Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4551  
Old 07-02-2015, 09:08 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
So, you're using words wrongly, and expecting people to get that. We're talking about statistics, and "significant" has a specific meaning, and you can't infer from raw data whether something is significant or not.
No, I'm just using words differently (in common parlance, and not in a specific statistical sense) than you might use them. If you want to claim victory on this, feel free. I think we've gotten to the bottom of this one.
  #4552  
Old 07-02-2015, 09:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Oh, I missed this bit. No, it's not obvious, and your continued assumption that it is proves that you are uninterested in looking at the facts, but only in supporting your preconceived views.
It's obvious that the "fear" explanation isn't an actual explanation or justification of the 21 times, specifically, any more than it would be an explanation or justification if the disparity was 1 million times. "Fear" doesn't tell us anything at all about statistics or numbers, so it's not useful in determining the cause of the specific 21 times disparity. Saying "fear" is the cause of the 21 times disparity isn't enough -- and I'm not sure how that's not obvious... do you seriously accept that "fear" is an adequate final conclusion as an explanation and justification for the 21 times disparity, with no more investigation warranted at all?

If the disparity in 1920 was 1000 times, would "increased fear" of young black men have been an adequate final explanation and justification? If not, why not?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-02-2015 at 09:12 AM.
  #4553  
Old 07-02-2015, 10:38 AM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No, I'm just using words differently (in common parlance, and not in a specific statistical sense) than you might use them. If you want to claim victory on this, feel free. I think we've gotten to the bottom of this one.
You are using words incorrectly, and by doing so failing to communicate well, and failing to understand what's actually being said. Significance is objective and measurable, and you still seem to fail to understand that.

If you want to say the statistics are interesting, or worrying, or merit further investigation say so, but don't presume the conclusion.
  #4554  
Old 07-02-2015, 10:48 AM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's obvious that the "fear" explanation isn't an actual explanation or justification of the 21 times, specifically
No. No, it isn't obvious. Cops have good reason to be more scared of young black men than others, why is it "obvious" that this cannot be an explanation for acting differently in a situation where the exact criterion for how one should behave is "reasonable fear"?

Quote:
do you seriously accept that "fear" is an adequate final conclusion as an explanation and justification for the 21 times disparity, with no more investigation warranted at all?
No. I believe that it's a reasonable explanation, and more reasonable than racism, due to the fact that the only people affected are those that are more violent. If you want to combat that view, please show that older black men, and black women, and if possible other races, are being disproportionately shot by the police.

Otherwise, the best explanation will be that which applies only to the group of young black men. Which is being at minimum 6 times more likely to commit violent crime than any other group.

Quote:
If the disparity in 1920 was 1000 times, would "increased fear" of young black men have been an adequate final explanation and justification? If not, why not?
No. Racism. We know that the police were killing people due to their race, and allowing others to do the same, at that point in time. We emphatically do not know that's happening now, despite having far more information.

If I'm wrong about that last point, please show some evidence that a cop has killed anyone in the last few years because they were black. Ideally, to say the difference is due in any part due to racism, you'd need to show that a significant amount were because of it, but we already know that sort of thinking is beyond you.
  #4555  
Old 07-02-2015, 11:14 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You are using words incorrectly, and by doing so failing to communicate well, and failing to understand what's actually being said. Significance is objective and measurable, and you still seem to fail to understand that.

If you want to say the statistics are interesting, or worrying, or merit further investigation say so, but don't presume the conclusion.
God what a silly etymological argument. My use of "significant" was an acceptable use of the word, but to avoid such silly arguments I'll switch to things like "possibly significant".
  #4556  
Old 07-02-2015, 11:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No. No, it isn't obvious. Cops have good reason to be more scared of young black men than others, why is it "obvious" that this cannot be an explanation for acting differently in a situation where the exact criterion for how one should behave is "reasonable fear"?
Because it tells us nothing (and can't tell us anything) about the numbers and provides no indication that 21 times is an appropriate disparity based on fear.

Quote:
No. I believe that it's a reasonable explanation, and more reasonable than racism, due to the fact that the only people affected are those that are more violent. If you want to combat that view, please show that older black men, and black women, and if possible other races, are being disproportionately shot by the police.
Most young black men are not violent, so in fact many non-violent people are affected by a policy/practice of greater likelihood of using force for the same behavior for young black men vice others.

