This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 14, 2007 12:19 PM. The previous post in this blog was Is there some kind of siege going on in NE Portland?. The next post in this blog is Cue Johnny Paycheck. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Here we go again, again

A police officer named Humphreys kills an allegedly fleeing, allegedly unarmed suspect, and serious questions are raised. The officer's been through this before.

Sound familiar?

UPDATE, 2:38 p.m.: The police union is now quoted as saying that the suspect had grabbed the officer's Taser and shot him with it.

Comments (9)

It is a different office Humphreys, I wonder if they are related... (In a different police force.)

Has this Humphreys been through this before?

described all three as Hispanic males....
Just doing the jobs Americans won't do.

Has this Humphreys been through this before?

Yep. Killed someone in a "justified" homicide several years back.

So if it was thoroughly investigated and then declared to be justified then why are you sliming him over it?

No one's sliming anyone. I'm sorry the facts make you so uncomfortable.

Read about the first incident Ruben, and judge for yourself if you think it sounds justified. They pumped a guy full of bullets because they were afraid he'd hurt someone with his car. Haven't we seen police chase speeding cars? What do they do? Do they execute the guy? No, they find another way to stop the car.

I'm beginning to believe you don't believe deadly force is necessary under any circumstance. Grabbing an officers taser and using it against him? Sounds like he had it coming. If the facts prove otherwise, I may change my opinion.

These stories make me feel good in knowing that there's one less criminal in this world with the will and ability to victimize me, my family, and my friends.

In the system of law that we have, the penalties for car theft, evading arrest, and even assault on a police officer do not include the death penalty. And no penalties are imposed without due process of law. Killings at the hands of the police must be reviewed with extreme care and complete openness. A public discussion of the merits of the case is appropriate, whether the killing was justified or not.

At the time the original post went up, the officer's side of the story had not been told. An eyewitness had just said that the victim was unarmed and shot in the back.

I don't "feel good" that someone is dead.

Granted, the deceased will never get his day in court. The facts are therefore subject to survivorship bias (i.e. the cop survived).

That said, the deceased apparently made some bad decisions which lead to his untimely death. If he was riding in a stolen car. If the driver of the car refused to pull over, and then attempted to flee. If the occupants all ran from the car, ignoring the police officer's verbal command. If the deceased refused to be taken into custody peaceably (and was subsequently tazed), and then had the audacity to grab the officer's tazer...We'll never know for certain, but I would rather have a dead suspect than a dead cop.

We shouldn't forget that the boys in blue are the only thing that stands between us (and our families) and the criminals. They generally make less than $70k/year and they shouldn't have to "fight fair" (or engage in hand to hand combat) just because a suspect is willing to fight with a cop.

Or, try calling the ACLU the next time a meth addict/rapist/thief decides to kick in your door. I'm sure they'll get right on it.

Clicky Web Analytics