Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread

[drachillix]

@Steophan

If it were legal for cops to shoot citizens in circumstances other than self defence or the defence of others, you would have a valid point. But they don’t, they can shoot only when any other citizen could shoot. We should err on the side of the person being attacked (or who reasonably perceives that they are), not the attacker - whether that person is a cop or not.

actually they can shoot in some other circumstances, IIRC the term is “use of lethal force in obtaining arrest”

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/UseofForce.asp

[MaxTheVool]

@PatriotX

There should be an affirmative duty to not create life or death situations–e.g. rolling right up next to Tamir a gunman and jumping out of the vehicle.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I think this is a key point.

For an extreme example, imagine this: cops obtain a warrant to search a house. They enter, and find it empty. Then they are notified that the occupant is returning home. So they hide around the living room until the guy walks in, then they suddenly jump out, bright flashlights in his eyes, and yell “GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR!!!”. This action makes it fairly predictable that this startled person, likely (at least in the cops’ minds) to be an armed criminal, will react in some way that either is, or appears to be, reaching for a gun.

So the precise details of the situation are this: cops in a house, suspect who they have reason to believe is a criminal (since they did get a warrant) is confronting them, they have issued a lawful command (get down on the floor), and he is not doing so, and is instead reaching for a gun (or at least doing something that looks a lot like that). That seems, in micro, to be pretty clear self defense.

But if we take a step back and look at the totality of the choices the cops made, it’s abundantly clear that, intentionally or not, the choices the cops made along the way greatly contributed to the likelihood of the civilian being killed (and, for that matter, the likelihood of a cop being killed). If that scenario played out and the civilian (whether or not he turned out to have been guilty of whatever the warrant was for in the first place) ended up dead, I would want it to be the case that some law or policy would hold the cops responsible for his death… maybe not as murder, but at least as some sort of reckless endangerment or manslaughter.

I don’t know if any such law exists anywhere in the US, or how precisely it could be formulated, but I believe ethically that it should, and that it would at least arguably apply in the case of Tamir Rice.

[Steophan]

@drachillix

actually they can shoot in some other circumstances, IIRC the term is “use of lethal force in obtaining arrest”

Foundations of Law - Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest and to Prevent Crime

That cite also says that private citizens are allowed to use deadly force in arresting a violent felon, the difference is they can’t do so based on reasonable belief, only on fact.

I don’t think this distinction is relevant to any of the cases in this thread, but if there’s anyone who’s been shot because the police reasonably believed he was a violent felon, but were wrong, it’ll be worth discussing.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@MaxTheVool

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I think this is a key point.

For an extreme example, imagine this: cops obtain a warrant to search a house. They enter, and find it empty. Then they are notified that the occupant is returning home. So they hide around the living room until the guy walks in, then they suddenly jump out, bright flashlights in his eyes, and yell “GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR!!!”.

Worst surprise-party ever.

[Steophan]

@Bryan_Ekers

I know what “imminent” means, it’s just not useful if the standard for it is so low that a slight hand movement (if it happens) generates a free-fire zone.

A slight hand movement towards a gun, when someone’s been specifically ordered by a cop to do something else? Yes, that obviously reaches the standard. A slight hand movement by someone the cop hasn’t talked to, and has no reason to believe is armed? No, of course not. Do you really not see the difference?

And wait a tick, you’re saying there are circumstances where someone can’t use lethal force in self defense? Interesting, in light of:

They may *only *use force if they are reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious injury. In that circumstance, if they are correct, not only should they not hesitate to use force, but doing so would lead to death or serious injury.

So a cop can decide that an imminent threat is manifested in a perceived hand movement (or at least he can later claim he perceived a hand movement) and the idea that he should hesitate to resort to deadly force in response is fucking ridiculous.

Why would you expect someone to hesitate when faced with imminent death? If you do that, you will be dead.

[Steophan]

@Bryan_Ekers

simple logic

Based on your posts in this thread so far, this is not something you should be confident in discussing.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

And, in my view, there are things that would cause a “reasonable civilian” to feel fear that wouldn’t cause a “reasonable trained police officer” to feel fear, but I’m not sure if the law agrees with me.

Not in the same circumstance, no - but as you say, a cop having more training than a civilian might change the circumstances, and whoever is making the determination should take that into account.

