Ruszczyk called 911 on Saturday night to report a possible sexual assault in an alley near her home, her fiancé, Damond, said in a news conference Monday.
Two police officers responded to the scene just before 11:30 p.m., according to the BCA. One of them fired a weapon, killing Ruszczyk. She died of a gunshot wound to the abdomen, an autopsy revealed.
This next quote is from the Daily Mail.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) - the state agency investigating the shooting - has so far kept tight-lipped on the circumstances that led to the death of the yoga and meditation teacher.
They have admitted that no weapons were recovered from the scene and according to the Star Tribune witnesses to the shooting have described Damond approaching the police cruiser in the alley behind her house.
She was holding her cell phone and talking to an officer on the drivers side before she was shot.
Points of Interest
1. Victim had called the police.
2. Victim is an Australian citizen. Potential international legal issue now.
3. Victim was an unarmed white female.
Police officer was a one year rookie Somali refugee. The trainer only had two years experience. Cameras were off. Supposedly shooter - from passenger seat shot THROUGH driver side window multiple times. Victim had cell phone at her side.
"Police in Minneapolis are required to wear bodycams at all time, but they are not continually active and are manually switched on when an officer anticipates they will be needed."
Testing the waters, does Dakka hate the boys in blue as much as the boys in blue (power armor)?
But once again our 'trained' and 'elite' force of murde... I mean, protectors, sorry Big Brother and Mark succerburg, gun down someone and of course the body and dash weren't working
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote: Testing the waters, does Dakka hate the boys in blue as much as the boys in blue (power armor)?
That's entirely on the individuals involved, nothing intrinsic to this forum. You'll find similar behavior anywhere a large enough group of people are talking about...anything.
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote: Testing the waters, does Dakka hate the boys in blue as much as the boys in blue (power armor)?
That's entirely on the individuals involved, nothing intrinsic to this forum. You'll find similar behavior anywhere a large enough group of people are talking about...anything.
oh contraire! My Zincwarriors have vowed that the Ultras are going down!
Smurf 1: "whats that marine charging us?" Smurf 2:"I don't know but he looks awfully angry. Maybe we should give him some information on anger management courses. I have a brochure." Smurf 1: "wait he's saying something. What is 'Zinc within Zinc without'?" Smurf 2: "Thats...strange. and what is that with him?" Smurf 1: " By the Primarch's pointy booties is that a pack of wiener dogs?" Smurf 2: "It is. They look awfully bitey." Smurf 1: "I'm scared. hold me." Smurf 2: "Back off.Hey do I look like a Dark Angel to you?" Smurf 1: "oh they're so cutTHEFACENOTMYBEAUTIFULFACE!" Death to the False EMprah and his Feline evilz!
jmurph wrote: Also interesting is that the dashcam wasn't working.
The whole thing stinks.
This does stink. Stinks bad. I am curious if the "cop was scared for his life" defense will work here.
Regardless, this seems like a no-win situation even if the "right' outcome is achieved. If the cops are prosecuted and convicted (which I'd be shocked) it will still lend credence to the idea that police violence is only held accountable when the victim is white (and female).
And if the cops walk, well, it just shows how fethed our system is and further illustrates that the police are a legally sanctioned murder gang.
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote: Testing the waters, does Dakka hate the boys in blue as much as the boys in blue (power armor)?
But once again our 'trained' and 'elite' force of murde... I mean, protectors, sorry Big Brother and Mark succerburg, gun down someone and of course the body and dash weren't working
British police are fine, if a bit too obsessed with speeding drivers. If I were ever to visit the US I'd be gak scared of being shot by them. Probably not black enough to really need to worry, but still.
Crispy78 wrote: British police are fine, if a bit too obsessed with speeding drivers. If I were ever to visit the US I'd be gak scared of being shot by them. Probably not black enough to really need to worry, but still.
Classy. Dragging a thread down to a race discussion about the US Police being anti-African American when discussing the circumstances in which a White person was shot by police.
Crispy78 wrote: British police are fine, if a bit too obsessed with speeding drivers. If I were ever to visit the US I'd be gak scared of being shot by them. Probably not black enough to really need to worry, but still.
Classy. Dragging a thread down to a race discussion about the US Police being anti-African American when discussing the circumstances in which a White person was shot by police.
Yet the Ultramarine jokes were classy? There is no class in this thread.
Or are we pretending there isn't a race issue in the US when it comes to the criminal justice system?
Steve steveson wrote: "Police in Minneapolis are required to wear bodycams at all time, but they are not continually active and are manually switched on when an officer anticipates they will be needed."
Totally pointless then.
Exactly. I've never understood why personal body cameras can be turned off by the officer.
Steve steveson wrote: "Police in Minneapolis are required to wear bodycams at all time, but they are not continually active and are manually switched on when an officer anticipates they will be needed."
Totally pointless then.
Exactly. I've never understood why personal body cameras can be turned off by the officer.
I guess they dont want to keep switching out SD cards as they get full? whats body cam technology like anyway
Steve steveson wrote: "Police in Minneapolis are required to wear bodycams at all time, but they are not continually active and are manually switched on when an officer anticipates they will be needed."
Totally pointless then.
Exactly. I've never understood why personal body cameras can be turned off by the officer.
I guess they dont want to keep switching out SD cards as they get full? whats body cam technology like anyway
What model was in use by the Officers, and what is the battery life on those models?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Yet the Ultramarine jokes were classy? There is no class in this thread.
Or are we pretending there isn't a race issue in the US when it comes to the criminal justice system?
I don't recall offering an opinion on the Ultramarine jokes, nor did I make any comment about race not being an issue in the criminal justice system.
So you just arbitrarily decided to jump down Crispy78's throat because reasons?
I mentioned race prior to him and you ignored that, and someone made a dumb Ultramarines joke and you ignored that. So, I am not sure what level of class you thought this thread was at, but Crispy78 didn't lower anything. It just seems like you are trying to stir gak.
jmurph wrote: Also interesting is that the dashcam wasn't working.
The whole thing stinks.
The dashcam of the cruiser was on but it didn't capture video of anything because it is fixed in place and pointing straight ahead and since the interaction between the woman and police happened alongside the driver's side door it took place off camera. It might be useful if the dashcam recorded audio but I think they record video only.
There's absolutely no reason for the officer in the passenger seat to have his gun drawn let alone have his finger on the trigger, that violates basic firearm safety to an incredulous degree for a supposedly trained professional.
Our dump trucks (and I assume our police vehicles) have cameras on the front, back and both sides. I think your squad cars are going to need the same. And I said this in another thread, but body cameras should be mandatory with instant dismissal for 'conveniently not having them switched on'. This is beyond praody now.
Steve steveson wrote: "Police in Minneapolis are required to wear bodycams at all time, but they are not continually active and are manually switched on when an officer anticipates they will be needed."
Totally pointless then.
Exactly. I've never understood why personal body cameras can be turned off by the officer.
I guess they dont want to keep switching out SD cards as they get full? whats body cam technology like anyway
What model was in use by the Officers, and what is the battery life on those models?
i don't know the model they used, but body cams can run over 8 hours on a charge and record the whole time. Worst case scenario they swap mid shift. They should not be able to chose when to switch it on or off.
Crispy78 wrote: British police are fine, if a bit too obsessed with speeding drivers. If I were ever to visit the US I'd be gak scared of being shot by them. Probably not black enough to really need to worry, but still.
Classy. Dragging a thread down to a race discussion about the US Police being anti-African American when discussing the circumstances in which a White person was shot by police.
Yet the Ultramarine jokes were classy? There is no class in this thread.
Oh we got one of those people on the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Our dump trucks (and I assume our police vehicles) have cameras on the front, back and both sides. I think your squad cars are going to need the same. And I said this in another thread, but body cameras should be mandatory with instant dismissal for 'conveniently not having them switched on'. This is beyond praody now.
Steve steveson wrote: "Police in Minneapolis are required to wear bodycams at all time, but they are not continually active and are manually switched on when an officer anticipates they will be needed."
Totally pointless then.
Exactly. I've never understood why personal body cameras can be turned off by the officer.
I guess they dont want to keep switching out SD cards as they get full? whats body cam technology like anyway
What model was in use by the Officers, and what is the battery life on those models?
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote: Testing the waters, does Dakka hate the boys in blue as much as the boys in blue (power armor)?
But once again our 'trained' and 'elite' force of murde... I mean, protectors, sorry Big Brother and Mark succerburg, gun down someone and of course the body and dash weren't working
British police are fine, if a bit too obsessed with speeding drivers. If I were ever to visit the US I'd be gak scared of being shot by them. Probably not black enough to really need to worry, but still.
Im a horrible pale ghost person and Im still afraid for my life almost every time I deal with police. I went to college in Worcester and ive seen some gak
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So you just arbitrarily decided to jump down Crispy78's throat because reasons?
I mentioned race prior to him and you ignored that, and someone made a dumb Ultramarines joke and you ignored that. So, I am not sure what level of class you thought this thread was at, but Crispy78 didn't lower anything. It just seems like you are trying to stir gak.
I note that you were happy to ignore those jokes also until you arbitrarily decided to jump down my throat because of reasons. I've read your earlier post in this thread and I think we can end our exchanges here.
I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.
There really is a series of simple fixes to this.
Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
Stop hiring persons who have no business handling t-shirt cannons, let alone actual firearms Start weeding out officers with excessive "sketchy" situations in their files.
There's a lot more really that can be done, but that's a start.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.
There really is a series of simple fixes to this.
Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
Stop hiring persons who have no business handling t-shirt cannons, let alone actual firearms Start weeding out officers with excessive "sketchy" situations in their files.
There's a lot more really that can be done, but that's a start.
And who decides it's sketchy? You? Me? This is a very, very, very dangerous path to walk down.
You are advocating the idea of tossing out the entire basis of our justice system with an idea like that.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So you just arbitrarily decided to jump down Crispy78's throat because reasons?
I mentioned race prior to him and you ignored that, and someone made a dumb Ultramarines joke and you ignored that. So, I am not sure what level of class you thought this thread was at, but Crispy78 didn't lower anything. It just seems like you are trying to stir gak.
I note that you were happy to ignore those jokes also until you arbitrarily decided to jump down my throat because of reasons. I've read your earlier post in this thread and I think we can end our exchanges here.
So you were looking to start a race fight, got it.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much.
It definitely is a cultural issue. Culturally we glorify police, especially "rogue" police that "break all the rules" as seen in damn near every cop drama on television or film. We watch shows like COPS, and Wildest Police Chases, and fetishize the role of police and criminals to the point were the nuances are lost and we can only see in archetypes.
We obsess over being tough on crime, on punishment, but ignore the underlying reasons for crime and are often much too slow to address those root problems. Focusing instead on dealing with the symptoms with brutal force and crippling sentencing.
We also prioritize candidates with military training for police recruitment over civilians which seems wrong headed to me while also outfitting our police with surplus military equipment and wonder why we have the violence.
Our culture needs to abandon the "Police are heroes who can do no wrong" myth and start examining how we got to this point where a portion of the civilian population distrusts the police, and the police distrust the civilians they are paid to serve.
Ouze wrote: I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
Agreed. I repeatedly hear it stated that prosecutors don't want to go after police because they also rely on police for their criminal cases, so that conflict of interest is staggering, but nothing is done about it. I agree it isn't a technological fix. We need to separate how police are prosecuted and do away with the protections they receive which regular civilians do not.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.
There really is a series of simple fixes to this.
Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
Stop hiring persons who have no business handling t-shirt cannons, let alone actual firearms Start weeding out officers with excessive "sketchy" situations in their files.
There's a lot more really that can be done, but that's a start.
And who decides it's sketchy? You? Me? This is a very, very, very dangerous path to walk down.
Any idiot can tell when something's sketchy. As soon as a murder happens when there's no recording devices(which are per department policy SUPPOSED TO BE ON) on...it's sketchy.
Lock 'em up.
You are advocating the idea of tossing out the entire basis of our justice system with an idea like that.
I'm advocating for police to be actually held accountable for their actions.
Kanluwen wrote: There really is a series of simple fixes to this.
Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
So the jury should return the right verdict or go to jail? That seems a very unusual legal jeopardy to assign to anyone serving jury. At that point why run the expense of having a trial if either the accused or jury will suffer legal sanctions?
Kanluwen wrote: Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
I agree with the termination of their employment based on gross misconduct. The loss of liberty is wholly at odds with the protections afforded citizens under the Constitution.
Kanluwen wrote: Stop hiring persons who have no business handling t-shirt cannons, let alone actual firearms
Agreed. Do you feel that the current screening is inadequate, and if so what specific improvements are you suggesting?
Kanluwen wrote: Start weeding out officers with excessive "sketchy" situations in their files.
This sounds like a smoke without fire test. However if you mean that when an officer has a history of excessive force, or other serious, complaints being upheld against them then I agree.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.
There really is a series of simple fixes to this.
Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
No. No. No. Juries are allowed to come up with a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want and that is a good thing. Yes, guilty people will go free, but I'd rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.
There really is a series of simple fixes to this.
Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
No. No. No. Juries are allowed to come up with a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want and that is a good thing. Yes, guilty people will go free, but I'd rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.
No, they're not. Juries are supposed to look at the evidence and render a verdict based upon that.
That is NOT what happens. Ever served on a jury, even in a fairly high profile case? Because there are people serving on juries right now who have no business tying shoe laces for a living let alone deciding someone's fate.
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.
Nope. Straight to county jail.
They agree to be LEOs. Nobody forced them to do it.
We also prioritize candidates with military training for police recruitment over civilians which seems wrong headed to me while also outfitting our police with surplus military equipment and wonder why we have the violence.
Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?
No, they're not. Juries are supposed to look at the evidence and render a verdict based upon that.
That is NOT what happens. Ever served on a jury, even in a fairly high profile case? Because there are people serving on juries right now who have no business tying shoe laces for a living let alone deciding someone's fate.
I am not okay with penalizing a jury unless proof of malfeasance could be demonstrated, but I do think our jury pool could use some revamping. Making it less of a financial burden to serve would be one change I'd suggest. Having all employers offer paid leave for jury duty would be great.
We also prioritize candidates with military training for police recruitment over civilians which seems wrong headed to me while also outfitting our police with surplus military equipment and wonder why we have the violence.
Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?
Possibly. More studies need to be done. But former military bring things to the job that many departments aren't equipped to handle. Like PTSD.
We also prioritize candidates with military training for police recruitment over civilians which seems wrong headed to me while also outfitting our police with surplus military equipment and wonder why we have the violence.
Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?
Yeah I think this is a training and competence issue not a officer background issue. There is literally no plausible explanation for why the officer had his service pistol drawn and his finger on the trigger in this situation. This reminds me of the Fruitvale Station incident in regards to unnecessary and unsafe handling of firearms leads to NDs and unwarranted deaths.
Kanluwen wrote: There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
What a disgusting train of thought.
May as well follow that train, right? Why have juries at all? Just convict and sentence anyone you disagree with or think is guilty. feth juries, feth evidence, feth laws.
Maybe, just maybe you ought to look at how the prosecutors handle cases/what charges they prosecute, and the actual laws and instructions to the jury the judges give. Heck, look at how evidence is presented by prosecutors. Often they charge too high/extreme and can't present evidence to support the charges. Juries are told exactly what to consider and the relevant statutes in their instructions.
Never mind. feth juries and our whole criminal justice system. Go with feelings and skip trials.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.
The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.
I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.
There really is a series of simple fixes to this.
Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
No. No. No. Juries are allowed to come up with a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want and that is a good thing. Yes, guilty people will go free, but I'd rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.
No, they're not. Juries are supposed to look at the evidence and render a verdict based upon that.
That is NOT what happens. Ever served on a jury, even in a fairly high profile case? Because there are people serving on juries right now who have no business tying shoe laces for a living let alone deciding someone's fate.
Jury nullification is there for a reason. A very good reason. There are checks to allow people found guilty to appeal. Still, I err on the side of juries being able to find people not guilty.
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.
Nope. Straight to county jail.
They agree to be LEOs. Nobody forced them to do it.
This is beyond scary what you are suggesting. You don't give up rights to a trial, period. If this was allowed, what would be the next thing people would be locked up without a trial for?
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.
Nope. Straight to county jail.
They agree to be LEOs. Nobody forced them to do it.
This is beyond scary what you are suggesting. You don't give up rights to a trial, period. If this was allowed, what would be the next thing people would be locked up without a trial for?
Law enforcement agencies want to act like they're paramilitary organizations that are constantly at war with the populace, they get treated as such.
It's hilarious how there really is one set of rules for "the good guys" and one for "the bad guys".
Yes, I recall the thread. In which there was no evidence shown that indicated veterans were more likely to hurt people than non veterans in policing fields. Also, if police departments aren't equipped to handle PTSD are you also advocating that any police officer involved in even the most justified of shootings be immediately fired and never employed as a police officer again, since many of them also suffer from PTSD in dealing with those events? Furthermore, are you also advocating that somehow the vast majority of veterans, who do not suffer from PTSD should be barred from police service due to your unproven feelings that there is a link between PTSD and heightened levels of violence against innocent people by former military police officers?
It appears to me that you have a 'feeling' that veterans are more prone to violence and are just going with that despite there not being any evidence. Should we ban Somali immigrants from being police officers? Apparently a statistically significant percentage of Somali immigrant police officers in Minnesota kill innocent people
Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.
Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.
Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.
Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.
djones520 wrote: Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.
Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.
Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.
Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.
Or it might be because there aren't many jobs period out there.
djones520 wrote: Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.
Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.
Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.
Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.
Or it might be because there aren't many jobs period out there.
Yes, I'll tell that to the number of Infantry men I know who have been turned down for jobs, when their combat experience came up, that there just isn't any jobs out there.
It could be also that despite all the promises of training that will apply in the real world, leading men and following orders isn't really that much of a resume boost.
The issue of PTSD and Somalis having low IQs aren't really relevant.
djones520 wrote: Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.
Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.
Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.
Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.
Or it might be because there aren't many jobs period out there.
Yes, I'll tell that to the number of Infantry men I know who have been turned down for jobs, when their combat experience came up, that there just isn't any jobs out there.
Speaking as a civilian, yes. There aren't a whole lot of places seriously hiring for any job that can be used to live on--even with careful money management. Law enforcement agencies are always hiring...and that's part of the issue with these kinds of things happening.
I'll also agree with you wholeheartedly that the PTSD thing is overblown or horribly misrepresented, but I will also point out that you can thank the politicians who have constantly elected to cut money from the VA and a general idea from some of those same politicians that PTSD isn't a "real disease" as to why there's this stigma. There have been cases(the shooter in Baton Rouge last year, for a recent example, was reportedly refused treatment by the VA for PTSD claims with the VA doctors saying that his issues came after his service rather than during and as such he was ineligible for any claims that might be done through the VA) that could have been possibly avoided or mitigated with the proper funding for agencies and treatment in place.
I should also add that, in general, there is a very real segment of the population here in the US that believes that PTSD is "made-up" or that it can only apply to "combat troops or law enforcement agents who were shot at". There are people who try to claim that a victim of a sexual assault can't have PTSD or that a kid who was raised in a gakky environment and subject to physical/mental abuse can't have PTSD either.
TL;DR: Jobs are hard to come by right now. Mental health treatment in this country is a joke.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Yet the Ultramarine jokes were classy? There is no class in this thread.
Or are we pretending there isn't a race issue in the US when it comes to the criminal justice system?
I don't recall offering an opinion on the Ultramarine jokes, nor did I make any comment about race not being an issue in the criminal justice system.
So you just arbitrarily decided to jump down Crispy78's throat because reasons?
I mentioned race prior to him and you ignored that, and someone made a dumb Ultramarines joke and you ignored that. So, I am not sure what level of class you thought this thread was at, but Crispy78 didn't lower anything. It just seems like you are trying to stir gak.
Whoa easy there buddy, leave my admittedly not classy but I would argue at least average joke alone
Kanluwen wrote: I'm advocating for police to be actually held accountable for their actions.
I want to live in that world. I really do.
You can, just move to Sweden (or any of the other nordic countries I'd imagine)
We average less than 5 fatal shootings from police every year, and pretty much all of these shootings are more or less justified.
If a police here where to lethally shoot an unarmed person, they'd be fired within a day, prosecuted within a week, and most likely end up in jail within a month.
(Well maybe not that fast, but you get the idea.)
Bromsy wrote: Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?
No one knows, because there are no really good statistics on how often the police kill people.
My gut feeling - and again, I reiterate, I can't back this up statistically - is that combat veterans are likely less likely to use lethal force as officers because the ROE in actual fething war zones is so much more restrictive. Veterans are disproportionately represented in policing which skews what you do see.
