# 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:** 480
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9582 "2016-10-06T19:15:43Z")
As to the evil intentions of the officers in the Sacramento case, more from Graham v Connor: “As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the “reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137 -139 (1978); see also Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 21 (in analyzing the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure, “it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard”). An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United States, supra, at 138, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973).” So, even if the officer said, “ I fucking hate homeless people. Let’s kill him” it wouldn’t matter, provided the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. So says the USSC. There was a similar case in Arizona where the officer, rather than shoot, drove his car into a man with a gun walking through a neighborhood. There were unconfirmed reports that he had fired a shot. The officer was found to have acted reasonably and the bad guy survived. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY3OXWV8vjA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY3OXWV8vjA) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9583 "2016-10-06T20:17:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > De-escalation didn’t work - Mann ran away and continued to present a threat. How much time, approximately, should police attempt to de-escalate before just saying “fuck it” and running him over? I mean I know he was a threat to the people standing a couple hundred feet away from him, because knives are a known long-range threat. Also, police have more important shit to do. But maybe the guys in the second car could have taken a couple minutes? Also, quick question: is running away a rational response to someone trying to run you down with a car? I guess I’m asking: can the police try to run you over, then when you move out of the way of the car, take that movement as proof of non-compliance and shoot you? Personally I might have trouble standing still while someone was trying to run me over, and I’m worried. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9584 "2016-10-06T20:22:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > But what was clear to me was that he kept walking towards his car and the police testimony that he was being ordered to stop is credible and consistent with what I saw on the video and therefore the tasering was probably justified and I think pretty much any reasonable jury would agree that the tasering was justified. > > Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that the cops are all lying liars that lie. Despite the inclination of some to hold cops to a guilty until proven innocent standard, the cops that fired the taser is entitled to the same benefit of reasonable doubt as you or me. Sorry to jump in on a conversation I’m not a part of, but so far you’ve identified only one person who thought the tasering wasn’t justified, and you’re not responding to them. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9585 "2016-10-06T20:26:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly, or I don’t understand. Mann presented an ongoing threat. The police were obligated to take whatever steps were available to eliminate the threat. I think this might be where we’re not seeing eye-to-eye; I don’t think the police were obligated to take “whatever” steps were available to eliminate the threat. And I don’t think _you_ really mean they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted to eliminate the threat, either, or at least I hope not. > [@](#): > > De-escalation didn’t work - Mann ran away and continued to present a threat. If I am reading\*\* iiandyiii’s\*\* posts correctly, the running away part occurred after the attempt to hit him with the car, so if that’s true, I don’t think you can count that as part of the attempt to de-escalate. > [@](#): > > The danger to the public of trying to hit him with a car was less, in the immediate judgment of the cops, than the overall threat of letting him run around with the knife and continuing to try to get him to drop the knife. I am uncertain how you can be so sure of the thought processes of the cops in this particular case, but sure, let us assume that. They thought manifestly wrong; they added to the danger by posing an \*additional \*danger, and they did not prevent the danger from occurring by their attempts to hit the man. > [@](#): > > AFAICT the first pair were in a car, in which they sat while trying to order Mann to drop his knife. Which he didn’t do, thus continuing to present a threat to the public. Strange. And yet, these two did _not_ determine that the best course of action was to hit the man with a knife with their car. Out of the two cops who did \*not \*try to hit the knife-wielder with their car, and the two cops who _did_ try it, which do you think evaluated