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

[Typo_Negative]

@eschereal

His taser. I think he meant to claim that the suspect had wrested the taser from him in a scuffle and was making off with a dangerous weapon, hence he had to be stopped.

That was what he radioed in. He did not know that someone was recording him on their phone.

And that is the problem I have.

If there had not been video taken without this officer’s knowledge, this would have been ruled a good shooting. A case of a brave officer gunning down a dangerous criminal in self-defense. Hell, he may have gotten a medal.

We have to ask ourselves ‘how many murders have been ruled good shootings simply because there was no bystander to get video of it?’

That officer was convicted. But I wonder what happened to the other officer on scene? The one who was right there next to him when he dropped the weapon on the corpse. He looked like this was business as usual.

This is the simple fact. If there is no video, it is a good shooting. The officer’s version of events is the official record.

[k9bfriender]

@Typo_Negative

That was what he radioed in. He did not know that someone was recording him on their phone.

And that is the problem I have.

If there had not been video taken without this officer’s knowledge, this would have been ruled a good shooting. A case of a brave officer gunning down a dangerous criminal in self-defense. Hell, he may have gotten a medal.

We have to ask ourselves ‘how many murders have been ruled good shootings simply because there was no bystander to get video of it?’

That officer was convicted. But I wonder what happened to the other officer on scene? The one who was right there next to him when he dropped the weapon on the corpse. He looked like this was business as usual.

This is the simple fact. If there is no video, it is a good shooting. The officer’s version of events is the official record.

Which is why any shooting that does not have video evidence should be taken with at least a grain of salt.

Shodan et. al like to claim that the vast majority of shootings are justified, but they are justified based only on the officer’s word.

With how often the officer’s statements are directly contradictory by the video, when it is avalible, a cop’s word has pretty little value.

[UCBearcats]

@k9bfriender

sorry, forgot [sarcasm] tags.

Thanks, I thought you are taking things rationally.

[Merneith]

So the dumbass cops who shot the Wichita guy were actually on the phone with the Swatter for a good fifteen minutes after they killed the poor guy for answering his door.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192846389.html

@link above

Davidson also would not answer whether officers at the scene were aware that the caller was still on the phone with 911.

Asked why Finch was shot on the porch while apparently not holding a phone while the hoax caller was talking to a 911 dispatcher, Wichita Police Chief Gordon Ramsay said Tuesday evening that was a difficult question to answer.

“Unfortunately we don’t have telepathy yet,” he added.

You don’t need telepathy, you piece of shit. You have phones and radios, and presumably, someone who is supposed to be coordinating everything, who has, theoretically, been trained in hostage situations. But, sure. Go ahead and be snotty about it. Where do we get off, anyway, expecting public servants to serve the public?

[Orwell]

@Merneith

You don’t need telepathy, you piece of shit. You have phones and radios, and presumably, someone who is supposed to be coordinating everything, who has, theoretically, been trained in hostage situations. But, sure. Go ahead and be snotty about it. Where do we get off, anyway, expecting public servants to serve the public?

That apparently went away somewhere in between Andy Griffith and SWAT. The Us vs. Them attitude is far too common.

This news article I read is pretty timely. I completely disagree with AG Sessions vowing to crack down on marijuana use and sales in states that have legalized it. I also think it should just be legalized everywhere. But if it isn’t legal, that still doesn’t validate the police shooting people who are not threatening them.

Marijuana raids are more deadly than the drug itself

The first few paragraphs provide examples of residents being murdered in cold blood by police. The article goes on to illustrate how SWAT usage and raids have ballooned.

[mikecurtis]

The Washington Post has updated their ongoing project to track killings by the police.
Some highlights:

For the third year in a row, police nationwide shot and killed nearly 1,000 people, a grim annual tally that has persisted despite widespread public scrutiny of officers’ use of fatal force.
. . .

“The numbers indicate that this is not a trend, but a robust measure of these shootings,” said Geoff Alpert, a criminologist at the University of South Carolina who studies police use of force. “We now have information on almost 3,000 shootings, and we can start looking to provide the public with a better understanding of fatal officer-involved shootings.”
. . .

