Current Events > Alabama police give homeowner one second to respond before killing him

(+) Yeah! (+)

texanfan27 posted...

the tow truck driver is who Im referring to, how would he know? All he was told was go this truck it behind on payments.

And how would the person with the gun know that it's legitimately a tow truck driver?

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/fake-tow-truck-driver-tried-to-swipe-cars/85-253077916

Because you know, it's not like people have tried doing that fraudulently.
GranAures posted...

That would have likely led to more loss of life as police would have been called on a shooting and would be two dead bodies.

Sure, but the question needs to be asked. Because if the police were actually fair, shouldn't they just throw their hands up and say "stand your ground?"

texanfan27 posted...

the tow truck driver is who Im referring to, how would he know? All he was told was go this truck it behind on payments.

Ok, cool.

How was Perkins supposed to know the cops were there when they rolled up and immediately shot him with next to no warning? There's less than a second between them yelling at him to get on the ground and them firing. And I'm not a bootlicker so I don't automatically believe the cops' claim that he pointed the gun at them.

Ultimately your view is "believe all cops" and "summary executions are ok".

ArtiRock posted...

Because if the police were actually fair, shouldn't they just throw their hands up and say "stand your ground?"

Big if there. We know a lot of times two sets of rules apply so I would bet they wouldn't have been as quick to shrug it off as SYG as they were to open fire.

GranAures posted...

Big if there. We know a lot of times two sets of rules apply so I would bet they wouldn't have been as quick to shrug it off as SYG as they were to open fire.

Oh, I'm aware. I think it just massively shows off the double standards. It's just Texas' argument dwindles down to "black people shouldn't have guns."

Murphiroth posted...

Ok, cool.

How was Perkins supposed to know the cops were there when they rolled up and immediately shot him with next to no warning? There's less than a second between them yelling at him to get on the ground and them firing. And I'm not a bootlicker so I don't automatically believe the cops' claim that he pointed the gun at them.

Ultimately your view is "believe all cops" and "summary executions are ok".

first off, I dont believe all cops. I look from objective angles and ask, was this justified? Was there reasonable reason to shoot the person in question. Based on initial info, it sounds like it might been, but a little more research is now bringing up questions.

Another camera angle from a neighbor was released for one and now there are questions if they followed protocol. So now we wait and see if they got the body cam footage (which is held up by an Alabama law it seems)

https://www.waff.com/2023/10/05/former-decatur-police-officer-questions-actions-officers-involved-stephen-perkins-death/?outputType=amp

In tangentially related news: I appreciate that the chuckles who laughed at and referred to this with "another bites the dust" immediately got nuked for it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

At least it was a warn. I've seen homeslices get moderated for worse and still be able to post.

texanfan27 posted...

the difference is loss of life.

? Both situations I discussed involve loss of life

texanfan27 posted...

Also the constant saying Im saying they should shoot on sight is wrong. I rather it end with no deaths and not a single shot fired, but minimal loss of life is the goal.

And yet you're justifying someone being shot who was not even given the command or option to surrender their firearm (which to me sounds like we'll find out he didn't have a firearm) and shooting someone within a second. The minimized loss of life is none. We've seen incidents where cops don't kill someone who has been shooting at them with semi-automatic weapons, and yet we have to tolerate this as legitimate? Nah

ArtiRock posted...

It really doesn't need a wait in this case. Anyone shot before they can respond was executed.

Arguably, anyone shot and killed was executed without due process.

I know, that's not really the discussion we're here to have today, so I'll just leave it at that.

texanfan27 posted...

Its stopping a possible threat.

1) One second to respond is not stopping a possible threat. It's an execution. But I'm sure you've been told that over the next two pages.

2) Cops shouldn't be allowed to stop "possible" threats. They should only be allowed to respond to active threats.

Nemu posted...

And all that's assuming the police are actually being truthful and not just lying to cover up gross incompetence.

As we've learned, over and over, you can never make that assumption. Cops have burned off too much good will without ever reforming the things that cause the above to happen.

texanfan27 posted...

im blaming the person who thought be effective to threaten a tow truck driver with a gun. Then brought it out again when he returned with police.

He escalated the conflict, which could resolved peacefully with a few phone calls. Instead he threatened someone doing their job (or would any of you like to explain how he would know it was a wrongful repo?) with a firearm. Owning the gun isnt a crime, but using it to openly threaten someone is.

So would you blame Nicolas Cruz for shooting Parkland, but believe he did the right thing in dropping the gun and hence would not be blamed *if* he had been shot?

electricbugs2 posted...

