Instead of debating if there was a struggle for the gun or not...

[FLPanhandle]

Why are we not debating if there should have been a gun in the equation at all?

If Wilson had been an unarmed police officer (like in many countries), would Wilson have approached Brown differently? Would Brown have been less afraid? Even if Brown was confrontational and aggressive, would Wilson have feared for his own life without a gun between them?

Watching all the coverage, no one ever asks "Why are the police armed in the first place"? (yes, I understand the need for armed SWAT or response teams, but I'm talking about the average patrol officer).

To quote the one police officer I grew up watching, Andy Griffith, "When a man carries a gun all the time, the respect he thinks he's gettin' might really be fear. So I don't carry a gun because I don't want the people of Mayberry to fear a gun. I'd rather they would respect me." It's a TV show, but there is wisdom in those words.

Remove the gun, the police are more polite, the citizens less afraid, and maybe respect for the police grows. Just an old man's thoughts...

[The_Commonist]

1. Why have police at all?

That's a serious question.
I truly believe, that in some places anyway, police presence causes more problems that it solves.
i think a town like Ferguson might be the perfect example of this, where the police force is little more than for extracting fines from the citizenry.

[FLPanhandle]

6. If the police cause more issues, then their model for operating is broken.

However, I don't know how "no police" would work.

[Lurks Often]

2. Maybe fictional TV isn't a good way to determine how police

should handle violent criminals.

Are you planning on being one of these unarmed police officers?

[FLPanhandle]

5. Are there no violent criminals in the UK or other countries without an armed police force?

They have special armed units when needed, but the day to day patrolling is done unarmed.

[Lurks Often]

9. And England isn't the United States

I notice you declined to answer if you were going to volunteer to be one of those unarmed police officers, so I'll take that as a no. I wonder why.

[Ed Suspicious]

16. What's the difference, Officer? Why should he volunteer if it isn't his

line of work?

[FLPanhandle]

17. Well, I wouldn't be a good officer even if armed.

I hesitate because, I've never been a police officer, never been on a patrol, and only know my section of the country so I how can I honestly answer?

But here even in heavily armed northwest Florida, I believe I would be comfortable being an unarmed patrolman.

That's the best I can do with my experience.

[daleanime]

47. So your saying...

that the English are better people then Americans?

[Lurks Often]

54. No

merely that there are differences in our respective cultures despite the fact we share a common language. For that matter there are significant cultural differences within the United States. The average resident of Maine has a different day to day environment and life then the average resident of Hawaii.

[daleanime]

57. Cultural differences?

So our police must be able to kill immediately?




I'm fairly sure that you're just going to dismiss views that don't line up with your own, but I would really think this position over if I was you.

[Lurks Often]

60. Don't put words into my mouth, because that is not what I meant

First this is a moot point, because the average American doesn't want disarmed police and because no such legislation would ever pass at the Federal or State level.

The average British citizen has long been willing to allow the government to have more of a say in how they conduct their lives then most Americans would tolerate.

[ncjustice80]

81. You are the one deflecting.

Whether he wants to volunteer has nothing to do with the rightness of his statement.

For the record, even if disarmed there would be no shortage of polixe recruits. Plenty of power tripping pig headed bullies out there.

[Historic NY]

30. When's the last time you were in the UK????

Its becoming more commonplace. In addition to more armed response units.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28656324

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820780/Armed-teeth-firepower-face-policing-London-age-Islamic-terrorism.html

[Vietnameravet]

34. Good point!

[Recursion]

37. I would patrol with mace and a tonfa, personally

Now, it would come with the implicit recognition from everyone else that a beat cop would have to bug out in a lot of circumstances where they respond now, but that might well be worth it.

[Jenoch]

41. I know cops who carried a tonfa for years,

but those weapons were eventually were classified as non-carry weapons because of lawsuits.

[Lurks Often]

42. I suppose that would depend on your view point

If I am the one being attacked, I am not going to be particularly pleased that the unarmed police officer chose not to intervene because he feels he needs armed back up.

[Recursion]

43. Currently officers do not have an obligation to protect an individual

Not sure what changes there

[Lurks Often]

50. I'm aware of that

and the Supreme Court ruling for that case was the appropriate one. It is impossible for the police to be everywhere and you shouldn't be able to sue them for not being there.

