Great analysis! I couldn’t agree more. The criticism that we should just walk away is the most frustrating. We are paid to enforce the law. If resistance means we back down we will never take anyone into custody. It will be like the dramatic increase in failure to yields that we now experience with the restrictive pursuit policies in place. Our society will be even more of a disaster with crime if cops walked away every time someone resists arrest. This is tragic, but Mr Clarke made choices. Deescalation only works if both parties want it to, it’s not just LE’s job to deescalate.
If you do this job long enough you're going to run into this person and maybe more than once. You're going to deal with the guy who regardless of his size, (and in this case you obviously had a very large man) who is unnaturally strong and resistant to less lethal devices and sometimes even to strikes from Impact weapons and fist hands and feet. I was involved in several during my career, one of them where seven officers were unable to control the subject and multiple activations of the taser were completely ineffective. I say this to illustrate that I've been there, I've done that.
I understand that you don't like the criticism of the officers physical abilities but I'm sorry, I didn't see any physical abilities. At some point they needed to try and take this guy to the ground and in my opinion from the comfort of my couch, they waited far too long and when they did physically engage it was one officer instead of the three or four who were on scene. One officer was trying to control this huge mentally unstable subject while the rest of them stood around. Would a group of officers have been successful where one failed? We'll never know now.
However, there's something that I've noticed over the last five or six years and that is officers seem to no longer "cuff under power" .
As you stated in your breakdown, one of the activations of the taser seem to work as it should have, locking up the neuromuscular system of the subject allowing an officer to knock him to the ground. When that cycle of the taser ended the officers didn't immediately fire another set of darts or continue the activation so that the suspect could be handcuffed while he was still locked up. This was something that my agency used to train for and as a former excited delirium instructor, that's what we taught when dealing with people who were manic and uncontrollable. But my issue is something that has been an issue in law enforcement for decades if not longer and that is officers lack of physical skill when it comes to dealing with a subject particularly when they're on the ground. I am not a big advocate of jiu-jitsu as the main focus, but rather a well-rounded training routine that involves stand up, take down and then ground control.
I'm not trying to slam these officers but this is the type of thing that we need to discuss after an incident goes bad and determine whether something was done wrong and if so what can we do to correct it, determine if something was done right and determine how we can focus on that, or determine if something else should have been done and figure out a way to incorporate that into the training. There shouldn't necessarily be any type of punishment or condemnation but rather decisions on what can be done better in the future and how do we train for that and how do we ingrain that in the officers. Like it or not, every critical incident particularly when a life is taken needs to be broken down after the fact, every single aspect of the incident looked at and inspected and decisions made on what can be done differently, better or what shouldn't be done. That's how police work has been improving their tactics forever.
Now, all of that being said I absolutely agree that this was a 100% Justified use of force by the officers. Regardless of their inability to physically restrain this subject which we're not always going to be able to do, the officers tried everything to deescalate and it was the subject himself who decided he would not be de-escalated. Given the totality of the circumstances, when a large, aggressive and obviously mentally unstable subject who's been able to withstand bean bag rounds, multiple taser discharges, pepper spray and physical restraint charges at you and reaches for your firearm, you have to make the decision, and by the way I made my decision years and years ago, that if a subject charged at me while my gun was drawn then I would have to assume that his reasoning was to take my gun and use it against me, that I would in fact do exactly what this officer did. Now let's hope that the agency and the district attorney supports the officers in this obviously Justified use of force and that the agency uses this incident as a training scenario to fix any problems that they deem were evident during this situation.
What if the Police left and this crazy and angry man decided to kill family members in his house or neighbors for whatever real or imagined reason? The people criticizing the Police for not leaving would be the first ones to criticize the Police for leaving and allowing that happen. Police aren’t magic and there are always consequences for every action and so many of those are unpredictable, especially when the situation evolves quickly. Every Police critic should be required to go through a shoot/don’t shoot program. Bottom line is that Police are not required to allow themselves to be killed. Police haters will never be satisfied until they do.
