Straight Dope Message Board

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

That's just fucking crazy, and is a completely unacceptable standard.

On the one hand, these policing controversy threads are making me sad. On the other, it's clear that we need to have a lot more discussion in order to educate people and change what people will accept.

My only guess is that right now, we're a big fucking panicky nation, and have come to tolerate the loss of liberties in favor of security at pretty much every level and in every context.

What security???

The police should be subject to, and should obey the very same laws they enforce. That includes laws against threats, violence, and coercion. This ain't some third world country or Mexico (yet) 201

[Gray Ghost]

Originally Posted by PastTense

In Cleveland a cop shot and killed a 12 year old boy at a playground who had a toy gun:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...ions_abou.html

Surveillance video of the shooting has been released. IMHO it is very damning of the officer's conduct. I was initially supportive of the officers' actions until I saw the video.

Anyway, make up your own minds. 202

[Frylock]

I haven't seen it but can you describe what's in the video that changes your perception of what happened? 203

[Measure for Measure]

Explosive article over at Vox by Matthew Yglasias. Well not really, except where gunnuts are involved.

Number of Americans killed by cops, latest available year: 400, and I've read elsewhere that this is an underestimate.

Number in Germany: 8
Britain: 0
Japan: 0

Now Britain and Germany both have their tensions with minorities. But the cops there don't have to deal with a massively armed citizenry, or part of that citizenry anyway. (Lots of normal Americans don't own a firearm just like people in other countries). So it's not surprising that US cops are trigger happy and British cops are not. Another reason British cops don't kill civilians is that most of them are not armed: only some are.

Anyway 400+ deaths by cops per year is one of the prices we pay for a robust 2nd Amendment. These deaths fall disproportionately on US minorities, like the 12 year old mentioned above. Some might call that kid a 2nd Amendment hero: I opine that he's a victim. 204

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Surveillance video of the shooting has been released. IMHO it is very damning of the officer's conduct. I was initially supportive of the officers' actions until I saw the video.

Anyway, make up your own minds.

Was it the speed at which the police fired that changed your mind? The boy did attempt to draw what appeared to be a very real handgun when the police approached which he had been brandishing just moments before. 205

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Bone

Was it the speed at which the police fired that changed your mind? The boy did attempt to draw what appeared to be a very real handgun when the police approached which he had been brandishing just moments before.

Wait, what did the kid do wrong?

Ohio is an open-carry state. As evidenced by other incidents in Ohio where the cops were oh so polite with someone walking the streets with a gun in his hand just to visibly exercise his rights, the kid had the right to have a real gun unholstered. So the kid was taking the gun out of his holster.

ISTM that, had that been a real gun, what he was doing was legal as church on Sunday, aside from possibly being below the legal age to carry a gun, if Ohio has a minimum age for that. Which is hardly a capital offense.

So apparently they shot the kid for doing something perfectly legal in that state.

Am I missing something here? Or are Ohio open-carry laws whites-only? 206

[FXMastermind]

"Best to kill em all and let the courts work it out later." 207

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Am I missing something here? Or are Ohio open-carry laws whites-only?

It's a little more nuanced than that, right? They were responding to a complaint about someone scaring the crap out of everyone waving a gun around, and (if their account is accurate), they ordered him to show his hands and instead he went for the gun. 208

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

So apparently they shot the kid for doing something perfectly legal in that state.

I'm gonna need a cite for the part of Ohio law that declares it perfectly legal to pull a gun on a police officer. 209

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Smapti

I'm gonna need a cite for the part of Ohio law that declares it perfectly legal to pull a gun on a police officer.

Or on anyone else, for that matter. I think the fact that it was the police doing the shooting here is pretty irrelevant. 210

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

It's a little more nuanced than that, right? They were responding to a complaint about someone scaring the crap out of everyone waving a gun around, and (if their account is accurate), they ordered him to show his hands and instead he went for the gun.

OK, but just like when that guy was killed by the cops in that Wal-Mart, the cops have no business assuming the truth of a complaint.

They investigate the complaint. They can't just take the word of someone over the phone that a situation is dangerous. Such a claim means they need to be ready in case it is, but they still have to come in with their eyes open and make their own judgment.

Otherwise, the cops become a lethal weapon available to be wielded by the random 911 caller.

I mean, I watched all seven minutes of that video. There's a fair amount of that park in view, and there are only two instances where anyone else even appears in it. Most of the time, the place is deserted. Including right before the cops pull up.

If they'd cruised on by, parked their car on the street, and watched for a minute, they'd have seen what we saw in the video: a bored kid playing with something in an essentially deserted park.

