You have confused rate with number.
Can I get a cite on that?
Sure it is.
How is it relevant?
“as a percentage of the population.”
“as a percentage of the population of the County”
“as a percentage of the population of the neighborhood where the shooting occurred”
Which, if any, has more meaning?
None of it. It’s all a Gish Gallop to avoid addressing the issue.
Not the same police department, but CT is the state where this happened:
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
So, not so surprising these guys aren’t the sharpest.
That’s a 17 year old story.
One for Muffin’s claim too please.
It is an important step that will hopefully be followed elsewhere.
There are certain things that cops are allowed to consider in determining whether they have reasonable suspicion sufficient to initiate a Terry stop. These include a lot of dubious items, like whether they are in a “high-crime neighborhood” or whether the suspect fits a vague description (often just race, gender, and height) or whether the suspect engages in “furtive gestures.”
Fleeing the police is another really common basis for a stop. This opinion calls that basis in question, meaning that it will now be harder to justify stops based on a fleeing individual.
That said, the test for reasonable suspicion is always the totality of the circumstances. So the practical impact is likely that cops will just the other ubiquitous bullshit reasons to justify fishing expedition stops. But if this is the start of a trend to start crossing off those bullshit reasons, it could be the beginning of real reform to the way black communities are policed in America.
Probably means the new hires back then are in command positions by now.
They’re more or less happening right now. There’s been another shooting, this one uptown (as we call it here). The last word was the victim had been transported with life threatening injuries.
Live coverage: http://www.wcnc.com/
We have been watching the live coverage. Stay Safe!
Clearly any kind of non-compliant movement could, in theory, have been an attempt to murder the four police officers (all of whom had a bead on him). Ergo: non-compliance should be punished with death. That is very literally the argument being made here. I’m so glad I live in a country where people are not completely fucking insane. What you’re saying sounds like this: “Clearly the man was a professional hypnotist and willed them to shoot him in some kind of Xanathos Gambit.” That’s how fucking stupid you sound right now. That’s how insane and bizarre and sick and twisted you sound when you play apologetics for this clear case of fucking murder. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Good. Now add the right to preemptively shoot back, and we’ll be golden. :mad:
Don’t be ridiculous. He was in non-compliance from the moment he and the officer first made contact. There’s ample evidence from 911 callers and other witnesses as to Crutcher’s bizarre behavior, both prior to the arrival of the police and afterward. His behavior suggested he was on PCP, which has been known to make people super strong and also impervious to tasering, and this is why the helicopter pilot said he looked like a bad dude. His car was not ‘stalled’, the engine was running and it had been stopped way over the center line, blocking both lanes of traffic. He raised his hands several times even though at that point he hadn’t been asked to, and determinedly advanced toward his car despite four cops with guns drawn yelling for him to stop. And despite all that he still wasn’t shot until he dropped his hands and made some sort of move toward the door as if to open it. If he were to be killed merely for non-compliance he’d have been shot long before he was.
But as I said upthread, I think that cops over the last few decades have started to become trained to protect themselves first and primarily and as a result they’ve begun to shoot when there’s the threat of a threat rather than an actual threat. To me, ‘possibly’ reaching for a gun is not sufficient reason to shoot. And I don’t know how many times I’ve heard or read of the driver of a car (and sometimes a passenger) being shot and killed by cops for supposedly trying to run the cop over when in reality all they were doing was trying to escape. I’ve known of cops to shoot and kill a homeless woman from 20 feet away because she was advancing on them with a brick in her hand, and numerous times simply because a suspect had a knife or ball bat or something in his hand and simply refused to drop it.
In my opinion none of these warrant the killing of the miscreant. But it is almost certainly the way cops are being trained these days. Whether the reason behind it is to make as sure as possible that every officer goes home safely to his family every night, or whether it has to do with health insurance and its concomitant concerns regarding hospitalization, injury-related retirement benefits, and/or death benefits, cops are clearly being trained to fire under circumstances where their lives are not truly in immediate jeopardy.
