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

[Typo_Negative]

@Steophan

For example, the police receive a report that someone is waving a gun around and scaring people. When the police approach him, instead of following instructions, he reaches for the gun. That the gun was a fake, and therefore there was no actual threat, is utterly irrelevant. It was legal, and justified, for that cop to shoot Tamir Rice.

They didn’t give Tamir Rice any instructions. One of the cops may have been thinking about giving him instructions, but by that time the other cop had already shot the kid.

You remember that guy, right?

Among Loehmann’s alleged omissions, the documents say, he did not disclose that he had an “emotional breakdown” during a state qualification course, and that his former employer, the Independence Police Department, concluded he was unable “to emotionally function.”

Loehmann claimed he had given instructions to Tamir before killing him. But he was lying.

Loehmann also said he “presented” his gun and gave commands through a “closed” car window to the boy during the interview.

However, surveillance video shows Loehmann shooting the boy mere seconds after the officers’ arrival, Chandra told NBC News.

Cleveland PD admits the Officer who was driving used improper tactics and they seriously regret not looking closer into Loehmann.

Rice was not killed because he waving a gun and not following instructions. He was killed because the Officer that shot him was a cowardly, emotionally disturbed liar.

[Muffin]

Steophan is a poster boy for extremely tight gun control, such as no private person being permitted to carry a handgun other than to a shooting range.

Why? Because he’s scared of his own shadow and believes that this justifies killing in what he mistakenly believes to be self-defence. Would you want people that paranoid and trigger happy to be armed with handguns?

[SteveG1]

@Typo_Negative

They didn’t give Tamir Rice any instructions. One of the cops may have been thinking about giving him instructions, but by that time the other cop had already shot the kid.

You remember that guy, right?
Loehmann claimed he had given instructions to Tamir before killing him. But he was lying.

Cleveland PD admits the Officer who was driving used improper tactics and they seriously regret not looking closer into Loehmann.

Rice was not killed because he waving a gun and not following instructions. He was killed because the Officer that shot him was a cowardly, emotionally disturbed liar.

This.

We’ve ALL seen the video of the murder - and that’s exactly what it was. Murder.

The “officer”, Loehman, fatally shot Tamir Rice less than 2 seconds after exiting his police car.
This is according to the official report from the prosecutor: “Officer Loehman discharged his firearm within two seconds of exiting the car. Officer Loehmann fired two shots, one of which hit Tamir in the abdomen and caused him to fall in the area between the patrol car and the gazebo.”

A state judge ruled there was probable cause to charge the officer who killed Tamir Rice with murder.
As the investigation dragged on activists “invoked a provision of Ohio law that allows citizens to bypass prosecutors and seek a judge’s opinion on whether cause exists to bring criminal charges.” The judge, Ronald B. Adrine, “found that sufficient cause exists to charge Loehmann with murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide, and dereliction of duty.” He also found that Loehmann’s partner, Frank Garmback, could be charged with “negligent homicide and dereliction of duty.”

“After viewing it several times, this court is still thunderstruck by how quickly this event turned deadly,” Judge Adrine wrote in his opinion.

The officer who fatally shot Tamir Rice was deemed “unfit for duty” at the last police department where he worked.
As a member of the Independence Police Department in Ohio, Loehmann was described in his personnel file as “an emotionally unstable recruit with a ‘lack of maturity’ and ‘inability to perform basic functions as instructed’ during a weapons training exercise.”

A memo in Loehman’s file said “his handgun performance was dismal,” citing a “dangerous loss of composure” during training. He was in the process of being fired.

Neither officer involved in the shooting administered first aid to Rice after he was shot.

The officers refused to testify but the prosecutor submitted their written statements to the jury.
This unusual accommodation was highly beneficial to the officers, allowing them to present their version of the events without being subject to any questioning.

“Submitting self-serving, unsworn written statements — rather than appearing live before the grand jury so that the officers’ versions of events are subject to vigorous cross examination — shows that these officers know their story will not withstand real scrutiny,” Subodh Chandra, an attorney for the Rice family, said.

Explaining his decision not to press for an indictment, the prosecutor said “We don’t second-guess police officers.”
The job of the prosecutor, quite explicitly, is to reexamine the police officers conduct and to question the appropriateness of their actions. From the beginning, it appeared to be a task that was uncomfortable for prosecutor Timothy McGinty.

