Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-13-2020, 07:07 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How does three anecdotes over 12 years disprove "And cops rarely have second hand shooting victims, they know their back drop."?

Or were you agreeing with me, that it rarely happens?
What, you need me to post every single incident that's ever happened? Three is sufficient, and they're hardly anecdotes.

Last edited by GreysonCarlisle; 02-13-2020 at 07:08 PM.
  #102  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:43 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Right. No rolleyes. Better than the current situation in which the police get to execute civilians with impunity.
So that Florida Deputy that did nothing while children were getting gunned down is a hero rather than a coward complicit in their murders?
  #103  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:16 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
...
I think any police officer who shoots a civilian should be as thoroughly investigated as if I would be if I were to shoot someone. This includes prosecuting and jailing them if the shooting cannot be fully justified.

If this drives people away from policing, so much the better. ....
They are. But you see- you usually have a motive. Police officers have no motive in a police shooting- they want to protect themselves and the public. Yes, a error of judgement can be made- and is made too often. But they dont go out thinking "Today I will find and shoot Robby."


We have a police shortage.
  #104  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:23 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
So that Florida Deputy that did nothing while children were getting gunned down is a hero rather than a coward complicit in their murders?
Of course not. That was certainly a situation in which deadly force would have been justified. But there are far too many cases in which it is not, like the unarmed woman who was shot and killed for startling a police officer -- after calling 911 to report a possible assault; or the 12-year old boy holding a toy gun who was shot and killed by police within seconds of arriving on the scene; or the unarmed man executed by police at close range with an AR-15 while obeying their orders and begging for his life.
  #105  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:45 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
...Police officers have no motive in a police shooting- they want to protect themselves and the public.
It's telling that even in defending the police, you prioritize the police wanting to protect themselves before protecting the public.

And you're wrong. Police do often have a motive. They were disrespected. Or someone didn't follow their contradictory and/or unheard and/or unintelligible screamed commands quickly enough. Or they were startled, or fearful that someone was going to hurt them first. And since in nearly all cases, police officers are not punished for killing an unarmed civilian, they have little reason for restraint. After all, all they have to do is to recite the magic phrase, "I was in fear for my life," whether that is true or not, and even if true, whether that fear is justified or not...and they get off scot-free.
  #106  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:59 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
But there are far too many cases in which it is not,
Actually there aren't. You are cherry picking a few cases out of the overwhelmingly majority police shootings over the decades that are deemed justified by prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate. And those shootings themselves are a rarity among the millions of public contacts law enforcement officers make every year. A police involved shooting is a very rare occurrence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
It's telling that even in defending the police, you prioritize the police wanting to protect themselves before protecting the public.
An officer can't protect anyone if he/she themselves get gunned down.

Can you please tell us what your training and experience is in law enforcement, rules of engagement, public safety dynamics, self defense laws and policies & procedures regarding lethal force applications before you continue to impress us with your expertise in the way things ought to be? I am fascinated by your grasp of reality of how more dead cops equal a safer populace.
  #107  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:35 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Actually there aren't. You are cherry picking a few cases out of the overwhelmingly majority police shootings over the decades that are deemed justified by prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate.
First off, the "prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate" police are inherently biased in favor of the police, so their finding that a given shooting was supposedly justified doesn't hold much water. Even when a particularly egregious shooting is deemed unjustified and a police officer is charged, it is more likely than not that the officer will be acquitted.

Of the three police shootings I supposedly cherry-picked (actually they were just the first three that came to my mind), only one officer was actually convicted (the minority officer who shot and killed a white woman). The officer who shot an killed the 12-year old boy was never even charged, and the officer who executed the man begging for his life was charged but acquitted.

In any event, it's not like these are the only three shootings by police in recent years. Over 1,000 people were shot and killed by U.S. police in 2019. Police shootings are a leading cause of death for young men in the United States, especially young black men. American police shoot and kill far more people than their peers in other countries, dwarfing the rate of other industrialized countries.

I'm astonished that you would seriously argue that there aren't too many police shootings in America today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
...And those shootings themselves are a rarity among the millions of public contacts law enforcement officers make every year. A police involved shooting is a very rare occurrence.
There are over 44,000 flights serving 2.7 million airline passengers every day in the U.S. That's over 16,000,000 flights in the U.S. every year. In the last 20 years, just four (4) of these millions of U.S. flights were hijacked. Those four flights were an infinitesimally small percentage of the flights that weren't hijacked -- no one could argue they weren't a very rare occurrence (four hijackings out of millions and millions of flights). Yet we completely revamped security procedures, created a new federal agency, and invaded a country in response. Rare or not, we as a country decided that four hijackings out of millions of flights was not acceptable.

Over the last 50 years or so, we also decided that the number of automobile fatalities were unacceptable. Fatalities per capita have decreased steadily since the last peak around 1970, mainly because of the billions of dollars we have spent building safer cars, with airbags and other safety features now required, along with mandatory seat belt usage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
An officer can't protect anyone if he/she themselves get gunned down.
It's only in the minds of police that they are convinced that they will be "gunned down" if they don't shoot first. That's a war zone mentality that should have no place in a supposedly civilized society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Can you please tell us what your training and experience is in law enforcement, rules of engagement, public safety dynamics, self defense laws and policies & procedures regarding lethal force applications before you continue to impress us with your expertise in the way things ought to be?
I'm not going to get into a fallacious argument from authority with respect to dueling credentials. I know you are a police officer. Instead of simply defending police shootings, why don't you use your expertise to address the problem and propose possible solutions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I am fascinated by your grasp of reality of how more dead cops equal a safer populace.
Sure you are. This is another false dichotomy. The choice is not "dead cops" vs. "safer populace." If police weren't so quick to shoot people, they might counter-intuitively actually increase their own personal safety. It's not necessarily in their own best interest to so frequently escalate interactions with the public to the use of deadly force, and it would surely reduce tensions in the community. The populace would also surely be safer if the police would stop shooting them.

The bottom line is that policing is broken in this country. As I noted above, I fear and distrust the police today, and I'm a middle-aged white male. Is that really the kind of country we want want to live in?
  #108  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:43 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
.

I'm not going to get into a fallacious argument from authority with respect to dueling credentials. I know you are a police officer. Instead of simply defending police shootings, why don't you use your expertise to address the problem and propose possible solutions?...
If you had read Argument_from_authority you would have learned that a expert in the field under discussion is a exception. If we are talking Physics, you can use Einstein as your authority and it's not a fallacy. So, pkbites is a expert, and thus no fallacy.
  #109  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:38 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If you had read Argument_from_authority you would have learned that a expert in the field under discussion is a exception. If we are talking Physics, you can use Einstein as your authority and it's not a fallacy. So, pkbites is a expert, and thus no fallacy.
On the contrary, it doesn't appear that you actually read the linked article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."
The closest the article comes to mentioning a possible exception to the fallacy is if all parties to the argument agree that the authority in question is an expert (like Einstein in the case of physics), but even this is fraught. Too many supposed experts have been proven wrong throughout the history of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.
I don't doubt that pkbites, as a police officer, is knowledgeable about policing. But with respect to the subject matter under discussion (the problem of excessive use of deadly force by police), I don't agree that his being a police officer necessarily makes him an expert, to the point that the discussion is over solely because of his credentials. Indeed, one might argue that, being a police officer, he is so close to the issue as to be unable to step back and see the problem with unbiased eyes. For example, I would be surprised if his training has included a detailed comparison of the use of deadly force in the U.S. versus that of other countries -- especially since his knee-jerk response to any suggestion that police in the U.S. should limit their use of deadly force will surely result in "dead cops."

