The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Malthus]

How do you know they weren't watching the subject during their whole approach up to him? Most likely they were.

Huh? How is that an answer? Sure, they were watching him - as they drive right up to him. If they thought he was packing, why do that?

Not the issue. In that case why didn't the kid put is hands up when told to?

Well, first of all - we have no idea what the officers "told" the kid. They claim they told him three times to put up his hands "as he approached the car", but that simply can't be true, right?

Second - sure it is the issue. Presumably the claim that the cops were justified comes from the fact that they had no time to react. Isn't the fact that they created that particular problem by driving right up to the kid relevant?

Third - he's a kid. From his perspective, he was playing in the park when a car drives up to him (presumably sirens blaring) and men jump out at him. He's supposed to react calmly and rationally to that? Maybe he froze. Considering the cop gave him all of a second to react, is it a surprise he did not react the way he was supposed to?

I did and #3 in utter horseshit. #4 again is not a hard fast rule particularly when a gun is involved. In fact none of those are a hard fast rule even though the author would like cookie cutter people to drink that cool-aid.

If after considering your circumstances, you believe that you cannot safely accomplish all five of the arrest 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), 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.

Other that the over-use of corporate-speak (I take a shit every time someone says 'think outside the box' - sad but true  ), not sure why it is "horseshit". Basically, he appears to be saying that if you can't make the collar safely, don't be a goddam adrenaline pumped hero - remain calm and call for back-up, knowing that time is on your side.

Seems sensible enough to me. In this case, where the kid was sitting by himself in a gazebo in an apparently deserted playground, what's the need for haste?

[Barrister]

Well, first of all - we have no idea what the officers "told" the kid. They claim they told him three times to put up his hands "as he approached the car", but that simply can't be true, right?

Why the hell can't it be true?

I keep telling you guys - you do not have enough information to make any definite opinions on this one.  Look, you can talk and discuss it (and you're quite right that 'tactical positioning' is a huge part of how you deal with a potential use of force incident), but you really shouldn't be coming to any firm opinions.

[11B4V]

Huh? How is that an answer? Sure, they were watching him - as they drive right up to him. If they thought he was packing, why do that?

The kid didn't display opportunity, capability, and intent while he was sitting there. Not till the patrol car pulled up did he get up and advance towards the officers lifting/reaching for the suspected pistol in his waist band.  Opportunity, capability, and intent from their perspective. Two seconds is a long time in a situation like that. 

Basically, he appears to be saying that if you can't make the collar safely, don't be a goddam adrenaline pumped hero - remain calm and call for back-up, knowing that time is on your side.

Malthus, time may not be on your side. Does his number #3 apply in a lot of situations, sure. It's not written that way.

Seems sensible enough to me. In this case, where the kid was sitting by himself in a gazebo in an apparently deserted playground, what's the need for haste? 

Who said the officers were acting in haste?

[11B4V]

Looking at the CNN video, opportunity and capability are established in the early footage of Tamir, but the cops don't know that of course.

*Caller says a guy with a pistol, and it's probably a fake (x2) one pointing it at people.

(The dispatcher may not by able to make the call as to whether the gun is fake. Probably why she did not relay that to patrol)

*Dispatch to Patrol #1; Everyone is tied up on priorities, there's a guy sitting on a swing pointing a gun at people.

From a officers perspective "intent starts to take shape".

*Dispatch to Patrol #2; Description of suspect, he keeps pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people.

again the actions of the suspect haven't changed.

*Patrol makes contact. Tamir adavanced on and reached in his waist band.

Tamir's "intent" is solidified, all three elements of the deadly force triangle are met, from the officers perspective



http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/justice/cleveland-police-shooting/

[Malthus]

Well, first of all - we have no idea what the officers "told" the kid. They claim they told him three times to put up his hands "as he approached the car", but that simply can't be true, right?

Why the hell can't it be true?

I keep telling you guys - you do not have enough information to make any definite opinions on this one.  Look, you can talk and discuss it (and you're quite right that 'tactical positioning' is a huge part of how you deal with a potential use of force incident), but you really shouldn't be coming to any firm opinions.

Because we can see the car pull in and 1.5 seconds later the kid is shot. There is not sufficient time for the officers to tell him "three times" to put his hands up 'as he approached the car'.

Ergo, the statement *as reported* simply cannot be true. It may be the reporting is wrong or it may be the officers were wrong, but the statement *as reported* is - simply - not possible.

[Malthus]

Malthus, time may not be on your side. Does his number #3 apply in a lot of situations, sure. It's not written that way.

The issue is whether it applies in *this* situation.

Who said the officers were acting in haste?

Uh, anyone watching the video? They drive up on the grass right up to the kid and jump out. The shooter appears to stumble right out the door. How is that not "acting in haste?"

[11B4V]

Malthus, time may not be on your side. Does his number #3 apply in a lot of situations, sure. It's not written that way.

The issue is whether it applies in *this* situation.

IMO, no.

Who said the officers were acting in haste?

Uh, anyone watching the video? They drive up on the grass right up to the kid and jump out. The shooter appears to stumble right out the door. How is that not "acting in haste?"

You are assuming too much

[11B4V]

Well, first of all - we have no idea what the officers "told" the kid. They claim they told him three times to put up his hands "as he approached the car", but that simply can't be true, right?

Why the hell can't it be true?