When he went for the officer’s gun, what should have the officer done. Have you ever been a police officer? I do not have a small mind but your rhetoric is small minded and sounded memorized. Human behavior is not usually as predictable as you would like pretend it is. If officer had done A then the other person would have done B. You don’t know that and situations are fluid. You have the privilege of hindsight and you weren’t there and you probably don’t have all of the details the police did going in. It would have been nice if you half the understanding for the police that you had for the guy who went for the policeman’s gun. But you didn’t. Instead you grouped all of the police in that area as under trained, racist bigots with violent intentions.
What if? What if? What if the deputies deescalated and stepped back and used their words and brains before killing a man on his lawn/driveway while trying to serve a pedantic, non-voilent warrant. Hmmm. What if, indeed. Also consider, this particular department has a long history of 'culture issues' when it comes to being professional law enforcement officers. They, as a department, seem to have a questionable idea of the use of force in general, as evidenced by the several ongoing court cases against them. What if...
The police caused this escalation, period. That lunge for the gun was caused by the deputies lack of a complete understanding of the complexities of their ob and how to develop the skills to do them intelligently and bravely. They triggered the victim by not understanding, or wilfully ignoring, basic human psychology. The fact that you don't even comprehend my point of view really strips credibility from your "analysis." I understand your point of view. It's the same point of view that has lead to our police forces to being wanna-be military rather than PEACE OFFICERS. It's a naive and self-serving argument that you, and others, present. It's a lazy, and corruptly complicit way of avoiding, attempting to avoid accountability. And for what it's worth, this isn't an argument. The facts don't require your acceptance for these facts to be correct and true. This was manslaughter.
You have a small mind to immediately offer a comment like that without qualification. I am anti-bad cop, lazy cop. When Mr. Clarke said, "I want to stay calm" was the opportunity at the beginning these undertrained and under qualified deputies missed to deescalate and resolve the situation. By the way, Conjuncture would be something along the lines of me saying these cops were racist. That would be unsupported conjecture. I have been a cop at the federal and state level and I am trained in psychology, my statements are qualified and valid. Most of the replies on here, including the person's that runs this place, are incomplete and flawed. Yours included. And, please, all should remember that just because you don't possess the intellectual capacity to understand all facets of an issue doesn't give you the right to pretend that you do and to dismiss solutions that don't fit the narrative you need/want. That department has a long history of this kind of crap and people like you blindly defending them is part of the problem. Turn on your brain and actually use it in a unique way that hasn't been regurgitated to you over and over again. Then you will have a right to continue talking to me. Until then you offer nothing to the conversation of value. Of course, unless you've also been in law enforcement, trained in psychology and have personally handled several of these types of incidents? If so, I digress and look forward to hearing more about your perspective. But here's a fact for you: had I been on scene as an officer, Mr. Clarke would still be alive AND he would've been taken into custody, most likely with no force needed. But my ego doesn't need to perpetuate violence and dominance to feel like man while getting the job done. This is one reason I left law enforcement for something much more intellectually rewarding and valid in the real world. Now please, as expected, get defensive.
I've performed numerous warrant and other arrests. In my experience, once you make the determination that an arrest is going to happen, what follows is typically pretty unpredictable.
My approach on warrants and most misdemeanor offenses became to weigh the behavior on initial contact to get a feel for whether it was likely to escalate. If I thought an arrest would escalate to force, I tried to make a reasonable guess as to what would happen if I took no action. If no action calmed things, I let a fair bit slide. If I felt more than a coin-flip chance I was coming back later, I proceeded with the arrest.
Mostly to avoid this kind of publicity. Also, because if there were on-lookers I would prefer they be good witnesses for me, not on the news saying I was unreasonable.
From the accounts I have seen and read, and your recounting of the matter, this seems an objectively reasonable use of force. Given his evasive actions, threats, and statements, the evidence seems to suggest that had they not made the warrant arrest at that moment, it only would have delayed this encounter until a later date.
it's a tough balance to strike for sure. I'm for a tactical decision to make an arrest later, in the right circumstances. BUT, if cops always retreat from threats or people acting out, the outcome will be MORE bad behavior and more incidents like this.
all a cop can do is use training and rely on experience to make the best decision possible on a given call. some of those deserve criticism, not this one.
The deputies called for more resources before they even told him about the warrant.