The victims of "veterans with PTSD" gun violence are usually themselves - which is a great American tragedy we see time and time again and seem incapable of dealing with. We need to do better, a lot better - but that's a different thread.
Kanluwen wrote: Speaking as a civilian, yes. There aren't a whole lot of places seriously hiring for any job that can be used to live on--even with careful money management. Law enforcement agencies are always hiring...and that's part of the issue with these kinds of things happening.
The part of the issue there being that any agency, city etc that needs LEOs will sometimes have to take what they can get, not what they want? Veterans have at least showed that they can follow orders and sometimes give them so they do have an edge over civilians who think it's cool to wear a blue suit and carry a gun.
I do think this particular case might go like the one where a senior citizen acting as deputy (because he donated to the department and the Sheriff was an old friend) shot a suspect by mistake while the guy was already being held by 2-3 real cops. That deputy was kicked out and faced charges last it was up here, and the Sheriff was being investigated too for allowing someone with no qualifications to ride around with a gun.
Not only will he be out of the force (probably facing charges), maybe someone else will be in trouble too. Surely something is wrong in the training procedures here? Might be men were needed so badly that someone ignored stuff that shouldn't be ignored, like bad language skills, bad training scores or a nervous personality. Let's see what comes up.
Xenomancers wrote: This case is totally bizarre. Black Male Somali refugee shot white female Australian citizen in Minnesota?
Almost as bizarre as people attributing this to american racism - neather victim or shooter is an American.
There wasn't any racism in the shooting but some just popped up in this thread. You've just called a Somali refugee who came to the US as a kid, was schooled in the US, and joined a local police force not an American.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: i don't know the model they used, but body cams can run over 8 hours on a charge and record the whole time. Worst case scenario they swap mid shift. They should not be able to chose when to switch it on or off.
It's also simply not practical to expect officers to know when something that needed to be recorded is about the happen. The whole point is that events escalate from routine to life threatening in seconds, expecting officers to stop and turn on their body cams before they respond to the life threatening situation is crazy.
Ok, so this is purely my impression, but I spend a lot of time in the states and even know a retired cop and I get the feeling that the US police (and a large portion of the population), tend to err on the side of the police protecting themselves, whereas over here in the UK, public opinion and police behaviour is much more on the civilians come first (even if they're criminals).
There is also a cultural attitude of "shoot 'em down" in the US, part of which must come from the frontier days, but I'm sure is enhanced by action movie mythology.
You can see this with the response to terrorism too; all through the Irish troubles we treated terrorists as criminals, to be caught and convicted. Once the US got involved, we suddenly have a "war" to fight.
Not making any comment on the morals, rights, wrongs or effectiveness of any of the above, just trying to highlight the difference in culture and attitude that I have personally seen.
Kanluwen wrote: There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.
With one foul swoop you've just removed judicial independence. I mean holy crap, do you know what the state can do if it can make juries afraid to give the verdicts it has honestly arrived at?
The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed
The modern world looks down on arbitrary punishment.
What would be consistent with modern ideas of justice would be to punish the offense each time, regardless of whether it coincided with a shooting or other major event. You would sanction and eventually fire officers who routinely hand in cameras with missing periods. Then, once you've built a culture where cameras are on throughout a shift, it becomes clear that any time officers turn off their cameras and something happens, you have reason to be suspicious of officer intent and be dubious of their statements on the event.
Start weeding out officers with excessive "sketchy" situations in their files.
The problem is that officers with long lists of complaints get that way because they're the officers with long lists of arrests and being active, committed policemen. Just arresting people will get some of them filing against you out of spite. The only way to avoid that is to be passive, not see crimes, not chase suspects down. And the problem is that we don't have a very good system of determining genuine complaints from terrible ones. So we default to this terrible metric of 'well he has lots of complaints against him therefore...', and you are looking to double down on that.
Can't rule out the role of psychiatric medications IFF the Somali was under treatment from psych doc.
Holy fething gak everyone just get a load of what got written. And people want to debate whether racism plays a role in justice for these shootings.
The guy came to the US as a child, went through US schools, and then joined a US police force. But people hear 'somali refugee' and start posting stuff about the IQ scores of people who are fully raised in the war torn country, as if that was relevant. And because that isn't enough, somehow it's more likely he's on medication because he came from Somalia decades ago.
Just wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: This is beyond scary what you are suggesting. You don't give up rights to a trial, period. If this was allowed, what would be the next thing people would be locked up without a trial for?
It's kind of fun to come up with scenarios where Kanluwen's new law becomes obviously ridiculous. Consider an officer's camera fails. It gets knocked, or gets wet, whatever. So the officer reports this, and is told to return to the station. On the return drive the officer witnesses a crime, stops his car and moves to the scene. A man approaches him with deadly force, and the officer shoots, killing the man. Apparently that officer is going to jail for a long time, without a fething trial, according to Kanluwen's law.
Hell, if his partner had a still working camera that showed the incident and showed it was a lawful shooting, then the officer would still be going to jail without a trial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: Ok, so this is purely my impression, but I spend a lot of time in the states and even know a retired cop and I get the feeling that the US police (and a large portion of the population), tend to err on the side of the police protecting themselves, whereas over here in the UK, public opinion and police behaviour is much more on the civilians come first (even if they're criminals).
There was a significant shift in policing strategies in the US in 60s and 70s. For a whole bunch of reasons the number of police deaths on the job spiked considerably. This led to a cultural change, special weapons police teams became more common, policing tactics shifted from engagement to situation control etc.
Police deaths plateaued and then declined slowly. Then along with all other major crime indicators police deaths started plummeting in the early 90s, and they haven't stopped falling ever since.
But police culture didn't shift back. And that culture has become embedded now, senior command grew up in those days of paranoia and high police deaths. Changing it back will be a herculean task.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm advocating for police to be actually held accountable for their actions.
I want to live in that world. I really do.
You can, just move to Sweden (or any of the other nordic countries I'd imagine)
We average less than 5 fatal shootings from police every year, and pretty much all of these shootings are more or less justified.
If a police here where to lethally shoot an unarmed person, they'd be fired within a day, prosecuted within a week, and most likely end up in jail within a month.
(Well maybe not that fast, but you get the idea.)
I think we've had 3 police shootings this year in the UK. One was the guy who ran at Parliament with a knife, and killed a cop before he was taken down. Another was the three guys in the London Bridge incident.
Worth also mentioning, *every* time someone dies as a result of the UK police force, there is a mandatory investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Jadenim wrote: You can see this with the response to terrorism too; all through the Irish troubles we treated terrorists as criminals, to be caught and convicted. Once the US got involved, we suddenly have a "war" to fight.
Not the best example you could hope to give for police restraint, especially with practices such as internment and police officers admitting that confessions were obtained by torture
Investigators probing the death of an Australian woman who was fatally shot by Minneapolis police officers over the weekend said Tuesday that the officers were “startled by a loud sound” near their patrol car right before the shooting.
The two officers were driving through an alley near the home of Justine Damond, 40, after she called 911 late Saturday to report a possible assault, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the state agency investigating the shooting. The officer who was driving the patrol car told investigators that right after the loud noise, Damond approached the car on his side. The officer who was in the passenger seat then fatally shot Damond through the driver’s side window, according to investigators.
The information released Tuesday marked the first account from one of the officers about what happened at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday in the upscale Minneapolis neighborhood, and it came as relatives of Damond have sharply criticized law enforcement officials for not revealing more about the shooting.
I hate to say it, but this is the type of situation that might actually get white, suburban people to start seriously talking about police shootings in a way BLM could never do.
The victim was a upscale, white woman who was basically a meditation and yoga instructor. You do not get more surburban/New Urban than that. She was the one who called the cops in the first place, and she was the one who wound up dead? Plus she was a white, blonde lady which the media usually frenzies over.
Maybe this will be the tipping point..... but most likely not.
Edit:
The story is also setting up the 'Black Guy" is the villain narrative, only this time it the officer and not the victim....
Noor currently has had three complaints filed against him with the city’s Office of Police Conduct Review, two of which are still open. The other complaint did not result in any disciplinary action, and any records regarding complaints are not made public unless an officer is disciplined.
He is also the subject of a lawsuit filed one day before Damond’s death. In that case, a woman is accusing Noor and two other Minneapolis police officers of forcing their way into her house, violently detaining her and taking her to a hospital against her will. The woman had called 911 multiple times and, at some point, was ordered to be involuntarily taken to the hospital and to be placed on a mental health hold, according to the complaint. The lawsuit, which is seeking $50,000 in damages, was filed in Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District Court on Friday.
Investigators probing the death of an Australian woman who was fatally shot by Minneapolis police officers over the weekend said Tuesday that the officers were “startled by a loud sound” near their patrol car right before the shooting.
The two officers were driving through an alley near the home of Justine Damond, 40, after she called 911 late Saturday to report a possible assault, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the state agency investigating the shooting. The officer who was driving the patrol car told investigators that right after the loud noise, Damond approached the car on his side. The officer who was in the passenger seat then fatally shot Damond through the driver’s side window, according to investigators.
The information released Tuesday marked the first account from one of the officers about what happened at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday in the upscale Minneapolis neighborhood, and it came as relatives of Damond have sharply criticized law enforcement officials for not revealing more about the shooting.
I hate to say it, but this is the type of situation that might actually get white, suburban people to start seriously talking about police shootings in a way BLM could never do.
The victim was a upscale, white woman who was basically a meditation and yoga instructor. You do not get more surburban/New Urban than that. She was the one who called the cops in the first place, and she was the one who wound up dead? Plus she was a white, blonde lady which the media usually frenzies over.
Maybe this will be the tipping point..... but most likely not.
Edit:
The story is also setting up the 'Black Guy" is the villain narrative, only this time it the officer and not the victim....
Noor currently has had three complaints filed against him with the city’s Office of Police Conduct Review, two of which are still open. The other complaint did not result in any disciplinary action, and any records regarding complaints are not made public unless an officer is disciplined.
He is also the subject of a lawsuit filed one day before Damond’s death. In that case, a woman is accusing Noor and two other Minneapolis police officers of forcing their way into her house, violently detaining her and taking her to a hospital against her will. The woman had called 911 multiple times and, at some point, was ordered to be involuntarily taken to the hospital and to be placed on a mental health hold, according to the complaint. The lawsuit, which is seeking $50,000 in damages, was filed in Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District Court on Friday.
The script has been flipped a bit this time.
That's one of the big issues that I see coming out from this.
It's nice to know that most people are at least somewhat consistent. If a cop shoots someone, the black person is bad and had a shady past.
He'll be convicted (as he should, and I wouldn't argue that he should get off for killing a white woman just because there are mostly not guilty verdicts for killing black men) and rather than seeing it as a different race-based standards for victims it will be hailed as some sort of proof that the blue line is fake and that police are held accountable and for everyone to please stop pretending black people are the victims of police shootings.
d-usa wrote: It's nice to know that most people are at least somewhat consistent. If a cop shoots someone, the black person is bad and had a shady past.
He'll be convicted (as he should, and I wouldn't argue that he should get off for killing a white woman just because there are mostly not guilty verdicts for killing black men) and rather than seeing it as a different race-based standards for victims it will be hailed as some sort of proof that the blue line is fake and that police are held accountable and for everyone to please stop pretending black people are the victims of police shootings.
Xenomancers wrote: This case is totally bizarre. Black Male Somali refugee shot white female Australian citizen in Minnesota?
Almost as bizarre as people attributing this to american racism - neather victim or shooter is an American.
There wasn't any racism in the shooting but some just popped up in this thread. You've just called a Somali refugee who came to the US as a kid, was schooled in the US, and joined a local police force not an American.
Unless he was naturalized, he isn't an American. That's not the point though. He screwed up and should be held accountable. That was my opinion before I knew his race
I do not know the screening methods used by every force, but I am sure they differ wildly. Without going into too much detail, I had a guy working for me in my reserve unit that tried to get on every police and sheriff force agency in our area, but always got kicked during the psych eval.
And, I always thought, "Good thing, because this guy is a total power hungry jerk and I would never recommend him to be an officer." For one instance, he wanted me to write a recommendation for him, since I was his department superior, but I politely refused.
However, my unit was full of cops, troopers and deputy sheriffs. Of every one of these fellows, there were good and bad certainly. The point being I am not sure if there will ever be a perfect and foolproof way to vet out those not suited for this line of work.
There are some police forces out there that have IQ limits. I believe one of the more common ranges are 80 to 110. Too high and you get bored with the job. I do have a problem with 80. That very close to literally being mentally handicapped. Not sure if I want those people armed.
Yes, I recall the thread. In which there was no evidence shown that indicated veterans were more likely to hurt people than non veterans in policing fields.
No evidence because there isn't enough data because despite our nation's obsessive habit for tabulating data on damn near every aspect of our lives we don't really keep close tabs on police shootings. Funny that. Also, the evidence shown in the article indicated that military applicants failed screenings at twice the rate of civilian candidates. Yet we still prioritize military candidates for hiring. That is troubling to me and backwards.
Bromsy wrote: Also, if police departments aren't equipped to handle PTSD are you also advocating that any police officer involved in even the most justified of shootings be immediately fired and never employed as a police officer again, since many of them also suffer from PTSD in dealing with those events?
No, and I question why you use "if" regarding police departments not being equipped to handle PTSD when the article clearly stated as much. But to answer your very baited question again, no. If an officer needs help from on duty trauma they should receive it. Perhaps they should be taken off the beat and placed in another role while they receive treatment, but I am not advocating firing.
What I am advocating is that we, as a society, stop prioritizing individuals for civilian policing based on their service as military personnel. Why are ex-military members desired as police? The usual answer is "their training" which is what exactly? To be soldiers. Police should not view civilians in the same lens as soldiers view enemy combatants. And if that class of applicant (ex-military) does demonstrate a higher percentage of failing screenings then at the very least they should stop being given preferential treatment during hiring.
Bromsy wrote: Furthermore, are you also advocating that somehow the vast majority of veterans, who do not suffer from PTSD should be barred from police service due to your unproven feelings that there is a link between PTSD and heightened levels of violence against innocent people by former military police officers?
And this is always where the conversation grinds to a halt because people automatically associate any--any --questioning of veterans health and ability with disparaging veterans in general.
So to be clear for you and everyone else reading:
No. I just don't want those veterans given priority for hiring because they served in the military. They can go through the screenings just like everyone else and get a job based on their merits, not given an advantage because they were in the armed forces.
Bromsy wrote: It appears to me that you have a 'feeling' that veterans are more prone to violence and are just going with that despite there not being any evidence. Should we ban Somali immigrants from being police officers? Apparently a statistically significant percentage of Somali immigrant police officers in Minnesota kill innocent people
This is bs. I have a "feeling" that something is wrong with the policing in the US. I am not alone in that. There is painfully little data in this area and that needs to change, but when evidence is presented, like in the article I quoted in the other thread, that data is hand waved away and straw man arguments of "hating veterans" or "seeing veterans as broken" are trotted out to muddy the conversation.
Police have poor training standards, plain and simple. Now it's going to vary from department to department, but overall it's pretty poor. Many recruit training programs begin with videos of police getting killed over and over. That's the first thing they see, police in the US are more or less taught that they are gonna die at any given moment and every traffic stop could be life or death. Then after that they aren't given the proper training to maintain even the slightest trigger discipline. Saw a guy killed by a sympathetic discharge when another officer fired his bean bag shot. Why did it happen because the officer with the real gun, a multi year veteran mind you had his finger on the trigger. That's a weapon safety violation. And yes there is a higher perceived danger from young black men (notice I said perceived not actual), which makes officers even more scared in those situations.
Remember training starts with video after video of cops getting killed.
Investigators probing the death of an Australian woman who was fatally shot by Minneapolis police officers over the weekend said Tuesday that the officers were “startled by a loud sound” near their patrol car right before the shooting.
The two officers were driving through an alley near the home of Justine Damond, 40, after she called 911 late Saturday to report a possible assault, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the state agency investigating the shooting. The officer who was driving the patrol car told investigators that right after the loud noise, Damond approached the car on his side. The officer who was in the passenger seat then fatally shot Damond through the driver’s side window, according to investigators.
The information released Tuesday marked the first account from one of the officers about what happened at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday in the upscale Minneapolis neighborhood, and it came as relatives of Damond have sharply criticized law enforcement officials for not revealing more about the shooting.
I hate to say it, but this is the type of situation that might actually get white, suburban people to start seriously talking about police shootings in a way BLM could never do.
The victim was a upscale, white woman who was basically a meditation and yoga instructor. You do not get more surburban/New Urban than that. She was the one who called the cops in the first place, and she was the one who wound up dead? Plus she was a white, blonde lady which the media usually frenzies over.
Maybe this will be the tipping point..... but most likely not.
That's just pathetic, tragic and sad. A loud noise wouldn't have been a problem if the officer had been practicing basic firearm safety. Rolling down an alley/street in a squad car looking for anything suspicious is not a reason to have your duty pistol in hand and your finger on the trigger. I highly doubt it's SOP for that department to have officers blast away from the car at something/someone they spot while patrolling.
Only point your gun at something you're prepared to shoot. Was there a visible target or threat to the officers? No. So the pistol should have stayed in the holster.
Always be sure of your target and what's behind it. There was no valid target so there was no reason to have the gun out and in hand.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you're prepared to shoot. There was nothing/nobody that needed to be shot so there was literally no valid reason for that officer to have his finger on the trigger.
There is no excuse for any armed professional to violate those rules and its especially egregious when a new cop, in the car with his mentor/partner is allowed to violate all 3 simultaneously.
Just so we are clear, Veterans with PTSD are less likely to commit violence than veterans who do not have PTSD. In fact of the veterans incarcerated for crimes the majority of them have never seen combat.
Let's put the a "combat vet with PTSD is ready to blow" myth to rest please. As there is more than enough data and studies to show it's utter nonsense.
At this rate I'm going to assume that US police training is third world level. As in absolutely woeful.
You'll never do it but at this rate I think you need to massively consolidate your police forces. All the gakky sheriff departments and small city forces need to be disbanded and the state police should take over. Only the largest cities should be allowed to retain their forces, and I only offer that as a compromise. Like literally cities with populations of more than 2 million. With this all done focus can be given to higher standards of training and accountability.
Future War Cultist wrote: At this rate I'm going to assume that US police training is third world level. As in absolutely woeful.
You'll never do it but at this rate I think you need to massively consolidate your police forces. All the gakky sheriff departments and small city forces need to be disbanded and the state police should take over. Only the largest cities should be allowed to retain their forces, and I only offer that as a compromise. Like literally cities with populations of more than 2 million. With this all done focus can be given to higher standards of training and accountability.
Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.
DrNo172000 wrote: Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.
You're absolutely right. Can't blame them either, since American police seem to have a weird obsession with collecting military grade armoured vehicles and weaponry. At least if it was centralised you could concentrate on making sure the standards are actually maintained. I think the problem is that all those piss head little departments really are a law to themselves.
Policing has long been a favored career choice for men and women who have enlisted in the armed forces.
Today just 6% of the population at large has served in the military, but 19% of police officers are veterans, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by Gregory B. Lewis and Rahul Pathak of Georgia State University for The Marshall Project. It is the third most common occupation for veterans behind truck driving and management.
The attraction is, in part, the result of a web of state and federal laws — some dating back to the late 19th century — that require law enforcement agencies to choose veterans over candidates with no military backgrounds.
Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.
The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Officers with a history of mental health problems — even those who have been treated and are now healthy — can pose a twofold problem for departments who hire them. First, their history can become a liability if the department is sued. Second, it can be used to attack their credibility on the stand if they’re called to testify.
That police forces are legally required to take these applicants over non-military background applicants is problematic, especially if those applicants are bringing other issues to the table.
Regarding the paper you cited, if I am understanding it correctly, the researchers are suggesting that impulsive anger (IA) should be a separate classification of aggressive behavior and that anger itself is not necessarily a predictor of PTSD. However, veterans reporting PTSD had a 70% rate of also having impulsive anger (IA).
Per your article (I removed the citation footnotes for clarity):
IA is conceptualized as an emotional, nearly spontaneous reaction to provocation among individuals with a “short fuse”; however, premeditated aggression lacks an emotional component and is a planned, “coldblooded” aggressive act carried out for a specific purpose. Convergent lines of evidence suggest that IA (as opposed to PM) may be a particular problem in individuals with PTSD. Various descriptions of dysregulation of anger and aggression are found in the PTSD literature and appear similar to IA. Stanford and colleagues proposed that in IA, sudden surges in arousal may induce emotional states that are difficult to control. The authors based this proposal on evidence of deficits in regulating physiological arousal among impulsive aggressors. As identified among individuals with IA, an inability to regulate an angry or hostile reaction is also a diagnostic criterion for PTSD. Chemtob and colleagues described deficits in regulation of arousal in conjunction with anger dyscontrol and loss of behavioral self-regulation in their subjects with aggression and PTSD. Additionally, individuals with IA appear to have cognitive deficits in domains involving executive functioning and language that resemble those found in PTSD. That said, IA is not simply the behavioral expression of an internal angry state; differential response to treatment has dissociated anger and aggressive acts, such that in one study, aggressive acts were reduced without an effect on levels of anger.
