Was just a shooting in WDM...linked to rapist

[Angie]

What? I can only comment on this story based on the information given. The story says the man pulled a gun. Like I said in an earlier post....if the cops misconstrued this story to there side where he didn't actually pull a gun, or some other misconstruance of information, than of course it would be a shame where the man doesn't deserve it than. I have already made this point.

"The story says..." That's my point, if you'll read my post closely. You're basing the value of a man's life on a short blurb from the Des Moines Register, before any type of investigation (which will be performed) is finished as to the need of using lethal force. Since you don't know what the circumstances are (just what has been released to the media at this time), it's impossible to make a judgment call. Mistakes are made, lies are told - I'm not saying that even remotely happened here, but saying that someone is instantly guilty because they reportedly pulled a gun is short-sighted. Innocent people hide from the police and do other crazy things all of the time - it's fight or flight. Again, in short - until the details and research come out, saying that this guy is worthless and deserved to die is pretty horrid.

 

[Ficklone02]

1. He was not charged with any crimes, let alone convicted. The police weren't apparently there to arrest him, just to execute a search warrant.

2. There is no evidence out there for general consumption that he was "questioned" about it. He was shot while apparently attacking a police officer who was executing a search warrant.

The fact that he was killed during the execution of a search warrant does not imply that he was guilty of the crimes being investigated by said search warrant. He might well have been guilty of aggravated assault of a police officer had he survived, but that's not rape.

The bullet from a police officer's gun is not a judge or jury, just possibly the executioner.

I'm not arguing. I'm just stating the facts.

I know what the facts (strong assumptions at this point) are. The point is, a man who threatens the law with a gun should assume the worst. I don't care if he committed any other crimes at this point or not....he could have been the cleanest or the dirtiest human being on earth, but if you threaten the law you are probably going to get it and deservedly so.

 

[Angie]

And what I'm saying is that the "studies" you speak of are fundamentally flawed. They depend heavily on self-reporting, and criminals almost universally overemphasize the so-called "tragedies" of their past. I see very little looking outward from their social/psycho/medical model of crime and it's causes.

Another thing to look at is the demographics of the researchers who conduct these so-called "studies". They tend to be 20-something female psych/soc grad students who ascribe to the "society creates criminals" paradigm and are fascinated with crime and criminals, and they therefore build in a bias that they do not reveal in their data.

Believe it or not, researchers who examine their data with a critical eye nearly universally condemn it.

It is my dream that "society causes crime" and "criminals are the victims" someday be seen as as intellectually bankrupt as those who claim the holocaust never happened. Because in my mind, they are intellectually the same.

Wow. :no: Trying to paint a group with a wide brush. Pitting 20-something women with "researchers who examine their data" as opposites?

 

[Phaedrus]

By the way, when criminality researchers "explain" criminal behavior by blaming society/tragedies in a criminal past, what they really mean is "excuse".

I'm not that dumb that I cannot figure where they're going with that, protestations of innocence aside.

 

[ISUFan22]

IMO, answering the door, even if it IS the cops, with a gun isn't worthy of being killed, let alone shot.

refusing to put it down after being asked and TOLD too, you deserve what is coming for the most part.

past that, I am waiting to hear who this person, REALLY is before going on any more.

-keep

The point some are making is..."can't assume the guy was guilty of anything until it's proven"...yes?

Ok.

So, based on this...

"after they went into his house and the man came at them with a gun, police said."

I can then assume the police are being honest and therefore, innocent of wrongdoing. Since that is a point being made...I shall make it too.

And if what they said is correct, the guy came at them with a gun, by all means he "deserved" to get shot. Killed? Debatable, but that does tend to be a nasty side effect of getting a bullet or two put in ya. And sometimes in the heat of gun fire, it's not always easy to shoot to injure and avoid a deadly shot.

Combine the came at them with a gun with the fact he is a suspect in these rape cases, doesn't make the guy look like Mother Theresa. I think it's safe to say he's likely the guy, but as noted, we don't know.

We also don't know if Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, but people believe it to be fact too.

It's late, I'm out. I just hope...

- This guy was the rapist
- He suffered before dying (if the above is true)
- No other wanna-be idiot (idiot not referring to a CF member) decides to start where this guy left off

 

[isucyfan]

By the way, when criminality researchers "explain" criminal behavior by blaming society/tragedies in a criminal past, what they really mean is "excuse".

I'm not that dumb that I cannot figure where they're going with that, protestations of innocence aside.

Not true to me. I've seen plenty of kids dealt the short stick in life, and grow up to be criminals. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them. But you can see it coming a mile away, due to their upbringing.

 

[jumbopackage]

I know what the facts (strong assumptions at this point) are. The point is, a man who threatens the law with a gun should assume the worst. I don't care if he committed any other crimes at this point or not....he could have been the cleanest or the dirtiest human being on earth, but if you threaten the law you are probably going to get it and deservedly so.

Nobody deserves to get killed by the police. Period.
It's not the police's job to kill people.
They are there to enforce the law, and nowhere in the law does it say that people who threaten the police deserve to get shot and killed.

