The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[11B4V]

The Predator could identify a toy gun.

I would be in favour of using Predator in a law enforcement capacity.

Mind you, they'd still have the same problem the first time Predator pulled out some 12-year old's spine.

They don't make mistakes like that.

[Neil]

The Predator could identify a toy gun.

I would be in favour of using Predator in a law enforcement capacity.

Mind you, they'd still have the same problem the first time Predator pulled out some 12-year old's spine.

They don't make mistakes like that.

If the 12-year old had a real handgun, they'd be all dogmeat and trophies.  And then everybody would be on him because the child wouldn't understand what the gun meant, or the force used was disproportionate, or the Predator was racist, or whatever.

Everybody is always too tough on Predator.

[Razgovory]

A tragic situation all around with faults on both sides.

Sure. But I take faults more seriously from trained adults whose role is to serve the community, than a 12 year old kid. It seems pretty clear who should maybe take extra care in that situation not to make faults.

Edit: Incidentally I agree with the Canadians and Raz on the urban-rural thing.

Is there more that police can do with the community, especially African Americans, so that they're less twitchy (especially when there's a racial difference) and African Americans have less reason to fear being gunned down? Or has that been explored and failed?

I don't know.  A lot of the protesters who were angry about police brutality don't like cops to begin with and simply relish insulting cops to their face.  The idea of being able to stand up there all night and scream "Fuck you" at the police, throw bottles at them and spit on them is extremely appealing to some people.  It's a position I find baffling.  Some people there brought up the issue of lack of blacks governing the city and in the police force.  This is something that can be addressed, however, the pitiful turnout in the November elections leads me to believe that the leaders of this movement aren't interested in actual solutions and more interested in yelling at police and getting their acts of heroic defiance recorded and streamed on the net.

[jimmy olsen]

The Predator could identify a toy gun.

I would be in favour of using Predator in a law enforcement capacity.

Mind you, they'd still have the same problem the first time Predator pulled out some 12-year old's spine.

That 12 year old would have had a real gun though

[Martinus]

After seeing Macklemore in the protest's front lines, I'm now siding with the racist cops.

[Martinus]

I don't think it's a "kowtowing to the white man" thing.  I think it is more symptomatic of the "us vs. them" culture and mentality that has grown in the U.S. between police and "civilians" (aren't police really also civilians?).  Something that is amplified even more in "bad", crime-ridden neighborhoods. 

I don't believe police roll up on a situation like that thinking "yahoo, we get to potentially subjugate or kill a black/poor kid today", but more of a "crap, am I going to get shot at/killed, or deal with some other really crappy, life-threatening situation today".  Usually involving a demographic that they do not relate to in any way (as most inner city cops probably live/commute from the 'burbs).

Which I think links back to what Otto said. Sam Vimes of Discworld fame has often been saying that a trouble starts when you mix up military with policing work - as these two are very different. It seems to me the US police are suffering from over-militarisation - both in terms of equipment and mentality.

[Martinus]

I played with many toy guns in my childhood, and not once did I consider what the police might have thought of it.

We were kids a long, long time ago.  It's a different era now.

Tell you what, I'll give you back soft touch policing if you give me Martinus being thrown in jail for his misdeeds, manned space exploration and American conservatives who were capable of reason.

What the fuck? What misdeeds?

[Eddie Teach]

After seeing Macklemore in the protest's front lines, I'm now siding with the racist cops.

I bet he marches in gay pride parades too. 

[Martinus]

After seeing Macklemore in the protest's front lines, I'm now siding with the racist cops.

I bet he marches in gay pride parades too. 

I did briefly consider opposing gay marriage, because this pandering poseur supports it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The only way the police description of events could possibly be true is if they were yelling at the kid as they were driving up.

The fact the police at least realize they should have warned him to put his hands up a number of times before shooting makes me think they are not trained to be hair triggers the way the talking head Otto heard said they were.

The guy I'm thinking about may have actually been associated with Cleveland PD in some way, and I don't remember him speaking as though instantly shooting was okay. His point was that in an encounter, if you see someone's hands going for a deadly weapon, the training is to shoot them immediately, not wait for them to fully draw it out into firing position. Further, that when you first approach someone you take a good look at what's in their hands and what their hands are doing, and keep aware of that throughout the encounter. This guy was explaining that this is how a cop might not even "notice" it's a kid, because he's initially so keyed in on that--especially when he's been told by dispatch that he's dealing with someone who has a gun.