But, given that this is the way they’re being trained, and given that the courts even have decreed that mere perception of threat is sufficient to warrant the use of deadly force, I don’t think we can properly put the blame on the officers themselves, who are behaving as they’ve been trained to behave and have undoubtedly internalized the beliefs that have led to their being trained that way.
Therefore it’s my opinion that what needs to change is the way cops are trained to conduct themselves in potentially dangerous situations, rather than demonizing officers like the woman in the Tulsa shooting after the fact, who after all was only following established protocol as set by both her training and the courts as to when the use of a firearm is warranted.
So close, yet so far. FWIW the rest of it was a very good, thoughtful post.
Dammit! I told SHIELD no good would come from trying to replicate Erskine’s super soldier serum! Hmmm, maybe there’s something to those rumors of Hydra infiltration.
I think BLM would mostly agree with this – they’re much more interested in changing polices and practices than in demonizing individual cops.
And what behavior was that? Walking slowly back to his car with his hands up? And specifically, do you know what PCP is? Can you recognize the effects well enough to conclude when someone is under the influence of PCP? Or are you just taking the word of the cops about a “bad dude”?
Noncompliance is not a capital crime. Any police officer, with backup, who is so scared while holding a gun on an unaggressive suspect at a distance, should never be sworn in as a law enforcement officer.
Thanks!
This would rule out the entirety of the population and is not reasonable. If I’m ever in a situation where I have to draw a gun I’m gonna feel fear. Regardless of backup, distance or any other mitigating factors in my favor. Drawing a gun is serious, with potentially serious consequences.
Typo – “for fucks sake”, you ARE ignorant of the facts. As am I. All we have is limited video which DOES NOT show that he had his hands up when shot. In fact, it shows that his hands were NOT up. But don’t let facts get in the way. That’s why we have investigations. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court says that such incidents are not to be viewed with 20/20 hindsight but rather from the perspective of the officer at the scene. “Might be reaching for a gun” is not the same as a “reasonable belief that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury”. That might be too much for you to comprehend but the USSC gets it. As do the vast, vast majority of cops.
Training is to keep your distance from suspects, not go running up and tackling someone you believe might be armed - no matter how many officers are present. Four on one and unarmed? Tackle away. But, based on his prior actions, (hands in pockets, not responding, appeared to be under the influence of something) why would they assume he was unarmed? Just how was she supposed to stop him from returning to the SUV? Oh, that’s right - a karate chop. He was already at the vehicle by the time the other officers arrived.
Damuri – could you please cite where you got your information that Crutcher was asking for help?
At least one CNN talking head has suggested that, since she was the only one of four officers who fired a pistol, something is inherently wrong. Bullshit. She was the only one who dealt with him from the beginning and therefore, had more information to act on. I can imagine the hue and cry if they all had fired. “Did they all have to shoot?”, “30 shots? WTF?!”, “Execution!”. Each individual officer has to make their own decisions based on their own perceptions. It is not uncommon that all officers don’t shoot during a given incident and nothing can be inferred from it
.
I have some questions. How many times did you watch the videos? From how many perspectives? Did you hit the pause button at critical points to get a better view? How many times from the officer’s perspective and not a camera that was clearly NOT what she was seeing? How much training and experience do you have in potentially (and actually) violent confrontations? Have you ever been in fear for your life? Is so, do you remember with precise detail everything exactly as it happened? Was the chair you were sitting in comfortable? Did you perceive any danger to your well-being when you were watching? Was your latte hot enough?
All I have ever said in threads like this is let the investigation play out. Maybe the cop is wrong but maybe not. But, of course, the cops will cover up everything, plant evidence, tamper with video and god knows what else. Does that kind of shit happen? I’m sure it does but, in my opinion it’s the rare exception, not the rule. I bet you’d disagree. Thank “Og” that the system doesn’t rely on ill-informed, untrained know-it-alls who make snap judgements of officers doing a difficult job. For a site that purports to fight ignorance, this thread is knee deep in it.