It is important to get better classifications to ensure proper treatment, but this study seems to indicate that veterans with PTSD report having IA at almost double the rate than those without PTSD.
So there are still aggression issues at play in the prioritized hiring pool for police departments. That disturbs me.
Policing has long been a favored career choice for men and women who have enlisted in the armed forces.
Today just 6% of the population at large has served in the military, but 19% of police officers are veterans, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by Gregory B. Lewis and Rahul Pathak of Georgia State University for The Marshall Project. It is the third most common occupation for veterans behind truck driving and management.
The attraction is, in part, the result of a web of state and federal laws — some dating back to the late 19th century — that require law enforcement agencies to choose veterans over candidates with no military backgrounds.
Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.
The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Officers with a history of mental health problems — even those who have been treated and are now healthy — can pose a twofold problem for departments who hire them. First, their history can become a liability if the department is sued. Second, it can be used to attack their credibility on the stand if they’re called to testify.
That police forces are legally required to take these applicants over non-military background applicants is problematic, especially if those applicants are bringing other issues to the table.
Regarding the paper you cited, if I am understanding it correctly, the researchers are suggesting that impulsive anger (IA) should be a separate classification of aggressive behavior and that anger itself is not necessarily a predictor of PTSD. However, veterans reporting PTSD had a 70% rate of also having impulsive anger (IA).
Per your article (I removed the citation footnotes for clarity):
IA is conceptualized as an emotional, nearly spontaneous reaction to provocation among individuals with a “short fuse”; however, premeditated aggression lacks an emotional component and is a planned, “coldblooded” aggressive act carried out for a specific purpose. Convergent lines of evidence suggest that IA (as opposed to PM) may be a particular problem in individuals with PTSD. Various descriptions of dysregulation of anger and aggression are found in the PTSD literature and appear similar to IA. Stanford and colleagues proposed that in IA, sudden surges in arousal may induce emotional states that are difficult to control. The authors based this proposal on evidence of deficits in regulating physiological arousal among impulsive aggressors. As identified among individuals with IA, an inability to regulate an angry or hostile reaction is also a diagnostic criterion for PTSD. Chemtob and colleagues described deficits in regulation of arousal in conjunction with anger dyscontrol and loss of behavioral self-regulation in their subjects with aggression and PTSD. Additionally, individuals with IA appear to have cognitive deficits in domains involving executive functioning and language that resemble those found in PTSD. That said, IA is not simply the behavioral expression of an internal angry state; differential response to treatment has dissociated anger and aggressive acts, such that in one study, aggressive acts were reduced without an effect on levels of anger.
It is important to get better classifications to ensure proper treatment, but this study seems to indicate that veterans with PTSD report having IA at almost double the rate than those without PTSD.
So there are still aggression issues at play in the prioritized hiring pool for police departments. That disturbs me.
Fair enough my apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. I'd argue though as a Vet with PTSD that I am better disciplined with my gun than almost every police officer who was a civilian before becoming an officer. Further I don't think impulsive aggression is the problem with police in the US. I firmly believe it is piss poor training. Which is why I bring up my own ability to handle a weapon and my belief that it's vastly superior to most cops. I also was not taught to be constantly afraid of dying like the police are in many departments. It's not aggression that's causing these police to kill people, it's fear combined with poor training. Contrast this with the fact that I a combat veteran and former infantry man have absolutely no fear of being shot at. Do I assess situations at times for how much threat there may be, sure, but that is to have a plan after the fact.
It is curious to me that when I was in Fallujah in 07 my ROE's were stricter than cops. I feared for my life wasn't good enough, not only did someone have to have a gun they had to point it at you and fire it before you could fire back. We followed this to the letter, otherwise we would have been landed ourselves in a military prison.
DrNo172000 wrote: I also was not taught to be constantly afraid of dying like the police are in many departments. It's not aggression that's causing these police to kill people, it's fear combined with poor training. Contrast this with the fact that I a combat veteran and former infantry man have absolutely no fear of being shot at. Do I assess situations at times for how much threat there may be, sure, but that is to have a plan after the fact.
It is curious to me that when I was in Fallujah in 07 my ROE's were stricter than cops. I feared for my life wasn't good enough, not only did someone have to have a gun they had to point it at you and fire it before you could fire back. We followed this to the letter, otherwise we would have been landed ourselves in a military prison.
You bring up good points here. And to clear up any confusion from my end, my concerns with aggression aren't just for bad shoots, but for police assaulting civilians for little or no reason (body slamming youth, elderly or compliant individuals for no reason).
I completely agree with your points about ROE, and fear. The ROE should be extremely strict for police. That NYPD can hit bystanders with crossfire and not face any penalties is atrocious in my opinion. When I have spoken with veteran friends about the limitations placed on them in a war zone that aren't in place here domestically for police... well I was shocked.
DrNo172000 wrote: I also was not taught to be constantly afraid of dying like the police are in many departments. It's not aggression that's causing these police to kill people, it's fear combined with poor training. Contrast this with the fact that I a combat veteran and former infantry man have absolutely no fear of being shot at. Do I assess situations at times for how much threat there may be, sure, but that is to have a plan after the fact.
It is curious to me that when I was in Fallujah in 07 my ROE's were stricter than cops. I feared for my life wasn't good enough, not only did someone have to have a gun they had to point it at you and fire it before you could fire back. We followed this to the letter, otherwise we would have been landed ourselves in a military prison.
You bring up good points here. And to clear up any confusion from my end, my concerns with aggression aren't just for bad shoots, but for police assaulting civilians for little or no reason (body slamming youth, elderly or compliant individuals for no reason).
I completely agree with your points about ROE, and fear. The ROE should be extremely strict for police. That NYPD can hit bystanders with crossfire and not face any penalties is atrocious in my opinion. When I have spoken with veteran friends about the limitations placed on them in a war zone that aren't in place here domestically for police... well I was shocked.
I understand the concern for aggression. For sure before I got treatment I would snap at my wife for the dumbest stuff. I never physically harmed her but I was pretty much an Ahole to her. It put a real strain on our marriage. I recognized I needed help, and I got, and I can say it's night and day in terms of how easy to anger I am. Now of course I'm not saying because I never got physically violent on an impulse that no veteran will. I am after all a statistic of one, just using my own experience to show my understanding of the concern. Many many veterans go without treatment, whether due to stigma both from society and fellow vets (that's the big one imo) or because it's just not accessible to them. Of course that's a whole other conversation. The question is do we trust the psych eval to weed out those who are either unaware they may be suffering or who may not choose to disclose it. I can tell you for the longest time I was incredibly embarrassed to say I have PTSD and didn't want to even believe my diagnosis. It's a real struggle.
So I see your point on Vets getting priority, but I think there's got to be a middle ground, because I think a lot of vets would make great police officers due to the training they've had and that training should be taken into consideration.
DrNo172000 wrote: Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.
You're absolutely right. Can't blame them either, since American police seem to have a weird obsession with collecting military grade armoured vehicles and weaponry. At least if it was centralised you could concentrate on making sure the standards are actually maintained. I think the problem is that all those piss head little departments really are a law to themselves.
Americans in general have a weird obsession with collecting weapons far beyond what they actually need. Which really feeds into the issue from both sides.
The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.
It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.
In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.
I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.
DrNo172000 wrote: Many many veterans go without treatment, whether due to stigma both from society and fellow vets (that's the big one imo) or because it's just not accessible to them. Of course that's a whole other conversation. The question is do we trust the psych eval to weed out those who are either unaware they may be suffering or who may not choose to disclose it. I can tell you for the longest time I was incredibly embarrassed to say I have PTSD and didn't want to even believe my diagnosis. It's a real struggle.
As someone who struggles with anger and depression (and who wouldn't be a good candidate for police work ) I entirely sympathize with the stigma placed on mental health. I avoided treatment for a decade because I didn't want to be classified as "crazy" and be ostracized by my family. Turns out it was my family and friends who were the most supportive and my fears were ultimately misplaced.
We have a long way to go in terms of not shaming people for seeking help with these ailments and for accepting that the brain is like any other organ in the body and it can go through periods of distress, chemical imbalance, and trauma which requires treatment. It doesn't mean the person is irreparably broken any more than someone with a bad liver isn't broken.
DrNo172000 wrote: So I see your point on Vets getting priority, but I think there's got to be a middle ground, because I think a lot of vets would make great police officers due to the training they've had and that training should be taken into consideration.
Agreed. I don't want veterans to not serve as police. Rather, I want the right applicants for the job serving regardless of their background. If a veteran is the best candidate awesome. If it is a non-veteran that is better for that particular position then awesome.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.
Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.
Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.
Good start. Were I am, three person patrols are common too. I don't know if you could do that but ironically this would be a good start towards a concentration on deescalation. A prep might be tempted to try their luck on one cop. Three cops might be too much. And again, more eyes means more security.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.
Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.
Good start. Were I am, three person patrols are common too. I don't know if you could do that but ironically this would be a good start towards a concentration on deescalation. A prep might be tempted to try their luck on one cop. Three cops might be too much. And again, more eyes means more security.
Beyond the obvious need for better training, I'd like to see more community patrolling. Not just beat cops, but actually getting out there and talking to people and building rapport. I'd also like to see local departments give preference to hiring from within the communities they police. The police need to start humanizing the people they are suppose to serve, not looking at them as potential criminals.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.
It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.
In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.
I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.
Not really. We have more states with Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws and more states issuing Concealed Carry Permits than ever before and violent crime is still on a multi decade downward trend and police officers dying in the line of duty is still a very rare event. While the US certainly has more guns and more lawfully armed citizens than countries like Sweden or England and has higher incidences of gun violence than those countries, compared to the US of a few decades ago (a far more accurate and fair comparison) the US today is demonstrably safer and less violent.
There is no data to support the claim that police officers are in an inordinate amount of danger that they have to assume that anyone they interact with is a lethal threat. That's an unsupportable and unreasonable position. The police patrol the same streets that the rest of us live on, work on and walk/drive on every single day they don't become more dangerous for the police, in fact an active police presence makes places more safe not more violent.
The officer in this incident is going to get in serious trouble and it's not because the victim was a white woman it's because there's literally no justification for this. There's no law or departmental policy about what constitutes resisting arrest, what a legal chokehold is, no transport procedures or reasonableness standard for the perception of ambiguous hand movements etc that can confuse a jury or shield the officer. This is just a straight negligent discharge that killed somebody. There's no departmental policy that instructs police officers to have their duty weapon drawn with their finger on the trigger and muzzle sweep the officer behind the wheel in the seat next to him while driving down a street in response to a 911 call about a possible rape/assault. That's incredibly unsafe and stupid behavior and there's literally no possible justification for it.
When a woman calls 911 twice to report a possible crime near her home and the police dispatch a car to investigate and the cops see a woman standing clearly visible when they arrive it's perfectly reasonable to believe that woman to be the person who called 911 and not be alarmed when she approached the car. It is completely unreasonable to have a gun drawn and your finger on the trigger when you arrive in response the unreasonable possibility that the woman standing there with the phone is about to spring an ambush on you and murder you and then accidentally shoot her when you hear a loud noise.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.
Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.
There were two police in the car. They still capped the lady who called in the crime...why?
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.
Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.
Good start. Were I am, three person patrols are common too. I don't know if you could do that but ironically this would be a good start towards a concentration on deescalation. A prep might be tempted to try their luck on one cop. Three cops might be too much. And again, more eyes means more security.
Beyond the obvious need for better training, I'd like to see more community patrolling. Not just beat cops, but actually getting out there and talking to people and building rapport. I'd also like to see local departments give preference to hiring from within the communities they police. The police need to start humanizing the people they are suppose to serve, not looking at them as potential criminals.
At this point, the risk of dying when talking to police officers appears to be problematic and might violate my life insurance policy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.
It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.
In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.
I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.
Sounds like the conversation is being steered from talking carefully about this incident and into political waters
"Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world. They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.”"
Again I fully believe the problem is they are trained to be afraid. Every stop could be your last, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six, blah blah blah. They way they are trained it's like they are going into a warzone and every citizen is out to get them. This is a failure of training, an absolute failure. And it comes from a disproportionate response to when an officer actually dies in the line of duty, which is fairly rare mind you. The response is always to make training more aggressive, make cops more afraid of traffic stops, more of afraid of the citizens they should be building relationships with instead.
I think that everytime a cop shoots dead a civilian who wasn't armed that cop should go to jail.
But I can say, and I don't want to sound racist, that if some man that looks like a gangster (black, latino, asiatic or white it doesn't matter) starts behave aggresively and ends up dead I can understand why such incident happened since America is a violent nation, full of criminals that don't hesitate to fire toward police. I can understand if in such occasions some cop fears for his/her life, but even if that feeling can be seen reasonable, when a cop kills an unarmed citizen that incident should be a manslaughter at least with an appropriate sentence.
This time it seems different, that cop shot dead a woman in pyjama!!!! Even if she was black there is nothing that can justify a reaction like that one. I believe the cop mistaken a phone for a gun but this cannot be seen in any way as justified. He should be jailed for a lenghty time.
What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?
well not so much puzzles as annoys me, not all police behave badly, in fact do believe it's the small minority that the police claim they are,
however what is clear is that the majority of officers are not willing to act fast enough against those that are behaving badly (let alone step forward and testify against them)
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?
Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?
Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?
I got nuth'n.
Anyhoo... just catching up to this ordeal.
This officer deserves to have the book thrown at him...
This case seems to me to be one of gross incompetence. My guess is the officer was nervous and had his firearm out, and due to lack of training and negligence accidentally discharged the firearm, striking and killing the woman.
The fact that he refuses to make any statement of the facts, whatever they may be, is tragic as well.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?
well not so much puzzles as annoys me, not all police behave badly, in fact do believe it's the small minority that the police claim they are,
however what is clear is that the majority of officers are not willing to act fast enough against those that are behaving badly (let alone step forward and testify against them)
So now the discussion has progressed from instant termination and jailing of the officer involved to summary execution.
How long before Dakka proposes that we burn their home and salt the earth where it once stood, and also put the progeny of the Officer to death?
Kilkrazy wrote: The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.
It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.
In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.
I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.
This is a wildly unrealistic and paranoid view of the US. The 2nd Amendment, Stand Your Ground,Castle Doctrine, and CCWs don't require that everyone operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation. That idea is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The United States is not the wild west as depicted in western films. For that matter, the actual wild west wasn't the wild west as depicted in western films. You are wrong if you think that everyone must operate under the expectation that "gunfire might erupt in almost any situation," and police officers who operate under that expectation are wrong as well. That doesn't mean that crazy things don't happen or danger doesn't exist, but the level of paranoia in a post like this is grossly exaggerated.
cuda1179 wrote: Unless he was naturalized, he isn't an American.
That's a very legalistic response.
That's not the point though. He screwed up and should be held accountable. That was my opinion before I knew his race
It wasn't the point, it was never the point, it was never going to be anything but a weird bit of xenophobia tacked on to the issue, but you posted it anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.
It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.
In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.
I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.
This is a wildly unrealistic and paranoid view of the US. The 2nd Amendment, Stand Your Ground,Castle Doctrine, and CCWs don't require that everyone operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation. That idea is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The United States is not the wild west as depicted in western films. For that matter, the actual wild west wasn't the wild west as depicted in western films. You are wrong if you think that everyone must operate under the expectation that "gunfire might erupt in almost any situation," and police officers who operate under that expectation are wrong as well. That doesn't mean that crazy things don't happen or danger doesn't exist, but the level of paranoia in a post like this is grossly exaggerated.
I wouldn't say everyone operates under the assumption that gunfire might erupt in any situation, but the police sure do. They're trained to be that paranoid that every second of every day and every encounter is life or death.
In any civilized country that cop would have been arrested on the spot and jailed. Probably convicted with manslaughter or even with harsher charges.
I really don't get why in the USA those killer cops usually walk free. It's not even a matter of protecting their own ones since those cops are getting fired anyway.
Blackie wrote: In any civilized country that cop would have been arrested on the spot and jailed. Probably convicted with manslaughter or even with harsher charges.
I really don't get why in the USA those killer cops usually walk free. It's not even a matter of protecting their own ones since those cops are getting fired anyway.
First off, it's kinda insulting that you are implying that the US isn't a civilized country.
Second, there are some good reasons why. One is that little legal concept called "Reasonable Doubt". Police have a high stress job dealing with the absolute worst people in society. And by virtue of that, they are inherently putting their lives at risk. More so in certain areas than others. You do have to consider that, if you were in that same position what would you do? If you have a job where every single day you have the possibility of getting attacked and killed just because of what your job is(there are people out there who vehemently hate police), you're always going to be a little on edge.
The US does train police to always be mindful of their surroundings and focus on their own personal safety, even to the point where it's bordering on obsessive paranoia. There are reasons for this. Several decades ago, there were events where officers got into dangerous situations and were woefully unprepared. Some FBI agents were tailing some bank robbery suspects, got into a shootout, and several agents were killed because they were both outgunned and didn't wait for backup(at the time officers only got issued pistols and the badguys had rifles). That incident was a tipping point in terms of both equipment for officers, as well as how officers acted when faced with potential danger. Instead of laughing off danger and ignoring it, they taught officers to always act as if they could potentially get shot by anybody. It's because there were a number of tragedies with police getting massacred because they weren't careful.
We don't train out police to be paranoid and twitchy for lulz. It's because in the past there were a lot of officers who got shot because they weren't careful and the public didn't like the idea of police being poorly equipped and trained.
Blackie wrote: In any civilized country that cop would have been arrested on the spot and jailed. Probably convicted with manslaughter or even with harsher charges.
Automatic arrest and sentencing decided without trial is pretty much the opposite of civilisation.
And failure to prosecute police for shootings is actually pretty common. What's unique in the US appears to be how frequently such shootings happen.
I really don't get why in the USA those killer cops usually walk free. It's not even a matter of protecting their own ones since those cops are getting fired anyway.
It isn't really an issue of cops protecting their own. The shootings are investigated, and they are brought before courts pretty regularly. The issue is that it rarely results in convictions, which speaks to a greater issue in society that people are unwilling to punish policemen for using deadly force on innocent people and minor criminals.
You get the police you deserve. If that passes for their training programme and the juries won't convict them when they do these things well, it'll never be fixed. Actually, maybe the former is leading to the latter. Maybe they won't convict them because they're only ollowing their training, even though said training basically boils down to shoot to kill on sight.
Probably because english isn't my own language I poorly argued before. I never meant to consider immediate sentencing of course, and I never suggested that the USA aren't civilized.
I wanted to say that in any civilized country a cop that shoots a lady in pyjama with no weapons is going to be arrested. And in circumstances like this one he will be later sentenced, after months or years since the incident happened. The fact that he refuses to talk is unacceptable too, he killed an innocent person and he cannot be at large only because he's a cop. If it's acceptable than someons shoots dead a woman that wasn't a threat and he's even free to remain silent about what happens and free I'm sorry but this behavior is not typical of civilized countries as it looks like wild wild west.
In any civilized country if a cop fears for his/her life but he/she actually made a mistake and kills someone in a scenario in which there weren't any real threats, that's murder or manslaughter.
Second, there are some good reasons why. One is that little legal concept called "Reasonable Doubt". Police have a high stress job dealing with the absolute worst people in society. And by virtue of that, they are inherently putting their lives at risk. More so in certain areas than others. You do have to consider that, if you were in that same position what would you do? If you have a job where every single day you have the possibility of getting attacked and killed just because of what your job is(there are people out there who vehemently hate police), you're always going to be a little on edge.
I understand that and I don't think he shot the lady intentionally. But if you kill someone for no reason you must take responsability and pay the consequences. Otherwise a cop could murder whoever he/she likes and walks free everytime just because he/she argued for "reasonable doubt". A woman in pyjama with a phone in her hand can't be considered reasonble doubt. In the same position I can assure you, I won't shoot to a lady that clearly doesn't look as a threat. In italy we have mafia mobsters and tons of violent illegals, but no way cops would fire weapons so often like in the USA. America is a great country but it has some issues that must be fixed, this is one of them. In a scenario of real reasonable doubt I tipycally side with the police but this is outrageous and it can't be justified in any possible way.