This being Great Debates, it would be nice to actually debate the issue. Instead, in his last post, pkbites attempted to short-circuit the debate by mockingly questioning my credentials.
  #110  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:15 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 467
The problem is that cops are deliberately selected to be stupid and aggressive.

It's not a bug it's a feature.
  #111  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:56 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
The problem is that cops are deliberately selected to be stupid and aggressive.

It's not a bug it's a feature.
Cite?

I’ve served on hiring committees for several different large metropolitan departments. Candidates who tested on the advanced psych tests as highly aggressive as opposed to assertive are routinely rejected even if they passed every other test and assessment. My cite is my own experience. What is yours, please?

Would those of you who insist an officer not fire at an obvious lethal threat until actually fired at hold regular citizens to the same standard? An articulated fear of imminent death is a justifiable reason to apply lethal force regardless of who you are. Grand juries are comprised of common citizens and yet they routinely decline to indite officers or anyone else who use force to defend themselves and/or others. Where is their bias?
  #112  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:56 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Would those of you who insist an officer not fire at an obvious lethal threat until actually fired at hold regular citizens to the same standard?
Yes. Indeed, I would argue this is already the case for regular citizens. If I shoot and kill another person, you can be sure that I will be arrested, prosecuted, and likely convicted. The presumption will be that the shooting was not justified, even if I insist I was in fear for my life.

Not to mention the fact that police define an “obvious lethal threat” so broadly as to render it meaningless. That same deference is not granted to regular citizens. A police officer can kill a 12-year old kid playing with a toy gun and not even be charged. Were I to do the same, there is not a doubt in my mind that I would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
An articulated fear of imminent death is a justifiable reason to apply lethal force regardless of who you are.
The problem with this statement is that the people who investigate the application of deadly force are biased to believe a police officer, and are not inclined to believe a civilian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Grand juries are comprised of common citizens and yet they routinely decline to indite officers or anyone else who use force to defend themselves and/or others. Where is their bias?
Why juries have a hard time convicting cops

Why do juries acquit police officers of brutality?

The Deck Is Stacked in Favor of the Police
  #113  
Old 02-15-2020, 12:36 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
The problem is that cops are deliberately selected to be stupid and aggressive.

It's not a bug it's a feature.
This is absolutely false. When I was on the Civil Grand Jury we carefully went over the selections process, and the psych eval took all those guys out. And they had to have a IQ above average.

Now, if you wanna argue that getting inured to all the bad shit, and becoming callous because of that, then yes, that is problem, and I dont think pkbites will disagree here. It happens to too many cops.
  #114  
Old 02-15-2020, 08:58 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Actually there aren't. You are cherry picking a few cases out of the overwhelmingly majority police shootings over the decades that are deemed justified by prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate. And those shootings themselves are a rarity among the millions of public contacts law enforcement officers make every year. A police involved shooting is a very rare occurrence.

.
The fact that we can say “the overwhelming majority of“ in relation to shootings is the actual problem here. Other countries can’t say “we reviewed 1,000 police shootings” to determine if they were justified, because they don’t have thousands of shootings every year to analyze. In our country we have individual events where our police use more bullets than UK police fire in an entire year.

You can SAY every single bullet was justified but the fundamental problem remains.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #115  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:10 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Yes. Indeed, I would argue this is already the case for regular citizens. If I shoot and kill another person, you can be sure that I will be arrested, prosecuted, and likely convicted. The presumption will be that the shooting was not justified, even if I insist I was in fear for my life.
[/URL]
Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Private citizens shoot and injure or kill people every day and it’s ruled justified without a prosecution or trial.

People who kill someone claiming they feared for their life when facts show a reasonable person wouldn’t have, yes they may be prosecuted. The same standard is applied to police. The handful of exceptions you’re deluding yourself with are just that, exceptions.

And laws like castle doctrines and stand your ground laws were put in place to bolster self defense privileges and to spare the innocent of erroneous prosecutions. Your beliefs are simply not true. Every single case has to be judged by it’s own facts and not on the absurd blanket that you want to throw on.

Last edited by pkbites; 02-15-2020 at 02:11 PM.
  #116  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:22 PM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
castle doctrines and stand your ground laws were put in place to bolster self defense privileges
self defense rights, not privileges.

As for the rest of your post... when a non-LEO defends himself with a gun, he is more-or-less presumed guilty by the courts until proven innocent. There's no QI. Even if it was a good shoot, the good guy must still hire an expensive legal firm because the bad guy's family will surly sue him in civil court.

When an LEO is involved in a shooting, he is assumed innocent, has QI, and a union to back him up.
  #117  
Old 02-15-2020, 05:43 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
self defense rights, not privileges.

As for the rest of your post... when a non-LEO defends himself with a gun, he is more-or-less presumed guilty by the courts until proven innocent. There's no QI. Even if it was a good shoot, the good guy must still hire an expensive legal firm because the bad guy's family will surly sue him in civil court.

When an LEO is involved in a shooting, he is assumed innocent, has QI, and a union to back him up.
The big difference that many are missing when comparing LEO shooting vs. other people shootings is that LEOs are charged with making arrests and running towards the danger. If there is a bank robbery in progress, I sit in my office with my gun in the drawer and listen to it on the police scanner. The police get in their cars and drive towards the bank with the duty to arrest the bank robber if they find him.

And they do this over and over and over again. The have no idea of knowing if the speeder they just pulled over just killed his wife and is driving away. Now, that's not to say that every speeder should be treated as if a murderer, but the officer must have a sixth sense about it. Basically every interaction could be a deadly one for a police officer unlike in other professions.

That is why QI is important. If they clearly overstep their bounds, then yes, make them pay. If they made a bad guess in a grey area, then don't.

Being a criminal defense attorney, you would think I would be anti-police, but in my experience, the overwhelming majority of them are pretty good guys. You see the bad apples, but I am impressed by the general honesty and the desire to do what is right of police officers.

When the bad apples get up there and testi-lie or manufacture PC, the judge and everyone knows it, and the other police officers hate it because it makes them look bad. This "blue wall" stuff is not widespread and represents the vast minority of police.
  #118  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:56 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
self defense rights, not privileges.
Cite?

While I agree that there is a natural right to self defense, I live in the real world unlike quite a few others on these boards.

And I can only base my posts on the laws of the state I am charged with enforcing. My state, unfortunately, classifies self defense as a privilege, not a right.

Wisconsin 939.48. YMMV depending on location.
  #119  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:58 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Cite?

While I agree that there is a natural right to self defense, I live in the real world unlike quite a few others on these boards.

And I can only base my posts on the laws of the state I am charged with enforcing. My state, unfortunately, classifies self defense as a privilege, not a right.

Wisconsin 939.48. YMMV depending on location.
Does that include police officers illegally detaining me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
When the bad apples get up there and testi-lie or manufacture PC, the judge and everyone knows it, and the other police officers hate it because it makes them look bad. This "blue wall" stuff is not widespread and represents the vast minority of police.
That's why Baltimore police officers immediately turned on their corrupt counterparts, instead of it taking FBI involvement and almost 15 years for the rot to be exposed.
  #120  
Old 02-17-2020, 06:10 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Yes. Indeed, I would argue this is already the case for regular citizens. If I shoot and kill another person, you can be sure that I will be arrested, prosecuted, and likely convicted. The presumption will be that the shooting was not justified, even if I insist I was in fear for my life.
The glaring problem with your absolutist position, one that is completely unsubstantiated as well I might add, is that it is easily disproven by even one contradictory example. And there are countless instances of people claiming to have shot someone in self-defense and not being arrested or prosecuted. And even if prosecuted there are many more examples of persons successfully asserting self-defense in a pre-trial motion or acquitted after trial.

