Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

SALT LAKE CITY — Dozens of protesters rallied Saturday afternoon outside the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building to denounce the fatal shooting of a man by police.

Speakers at the event, organized by the group Utah Against Police Brutality, said Thursday's shooting of James Barker, 42, by a Salt Lake City officer did not have to happen and called for an independent investigation into it.

"We believe that if the police take a life, they should not investigate themselves," the group said in a statement. "The shooting of James Barker is yet another case which should be handled by an impartial third-party with no departmental affiliations."

The officer, whose name was not released, was placed on routine administrative leave. He was treated for fractures on his arm and foot at a local hospital.

Someone called police to report a suspicious man knocking on doors in the Avenues neighborhood and offering to shovel snow for money. Police say one officer responded and started talking to Barker, but at some point Barker began hitting the officer with a shovel.

Police on Friday released videotape from a camera worn by the officer, but said the shooting was not captured after the camera was damaged.

The video shows the talk between the two escalated as the officer pressed Barker to identify himself, saying residents thought he was acting suspiciously, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. Barker refused and asked the officer to leave him alone because he is "trying to make a living." Barker is accused of swinging at him after the officer called for backup help.

Summer Osburn, a defense lawyer who met Barker 20 years ago while they were students at Brigham Young University, said she's frustrated by the number of cases involving police use of deadly force and was shocked by her friend's death.

"This is basically an execution," she told KUTV. "Full of life, full of love, that was James."

Ron Lee, a friend and neighbor of Barker, described him as a "kind" and "normal guy" who showed "absolutely no aggressiveness" during the years he had known him. He said he was surprised someone called police because he never knew Barker to be suspicious.

"I just can't understand how a man would be shot," he told the Deseret News.

But Ian Adams, a West Jordan police officer and spokesman for the Utah Fraternal Order of Police, said the video demonstrates a clear example of an officer doing his job.

"Officers have a job to do, and frankly the amount of victim-blaming on the officer is ridiculous and doesn't leave much air in the room for a rational discussion," he said. "That officer did nothing to provoke such an aggravated assault."

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/8110324-Video-Utah-man-fatally-shot-after-attacking-cop-dozens-protest-shooting/

Please watch the video. Thank you.

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

I can see why all these people were upset,the officer was definitely at fault,he should have let Mr.Baker beat him to death with his shovel.The video clearly shows Mr.Barker didn't have a problem with anger management.You have to wonder what the people defending Mr.Baker would have done had they been on the business end of Mr.Bakers shovel.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you, and good morning.

I agree..... and many who are now on OPP saying that there is going to be "open season" on all police will agree with the notion he should have allowed the man to finish what he started.

I have grown weary of some folks on OPP posting only shooting by police.... it is time to be fair. Our police have a dangerous job, and they do the very best they can. Not all police are without fault....but consider how many do not go home at the end of their shift....



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Alicia Loc: NYC

****************
It seemed that the officer was the first to show aggression since the deceased backed away first before raising the snow shovel.

What ever happened to the police being instructed to "shoot for the legs" as was the case in the past. At the distance between them, a leg hit would have been sufficient. There is no reason to go for a k**l.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

So true, but what does that matter? or put another way "What difference does it make?"

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I saw the video differently. The man was not in control of his emotions.... angry is sedate.

Officers have never been taught or encouraged to shoot at people's legs. And you are right, the close proximity would make it easier to do so, however if the angry man was on certain drugs, shooting him in the legs would have just made him more aggressive.

It does seem that there are people who think that our police should be tolerant of being clubbed to death. And if that is your thoughts and opinions, well all I can say is thank you for sharing.

jer48 Loc: perris ca

you are correct pennylynn should have given the man a drug test then shoot him

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Sure.... that works, especially when you are being bludgeoned with a shovel, simply ask the one trying to k**l you to allow you to draw some blood. Works in some universe, I guess.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Shooting to maim only works in movies. As I understand it, policemen are taught to aim for center body mass and shoot to stop the criminal. shooting him in the ankle isn't going to stop him, is it?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Right!! Shooting a person out of emotional control only makes them more determined to k**l you.



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Alicia Loc: NYC

**************
At that close proximity, it would have been quite easy to aim for the leg. That would have stopped him.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Let us see if this will explain why officers do not shoot at people's legs:


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865619655/Why-police-don7t-aim-for-the-legs.html?pg=all


"Have you ever wondered why police don’t try to shoot suspects in the legs or arms? Are police trained to k**l?


In spite of recent events in Utah and nationwide that may make it appear to be otherwise, fatalities at the hands of police officers are infrequent. These traumatic and highly contested incidents raise at least two questions: First, why don’t police shoot suspects in the leg? And, second, are police taught to shoot to k**l?

By law, officers are trained and mandated to use the least amount of force necessary to effect an arrest and to do so safely. However, it does not mean officers should put themselves at a disadvantage or in a position where they could be injured or k**led.

Below are some of the things officers learn with training and experience.

Shooting someone in the leg doesn’t mean he or she will stop shooting.

The same is true of someone who is shot in the arm or shoulder, or even in the chest. Shooting someone in the leg won’t necessarily stop him or her from standing, walking or even running. Shooting someone in the leg doesn’t even mean he or she will fall to the ground. And, it doesn’t mean the individual will stop feloniously aiming a gun at a police officer or an innocent citizen and pulling the trigger.

Even so, if an officer did shoot someone in the leg, there is a chance it could sever the femoral artery and still potentially end that person’s life.

Officers learn how difficult it is to shoot accurately under stress.

