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

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@MikeF

“So then scenarios you are talking about are in no way related to the encounters we are talking about. Good to know. Did you have anything else to add?” says K9befriender.

Yes, I do.

You are correct in that none of the encounters you are talking about involved searching dark buildings, if that’s the nit you want to pick. The point you are missing is this: dark building or broad daylight on a street, officers have to react to what a suspect does. Whatever the suspect does the officer has to observe it, process it, consider options, pick one and then act. The reality is that this all takes time, maybe a second or two. And in that second or two a suspect can draw and fire a weapon.

So, let’s take a hypothetical. The non-compliant, appears to be under the influence driver returns to his vehicle, at gunpoint, where he does have a gun on the front seat. At what point would say the officer is justified in shooting? Once the door is open? Once he reaches in? Once he begins to back out of the car? Once the officer sees the gun? Once the gun begins to come up? Once the gun is pointed at the officer? Once he has fired a shot?

There seems to be a fair amount of “How do we know the officer gave commands since there’s no audio tape?” I guess its possible she said “Go ahead and get your stuff from the car but I’ll shoot you if you come out with a gun.” I guess its possible that she said nothing at all. I guess its also possible that, at the last wedding I attended, the couple didn’t really say “I do” since I couldn’t actually hear it, the priest is now dead and its not on tape. I did more than 25 years on the job and not once did I ever see an officer point a weapon at someone without commands being given. And those commands were never “keep on doing what you are doing”.

The fact that this female officer was charged is not necessarily conclusive that she acted unreasonably. Its one person’s (D.A. or whatever they have in OK) opinion. If you really think that these decisions are not influenced by public opinion and media attention, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in. Even an indictment doesn’t really mean that much. You know the saying about the ham sandwich. Maybe this officer completely screwed up. Maybe not. I certainly haven’t seen the evidence, other than the tape. For some of you that seems to be enough.

I pretty much agree with you right up to this point. I think she is guilty of second degree manslaughter and gets 2-4 years (some significant part of it on probation) but that’s just based on what I think were the likely series of events based on the video and common sense.

Finally, Damuri seems to have a problem with an officer who suffers from auditory exclusion during a critical incident and, basically, proposes that that should be enough to end an officer’s career. You might be interested to know that this is one of the most common phenomena (along with time distortion) in police shootings and other critical incidents. I don’t have that stats handy but I believe that more than 50% of officers involved in shootings don’t remember hearing their own or other officer’s gunshots, radio calls, sirens…you name it. Its completely normal. We are visual animals and when a threat is present we tend to, literally, focus on it, often at the expense of our other senses. To suggest an officer lose his job over this is ludicrous.

Wait. WHAT?!?! So stress deafness is completely ordinary and normal?!?!?

When I google it and all I get is that cops don’t wear enough ear protection so they gradually go deaf over time. You got a cite for that? because it really sounds a lot like panic to me.

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

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?

Remember when I asked you to stick to just quoting me then responding to what I actually write? Why don’t you give your post a little re-write so that I might have something less hysterical to respond to?

[Evil_Economist]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Chisquirrel 9199

It’s not clear to me from that post. **Chisquirrel ** are you protesting the tasering or the shooting?

@Damuri_Ajashi

Ike Witt 9303

Here’s the full content of post 9303:

@Ike_Witt

“Might” is a pretty weak reason to shoot any person. A cop “might” shoot a black person for no real, articulable reason, is a black person allowed to preemptively defend themself?

This seems to be discussing the shooting. But let’s clarify: Ike Witt, are you protesting the tasering or the shooting?

You with the face 9352

Granted.

Chimera 9363

That’s a **Czarcasm **post.

Snowboarder Bo 9372

Here’s the full content of post 9372:

@Snowboarder_Bo

Why do you assume the police are telling the truth?

Why are you assuming anything about this event?

I’m not seeing it, but let’s clarify: Snowboarder Bo, are you protesting the tasering or the shooting?

Pretty much anyone giving me grief about whether Crutcher was disobeying orders.

That seems like a pretty big assumption.

[Czarcasm]

Has “stress deafness” ever been used as a successful defense by anybody charged with disobeying a police officer’s orders? Being chased and/or yelled at by armed officers has got to be shitload more stressful than being one of several people pointing a weapon at an unarmed “suspect”.

[dasmoocher]

@k9bfriender

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.

Those descriptions are what I meant as Blacks being judged as by certain officers (and, some of the public in general).

[k9bfriender]

@Czarcasm

Has “stress deafness” ever been used as a successful defense by anybody charged with obeying a police officer’s orders? Being chased and/or yelled at by armed officers has got to be shitload more stressful than being one of several people pointing a weapon at an unarmed “suspect”.