the situation wrongly? Doesn’t the existence on the scene of four cops, each pair of which acted in a different way, suggest that either one pair was _wrong_ to do they did or that we cannot say that one pair was _right_ to do what they did? > [@](#): > > They could have gotten out of their car, which would have increased the risk to themselves. Knives are dangerous. Again, maybe I don’t understand. Attempting to hit a man within immediate reach of pedestrians and other drivers with a car would have increased the risk to pedestrians, drivers, the man himself, and themselves. Cars are dangerous, when driven at people. > [@](#): > > The cops could have stayed in the car, and tried to hit Mann with their car. This would somewhat increase the risk to other drivers, decrease the risk to the officers, and (probably) eliminating the risk to everyone else. They tried it, it didn’t work. It didn’t injure any cops, didn’t injure anyone else, and didn’t eliminate the threat posed by Mr. Mann. Why “probably”, here? As you note, it did not work. That doesn’t, of course, mean that it _could not_ have worked. But why would it “probably” have worked to eliminate that risk? How are you determining that? I must admit I’m also curious that you feel that a man with a knife is an immediate danger to others who must be stopped, but driving at a man close enough to others to leave them in immediate danger only “somewhat” increases the risk to them. > [@](#): > > The cops could have stayed in the car and tried to continue to order Mann to drop the knife. They did try that, and it didn’t work - Mann ran, thus continuing the risk to the public and to any cops that might get out of their car, and didn’t eliminate the threat Mr. Mann posed. As I understand it, the running away part was after the attempts to hit him. And, again, attempting to hit Mann with their car also didn’t work, also continued the risk to the public while adding an ADDITIONAL risk to the public and any cops that might get out of their car, and didn’t eliminate the threat Mr. Mann posed. > [@](#): > > The cops could have stayed in their car, followed Mann, and tried to Tase him. How possible that is, I couldn’t say - I don’t know how easy or difficult it is to deploy a Taser on a moving target from a moving platform. I suspect it is not very easy - the differing rates of speed make it likely to miss, pull the barb out, or whatever. I don’t know either, I have to say. > [@](#): > > The cops could have stayed in their car and tried to shoot Mann. Same objections as trying to Tase him, but more so. Missing a bullet is much more serious than a missed Taser barb - friendly fire is a common source of death or injury in many firefights. Most certainly. Of course, a friendly “fire” incident when the weapon is a car attempting to hit a person also seems like something that would be “much more serious” than a missed Taser barb. > [@](#): > > The cops could have cornered Mann, got out of the car, and either Taser’ed him, or shot him. Shooting him is what they did, and it worked, so to speak - no more threat to the public, no friendly fire casualties. > > I suppose Taser-ing him was an option, but as I previously mentioned, a knife is deadly force, and calls (IMO) for something more, and more certain, than a less-than-lethal option like a Taser. You “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”, and you don’t bring a Taser to a knife fight. A car can be deadly force too, so let’s not forget that part of things. I query whether shooting the man in question is more certain than a Taser - I’m afraid, like you, I’ve never trained with a Taser. I would strongly disagree that deadly force was necessary in this particular case - if nothing else, there was no “knife fight” to bring a Taser, gun, or car to, and so far as I can tell no person had been threatened with deadly force up until the cops attempted it. So far as I can tell it was only the potential of deadly force of “that guy has a knife and is acting weird”. > [@](#): > > I don’t mean to imply that the cops carefully weighed all the options and chose the best possible option, and no possible criticism could possibly be valid. But “[detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an uplifted knife](https://justice4dennypetitt.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/detached-reflection-cannot-be-demanded-in-the-presence-of-an-uplifted-knife/)”, especially when that knife is in the hands of a meth-addled looney. But it’s been months, and even after nitpicking every damn thing, the worst that can be found is that one of the cops said something insensitive about hitting said looney with a car. Well, actually, no - you’ve skipped over your point at the top of this paragraph which is that we can’t say that the cops carefully weighed all the options and chose the best possible option. It may be that they did not, and therefore did not. Which, in a worst case scenario, would mean that they wrongly escalated the situation, wrongly threatened the lives of pedestrians, drivers, and other cops by introducing more danger into the situation, wrongly judged steps to safely resolve the situation, wrongly ending up killing someone, and have no reason not to continue on like such. In the worst case, they killed someone who did not need to be killed, and threatened others with that same danger of death. Frankly, not being sure that the cops weighed the situation carefully to choose the best option, or that there is the possibility of criticism for their actions, seems like a Big Deal. Lives were in the balance, and one was lost. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9586 "2016-10-06T20:32:05Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’d like to see who you think is the “cops are evil” crowd. I think most of us think cops could use more training, better resources, and better pay. If that means we think that they are evil, I’m not sure what evil is anymore. I’d say the folks who are saying that “cops are not to be trusted” or that imply that the cops in the Terence Crutcher case are lying about ordering him to stop so they can excuse the tasering of Terence Crutcher. These people seem to fall into the “cops are evil” crowd. > [@](#): > > In any case, tasers are less lethal than guns. I agree that a person waving a knife about in a crowded area should be brought under control. Maybe just talking to and reasoning with someone in that state isn’t going to work, so incapacitating them non-lethally is the next best option. > > As far as TC and tasering, I don’t know that tasering him would have been entirely warranted, but few would have complained if that was all that come of it. He would have been upset, maybe, but he’d be alive. No one would have ever heard his name if he’d been tased and processed. It’s that they shot and killed him that makes ALL of the actions that day subject to extra scrutiny. I think the tasing of Terence Crutcher was entirely justifiable. I agree that it was the shooting that has got people upset but there are people here saying that the cops are lying about giving him orders that would have justified the tasing. > [@](#): > > My point to shodan was that none of these drugs should preclude the attempt of tasering rather than shooting. Even being immune to pain doesn’t stop the taser from completely overriding your nervous system. I tend to agree. Tasers don’t rely on pain to stop the suspect. > [@](#): > > If there is a drug out there that makes you immune from tasering, then there could be a reason to shoot first, but I have not heard of it. Well, tasering doesn’t always work if you don’t get good contact with the probes so if there is an actual imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury then shooting can be justified. But with an unarmed suspect or one that is no presenting an imminent threat, tasing is an option that police are trained to use when appropriate. Like in the Terence Crutcher case. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9587 "2016-10-06T20:55:20Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I think this might be where we’re not seeing eye-to-eye; I don’t think the police were obligated to take “whatever” steps were available to eliminate the threat. And I don’t think _you_ really mean they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted to eliminate the threat, either, or at least I hope not. Anything? No. Anything within reason/the law/police policy? Yes - I would almost say Of course. > [@](#): > > If I am reading\*\* iiandyiii’s\*\* posts correctly, the running away part occurred after the attempt to hit him with the car, so if that’s true, I don’t think you can count that as part of the attempt to de-escalate. No, running him down isn’t de-escalation. De-escalation is the four minutes prior, where the first set of cops sat in their car and tried to talk him down, or order him to drop the knife and surrender. Mann did neither. > [@](#): > > I am uncertain how you can be so sure of the thought processes of the cops in this particular case, but sure, let us assume that. They thought manifestly wrong; they added to the danger by posing an \*additional \*danger, and they did not prevent the danger from occurring by their attempts to hit the man. There were no better options. > [@](#): > > Out of the two cops who did \*not \*try to hit the knife-wielder with their car, and the two cops who _did_ try it, which do you think evaluated the situation wrongly? Doesn’t the existence on the scene of four cops, each pair of which acted in a different way, suggest that either one pair was _wrong_ to do they did or that we cannot say that one pair was _right_ to do what they did? No. The different cops tried different options - first de-escalation, then when that didn’t work hitting him with their car, then when that didn’t work cornering him against a fence and shooting him. None of them were wrong - they didn’t start off shooting. > [@](#): > > Why “probably”, here? As you note, it did not work. That doesn’t, of course, mean that it _could not_ have