Unsurprisingly, it kinda seems to correlate to the particular fact pattern of the shooting. Sometimes the facts are obvious or largely undisputed and if the shooting is determined by the prosecutor to be legally justified under those facts then no arrest or prosecution typically occurs. And sometimes the facts are not obvious or are disputed, or the application of the law is disputed, and we use courts to determine what the facts are and how the law applies to those facts. Since there is a practically infinite number of fact patterns that can involve self-defense, that kind of flexibility regarding procedure and even outcome seems like a real good idea, i.e. a feature, not a bug. So, no, your argument that a "regular citizen" is "sure" to be "arrested, prosecuted, and likely convicted" for claiming self-defense in a shooting, regardless of the particular facts, is not only completely wrong, it's wrong to the point of ridiculous hyperbole.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Robby View Post
Not to mention the fact that police define an “obvious lethal threat” so broadly as to render it meaningless. That same deference is not granted to regular citizens. A police officer can kill a 12-year old kid playing with a toy gun and not even be charged. Were I to do the same, there is not a doubt in my mind that I would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.
And what exactly is the source of this certitude? Facts? Statistics? Did this actually happen to you and a cop under the exact same fact pattern and they were acquitted and you were convicted? None of those? Just a general good, "certain" feeling?

And cops don't determine for themselves what constitutes a "lethal threat" or a generally justified shooting. Ultimately the courts do that. And given the practically infinite variation for fact patterns I mentioned earlier, a court could rationally find a situation where a reasonable person, cop or not, could mistake a toy for a lethal threat and react with lethal force and find it justified, even if the threat never actually existed. Conversely, under different facts both could be convicted. Or either of the two could be convicted and the other exonerated. See the particular facts are really important and that kind of variation doesn't lend itself to the sweeping generalizations you keep attempting to make.

Of course it is possible, in some situations, for a LEO to be treated differently than a regular citizen under the law. That's kind of the point in those situations. That's why we have a professional police force (a fairly recent invention) and otherwise we might as well go back to the "hue and cry" and posses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robby View Post
The problem with this statement is that the people who investigate the application of deadly force are biased to believe a police officer, and are not inclined to believe a civilian.


Why juries have a hard time convicting cops

Why do juries acquit police officers of brutality?

The Deck Is Stacked in Favor of the Police
Well, none of your "cites" seem to say what you seem to think they say (the first two), or are just worthless as a cite (the third). First of all, why are you linking to newspaper articles (and worse, an opinion piece) as some kind of cite when there are actual academic cites on these kinds of topics? Second, while the first two articles ask the question of why juries acquit cops they in no way answer the question like you seem to think they do, let alone in a manner which supports the extreme positions you have taken.

They do quote academics and other experts but they simply acknowledge that jurors, as human beings, have biases, including towards police. Shocking. But unfortunately for you they acknowledge that such biases can be for or against police and never identify the relative strengths and measurable effects of such biases. Once again, this is where actual academic cites would be useful instead of short quotes in a newspaper.

But it gets better. They also acknowledge that jurors may acquit based on evidence not available to the public or because the law simply does not allow for a conviction. In other words, sometimes juries acquit because it's what the law and evidence demands. What the first two articles don't ever do, not even close, is establish that juror biases in favor of police have resulted in a statistically significant number of cases where police were objectively, wrongly acquitted.

Your last cite is an opinion piece written by an ostensible First Amendment attorney on a topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, lacks any kind of cited facts, and is pretty much worthless.

Lastly, while I think GreenHell was the first to suggest the police only be allowed to return fire in this thread, you agreed so I'm just going to address that here. This idea has been espoused before on this board and I've encountered it elsewhere and it's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea that makes you wonder if proponents put the least amount of thought into considering the implications. I think others were getting towards this point but I didn't see it made explicitly.

See, the goal of police is to prevent other people from putting bullets into the air where they might kill or injure someone. This is because bullets don't just vanish if they miss their target. So even if you believe police should be subject to accepting being fired upon before engaging then what happens when one of those bullets fired at police keeps going and kills someone on the street far behind the police? Or goes through a wall or window and kills someone in their home? Is this rather obvious and substantial flaw with your idea a little more apparent now?
  #121  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:06 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
The glaring problem with your absolutist position, one that is completely unsubstantiated as well I might add, is that it is easily disproven by even one contradictory example. And there are countless instances of people claiming to have shot someone in self-defense and not being arrested or prosecuted. And even if prosecuted there are many more examples of persons successfully asserting self-defense in a pre-trial motion or acquitted after trial.
The difference that you are ignoring is that police are generally presumed to be in the right and have so-called qualified immunity, whereas your average citizen is generally presumed to be in the wrong.

A police officer can kill someone and be subject only to an internal investigation. An average citizen who kills someone is all but guaranteed to be arrested at the very least. Note that I'm not talking about a store owner defending themselves against an armed robber who is threatening to kill them. I'm talking about the types of cases we read about every day in which a person is merely holding what is thought to be a dangerous weapon, is not threatening anyone, but is still shot dead by police.

If a kid was playing with a toy gun in my front yard, and I shot and killed him because I supposedly feared for my life, my defense would be laughed out of court. Yet a police officer who did just that wasn't even charged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
And cops don't determine for themselves what constitutes a "lethal threat" or a generally justified shooting. Ultimately the courts do that.
Except that frequently these cases never make it that far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Of course it is possible, in some situations, for a LEO to be treated differently than a regular citizen under the law. That's kind of the point in those situations. That's why we have a professional police force (a fairly recent invention) and otherwise we might as well go back to the "hue and cry" and posses.
How about we go back to the time when police weren't routinely murdering citizens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...First of all, why are you linking to newspaper articles (and worse, an opinion piece) as some kind of cite when there are actual academic cites on these kinds of topics?
At least I provided some citations. You haven't provided anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Lastly, while I think GreenHell was the first to suggest the police only be allowed to return fire in this thread, you agreed so I'm just going to address that here. This idea has been espoused before on this board and I've encountered it elsewhere and it's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea that makes you wonder if proponents put the least amount of thought into considering the implications. I think others were getting towards this point but I didn't see it made explicitly.

See, the goal of police is to prevent other people from putting bullets into the air where they might kill or injure someone. This is because bullets don't just vanish if they miss their target. So even if you believe police should be subject to accepting being fired upon before engaging then what happens when one of those bullets fired at police keeps going and kills someone on the street far behind the police? Or goes through a wall or window and kills someone in their home? Is this rather obvious and substantial flaw with your idea a little more apparent now?
So the solution to the possibility of a stray bullet injuring a bystander is for cops to open fire at the first sign of danger?

Note that in many cases, nobody is firing anything except the police. Tamir Rice was playing with a toy gun. His toy gun was not endangering anyone.

Not to mention the people shot by police for the capital crime of picking up a gun in self-defense, in their own home, who were unaware they were facing police instead of home invaders, as in these two recent cases:

Authorities shot a woman during a botched raid at her home. The real suspect was already in jail.

Woman killed by officer in her own home heard noises outside and drew gun.