Only officers get “stress deafness.” Anyone else is being non-compliant.

Those descriptions are what I meant as Blacks being judged as by certain officers (and, some of the public in general).

I think we’re on the same page, I was just being snarky.

[kayaker]

@k9bfriender

Only officers get “stress deafness.” Anyone else is being non-compliant.

Including deaf citizens who are occasionally killed by the police for not listening.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

How do you know the de-escalation wasn’t working?

Because he refused to drop the knife, threw things at the cops, and ran away.

@iiandyiiii

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.

Do you believe that a drug-addled maniac with a knife, on whom de-escalation did not work, presents only “the slightest chance” of danger to the general public?

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Because he refused to drop the knife, threw things at the cops, and ran away.

I think more than one attempt at de-escalation can be tried before resorting to deadly force. Why didn’t the first pair of cops kill him? Were they wrong to try and de-escalate, or try again if that’s what they thought was appropriate?

Do you believe that a drug-addled maniac with a knife, on whom de-escalation did not work, presents only “the slightest chance” of danger to the general public?

Regards,
Shodan

With lots of cops present? Yes. I think the burden of proof is on those using deadly force to show why there was imminent danger – and imminent danger was not present in the video.

Again, what do you think about the approach of the first pair of cops? Why is it wrong to try de-escalation until someone is in imminent danger? Or why not try tasers or other non-lethal force?

[elucidator]

Another thing you can lay at the feet of the liberal media! Do you know how many times police have used “de-escalation” techniques on a drug-addled maniac with the immediate result of innocent civilians massacred! No, you don’t know, because the media edited the videos!

[k9bfriender]

@Shodan

Because he refused to drop the knife, threw things at the cops, and ran away. Do you believe that a drug-addled maniac with a knife, on whom de-escalation did not work, presents only “the slightest chance” of danger to the general public?

Regards,
Shodan

And a taser would have been ineffective because?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, he must have been on PCP supersoldier drugs.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@BigT

Damuri Ajashi you are defending the indefensible. We have the video. We know that the initial reports of what happened were lies. Now they have another story only after the video came out. The truth doesn’t change. Lies do.

It doesn’t matter that the video came from the cops unless this cop gets punished. Right now, even cops we have on camera admitting to planting evidence and saying they had no reason to stop someone are not only not being prosecuted, but actually keeping their job due to laws passed to protect them or police unions.

You have refused to update to the current reality, when we know that cops are not inherently to be trusted. You assume they are, and look for every reason why they could be right, no matter how implausible. You assume that the cop is innocent, which means you assume the victim is guilty.

You’re exactly like the people who presume the rape accusation is a lie, or that the person who cries racism is lying. This is what you do that is horrible. You lack the basic ethics to realize this.

I’m not even saying you have to presume innocence for the civilian until proven otherwise. You could just be neutral. But you aren’t. You know one side lied, but rather than allow that to damage their credibility, you look for reasons that it’s okay.

That’s wrong, and that is what you do that is fucked up.

Excellent lecture Sir, thank you.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

I think more than one attempt at de-escalation can be tried before resorting to deadly force. Why didn’t the first pair of cops kill him? Were they wrong to try and de-escalate, or try again if that’s what they thought was appropriate?

The first pair didn’t kill him because they tried to de-escalate. It didn’t work.

I think the burden of proof is on those using deadly force to show why there was imminent danger – and imminent danger was not present in the video.

:shrugs: A drug-addled maniac with a knife escaping from police in a busy neighborhood is an imminent threat. Come on now - don’t be stupid.

As seen on the video, there were citizens within a few feet, as well as drivers in stopped vehicles as Mann evades police.

Cite.

@k9bfriender

And a taser would have been ineffective because?

Because a knife is lethal force, and Tasers aren’t. Cops should, in general, respond with appropriate levels of force.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, he must have been on PCP supersoldier drugs.

Not PCP, methamphetamine, as revealed in the toxicology report. This was already explained to you - try to keep up.

Regards,
Shodan

[k9bfriender]

@Shodan

Because a knife is lethal force, and Tasers aren’t. Cops should, in general, respond with appropriate levels of force.

Ah, tasers don’t work if you are holding a knife. I guess it makes sense, it being metal and all. Err… actually that doesn’t make sense.

Could you explain why tasers wouldn’t work on someone with a knife?

Not PCP, methamphetamine, as revealed in the toxicology report. This was already explained to you - try to keep up.