I keep telling you guys - you do not have enough information to make any definite opinions on this one.  Look, you can talk and discuss it (and you're quite right that 'tactical positioning' is a huge part of how you deal with a potential use of force incident), but you really shouldn't be coming to any firm opinions.

Because we can see the car pull in and 1.5 seconds later the kid is shot. There is not sufficient time for the officers to tell him "three times" to put his hands up 'as he approached the car'.

Ergo, the statement *as reported* simply cannot be true. It may be the reporting is wrong or it may be the officers were wrong, but the statement *as reported* is - simply - not possible.

"Three commands were given to put up his hands," deputy police chief Edward Tomba told reporters.

With a PA it is. You're assuming the cops told him three times from when they got out of the car. Timir was approaching them as they were still driving up (clearly seen on the vid). Patrol Cars have PA's you know.

[Malthus]

Well, first of all - we have no idea what the officers "told" the kid. They claim they told him three times to put up his hands "as he approached the car", but that simply can't be true, right?

Why the hell can't it be true?

I keep telling you guys - you do not have enough information to make any definite opinions on this one.  Look, you can talk and discuss it (and you're quite right that 'tactical positioning' is a huge part of how you deal with a potential use of force incident), but you really shouldn't be coming to any firm opinions.

Because we can see the car pull in and 1.5 seconds later the kid is shot. There is not sufficient time for the officers to tell him "three times" to put his hands up 'as he approached the car'.

Ergo, the statement *as reported* simply cannot be true. It may be the reporting is wrong or it may be the officers were wrong, but the statement *as reported* is - simply - not possible.

"Three commands were given to put up his hands," deputy police chief Edward Tomba told reporters.

With a PA it is. You're assuming the cops told him three times from when they got out of the car. Timir was approaching them as they were still driving up (clearly seen on the vid). Patrol Cars have PA's you know.

... which is why I stressed that it could not have occurred *as reported*. The original report claimed that the officers told him three times to put up his hands 'as he approached the car'. The officers telling him through a PA 'as the car approached him' is a different scenario, with different implications - see discussion upthread.

[11B4V]

Well, first of all - we have no idea what the officers "told" the kid. They claim they told him three times to put up his hands "as he approached the car", but that simply can't be true, right?

Why the hell can't it be true?

I keep telling you guys - you do not have enough information to make any definite opinions on this one.  Look, you can talk and discuss it (and you're quite right that 'tactical positioning' is a huge part of how you deal with a potential use of force incident), but you really shouldn't be coming to any firm opinions.

Because we can see the car pull in and 1.5 seconds later the kid is shot. There is not sufficient time for the officers to tell him "three times" to put his hands up 'as he approached the car'.

Ergo, the statement *as reported* simply cannot be true. It may be the reporting is wrong or it may be the officers were wrong, but the statement *as reported* is - simply - not possible.

"Three commands were given to put up his hands," deputy police chief Edward Tomba told reporters.

With a PA it is. You're assuming the cops told him three times from when they got out of the car. Timir was approaching them as they were still driving up (clearly seen on the vid). Patrol Cars have PA's you know.

... which is why I stressed that it could not have occurred *as reported*. The original report claimed that the officers told him three times to put up his hands 'as he approached the car'. The officers telling him through a PA 'as the car approached him' is a different scenario, with different implications - see discussion upthread.

Timir was approaching the car as the car was pulling up.  From the time Timir got up from the bench and moved to towards the direction the the patrol car was approaching....7-8 seconds.

Watch the Vid.

[11B4V]

I keep telling you guys - you do not have enough information to make any definite opinions on this one.  Look, you can talk and discuss it (and you're quite right that 'tactical positioning' is a huge part of how you deal with a potential use of force incident), but you really shouldn't be coming to any firm opinions.

It wouldn't be Languish then. 

[Malthus]

Timir was approaching the car as the car was pulling up.  From the time Timir got up from the bench and moved to towards the direction the the patrol car was approaching....7-8 seconds.

Watch the Vid.

I have watched it. The kid never moves more than three or four slow steps from the bench he was sitting on.

Claiming (as was originally reported) that the cops told him three times to put up his hands 'as he approached the car' is flat-out misleading. The mental image that conjures up is a perp ignoring and threatening the officers by advancing on them - not at all what the video shows.

[CountDeMoney]

Uh, anyone watching the video? They drive up on the grass right up to the kid and jump out. The shooter appears to stumble right out the door. How is that not "acting in haste?"

I saw an officer that fell backwards on his ass in the snow as he's backing up to get behind his car, surprised as shit he had to draw his weapon and use it at that moment.  You see a bumbling cop. 
And people wonder why cop culture is insular and defensive.

[CountDeMoney]

Timir was approaching the car as the car was pulling up.  From the time Timir got up from the bench and moved to towards the direction the the patrol car was approaching....7-8 seconds.

Watch the Vid.

This is why instant replay is still a mess in the NFL. 

[Malthus]

Uh, anyone watching the video? They drive up on the grass right up to the kid and jump out. The shooter appears to stumble right out the door. How is that not "acting in haste?"

I saw an officer that fell backwards on his ass in the snow as he's backing up to get behind his car, surprised as shit he had to draw his weapon and use it at that moment.  You see a bumbling cop. 
And people wonder why cop culture is insular and defensive.

I saw a cop acting in haste and not properly prepared. So did you. ("fell backwards on his ass in the snow as he's backing up to get behind his car, surprised as shit he had to draw his weapon and use it ")

The difference here is that you impute stuff to me I never said (a "bumbling cop").