Instead, they blaze in, screech to a stop right next to him on the grass, and in seconds, shoot him dead.

The cops put themselves in the zone of split-second decisions by coming at the kid like a SWAT team with no need for doing so. 211

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Smapti

I'm gonna need a cite for the part of Ohio law that declares it perfectly legal to pull a gun on a police officer.

I'm gonna need a cite for the part of Ohio law that says it's illegal to have an unholstered gun in the presence of a police officer. ETA: Because if it's legal to have a holstered gun, and it's legal to have an unholstered gun, then you'd need a very specific law about when it's illegal to take the gun from one legal state to another. 212

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If they'd cruised on by, parked their car on the street, and watched for a minute, they'd have seen what we saw in the video: a bored kid playing with something in an essentially deserted park.

Instead, they blaze in, screech to a stop right next to him on the grass, and in seconds, shoot him dead.

The cops put themselves in the zone of split-second decisions by coming at the kid like a SWAT team with no need for doing so.

Okay, that's a fair debate, but it's different than your original point, which seemed to be that the kid was doing something that to all appearances was perfectly legal. Pulling a gun on a cop who ordered you to show your hands is not. Now, whether or not the cops created the situation, one that could have been avoided, is a fair but different point. 213

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

Okay, that's a fair debate, but it's different than your original point, which seemed to be that the kid was doing something that to all appearances was perfectly legal. Pulling a gun on a cop who ordered you to show your hands is not. Now, whether or not the cops created the situation, one that could have been avoided, is a fair but different point.

You need to watch the video before commenting on the incident. The interaction you describe could not have happened. The kid was dead before the car door was all the way open. He had no time to make any moves whatsoever.

ETA: By the way, his behavior prior to the cops showing up was unwise. I couldn't see any other people, so I couldn't say that he was brandishing. If he was pointing it at people, that was not okay. 214

[Bone]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Wait, what did the kid do wrong?

Ohio is an open-carry state. As evidenced by other incidents in Ohio where the cops were oh so polite with someone walking the streets with a gun in his hand just to visibly exercise his rights, the kid had the right to have a real gun unholstered. So the kid was taking the gun out of his holster.

ISTM that, had that been a real gun, what he was doing was legal as church on Sunday, aside from possibly being below the legal age to carry a gun, if Ohio has a minimum age for that. Which is hardly a capital offense.

So apparently they shot the kid for doing something perfectly legal in that state.

Am I missing something here? Or are Ohio open-carry laws whites-only?

Open carry means holstered. Unholstered is brandishing unless responding to a threat. If someone is walking the streets with a gun in hand, that is not "open carry". Did you think it was?

The kid in the video had the replica firearm in a shooting position moments before, and if it were a real firearm, was brandishing it.

So let's see, what did the kid do wrong?

• Unsupervised use of an airsoft pistol by a child
• Waving around the pistol in a threatening manner
• Reaching for the replica pistol in his waistband when the police arrive

And in jest - be black? Because police are racist of course. 215

[gigi]

I've posted this one before...police respond to a home in Hartford VT. The (black) owner is passed out naked on his own toilet so they pepper spray him and haul him out of his home.

http://vtdigger.org/2012/09/25/recor...ally-released/

With the recent article in Slate* on the Ferguson narrative, this jumps out at me in the VT article:

The officers described Burwell in statements as “muscular” and “very large.” In the video clips from the police car dashcam, Burwell who stands up briefly, staggering in apparent shock, is no taller than the officers, and is more slightly built.

* http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...man_demon.html 216

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Bone

Open carry means holstered. Unholstered is brandishing unless responding to a threat. If someone is walking the streets with a gun in hand, that is not "open carry". Did you think it was?

Well yeah, because at least one of the instances of open carry where the cops were polite to the carrier involved the carrying of rifles, which can't exactly be holstered. 217

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Such a claim means they need to be ready in case it is, but they still have to come in with their eyes open and make their own judgment.

And when what they see with their own eyes is a gun being pulled on them, are they wrong in judging that they're in danger? 218

[Bone]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Well yeah, because at least one of the instances of open carry where the cops were polite to the carrier involved the carrying of rifles, which can't exactly be holstered.

Open carry of a rifle typically means slung - though I don't think there is a singular definition. In any case, your characterization of what the kid was doing as 'open carry' is in error. What he was shown doing would be considered brandishing if it were a real firearm. Not sure if that applies to replicas. That's the part you are missing. 219

[BigAppleBucky]

Denver Police seize tablet, delete video of brutal arrest. But it had backed up to “the cloud”.