If your car is being towed you fight that with a lawyer not a gun. Wtf?

This is hilarious.

What an amazing privilege you must have to think people have the time (and money) to take off from work, get a lawyer, and contest someone stealing their property in civil court, while their means of transportation to work is... in the hands of the person who stole it.

texanfan27 posted...

cause he pulled a firearm and used it in a threatening manner, officers responded the way they did

"Because he told someone they couldn't steal his stuff and was determined to protect his property and livelihood, the cops were justified sneaking around the tow truck and dropping him into a dirt nap with not even enough warning to finish their sentence to him," is one hell of a take, dude.

I guarantee that when the cops say "he threatened us with a gun," what they mean by that is that he happened to be holding a gun while he turned his head to look at them because they startled him by sneaking up on him from right the fuck out of nowhere and screaming at him.

Don't ever, ever take cops at their word.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I guarantee that when the cops say "he threatened us with a gun," what they mean by that is that he happened to be holding a gun while he turned his head to look at them because they startled him by sneaking up on him from right the fuck out of nowhere and screaming at him.

They don't even have to "stretch" the truth. There's nothing stopping them from outright lying. But we shouldn't need to take anyone's word for it - this is why body cams are a thing, and why "their body cam was off" should be immediate grounds for federal investigation. And not of the "quietly assigned elsewhere" variety.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Isnt Noname13 his alt? He used to have Darkprince proudly in his sig, but curiously not anymore. Unless Im mistaking him with someone else very similarly named.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Isnt Noname13 his alt? He used to have Darkprince proudly in his sig, but curiously not anymore. Unless Im mistaking him with someone else very similarly named.

He just posted a topic about Boogie so I think you're good.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

His alt just hit 50 karma. You literally summoned him.

GranAures posted...

No.

Does that deserve summary execution? And what other instances do you support cops unloading in people before they have a chance to respond to orders?

Are you asking if showing someone someone that you intend to shoot them, deserving of being killed yourelf?

Crimson_Corsair posted...

The shots fire is irrelevant. You don't shoot to kill or wound, you shoot to stop the threat, which means you keep firing until the threat doesn't exist.

Now if they fired until he was down and no longer threat, and then kept pumping rounds into him, that would be excessive.

"It's okay to mag dump an imagined or perceived threat. But it can't be an excessive mag dump. Because those are such different things."

Bruh.

A_Good_Boy posted...

I feel like there's been so many examples of the police managing to find the ability to exercise restraint when the suspect is a belligerent old white male with a gun

Like this one. Five minutes of a guy basically yelling at cops to stand down and put their guns away.

https://youtu.be/lRWama5WPTA?si=cG2QE0B66lZWDV6I

texanfan27 posted...

which could resolved peacefully with a few phone calls.

Oh, please. Once the repo man has your car, rightly or not, you think it's going to take "just a few phone calls" to get it back? These are debt collectors who don't respect people's rights 90% of the time even when they have the actual permission to repo something.

They're going to own up to being wrong about as quick as the cops are.

texanfan27 posted...

how would he know?

There's always radioing dispatch and making sure he's getting the right vehicle when someone's right there complaining he's getting the wrong vehicle.

Then again, the police raid wrong addresses all the time, and never stop to double-check addresses before breaking down doors and traumatizing (or killing) innocent people.

Guess we continue to hold cops to the same standard as tow truck drivers and repo men. Which seems to be no standard and just assuming they got it right. (Does that feel wrong to anyone else? Just me?)

DnDer posted...

This is hilarious.

What an amazing privilege you must have to think people have the time (and money) to take off from work, get a lawyer, and contest someone stealing their property in civil court, while their means of transportation to work is... in the hands of the person who stole it.

Yeah because pulling out a glizzy on the dude just doing his job is definitely the best way to go about it. Smarten up.

Where's the camera footage? Or did the cops "forget" to turn them on?

jumi posted...

Where's the camera footage? Or did the cops "forget" to turn them on?

Getting the camera footage takes time. Please understand /s

jumi posted...

Where's the camera footage? Or did the cops "forget" to turn them on?

Example #61538 of why they shouldnt be under their control. They should have to call dispatch and provide a reason and limited timeframe for why they need them off (privacy in bathroom) complete with the request being logged and time stamped. If an incident takes place while a camera is off, federal investigation.

electricbugs2 posted...

Yeah because pulling out a glizzy on the dude just doing his job is definitely the best way to go about it. Smarten up.

