Its ok. The police were trying to shoot the autistic guy, they just hit the black guy by accident

[dogbutler]

@Little_Nemo

Can’t see why the officers at the scene wouldn’t have know this. The video shows that Kinsey was yelling out that the other guy was autistic and unarmed and what he was holding in his hand was a toy truck. I suppose Kinsey in retrospect should have also yelled “And I’m the supposed hostage here so you shouldn’t shoot me.” but I guess he mistakenly assumed the police knew that.

Relevant training video

[dropzone]

@Ike_Witt

So the cop who ‘accidentally’ shot the therapist is a SWAT team member. Aren’t those guys supposed to have more training than average cops?

I’ve given up on the Cult of SWAT and expecting any more from them than some bully flatfoot.

[dasmoocher]

@monstro

I’d like to see some psychological profiling to screen out job candidates who are inclined to make the “oopsies” like the one currently we’re talking about. You can train people all day, but some folks just shouldn’t be police officers.

Like, with all the work that’s been done on implicit bias, it sure seems like someone could devise a test that gauges the bent of a subject’s unconscious, split-second decision-making. I would think that if someone has a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality, you’d see certain signs with a rigorous examination.

I’ve posted this link in the thread before:

Provider of mental health evaluations for Baltimore police under investigation

The company contracted to conduct mental health screens of aspiring Baltimore police officers is under investigation by the city’s inspector general and legal department over allegations that it rushed those evaluations, according to city officials and documents obtained by The Baltimore Sun.

The investigation focuses on whether Lutherville-based Psychology Consultants Associated fulfilled the requirements of its $730,000, two-year contract with the city. PCA allegedly conducted evaluations of prospective police officers in as little as 15 minutes, instead of the hour required under the contract to clear them for service, officials said
…
“There’s not much you can glean from being with a person for 15 or 20 minutes,” Shokek said in an interview. “If … he doesn’t evaluate them as long as he should be, essentially what he’s doing is allowing people who haven’t been screened to be on the street and to have a weapon on the street.”
…
Experts in the field questioned the ability of a psychologist to conduct a screening in 15 or 20 minutes — even when those psychologists are provided the results of background checks on the individuals ahead of time.

“I have not been able to figure out a way to get comprehensive information, even from a very young applicant with minimal work history, minimal issues, in less than 30 minutes,” said Heather McElroy, vice chair of the psychological services section for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

McElroy, the managing partner of a psychology practice outside Atlanta that specializes in such screenings and a sworn officer in a local police department, said she tells psychologists under contract with her company that they should expect each interview to last an hour.

“In 15 minutes, I barely know why [applicants] are there,” she said.

Screening might not work if they don’t actually do it properly and are just checking the box that it was done.

[JKellyMap]

@Mighty_Girl

“We were called on a possible attempted suicide, and we helped by shooting him.”

Ha! A bit of comic relief in an excellent thread. Carry on, folks, and thanks.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Cheesesteak

Do you believe that this officer’s thought process was “Unarmed man with a toy truck, fuck that guy, I’m putting 3 bullets in 'em!”

That’s a possibility, but more likely “he has something (or might have something) in his hand that I can’t identify - I’m going to assume it’s a gun,” making it more a case of professional gross incompetence than malice, and suggesting poor training coupled with a paranoid work atmosphere.

I’d say this is much more likely to be a case of inexcusable error in judgement, not confirming the presence of a weapon before shooting, than a callous decision to kill a person who is known to be no threat to anyone.

I’ll add that this cop needs to be punished for his crime, and that the treatment of the two victims after the shooting was reprehensible as well.

At the very least, the cop needs to be fired and training procedures reviewed.

[k9bfriender]

@Bryan_Ekers

That’s a possibility, but more likely “he has something (or might have something) in his hand that I can’t identify - I’m going to assume it’s a gun,” making it more a case of professional gross incompetence than malice, and suggesting poor training coupled with a paranoid work atmosphere.

At the very least, the cop needs to be fired and training procedures reviewed.

Does firing a cop in a bad shoot actually make sense though? I would say that they should never be put into that position again. They should be riding a desk from here out, as they have proved that their judgement in the heat of the moment is very poor. They may be an amazing detective, or logistical genius, or a charismatic leader, no reason to throw out all of their potential contributions because they have poor judgement in stressful situations.

If we don’t fire or incarcerate cops for bad shoots that are based on poor “in-the-moment” judgement, then they may not feel quite as inclined to try to cover it up.

I can imagine myself, being in a situation where I am in fear of my life, making a bad call, only to find later that my fear was not justified.

If I know that the consequence of this is that I will never be put into this situation that I am not equipped for, then I will be able to admit it. If I am worried about being fired, or even worse, going to prison over it, I am likely to do my best to cover it up. If I know my buddies on the force will be fired or go to prison for a mistake, then I may help them cover those up too.

Malicious or intentional shooting would still be murder, this would not give police free license to kill with little consequence, just less reason to refuse to admit their mistake when they fuck up. Covering up a bad shoot, I would prosecute as higher than intentional murder, personally.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

Your question shows that you did not note, or did not understand, what I meant.

Feel free to clarify, then. It’s a fairly simple couple of questions. If you don’t understand them, I can try and rephrase them.

[Dewey_Finn]

I remember seeing posts here by gun enthusiasts criticizing the media (and other SDMB posters) for misidentifying guns (e.g., “Why would you call that gun an AR-15 when it’s clearly a Banana Jr 9000 semi-automatic rifle?”), so it’s amusing that someone on a police SWAT team (presumably someone who is a gun enthusiast and perhaps even an NRA member) can’t even tell a gun from a toy truck.