They had 4 deputies there with multiple less lethal force options. Oftentimes - if police “come back later” - It’s with 4 cops or so. And. They knew he was unarmed. If they knock on his door a few days later - does that give him a chance to get a gun from his house?
I agree with most things of the things said but lethal force wasn't necessary. They were 4. He was one. That's skill if anything. That's kind of pathetic that cops in USA are so under trained.
Hey guys, I arrived at this article because I wanted to read a perspective that would challenge my views and I'd like to challenge you on this. The guy was obviously having a mental health problem, either in that moment or long term. The task of deescalation was on you, not the guy missing a few cylinders. Is there really no other option with a warrant (to appear which you fail to mention in your narrative) than to press a successful arrest right there and then? For a failure to appear in a non-violent weed growing case of all things. He was going to face justice eventually whether or not you arrested him. I understand an angry unhinged person might be a danger but remember he's the one that called you out there. Any thoughts?
I rarely comment but I have to here. I have been in this situation and the "hero" move is to use critical thought and deescalate appropriately to what is happening, PROFESSIONALLY. The man clearly suffers from oppositional/defiance disorder which is common amongst people who have been victimized by systems they felt they should've been able to trust. These deputies, all officers, come into contact with these people daily and should know how to handle them if they are in their job for the right reasons. That said, I have been in this situation, more than once and I didn't even have to draw my weapon. The crisis for these people pass as soon as you remove the threat(in these cases, law enforcement are the bad guys to these people). I have graduated from three, one federal and two separate state, law enforcement academies and not one of them trained me to escalate a situation so badly that it goes from arresting a non-voilent, misdemeanor no show to killing to subject. Characterizing this as anything other than an abject failure on the part of law enforcement is absurd. These officers didn't possess the mental training to be strong enough to deescalate. Any law enforcement officer that justifies this way of doing their job should have their lives ended in an equally useless and meaningless way. I would prefer you all learn how to do your jobs appropriately, however. This may take reevaluating how police officers are selected from the very beginning. Psych tests from Minnesota and California are too easy to defeat with even the most mild intelligence. There are too many sleeve tattoo wearing, easily triggered types amongst you good cops out there. YOU are the ones that can prevent these things in the future by holding your coworkers accountable.
“Especially when it is four cops v. 1 unarmed man.“ I find it funny how you breakdown the justifications to killing an unarmed man but fail to bring up how these 4 armed police officers should lose their jobs. seriously 4 grown men who should be trained for this cannot handle one man. they should never be on patrol again. if they want to work for the police they should be dispatching not responding this was a pathetic attempt. watch the body cam you have a young male cop who crys after taking the mans life. how are you going to cry and act like a baby when you took your gun out and pointed it at an unarmed man. little baby is what that cop was
Your long term involvement in law enforcement contaminates you as far as I'm concerned. You couldn't speak out against a cop if you wanted to. Complicit part of a broken law enforcement system whether you think you are or not. But I will digress as I'm certain I would fare far better discussing these things with a wall.
You don't seem to understand the big picture on this. Lack of experience? Or do you just need an ethos to belong to so that you can fulfill an unfulfilled identity. Rhetorical question, of course. They killed a man for an incident that could have been prevented with a better class of person in law enforcement. The good officers reading this know what Im saying. These douchebage-type cops with the sleeve tattoos and fragile egos need to go do something else. For the win, repeat after me: YOU DO NOT KILL ANYONE IN THE SERVICE OF A MISDEMEANOR WARRANT. IT IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO WHY YOU ARE THERE. AS THE PROFESSIONAL, YOU ALLOWED THAT TO GET OUT OF CONTROL. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW THAT TURNED OUT. YOU ARE A FAILURE AS A POLICE OFFICER. ON SOME LEVEL, YOU ARE A FAILURE AS A HUMAN. Here endeth this common sense lesson.
You REALLY lack an ability to comprehend what you read. The police CAUSED that dilemma by not turning the heat down when they had a chance. I'm done talking to you though. You aren't able to think dynamically.
