The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Admiral Yi]

You keep saying this, but he was given two orders simultaneously that conflicted: keep your hands where I can see them and get out of the car.

He had his seatbelt on, so it was literally impossible for him to do both. By following the one order ("Keep your hands where I can see them") he at least knew that he wasn't showing himself a threat to the officers. If he had reached around to undo his seatbelt, there is a very real risk that he would have been shot for a perceived threat.

Do you not agree with that?

I agree with that.

There was a time before the show your hands order when the only order he was being given was to get out of the car.  That went on for quite some time.

Do you not agree with that?

[merithyn]

You keep saying this, but he was given two orders simultaneously that conflicted: keep your hands where I can see them and get out of the car.

He had his seatbelt on, so it was literally impossible for him to do both. By following the one order ("Keep your hands where I can see them") he at least knew that he wasn't showing himself a threat to the officers. If he had reached around to undo his seatbelt, there is a very real risk that he would have been shot for a perceived threat.

Do you not agree with that?

I agree with that.

There was a time before the show your hands order when the only order he was being given was to get out of the car.  That went on for quite some time.

Do you not agree with that?

He still would have had to unclick the seatbelt, thereby moving his hands out of view. Given the multiple incidences where officers have shot someone for that, I could see his reticence to follow that particular order for that reason.

For every "the guy could have been a threat to the officers" that you say, it's just as easy to say that the police could have been a threat to the guy. The man stated loudly and clearly that he was afraid. He was afraid to move. He was afraid of the officers. The police responded with, "You should be." Gun aimed at his head. "Get out of the car."

I've been stopped by police probably a dozen times in my life. Likely more. Never once has this happened. And I have driven more than a mile with the officers behind me to get off a highway, to find somewhere safe to pull over. In fact, women are regularly told to do exactly this rather than pulling over on a country road with minimal traffic because our safety is at risk otherwise. Never once has this happened.

I am not a threat. I am a small white woman. I am perceived as non-threatening in pretty much every way simply because of my gender and race. This man was a large black man. He was therefore a threat. His gender and race made him a threat. THAT is a problem. THAT is where things went left. The police saw him as a threat not because he didn't comply, but because he wasn't a small white woman.

[Admiral Yi]

When do you think the officers became aware of his race?  I think it was only after they had approached the door.

[Razgovory]

Let's start here: does US policing work as intended or would like to see some reforms Yi?

If yes, then please elaborate.

I'd put Seedy in charge.  For now on the only weapons that police are allowed carry are revolvers and bondage gear.

[viper37]

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

it's a clear sign you have something to hide!

[viper37]

I can conceive of situations in which it is better for the cops to shoot first than wait for the suspect to shoot.

Can you not?

I'm pretty sure everyone here conceives of situations in which it is better for the cops to shoot first than wait for the suspect to shoot.  The problem is, you seem to consider minor possible traffic violation to be such situation where as most of us don't.
I think there's a difference in being pulled over for an unreadable license plate in a car that drives suspiciously slowly and being arrested after a multi-car police chase where lots of accidents have happenned.  There, I understant the need for the officer to get out of their car weapon in hand, aiming at the suspect. But if I'm stopped for speeding in the US, I sure hope they'll ask for my driver's license before shooting me.   

[Admiral Yi]

I'm pretty sure everyone here conceives of situations in which it is better for the cops to shoot first than wait for the suspect to shoot.  The problem is, you seem to consider minor possible traffic violation to be such situation where as most of us don't.
I think there's a difference in being pulled over for an unreadable license plate in a car that drives suspiciously slowly and being arrested after a multi-car police chase where lots of accidents have happenned.  There, I understant the need for the officer to get out of their car weapon in hand, aiming at the suspect. But if I'm stopped for speeding in the US, I sure hope they'll ask for my driver's license before shooting me.   

Because I'm OK with the cops pulling their weapons that means I would be OK with them shooting the driver???  WTF?

There's a massive difference between pulling a weapon and actually shooting it.  For one, a bullet comes out the pointy end when you shoot.

[jimmy olsen]

Of course, we all know it isn't about just this one incident.

But do we know that this incidence is indicative of a widespread problem?

I think it is assumed, but I don't know if that is true in a manner that supports the rhetoric being employed.

The US is higher on a per capita killing list by law enforcement than such luminaries as Pakistan, Mexico, Sudan, Mali, Colomiba and Angola.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country

[chipwich]

Its quite likely that cops aren't enforcing effectively in those countries.

[Berkut]

Of course, we all know it isn't about just this one incident.

But do we know that this incidence is indicative of a widespread problem?

I think it is assumed, but I don't know if that is true in a manner that supports the rhetoric being employed.

The US is higher on a per capita killing list by law enforcement than such luminaries as Pakistan, Mexico, Sudan, Mali, Colomiba and Angola.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country

See, now we are talking about data! Much better!

This incidence still doesn't illuminate that data though, nor does that data alone indicate that the police are the problem. But at least it is actual data!

[Grey Fox]

If the Police is not the problem, who is?

[Razgovory]

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.

I really hate the police talking about people as "civilians".  Police are not an army, yet they have the mindset of an occupying force.

Civillians have always excluded police.

Here's one definition:

ci·​vil·​ian | \ sə-ˈvil-yən  also -ˈvi-yən \
Definition of civilian (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b: OUTSIDER sense 1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

And another:

civilian
noun [ C ]
UK  /sɪˈvɪl.jən/ US  /səˈvɪl.jən/

C2
a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/civilian


In my line of work we always distinguish between police witnesses and civilian witnesses.

Are police legitimate military targets?

[grumbler]

Its quite likely that cops aren't enforcing effectively in those countries.

They are similar to the US in that regard.  There seems to be a negative correlation between "enforcing effectively" and kill count.

[grumbler]

If the Police is not the problem, who is?

Everyone except the police, if you believe the Conservatards.

[grumbler]

Traditionally, and in international law, a civilian is someone who is not an active member of the armed forces or an equivalent organization (in the case of guerrillas and the like).  The idea that police (and sometimes firefighters) are not civilians has been promoted recently, but I don't know of any legal system that says that a terrorist attack on police is not terrorism because terrorism is (partially) defined as an act that would  "appear to be intended.. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

It is unclear to me what the promoters of the "police are not civilians" argument intend, nor why they have even made that argument.