So essentially he was asserting you had a chain of events where, the situation developed so quickly the officers had not perceived this was a kid. They showed up thinking someone was on a playground with a gun, they see the person they think it must be and are keyed in on what's in this dude's hands. Very shortly (like a second) into this, the person pulls up their shirt like they're going for something in their waist band. At that point the immediate reaction as per training is to drop the person, because he's going for something that could be a deadly weapon. Again, the guy saying this was going to pains to exonerate the police.

It sounds like from what BB has said even in Canada that if an officer "perceives" that a 12 year old is pulling a gun on them, they'd be legally in the clear to drop the kid. So CdM may be right this is a justifiable shoot. But Bill Bratton (the NYPD Commissioner) probably would have been justified in putting a round in between the eyes of the armed robber he talked down 30 years ago, but he chose another route. Whatever the right/wrong is, I think police should be more willing to accept some level of risk to try a non-violent way to diffuse a situation. But I'm not a cop, so I guess that's easy for me to say.

Once they were actually up close and the kid went for something in his waistband, part of me can understand the reaction. But part of me feels like they should have taken in the totality of the situation, namely that this is clearly a little kid, a pre-teen even, and that they should consider what they're doing a little differently.

That being said it's probably worth mentioning this kid had an airsoft gun, which is somewhere between a the harmless toy Jacob is going "pew pew" with and a dangerous weapon. It's more akin to a sling shot--it is a toy, but you can really hurt someone with one. I played with such guns as a kid, but I spent a lot of time in rural areas, I'm not sure it's wise to let your kids play with air soft guns at public playgrounds in the city limits of a big city. In fact I wouldn't be shocked if it's against ordinance. I only bring that up to say that somewhere in the guardianship chain of this kid, something broke down. I wasn't allowed to touch an airlift gun until I had been thoroughly taught "this is for shooting stuff with like cans or whatever, you NEVER point this at another kid or shoot another kid with it." You could (to quote a famous movie) put someone's eye out.

[Sheilbh]

Which I think links back to what Otto said. Sam Vimes of Discworld fame has often been saying that a trouble starts when you mix up military with policing work - as these two are very different. It seems to me the US police are suffering from over-militarisation - both in terms of equipment and mentality.

Yeah. It's incomprehensible to me. Both the way the police look like a paramilitary force, and the way Americans here describe how you should behave towards the police I just don't understand how it got that way and is tolerable, aside from shootings like this.

[Malthus]

Here is a very interesting article that is germaine to this situation:

http://www.experts.com/Articles/The-Art-of-Force-Pre-Contact-Threat-Assessment-By-Ron-Martinelli

Pre-contact Threat Assessment: Rules Pertaining to "The Art of Force"
Rule #1 - "You cannot seek to control others unless YOU are first in control (emotionally)."

Angry, agitated or emotionally disturbed subjects are often affected by a naturally produced or external (illicit or psychotropic) chemical imbalance that causes them to present symptoms when threatened. However, officers who are untrained or lacking in confidence with their officer safety tactics and force management skills allow themselves to become "emotionally captured" by a subject's resistance. When this happens and they experience a "phobic scale response" (fear/threatened), they infuse themselves with survival chemicals such as adrenaline, epinephrine, endorphins and euphoric dopamine. These natural chemicals, which are also affecting the subjects they are dealing with, can cause officers to experience visual and temporal distortions. The acute dumping of simulants may cause officers to lose "situational awareness" and present with hypervigilance (panic and confusion). This could lead to the application of excessive force and potential lapses of memory. Officers engaged in any confrontation need to focus as much in maintaining their "center and balance" as they do in dealing with resistant or threatening subjects.

Rule #2 - "Manipulate the environment; don't be manipulated by it."

One slogan of U.S. Army Rangers is, "Improvise, adapt and overcome." Police officers are often challenged in the field by unique and rapidly evolving circumstances that they may lack the proper tactical equipment for. However, this does not mean that you lack "situational awareness" or that you cannot immediately adapt and modify your tactics to ultimately overcome and control a resistant or potentially violent subject. If you allow the environment to control you when you have a clear opportunity to control the environment, you are doomed to failure. Whenever possible, take the time to think clearly and "outside the box" about what resources you have available; or how you can exploit the same environment to succeed in safely and effectively taking a resistive or threatening subject into custody.

Rule #3 - Remember the "Five Components of Arrest" - Can you accomplish them?

