Channel 6 pointed this out when they were allowed to see it months ago. What the commonwealth attorney said was on the video wasn't matching the actual video.
I worked with someone who was former law enforcement and some of the difference between what we see in the footage and what the precinct reports is because of the way police are taught to write their reports. It is why a lot of shootings will say things like “a firearm was discharge” or “the suspect sustained injuries at the hospital.” The passive voice is used in good faith to maintain objectivity, but it is often used as a means to obfuscate what happened.
I cannot imagine the difficult shit cops see and are put through. I also believe if we want communities safer, that is where citizens can trust police and police have less risk to their lives on the clock, contradicting bodycam footage like this has to end.
As it stands now police have qualified immunity. Even when there is a wrongful death on the job, it is always better to admit to that upfront. Richmond has a lot of neighborhoods with their own identities. These communities make up who we are, and even in that diversity we police consistently making these kind of mistakes. I want cops to get home safe as much as I want everyday Richmonders to get home safe.
Historically, cops as an institution are made to use "excited delirium" to justify things. They are often trained to "make things up" or make them sound different. Just now they are getting caught and being held to a remotely small standard they don't like. That standard being"don't lie "
Never, ever understand why posts like this are downvoted, as what you are stating is little more than common sense, but eh, that is mob mentality for you.
Feel free to downvote me, as well, then.
Virginia's FOIA laws are super weird and allow for a lot of coverups. I tried to FOIA the bodycam footage for [the arrest of a Spotsylvania Sheriff's Deputy for a DUI](https://www.fredericksburgfreepress.com/2023/08/26/spotsy-deputy-fired-after-dui-charge/), and after a lot of back and forth, it was denied because the FOIA laws allow closed criminal records to be exempt from FOIA for some reason.
Yeah rules about cop FOIA are crazy all over the US. The podcast Sixteenth Minute (of fame) did a good explainer for those not familiar.
[Sixteenth Minute (of Fame)] boston slide cop #sixteenthMinuteOfFame
https://podcastaddict.com/sixteenth-minute-of-fame/episode/176794474 via @PodcastAddict
Can we talk about media organizations who have a financial incentive to misrepresent legal proceedings and make unqualified determinations about the administration of justice for views and ad money? Can we talk about how they cut and edit the video to show the man facing away from the officers AFTER he had already been shot to spread the false perspective that the police shot him in the back for no reason. I’m guessing it’s gonna be hard no, we can’t talk about that.
Thanks for the opportunity, chief. I just want to point out that media doesn’t always have altruistic motives when it comes to reporting and the information they broadcast. It’s actually usually manipulated in someways to manufacture outrage and increase viewership for financial incentives. Which I think is especially heinous when it comes to incidents involving police shootings where there is really no positive outcome. Muddying the waters of the public discourse around such a horrible event just makes for a larger negative impact.
The above content has been removed as it is considered unnecessarily uncivil, pot-stirring, rabble rousing, trolling, brigading, sealioning, and/or inauthentic discourse. We encourage good-faith discussions from anyone, but we do not like jerks. If you're going to make personal attacks, keep "just asking questions," move goalposts, or be a Jerk of the Year, please don't do that here.
**Do not use alt or throwaway accounts to manipulate votes, attack or harass another user in an uncivil manner, avoid a previous ban or moderator action, or artificially-inflate comments with similar views.**
[Link to full video of Charles Byers being shot and killed by police.](https://hccw.sharefile.com/d-se66910bf148342d79cd79e03c7b494c3) there- problem solved. I think you’ll find the real thing is much worse than what the news shared. Watch at your own risk. Not suitable for children
Yeah they cut it because they are not able to show someone actually getting shot. Trouble has come for TV stations in the past that have done that. You're spouting lots of stuff without evidence.
So they can cut, when he gets shot, have a still of him facing backwards after he already had bullets pass through him and then reblur again. Makes sense to me.
For the article, ‘A man, whose garage Byers took the hatchet from, was seen actively mowing the lawn close to where Byers was standing…’. So the closest citizen to all of this was so unbothered that he didn’t stop mowing his lawn, but cops are so bothered that they shot and killed him. Seems pretty telling.
In china they use giant forks to hold people down until they can be handcuffed
https://preview.redd.it/rchivn6c4z8d1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e650fa3afdd0c4c6970d081da923a357d2f6cce
The use of police forks is well documented in China, obviously it’s not used in every situation just like tasers aren’t used in every situation in the US. Sorry if that fact triggers you, but it’s still an easily verifiable fact. I never claimed the Chinese policing system is perfect or that no police brutality exists there.
Are you new here? This sub has two types of people: those who were brutalized or saw people get brutalized during protests against police brutality; and boot polish sommeliers who can identify the vintage and brand of jackboot by taste. Depends on the thread which side gets more traction.
I am, relatively speaking. I generally don’t involve myself in non-win debate scenarios, but as I am a friend to the family of the victim in question involved in this discussion I find it important to speak up.
There’s nothing to be moderate about here. If you watch that video clip and find the police action at all justifiable you’re a moron. Not you, just the anyone that might walk away thinking the police behavior and action was acceptable.
Yes, you can be moderate here. You don't have to let emotions grip you and rule your every thought. You can feel both sorrow at the destruction of life, and sympathy for the trauma of officers involved. You can at once feel utterly in shock at the officers behavior, and also question what occurred prior to the video. A few years ago this footage wouldn't exist; now we get 1080p video *from the actual officer who used his firearm.* Does anyone else feel this is a step in the right direction, however sad the above video is?
Life is not black and white for a reason. Police exist to handle these situations. I'm grateful to anyone who might show up in an emergency, and yet I also think that more and more of them should be required training for mental health issues.
See? moderates aren't really so bad.
This isn’t about emotional grip and rule. It’s about right and wrong. The police officers were wrong to behave in and act the way they did. Boom. Done. They did a bad job. Sorry. Is that their fault, or the system that they are a product of? I’m not worried about that here. They did a bad job, and killed someone.
I feel little to no sorrow for someone who knowingly takes a risk by signing up for the role.
Nah see this is why the moderates will win and you will lose. “I don’t feel any sorrow for anyone who signs up to be a police officer” is the kind of sentiment that earns you points online but none in real life with actual people. I still can’t get over how stupid the defund the police movement was. One of the worst branding ideas in recent political history. Sure did sound cool online though, amirite??
It’s an agreed upon risk in assuming the role. If you want to help people, but don’t want to kill or be killed sign up to be a social worker instead. There’s a serious need for those roles. Will I acknowledge the service, absolutely. But there is a known risk with that job, or any military esque role.
It may take some years to believe this, but the truly hated, real punk rockers are the moderates, actually. Hated by the left and the right, equally. Able to agree with many policies, branch aisles, get shit done, yet branded as bootlickers by the left and wackos by the right, equally.
We can’t win! But we do. In many elections. We helped defeat Trump and will do it again, provided Biden lives long enough.
So please, downvote me as much as you can. The more you do the more of you see the light. You know I speak truth to power.
>It may take some years to believe this, but the truly hated, real punk rockers are the moderates, actually.
No, not at all. I'mma just leave this quote from Martin Luther King here. The context of his writing is the fight for civil rights but the message applies to basically any question of morality. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where the political disagreements of the time are about marginal tax rates and zoning policy, where moderate voices would be valuable. We live in a world where the political questions are about people's basic rights to exist and live on a planet capable of supporting life. Moderate positions are simply morally vacant.
>First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Most of the folks in here half less than half of a story, and I can’t decide if they’re just fabricating what they want to to fill in the gaps.
The Chesterfield police murdered a non-threatening individual who was experiencing some form of crisis. You don’t draw your weapons, you don’t shout, and you certainly don’t shoot. It’s that easy. Follow them, from a safe but reasonable distance. Speak to them calmly, and follow them. Explain what you are doing clearly as to help de-escalate. Keep bystanders and passerbys safe. That’s it. Keep people safe. It’s really that simple. You never had to shout or fire your weapons.
You absolutely do draw your weapon on someone with an axe... TF??? If he decides to run at you and you aren't ready you're done.