Sometimes, people do shoot back -- but only after police have already opened fire, like the couple who defended themselves after a cops burst into their home with a no-knock warrant (obtained under false pretenses) with guns blazing:

A No-Knock Raid in Houston Led to Deaths and Police Injuries.

The problem here isn't with alleged perpetrators who might open fire at any moment. The problem is with trigger-happy police who open fire first at the first sign of potential danger.
  #122  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:23 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
If a kid was playing with a toy gun in my front yard, and I shot and killed him because I supposedly feared for my life, my defense would be laughed out of court. Yet a police officer who did just that wasn't even charged.
I know I am invisible, but I have discussed this in this thread. There are major differences.

If a kid is playing with a toy gun in your front yard, then the obvious inference is that it is a kid playing with a toy gun in your front yard. Neither you nor anyone else would believe that he was trying to kill someone.

In the Tamir Rice case, it wasn't clear that the gun was a toy gun as the orange indicator had been removed. Further, the police were dispatched to the scene where it was reported that a juvenile black male was removing a pistol from his pants and pointing it at people.

When the officers arrived and ordered Rice to show his hands, Rice did not and made an action as if to draw a gun.

None of that is remotely similar to a kid playing in your front yard with an obvious toy gun. In all of these "horror stories" the shooting could have been avoided by simply complying with the officer's demands. If you think he is racially profiling you or acting inappropriately by attempting to detain you or give you orders, then comply, but look into a civil suit afterwards.

You may think in the spur of the moment that an officer is acting like a jackboot, but you don't have all of the information. Maybe you fit the description of a guy that just executed his whole family a block from where you are. Save calling him a motherfucker for later when the situation is under control.
  #123  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:00 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...When the officers arrived and ordered Rice to show his hands, Rice did not and made an action as if to draw a gun.

None of that is remotely similar to a kid playing in your front yard with an obvious toy gun. In all of these "horror stories" the shooting could have been avoided by simply complying with the officer's demands.
The Tamir Rice shooting video shows that the cop shot him within 2 seconds of arrival. I don't think any reasonable person would agree that was enough time for the arriving officer to assess the situation, give an order, allow the target of the order to hear and process the order, and comply with the order.

Regardless, instead of charging headlong into the situation and immediately shooting the boy, why couldn't the officer have attempted to de-escalate the situation from a distance?

Again, to this layman, it looks like the cop either let fear and adrenaline take over, or he was looking for a reason to shoot a "bad guy."

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...If you think he is racially profiling you or acting inappropriately by attempting to detain you or give you orders, then comply, but look into a civil suit afterwards.
Daniel Shaver was desperately trying to comply with the contradictory orders that police were screaming at him before they executed him at close range with an AR-15.

As far as a civil lawsuit is concerned (which doesn't do a dead person much good), that's getting more difficult, too, in many cases. As the linked article reports, specialized police forces (which have been increasing in number) are ducking lawsuits by playing games with state-federal jurisdiction.
  #124  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:48 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
The Tamir Rice shooting video shows that the cop shot him within 2 seconds of arrival. I don't think any reasonable person would agree that was enough time for the arriving officer to assess the situation, give an order, allow the target of the order to hear and process the order, and comply with the order.

Regardless, instead of charging headlong into the situation and immediately shooting the boy, why couldn't the officer have attempted to de-escalate the situation from a distance?

Again, to this layman, it looks like the cop either let fear and adrenaline take over, or he was looking for a reason to shoot a "bad guy."


Daniel Shaver was desperately trying to comply with the contradictory orders that police were screaming at him before they executed him at close range with an AR-15.

As far as a civil lawsuit is concerned (which doesn't do a dead person much good), that's getting more difficult, too, in many cases. As the linked article reports, specialized police forces (which have been increasing in number) are ducking lawsuits by playing games with state-federal jurisdiction.
1) When the cops approach after you have been brandishing a pistol from which you have removed the orange indicator which doesn't give it the designation of a toy, don't reach for your waistband.

2) If the cops tried to observe the situation from a "distance" and this kid had a real gun and killed three people, there would be complaints as to why they didn't act sooner. It's not a game; the cops are there to stop things from happening and it is their duty to do so, not hang back from a distance.

3) Daniel Shaver was a dumbass drunk pointing an air rifle out of a hotel window. It is completely reasonable for officers to think they have a sniper situation. Again, they do not know that it is an airgun until afterwards. His buddy made it into police custody because his buddy followed directions. Shaver reached for his waistband after being instructed not to. Lesson: Don't get drunk and point an air rifle out of a hotel window, and if you do, follow police instructions, and

4) Don't reach for your waistband.

This is all really simple shit. Yes, they were tragedies once all of the details are known, but you are requiring the officers to have all of this knowledge beforehand. If you simply follow the rules of "Don't be a fucking idiot" and follow that up with "If you disregard the previous rule, follow all police instructions" you don't get shot.
  #125  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:08 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
The difference that you are ignoring is that police are generally presumed to be in the right and have so-called qualified immunity, whereas your average citizen is generally presumed to be in the wrong.

A police officer can kill someone and be subject only to an internal investigation. An average citizen who kills someone is all but guaranteed to be arrested at the very least. Note that I'm not talking about a store owner defending themselves against an armed robber who is threatening to kill them. I'm talking about the types of cases we read about every day in which a person is merely holding what is thought to be a dangerous weapon, is not threatening anyone, but is still shot dead by police.

If a kid was playing with a toy gun in my front yard, and I shot and killed him because I supposedly feared for my life, my defense would be laughed out of court. Yet a police officer who did just that wasn't even charged.

Except that frequently these cases never make it that far.

How about we go back to the time when police weren't routinely murdering citizens?

At least I provided some citations. You haven't provided anything.


So the solution to the possibility of a stray bullet injuring a bystander is for cops to open fire at the first sign of danger?

Note that in many cases, nobody is firing anything except the police. Tamir Rice was playing with a toy gun. His toy gun was not endangering anyone.

Not to mention the people shot by police for the capital crime of picking up a gun in self-defense, in their own home, who were unaware they were facing police instead of home invaders, as in these two recent cases:

Authorities shot a woman during a botched raid at her home. The real suspect was already in jail.

Woman killed by officer in her own home heard noises outside and drew gun.

Sometimes, people do shoot back -- but only after police have already opened fire, like the couple who defended themselves after a cops burst into their home with a no-knock warrant (obtained under false pretenses) with guns blazing:

A No-Knock Raid in Houston Led to Deaths and Police Injuries.

The problem here isn't with alleged perpetrators who might open fire at any moment. The problem is with trigger-happy police who open fire first at the first sign of potential danger.
I'm not ignoring or overlooking anything. I have a B.A.
in Criminal Justice with a background including Policing as well as Criminology, which itself included studies of police behavior, use of force, corruption, etc. I also have a law degree. So I understand these issues from multiple disciplinary perspectives and have studied the actual data compiled by the people who study such things, their interpretations, and the resultant policy recommendations. Naturally, I also know how the law functions in such contexts and perhaps more importantly, why it does so.

You on the other hand keep on making bare assertions and resorting to ridiculous hyperbole. And did you miss the part where your "cites" weren't actually cites? One benefit of all that education is I know what actual cites are. Another is that I know that virtually everything you are claiming is wrong, and I can certainly provide actual, relevant, academic cites to prove that (more in the vein of academic journals and not so much... newspapers, for instance). So, by all means, pick one of your ridiculous assertions that you have provided no meaningful evidence for and I'll gladly disprove it with, you know, actual evidence.

