The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Oexmelin]

And then what? What scenario involving someone driving slowly until reaching a well-lit spot screams "lethal encounter" in your mind? What sort of nefarious dealings may have happened in that car during that drive?

[Admiral Yi]

If I think something screams lethal encounter, I can say that myself.  I know how to spell scream.

[Jacob]

If I think something screams lethal encounter, I can say that myself.  I know how to spell scream.

You're saying driving for less than a mile to stop in a well lit area would somewhat elevate your suspicion, which is fair enough.

Does that somewhat heightened suspicion explain or justify what followed afterwards in this specific case?

[Admiral Yi]

Does that somewhat heightened suspicion explain or justify what followed afterwards in this specific case?

I think the order to exit the vehicle was perfectly justified.  Could I have lived with the officer's weapons holstered, maybe with hand on weapon?  Possibly.  I wouldn't want to be forced to make that call in real time and then have my actions second-guessed by the world.

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.

Now I knew how it turned out because I read the article.  But watching the video unfold, I didn't come to the conclusion that the guy was zero risk until after he had been sprayed and the door was open.

I can't in good conscience ask my public servants to act as if there is zero risk when I know there is greater than zero risk.

If you think cops are being unreasonable the proper place to litigate it is in a court or through a complaint process, not in a gas station parking lot.

[crazy canuck]

Thank God there are people who have a better conscience than Yi.

[Oexmelin]

I can't in good conscience ask my public servants to act as if there is zero risk when I know there is greater than zero risk.

Cops aren't municipal clerks or bureaucrats. There is going to be an element of risk involved. It's the nature of the job. The problems here is that

1) greater than zero risk seems to be very quickly equated with "lethal risk" and
2) the cops' own actions very quickly, and very frequently, escalate needlessly a situation creating, *in their own mind* scenarios of "lethal risk".
3) risk assessment seems terribly biased according to racial prejudice. White supremacist = no risk. Black driver = risk. Pissed off, foul-mouthed white person = little risk. Pissed off, foul-mouthed black person = lethal risk.

Let's assume, for the moment, this gentleman refuses to get out of the car. How do you move, from this situation, to one where such a refusal is informed by some deadly desire on the part of the individual? That, by refusing to get out of the car, he somehow needs to be shot? That's the dozens or so steps that are systematically missing.

[Zoupa]

Btw once they pull up to the gas station, the reason for the stop disappears, as the plates are clearly visible.

At this point, do the cops say "hey sorry man, didn't see your plates back there."? Of course they don't, they immediately dial it up to 100.

Driving under the speed limit for a mile is not eluding police.

These US cops exhibit real small dick energy.

[Sheilbh]

I can't in good conscience ask my public servants to act as if there is zero risk when I know there is greater than zero risk.

Of course you can. We ask all sorts of public servants - police, firemen, military, healthcare workers - to go into places where there is risk to do their job whatever that may be and we aks them to do that often instead of taking a zero-risk approach for themselves. The risk is inherent in the role and we ask them to take it constantly.

The trade off for that should be social respect, good benefits and pay. I'm not sure we've lived up to our end of the bargain socially - except for the cheapest and well meant "thank you for your service" "clap for carers" show of respect.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

He's an army officer. Unsurprisingly there was a loaded gun in the car. If he had gotten shot it would have been "justified" on that reason.

[jimmy olsen]

In other news

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/us/brooklyn-center-minnesota-police-shooting/index.html

(CNN)A 20-year-old man was fatally shot during a traffic stop after a Minnesota police officer shouted "Taser!" but fired a handgun instead, Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon said.

Daunte Wright was driving with his girlfriend Sunday afternoon when he was pulled over in the Minneapolis suburb.

Earlier, police said they tried to take the driver into custody after learning during a traffic stop that he had an outstanding warrant. The man got back into his vehicle, and an officer shot him, police said. They said the man drove several blocks before striking another vehicle.

Bodycam video released by the police chief Monday provided more details about what happened.

Wright got out of his car, but then got back in. It's not clear why, but the police chief told reporters it appeared from the video that Wright was trying to leave.

An officer is then heard shouting, "Taser! Taser! Taser!" but then fires a gun -- not a Taser -- at Wright.
"Holy sh*t!" the officer screams. "I shot him."

[DGuller]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course you can. We ask all sorts of public servants - police, firemen, military, healthcare workers - to go into places where there is risk to do their job whatever that may be and we aks them to do that often instead of taking a zero-risk approach for themselves. The risk is inherent in the role and we ask them to take it constantly.

The trade off for that should be social respect, good benefits and pay. I'm not sure we've lived up to our end of the bargain socially - except for the cheapest and well meant "thank you for your service" "clap for carers" show of respect.

Your examples don't fit your thesis. 

We ask firemen to go into burning buildings but we don't demand they act is if there is no risk.  We provide protective gear and oxygen and expect them to use it..  We wouldn't expect a member of the military to walk toward an enemy position unarmed and talk them into surrendering.  We would expect him or her to take measures to safeguard their own security.

[Zoupa]

But your fellow citizen is not an enemy combatant

[Jacob]

Your examples don't fit your thesis. 

We ask firemen to go into burning buildings but we don't demand they act is if there is no risk.  We provide protective gear and oxygen and expect them to use it..  We wouldn't expect a member of the military to walk toward an enemy position unarmed and talk them into surrendering.  We would expect him or her to take measures to safeguard their own security.

This is exactly what is wrong with American policing.

The citizens are not enemies, and traffic stops or calls for police investigations are not enemy positions.

[PDH]

It seems to me that enough people of color have been shot, beaten, tazed, etc. when following police orders to make the "just follow orders" defense a bit weaker...