However that is quite a bit different then an unarmed police responding to a specific call for help from someone and then refusing to intervene, because the unarmed police officer feels they need armed backup.

And this entire discussion is a moot point, we will never have unarmed police on uniformed patrol here in the U.S.

[ncjustice80]

82. Well that needs to change.

Officers should be civilly and criminally liable if they fail to aid.

[haele]

71. Thing is, that was the way policing went before the media turned cities into war-zones.

Walk-around or "Beat" police did not have guns on them. They had truncheons (which could still kill), but because they didn't have guns, their first inclination was not to pull it and point at someone whenever they felt a little surge of adrenaline or annoyance.
The "officers" - the Sargent or Lieutenants, might have had a side-arm. Back-up police or those who drove around in cruisers had shot-guns - in the car.
There were a lot fewer police shootings and gun-battles in the streets back then. And there was a lot less escalation of violence, also - because the potential for getting shot was lower. The thug or gang-banger has the option to run away rather than get shot - and most of them will run away if you give them the chance to.
Yes, I'd be an unarmed police officer. It would keep me thinking and aware of my surroundings, and in the long keeps the community safer, because I'm not going to start assuming that because I "have a hammer, every problem becomes a nail".
Y'see, I live near the "most dangerous intersection in the city" (border of three major gangs), and there had been three officer deaths in that area during the 1980's and early 1990's - when we had a militarized attitude and profiling problem in the SDPD, and the police were out individually.
Policing has changed, profiling is discouraged, and the police work in pairs - and some officers wear tazers instead of firearms. No officer deaths subsequent to the changes because the attitude that there are active criminals looking to just shoot anyone hanging around every street corner has been discouraged. We're a community with opportunity problems.
There are four cars and 20 permanent officers assigned to our10 square mile "hood"; and I've watched them in action over the past five years. The officers know the neighborhood and know who is who, and most everyone recognizes or knows the officers in turn - even if the officers don't live in the neighborhood. There are four small police "community offices" (basically site trailers) located throughout the neighborhood near high-density housing or industrial areas where the gangs tend to congregate. These trailers are manned by community service officers (volunteers) who can take complaints and make calls, provide community service information (and internet service), and serve as a non-emergency police call center to coordinate first responders, city services, and medical shuttles as needed.
The police here have learned to talk rather than threaten. They generally don't walk up with their hands on their firearms ready to draw. They respect the gang-bangers as people, let them have a little attitude, because everyone knows how most situations are going to go down - and no one is going to get beaten up or shot in most cases. A couple times, there are problems, and that's usually when there's a large contingent of police involved or someone who is has decided there's nothing left to lose and they have a gun.

But for the most part over the past ten years, violent crime has gone down significantly and part of it can be linked to the attempt to curb the "us against them" policing mentality, and return to a "protect and serve the community".

We still have a race problem. We still have a poverty problem. But we can have less of an escalation of violence problem.


Haele

[FLPanhandle]

94. Great post!

This was what I was trying to say but done much better.

[sabrina 1]

76. Maybe you're right. Maybe looking at how other civilized nations handle violent criminals

without constantly blowing away unarmed citizens, is what we need to do.

How many dead citizens at the hands of police are there in other civilized countries?

Maybe their cops are not the scaredy cats we seem to have on our police forces.

Maybe this is not the 'home of the brave' after all.

Maybe we need to change the criteria for what it takes to be a cop.

Starting with they need to raise the IQ level that is required, which as I understand it, is deliberately lower than most other civilized nations.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. It's not possible to have unarmed police in a country with gun laws like the US has.

Amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, and then, maybe. But since that's never going to happen...

[FLPanhandle]

7. I disagree

Even with the proliferation of guns in our society, most people are not walking around armed.

Armed special units within the police can be called out when needed, but I don't see the need for the average officer to be armed.

[YarnAddict]

58. Just trying to picture this scenario

Cops get dispatched to a domestic violence situation. They get there, find that the husband is enraged, and is beating the woman to death with a baseball bat, or maybe he's armed with a knife. They can't get close enough to him to taser him without risking injury to themselves. Clearly a very dangerous situation, her life is in danger, and theirs would be if also, if they intervened. So, they have to walk out the door and call for armed back-up, which may not arrive for 10 minutes, or more. In the meantime, she is killed, or suffers horrendous, permanent injury.

