UT - James Dudley Barker, 42, Salt Lake City, killed by LE, 7 Jan 2015

[sunflowerchick]

The problem I have here is this: This is the second officer-involved shooting in the SLC area in one day. It is the fourth or fifth in a few months I think. It seems that LE is not being trained to disarm, diffuse or calm but rather to "shoot first and ask questions later". Disarming, diffusing and calming DOES work as evidenced in this story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/us/georgia-school-gunshots/

LE can do many things in the name of "self-defense" but at what point do we question the training they receive and the expectations with which they enter their chosen career. They go into this field knowing it is dangerous, knowing they might encounter unsavory characters, knowing they might be injured or killed in the line of duty. They still CHOOSE it and as such they have a responsibility to maintain compassion. But sadly, in most cases, their compassion is gone. Instead they are out to constantly "defend" rather than to "serve and protect".

We have created a situation in which people are almost always on the defensive when approached by LE because no one is really sure what their rights are or what LE can or will do. Because of the recent things in the news, the confidence in LE doing their jobs with compassion is way down and there seems to be a circle of events that are occurring as a result. This gentleman clearly believed that he didn't need to provide his name or his paperwork and was asserting his "rights" prior to the situation escalating. He was already on the defensive. The problem starts here. When citizens no longer feel the need to instantly be defensive with LE, the need for LE "self-defense" will stop as well.

 

[jjenny]

The man might have believed he didn't need to provide his name or the paperwork-he didn't have a right to beat anyone up with a shovel.

 

[sunflowerchick]

The man might have believed he didn't need to provide his name or the paperwork-he didn't have a right to beat anyone up with a shovel.

I never said he did. But the officer also didn't have a right to shoot so quickly and then claim "self-defense" in order to justify killing someone.

 

[SStarr33]

I never said he did. But the officer also didn't have a right to shoot so quickly and then claim "self-defense" in order to justify killing someone.

How many hits with a shovel do you take before you shoot?

 

[jjenny]

I never said he did. But the officer also didn't have a right to shoot so quickly and then claim "self-defense" in order to justify killing someone.

So quickly? How long do you think is the officer supposed to allow someone to beat him up with a shovel before he could shoot?The officer has a right to use deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

The problem I have here is this: This is the second officer-involved shooting in the SLC area in one day. It is the fourth or fifth in a few months I think. It seems that LE is not being trained to disarm, diffuse or calm but rather to "shoot first and ask questions later". Disarming, diffusing and calming DOES work as evidenced in this story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/us/georgia-school-gunshots/

LE can do many things in the name of "self-defense" but at what point do we question the training they receive and the expectations with which they enter their chosen career. They go into this field knowing it is dangerous, knowing they might encounter unsavory characters, knowing they might be injured or killed in the line of duty. They still CHOOSE it and as such they have a responsibility to maintain compassion. But sadly, in most cases, their compassion is gone. Instead they are out to constantly "defend" rather than to "serve and protect".

We have created a situation in which people are almost always on the defensive when approached by LE because no one is really sure what their rights are or what LE can or will do. Because of the recent things in the news, the confidence in LE doing their jobs with compassion is way down and there seems to be a circle of events that are occurring as a result. This gentleman clearly believed that he didn't need to provide his name or his paperwork and was asserting his "rights" prior to the situation escalating. He was already on the defensive. The problem starts here. When citizens no longer feel the need to instantly be defensive with LE, the need for LE "self-defense" will stop as well.

So, you think the man didn't know that soliciting and trespassing aren't allowed? Do you think that someone banging on doors asking to shovel snow when there is no snow, or banging on doors asking to mow lawns when there is no grass may require further investigation by a officer that responds to citizens calls for safety, due to a suspicious person in the neighborhood?

The vast majority of these attacks on officers that have been noted lately, have involved officers that have encountered criminals that are committing or have committed crimes. The don't want to get caught. They don't want to go to jail. They may have outstanding warrants. They don't care about themselves or others. If a person has just committed a crime and knows they are going away for a long time, they are more likely to feel they have nothing to loose by trying to flee or physically take over a officer. This is why they resist arrest by fighting many times and then end up loosing their lives for it.

