Actually, i would still argue that police, and our lawmakers, ought to be taking steps to reduce the number of shootings even in cases like this.
The student in question was a small person, was clearly more interested in self-harm than in hurting other people, and, if news stories and other accounts are to be believed, the blade on the pocket knife or multi-purpose tool was not even open. Police, in their defenses of incidents like this, seem to have taken a leap from “Police do a dangerous job” to “Police should not EVER be required to put themselves in any danger, and are justified in shooting if they feel threatened in any way.”
Well, fuck that. I don’t want police getting killed, but i do think that there are cases where cops should have to assume a bit more risk than these officers did in this incident. The idea that you get to shoot someone rather than suffering any personal risk whatsoever is wrong, IMO. The risk should be weighed in each case, but in these circumstances the cops had other avenues open to them, and the law should require them to do more to avoid using deadly force.
You are an ignorant fuck. Was Philando Castile armed with a lot more? Freddy Grey? Tamir Rice? Terence Crutcher? Eric Garner? A great many of these cases involve police acting unreasonably, often hastily. In the Schultz case, they did not act in haste – the use of force seems excessive, but possibly not wholly unwarranted.
He’d be banned within 5 minutes of posting to MPSIMS due to his compulsive lying.
Reminder to everyone: Steophan lies a lot. Don’t trust anything he says without a link. Also, any time he quotes someone without a quote box, remember: he left out the quote box so that he can lie about what they said without getting banned.
It looks like our favorite Storm Trooper in Utah, St. Lake City Police Detective Jeff Payne, has had “issues” before.
Payne’s records have been released as part of the investigation into his violent arrest of Utah University nurse Alex Wubbels after she refused his unlawful orders to draw blood from a patient. It appears this isn’t the first time he’s been in trouble for unwanted advances:
Internal affairs investigations by Salt Lake City police confirmed allegations that Detective Jeff Payne harassed a department employee in a “severe and persistent” way in 2013. It included several incidents of unwanted physical contact and a disparaging email, the records say.
Payne also faced a vehicle-chase complaint from the Utah Highway Patrol in 1995 that resulted in a two-week suspension without pay, according to the records. The documents didn’t detail the complaint but said he violated the police code of ethics on cooperation with other officers and courtesy toward other agencies.
Sounds like a loose cannon and bully, with a “history”.
D.A. Gill and Prosecutors in Salt Lake County, Utah, have asked the FBI to join a criminal probe into the violent arrest of the nurse who was manhandled and shoved screaming into a squad car as she tried to protect the legal rights of a patient.
The FBI will be investigating the possible Civil Rights violation, something that is out of D.A. Gill’s hands:
Gill’s office is conducting its own criminal probe but needs the FBI’s help to look into criminal civil rights violations, which fall under federal law.
Gill asked for a complete investigation into all personnel who may have violated Wubbel’s civil rights, and that includes the hospital security and university officers who were seen on the video doing absolutely nothing to help nurse Wubbels. “We request your investigation to examine and consider whether actions by Det. Payne, other police officers and law enforcement personnel and anyone else acting under the color of authority constitutes criminal conduct, criminal civil rights violations, or other violations of law”
Okay…so lets say you have to deal with some crazy person with a knife…well, the odds of it going very badly are only a few percent…for THIS incident…
But guess what? You are police officer…HOW many times in your career do you have to do this…take a few percent and multiply it over a lifetime career and now you have real risk of getting seriously hurt/killed on the job…
Well, I will admit there was some element of danger…but really…nobody thought of whacking this kid with a club? Why in the world would they not have a bean bag round or a taser?
In the interests of completeness, could you describe specifically the policy as you believe it should be implemented?