Quote:
Otherwise, the best explanation will be that which applies only to the group of young black men. Which is being at minimum 6 times more likely to commit violent crime than any other group.
And yet the vast majority of young black men are not violent, and any greater response to peaceful young black men makes the problem worse and in the long run makes cops less safe. Every time a peaceful young black man is hassled or assaulted (or killed) by cops because a more fearful cop misconstrues mundane behavior for a threat, young black men have more rational justification to believe that the police are their enemy.

Quote:
No. Racism. We know that the police were killing people due to their race, and allowing others to do the same, at that point in time. We emphatically do not know that's happening now, despite having far more information.
We know that some cops are shooting non-violent black men (see Sean Groubert or the guy who shot the fleeing man then altered the evidence and lied about it, among others), and we know that this continues a trend of police killing non-violent black men that has continued for all of American history. I don't believe that we just happened to catch on video the only two instances in the last year or two of a cop shooting a non-violent black man.

<snipping the juvenile insults>

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-02-2015 at 11:20 AM.
  #4557  
Old 07-02-2015, 11:27 AM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
It doesn't matter whether the person shot was violent, it matters whether the cop's fear of imminent violence was reasonable. Do you understand that?
  #4558  
Old 07-02-2015, 11:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It doesn't matter whether the person shot was violent, it matters whether the cop's fear of imminent violence was reasonable. Do you understand that?
Both matter as societal problems -- police should extend every effort to not shoot non-violent people, and I don't believe they are extending enough effort in many cases. As to legal culpability, I understand that whether or not any fear of imminent violence was reasonable matters. For the Tamir Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that there is enough evidence to suggest that any possible fear was not reasonable that the shooter should be charged.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-02-2015 at 11:34 AM.
  #4559  
Old 07-02-2015, 11:41 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
So cops live in fear of young black males, and any movement or perceived movement signals a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

And not agreeing demonstrates an eagerness to see all police burned at the stake.
  #4560  
Old 07-02-2015, 11:55 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So cops live in fear of young black males, and any movement or perceived movement signals a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

And not agreeing demonstrates an eagerness to see all police burned at the stake.
It is a very nuanced stance, yes.
  #4561  
Old 07-02-2015, 11:57 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It doesn't matter whether the person shot was violent, it matters whether the cop's fear of imminent violence was reasonable.
In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens?

Last edited by Fear Itself; 07-02-2015 at 11:57 AM.
  #4562  
Old 07-02-2015, 12:39 PM
PatriotX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fayettenam
Posts: 7,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens?
That's the crux of the biscuit.
Is it a part of the job to protect the citizens?
If so, is it acceptable to ask a cop to risk his life to protect citizens.
  #4563  
Old 07-02-2015, 12:48 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So cops live in fear of young black males, and any movement or perceived movement signals a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.
No, it doesn't.

Quote:
And not agreeing demonstrates an eagerness to see all police burned at the stake.
No, it doesn't.
  #4564  
Old 07-02-2015, 12:54 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens?
The cop has as much right to defend himself from a perceived threat as anyone else. When defending himself, he is not acting as a cop, but as a person, with the same rights as anyone else.

It's reasonable to expect cops to go into situations which may be dangerous, but it's not reasonable to expect them not to defend themselves from imminent threats to their life. Indeed, they are provided with weapons and training precisely so they can defend themselves and others from such threats.

Cops are citizens, and are acting as such when they defend themselves, or defend others, from imminent death or serious injury. No-one, as far as I know, is arguing that cops should have more right to self defence than anyone else. It is reasonable, given that their job involves dealing with violent people on a regular basis, that they will need to defend themselves more often than many other people.
  #4565  
Old 07-02-2015, 12:56 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The cop has as much right to defend himself from a perceived threat as anyone else. When defending himself, he is not acting as a cop, but as a person, with the same rights as anyone else.
That's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.
  #4566  
Old 07-02-2015, 12:58 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Both matter as societal problems -- police should extend every effort to not shoot non-violent people, and I don't believe they are extending enough effort in many cases.
Should they be required to make more effort not to shoot non-violent people than anyone else would have to? If so, why? The standard is already that they have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. What higher standard would you impose on them?
  #4567  
Old 07-02-2015, 01:01 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.
Actually, it kinda does. Cops are citizens, so the question is unanswerable as it stands, short of just replying "no". I tried to explain why that is.