This guy quickly snapped and attacked an officer that was asking him some simple questions. He most surely knew that you don't attack anyone without consequences.

So people want to change how officers do their jobs, tell them how many feet they can come close to someone when they talk to them...I mean really, this could go on and on with blame directed at others (LE or citizens), when it lies with the person committing the crime.

We need to stop enabling bad behavior in our society and place the blame where the blame lies. IMO

This guy had some sort of problem, if he was out banging on doors like this. I don't know what that problem was, or if his friends and family tried to help him with that problem.

I do see many friends and family ignore and enable bad behavior and signs of mental illness in our society. I have seen it ignored and enabled among friends and family for years and years. I have seen very bad endings come from this. It would be nice to see focus and awareness directed on what people can do for their friends and loved ones before they end up incarcerated, snap and harm someone or wind up dead because of "their" bad choices.

This officer that responded to a complaint from concerned citizens, did absolutely nothing wrong. He was doing his job by responding to a call or calls by citizens that were concerned for their safety. The officer was being proactive by asking questions that could have potentially prevented a suspicious person from harming a innocent citizen.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I never said he did. But the officer also didn't have a right to shoot so quickly and then claim "self-defense" in order to justify killing someone.

As I said in an earlier post, a mere second of hesitation when being attacked can result in death. The officer most certainly had a right to use force to protect himself from bodily injury and death from a attacker. The officer also has to also protect his weapon from the criminal.

I wish people could understand how quickly these things happen and how quickly a officer HAS to respond for safety.

 

[Woodland]

What exactly was the officer going to arrest this guy for? Not hearing that in the exchange between the two. Or, has the requirement for an officer to say what the charge is at the time of arrest been erased?

Imo, the officer should have said what the charge would be. That would a) cause the officer to think about his actions and b) cause the person with the shovel to think about his actions. Then, quite possibly, there would have been more dialogue and less aggression.

Also, imo, the officer was far to close to this person while asking what the person was doing and for ID. Asking from 10 - 15 feet would not require either one to shout as some have suggested. It might have been a barrier that would produce a win-win.

 

[SStarr33]

What exactly was the officer going to arrest this guy for? Not hearing that in the exchange between the two. Or, has the requirement for an officer to say what the charge is at the time of arrest been erased?

Imo, the officer should have said what the charge would be. That would a) cause the officer to think about his actions and b) cause the person with the shovel to think about his actions. Then, quite possibly, there would have been more dialogue and less aggression.

Also, imo, the officer was far to close to this person while asking what the person was doing and for ID. Asking from 10 - 15 feet would not require either one to shout as some have suggested. It might have been a barrier that would produce a win-win.

He does say why he is going to arrest him. He was acting suspicious and the officer said he could be arrested for failing to give the officer his name. BTW, how do you show ID from 10-15 feet away?

 

[katydid23]

What exactly was the officer going to arrest this guy for? Not hearing that in the exchange between the two. Or, has the requirement for an officer to say what the charge is at the time of arrest been erased?

Imo, the officer should have said what the charge would be. That would a) cause the officer to think about his actions and b) cause the person with the shovel to think about his actions. Then, quite possibly, there would have been more dialogue and less aggression.

Also, imo, the officer was far to close to this person while asking what the person was doing and for ID. Asking from 10 - 15 feet would not require either one to shout as some have suggested. It might have been a barrier that would produce a win-win.

An officer does not need to have a reason to arrest someone in order to speak to them. The officer was dispatched to the scene in order to talk to this man. He was responding to a call from a citizen. He wanted information, that is all.

And officers do not stand 10 to 15 feet away when asking for ID. That is problematic in itself. I am not going to blame the officer for doing the routine procedure and standing in normal range when asking for ID. It is the victims fault that he was shot, not the officers fault. JMO

 

[sunflowerchick]

How many hits with a shovel do you take before you shoot?

