The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[DGuller]

A lot of posters here have children, so hopefully this is going to be useful: https://twitter.com/OCSheriff/status/1453819437874823174.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I see they left out the part where you shoot their dog.

[viper37]

A lot of posters here have children, so hopefully this is going to be useful: https://twitter.com/OCSheriff/status/1453819437874823174.

I kept expecting the punch line.    Woah.  I mean, like, woah.

[viper37]

Well the driver can, you know...stand up and stab someone. The cop has no reason to assume he was incapable of leaving the scooter.

I tend to assume people don't use wheelchair for fun, especially when they want to commit a violent crime.

I imagine most batteries don't respond well to being shot.

No they don't.  However, they are generally not exposed, they are in some kind of semi protected compartment, and the chair would absorb most of the acid.

Just pointing out that "cop shoots man in wheelchair who had a knife" isn't really an accurate description of the threat the guy posed.

Ok.

[Berkut]

Well the driver can, you know...stand up and stab someone. The cop has no reason to assume he was incapable of leaving the scooter.

I tend to assume people don't use wheelchair for fun, especially when they want to commit a violent crime.

You get the privilege of your assumptions. Police officers do not.

I imagine most batteries don't respond well to being shot.

No they don't.  However, they are generally not exposed, they are in some kind of semi protected compartment, and the chair would absorb most of the acid.

You have expertise in what kinds of batteries are used in scooters and how they react to being shot? That's handy. I doubt your average cop does though.

[viper37]

You have expertise in what kinds of batteries are used in scooters and how they react to being shot?

I've seen a few, and I kinda know from, theory, how a battery acts when it's pierced.

You get the privilege of your assumptions. Police officers do not.

That's handy. I doubt your average cop does though.

I think before shooting someone, higher standards should apply, and doubt is not such a bad thing in all cases.

[grumbler]

Shooting a battery full of acid is not the smart move - there are people around to get splashed.  However, that scooter cannot move fast enough to even chase down anyone to knife, so I agree that the criteria to use deadly force was not met.

It looks to me like suicide by cop.

[11B4V]

Really, we're talking about shooting batteries.... Who's the retard that said that?

[Berkut]

It really is funny the things people say when it comes to pntificating about what cops should do.

I mean, it doesn't take an expert to know what they should NOT do, like shoot a guy 7 times, pause....then once more just to be sure.

But very, very few people actually understand what they should do, or even appear to want to think about it that hard.

[Barrister]

It really is funny the things people say when it comes to pntificating about what cops should do.

I mean, it doesn't take an expert to know what they should NOT do, like shoot a guy 7 times, pause....then once more just to be sure.

But very, very few people actually understand what they should do, or even appear to want to think about it that hard.

I just want to be smug and point out that I have in the past thought very, very hard about what police should do, as I have from time to time been tasked with opining on whether police officers should face criminal charges for their actions or not.

But one of the things those experiences have taught me is that you need far, far more than a news report or two to be able to properly reach a conclusion.

[Berkut]

It really is funny the things people say when it comes to pntificating about what cops should do.

I mean, it doesn't take an expert to know what they should NOT do, like shoot a guy 7 times, pause....then once more just to be sure.

But very, very few people actually understand what they should do, or even appear to want to think about it that hard.

I just want to be smug and point out that I have in the past thought very, very hard about what police should do, as I have from time to time been tasked with opining on whether police officers should face criminal charges for their actions or not.

But one of the things those experiences have taught me is that you need far, far more than a news report or two to be able to properly reach a conclusion.

I think there is a pretty expected backlash against police use of force. For the longest time there was cursory, if that, oversight, and a lot of examples of just egregious violence being done.

But the response to that is in many cases just this idea that the job really isn't that hard, and a lot of people who think they successfully have identified 20 out of 5 cases of abuse of force.

This is what happens when you don't have rational oversight with consequences for over-reach. The backlash becomes rather farcical at times, and often actively counter-productive. Where appearances count for more then actual results.

[Barrister]

I think there is a pretty expected backlash against police use of force. For the longest time there was cursory, if that, oversight, and a lot of examples of just egregious violence being done.

But the response to that is in many cases just this idea that the job really isn't that hard, and a lot of people who think they successfully have identified 20 out of 5 cases of abuse of force.

This is what happens when you don't have rational oversight with consequences for over-reach. The backlash becomes rather farcical at times, and often actively counter-productive. Where appearances count for more then actual results.

So I often think about the cases I did opinions on.  They were less sensational that the typical news reports, but given that they reached the level of having to ask for a legal opinion they were necessarily problematic.  I also can't discuss them due to solicitor-client privilege.

But I also think about a recent case out of Edmonton.  https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-police-officer-guilty-of-assaulting-man-during-2019-arrest  Now I should specify that I had absolutely nothing to do with this officer's prosecution (Edmonton Crown do not prosecute Edmonton police).  But I had multiple occasions to deal with the officer in question on an unrelated file and found him to be a fair, reasonable and conscientious officer.

I also think back to the case of Philando Castille.  He's the black guy who was pulled over, calmly told officers he was carrying (he had a license), and was blown away by an officer who panicked in the moment.  That officer was then acquitted after trial.  The officer was then fired, and the City settled with the family for several million.  While obviously this was a tragedy for Mr. Castille and his family (I seem to recall he had a young child). I'm not sure that given the differing standards of proof for criminal vs civil liability that was perhaps the correct result.

[DGuller]

What are the thoughts on Kim Potter case?  From everything that I've seen, it seems clear that she had a very tragic brain fart that led to death, but is that really something we send people to prison for?  No matter how much training you have, there are going to be times when you honestly fuck up, and in hindsight fuck up inexplicably.  Airline industry knows this, which is why honest mistakes are generally not punished, but rather used to inform the authorities what systems should be in place to make the process robust to human brain misfires.

[Barrister]

What are the thoughts on Kim Potter case?  From everything that I've seen, it seems clear that she had a very tragic brain fart that led to death, but is that really something we send people to prison for?  No matter how much training you have, there are going to be times when you honestly fuck up, and in hindsight fuck up inexplicably.  Airline industry knows this, which is why honest mistakes are generally not punished, but rather used to inform the authorities what systems should be in place to make the process robust to human brain misfires.

With the big proviso that I have already said you need to be able to study a case in detail to come to a well-informed opinion, and I have not done so... in terms of criminal liability it seems much more clear cut.  Kim Potter was entitled to use the Taser, and tragically used her firearm instead.  It is clearly negligence on a civil standard, but not criminally culpable.

The Philando Castille case I mentioned was more problematic as the officer didn't appear to have objective grounds to use force at all.

[HisMajestyBOB]

What are the thoughts on Kim Potter case?  From everything that I've seen, it seems clear that she had a very tragic brain fart that led to death, but is that really something we send people to prison for?  No matter how much training you have, there are going to be times when you honestly fuck up, and in hindsight fuck up inexplicably.  Airline industry knows this, which is why honest mistakes are generally not punished, but rather used to inform the authorities what systems should be in place to make the process robust to human brain misfires.

The big difference is that the airline industry (or more accurately, the FAA) pushes for changes in order to ensure such things don't happen again. So far in policing that doesn't appear to be the case. So instead the most egregious fuck-ups are prosecuted (sometimes) and the rest walk, and nothing changes.