The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[CountDeMoney]

They basically drive up, the subject at close range reaches to his belt line brandishing the butt of a firearm after being ordered from the passenger window to raise his hands, hop out, and shoot the kid.

[CountDeMoney]

I can't see a 1970s cop (as a rule) shooting a little kid even with a real gun, he'd be trying to get the gun out of the kid's hand. In 2014 I think it'd be the rare cop that would have acted differently in this situation, given how cops are trained.

Kids in the 1970's didn't carry guns.  In an age where 10 year olds are shooting each other, training changes with the times.

[Barrister]

Yeah, I think these incidents are an expected result of training. My understanding is that under the mantra of officer safety police are taught to react mechanically and instantaneously to situations like this, and specifically they're trained to look at the hands of a person they encounter above anything else. One guy on CNN said it's likely the cop who shot didn't even see it was a kid, because he was so keyed on the hands, his mind went "hands...gun, gun being raised...must shoot" in about 1.5 seconds time. Probably legit didn't know it was a kid until after they went over to him afterward.

It's in a way similar to how raw recruits in the military are drilled, you want them to react a certain way in combat and so to do that you ingrain in them over and over again that this is the way to act. The military however rarely deals with gray areas, and when it does it does so poorly (which is why an occupation army is a really bad police force.)

Obviously my experience about police use of force training is from Canada, but up here you're quite wrong about how they're taught.  They're taught they need to continuously assess throughout the process, emphasizing that the situation is going to be constantly evolving as new factors present themselves.  In particular they are never taught that they must do any particular response.  There are situations where police use of deadly force may be appropriate, but it is never mandated.

[CountDeMoney]

Obviously my experience about police use of force training is from Canada, but up here you're quite wrong about how they're taught.  They're taught they need to continuously assess throughout the process, emphasizing that the situation is going to be constantly evolving as new factors present themselves.  In particular they are never taught that they must do any particular response.  There are situations where police use of deadly force may be appropriate, but it is never mandated.

In Maryland, you go through roughly 2 weeks' worth of practical scenario training;  some departments wait until near the end of the academy class, others like the state police, do it staggered through the academy.  Scenarios, from traffic stops to domestic violence calls to situations where the information is just plain wrong, are designed for variability and other factors. 

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I think these incidents are an expected result of training. My understanding is that under the mantra of officer safety police are taught to react mechanically and instantaneously to situations like this, and specifically they're trained to look at the hands of a person they encounter above anything else. One guy on CNN said it's likely the cop who shot didn't even see it was a kid, because he was so keyed on the hands, his mind went "hands...gun, gun being raised...must shoot" in about 1.5 seconds time. Probably legit didn't know it was a kid until after they went over to him afterward.

It's in a way similar to how raw recruits in the military are drilled, you want them to react a certain way in combat and so to do that you ingrain in them over and over again that this is the way to act. The military however rarely deals with gray areas, and when it does it does so poorly (which is why an occupation army is a really bad police force.)

Obviously my experience about police use of force training is from Canada, but up here you're quite wrong about how they're taught.  They're taught they need to continuously assess throughout the process, emphasizing that the situation is going to be constantly evolving as new factors present themselves.  In particular they are never taught that they must do any particular response.  There are situations where police use of deadly force may be appropriate, but it is never mandated.

The first thing the police wrong in this case was drive up so close so as to reduce their options. 

The other thing that baffles me is that the guy who made the call to police was sitting there watching the kid play with the snow.  Why he didnt think that he ought to call back to advise the police that it was just a kid and that he wasnt being threatened in any way is beyond me.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, I think these incidents are an expected result of training. My understanding is that under the mantra of officer safety police are taught to react mechanically and instantaneously to situations like this, and specifically they're trained to look at the hands of a person they encounter above anything else. One guy on CNN said it's likely the cop who shot didn't even see it was a kid, because he was so keyed on the hands, his mind went "hands...gun, gun being raised...must shoot" in about 1.5 seconds time. Probably legit didn't know it was a kid until after they went over to him afterward.

It's in a way similar to how raw recruits in the military are drilled, you want them to react a certain way in combat and so to do that you ingrain in them over and over again that this is the way to act. The military however rarely deals with gray areas, and when it does it does so poorly (which is why an occupation army is a really bad police force.)

Obviously my experience about police use of force training is from Canada, but up here you're quite wrong about how they're taught.  They're taught they need to continuously assess throughout the process, emphasizing that the situation is going to be constantly evolving as new factors present themselves.  In particular they are never taught that they must do any particular response.  There are situations where police use of deadly force may be appropriate, but it is never mandated.

I don't know how they're trained here or anywhere else, just was repeating the talking head "expert" who said these cops are trained to almost exclusively look at the hands of someone they're first approaching.

[CountDeMoney]

The first thing the police wrong in this case was drive up so close so as to reduce their options. 

You roll up close so you can communicate, and you don't have to run after his ass.  Also, your car is barrier if there is a problem, particularly on a gun call.  Parking out in the street widens the field of fire.