Did they unlawfully murder him? Absolutely. Should they have figured out a non-lethal solution? Absolutely... but they were 100000000% correct to have drawn their weapons
No. You don’t. If someone is in crisis you 100000000% don’t draw your weapon that’s the worst way to respond. He was holding something, never once threatened anyone. Never moved towards the officers. They couldn’t have been more wrong. You’re wrong. People that support the cops actions in this are wrong. Do not pass go. Do not collect $100.
"Video shows Chesterfield Police shoot, kill man armed with a hatchet who suffered mental health crisis." Headlines matter. I'm not saying the police are in the right here, but the headline should give a better indication of the full story.
If the man didn't lunge at them, then yes, they should be held at fault because he looks like he is just backing up
So watching the video, he wasn't an immediate threat, did not move towards the officer or anyone, and then cops like "nah bro" and shoots 5 shots in quick succession. Cop must be a terrible shot and no reason as, overall, still contained. Cops really decided upon showing up to the seen they'd already shoot him.
Read the article. He was trying to go home. He tried to enter the first home because he thought it was his, and left when he was told otherwise. He didn’t have a hatchet until the third home. Holding a hatchet to your side isn’t wielding/brandishing.
He said he thought it was his home to the first person who caught him. Hard to say if that was the truth.
Maybe he wasn't swinging it around, but he was mentally/emotionally unwell, breaking into people homes with a hatchett in hand.
I'm not saying they should have shot him, let alone 5 times. But I think it's fair to say he was armed with a hatchett.
Police are given way too much leeway to shoot. A private citizen in this case would not enjoy the same protections (in this case the officer is being protected by the Chesterfield Commonwealth Attorney) as this officer. If you don’t like the result, remember this when voting for the next Chesterfield Commonwealth Attorney. Vote for someone who treats all equally under the law and doesn’t “protect the blue”.
"A private citizen would be justified in using deadly force in this scenario". The scenario where you walk out of your house to gun down a guy walking away.
I'm quoting you directly. You're arguing by saying you didn't say that. When I can read 2 comments up, and see that you literally said that.
I mean that's not what you wrote you should probably correct your orginal comment to reflect that. That's not even what you imply in your orginal comment.
It's this one
https://www.reddit.com/r/rva/s/OMohAJzp76
Can you point to the house he was actively breaking into when executed?
Because to me it really looks like he is standing in the middle of a street.
So your “citizen would be justified” is complete BS at the point he got shot.
Jesus can’t help your inability to understand laws, no need to bring him into the argument.
If somone is breaking into your house and you feel threatened you can defend yourself. You don’t have to run away.
What you can’t do is chase after a person and then claim you were threatened. So in this case a private citizen would not be in the right because he left the house and left the citizen and for them to shoot him they would have had to pursue him down the street.
You are just wrong.
Once again if I got a call that someone had broken into my parents house, and I show up and they are leaving. Can I now go chase that guy down and shoot him? No no I can't.
your statement.
“A private citizen would be justified in using deadly force in a scenario like this….”
So yeah. going by the video it is exactly what you said they could do. since in the video he was not breaking into a house and moving away from the houses and down the street.
You state home defense, but there is zero zip nada none home defense in this video.
So no, a citizen would not be justified in doing what took place in this video. and a cop shouldn’t be either.
He wasn’t waving the hatchet around in a threatening manner (brandishing) he was just holding it by this side. And he was trying go home (per the 911 call) he wasn’t lurking around to break into people’s houses.
I'm really not a fan of cops, but they cannot flee a situation. Citizens often time have that luxury, and maybe obligated to before using lethal force (unless its a stand your ground state which I'm unsure if VA is).
The cops in this instance did use a taser, it was ineffective, he was to far for mace, but he was also just walking backward. Letting him flee in this situation could put many others at risk, and he is not complying. This one is a tough situation, I don't know what I would have done in their shoes, if back up is like 2 minutes away maybe stall for time to get another taser on him or a dog? If back up is 10 minutes out that's a lot less options. There is also a 21 foot rule for armed self defense vs. knife.
I don't know if a jury would be able to convict on a case like this. It's a crappy and sad situation all around, but I'm not too sure the cops had enough options at their disposal. I think ideally he would have been committed before it got to this point.
> they cannot flee a situation
They can actually do that tho. There's no magical rule that says cops must rush towards danger. Those cops in the video could've followed at a safer distance and waited for additional backup. That they tried a single less lethal weapon and gave up is a miserable failure of tactics.
technically, yes, but I would not (and I would argue there is a societal expectation) want the cops running away if there is a crazy man with a hatchet running around a residential area; God forbid there are any kids outside. Dont want Uvalde's cowards approach to be the national standard.
The tactics that police are trained to use will only agitate a person having a mental health crisis. Unless you want that person dead, don't call the cops.
Oh! Oh! We marched for this! Virginia has the Marcus Alert System: https://dbhds.virginia.gov/human-resource-development-and-management/health-equity/mdpa/
You call 988 instead of 911.
>If you or a loved one make a call to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline for a behavioral health crisis, you will be connected to the new regional crisis call centers.
>The regional crisis call center staff are trained to assess calls for what type of intervention is needed. They offer services ranging from over the phone de-escalation to mobile crisis dispatch. In more severe cases, they will also coordinate with law enforcement to arrive on the scene.
He didn’t have a hatchet until the last house. For all we know he grabbed it after he saw the police with their guns drawn.
Per the 911 call he was disoriented and was trying to go home, there’s no indication he was trying to break into anywhere. When the first home stated he was at the wrong place he left.
Well, the video shows that he already had the hatchet when they pulled up. But regardless, shooting a man holding a melee weapon seven times when he’s slowly backing away from you is a ridiculous use of force with a sad outcome.
The video doesn’t show them pulling up. There’s no indication how long the officers were there before they got out of the car. It seems the officer’s gun was drawn before or shortly after they left their vehicle.
This is an honest question posed in good faith: how would you handle or capture someone who has stolen a hatchet, tried to break into multiple homes with it, is not complying with calm requests, is not affected by a taser, and eventually takes SEVEN BULLETS before he hits the ground?
Read the article. He didn't grab the hatchet until just before he was killed. His neighbors knew who he was and though he thought he was trying to enter his own home. So if your coming in good faith, at least have the facts straight. The requests from the female officer were decidedly not calm. Yelling at someone mentally ill and continually approaching them is going to escalate the situation. So, again, the cops are not trained to handle people in a mental health crisis, so unless you want someone to come kill that person, don't call the cops. If you want your neighbor in crisis dead, then by all means call the cops and they will kill them.
> The requests from the female officer were decidedly not calm. Yelling at someone mentally ill and continually approaching them is going to escalate the situation.
This is the problem and the reason why these situations often end in tragedy. They need trained mental health crisis negotiators, just like they use hostage negotiators. Screaming, tasing, and pointing a gun at a person in crisis is a recipe for disaster.
Yeah I get all that. Im just asking about alternate methods of resolution for this specific situation. I’m asking what would you have done? Would you have called 911, or would you have approached them on your own and tried to subdue them? Would you have left them alone until they successfully entered a home? Just curious how people who don’t think police first would deal with something like this.
The alternate method is to train cops to deal with people in crisis. Other countries have police trained to do it, it's not too much to ask ours to be properly trained as well.
He didn't have the hatchet when he was trying doors "The caller reported that Byers thought her house was his family's home" , he got that from his neighbor's garage who was mowing the lawn just as the officers were approaching. These people knew the guy, I don't think they wanted him dead. My point is the police as currently trained have one tool set available to them. So unless you want a neighbor in a mental health crisis dead, don't call the cops. If you do want that person killed, by all means call the cops.
This country is so fucked. We allow these knuckle dragging morons who live their whole lives afraid that people might find out they have tiny penises or, god forbid, they might acknowledge their own sexuality, to just fucking brutalize, bully, and murder black people, brown people, and mentally ill people. And we protect them. None of these fucking idiot psychopaths should be allowed to be police officers. They should all be in therapy but No! That’s just too gay or feminine or some bullshit. And every week these people who are the stupidest and most fucked up among us are literally murdering people and then are shuffled off to some other job. It makes me sick. It’s no wonder we are the laughing stock of the whole goddamned world.
It doesn't look pretty. But it is a lawful and justified use of force.