THE Denver cops punched a man in the face and bounced his head off the pavement. They tripped his pregnant wife — and then saw they were being filmed. What happened next has the “land of the free” in uproar.

A police officer stormed up to the witness, who was white, snatching his device from his hands and threatens him with arrest.

Later the cops threatened him with arrest if he didn't let them erase the recording.

The police version of the story is this:
A pair of plain-clothed police officers spotted a suspected drug dealer stick a white sock in his mouth when he noticed them approaching.

The officers then “assisted” the suspect — David Flores — out of his car before they “fell to the ground”. Two further officers, this time uniformed, arrived as backup.
The four officers then say they punched Flores up to six times in the face “in order to keep him from choking”. He was taken to hospital for his injuries.

220

[get lives]

Even Bricker and John Mace are uncomfortable with the level of police brutality happening these days. That says something. I wonder what it would take for Smapti to start changing his mind on this. 221

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Denver Police seize tablet, delete video of brutal arrest. But it had backed up to “the cloud”.

Later the cops threatened him with arrest if he didn't let them erase the recording.

I wonder how our resident cop-sucking fascists will rationalize that? 222

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I wonder how our resident cop-sucking fascists will rationalize that?

I imagine they will have the sense to realise the distinction between what seems like a blatant abuse of power, and the other stories being discussed where the police have acted in self defence. I've not seen anyone here argue that people shouldn't be allowed to record the police's actions. 223

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Now Britain and Germany both have their tensions with minorities. But the cops there don't have to deal with a massively armed citizenry, or part of that citizenry anyway. ([......] Some might call that kid a 2nd Amendment hero: I opine that he's a victim.

Still, presumably, *some* people the police interact with in the UK or Japan are armed. Including some that aren't 12 and actually dangerous. And somehow the British or Japanese police didn't kill *anybody* that year. Neither 12 yo nor hardened criminals.

Which means in my opinion that they're not just facing a less armed populace but also that they're much less trigger happy.

The whole video shows how insane the behaviour of the police was. First, to, my surprise, the kid actually looked like a kid. I was somehow expecting he wouldn't.

The police car drives right on him and stops just besides him. Which is insane if they were expecting a dangerous situation. And it doesn't look like a threatening situation at all. Maybe I'm mistaken about something, but I don't believe I would have felt threatened the slightest bit had I randomly passed by. But of course, it's obvious that the police doesn't take a second to assess the situation, as anybody sensible would have done.

And then of course, they shot him immediatly, and I can't see they could expect him to react appropriately in so short a time, *assuming* they were extremely clear in their instructions, which I doubt was possible from what I see.

Finally, even if the kid actually had the gun in hand and pointing it at them, I can't see that as a legitimate reason to open fire, given that...he was fucking 12! Again, I wasn't on the scene so I can't tell for certain, but I have a hard time conceiving doing something else than telling the kid to put his gun down in such a situation.


Those cops aren't below the standard I would expect for a trained cop, they're below the standard I would expect for a random, not very bright and easily panicked, civilian 224

[get lives]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I imagine they will have the sense to realise the distinction between what seems like a blatant abuse of power, and the other stories being discussed where the police have acted in self defence. I've not seen anyone here argue that people shouldn't be allowed to record the police's actions.

Confiscating tablets/phones is actually a pretty common behavior among cops these days. Certainly more common than shooting suspects. 225

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by get lives

Confiscating tablets/phones is actually a pretty common behavior among cops these days. Certainly more common than shooting suspects.

Yes, and it's completely illegal as far as I know - unlike shooting someone in self defence. My point is that it's these things that people should be arguing against, and yet people seem to focus on entirely the wrong things.

The problem with that is that those who are inclined to side with the police will see that the arguments that, for example, Darren Wilson was wrong to shoot Michael Brown are absurd, and may well think that all the anti-police arguments are equally absurd.

There is, of course, a difference between confiscating a recording device and seizing it as evidence, but the latter should only be happening if there's cause to arrest, and it shouldn't immediately be accessed by the police except in an emergency. 226

[get lives]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The problem with that is that those who are inclined to side with the police will see that the arguments that, for example, Darren Wilson was wrong to shoot Michael Brown are absurd, and may well think that all the anti-police arguments are equally absurd.

.

You sound as if you think those who tend to side with the police don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Also, if cops are seizing phones/tablets regularly, it's for one reason only--they know their behavior is wrong. Since it's so common, that implies a lot of cops know they are wrong. And yet, they feel free to seize phones. It's clear they think they can act with impunity. What does THAT say? 227

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by get lives

You sound as if you think those who tend to side with the police don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Most people don't, in my experience. This board is something of an outlier.