I thought that was a hotdog

Dark_Arbron posted...

Example #61538 of why they shouldnt be under their control. They should have to call dispatch and provide a reason and limited timeframe for why they need them off (privacy in bathroom) complete with the request being logged and time stamped. If an incident takes place while a camera is off, federal investigation.

Somebody mentioned earlier there is an Alabama law holding it up, I never actually clicked the link though.

But I agree, there isn't an excuse at this point for officers to not have body cams. I don't know what rules are currently in place but that shit needs to be mandated, at the federal level if it needs to be (though I doubt that can happen) and if there isn't a REALLY good fucking reason for the body cam being off then people need to start getting investigated.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Somebody mentioned earlier there is an Alabama law holding it up, I never actually clicked the link though.

But I agree, there isn't an excuse at this point for officers to not have body cams. I don't know what rules are currently in place but that shit needs to be mandated, at the federal level if it needs to be (though I doubt that can happen) and if there isn't a REALLY good fucking reason for the body cam being off then people need to start getting investigated.

I remember a user on 261 years ago literally argued that body cams need to be able to be turned off by the wearer specifically for bathroom privacy. Like that's somehow a greater priority than police with their long history of lying being held accountable for unwarranted acts of violence.

In fact why does bathroom privacy matter at all? The people looking at the footage aren't going to be their fucking high school friends on Facebook. No one's going to be circulating dick pics. Only professionals will be looking at that footage, and even then, only if it's called as evidence. "Bathroom privacy" in this context is fucking childish.

If my job required me to wear surveillance equipment, I wouldn't care if it caught a glimpse of my tiny dick taking a piss. Because I don't have the mental age of a 13 year old. I'm mature and professional enough to understand that I need to be identifiable and that ultimately no one fucking cares what my dick looks like.

Dark_Arbron posted...

I remember a user on 261 years ago literally argued that body cams need to be able to be turned off by the wearer specifically for bathroom privacy. Like that's somehow a greater priority than police with their long history of lying being held accountable for unwarranted acts of violence.

In fact why does bathroom privacy matter at all? The people looking at the footage aren't going to be their fucking high school friends on Facebook. No one's going to be circulating dick pics. Only professionals will be looking at that footage, and even then, only if it's called as evidence. "Bathroom privacy" in this context is fucking childish.

If my job required me to wear surveillance equipment, I wouldn't care if it caught a glimpse of my tiny dick taking a piss. Because I don't have the mental age of a 13 year old. I'm mature and professional enough to understand that I need to be identifiable and that ultimately no one fucking cares what my dick looks like.

You grossly underestimate what professionals do. I can just imagine some weirdo jacking it to a woman in the bathroom.

pnut027 posted...

You grossly underestimate what professionals do. I can just imagine some weirdo jacking it to a woman in the bathroom.

Oh, for sure. I also think such behavior would be pretty pathetic. I'm just annoyed at the mindset I was describing because I've also seen people hesitant to show their own doctor their genitals because "eww, another man is seeing my dick!" And don't even think of telling them a colonoscopy may be in order...

It probably seemed like a weird tangent I went off on. Because it was.

So we can revert to my previous point then. The camera has to be remotely disabled and a report of the request filed. Bathroom privacy, fine. What I said is just my opinion. Regardless of what I think, privacy can be accounted for. There are probably other scenarios where having the cameras off is justified too. But the ability to turn them off at will without even being asked why is a problem, I think we'll agree.

texanfan27 posted...

flashing A gun at the guy and having it out set him up for this. Guy was a threat to the tow truck driver and anyone else there.

you dont pull a gun over property, only to protect human life. The truck was recoverable if there was a screw up, but now someone is dead cause of it.

Oh hey look, someone with "texan" in their name is victim blaming someone gunned down by police.

I'd like to say I'm surprised, buuuuuuuut.

I guess we have to see a video to determine if the shooting was justified in reaction to pulling out a gun. But Ill tell you right now, I aint helping out no fucking tow truck driver take someones car away from them. Sorry, civil matter, go to court. Shouldnt be getting involved in this at all

DnDer posted...

What an amazing privilege you must have to think people have the time (and money) to take off from work, get a lawyer, and contest someone stealing their property in civil court, while their means of transportation to work is... in the hands of the person who stole it.

This is why money being a barrier to justice is a huge fucking problem. "There are legal ways you can do this," really isn't much consolation when it's very much possible to actually not be able to afford it. And that's assuming you even work a job that permits you to take time out to see a lawyer and attend court, which a lot of factory jobs with 12 hour shifts likely do not.