worked. But why would it “probably” have worked to eliminate that risk? How are you determining that? Based on an expectation that people with knives tend to be less dangerous to the public after they have been run over. I don’t have a cite, if that’s what’s next. > [@](#): > > I query whether shooting the man in question is more certain than a Taser - I’m afraid, like you, I’ve never trained with a Taser. A Taser is considered “less lethal force” as compared to a gun. People who get shot die more than people who are Taser’ed. Dead people are less of a threat than pretty much any other kind. > [@](#): > > I would strongly disagree that deadly force was necessary in this particular case - if nothing else, there was no “knife fight” to bring a Taser, gun, or car to, and so far as I can tell no person had been threatened with deadly force up until the cops attempted it. Probably here is where we have the basic disagreement. ISTM that a dangerously insane person waving a knife around in public, doing karate moves, refusing to drop the knife when ordered, presents an imminent threat of deadly force. Especially on a busy street. And the costs of assuming that he was **not** an imminent threat and finding out you were wrong, are rather high. If Mann stabs an officer, or someone in a stopped car, or a pedestrian, I for one would not accept “He didn’t look all that dangerous, and it was only a four-inch knife, and he hadn’t really killed anyone just yet” as an excuse. > [@](#): > > Frankly, not being sure that the cops weighed the situation carefully to choose the best option, or that there is the possibility of criticism for their actions, seems like a Big Deal. Lives were in the balance, and one was lost. They didn’t have a chance to weigh the situation carefully, and I still can’t find much wrong with what they did. Mann presented a danger to the community, the cops tried to de-escalate, it didn’t work, they eliminated the threat with minimal injury to themselves and the general public. All under extreme pressure, and at risk to themselves. One of the officers said “fuck”. How dreadful. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9588 "2016-10-06T21:00:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, running him down isn’t de-escalation. De-escalation is the four minutes prior, where the first set of cops sat in their car and tried to talk him down, or order him to drop the knife and surrender. Mann did neither. Four minutes?!?!! That’s like 30 seconds longer than I could have gone before killing the man. Case closed! > [@](#): > > There were no better options. You said it. I believe it. That settles it. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9589 "2016-10-06T21:36:35Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > "Wait. WHAT?!?! So stress deafness is completely ordinary and normal?!?!? > > When I google it and all I get is that cops don’t wear enough ear protection so they gradually go deaf over time. You got a cite for that? because it really sounds a lot like panic to me." - Damuri > > It took me about two minutes of Googling (auditory exclusion and critical incidents) to find two separate articles stating auditory exclusion took/takes place in some degree in “more than 85%” and “88%”, respectively, of police shootings. So, yes, its completely ordinary and normal. > > Have you ever been in a situation where you were looking at something that placed you in imminent fear of your life? I mean _really_ thought you might die. Maybe a mugger pointing a gun at you? Or a cop pointing a gun at you? So these people who were shot for not listening to the orders being shouted at them may have been hysterically deaf? Makes sense; Crutcher was disoriented and just wanted to sit down in his car, and he wasn’t hearing the cops’ orders. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9590 "2016-10-06T21:36:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Anything? No. Anything within reason/the law/police policy? Yes - I would almost say Of course. Ok, I’m glad. But I’d still disagree. Just as you or I, as regular citizens, can do things within reason or within the law that are probably not good ideas, so too should police not act with carte blanche within reason, law, or policy. > [@](#): > > No, running him down isn’t de-escalation. De-escalation is the four minutes prior, where the first set of cops sat in their car and tried to talk him down, or order him to drop the knife and surrender. Mann did neither. Ok, I’m glad you’ve retracted that point. > [@](#): > > There were no better options. Now I’m very confused. You said in your previous post that you “don’t mean to imply that the cops carefully weighed all the options and chose the best possible option”. That would seem to be somewhat contradictory to saying, as you do here, “They chose the best possible option”. > [@](#): > > No. The different cops tried different options - first de-escalation, then when that didn’t work hitting him with their car, then when that didn’t work cornering him against a