Also, if cops are seizing phones/tablets regularly, it's for one reason only--they know their behavior is wrong. Since it's so common, that implies a lot of cops know they are wrong. And yet, they feel free to seize phones. It's clear they think they can act with impunity. What does THAT say?

I would say that they know their behaviour is illegal, not that they necessarily believe it's wrong. Which is part of the problem. 228

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by get lives

Even Bricker and John Mace are uncomfortable with the level of police brutality happening these days. That says something. I wonder what it would take for Smapti to start changing his mind on this.

Prolly for him to experience it firsthand, and even then he'd prolly still accept the blame for the incident, at least at first. 229

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Bone

Open carry means holstered. Unholstered is brandishing unless responding to a threat. If someone is walking the streets with a gun in hand, that is not "open carry". Did you think it was?

That's not what brandishing is. Ohio doesn't define the word in code, but the jury instruction say brandishing

means to wave or exhibit in a menacing or challenging way.

Simply having an unholstered pistol is not brandishing in Ohio. There must be an element of threat, menace, or intimidation. You're factually wrong here. 230

[Bone]

I'm not familiar with the nuances in Ohio. In my opinion unholstering or holding a firearm in hand would be considered exhibiting in a menacing way. I'm sure the jury will decide. Are you aware of case law that supports a person carrying a firearm in hand in the manner you describe and being cleared of a brandishig charge?

I grant I could have this wrong for Ohio - in CA it would be brandishing. Surely what the kid was doing was brandishing from the video. It's what prompted the 911 call. 231

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Bone

I'm not familiar with the nuances in Ohio. In my opinion unholstering or holding a firearm in hand would be considered exhibiting in a menacing way. I'm sure the jury will decide. Are you aware of case law that supports a person carrying a firearm in hand in the manner you describe and being cleared of a brandishig charge?

I'm not familiar with Ohio case law, but I'll point out that Ohio does not have a brandishing charge. I'm not sure what you call it exactly, but it's a sentencing requirement that requires another crime to have been committed. You can't be arrested for brandishing, but if you assault someone and you display or brandish a firearm, this kicks in.

In any case, I know this is the Pit, but you made the claim and all, so that's all the effort I'm going to put into debunking it. 232

[Bone]

I think we can disagree on what it would be considered, by an observant bystander, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is factually wrong. Holding a firearm out of the holster can be brandishing. All it would take is to be exhibited (seen) in a menacing way. Reasonable people can disagree but it is not factually wrong to interpret it this way. That Ohio doesn't have a specific brandishing charge doesn't help me out here. 233

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Bone

I think we can disagree on what it would be considered, by an observant bystander, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is factually wrong. Holding a firearm out of the holster can be brandishing. All it would take is to be exhibited (seen) in a menacing way. Reasonable people can disagree but it is not factually wrong to interpret it this way. That Ohio doesn't have a specific brandishing charge doesn't help me out here.

Sure, if we're just talking layman's definitions the bar is lower, but still requires something beyond simply holding an unholstered weapon, which is what you originally stated. So I'm comfortable calling "unholstered = brandished" as factually wrong.

The Ohio law doesn't even care if it's holstered or not. The idea is that if I walk into a convenience store and demand the cash out of the register, and then lift my jacket to reveal a holstered weapon, this law kicks in. I've used my weapon to intimidate or menace, even snugly in its holster.

This was all news to me until the Wal-Mart shooting, when the Ohio open carry nuts actually protested in the victim's name. 234

[Folacin]

Black man stopped for walking in the cold with his hands in his pockets -

The comments bag on the officer - but I'm guessing that once he is dispatched, he probably needs to make the contact. Although his discretionary ability may have allowed him to just do a drive-by, and call back to the and give an all clear. 235

[njtt]

Police SWAT team shoot small dog, moving away from them. 236

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Folacin

Black man stopped for walking in the cold with his hands in his pockets -

The comments bag on the officer - but I'm guessing that once he is dispatched, he probably needs to make the contact. Although his discretionary ability may have allowed him to just do a drive-by, and call back to the and give an all clear.

Folks in Hanover called the cops when a (black male) friend of mine who had gotten a job at Dartmouth was moving his belongings into his new apartment. They sat in their vehicle watching him. 237

[toofs]

Originally Posted by njtt

Police SWAT team shoot small dog, moving away from them.

This is so common it is becoming a meme. 238

[Son of a Rich]

I don't know if this has been posted already: The St Louis police dept. is butt-hurt because some of the Rams players took to the field with their hands up in a "don't shoot" gesture.

