You keep saying this while ignoring what was actually said by me, and what was said the multiple times I’ve corrected you on this issue. Let’s go back to when I first mentioned this in conjuctiono with another case:
Note I did not imply that the gun was planted or that these cases were analogous in their details. The point was to remind people that the police lie (or are mistaken) early and often, and repeating their claims doesn’t mean it’s true. But once again, this came up so I, again, clarified in response to you specifically:
Yet, so still somehow cannot understand this very basic point being made. I am not alleging the cops planted a gun on King. I am not saying what happened to Scott or Jones happened to King. I am pointing out that the police account, in some of the few cases where were have unbiased, incontrovertible evidence of the truth, it turns out the police account was completely wrong.
First, I’ve answered this point twice already, so just go re-read the last point. Second, are you denying the police have shot unarmed suspects thinking they were armed? Even if it were due to random chance, both scenarios are going to happen.
Again, it does not. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The only point that matters in the grand scheme of things is whether the kid pulled the gun out and aimed it at the cops as they say he did. Again, no one is alleging he didn’t have a gun. Both the cops and the guy with him agree he had a bb gun. Just as the presence of a gun doesn’t validate the accomplice’s version, it doesn’t validate the cops version. It only a means of disqualification, not qualification. The complete absence of a gun indicates that King clearly didn’t point a gun at them, but the presence of a gun doesn’t demonstrate he did, nor does it make it more likely he did. Doubly so because there is no baseline from which it can be more likely.
First, we are talking about what someone else SAID his plans were. Second, I think everyone agrees he had a bb gun, so “proving” someone not in contention is not at all helpful.
The initial claim was that future plans unknown to the individuals involved in a prior incident influenced their behavior in said incident. The analogy was highlighting how some people think a rape victims past/future plans change how we should view a specific claim of illegality on the part of an alleged rapist. My point was that such a fact is only used to smear the alleged victim, and is not at all relevant to the case.
He ran and didn’t surrender, and they were looking for someone who matched their descriptions who was armed. Why wouldn’t they assume he was armed given the information they supposedly had?
Why do you keep asking this same question? How do you even know the 19 year old was in a position to be shot? I’ve already answered this question, so please stop asking it as if I am ignoring you.
Out on bail implies you were arrested. Were these cops arrested?
Maybe, but you would at least face the threat or immediate arrest unlike almost every cop.
Cut the bullshit. Do you think officers involved in a shooting are afforded more or less latitude than average people? Yes or no?
“Lawyer talking” is just as relevant as “police talking” at this stage. More importantly, the guy with him seems to contradict what the cops said happened.
Why do you think people went about assassinating his character so vigorously after the fact?
Who is who in this case? Is the officer involved in his second on-duty shooting in 4 years the librarian, or is it the 13 year old kid who seems to be described as a generally good kid? Now to answer your specific question, in a criminal case, none of that stuff is relevant.
How? Because I don’t believe his account absent a full instigation and other evidence?
Are you joking? Look at the OP. Of course most are assuming the police story is true.
This DID NOT HAPPEN. Quote someone saying the above?
I’m aware, if the kid had died during the robbery it’d be more obvious since Braxton is charged with felony robbery. But I think the only crime that was being committed was fleeing from police, which is usually a misdemeanor like resisting arrest or something. But if he did end up giving the weapon to the child to conceal it from police, that might rise to a felony.
I agree the connection to an obvious felony is tenuous, which is why I said “I hope.”
Why not? Study after study has shown that cops, regardless of their own racial background, are far more likely to draw on and fire on a Black person. This is a major problem, and I don’t see how it can be trained away. Can you?
Well, except it’s kind of misleading to say the police are ‘investigating themselves’, wink wink, nudge nudge, since it implies that the same guys who supposedly did the deed are the ones ‘investigating’ the crime. The police have separate investigation groups who look into potential abuse of officers, and, of course, ‘police’ could mean local, state or even federal agencies who may be looking into an event. Really, who else WOULD be qualified to look into such an event except ‘police’? What other group would you think would be so qualified to do so? A private agency? Some other watchdog group that is completely unaffiliated with ‘police’ in any way? If it’s so off the wall and lacking imagination what are the obvious alternatives that spring to your mind?
So you only brought up Walter Scott to prove that sometimes even cops lie or are incorrect? Who said they never lie or are never incorrect? But in this case, the facts seem to line up behind the cop’s version of the story.