The police certainly have a right to self defense, but threatening a police officer is not a death sentence, nor should it be.

It's also probably not the smartest thing to do, but neither is being a Hawk fan

 

[Angie]

Nobody deserves to get killed by the police. Period.
It's not the police's job to kill people.
They are there to enforce the law, and nowhere in the law does it say that people who threaten the police deserve to get shot and killed.

The police certainly have a right to self defense, but threatening a police officer is not a death sentence, nor should it be.

It's also probably not the smartest thing to do, but neither is being a Hawk fan

Exactly - or else all they would learn in the academy is how to use lethal force, not how to incapacitate someone. It is the police's job to arrest someone and get them into the hands of the judicial system.

 

[alarson]

Youve completely misread his post. He's not saying that the 20-something women dont examine their own data, he's saying that people who examine the data that was produced by the 20-something women psych/soc grad students condemn the data.

That said, rep to Phaedrus for that post.

 

[Ficklone02]

"The story says..." That's my point, if you'll read my post closely. You're basing the value of a man's life on a short blurb from the Des Moines Register, before any type of investigation (which will be performed) is finished as to the need of using lethal force. Since you don't know what the circumstances are (just what has been released to the media at this time), it's impossible to make a judgment call. Mistakes are made, lies are told - I'm not saying that even remotely happened here, but saying that someone is instantly guilty because they reportedly pulled a gun is short-sighted. Innocent people hide from the police and do other crazy things all of the time - it's fight or flight. Again, in short - until the details and research come out, saying that this guy is worthless and deserved to die is pretty horrid.

And thats why I said that these are the assumptions that I'm going under. I'm assuming the story is the truth, and if this isn't the truth and a man died under a police cover-up, or misconstruance of truth, than that is sad that he had to go that way and didn't deserve it. If you disagree with my arguments based on my assumption than so be it, but since this is a message board please don't tell me what assumptions i can or can't make....I'm not discussing with personal information so as to hurt anyone. My arguments are very simple, as are my assumptions.

 

[Angie]

And thats why I said that these are the assumptions that I'm going under. I'm assuming the story is the truth, and if this isn't the truth and a man died under a police cover-up, or misconstruance of truth, than that is sad that he had to go that way and didn't deserve it. If you disagree with my arguments based on my assumption than so be it, but since this is a message board please don't tell me what assumptions i can or can't make....I'm not discussing with personal information so as to hurt anyone. My arguments are very simple, as are my assumptions.

If you're comfortable making huge leaps in judgment and assumptions, and then condemning someone based off of those assumptions, go for it, man. Just hope you're never on anyone's jury.

 

[ISUFan22]

I think a motto or "law" police must abide by is to use only non-lethal force unless otherwise necessary.

I would think a man coming at you with a gun gives 'em the leeway to use whatever means necessary to stop him.

What if the police had gone out of their way to not kill him, missed, were either killed or evaded. Then the guy either shot other innocent people on his way out and/or committed another rape tonight (or another night).

I can be certain the cops would be taking a ton of crap here and elsewhere for not taking care of the guy when they had the chance.

 

[Angie]

Youve completely misread his post. He's not saying that the 20-something women dont examine their own data, he's saying that people who examine the data that was produced by the 20-something women psych/soc grad students condemn the data.

That said, rep to Phaedrus for that post.

Really? 'Cause this was the last half of the post about 20-something women:

they therefore build in a bias that they do not reveal in their data.

 

[Phaedrus]

Wow. :no: Trying to paint a group with a wide brush. Pitting 20-something women with "researchers who examine their data" as opposites?

I knew I'd raise an eyebrow or two with that comment. An explanation if you will:

I wish it weren't true, but 100% of the researchers that I sponsored during my 3.5 lovely years working in the Iowa Prison System to collect data on inmates were a) young. b) female and c) in an obvious state of sexual excitement to be around so many "dangerous men".

Upon further questioning, it was obvious that a) they believed society was "at fault" for creating criminals and b) the imprisonment of said criminals was fundamentally more unjust than the crimes they'd committed.

I would also theorize, from my surrepitous questioning of these young ladies, that they gained a certain voyeuristic thrill from hearing about the crimes from these inmates, to the extent that they themselves almost admired the criminals.

I also noticed that the stories of the criminals themselves took a different tack when in the presence of these researchers. As in, they overstated the tragic nature of their past, and their own self-ascribed causes for committing crimes. Knowing a guy as a guy for a couple years tends to be a pretty good way to learn to identify and filter out b.s. when you hear it.

When you have a 100% adherance to a stereotype, is it still a stereotype? I'm not saying all 20-something females are this way, but I think there is a subset of 20-something females that is into this, and they just happened to be researchers. Who happened to show up at my place of work.

 

[jumbopackage]

Exactly - or else all they would learn in the academy is how to use lethal force, not how to incapacitate someone. It is the police's job to arrest someone and get them into the hands of the judicial system.