As long as cops have guns, even if they don't use them, a violent individual knows that they could. Without the weapon, the cops have no leverage.

[ncjustice80]

84. Or they could not be useless weaklings and have a bat/knife fight.

Its a dangerous job. If you ate too cowardly to bein a knife fight go get another job.

[Historic NY]

62. Until a cop pulls over a car with an armed operator...

or walks into a holdup. Really, do some reading most encounters are "at the moment", not planned where a special unit would be present.

I guess if they sat around in the station house waiting to react would probably be best then. That way they could decided if they need to be armed or not....

[Lurks Often]

18. England's rates of crimes committed with a gun are rising

despite the very strict gun laws there.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. From a very low baseline..

and the number of gun crimes in the whole of England and Wales is still lower than in any major US city. The average number of murders with a gun as the weapon in England and Wales (over the last 15 years) is about 60 a year (again lower than any major US city by an order of magnitude).

[Lurks Often]

23. Granted, but despite the very stringent gun laws

passed there in the past 20+ years, it's going in the opposite way then it should be going.

Violent crime is not and never has been simply been about the availibility of a deadly weapon. To really solve violent crime means doing the hard work of recognizing and fixing the social and economic pressures that cause crime in the first place.

[Fred Sanders]

25. From negligible to barely registering...compare to America.

[Lurks Often]

29. It's still going the wrong way despite the increased gun laws in England

Violent crime is not and never has been simply been about the availibility of a deadly weapon. To really solve violent crime means doing the hard work of recognizing and fixing the social and economic pressures that cause crime in the first place.

[Fred Sanders]

32. Deadly crime is more likely with a deadly weapon...it is not rocket science.

[Lurks Often]

45. Of course it isn't rocket science

But since the dawn of time when the first person decided to pick up a rock or stick and brain his fellow human we've been using deadly weapons to kill each other. At this point in history, we've reached the point, for better or worse, where one no longer has to be bigger and stronger to be the winner in a deadly fight.

If you want to reduce violent crime, start be addressing the underlying causes, which are the social and economic pressures.

[Fred Sanders]

48. Start by restricting possession of the deadliest weapon ever invented for common folks by far.

[Lurks Often]

52. Yawn, I have no interest into turning this

into yet another gun control thread where no is going to change their minds.

Your opinion on that subject is meaningless to me.

[Fred Sanders]

53. Ditto, but messing with your lack of logic was fun.

[GGJohn]

31. Even if you repeal the 2nd Amendment, it still wouldn't get rid of guns,

it would then fall to the states to set their own firearms policies.

[Fred Sanders]

49. It would invalidate all legal rulings favoring gun nuts and allow new laws....so you are wrong.

[GGJohn]

51. No, I'm not wrong.

The states would still be able to set their own gun laws as they see fit, that whole 10th Amendment thingy.

Besides, the chances of repealing the 2nd Amendment are slim to none and slim has already left the station.

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. Do you really think repealing the 2nd Am would significantly reduce guns in the US?

I certainly don't...

[Recursion]

39. Sure it is, if you acknowledge that beat cops simply will not confront tactical situations

I'm actually fine with that.

Beat cops have a tonfa/ASP, mace, and a taser.

If there is ever any indication of a gun, they bug the hell out and call SWAT. Shooting a cop is still the unofficial death sentence that it is now.

[Oktober]

4. Don't lay hands on anyone, let alone a law officer...

It's easy...

[FLPanhandle]

11. I agree, Brown fucked up, he should never have fought with the cop.

However, the gun escalated the situation and the response.

Sometimes people get shot innocently reaching for a wallet or across to the glove compartment too.

[justiceischeap]

13. Of course, that is Officer Wilson's version of events

There is also Dorian Johnson's version of events and it was Wilson that laid hands first. So, there ya go.

Let's for shits and giggles assume that Dorian Johnson's version of events are true. If you're walking down the middle of the road, jaywalking, and the cop decides to try and pull you into the vehicle, you're just going to stand there, your hands at your side? Allowing this officer to just pull you into the vehicle?

