The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[CountDeMoney]

I really can't think of an other profession in which one's duties that is as impactful as the use of deadly force can be so specifically defined one way--in your training, in your directives manual, in your agency's accreditation standards, even in the law--and yet totally redefined and practiced another way to such an extent that it is not only ignored but accepted and considered acceptable. 

Not only do they think they're not doing anything wrong, but nobody else seems to think they are, either.  And nobody cares.

[sbr]

Yeah it's pretty crazy how the people cheering on, or at least apologizing for, the police shootings are also the same dudes that are buying guns at a record rate to protect themselves from the Forest Service or IRS.  They are so scared that the government is going to trample on them, but have no problems with other government actors being judge, jury, executioner of others.  The key being who the others are of course.

[dps]

Yeah it's pretty crazy how the people cheering on, or at least apologizing for, the police shootings are also the same dudes that are buying guns at a record rate to protect themselves from the Forest Service or IRS.  They are so scared that the government is going to trample on them, but have no problems with other government actors being judge, jury, executioner of others.  The key being who the others are of course.

i think that the key is that there's a stupid assumption that people who are shot by the police, even if they are innocent of any crime that the police were looking into at the time, are guilty of something that they deserve to be shot for, or at least are just thugs that maybe didn't do anything that would carry the death penalty, are still just scum that we're better off without.   And while that's probably true in some cases, it's clearly not always true, and even if it were true, we're supposed to have rule of law, which doesn't mean that the police are allowed to be de facto vigilantes.

[grumbler]

i think that the key is that there's a stupid assumption that people who are shot by the police, even if they are innocent of any crime that the police were looking into at the time, are guilty of something that they deserve to be shot for, or at least are just thugs that maybe didn't do anything that would carry the death penalty, are still just scum that we're better off without.   And while that's probably true in some cases, it's clearly not always true, and even if it were true, we're supposed to have rule of law, which doesn't mean that the police are allowed to be de facto vigilantes.

  *If you weren't guilty, I wouldn't be pointing my gun at you right now.*

There's a lot of self-fulfilling prophecy in a lot of these stories.

[Kleves]

As long as the officers think, based on complete assumptions that have zero evidence, that someone *might* have a gun, they are free to go ahead and shoot him a few times even before he brandishes said gun and even if they've armored themselves up enough that the gun itself is incredibly unlikely to actually be a threat to them.

There's little doubt that your ability to view hindsight is 20/20.

Here's what the police knew:
- A black guy in his 20s/30s wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey had carjacked a car an gunpoint.
- When police attempted to stop him, he had fired at the police.
- Eventually he crashed his car and fled into a neighborhood.
- Inside the neighborhood that the carjacker fled, someone called police to report a black guy in his 20s/30s wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey hiding in their yard.
- When police arrived, they found the man matching the carjacker's description, with a "gun-like" object visible near at hand, and one hand tucked inside his waistband.
- Despite repeated commands, the man would not show police his hands.
- Police attempted to use flashbang grenades to induce the man to surrender, to no avail.
- Police then attempted to shot the man with foam bullets to induce him to surrender, to no avail. 

To say that, given all of this, the police had "zero evidence" this was their guy is nonsense. If you presented this to any fair-minded person, I expect they would conclude that the guy on the ground was the suspect, was very likely armed, and indeed had already attempted to shoot officers. They would likely believe that, if the guy suddenly sprang to his feet and rushed officers, he would present a serious, and likely deadly, threat. If we're willing to let police defend themselves without waiting until they're actually under fire, then I don't know how much more we can reasonable expect in this situation. It is possible that there is something to critique about the police response in this situation, but it is not the criticism you're levelling.

[11B4V]

Hogwash

What immediate threat did the guy who was mistakenly killed, present for the officer to use deadly force. Answer equals none.

Did he have a gun in his hand, or knife, pipe, bat, no he had nothing.



Sorry they are wrong.

[11B4V]

And another thing, it's stupid decision making like this that gets good cops killed in retaliation.

[grumbler]

There's little doubt that your ability to view hindsight is 20/20.