If it were legal for cops to shoot citizens in circumstances other than self defence or the defence of others, you would have a valid point. But they don't, they can shoot only when any other citizen could shoot. We should err on the side of the person being attacked (or who reasonably perceives that they are), not the attacker - whether that person is a cop or not.
  #4568  
Old 07-02-2015, 01:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Should they be required to make more effort not to shoot non-violent people than anyone else would have to? If so, why? The standard is already that they have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. What higher standard would you impose on them?
In general, yes (in my opinion) because they are trained on when to shoot and when not to shoot people. With such training they should be held to a higher standard of when it's "reasonable" to shoot someone. In my mind there are situations in which an untrained civilian might have a fear that would be reasonable, but a trained cop would not.

Similar to the legal perspective that a trained boxer must sometimes show greater restraint in a fistfight because they are much more capable of inflicting deadly force with their fists than an untrained person.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-02-2015 at 01:06 PM.
  #4569  
Old 07-02-2015, 01:24 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens?
(underline added)

"WE" created police forces to protect the citizenry. "WE" created laws that empowered police to detect, detain, arrest, and even forcibly arrest persons who violate, and allegedly violate, the laws within their jurisdictions.

"WE" can judge if a threat was an imminent threat, after the fact. "WE" can judge if it was reasonable to assume that an alleged imminent threat was actually an imminent threat, after the fact. "WE" must not deny a LEO the same reasonable assumption of imminent threat that every other person has. "WE" should not expect/demand that LEO's be punched, stabbed, shot, or murdered before they can reasonably assume they are in imminent danger.
  #4570  
Old 07-02-2015, 01:38 PM
PatriotX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fayettenam
Posts: 7,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It's reasonable to expect cops to go into situations which may be dangerous, but it's not reasonable to expect them not to defend themselves from imminent threats to their life. Indeed, they are provided with weapons and training precisely so they can defend themselves and others from such threats.
The question is about making the judgements distinguishing between the two situations--dangerous and imminent threat.

You are discussing what is to happen after that determination has already been made.

Why shouldn't someone who duty is to deal with dangerous situations not be expected to analyze situations differently than Joe Schmoe does?
Joe Schmoe should exercise the necessary caution of an untrained individual while a trained professional should be expected to react based upon the additional duties he has taken on himself when he is analyzing a situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The standard is already that they have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. What higher standard would you impose on them?
There should be an affirmative duty to not create life or death situations--e.g. rolling right up next to [s]Tamir[/s] a gunman and jumping out of the vehicle.
  #4571  
Old 07-02-2015, 01:39 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, it doesn't.



No, it doesn't.
Your argument is a jigsaw puzzle that when solved shows a picture you claim to dislike.
  #4572  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:13 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Your argument is a jigsaw puzzle that when solved shows a picture you claim to dislike.
Not even slightly. You are simply falsely claiming that maintaining the current laws, where police can defend themselves against imminent threats, will somehow lead to every black person being shot - despite the fact that, not only is that not happening now, it never happened in the past when cops, and everyone else, would have had a much easier time getting away with doing so illegally.
  #4573  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:17 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotX View Post
Is it a part of the job to protect the citizens?
If so, is it acceptable to ask a cop to risk his life to protect citizens.
If citizens have an inherent right to protect their own lives, then you're essentially saying that a person's employer can require them to forfeit their human rights as a condition of taking a job.
  #4574  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:19 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Not even slightly. You are simply falsely claiming that maintaining the current laws, where police can defend themselves against imminent threats, will somehow lead to every black person being shot - despite the fact that, not only is that not happening now, it never happened in the past when cops, and everyone else, would have had a much easier time getting away with doing so illegally.
Oh, I'm not making any such claim. I'm describing the logical end result of what you're claiming.


Well, and what Smapti's claiming, too; you hardly deserve sole credit.
  #4575  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:20 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In general, yes (in my opinion) because they are trained on when to shoot and when not to shoot people. With such training they should be held to a higher standard of when it's "reasonable" to shoot someone. In my mind there are situations in which an untrained civilian might have a fear that would be reasonable, but a trained cop would not.
The standard is not whether a trained person, or an ignorant person, or whatever, would feel fear, it's whether a reasonable person would. If you reasonably fear someone is an imminent threat to your life, you can shoot them. No matter whether you're a cop or a civilian. You're right that they are trained when to shoot people - they are trained to shoot them when they are an imminent threat.

