The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Tonitrus]

Wait, you're not Brain...

[The Minsky Moment]

The most important attribute of any law enforcement official from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the rookie meter maid in Poughkeepsie is good judgment.  An officer needs to be a well trained and proficient in the use of that faculty as they are with their service revolver.

[Habbaku]

An officer needs to be a well trained and proficient in the use of that faculty as they are with their service revolver.

That's calling for an abysmally low level of training. 

[Jacob]

OK, let's discuss THE ISSUE.

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

1) He did comply. He pulled over.

2) In this case, the right way to respond is to accept that he delayed his compliance for a good reason (wanting to be in a well lit, recorded area), and proceed with carrying out whatever checks they needed to carry out in a non-confrontational manner.

[Admiral Yi]

1) He did comply. He pulled over.

2) In this case, the right way to respond is to accept that he delayed his compliance for a good reason (wanting to be in a well lit, recorded area), and proceed with carrying out whatever checks they needed to carry out in a non-confrontational manner.

He certainly didn't comply with any of the 40 orders to leave his vehicle.

"Accept" is an interesting choice of words, implying that he had communicated his motivations and reasoning to the officers.  Given the actual scenario "assume" or "guess" might be more accurate.

[Jacob]

1) He did comply. He pulled over.

2) In this case, the right way to respond is to accept that he delayed his compliance for a good reason (wanting to be in a well lit, recorded area), and proceed with carrying out whatever checks they needed to carry out in a non-confrontational manner.

He certainly didn't comply with any of the 40 orders to leave his vehicle.

Nazario's hands are outside of the vehicle, clearly visible. He is not a threat. He communicated that he is afraid of getting out of the car, and that he is afraid to take his hands out of view of the officers to unbuckle his seat belt - because, as we all know, sometimes people get shot when their hands disappear from view, even if they're trying to comply with police instructions.

I propose that in such a situation the officers should asses the risk as small and take steps to de-escalate the situation. F. ex. they could open the door to the vehicle calmly. They could holster their guns. They could refrain from using threats of violence, to state that he "should be afraid", and from pointing guns at him. They could acknowledge that they understand his fear in a sympathetic fashion. They could not pepper spray the man. They could speak in calm tones and refrain from repeatedly yelling the same instruction over and over again demanding immediate compliance when Nazario has indicated how afraid he is.

Additionally, Nazario says he was given conflicting instructions:

The officers shouted conflicting orders, telling him to put his hands out the window while telling him to open the door and get out, the lawsuit says.

How is he to comply with the instruction to leave the vehicle while also complying with the instruction to keep his hands out the window? Perhaps it's safer to err on the side of following the instruction that keep his hands visible so the officers don't think he is "going for a weapon", putting them "in fear for their lives" causingt them to open fire.

"Accept" is an interesting choice of words, implying that he had communicated his motivations and reasoning to the officers.  Given the actual scenario "assume" or "guess" might be more accurate.

It is a pretty well established phenomenon. And in fact Gutierrez himself said it's a common occurence.

Another officer, Joe Gutierrez, was driving by when he heard Crocker's call, saw him attempting to stop the SUV and decided to join the stop. Gutierrez acknowledged that Nazario's decision to drive to a lighted area happens to him "a lot, and 80% of the time, it's a minority", Arthur said, quoting the officer.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/10/caron-nazario-army-police-guns-pepper-spray

[The Minsky Moment]

I always think of the Charles Kinsey shooting when this compliance issue comes up.  The police arrive at a scene with a report of a possible armed suspect.  There is a young white man with a shiny object and an older black man who is shouting.  The SWAT team arrives.  The white man refuses to comply with police instructions.  The black man has his hands in the air but keeps shouting.  A SWAT rifleman fires three shots, ostensibly aiming at the white guy (of course he hits the black guy instead . . .)

It turns out the young white man is severely autistic, and ran off from a residential facility.  The shiny object is a toy truck he is playing with. He does not comply with police orders because he does not comprehend the situation.  The black gentleman is his caregiver.  He is shouting because he is trying to help his charge to comply but does not want to risk being shot by moving over to help.

Context matters.  Police are called upon to deal with every imaginable situation that can arise in human life, usually with sketchy and incomplete information.  In any given circumstance there are many MANY reason why a person may be non-compliant.  There are some circumstances where force may be required, even deadly force in extreme cases.  There are also many circumstances where force is unwarranted or even counterproductive.  The officer needs to have the judgment to tell the difference.  That's the whole job right there.

Having good judgment and gauging the appropriate proportional response may be a challenge, but that's what the job is. Without it, a cop is just a yahoo with a gun and qualified legal immunity to harm fellow citizens. A cop without good judgment and the ability to assess proportional response is completely useless.  It's like a ballplayer that cant hit, field or throw.  What good is he?  "Well he looks good in the home uniform and signs his autograph neatly."  Except the team with the shitty ballplayer just loses a couple games and a roster slot.  The city with the shitty cop loses the lives of some citizens.

[DGuller]

Clearly the guy didn't comply with the instructions.  Let's not overegg the pudding by making it sound like he did, when he didn't.  I think it's also clear to me that police should be way more tolerant of people not complying with instructions, for various reasons, and try to deescalate rather than escalate.  For example, one can reasonable be afraid that complying might get them shot, and the more you go down the rabbit hole of non-compliance followed by escalation, the more reasonable that belief becomes.  One may also just freeze up, or even become erratic, and sometimes become way more erratic in reaction to the tone of the police. 