Here's what the police knew:
- A black guy in his 20s/30s wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey had carjacked a car an gunpoint.
- When police attempted to stop him, he had fired at the police.
- Eventually he crashed his car and fled into a neighborhood.
- Inside the neighborhood that the carjacker fled, someone called police to report a black guy in his 20s/30s wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey hiding in their yard.
- When police arrived, they found the man matching the carjacker's description, with a "gun-like" object visible near at hand, and one hand tucked inside his waistband.
- Despite repeated commands, the man would not show police his hands.
- Police attempted to use flashbang grenades to induce the man to surrender, to no avail.
- Police then attempted to shot the man with foam bullets to induce him to surrender, to no avail. 

To say that, given all of this, the police had "zero evidence" this was their guy is nonsense. If you presented this to any fair-minded person, I expect they would conclude that the guy on the ground was the suspect, was very likely armed, and indeed had already attempted to shoot officers. They would likely believe that, if the guy suddenly sprang to his feet and rushed officers, he would present a serious, and likely deadly, threat. If we're willing to let police defend themselves without waiting until they're actually under fire, then I don't know how much more we can reasonable expect in this situation. It is possible that there is something to critique about the police response in this situation, but it is not the criticism you're levelling.

Your post pretty much sums up the problem:  even if the most sympathetic view is applied to the police actions, and every unknown assumed to be resolved in favor of the police, the story still comes out sounding like, at best, negligent homicide.

This story sounds disturbingly like the one from a couple of years back when some guy got killed by the police in a hotel hallway because he was crawling as ordered and his [ants started to fall down.  In that case, it was pretty clear from the vestcam videos that the killer was just looking for a reason to blow the guy away, and the first moment he thought he had an excuse, he did blow the guy away (with like five or six shots, btw, so not just an attempt to stop the guy, but to kill him).  That cop rightly went on trial for murder.

This case seems much the same: no threat to the cops (even they argued that they shot him out of fear that he would escape and harm civilians), and, when the first opportunity seemed to arrive where deadly force could be justified, they used it, regardless of the fact that less-lethal methods were available and that there was no immediate threat to anyone.  The killer, it seems to me, went into the this situation looking to shoot, just as the one a coupla years back did.

[grumbler]

And another thing, it's stupid decision making like this that gets good cops killed in retaliation.

That's why police should be in the lead in condemning the mindset that leads to these kinds of shootings.  There are a lot of places that seem to be doing it right, and we almost never hear from them.

[garbon]

Where are the moderate police officers condemning these killings?

[CountDeMoney]

Where are the moderate police officers condemning these killings?

He resigned 21 years ago.

[Valmy]

Where are the moderate police officers condemning these killings?

Disband the police until we figure out what is going on!

[Berkut]

BTW, there was no object, gun like or otherwise, near the incredibly dangerous unarmed man.

Christ, it is depressing the lengths that people will go to justify shooting people.

The cops fucked up. They assumed that "black, 20-30 year old male" is enough of a description, in Compton, CA, to positively ID some guy THEY ALREADY HAD IN CUSTODY.

This was some cop who was waiting for his chance to use his shiny M4, and he took it, and now we should probably give him a medal, according to Kleves.

[grumbler]

BTW, there was no object, gun like or otherwise, near the incredibly dangerous unarmed man.

Christ, it is depressing the lengths that people will go to justify shooting people.

The cops fucked up. They assumed that "black, 20-30 year old male" is enough of a description, in Compton, CA, to positively ID some guy THEY ALREADY HAD IN CUSTODY.

This was some cop who was waiting for his chance to use his shiny M4, and he took it, and now we should probably give him a medal, according to Kleves.

Apparently one of the shots hit Donnell Thompson in the back - he was "rushing" the officers with his back to them, apparently.  The more evidence we get, the more it seems that the officers involved are telling another whopper to cover up a fuckup.

[The Minsky Moment]

The cops fucked up. They assumed that "black, 20-30 year old male" is enough of a description, in Compton, CA, to positively ID some guy THEY ALREADY HAD IN CUSTODY.

He was also wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey though
Surely such outlandish attire narrows it down considerably