There is a growing outcry in Tuscaloosa, Ala. after a police officer fatally shot a man wielding a “large metal spoon in a threatening manner.” Jeffory Ray Tevis, 50, was killed after a confrontation with the officer on his balcony. Police say that he may have been “suffering from a mental episode” . . . and then he grabbed a spoon.
Police were responded to a report of an assault on the premises and found Tevis with blood on his face and legs. He said that he had been attacking while another man accused him of threatening him. Police say that he became aggressive and an officer used a stun gun but Tevis then charged the officer with a spoon. Police said it was 10-12 inches long. The officer shoot him twice in self-defense.
The officer reported minor injuries.
As daunting as a large spoon maybe, the incident rises the question that we discussed earlier about sharp difference in the use of lethal force in the United States as opposed to other countries. In fairness, we have not heard the officer’s account and it may be possible at the location on the balcony or other factors proved mitigating. However, the object itself raises fair questions about the use of lethal force.
We’re being lectured to by a Canadian on several threads who shows abject ignorance of the US Constitution. But, you can read him waxing poetic of his days @ the Sorbonne on the PC humor thread. He wants the majority to be able to ban ANYTHING they deem “hateful.” It can be read on the Confederate thread @ 9:05am. He is ignorant about this country and would love to destroy it. But I would fight w/ my life to defend his write to make uninformed, ignorant, hateful comments. He would not reciprocate, he’s a socialist.
If JT was seeking “fairness” as he proclaims, he would have had some patience and waited for more facts. But, he’s in a manic cop hating phase and needed one post for today.
Vad: Great classic training video. It claims: “The public seldom appreciates how risky and time-consuming these rescues can be.”
The latest edition concludes: Two Ranger T-series hollow points can reduce the time consumption and burden on the taxpayer considerably. Brought to you by Winchester, the first name in law enforcement self-defense.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/psychologist-openly-admits-he-trains-police-officers-shoot-first-and-ask-questions
Psychologist Openly Admits He Trains Police Officers to Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Dr. Lewinski is training police to shoot before making a full assessment of the true threat.
By Shaun King / Daily Kos
August 9, 2015
For years, to any observer of police brutality, the idea that officers were shooting people first and asking questions later was a foregone conclusion. Such a practice, while blatantly obvious, seemed too unethical, too harsh for police to ever admit.
Well, here it is. All of the proof we ever needed. Not only are American police, from coast to coast, shooting first and asking questions later, they are being trained to do so in seminars by a psychologist who openly promises them that he’ll testify on their behalf if anything ever goes wrong. He’s already done it nearly 200 times.
Meet Dr. William J. Lewinski.
No matter what the circumstances are in a police shooting, he’s the guy departments lean on to say it was completely justified and unavoidable.
His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.
He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.
It’s actually big business. A quick scan of Dr. Lewinski’s website website has him teaching large workshops in Chicago, San Antonio, Orlando, and in other big cities across the country. Can’t make it to his conferences, don’t worry, he’ll come to your department, and offer your officers a certificate on how they are basically allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. He charges $1,000 an hour for his testimony and is, unsurprisingly, willing to testify for hours on end.
Hell, his whole company is named Force Science Institute—as in the use of force by police. This business is so lucrative that it’s all he does. Experts are denouncing his work as phony and dangerous, but police departments could not care less.
It’s why police officers killed 123 people in July, a high for 2015.
It’s despicable and the more it happens, the richer Dr. Lewinski gets. I had always suspected some type of profit motive was behind the wholesale killing of Americans by police. Now we don’t need to speculate. After all, it’s the job for the Force Science Institute to keep this practice growing.
It’s because today’s training teaches them to shoot whenever there’s _any_ possibility of a danger. That’s how we get episodes when they shoot even when the “suspect” is visibly unarmed, but _might_ be reaching for something. See for instance this encounter:
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/08/new-jersey-cops-shot-man-with-hands-up-get-away-with-video-recorded-murder/
Under this theory, the cop can shoot anyone at any time at all and then claim that he thought that the victim was “reaching”, so the cop was afraid for his life. In practically all these episodes we hear the exact same few explanations over and over again: “he reached to his waistband”, “he lunged at me”, and maybe 2-3 more. The uniformity of these explanations shows that there is an organization that spreads them, which may be either police schools or some uniform training approved for the whole country, or police unions receiving guidance from some centralized think tank.