[ul][li]How big should a person with a knife be before he or she is considered as using deadly force? Over six feet? Over five feet six? Over 150 pounds? Over 200? Can you describe the training that will allow someone to accurately estimate someone’s height, weight, and reach on a few seconds’ notice? Who do you know who has undergone that training, and how reliable was it?[/li][li]Accounts, as you mention, vary as to whether the knife was open or not. What needs to be done so that police can determine accurately enough if a knife is open, again, on a few seconds’ notice? [/li][li]Can you show studies that determine that someone who is mostly determined to self-harm poses no risk to others, most or almost all the time?[/li][li]Can you describe the training you have undergone, or delivered, that make you a better judge of when a police baton or a Tazer is as effective as a pistol in confronting a person with a knife? [/ul]I realize that last one isn’t fair - you have had no such training. I have, and thus my estimate of the relative risks of baton vs. pistol are going to be more accurate than yours. Accordingly, I will let you know that a knife is lethal force, and thus a police baton is less effective and much higher risk than a pistol, because a baton forces the officer into the lethal range of a knife, and a Tazer is less reliable because the barb can get caught in clothing and/or is less effective than shooting. [/li]
If you are claiming, as you seem to be doing, that police ought to accept a greater level of risk in disarming criminals, you need to articulate the specifics of this policy. Just saying, after the fact, “they should have accepted the risk of getting cut or stabbed, or someone else getting cut or stabbed, because the knife wielder wasn’t that big and wasn’t really going to hurt anyone except himself” is armchair quarterbacking. If you think you have a better policy, then by all means show that it is well thought thru, and that it is, in fact, a better policy.
Basically, boy meets girl, boy likes girl, boy gets police officer in on asking her to homecoming by ordering her out of the house with her hands up, with the instructions that she may lower her hands, if she says yes.
Apparently, given a brief google search, such things are not all that uncommon, though this was the first I’ve heard of this.
I can see how it seems cute, or sweet, or something, but it also seems to me to be a bit intimidating. Was she really in a position to say “No” at that point?
It’s a story involving an officer not performing any violent or degrading acts upon his community, so that’s a start, but I still find it to be controversial.
Would you use this tactic to ask someone out? If asked out in this fashion, would you say yes?
As in many other areas of public policy, there will be gray areas and areas of disagreement. The fact that i am not outlining a step-by-step proposal with specific criteria does NOT mean that such a policy could not be created. I recognize that such a policy would have to be more than a simple expression of my wishes, and that different people, with different levels of expertise, would have to weigh in and evaluate the relative risks.
My point was simply that there appears to be, in too many of these cases, an unwillingness to take any risk at all. We are constantly told that policing is a job that requires risks and courage, but if you’re going to shoot dead every person who gets with 30 feet of you with a knife (or without one, in some cases), then there’s really not any risk at all, is there?
You ask, “Accounts, as you mention, vary as to whether the knife was open or not. What needs to be done so that police can determine accurately enough if a knife is open, again, on a few seconds’ notice?”
First, i didn’t really say that accounts vary. In fact, i haven’t seen a single account that explicitly states that the knife blade was open.
Anyway, to your question: I would respond: if they are too far away to see whether a knife is open, then how can they reasonably claim that they saw a knife at all? Why should we accept their claim that the person was carrying a knife, but also accept a claim from the same officers that they couldn’t tell whether the blade was open or not? Either they can see it, or they can’t. If they can, they can see whether the blade is open or closed; if they can’t, how do they know that the thing in the person’s hand isn’t a wallet, or a cellphone?
And did you watch the video? It’s here if you missed it. From the start of the video, to the time the police fired their weapons, is about 1 minute and 14 seconds. If that’s your definition of “a few seconds’ notice,” you can probably understand why i don’t feel it would be productive to debate this with you any further.
It means that your opinions on police policy are worth virtually nothing, because rather than put any thought into it, you would rather let other people take the risks and do the work, while you sit by and cluck your tongue sanctimoniously.
Moral posturing is fun, isn’t it? Much easier than rational thought, too.
Oh come on. It’s reasonable to talk about this stuff, whether at the larger level or at the very specific level, or anywhere in between. It’s even reasonable to offer policy suggestions, in informal discussions like this, without all the details. It shouldn’t be taboo to suggest that, in general, law enforcement might be able to do better and kill fewer people.
And it looks as though nothing changed right before the shot. The student was in the same spot as before, wasn’t rushing at anyone, hands seem to be where they were for the rest of the encounter. So basically, the cop could have had more than 1 minute 14 seconds to make a decision simply by not shooting the guy right then.
“Police should do better, and not shoot so many people.”
“How are they supposed to do that?”
“I can’t be bothered with details - they just should.”
Look, I recognize that this is the Pit, and this isn’t really a discussion - just RO and posturing. Aided and abetted by the unshakable assumption that anecdotes are data. But it is also reasonable, therefore, to make fun of the posturing and attempts at moral superiority.