As an aside, why do you think cops plant guns? Why do these crooked cops think that the mere presence of a gun will get them off? Because it provides enough corroboration of the claim that the shooting was in self defense that they will probably meet the standard. This cop is starting on third base in his self defense claim just like I would be if I shot, claimed self defense and the dead guy had a gun.
Lets remember, the kid doesn’t have to aim the gun at the cops to get shot. Just drawing a weapon is sufficient. Having the gun eliminates the Walter Scott scenario. Sure, the cop might still be lying about whether the kid drew his weapon but there is enough evidence that we can reach a finding of self defense absent anything evidence that undermines the cop.
I will repeat this because you may have missed it the first time. Self defense does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is significantly lower (preponderance of the evidence, this usually means 50%+ likelihood). The other guy having a gun usually meets this standard.
Is this the same guy who SAID that the cop’s story isn’t accurate.
The fact that the kid had a gun is very relevant information. It is almost dispositive.
It makes the use of Walter Scott type analogies irrelevant. So there’s that.
Are you kidding? Based on that rationale, they would shoot a shitload of adults that ran from them on the assumption they were armed. Why wouldn’t they assume everyone that ran from them was armed? But they don’t, they shot this 13 year old kid who actually had a gun.
Right, so they didn’t shoot the 19 year old because maybe the bullets wouldn’t reach him?
My basic point is that there were several suspects and they ended up shooting and killing the 13 year old kid with a gun. You seem ready to chalk that up to sheer chance and blind luck (on the part of the cops that shot him). You see to think there is no real reason to believe that the cop shot him because the 13 year old kid pulled a gun on him, its just as likely that the cop just shot the black kid for because he just felt like it or something.
You’re right about that. If a cop shoots a suspect in the line of duty they generally don’t arrest him. I would probably be arrested and questioned I might not get arraigned or see the inside of a police car depending on the circumstances.
Bullshit? What bullshit? I think cops are afforded no more right to remain silent or right to counsel than other people. So I don’t know if that’s a yes or a no to the more or less question. But, cops not giving a statement for days is not really an indictment of the justice system because you can do the exact same thing.
The cop was there, the lawyer is repeating something that someone else said. If the cop is lying they are going to jail for lying. If the lawyer is just making shit up, they can say “oops, I guess I heard them wrong” Both scenarios are plausible but when confronted with a self defense claim where the dead guy has a weapon, its not that hard to establish the self defense claim.
This can be done without giving cops some special benefit of the doubt that you seem to think cops get.
There are knee jerks folks on both sides of the argument that will do anything to justify their pre-conceived notions. Just like there are people that are predisposed to call any cop killing a murder, there are some that are predisposed to calling them justifiable homicides.
A generally good kid that was hanging out with some pretty bad kids. Maybe he was just tagging along with the older kids as younger kids do. I suspect that Martin Hyde might be correct correct. The 19 year old passed the gun to the 13 year old so he wouldn’t get in trouble for the robbery and it got the kid killed when he tried to ditch the gun.
We all reserve judgment until the investigation is over but you seem to be implying that the cops shouldn’t be believed because cops have lied n the past. Why even bother asking for his testimony if you don’t think it has any probative value at all? The cop gave a story, it is consistent with the facts that we know. For a self defense claim that is usually enough unless we can find some reason to think he is lying.
Its odd that you can find an assumption that the cop is telling the truth in an OP that is talking about cop shooting people with realistic looking toy guns in the abstract but you don’t think that anything can be implied from references to Walter Scott.
Right now the cops story holds together. This is frequently the case when a weapon is found on the dead guy. Its the primary reason why cops plant guns on dead guys, its a get out of jail card. A gun on the dead guy usually goes a long way in proving self defense for anyone, not just cops.
I am starting to adopt your theory of what happened. I think this Braxton fellow might be the real culprit and this 13 year old kid was hanging out with the wrong crowd. Its a shame that this kid died. 13 is too young for this shit.
We’ve got problems in the uneven application of deadly force, why do cops seem to exercise restraint and de-escalation so much more frequently with whites than with blacks?
I can understand how people want to disarm the police because cops in England aren’t armed and it works there. It’s wishful thinking to believe disarming U.S. police is the solution because we live in a culture where gun ownership is legal and concealed carry is unrestricted in many jurisdictions. But to advocate disbanding the police entirely is seriously flawed. I hope you’re being facetious, because having no police at all is akin to anarchy and I wouldn’t want to live in such a society with no protection from people who might do me harm.
I think given the amount of problems caused by that definition, the problem is with the standard itself. Of course I disagree that the reasons officers are generally cleared is due simply to a low standard justifying action, I think there’s definitely a Blue Line somewhere that protects them, but that’s a different topic.