While the number of black males — armed and unarmed — who have been killed has fallen, black males continue to be shot at disproportionately high rates, the data shows.
. . .

Police again most frequently used fatal force after encountering people armed with knives or guns, killing 735. . .

White males continued to account for the largest group of people killed while armed with guns or knives, at 330 of those killed. Black males armed with guns or knives were fatally shot in 160 cases last year.

Mental health again played an outsize role in the shootings: 236 people, or nearly 1 in 4 of those shot, were described as experiencing some form of mental distress at the time of the encounter.

In the vast majority of those cases, 88 percent, the deceased people had wielded firearms or other weapons, including a machete, a sledge ax and a pitchfork.
. . .

Mental-health advocates said they have been encouraged by the number of police departments that have created intervention teams to help people in mental distress but were dismayed at the persistence of the number killed.

“We call 911 for other medical emergencies and they bring specially trained medical technicians, but when it’s a mental-health crisis, we send the police,” said Ron Honberg, a senior policy adviser at the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a grass-roots mental health-care advocacy group.
. . .

Meanwhile, the number of police officers feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2017 stood at 46, a decline from the 66 recorded in 2016, according to the FBI.
. . .

For a third consecutive year, The Post documented more than twice the number of deadly shootings by police that were recorded on average annually by the FBI.

In response to the shooting data compiled by The Post and others, the FBI in 2015 promised to start better information gathering about all police encounters that lead to deaths. This month, the agency said it will launch the new nationwide data collection system.

But the new system will have some of the same limitations that has led the government to annually undercount by half the fatal police shootings. As before, data submissions under the new program will be voluntary.

[Steophan]

@Slash1972

Because they are cops. More authority = more responsibility = held to a higher standard. I also hold our elected officials to a higher standard than a random moron blog poster on the Internet. I held officers in the Air Force to a higher standard then low ranking enlisted people. I must be strange like that.

Well, you certainly don’t believe in justice.

Sure it is. So what? Concealed carry people are armed and ready to use the weapon and I can’t see it. Can I just shoot them because I’m afraid?

Is the fear reasonable and the danger imminent? These are not complex questions - although answering them may be difficult in some situations - and yet you, and others, keep ignoring them, as though “fear” is the only relevant qualification.

[Slash1972]

@Steophan

Well, you certainly don’t believe in justice

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Meanwhile, the number of police officers feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2017 stood at 46, a decline from the 66 recorded in 2016, according to the FBI

Well, with these numbers, it is no wonder the police are so scared of a guy laying on the ground with his hands in the air :rolleyes:

[eschereal]

@Slash1972

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

“Justice” is kind of subjective. I tend to believe that the police ought to be duly answerable for their actions, while Trolly seems to believe that, as the police are tasked with pursuing the cause of justice on the ground, they deserve a certain amount of latitude. There may be compromise ground between us, but it is a slender patch.

[mikecurtis]

@Steophan

Is the fear reasonable and the danger imminent? These are not complex questions - although answering them may be difficult in some situations - and yet you, and others, keep ignoring them, as though “fear” is the only relevant qualification.

Because the police and prosecutors seem to rely heavily on that as an excuse for these killings. We do not believe that these fears are reasonable in many of the cases; and if the officers involved were genuinely in fear for their lives then they were poorly trained and unable to properly assess the situation or they dont have the temperament for the job, or they needlessly put themselves in a vulnerable position.

and

The excuse used to just be that the officer thought the civilian had a weapon as was trying to access it. Believing someone has a weapon and may use it is not always adequate justification for use of lethal force; fearing for your life is. So it seems to many of us that the officers and lawyers are just trotting out the excuse because it works.

mc

[UCBearcats]

@Steophan

Well, you certainly don’t believe in justice.

Is the fear reasonable and the danger imminent? These are not complex questions - although answering them may be difficult in some situations - and yet you, and others, keep ignoring them, as though “fear” is the only relevant qualification.

How the fuck is there imminent danger if you are a cop and you haven’t seen a gun? There is no reason to kill that person. The cop has the position of power already in the situation. The are better equipped, trained and have laws that support them plus back available as needed. Killing someone should be the last resort not a common place method of policing.