Being a cop, especially in violent nations, is tough, I understand that. But if someone makes a mistake that person should be punished. Granting immunity to cops' murders generates backlash, makes racism grows, let people shoot first towards the police in fear to get killed by cops for no reason, and even ambushes in which cops are really murdered becomes real. If innocent people killed by cops got any justice many of those issues wouldn't even exist.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?
Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?
Hey, he'd just shot an unarmed person and was still in possession of a firearm. For anyone but a police officer that would certainly put them in the bracket of "still a threat".
It's always interesting to see the difference in attitude towards certain topics between the Old World and those pesky Colonials
Future War Cultist wrote: You get the police you deserve. If that passes for their training programme and the juries won't convict them when they do these things well, it'll never be fixed. Actually, maybe the former is leading to the latter. Maybe they won't convict them because they're only ollowing their training, even though said training basically boils down to shoot to kill on sight.
Are we talking about the RUC again and their well documented uses of force and torture across Northern Ireland? Or how about Sergeant Lee Clegg? He not only had his murder conviction overturned for killing two car theives (after their vehicle has passed and was no longer a threat), but was then permitted to return to serve in Her Majesty's armed forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Probably because english isn't my own language I poorly argued before. I never meant to consider immediate sentencing of course, and I never suggested that the USA aren't civilized.
I wanted to say that in any civilized country a cop that shoots a lady in pyjama with no weapons is going to be arrested. And in circumstances like this one he will be later sentenced, after months or years since the incident happened. The fact that he refuses to talk is unacceptable too, he killed an innocent person and he cannot be at large only because he's a cop. If it's acceptable than someons shoots dead a woman that wasn't a threat and he's even free to remain silent about what happens and free I'm sorry but this behavior is not typical of civilized countries as it looks like wild wild west.
In any civilized country if a cop fears for his/her life but he/she actually made a mistake and kills someone in a scenario in which there weren't any real threats, that's murder or manslaughter.
Yeah... about that...
What happens in civilized countries is that we follow a process of laws. Sometimes this process takes a while, and there are multiple steps involved to ensure that all parties have a fair hearing. Part of that right to a fair hearing is the right to silence, a right that is present in both American and European jurisprudence. Of course reasonable inferences may be drawn from that silence, but this matter is still under investigation.
If you want to discuss the "wild wild west" or "uncivilized" behavior I suggest you look at the comments calling for police officers to be jailed immediately, if not executed on the spot, or juries suffering legal sanctions for returning the wrong verdict.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?
Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?
Hey, he'd just shot an unarmed person and was still in possession of a firearm. For anyone but a police officer that would certainly put them in the bracket of "still a threat".
The RUC hasn't existed since 2001. The things you described are why it no longer exists. You should look to the PSNI for how we do things now.
As for Sergeant Lee Clegg, he was a soldier operating in a place that could be described as a war zone. The car thieves ran straight through a check point. For all he knew those were IRA gunmen attempting a drive by shooting. I'm not justifying what he did, but it's all about context. He was tried and convicted but it was overturned when new evidence emerged. That's how the system works. What he did is a little different to a supposedly non military cop in the us shooting an unarmed person standing right in front of them dead just because they felt scared.
What happens in civilized countries is that we follow a process of laws.
A major component of this issue with policing in the US is that the process of law is failing. Police are being witnessed and recorded committing crimes that non-police individuals would be incarcerated for, and yet the officers are walking free. The system isn't working.
Future War Cultist wrote: The RUC hasn't existed since 2001. The things you described are why it no longer exists. You should look to the PSNI for how we do things now.
The sound of shifting goalposts when inconvenient facts come to light. I'm well aware of the PSNI, I have family serving in that organization. I grew up with both them and the RUC on active duty where I lived. Did the people of Northern Ireland "You get the police [they] deserve." when the RUC was in existence?
Future War Cultist wrote: As for Sergeant Lee Clegg, he was a soldier operating in a place that could be described as a war zone. The car thieves ran straight through a check point. For all he knew those were IRA gunmen attempting a drive by shooting. I'm not justifying what he did, but it's all about context. He was tried and convicted but it was overturned when new evidence emerged. That's how the system works. What he did is a little different to a supposedly non military cop in the us shooting an unarmed person standing right in front of them dead just because they felt scared.
You mean that there is a difference between shooting an unarmed member of the public standing on the other side of a police vehicle and shooting armed members of the public when they are driving away from you? How fine a distinction are you trying to draw here, because both scenarios involve members of the public who possess no threat to the individual who pulled the trigger.
It is interesting that you claim that the system works in this instance and make excuses for these killings, but are prepared to make sweeping statements in this case.
You know, your unnecessarily hostile attitude suggests to me that you're just looking for a fight and to be honest I can't be bothered to give you one.
All I'll say is this. With the issues of race and firearms that underline American society, it's no wonder that US police go out there half expecting the first traffic stop of the day to be fatal. The narrative is, scary black people with guns are everywhere and you have to kill them before they kill you. These parts of American society are why your police are so poor, and because nothing is being done to resolve them things will continue as they are. Since America won't address these issues, they get the police they deserve.
As for Northern Ireland, we had the exact same issues, with the difference being that it was spilt along reglious and political lines. You had the unionist Protestant population largely believing that it was only a matter of time before the Catholics ended British rule and destroyed their way of life, ergo they must be repressed at all costs. That and a little bit of supremist triumphalism. And this came to be reflected in the RUC, who were sectarian scumbags to the extreme. feth me the B specials and the UVF were pretty much one and the same. Since the loyalist mentality created this situation, they got the police they deserved.
Then we had a long and bloody fight over it and now that attitude has changed. It's not perfect but we're working on correcting the mistakes of the past and that is reflected in the PSNI. Northern Ireland gets the police it deserves.
I'm typing this out on a phone that's near out of juice so apologies if I'm talking up the left.
EDIT: Actually get the police they deserve is the wrong way to put it. Police are a reflection of their societies. Ours used to be sectarian just as our wider society was sectarian, and now they're better, reflecting our better present day society that only came about as the result of decades of fighting. Your police are always frightened by the threat of people with guns, especially if they're black. You can't create better police whilst that major underlining issue is unresolved. I just hope it doesn't take another civil war to do it.
Future War Cultist wrote: You know, your unnecessarily hostile attitude suggests to me that you're just looking for a fight and to be honest I can't be bothered to give you one.
No attitude from me. I would consider some of your remarks hostile "third word, "weird obsession"), but nothing of mine has been hostile.
Future War Cultist wrote: All I'll say is this. With the issues of race and firearms that underline American society, it's no wonder that US police go out there half expecting the first traffic stop of the day to be fatal. The narrative is, scary black people with guns are everywhere and you have to kill them before they kill you. These parts of American society are why your police are so poor, and because nothing is being done to resolve them things will continue as they are. Since America won't address these issues, they get the police they deserve.
So a white Australian woman was shot by a Somali-American police officer because of "scary black people"?
What is the narrative that lead to UK Police shooting James Ashley, who was naked and unarmed? Those Police were not convicted of murder or manslaughter, and continued to serve as policemen. Was Mark Duggan a "scary black [person]" when he was shot while running away from British armed police and he was not armed and the officers involved then lied about him having a firearm that was 14 foot away and over a fence?
Is that the police force that the UK deserves? One that kills the unarmed and then lies about it?
Future War Cultist wrote: As for Northern Ireland, we had the exact same issues, with the difference being that it was spilt along reglious and political lines. You had the unionist Protestant population largely believing that it was only a matter of time before the Catholics ended British rule and destroyed their way of life, ergo they must be repressed at all costs. That and a little bit of supremist triumphalism. And this came to be reflected in the RUC, who were sectarian scumbags to the extreme. feth me the B specials and the UVF were pretty much one and the same. Since the loyalist mentality created this situation, they got the police they deserved.
Then we had a long and bloody fight over it and now that attitude has changed. It's not perfect but we're working on correcting the mistakes of the past and that is reflected in the PSNI. Northern Ireland gets the police it deserves.
I'm typing this out on a phone that's near out of juice so apologies if I'm talking up the left.
I grew up in Northern Ireland. I am more than well aware of it's history. So the Loyalists got the police they deserved, what about the Catholics?
Future War Cultist wrote: EDIT: Actually get the police they deserve is the wrong way to put it. Police are a reflection of their societies. Ours used to be sectarian just as our wider society was sectarian, and now they're better, reflecting our better present day society that only came about as the result of decades of fighting. Your police are always frightened by the threat of people with guns, especially if they're black. You can't create better police whilst that major underlining issue is unresolved. I just hope it doesn't take another civil war to do it.
Talk of another US Civil War is asinine. The major issue fueling crime in the United States is the War on Drugs, and the law enforcement centered around this.
Blackie wrote: ... Several decades ago, there were events where officers got into dangerous situations and were woefully unprepared. Some FBI agents were tailing some bank robbery suspects, got into a shootout, and several agents were killed because they were both outgunned and didn't wait for backup(at the time officers only got issued pistols and the badguys had rifles). That incident was a tipping point in terms of both equipment for officers, as well as how officers acted when faced with potential danger.
Ugh, the North Hollywood CA shootout. I worked in that Laurel Plaza shopping center... Thankfully, not working during the actual event. The police literally were barging into nearby gun shops to get AR-15s to try and level the field. This was the incident that made local police forces carry these weapons, since the bad guys had it (and body armor, too.) However, this is a bit off point...
Also, do not confuse him not making a statement meaning he is not talking. The police simply do not need to tell us what he said. Oh, he was grilled plenty by an internal investigation, but those comments are not for public view, unless the police decide to release. He is under no obligation to make any public comments, just as any other citizen would not be. i am sure at some point a statement will be released by the police - it is just that the longer it takes for them to do so, the stinkier it gets.
And, one last point... As history has already taught us about the police in America along racial lines, there is no way I can see this coming out good in the end:
Scenario #1 - Cop gets convicted and jailed - Race riots because you convict a black cop when a white woman is killed, but not when a white cop kills a black teen, etc.
Scenario #2 - Cop is not guilty - General riots over continued police brutality and unacceptable and inappropriate lethal force.
Really, does anyone else see this ending any other way beyond just waiting so long that people might forget and move onto some other national crisis???
MDSW wrote: And, one last point... As history has already taught us about the police in America along racial lines, there is no way I can see this coming out good in the end:
Scenario #1 - Cop gets convicted and jailed - Race riots because you convict a black cop when a white woman is killed, but not when a white cop kills a black teen, etc.
Scenario #2 - Cop is not guilty - General riots over continued police brutality and unacceptable and inappropriate lethal force.
Really, does anyone else see this ending any other way beyond just waiting so long that people might forget and move onto some other national crisis???
We will have more shooting incidents before this gets resolved, and some people will lose track of this story. The fact that the victim is Australian may help keep it fresh in people's minds even if the legal proceedings drag out, but I agree, no matter how this turns out there will be unrest.
A country where members of police departments EVERYWHERE can get away with murdering civilians at the rate we have in this country cannot consider itself civilized. We are becoming more barbaric in this manner, and others.
If you are offended by this statement, then you need to grow up. While I believe this country has good qualities, these types of situations are clear indications that much improvement is needed.
What happens in civilized countries is that we follow a process of laws. Sometimes this process takes a while, and there are multiple steps involved to ensure that all parties have a fair hearing. Part of that right to a fair hearing is the right to silence, a right that is present in both American and European jurisprudence. Of course reasonable inferences may be drawn from that silence, but this matter is still under investigation.
If you want to discuss the "wild wild west" or "uncivilized" behavior I suggest you look at the comments calling for police officers to be jailed immediately, if not executed on the spot, or juries suffering legal sanctions for returning the wrong verdict.
What I meant to say is that an officer shoots down a civilian that wasn't a real threat but only beacause he heard a loud sound and the trial confirms that, that officer must be jailed. I'm not pro executions or sentences without trials of course, but if the scenario will be confirmed there's nothing that can justify that shooting in a civilized country.
The fact that he's remaining silent cannot be understood from outside, in my country he would have been questioned the same night. If you kill a civilian and refuse to tell the reason you should be put under arrest.
Even the police chief admitted "I believe the actions in question go against who we are as a department, how we train and the expectations we have for our officers", even with the matter under investigation.
Scenario #1 - Cop gets convicted and jailed - Race riots because you convict a black cop when a white woman is killed, but not when a white cop kills a black teen, etc.
Scenario #2 - Cop is not guilty - General riots over continued police brutality and unacceptable and inappropriate lethal force.
But this case could be important for both sides. Even Black Lives Matters backed up the family of the deceased woman while Blue Lives Matters activists are silent. A conviction for this cop may lead to some justice for future black people wrongly killed by the cops or even some changes in the police training. That's why I believe scenario 1 is a bit pessimistic.
Scenario 2 instead includes racial anger against immigrants, muslims and general black people since the cop is a somali. If the cop walks free I agree on what you listed, the problem that causes lots of innocents to lose their lives continues to grow.
In the UK any officer shooting someone is immediately taken off duty for investigation, regardless of how rightful his decsion was under the circumstances. In the US, it seems there is a resistance to investigate until there's pressure brought to bare through evidence or public outcry. Investigations are not proactive or automatic.
Frankly what this policeman did was very dangerous for everyone, not just the victim. Firing across someone's lap aiming through the door in a car is likely to hit their partner in the legs or chest, or miss/deflect and hit a bystander or something other than the target. It's incredibly irresponsible in all but a last resort. Clearly this incident doesn't meet those criteria.
The fact this cop already had problems shows he should not have been a cop still what really bugs me is the main stream news is ignoring it for the most part (did a fast look up of cop kills unarmed woman and most of it is from news sites I never heard of and seem to stress what his name is (aka his religion))
Howard A Treesong wrote: In the UK any officer shooting someone is immediately taken off duty for investigation, regardless of how rightful his decsion was under the circumstances. In the US, it seems there is a resistance to investigate until there's pressure brought to bare through evidence or public outcry. Investigations are not proactive or automatic.
Most departments in the US do exactly what you are saying the UK does. Do you really think that unless there is public outcry and a big deal is made SOP for police over here is to have an officer who shot someone out on the streets patrolling the next day?
Administrative leave after a shooting and internal investigation is the norm. In MN, an outside investigation is conduct by hte Bureau of Criminal Apprehension which is a MN state agency similar to the FBI for the state, as well as Internal Affairs for the department in question.
cuda1179 wrote: Unless he was naturalized, he isn't an American.
That's a very legalistic response.
That's not the point though. He screwed up and should be held accountable. That was my opinion before I knew his race
It wasn't the point, it was never the point, it was never going to be anything but a weird bit of xenophobia tacked on to the issue, but you posted it anyway.
I misinterpreted the Somali mans time in the US. I didn't realize the man had lived here as long as he did. I was wrong to say he wasn't an American. He was a rookie though and clearly he was in the wrong. Race had nothing to do with this shooting though. So why are we talking about it?
Blackie wrote: What I meant to say is that an officer shoots down a civilian that wasn't a real threat but only beacause he heard a loud sound and the trial confirms that, that officer must be jailed. I'm not pro executions or sentences without trials of course, but if the scenario will be confirmed there's nothing that can justify that shooting in a civilized country.
Are we at least waiting for the investigation to conclude and any trial to reach judgement?
Howard A Treesong wrote: In the UK any officer shooting someone is immediately taken off duty for investigation, regardless of how rightful his decsion was under the circumstances. In the US, it seems there is a resistance to investigate until there's pressure brought to bare through evidence or public outcry. Investigations are not proactive or automatic.
Same policies exist in the US as the UK with Officers involved in shootings, especially contentious ones, being taken off duty.
cuda1179 wrote: Unless he was naturalized, he isn't an American.
That's a very legalistic response.
That's not the point though. He screwed up and should be held accountable. That was my opinion before I knew his race
It wasn't the point, it was never the point, it was never going to be anything but a weird bit of xenophobia tacked on to the issue, but you posted it anyway.
It's a legalistic response, but it is also an accurate response. I seriously don't understand how people think someone is an American simply because they have lived here a certain amount of time. If I lived in Canada for a decade I wouldn't be considered Canadian. What I posted wasn't "xenophobia" tact on by me. It was insinuated earlier in the thread that many would "blame the black guy". I was just pointing out that I formed my views before knowing race.
Nationality is a social construct. It is defined by legal points, personal feeling, the attitude of onlookers, and childhood socialisation.
My brother, born and bred in Ealing, has US citizenship. His wife, born and bred in Rochester New York, has British citizenship. Their children, born and bred in Eugene, Oregon have US and British citizenship, and have grown up entirely American.
How will they think of themselves when adults? How will their friends think of them? What if they move back to the UK? How will people here think of them?
Xenomancers wrote: I misinterpreted the Somali mans time in the US. I didn't realize the man had lived here as long as he did. I was wrong to say he wasn't an American.
Cool. Credit it to you for owning up to making a mistake.
He was a rookie though and clearly he was in the wrong. Race had nothing to do with this shooting though. So why are we talking about it?
Dunno. I only responded when other people brought it race. I don't see how it plays any part in the story.
cuda1179 wrote: It's a legalistic response, but it is also an accurate response. I seriously don't understand how people think someone is an American simply because they have lived here a certain amount of time. If I lived in Canada for a decade I wouldn't be considered Canadian.
I think it's plainly ridiculous that a person brought to a country as a child andwho spent their formative and adult years in that country could be thought of as anything but a product of that country. You are right that their exact legal definition might not reflect their upbringing, but we all know the law is bureaucratic and relies on form and process, not the reality of someone's experience. Hence my statement that your answer was legalistic.
What I posted wasn't "xenophobia" tact on by me. It was insinuated earlier in the thread that many would "blame the black guy". I was just pointing out that I formed my views before knowing race.
The xenophobia doesn't come from anyone's judgement of the case, but in thinking that his origin has any real relevance to the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think race is a factor in the story in itself, but it's certainly a factor in the way the story is interpreted by society at large.
It can be argued that everything in the USA is liable to be dragged by an undercurrent of racial awareness.
That's fair. I guess it is the difference between commenting on racial factors playing in to a case, and posting the actual racist arguments themselves. I'm not saying xenomancers or cuda were posting racial stuff - they weren't. But there was also that guy who posted that thing about Somalis having IQs in the 60s as if that meant anything about the capabilities of a Somali refugee raised in the US. I mean god damn that was racist.
sebster wrote: [
The xenophobia doesn't come from anyone's judgement of the case, but in thinking that his origin has any real relevance to the story.
I'm not saying xenomancers or cuda were posting racial stuff - they weren't. But there was also that guy who posted that thing about Somalis having IQs in the 60s as if that meant anything about the capabilities of a Somali refugee raised in the US. I mean god damn that was racist.
Thanks for clarifying a little. I thought you were calling me out for bringing up this guy's origin. I didn't, and tried to make it clear I made an opinion before knowing his origin, thus it was not relevant. As for IQ tests, they are basically nonsense anyway, and only partially able to predict intelligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looks like there is new information on this case. The officer in question said that he was startled by the woman and feared for his life and that of his partner. He also feel other officers and the department are basically serving him up as a sacrificial lamb.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, it is him admitting it wasn't an accidental discharge, which some people, even the media, were thinking it might be.
No one really thought it was an accidental discharge. His only way to escape jail is to prove that the woman could be perceived as a reasonable threat. He clearly shot her because he mistaken her for something that wasn't real. Seriously, in the USA is a cop allowed to walk away if he says that he feared for his life even if there weren't any real threats? In italy if a cop believes that he was in danger and kills someone but he actually had mistaken the situation, he goes to jail. He walks away only if the threat was real.
His lawyer is already trying to blame her, saying that "it would be nice to know if she assumed drugs". Not interesting, relevant or helpful for the case, he said nice. He later rejected the statement but everytime someone is murdered by the police the cop's lawyer starts blaming the victim. It also happens in my country even if the excessive use of deadly force here never comes to a shooting.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?
Are you asking why the partner didn't summarily execute his partner, who was no longer a threat, after the incident?
Hey, he'd just shot an unarmed person and was still in possession of a firearm. For anyone but a police officer that would certainly put them in the bracket of "still a threat".
Hah. Well, you're not wrong.
I read this, and then I read it again, and then I started laughing until tears streamed down my eyes. I wish I would have seen this thread earlier.
If these people didn't act like criminals, they wouldn't be dead. She was probably going for the officer's gun in a nether out haze. Is there a site to donate to this officer and his family? His life is ruined, how is he how is he going to find other employment after the media slanders our boys in blue like they always do?
Blackie wrote: Seriously, in the USA is a cop allowed to walk away if he says that he feared for his life even if there weren't any real threats? In italy if a cop believes that he was in danger and kills someone but he actually had mistaken the situation, he goes to jail. He walks away only if the threat was real.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, it is him admitting it wasn't an accidental discharge, which some people, even the media, were thinking it might be.