Regards,
Shodan

I’m trying to keep up. First PCP was the supercriminal drug, now it’s meth. So, you are saying that someone on meth is immune from tasers?

What other drugs give you superpowers?

[eschereal]

@Shodan

Because he refused to drop the knife, threw things at the cops, and ran away. Do you believe that a drug-addled maniac with a knife, on whom de-escalation did not work, presents only “the slightest chance” of danger to the general public?

Regards,
Shodan

No, the basis for outrage is that the dashcam video shows the “fuck this guy; I’m gonna hit him” occurring almost a block away, well before the second pair of officers had had a reasonable opportunity to figure out what was transpiring. They just peremptorily decided to proceed directly to violence.

After that, on the video, we hear gunshots. Two? Three? No, the story says 14, in rapid succession. That seems rather excessive, from what we know about the situation.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

That wasn’t directed at you, sorry for not specifying. And the investigation is happening, in the form of a manslaughter trial.

I agree. and IMO, the first degree manslaughter will end up being second degree manslaughter and Officer Shelby will either get 2 years in jail or 4 year probation (more likely the latter) unless we learn something new and unlikely.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

The first pair didn’t kill him because they tried to de-escalate. It didn’t work.

No, you’re not understanding my question. The first pair tried to de-escalate. If they deemed it didn’t work (and there’s nothing in the video or article to suggest this), they could have then used deadly force. Why didn’t they? Were they bad cops for not killing this man?

:shrugs: A drug-addled maniac with a knife escaping from police in a busy neighborhood is an imminent threat. Come on now - don’t be stupid.

I have seen many, many videos and reports of drug-addled and armed people in busy neighborhoods who were not killed. Sometimes they talked to them for a while. Was that wrong? Should all of those people have been killed?

Nothing in the video suggests this man was an imminent threat. Trying to run him over made the situation far more dangerous to anyone involved rather than less dangerous. The cops have a duty to this man as well, even if he was mentally ill.

Because a knife is lethal force, and Tasers aren’t. Cops should, in general, respond with appropriate levels of force.

So if the first pair of cops had tasered and arrested him, they would have been wrong? You would say that’s bad policing and they should have killed him instead?

[Shodan]

@k9bfriender

Ah, tasers don’t work if you are holding a knife. I guess it makes sense, it being metal and all. Err… actually that doesn’t make sense.

Correct, it doesn’t make sense. You must be stupid for saying it.

Could you explain why tasers wouldn’t work on someone with a knife?

Probably not, because you are stupid.

I’m trying to keep up.

Not with any success, obviously.

What other drugs give you superpowers?

In your case, I would recommend Haldol.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

No, you’re not understanding my question. The first pair tried to de-escalate. If they deemed it didn’t work (and there’s nothing in the video or article to suggest this), they could have then used deadly force. Why didn’t they?

Because he ran away. They had to chase him in their car before they could catch up with him.

I have seen many, many videos and reports of drug-addled and armed people in busy neighborhoods who were not killed. Sometimes they talked to them for a while. Was that wrong? Should all of those people have been killed?

Are you really this stupid?

Nothing in the video suggests this man was an imminent threat. Trying to run him over made the situation far more dangerous to anyone involved rather than less dangerous.

Never mind - I have my answer.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

Shodan, this is what happened according to my understanding:

Someone called 911 to report a crazy guy (Mann) with a knife.
The first pair of cops arrived and tried to talk Mann down, unsuccessfully. Mann threw a thermos at the first pair of cops.
Officers Lozoya and Tennis arrive. “Fuck this guy, I’m gonna hit him”. “Okay, go for it.” They try to run him over twice. They got out of the car and chased Mann and shot him 14 times at a distance of 27 feet.

To me this shows two pairs of cops – one pair is willing to put themselves at a slight risk to not kill a disturbed person. They don’t shoot him after the thermos throw because they (presumably) value human life enough not to kill people for acting weird and throwing thermoses even if they have a knife.

The other pair is flippant with human life. They say things like “fuck this guy!” and “we’ll get him!”, treating policing like a video game – I don’t believe serious police officers dedicated to protecting the community would have such an attitude.

Is there any doubt in your mind? Is it possible that the video is consistent with asshole cops who wanted to hurt someone and got their chance here? How about the Walter Scott or Sean Groubert shootings?

I get sympathy for cops. But I don’t get certainty. I’m far from certain. How can you be so certain that Lozoya and Tennis handled it properly? Isn’t there a chance that they came up fast and resorted to deadly force more quickly then they should have? Isn’t there a chance that trying to run over someone with their car is a bad choice in this circumstance?