An officer can be a near-perfect shooter on the range, but the stress of a real firefight is totally different. Shooting a gun out of a person’s hand is nearly impossible, and it would be dangerous to attempt in real life.

Even if an officer wanted to shoot someone in an appendage (leg or arm), doing so would be incredibly difficult to do under stress. Real gunfights are not static; they’re mobile. Trying to hit a moving leg or arm would put an officer at a greater disadvantage than he or she already faces.

Action is faster than reaction.

Since police react to illegal confrontations, they’re at a disadvantage. Rarely is an officer ready for a lethal confrontation, even if his or her gun is already drawn. Police are not the aggressors; they are the defenders. They have to perceive and process the threat and then act based on a subject’s actions. The reaction won’t always be a lethal option either.

Those with felonious intentions have the upper hand because police cannot read their minds. Those with murderous intentions have already made up their minds they’re going to murder, attack or otherwise injure another person, including a police officer. Criminals have the tactical advantage because they determine when to make the surprise attack. Police aren’t the ambushers or the murderers, but a lot of police have been both ambushed and murdered.

Reacting to a threat decreases an officer’s effectiveness.

Because an officer must react to another person’s actions, it changes the physical (cognitive) and mental (psychological) response more drastically than if the officer were the attacker. This causes a breakdown of cognitive and psychological performance. Reaction would do that to most people, particularly when feeling the mental and physiological effects of possibly being critically wounded or k**led.

Research by Dr. Bill Lewsinski of the Force Science Research Center shows that during actual officer-involved shooting incidents, officers only accurately hit moving threats 14 percent of the time at distance under 10 feet. On the corollary, attackers successfully hit officers 68 percent of the time within the same distance. At such rates, it’s fortunate that more police officers aren’t k**led.

This underscores two concerns: First, the near impossibility of an officer being able to shoot a weapon-wielding subject in the leg, and second, the need for law enforcement officers to be really good at their jobs.

Kenneth Murray, a leading law enforcement trainer, said he may not want protector classes to take pleasure from shooting and injuring others, "but they must be good at it" for the sake of protecting their lives and the lives of the citizens they protect.

Law enforcement officers are taught to shoot center mass on a threat or target.

Those who shoot closer to the thoracic cavity on realistic-looking human targets and silhouettes score higher during live-fire training. Why? Because there is a higher likelihood that hitting a person in that area will stop him or her, but it won’t necessarily k**l him or her.

Moreover, the most obvious reason for shooting center mass is because that portion of the body is a larger target than, say, a leg.

It is incorrect to believe that if someone gets shot in the chest he or she will die.

Shooting someone in the thoracic cavity or abdomen may not even stop him or her. First responders and emergency medical personnel see plenty of people who survive gunshot wounds.

Even after suffering an excruciating lethal hit to the heart, it can still take 10-15 seconds for a person to stop. In that amount of time, a motivated and moderately trained active shooter, for instance, can still murder a dozen people or more, and reload a gun once or twice.

Police are trained to stop the threat.

Police don’t shoot to wound or shoot to k**l; they shoot to stop the threat, period. This is not just a manner of semantics either. The moment the threat no longer exists — when a violent criminal stops shooting or drops a weapon, for example — officers stop shooting.

Of course, perceiving and processing this under stress can take time — even one second is a long time in a gunfight — but officers know to quit. Not stopping in a prudent and timely manner would be unjustified and considered excessive force.

To reiterate, officers are not trained to shoot to k**l. Instead they are taught to shoot until the threat has ended.

It is a myth to believe that a single shot from a handgun will stop someone.

Police are taught to keep shooting until the threat stops. Traditionally, officers will shoot twice and assess. Some of this is because of ingrained range training, but for their safety and the safety of others, officers should keep shooting until the threat stops. Just because a person is shot once or twice, if an officer can even tell the person was hit, it doesn’t mean that person is incapacitated or no longer a threat.

Police are taught to save lives.

After officers are involved in a lethal confrontation, they are taught to secure the scene to ensure there is no longer a lethal threat to any person. After that, officers will get help for the person they injured, and often times it's the person who just attempted to k**l or seriously injure them or others.

Police will do all they can to save that person by calling for emergency medical assistance and, where possible, perform medical treatment.

Police place the lives of others before their own.

In a very real way, law enforcement officers prioritize lives. Police will run into a hail of gunfire to save hostages and other innocent civilians. Police officers stand as the buffer between those who want to harm — as well those who will murder — and those who don’t.

Although it may seem somewhat paradoxical, officers don’t want to end lives when they use deadly force; they want to save lives. As such, law enforcement officers often resolve hundreds of situations without using lethal force.

Using lethal force is always the last resort.

Officers don’t want to k**l, but they’ve accepted the possibility that it may happen. And they’ve internalized the moral and legal right and wrong should the worst occur. Officers carry the burden when forced to use lethal force, and it changes their lives forever. They didn’t wake up that day thinking they would k**l or injure someone; they reacted as part of their moral and legal obligation to do so.

Police officers are trained to shoot center mass, and although extremely rare, they may even shoot unarmed attackers whom they fear will take away their guns and k**l them with it. Officers may present the gun quicker than other tools on their belt because they know that over 20,000 police officers have died in the line of duty, and many of them were murdered. They know action is faster than reaction, so they want to be ready, just in case.

No officer is trained to k**l, but he or she understands that shooting someone in the arm or the leg won’t stop the threat either.

The bottom line is officers don’t shoot to k**l anyone; they shoot to save lives, including their own."