[SamuelA]

Here’s the thing about ‘reasonable’ fear.

Suppose you’re an armed police officer with body armor. A civilian who you think is suspicious is in your view. You do not have any direct confirmation they have a gun, but they might have one.

So they reach for a waistband, maybe to pull their pants up, maybe they have a hidden gun.

So play this out. Let’s say they do have a hidden gun.

In order for you to die, the following have to happen :

a. They have to draw their weapon and aim it at you before you shoot them dead.

b. Given they only have a fraction of a second to aim, if they even hit you, it’ll probably be in the body armor or somewhere non vital. So it would have to be an incredibly lucky shot for you to be hit in the head or in just the right spot in your groin.

c. They have to do this, knowing you or your buddy are going to kill them right after. So it’s a suicide, and they have waited until now to commit it.

d. If they did want to kill a cop, they are choosing literally the worst moment to do so. Instead of killing you when your back is turned and you’re pumping gas, or shooting you at your front door, any number of trivial ways. If someone wants to kill someone else, cop or not, and they don’t care about getting away with it, it’s trivially easy. Basically only the President and a few people with similar amounts of armed private security can’t be casually killed.

So this means that not only do they have to be irrational, they have to be borderline mentally retarded, barely able to operate a gun.
If the suspect is a criminal trying to escape, it makes sense for them to fire at a good moment. Not when you already have them at gunpoint in clear view.

So maybe I’m wrong about this, it’s possible that there really is a rash of irrational criminals out there with pistol shooting skills comparable to Jerry Miculek. But then, if there were, wouldn’t they be killing cops more often? Wouldn’t you hear about cases where a pistol champion criminal out drew a cop and killed them, justifying other’s officer’s fear and making it reasonable?

You should be able to see if this were true in the data. The articles I’ve read, admittedly on liberal sites, would say things like “so it’s March, and the police are up to 300 people killed. So far this year, the only police officer killed by gunfire on duty was shot by *another *police officer…”

[Typo_Negative]

@SteveG1

The officers refused to testify but the prosecutor submitted their written statements to the jury.
This unusual accommodation was highly beneficial to the officers, allowing them to present their version of the events without being subject to any questioning.

“Submitting self-serving, unsworn written statements — rather than appearing live before the grand jury so that the officers’ versions of events are subject to vigorous cross examination — shows that these officers know their story will not withstand real scrutiny,” Subodh Chandra, an attorney for the Rice family, said.

I didn’t think there was cross examinations in Grand Jury proceedings. I know the members can ask questions, but it’s still not a cross, right? It’s the prosecutor’s show, right?

[SamuelA]

@Typo_Negative

I didn’t think there was cross examinations in Grand Jury proceedings. I know the members can ask questions, but it’s still not a cross, right? It’s the prosecutor’s show, right?

Yes. Prosecutor can pretty much always get an indictment if they want it. As I understand it, the defense could give the prosecutors a video of someone else committing the crime, and the prosecutors could simply not show that evidence to the grand jury and get an indictment anyway. Though in extreme cases, the defense can ask the judge to dismiss the case when the evidence is so clear in favor of the defense that no unbiased finder of fact could conclude the defendant is guilty.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Slash1972

How does “possibly reaching for what may or may not be a gun” pose a real threat?

Where did the word “possibly” come from? Was he reaching or not?

And its a threat because of the “may be a gun” part.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Slash1972

That’s why the standard should be “I saw a gun and it was pointed in my direction”

That is a good way to get a lot of dead cops. But no, I think we should do things the way you want because all those experts probably have no idea what they are talking about when they create the procedures that keep cops alive.

Of the approximately 1000 people killed by cops every year, how many of those times do you think the cops should have waited until the cops saw a gun pointed in their direction before shooting?

[Slash1972]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Where did the word “possibly” come from? Was he reaching or not?

And its a threat because of the “may be a gun” part.

He is possibly reaching. Or he is possibly scratching an itchy mosquito bite. Either, or many other things, are possible.

You “may have a gun” right now. Are you a threat to other people? Are people who openly carry weapons around a threat to other people? They definitely have a gun, there is no “may be a gun” about it.

[UCBearcats]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That is a good way to get a lot of dead cops. But no, I think we should do things the way you want because all those experts probably have no idea what they are talking about when they create the procedures that keep cops alive.