This today’s line is in sharp contrast with what was expected from the police 50 years ago. Watch this:
There is a problem. The first step in solving a problem is admitting there is a problem. If there was no problem then proportionately the same thing would be happening in our peer nations. There is a problem.
You can conjecture all you want, pontificate the sacred values of the 2nd amendment and what it means or what it was supposed to mean by the gods of the American Pantheon, surmise, what if, foreign armies, government jack boots, etc., etc., etc.
In the end, after the BS and its smell drifts away we are left with a problem unique to Americans. Or perhaps that’s just the price you pay for ‘Nobody’s messing with my guns.’ I suppose some people need to feel substantial and that is the only way.
They are on a balcony. Cop has a foot or so before going off backwards. Assaulting bloody man rushes him. How do you stop him? It would be nice to have a gun. Oh, he had a gun. Oh, he was a cop. Oh, black lives matter. Oh, it was two guys of the same race. Oh, the bloody guy who rushed him was known to be a psychopath. Oh, a taser did not stop him. Oh, he charged the cop after being tased. I suppose if both guys ended up on the street under the balcony and were both dead then someone would ask why the cop did not shoot him?
Cop lives matter too.
I will reserve my outrage until the race of all involved has been determined.
They’re probably members of the right to life crowd — that is, certain lives versus others.
Once again we come face-to-face with the question of the mental fitness and judgment of the people we select to be the police, and – just as significantly – what kind of training and supervision they have. We can debate what constitutes “self defense” all we want – and even indict some cops – but the problem starts long before a citizen is killed by one. The job is to take someone into custody SAFELY. The stories we read every day are surely making it worse because some people now think that they MUST RESIST because the cop will kill them anyway, that they have no self-control any more. It’s going to get worse until police departments start being professional.
What do you expect in a country with laws that allow someone to shoot someone else to death based on a, “reasonable understanding of being threatened”, or something like that. Forty-fifty years ago, this was the basis for racial jokes. Now you can’t say anything without being accused of wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. There are unregulated militias in Ferguson and idiots on the police forces as well as threaded throughout our society armed to the teeth.
Isaac
The guy with the spoon was armed to the teeth and they took it from his cold dead hand.
The Monty Python sketch came immediately to mind. Then reality set in. This isn’t funny, folks. It’s a consequence of the Supreme Court allowing people who weren’t a danger to themselves or others out of mental institutions over 40 years ago, combined with the police viewing anything within a limo length a kill zone..
I’m sure the officer truly believed he might be gagged with it.
Actually this was a great problem in the San Fernando Valley during the 80’s, with ditzy girls mostly, who seemed to request it whenever they were dissatisfied.
The cop should have released the tiger instead.
Max
Don’t they teach the ladle song in Krav Maga?
You can knock someone out with a rolled up newspaper. You can certainly jab someone anywhere from the neck up with the pointy end of a spoon.
The last possibility is the officer was learning Spanish. Quite often I have mixed up cuchillo and cuchara.
If an average person was attacked by a guy with a spoon, he’d wonder what the spoon was for. I’d be more afraid of getting bit or kicked. Such police officers are unfit for duty. Sorry. Imagine what would happen if the average citizen said he shot a guy to death because he was being threatened with a spoon – and this is a police officer, who’s supposed to be able to diffuse situations.
Interesting, I guess the officer just panicked at the scene. Do anyone know how big this guy was?
The Science Geek
http://www.theciencegeek.org
As you know, self defence is difficult to second guess. I wouldn’t dream of forming an opinion on that account alone.
This is the often uncounted price of having a heavily armed police force. The use of deadly force, once it becomes an option for the officer, becomes a fallback position. There are police forces that would have probably handled that situation better. It’s not like only Americans ever violently attack police officers with improvised weapons.
“Police said it was 10-12 inches long.”
… That’s called a ladle. Just saying.