But to address one particular bit of drivel in your post, yes, police are in fact supposed to use bullets, if necessary, to prevent an armed suspect from firing their own bullets and endangering the police or any civilians present. This is because police are specifically trained for that situation and because people who are willing to commit a crime with a gun can't really be expected to be considerate of civilian casualties, as evidenced by their illegal use of a gun in the first place. So, maybe you should hold off on the whole rolleyes thing since any expert, or really any halfway intelligent person giving the matter sufficient thought, would characterize your own suggestion of the police only firing when fired upon as something along the lines of "laughably stupid."

Last edited by DirkHardly; 02-18-2020 at 02:09 AM.
  #126  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:41 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I'm not ignoring or overlooking anything. I have a B.A.
in Criminal Justice with a background including Policing as well as Criminology, which itself included studies of police behavior, use of force, corruption, etc.
I have an Associate in Police Science, A Bachelor in sociology, and a Masters in Criminal Justice Administration. I was with a major metropolitan Sheriffs Office for 25 years, including having held a rank, before taking a retirement and starting a 2nd career with another large major metropolitan law enforcement department that I have been with for 13 years now, and with which I am ranked a specialist in several different fields and assignments.

But Whoop Dee Freaking Doo for us. WTF do we know, right?

I have no hopes or intentions of changing the views of robby. Only to make others aware that he is extremely ignorant and his positions on things would quickly result in a lot of dead police officers and a multitude of unsafe communities if they were implemented.
  #127  
Old 02-18-2020, 08:30 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...You on the other hand keep on making bare assertions and resorting to ridiculous hyperbole. And did you miss the part where your "cites" weren't actually cites? One benefit of all that education is I know what actual cites are. Another is that I know that virtually everything you are claiming is wrong, and I can certainly provide actual, relevant, academic cites to prove that (more in the vein of academic journals and not so much... newspapers, for instance). So, by all means, pick one of your ridiculous assertions that you have provided no meaningful evidence for and I'll gladly disprove it with, you know, actual evidence.
OK, can you provide any studies that support your assertion that police fatalities would necessarily increase dramatically if they weren't so trigger-happy? How much would they increase? Similarly, how many civilians would be saved if the current use-of-force policies were changed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
But to address one particular bit of drivel in your post, yes, police are in fact supposed to use bullets, if necessary, to prevent an armed suspect from firing their own bullets and endangering the police or any civilians present. This is because police are specifically trained for that situation and because people who are willing to commit a crime with a gun can't really be expected to be considerate of civilian casualties, as evidenced by their illegal use of a gun in the first place.
Again, not everyone with a gun is using it illegally, yet police frequently don't appear to make this distinction -- not apparently do you.

The people killed in their own homes for picking up a gun when they think they hear a prowler outside weren't using a gun illegally. Philando Castile wasn't using a gun illegally when he was shot by a police officer, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I'm not ignoring or overlooking anything. I have a B.A.
in Criminal Justice with a background including Policing as well as Criminology, which itself included studies of police behavior, use of force, corruption, etc. I also have a law degree. So I understand these issues from multiple disciplinary perspectives and have studied the actual data compiled by the people who study such things, their interpretations, and the resultant policy recommendations. Naturally, I also know how the law functions in such contexts and perhaps more importantly, why it does so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I have an Associate in Police Science, A Bachelor in sociology, and a Masters in Criminal Justice Administration. I was with a major metropolitan Sheriffs Office for 25 years, including having held a rank, before taking a retirement and starting a 2nd career with another large major metropolitan law enforcement department that I have been with for 13 years now, and with which I am ranked a specialist in several different fields and assignments.
So let me ask you two: do you agree or disagree that there is a problem today with policing in America? What do you think about the fact that U.S. police use lethal force far more often than police in other developed nations?

More cites (though not academic studies):
By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
American police shoot and kill far more people than their peers in other countries

Do we just shrug our shoulders and chalk this up to American exceptionalism?

If you agree that there is a problem with policing in America today, can you apply your vast education and experience to address the question posed in the OP and provide any useful suggestions to fix it?
  #128  
Old 02-18-2020, 09:34 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) When the cops approach after you have been brandishing a pistol from which you have removed the orange indicator which doesn't give it the designation of a toy, don't reach for your waistband.

2) If the cops tried to observe the situation from a "distance" and this kid had a real gun and killed three people, there would be complaints as to why they didn't act sooner. It's not a game; the cops are there to stop things from happening and it is their duty to do so, not hang back from a distance.
So the entirely hypothetical (and frankly, remote) possibility that a 12-year old might abruptly start shooting and kill three people is worth the certainty of shooting and killing him within 2 seconds of arriving on the scene?

The fact that this type of police response has been normalized and that you are defending it is appalling, IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
3) Daniel Shaver was a dumbass drunk pointing an air rifle out of a hotel window. It is completely reasonable for officers to think they have a sniper situation. Again, they do not know that it is an airgun until afterwards. His buddy made it into police custody because his buddy followed directions. Shaver reached for his waistband after being instructed not to. Lesson: Don't get drunk and point an air rifle out of a hotel window, and if you do, follow police instructions, and

4) Don't reach for your waistband.

This is all really simple shit. Yes, they were tragedies once all of the details are known, but you are requiring the officers to have all of this knowledge beforehand. If you simply follow the rules of "Don't be a fucking idiot" and follow that up with "If you disregard the previous rule, follow all police instructions" you don't get shot.
The cases that have been mentioned here seem to demonstrate that police frequently appear to interpret what would otherwise be innocuous actions in the most extreme way possible. Again, this is a war-zone mentality.

Tamar Rice was likely pulling his Airsoft pistol out to place in on the ground or to surrender it to the officer. Daniel Shaver was pulling his shorts up after being ordered to crawl toward the police on his belly. Philando Castile didn't do anything other than calmly tell an officer he had a pistol on his person, and that he was licensed to carry. He still got shot. What lesson should we take from his case, UltraVires?

The police get all of this training that teaches them rules of engagement. They also apparently get training that emphasizes how innocuous actions can have deadly intent. Note that the ordinary public does not get this training. I would wager that your typical civilian would not expect to get shot for what they think are innocuous acts, especially if they are unarmed.

Even if they are armed, from watching TV shows and movies, many people likely expect an extended back and forth interaction with police (i.e. “Put the gun down!”).
  #129  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:17 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If you had read Argument_from_authority you would have learned that a expert in the field under discussion is a exception. If we are talking Physics, you can use Einstein as your authority and it's not a fallacy. So, pkbites is a expert, and thus no fallacy.
With as many videos out there of cops making up laws (Must show ID, can't video in public, etc.) I'm not inclined to presume an LEO is an expert in how the law is applied.
  #130  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:18 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Private citizens shoot and injure or kill people every day and it’s ruled justified without a prosecution or trial.
Simple question.
In the videos I linked to in this thread, were the cops justified in their actions?
  #131  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:42 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
OK, can you provide any studies that support your assertion that police fatalities would necessarily increase dramatically if they weren't so trigger-happy? How much would they increase? Similarly, how many civilians would be saved if the current use-of-force policies were changed?
Holy shit, it's hard to know where to even begin. First of all, I never asserted anywhere that police fatalities would necessarily increase dramatically under any theoretical change in their lethal force policies. I only referred to the potential cost to civilian bystanders even if one believes the police should submit themselves to the risk of only returning fire when fired upon. Go ahead, go back and re-read my posts and find where I asserted anything like you claim.