I agree with everything you said 100%. My thoughts exactly. IMO there are two options they could have done. After bean bag deployment did not work, ok shoot him in his legs. Atleast he would live for sure. Get EMS out. Stop the bleeding in the mean time etc. A 9mill to the knee caps would for sure done it. Number 2, wait for the additional units that showed up RIGHT after he was shot and at that point you have probably 20 ppl on one. They could have taken him down then for sure. Rip to Elroy tho he seemed like a good dude imo. Trying to forget about his past and move on. He for sure had something loose upstairs caused by his past but was obviously doing good, he had an Estate, and changed his name to change his identity of the person he was, whom he hated. Elroy Clarke. He hated Elroy Clarke. And this broke him that day when they called him that.
The officers did e erything that they could possibly have done. The subject created the outcome.
Expecting officers to just leave because a subject is being violent, is beyond rediculous. They had every right to take this man into custody. Plus,veery right to use the force thst they did. It was all because of his violent actions.
The ones saying for the officers to just leave, have no doubt never been in a fight. Or a job that has real responsibility.
My dad was a cop. As we got into our teen years dad would tell. If you get stopped it’s yes sir and no sir. We’ll figure it all out later. Always thought that was good advice.
Great analysis! I couldn’t agree more. The criticism that we should just walk away is the most frustrating. We are paid to enforce the law. If resistance means we back down we will never take anyone into custody. It will be like the dramatic increase in failure to yields that we now experience with the restrictive pursuit policies in place. Our society will be even more of a disaster with crime if cops walked away every time someone resists arrest. This is tragic, but Mr Clarke made choices. Deescalation only works if both parties want it to, it’s not just LE’s job to deescalate.
Thank you!
If you do this job long enough you're going to run into this person and maybe more than once. You're going to deal with the guy who regardless of his size, (and in this case you obviously had a very large man) who is unnaturally strong and resistant to less lethal devices and sometimes even to strikes from Impact weapons and fist hands and feet. I was involved in several during my career, one of them where seven officers were unable to control the subject and multiple activations of the taser were completely ineffective. I say this to illustrate that I've been there, I've done that.
I understand that you don't like the criticism of the officers physical abilities but I'm sorry, I didn't see any physical abilities. At some point they needed to try and take this guy to the ground and in my opinion from the comfort of my couch, they waited far too long and when they did physically engage it was one officer instead of the three or four who were on scene. One officer was trying to control this huge mentally unstable subject while the rest of them stood around. Would a group of officers have been successful where one failed? We'll never know now.
However, there's something that I've noticed over the last five or six years and that is officers seem to no longer "cuff under power" .
As you stated in your breakdown, one of the activations of the taser seem to work as it should have, locking up the neuromuscular system of the subject allowing an officer to knock him to the ground. When that cycle of the taser ended the officers didn't immediately fire another set of darts or continue the activation so that the suspect could be handcuffed while he was still locked up. This was something that my agency used to train for and as a former excited delirium instructor, that's what we taught when dealing with people who were manic and uncontrollable. But my issue is something that has been an issue in law enforcement for decades if not longer and that is officers lack of physical skill when it comes to dealing with a subject particularly when they're on the ground. I am not a big advocate of jiu-jitsu as the main focus, but rather a well-rounded training routine that involves stand up, take down and then ground control.
I'm not trying to slam these officers but this is the type of thing that we need to discuss after an incident goes bad and determine whether something was done wrong and if so what can we do to correct it, determine if something was done right and determine how we can focus on that, or determine if something else should have been done and figure out a way to incorporate that into the training. There shouldn't necessarily be any type of punishment or condemnation but rather decisions on what can be done better in the future and how do we train for that and how do we ingrain that in the officers. Like it or not, every critical incident particularly when a life is taken needs to be broken down after the fact, every single aspect of the incident looked at and inspected and decisions made on what can be done differently, better or what shouldn't be done. That's how police work has been improving their tactics forever.
Now, all of that being said I absolutely agree that this was a 100% Justified use of force by the officers. Regardless of their inability to physically restrain this subject which we're not always going to be able to do, the officers tried everything to deescalate and it was the subject himself who decided he would not be de-escalated. Given the totality of the circumstances, when a large, aggressive and obviously mentally unstable subject who's been able to withstand bean bag rounds, multiple taser discharges, pepper spray and physical restraint charges at you and reaches for your firearm, you have to make the decision, and by the way I made my decision years and years ago, that if a subject charged at me while my gun was drawn then I would have to assume that his reasoning was to take my gun and use it against me, that I would in fact do exactly what this officer did. Now let's hope that the agency and the district attorney supports the officers in this obviously Justified use of force and that the agency uses this incident as a training scenario to fix any problems that they deem were evident during this situation.