An accidental discharge is possible, certainly, however it would require the policeman to have his gun loaded and cocked, safety off, and either in his hand or pulled quickly from the holster.
Why did he feel the need to have his gun ready like that?
pelicaniforce wrote: If these people didn't act like criminals, they wouldn't be dead. She was probably going for the officer's gun in a nether out haze. Is there a site to donate to this officer and his family? His life is ruined, how is he how is he going to find other employment after the media slanders our boys in blue like they always do?
cuda1179 wrote: Well, it is him admitting it wasn't an accidental discharge, which some people, even the media, were thinking it might be.
An accidental discharge is possible, certainly, however it would require the policeman to have his gun loaded and cocked, safety off, and either in his hand or pulled quickly from the holster.
Why did he feel the need to have his gun ready like that?
Not to be that guy on a couple of counts, but it would be a negligent discharge, not an accidental discharge.
Also, while the Minneapolis police apparently have a choice between six approved duty pistols, none of them are equipped with an external safety except for the Beretta, and Glocks are the most popular choice. So if there's a round in the chamber - and I don't know a cop in the country that doesn't carry with a round in the chamber - the gun's ready to go, no cocking or safety manipulation needed.
Not having a safety catch isn't an issue - unlike rifles, pistols are holstered when not in use so there's generally little need. Going around with one in the spout when you aren't in a threatening situation? Bonkers.
Kilkrazy wrote: An accidental discharge is possible, certainly, however it would require the policeman to have his gun loaded and cocked, safety off, and either in his hand or pulled quickly from the holster.
Why did he feel the need to have his gun ready like that?
For this to be an accidental discharge you also have to consider the chain of events in which he pulled his firearm from his holster, and in a patrol vehicle (and across his partner), pulled the trigger. There are a lot of steps in thus accident
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.
Why?
Because most modern striker fired pistols, such as the ubiquitous Glock, do not have a "safety catch" but many of them have a safety blade in the trigger. Glocks are used by many police forces across the globe, including the UK police.
Kilkrazy wrote: As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.
That's not a great response - our cops don't carry guns except for the ones that do?
Our armed police and military both have pistols that don't have dedicated safety catches. As Dreadclaw rightly points out they have a trigger integrated safety bar. It's just not a great argument to go after.
What is of more interest is how his defense argument holds up. The automatic response is "my actions were reasonable and proportionate" as this is the training. He can claim his actions were reasonable based on his belief of the threat and so proportionate. The proportionate bit is difficult to argue against. The question is how well he can argue (or more correctly how well can a prosecution argue against) his actions being reasonable. If he walks on this then that gives the impression of carte blanche for anybody to walk away from any bad shoot where someone bottles their nerve - could be quite scary.
Sorry Dreadclaw, but those are certainly not definitive on the matter. Especially not when I read something like...
And they have heard stories about people who have accidentally shot themselves. Well, let me let you in on a little secret ... those are not accidents. They are nearly always a case of negligence
As soon as I read something as ignorant as that I know the person is not to be trusted in relation to gun safety.
AdeptSister wrote: So the Minneapolis Police Chief just resigned, using this as the reason. This is going to get interesting.
Yes, there was pressure from the Minneapolis city council and the mayor asked her to resign. The chief decided to tender her resignation and it was accepted by the mayor.
Sorry Dreadclaw, but those are certainly not definitive on the matter. Especially not when I read something like...
And they have heard stories about people who have accidentally shot themselves. Well, let me let you in on a little secret ... those are not accidents. They are nearly always a case of negligence
As soon as I read something as ignorant as that I know the person is not to be trusted in relation to gun safety.
Here is the rest of the point being made; "They are nearly always a case of negligence—that is, someone fooling with the pistol and causing the trigger to be depressed when they didn't intend for it to be."
It is a perfectly reasonable distinction. If a firearm discharges because of a mechanical fault with the firearm then that is an accident as it is unexpected and unintended. If a firearm discharges because someone pulled the trigger on a loaded gun without ensuring that the weapon was clear then that is negligence. In short was the consequence of the action foreseeable.
This is however an interesting sidebar in that most departments Officers will not be instructed to carry on a loaded chamber as it greatly reduces the utility of their sidearm. Attempting to rack a slide to chamber a round when confronted with danger is a distraction at best. When you factor in other circumstances (rapidly advancing assailant, adrenaline dump, non-dominant hand being used for something else like shining a flashlight, etc.) the pistol has done from a valuable self defense tool to a paperweight
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Here is the rest of the point being made; "They are nearly always a case of negligence—that is, someone fooling with the pistol and causing the trigger to be depressed when they didn't intend for it to be."
I read that. It remains ignorant. I reduced the quote for brevity, rather than that this extra bit alleviated the foolishness of the sentiment.
Your point about department policy on carrying a round loaded was something I did consider earlier, though I confess to being completely ignorant about myself. Is it common, or even a procedure used by the majority?
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.
Why?
The lack of a traditional safety selector is an intended feature and does not diminish the safety of the firearm. Like many modern pistols, Glocks have a actuator in the trigger that must be depressed before the trigger can be engaged, and this serves the same purpose. Glocks are not less safe than other firearms, and in fact with an internal drop safety are safer than older firearms without this feature.
So far as "why do American police carry loaded guns", it's because America has a awful lot of firearms and police need to presuppose that criminals have a very good chance of having a gun as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.
Why?
The lack of a traditional safety selector is an intended feature and does not diminish the safety of the firearm. Like many modern pistols, Glocks have a actuator in the trigger that must be depressed before the trigger can be engaged, and this serves the same purpose. Glocks are not less safe than other firearms, and in fact with an internal drop safety are safer than older firearms without this feature.
So far as "why do American police carry loaded guns", it's because America has a awful lot of firearms and police need to presuppose that criminals have a very good chance of having a gun as well.
My XD-9 doesn't have a traditional safety switch. You know what does? My service M-9. When wearing it, it's maybe a 50/50 if the safety is accidentally knocked to fire because I brush up against something. That's impossible to do with my XD-9.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.
Why?
Because we are a country that has a major organized crime problem. Groups like Black Lives Matter who have popular chants about killing police officers. A major gang culture that is present in just about any urban environment which trains it's members in criminal pursuits, including violent confrontation with cops. etc...
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.
Why?
Because we are a country that has a major organized crime problem. Groups like Black Lives Matter who have popular chants about killing police officers. A major gang culture that is present in just about any urban environment which trains it's members in criminal pursuits, including violent confrontation with cops. etc...
you spend way to much time watching fox news, the originators of fake news. I know the chant you're talking about and it was edited.
when it comes to BLM you have to ask, do they have a valid point? They sure do. There's nothing scarier to a paranoid police force than a unarmed black man.
Kilkrazy wrote: As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.
Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?
Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?
Armed Response Units are not ordinary officers. They're not the police patrolling the streets and responding to calls. They're called when something is escalated. So the situation of a trigger happy rookie in a dark alleyway shooting a woman in her pajamas doesn't happen.
Frazzled wrote: Canadian,German and French officers carry firearms. This is becoming anti American trolling.
When a copper from one of those countries shoots and kills an unarmed Aussie in her pjs then I'm sure those countries will become more involved in this thread. However, until they do, I'd say it isn't so much anti-American trolling as a continued disbelief as to how that happens in a country and how a large chunk of the population in it can still jam their fingers in their ears and scream "nah nah mate it's all good".
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.
Why?
Probably because an unloaded gun isn't good for much. Others have explained to you why a 1911-style external safety is not the necessity that people unfamiliar with firearms believe it to be.
Henry wrote: Is that the current politically correct euphemism for being unsafe?
"No sir, I wasn't being unsafe. I was removing the need for safety manipulation."
No, it's the plain-speaking way of referring to toggling the safety.
Kilkrazy wrote: As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.
Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?
Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?...
I am making that argument.
As you will see from the government statistics on police in the UK armed police are a small proportion of the total number. They are the special units required for duties such as anti-terrorism or protection of VIPs.
It is completely different to the USA, where apparently it's routine for all police to go around armed on patrol.
To argue about whether the pistol has one type of safety mechanism or another, is as pointless as to argue about whether it was 9mm or 10mm calibre, or a 12 round or 15 round magazine. Those technical details are irrelevant to the question of why US police feel a need to be so ready with their weapons.
The problem aren't the specific guns used by american cops, the absence of safety catch is irrelevant. Many other police forces around the world use the same weapons but don't gun down random people with the same american rate.
The fact that a cop can walk free even if the threat was not real is absolutely scary. If a cop make a mistake like this one that's manslaughter or even murder.
If you are in doubt you MUST NOT shoot. The american police thinks about the opposite which is wrong if not abhorrent.
Being a cop is a dangerous workthat implies putting your life at risk for the safety of the community, you have to accept that if you want to pursue that career. Shooting towards people is a big deal, you must be certain of the threat, you can't shoot towards the unknown because you heard a suspicious sound or you have seen a shadow.
Allowing cops to kill innocent people without the presence of real threats is not part of the american culture, or at least I hope it's not. This is an issue that must be fixed not something that must be upheld, and addressing that it's certainly more pro america rather than anti america. Because a country in which people are not killed for no reason it's a better country.
AdeptSister wrote: So the Minneapolis Police Chief just resigned, using this as the reason. This is going to get interesting.
Yes, there was pressure from the Minneapolis city council and the mayor asked her to resign. The chief decided to tender her resignation and it was accepted by the mayor.
What it's really interested is knowing if she was forced to resign because another innocent citizen was murdered by the police or because she criticized that cop using uncommon harsh words against him without listening his version yet.
cuda1179 wrote: Thanks for clarifying a little. I thought you were calling me out for bringing up this guy's origin. I didn't, and tried to make it clear I made an opinion before knowing his origin, thus it was not relevant.
I'll be honest I can't remember if I realised at the time that you weren't the original commentator, that might have played a part, but I'm not sure. Anyhow, my intent wasn't to call you or Xenomancers racist, but just to point out the assumption that his Somali origin meant he was new to the country and that played some role in this event was mistaken.
As for IQ tests, they are basically nonsense anyway, and only partially able to predict intelligence.
They're very good at testing your ability to take IQ tests, but not much else. But even with the problems of the tests ignored, obviously low scores by people in Somalia will come largely from the low standard of education in Somalia, something that wouldn't affect someone who's grown up in the US from an early age. Which that other poster ignored for, you know, reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: In italy if a cop believes that he was in danger and kills someone but he actually had mistaken the situation, he goes to jail. He walks away only if the threat was real.
Are you absolutely certain of that? I don't know of any jurisdiction where there isn't some kind of reasonable person test for the threat perception. Courts are normally uncomfortable with punishing people who took reasonable actions that most people would take, that just happened to be wrong. There typically needs to be some demonstration that the officer's assessment was faulty or negligent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: An accidental discharge is possible, certainly, however it would require the policeman to have his gun loaded and cocked, safety off, and either in his hand or pulled quickly from the holster.
Why did he feel the need to have his gun ready like that?
If the officer felt there was a dangerous situation, why hadn't he got out of the car? Strolling down the road locked and loaded seems amazingly blase.
Dreadwinter wrote: Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?
This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.
Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.
What they say? So, not what they actually do then?
Oh, and there were actually a few cops who got shot too. Those 2 in New York who a guy shot in retaliation for police misconduct across the country.
Seriously. BLM is a whacked out group that really shouldn't get any support from the mainstream just because of their racist behavior and calls(which have been heeded) for killing cops.
Dreadwinter wrote: Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?
This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.
Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.
What they say? So, not what they actually do then?
Oh, and there were actually a few cops who got shot too. Those 2 in New York who a guy shot in retaliation for police misconduct across the country.
Seriously. BLM is a whacked out group that really shouldn't get any support from the mainstream just because of their racist behavior and calls(which have been heeded) for killing cops.
Evidence that the man who shot the cops did it because of what some people in the very loose BLM movement said rather than anger unrelated to anything said by them? It is, after all, possible to be aware of police misconduct across the USA and being angry about it without needing to listen to BLM spokespeople. Most of those in this thread, for example.
Henry wrote: That's not a great response - our cops don't carry guns except for the ones that do?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?
You're both being deliberately obtuse, in the exact same way. That says something about something.
Anyhow, there is a big difference between police officers approaching all situations with a round in the chamber as a matter of course, and a police force where only in high risk situations will officers deploy with firearms.
I'm not making any comment on whether it is better or worse that British cops don't carry. I live in a country where all cops carry pistols, like most countries. And none of the countries with armed cops seems to have the issue with police shootings that the US seems to. So it probably isn't as simple as just being about cops carrying.
But I've gotta comment when you both make an argument so obviously weak. I mean seriously, what's going on? Did you really just not consider at all the difference between routine carry and specific incident carry? Or were you looking to score points, and making an argument you thought you could get away with?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Because we are a country that has a major organized crime problem. Groups like Black Lives Matter who have popular chants about killing police officers. A major gang culture that is present in just about any urban environment which trains it's members in criminal pursuits, including violent confrontation with cops. etc...
I have explained to you, directly, probably a half dozen times now, that organised crime is not a primary cause of murder or violence in the US. I have linked to the same FBI information every single time. But you just keep coming back, repeating the same thing.
tt's almost as if you like your opinion so much you just don't give a gak that it's completely false.
But I've gotta comment when you make an argument that can only be from bad faith, because seriously, an effort to try and describe the difference between cops carrying guns routinely and cops carrying only in high risk responses as 'except for the ones that do' is just not good enough.
This. Firearms officers in the UK police force face very strict training criteria. To become an Authorised Firearms Officer in the UK you need to first gain approval from your superiors before you can even apply. You then have to complete multiple interviews, psychological and physical fitness tests, medical examinations and assessment days before you get permission to even begin the firearms training.
Then, if they manage to complete the training, they will be routinely retested and undergo refresher training in order to retain their authorisation to handle firearms.
Source: Uncle in the Force who has been a firearms officer, firearms instructor and is currently performing close protection duties.
Dreadwinter wrote: Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?
This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.
Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.
No. You provide those links for us. I know what members of the group say and do, if you have evidence or information that I don't have, please provide us with those sources.
d-usa wrote: Pretending BLM is some sort of violent gang set on murdering people is a favorite past time of people who don't have any real arguments.
Pretending that BLM is not a group of racist and violence inciting people is equally indicative of not having a real argument.
Pretending that it is anything beyond a short-hand label used by conservatives and the media for "people who protest the deaths/mistreatment of black people at the hands of the police", which pretty much means that there is no way one person or persons really speaks for them, is ridiculous.
Edit: Other than pointing out the stupidity of using YouTube as some sort of proof that a large group of people is X, that will be the last reply on the BLM argument that gets made very single time by the same people.
But I've gotta comment when you make an argument that can only be from bad faith,
Sebster, I've got to call you out on this because you are normally such a well considered poster. You're talking bollocks.
Killkrazy specifically identified not having a safety catch as being a problem. Nobody argued about whether or not British police should be armed. Certainly neither myself nor Dreadclaw made reference to routine carrying of weapons. And the point of the guns being loaded has been dealt with separately.
It was Killkrazy's specific point about US police having pistols that don't have safety catches that was targeted by the comments you quoted by myself and Dreadclaw. When it was pointed out by Frazzled that this is the same for British police, the argument became that apart from certain units, British police aren't routinely armed, as though this somehow made Frazzled's accurate point invalid. That's a bogus argument that only attempts to shift the goalposts.
The point is that of those British police that are armed, they too do not have pistols with safety catches, thus Killcrazy's argument specifically targeting US police for not having safety catches is shown to be a bad argument.
And I really have no idea how you can conclude that that logical chain can be the result of bad faith. You really are talking bollocks.
Edit, to answer Killkrazy below without adding more posts: Honest enquiry is great. But if the questions are honest and the answers are honest, then we also have to be honest about the reception of those answers. You asked about US cops going around with loaded guns without safety catches. Both points have been addressed. The point on safety catches was shown to be wrong. If you follow the chain of discussion between me and Dreadclaw you can see the basic difference of opinion regarding having weapons made ready at all times.
If you are going to make general points then people may agree or disagree with those generalities. When you make specific points, which you did, they are going to be addressed specifically. That is not bad faith - it is precisely the opposite. It is honest answers to honest questions. You have to be honest enough to accept those answers or argue against them.
My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.
The fact that I don't know what type of safety catch is on a Glock or a Sig does not invalidate that basic point.
It seems to me that anyone resident in the USA has an interest in not being shot by the police, like this unfortunate lady who was simply reporting her knowledge of a possible violent crime to officers of the law.
Is it not a topic that people would want to approach in a spirit of sincere enquiry?
Its been answered. The US has a major organized crime and gang problem. That's why we need to have armed police, and why they are, justifiably, jumpy.
This exact situation is likely one of police negligence. But most others are ones with more grey area. We will have to see what the exact situation with this was and why he had his gun out. But the problem is with this specific officer, not the fact he had a gun.
Grey Templar wrote: Its been answered. The US has a major organized crime and gang problem. That's why we need to have armed police, and why they are, justifiably, jumpy.
Other than the fact that has been repeatedly brought up is that this is not really true. Keeping on repeating it, doesn't make it more true.
Kilkrazy wrote: My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.
Because cops never know when a routine traffic stop's going to turn into a gunfight.
I'm not sure why this continues to be a confusing point for you.
Kilkrazy wrote: My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.
Because cops never know when a routine traffic stop's going to turn into a gunfight.
I'm not sure why this continues to be a confusing point for you.
And that attitude is the problem. The assumption that, as a police officer, you could be shot at any moment. Other countries police forces don't have this assumption, so why does the US, and why do the police and the public believe that this is an acceptable situation? It seems to me that this kind of distrust is corrosive and always going end badly, both with deaths and the militarisation of the police.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
Largely because you haven't brought that point up, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt, no, it's not likely.
It's possible. "Likely" is a gross overstatement.
As for why? It's because we have a hell of a lot more guns than you do. I realize you're pretty blatantly trying to Socratic method your way into some triumphant, "Ah ha! Checkmate, Second Amendment advocates!" moment, but you're gonna be SOL.
Kilkrazy wrote: My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.
Because cops never know when a routine traffic stop's going to turn into a gunfight.
I'm not sure why this continues to be a confusing point for you.
So...should citizens then treat a routine traffic stop like it's going to turn into an execution?
You're very perspective. In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.
However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.
The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...
In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.
However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.
The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...
For the same reason we have far less restrictive speech laws. We value freedom more than you do.
I don't know if that is a poor choice of phrase or a genuine belief. If it's the latter it's a rather insulting and inflammatory statement. A wider definition of free speech and more liberal gun ownership laws is not the same as valuing freedom more. The US values some personal freedom over other freedoms.
Nuh uh, we values freedoms more than you. We values freedom to eleventy-billion-infinity plus one. And if you don't agree I'm gonna tell my dad, and he's bigger than your dad.
(in case you can't tell, I find this comment pretty childish)
Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?
(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)
Nuh uh, we values freedoms more than you. We values freedom to eleventy-billion-infinity plus one. And if you don't agree I'm gonna tell my dad, and he's bigger than your dad.
(in case you can't tell, I find this comment pretty childish)
Personal freedoms are the most basic kind, and the most important.
1) That is a subjective belief, not an objective fact.
2) I said SOME.
3) Your statement was much wider anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?
(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)
Good point. This is heading down a bad path. I will drop that argument now as it's going to get politics soon.
Ouze wrote: Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?
(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Here is the rest of the point being made; "They are nearly always a case of negligence—that is, someone fooling with the pistol and causing the trigger to be depressed when they didn't intend for it to be."
I read that. It remains ignorant. I reduced the quote for brevity, rather than that this extra bit alleviated the foolishness of the sentiment.
Your point about department policy on carrying a round loaded was something I did consider earlier, though I confess to being completely ignorant about myself. Is it common, or even a procedure used by the majority?
That there is a clear distinction between an accident and negligence is an important distinction. And yes, most departments train to carry with a round in the chamber
Kilkrazy wrote: As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.
Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?
Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?
Armed Response Units are not ordinary officers. They're not the police patrolling the streets and responding to calls. They're called when something is escalated. So the situation of a trigger happy rookie in a dark alleyway shooting a woman in her pajamas doesn't happen.
Doesn't answer the question posed
Frazzled wrote: Canadian,German and French officers carry firearms. This is becoming anti American trolling.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but there is a certain undertone to the discussion
motyak wrote: When a copper from one of those countries shoots and kills an unarmed Aussie in her pjs then I'm sure those countries will become more involved in this thread. However, until they do, I'd say it isn't so much anti-American trolling as a continued disbelief as to how that happens in a country and how a large chunk of the population in it can still jam their fingers in their ears and scream "nah nah mate it's all good".
