# 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:** 657
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13122 "2018-04-12T19:29:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the cop has any sense, he asks "what do you mean by ‘positively identify’? > > He was recorded on video pointing what appeared to be a gun at people earlier, we received a report of someone pointing a gun at people, when we pulled up he pulled what appeared to be a gun and pointed it at us. It sure looked like a gun." > > Regards, > Shodan If you are referring to the Tamir Rice incident, the testimony by Loehmann was that it looked like the kid was _trying_ to draw a gun, so that he thought he was justified in shooting him when his hands supposedly lowered. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13123 "2018-04-12T19:33:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Did you point them at the police, around midnight? > When they point what appears to be a real gun at you, how much investigation is appropriate? Do you mean waiting to see if he gets off a shot first? > So, unless there is video clearly showing what happened - in other words, the video better cover the whole encounter from start to finish, no matter what the lighting conditions and camera angles, then the police are assumed guilty. Gotcha. > > Regards, > Shodan Still lying. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13124 "2018-04-12T19:35:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Typing slower apparently didn’t help. > > Ah well. No one is surprised. > > Regards, > Shodan Once again, the trick isn’t to type slower-engage your brain(a little less wild speculation might help) and type _smarter_. Or at least copy someone who _can_ type smarter. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2018, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13125 "2018-04-12T19:44:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I was speaking of police policies on shooting in general. > > Regards, > Shodan [Cleveland releases proposed policies on police use of force](https://apnews.com/2f5275d98a4146c5a018548f214f9fba) > [@](#): > > A proposed policy announced Thursday calls for police to attempt “de-escalation” techniques that include taking cover before using force against people, a tactic that might have spared the life of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who had been playing with a pellet gun when he was fatally shot by a patrol officer. This seems like a step in the right direction. > [@](#): > > [Proposed New Policy](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5651f9b5e4b08f0af890bd13/t/57d0a92fd2b857a49b7f2b34/1473292591700/Use+of+Force+Policy+Fact+Sheet.pdf): The new policy sets out clear guidelines that apply to all intermediate weapons, > and prohibits officers from using an intermediate weapon: > • To prevent the destruction of evidence. > • Against a child, an elderly person, someone who is visibly frail, or a pregnant woman—unless > the officer would be permitted to use deadly force under the circumstances > • Against someone who is handcuffed, unless the person is aggressively resisting the officer and > the officer does not have other options available. > • _ **Against someone who is already following orders.** _ Bolding mine. They have to update the policy to\* prohibit\* use of weapons against someone who is _already complying with their orders_. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13126 "2018-04-12T19:46:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > . . . > > If you agree that it does, we have no problem. If you want to bring in facts that are not apparent at the time of the shooting, then you are doing what I, for one, would object to, which is Monday-morning quarterbacking. > > If you want to condemn the police based on facts not in evidence at the time, feel free. Just don’t expect anyone with an IQ in double digits to go along with it. > . . . > > Regards, > Shodan There is a growing population of smart people who disagree with you. Let me acquaint you with one: Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law “Redline.” He’s written for The New York Times, the New York Daily News, City Hall News, and has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN. He graduated from Harvard University in 2000, Harvard Law School in 2003, and was an associate at Debevoise and Plimpton. He feels that a police officer should be right “in fact” when they use deadly force. As do I, and at least a dozen others on this board alone who I consider smart people. You have also shown yourself to be a smart person (usually) and your opinion of how these cases should be judged may coincide with the prevailing opinion, but you do yourself an injustice to presume that that will always be the case and that the opposite opinion is only held by dumb people. mc ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13127 "2018-04-12T20:10:00Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > There is a growing population of smart people who disagree with you. > > Let me acquaint you with one: > Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law “Redline.” He’s written for The New York Times, the New York Daily News, City Hall News, and has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN. He graduated from Harvard University in 2000, Harvard Law School in 2003, and was an associate at Debevoise and Plimpton. > > He feels that a police officer should be right “in fact” when they use deadly force. What does he mean by being right “in fact”? You didn’t post any links, but if you would like to post some excerpts, maybe we will have a better understanding of what you or he means by it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13128 "2018-04-12T20:21:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What does he mean by being right “in fact”? You didn’t post any links, but if you would like to post some excerpts, maybe we will have a better understanding of what you or he means by it. > > Regards, > Shodan You asking for links-That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read all day. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13129 "2018-04-12T20:21:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So, unless there is video clearly showing what happened - in other words, the video better cover the whole encounter from start to finish, no matter what the lighting conditions and camera angles, then the police are assumed guilty. Gotcha. This thread has demonstrated repeatedly that the police are bigger fucking liars than even you. By that principle, in minimal terms of occupational sanction and possibly restitution, the burden of proof, the “beyond a reasonable doubt”, should be placed upon the officers themselves. If they can clearly show that they behaved appropriately, fine. But why should we trust them anymore, or give especial weight to their statements when they have been caught over and over and over and over again in these coverups? ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13130 "2018-04-12T20:25:32Z")
