# 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:** 33
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/641 "2015-01-07T16:38:01Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Agreed. While I don’t think that police should wait until they are fired upon before they can use deadly force, the current standards yield too many false positives. > > The standard has to be something greater than just the potential that someone might have the means to harm the officer. Here in Las Vegas, the standard is only “might harm someone at some time”. [Cite: > [@](#): > > According to Metro’s use of force policy, officers can use deadly force if they believe a fleeing suspect would pose a threat to other people if they escape. ]([http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen](http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen)) Note that in that story from 2006, the suspect (still only a suspect, not a convicted felon) was running away from officers with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The Las Vegas Metro PD also once shot an unarmed man clad only in a pair of shorts who was on his knees with his hands behind his back and surrounded by officers moving in to handcuff him. It was ruled justifiable. Google “[Orlando Barlow](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Las+Vegas+SWAT+shooting&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#rls=en&q=Orlando+Barlow)” to read about that shooting. The Las Vegas Review Journal is one of the worst newspapers I’ve ever had the misfortune to be subjected to, but they get tremendous credit from me for [an investigative piece they did a couple of years ago on police shootings, _Deadly Force_](http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/deadly-force). Over 142 dead at the hands of officers, and because of the terribly flawed inquest system we used to have, not a single one was ruled unjustified, no matter the circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/642 "2015-01-07T16:38:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > [Interesting article](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/01/the-nypd-officers-who-see-racial-bias-in-the-nypd/384106/) about the views of minority NYPD officers. One tidbit: most of them have experienced racial profiling and other bad behavior at the hands of police (while off-duty), and most who reported these bad experiences either had these complaints dismissed or were actually retaliated against by their supervisors. Very interesting article. Unless it was mentioned and I wasn’t reading carefully, I’d like to know how they selected the 25 black officers interviewed for the story, given that 96% of them reported experiencing racial profiling. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/643 "2015-01-07T17:09:53Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [url=[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5a5e7a397c244bbeaf372c354947a3c9/killing-montana-man-police-eyed-coroners-inquest](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5a5e7a397c244bbeaf372c354947a3c9/killing-montana-man-police-eyed-coroners-inquest)] > So basically, in America, the land of freedom, anything you do that is not actively cooperating with the police is grounds to kill you. That’s lovely. Home of the free AND the brave? :dubious: This one doesn’t seem to help the thread. A known shooting suspect, multiple warrants, told _repeatedly_ to raise his hands, reaches for something… that sounds like a justified shooting. I only have a couple of questions, and the due to bad journalism, weren’t addressed in the article. > [@](#): > > The person sitting next to Ramirez, Tom Black, told The Associated Press in the days after the shooting that Ramirez was trying to unbuckle his seatbelt when he was shot. Does this mean Ramirez was still seated and buckled when he was shot? > [@](#): > > “He could have tased my brother or called for backup,” Julie Ramirez said. “When Officer Morrison got out of that patrol car he knew he was going to kill my brother.” Does this mean the officer did _not_ call for backup before approaching the car? ---
**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:** [January 7, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/644 "2015-01-07T17:11:33Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Very interesting article. > > Unless it was mentioned and I wasn’t reading carefully, I’d like to know how they selected the 25 black officers interviewed for the story, given that 96% of them reported experiencing racial profiling. I didn’t see anything about it, so I would assume typical journalism – look through public records and newspapers, find a bunch of NYPD names that go with pictures of black faces, and call them, send an email, knock on their door, and ask them if they’d like to be interviewed. Presumably, they did this until they had 25 officers/former officers who said “yes”. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/645 "2015-01-07T18:56:38Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > This one doesn’t seem to help the thread. **A known shooting suspect, multiple warrants** , told _repeatedly_ to raise his hands, reaches for something… that sounds like a justified shooting. So you are asserting that the officer knew Mr. Ramirez’s identity & the existence of outstanding warrants prior to shooting him? How did the officer know such things? Is he psychic? Is the officer a part of the Pre-Crime police force? :dubious: So the penalty for not obeying an officer’s commands is now death? Srsly? ---
**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:** [January 7, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/646 "2015-01-07T19:12:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So you are asserting that the officer knew Mr. Ramirez’s identity & the existence of outstanding warrants prior to shooting him? How did the officer know such things? Is he psychic? Is the officer a part of the Pre-Crime police force? :dubious: According to the article you posted, he recognised him. Perhaps you should read your own cites? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/647 "2015-01-07T19:14:55Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So the penalty for not obeying an officer’s commands is now death? Srsly? Been that way in the US for a while now. ---
**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:** [January 7, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/648 "2015-01-07T19:15:40Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So the penalty for not obeying an officer’s commands is now death? Srsly? Oh, and no, it’s not a penalty. This ridiculous point keeps getting made every time someone is killed in (claimed) self defence. A killing in self defence isn’t a penalty of any sort, and if it’s _not_ self defence, it’s a crime, not a penalty. The _consequence_ of not obeying may well be death, and that may be an acceptable consequence, if that disobedience puts the officer in reasonable fear of death or injury. Such as, for example, someone refusing to put their hands up and instead reaching into an area the officer can’t see. It’s reasonable for the police to assume people are armed. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/649 "2015-01-07T19:25:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s reasonable for the police to assume people are armed. Reasonable and perhaps prudent, absolutely. It’s _not_ reasonable for an officer to open fire based on an _assumption_, though. ---
**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:** [January 7, 2015, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/650 "2015-01-07T19:28:33Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Reasonable and perhaps prudent, absolutely. It’s _not_ reasonable for an officer to open fire based on an _assumption_, though. That’s how self defence works, though. If you can reasonably assume that the person is an imminent threat to you, you can defend yourself. Someone disobeying a cop, and reaching for something, has been proven in court to meet that standard. That’s really all there is to it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/651 "2015-01-07T19:42:43Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That’s how self defence works, though. If you can reasonably assume that the person is an imminent threat to you, you can defend yourself. > > Someone disobeying a cop, and reaching for something, has been proven in court to meet that standard. That’s really all there is to it. That’s a very Smapti standard - what the court says goes. If that standard ends up with a bunch of dead people who were in the end not an actual threat, it most certainly is appropriate to question that practice, regardless of what the court said. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/652 "2015-01-07T21:32:55Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So you are asserting that the officer knew Mr. Ramirez’s identity & the existence of outstanding warrants prior to shooting him? How did the officer know such things? Is he psychic? Is the officer a part of the Pre-Crime police force? :dubious: > > So the penalty for not obeying an officer’s commands is now death? Srsly? As someone else already pointed out: > [@](#): > > Before Ramirez was shot, Morrison recognized him as the suspect in a shooting the night before Your cite says they were looking for him specifically. They probably talked about him at the roll call meeting at the start of the shift. Probably had photos and everything. I, personally, am as appalled as anyone about our justice system as a whole and I believe our police officers are often way too quick to use force. I also believe they are much quicker to use deadly force when the suspect is non-white. All of these need to change. But I think you are reading too much into _this_ particular incident.\* If\* the facts laid out in this article are true, then it’s a justified shooting. Ramirez was a recognized suspect in a shooting. He refused multiple orders to put up his hands. He made a move that could have looked to anyone like someone reaching for a weapon. In that situation, I, a peace-loving pacifist, probably would have shot him too. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/653 "2015-01-08T16:41:11Z")
Starting with the first video in this chain, in which St. Paul police use mace, taser, kick to the chest etc. to arrest a black man … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbI5HHz7fJU innocent black man killed after cop beating ... I clicked suggestions at the right, finishing with the sixth, which describes Chicago cops shooting and very severely injuring an innocent man. Though the innocent was obviously on the verge of death, the cops didn't even call an ambulance until they noticed the man had used his cell-phone, thus creating a possible witness. The suggested clicks went on and on, but I had time and heart only for these. Anyone popping up to defend the cops? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/654 "2015-01-10T00:34:43Z")
[Interesting video…](http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11014328/activist-critical-of-police-undergoes-use-of-force-scenarios) A civil rights activist undergoes use-of-force training, confronts (staged) scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![slumtrimpet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@slumtrimpet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slumtrimpet)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/655 "2015-01-10T01:00:04Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > [Interesting video…](http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11014328/activist-critical-of-police-undergoes-use-of-force-scenarios) A civil rights activist undergoes use-of-force training, confronts (staged) scenarios. Interesting indeed. Two things set my detector off; Fox and Maricopa County Sheriff’s office. And sure enough, [propaganda](http://thefreethoughtproject.com/use-force-training-videos-phoenix-activist-exposed-police-propaganda/). Found that at the top of the comments. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/656 "2015-01-10T02:37:11Z")