That is oddly specific, tied with a gross mischaracterization of most comments here from US members of the community who are trying to wade through the ignorance and hyperbole directed at those considered "uncivilized"
As you will see from the government statistics on police in the UK armed police are a small proportion of the total number. They are the special units required for duties such as anti-terrorism or protection of VIPs.
It is completely different to the USA, where apparently it's routine for all police to go around armed on patrol.
To argue about whether the pistol has one type of safety mechanism or another, is as pointless as to argue about whether it was 9mm or 10mm calibre, or a 12 round or 15 round magazine. Those technical details are irrelevant to the question of why US police feel a need to be so ready with their weapons.
If you want to openly admit your intellectual dishonesty who am I to object? I will however call out your error in fact on the "safety catch" comment, and now your moving of the goalposts on this discussion. Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?
Kilkrazy wrote: My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.
Because of the War on Drugs which has helped fuel violent inner city crime
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact that I don't know what type of safety catch is on a Glock or a Sig does not invalidate that basic point.
You mean you shouldn't know enough about to topic to intelligently comment on it?
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it not a topic that people would want to approach in a spirit of sincere enquiry?
It is. I look forward to you approaching it in a spirit of sincere inquiry.
Kilkrazy wrote: You're very perspective. In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.
However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.
The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...
Are you back to being an agent provocateur and trying to steer the discussion to US politics and firearms? Strange decision for a Moderator given the history of these discussions in the OT area.
Ouze wrote: Listen, I know it's fun to fall into our usual patterns and get the thread locked, but there actually might be some followup to this story so maybe we can try and not OT this thread?
(yeah i know I helped us get here, I'm not excluding myself)
How dare you use logic here. This is a topic we have discussed thousands of times and by the thousand suns, we will do it again! BECAUSEweWEare AREvery DAKKApredictable!
(but no really this isn't the thread for this stupid discussion, I agree lets move on)
Henry wrote: It was Killkrazy's specific point about US police having pistols that don't have safety catches that was targeted by the comments you quoted by myself and Dreadclaw. When it was pointed out by Frazzled that this is the same for British police, the argument became that apart from certain units, British police aren't routinely armed, as though this somehow made Frazzled's accurate point invalid. That's a bogus argument that only attempts to shift the goalposts.
The point is that of those British police that are armed, they too do not have pistols with safety catches, thus Killcrazy's argument specifically targeting US police for not having safety catches is shown to be a bad argument.
No, because what is an acceptable risk in a hostage situation is not automatically also an acceptable risk in a traffic stop. This point should have been obvious. Just think it through - if you have 1,000 instances of officers responding with loaded weapons, and another country where loaded weapons are present at every single police contact, which is gonna have more issues?
That the lack of a safety catch was misleading due to the changed design of the gun makes the issue null. But note I never engaged in that issue, in fact I said I doubted the presence of guns were that much of a factor at all.
And I really have no idea how you can conclude that that logical chain can be the result of bad faith. You really are talking bollocks.
Sorry you feel that way, and I understand how you would feel offended at my comment. But I maintain it should have been obvious that accepting a certain level of risk in specific encounters is very different to accepting that same risk in every single police contact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Its been answered. The US has a major organized crime and gang problem. That's why we need to have armed police, and why they are, justifiably, jumpy.
But that answer is terrible. It was terrible every other time you raised it, and data was given to show you how little violence and murder in the US is gang related. Stop ignoring reality.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: That there is a clear distinction between an accident and negligence is an important distinction.
Agreed, but that wasn't the conclusion of the article we're discussing. The author made it clear that the only way incidents can happen is either mechanical malfunction or if somebody is fooling around. Those aren't the only options and is a very dangerous attitude to have in relation to gun safety.
sebster wrote: Sorry you feel that way, and I understand how you would feel offended at my comment.
Not offended, merely disappointed in your poorly thought out response. Though it reads a little better now that you've retracted the "bad faith" accusation.
Anyway, this tangent has now drifted too far from the topic, my apologies.
Edited. Good points made about moving conversation on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: Not offended, merely disappointed in your poorly thought out response. Though it reads a little better now that you've retracted the "bad faith" accusation.
Anyway, this tangent has now drifted too far from the topic, my apologies.
I didn't retract the 'bad faith' point. But as you say it was a drift, and it isn't going anywhere. Happy to move on.
Kilkrazy wrote: You're very perspective. In one way, though, I have already won that point because you have found it necessary to attempt deflect it before it is brought up. The fact you've brought attention to my method of argument doesn't refute the conclusions, of course.
However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.
The question now becomes why the USA finds it necessary to have so many guns...
If thats the case shouldn't we see a correlation between guns per capita and police shootings worldwide?
Kilkrazy wrote: However, the USA of course does have a lot more guns than any other comparable western country (Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.) and for fairly obvious reasons this is a contributing factor to gun violence.
If thats the case shouldn't we see a correlation between guns per capita and police shootings worldwide?
Nah, it is something with society. Many different groups that don't trust each other because of reasons is certainly one factor, but it can't be the only one.
Some European countries do have different groups of people too, and a lot of guns, not quite to American levels or as many handguns but still respectable arsenals. We've got plenty of hunters as do many others, and the Swiss even require their reservists to keep their service rifles at home. Still much fewer incidents.
It could be some American Frontier "rely on yourself" ideal? You have to be prepared in case the neighbor doesn't help you?
Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality. Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.
cuda1179 wrote: Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality.
Yeah...no.
Americans, as a whole, do not necessarily have that mentality when it comes to law enforcement.
There is a section of America that has this mentality--along with an overblown notion that they can't rely on the police for anything. That mentality has been stoked for decades now by a gun rights lobby that loves to feed nonsense like "The only thing police are good for is calling the coroner's office" or the idea that "one good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun".
But sure. Keep saying this as though it's a definitive thing.
Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation
Whose drug violence is heavily funded/kept alive by Americans...and, in some cases, perpetrated by paramilitary groups that split off from American trained military forces--or in the case of Los Zetas, they actually have former US military personnel in their ranks.
and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.
You're leaving out the white supremacists and the militias that have spun out from them/are closely tied to them.
I'm late to the party but very much pertaining to this topic is a podcast I recently listened to called behind the gun. Its on www.samharris.org . my phone is not letting me link it direct because I use a podcast app.
Bottom line IMO is quite simply poor training, poor funding for time needed to train, and many other issues. Deesculation and many other things are discussed but all pertinent to the non race related portions of this thread. Changed the way I look at some things but not my desire to see bad shooting punished while still giving a small benefit of doubt until proven guilty in a court of law. Not so much in this case though.
I messed up the quotes. But someone was asking if the chief resigned because of the shooting or the way she criticized the cop.
It was because fo the killing in general.
There is also some political powerplays involved between the Council and the Mayor's respective power over the force. Plus, some of the council members are planning their own mayorial runs and the mayor plans on running to be re-elected. Politics is in full force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality. Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.
Ummmm..... Minneapolis was part of the Union (one of the first to volunteer troops to the Union cause) and borders Canada.
I don't think your comment has anything to do with anything in this Minneapolis shooting of a rookie Somali cop killing an Australian woman who called the cops to the scene in the first place.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I think you will find a lot of correlation looking at these two statistics in regards to crime. % population in urban areas and ^% minorities. It makes sense - throw people into close proximity who have a natural animosity towards each other because they look different/act different/ speak different/ dress different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: If you make a gross mistake like shooting somebody, it is still a crime. I don't understand how it would not be a crime.
Because - your duties required you to do something where a mistake was inevitable.
I messed up the quotes. But someone was asking if the chief resigned because of the shooting or the way she criticized the cop.
It was because fo the killing in general.
There is also some political powerplays involved between the Council and the Mayor's respective power over the force. Plus, some of the council members are planning their own mayorial runs and the mayor plans on running to be re-elected. Politics is in full force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality. Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.
Ummmm..... Minneapolis was part of the Union (one of the first to volunteer troops to the Union cause) and borders Canada.
I don't think your comment has anything to do with anything in this Minneapolis shooting of a rookie Somali cop killing an Australian woman who called the cops to the scene in the first place.
The conversation branched off onto the police as a whole, but as for Minneapolis.....That's right, I forgot Minnesota doesn't have any Mexican immigrants or descendants of slaves that might be edgy towards law enforcement. Got it. (note, I'm not saying all Latinos or Blacks are bad. I am saying that some in those groups have stoked tensions. As have white groups, but as we where comparing what is different between the US and Europe.)
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I think you will find a lot of correlation looking at these two statistics in regards to crime. % population in urban areas and ^% minorities. It makes sense - throw people into close proximity who have a natural animosity towards each other because they look different/act different/ speak different/ dress different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: If you make a gross mistake like shooting somebody, it is still a crime. I don't understand how it would not be a crime.
Because - your duties required you to do something where a mistake was inevitable.
I believe the word you are looking for is possible, not inevitable. Otherwise we would have a much larger issue with the police than we already have.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in. They work, they have lives.
It's a vicious cycle but that's the way it crumbles.
cuda1179 wrote: Americans do have a "take care of this myself" mentality. Combine that with having a VERY long border with a corrupt, violent, drug fueled 3rd world nation and the resulting anger from 250 years of institutionalized slavery and we have a bit of a situation.
Ummmm..... Minneapolis was part of the Union (one of the first to volunteer troops to the Union cause) and borders Canada.
I don't think your comment has anything to do with anything in this Minneapolis shooting of a rookie Somali cop killing an Australian woman who called the cops to the scene in the first place.
The conversation branched off onto the police as a whole, but as for Minneapolis.....That's right, I forgot Minnesota doesn't have any Mexican immigrants or descendants of slaves that might be edgy towards law enforcement. Got it. (note, I'm not saying all Latinos or Blacks are bad. I am saying that some in those groups have stoked tensions. As have white groups, but as we where comparing what is different between the US and Europe.)
Yeah, well racism does exist in Minneapolis. However, the minority groups are typically Somali and Hmong. However, North Minneapolis does have a concentration of Black Americans. There is a growing Latino population as well, but it is less geographically concentrated.
However, that does not change the fact is that your argument makes no sense. Essentially, you are saying violence is inevitable and will only escalate due to race war. That does not mesh with crime statistics for the last decade or so. Plus, it is self fulfilling prophecy. If someone believes violence is inevitable around race a person predisposed to think that way will fail at de-escalation more often than succeed.
However, I have a feeling that is not what you are trying to say.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I think you will find a lot of correlation looking at these two statistics in regards to crime. % population in urban areas and ^% minorities. It makes sense - throw people into close proximity who have a natural animosity towards each other because they look different/act different/ speak different/ dress different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: If you make a gross mistake like shooting somebody, it is still a crime. I don't understand how it would not be a crime.
Because - your duties required you to do something where a mistake was inevitable.
I believe the word you are looking for is possible, not inevitable. Otherwise we would have a much larger issue with the police than we already have.
Negligence is a crime. I am a professional engineer; if I make a mistake in a design that results in death or injury and I failed to follow code and procedure I can and do expect to be prosecuted and likely end up in jail. Indeed both my company, my industry and my professional body also encourage me to refuse to sign off on something if there any factors that could have prevented me from doing the job properly; this includes not having enough time to do the job, not having the correct training or experience for a particular task or if there are any personal circumstances that could be affecting my judgement, such as stress, illness or exhaustion.
And I work behind a desk 95% of the time. I fully expect someone wandering out in public with a lethal weapon to be held to at least the same standard. If your duties would inevitably lead to a mistake you have the right and the responsibility to refuse to do them.
Well, if a cop shoots someone that is violently resisting an arrest or some guy with mental problems holding a knife the excessive use of deadly force may be acceptable. Stil exaggerated in some occasions but understandable, because those situations implied real danger.
But if you shoot someone only because that person made a loud sound, he's running away (a US cop recently got a conviction for that) or is holding a can, a phone or something else that was mistaken for a gun, all this cases are not mistakes, they're crimes. It's not even negligence because the concept "I shoot first if I feel in danger even if I'm not aware of what's really happening" is widely tolerated, cops know that and they feel free to shoot towards everything that doesn't look ok to them.
Shooting towards people is a big deal, a cop should fire his gun only if he's 100% sure of the threat, if there's the slightest doubt he shouldn't shoot.
How many cops are killed because they were not "jumpy"? How many unarmed/innocent people are dead because some cops felt something that wasn't real?
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in. They work, they have lives.
It's a vicious cycle but that's the way it crumbles.
That's a poor excuse. That's a terribly poor excuse.
This is like the absolute basics of gun safety. Isn't the first thing they are supposed to teach you "don't aim at something you don't intend to kill."?
My problem with America isn't the gun laws, it's that your gun safety laws are absolutely awful. You don't see any other country's police shooting people and then blaming stress, because they know not to unholster that gun until it is time to shoot.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
My problem with America isn't the gun laws, it's that your gun safety laws are absolutely awful. You don't see any other country's police shooting people and then blaming stress, because they know not to unholster that gun until it is time to shoot.
Well in our defense, in most of the globe and especially the Americas, the police just shoot you or disappear you and make no excuses whatsoever.
Yes training and philosophy needs to be changed, but lets keep something fu perspective.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Welcome to the US corporate world
I think the US Corporate World is more in the line of training you on the clock. I know a USAF Reservist who just quit at 12 years in, because he was tired of all of the mandatory training the AF made him do, while he wasn't on the job. I'm unaware of a civilian job that can make you work when you're not on the clock.
I think the US Corporate World is more in the line of training you on the clock. I know a USAF Reservist who just quit at 12 years in, because he was tired of all of the mandatory training the AF made him do, while he wasn't on the job. I'm unaware of a civilian job that can make you work when you're not on the clock.
Tax preparation. I had to get a bunch of training done each year that I had to pay for. It's to the point that I was effectively going to make less than minimum wage...
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Welcome to the US corporate world
I think the US Corporate World is more in the line of training you on the clock. I know a USAF Reservist who just quit at 12 years in, because he was tired of all of the mandatory training the AF made him do, while he wasn't on the job. I'm unaware of a civilian job that can make you work when you're not on the clock.
I have to have a certain amount of continued education hours each year to keep my job. I do it at work, through work. It is unpaid and they won't give me my paycheck unless I do it. I have to do it today so I can eat!
I think the US Corporate World is more in the line of training you on the clock. I know a USAF Reservist who just quit at 12 years in, because he was tired of all of the mandatory training the AF made him do, while he wasn't on the job. I'm unaware of a civilian job that can make you work when you're not on the clock.
Teaching.
Ha. Yeah, teaching is a great example. Some weeks I spent easily as much "off the clock" time as I spent in the classroom.
Many medical positions require off-the clock certification training. Often paid out of the employee's own pocket. My wife needs to do that to maintain her phlebotomy license annually.
Easy E wrote: [
Yeah, well racism does exist in Minneapolis. However, the minority groups are typically Somali and Hmong. However, North Minneapolis does have a concentration of Black Americans. There is a growing Latino population as well, but it is less geographically concentrated.
However, that does not change the fact is that your argument makes no sense. Essentially, you are saying violence is inevitable and will only escalate due to race war. That does not mesh with crime statistics for the last decade or so. Plus, it is self fulfilling prophecy. If someone believes violence is inevitable around race a person predisposed to think that way will fail at de-escalation more often than succeed.
However, I have a feeling that is not what you are trying to say.
I'll try to clarify. 13% of the American population is visibly descended from slaves. Slavery that ended just a few generations ago for some people. Another 6% of our population is made up of Illegal immigrants and their children from 3rd world countries with major crime problems. Also the police force has traditionally been Caucasian (although rapidly becoming more diverse). Due to racism and social constructs on every side, a lot ethnic groups see this as an us vs. them mentality when it comes to the police, and in many ways the police do this to them as well. My brother is friends with a Black police officer in Tulsa, and even that officer has harsh feelings toward much of the inner city Black community.
I feel that a lot of the unnecessary shootings are due to over-hyped fear, often propagated by the media. The "if it bleeds it reads" mentality is strong with them. Not to mention every other hype-man out there looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
The only good thing I can say about this case is that at least no one is screaming the falsities of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot".
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Welcome to the US corporate world
I think the US Corporate World is more in the line of training you on the clock. I know a USAF Reservist who just quit at 12 years in, because he was tired of all of the mandatory training the AF made him do, while he wasn't on the job. I'm unaware of a civilian job that can make you work when you're not on the clock.
Amazon, though I believe there was a court case in the past year that put a stop to it.
Grey Templar wrote: Amazon wasn't making people work though IIRC. It was just that they were being held beyond their paid hours for security checks.
The argument came down to "is a procedure that is required as a condition of working and has to be completed to be able to do the work something that an employee is required to be paid for" if I recall correctly.
In actual on-topic news:
It seems that she may have slapped the rear of the police vehicle when they arrived to get their attention (so maybe they were driving past her or didn't notice her?) and that's the "loud noise" that got her killed.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Welcome to the US corporate world
I think the US Corporate World is more in the line of training you on the clock. I know a USAF Reservist who just quit at 12 years in, because he was tired of all of the mandatory training the AF made him do, while he wasn't on the job. I'm unaware of a civilian job that can make you work when you're not on the clock.
Amazon, though I believe there was a court case in the past year that put a stop to it.
Didn't put a stop to it. Court ruled in Amazon's favor.
I believe this was that it took an excessively long time to pass the security point AFTER clocking out. Court did rule in favor of Amazon (which I disagreed with).
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Welcome to the US corporate world
The police don't work in the corporate world. They are unionized municipal and state employees in the public sector. If officers in police departments are shooting and killing people because they aren't well trained enough to practice diligent firearm safety and situational awareness then those departments are being managed very well at all and the municipalities/states are not allocating their revenue into police budgets in an intelligent manner. Employees hurting people because they are doing their assigned tasks poorly because they are not well trained is entirely the employer's fault.
Due to racism and social constructs on every side, a lot ethnic groups see this as an us vs. them mentality when it comes to the police, and in many ways the police do this to them as well.
I had a feeling you and I were closer in agreement than I thought. It was just a failure of communication.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Welcome to the US corporate world
The police don't work in the corporate world. They are unionized municipal and state employees in the public sector. If officers in police departments are shooting and killing people because they aren't well trained enough to practice diligent firearm safety and situational awareness then those departments are being managed very well at all and the municipalities/states are not allocating their revenue into police budgets in an intelligent manner. Employees hurting people because they are doing their assigned tasks poorly because they are not well trained is entirely the employer's fault.
Some people think that government should be more like corporations. When it is, people throw a fit
Henry wrote: Agreed, but that wasn't the conclusion of the article we're discussing. The author made it clear that the only way incidents can happen is either mechanical malfunction or if somebody is fooling around. Those aren't the only options and is a very dangerous attitude to have in relation to gun safety.
How else does a firearm discharge unintentionally? I know that rounds can cook off and discharge prior to the trigger being pulled, but most people will not be going through that volume of fire to reach that point.
It seems that she may have slapped the rear of the police vehicle when they arrived to get their attention (so maybe they were driving past her or didn't notice her?) and that's the "loud noise" that got her killed.
I'd like to hear some more details on this development as it seems strange that the deceased slapped the rear of the police car and then was shot on the driver's side while talking with an Officer.
I would like to hear more as well, and I think that's why they are looking for a witness. It's not really unreasonable to slap the car as you are walking up to it from the rear and then walk towards the drivers side. If that's what happened I wouldn't be surprised if she was impatient (she did call 911 twice) and the car was getting ready to drive past her location.
And obviously, slapping a cop car is not something that should get you killed.
Is this true? I mean why the hell cops were allowed to search her home? Any guns or drugs that eventually were kept at her home are irrelevant to the shooting. If she was intoxicated the autopsy would have showed that.
There was clearly an intent to criminalize the victim, in order to make her lose some of the sympathy from the the media.
This can maybe happen in Mexico o in the Philippines, it's hard to believe that american cops are allowed to behave like that and these procedures are considered "standard" and legit.
Is this true? I mean why the hell cops were allowed to search her home? Any guns or drugs that eventually were kept at her home are irrelevant to the shooting. If she was intoxicated the autopsy would have showed that.
There was clearly an intent to criminalize the victim, in order to make her lose some of the sympathy from the the media.
This can maybe happen in Mexico o in the Philippines, it's hard to believe that american cops are allowed to behave like that and these procedures are considered "standard" and legit.
After seeing "Making a Murderer" where a single search warrant seemed to give the police (even police officers unconnected to the case) access to the home 24 hours a day for several days so that they could happen to find a set of keys lying in plain sight on the third search, I'm not sure I really understand how the US system works when it comes to searching peoples homes.
