The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Barrister]

Yeah, I think there has to be a recognition that taking on a risk is part of the job.  If you treat citizens you deal with as citizens rather than civilians, you're probably going to have some cops killed when they wouldn't otherwise be killed.  That's the consequence of living in a country that protects the rights of not just cops, but also citizens.  I'm sure that ordering a drone strike on every car you pull over will likewise result in less cop deaths, but I think even some in the Blue Lives Matter movement would argue that this is an excessive measure to ensure the safety of cops.

I really hate the police talking about people as "civilians".  Police are not an army, yet they have the mindset of an occupying force.

Civillians have always excluded police.

Here's one definition:

ci·​vil·​ian | \ sə-ˈvil-yən  also -ˈvi-yən \
Definition of civilian (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b: OUTSIDER sense 1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

And another:

civilian
noun [ C ]
UK  /sɪˈvɪl.jən/ US  /səˈvɪl.jən/

C2
a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/civilian


In my line of work we always distinguish between police witnesses and civilian witnesses.

[Admiral Yi]

That's all we're talking about. We are talking about the American police routinely assuming that people they encounter are "not so nice people" and using that as a reason to shoot a whole bunch of people who, it turns out, were no threat to the police at all; and using those same assumptions to harass and hurt people who are posing no threat to them and are in fact perfectly nice.

Then go ahead and talk about that with whoever wants to.  I was talking about appropriate behavior by police when they are uncertain about the threat posed.  Such as in the video you and I have been discussing.

[Berkut]

This has been an interesting discussion.

I think the problem is that it is a discussion about a particular circumstance, where lots of people are making a lot of very generalized statements that are likely not true, and certainly not put into evidence.

I can think this is an example of a fucked up stop by the police, but that doesn't tell us anything at all about any tendencies of police in general. There are probably like a million traffic stops a year in the US. Maybe more.

Before I ever see this video, or anyone else in this thread saw this video, we could safely say "Out of over a million traffic stops per year, even if we presume that the police overall are about as well mannnered and professional as we can reasonable hope, there will be some outlier cases that are totally fucked up because of shitty cops".

So *seeing* the video doesn't actually change anything, IMO. It doesn't provide any new information about policing in general.

I will admit my views on this are somewhat informed by recent nearly personal experience with police and their assessment of risk

[garbon]

Of course, we all know it isn't about just this one incident.

[Valmy]

The issue in this case, and the reason this thread is hundreds of pages long, is not failure to comply. Failure to comply is not a licence for the cops to do whatever they want. The issue is cops on a power trip, itching for a chance to hurt somebody, and this weird us-vs-them mentality they have with their own community.

OK, let's discuss THE ISSUE.

What is the right way to respond to a failure to comply?

Seems like to me the issue is that the Bill of Rights guarantees American Citizens are not to be deprived of their lives by agents of the government without due process of law. I don't see the due process here. Maybe you can enlighten me?

[Admiral Yi]

Seems like to me the issue is that the Bill of Rights guarantees American Citizens are not to be deprived of their lives by agents of the government without due process of law. I don't see the due process here. Maybe you can enlighten me?

You want me to enlighten you about the legal authority for law enforcement to use deadly force?

[Zoupa]

Let's start here: does US policing work as intended or would like to see some reforms Yi?

If yes, then please elaborate.

[Admiral Yi]

Let's start here: does US policing work as intended or would like to see some reforms Yi?

If yes, then please elaborate.

I'm happy with the policing where I work.

I think big city cop unions should be demolished.

If other localities want to try the social worker model and show us if it works, I say knock yourself out.

I wouldn't object to use of deadly force being federalized if local DAs seem to not be doing the job.

[Solmyr]

We know there were no weapons or drugs in the car.  The officers didn't.

So, essentially, what you are saying is the US gun laws are the problem. Police officers have to assume that absolutely anyone may be carrying a gun and have to fear for their lives because of it. Somehow, this is not a problem in countries with stricter gun control laws...

[Zoupa]

Let's start here: does US policing work as intended or would like to see some reforms Yi?

If yes, then please elaborate.

I'm happy with the policing where I work.

I think big city cop unions should be demolished.

If other localities want to try the social worker model and show us if it works, I say knock yourself out.

I wouldn't object to use of deadly force being federalized if local DAs seem to not be doing the job.

What does local DA mean?

[Syt]

District Attorney.

[Barrister]

Of course, we all know it isn't about just this one incident.

Well that's the problem (for both ends).

Not all incidents wind up like this.  Seemingly very few do (in surveys police are still pretty widely supported).

But we also know that there are plenty more incidents that end poorly that don't get publicized.

[Berkut]

Of course, we all know it isn't about just this one incident.

But do we know that this incidence is indicative of a widespread problem?

I think it is assumed, but I don't know if that is true in a manner that supports the rhetoric being employed.

[garbon]

Of course, we all know it isn't about just this one incident.

But do we know that this incidence is indicative of a widespread problem?

I think it is assumed, but I don't know if that is true in a manner that supports the rhetoric being employed.

Is there a widespread problem in how cops police minorities? For sure. Whether or not this incident is the best example of that seems irrelevant from my point of view.

Admittedly I'm someone afraid of the police.

[merithyn]

The jump the shark moment IMO is when the cops are yelling at the driver to exit the vehicle and he just continues to sit there.

You keep saying this, but he was given two orders simultaneously that conflicted: keep your hands where I can see them and get out of the car.

He had his seatbelt on, so it was literally impossible for him to do both. By following the one order ("Keep your hands where I can see them") he at least knew that he wasn't showing himself a threat to the officers. If he had reached around to undo his seatbelt, there is a very real risk that he would have been shot for a perceived threat.

Do you not agree with that?