Quote:
Similar to the legal perspective that a trained boxer must sometimes show greater restraint in a fistfight because they are much more capable of inflicting deadly force with their fists than an untrained person.
That would only matter if the fistfight was illegal in the first place. If someone attacked the boxer, and he defended using his fists, it wouldn't - if the attack put him in enough reasonable fear.

Now, if you want to argue that cops should know better than others when it's legal to shoot someone, and therefore those that break that law should be punished more harshly, I could at least understand that argument. But you are arguing that even if they are in a situation that would put a reasonable person in fear of imminent death, there are times they should not be allowed to defend themselves. I entirely reject that.
  #4576  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:22 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Oh, I'm not making any such claim. I'm describing the logical end result of what you're claiming.
No, you are not. You are making something up that has nothing to do with our arguments, based on an intentional refusal to understand the meaning of the word "imminent", among other things.

It doesn't matter how fearful someone is, if what they fear isn't imminent injury or death, they can't use lethal force in self defence.
  #4577  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:41 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, you are not. You are making something up that has nothing to do with our arguments, based on an intentional refusal to understand the meaning of the word "imminent", among other things.

It doesn't matter how fearful someone is, if what they fear isn't imminent injury or death, they can't use lethal force in self defence.
I know what "imminent" means, it's just not useful if the standard for it is so low that a slight hand movement (if it happens) generates a free-fire zone.

And wait a tick, you're saying there are circumstances where someone can't use lethal force in self defense? Interesting, in light of:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan earlier this month View Post
The idea that the police can't use lethal force to defend themselves or others without first trying something else and warning the person who is an imminent danger to either the police or the public is fucking ridiculous.
So a cop can decide that an imminent threat is manifested in a perceived hand movement (or at least he can later claim he perceived a hand movement) and the idea that he should hesitate to resort to deadly force in response is fucking ridiculous.
  #4578  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:49 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The standard is not whether a trained person, or an ignorant person, or whatever, would feel fear, it's whether a reasonable person would. If you reasonably fear someone is an imminent threat to your life, you can shoot them. No matter whether you're a cop or a civilian. You're right that they are trained when to shoot people - they are trained to shoot them when they are an imminent threat.
It's probably just as valuable to train someone to not to bring the threat themselves. Heck, this is somewhat akin to putting on a suicide vest lined with explosives that might or might not go off if someone bumps into you. As a result, every passing pedestrian poses an imminent threat and through the simple logic of self-defense, you have the right to end that threat with lethal force.

The lesson should be: don't wear explosives and don't jump out of cars with weapons drawn without some degree of forethought.
  #4579  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The standard is not whether a trained person, or an ignorant person, or whatever, would feel fear, it's whether a reasonable person would. If you reasonably fear someone is an imminent threat to your life, you can shoot them. No matter whether you're a cop or a civilian. You're right that they are trained when to shoot people - they are trained to shoot them when they are an imminent threat.
And, in my view, there are things that would cause a "reasonable civilian" to feel fear that wouldn't cause a "reasonable trained police officer" to feel fear, but I'm not sure if the law agrees with me.

In any case, from the Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that the shooter (whether judged as a cop or civilian) should be charged, and that the video does not show any legitimate cause of "reasonable fear".
  #4580  
Old 07-02-2015, 02:58 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In any case, from the Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that the shooter (whether judged as a cop or civilian) should be charged, and that the video does not show any legitimate cause of "reasonable fear".
I also agree with the learned and able jurist.
  #4581  
Old 07-02-2015, 03:06 PM
drachillix is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 192.168.0.1
Posts: 9,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
If it were legal for cops to shoot citizens in circumstances other than self defence or the defence of others, you would have a valid point. But they don't, they can shoot only when any other citizen could shoot. We should err on the side of the person being attacked (or who reasonably perceives that they are), not the attacker - whether that person is a cop or not.
actually they can shoot in some other circumstances, IIRC the term is "use of lethal force in obtaining arrest"

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_...UseofForce.asp
  #4582  
Old 07-02-2015, 04:14 PM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotX View Post
There should be an affirmative duty to not create life or death situations--e.g. rolling right up next to [s]Tamir[/s] a gunman and jumping out of the vehicle.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think this is a key point.