I remember being pulled over by police for speeding, and the instructions barked at me over the PA just scrambled my brain and made me panic, and try to do stupid things such as stopping in the right lane.  I did that because my original plan of going slowly and finding a place to pull over was rejected with an incomprehensible bark, so I figured I needed to do something differently and that was the only thing that occurred to me.  Obviously I couldn't ask to repeat the bark, and I didn't want to look like I was ignoring the bark, so I had to think of something on the spot.  I'm sure I would've behaved in a more rational manner had I not had to react to barking while in an already stressful situation.

[crazy canuck]

Clearly the guy didn't comply with the instructions.  Let's not overegg the pudding by making it sound like he did, when he didn't.  I think it's also clear to me that police should be way more tolerant of people not complying with instructions, for various reasons, and try to deescalate rather than escalate.  For example, one can reasonable be afraid that complying might get them shot, and the more you go down the rabbit hole of non-compliance followed by escalation, the more reasonable that belief becomes.  One may also just freeze up, or even become erratic, and sometimes become way more erratic in reaction to the tone of the police. 

I remember being pulled over by police for speeding, and the instructions barked at me over the PA just scrambled my brain and made me panic, and try to do stupid things such as stopping in the right lane.  I did that because my original plan of going slowly and finding a place to pull over was rejected with an incomprehensible bark, so I figured I needed to do something differently and that was the only thing that occurred to me.  Obviously I couldn't ask to repeat the bark, and I didn't want to look like I was ignoring the bark, so I had to think of something on the spot.  I'm sure I would've behaved in a more rational manner had I not had to react to barking while in an already stressful situation.

I agree. 

My own anecdote is being pulled over by the cops in Eastern Washington state in my late teens.  It was the first time I had ever been pulled over and had no idea what to do.  So I got out of my car to talk to the officer.  He pulled out his gun, pointed it at me and said "What the hell do you think you doing.  Get back in your car."  I nearly shit my pants.  And froze.  I literally could not move.  Thankfully this cop realized I was no threat, put his gun away, gave me a warning for whatever I had done that brought me to his attention, and sent me on my way.

[Oexmelin]

You dared not obey the bark immediately while cowering in fear. This is a potentially lethal offence and must be escalated with angrier barks while putting one's hand on one's gun, or drawing the weapon altogether. Hopefully that behavior will completely dissipate misunderstanding and put you at ease.

If routine trafic stops are so dangerous that they warrant being ready to kill at a moment's notice, and so potentially lethal for cops, I wonder why police continue to do them for all sorts of ridiculously minor infractions. But, of course, it's not about trafic stops...

[Admiral Yi]

Context matters.  Police are called upon to deal with every imaginable situation that can arise in human life, usually with sketchy and incomplete information.  In any given circumstance there are many MANY reason why a person may be non-compliant.  There are some circumstances where force may be required, even deadly force in extreme cases.  There are also many circumstances where force is unwarranted or even counterproductive.  The officer needs to have the judgment to tell the difference.  That's the whole job right there.

I agree.  And in assessing the actions of the officers we need to imagine that we do not possess more information than they had at the time.

We know the driver's reason for continuing to drive "less than a mile."  The officers didn't.

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

[DGuller]

I've been thinking about what I would do if I were in a Daniel Shaver situation, back when it was in the news.  What do you do when the cop riles himself up so much that pretty that either a zig or a zag is a reason for him to fulfill his fantasy?  The best conclusion I could come up with is to completely freeze and just feign stupor (if it didn't come naturally); sure, I'll be non-compliant, but as far as I'm aware, being frozen can't be interpreted as an imminent threat to life.  At some point they'll probably have to roughly manhandle you, but that probably won't kill you.

[viper37]

If routine trafic stops are so dangerous that they warrant being ready to kill at a moment's notice, and so potentially lethal for cops, I wonder why police continue to do them for all sorts of ridiculously minor infractions. But, of course, it's not about trafic stops...

it's about defying authority.  They don't like it.  At all.
I've been arrested quite a few times since my early teens, even for illegally driving a motor vehicle as I was not old enough to have a driver's license, and the cops are angry when you try to escape or don't stop immediatly and they do put their hand on their gun, even when you're 12-13, on an ATV.

[Oexmelin]

We know the driver's reason for continuing to drive "less than a mile."  The officers didn't.

So they drove less than a mile. What conclusion should we draw from that?

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

So there may be drugs in the car. Or a weapon. I am led to believe it's a pretty common occurence in the United States. What, then?

The reason "there may have been a gun" is always invoked to excuse any such behavior - regardless of whether there was indeed a gun or not. So, either trafic stops are super high-risk operations which ought to require SWAT, or perhaps, not worth the risk just to signal to someone that their tinted windows may not correspond to regulation 3245-1; or perhaps this is not about the presence or absence of a gun, but about whether or not cops "feel" safe around black people. Because, otherwise, I fail to see why white people in nice cars who may very well have a gun in the car don't get so regularly gunned down, or why white people openly brandishing assault weapons get the luxury of polite negotiations.

[Admiral Yi]

So they drove less than a mile. What conclusion should we draw from that?

We're discussing what conclusion we should draw.  Feel free to contribute

The conclusion I personally would draw is that is not proceeding as a normal traffic stop and my suspicion would be somewhat elevated.