Also, I feel terrible for that poor Officer. I’ll pray for him.
What if the Police left and this crazy and angry man decided to kill family members in his house or neighbors for whatever real or imagined reason? The people criticizing the Police for not leaving would be the first ones to criticize the Police for leaving and allowing that happen. Police aren’t magic and there are always consequences for every action and so many of those are unpredictable, especially when the situation evolves quickly. Every Police critic should be required to go through a shoot/don’t shoot program. Bottom line is that Police are not required to allow themselves to be killed. Police haters will never be satisfied until they do.
When he went for the officer’s gun, what should have the officer done. Have you ever been a police officer? I do not have a small mind but your rhetoric is small minded and sounded memorized. Human behavior is not usually as predictable as you would like pretend it is. If officer had done A then the other person would have done B. You don’t know that and situations are fluid. You have the privilege of hindsight and you weren’t there and you probably don’t have all of the details the police did going in. It would have been nice if you half the understanding for the police that you had for the guy who went for the policeman’s gun. But you didn’t. Instead you grouped all of the police in that area as under trained, racist bigots with violent intentions.
What if? What if? What if the deputies deescalated and stepped back and used their words and brains before killing a man on his lawn/driveway while trying to serve a pedantic, non-voilent warrant. Hmmm. What if, indeed. Also consider, this particular department has a long history of 'culture issues' when it comes to being professional law enforcement officers. They, as a department, seem to have a questionable idea of the use of force in general, as evidenced by the several ongoing court cases against them. What if...
They tried.
They tried to de-escalate.
They went hands on.
They tried a taser.
They tried a bean bag shotgun.
He defeated all of those.
Then he lunged at a cop & tried to grab the gun.
Why are you leaning out the facts?
Tell me. What else could police have done?
I guess - let him grab the gun. Right?
The police caused this escalation, period. That lunge for the gun was caused by the deputies lack of a complete understanding of the complexities of their ob and how to develop the skills to do them intelligently and bravely. They triggered the victim by not understanding, or wilfully ignoring, basic human psychology. The fact that you don't even comprehend my point of view really strips credibility from your "analysis." I understand your point of view. It's the same point of view that has lead to our police forces to being wanna-be military rather than PEACE OFFICERS. It's a naive and self-serving argument that you, and others, present. It's a lazy, and corruptly complicit way of avoiding, attempting to avoid accountability. And for what it's worth, this isn't an argument. The facts don't require your acceptance for these facts to be correct and true. This was manslaughter.
You haven’t stated one fact in your post, only conjecture and opinion. You are clearly anti cop. He fafo’d.
You have a small mind to immediately offer a comment like that without qualification. I am anti-bad cop, lazy cop. When Mr. Clarke said, "I want to stay calm" was the opportunity at the beginning these undertrained and under qualified deputies missed to deescalate and resolve the situation. By the way, Conjuncture would be something along the lines of me saying these cops were racist. That would be unsupported conjecture. I have been a cop at the federal and state level and I am trained in psychology, my statements are qualified and valid. Most of the replies on here, including the person's that runs this place, are incomplete and flawed. Yours included. And, please, all should remember that just because you don't possess the intellectual capacity to understand all facets of an issue doesn't give you the right to pretend that you do and to dismiss solutions that don't fit the narrative you need/want. That department has a long history of this kind of crap and people like you blindly defending them is part of the problem. Turn on your brain and actually use it in a unique way that hasn't been regurgitated to you over and over again. Then you will have a right to continue talking to me. Until then you offer nothing to the conversation of value. Of course, unless you've also been in law enforcement, trained in psychology and have personally handled several of these types of incidents? If so, I digress and look forward to hearing more about your perspective. But here's a fact for you: had I been on scene as an officer, Mr. Clarke would still be alive AND he would've been taken into custody, most likely with no force needed. But my ego doesn't need to perpetuate violence and dominance to feel like man while getting the job done. This is one reason I left law enforcement for something much more intellectually rewarding and valid in the real world. Now please, as expected, get defensive.