Not all "law officers" follow the law. Not all "law officers" deserve respect. Not all "law officers" are good guys. It must be nice to live in a world where things are so black and white.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

56. This is a social quantum event.

Confirmation bias on both sides prevents individuals from assimilating evidence contrary to their views. This means you and your counterpart on the other side (if you are taking some definitive position that is).

The appropriate scientific approach is to try and disprove your own position. If you can do that on both sides, then you have to admit there is no clear decision that can be made here.

That said, what can be taken away from this objectively...

Improvements to the related processes... police interaction, police wearable cameras, etc...
Also the condemnation of those looting and burning private property.

Look at this like an alien would who just landed and doesn't have a vested interest in proving "their" reality. Anyone that is saying they have a monopoly on perspective in this case is deluding themselves or lying.

[justiceischeap]

63. Yes, because wearing body cameras is going to cure the underlying problem

African-American males being 21x more likely to be shot by a police officer compared to their white counterparts.

http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

That said, your social quantam event doesn't explain or excuse an unarmed person being killed. If I'm emotionally invested in that belief, so be it. I think it happens to be the right belief.

As far as looting and burning private property, why do people want to focus more on that than what is actually happening in that community and AA communities across the US? Sorry, but I think life and liberty is more important than property and if the majority of American's took this problem seriously, I suspect the emotions wouldn't have overflowed into criminal acts.

I can see how some African-Americans decide that if the system isn't going to work for them, then why should they live within what society deems normative?

[TampaAnimusVortex]

69. Well, as long as your working off emotion instead of logic...

As I said, confirmation bias keeps us from wanting to look at any perspective that doesn't correlate to our own. It's one thing to not know your being biased, but to embrace bias is madness indeed.

Example:

"doesn't explain or excuse an unarmed person being killed."

Is this the only possible way of framing the incident? Obviously no... alternate viewpoints are plentiful - but those don’t correlate to your internal narrative so you discount them as error and only "your" reality is the "correct" one.

You don't (cant?) see your own bias much as a fish doesn't see the water it's swimming in.

The only reasonable approach is to acknowledge this and approach it from a detached logical framework.

[justiceischeap]

70. I'm happy that you can detach yourself from human suffering

I myself, can't and won't. I don't want to be detached from what happens to my fellow inhabitants on Earth... 'cause when people detach themselves from what happens to other people, then they have a tendency to not give a shit about what happens outside their happy little detached bubble.

This isn't a science experiment, this is real life, affecting real people.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

78. Well thats all fine and dandy

Except your never going to get the resolution you seek. As long as one person is "feeling the elephant's trunk" and proclaiming it feels like a snake, while someone else grabs his leg and proclaims it feels like a tree, no resolution is possible.

Also, I didn't suggest a detached logic perspective changed the relative goal weighting of human life vs some other variables - this is a straw man (deliberate or inadvertent).

Consensus can only come after release of subjective viewpoints by both sides and a coming together on agreed objective determinations. If you play towards emotion, so will they and no progress will be made. This is the same mistake made by global warming deniers, anti-abortion activists, and other religiously bent types.

[JonLP24]

75. My thoughts exactly

Basically I have no idea what factually happened after the officer told them to move to the sidewalk. Even the autopsy is difficult to draw conclusions.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

79. Glad others can see this...

Also, just like a quantum event, the closer you look at it, the more indeterminate it gets due to the contradictory evidence.

There isn't anything wrong with saying "I don’t know", when there isn't a definitive set of details.

[YarnAddict]

59. Does it even make any sense to you

that Wilson would have tried to pull Brown into the vehicle? That isn't a normal reaction, especially for a cop.

[justiceischeap]

61. It makes as much sense as someone who just allegedly committed a crime

picking a fight with a cop not 7 minutes after allegedly committing the crime. Or as much sense as someone who has been shot and is being shot at charging the person shooting you. Or any other claims Wilson made that day.

However, the question isn't about whether what Johnson says makes sense... it was if a cop was trying to pull you into a car window, would you just stand there passively and let them?

Everyone wants to ignore the question and talk about how Wilson was some kind of hero fighting "Hulk Hogan" or, you know, the demonic looking big, black buck.