With regards to training, police officers are not military, yet they often act in that capacity in our streets. For one thing, in most jurisdictions, the minimal job qualifications are high school or equivalent education along with a background check. I would like officers to at least have a 2 year degree in some type of law. The least demanding degree you can get in college is a 2 year associate’s degree. We shouldn’t simply let any C+ student right out of high school be a cop in less time.
Beyond the standard psych and medical evaluations, police academy programs generally last about 20 weeks, though a few places are longer. I think its a joke that in less than a year, you can go from high school to a armed cop that patrols the streets and is tasked with intervening in high-stress situations, carrying a loaded weapon and expecting you to use it appropriately. As a senior in high school, I was required to study no less than a year’s worth of English, or History, or PE. In less time than that, I can arm myself and be expected to go into people’s homes and arrest suspects. Police academy training should last far longer, how long I don’t know for sure, but I cannot believe the standard time frame is enough.
More than better and longer training, I would change the standard of what policing means. I think it was earlier this year, or last year, that the SCOTUS came back with a decision saying that cops have no inherent requirement to put themselves in danger to protect people. If I could, I could totally change that. Someone in this thread said that people generally believe that a common expectation for the military is “Don’t shoot unless shot at” in certain types of situations. I would pair that up with a cop’s duty as well. I would raise the danger level required for a cop to justifiably respond with deadly force. It should not be automatic that a cop can shoot someone with a gun, the perp should have to either be threatening to use it or actually use it.
And despite what some may think, I believe that we should train our cops to shoot to disable, not kill. Situations where cops unload dozens of bullets into a person should not happen, especially since some of them were far away and had melee weapons instead of guns. The priority should be to bring in suspects alive to face trial. The reason why I think this works is because similar western countries report far less shootings when police are trained to talk down, disable, or simply not shoot first. Given that some of these high profile shootings that we know of (and probably far more that we don’t) had an officer on the scene for seconds before they started firing, it does not give me a lot of confidence that we are training our officers the right way.
Hmm there was this article from the Economist on a recent study, in Houston (the data used for the wider study that showed discrimination in non deadly force areas,) when it came to use of deadly force
It might also be worth taking a look at this Washington Post article that not only looks at studies that have come out of three studies that have come out Washington Sate University in recent years. The background information shows less clarity than you see to imply. Let’s just look at the most recent study that was covered
So there’s at least some contradictory evidence you seem to be discounting. That offers the possibility that there are aspects we don’t understand. Potentially Houston, if not just the reverse racism effect seen in the WSU simulation studies or a fluke, and offers insight into how to do things better.
Of course there’s the disband the police option instead. That’s kind of like The Purge but 24/7 instead of 12 hours a years. It seems like trading one problem for a MUCH bigger problem.
Shooting to disable can result in more than one person getting hurt – the suspect AND the cop. “Shooting to wound” generally only works in movies. The whole point is to shoot to STOP that person – which is why aiming for center mass works best.
“Police” means “the police department”. In Columbus, that means a “critical incident response team” that is part of the Columbus PD. That is, they are part of the same hierarchy, are aiming for the same promotions, work with the same DAs, as the officers being investigated; and are open to harassment and reprisals from fellow officers.
This isn’t the case when state or federal agencies do the investigating.
Would you accept this arrangement anywhere else? Say BP had an internal-affairs unit, that was the sole group that would investigate the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Would you be fine with that?
Independent state agencies not affiliated with local PDs, and using special prosecutors, with a federal agency providing oversight. Such investigators wouldn’t be “police”. There are many, many non-police investigators in this country.
I will point out, I’m skeptical of plenty of the recently publicized police shootings, but of the thousands that have happened over the past ten years I don’t think most have been cleared due to a blue line effect or anything similar. I think the simple fact is most of these shootings were entirely justified. The problem to me is two fold:
Justified shootings that still probably could’ve been avoided
Unjustified shootings which are not handled appropriately.
I think we fix the first one with better training. A lot of police departments require college for any serious advancement and it’s hard to even get hired without a degree, but like you said–some still operate under the “old way”, where you can apply right out of college and if you have a family member on the force you’re likely to get hired.
Where we disagree is saying police should be shot at before returning fire–I’ve already explained why that doesn’t make good sense in a civilian policing situation. A police officer has a very different mission than a soldier, and also usually less protection. Plus there’s a very limited scenario where soldiers are held to that sort of ROE, most standard rules of engagement allow engaging with lethal force anyone who acts sufficiently threatening.