I do believe that such a policy change would increase police injuries and deaths but I never previously stated so or speculated at all to what degree. The conclusion of a likely increase, of course, is based on pretty basic math where increased exposure to risk is pretty likely to lead to increased negative outcomes. I mean we know from those pesky statistics that shootings based on things like misidentification of a toy are a very small percentage of police shootings. So given that a much larger number of shootings must involve a more typical situation of a criminal threatening armed violence why would you possibly believe that giving such violent offenders a free first shot would not involve increased casualties among both police and civilians?

Also, maybe you should spend some time on learning how the basics of how the social sciences work. Do you actually think there's an academic study out there that uses vague, ill-defined terms like "trigger-happy"? See, they like to use precisely defined terms and actual data to support their conclusions. You, on the other hand, keep making the bare assertion that police are "trigger-happy" without defining the term in any meaningful way and having provided no quantitative or qualitative data to support even the most vague definition of the term or justifying it's application to the police in general.

Also, how exactly do you think this hypothetical experiment would play out? Do you actually think the scientists would go around to various police agencies and ask them to change their lethal force policies "just
to see what happens"? And then just count the victims and compare the data? Of course to get a meaningful data set they're going to have to conduct the experiment over a whole range of police shootings while trying to control for other variables. Seems like there's quite a few problems with that approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Again, not everyone with a gun is using it illegally, yet police frequently don't appear to make this distinction -- not apparently do you.

The people killed in their own homes for picking up a gun when they think they hear a prowler outside weren't using a gun illegally. Philando Castile wasn't using a gun illegally when he was shot by a police officer, either.
No I understand just fine. Once again, it comes with all the degrees and education. And one of the things I learned and understand is something you and others apparently can't. And that is a person can legally respond with lethal force if they have a reasonable belief that they or others were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, even if that belief turns out to be false. The objective standard of the "reasonable person" appears in US law in multiple contexts and in legal systems throughout the world. Holding a person to such a standard given any particular set of facts and circumstances they find themselves in isn't some arcane legal concept, it's basic logic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
So let me ask you two: do you agree or disagree that there is a problem today with policing in America? What do you think about the fact that U.S. police use lethal force far more often than police in other developed nations?

More cites (though not academic studies):
By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
American police shoot and kill far more people than their peers in other countries

Do we just shrug our shoulders and chalk this up to American exceptionalism?

If you agree that there is a problem with policing in America today, can you apply your vast education and experience to address the question posed in the OP and provide any useful suggestions to fix it?
Once again, you might want to save the rolleyes for when you have something meaningful to add beyond a question that you have no idea what the answer is. Because the US is exceptional, in a lot of ways. It's exceptionally large, exceptionally diverse, exceptionally rich, etc. And its laws are in some ways exceptional as well. Actual scientists would call these differences variables. And they know that before you can explain a disparity as caused by something like "trigger-happy police" or "racism" you need to control for those other variables. So what makes you think that the higher number of police shootings in the US as compared to other countries is entirely attributable to "trigger-happy police"?

And of course there are problems with American policing. It's a ridiculous absolutist straw man to suggest anyone would believe otherwise. That's why we have social scientists who make whole careers out of studying specific issues like corruption, use of force, etc. And those scientists often pass along that data and their conclusions to politicians and policy makers who are members of various committees and commissions who then implement policies based on those findings. Seems a better way of doing things than crowd-sourcing it to a random message board where quite a few participants seemed determined to keep the discussion largely fact-free. Maybe if you're so concerned about the issue and determined to make real progress in this thread you should start googling the actual literature and come back when you have something substantial to add.

Last edited by DirkHardly; 02-18-2020 at 10:45 AM.
  #132  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:58 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
So let me ask you two: do you agree or disagree that there is a problem today with policing in America? What do you think about the fact that U.S. police use lethal force far more often than police in other developed nations?

No, there is no problem with policing in America. At least no problem within the scope of this thread. The almost 1 million LEOs in this country make millions of public contacts every single day. And you foolishly think the dozen or so questionable situations you’ve cited to are representative of the average police/community contact. You come across like someone who believes they are going to win the lottery because they want to believe they are going to win the lottery and one time they got 4 numbers so there is your proof.

Officers hardly ever get into shooting situations yet you post as if it happens all the time. So your own well is poisoned yet you insist we debate based on your false beliefs that have no data to support them. It’s like arguing with a mentally ill person who gets pissed that you won’t acknowledge the invisible pink elephant in the room.

And your solution to a non-existent problem is insane.

The real problem in this country is the lack of consequences for criminal actions. Criminals are allowed to plea down charges, serve reduced sentences, plea down to an ordinance violation over a criminal act, etc.. The revolving door justice system gave the government an excuse to try and create a police state by passing endless laws and spending more money on enforcement, prevention, and so on.
  #133  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:03 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
No I understand just fine. Once again, it comes with all the degrees and education. And one of the things I learned and understand is something you and others apparently can't. And that is a person can legally respond with lethal force if they have a reasonable belief that they or others were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, even if that belief turns out to be false. The objective standard of the "reasonable person" appears in US law in multiple contexts and in legal systems throughout the world. Holding a person to such a standard given any particular set of facts and circumstances they find themselves in isn't some arcane legal concept, it's basic logic.
And of course you are ignoring a couple of key points.
1) Police are shown repeatedly escalating the situation changing the situation from one where force is not reasonable into one that is.
2) Police, DAs, Judges and Juries contribute to the culture of condoning officer behavior even when not reasonable.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 02-18-2020 at 11:03 AM.
  #134  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:19 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
No, there is no problem with policing in America.
The police in this country kill 1,000 people a year, and a man with VAST law enforcement experience across multiple forces, who holds a position of respect and responsibility within his department thinks nothing is wrong. Well, except that we don't punish criminals hard enough. We have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but we don't lock people up often enough or long enough.
  #135  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:35 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
The police in this country kill 1,000 people a year, and a man with VAST law enforcement experience across multiple forces, who holds a position of respect and responsibility within his department thinks nothing is wrong. Well, except that we don't punish criminals hard enough. We have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but we don't lock people up often enough or long enough.
In 99% of those, they are shooting at the police. Now, sure there's something wrong, but it aint necessarily with the police.
  #136  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:21 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In 99% of those, they are shooting at the police.
So, the police already wait to be shot at before defending themselves? I thought the very idea of that was ridiculous.
  #137  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
So, the police already wait to be shot at before defending themselves? I thought the very idea of that was ridiculous.
I didn't say that but yes, sometimes the bad guys are shooting first, in fact it's quite common.
  #138  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:55 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
And of course you are ignoring a couple of key points.
1) Police are shown repeatedly escalating the situation changing the situation from one where force is not reasonable into one that is.
2) Police, DAs, Judges and Juries contribute to the culture of condoning officer behavior even when not reasonable.
Once again, I'm not ignoring anything. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've studied these issues and all the relevant aspects, from the perspective of multiple disciplines no less, more than just about anyone in the thread and the vast, vast, majority of people in general. You're just offering more bare assertions without any evidence whatsoever. Someone's opinion that officers have escalated potential use of force situations or that others have played a role in condoning unreasonable or even criminal officer behavior in any particular case is just that, an opinion. It is not objective fact.

But sure, I'd stipulate that somewhere, at some point, a police officer needlessly escalated a use of force situation. Or that a prosecutor, judge or jury let an officer off too easy. I've read cases like that and I've read social science literature that specifically focused on such topics. But in another instance of something those social scientists understand that you and others seem not to (besides the whole supportive evidence thing) is that merely identifying the existence of a phenomenon is fairly meaningless without also quantitatively measuring its prevalence and (relatedly) its effects. Kind of where the whole science and data thing comes in handy again.

