Maybe cross that bridge if and when the guy actually took a shot at someone.
I’ll also note the police were in control of the whole situation. They closed in on him and engaged with him with guns drawn.
You are completely missing the point. And you also have a funny definition of “guilt” or “innocence.” As @Chronos has pointed out several times, he hasn’t been convicted of anything (and now, he never will). Nor did he have a criminal record.
Finally, I didn’t post it as an example of anything more than the police killing yet another person in a case that hit relatively close to home.
One of the most egregious examples of this is the case of Christian Glass, which I believe you mentioned in a previous post. Not only did the cops kill him unjustifiably, but the Sheriff’s Office tried to justify it by filling the report full of lies.
First off, there’s not actually any such thing as legal “innocence.” He was indeed instead found not guilty.
But since you bring him up, not only was O.J. Simpson the prime suspect in a grisly double murder with a warrant out for his arrest (and was presumed armed and dangerous), the police managed to not gun him down during that slow-speed chase in which he had a .357 revolver in his hand. I guess celebrity gets you that, or more likely, times have changed since 1994.
Whereas many of the people gunned down by the police in recent years aren’t suspected of anything more than a traffic violation or maybe a misdemeanor, and frequently, nothing whatsoever.
That would indeed be a tragedy. But maybe the police could instead back off and not put themselves in a situation where they are likely to be hit?
Look, the numbers tell the story. About 40 officers killed per year, compared to 1,200-1,300 civilians shot and killed by police per year. And that is with police typically charging into every situation with guns blazing. Now there are times when that might be appropriate, like a hostage situation. But a distraught guy alone in his yard?
Maybe if the police had a policy of backing off, fewer of them would be killed. And I guarantee fewer civilians would be.
What story do you think that tells? Police are trained, unlike civilians; police wear body armor, which civilians generally don’t; police are there on behalf of society to maintain law and order, unlike civilians.
There are situations where the best possible outcome for society to a crisis is that a law enforcement officer shoots someone. There are no situations where the best possible outcome for society involves a civilian shooting a police officer.
I don’t think they should have let him shoot first, but nor do I think they responded appropriately either. Not every situation with an armed person, especially one where the person is having some sort of mental crisis, is necessarily a split-second, kill-or-be-killed type situation. And this doesn’t sound like one of them- maybe the rules of engagement need to be tightened up so that “reaching” for something isn’t grounds to shoot. Or maybe there needs to be a stepwise series of thresholds that have to be crossed before deadly force is authorized.
But “he was coming right for me!” or “I thought he was reaching for a gun” isn’t and shouldn’t be enough justification for a cop to shoot and potentially kill someone. There needs to be identification of a weapon, or clear intent to harm someone. And if that means some cops get shot, then so be it. Better them than innocents getting shot by cops. That’s part of the job. If you don’t like, don’t be a cop. It’s like an IT guy griping seriously about having to work nights, weekends, and holidays. It’s part of the job.
But here’s the thing- what gives the cop the right to be on the “living” side versus innocent people, when the cops get scared and shoot first? The cop is engaged in that activity by virtue of their job that they chose. Someone like Botham Jean wasn’t doing a damn thing and got shot. Yeah, she got thrown in prison, but the procedures should have been that she shouldn’t have shot first in any event. Same thing for Atatiana Jefferson, Philando Castile, Jerry Waller (shot in his OWN home for having a gun when the cops were prowling around), and numerous others.
Being a cop doesn’t give you a right to shoot someone because you’re scared. If anything, it should work in reverse- they should be the MOST controlled and deliberate people when engaging with deadly force.
I actually agree with that statement. But I am talking about reducing the numbers of civilians killed. Because in many, many cases, it is (1) unnecessary, and (2) not actually the best outcome for society.
You and others are suggesting that the inevitable result of the police not shooting as many civilians is going to be more police officers killed. But like the many counterintuitive examples given in books like Freakanomics and various books and articles by Malcolm Gladwell, I’m suggesting that this might not actually be the case.
In other words, if police are less trigger-happy and less inclined to shoot people with little or no provocation, people might be more cooperative, less inclined to run away from police (because they are terrified of them), and less likely to attack police in self-defense. I’m suggesting that if police would turn down the heat, it might well be safer for everyone—including the police themselves! And definitely for the civilians who would otherwise be needlessly shot and killed by police.
Instead, we have something more like an escalating war going on.
Maybe police departments should deduct $500 of an officer’s pay for every bullet they fire outside of the practice range. Might incentivize ammo conservation.
So you are going to instead stand there like a gunslinger, pull out your own gun, disengage the safety, and somehow get a shot off first?
Again, a moving, smaller target is much harder to hit. And if the person is merely trying to be threatening (which is quite likely, or they would have already shot you), then you diving and taking cover and/or moving away from them is least likely to provoke them into actually shooting you.
But standing there while you pull out a gun? This leaves you (1) fully exposed, and (2) maximally provocatory. To the point that even if they weren’t actually planning to shoot you, they almost certainly will now before you can get a shot off. That seems like a fatal mistake to me.
Also, diving for cover is unexpected. Whereas a person is expecting you to possibly pull out a gun and is far more likely to respond to that.
I actually have some rudimentary combat training from my time in the military. The thing they teach you to do before anything else when you are confronted with the enemy or coming under fire is to take cover. Then either counterattack, dig in, or retreat, depending on the situation. Standing there while you pull out your weapon will make you an obvious target and just get you killed.
Wow - that’s a fascinating article - I couldn’t have imagined that US cities have HALF SIZED police forces compared to cities in Europe. That’s mind-blowing. Like the experts Gladwell consulted, I would have expected the US to have double the police, not half.
I asked my wife, if LA has 8,000 cops and Berlin is about the same population size and half the area of LA, how many cops would you guess Berlin has? She guessed 4,000.
Incredibly how ingrained the idea that America is overpoliced is on both sides of the aisle when the truth appears to be the exact opposite.
As he is wont to do, Gladwell in the article points out the counterintuitive result of the “Defund the Police” movement. The thought of the reformers was that “Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people.” (Attributed to Mariame Kaba in The New York Times).
But as Gladwell points out:
He also notes that if you have a relatively small number of overworked police officers rushing from crime scene to crime scene, they are less likely to connect with the public and more likely to use more force than is necessary.
More specifically:
This article is apparently adapted from a book that was just published:
In the article, he notes that the Flint (Michigan) police department (consisting of 93 officers for a city of 80,000 people) is so small and undermanned that they basically police like a counterinsurgency force—where they drive out on patrol in “heavily armed jeeps and basically break some knees and return to base.”