I think the real change we should be seeking is to roll back the training that started in the early 90s. Basically the motto went from “protect and serve” to “your job is to make it home at the end of each shift.” A hyper-vigilant focus on “officer safety” has created a generation of police who are trained to be afraid of the people they police, and to respond hyper-aggressively to any perceived threat. Police still must have discretion on the street level to determine when someone is a threat, and when they must reasonably use lethal force. With some suspects that might mean they shoot when the person pulls a gun, but others, maybe not. The problem is talking someone down, trying to deescalate–these appear to have taken a back seat to “protecting the officer” training.
I’m not advocating anti-cop policies, nor am I unconcerned with police safety. What I’m saying is by excessively focusing on it, we have implemented training that creates “scared cops” who think it’s normal and reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later. I don’t think we need to change the legal standard on use of force, which is pretty reasonable–we instead need to change the training to better help avoid situations where lethal force is required and to help officers understand how they can avoid using lethal force in many scenarios.
I also have to disagree with shoot to disable, it ignores reality and is dangerous for everyone (including innocent bystanders.) FWIW “shoot to kill” is largely inaccurate description of training. Firearms training tends to emphasize shooting center mass, which typically kills. Shooting to disable would require not shooting center mass, and would result in less accuracy, more risk to bystanders, more risk to officers, etc.
I don’t think cops are held to a lower standard than you or me. There are some differences because they wield police power so they are allowed to use force to get compliance with their lawful commands. This includes the power of arrest and are entitled to compliance by the general public.
You may not like that some high school grad can wield so much power over the average citizen but its part of what almost every society permits in order to maintain law and order.
More training before being put on the street, more partnering with experienced officers before being sent out alone, etc. All good stuff. None of it cheap. College educated cops will cost more than high school grads. All that training costs money (around here you get paid during police academy by the sponsoring police department). All the extra personnel costs money. Asking them to take higher risks while still attracting good quality cops can make it very expensive indeed. But its worth thinking about.
Do you think our problems are a recent phenomenon or something that we have had for our entire history and are only noticing now? because the length of the police academy is not appreciably shorter than it used to be before.
So you would require a higher threshold for cops to defend themselves than average citizens? How many well qualified people do you think are going to be eager for that job?
That is really hard to do. I appreciate where you are coming from and if we had star trek phasers I would have cops (and civilians) set them to stun, but right now stopping an imminent threat frequently means killing them with a gun.
So there is this thing called the 21 foot rule. The average assailant can run 21 feet (in about 2 seconds) and engage the officer with a melee weapon before he can pull a gun out of its holster, aim and fire (about 2 seconds). The most physically fit criminals can cover the distance in 1.27 seconds, the slowest cops take almost 3 seconds to get off a shot that will this a man sized target at 21 feet.
The rule is different if you already have your gun out and trained on the criminal. Then you maintain minimum distance and shoot them if they move aggressively towards you.
When it comes to stopping a threat, a bullet it not a death wand, it punches holes in people and unless one of those holes goes through the head or spine or heart, it may not stop you.
You should really try going to a range before you assume what a shooter can and cannot do with a gun.
We could probably do a better job and I am bothered by the fact that cops seem to “talk down” whites a lot more frequently than they talk down blacks. It seems like they have the skills to talk down criminal, its that they don’t perceive the threat equally and shoot blacks while they arrest whites. That’s just my impression and the link above seems to say that I might be the victim of media induced misperception.
If you’re saying we should arm our cops primarily with stun guns, I’m not entirely opposed to that, within reason.
Shooting to kill also has the possible same possible result. You take a chance either way. Given the kind of systemic problems inherent in many of our police forces, I think they should be more willing to take a chance if it means that it will help to earn back the trust of those they are supposed to protect.
I think that the proliferation of camera phones and now body cams have shone a light on the police force the likes of which we haven’t seen in a long time. Before, it would be laughably easy for a cop to claim self-defense, and there would be no one able to contradict him. That people say that it seems a good amount of them were justified was simply because we didn’t know any better. With a camera in everyone’s hand, I think we’re just now realizing the scope of the problem, and that should call into question the supposedly justified shootings of the past enough that we don’t give any cop a pass.
Did that really originate in the 90’s? I don’t know, but I’m hard-pressed to say that a focus on officer safety was a recent thing. I’m more of the mind that this kind of thing has always happened and it took cameras in everyone’s hand to bring it to light
All I’m saying is, it seems to work in some situations. We can’t be willing to not try it. Let’s retrain a large police force in a populated area to do it for a few decades and see where it gets us.