Additionally, while such data can tell you a lot about the general behavior of large groups as a whole, it's of extremely limited value when applied to a particular individual or event. So even if you could somehow objectively prove that 60% of officers needlessly escalate use of force situations, or juries are 3x less likely to convict an officer than an ordinary citizen, that in no way is evidence that Officer Smith needlessly escalated the situation or should have been convicted. The practically infinite number of fact patterns that could be involved in such situations (there are those variables again) would preclude anything but the broadest conclusions and nothing even close to definitively probative regarding any particular case.
  #139  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:08 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I have an Associate in Police Science, A Bachelor in sociology, and a Masters in Criminal Justice Administration. I was with a major metropolitan Sheriffs Office for 25 years, including having held a rank, before taking a retirement and starting a 2nd career with another large major metropolitan law enforcement department that I have been with for 13 years now, and with which I am ranked a specialist in several different fields and assignments.

But Whoop Dee Freaking Doo for us. WTF do we know, right?

I have no hopes or intentions of changing the views of robby. Only to make others aware that he is extremely ignorant and his positions on things would quickly result in a lot of dead police officers and a multitude of unsafe communities if they were implemented.
Yeah, I was aware of your background and you were the first person I thought of in the thread as another person who would actually know the material (a few others as well). It's amazing how people seem to think that no one ever asked these questions before, let alone that people spend entire careers studying them. It's even more amazing how many people are willing to spitball the issue without any actual data or evidence, whether the 60+ years of scientific research we already have on the issues or maybe even going out and getting some fresh new evidence. Either of those really, as long as there's actual science and data involved. Doesn't seem too much to ask.
  #140  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:14 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
Robby, if you armed and a guy is behaving in such a way that you think he might have a weapon and is about to use it against your child, would you wait until he fired a shot before you shoot him? You know, just to be sure? If the police were there, should they wait? If the answer is "no", are you saying that the cops' lives are less valuable than your child's? Please don't say that they are paid to take that kind of risk. They are not. Nobody is.

Cheesesteak - police are not waiting to be shot at in the vast majority of cases. Officers are being fired on before they realize that there is an imminent threat. There is an old saying, "The first sign that you are in a gunfight is that you've already been shot or shot at." There was a fairly recent case of an officer not shooting a double homicide suspect who kept approaching him, hands in pockets and refusing orders. He was hailed by his Chief and the public as some kind of hero. While backing away, the cop fell onto his back. If that guy had a gun, there is a good chance the officer's widow would have a nice, new flag. Most other cops that I know and work with found his actions more stupid than heroic. Both he and his Chief later admitted it wasn't the brightest move. The very idea of waiting to be shot at IS ridiculous.

According to Statistica, in 2018 6237 black males died by homicide. Roughly 229 were killed by police. I suspect the vast majority of them weren't controversial in the least, once investigated. Hell, even at first glance. So, lets say 6000 by non-police -26 times the number killed by police. To say that police killings are a leading cause of death and not even mention this fact is missing the bigger point. If we limit the number to police killings that were ultimately found to be unjustified I wonder what the number would be and where it would rate on the cause of death scale.
  #141  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:29 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
And of course you are ignoring a couple of key points.
1) Police are shown repeatedly escalating the situation changing the situation from one where force is not reasonable into one that is.
2) Police, DAs, Judges and Juries contribute to the culture of condoning officer behavior even when not reasonable.
Damn, I just can't keep up.

Police de-escalate thousands of times every day. You are never going to see video of that. Its boring and nothing sensational. The reason you see videos of cops not behaving perfectly is because it is unusual and sensational. Not all cops are perfect and some are far from it. That small minority should be dealt with. Not by the mob but by the system. If you don't like the system, do what you can to change it. Don't paint with a broad brush.
  #142  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:14 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
No, there is no problem with policing in America. At least no problem within the scope of this thread. The almost 1 million LEOs in this country make millions of public contacts every single day. And you foolishly think the dozen or so questionable situations you’ve cited to are representative of the average police/community contact. You come across like someone who believes they are going to win the lottery because they want to believe they are going to win the lottery and one time they got 4 numbers so there is your proof.

Officers hardly ever get into shooting situations yet you post as if it happens all the time. So your own well is poisoned yet you insist we debate based on your false beliefs that have no data to support them. It’s like arguing with a mentally ill person who gets pissed that you won’t acknowledge the invisible pink elephant in the room.

And your solution to a non-existent problem is insane.

The real problem in this country is the lack of consequences for criminal actions. Criminals are allowed to plea down charges, serve reduced sentences, plea down to an ordinance violation over a criminal act, etc.. The revolving door justice system gave the government an excuse to try and create a police state by passing endless laws and spending more money on enforcement, prevention, and so on.
Police officer that has admitted to letting other police officers off when they break the law thinks police officers are doing just fine.

But all criminals are bad, and we're too lenient in spite of world leading incarceration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In 99% of those, they are shooting at the police. Now, sure there's something wrong, but it aint necessarily with the police.
Cite required.
  #143  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:48 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...First of all, I never asserted anywhere that police fatalities would necessarily increase dramatically under any theoretical change in their lethal force policies. I only referred to the potential cost to civilian bystanders even if one believes the police should submit themselves to the risk of only returning fire when fired upon. Go ahead, go back and re-read my posts and find where I asserted anything like you claim.
You're correct that you didn't say that. It was pkbites who keeps saying that any change to the current use of force policies will inevitably lead to more dead cops.

You're the one who evidently thinks that the only risk to civilian bystanders is from criminals who might shoot them if the police don't gun them down first. This isn't the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami Herald
...In last year’s fatal shooting of Alexander Carballido in West Miami-Dade, 18 officers fired over 300 times. Newly released body-camera footage shows a scene that looks like a Call of Duty video game: a long, deafening roar of gunfire, officers shooting dangerously close to one another from behind, and even one cop firing from his window as he tried to drive.
Here's even more examples of police putting bystanders (and fellow officers) at risk far more than the alleged perpetrators. In many of these cases, police fired dozens or even hundreds of times indiscriminately at suspects, killing bystanders and fellow officers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...Do you actually think there's an academic study out there that uses vague, ill-defined terms like "trigger-happy"? See, they like to use precisely defined terms and actual data to support their conclusions.
You are the one who doesn't like news media cites and offered to "provide actual, relevant, academic cites" that will disprove virtually everything that I am claiming is wrong. So where are these studies?

And if it pains you so, replace "trigger-happy" with "excessive use of deadly force."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...You on the other hand keep on making bare assertions and resorting to ridiculous hyperbole. And did you miss the part where your "cites" weren't actually cites? One benefit of all that education is I know what actual cites are. Another is that I know that virtually everything you are claiming is wrong, and I can certainly provide actual, relevant, academic cites to prove that (more in the vein of academic journals and not so much... newspapers, for instance). So, by all means, pick one of your ridiculous assertions that you have provided no meaningful evidence for and I'll gladly disprove it with, you know, actual evidence.
Still waiting...

Apparently all that you have is your own "bare assertions" that I am wrong with nothing to back it up. At least I provided some cites, even though you don't like them. You haven't provided anything other than refutations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...Also, how exactly do you think this hypothetical experiment would play out? Do you actually think the scientists would go around to various police agencies and ask them to change their lethal force policies "just to see what happens"? And then just count the victims and compare the data? Of course to get a meaningful data set they're going to have to conduct the experiment over a whole range of police shootings while trying to control for other variables. Seems like there's quite a few problems with that approach.
Like what? Fewer murdered citizens?