Well, I will say if a cop decides to discharge his weapon, you discharge it to kill someone. You don't aim to maim, I guess. That's a Hollywood notion.

You don't WANT to kill someone, but if you're discharging your firearm, you've pretty much already made the decision to kill whatever you're shooting at.

 

[Angie]

I knew I'd raise an eyebrow or two with that comment. An explanation if you will:

I wish it weren't true, but 100% of the researchers that I sponsored during my 3.5 lovely years working in the Iowa Prison System to collect data on inmates were a) young. b) female and c) in an obvious state of sexual excitement to be around so many "dangerous men".

Upon further questioning, it was obvious that a) they believed society was "at fault" for creating criminals and b) the imprisonment of said criminals was fundamentally more unjust than the crimes they'd committed.

I would also theorize, from my surrepitous questioning of these young ladies, that they gained a certain voyeuristic thrill from hearing about the crimes from these inmates, to the extent that they themselves almost admired the criminals.

I also noticed that the stories of the criminals themselves took a different tack when in the presence of these researchers. As in, they overstated the tragic nature of their past, and their own self-ascribed causes for committing crimes. Knowing a guy as a guy for a couple years tends to be a pretty good way to learn to identify and filter out b.s. when you hear it.

When you have a 100% adherance to a stereotype, is it still a stereotype? I'm not saying all 20-something females are this way, but I think there is a subset of 20-something females that is into this, and they just happened to be researchers. Who happened to show up at my place of work.

I'm sorry if I don't accept anecdotal evidence and a history of disliking researchers and professionals (those considered of "higher education") at face value. This is incredibly sexist and dismissive of women as unable to control their sexual urges around "dangerous men."

 

[ISUFan22]

I agree that it's quite sexist. My wife is dangerous and I simply am unable to control these urges I have. And last I checked, I'm no woman.

I may need therapy...would this be the place to list and discuss these urges, for theraputic reason? I mean, the site is taking up deliberating a criminal matter, so it's no stretch providing therapy is something that can be done here.

 

[herbicide]

And if what they said is correct, the guy came at them with a gun, by all means he "deserved" to get shot. Killed? Debatable, but that does tend to be a nasty side effect of getting a bullet or two put in ya. And sometimes in the heat of gun fire, it's not always easy to shoot to injure and avoid a deadly shot.

They don't ever try to injure, if they shoot, it is to eliminate (read: kill) the threat.

Police are not supposed to injure or maim with a deadly weapon. They do not try, it is too dangerous to them. The point of using deadly force is to eliminate the threat, not to reduce it. They only to use deadly force when either they or others are in serious physical danger.

Cops purposely shooting suspects in the arms and legs only happens in Hollywood, and rightfully so.

 

[Clone9]

I knew I'd raise an eyebrow or two with that comment. An explanation if you will:

I wish it weren't true, but 100% of the researchers that I sponsored during my 3.5 lovely years working in the Iowa Prison System to collect data on inmates were a) young. b) female and c) in an obvious state of sexual excitement to be around so many "dangerous men".

Upon further questioning, it was obvious that a) they believed society was "at fault" for creating criminals and b) the imprisonment of said criminals was fundamentally more unjust than the crimes they'd committed.

I would also theorize, from my surrepitous questioning of these young ladies, that they gained a certain voyeuristic thrill from hearing about the crimes from these inmates, to the extent that they themselves almost admired the criminals.

I also noticed that the stories of the criminals themselves took a different tack when in the presence of these researchers. As in, they overstated the tragic nature of their past, and their own self-ascribed causes for committing crimes. Knowing a guy as a guy for a couple years tends to be a pretty good way to learn to identify and filter out b.s. when you hear it.

When you have a 100% adherance to a stereotype, is it still a stereotype? I'm not saying all 20-something females are this way, but I think there is a subset of 20-something females that is into this, and they just happened to be researchers. Who happened to show up at my place of work.

Yeah, I think this is a little out of line as well. Talk about stereotypes.....

 

[ilovetheclones]

I think a motto or "law" police must abide by is to use only non-lethal force unless otherwise necessary.

I would think a man coming at you with a gun gives 'em the leeway to use whatever means necessary to stop him.

What if the police had gone out of their way to not kill him, missed, were either killed or evaded. Then the guy either shot other innocent people on his way out and/or committed another rape tonight (or another night).

I can be certain the cops would be taking a ton of crap here and elsewhere for not taking care of the guy when they had the chance.

luckily no officers were injured in this event. I have several members of my family in the police department in des moines and i cant imagine if they were shot while trying to investigate a case.

Pulling a gun on a cop ANYHWERE will get you shot immediately 9 times out of 10. When faced with a instant decision like that what would you do act to defend yourself or make your wife a widow.

It is unfortunate the individual died but he made that option a reality by acting the way he did. His choice lead to his death. It is simple as that.

How do you think the officers involved feel, i can tell you it is not a happy moment for them. They dont sign up to kill people but to protect them. Want to bet they performed cpr on him before the ambulance arived. i would.