For an extreme example, imagine this: cops obtain a warrant to search a house. They enter, and find it empty. Then they are notified that the occupant is returning home. So they hide around the living room until the guy walks in, then they suddenly jump out, bright flashlights in his eyes, and yell "GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR!!!!!". This action makes it fairly predictable that this startled person, likely (at least in the cops' minds) to be an armed criminal, will react in some way that either is, or appears to be, reaching for a gun.

So the precise details of the situation are this: cops in a house, suspect who they have reason to believe is a criminal (since they did get a warrant) is confronting them, they have issued a lawful command (get down on the floor), and he is not doing so, and is instead reaching for a gun (or at least doing something that looks a lot like that). That seems, in micro, to be pretty clear self defense.

But if we take a step back and look at the totality of the choices the cops made, it's abundantly clear that, intentionally or not, the choices the cops made along the way greatly contributed to the likelihood of the civilian being killed (and, for that matter, the likelihood of a cop being killed). If that scenario played out and the civilian (whether or not he turned out to have been guilty of whatever the warrant was for in the first place) ended up dead, I would want it to be the case that some law or policy would hold the cops responsible for his death... maybe not as murder, but at least as some sort of reckless endangerment or manslaughter.

I don't know if any such law exists anywhere in the US, or how precisely it could be formulated, but I believe ethically that it should, and that it would at least arguably apply in the case of Tamir Rice.
  #4583  
Old 07-02-2015, 04:25 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by drachillix View Post
actually they can shoot in some other circumstances, IIRC the term is "use of lethal force in obtaining arrest"

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_...UseofForce.asp
That cite also says that private citizens are allowed to use deadly force in arresting a violent felon, the difference is they can't do so based on reasonable belief, only on fact.

I don't think this distinction is relevant to any of the cases in this thread, but if there's anyone who's been shot because the police reasonably believed he was a violent felon, but were wrong, it'll be worth discussing.
  #4584  
Old 07-02-2015, 04:26 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think this is a key point.

For an extreme example, imagine this: cops obtain a warrant to search a house. They enter, and find it empty. Then they are notified that the occupant is returning home. So they hide around the living room until the guy walks in, then they suddenly jump out, bright flashlights in his eyes, and yell "GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR!!!!!".
Worst surprise-party ever.
  #4585  
Old 07-02-2015, 04:32 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I know what "imminent" means, it's just not useful if the standard for it is so low that a slight hand movement (if it happens) generates a free-fire zone.
A slight hand movement towards a gun, when someone's been specifically ordered by a cop to do something else? Yes, that obviously reaches the standard. A slight hand movement by someone the cop hasn't talked to, and has no reason to believe is armed? No, of course not. Do you really not see the difference?

Quote:
And wait a tick, you're saying there are circumstances where someone can't use lethal force in self defense? Interesting, in light of:
They may only use force if they are reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious injury. In that circumstance, if they are correct, not only should they not hesitate to use force, but doing so would lead to death or serious injury.


Quote:
So a cop can decide that an imminent threat is manifested in a perceived hand movement (or at least he can later claim he perceived a hand movement) and the idea that he should hesitate to resort to deadly force in response is fucking ridiculous.
Why would you expect someone to hesitate when faced with imminent death? If you do that, you will be dead.
  #4586  
Old 07-02-2015, 04:33 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
simple logic
Based on your posts in this thread so far, this is not something you should be confident in discussing.
  #4587  
Old 07-02-2015, 04:41 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And, in my view, there are things that would cause a "reasonable civilian" to feel fear that wouldn't cause a "reasonable trained police officer" to feel fear, but I'm not sure if the law agrees with me.
Not in the same circumstance, no - but as you say, a cop having more training than a civilian might change the circumstances, and whoever is making the determination should take that into account.

They should also take into account the fact that cops are, by necessity, forcing confrontations with armed and dangerous people, whereas most citizens will move away and call the police. Such as in the Tamir Rice case, where the scared observer didn't shoot him, but called the cops.

Quote:
In any case, from the Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that the shooter (whether judged as a cop or civilian) should be charged, and that the video does not show any legitimate cause of "reasonable fear".
The video when combined with the knowledge that he had a realistic replica gun, and the fact that the police only had a report that he had a gun - no mention that it was a replica or a toy - is, as a point of fact, consistent with the argument that the cop was in reasonable fear. It certainly does nothing to disprove that, and in my view provides some evidence for it - we see Rice reaching for the gun.