Is this true? I mean why the hell cops were allowed to search her home? Any guns or drugs that eventually were kept at her home are irrelevant to the shooting. If she was intoxicated the autopsy would have showed that.
There was clearly an intent to criminalize the victim, in order to make her lose some of the sympathy from the the media.
This can maybe happen in Mexico o in the Philippines, it's hard to believe that american cops are allowed to behave like that and these procedures are considered "standard" and legit.
On the one hand, it looks like they were looking for something to exonerate a bad shoot. On the other, a thorough investigation pretty much requires everything to be looked at and this should shoot down any claims that she was doing anything wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: You still haven't answered the point of why a routine traffic stop is likely to turn into a gunfight in the USA.
The short answer is that it is not likely and very few people are ever shot by police. The still short answer is that in the few situations where it does occur - a few mistakes are made and blown up by the media - this is literally human error. Everything has human error where humans are involved. Why do these cops usually not get charged with crimes? Because they didn't commit crimes - they made a gross mistake. Usually given the circumstance the mistake is understandable by a Jury and so they aren't convicted. I don't think this guy is going to get off though - not because he is black but because he killed a women.
Yes, that is completely true, BUT, at the same time, you are more likely to be shot by police in the USA than in any other western alliance country (Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Norway, etc.) Let's leave out the UK because it's a massive outlier, not having armed police.
It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
I could argue that. When you don't allocate time and funds to train a professional force of citizens who also keep the peace then that qualifies as stupid IMO.
You know why they don't allocate time to it?
Because police run excessively heavy shift schedules. The officers don't have time to go down to the range like Joe Schmuck with his pistols and get time in.
Doesn't matter. Job training does not come out of your free time, range time here comes in your schedule (or is paid as overtime) and if you fail you lose your gun until you're proficient again.
Not entirely true. If it's a requirement to keep your job, you have to take care of it yourself.
You can still be a cop without a gun. You'll just get less pay and a desk position.
You have a gakky employer if mandatory training comes from your free time.
Welcome to the US corporate world
The police don't work in the corporate world. They are unionized municipal and state employees in the public sector. If officers in police departments are shooting and killing people because they aren't well trained enough to practice diligent firearm safety and situational awareness then those departments are being managed very well at all and the municipalities/states are not allocating their revenue into police budgets in an intelligent manner. Employees hurting people because they are doing their assigned tasks poorly because they are not well trained is entirely the employer's fault.
Some people think that government should be more like corporations. When it is, people throw a fit
Every company I've worked for has given me job training during work hours and reimbursed me for any job related certifications or education that I did on my own time. YMMV, but assigning work tasks to employees that have not been properly trained to do those tasks and/or have not shown themselves to be competent in performing those tasks is an example of mismanagement and negligence that borders on malfeasance by those employees' superiors. Don't levy taxes on me in the name of funding public services for the public good and then send out poorly trained officers who endanger the public. Taking money from the public conveys the responsibility of actually spending it wisely and producing the desired results.
These officers took over 8 minutes to respond to a call of a possible rape in progress and upon arrival shot the unarmed woman who had called 911 to get help. At least they managed to arrive at the correct address.
SOUTHAVEN, MS (WMC) - Documents show that Southaven officers went to the wrong house to serve a warrant on Monday, which resulted in the shooting death of a man who did not have any active warrants out for his arrest.
A warrant out of Tate County shows Samuel Pearman was wanted for domestic assault. But, when Southaven officers arrived on Surrey Lane to arrest Pearman, they did not show up to the correct house.
Instead, officers missed their target by 36 feet. Those 36 feet made all the difference to Ismael Lopez and his wife.
"Someone didn't take the time to analyze the address," attorney Murray Wells, who represents the family, said. "This is incredibly tragic and embarrassing to this police department that they can't read house numbers."
Wells pointed out that the house officers should have gone to, the one where Pearman was located, had a large 'P' on the door. While officials sort out what happened, the man they were looking for took to social media.
Pearson even posted on Facebook Live on Tuesday afternoon claiming he didn't do anything wrong.
"They made me out to be something I'm not," he said. "I haven't hurt her. She's the one who slapped me."
Ismael Lopez and his wife, Claudia Linares, were asleep inside their house across the street from Pearson when officers arrived.
Linares said her husband went to the door to see what was happening outside. That's when she heard gunshots and by the time she reached her husband, he was already dead.
"Bullet holes suggest they shot through the door," Wells said.
Officers said Lopez came to the door pointing a gun at them. Those officers claim to have asked Lopez multiple times to drop the gun before they started shooting.
But, neighbors said they didn't hear anything like that.
"I didn't hear yelling," neighbor Nicholas Tramel said.
Tramel's room is right next to the Lopez home. He said he never heard police tell Lopez to put his rifle down.
Wells implied that officers had reasons not to tell the truth in their account of what happened. Namely, because they could face consequences for shooting Lopez. He also said that Claudia, who was the only one on the property who could not be held responsible for shooting Lopez, did not hear any commands or instructions being given. In addition, Wells said Lopez never pointed a gun at the officers.
"There was a gun on the premises, but the man did not have the gun with him when police shot him," he said.
d-usa wrote: I would like to hear more as well, and I think that's why they are looking for a witness. It's not really unreasonable to slap the car as you are walking up to it from the rear and then walk towards the drivers side. If that's what happened I wouldn't be surprised if she was impatient (she did call 911 twice) and the car was getting ready to drive past her location.
And obviously, slapping a cop car is not something that should get you killed.
d-usa wrote: I would like to hear more as well, and I think that's why they are looking for a witness. It's not really unreasonable to slap the car as you are walking up to it from the rear and then walk towards the drivers side. If that's what happened I wouldn't be surprised if she was impatient (she did call 911 twice) and the car was getting ready to drive past her location.
And obviously, slapping a cop car is not something that should get you killed.
I agree. If she had walked up behind the car and slapped the back of it it would have been tough for the rookie to immediately pull his gun and accidentally shoot her through the passenger window.
Being impatient is somewhat understandable, but 8 minute response time is actually pretty good. So it's not like the cops were late.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: She's not around to say otherwise, so she was also snapping her teeth at the officers due to all that methrabies she had.
indeed, it's not on video but she's a shifter and was turning into a werebear and only the quick action if the rookie saved them.
You mean a weredropbear?
I cannot think of a single good reason to search a victims home. If anything, the Officer's home should be searched. This whole thing stinks of a coverup. Next thing we know she will be some drug kingpin who only called the cops to stick it to the man.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: She's not around to say otherwise, so she was also snapping her teeth at the officers due to all that methrabies she had.
indeed, it's not on video but she's a shifter and was turning into a werebear and only the quick action if the rookie saved them.
You mean a weredropbear?
I cannot think of a single good reason to search a victims home. If anything, the Officer's home should be searched. This whole thing stinks of a coverup. Next thing we know she will be some drug kingpin who only called the cops to stick it to the man.
d-usa wrote: I would like to hear more as well, and I think that's why they are looking for a witness. It's not really unreasonable to slap the car as you are walking up to it from the rear and then walk towards the drivers side. If that's what happened I wouldn't be surprised if she was impatient (she did call 911 twice) and the car was getting ready to drive past her location.
And obviously, slapping a cop car is not something that should get you killed.
I agree. If she had walked up behind the car and slapped the back of it it would have been tough for the rookie to immediately pull his gun and accidentally shoot her through the passenger window.
Being impatient is somewhat understandable, but 8 minute response time is actually pretty good. So it's not like the cops were late.
Very true. It's not a bad response time, but we know times moves slow if you are in distress and if she's listening to what she thinks is a woman being raped I wouldn't fault her for feeling like it took a lot longer than that. And if the cop car was driving past her without noticing her I wouldn't be surprised if she ran up the car to give it a quick slap to basically say "hey, don't pass me, I called, it's over there, please stop".
Of course we still don't know if that is what really happened, but if it did I think for me the important thing to takeaway would be:
- It wasn't an unreasonable action on her part.
- It doesn't justify the shooting.
d-usa wrote: I would like to hear more as well, and I think that's why they are looking for a witness. It's not really unreasonable to slap the car as you are walking up to it from the rear and then walk towards the drivers side. If that's what happened I wouldn't be surprised if she was impatient (she did call 911 twice) and the car was getting ready to drive past her location.
And obviously, slapping a cop car is not something that should get you killed.
I agree. If she had walked up behind the car and slapped the back of it it would have been tough for the rookie to immediately pull his gun and accidentally shoot her through the passenger window.
Being impatient is somewhat understandable, but 8 minute response time is actually pretty good. So it's not like the cops were late.
Very true. It's not a bad response time, but we know times moves slow if you are in distress and if she's listening to what she thinks is a woman being raped I wouldn't fault her for feeling like it took a lot longer than that. And if the cop car was driving past her without noticing her I wouldn't be surprised if she ran up the car to give it a quick slap to basically say "hey, don't pass me, I called, it's over there, please stop".
Of course we still don't know if that is what really happened, but if it did I think for me the important thing to takeaway would be:
- It wasn't an unreasonable action on her part. - It doesn't justify the shooting.
And when responding to a call where a woman might have been raped, having a woman run up to your car and try to get your attention definitely should not be unexpected.
And, IIRC, the cop accused of the shooting has refused to cooperate and speak to the state police investigation unit - Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. He said he will not make a statement or be interviewed by them.
So, I do not know if cooperating with this unit is mandatory, but surely any shooting gets reviewed by the police department itself. My guess is the department is still conducting its internal investigation and will not release any info now - nor any time in the future, if not in their interests to do so.
So absolutely tragic. What a loss of a beautiful woman and person who was just trying to have a happy life.
MDSW wrote: And, IIRC, the cop accused of the shooting has refused to cooperate and speak to the state police investigation unit - Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. He said he will not make a statement or be interviewed by them.
So, I do not know if cooperating with this unit is mandatory, but surely any shooting gets reviewed by the police department itself. My guess is the department is still conducting its internal investigation and will not release any info now - nor any time in the future, if not in their interests to do so.
So absolutely tragic. What a loss of a beautiful woman and person who was just trying to have a happy life.
I believe the officer is required to do an interview with his department's internal investigation but in regards to speaking with state police he is still protected by his 5th amendment right to not incriminate himself during a criminal investigation. His lawyer is going to make sure he doesn't say anything except for the absolute minimum required. It's unfortunate because it doesn't help figure our what happened that night but I don't want to take that right away from anybody.
The 8 minute response time isn't bad generally speaking but in terms of actually arriving in time to stop an assault in progress or apprehend the attacker 8 minutes is an awfully long time. The woman called after hearing screams/yelling so whatever was happening was already in progress, she called, waited, called again and finally saw the squad car by that point she probably thought that if she really did hear an assault in progress the only thing the cops were going to do now was find an injured or dead woman in the alley. That's a reasonable explanation for her being anxious to run up to the car and be demonstrative to get their attention.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: She's not around to say otherwise, so she was also snapping her teeth at the officers due to all that methrabies she had.
indeed, it's not on video but she's a shifter and was turning into a werebear and only the quick action if the rookie saved them.
You mean a weredropbear?
I cannot think of a single good reason to search a victims home. If anything, the Officer's home should be searched. This whole thing stinks of a coverup. Next thing we know she will be some drug kingpin who only called the cops to stick it to the man.
Yup, I would expect with any killing that a warrant to search the suspect's home be obtained. Additionally, I would want phone, email, and computer data dumps.
I'm no fan of the British police, and I've had plenty of bad things to say about them over the years, but after reading all this, I'll take the British police any day of the week.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm no fan of the British police, and I've had plenty of bad things to say about them over the years, but after reading all this, I'll take the British police any day of the week.
Same here, just it's the german police. The US police overall just doesn't seem well trained when such things happen. If your job gives you the power to end a life with minimal penalties then you need to be held to a much higher standards than the rest of the population.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm no fan of the British police, and I've had plenty of bad things to say about them over the years, but after reading all this, I'll take the British police any day of the week.
Same here, just it's the german police. The US police overall just doesn't seem well trained when such things happen. If your job gives you the power to end a life with minimal penalties then you need to be held to a much higher standards than the rest of the population.
Here in the UK, we've only had something like 150 fatal police shootings in 30 years. Obviously, it's no fun for those killed, many of whom were innocent, but it does through it into stark contrast, especially given that a lot of these incidents have been subjected to judicial inquiries.
Your average UK beat cop is not armed with a gun, and access to firearms is restricted to those who have underwent serious training. Even with the terror situation, there was still opposition to armed troops on the streets and every policeman being armed. I suppose it could be a cultural thing.
The focus is on de-escalation, and the same is probably true of Germany as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: It poses the question of why there is so much more human error in the USA than in Ireland, Sweden, or South Korea. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that US policemen and/or their managing departments are more stupid than the other countries.
US cops aren't more stupid, not by a long shot. In fact US technical policing leads the world in many ways, the US develops all kinds of techniques that the rest of us follow. (and of course many other countries develop other techniques and lead in their own ways).
But culturally US policing does stand apart, it is particularly sensitive to threats to officers. The presence of guns has likely played a part in this, but that is only a part of the story. The bigger issue, to me, is that cultural changes were made to police at the peak of 70s crime spree, when a lot of cops were getting killed. But the number of officer deaths has been falling rapidly for decades now, without any change in police culture.
You are right that negligence is a crime. What you are missing is that not all mistakes are negligence. For it to be a crime it requires not only a mistake, but a mistake caused by reckless behavious.
And your comparison to engineering fails because the police officer is making a split second decision, he doesn't have the luxury of time to analyse his decision and get it reviewed by his seniors.
None of that means we can't punish cops for shooting innocent people, but we do need to be sensible about can and what cannot be prevented.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: My problem with America isn't the gun laws, it's that your gun safety laws are absolutely awful. You don't see any other country's police shooting people and then blaming stress, because they know not to unholster that gun until it is time to shoot.
That's not true. There is no country on earth where an officer will engage with a threatening suspect with his hands free, and only draw and fire when he has to. I mean, that idea is cool in the way that Westerns are cool, but it isn't real life.
If there is a chance that a suspect could become an immediate lethal threat, then officers will draw and aim at the suspect. This means they will be pointing guns at people they don't intend to shoot, that they still hope they can talk down. That is true in every country with armed police.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: On the one hand, it looks like they were looking for something to exonerate a bad shoot. On the other, a thorough investigation pretty much requires everything to be looked at and this should shoot down any claims that she was doing anything wrong.
Yep. You wouldn't want to not search her house, take the officer to court, and then have the defense team claim the woman was, I don't know, running a gun smuggling ring out of her house or something like that.
You have to turn over every stone. Build a solid case.
Yep. You wouldn't want to not search her house, take the officer to court, and then have the defense team claim the woman was, I don't know, running a gun smuggling ring out of her house or something like that.
You have to turn over every stone. Build a solid case.
By the same logic also the shooter's house should be searched in order to find something that makes him look like a violent person or someone with specific issues/problems, not the average/standard cop that is supposed to be "the good guy" by the media and the politicians. But it never happens, or am I missing something?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The focus is on de-escalation, and the same is probably true of Germany as well.
I think the single biggest factor is the that the citizenry of the US is armed. It's far harder to even teach de-escalation when you have to be more concerned about people being armed.
According to wikipedia, 64 police officers have been feloniously killed on average per year in the USA from 1984 through 2014 (that's not including accidents). The number in Germany is fewer than 6 per year (I can't even find a number for recent years, 6 is the average going back to 1945 but it's currently less than that, so all I can say is < 6). Even after you correct for population that's a lot less.
Funnily enough it's harder to easily find numbers on the number of Police officers killed than people killed by Police officers, the cynic in me would guess because it doesn't suit the narrative being pushed.
US cops might be more jumpy, they also have more reason to be jumpy, when you give people a reason to be jumpy there's more chance they'll get spooked and have it end badly.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think the single biggest factor is the that the citizenry of the US is armed. It's far harder to even teach de-escalation when you have to be more concerned about people being armed. According to wikipedia, 64 police officers have been feloniously killed on average per year in the USA from 1984 through 2014 (that's not including accidents). The number in Germany is fewer than 6 per year.
A good point, but maybe the training should focus more on identifying the really bad situations and taking proper precautions instead of just telling cops to empty their guns in the general direction of anyone who looks dangerous? It might have been necessary 40-50 years ago but these days police have access to much better gear if needed, and should have better tactics to use.
An example would be our little Finnish police force. They weren't too used to guns and such 50+ years ago, the sidearm they carried (and tactics/weapon training they had) pretty much an afterthought. There was an incident of domestic violence back in 1969 where a very drunk man threw his wife and kids out, who then called the police. He was known to be aggressive so the constables even brought along a SMG, but it was for nought. A guy with a blood alcohol content of 1.2 promilles killed all four policemen with 8 shots from an iron-sight 7×33 bolt-action rifle, then walked over to the neighbors and asked them to call the police. That's 4 dead, or 100% of the police sent to pick him up. It's only a couple years ago we had a similar incident, but this guy actually had a stolen army assault rifle, our improved AK version (7.62x39, semi- or full auto). No one knows why, but he opened fire on the constables sent to apprehend him. Maybe he feared losing his illegal weapon collection. He only managed to kill one police officer and wound another, out of five. Then he killed himself. So since 1969 our police training had improved enough that a guy with a far more powerful weapon didn't manage to kill more than one (ofc, if he'd not offed himself he might have hurt more in a siege - but they wouldn't have gone in without SWAT in an APC so probably not).
Fear of guns in a society where guns are common isn't unreasonable, but a policeman is supposed to "protect and serve". He'd be able to do that better if he had better training in assessing situations. And to be sure, in videos of US police shootings it often looks like none of the officers are in command, everyone is shouting and pointing their gun and once one shoots all the others open up too. There should be some system in place where one officer gets command of a call and the others should follow his lead instead of everyone nervously eying the suspect, gun in hand ready to fire.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The focus is on de-escalation, and the same is probably true of Germany as well.
I think the single biggest factor is the that the citizenry of the US is armed. It's far harder to even teach de-escalation when you have to be more concerned about people being armed.
According to wikipedia, 64 police officers have been feloniously killed on average per year in the USA from 1984 through 2014 (that's not including accidents). The number in Germany is fewer than 6 per year (I can't even find a number for recent years, 6 is the average going back to 1945 but it's currently less than that, so all I can say is < 6). Even after you correct for population that's a lot less.
Funnily enough it's harder to easily find numbers on the number of Police officers killed than people killed by Police officers, the cynic in me would guess because it doesn't suit the narrative being pushed.
US cops might be more jumpy, they also have more reason to be jumpy, when you give people a reason to be jumpy there's more chance they'll get spooked and have it end badly.
I'm 50/50 on this, but I do think it's a cultural thing TBO.
Switzerland is even more heavily armed than the USA, but you never hear about this happening in Switzerland. That's not to say that the Swiss police are perfect, but I think culture has a lot to do with this.
Even in the past, when countries like my own, Britain, were amongst the most heavily armed nations in the world, our beat cops were never armed with more than a stout club and a whistle.
My understanding of Switzerland though is that while many citizens own guns, they do not have ready access to ammunition. As a point of comparison, it's kind of useless. A gun with no ammo might as well be a club. An awkwardly shaped club XD
LordofHats wrote: My understanding of Switzerland though is that while many citizens own guns, they do not have ready access to ammunition. As a point of comparison, it's kind of useless. A gun with no ammo might as well be a club. An awkwardly shaped club XD
From a logical perspective, they will have some ammo. They have too in the unlikely event that the Swiss ammo depots are overrun by an enemy or suffer some mishap that puts them out of action. Unlikely yeah, but you can imagine the Swiss would plan for that.
And it's more than likely that people have squirreled ammo away one way or another over the years.
What I mean is that citizens don't have ammo just laying around to use whenever. Even if they did squirrel some away, if they used it they'd then have to explain why they have it. It's different from the US where you have ready access to guns and ammo.
I think the distinctions are indeed cultural, but I think the physical realities play into that. You can't just walk into the corner Walmart and buy all the .45 ACP you want in Switzerland but you can in the US, along with all the 12 guage, .22, and 9mm luger you could ever want.
Switzerland is even more heavily armed than the USA, but you never hear about this happening in Switzerland. That's not to say that the Swiss police are perfect, but I think culture has a lot to do with this.
Even in the past, when countries like my own, Britain, were amongst the most heavily armed nations in the world, our beat cops were never armed with more than a stout club and a whistle.
Switzerland is heavily armed in that many people own guns, but my understanding is the citizenry uses them very differently. Most gun crimes in the USA are committed with hand guns, which people are carrying around with them, inside their vehicles, in their homes. My understanding Switzerland's guns were largely militia rifles and people aren't generally permitted to carry hand guns around with them on the street. They have a culture that means even when taking police out of the equation there'd be little gun related violence.