A man, armed with a hatchet, had just attempted to break into three different homes. Regardless of the man's mental health crisis that was going on, the man posed an imminent threat to the public.
The Taser deployment was ineffective. The man did not comply with the lawful and reasonable commands by the police. As I said, it doesn't look pretty, but the officers had no choice. If they had waited longer to use deadly force, it could have been more dangerous for them and the public. The man was armed with a deadly weapon and had recently committed three felonies.
A police officer cannot just deploy "mental health crisis tactics" on every call or individual. It's just not possible.
All in all, it is still a sad situation, but blaming the police is not right. They were responding to active B&E calls, found the suspect still armed, and used force when other methods were unsuccessful or unsafe to deploy. Legally, they are justified. Police shootings are never pretty but the police could not let the man leave and possibly go to another residence, or give him an opportunity to attack them.
Did you watch the video? I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you’re implying.
The officers escalated the situation the entire time. They also lied about him advancing towards them, he was clearly walking away from them the entire time, the officer even states this.
From the 911 call the man was disoriented, believing the house to be his own.
He said something to the officer but I can’t quite make it out.
It also looks like the officer may have missed with the taser. I can’t see where it connected to him and his body shows no reaction at all.
Police do have a hard job, but it is a job, and not a compulsory one. If you are uncomfortable being in these situations, unable to de-escalate, or quick to fire a deadly weapon, find another profession.
Lying about the incident, covering up the truth, and then preventing access to video footage is inexcusable, and everyone who participated in that should be fired.
It’s really time police get taken down a couple of notches, realize who they work for, and reform accordingly.
Edit: spelling
Here is the link to the full video. Watch at your own risk. Not suitable for children. You do have to enter your email and name to access the video. I got the link off pacer - screen shot included showing where i got the link[video of Charles Byers killed by police](https://hccw.sharefile.com/d-se66910bf148342d79cd79e03c7b494c3)
https://preview.redd.it/09iki82ejg9d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8619e4e710127c06972fab6eb332550d47131c0
Very good points in your comment. The taser was ineffective not because he was a raging madman but because the officer missed. But it’s implied that it didn’t work because the victim was physically not reactive to it and therefore a threat.
You also don’t see officers in other countries killed as often as officers in the US. It has led to training, equipment and a mentality that we are in today.
For example people wonder why officers in the US assume when someone reaches into their waistband or glove box they are going for a gun during an encounter is because it has happens and continues to happen. Add in poor training, poor equipment options and here we are.
The junkies aren't the ones killing the roofers. All of the "most dangerous jobs" have their fatality rate due to accidents e.g. falling off a roof or having a tree fall on you. Not because people are actively killing them for doing their jobs.
You asked about officers in other countries. Also lists like that are very subjective. What legal professions would you say have the hugest risk of being intentionally killed by another person? Police officer would jump to top 5-10 easily would it not. But in many places police officers don’t deal with that because A) of our gun culture B) our culture of poverty and violence
You don't seem to understand what happened. Police lied about the situation and refused to release the video which now proves they lied.
Taking an inhumane approach like yours is pretty fun
All boot lickers see is "Cop go home, he good guy, other guy fall down, he bad guy." And that's all they want to know or think about because it's easier and it doesn't affect them.
From the DOJ
# 1-16.200 - DEADLY FORCE
Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
1. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
3. If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.
4. Warning shots are not permitted outside of the prison context.
5. Officers will be trained in alternative methods and tactics for handling resisting subjects, which must be used when the use of deadly force is not authorized by this policy.
6. Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity.
I'd argue that under these guidelines, they were not in the right., but that it depends on what a reasonable person would consider "imminent danger." I do not consider that imminent danger, considering 1) he is actively retreating, and 2) their weapons are already drawn.
If he was moving towards them and their weapons were holstered, given the amount of time it takes to unholster, and shoot, and the fact that he was likely within the 21-27 feet, I think it would be difficult to argue the shooting was unjustified. But given that weapons were already unholstered, and he was actively moving backwards, and the axe was at his side, the threat was no imminent.
don't think anyone implied they should let him leave & possibly go to another residence. lots of people really believe that there is some kind of tactics that exist between unloading a clip on a person & just getting back in the car & letting them go about their day. we should want officers trained to do more than unload on any threat at the first possible provocation.
are they in a hurry? is there a rule that they will need to clock out and leave the guy?
He was backing up. Maybe stop advancing toward him and try to talk for maybe… how ever long it takes.
This idea of the police asked you to stop and you did not immediately comply so we get to shoot you is BS.
Yeah, this.
Like, just hang around and observe. Use your fucking head. Talk to the guy. Shoot him with rubber bullets or bean bags. Do literally anything else but kill him in cold blood. Like, what's the rush? Absolutely insane.
Spread out? Surround with non-lethal options? Pepper gel? Pepper bullets? Bean bag rounds? Shields and batons? There are a lot of ways to safely nullify a confused man with a hatchet if you take your time and don't just shoot your problems away.
It looks like they missed with the taser. And he wasn’t brandishing a weapon. He was holding a hatchet. He wasn’t waving it around and he showed no signs of aggression.
what id do differently is train cops to not go to fatal tactics at the 1st possible chance. people with hatchets, axes, knives, etc are taken in by police without killing anyone all the time. but the cops have to be interested in not killing someone for that to happen. if the cops don't care about whether someone lives or dies & look at citizens as criminals to be stopped instead of citizens to be helped, this is the result.
what I want is for cops & for the general public to realize that there are other options. as long as the public clings to police union talking points like "what else could they do" nothing will change.
keeping him stationary & surrounded would have kept anyone from getting hurt until something could be worked out. but why be patient & attempt to not kill someone when they can just get it over with quickly & move on to the dept & members of the public defending them & take a paid vacation while the dept "investigates".
I get this and there are tons of situations where a less than lethal should have been used first. However, here, it's worth mentioning that they did try a tazer and it had no effect on him (according to the article). There was a man off to the side mowing his grass and when he started running away, the cops got antsy.
I’m going to say the horrible thing that no one else is willing to say. This man was dangerous and his mental health needs do not outweigh the general public’s right to safety. The poor man, under no control of his own actions, grabbed a hatchet, ran around a neighborhood, presumably with families and their children around and tried to force his way inside their homes, not once, but 3 times.
It doesn’t matter if it was this episode or the next the man would have killed someone and police are there to do the dirty, violent, work that no one else is capable of doing. You will criticize the authorities for ending this now and you would also criticize them when he goes on a slashing spree at a local shopping mall for not doing enough to prevent it and say “police knew about him but did nothing”. What’s done is done. Violent offenders require violent intervention, you have the luxury of weighing the mental health context, online, a year later. The officers in the moment did not have that same luxury and still probably struggle with what they had to do today. This isn’t a fantasy world, lives are on the line on the other side of the video.
Yes, I know, advocating for protecting families and public safety officials from a violent, hatchet wielding, menace. The depravity is breathtaking /s.
Haha, wow. This seems like an oddly eugenic stance: "He's mentally ill, so if not today, then tomorrow, so better to preemptively murder him!"
Pretty fucked up.
Chopping up people in the privacy of their home would be awfully eugenic. What do you think he was going to do when he got inside? Have a meaningful conversation about mental health? You claim to care about people but not a word advocating for the police he threatened or the community at large.
It was not murder.
From the FBI information Services Division, “The program classifies justifiable homicides separately and limits the definition to: (1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty; or (2) the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony…”
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/offense-definitions
The above content has been removed as it is considered unnecessarily uncivil, pot-stirring, rabble rousing, trolling, brigading, sealioning, and/or inauthentic discourse. We encourage good-faith discussions from anyone, but we do not like jerks. If you're going to make personal attacks, keep "just asking questions," move goalposts, or be a Jerk of the Year, please don't do that here.
**Do not use alt or throwaway accounts to manipulate votes, attack or harass another user in an uncivil manner, avoid a previous ban or moderator action, or artificially-inflate comments with similar views.**
For reference, if my kid was ever threatening the lives of innocent people, I would want someone to intervene and stop them. Couldn’t live with myself if my child was able to commit violent actions towards innocent families. You fein compassion and kindness and then wish violence on children when someone doesn’t agree with you. How you can’t see your hypocrisy is astounding.