[YarnAddict]

65. Actually,

I think the GJ probably did have to decide whether Johnson's story made sense. It's about the credibility of the witness. If that didn't ring true to them, they probably had difficulty believing anything else he said.

[justiceischeap]

66. Have you seen any of the information the Grand Jury was given?

Or how the grand jury itself was handled? Are you okay with the Prosecutor basically holding a private trial in lieu of an actual grand jury where one side of the case received absolutely no representation? Because that's what happened... Michael Brown was the "defendant" and Ofc. Wilson was portrayed as the victim in this grand jury. They found exactly as McCulloch wanted them to find.

My goodness the folks who prefer to ignore the obvious are so frustrating and why the problem continues to persist.

[YarnAddict]

67. The way the case was handled was odd

And no, it's not okay with me.

But, don't you think the jurors took into consideration whether or not any particular witness was credible? Have you ever served on a jury? I was on a jury last spring, and we did have to decide whose testimony we believed, based on a lot of different factors, including whether a person's story made sense.

[justiceischeap]

68. No, I've not served on a jury but long ago I was a paralegal

I'm familiar with the workings.

If the Prosecutor in your case put on several witnesses and proclaimed they weren't telling the truth, how would you consider the veracity of his other witnesses?

I get that none of us were in the grand jurors places but how can you expect them to find for probable cause if all information false and true were thrown at them and they were given no direction on how to figure out everything? Did that happen when you were on a jury or were you given instruction? Did the prosecutor inform you what charges he was going for? This one didn't.

McCulloch could have gotten Wilson indicted if he wanted to... that's the point. He didn't want to have Wilson indicted, so he intentionally caused chaos for the grand jury.

[HereSince1628]

19. Great advice for calm non-confrontational interactions,

Wilson was supposedly trained in how to handle confrontational interactions

Set aside the illegality of Brown's resisting

Just look at the safety issues, Wilson's actions facilitated all the close contact and in doing that he placed himself in more danger than was necessary.

[on point]

8. The real question is was he shot with his hands up and was he a threat to the officer??

[FLPanhandle]

12. Brown would have been less of a threat to the officer without any gun around.

Wilson claimed he was a threat because of the fight for the gun.

[madokie]

10. I like your train of thought

In many cases a gun brings with it arrogance. I'm sure thats the case in this confrontation.

[FLPanhandle]

14. It's also a case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

Remove the gun and maybe police will stop looking at every situation as a reason to use it.

[Catherine Vincent]

15. I hear ya but today's society isn't Mayberry

Our law enforcement should have guns because there are too many guns out there legally and illegally. I rather our LEOs stop being too quick to use them.

[FLPanhandle]

22. But does the officer's gun escalate things?

Even if a criminal has a gun, would he be more likely to shoot at an unarmed officer or an armed officer?

Would unarmed people wouldn't be percieved as much of a danger, whereas, the armed officer is a threat.

I think the gun changes the whole police/citizenry relationship and not in a good way.

However, you may be right, I know it's not Mayberry out there.

[treestar]

21. I think they should have guns but not be so quick to use them.

If we had real gun control, then they could be without guns, too.

And be trained better. In this case, we are expected to believe a police officer in a vehicle, with a gun, was in danger from someone outside the vehicle, because of his gun.

Brown may have made some bad decisions, but so did Wilson. He didn't have to let this situation escalate.

Was it even necessary to be an asshole about walking in the street? If that's illegal, suggest giving him a ticket. Since Brown would not cooperate, skip it or get backup.

[FLPanhandle]

26. They both made some bad decisions.

The sad thing is this would have been a non-event by either one backing down a little.

I just imagine what would have happened if Wilson didn't have a gun. The entire dynamic of their interaction may have been different.

Oh well, like I said in the OP, just an old guys thoughts...

[treestar]

27. This is very true

Wilson would have de-escalated. Would have talked to Brown and tried to calm him down or reason with him.

The macho culture can be just as much to blame.

Of all the variables discussed, I wonder what would have happened if the officer had been female.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

89. Walking down the center line of a street is completely stupid

I realize there wasn't a lot of traffic, but there still was "some" traffic. How do you feel about driving by someone walking in the middle of the street?