He means (as do I) that if the cop thought there was a gun and killed someone because of it, then there had better be a gun “in fact.” That it’s not good enough to just feel the need for deadly force there has to be an actual need for the use of deadly force. Just saying “I thought he had a gun” is not good enough. The officer’s opinion or feeling or intuition is not justification for the use of deadly force. There has to be an actual, real, credible threat. mc ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13131 "2018-04-12T20:31:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > When they point what appears to be a real gun at you, how much investigation is appropriate? Do you mean waiting to see if he gets off a shot first? Yes. Based on their poor judgement, police should be enjoined from firing first. They should be allowed to return fire though. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13132 "2018-04-12T21:05:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Did you point them at the police, around midnight? Was Tamir Rice shot at midnight? > [@](#): > > When they point what appears to be a real gun at you, how much investigation is appropriate? Do you mean waiting to see if he gets off a shot first? And if they don’t point a gun at you, if they just have something that you think may be a gun, and that is not pointed in your direction, or they may have a gun in their waistband, and they also happen to have hands, is it justified to shoot them? > [@](#): > > So, unless there is video clearly showing what happened - in other words, the video better cover the whole encounter from start to finish, no matter what the lighting conditions and camera angles, then the police are assumed guilty. Gotcha. When the video contradicts the statements that they give, then the police are above reproach. Gotcha. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2018, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13133 "2018-04-12T21:12:15Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > He means (as do I) that if the cop thought there was a gun and killed someone because of it, then there had better be a gun “in fact.” That it’s not good enough to just feel the need for deadly force there has to be an actual need for the use of deadly force. Just saying “I thought he had a gun” is not good enough. The officer’s opinion or feeling or intuition is not justification for the use of deadly force. There has to be an actual, real, credible threat. > > mc It’s ridiculous, and immoral, to suggest that the very people that we send into danger on our behalf, to protect us, should have less right to defend themselves than other people. That a tiny minority of them are liars shouldn’t change that. It is quite literally impossible to be certain of a factual threat in the instant you have to respond to it. That’s why neither law nor (normal) morality require certainty, but simply common sense. Something hugely lacking among most posters here. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13134 "2018-04-12T21:26:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s ridiculous, and immoral, to suggest that the very people that we send into danger on our behalf, to protect us, should have less right to defend themselves than other people. That a tiny minority of them are liars shouldn’t change that. > > It is quite literally impossible to be certain of a factual threat in the instant you have to respond to it. That’s why neither law nor (normal) morality require certainty, but simply common sense. Something hugely lacking among most posters here. The “tiny minority” of them, and the greater number of blue brothers that cover for them and lie for them and pretend not see what they do…and all you enablers that worship the ass they sit on. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13135 "2018-04-12T21:52:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > and all you enablers that worship the ass they sit on. Believe it or not, there’s a middle ground between worshipping a group of people and assuming on flimsy evidence that they’re all liars and murderers. That’s to judge them based on what they actually do, not to pre-judge them as criminals just because they killed someone. _Everyone_ gets the benefit of the doubt, and it’s even more important to give it to those we employ to go into danger to protect us. When a case has been fully investigated and it’s been found that the people involved did nothing wrong, it’s time to move on. I’d say most people feel that way, but to be honest I doubt most people spend a lot of time thinking about the police at all, because most people rarely come into contact with them. There is a potential for threads like this, and other places that question the actions of authority. Doing so is necessary to keep them in check, and remind them that they work for the people. But, when the investigation has happened, and it’s been found that there was nothing wrong, _drop it_. You’ve got what you (should) want - answers to your questions, and that ought to be enough. However, you insist on refusing to accept those answers, ignoring the evidence, and making yourself look stupid - and worse, if you do stumble upon a case where there’s actual wrongdoing, rather than it ebing brought to light, you’ll be laughed at because you’ve been wrong so many times. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13136 "2018-04-12T21:54:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s ridiculous, and immoral, to suggest that the very people that we send into danger on our behalf, to protect us, should have less right to defend themselves than other people. That a tiny minority of them are liars shouldn’t change that. > > It is quite literally impossible to be certain of a factual threat in the instant you have to respond to it. That’s why neither law nor (normal) morality require certainty, but simply common sense. Something hugely lacking among most posters here. Who says they should have less rights? If I shoot a man dead on the streets, and say after that I thought he was reaching for a gun, and it turns out he has no gun, i am going to jail. If requiring a cop to be certain the use of deadly force is necessary makes some situations more dangerous for the cop, then do not send the cop into those situations. easy solution. I, and many others, are no longer willing to sacrifice the safety of some for the safety of others. I, and many others, do not believe that we are safer because a cop can kill an unarmed civilian with absolutely no consequence. You think that by allowing cops to sacrifice the safety of some to ensure the safety of the many, puts you on some sort of moral high ground; and that I (and others) who are not willing are somehow bringing about the end of civilization and thrusting our entire culture into violent chaos by hamstringing the only thing keeping us safe. I say that it is your position that is ridiculous and immoral. mc ---
**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:** [April 12, 2018, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13137 "2018-04-12T23:09:19Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > I say that it is your position that is ridiculous and immoral. Why are you arguing with a slime bag troll? No good can come of that. He describes the police as the people we send out to protect us. But whom are they protecting? If not **all of us** , then they are little more than a hit squad for certain among us. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13138 "2018-04-12T23:11:19Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s ridiculous, and immoral, to suggest that the very people that we send into danger on our behalf, to protect us, should have less right to defend themselves than other people. That a tiny minority of them are liars shouldn’t change that. Yes, that’s why the US military ROE specifies that they can just shoot anything that they feel is a threat. Oh wait, no it actually doesn’t specify that. In fact, a lot of ROE spells out the exact conditions when a serviceman or woman can fire. And “I felt threatened” isn’t one of the reasons. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2018, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13139 "2018-04-12T23:19:20Z")
The case of the shooting of Redel Jones. August 12, 2015 > **[Redel Kentel Jones, 30 - The Homicide Report](https://homicide.latimes.com/post/redel-kentel-jones/)** > > Redel Kentel Jones, a 30-year-old black woman, was killed by police Wednesday, Aug. 12, in the 4100 block of Marlton Avenue in the Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw neighborhood of Los Angeles, according to Los … > **[Amid protests, panel finds that LAPD did not violate deadly force rules in...](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-shooting-redel-jones-20160712-snap-story.html)** > > As hundreds of people demonstrated in downtown Los Angeles against killings by police, the city’s Police Commission decided Tuesday that an LAPD officer did not violate the department’s deadly force policy last year when he fatally shot an African... > **[LAPD report: Woman fatally shot last week had moved toward officer with knife](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-shooting-20150819-story.html)** > > A woman who was fatally shot by Los Angeles police in a Baldwin Hills alley a week ago was killed after she moved toward an officer while holding a knife, according to an internal LAPD report reviewed by The Times. [https://www.laprogressive.com/redel-jones-shooting/](https://www.laprogressive.com/redel-jones-shooting/) Redel Jones was 30 yr old black woman. 2 LAPD officers, responding to a robbery call, were following Jones. 2 more came later. Jones was indeed the robber of a pharmacy, and did have a knife. This is not in dispute. Another thing that is not in dispute is that once again officers did not activate their body-cams. 4 officers, none activated their cameras. Here is the dispute. The police officers says that they were following Jones and issuing orders to her when she turned and moved toward the officers with the knife. An eye-witness says that Jones did not turn around and was shot as she was moving away from the officers. I bring this one up because it should be pretty easy to clear up the dispute, right? Right??? If she was moving towards the officers, the bullets would enter her body from the front. If she was running away from them, the bullets would have entered her body from the back. If you were a reporter, what would you do to get to the bottom of this? Hell, if you were an _investigator,_ what would you do get to the truth? You would get the autopsy report, wouldn’t you? You would ask the coroner "did the bullets enter her front or her back’? Kind of a standard thing for an autopsy. If she was shot in the front, the officers are telling the truth. If she was shot in the back, the witness is telling the truth. I linked 4 sites, read several more. LA Times and Daily News, both respected papers. No mention of autopsy report. _No mention that anyone had asked for one_. No mention that any reporter had made a call to the coroner. Or maybe my google-fu is weak. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13140 "2018-04-12T23:20:02Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Yes, that’s why the US military ROE specifies that they can just shoot anything that they feel is a threat. > > Oh wait, no it actually doesn’t specify that. In fact, a lot of ROE spells out the exact conditions when a serviceman or woman can fire. And “I felt threatened” isn’t one of the reasons. To be fair, the military ROE is different when you are in hostile territory. “I felt threatened” is acceptable when you are in a “free fire zone”. So, just accept that the police are acting as if they are an outside occupying force. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/13141 "2018-04-12T23:33:33Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > To be fair, the military ROE is different when you are in hostile territory. “I felt threatened” is acceptable when you are in a “free fire zone”. > > So, just accept that the police are acting as if they are an outside occupying force. True, but I would rather not treat my neighborhood similarly to a free-fire zone in Iraq. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=656) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=658)