That video is crap. What’s the point? That cops should be held to no higher standard than a random civilian with no training? One hopes that the cops get extensive training on how to handle these kinds of situations. Throwing a completely unprepared guy in there and using his failure to justify police violence is thoroughly dishonest. What’s next? “Bob sued his doctor for amputating the wrong limb, but when Bob had the scalpel in his hand, he saw it different!” Crap video, crap police force, crap network. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/657 "2015-01-10T16:22:45Z")
> [@slumtrimpet](#): > > Interesting indeed. Two things set my detector off; Fox and Maricopa County Sheriff’s office. And sure enough, [propaganda](http://thefreethoughtproject.com/use-force-training-videos-phoenix-activist-exposed-police-propaganda/). Found that at the top of the comments. I think it’s a misuse of the term to say that the video itself is propaganda. If someone trumpets it as somehow proving some huge point or settling the issue or being the be-all answer to all questions about Ferguson and Garner and so forth, then it would be being USED as propaganda. But as it is, it’s just what it seems to be. A guy who had been stridently anti-police (in the context of these encounters) got a very brief experience of what it’s like to be a cop in a difficult encounter, and found it eye-opening. Doesn’t mean he reversed his basic position on the issue. Doesn’t mean he started marching for the other side. And saying “people should comply with the police (implied: when the police have guns trained on them)” for their own safety is hardly a radical or controversial suggestion (barring crazy hypotheticals involving clearly corrupt cops ordering you to do illegal or dangerous things). ---
**Author:** ![slumtrimpet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@slumtrimpet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slumtrimpet)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/658 "2015-01-10T17:10:42Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think it’s a misuse of the term to say that the video itself is propaganda. If someone trumpets it as somehow proving some huge point or settling the issue or being the be-all answer to all questions about Ferguson and Garner and so forth, then it would be being USED as propaganda. But as it is, it’s just what it seems to be. A guy who had been stridently anti-police (in the context of these encounters) got a very brief experience of what it’s like to be a cop in a difficult encounter, and found it eye-opening. Doesn’t mean he reversed his basic position on the issue. Doesn’t mean he started marching for the other side. > > And saying “people should comply with the police (implied: when the police have guns trained on them)” for their own safety is hardly a radical or controversial suggestion (barring crazy hypotheticals involving clearly corrupt cops ordering you to do illegal or dangerous things). Did you read the linked article? It specifically points out that the video is propaganda because, among other things, it limits the interaction between the newly minted (and completely untrained) ‘policeman’ and the unarmed (but very threatening) ‘civilian’ to “shoot or be attacked”. No alternative measures offered. No stun gun, no physical restraint training, no baton, no training in defusing a potentially dangerous situation, no nothing - just a gun in hand. Now, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that is exactly how the Maricopa County Sheriff’s department is taught to deal with civilians, but… really? That’s what we want police to do? Read the article, it’s much better at explaining why the video is propaganda than I am. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/659 "2015-01-10T17:32:14Z")
> [@slumtrimpet](#): > > Read the article, it’s much better at explaining why the video is propaganda than I am. I don’t think we agree on what “propaganda” means. The video is certainly dishonest or incomplete _if someone tries to use it as a comprehensive and complete argument of some sort_. But I don’t see anyone trying to do that. It’s just what it is. (And I did read the article, and I don’t disagree with its points as far as they go, but in general I think they’re arguing against claims that the video, in isolation, is not making.) ---
**Author:** ![slumtrimpet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@slumtrimpet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slumtrimpet)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/660 "2015-01-10T19:57:36Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I don’t think we agree on what “propaganda” means. The video is certainly dishonest or incomplete _if someone tries to use it as a comprehensive and complete argument of some sort_. But I don’t see anyone trying to do that. It’s just what it is. (And I did read the article, and I don’t disagree with its points as far as they go, but in general I think they’re arguing against claims that the video, in isolation, is not making.) I’m happy to go with the [dictionary definition of propaganda](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/propaganda). And as the article concludes: > [@](#): > > In either case it is a false dichotomy, meant to facilitate a false sympathy towards law enforcement by showing the job they do in a very misleading light given the major advantages an officer on the beat has vs. a citizen off the street participating in this exercise. I think it fits the definition quite nicely. Nor is the video intended to be used ‘in isolation’. It was made by and shown on FOX ferchristsakes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=34)