How can you believe that? When a court tries an officer vs. a victim of police misconduct, if there are no hard evidence to point to either side, isn’t the cop usually believed by virtue of him being a cop? Hell, I’m in this topic arguing and I’d believe a cop over a random person. I’m saying that has to stop. Cops killing someone in the line of duty, if they really want to go with this “no inherent necessity to protect anyone” bullshit, should be treated like any citizen who shoots a person. Maybe the news is too sensationalistic, but I don’t see many people getting off for the reverse effect. Aren’t people also punished more harshly if they attack a cop? It seems like they want the benefit of doubt, but none of the responsibility of more accountability.
Its not simply that I don’t like it, I don’t believe they are qualified and I seek to change that.
Yes, it will be costly, it will be time consuming, and it may be a while before time and money can be shifted. But I think its worth it. More importantly, its necessary. With the proliferation of cameras, we are today seeing these kind of abuses widespread on a scale we couldn’t have imagined before. Add to that, the pissy police unions being dicks over protestors and threatening not to protect people gives me a bad taste in my mouth. If it means that we have to think of cops not as fresh faces right out of high school being paid way less than most people would take to throw themselves into danger, then we must change that.
No, I think it probably has always happened to some degree, but we couldn’t know it before it used to be so easy to cover it up by killing the perp and claiming self-defense. Now everybody has a camera and we are seeing the abuses in the light of day for the first time.
I think plenty of people will go for that job. By comparison, plenty of people still volunteer for the military, even though its more demanding and has more rules. In fact we have more military personnel than cops. I think with the right incentives, we can definitely get as much or more people joining the police force even if we tell them they must put their lives in danger and are not allowed to shoot at every shadow that spooks them.
I don’t really appreciate the condescension. I think its something we don’t do that other countries seem to be able to do. Are we too stupid to learn? Is it too hard for Americans to do that, despite us having more gun training than countries that don’t have a gun culture? So what if its hard? Make them train more! Get better people! We’ve been conditioned to think that this is as good as our police can get, they can never be trained more or better because that’s gonna cost money, and they can never change their training because we think it doesn’t work or is too hard to learn. Well fuck that, we need a better standard of police in this country
Sorry to say it so flippantly, but that’s why they’re cops and the rest of us are not. That’s why they undergo training and testing and are given the benefit of the doubt many times because they go into dangerous situations, they can order civilians around, and in many jurisdictions they are the ones allowed to go in armed to stop a threat. If they are too afraid of that to act with a little compassion and intelligence, maybe they shouldn’t be cops.
How many of these shootings that have occurred happened when the assailant was running towards a cop and they had no choice? Even I would totally sympathize with an officer if someone was running towards them. But Laquan McDonald was shot while he was on the ground. He was first put down with a few shots, then as he moved while lying on the ground with a knife, they shot him again. I’m an untrained, jittery civilian who’s handled a real weapon twice, but even I wouldn’t shoot a guy who had a knife while he was on the ground. I’d at least wait for him to get on his knees first to see if he was going to run to me. And then there was that completely innocent black guy who was a caretaker for an autistic white kid. Both were sitting on the ground, the black guy had his hands up, the cop thought the white kid had a gun (it was actually a toy train), and he shot the black guy! Fuck that, whatever excuse that cop had is pure bullshit. Philando Castile was sitting in a car in no position to run when the cop shot him 4 or 5 times. Eric Garner was choked to death while he was on the ground. There are much more examples. These were all cops who encountered black people on the streets in one capacity or another. None of them were in a position to run and still the cop was trigger happy. If that 21 foot rule is true, I would say cops need to take more of a chance because they are simply accidentally killing too many innocent people, or people who didn’t deserve it
White open-carry advocates walk around with rifles in gangs. Or troops. Or gaggles?
Actual armed mass shooters, if white, are apprehended and tried.
But being a black kid with a toy gun can get you dead.
Being a black driver on a highway and having a minor problem can get you dead.
Driving through a white neighborhood while black? That’s a capital crime, boy.
Please don’t bother with the mask anymore. You want a system of racial oppression? Fine, just be honest about it.
I know you think it’s too politically incorrect, but politically, it’ll be fine. Look at those people in Ferguson chanting, “Shoot, shoot!” You’ve got a workable plurality that* want *this, and they’ll shoot the social liberals and integrationists for you.
Just stop lying about it.
Cops are, at least partly, a tool of terror against the lower classes, and blacks are almost always the lower classes.
If police were about fighting crime, they’d be locking up investment bankers.