The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[garbon]

What I have taken from all of this is that the best method of suicide is hanging out around cops.

[Berkut]

I know you meant calling Derspeiss my "twin" was supposed be insulting, but I am actually flattered.  I have healthy respect for the man.  We may differ in politics (though not necessarily as much as we seem to on Languish), but he's decent guy.

Save your breathe, dude.  He and his twin have already decided that backing up into a street with traffic would have been the wisest choice.  Others are far more reasonable; save it for them.

And you wonder why you are so easy to peg?

Did you watch the video?

The police could have moved down the sidewalk. They could have moved to each side of the victim. The officer on the side of the car he approached could have simply moved around the car.


Now, the guy could have forced them into it anyway of course, and given his actions, it is even likely he would have - but we will never know, because the police officers in question clearly, to me, decided that they *could* blow him away, so they did.

The guy was clearly not an imminent threat to anyone. He didn't run at them, he didn't even raise the knife.

What is scary about this video is that the police claim it exonerates them, while sane people who watch it think "That guy didn't need to be shot".

I suspect you especially approved of the two rounds they put into him while he was lying on the ground?

[Berkut]

I suspect that what spicey and the "shoot first" types don't like about the idea of backing away is that it strikes them as "backing down" - ie, see their equating moveing back with "running away".

And I don't doubt that the same "we don't have to back down" mentality is at play in some of these shootings. It is a cousin to the gun nut "stand your ground" attitude that makes shooting someone something you have the *right* to do as long as you make sure your i's are dotted and your t's are crossed (at least in a strict legal sense), rather than a very regrettable last option in defense of your's or someone else's life.

[Razgovory]

I suspect that what spicey and the "shoot first" types don't like about the idea of backing away is that it strikes them as "backing down" - ie, see their equating moveing back with "running away".

And I don't doubt that the same "we don't have to back down" mentality is at play in some of these shootings. It is a cousin to the gun nut "stand your ground" attitude that makes shooting someone something you have the *right* to do as long as you make sure your i's are dotted and your t's are crossed (at least in a strict legal sense), rather than a very regrettable last option in defense of your's or someone else's life.

I don't like backing up because it prevents them from doing their job.  Their job was to stop a knife wielding maniac.  The guys actions were unpredictable and he was a danger to both officers and the public.  The guy with the knife came at the officers very quickly.  He didn't appear to be very far away at all when he was shot.  Lets say the officers back up and one trips and the knife guy runs up and stabs him?  What if he suddenly turns around and goes for a bystander?  What if he he moves between the two officers so if they discharge their weapons they'd be doing it at each other.

In this case the priorities should be to protect the public, the officers themselves and the guy with the knife in that order. Backing away does not serve that purpose.

[alfred russel]

I'm sure I posted this before, but back when I worked on an ambulance we got called to a shooting. Only I wasn't listening to the radio at all, probably because I got like 2 hours sleep the night before, and we show up at the scene, I ask my partner the apartment number we are going to, grab some gear, and start heading into the building. My partner says, "hold up", and I'm thinking he is just wanting me to wait for him, so I'm like "fuck that" and start walking to the building, when a bunch of cops run past me with guns drawn into the building. Had there been a camera on me at the time, we could debate whether I had some hero complex to get close to position to help asap, or was just smartly approaching the building in a safe manner to render aid as soon as the cops cleared the building, but in reality I didn't have a clue what was going on and was just trying to get through a day after staying out till 3 the night before.

The point being, I tend to give the cops some benefit of the doubt in these situations. They don't get paid much, probably don't give much of a shit about the day to day grind, probably aren't too smart to begin with, and maybe are distracted by a fight with the missus, the kids fucking up in school, a hangover, or something else. They get called to check out a nutty dude with a knife. Just another chore in the day. Then the nutty dude starts to approach them--suddenly it isn't just more bullshit, they are in real danger. They had to make a quick decision, and the existence of an alternative may not have occurred to them at that moment.

[Berkut]

I'm sure I posted this before, but back when I worked on an ambulance we got called to a shooting. Only I wasn't listening to the radio at all, probably because I got like 2 hours sleep the night before, and we show up at the scene, I ask my partner the apartment number we are going to, grab some gear, and start heading into the building. My partner says, "hold up", and I'm thinking he is just wanting me to wait for him, so I'm like "fuck that" and start walking to the building, when a bunch of cops run past me with guns drawn into the building. Had there been a camera on me at the time, we could debate whether I had some hero complex to get close to position to help asap, or was just smartly approaching the building in a safe manner to render aid as soon as the cops cleared the building, but in reality I didn't have a clue what was going on and was just trying to get through a day after staying out till 3 the night before.