They demand an apology 239

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Son of a Rich

I don't know if this has been posted already: The St Louis police dept. is butt-hurt because some of the Rams players took to the field with their hands up in a "don't shoot" gesture.

They demand an apology

What a fucking tone-deaf reaction that illustrates how very, very far they are from being able to connect with their community. On the other hand, that is exactly how things typically are in St. Louis. 240

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

What a fucking tone-deaf reaction that illustrates how very, very far they are from being able to connect with their community. On the other hand, that is exactly how things typically are in St. Louis.

I completely agree with you. Assuming, that is, you're talking about the football players who were being protected by police at that very game from the nearby "protesters". 241

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Folacin

Black man stopped for walking in the cold with his hands in his pockets -

One waits in vain for the people who say there's no problem with the way black people are generally treated by the police to explain this one. 242

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I completely agree with you. Assuming, that is, you're talking about the football players who were being protected by police at that very game from the nearby "protesters".

Why do the St. Louis Police deserve an apology? 243

[Chimera]

They don't. They're being whiny little bitches. 244

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I completely agree with you. Assuming, that is, you're talking about the football players who were being protected by police at that very game from the nearby "protesters".

Thanks for your interjection. Your ESL status continues to plague you; native speakers will not struggle to follow the exchange. But let me help you out again. The subject of the article to which I was responding was the complaints made by the St. Louis police.

I know you and I differ, and you struggle to express yourself well in English, but I do have to take a moment to say that for all that, you do a good job. Better than I would do writing in whatever your native language is!

The players, by the way, were in no danger from protestors. As black men, especially large black men, they are just doing exactly what every conservative here says they should do. It's incumbent upon them to not scare police. They should be lauded for keeping their hands away from their waistbands. 245

[Sicks Ate]

Something to consider...the man in this story had access to or had a gun on him, and was tasered...twice...and given the opportunity to actually fire shots himself before he was shot and killed. Now I can't find a picture of the guy, but knowing that area if I had to guess I'd say he's white.

I wonder if a black guy would have enjoyed the same use of force continuum?

http://www.komu.com/news/neighbors-r...lles-shooting/ 246

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Thanks for your interjection. Your ESL status continues to plague you; native speakers will not struggle to follow the exchange. But let me help you out again. The subject of the article to which I was responding was the complaints made by the St. Louis police.

I know you and I differ, and you struggle to express yourself well in English, but I do have to take a moment to say that for all that, you do a good job. Better than I would do writing in whatever your native language is!

The players, by the way, were in no danger from protestors. As black men, especially large black men, they are just doing exactly what every conservative here says they should do. It's incumbent upon them to not scare police. They should be lauded for keeping their hands away from their waistbands.

It's not that I don't understand English, you poltroon, it's that I find it hard to believe that anyone with a functioning brain would choose to write the drivel you do, that somehow manages to combine sanctimony, ignorance and arrogance in an almost unprecedented fashion. 247

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Something to consider...the man in this story had access to or had a gun on him, and was tasered...twice...and given the opportunity to actually fire shots himself before he was shot and killed. Now I can't find a picture of the guy, but knowing that area if I had to guess I'd say he's white.

I wonder if a black guy would have enjoyed the same use of force continuum?

http://www.komu.com/news/neighbors-r...lles-shooting/

He's white.

So, a deputy was shot and injured because he chose to use less lethal weaponry against an armed man. That's why people, including the police, are entitled to shoot first, if shooting is at all justified.

I'm becoming more convinced that black people aren't being treated unfairly badly by the police so much as white people being treated with unnecessary kid gloves. 248

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I'm becoming more convinced that black people aren't being treated unfairly badly by the police so much as white people being treated with unnecessary kid gloves.

At least you're acknowledging that black people are treated with a different standard by police than white people. That places you ahead of your peers here who remain racist as well as fascist. You want an iron fist of justice for all! 249

[Algher]

From Time on why Asian Americans should care about Ferguson:

http://time.com/3606900/ferguson-asian-americans/

There is the story of Kuanchang Kao, an intoxicated Chinese-American fatally shot in 1997 by police threatened by his “martial arts” moves. There is Cau Bich Tran, a Vietnamese-American killed in 2003 after holding a vegetable peeler, which police thought was a cleaver. There is Fong Lee, a Hmong-American shot to death in 2006 by police who believed he was carrying a gun. None of the three cases resulted in criminal charges against the police or in public campaigns that turned the victim’s memory into a commitment to seek justice.

250