[CountDeMoney]

The other thing that baffles me is that the guy who made the call to police was sitting there watching the kid play with the snow.  Why he didnt think that he ought to call back to advise the police that it was just a kid and that he wasnt being threatened in any way is beyond me.

Because the public at large does stupid things.  You should know that just from the morning commute.

[crazy canuck]

The first thing the police wrong in this case was drive up so close so as to reduce their options. 

You roll up close so you can communicate, and you don't have to run after his ass.  Also, your car is barrier if there is a problem, particularly on a gun call.  Parking out in the street widens the field of fire.

To contrast that practice, a number of years ago there was a guy sitting on some public steps across from my office with what looked like a handgun.  The police responded by setting up a permiter a block away and then starting communications with him.  Having to run after someone seems to be a minor inconvenience compared to compressing the time to make a decision and making this kind of mistake.


The result in the incident I witnessed?  The gun was real.  The police talked him into leaving the gun on the ground and then walk toward them and then took him into custody.  The whole thing took a number of hours.

[CountDeMoney]

I suspect there are less calls for handguns there than in Cleveland, so I can understand why it would be a big event.

[crazy canuck]

I suspect there are less calls for handguns there than in Cleveland, so I can understand why it would be a big event.

Yeah, I had typed that police there probably dont have the resources to handle the matter in the same way given the relative number of guns.  But I deleted that part before hitting post because I didnt want to stir up the gun nuts.

[Malthus]

I dunno, you see the police cruiser roll up (on the grass too, probably would have been wiser to come in a from a little more distance)...and I am presuming the cop who fired came from the passenger side...and the kid is reaching into his pants right as they come up, probably just as he is opening the door.  That leaves him almost no time to avoid getting shot at point blank range if that gun were real.

Very hard to say it's cut and dry wrong.

From the video, it looked to me like a justifiable shooting.  An unfortunate one, but justifiable.

If cops shooting a kid (who as it turns out was playing with a toy gun in a playground) pretty well the second they arrive is "justifiable" according to cop training because of the potential risk to the cop, there is a significant problem with (1) that training, (2) that society, or (3) both.

Seems to me that no attempt whatsoever was made to determine whether this was a situation that required use of deadly force or not. Just an almost instinctual reaction - the kid made a sudden move (that I can't actually see clearly on the vid) with the gun replica, and is shot on the spot.

Edit: watched the critical second again. I simply can't see the sudden movement on that tape.

[Malthus]

Here is the description from the Post article:

Tamir eventually sat alone under the gazebo. The video then shows the police car pulling right up to the structure. Loehmann shouted from the car three times at Tamir to show his hands as he approached the car, Tomba said. Loehmann exited the car, and within two seconds, shot Tamir from about 10 feet away.

Police had earlier said two shots were fired by a single officer, and that Tamir had reached into his waistband when Loehmann shouted the commands.

This can't be completely true, looking at the video. The kid never "approached the car". The officers did not have time to shout "three times at Tamir to show his hands as he approached the car" - they basically drive up jump out and shoot him within two seconds. I cannot actually see whether the kid "reached into his waistband" but that one may be true - can't tell. 

[mongers]

I dunno, you see the police cruiser roll up (on the grass too, probably would have been wiser to come in a from a little more distance)...and I am presuming the cop who fired came from the passenger side...and the kid is reaching into his pants right as they come up, probably just as he is opening the door.  That leaves him almost no time to avoid getting shot at point blank range if that gun were real.

Very hard to say it's cut and dry wrong.

From the video, it looked to me like a justifiable shooting.  An unfortunate one, but justifiable.

If cops shooting a kid (who as it turns out was playing with a toy gun in a playground) pretty well the second they arrive is "justifiable" according to cop training because of the potential risk to the cop, there is a significant problem with (1) that training, (2) that society, or (3) both.

Seems to me that no attempt whatsoever was made to determine whether this was a situation that required use of deadly force or not. Just an almost instinctual reaction - the kid made a sudden move (that I can't actually see clearly on the vid) with the gun replica, and is shot on the spot.

Edit: watched the critical second again. I simply can't see the sudden movement on that tape.

Neither, it's a worthy sacred offering on the high alter to the 2nd/4th/5th or 89th* whatever amendment.





* I can't be arsed to recall exactly which one it is and besides if you were to listen to some of the gun nuts, its sounds like it's the only one that's important.

[mongers]

Here is the description from the Post article:

Tamir eventually sat alone under the gazebo. The video then shows the police car pulling right up to the structure. Loehmann shouted from the car three times at Tamir to show his hands as he approached the car, Tomba said. Loehmann exited the car, and within two seconds, shot Tamir from about 10 feet away.

Police had earlier said two shots were fired by a single officer, and that Tamir had reached into his waistband when Loehmann shouted the commands.

This can't be completely true, looking at the video. The kid never "approached the car". The officers did not have time to shout "three times at Tamir to show his hands as he approached the car" - they basically drive up jump out and shoot him within two seconds. I cannot actually see whether the kid "reached into his waistband" but that one may be true - can't tell.

Sounds more like what happens in some South American countries were the local cops decide to cleans an area of street kids.