The point being, I tend to give the cops some benefit of the doubt in these situations. They don't get paid much, probably don't give much of a shit about the day to day grind, probably aren't too smart to begin with, and maybe are distracted by a fight with the missus, the kids fucking up in school, a hangover, or something else. They get called to check out a nutty dude with a knife. Just another chore in the day. Then the nutty dude starts to approach them--suddenly it isn't just more bullshit, they are in real danger. They had to make a quick decision, and the existence of an alternative may not have occurred to them at that moment.

Those would be good explanations for why a police officer made a mistake - perhaps in this case a mistake was made.

But the argument here is not that a mistake was made, but that in fact they did exactly what they should have done.

[derspiess]

And you wonder why you are so easy to peg?

Did you watch the video?

The police could have moved down the sidewalk. They could have moved to each side of the victim. The officer on the side of the car he approached could have simply moved around the car.


Now, the guy could have forced them into it anyway of course, and given his actions, it is even likely he would have - but we will never know, because the police officers in question clearly, to me, decided that they *could* blow him away, so they did.

The guy was clearly not an imminent threat to anyone. He didn't run at them, he didn't even raise the knife.

What is scary about this video is that the police claim it exonerates them, while sane people who watch it think "That guy didn't need to be shot".

I suspect you especially approved of the two rounds they put into him while he was lying on the ground?

Yes, I did watch the video, and no I'm not into pegging.

I was really just giving grumbler shit with that post (save your breathe, lol).  But anyway the knife guy was an imminent threat.  You don't have to be in some special knife-fighting position to quickly stab someone.

I guess you can put these few seconds under a microscope and postulate on how the incident could have been handled without the guy getting shot.  But it sure seems like the knife guy wanted to be shot and was willing to threaten the cops in order to make that happen.  And I'm guessing from the cop's perspective he wanted to be able to go home & see his kids that evening.

[derspiess]

Those would be good explanations for why a police officer made a mistake - perhaps in this case a mistake was made.

But the argument here is not that a mistake was made, but that in fact they did exactly what they should have done.

And I think you're trying to put too fine a point on it.

[Berkut]

I suspect that what spicey and the "shoot first" types don't like about the idea of backing away is that it strikes them as "backing down" - ie, see their equating moveing back with "running away".

And I don't doubt that the same "we don't have to back down" mentality is at play in some of these shootings. It is a cousin to the gun nut "stand your ground" attitude that makes shooting someone something you have the *right* to do as long as you make sure your i's are dotted and your t's are crossed (at least in a strict legal sense), rather than a very regrettable last option in defense of your's or someone else's life.

I don't like backing up because it prevents them from doing their job. 

Not at all. Maneuvering does not at all prevent them from doing their job, unless their job is to shoot him as quickly as possible.

Their job was to stop a knife wielding maniac.

Their job is to deal with the situation with as little risk to everyone involved as possible. This person had not attacked anyone, and did not appear to be about to do so. It's not like they showed up to scene with someone already bleeding on the ground.

The guys actions were unpredictable and he was a danger to both officers and the public.

You don't have to predict his actions, you have to respond to them. And his actions that they responded to was him walking towards them at a walking speed with his knife held at his side.

  The guy with the knife came at the officers very quickly.

No, he just walked towards them, he didn't run.

He didn't appear to be very far away at all when he was shot. 

That is because the officers "stood their ground". If they had simply backed away from him while keeping him covered, he would not be that close to them. Now, maybe that just means he forces the issue by actually moving quickly instead of slowly.

Lets say the officers back up and one trips and the knife guy runs up and stabs him? 

Then we have a stabbed officer and a dead suspect. What is your point?

We can imagine any theoretical scenario where any action taken could have a bad outcome.

Let's say the officers do what they do and kill someone. Isn't that a bad outcome as well, what with someone being dead and all?

[/quote]

What if he suddenly turns around and goes for a bystander?
[/quote]

What if they hit a bystander when they shoot him?

There was no bystander particularly near him, and he didn't attack any bystanders before the cops arrived, so yeah, it is possible he could go after one, there wasn't an imminent threat of him doing so.

What if he he moves between the two officers so if they discharge their weapons they'd be doing it at each other.

Then the officers would need more training to not allow that to happen.

In this case the priorities should be to protect the public, the officers themselves and the guy with the knife in that order.

Agreed

Backing away does not serve that purpose.

It certainly does - unless you just throw away the last concern altogether.

[Berkut]

And you wonder why you are so easy to peg?

Did you watch the video?