Maybe we could indeed change policies in a city or state, and see what happens.

OK, you don't like that idea. Here's another: maybe we could look at other countries where the police aren't constantly gunning down their own citizens, and compare their outcomes to ours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...No I understand just fine. Once again, it comes with all the degrees and education. And one of the things I learned and understand is something you and others apparently can't. And that is a person can legally respond with lethal force if they have a reasonable belief that they or others were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, even if that belief turns out to be false. The objective standard of the "reasonable person" appears in US law in multiple contexts and in legal systems throughout the world. Holding a person to such a standard given any particular set of facts and circumstances they find themselves in isn't some arcane legal concept, it's basic logic.
I and others understand that just fine. The problem is that this "reasonable person" standard does not look particularly objective. It looks like whatever the police, investigative agencies, and prosecutors think it is. There are many, many examples in which ordinary citizens are being killed by police that would fail this "reasonable person" standard, and yet the police in question are not charged or even terminated from their employment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...And of course there are problems with American policing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
No, there is no problem with policing in America.
Glad to see that you two experts are on the same page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I have an Associate in Police Science, A Bachelor in sociology, and a Masters in Criminal Justice Administration. I was with a major metropolitan Sheriffs Office for 25 years, including having held a rank, before taking a retirement and starting a 2nd career with another large major metropolitan law enforcement department that I have been with for 13 years now, and with which I am ranked a specialist in several different fields and assignments.

But Whoop Dee Freaking Doo for us. WTF do we know, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Yeah, I was aware of your background and you were the first person I thought of in the thread as another person who would actually know the material (a few others as well). It's amazing how people seem to think that no one ever asked these questions before, let alone that people spend entire careers studying them. It's even more amazing how many people are willing to spitball the issue without any actual data or evidence, whether the 60+ years of scientific research we already have on the issues or maybe even going out and getting some fresh new evidence. Either of those really, as long as there's actual science and data involved. Doesn't seem too much to ask.
Keep patting each other on the back, there.

I am telling the two of you as a citizen of this great country of ours that you are losing the confidence of the populace. It is evident that minorities have felt this way for years. I am a member of the demographic who is probably one of the least likely to be hassled by police (white middle-aged male, clean-cut, former military, no criminal record whatsoever), and you are losing my confidence. My default assumption is to now fear and distrust the police. When my son got his drivers license at 16 I had the "talk" with him to minimize the chance of him getting involved in a tragic outcome with the police.

It shouldn't be this way.
  #144  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:58 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Police de-escalate thousands of times every day. You are never going to see video of that. Its boring and nothing sensational. The reason you see videos of cops not behaving perfectly is because it is unusual and sensational. Not all cops are perfect and some are far from it. That small minority should be dealt with. Not by the mob but by the system. If you don't like the system, do what you can to change it. Don't paint with a broad brush.
Emphasis Added

But often they are not dealt with unless caught on video. And even then it is not always dealt with.


Warning - Autoplaying video
If you are not a cop and were caught in this situation what would happen to you.
pkbites, what do you think about how this cop was not arrested? If he were a civilian would you have let him go? Would your DA choose not to prosecute?
Quote:
When Meier, 48, didn’t respond to attempts to wake him up, first responders smashed a car window to get him out. Officers then “reported smelling the odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage.” Meier was not taken into custody or charged, but was taken to an area hospital.

He later told investigators he had gone home on duty and and drank “vodka from a bottle.” Meier lives in Parker. He admitted he was “impaired by the alcohol,” according to police investigators.

Multiple sources familiar with the case said blood alcohol tests at the hospital showed Meier was at least five times the legal limit for DUI.

The Aurora Police Department defended their decision to not give Meier a breathalyzer test that day, saying in part, “Due to an inability to exclude a medical condition, and absent confirmatory information, a DUI investigation was not conducted.”

Last edited by Saint Cad; 02-18-2020 at 04:01 PM.
  #145  
Old 02-18-2020, 04:21 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Robby, if you armed and a guy is behaving in such a way that you think he might have a weapon and is about to use it against your child, would you wait until he fired a shot before you shoot him? You know, just to be sure? If the police were there, should they wait?
Well, it's a meaningless hypothetical for me because I am never armed.

While I do own firearms and have a state-issued pistol permit (which also allows me to carry a concealed weapon), I don't feel the need to go around my community armed. If I go to the shooting range, my pistol is locked in the trunk. (BTW, I'm not unfamiliar with firearms -- I earned a U.S. Navy Expert Pistol Marksmanship Medal when I was in the service.)

Do you want to know why I don't carry a firearm, even though I'm legally allowed to do so? Because when you carry around a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (Which is something I wish our police forces would realize as well.)

A secondary reason is that having a firearm on my person is far more likely to do me harm than good. Only cops get qualified immunity. If I use deadly force, even if justified, I'm far more likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Secondly, having a gun on my person might just get me killed by a trigger-happy cop during a traffic stop.

Back to your hypothetical: what exactly does "behaving in such a way that you think he might have a weapon and is about to use it against your child" look like anyway? Because I can tell you right now that "might have a weapon" is pretty vague. If it turns out that the guy is unarmed and I shoot him, and my only defense is that he looked threatening and I thought he might have a weapon, I will be going to jail -- because only the police can get away with that kind of behavior with their qualified immunity.


Nevertheless, I'll concede the hypothetical and answer your question: yes, I would wait. Just like I think the police should wait.

This answer does not preclude me (or the cops) from drawing my own weapon and ordering the person to put down their weapon. But no, I would not be the first to fire. Nor should the cops.
  #146  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:28 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 208
I am glad that we started this conversation about a very serious issue in America.

Policing needs to be vastly reformed.

I have another question: What do you think about a lot of police officers, especially white male police officers who have turned extremely political since the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

A lot of them decorate Blue Lives Matter flags around their cars, police precinct stations etc.

A lot of them are leaning heavily towards President Trump and the GOP, even in deep blue communities they serve, like NYC, LA, Miami, Philadelphia, Chicago.
  #147  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:41 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 962
What do you think about it?
  #148  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:55 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
What do you think about it?
I don't like it; a police officer should put politics aside and serve everyone; both political parties politicized the BLM movement, a lot of white cops don't view it lightly. A lot of them on Instagram and social media, especially the younger ones, are trying to bridge gaps between civilians and police, but we will see how it will work out.
  #149  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:57 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 962
What can we do about that tho?
  #150  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:32 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
The police in this country kill 1,000 people a year, and a man with VAST law enforcement experience across multiple forces, who holds a position of respect and responsibility within his department thinks nothing is wrong.
Almost all of those were ruled justified, of the minute' amount that weren't almost all of the officers faced consequences. Where is the problem with an officer saving his own life? There is an undertone here that seems to suggest that it would be better if criminals killed 1000 cops per year instead. Some of you are real swell guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Police officer that has admitted to letting other police officers off when they break the law thinks police officers are doing just fine.
Relax, Chisquirrel.

It's far worse than you can imagine. I let regular people off as well. Because I head up a Focused Patrol Team I make about 400% more traffic stops than your average officer. Therefore I tend to hand out far more written and verbal warnings collectively than I do cites. Which, per my departments SOP is within my discretion to do. But I'm sure you'll post that I'm not doing my job.
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 05:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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