Of the approximately 1000 people killed by cops every year, how many of those times do you think the cops should have waited until the cops saw a gun pointed in their direction before shooting?

How many of those people killed didn’t have a gun or other weapon? How many of those people were in the wrong place at the wrong time and met the wrong cop who wanted to kill someone?

[Slash1972]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That is a good way to get a lot of dead cops. But no, I think we should do things the way you want because all those experts probably have no idea what they are talking about when they create the procedures that keep cops alive

Even if that were true, so what? They know what they are getting into when they sign up to be cops. And what experts? You don’t need to be an expert to come up with “If you are scared for your life, even if you don’t see a gun, even if the guy is laying on the ground with his hands up begging you not to shoot him, just shoot him. And then say you were scared for your life. Sure, a citizen that you are supposed to be protecting might be dead, but you’ll still be alive, and that’s what counts!”

What kind of a degree do I need to develop that awesome procedure?

Of the approximately 1000 people killed by cops every year, how many of those times do you think the cops should have waited until the cops saw a gun pointed in their direction before shooting?

I may be persuaded to let cops shoot people who have a clearly recognizable gun pointed at other people as well :rolleyes:

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@asahi

No argument - that used to be the standard.

When? AFAICT, reaching for what may be a gun has been a shootable offense since forever.

But IIRC there’s been some “guru” who has gone around the country training departments and this guy’s message is that an officer’s #1 job is to get home alive - everything else comes second.

Cite? I thought this was a a pretty broadly held “best practice”

If the standard for police work is “I was afraid”, we are all in serious danger.

Clearly the fear has to be reasonable. The problem might be that it is too easy to establish reasonable fear for their life.

[bobot]

At least one of them was shot in the back as he ran away. There was video of one, at least.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@UCBearcats

Screw them getting home alive. They signed up for protecting and serving the public. Getting their jollies off killing unarmed citizens should not go unpunished. They need to be held to the highest standard.

Wow! :eek:

emphasis added

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@SaneBill

The one thing I’ve been puzzled about these cases is that often it seems that the cop does not settle with one shot. Too often it’s just as many bullets as the gun can hold.
The training should emphasize that you shoot just once. Then you check out the situation and only if it is necessary you shoot another etc.

Guns are not magical death rays. One bullet is frequently not enough to stop a determined criminal.

If I would be a trainer I would say that if one possibly can avoid it, NEVER EMPTY YOUR GUN, especially on a single target ! What do you do if you face an armed thug just after you have emptied your gun on a passer-by whose pants were falling. Well, you’ll die, 'cause now you’re holding a useless piece of metal.

These best practices were developed for a reason. How many times do you think your scenario has played out? How many times do you think a cop has been killed by a criminal that had a bullet in him?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@bobot

I’m glad they made an arrest, and hope they charge the guy with all they can. But not murder. Calling in a false report on an innocent person is reprehensible to say the least. Calling in a false fucking hostage situation should get a guy locked up. But when it comes to murder: God dammit why are these cops so ready to shoot someone??

Death is a foreseeable consequence of swatting someone. I would call it depraved indifference to loss of human life. Second degree murder.

Depraved-heart murder

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Alessan

If you have a right to own a gun, that means the cops don’t have a right to shoot you just for holding it, right?

Only if you’re white. Then they yell at you to drop your gun.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Slash1972

He is possibly reaching. Or he is possibly scratching an itchy mosquito bite. Either, or many other things, are possible.

You “may have a gun” right now. Are you a threat to other people? Are people who openly carry weapons around a threat to other people? They definitely have a gun, there is no “may be a gun” about it.

The original phrase was he was reaching for what might be a gun, not that he Might have been reaching for something that Might have been a gun. Cop with a gun tells you not to move your hands, you should probably not move your hands.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Slash1972

He is possibly reaching. Or he is possibly scratching an itchy mosquito bite. Either, or many other things, are possible.

You “may have a gun” right now. Are you a threat to other people? Are people who openly carry weapons around a threat to other people? They definitely have a gun, there is no “may be a gun” about it.

And if you are open carrying and a cop with a gun tells you not to move your hands and you STILL reach for a gun, you will probably get shot

Its not just having a gun that makes you a threat, its the reaching for it part.

[SaneBill]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Only if you’re white. Then they yell at you to drop your gun.

Very funny. You just made all your other posts meaningless.