fence and shooting him. None of them were wrong - they didn’t start off shooting. Is that the only judgement by which we could say that they were wrong? That they didn’t start off shooting? The two pairs of cops’ actions disagreed with one another. One pair did not believe attempting to run the man down was the best solution. One pair did. One pair - by necessity - must have been wrong. If the driving pair were right, then the stationary pair were wrong not to try it themselves. If the stationary pair were right not to try to hit the man, then the driving pair were wrong to try. > [@](#): > > Based on an expectation that people with knives tend to be less dangerous to the public after they have been run over. Which neatly sidesteps the point that their attempt might not have worked - which it didn’t. Twice, as I’m reading. That they failed twice suggests to me that saying attempting to hit the man with their car was “probably” going to remove the danger is inaccurate. > [@](#): > > A Taser is considered “less lethal force” as compared to a gun. People who get shot die more than people who are Taser’ed. Dead people are less of a threat than pretty much any other kind. You presume that a Taser has less immediate stopping power than a gun (or to be specific, the particular guns the police were armed with in this case). People who get shot die more than people who are Taser’d - seems likely enough. But are people who get shot more likely to be incapacitated, and more likely to be incapacitated quicker, and more likely to suffer an accurate-enough-to-incapacitate shot, than a gun? I don’t know the answers to these questions, I must admit. But they seem important in addressing this situation, at least to me. I would like to know what is the most effective, quickest, most safe to others tool for use in a situation like this. “Is it more lethal (if accurate, with no estimate of time taken, or ability to use effectively)?” seems like a very lacking qualifier. The lives of police officers may be staked upon being able to effectively incapacitate someone, and do it well; this is not a subject for a lacking analysis. But I do agree with you on one point - dead people are less of a threat than pretty much other kind. So why did the police decide to risk the deaths of pedestrians, drivers, and other cops by using their car as a deadly weapon? > [@](#): > > Probably here is where we have the basic disagreement. ISTM that a dangerously insane person waving a knife around in public, doing karate moves, refusing to drop the knife when ordered, presents an imminent threat of deadly force. Especially on a busy street. And the costs of assuming that he was **not** an imminent threat and finding out you were wrong, are rather high. If Mann stabs an officer, or someone in a stopped car, or a pedestrian, I for one would not accept “He didn’t look all that dangerous, and it was only a four-inch knife, and he hadn’t really killed anyone just yet” as an excuse. And if the cops had hit and killed or injured one of the pedestrians on the busy street, or hit and killed or injured another driver or incapacitated themselves or their car such that they could not render aid, or hit and killed or injured the other cops in their car at the scene or incapacitated _them_selves or\* their\* car such they could not render aid - I for one would not accept “He didn’t look all that dangerous, and it was only a four-inch knife, and he hadn’t really killed anyone just yet” as an excuse. > [@](#): > > They didn’t have a chance to weigh the situation carefully, and I still can’t find much wrong with what they did. Mann presented a danger to the community, the cops tried to de-escalate, it didn’t work, they eliminated the threat with minimal injury to themselves and the general public. All under extreme pressure, and at risk to themselves. Risk which - at least in part - they provided to themselves. While they risked the lives of pedestrians and other drivers. In this case, there was only one death. By no means is that guranteed. Personally speaking, I care enough about the lives of police and of members of the public to try and discover whether or not the end result was a matter of good judgement - or chance. Because if the former, praise is due. And if the latter, well… next time things might turn out for the worse. > [@](#): > > One of the officers said “fuck”. How dreadful. The officers, or members of the public, might not even be around to say “fuck”. And that _would_ be dreadful. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9591 "2016-10-07T00:25:30Z")
I don’t know if it’s already been suggested, but perhaps crutcher had stress deafness, and that’s why he didn’t follow whatever orders were yelled at him? I imagine he was under a lot of stress, all those cops pointing weapons and yelling at him. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9592 "2016-10-07T01:01:46Z")