[bobot]

The cat-chasing-its-tail nature of arguing with Steophan about unjust police killings in this thread reminds me of that irrational dude’s climate change thread. Oh please don’t let him make this one like that one. I’ll go first.
pause
Your turn
ETA: I say to no poster in particular.

[SteveG1]

@Slash1972

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

It’s actually pretty fucking stupid.

[Steophan]

@UCBearcats

Killing someone should be the last resort not a common place method of policing.

Killing someone should not be a method of policing at all, and I’ve never advocated that it should be. What I’ve repeatedly said is that everyone, including the police, have the right to defend themselves, and that nothing about that right changes when someone puts on a uniform.

You, on the other hand, think cops should be willing to die on the job if a threat to them doesn’t meet your arbitrary, inconsistent and immoral standard, despite the fact that every day they are risking their lives to make your life - and everyone’s - better.

[Steophan]

@Slash1972

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

You want to remove some people’s basic rights because of their job. That is fundamentally unjust.

[UCBearcats]

@Steophan

Killing someone should not be a method of policing at all, and I’ve never advocated that it should be. What I’ve repeatedly said is that everyone, including the police, have the right to defend themselves, and that nothing about that right changes when someone puts on a uniform.

You, on the other hand, think cops should be willing to die on the job if a threat to them doesn’t meet your arbitrary, inconsistent and immoral standard, despite the fact that every day they are risking their lives to make your life - and everyone’s - better.

A cop should defend themself when there is actually a weapon, not shit in their pants from being scared.

It is also easier to advocate for the “bobbies” to do as needed when they are only going thrust a Billy club in your ass instead of a bullet to the head.

My standard is to value all life not just that of a thug, pussy, or dipshit hiding behind a shield and actually lowering the quality of life for the community.

[Steophan]

@UCBearcats

A cop should defend themself when there is actually a weapon, not shit in their pants from being scared.

Repeating a falsehood won’t make it any more true. That is not the standard, and isn’t going to become the standard, because to do so would be fundamentally immoral if you actually believe in the right to self defence. The standard for a cop should be the same as for anyone else, as basic rights don’t change because you take a particular job.

Although if you read the article someone helpfully posted earlier, you’ll find that the vast majority of police killings are of armed people - something like 88% if I remember rightly. That does not suggest a systemic problem where the police are wantonly or fearfully killing vast amounts of innocent, unarmed people.

In short, you neither understand the principles behind what should happen, nor what is actually happening. Educate yourself.

[Typo_Negative]

@Steophan

You, on the other hand, think cops should be willing to die on the job if a threat to them doesn’t meet your arbitrary, inconsistent and immoral standard, despite the fact that every day they are risking their lives to make your life - and everyone’s - better.

His standard is none of those things. His standard is that there actually be a threat, and that panic doesn’t count as threat.

[eschereal]

@Steophan

You want to remove some people’s basic rights because of their job. That is fundamentally unjust.

You are saying that anyone should be entitled to draw a pistol and shoot someone else if they feel that there is a possibility that the other person might have had a weapon that they might have been thinking about using. And then get their friends together to make up a narrative that makes it look like self defense. And be able to get away with it.

Because, if that is not what you mean, you should clarify your phrasing.

[UCBearcats]

@Steophan

Repeating a falsehood won’t make it any more true. That is not the standard, and isn’t going to become the standard, because to do so would be fundamentally immoral if you actually believe in the right to self defence. The standard for a cop should be the same as for anyone else, as basic rights don’t change because you take a particular job.

Although if you read the article someone helpfully posted earlier, you’ll find that the vast majority of police killings are of armed people - something like 88% if I remember rightly. That does not suggest a systemic problem where the police are wantonly or fearfully killing vast amounts of innocent, unarmed people.

In short, you neither understand the principles behind what should happen, nor what is actually happening. Educate yourself.

My standard is the same for all people in that there is an actual need for self defense. Wanting the standard to be better for all does not make it a falsehood.

It is great that a number of police shootings are not murder and are actually justified by the person having a weapon. Unfortunately, that means cops still murder unarmed people at too high of a rate than is needed.