In every arrest scenario, there are five components; (1) verbalization, (2) approaching the subject, (3) going "hands on" with the subject, (4) arrest and control tactics, and (5) handcuffing/searching prior to transport. It is in assessing the subject and your situation that you must determine whether you and your partner officer(s) can successfully accomplish all five of these components. This is the most important component of any pre-contact threat assessment. If after considering your circumstances, you believe that you cannot safely accomplish all five of the arrest components, do not make contact! That does not mean that you never make contact; it just means that you do not force the issue at that moment. Rather, whenever the situation allows follow rules #1 and #2. Keep calm, focus on maintaining situational awareness, manipulate the environment by adapting and thinking outside the box, and call for additional resources so that you can eventually and safely prevail.

Rule #4 - If at all possible, avoid "time compression."

Police officers have a habit of wanting to take immediate action during the course of an incident when it is neither safe nor prudent to do so. This again speaks to a lack of "situational awareness." Remember that there is a distinction between "potential" and "imminent" jeopardy. While all contacts with resistant subjects are potentially dangerous, significantly fewer encounters actually place officers in imminent danger. The trick is to follow Rule #1 and not to become so "emotionally captured" in an event with a resistant or threatening subject that you become unreasonably phobic and adrenalized to the point that you rush into a situation when you do not have to. Examples of unnecessary time compression include: (1) moving too close to the subject, (2) posturing by screaming and yelling complex or confusing orders, or (3) rapidly engaging an already agitated, angry, delusional or otherwise psychotic person who does not present an imminent danger from a distance.

Unnecessary time compression nearly always exacerbates any difficult tactical situation by significantly reducing an officer's reactionary gap (distance vs. reaction time). This, in turn, causes the involved officer(s) to experience visual, auditory and temporal distortions. These distortions often lead to subject action - officer reaction problems such as "perception - shooting lag time" that rarely favor the involved officer(s).

Rule #5 - Distance and cover are your friends.

Whenever possible, utilize and maintain distance and cover from any resistant and potentially violent subject you intend to arrest. Distance allows you to observe more and prevents visual distortions such as perceptional narrowing or "tunnel vision." Distance also enhances hearing, situational awareness and lengthens reactionary gap. These benefits allow the involved officer(s) to maintain center and balance, as well as working to mitigate or lessen the potential for the officer(s) to become emotionally captured in the event.

Maintaining distance from resistant and/or threatening subjects presenting as: (1) agitated and psychotic, or (2) those intent upon choreographing a "suicide by cop" scenario, significantly reduces the acute paranoia these subjects might experience through space and time compression. Maintaining distance from a resistant and threatening subject ultimately allows officers an enhanced opportunity to observe and assess what is happening more accurately and to respond to potential and imminent jeopardy in a safer and more effective manner.

Ultimately, it will nearly always be a department's and an officer's commitment to and the employment of sound police practices and training in contemporary officer safety tactics and force management, rather than an overreliance on technological gadgets, that will allow officers to prevail over resistant subjects in challenging situations.

I think "Rule #4" is particularly relevant here.

I can see the author shaking his head sadly at the cops involved in this incident - they are literally a text-book case of cops who failed to control the situation, imposed unnecessary time-compression on themselves, were "emotionally captured" by events and lacked "situational awareness".

[CountDeMoney]

#4 goes out the window when there's a handgun in the waistband.

We took a gun off a 13 year old once (he " had just found it").  Found it on him in the pat down.  Didn't have to shoot him.  Why?  Because he put his hands up when we fucking told him.  But if he had raised his shirt where it was tucked in, contrary to orders, and showed us the butt of a pistol, he would've increased his chances on getting ventilated.

You guys seem to think that an officer's orders, particularly when a gun is involved, are in some way negotiable or open to interpretation, because "he was 12", or because "it was a playground".  It is not a two-way discussion at that point.   It is not a fucking debate.   When you're told to raise your hands, you don't lift the front of your shirt to show a gun. 

[crazy canuck]

#4 goes out the window when there's a handgun in the waistband.

Only because the police got out of their vehicle less than 1 metre away....

ie the cops caused the time compression

[CountDeMoney]

#4 goes out the window when there's a handgun in the waistband.

Only because the police got out of their vehicle less than 1 metre away....

ie the cops caused the time compression

Doesn't matter if it's 1 METER or 1 mile away: lifting your sweatshirt to show a gun in your waistband can get you killed, regardless of the mileage.