(On that note, I suspect that's by design. It's hard to "just find a better job" when you don't actually have the time or capacity to attend interviews. But good luck getting capitalist apologists to recognize that.)

If a cop and a tow truck driver told me the sky was blue I'd definitely double check.

electricbugs2 posted...

Yeah because pulling out a glizzy on the dude just doing his job is definitely the best way to go about it. Smarten up.

You don't get the "just doing your job" defence when your "job" is stealing someone's car.

I'm curious if anyone has enough nuance to offer a suggestion midway between "he was an idiot for drawing a gun over property!" and "just fight it in court, because losing your car isn't massively damaging whatsoever, every employer permits you the time to meet with a lawyer, said lawyer is universally affordable, and court dates don't take months to come around during which you're without your car."

I wonder if anyone has a realistic suggestion for how this should have gone down.

(And that's ignoring the fact the man was black, which we all know meant he was most likely doomed from the start whether he had a gun or not.)

Yeah, if this is really how it went down, I'm going to have to side with the cops, mostly because I've witnessed how violent some people can get in repossession situations. As a long time "nite-owl", repo trucks usually show up sometime in the late night to early morning hours around 11p-5a, & not uncommon for the "victim" to show up angered & if they have one, brandishing a gun on the claim of a "theft" for something they have likely not been making the proper payments on, if they catch it while happening. Though it seems the driver was able to leave without getting shot at first, & probably should have just left at that, & let courts handle it. I don't know how anyone even gets convinced to work a job as dangerous as repossession, myself.

Well, now I'm definitely tracking this topic.

Trumble posted...

You don't get the "just doing your job" defence when your "job" is stealing someone's car.

As much as it sucks having your car towed, it doesnt make the dude who towed it a thief, and it certainly doesnt mean you pull a gun on him. Good fucking lord.

Dark_Arbron posted...

I wonder if anyone has a realistic suggestion for how this should have gone down.

Cops show up, announce themselves, and give him more than a second to react.

Even if he had the weapon (loosely) in his hand, they should have taken the risk and still gave him clear instructions and time to react.

If he turned round and raised his weapon, then at that point it's fair game.

wackyteen posted...

Cops show up, announce themselves, and give him more than a second to react.

Even if he had the weapon (loosely) in his hand, they should have taken the risk and still gave him clear instructions and time to react.

If he turned round and raised his weapon, then at that point it's fair game.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm focusing more on how the guy himself should have reacted to the situation, not how the police should have dealt with him (which as you say, was poor).

As I said above, I'm interested in people who seem to think that losing your vehicle is just a minor inconvenience that is "easily settled in court" without potentially life-ruining effects in the meantime. Lose your job, lose your house, but at least you "complied with the law and can seek damages in court later, right?"

Just without a lawyer since you have no money or home and can't afford one.
And after you've been homeless for months or possibly years because court dates take forever to come around.
And also, again, the man was black. That is very well known to go against a person in the US justice system no matter how many racists insist otherwise.

I absolutely understand why people defend "property" with potentially lethal force when losing that "property" can potentially destroy your life. But people who don't understand that are probably middle-class and have never been in such a tenuous position in life before, and yes, I do count myself among that statistic. But that's why empathy is a thing.

darkbuster posted...

Yeah, if this is really how it went down

Well you can rest assured that it isn't, because cops are not trustworthy.

Police get no de-escalation training or it's grossly inadequate.

We keep giving them more and more funding but they get worse and worse in these critical situations.

Torgo posted...

Police get no de-escalation training or it's grossly inadequate.

We keep giving them more and more funding but they get worse and worse in these critical situations.

Police get warrior mentality training, approaching every situation as one where they could die.

Torgo posted...

Police get no de-escalation training or it's grossly inadequate.

We keep giving them more and more funding but they get worse and worse in these critical situations.

They're pretty well trained in what they can get away with though. Even such tactics as opening fire on someone while screaming "drop the weapon!" so that dispatch can plausibly claim warnings were given without anyone able to prove otherwise. Not to mention being taught to empty entire magazines into people, going far beyond the target being clearly neutralized.

In Australia you have to justify every bullet. A second shot to "double tap" someone is treated very harshly because while you accept the possibility that your target will die, you are not permitted to actively increase that chance. And if one of your bullets hits someone in the head? The judge will be asking why the fuck you aimed there. That's not what you were trained to do.