Like most of these incidents it speaks directly to professional incompetence; these people have not been given the training and skill set to deal with the situation. It’s too difficult to judge their mental competency particularly vie-a-vie decision making but you also have to wonder…
It’s so poor it’s comedic - like the guy in Florida shot on the ground with his arms up in the air “Why did you shoot me” “I dunno”.
On this level of competence, they would not get a job patrolling a mall in most countries. Unarmed.
This article sheds more light on what was happening with the Mann shooting.
There were two pairs of officers. The ones who arrived first were talking to Mann and trying to calm him down. There was no force used, even when Mann threw something at the cops. The second group, upon arrival, tried to run Mann over with their car and then got out and shot him.
The first group should be commended. Why did the second pair immediately resort to deadly force, first with the car, and then by trying to shoot him? Why is that okay? Shouldn’t the approach of the first pair of cops be the norm for these sorts of situations?
The only thing I can think of is that Shodan and others think cops have zero (or near-zero) responsibility to not kill someone who might be dangerous – that it’s always okay, or so nearly always okay as to be no difference, to kill someone if there is the slightest chance that they might present danger to someone. That there’s no responsibility to try and de-escalate or avoid escalating a situation.
Are you objecting to the use of the police car, or lethal force in general?
This was a homeless, mentally ill person, armed (according to the 911 call with either a gun or a knife - it turns out to have been a knife), waving the knife around and doing karate moves in the street. He runs from police. He had methamphetamine in his system when he was shot.
You are phrasing your question wrongly. Police do not have free rein to run someone down if they don’t stop when asked to do so. And this is not a case where the police ran someone down because he didn’t stop when asked to do so.
The question ought to be phrased “should the police attempt to stop a drug-addled maniac wielding a knife who is running away to avoid arrest by trying to hit him with their car, and, when that doesn’t work, confronting him and attempting an arrest, and when that doesn’t work, shooting him?”
To be fair, they don’t say it’s fine to kill just anyone.
Just those who are judged as miscreants, or dregs of society, or “bad dudes”. They entirely trust the cop’s judgement on who deserves to live, and who deserves to die. Any objection to this is of course being a cop hater.
I’m objecting to the use of the car in this specific situation. I’m objecting to any cops who rule out trying to de-escalate when not in immediate danger and skip straight to deadly force. The first pair of cops were trying to talk him down and not using force. The second pair of cops arrive and immediately tried to kill Mann (and eventually succeeded) when he doesn’t stop when asked. I object to “Fuck this guy” and “I’m going to hit him” which, to me, demonstrates a stunning lack of respect for life.
Why is it wrong to require that cops do what the first pair did – always try to de-escalate, and not to go to deadly force in the absence of imminent danger? Shouldn’t that always be the way cops approach a situation except in those very rare situations when the perp starts shooting out of the blue?
Yes it is. Except when the cops know they can do whatever with impunity because people like the poster never, ever question the legitimacy of the action taken.
It’s an aspect of white middle class entitlement; ‘the cops work for us so let them do their job …’
In that case its exactly the opposite of what I said before. I play Nerf hide and seek with my kid and the person hiding ALWAYS gets off the first shot because he knows where the seeker is going to be when they come through the door while the seeker has no idea where the hider is in the room.
The second pair of cops didn’t go straight to deadly force.
The sequence of events isn’t very clear from the various articles, but AFAICT
[ul]
[li]Police receive a 911 call of a maniac wielding a knife and doing karate in the street.[/li][li]First pair of cops arrive. They stay inside their car and try to de-escalate.[/li][li]De-escalation doesn’t work. Knife-Wielding Maniac continues to refuse instructions to drop the knife, throws something at the cops.[/li][li]Second pair of cops arrive on the scene.[/li][li]KWM runs away.[/li][li]Cops follow KWM for several blocks, and discuss how to stop him, including hitting him with their car.[/li][li]KWM continues to run, refuses to drop the knife, etc.[/li][li]Cops try to hit him with their car.[/li][li]Twice.[/li][li]Missing both times, they follow KWM, catch up with him, and this time get out of their car.[/li][li]They shoot KWM.[/li][/ul]Are you saying that, after de-escalation failed to de-escalate, they should have tried it again, so KWM can run somewhere else and present a threat to the public in a different area?
Even if everything SA is saying is true. Reaching for the door is no reason to use deadly force. Especially when a dude with a taser is standing right next to you.
No, she didn’t look for weapons under the seat or anything, she was trying to locate missing the driver.
So your thesis is that she KNEW that there wasn’t a weapon in the car but shot and killed this guy because … what? she wanted to feel the thrill of killing another human being? She woke up that morning and told herself, “I’m gonna kill me a nigger today”!!! What??? What exactly do you think she did that would transform this first degree manslaughter to murder?
How do you know the de-escalation wasn’t working? The first pair of cops didn’t make the choice to use deadly force. Why did the second pair know better?
And even if your timeline is 100% correct, as long as no one was in imminent danger, then absolutely they should have kept trying to de-escalate. “No one’s in danger right now, but this guy still is being weird and could conceivably be a danger in the future, so we should kill him” isn’t okay for me. Why couldn’t they keep talking to him?
I thought I covered that with “miscreants”, “dregs of society”, and “bad dudes”.
It does make you a better person that you didn’t read that as “Black,” but I am sure that the relevant parties in this thread had no problem reading into it.
Chisquirrel 9199
Ike Witt 9303
You with the face 9352
Chimera 9363
Snowboarder Bo 9372
Pretty much anyone giving me grief about whether Crutcher was disobeying orders.