[monstro]

@k9bfriender

Does firing a cop in a bad shoot actually make sense though? I would say that they should never be put into that position again. They should be riding a desk from here out, as they have proved that their judgement in the heat of the moment is very poor. They may be an amazing detective, or logistical genius, or a charismatic leader, no reason to throw out all of their potential contributions because they have poor judgement in stressful situations.

Maybe if cops knew they would lose their jobs if they “shoot first, ask questions later”, then they’d be more careful.

Hell yes, a lot of them try to lie when they get in trouble. But this wouldn’t be such a problem if all the supposed “good” cops out there didn’t reflexively back up their buddies’ stories all the time. And if their supervisors didn’t feel obligated to play defense lawyer before all the facts come out. We aren’t talking about bad individuals making everyone else look bad. We’re talking about an institution that enables and facilitates bad behaviors. Get rid of that and then there isn’t any covering-up of bad deeds. If cops knew that their sorry excuses and lame explanations wouldn’t be automatically believed, I really do think they would be a lot more careful and thoughtful in their policing.

If I embarrass my employer due to incompetence, I would expect to get fired–not shifted around to another department. Because an employee is always hired to do X, Y, Z. Not A, B, or C. If he demonstrates he can’t do X, Y, and Z, but he believes he can do A, B, C, then he should resign like a grown-ass adult and put in an application for that A-B-C position. He should compete against all the other qualified job candidates, not plopped to the head of the line. That’s how it works for everyone else in this world.

Cops shouldn’t get special treatment just because they are inclined to be lying jerks otherwise.

[monstro]

@Dewey_Finn

I remember seeing posts here by gun enthusiasts criticizing the media (and other SDMB posters) for misidentifying guns (e.g., “Why would you call that gun an AR-15 when it’s clearly a Banana Jr 9000 semi-automatic rifle?”), so it’s amusing that someone on a police SWAT team (presumably someone who is a gun enthusiast and perhaps even an NRA member) can’t even tell a gun from a toy truck.

It could have been a one of those new Transformers I’ve been hearing about. Instead of a robot in disguise, it’s an AK-47.

[Typo_Negative]

@Wesley_Clark

Which is the worst part. Do the police in this situation really think the public are just going to mindlessly believe every criminal lie they spout, no matter what the evidence says?

Of course. Because many so desperately want to believe it.

[you_with_the_face]

@Typo_Negative

Of course. Because many so desperately want to believe it.

I don’t think the cops themselves know what differentiates a good lie from a bad one. That’s how deep and pathological the dishonesty is. They provide these absurd lies because they don’t even have the sense to see how they make them look worse than the truth.

They don’t even put any forethought or cognitive effort into it. In that way, their lies resemble their violence: impulsive, senseless, crazy, and lacking in any sign of self-awareness.

I used to think dash cams would make cops less likely to act abusively out of the assumption that awareness of being filmed would act as a governor on their dangerous impulses. But it looks like that assumption was naive. If certain cops don’t even know that shooting at autistic people holding toys is no more justifiable than shooting at their supine caretakers, then they won’t have the presence of mind to act more responsibly when videoed by their own equipment. They just won’t. Which is very scary.

[k9bfriender]

@monstro

Cops shouldn’t get special treatment just because they are inclined to be lying jerks otherwise.

I am willing to give them some (not much) leeway in their actions because we do put them in a difficult position that it is hard to tell how someone will react. Better training would help, but ultimately it’s just how you react in a stressful situation, and there really is no way to tell that for sure until it happens.

If someone makes a bad call, they should not be expected to make that call again, but they should not be condemned for it.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Dewey_Finn

I remember seeing posts here by gun enthusiasts criticizing the media (and other SDMB posters) for misidentifying guns (e.g., “Why would you call that gun an AR-15 when it’s clearly a Banana Jr 9000 semi-automatic rifle?”), so it’s amusing that someone on a police SWAT team (presumably someone who is a gun enthusiast and perhaps even an NRA member) can’t even tell a gun from a toy truck.

A ***white ***toy truck.

[Rick_Kitchen]

So the supervisor is in trouble for lying in his report. Does anybody have a link to what his report said?

[monstro]

@k9bfriender

If someone makes a bad call, they should not be expected to make that call again, but they should not be condemned for it.

Firing someone for almost killing a person is not “condemning” them. It’s telling the employee they are only allowed to make certain mistakes just once.

[enipla]

If a common citizen shot three times at two guys sitting on the curb, hitting one…

Who would be in jail?

The cop and his ‘support’ do not need to be put behind a desk for sure. I don’t want him making policy. Or filling out papers. They need to be fired, and prosecuted.

[enipla]

@k9bfriender

I am willing to give them some (not much) leeway in their actions because we do put them in a difficult position that it is hard to tell how someone will react. Better training would help, but ultimately it’s just how you react in a stressful situation, and there really is no way to tell that for sure until it happens.

If someone makes a bad call, they should not be expected to make that call again, but they should not be condemned for it.

I’m sorry to see that some people think that you need training to not use lethal force against those that do not present a threat at all.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Rick_Kitchen

So the supervisor is in trouble for lying in his report. Does anybody have a link to what his report said?

Every news story about it I’ve seen says that the city is not releasing the report or the guy’s remarks or anything because they are now evidence in an on-going investigation. Presumably if/when the investigation is concluded it’ll be available.

[holmes]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Every news story about it I’ve seen says that the city is not releasing the report or the guy’s remarks or anything because they are now evidence in an on-going investigation. Presumably if/when the investigation is concluded it’ll be available.

The only thing I found relates to the commander saying he saw the autistic guy (i’m assuming that’s who he was referring to) “loading his weapon”. That’s incredible considering the guy was holding a toy truck…but hey maybe it really was a transformer.

Linky