It is a normal human response: when someone yells at you, you tend to hear more that they _are_ yelling than _what_ they are yelling. This is a serious problem with police procedure, that they start yelling and acting hostile. The subject responds to their hostility first and may not get a chance to parse the actual commands. The police then complain that the subject did not respond to their commands, when in reality, the subject was overwhelmed by the tone and volume of those commands. Similarly, as has been noted, an officer might become focused on the subject and start to block out everything else. “Hysterical deafness” may not be all that unrealistic. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9593 "2016-10-07T01:02:00Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Because our ‘Law and Order’ friends in this thread are heartless bullies and cowards who think ‘criminals’ and ‘bad people’ deserve to be killed. There’s no sugar coating that. We’ve had people in this thread try to argue that a cop should just plain shoot a person if the situation is taking too long to resolve and they have other things to do. I came late to this thread but this sounds unlikely. > [@](#): > > We’ve had them argue that people on drugs should be shot out of hand because they’re too dangerous to even talk to. Once again, this sounds unlikely. > [@](#): > > We’ve had them excuse shooting a fucking mental health worker trying to talk someone down, because they’re cops and it is their duty to resolve the situation and shooting is always a great option. I haven’t read that in the last ten pages or so since I got here. Was it before that? > [@](#): > > And then they accuse us of being anti-police and wanting police to die because we think it shouldn’t work that way. Do you have a cite for these assertions because i’m starting to suspect that you misread some of these posts. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9594 "2016-10-07T01:06:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Just the one question: Do you have any fucking evidence at all as to what was _actually_ said, or are you just pulling it out of your ass? Yes. The testimony of the police, which is consistent with their standard procedure, which is consistent with the video. This well exceeds the requirement to meet reasonable doubt and is way into the more likely than not category. Do YOU have any fucking evidence that this was NOT what was actually said or do the police have to provide audio to prove what are fairly obvious facts? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9595 "2016-10-07T01:18:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “Your kid has measles. Should have got the shot.” > “Nunh-uh! Look at this bump, right here.” > “This one?” > “No, the one next to it. Look close. It could be a mosquito bite…” > “What to do you mean, ‘mosquito bite’?” > “Well, there’s a video, shows it could be a mosquito bite. But that video was edited by the media to make it look like measles.” > “Well, then, show me the original video!” > “Can’t, all we got is the edited one. But I saw the real one, and its a mosquito bite.” > “You can’t produce it, so how does that prove anything?” > “I saw it. And it was discussed, if you didn’t see when it was discussed, that’s not my problem! It was discussed!” > “Wait! WTF? Are you gonna try and say they are _all_ mosquito bites? There’s hundreds of them, its measles!” > “No, I’ve totally proved that this bump is a mosquito bite. Other bumps, who knows, but I’ve proved that you dishonestly say they are measles, but that’s not true! So you’re a liar, so its not measles!” > “And this one, and that one, right next to it!?!” > “Acne.” > “Acne! Your kid is six years old, since when do six year old kids get acne?” > “You can’t prove it never happened.” > “They are all over the place, plus the kid has a fever!” > “Malaria. From the mosquito bite…” > > TL:DR There is a big, fat, huge problem, all across the country, with police interactions with black Americans. Intense nitpicking about one example will not erase all the others. No its not like measles. There are a couple dozen shootings being highlighted and half of them are justifiable. There is a problem with cops covering for each other and there is a problem with police departments refusing to implement body cams that are being paid for by federal grants and there is a problem with insufficient training and counseling but this big fat problem is largely a perception that may or may not be backed up by statistics. There is a problem but considering that the media has investigated every police shooting of a black man for over two years we have two years of data that we can comb through to see what has been happening with police shootings. Some scholars have concluded that there is not a bias against blacks in police shootings. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9596 "2016-10-07T01:21:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [Why you can’t just assume that the police are saying and/or doing things “by the book”.