do you deal with a woman armed with a knife in an enclosed space?
 
First, you take a chance. Remember the guy who killed the people in Oregon? He probably didn't wave his knife around and talk trash at the people he stabbed. If he got all three in that short space of time, he almost certainly went to town with no warning. Most of the time people using a knife as a threat aren't quite ready to actually use it. This woman was mentally unstable, but I'd have taken the bet that since I hadn't been stabbed yet, that I had at least the option to extend the verbal phase a bit.
 
Unless she moved to attack them, I think the officers could have put a minimal effort into talking her down, rather than shout orders in her face. I didn't see any mention of such an effort in the article mentioning the audio of the incident, just orders given. The officers (at least one, IIRC) were said to be trained in crisis intervention, but don't seem to have put those skills to use.
 
Second option, you take her down. Which is what the SPD did. They did it with bullets. Pepper spray would have been great here, but hey, the other guy didn't bring it! Kind of f-ed up when the police of a large metro expect the other guy to bring less lethal options to the call. But since they had sticks and she had a knife, their reasonable options were severely curtailed.
 
They may have had room to take a shot at her traps or collar bone (or noggin, which is technically lethal force but still better than a bunch of bullets), or they may not have. A thrust would have put them at risk against a knife. The knife in that space is strictly superior to their batons. If they screwed up, they stood a fair chance of getting cut or stabbed.
 
Pepper spray or a Taser would have been better. At the very least, getting sprayed is going to be a huge distraction, letting the other officer take physical control. And if the officers eat some pepper spray blow back? Tough crap. They're trained to fight through it.** The last time someone hit me with the stuff, I disarmed the idiot and smacked them repeatedly about the head and shoulders. It's something any soldier has experienced (though with CS in my time), and it is not a fight ender if you know what to expect.
 
IMO, police training needs a good hard look from the ground up, everywhere in this country.
 
 
 
* So far. Who knows what will come to light after this is investigated. It's not like SPD has a great track record in that regard.
 
**(Or should be. One of the articles Cancer linked made it seem like this training was new. But it was also pretty clear that the author had no prior experience, so I'm not sure which bits he mentioned were actually new. Every other state certification for pepper spray I'm aware of requires the person to at the very least take a shot in the face from it. I don't see why WA state would be different in that minimum standard since so much is copied/shared among states. Police training is actually fairly standard across the country AFAIK.)
 
Edit Apologies if this seems a bit rambly. It's late for me. I tried to clean it up and keep it on topic as best I can.

At least he didn't go back in time and have sex with his grandma!
 
"Good NEWS everyone!"

Didn't we warn you about going back in time and killing your grandpa?

I never claimed to be the most enlightened individual (Yes, I know you're all shocked) but I do worry about the same. Trump being able to appoint new Justices , well, I would not be exaggerating to say the thought stresses me out.

Deleted meself

It's an elective in Asgard.

I was spared by Thanos. 
 
Thanos, as portrayed in this movie, was an MORON!
 
Do you know how long it will take for the population to reach the same level it had before his "culling"?
 
50 years.
 
Even assuming he's right, all he's done is bought the universe an extra fifty fracking years!
 
Good job,   MORON!

I have seen this film.  It did not suck. 

The flaw in the heroes plan was the failure to have a guy with a bow and arrow.

You know, the Justice League beat their bad guy without hardly anyone derezzing.
 
Just saying.
 

 
========
 
More seriously,  I liked it, but I think folks are going to be declaring it a 10 when it's  a bit lower than that. Some random thoughts
 
 
Standouts were Dr Strange and Spider-Man for me out of the heroes. The irony of Stephen and Tony not getting along because the former finds the latter arrogant was hilarious, because wall know it's more likely they just see something in the other that's a bit too close to home.
 
I was surprised Captain America didn't get a bit more focus but what he had worked fine. 
 
Some of it I saw coming, I mean, when the mind stone got 'destroyed' I was like hello Time Stone. And voila. Props to Marvel though, they used stuff they had shown in other movies so it worked. At no time did I get the idea they were pulling stuff out of their ass exactly. Yes, Stormbreaker MIGHT fit into that if you don't know the comics but hey. 
 
I still think the substitute shields cap got were ugly. 
The fact Rocket covets Bucky's arm tickles me greatly.
 
I think Brolin did an excellent job with what could have been a two dimensional villain. I had doubts, but he did just fine. Certainly by Marvel standards.
 
Doctor Strange has a long term plan, and it shows. I loved that.
And this movie probably had Scarlet Witch's best showing thus far.
 
Totally did not see Groot's severing his arm until two seconds before it happened. Way to go, kid. You're a twig off the old limb. (or is it your own limb)
 
I found the derezzing interesting in that, unless I miss my mark, Cap, Iron Man, Banner, Widow, and Thor all stuck around. If Hawkeye also didn't vanish then..the 'original' (For the movies) Avengers are all intact.
 
OKay, honestly the scene at the end of the credit was not worth the wait. I'm not a big Captain Marvel fan,  so that's part of it I suppose, but really, most of the audiance was like "meh" because she's just not known and rather than curiosity being piqued there was more shrugging and going on.
 
I should also note that we had some guys in front of us who laughed at...well, everything. Giant Peter DInkalage set them off into hysterics EVERY time he was on the screen. They laughed hard at everyone disintegrating. Honestly, it got to be annoying. So I do hope to see this again with a better crowd in a week or two and see if that helps
 
 
 
 
 
 

Call me crazy but I think there is going to a sequel.

Dr Strange may be the smartest and most strategic thinker of Earth's mightest heroes. 

Sorry folks, I should have had another part up by now but I've fallen behind again. This could be an ugly month

My first cousin once removed is strongly anti-immigration. From what I can tell, there is a very big chance that both she and my mother were actually first-generation Americans*, and that their parents were not actually from the United States. This, of course, she vehemently disbelieves.
 
I've tried to find my grandparents and great-grandparents in the census documents, and my great-grandparents show up in the records around 1930. My grandparents show up in the records for 1940. My grand-père had a funny family story about a convenient church fire--"thirteen new citizens that day!", which would always get a reprimand from my grand-mere (she would have been one of the new citizens). A few years ago, I found out from my Mom that the convenient church fire was limited to one book of baptismal records.
 
I can't really fault someone for overstaying their visa, or for wanting a better life for their child.
 
 
*Mom had dual citizenship with Canada until age 18, when she had to choose.

My $0.02: It's better than any of the prequels (not that that's a particularly high bar to clear....). It's better than The Force Awakens. It might be better than any Star Wars movie not named The Empire Strikes Back.
 
Yes, it has flaws, some of them really obvious. But I don't really get all the hate here. I saw it, and I loved it.
 
YMMV, obviously.