The police could have moved down the sidewalk. They could have moved to each side of the victim. The officer on the side of the car he approached could have simply moved around the car.


Now, the guy could have forced them into it anyway of course, and given his actions, it is even likely he would have - but we will never know, because the police officers in question clearly, to me, decided that they *could* blow him away, so they did.

The guy was clearly not an imminent threat to anyone. He didn't run at them, he didn't even raise the knife.

What is scary about this video is that the police claim it exonerates them, while sane people who watch it think "That guy didn't need to be shot".

I suspect you especially approved of the two rounds they put into him while he was lying on the ground?

Yes, I did watch the video, and no I'm not into pegging.

I was really just giving grumbler shit with that post (save your breathe, lol).  But anyway the knife guy was an imminent threat.  You don't have to be in some special knife-fighting position to quickly stab someone.

I guess you can put these few seconds under a microscope and postulate on how the incident could have been handled without the guy getting shot.  But it sure seems like the knife guy wanted to be shot and was willing to threaten the cops in order to make that happen.  And I'm guessing from the cop's perspective he wanted to be able to go home & see his kids that evening.

That is a fair point - although if your over-riding concern is to go home and see your kids in the evening, such that you feel that making sure someone else will NOT go home and see his kids that evening takes precedence over you taking even a slight risk of that happening, you should find another line of work.

"Officer safety" is like "If it saves just one child...". An emotional rhetorical argument that means almost nothing. It can be used to justify nearly any action taken.

[alfred russel]

Those would be good explanations for why a police officer made a mistake - perhaps in this case a mistake was made.

But the argument here is not that a mistake was made, but that in fact they did exactly what they should have done.

If there was a video of a cop taking a step back from a knife wielding nutcase without negative consequence, I doubt anyone would be criticizing.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I suspect that most people are pointing out problems with alternative courses of action not to say that none could be taken, but that they weren't without drawbacks.

[Berkut]

Those would be good explanations for why a police officer made a mistake - perhaps in this case a mistake was made.

But the argument here is not that a mistake was made, but that in fact they did exactly what they should have done.

If there was a video of a cop taking a step back from a knife wielding nutcase without negative consequence, I doubt anyone would be criticizing.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I suspect that most people are pointing out problems with alternative courses of action not to say that none could be taken, but that they weren't without drawbacks.

Well yeah, of course there are drawbacks to ANY course of action. That goes without saying though.

What I find surprising is that to me, there is a HUGE drawback to the actual course of action taken - someone is DEAD.

That seems to be just dismissed as a relatively minor negative outcome, such that "Oh no, if the cop moves away, he might trip!" actually becomes a *worse* outcome than someone being killed???

That is kind of amazing to me, and again, goes back to the fundamental idea among many that shooting someone is a first or second option, rather than a last...as long as, you know, you can justify it in the narrowest sense of the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU

[alfred russel]

Well yeah, of course there are drawbacks to ANY course of action. That goes without saying though.

What I find surprising is that to me, there is a HUGE drawback to the actual course of action taken - someone is DEAD.

That seems to be just dismissed as a relatively minor negative outcome, such that "Oh no, if the cop moves away, he might trip!" actually becomes a *worse* outcome than someone being killed???

That is kind of amazing to me, and again, goes back to the fundamental idea among many that shooting someone is a first or second option, rather than a last...as long as, you know, you can justify it in the narrowest sense of the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU

Tripping is a bit of a bigger deal when you have a knife wielding madman coming at you.

[Berkut]

Well yeah, of course there are drawbacks to ANY course of action. That goes without saying though.

What I find surprising is that to me, there is a HUGE drawback to the actual course of action taken - someone is DEAD.

That seems to be just dismissed as a relatively minor negative outcome, such that "Oh no, if the cop moves away, he might trip!" actually becomes a *worse* outcome than someone being killed???

That is kind of amazing to me, and again, goes back to the fundamental idea among many that shooting someone is a first or second option, rather than a last...as long as, you know, you can justify it in the narrowest sense of the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU

Tripping is a bit of a bigger deal when you have a knife wielding madman coming at you.

If the major issue with any potential course of action that doesn't involve just shooting is the fear that you may no be able to walk without falling down, again, you might consider another line of work.

It is comical that the primary reason the cops had to shoot that man 9 times, including twice after he was already on the ground, was their fear that they would not be able to move from the spot they were in without falling down.

[alfred russel]

If the major issue with any potential course of action that doesn't involve just shooting is the fear that you may no be able to walk without falling down, again, you might consider another line of work.

The don't have eyes in the back of their heads. They have to stay focused on the guy with the knife, and stay in a position to quickly fire.