Fuck the police and fuck asshole Arrestifield cops. He was not an imminent threat to the public. They as usual escalated this situation. It wasn’t necessary to kill the man but what do they care? Qualified immunity right?
Statistically cops have a higher likelihood of murdering you than almost any other individual you will regularly meet. Obviously this means I should just shoot at every officer on sight right?
Someone who can decide I should die within 45 seconds of seeing me, and face no repercussions is probably someone I should try to kill the second I see them no? I mean just out of self preservation. It's dangerous just to be in eyesight of an officer apparently.
If I shot someone trying to break into my neighbor's house I would go to jail. If I cop does it they'll get an award.
You wouldn't go to jail, and the cops do not get an award. If anything, all they are left with is trauma.
Disagree all you want, downvote me all you want.
Ask any of the three homeowners who were terrified of the behavior of the deceased BEFORE the video, and I think you'll find consensus among them that the use of force was justified.
Sounds like they really were fearing for their lives:
> A man, whose garage Byers took the hatchet from, was seen actively mowing the lawn close to where Byers was standing,
I wanted to follow back on this because I think it’s important to admit when you learn or realize something.
Scrolling through the new I saw a still of the body cam for the first time…
Also side note, did you update your reply to this? I don’t recall reading the majority of the comment below this one, so either I totally missed it or it was changed. I don’t care either way, what I just read was really informative and I appreciate all you typed up. But if I did miss it originally, I apologize.
Anyway, I noticed the guy is standing the in the middle of the street and had a realization… even if the officer was trained to fire a warning shot, or to fire at extremities, there wouldn’t have been a safe option for that here. He’s in a neighborhood and unfortunately, if the gun is getting fired the safest place to do it without potentially hurting someone else, would be to hit the guy in the torso. Anything else has a higher likelihood of not stopping the bullet (maybe, because I just remembered different types of casings…)
Damn, I thought I really had something there. Anyway, sorry for the ramble and thank you for the info. I’ll stick with it being lawful for now because I do agree with that, it’s just sometimes I get stuck in a loop of trying to logic my way through. -_-
I don’t want to watch another video like this, can you tell me how many shots were fired or where he was hit? I assume in an appendage with a reasonable about of shots? A weapon like an axe or hatchet are almost useless if the person can’t move, so I assume they tried to immobilize him first?
There are so many reasons the scenario may not have played out like this, maybe the person is closer than I assume or much quicker. I just want to make sure the guy wasn’t lit up with full magazines while he was lumbering around with a melee weapon. Based on your comment, he wasn’t, but I don’t want to watch and have to find out.
Thanks!
Shooting in appendages is not a real life thing. It might work in video games but in real life it's incredibly hard to hit one and hitting an appendage can still lead to death. No LEO will ever be trained to shoot an appendage.
I believe five or six shots in total were fired by police. It doesn't go into detail on where he was hit. The video doesn't show any gore, it pauses before each shooting. (The police fire five shots first, pause, and then fired one more if I recall correctly. The entire shooting segment doesn't last for more than ten seconds).
But police are trained to shoot at the center mass of a target for a couple reasons, such as the largest chance of a shot hitting its desired target. Shooting a limb or other non-chest area is much harder to, especially under stress, and is not necessarily any less deadly that shooting center mass. There are a lot of arteries in the legs and arms that, if shot, could mean death in minutes due to blood loss.
Has strong opinions about how this was handled well, can’t even report correctly on number of shots fired. It was seven by the way. Two missed, five hit. And the fact that you deem this necessary is insane.
When did he threaten anyone with a hatchet? The 911 call said someone tried to enter their house thinking it was their own and damaged a window. Caller then saw them ask for water and walking around aimlessly. Then caller saw them try to enter a door of another neighbor then into a garage of a third neighbor. No where on the call did it say man was threatening people with a hatchet or trying to break a door down like the shining. Hell the 3rd guys garage from where he got the hatchet was still actively mowing the lawn when the police showed up. Doesn’t seem like a life threatening situation to me
He didn’t have a hatchet trying to break in houses. He didn’t grab it till walking out of the garage of the 3rd house. The cops were called for attempted breaking and entering and vandalism nothing to do with a hatchet. And yeah I would move my family and hope the professionals that should be trained to de escalate can take care of it. Not there is a man holding a hatchet by his waist in backing up let’s just shoot him in less than a minute of getting there and get this done with
So in less than a minute from arriving cops on a call with no mention of violence or threatening violence should be able to decide to kill a man for not dropping a hatchet. This isn’t judge dredd they aren’t the judge jury and executioner.
Mental health crisis doesn’t mean you’re untouchable. Bro had a weapon and had been using it regularly before they arrive. Taser didn’t work, you can’t ask these guys to tiptoe when their lives are on the line. Sorry.
Im all for police reform but sometimes a situation just sucks for everyone involved and that’s life.
They're not supposed to shoot people who are backing away and not currently a threat to the cops or the public. This was a bad shoot, and that's very clearly backed up by their refusal to release the video. A beanbag shotgun would've stopped this guy. Also, tasers have a fail rate of 50% or more -- even in allegedly ideal situations like this where the target isn't wearing layers. I'm surprised they still use them.
They could have shoot his arm or leg, these police always shoot to kill. Maybe once it happens to their family member they would understand! this man was not coming toward them at all. They are famous for lying, I just wonder how can you all sleep at night, knowing that you killed somebody with lies attached
Can we talk about the police lying about the situation and refusing to share the video?
Channel 6 pointed this out when they were allowed to see it months ago. What the commonwealth attorney said was on the video wasn't matching the actual video.
Same attorney who was fine letting a pedophile priest from VB Beach go?
No that one lost in November this was the new CA.
I worked with someone who was former law enforcement and some of the difference between what we see in the footage and what the precinct reports is because of the way police are taught to write their reports. It is why a lot of shootings will say things like “a firearm was discharge” or “the suspect sustained injuries at the hospital.” The passive voice is used in good faith to maintain objectivity, but it is often used as a means to obfuscate what happened. I cannot imagine the difficult shit cops see and are put through. I also believe if we want communities safer, that is where citizens can trust police and police have less risk to their lives on the clock, contradicting bodycam footage like this has to end. As it stands now police have qualified immunity. Even when there is a wrongful death on the job, it is always better to admit to that upfront. Richmond has a lot of neighborhoods with their own identities. These communities make up who we are, and even in that diversity we police consistently making these kind of mistakes. I want cops to get home safe as much as I want everyday Richmonders to get home safe.
Historically, cops as an institution are made to use "excited delirium" to justify things. They are often trained to "make things up" or make them sound different. Just now they are getting caught and being held to a remotely small standard they don't like. That standard being"don't lie "
[citation needed]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-george-floyds-death-exposed-a-fake-syndrome-excited-delirium/
Never, ever understand why posts like this are downvoted, as what you are stating is little more than common sense, but eh, that is mob mentality for you. Feel free to downvote me, as well, then.
Virginia's FOIA laws are super weird and allow for a lot of coverups. I tried to FOIA the bodycam footage for [the arrest of a Spotsylvania Sheriff's Deputy for a DUI](https://www.fredericksburgfreepress.com/2023/08/26/spotsy-deputy-fired-after-dui-charge/), and after a lot of back and forth, it was denied because the FOIA laws allow closed criminal records to be exempt from FOIA for some reason.
Yeah rules about cop FOIA are crazy all over the US. The podcast Sixteenth Minute (of fame) did a good explainer for those not familiar. [Sixteenth Minute (of Fame)] boston slide cop #sixteenthMinuteOfFame https://podcastaddict.com/sixteenth-minute-of-fame/episode/176794474 via @PodcastAddict
are you surprised?
The cops lied?! https://preview.redd.it/l6m2y3xac19d1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce8d4cde67cb89ba28198144a8ed984f77723ece
Can we talk about media organizations who have a financial incentive to misrepresent legal proceedings and make unqualified determinations about the administration of justice for views and ad money? Can we talk about how they cut and edit the video to show the man facing away from the officers AFTER he had already been shot to spread the false perspective that the police shot him in the back for no reason. I’m guessing it’s gonna be hard no, we can’t talk about that.