In my opinion, it should never have escalated to that point to begin with and that was what I stated in my initial post. I don't wish to argue and I know I won't change anyone's mind. This is just my opinion.

 

[katydid23]

The problem I have here is this: This is the second officer-involved shooting in the SLC area in one day. It is the fourth or fifth in a few months I think. It seems that LE is not being trained to disarm, diffuse or calm but rather to "shoot first and ask questions later". Disarming, diffusing and calming DOES work as evidenced in this story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/us/georgia-school-gunshots/

LE can do many things in the name of "self-defense" but at what point do we question the training they receive and the expectations with which they enter their chosen career. They go into this field knowing it is dangerous, knowing they might encounter unsavory characters, knowing they might be injured or killed in the line of duty. They still CHOOSE it and as such they have a responsibility to maintain compassion. But sadly, in most cases, their compassion is gone. Instead they are out to constantly "defend" rather than to "serve and protect".

We have created a situation in which people are almost always on the defensive when approached by LE because no one is really sure what their rights are or what LE can or will do. Because of the recent things in the news, the confidence in LE doing their jobs with compassion is way down and there seems to be a circle of events that are occurring as a result. This gentleman clearly believed that he didn't need to provide his name or his paperwork and was asserting his "rights" prior to the situation escalating. He was already on the defensive. The problem starts here. When citizens no longer feel the need to instantly be defensive with LE, the need for LE "self-defense" will stop as well.

I blame bath salts and meth for the police shootings more than I blame the police. JMO

 

[sunflowerchick]

As I said in an earlier post, a mere second of hesitation when being attacked can result in death. The officer most certainly had a right to use force to protect himself from bodily injury and death from a attacker. The officer also has to also protect his weapon from the criminal.

I wish people could understand how quickly these things happen and how quickly a officer HAS to respond for safety.

How is it right to say the officer's life is worth more than the gentleman with the shovel? Can we really place value on one life over another? There is NO job in this world (except maybe in the military) where protecting your life should be at the cost of someone else's with no questions asked. At the very least, LE should be held accountable financially to these families.

 

[sunflowerchick]

I blame bath salts and meth for the police shootings more than I blame the police. JMO

There is no evidence of that in this case.

 

[Woodland]

If I did show ID from 10 - 15 feet away, I would have to put a shovel down if I had one in my hands. If I was failing to produce ID with a shovel in my hand, one might want to back away wondering why I'm not putting the shovel down. Jmo.

What was the reason the officer needed this guys ID? Because neighbors had called? If a DA was consulted, would the DA have said arrest the guy for trying to drum up snow shoveling business? With or without a license? Still think a little de-escalating would have gone a long way, and will go a long way in the future.

 

[krimekat]

How many hits with a shovel do you take before you shoot?

IMHO not even one - just the fact he is using it as a weapon, please

 

[Woodland]

An officer does not need to have a reason to arrest someone in order to speak to them.

RSBM

Is there a link to that?

 

[krimekat]

What exactly was the officer going to arrest this guy for? Not hearing that in the exchange between the two. Or, has the requirement for an officer to say what the charge is at the time of arrest been erased?

Imo, the officer should have said what the charge would be. That would a) cause the officer to think about his actions and b) cause the person with the shovel to think about his actions. Then, quite possibly, there would have been more dialogue and less aggression.

Also, imo, the officer was far to close to this person while asking what the person was doing and for ID. Asking from 10 - 15 feet would not require either one to shout as some have suggested. It might have been a barrier that would produce a win-win.

well, assault after the dude raised the shovel/weapon

maybe probable cause of break ins in the area . . . the neighbors had his # & called 911

 

[krimekat]

There is no evidence of that in this case.

not yet

 

[SpriteGal]

RSBM

Is there a link to that?

An officer can speak to anyone they like. If someone calls about somebody, like this man, they have an obligation to go up and talk to him. Now how they handle it after that is debatable, but they there is no rule on when they talk to somebody. Miranda Rights are different, if that's what you mean. They have to be custody, AND interrogated for that to take place. If they are just asking questions to investigate something, they can do that.