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” 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. 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.
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.
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.
Does this mean Ramirez was still seated and buckled when he was shot?
Does this mean the officer did not call for backup before approaching the car?
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting indeed. Two things set my detector off; Fox and Maricopa County Sheriff’s office. And sure enough, propaganda. Found that at the top of the comments.
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.
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.
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.)