Really think about it: Brown had just stolen items in a store, made absolutely no attempt to hide what he was doing, bullied the store clerk at the door, and then walked brazenly down the middle of the road like he didn't care if he was caught.

Am I the only person who thinks his thinking was off? If he hadn't been killed, what would everyone really think of his behavior? According to Johnson's testimony, he (Johnson) was very scared that they were going to be caught even though he had nothing to do with the theft.

And I don't mean let's discuss good vs. evil behavior or anything like that. I mean...was his thinking off? And why?

This is what puzzles me so much about this case. I find his behavior so bizarre, that I believe he could easily have been the aggressor.

[Fred Sanders]

24. You forgot about the part where civilians have 300 million plus guns. Disarm the folks before you

disarm the police policing the folks.

A citizenry armed to the teeth requires a constabulary also armed to the teeth.

[840high]

33. Correct.

[bravenak]

74. How could the guy grabbing his license have prevented being shot?

Or the guy in the stairwell? Or the guy choked to death for selling loosies? Or the guy on his phone in Walmart? Or the guy they beat to death in SoCal? Or the guy shot in the back while laying on the ground in compliance? You are full of it and you know it.

[KeepItReal]

36. Tell that to the young Black man murdered in the stairwell of his own apartment by a rookie cop

in New York this week.

[Starry Messenger]

73. Tell that to Oscar Grant. Tell that to Casper Banjo.

[ileus]

35. Good plan for making LEO's easy targets...

[YarnAddict]

40. Can't remember if Sheriff Andy

was ever called to a domestic disturbance, but I'm willing to bet if there had ever been an episode like that, he wouldn't have had to fear violence from Aunt Bea and Floyd the Barber, unlike REAL LIFE police officers.

Virtually every call an officer answers has the potential to be a life threatening situation for the officer. I don't want them to have to go into situations where they could be taken hostage by an abusive husband, or murdered by a gang member, or whatever.

As long as there are as many firearms so readily available, I really don't think the police who are there to protect the rest of us, should be less well-armed than the bad guys.

[GeorgeGist]

44. Most are psychopaths ...

so it's all good.

[FLPanhandle]

46. Probably was a bad idea to include the Mayberry quote.

I get your point every call is potentially dangerous.

I just think the gun is a big divider between the police and the public, and leads too often to the gun being used. Sort of the old saying "if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". My thought was If carrying a gun causes the officer to view every situation as a chance to use it, then maybe we should review when officers are armed.

Again, just the morning ramblings of an old guy...

[YarnAddict]

55. I think most are better trained

and really DON'T view every situation as an opportunity to blow someone away. If every situation could be de-escalated and/or solved through negotiation, we could do away with police and just send social workers out to take care of problems.

I'm sort of old myself, and I just know that things have changed sooooooo much. When I was a kid, if a cop had told me (or anyone I knew) to get back on the sidewalk, I would have done it, no questions asked. I'm not saying that Michael Brown deserved to die for disrespecting an officer, but if he hadn't felt the need to challenge Wilson, he would still be alive.

And, why did he challenge him? It seems to have come down to a "whose is bigger" situation. Cop tells Michael to get on the sidewalk, Michael says no, the testosterone kicks in, then the adrenaline, and a simple situation ends in tragedy.

What a waste.

[B Calm]

64. I always thought cops were trained to arrest disrespecting citizens, not murder them.

No doubt (according to the prosecutor) Michael Brown was acting like a thug, but that is no reason for the cop to use deadly force.

I seen a guy beat up three cops before they finally subdued him. The point is, they didn't murder him!

[Kalidurga]

93. Excellent idea we should have more social workers and fewer cops

most situations can be handled without a gun and most are in fact handled without a gun. Plus a lot of communities could use some help with handling the stress of poverty.

[ncjustice80]

85. Thats bullshit.

Its onlynlife threatening because they make it so.

[YarnAddict]

86. *snort*

In my small rural community a state trooper was murdered last year by a worthless scumbag. He made a ROUTINE traffic stop, and the kid shot and killed him--because he didn't want to go to jail for driving on a suspended license, or something equally minor. Someone who had been an exemplary human being for his whole life was gone because someone who had made one bizarre choice after another from the time he was a young adolescent decided the cop's life was less important than being arrested. It was so unexpected that the trooper had never even unholstered his weapon.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2014/04/chance_encounter_ended_lives_o.html
According to Sarah Knysz’s testimony at her husband’s trial, Eric Knysz shot Butterfield without warning after the trooper pulled the truck over and was leaning toward Knysz’s open driver’s window, starting to say something like “How’s it going?”