They should also take into account the fact that cops are, by necessity, forcing confrontations with armed and dangerous people, whereas most citizens will move away and call the police. Such as in the Tamir Rice case, where the scared observer didn’t shoot him, but called the cops.

In any case, from the Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that the shooter (whether judged as a cop or civilian) should be charged, and that the video does not show any legitimate cause of “reasonable fear”.

The video when combined with the knowledge that he had a realistic replica gun, and the fact that the police only had a report that he had a gun - no mention that it was a replica or a toy - is, as a point of fact, consistent with the argument that the cop was in reasonable fear. It certainly does nothing to disprove that, and in my view provides some evidence for it - we see Rice reaching for the gun.

As far as I understand it, the judge’s ruling is binding on no-one, and is not based on a full investigation of the evidence. I’ll wait for the prosecutor and if appropriate the grand jury.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Steophan

A slight hand movement towards a gun, when someone’s been specifically ordered by a cop to do something else? Yes, that obviously reaches the standard. A slight hand movement by someone the cop hasn’t talked to, and has no reason to believe is armed? No, of course not. Do you really not see the difference?

Which of those descriptions, if either, fits the Tamir Rice situation?

They may *only *use force if they are reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious injury. In that circumstance, if they are correct, not only should they not hesitate to use force, but doing so would lead to death or serious injury.

Okay. Now train them not to create situations that only become potentially deadly upon their arrival.

Why would you expect someone to hesitate when faced with imminent death? If you do that, you will be dead.

Then I requote my “hierarchy of risk” list from earlier:

@Bryan_Ekers

So let’s delineate the hierarchy of risk:
[ul][li]If a suspect points a gun at police, it is not reasonable to expect they they wait until shots are fired before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect has a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to wait until it is pointed at them before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect has what looks like a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume it is a toy or a fake, or unloaded, before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect looks like they might have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to wait until it is plainly visible before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect doesn’t look like they have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume the suspect doesn’t have a gun. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect looks like they don’t have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume the suspect does not have a gun. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][/ul]

And so forth.

Cops in your world are quivering hypersensitive little critters, aren’t they?

[Steophan]

@Bryan_Ekers

Which of those descriptions, if either, fits the Tamir Rice situation?

Depends if you believe the police gave him instructions before they fired. If so, the first is exactly appropriate, if not it’s only mostly appropriate.

Okay. Now train them not to create situations that only become potentially deadly upon their arrival.

You think the guy who called the cops about Tamir Rice didn’t think it was a potentially deadly situation? He certainly did, as did the operator who dispatched the cops. The biggest problem seems to be that the police weren’t told the whole story - that the caller thought it was quite possibly a kid with a fake gun.

But unless Rice was completely unaware of the police car approaching, then the idea that it was the cops who created the deadly situation is wrong.

Cops in your world are quivering hypersensitive little critters, aren’t they?

No, and certainly not in this case.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Steophan

Based on your posts in this thread so far, this is not something you should be confident in discussing.

I feel no insult because you have no power to create one.

[dasmoocher]

@Steophan

Based on your posts in this thread so far, this is not something you should be confident in discussing.

Are you using that word in the statistical sense? Should he be 95% confident?

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

The video when combined with the knowledge that he had a realistic replica gun, and the fact that the police only had a report that he had a gun - no mention that it was a replica or a toy - is, as a point of fact, consistent with the argument that the cop was in reasonable fear. It certainly does nothing to disprove that, and in my view provides some evidence for it - we see Rice reaching for the gun.

We disagree about the content of the video. From the video, I see nothing that could cause the cop to reasonably fear for his life.

That’s what we disagree on. I don’t think we’re going to bridge that disagreement in this thread.

As far as I understand it, the judge’s ruling is binding on no-one, and is not based on a full investigation of the evidence. I’ll wait for the prosecutor and if appropriate the grand jury.

I’ll wait too, and I’m hopeful that a full and clear story comes out. If there is no additional evidence on top of the video that in any way exonerates the shooter, I agree with Adrine that he should face trial.

[Steophan]

@dasmoocher

Are you using that word in the statistical sense? Should he be 95% confident?

He should be beyond reasonable confidence.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Steophan

Depends if you believe the police gave him instructions before they fired. If so, the first is exactly appropriate, if not it’s only mostly appropriate.