I've performed numerous warrant and other arrests. In my experience, once you make the determination that an arrest is going to happen, what follows is typically pretty unpredictable.
My approach on warrants and most misdemeanor offenses became to weigh the behavior on initial contact to get a feel for whether it was likely to escalate. If I thought an arrest would escalate to force, I tried to make a reasonable guess as to what would happen if I took no action. If no action calmed things, I let a fair bit slide. If I felt more than a coin-flip chance I was coming back later, I proceeded with the arrest.
Mostly to avoid this kind of publicity. Also, because if there were on-lookers I would prefer they be good witnesses for me, not on the news saying I was unreasonable.
From the accounts I have seen and read, and your recounting of the matter, this seems an objectively reasonable use of force. Given his evasive actions, threats, and statements, the evidence seems to suggest that had they not made the warrant arrest at that moment, it only would have delayed this encounter until a later date.
it's a tough balance to strike for sure. I'm for a tactical decision to make an arrest later, in the right circumstances. BUT, if cops always retreat from threats or people acting out, the outcome will be MORE bad behavior and more incidents like this.
all a cop can do is use training and rely on experience to make the best decision possible on a given call. some of those deserve criticism, not this one.
Thank you for the comment.
I agree with being thoughtful during an arrest.
The deputies called for more resources before they even told him about the warrant.
They had 4 deputies there with multiple less lethal force options. Oftentimes - if police “come back later” - It’s with 4 cops or so. And. They knew he was unarmed. If they knock on his door a few days later - does that give him a chance to get a gun from his house?
It’s a bad situation. But a reasonable uof.
I agree with most things of the things said but lethal force wasn't necessary. They were 4. He was one. That's skill if anything. That's kind of pathetic that cops in USA are so under trained.
It is a pitiful state of affairs. But the police don't think there is a problem, only us poor bastards paying them. Lol.
Hey guys, I arrived at this article because I wanted to read a perspective that would challenge my views and I'd like to challenge you on this. The guy was obviously having a mental health problem, either in that moment or long term. The task of deescalation was on you, not the guy missing a few cylinders. Is there really no other option with a warrant (to appear which you fail to mention in your narrative) than to press a successful arrest right there and then? For a failure to appear in a non-violent weed growing case of all things. He was going to face justice eventually whether or not you arrested him. I understand an angry unhinged person might be a danger but remember he's the one that called you out there. Any thoughts?
And no. If a guy fights through a taser deployment & and bean bag shotgun round - that is NOT the fault of the police.
They tried everything before using deadly force.
Elroy is responsible for his actions.
Good point.
Yes. The police could have just walked away.
And then when would he face justice?
Should the police try a traffic stop?
Wait until he’s in a crowded store?
He was by himself. It was probably the safest time to try and arrest him.
Unless you think that “if a person really resists arrest & fights with police - they should be rewarded with not going to jail”.
That’s an interesting public policy idea.
I rarely comment but I have to here. I have been in this situation and the "hero" move is to use critical thought and deescalate appropriately to what is happening, PROFESSIONALLY. The man clearly suffers from oppositional/defiance disorder which is common amongst people who have been victimized by systems they felt they should've been able to trust. These deputies, all officers, come into contact with these people daily and should know how to handle them if they are in their job for the right reasons. That said, I have been in this situation, more than once and I didn't even have to draw my weapon. The crisis for these people pass as soon as you remove the threat(in these cases, law enforcement are the bad guys to these people). I have graduated from three, one federal and two separate state, law enforcement academies and not one of them trained me to escalate a situation so badly that it goes from arresting a non-voilent, misdemeanor no show to killing to subject. Characterizing this as anything other than an abject failure on the part of law enforcement is absurd. These officers didn't possess the mental training to be strong enough to deescalate. Any law enforcement officer that justifies this way of doing their job should have their lives ended in an equally useless and meaningless way. I would prefer you all learn how to do your jobs appropriately, however. This may take reevaluating how police officers are selected from the very beginning. Psych tests from Minnesota and California are too easy to defeat with even the most mild intelligence. There are too many sleeve tattoo wearing, easily triggered types amongst you good cops out there. YOU are the ones that can prevent these things in the future by holding your coworkers accountable.