As far as I understand it, the judge's ruling is binding on no-one, and is not based on a full investigation of the evidence. I'll wait for the prosecutor and if appropriate the grand jury.
  #4588  
Old 07-02-2015, 04:49 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
A slight hand movement towards a gun, when someone's been specifically ordered by a cop to do something else? Yes, that obviously reaches the standard. A slight hand movement by someone the cop hasn't talked to, and has no reason to believe is armed? No, of course not. Do you really not see the difference?
Which of those descriptions, if either, fits the Tamir Rice situation?

Quote:
They may only use force if they are reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious injury. In that circumstance, if they are correct, not only should they not hesitate to use force, but doing so would lead to death or serious injury.
Okay. Now train them not to create situations that only become potentially deadly upon their arrival.

Quote:
Why would you expect someone to hesitate when faced with imminent death? If you do that, you will be dead.
Then I requote my "hierarchy of risk" list from earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So let's delineate the hierarchy of risk:
  • If a suspect points a gun at police, it is not reasonable to expect they they wait until shots are fired before defending themselves. That's how cops end up dead.
  • If a suspect has a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to wait until it is pointed at them before defending themselves. That's how cops end up dead.
  • If a suspect has what looks like a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume it is a toy or a fake, or unloaded, before defending themselves. That's how cops end up dead.
  • If a suspect looks like they might have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to wait until it is plainly visible before defending themselves. That's how cops end up dead.
  • If a suspect doesn't look like they have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume the suspect doesn't have a gun. That's how cops end up dead.
  • If a suspect looks like they don't have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume the suspect does not have a gun. That's how cops end up dead.

And so forth.
Cops in your world are quivering hypersensitive little critters, aren't they?
  #4589  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:02 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Which of those descriptions, if either, fits the Tamir Rice situation?
Depends if you believe the police gave him instructions before they fired. If so, the first is exactly appropriate, if not it's only mostly appropriate.

Quote:
Okay. Now train them not to create situations that only become potentially deadly upon their arrival.
You think the guy who called the cops about Tamir Rice didn't think it was a potentially deadly situation? He certainly did, as did the operator who dispatched the cops. The biggest problem seems to be that the police weren't told the whole story - that the caller thought it was quite possibly a kid with a fake gun.

But unless Rice was completely unaware of the police car approaching, then the idea that it was the cops who created the deadly situation is wrong.

Quote:
Cops in your world are quivering hypersensitive little critters, aren't they?
No, and certainly not in this case.
  #4590  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:09 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Based on your posts in this thread so far, this is not something you should be confident in discussing.
I feel no insult because you have no power to create one.
  #4591  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:28 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Based on your posts in this thread so far, this is not something you should be confident in discussing.
Are you using that word in the statistical sense? Should he be 95% confident?
  #4592  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The video when combined with the knowledge that he had a realistic replica gun, and the fact that the police only had a report that he had a gun - no mention that it was a replica or a toy - is, as a point of fact, consistent with the argument that the cop was in reasonable fear. It certainly does nothing to disprove that, and in my view provides some evidence for it - we see Rice reaching for the gun.
We disagree about the content of the video. From the video, I see nothing that could cause the cop to reasonably fear for his life.

That's what we disagree on. I don't think we're going to bridge that disagreement in this thread.

Quote:
As far as I understand it, the judge's ruling is binding on no-one, and is not based on a full investigation of the evidence. I'll wait for the prosecutor and if appropriate the grand jury.
I'll wait too, and I'm hopeful that a full and clear story comes out. If there is no additional evidence on top of the video that in any way exonerates the shooter, I agree with Adrine that he should face trial.
  #4593  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:35 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
Are you using that word in the statistical sense? Should he be 95% confident?
He should be beyond reasonable confidence.
  #4594  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:36 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Depends if you believe the police gave him instructions before they fired. If so, the first is exactly appropriate, if not it's only mostly appropriate.
In the two seconds as they got out of the car? No, I don't actually believe they gave him instructions. They may have shouted stuff at him, but part of "giving instructions" must include giving a chance for instructions to be heard and understood, or it's a waste of breath.

Quote:
You think the guy who called the cops about Tamir Rice didn't think it was a potentially deadly situation? He certainly did, as did the operator who dispatched the cops. The biggest problem seems to be that the police weren't told the whole story - that the caller thought it was quite possibly a kid with a fake gun.
Sure, they assumed the worst and were hair-trigger sensitive to, if the situation wasn't already the worst, making it the worst.