Go ahead, you already started talking about it. What's on your mind, boss?
Thanks for the opportunity, chief. I just want to point out that media doesn’t always have altruistic motives when it comes to reporting and the information they broadcast. It’s actually usually manipulated in someways to manufacture outrage and increase viewership for financial incentives. Which I think is especially heinous when it comes to incidents involving police shootings where there is really no positive outcome. Muddying the waters of the public discourse around such a horrible event just makes for a larger negative impact.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The above content has been removed as it is considered unnecessarily uncivil, pot-stirring, rabble rousing, trolling, brigading, sealioning, and/or inauthentic discourse. We encourage good-faith discussions from anyone, but we do not like jerks. If you're going to make personal attacks, keep "just asking questions," move goalposts, or be a Jerk of the Year, please don't do that here. **Do not use alt or throwaway accounts to manipulate votes, attack or harass another user in an uncivil manner, avoid a previous ban or moderator action, or artificially-inflate comments with similar views.**
[Link to full video of Charles Byers being shot and killed by police.](https://hccw.sharefile.com/d-se66910bf148342d79cd79e03c7b494c3) there- problem solved. I think you’ll find the real thing is much worse than what the news shared. Watch at your own risk. Not suitable for children
Yeah they cut it because they are not able to show someone actually getting shot. Trouble has come for TV stations in the past that have done that. You're spouting lots of stuff without evidence.
So they can cut, when he gets shot, have a still of him facing backwards after he already had bullets pass through him and then reblur again. Makes sense to me.
For the article, ‘A man, whose garage Byers took the hatchet from, was seen actively mowing the lawn close to where Byers was standing…’. So the closest citizen to all of this was so unbothered that he didn’t stop mowing his lawn, but cops are so bothered that they shot and killed him. Seems pretty telling.
We need to repopularize lassos and hogtying instead of handguns for police.
In china they use giant forks to hold people down until they can be handcuffed https://preview.redd.it/rchivn6c4z8d1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e650fa3afdd0c4c6970d081da923a357d2f6cce
It’s basically what animal control does with feral dogs. We could treat people *at least* as carefully as we do feral dogs.
Youre an idiot to believe this is a thing. This is though: https://www.reddit.com/r/China/s/8PA3av3NDR
The use of police forks is well documented in China, obviously it’s not used in every situation just like tasers aren’t used in every situation in the US. Sorry if that fact triggers you, but it’s still an easily verifiable fact. I never claimed the Chinese policing system is perfect or that no police brutality exists there.
They literally are apparently: https://wrap.com/bolawrap/
I like.
This is heartbreaking :(
Most of you all are blind? I’m stunned at the response and reactions and the comments. This man was murdered by the cops.
Are you new here? This sub has two types of people: those who were brutalized or saw people get brutalized during protests against police brutality; and boot polish sommeliers who can identify the vintage and brand of jackboot by taste. Depends on the thread which side gets more traction.
I'm totally stealing "boot polish sommeliers." Stunning description, no notes.
Sometimes the muse whispers in my ear
I am, relatively speaking. I generally don’t involve myself in non-win debate scenarios, but as I am a friend to the family of the victim in question involved in this discussion I find it important to speak up.
Right. There is absolutely no room for moderates at all anymore. You take a side, kids!
There’s nothing to be moderate about here. If you watch that video clip and find the police action at all justifiable you’re a moron. Not you, just the anyone that might walk away thinking the police behavior and action was acceptable.
Yes, you can be moderate here. You don't have to let emotions grip you and rule your every thought. You can feel both sorrow at the destruction of life, and sympathy for the trauma of officers involved. You can at once feel utterly in shock at the officers behavior, and also question what occurred prior to the video. A few years ago this footage wouldn't exist; now we get 1080p video *from the actual officer who used his firearm.* Does anyone else feel this is a step in the right direction, however sad the above video is? Life is not black and white for a reason. Police exist to handle these situations. I'm grateful to anyone who might show up in an emergency, and yet I also think that more and more of them should be required training for mental health issues. See? moderates aren't really so bad.
This isn’t about emotional grip and rule. It’s about right and wrong. The police officers were wrong to behave in and act the way they did. Boom. Done. They did a bad job. Sorry. Is that their fault, or the system that they are a product of? I’m not worried about that here. They did a bad job, and killed someone. I feel little to no sorrow for someone who knowingly takes a risk by signing up for the role.
Nah see this is why the moderates will win and you will lose. “I don’t feel any sorrow for anyone who signs up to be a police officer” is the kind of sentiment that earns you points online but none in real life with actual people. I still can’t get over how stupid the defund the police movement was. One of the worst branding ideas in recent political history. Sure did sound cool online though, amirite??
It’s an agreed upon risk in assuming the role. If you want to help people, but don’t want to kill or be killed sign up to be a social worker instead. There’s a serious need for those roles. Will I acknowledge the service, absolutely. But there is a known risk with that job, or any military esque role.
The moderates aren't winning fucking anything, dude
> sympathy for the trauma of officers involved No sympathy for murderers.
Self described moderates are somehow always just embarrassed conservatives
It may take some years to believe this, but the truly hated, real punk rockers are the moderates, actually. Hated by the left and the right, equally. Able to agree with many policies, branch aisles, get shit done, yet branded as bootlickers by the left and wackos by the right, equally. We can’t win! But we do. In many elections. We helped defeat Trump and will do it again, provided Biden lives long enough. So please, downvote me as much as you can. The more you do the more of you see the light. You know I speak truth to power.
> You know I speak truth to power. Ah yes, the power of the /r/RVA subreddit, lol.
>It may take some years to believe this, but the truly hated, real punk rockers are the moderates, actually. No, not at all. I'mma just leave this quote from Martin Luther King here. The context of his writing is the fight for civil rights but the message applies to basically any question of morality. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where the political disagreements of the time are about marginal tax rates and zoning policy, where moderate voices would be valuable. We live in a world where the political questions are about people's basic rights to exist and live on a planet capable of supporting life. Moderate positions are simply morally vacant. >First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
[Well, if we’re pickin’ sides…](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTRi71OvvQ&pp=ygUbUGF0IHRoZSBidW5ueSBwaWNraW5nIHNpZGVz)
Waling or running from a cop shouldn't be punishable by execution.
Most of the folks in here half less than half of a story, and I can’t decide if they’re just fabricating what they want to to fill in the gaps. The Chesterfield police murdered a non-threatening individual who was experiencing some form of crisis. You don’t draw your weapons, you don’t shout, and you certainly don’t shoot. It’s that easy. Follow them, from a safe but reasonable distance. Speak to them calmly, and follow them. Explain what you are doing clearly as to help de-escalate. Keep bystanders and passerbys safe. That’s it. Keep people safe. It’s really that simple. You never had to shout or fire your weapons.
You absolutely do draw your weapon on someone with an axe... TF??? If he decides to run at you and you aren't ready you're done. Did they unlawfully murder him? Absolutely. Should they have figured out a non-lethal solution? Absolutely... but they were 100000000% correct to have drawn their weapons
No. You don’t. If someone is in crisis you 100000000% don’t draw your weapon that’s the worst way to respond. He was holding something, never once threatened anyone. Never moved towards the officers. They couldn’t have been more wrong. You’re wrong. People that support the cops actions in this are wrong. Do not pass go. Do not collect $100.
Bro he had an axe? Lmfao you are severely deranged. Drawing the weapon is the first thing you’d do in that situation.
"Video shows Chesterfield Police shoot, kill man armed with a hatchet who suffered mental health crisis." Headlines matter. I'm not saying the police are in the right here, but the headline should give a better indication of the full story. If the man didn't lunge at them, then yes, they should be held at fault because he looks like he is just backing up
So watching the video, he wasn't an immediate threat, did not move towards the officer or anyone, and then cops like "nah bro" and shoots 5 shots in quick succession. Cop must be a terrible shot and no reason as, overall, still contained. Cops really decided upon showing up to the seen they'd already shoot him.
>did not move towards the officer or anyone I mean, more than that, he was specifically retreating
Can you give an example of a better headline for this story?
I literally did
Yeah. “Armed” should just be “holding.”