“Especially when it is four cops v. 1 unarmed man.“ I find it funny how you breakdown the justifications to killing an unarmed man but fail to bring up how these 4 armed police officers should lose their jobs. seriously 4 grown men who should be trained for this cannot handle one man. they should never be on patrol again. if they want to work for the police they should be dispatching not responding this was a pathetic attempt. watch the body cam you have a young male cop who crys after taking the mans life. how are you going to cry and act like a baby when you took your gun out and pointed it at an unarmed man. little baby is what that cop was
So. It’s the police officers fault that Elroy was strong, violent, and out of his mind?
Ummm. Ok.
By the way, were you ever a cop? Or did you just start this to turn a quick buck pandering to this crowd? Legitimate question.
I’m a retired cop.
20 years in a big city.
3000 arrests.
Zero shootings.
Masters in criminal justice.
Law degree.
Elected Union rep.
And I worked in IA (investigating use of force).
And I’ve been creating this content for about 3 years. Been on national tv & popular podcasts. Make very little money doing it.
Hundreds of thousands of followers across all platforms.
Your long term involvement in law enforcement contaminates you as far as I'm concerned. You couldn't speak out against a cop if you wanted to. Complicit part of a broken law enforcement system whether you think you are or not. But I will digress as I'm certain I would fare far better discussing these things with a wall.
So. You were criticizing me for not being a cop.
Now. I have too much experience. lol.
You are a joke.
Not wasting any more time with you.
You don't seem to understand the big picture on this. Lack of experience? Or do you just need an ethos to belong to so that you can fulfill an unfulfilled identity. Rhetorical question, of course. They killed a man for an incident that could have been prevented with a better class of person in law enforcement. The good officers reading this know what Im saying. These douchebage-type cops with the sleeve tattoos and fragile egos need to go do something else. For the win, repeat after me: YOU DO NOT KILL ANYONE IN THE SERVICE OF A MISDEMEANOR WARRANT. IT IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO WHY YOU ARE THERE. AS THE PROFESSIONAL, YOU ALLOWED THAT TO GET OUT OF CONTROL. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW THAT TURNED OUT. YOU ARE A FAILURE AS A POLICE OFFICER. ON SOME LEVEL, YOU ARE A FAILURE AS A HUMAN. Here endeth this common sense lesson.
You are very confused.
If you think that police should not defend themselves because the crime is a misdemeanor. Cite the law , policy or training to back up your point.
You REALLY lack an ability to comprehend what you read. The police CAUSED that dilemma by not turning the heat down when they had a chance. I'm done talking to you though. You aren't able to think dynamically.
I agree with everything you said 100%. My thoughts exactly. IMO there are two options they could have done. After bean bag deployment did not work, ok shoot him in his legs. Atleast he would live for sure. Get EMS out. Stop the bleeding in the mean time etc. A 9mill to the knee caps would for sure done it. Number 2, wait for the additional units that showed up RIGHT after he was shot and at that point you have probably 20 ppl on one. They could have taken him down then for sure. Rip to Elroy tho he seemed like a good dude imo. Trying to forget about his past and move on. He for sure had something loose upstairs caused by his past but was obviously doing good, he had an Estate, and changed his name to change his identity of the person he was, whom he hated. Elroy Clarke. He hated Elroy Clarke. And this broke him that day when they called him that.
They. Tried. Everything…so they had to kill him. Okay.
They had no other option.
Let's challenge that idea and become better.
No. We should be better.
So my question. What should police do to arrest him?
They tried to go hands on, he was tased, he was shot with a beanbag shotgun.
- What is your suggestion as he rushed a cop & tried to take the cop’s gun? Just allow him to do it?
The officers did e erything that they could possibly have done. The subject created the outcome.
Expecting officers to just leave because a subject is being violent, is beyond rediculous. They had every right to take this man into custody. Plus,veery right to use the force thst they did. It was all because of his violent actions.
The ones saying for the officers to just leave, have no doubt never been in a fight. Or a job that has real responsibility.
My dad was a cop. As we got into our teen years dad would tell. If you get stopped it’s yes sir and no sir. We’ll figure it all out later. Always thought that was good advice.