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/20/cops-accidentally-record-themselves-fabricating-charges-against-protester-lawsuit-says/?utm_term=.cba0223ef784) Do you think the police are any less trustworthy than the average citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9597 "2016-10-07T01:23:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The police testimony? What did each officer say, and is the word of the hysterically deaf shooter something anyone can really rely upon? At this point it is clear that you believe that the cops are guilty until proven innocent. How many cops have to tell the suspect to get on the ground before he is disobeying a police order? Not only is there enough to create a reasonable doubt that the cops did in fact tell Terence Crutcher to stop or get on the ground, its beyond a reasonable doubt that they did. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9598 "2016-10-07T01:33:36Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > "Wait. WHAT?!?! So stress deafness is completely ordinary and normal?!?!? > > When I google it and all I get is that cops don’t wear enough ear protection so they gradually go deaf over time. You got a cite for that? because it really sounds a lot like panic to me." - Damuri > > It took me about two minutes of Googling (auditory exclusion and critical incidents) to find two separate articles stating auditory exclusion took/takes place in some degree in “more than 85%” and “88%”, respectively, of police shootings. So, yes, its completely ordinary and normal. I googled stress deafness. > [@](#): > > Have you ever been in a situation where you were looking at something that placed you in imminent fear of your life? I mean _really_ thought you might die. Maybe a mugger pointing a gun at you? Yes. I heard every goddam word he said. > [@](#): > > Or a car heading at you on the wrong side of a divided highway. I’ve had a car try to run me down. Time slowed down but I could hear people telling me to get the fuck out of the way. > [@](#): > > Or skydiving for the first time? Yes. I froze at the door and lost about ten seconds of time during which my tandem jumper was apparently yelling at me to jump pout of the fucking plane. > [@](#): > > I’d be surprised if you could recall hearing what was playing on your car radio or Ipod or what the jump instructor said as you were falling. It is, quite literally, human nature to focus on the threat visually to the exclusion of other senses. Its not the roar of the lion, its the teeth that will get you. I’ve had guns pointed at me about a dozen times. Its a occupational hazard when your family owns small businesses. I’ve had cops point guns at me twice and soldiers point guns at me once. I can remember every fucking word that was said during those encounters to this day. > [@](#): > > I’d invite any combat vets to chime in here. (I’m not one nor I have ever been shot at.) Do you remember clearly everything that happened during that first firefight? Was your opponent less than 21’ away, as in most police shootings? The more experience we have in highly stressful situations the better we get at handling them. That’s why we do force-on-force training. Unfortunately, not enough, as its time and manpower intensive to do correctly and training is usually the first thing to go when money gets tight. So officer Shelby’s life was not in danger in this case. She was with half a dozen other officers, she had the gun, Terence Crutcher had nothing. If she was so stressed out that she couldn’t hear anything, she seems skittish (tell me again why it matters whether she could hear anything? She shot an unarmed man who had just been tasered. How is that not a barney fife move?). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9599 "2016-10-07T01:34:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > IF she pulls off the “stress deafness” crap, then I hope every single unarmed person(or their surviving families) that have had guns drawn on them and or fired by police for “failure to follow orders” files suit. No, the stress deafness only occurs when YOU have the gun pointed at an unarmed person with their hands up. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9600 "2016-10-07T01:43:15Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, the stress deafness only occurs when YOU have the gun pointed at an unarmed person with their hands up. How convenient for the police. As convenient as how you ascribe things to other people and then declare them facts. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/9601 "2016-10-07T01:48:52Z")
Another case in which police somehow figure out how not to kill a white person who is actually shooting at them — [http://urbanintellectuals.com/2016/09/19/white-man-shoots-at-police-they-shot-him-with-bean-bags-then-arrest-him-alive-but-unarmed-black-people-are-killed/](http://urbanintellectuals.com/2016/09/19/white-man-shoots-at-police-they-shot-him-with-bean-bags-then-arrest-him-alive-but-unarmed-black-people-are-killed/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=479) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=481)