Butterfield had called in the truck’s license plate number and his location on Custer Road north of Townline Road before getting out of his patrol car. That led ultimately to the couple’s capture.

According to Sarah Knysz’s testimony and recorded police interviews with Eric Knysz, her husband shot Butterfield because Knysz was driving on a suspended license – a suspension that was due to end less than six hours later – and had concealed firearms in the truck, a felony, and feared going to jail.

[ncjustice80]

88. A lot of assumptions there.

How was he an "exemplary human being"? What had copa done to the gunman early in life that made them distrust them so? Why did he feel so threataned?

In any case, your one anecdote doesnt change the fact that police deaths are on a downward trend. There are far more cases of brutal, unjustified shootings and frame ups than random shootings of police officers. Plus, in this situation, the officers gun did nothing to save him anyway. If he was an unarmed patrolman, the gunman could havr felt he haf an easy escape andnwouldnt have needed to shoot the officer to get away.

[YarnAddict]

91. Assumptions?

It's a small community. Even though I didn't know the trooper personally, I know a lot of people who did. He did volunteer work at the local no-kill animal shelter, and memorials were designated for the shelter.

This is from an interview with the trooper's father, who was dying of leukemia at the time.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2014/02/slain_michigan_state_police_tr_2.htmlThe father is left with fond memories of his only child, whose 44th birthday would have been Sunday, Feb. 16.

“He never gave us any trouble at all,” Butterfield said. “He was an athlete for one thing. He played baseball, he wrestled and, of course, running was his forte.”

In Paul K. Butterfield II’s youth, running was a passion. He was a 1988 graduate of Bridgeport High School, where he was active in track and cross-country running, still holding several school records and winning the state Class A cross-country meet.

As for the scumbag who murdered him, his father is a retired cop, and his connections had gotten the kid a slap on the wrist for every crime he had committed, from the time he was about 13. In fact, at the time of the murder, he SHOULD have been locked up, but as usual had been given probation.

Here's a link to a list of his crimes, and (lack of) punishment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418381/Eric-Knysz-19-pregnant-wife-charged-killing-newly-engaged-state-trooper-shot-head-routine-traffic-stop.html
According to records cited by the station WOOD-TV, Knysz committed his first crime at age 14 when he and two other teens broke into a house, and the boy used a gun to shoot open a door.
Knysz was sentenced to a year in jail, but ended up serving only 29 days after a judge suspended most of his jail time.
The same scenario played out in three subsequent cases involving Knysz: each time, the teenager had most or all of his sentence suspended.
All told, the 19-year-old father-to-be has been sentenced to 1,006 days behind bars since 2008, but served only 34.

Why did he feel so threatened? Who knows? Who cares? Nothing, absolutely nothing, can justify or excuse his actions.

Yup, it's one anecdote. But it helps me to understand why cops are on heightened alert at all times. A simple task, a minor part of the job, ended his life with no warning and no provocation.

[Kalidurga]

92. Yes and it was a terrible episode

the couple liked to break things and say mean things to each other. He got them to stop but then they started being mean to everyone else. You can guess the ending.

[uppityperson]

72. I agree. I see a rare need for police having guns. It would take a while, but would be worthwhile

of course there would still be a need for some to be armed, but most of the time it isn't needed and eventually they would learn how to deal with people as people, and the people would learn to deal with them as people.

I don't know how to accomplish this, but agree it would be nice and like to be in places where the police are rarely armed.

[B Calm]

77. They need to be trained how to arrest without murdering the disrespectful citizen.

[ncjustice80]

80. A thousand timea this!

DISARM THE POLICE.

[Skittles]

83. you can't be serious

unarmed cops in a gun humping country?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

87. Because your citizens are armed.

The reason American police need guns when British police don't is that America has more guns than people, and the UK has more people than guns.

You can't solve the problem without repealing the 2nd amendment, and that is not going to happen.

[maced666]

90. Agree 100% - says 1,000 polled criminals