# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 231
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4601 "2015-07-02T21:54:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > and the video is not consistent with Rice reaching for his gun by my eyes Then there’s something wrong with your eyes. The video _clearly_ shows him with his hand at his waist, where the gun was. How you can say that’s inconsistent with him reaching for the gun I genuinely don’t understand. The rest of your post is just goalpost-shifting. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4602 "2015-07-02T22:10:24Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Then there’s something wrong with your eyes. The video _clearly_ shows him with his hand at his waist, where the gun was. How you can say that’s inconsistent with him reaching for the gun I genuinely don’t understand. And I don’t understand how you can see this – there was absolutely no gun-reaching in the video, and I watched it multiple times and even slowed it down. > [@](#): > > The rest of your post is just goalpost-shifting. You said the video confirmed his story – how is it goalpost shifting to point out that it did the opposite? Did you just forget? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4603 "2015-07-02T22:17:44Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It takes a lot less that 2 seconds to freeze, or to put your hands up. And you are assuming that they didn’t say anything as they approached. Why? Oh, I’m happy to assume they said something. It may have sounded like “FRZHWYRHNDSDNMV!” but I’m sure it was _something_. > [@](#): > > No, they didn’t make it the worst by any means, The worst would have been if Rice _had_ been armed, as the police had good reason to believe, and all 3 people at the scene were killed. Ah, well, now you’re magically turning Rice’s airsoft gun into a real gun. By that standard, it could have been even _worse_ if Rice had been carrying an H-Bomb he made in shop class and covered it in ebola. > [@](#): > > If only the police had been psychic. They had good reason to believe he was a deadly threat. Sure, and we’re back to the best thing for the cops to do in order to ensure their safety is to just shoot Rice the moment they arrived. > [@](#): > > Anything at all apart from reach for a gun. It’s not established that a reach occurred. > [@](#): > > They had good reason to believe they were about to be shot. Defending yourself in that situation doesn’t make anyone “hypersensitive”, for fuck’s sake. Was Rice’s airgun pointed at them? > [@](#): > > Do you genuinely only expect people to wait until they’ve actually been shot to defend themselves? If not, at what point in the fractions of a second between someone reaching for a gun and pulling the trigger does the threat become imminent enough for you? I reiterated the hierarchy of risk just a few posts ago. You’re just sliding from “gun in the waistband” to “shots fired at police” and either being too lazy or too stupid to distinguish them. If you truly see no difference, then why _not_ shoot anyone who looks like they might have a gun, because _within fractions of a second, a gun could appear and be fired at police and that’s HOW COPS GET KILLED!!!111!!!_ > [@](#): > > Unless the cops told him to throw the gun on the ground, there was no reason for him to act as he did. I’d like to see this tested on Smapti, truth be told. Just randomly shout at him “Police! Throw down the gun!” and see if he can comply in one second, as he claims but has not supported. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4604 "2015-07-02T22:38:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Which of those descriptions, if either, fits the Tamir Rice situation? > > Okay. Now train them not to create situations that only become potentially deadly upon their arrival. (post shortened) A good description of events would be that someone chose to point a gun at random passersby, near/at a playground. Someone considered the situation dangerous enough that it warranted a call to 9-1-1. The dispatcher sent officers to investigate a man with a gun at a playground. The officers stopped close to the suspect. According to witnesses, words may, or may not, have been exchanged. The video clearly shows whatever people think they see. Shots were fired. Is there enough evidence to warrant a trial? Is there enough evidence to convince an impartial jury that the officer is guilty of: manslaughter? reckless endangerment? 1st degree murder? 2nd degree murder? aggravated mopery? Or would they find insufficient evidence to convict? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4605 "2015-07-02T22:47:27Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > A good description of events would be that someone chose to point a gun at random passersby, near/at a playground. Someone considered the situation dangerous enough that it warranted a call to 9-1-1. The dispatcher sent officers to investigate a man with a gun at a playground. The officers stopped close to the suspect. According to witnesses, words may, or may not, have been exchanged. The video clearly shows whatever people think they see. Shots were fired. > > Is there enough evidence to warrant a trial? > > Is there enough evidence to convince an impartial jury that the officer is guilty of: > manslaughter? > reckless endangerment? > 1st degree murder? > 2nd degree murder? > aggravated mopery? > > Or would they find insufficient evidence to convict? Is this is one big trick question where if I describe how the legal proceedings should go, you turn around and accuse me of wanting to act as judge and jury? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4606 "2015-07-02T23:19:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And I don’t understand how you can see this – there was absolutely no gun-reaching in the video, and I watched it multiple times and even slowed it down. > > You said the video confirmed his story – how is it goalpost shifting to point out that it did the opposite? Did you just forget? No, I didn’t say the video confirmed his story, I’ve already said he was lying or mistaken. What I’ve said is the video is consistent with the shooting being in self defence. That’s not contradicted by your claim that there’s no gun reaching in the video. Do you accept that the video shows Rice with his hand near his waistband just before he’s shot? If so, how can you claim it’s inconsistent with a claim he’s reaching for his gun? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4607 "2015-07-02T23:29:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Ah, well, now you’re magically turning Rice’s airsoft gun into a real gun. By that standard, it could have been even _worse_ if Rice had been carrying an H-Bomb he made in shop class and covered it in ebola. Are you still ignoring the fact that the police were told he had a gun? > [@](#): > > It’s not established that a reach occurred. It’s not established one didn’t. > [@](#): > > I reiterated the hierarchy of risk just a few posts ago. You’re just sliding from “gun in the waistband” to “shots fired at police” and either being too lazy or too stupid to distinguish them. If you truly see no difference, then why _not_ shoot anyone who looks like they might have a gun, because _within fractions of a second, a gun could appear and be fired at police and that’s HOW COPS GET KILLED!!!111!!!_ I see you still don’t understand what “imminent” means. Try looking it up. You can’t shoot someone who might have a gun. You can shoot someone who you have good reason to believe is about to shoot you. This is not a complex or subtle difference, despite what people are trying to claim here. When you are being threatened (or believe you are) you don’t have time to carefully analyse the situation, and judge whether you have 0.42 of a second to wait before you shoot, in case you’ve been misled and he’s not actually carrying a gun. There’s even a Supreme Court judgement to that effect - “Detached Reflection Cannot Be Demanded in the Presence of an Uplifted Knife”. The cop didn’t get to rewatch the events, slowed down, with hindsight. He had to make an instant judgement, and had reason to believe the wrong one would get him killed. > [@](#): > > I’d like to see this tested on Smapti, truth be told. Just randomly shout at him “Police! Throw down the gun!” and see if he can comply in one second, as he claims but has not supported. I’d like to try something more relevant. Try shouting “Freeze!” or “Show your hands!” at someone, and see how many instead reach for a gun. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4608 "2015-07-02T23:33:06Z")
So have we seen this one yet? > **[Juxxi](https://juxxi.com/)** > > Welcome to Juxxi. A friendly, forward-thinking, video platform. Your Story. Our Technology. A Better Future. Police body camera footage of shooting. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4609 "2015-07-02T23:38:00Z")
Now, that is what I call reaching for a gun. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4610 "2015-07-02T23:46:56Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, I didn’t say the video confirmed his story, I’ve already said he was lying or mistaken. What I’ve said is the video is consistent with the shooting being in self defence. That’s not contradicted by your claim that there’s no gun reaching in the video. Since the shooter’s story was inconsistent with the video, I think it’s reasonable to agree with Judge Adrine that the video is not consistent with the shooter’s claim of self-defense. He told a specific story about self-defense and he was lying or mistaken. I don’t believe any possible reasonable doubt is created by some story-shifting by the shooter – he had his chance to tell what really happened and blew it. There may be some other evidence that would support some new story, but the shooter hasn’t even tried to tell a new story – in my mind (and, apparently, in Judge Adrine’s mind), considering the video, the dead child, and the lying/mistaken self-defense story, I think the best way to sort all of this out is with a trial. Based on the evidence so far, my buddy the Judge and I feel that a trial is warranted, and hopefully it will happen. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4611 "2015-07-02T23:57:37Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Are you still ignoring the fact that the police were told he had a gun? I was never ignoring that. > [@](#): > > It’s not established one didn’t. Ah, so _that’s_ how you want to argue, huh? Can you prove the officer didn’t wake up that day hoping for a chance to shoot a black kid? Of course, I wouldn’t ask that seriously, because it’s a stupid tactic. > [@](#): > > I see you still don’t understand what “imminent” means. Try looking it up. I know what it means, and I don’t believe that you actually believe that I don’t. > [@](#): > > You can’t shoot someone who might have a gun. You can shoot someone who you have good reason to believe is about to shoot you. This is not a complex or subtle difference, despite what people are trying to claim here. You’re right, it’s not a complex issue, but you’re on the wrong side of it. > [@](#): > > When you are being threatened (or believe you are) you don’t have time to carefully analyse the situation, and judge whether you have 0.42 of a second to wait before you shoot, in case you’ve been misled and he’s not actually carrying a gun. Well, see, there you go. You’re starting with the assumption that he’s armed, to the point where any movement of any kind (or any movement of any kind that you claim to perceive) means it’s instantly shoot-to-kill and it would be “fucking ridiculous” otherwise. And 0.42 of a second is actually not too far removed from the amount of time between Loehmann getting out of the car and Loehmann starting to shoot. > [@](#): > > There’s even a Supreme Court judgement to that effect - “Detached Reflection Cannot Be Demanded in the Presence of an Uplifted Knife”. The cop didn’t get to rewatch the events, slowed down, with hindsight. He had to make an instant judgement, and had reason to believe the wrong one would get him killed. Did he really have to make an instant judgement or was that forced by the overly energetic approach, i.e. come rushing up, boiling out, and no matter what happens, it’s going to be fast? Rice’s weapon was not “uplifted”, in any case. > [@](#): > > I’d like to try something more relevant. Try shouting “Freeze!” or “Show your hands!” at someone, and see how many instead reach for a gun. If you like, but it seems to the more relevant metric is how quickly citizens can react to police intervention. According to you and Smapti, one second is enough to instantly surrender one’s weapon (if any) and assume a posture of complete compliance. Anything longer, and you _deserve_ to be shot. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4612 "2015-07-02T23:58:54Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > So have we seen this one yet? > > [https://www.full30.com/video/dc1c563aa6b106f252dfe6a9d91ffd94](https://www.full30.com/video/dc1c563aa6b106f252dfe6a9d91ffd94) > > Police body camera footage of shooting. That’s pretty scary and impressive. If the guy had wanted to shoot the male officer inside the restaurant or the female officer outside, he probably could have done so. Good shoot, under the circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4613 "2015-07-03T00:04:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is this is one big trick question where if I describe how the legal proceedings should go, you turn around and accuse me of wanting to act as judge and jury? No, it’s not a trick question. Was the basic description OK? Do I need to repeat the questions? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4614 "2015-07-03T00:13:28Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If citizens have an inherent right to protect their own lives, then you’re essentially saying that a person’s employer can require them to forfeit their human rights as a condition of taking a job. That is a far stretch. Being a cop is not a job, it’s a profession.It even comes with a title, Officer. But, yes, when you agree to become a cop, you agree to risk your life to save others. Just how that is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4615 "2015-07-03T01:10:48Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > No, it’s not a trick question. > > Was the basic description OK? All right, but if this ends with you suggesting I want to dispense with rule of law and install myself as judge and jury (and possibly executioner), well… at least it won’t be the first time I’ve been so accused on this board. I don’t think your “basic description” is “OK”, though, on two points: 1. “The video clearly shows whatever people think they see.” - the video isn’t a Rorschach test. 2. “Shots were fired.” - true, but it’s worth specifying that only police shots were fired. Your proposed list of outcomes omits some of the preliminaries: there is certainly enough evidence to warrant an investigation. I’m willing to speculate that there is probably enough evidence to sustain an indictment of negligent homicide, as defined by Ohio Revised Code 2903.05, possibly reckless homicide (2903.041). Beyond that, you’re asking me to predict what a jury will or should decide, when I could only speculate what I would do if I was a juror. What I think is a reasonable minimum outcome is that Timothy Loehmann never works in law enforcement again. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4616 "2015-07-03T01:32:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Ah, so _that’s_ how you want to argue, huh? Can you prove the officer didn’t wake up that day hoping for a chance to shoot a black kid? Of course, I wouldn’t ask that seriously, because it’s a stupid tactic. He shouldn’t have to prove his innocence, his accusers should have to prove his guilt. Even in Ohio, the preponderance of evidence needs to show it wasn’t self defence. As yet, we appear to have _no_ evidence it wasn’t self defence. I hope that the judge who ruled that this should go to trial has seen more evidence than that video… ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4617 "2015-07-03T01:40:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Since the shooter’s story was inconsistent with the video, I think it’s reasonable to agree with Judge Adrine that the video is not consistent with the shooter’s claim of self-defense. That doesn’t follow. That just isn’t how logic works. That the video disproves one thing says nothing about whether it proves or disproves something else. Your argument is _still_ “he lied, so he’s guilty of something unrelated to the lying”, for some reason. His lying (if indeed he did lie) tells you _nothing_ about whether he was justified in shooting Rice. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4618 "2015-07-03T01:43:28Z")
> [@What's with the gas prices?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gas-prices/94824/10): > > If you like, but it seems to the more relevant metric is how quickly citizens can react to police intervention. According to you and Smapti, one second is enough to instantly surrender one’s weapon (if any) and assume a posture of complete compliance. Anything longer, and you _deserve_ to be shot. Liar. Try actually reading what we write, instead of inventing straw men. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4619 "2015-07-03T01:43:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > As yet, we appear to have _no_ evidence it wasn’t self defence. If we could clearly see Rice pointing a weapon (in this case, an Airsoft gun, but a close and deliberate replica of an M1911) at the police, or drawing a weapon on the police, or even having a weapon in his hand in the presence of police, maybe… but we can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4620 "2015-07-03T01:46:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If we could clearly see Rice pointing a weapon (in this case, an Airsoft gun, but a close and deliberate replica of an M1911) at the police, or drawing a weapon on the police, or even having a weapon in his hand in the presence of police, maybe… but we can’t. What does that have to do with my point that we have no evidence that it wasn’t self defence? You are talking about things that would be evidence that it _was_ self defence. Do you understand the difference? All you are doing is showing that the video shows it _might not_ be self defence. Well, so what? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=230) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=232)