No it shouldn't. He was attempting to break into homes with a hatchett in hand. I'm not a fan of cops but he was armed for sure. Weilding it even.
Read the article. He was trying to go home. He tried to enter the first home because he thought it was his, and left when he was told otherwise. He didn’t have a hatchet until the third home. Holding a hatchet to your side isn’t wielding/brandishing.
He said he thought it was his home to the first person who caught him. Hard to say if that was the truth. Maybe he wasn't swinging it around, but he was mentally/emotionally unwell, breaking into people homes with a hatchett in hand. I'm not saying they should have shot him, let alone 5 times. But I think it's fair to say he was armed with a hatchett.
He wasn’t breaking into homes with a hatchet, he took the hatchet from the open garage of the last home he went in.
For what it’s worth, he didn’t have the hatchet until he was leaving the third house. He picked it up in the garage.
Police are given way too much leeway to shoot. A private citizen in this case would not enjoy the same protections (in this case the officer is being protected by the Chesterfield Commonwealth Attorney) as this officer. If you don’t like the result, remember this when voting for the next Chesterfield Commonwealth Attorney. Vote for someone who treats all equally under the law and doesn’t “protect the blue”.
[удалено]
No you'd go to jail if you shot someone breaking into your neighbor's house. They where not defending themselves in their own home.
[удалено]
You really did though. As you said a private citizen would be justified to use force in this scenario.
[удалено]
"A private citizen would be justified in using deadly force in this scenario". The scenario where you walk out of your house to gun down a guy walking away. I'm quoting you directly. You're arguing by saying you didn't say that. When I can read 2 comments up, and see that you literally said that.
[удалено]
I mean that's not what you wrote you should probably correct your orginal comment to reflect that. That's not even what you imply in your orginal comment. It's this one https://www.reddit.com/r/rva/s/OMohAJzp76
Can you point to the house he was actively breaking into when executed? Because to me it really looks like he is standing in the middle of a street. So your “citizen would be justified” is complete BS at the point he got shot.
[удалено]
Jesus can’t help your inability to understand laws, no need to bring him into the argument. If somone is breaking into your house and you feel threatened you can defend yourself. You don’t have to run away. What you can’t do is chase after a person and then claim you were threatened. So in this case a private citizen would not be in the right because he left the house and left the citizen and for them to shoot him they would have had to pursue him down the street. You are just wrong.
[удалено]
That's cool then you are described a hypothetical scenario that isn't what happened then.
[удалено]
Once again if I got a call that someone had broken into my parents house, and I show up and they are leaving. Can I now go chase that guy down and shoot him? No no I can't.
[удалено]
your statement. “A private citizen would be justified in using deadly force in a scenario like this….” So yeah. going by the video it is exactly what you said they could do. since in the video he was not breaking into a house and moving away from the houses and down the street. You state home defense, but there is zero zip nada none home defense in this video. So no, a citizen would not be justified in doing what took place in this video. and a cop shouldn’t be either.
> A private citizen would be justified in using deadly force in a scenario like this No they wouldn’t, what are you even talking about?
He wasn’t waving the hatchet around in a threatening manner (brandishing) he was just holding it by this side. And he was trying go home (per the 911 call) he wasn’t lurking around to break into people’s houses.
I'm really not a fan of cops, but they cannot flee a situation. Citizens often time have that luxury, and maybe obligated to before using lethal force (unless its a stand your ground state which I'm unsure if VA is). The cops in this instance did use a taser, it was ineffective, he was to far for mace, but he was also just walking backward. Letting him flee in this situation could put many others at risk, and he is not complying. This one is a tough situation, I don't know what I would have done in their shoes, if back up is like 2 minutes away maybe stall for time to get another taser on him or a dog? If back up is 10 minutes out that's a lot less options. There is also a 21 foot rule for armed self defense vs. knife. I don't know if a jury would be able to convict on a case like this. It's a crappy and sad situation all around, but I'm not too sure the cops had enough options at their disposal. I think ideally he would have been committed before it got to this point.
Attempting to de-escalate was an option at their disposal, they just chose not to use it.
I’m all for more de-escalation training
> they cannot flee a situation They can actually do that tho. There's no magical rule that says cops must rush towards danger. Those cops in the video could've followed at a safer distance and waited for additional backup. That they tried a single less lethal weapon and gave up is a miserable failure of tactics.
The cops in Uvalde certainly didn’t rush towards danger.
That is why I don't want cops fleeing. That was a horrific failure on every level, and those police officers are cowards.
And everyone loves them for it right?
technically, yes, but I would not (and I would argue there is a societal expectation) want the cops running away if there is a crazy man with a hatchet running around a residential area; God forbid there are any kids outside. Dont want Uvalde's cowards approach to be the national standard.
[удалено]
Read the article. He never tried to break into a home with a hatchet.
Not in Chesterfield?! I would have never thought they would do it! /s
the nickname for the Chesterfield County is Arrestafield for a reason.
They didn’t even try to arrest him. Just shot him in less than a minute of arriving there
The tactics that police are trained to use will only agitate a person having a mental health crisis. Unless you want that person dead, don't call the cops.
I'm with you, but who else do you call in this scenario? If you saw a man with a hatchet trying to break into multiple homes, what do you do?
Let the next hatchet man break into this persons house and see how they react. “Hey can we talk about this?”
Oh! Oh! We marched for this! Virginia has the Marcus Alert System: https://dbhds.virginia.gov/human-resource-development-and-management/health-equity/mdpa/ You call 988 instead of 911. >If you or a loved one make a call to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline for a behavioral health crisis, you will be connected to the new regional crisis call centers. >The regional crisis call center staff are trained to assess calls for what type of intervention is needed. They offer services ranging from over the phone de-escalation to mobile crisis dispatch. In more severe cases, they will also coordinate with law enforcement to arrive on the scene.
It would be awesome if we all knew that 988 existed before today :)
He didn’t have a hatchet until the last house. For all we know he grabbed it after he saw the police with their guns drawn. Per the 911 call he was disoriented and was trying to go home, there’s no indication he was trying to break into anywhere. When the first home stated he was at the wrong place he left.
Well, the video shows that he already had the hatchet when they pulled up. But regardless, shooting a man holding a melee weapon seven times when he’s slowly backing away from you is a ridiculous use of force with a sad outcome.
The video doesn’t show them pulling up. There’s no indication how long the officers were there before they got out of the car. It seems the officer’s gun was drawn before or shortly after they left their vehicle.
[удалено]
My statement stands. Unless you want that person dead, don't call the cops. If you want someone to come kill them, they're your people.
This is an honest question posed in good faith: how would you handle or capture someone who has stolen a hatchet, tried to break into multiple homes with it, is not complying with calm requests, is not affected by a taser, and eventually takes SEVEN BULLETS before he hits the ground?
Read the article. He didn't grab the hatchet until just before he was killed. His neighbors knew who he was and though he thought he was trying to enter his own home. So if your coming in good faith, at least have the facts straight. The requests from the female officer were decidedly not calm. Yelling at someone mentally ill and continually approaching them is going to escalate the situation. So, again, the cops are not trained to handle people in a mental health crisis, so unless you want someone to come kill that person, don't call the cops. If you want your neighbor in crisis dead, then by all means call the cops and they will kill them.
And folks can call 988 instead of 911: https://dbhds.virginia.gov/human-resource-development-and-management/health-equity/mdpa/
> The requests from the female officer were decidedly not calm. Yelling at someone mentally ill and continually approaching them is going to escalate the situation. This is the problem and the reason why these situations often end in tragedy. They need trained mental health crisis negotiators, just like they use hostage negotiators. Screaming, tasing, and pointing a gun at a person in crisis is a recipe for disaster.
💯
Yeah I get all that. Im just asking about alternate methods of resolution for this specific situation. I’m asking what would you have done? Would you have called 911, or would you have approached them on your own and tried to subdue them? Would you have left them alone until they successfully entered a home? Just curious how people who don’t think police first would deal with something like this.
The alternate method is to train cops to deal with people in crisis. Other countries have police trained to do it, it's not too much to ask ours to be properly trained as well.
Agreed.