Quote:
But unless Rice was completely unaware of the police car approaching, then the idea that it was the cops who created the deadly situation is wrong.
I'm okay with the idea that he saw the car approaching but even then, Rice was never in a position to be deadly to anyone. It was police who brought the bullets. What do you think Rice should have done as he saw the car approaching? Throw his hands in the air? Throw himself to the ground?

Quote:
No, and certainly not in this case.
I don't know what justifies that "certainly not", in this case.
  #4595  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:40 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We disagree about the content of the video. From the video, I see nothing that could cause the cop to reasonably fear for his life.
So you keep saying. Even if we grant that, so what? That doesn't give you cause to think he wasn't in such fear. You need evidence that he wasn't in fear for his life. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, and the video is entirely consistent with the story that the cop thought Rice was reaching for his gun, shot him, and then ran to hide behind the car. It doesn't even hint at disproving that.
  #4596  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:42 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
He should be beyond reasonable confidence.
Well, perhaps we could format a proper analysis, with null and alternate hypothesis, a well-defined sample set and a decision rule - if we were going to insist on applying statistical analysis, a subject in which I have some university-level education.

Or you could just admit that you are fond of prevarication and evasive when it is used against you.
  #4597  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
So you keep saying. Even if we grant that, so what? That doesn't give you cause to think he wasn't in such fear. You need evidence that he wasn't in fear for his life. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, and the video is entirely consistent with the story that the cop thought Rice was reaching for his gun, shot him, and then ran to hide behind the car. It doesn't even hint at disproving that.
If Loehmann could get that fearful that fast, I question his ability to not be a danger to the public.

If Loehmann was fearful even before the car stopped.... same question. What's with the action-movie approach, anyway? It's not like there were potential hostages milling around.
  #4598  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
So you keep saying. Even if we grant that, so what? That doesn't give you cause to think he wasn't in such fear. You need evidence that he wasn't in fear for his life. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, and the video is entirely consistent with the story that the cop thought Rice was reaching for his gun, shot him, and then ran to hide behind the car. It doesn't even hint at disproving that.
The video is definitely not consistent with the shooter's story -- it showed his story to be false in many ways (and we already went over those lies/false-statements). I suppose he might be able to come up with some other story consistent with the video, but I haven't heard such a story yet (and the video is not consistent with Rice reaching for his gun by my eyes). We'll see, I suppose.
  #4599  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:48 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
If Loehmann could get that fearful that fast, I question his ability to not be a danger to the public.

If Loehmann was fearful even before the car stopped.... same question. What's with the action-movie approach, anyway? It's not like there were potential hostages milling around.
Maybe they should have had Jack Reacher take Tamir out with a head shot from a 1000 yds...just to be safe.
  #4600  
Old 07-02-2015, 05:51 PM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
In the two seconds as they got out of the car? No, I don't actually believe they gave him instructions. They may have shouted stuff at him, but part of "giving instructions" must include giving a chance for instructions to be heard and understood, or it's a waste of breath.
It takes a lot less that 2 seconds to freeze, or to put your hands up. And you are assuming that they didn't say anything as they approached. Why?

Quote:
Sure, they assumed the worst and were hair-trigger sensitive to, if the situation wasn't already the worst, making it the worst.
No, they didn't make it the worst by any means, The worst would have been if Rice had been armed, as the police had good reason to believe, and all 3 people at the scene were killed.

Quote:
I'm okay with the idea that he saw the car approaching but even then, Rice was never in a position to be deadly to anyone.
If only the police had been psychic. They had good reason to believe he was a deadly threat.

Quote:
It was police who brought the bullets. What do you think Rice should have done as he saw the car approaching? Throw his hands in the air? Throw himself to the ground?
Anything at all apart from reach for a gun.

Quote:
I don't know what justifies that "certainly not", in this case.
They had good reason to believe they were about to be shot. Defending yourself in that situation doesn't make anyone "hypersensitive", for fuck's sake.

Do you genuinely only expect people to wait until they've actually been shot to defend themselves? If not, at what point in the fractions of a second between someone reaching for a gun and pulling the trigger does the threat become imminent enough for you?

Unless the cops told him to throw the gun on the ground, there was no reason for him to act as he did.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017