# Its ok. The police were trying to shoot the autistic guy, they just hit the black guy by accident **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 23, 2016, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-ok-the-police-were-trying-to-shoot-the-autistic-guy-they-just-hit-the-black-guy-by-accident/760672 "2016-07-23T13:20:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-ok-the-police-were-trying-to-shoot-the-autistic-guy-they-just-hit-the-black-guy-by-accident/760672/141 "2016-07-26T04:03:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In the interest of precision, the victim _says_ the officer said “I don’t know.” Perhaps we should wait for some nonconflicting official statements for another perspective. It’s a fair point to make, but – at least in my opinion – that claim is credible, largely because it is such an unusual thing to say. That is, a victim fabricating the officer’s response would be more likely to create a more damning admission, or a more logical response. (“I shot you because you were going for a gun!” or “Shut up! Stay down!”) To report that the offer said, “I don’t know,” just rings true. To me, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-ok-the-police-were-trying-to-shoot-the-autistic-guy-they-just-hit-the-black-guy-by-accident/760672/142 "2016-07-26T04:05:22Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I can see it, and I say that as someone not ordinarily inclined to defend you or even cut you much slack. > > You said you didn’t believe the officer’s explanation for the shooting because it was inconsistent with the facts. You gave an example of a counterfactual situation where you would have been willing to believe the officer, presumably to highlight the difference between what _actually_ happened and what would have needed to have happened to make the officer’s story seem plausible. > > What may have been potentially confusing about your original post was that you began by saying the 911 caller reported seeing a man with a gun, which might have primed people to expect the rest of the post to be in support of the police officer’s “I was shooting at the man I thought had a gun” explanation. But it should have quickly become apparent that this was not the case. I agree. I feel like people read the first line, concluded that they knew what I was likely to be saying, and now feel they cannot re-examine or deviate from that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-ok-the-police-were-trying-to-shoot-the-autistic-guy-they-just-hit-the-black-guy-by-accident/760672/143 "2016-07-26T13:24:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Shooting an unarmed, helpless, unthreatening person, _for no expressable reason_, goes far beyond being not the right person _for the job_, doesn’t it? Who the hell \*does \*that? Someone who should not have been there at all. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, if this was in a dark alley or underlit tenement hallway, and/or there was a hostage saying “he’s got a gun!” The broad-daylight aspect of this case suggests to me that if this cop can’t exercise good judgement under optimal conditions, he’s not trustworthy in general. > > He doesn’t need to be condemned, but failing to meet basic competence in such an absurd way would get anyone fired. Should never have been hired. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yes: you imagine. You imagine a lot in those 2 sentences I quoted, for example. > > When come back bring facts. You seem to be arguing against better police recruitment, screening and training. Is that actually the position you are taking? > [@JRDelirious](#): > > Yes, in our world, _when you’re exposed as the wrong man for the job, **you** get canned_, and maybe the guy who placed you there does, too. > > There are also such a thing as a career-killing mistakes where everyone agrees it was a mistake and you were not criminally liable but you’re dead-ending for it. > > Now, if the immediate reaction were “Holy Shit, we’ve fucked up, are you all right, here let’s help you – quickly, guys, find out all what went wrong and let everybody know…” then we could buy into a scenario where if at the end it’s determined someone made a terrible mistake in a confused situation but there’s no crime he gets reassigned somewhere where he should not be in that situation again. Move him from SWAT to motor pool for a while, or something. But when what happens is you don’t know why you shot him, and then you just leave the wounded bound on the ground, and some superior officer makes a report getting it so wrong HE gets fired… well there are examples that need to be made, sorry. In our world, lots of people get shot by police for no good reason. It is then often times covered up, and the officer face no accountability at all. I am looking at changing the status quo a bit. Starting with better recruitment and screening for candidates. Much better training, not just in combative tactics, but in de-escalation. Training on how to deal with mentally disabled people, upset people, stressed people, people who may not fully understand and comply instantly with directions. You know, people. In the case of this shooting, absolutely, this guy should never have been on the force, should never have been out on patrol, and should never have shown up at this call. This is the case for most if not all bad shoots. I would be hard pressed to believe that this guy was looking to kill someone when he showed up for the call, but because the system failed both the cop and the victim, he was put in a position he was not equipped or trained to be put in. If your goal is to punish the cop for his mistake, then go ahead. Maybe charges will stick, maybe they won’t as they do in may police shootings. If your goal is to reduce or eliminate police shooting unarmed individuals, a different approach may be in order. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-ok-the-police-were-trying-to-shoot-the-autistic-guy-they-just-hit-the-black-guy-by-accident/760672.md?page=7)