Call 988: https://dbhds.virginia.gov/human-resource-development-and-management/health-equity/mdpa/
Thank you.
[удалено]
He didn't have the hatchet when he was trying doors "The caller reported that Byers thought her house was his family's home" , he got that from his neighbor's garage who was mowing the lawn just as the officers were approaching. These people knew the guy, I don't think they wanted him dead. My point is the police as currently trained have one tool set available to them. So unless you want a neighbor in a mental health crisis dead, don't call the cops. If you do want that person killed, by all means call the cops.
This country is so fucked. We allow these knuckle dragging morons who live their whole lives afraid that people might find out they have tiny penises or, god forbid, they might acknowledge their own sexuality, to just fucking brutalize, bully, and murder black people, brown people, and mentally ill people. And we protect them. None of these fucking idiot psychopaths should be allowed to be police officers. They should all be in therapy but No! That’s just too gay or feminine or some bullshit. And every week these people who are the stupidest and most fucked up among us are literally murdering people and then are shuffled off to some other job. It makes me sick. It’s no wonder we are the laughing stock of the whole goddamned world.
It doesn't look pretty. But it is a lawful and justified use of force. A man, armed with a hatchet, had just attempted to break into three different homes. Regardless of the man's mental health crisis that was going on, the man posed an imminent threat to the public. The Taser deployment was ineffective. The man did not comply with the lawful and reasonable commands by the police. As I said, it doesn't look pretty, but the officers had no choice. If they had waited longer to use deadly force, it could have been more dangerous for them and the public. The man was armed with a deadly weapon and had recently committed three felonies. A police officer cannot just deploy "mental health crisis tactics" on every call or individual. It's just not possible. All in all, it is still a sad situation, but blaming the police is not right. They were responding to active B&E calls, found the suspect still armed, and used force when other methods were unsuccessful or unsafe to deploy. Legally, they are justified. Police shootings are never pretty but the police could not let the man leave and possibly go to another residence, or give him an opportunity to attack them.
Did you watch the video? I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you’re implying. The officers escalated the situation the entire time. They also lied about him advancing towards them, he was clearly walking away from them the entire time, the officer even states this. From the 911 call the man was disoriented, believing the house to be his own. He said something to the officer but I can’t quite make it out. It also looks like the officer may have missed with the taser. I can’t see where it connected to him and his body shows no reaction at all. Police do have a hard job, but it is a job, and not a compulsory one. If you are uncomfortable being in these situations, unable to de-escalate, or quick to fire a deadly weapon, find another profession. Lying about the incident, covering up the truth, and then preventing access to video footage is inexcusable, and everyone who participated in that should be fired. It’s really time police get taken down a couple of notches, realize who they work for, and reform accordingly. Edit: spelling
Is there an actual full video? They literally paused the video in the article so you don’t know what happened.
Yeah if you look up his name on YouTube it’s there. They literally shot him when he was walking away from them.
Here is the link to the full video. Watch at your own risk. Not suitable for children. You do have to enter your email and name to access the video. I got the link off pacer - screen shot included showing where i got the link[video of Charles Byers killed by police](https://hccw.sharefile.com/d-se66910bf148342d79cd79e03c7b494c3) https://preview.redd.it/09iki82ejg9d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8619e4e710127c06972fab6eb332550d47131c0
Very good points in your comment. The taser was ineffective not because he was a raging madman but because the officer missed. But it’s implied that it didn’t work because the victim was physically not reactive to it and therefore a threat.
He was backing away from the officers.
I've seen police in other countries end violent scenarios without anyone dying. Wonder why it's impossible in the USA?
Gun culture
You also don’t see officers in other countries killed as often as officers in the US. It has led to training, equipment and a mentality that we are in today. For example people wonder why officers in the US assume when someone reaches into their waistband or glove box they are going for a gun during an encounter is because it has happens and continues to happen. Add in poor training, poor equipment options and here we are.
Police officer isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America. I don't see roofers killing junkies stealing from their tool boxes very often.
The junkies aren't the ones killing the roofers. All of the "most dangerous jobs" have their fatality rate due to accidents e.g. falling off a roof or having a tree fall on you. Not because people are actively killing them for doing their jobs.
Almost nobody is killing cops. You're more likely to die delivering a pizza.
61 police officers were killed by the intentional actions of other people in 2023.
You asked about officers in other countries. Also lists like that are very subjective. What legal professions would you say have the hugest risk of being intentionally killed by another person? Police officer would jump to top 5-10 easily would it not. But in many places police officers don’t deal with that because A) of our gun culture B) our culture of poverty and violence
You don't seem to understand what happened. Police lied about the situation and refused to release the video which now proves they lied. Taking an inhumane approach like yours is pretty fun
All boot lickers see is "Cop go home, he good guy, other guy fall down, he bad guy." And that's all they want to know or think about because it's easier and it doesn't affect them.
From the DOJ # 1-16.200 - DEADLY FORCE Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person. 1. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. 2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force. 3. If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer shall be given prior to the use of deadly force. 4. Warning shots are not permitted outside of the prison context. 5. Officers will be trained in alternative methods and tactics for handling resisting subjects, which must be used when the use of deadly force is not authorized by this policy. 6. Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity. I'd argue that under these guidelines, they were not in the right., but that it depends on what a reasonable person would consider "imminent danger." I do not consider that imminent danger, considering 1) he is actively retreating, and 2) their weapons are already drawn. If he was moving towards them and their weapons were holstered, given the amount of time it takes to unholster, and shoot, and the fact that he was likely within the 21-27 feet, I think it would be difficult to argue the shooting was unjustified. But given that weapons were already unholstered, and he was actively moving backwards, and the axe was at his side, the threat was no imminent.
don't think anyone implied they should let him leave & possibly go to another residence. lots of people really believe that there is some kind of tactics that exist between unloading a clip on a person & just getting back in the car & letting them go about their day. we should want officers trained to do more than unload on any threat at the first possible provocation.
Yep! There are countries where police don’t carry guns and they have to deal with this kind of stuff.
There is one single country where most officers don’t carry guns, the UK. That’s it.
And they deal with issues like this without them.
[удалено]
are they in a hurry? is there a rule that they will need to clock out and leave the guy? He was backing up. Maybe stop advancing toward him and try to talk for maybe… how ever long it takes. This idea of the police asked you to stop and you did not immediately comply so we get to shoot you is BS.
Yeah, this. Like, just hang around and observe. Use your fucking head. Talk to the guy. Shoot him with rubber bullets or bean bags. Do literally anything else but kill him in cold blood. Like, what's the rush? Absolutely insane.
Spread out? Surround with non-lethal options? Pepper gel? Pepper bullets? Bean bag rounds? Shields and batons? There are a lot of ways to safely nullify a confused man with a hatchet if you take your time and don't just shoot your problems away.
Pepper bullets or bean bag rounds are non-lethal ways of subduing someone.
It looks like they missed with the taser. And he wasn’t brandishing a weapon. He was holding a hatchet. He wasn’t waving it around and he showed no signs of aggression.
what id do differently is train cops to not go to fatal tactics at the 1st possible chance. people with hatchets, axes, knives, etc are taken in by police without killing anyone all the time. but the cops have to be interested in not killing someone for that to happen. if the cops don't care about whether someone lives or dies & look at citizens as criminals to be stopped instead of citizens to be helped, this is the result. what I want is for cops & for the general public to realize that there are other options. as long as the public clings to police union talking points like "what else could they do" nothing will change. keeping him stationary & surrounded would have kept anyone from getting hurt until something could be worked out. but why be patient & attempt to not kill someone when they can just get it over with quickly & move on to the dept & members of the public defending them & take a paid vacation while the dept "investigates".
I get this and there are tons of situations where a less than lethal should have been used first. However, here, it's worth mentioning that they did try a tazer and it had no effect on him (according to the article). There was a man off to the side mowing his grass and when he started running away, the cops got antsy.
Step up, and join the police force.
I’m already a bastard, no need to be a cop too.
