The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[derspiess]

Russians are welcome to send any delegates to Ferguson they want.  I have some other neighborhoods I could suggest as well.

[Darth Wagtaros]

They should start with investigating official abuse of power in Syria.

[Martinus]

Apparently the shop which was allegedly robbed by the victim has been ransacked by looters. Nice way to prove you are a peaceful protest.

[CountDeMoney]

Apparently the shop which was allegedly robbed by the victim has been ransacked by looters. Nice way to prove you are a peaceful protest.

Did it take this long for that news to float over there by message bottle?

[Martinus]

Apparently the shop which was allegedly robbed by the victim has been ransacked by looters. Nice way to prove you are a peaceful protest.

Did it take this long for that news to float over there by message bottle?

Well, I just read it in the Economist. I didn't read it all in one sitting and the American section is later on.

[jimmy olsen]

The Valmyites strike back

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/the-killing-of-kajieme-powell/378899/

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/20/6051431/did-the-st-louis-police-have-to-shoot-kajieme-powell/in/5757650

[CountDeMoney]

The only thing I don't get about that shooting is that the officers apparently had tasers.  Now, it's a difficult call for one officer to be placed in that situation, but there were two:  your partner is covering you with his firearm if you attempt to use the taser and it fails, or the individual suddenly charges.

One would think an agency as large as St. Louis County knows how to deal with so many of the mentally ill individuals they encounter in calls for service, but perhaps they don't.  There's a distinct erasure of the concept of the continuum of force going on in law enforcement today.

But all Powell had was a steak knife. If the police had been in their car, with the windows rolled up, he could have done little to hurt them.

Lulz.

[Berkut]

One would think an agency as large as St. Louis County knows how to deal with so many of the mentally ill individuals they encounter in calls for service, but perhaps they don't.  There's a distinct erasure of the concept of the continuum of force going on in law enforcement today.

It seems to me like much of the time the question is not "Must I shoot this person?" but rather "Can I shoot this person?"

[jimmy olsen]

I really liked this bit that was quoted in the Atlantic article (admittedly from some blog). Given that knives are often used in Britain, but seldom are the perpetrators shot dead there, it seems that American police are way too trigger happy.

    I suspect the protocol in Britain would be to park at a relatively distance, order civilians to get back, call for back-up and specialist assistance, while monitoring to ensure that Mr. Powell poses no threat to himself or anybody else. What caused the situation to escalate to the point that the police felt so threatened that they needed to open fire in a mentally ill man carrying a knife at his side was the arrival of the police. There is a serious problem in how US police perceive and deal with "threats." Mentally-ill people, even ones with knives, are primarily a threat to themselves.
     
    I know that American police face different risks than British ones, and that gun violence is higher... so let's park the gun issue and look at the threat from knives on its own. In 2013 armed police were deployed in the UK about 12,000 times. They fired 3 shots and killed nobody. I don't know how many of those incidents involved knives, but I suspect it was more than one. The St. Louis P.D. bested that in 15 seconds when they fired 9 bullets into Mr. Powell. American gun enthusiasts and police officers always say "you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to neutralize the threat." So do British police, and they successfully neutralize the threat with both fewer shots fired and fewer dead citizens. "But the British armed police are top marksmen!" is usually another reply.
     
    Well... that's an argument for better firearms training of US officers instead of an excuse for their poor accuracy...
     
    The most disturbing aspect of this for me is that the police fired several bullets into Kajieme Powell's body while he lay wounded on the ground, and yet they apparently wanted this video released as it was "exculpatory." There exists a very deep chasm between what the Police view as justified and what, I think, most reasonable citizens would.  In a democratic country where the rule of law exists in such a difference of opinion the difference must always be settled on the side of the people, who are sovereign. In the United States it seems to be settled far too frequently, to put it at its lowest, on the side of the Police.

[derspiess]

Apparently the shop which was allegedly robbed by the victim has been ransacked by looters. Nice way to prove you are a peaceful protest.

The owners of the shop, out of fear, were adamant that they did not call the cops when they were robbed.  An eyewitness apparently called it in, but the shop owners still paid for it anyway.  They'll probably pay for it again.

[derspiess]

One would think an agency as large as St. Louis County knows how to deal with so many of the mentally ill individuals they encounter in calls for service, but perhaps they don't.  There's a distinct erasure of the concept of the continuum of force going on in law enforcement today.

It seems to me like much of the time the question is not "Must I shoot this person?" but rather "Can I shoot this person?"

Or maybe "what's the best way to resolve this situation without me getting stabbed?"

[CountDeMoney]

Or maybe "what's the best way to resolve this situation without me getting stabbed?"

We used to call that "training".  But nice try.

[derspiess]

Or maybe "what's the best way to resolve this situation without me getting stabbed?"

We used to call that "training".  But nice try.

Go on.

[CountDeMoney]

Eat me.

[Berkut]

One would think an agency as large as St. Louis County knows how to deal with so many of the mentally ill individuals they encounter in calls for service, but perhaps they don't.  There's a distinct erasure of the concept of the continuum of force going on in law enforcement today.

It seems to me like much of the time the question is not "Must I shoot this person?" but rather "Can I shoot this person?"

Or maybe "what's the best way to resolve this situation without me getting stabbed?"

I don't buy it.

I don't buy the argument that the cops really do need to shoot all these people in order to protect themselves.

It is right up there with the "If it saves one child..." type arguments to justify, well, almost anything.

Is there a rampant problem with police officers being stabbed all the time, such that it is reasonable to shoot people to remove even the smallest threat of it happening?

Statistics show that being a police officer is a pretty safe job overall.

I don't accept the claim, on face value, that policing is so dangerous that using deadly force is reasonable to reduce the chances that they are injured by some very small amount. If the chances of some mentally deranged individual successfully injuring someone with a knife is so high that it is reasonable to shoot him before he actually tries to injure anyone, then I suspect we would see a lot more of those injuries.

Now, if the guy is actually making an attempt, then fine. If the guy is threatening someone else in a credible manner, fine.

If he is just waving a knife around and babbling, then I guess that is a "threat", and meets the strict criteria of a justified use of deadly force, but pretty much completely misses the actual part where we might expect officers to use judgement and discretion, rather than simply noting "Yep, he has done something that meets the minimal definition to justify me blowing him away, so Yeah! I get to shoot him 9 times".

Or, like I said, there is a difference between "Can I shoot him?" and "Must I shoot him?"