In the two seconds as they got out of the car? No, I don’t actually believe they gave him instructions. They may have shouted stuff at him, but part of “giving instructions” must include giving a chance for instructions to be heard and understood, or it’s a waste of breath.

You think the guy who called the cops about Tamir Rice didn’t think it was a potentially deadly situation? He certainly did, as did the operator who dispatched the cops. The biggest problem seems to be that the police weren’t told the whole story - that the caller thought it was quite possibly a kid with a fake gun.

Sure, they assumed the worst and were hair-trigger sensitive to, if the situation wasn’t already the worst, making it the worst.

But unless Rice was completely unaware of the police car approaching, then the idea that it was the cops who created the deadly situation is wrong.

I’m okay with the idea that he saw the car approaching but even then, Rice was never in a position to be deadly to anyone. It was police who brought the bullets. What do you think Rice should have done as he saw the car approaching? Throw his hands in the air? Throw himself to the ground?

No, and certainly not in this case.

I don’t know what justifies that “certainly not”, in this case.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

We disagree about the content of the video. From the video, I see nothing that could cause the cop to reasonably fear for his life.

So you keep saying. Even if we grant that, so what? That doesn’t give you cause to think he wasn’t in such fear. You need evidence that he wasn’t in fear for his life. Lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, and the video is entirely consistent with the story that the cop thought Rice was reaching for his gun, shot him, and then ran to hide behind the car. It doesn’t even hint at disproving that.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Steophan

He should be beyond reasonable confidence.

Well, perhaps we could format a proper analysis, with null and alternate hypothesis, a well-defined sample set and a decision rule - if we were going to insist on applying statistical analysis, a subject in which I have some university-level education.

Or you could just admit that you are fond of prevarication and evasive when it is used against you.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Steophan

So you keep saying. Even if we grant that, so what? That doesn’t give you cause to think he wasn’t in such fear. You need evidence that he wasn’t in fear for his life. Lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, and the video is entirely consistent with the story that the cop thought Rice was reaching for his gun, shot him, and then ran to hide behind the car. It doesn’t even hint at disproving that.

If Loehmann could get that fearful that fast, I question his ability to not be a danger to the public.

If Loehmann was fearful even before the car stopped… same question. What’s with the action-movie approach, anyway? It’s not like there were potential hostages milling around.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

So you keep saying. Even if we grant that, so what? That doesn’t give you cause to think he wasn’t in such fear. You need evidence that he wasn’t in fear for his life. Lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, and the video is entirely consistent with the story that the cop thought Rice was reaching for his gun, shot him, and then ran to hide behind the car. It doesn’t even hint at disproving that.

The video is definitely not consistent with the shooter’s story – it showed his story to be false in many ways (and we already went over those lies/false-statements). I suppose he might be able to come up with some other story consistent with the video, but I haven’t heard such a story yet (and the video is not consistent with Rice reaching for his gun by my eyes). We’ll see, I suppose.

[dasmoocher]

@Bryan_Ekers

If Loehmann could get that fearful that fast, I question his ability to not be a danger to the public.

If Loehmann was fearful even before the car stopped… same question. What’s with the action-movie approach, anyway? It’s not like there were potential hostages milling around.

Maybe they should have had Jack Reacher take Tamir out with a head shot from a 1000 yds…just to be safe.

[Steophan]

@Bryan_Ekers

In the two seconds as they got out of the car? No, I don’t actually believe they gave him instructions. They may have shouted stuff at him, but part of “giving instructions” must include giving a chance for instructions to be heard and understood, or it’s a waste of breath.

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?

Sure, they assumed the worst and were hair-trigger sensitive to, if the situation wasn’t already the worst, making it the worst.

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.

I’m okay with the idea that he saw the car approaching but even then, Rice was never in a position to be deadly to anyone.

If only the police had been psychic. They had good reason to believe he was a deadly threat.

It was police who brought the bullets. What do you think Rice should have done as he saw the car approaching? Throw his hands in the air? Throw himself to the ground?

Anything at all apart from reach for a gun.

I don’t know what justifies that “certainly not”, in this case.

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.

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?

Unless the cops told him to throw the gun on the ground, there was no reason for him to act as he did.