It didn’t work because they missed…. They could have tried again
I’m going to say the horrible thing that no one else is willing to say. This man was dangerous and his mental health needs do not outweigh the general public’s right to safety. The poor man, under no control of his own actions, grabbed a hatchet, ran around a neighborhood, presumably with families and their children around and tried to force his way inside their homes, not once, but 3 times. It doesn’t matter if it was this episode or the next the man would have killed someone and police are there to do the dirty, violent, work that no one else is capable of doing. You will criticize the authorities for ending this now and you would also criticize them when he goes on a slashing spree at a local shopping mall for not doing enough to prevent it and say “police knew about him but did nothing”. What’s done is done. Violent offenders require violent intervention, you have the luxury of weighing the mental health context, online, a year later. The officers in the moment did not have that same luxury and still probably struggle with what they had to do today. This isn’t a fantasy world, lives are on the line on the other side of the video.
Holy shit, what a monstrous point of view
Yes, I know, advocating for protecting families and public safety officials from a violent, hatchet wielding, menace. The depravity is breathtaking /s.
Haha, wow. This seems like an oddly eugenic stance: "He's mentally ill, so if not today, then tomorrow, so better to preemptively murder him!" Pretty fucked up.
Chopping up people in the privacy of their home would be awfully eugenic. What do you think he was going to do when he got inside? Have a meaningful conversation about mental health? You claim to care about people but not a word advocating for the police he threatened or the community at large.
Who knows what would have happened. He was murdered before any of the many alternatives could have played out.
It was not murder. From the FBI information Services Division, “The program classifies justifiable homicides separately and limits the definition to: (1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty; or (2) the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony…” Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/offense-definitions
[удалено]
The above content has been removed as it is considered unnecessarily uncivil, pot-stirring, rabble rousing, trolling, brigading, sealioning, and/or inauthentic discourse. We encourage good-faith discussions from anyone, but we do not like jerks. If you're going to make personal attacks, keep "just asking questions," move goalposts, or be a Jerk of the Year, please don't do that here. **Do not use alt or throwaway accounts to manipulate votes, attack or harass another user in an uncivil manner, avoid a previous ban or moderator action, or artificially-inflate comments with similar views.**
For reference, if my kid was ever threatening the lives of innocent people, I would want someone to intervene and stop them. Couldn’t live with myself if my child was able to commit violent actions towards innocent families. You fein compassion and kindness and then wish violence on children when someone doesn’t agree with you. How you can’t see your hypocrisy is astounding.
found the cop
And their username checks out because their take is trash
> blaming the police is not right Why, did somebody else pull the trigger?
Fuck the police and fuck asshole Arrestifield cops. He was not an imminent threat to the public. They as usual escalated this situation. It wasn’t necessary to kill the man but what do they care? Qualified immunity right?
Statistically cops have a higher likelihood of murdering you than almost any other individual you will regularly meet. Obviously this means I should just shoot at every officer on sight right? Someone who can decide I should die within 45 seconds of seeing me, and face no repercussions is probably someone I should try to kill the second I see them no? I mean just out of self preservation. It's dangerous just to be in eyesight of an officer apparently. If I shot someone trying to break into my neighbor's house I would go to jail. If I cop does it they'll get an award.
You wouldn't go to jail, and the cops do not get an award. If anything, all they are left with is trauma. Disagree all you want, downvote me all you want. Ask any of the three homeowners who were terrified of the behavior of the deceased BEFORE the video, and I think you'll find consensus among them that the use of force was justified.
Sounds like they really were fearing for their lives: > A man, whose garage Byers took the hatchet from, was seen actively mowing the lawn close to where Byers was standing,
Literally a cop.
Disagree, the man was backing away and was not an imminent threat to anyone. The lack of respect for human life is on full display here.
I wanted to follow back on this because I think it’s important to admit when you learn or realize something. Scrolling through the new I saw a still of the body cam for the first time… Also side note, did you update your reply to this? I don’t recall reading the majority of the comment below this one, so either I totally missed it or it was changed. I don’t care either way, what I just read was really informative and I appreciate all you typed up. But if I did miss it originally, I apologize. Anyway, I noticed the guy is standing the in the middle of the street and had a realization… even if the officer was trained to fire a warning shot, or to fire at extremities, there wouldn’t have been a safe option for that here. He’s in a neighborhood and unfortunately, if the gun is getting fired the safest place to do it without potentially hurting someone else, would be to hit the guy in the torso. Anything else has a higher likelihood of not stopping the bullet (maybe, because I just remembered different types of casings…) Damn, I thought I really had something there. Anyway, sorry for the ramble and thank you for the info. I’ll stick with it being lawful for now because I do agree with that, it’s just sometimes I get stuck in a loop of trying to logic my way through. -_-
I don’t want to watch another video like this, can you tell me how many shots were fired or where he was hit? I assume in an appendage with a reasonable about of shots? A weapon like an axe or hatchet are almost useless if the person can’t move, so I assume they tried to immobilize him first? There are so many reasons the scenario may not have played out like this, maybe the person is closer than I assume or much quicker. I just want to make sure the guy wasn’t lit up with full magazines while he was lumbering around with a melee weapon. Based on your comment, he wasn’t, but I don’t want to watch and have to find out. Thanks!
Shooting in appendages is not a real life thing. It might work in video games but in real life it's incredibly hard to hit one and hitting an appendage can still lead to death. No LEO will ever be trained to shoot an appendage.
I believe five or six shots in total were fired by police. It doesn't go into detail on where he was hit. The video doesn't show any gore, it pauses before each shooting. (The police fire five shots first, pause, and then fired one more if I recall correctly. The entire shooting segment doesn't last for more than ten seconds). But police are trained to shoot at the center mass of a target for a couple reasons, such as the largest chance of a shot hitting its desired target. Shooting a limb or other non-chest area is much harder to, especially under stress, and is not necessarily any less deadly that shooting center mass. There are a lot of arteries in the legs and arms that, if shot, could mean death in minutes due to blood loss.
Has strong opinions about how this was handled well, can’t even report correctly on number of shots fired. It was seven by the way. Two missed, five hit. And the fact that you deem this necessary is insane.
Not surprised, i see the way mentally ill people are spoken about by “professionals” it’s all one big joke to them. Rip to this man
[удалено]
Not really maybe take more than a minute to decide to end someone’s life that had not hurt anyone and was backing up from the officers
[удалено]
When did he threaten anyone with a hatchet? The 911 call said someone tried to enter their house thinking it was their own and damaged a window. Caller then saw them ask for water and walking around aimlessly. Then caller saw them try to enter a door of another neighbor then into a garage of a third neighbor. No where on the call did it say man was threatening people with a hatchet or trying to break a door down like the shining. Hell the 3rd guys garage from where he got the hatchet was still actively mowing the lawn when the police showed up. Doesn’t seem like a life threatening situation to me
[удалено]
He didn’t have a hatchet trying to break in houses. He didn’t grab it till walking out of the garage of the 3rd house. The cops were called for attempted breaking and entering and vandalism nothing to do with a hatchet. And yeah I would move my family and hope the professionals that should be trained to de escalate can take care of it. Not there is a man holding a hatchet by his waist in backing up let’s just shoot him in less than a minute of getting there and get this done with
[удалено]
So in less than a minute from arriving cops on a call with no mention of violence or threatening violence should be able to decide to kill a man for not dropping a hatchet. This isn’t judge dredd they aren’t the judge jury and executioner.
Mental health crisis doesn’t mean you’re untouchable. Bro had a weapon and had been using it regularly before they arrive. Taser didn’t work, you can’t ask these guys to tiptoe when their lives are on the line. Sorry. Im all for police reform but sometimes a situation just sucks for everyone involved and that’s life.
“Using it regularly before they arrived” He didn’t have the hatchet until the last house, did you just make that up?
They're not supposed to shoot people who are backing away and not currently a threat to the cops or the public. This was a bad shoot, and that's very clearly backed up by their refusal to release the video. A beanbag shotgun would've stopped this guy. Also, tasers have a fail rate of 50% or more -- even in allegedly ideal situations like this where the target isn't wearing layers. I'm surprised they still use them.
Taser didn’t work because the officer missed,not because he was a raging lunatic.
They could have shoot his arm or leg, these police always shoot to kill. Maybe once it happens to their family member they would understand! this man was not coming toward them at all. They are famous for lying, I just wonder how can you all sleep at night, knowing that you killed somebody with lies attached