The increased gun related violence I feel is always going to cascade in to more jumpy cops who when they make a mistake are more likely to have it end up with someone dead.
I'm sure cops could be better trained in many circumstances and maybe that'd alleviate most of the problems, but I reckon if you gave US cops the same training as European countries you're always going to end up with more US citizens killed by police as long as the rate of gun violence is also higher.
LordofHats wrote: What I mean is that citizens don't have ammo just laying around to use whenever. Even if they did squirrel some away, if they used it they'd then have to explain why they have it. It's different from the US where you have ready access to guns and ammo.
I think the distinctions are indeed cultural, but I think the physical realities play into that. You can't just walk into the corner Walmart and buy all the .45 ACP you want in Switzerland but you can in the US, along with all the 12 guage, .22, and 9mm luger you could ever want.
True, but just because millions of Americans have millions of guns and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo, doesn't mean they have to start blasting pistols at people.
You, I, and every other dakka member probably has kitchen knives, axes, hammers etc etc around the house.
But do we run out the house and start attacking people? Of course not.
The USA has lots of guns. Switzerland has lot of guns. Britain pre1920s was heavily armed. It made Texas look like California, but our police were mostly unarmed.
Switzerland is even more heavily armed than the USA, but you never hear about this happening in Switzerland. That's not to say that the Swiss police are perfect, but I think culture has a lot to do with this.
Even in the past, when countries like my own, Britain, were amongst the most heavily armed nations in the world, our beat cops were never armed with more than a stout club and a whistle.
Switzerland is heavily armed in that many people own guns, but my understanding is the citizenry uses them very differently. Most gun crimes in the USA are committed with hand guns, which people are carrying around with them, inside their vehicles, in their homes. My understanding Switzerland's guns were largely militia rifles and people aren't generally permitted to carry hand guns around with them on the street. They have a culture that means even when taking police out of the equation there'd be little gun related violence.
The increased gun related violence I feel is always going to cascade in to more jumpy cops who when they make a mistake are more likely to have it end up with someone dead.
I'm sure cops could be better trained in many circumstances and maybe that'd alleviate most of the problems, but I reckon if you gave US cops the same training as European countries you're always going to end up with more US citizens killed by police as long as the rate of gun violence is also higher.
I done some research on this i.e comparing British police to American police, and the oversight and accountability of British police is miles ahead of the USA.
The USA, IMO, could benefit from copying some British police institutions e.g independent police complaints commission, a proper police inspectorate, and of course, politicians and judges having the ability to hold inquiries and judicial reviews.
LordofHats wrote: My understanding of Switzerland though is that while many citizens own guns, they do not have ready access to ammunition.
Nah, it's the army reservists who don't usually get ammo for their service weapon anymore even if they are required to keep it at home. The owner of a civilian sport or hunting weapon can and will have ammo for it, and they do have quite a few of those.
Is turning this discussion back to firearms, or why X country's training is different, going to be productive or get us back to where we were pages ago?
Maybe a separate thread for the merits of police training by country would assist.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Here in the UK, we've only had something like 150 fatal police shootings in 30 years. Obviously, it's no fun for those killed, many of whom were innocent, but it does through it into stark contrast, especially given that a lot of these incidents have been subjected to judicial inquiries.
Your average UK beat cop is not armed with a gun, and access to firearms is restricted to those who have underwent serious training. Even with the terror situation, there was still opposition to armed troops on the streets and every policeman being armed. I suppose it could be a cultural thing.
The focus is on de-escalation, and the same is probably true of Germany as well.
Yup, also deescalation, and as far as I know our police officers are all armed (or trained to use a gun and get to have one if they need it). In the US the fear of gun violence is even bigger than the actual threat to the officers and they tend to just panic a lot. In 2011 the German police fired 85 bullets, total, including 49 warning shots while one incident in the USA can top that, more or less, instantly. In a country with so many guns they should be extra careful instead of being so careless.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I think the single biggest factor is the that the citizenry of the US is armed. It's far harder to even teach de-escalation when you have to be more concerned about people being armed.
According to wikipedia, 64 police officers have been feloniously killed on average per year in the USA from 1984 through 2014 (that's not including accidents). The number in Germany is fewer than 6 per year (I can't even find a number for recent years, 6 is the average going back to 1945 but it's currently less than that, so all I can say is < 6). Even after you correct for population that's a lot less.
Correcting for population would roughly quadruple the number for Germany (depending on when you take your population count). And even then the number of killed police officers is tiny in the US (if I remember correctly the top ten deadly jobs are all heavy industries and the police or firefighters are nowhere to be found near those) and a comparison to the number of civilians killed by police officers is hugely different if you compare the US to other developed countries.
Deescalation is especially important because people could be armed. You don't want to agitate a random donkey-cave to start shooting, that's literary the point of deescalation. What does it help if you shoot someone "because he is or could be armed" but then have their buddy start shooting at you because you started shooting? Starting the whole interaction with the aim of using zero bullets is better than hoping you manage to disable all of them at once (without knowing if there are more of them who have guns).
It's similar to the "heroic bystander" idea of everyone needing a gun in case somebody starts shooting randomly. It usually just leads to more confusion for the police because they don't know that you—with the gun—are supposedly the "good guy" in that one case. More guns added to an existing panic and confusion lead to more deaths.
Funnily enough it's harder to easily find numbers on the number of Police officers killed than people killed by Police officers, the cynic in me would guess because it doesn't suit the narrative being pushed.
US cops might be more jumpy, they also have more reason to be jumpy, when you give people a reason to be jumpy there's more chance they'll get spooked and have it end badly.
Sure but their jumpiness is way out of proportion to the threat and the police side is technically the trained one that should be able to handle this better than the civilians who actually get shot. Civilians who have been shot by the police still manage to be calmer and more civil than the police officer who just shot them. Just watch the Philando Castile video from inside the car (with all the "Sir"s from his girlfriend). It's infuriating how calm people have to be just to not get shot even more (because the police have scared little trigger fingers). It was similar to the case of the autistic person and the helper (who got shot), or any number of people who were literary shot in the back (some while running away). And the police gets away with it because they were "afraid for their life" so it was justified. That just should never be acceptable, normal, or legal. Yet somehow it is.
It's worth noting that even at 64 police deaths a year, it is a very small risk each year. Obviously it's still tragic in each case, but you'll see more officers die on the job from heart attacks, and you don't see every single policeman refusing to end any kind of fattening food. So to a large extent the fear represents an over-reaction to a small risk. An understandable, entirely human over-reaction, but an over-reaction all the same.
To stop piling on just US cops for a second, here in Australia there's been a pretty extensive review of the Sydney Lindt cafe siege, in which ISIS inspired nutter Man Monis took a bunch of hostages, police laid siege, and then remained passive while Monis became increasingly erratic. He eventually shot and killed a hostage, at which point police still didn't respond straight away, delaying another 10 minutes, until they finally moved in and killed Monis and a hostage with a stray round.
What's come out in the subsequent inquiry is that police command was extremely reluctant to react because early reports indicated Monis had a bomb, and they were concerned they would be sending any police officers in to their deaths. A lot of police and former police have been highly critical of that, saying if there's a bomb that's a risk you have to accept, you can't let that possibility stop you from doing anything to help the hostages.
In Sydney the officers in command couldn't accept that risk, and the result was inaction that eventually led to tragedy.
I think there is a general principal in there that does, and should apply to policing in general. A really demanding part of the job is accepting personal risk to help others and achieve a non-violent outcome. If you can't accept that risk, and would rather shoot now than accept a small risk to yourself as you get a better assessment of the situation, then it probably isn't the job for you.
I'm not a cop and won't ever be, so I don't want to sound blase about the people who accept. I have absolute respect for them. But as member of society I believe that is an expectation we should put on every person that signs up and is paid and given authority as a policeman, and if people don't want to take that risk, don't sign up.
Blackie wrote: By the same logic also the shooter's house should be searched in order to find something that makes him look like a violent person or someone with specific issues/problems, not the average/standard cop that is supposed to be "the good guy" by the media and the politicians. But it never happens, or am I missing something?
I imagine it was searched. But that doesn't get reported as a story on the internet because it can't be spun in to a narrative about the police looking to blame the victim.
The cultural difference is tied up with how the guns are treated and used differently. I mean yeah, if Zardoz came by and started dropping guns from the sky and all we did was pile the guns up in our basements and forget they were ever there, then there probably wouldn't be a spike in gun violence.
But it's also false to say it is just cultural. Proliferation isn't just about the sheer count of guns, but the presence of guns in every day interactions. If two dudes crash cars, start arguing and one grabs the gun from his glove box, that's a proliferation issue as much as a cultural issue.
Blackie wrote: By the same logic also the shooter's house should be searched in order to find something that makes him look like a violent person or someone with specific issues/problems, not the average/standard cop that is supposed to be "the good guy" by the media and the politicians. But it never happens, or am I missing something?
I imagine it was searched. But that doesn't get reported as a story on the internet because it can't be spun in to a narrative about the police looking to blame the victim.
You imagine it but it's only a personal thought, there's no evidence about that.
The police and several media that try to blame the victim is something that happens everytime, it's part of a standard procedure. Not only in the USA, even in Italy when cops kill some civilians by excessive use of deadly force they always try to paint the victims as violent ones, thugs, drug addicted, with mental problems, criminals, etc... We don't have cops that shoot dead unarmed people (10 years ago we had one case, a policeman that shot towards a car driven by hoolingas that were fleeing a brawl against rival hooligans, and of course the cop was jailed) but beatings are quite common and sometimes it happened that some people died in the process of getting arrested or even after they get arrested. Everytime these victims are criminalized.
Now back to the specific case, it's difficult to criminalize the woman killed in Minnesota. She was white, rich, mid age and obsessed with health and fitness. On the other hand not only the cop was a stranger, black and muslim, but he actually had proven of being a violent guy in other circumstances.
The officer that was with him allegedly did nothing wrong, he may be the key element to put the killer on trial and hopefully convict him.
A really demanding part of the job is accepting personal risk to help others and achieve a non-violent outcome. If you can't accept that risk, and would rather shoot now than accept a small risk to yourself as you get a better assessment of the situation, then it probably isn't the job for you.
I'm not a cop and won't ever be, so I don't want to sound blase about the people who accept. I have absolute respect for them. But as member of society I believe that is an expectation we should put on every person that signs up and is paid and given authority as a policeman, and if people don't want to take that risk, don't sign up.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that even at 64 police deaths a year, it is a very small risk each year.
Your chance of being shot by a police officer is also pretty damned small. I spoke to half a dozen cops while living in the USA and never got shot, not even once
So to a large extent the fear represents an over-reaction to a small risk. An understandable, entirely human over-reaction, but an over-reaction all the same.
IMO that applies to both sides. The number of people killed by American cops sounds horrible compared to European countries until you start to take in to account cultural factors that American cops deal with compared to the rest of the western world.
Don't get me wrong, in this case for all I can see the cop was completely in the wrong and I think they should be dragged over the coals as much as is appropriate, but mistakes will be made and they'll be made more frequently when cops operate in a more dangerous environment, even if that danger is only relatively small.
A really demanding part of the job is accepting personal risk to help others and achieve a non-violent outcome. If you can't accept that risk, and would rather shoot now than accept a small risk to yourself as you get a better assessment of the situation, then it probably isn't the job for you.
People may have been willing to accept that risk when they were detached from a fear inducing situation, but when the panic sets in they are more prone to making an incorrect snap decision. We can sit back and armchair analysis their motives, but I think most the cases of cops shooting people the cop didn't go in to the encounter thinking "ya know what, I'm going to shoot first and think later", I reckon they're mostly snap decisions made poorly.
Obviously people who are too jumpy should be weeded out as much as possible, and I imagine there probably is some level of psychological screening in the US system the same there is in the Australian system. However I think there's almost always going to be people who slip through and you don't find out until they do something wrong, and "something wrong" in the USA is typically going to be more deadly than "something wrong" in other western countries that don't have the same culture.
Remember that to go along with their higher cop killing civilian rate, the US also has a higher murder rate than most western countries.
LordofHats wrote: My understanding of Switzerland though is that while many citizens own guns, they do not have ready access to ammunition. As a point of comparison, it's kind of useless. A gun with no ammo might as well be a club. An awkwardly shaped club XD
They can buy ammunition, they just don't get given it free by the government any more. I think this has translated on the internet to them not being able to get ammunition at all, which isn't true. Oddly, I was reading something on this very topic earlier today.
Blackie wrote: You imagine it but it's only a personal thought, there's no evidence about that.
There is also no evidence that it didn't happen. And if the deceased's house was searched but the shooter's was not, don't you think that would have been pointed out somewhere?
I mean, sites like Daily Caller are happy to run openly partisan articles whinging that her home was searched, don't you think they'd run even more emotive, and actually meaningful stories, if they pointed out that such thoroughness wasn't also applied to the shooter's house?
The police and several media that try to blame the victim is something that happens everytime, it's part of a standard procedure.
The fact that victim blaming takes place doesn't mean we should start pretending standard police procedures are part of victim blaming processes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Your chance of being shot by a police officer is also pretty damned small. I spoke to half a dozen cops while living in the USA and never got shot, not even once
Definitely agreed. Have you noticed how many threads we've ever had on dakka about heart disease? Not many, but it's the #1 killer in general. Instead we focus on police shootings, military operations, terrorism etc.
The primary risk from police shootings isn't to the public, but to police, who suffer a massive reputational impact and lose a lot of good will with the public each time one of these events occurs.
Don't get me wrong, in this case for all I can see the cop was completely in the wrong and I think they should be dragged over the coals as much as is appropriate, but mistakes will be made and they'll be made more frequently when cops operate in a more dangerous environment, even if that danger is only relatively small.
Agreed on all parts.
People may have been willing to accept that risk when they were detached from a fear inducing situation, but when the panic sets in they are more prone to making an incorrect snap decision. We can sit back and armchair analysis their motives, but I think most the cases of cops shooting people the cop didn't go in to the encounter thinking "ya know what, I'm going to shoot first and think later", I reckon they're mostly snap decisions made poorly.
That's a fair point, you never know until someone is placed in that situation. And in that moment a person isn't going to react the same every time. A cop might have made the right call a lot of times, held their fire, got more information, found a non-lethal solution etc, but then one time in a snap judgement they resort to a violent solution too soon and make a fatal mistake.
Obviously people who are too jumpy should be weeded out as much as possible, and I imagine there probably is some level of psychological screening in the US system the same there is in the Australian system. However I think there's almost always going to be people who slip through and you don't find out until they do something wrong, and "something wrong" in the USA is typically going to be more deadly than "something wrong" in other western countries that don't have the same culture.
Remember that to go along with their higher cop killing civilian rate, the US also has a higher murder rate than most western countries.
I agree this definitely plays a part. However, as I've said a bunch of times in this thread, the murder rate in the US has dropped massively over the last couple of decades, but there's been no change in police culture. That's worth addressing.
but there's been no change in police culture. That's worth addressing.
But who will address it, though? In Britain, the Home Secretary can order a judicial review, an enquiry, a Royal Commission, or fire a police chief etc etc to get to the bottom of these problems, but because of the structure of the USA: federal and states rights etc etc with policing all over the place, then who can do this?
Well, if the murder rate is dropping like a meteor... And we would lump unjustified police shootings in with "murder". Then does anything have to change at all? Seems like if the murder rate is going down we're doing stuff right.
but there's been no change in police culture. That's worth addressing.
But who will address it, though? In Britain, the Home Secretary can order a judicial review, an enquiry, a Royal Commission, or fire a police chief etc etc to get to the bottom of these problems, but because of the structure of the USA: federal and states rights etc etc with policing all over the place, then who can do this?
Filing criminal charges against an officer who makes (debatable) good faith mistakes has proven to be difficult to make those charges "stick" in the eyes of the jurors. However, a much easier way to address this, at least initially, is that when the mistake is his (or the department), then he should face strict liability, at the minimum, for all the harm he causes.
That would entail, in such events like this, that the officer (and department), would be stripped of Qualified Immunity.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if the murder rate is dropping like a meteor... And we would lump unjustified police shootings in with "murder". Then does anything have to change at all? Seems like if the murder rate is going down we're doing stuff right.
We can always hope that things will change once police shoot children without the consent of their parents.
The latest version of events leading up to the Justine Damond police shooting is that she'd "slapped" the squad car, startling the cops inside.
Especially Minneapolis Police Department rookie Mohamed Noor, who took it upon himself to draw his weapon and fire it at the unarmed 40-year-old woman, leaving her fatally wounded.
But this explanation, made public last week via a police search warrant, is still missing one crucial element: the wildly uninformed yet sincerely bigoted guesswork of Michele Bachmann, former Minnesota Congresswoman and current self-appointed expert on Muslim culture.
In an interview with the right-wing news website World Net Daily, Bachmann says a series of things that will come as a surprise to people who live in the places she's describing.
Minnesota is no longer a "well-ordered society and a high-functioning population" like it was in the 1960s, says Bachmann. The collapse of society might be hard to see if you only pay attention to the state's low unemployment rate, budget surplus, physical healthiness, and lack of crime relative to the rest of the country.
But Michele's got plenty of reasons to be afraid. Like, 75,000 of them. That's the estimate of how many Somalis live in Minnesota.
Here's how Bachmann describes the effect they're having:
"This is a failed multicultural experiment that is killing people and destroying the future of the West."
Wow! Those are ... strong words. Wrong words, too. But that's never stopped Bachmann before. Watch this!
"Somali women in Minnesota are almost always covered in clothing head to toe," says Bachmann, speaking like someone whose knowledge of this state comes from a Fox & Friends segment she watched on her phone while cowering behind the couch.
Just wait, Bachmann's about to bring it all back around. She references a photo of Mohamed Noor, the rookie cop who killed Justine Damond, posed next to three women (family members of his, Bachmann claims) who are wearing "traditional Somali clothing."
Oh, God. Here it comes.
“Was Noor acting like the Muslim religious police, maintaining strict adherence to keeping women’s bodies covered when he shot Justine?" Bachmann wonders aloud. "Was he acting from a cultural instinct?"
This makes perfect sense! Noor must've been so upset when he saw a woman without "traditional Somali clothing," he shot and killed her on the spot. The only mystery is why Noor didn't kill the hundreds of thousands of other woman walking around Minneapolis wearing whatever the hell they want. Maybe he just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A different take about how this shooting and police violence is different from other incidents by the Washington Post:
MINNEAPOLIS — Kim Handy-Jones stands at the front of a meeting room in a working-class portion of southeast Minneapolis, large pieces of butcher paper labeled “Body Cams,” “Accountability” and “Training” hanging behind her. In the months since a police officer shot and killed her son in neighboring St. Paul, Handy-Jones has met here regularly with a dozen or so longtime Twin Cities advocates of police reform.
But this meeting is different. This time, the room is full. Some of the nearly 80 people present have to stand.
And this time, the majority is white.
Sounds like what some posters were saying earlier in this thread.
Bennett, a stocky, energy-packed white man who wrestled for Notre Dame, has practiced law for more than 40 years. He represented Castile’s relatives in a civil suit that resulted in a $3 million settlement with the city of St. Anthony, which employed the officer who shot Castile. An 11-pound pike that Bennett caught in 1984 hangs on his office wall, the sharp parts of its mouth, fins and tail harpooning nearly $10 million in checks paid after Bennett won settlements for clients maimed or killed by city workers and police officers around the Midwest.
“The usual dirty tricks and convenient rapid leaks from the department and the union about the victim just aren’t possible here,” Bennett said of Damond’s case. “On the other hand, race has a lot to do with who does and does not have a criminal record in this country.”
Again, I think we saw this though in this very thread.
Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor has turned himself in on murder and manslaughter charges related to the July shooting death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond. A warrant was issued Tuesday for Noor’s arrest on charges filed in Hennepin County District Court. Noor was booked into Hennepin County jail at 11:16 a.m., according to jail records, on a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension warrant for third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Bail was set at $500,000. Jail officials declined to release his booking photo. The charging documents, which have been filed under seal, have not yet been made public.
According to jail records, Noor is charged with third degree murder “perpetrating eminently dangerous act and evincing depraved mind” and second-degree manslaughter, “culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk.”
County attorney Mike Freeman announced a 2:30 p.m. news conference Tuesday to discuss the case, which drew international attention and led to the ouster of former police chief Janeé Harteau.
Damond, 40, a native of Australia, was shot and killed July 15 after calling police to report a possible assault behind her south Minneapolis home. Noor was in the passenger seat and fired across his partner, Matthew Harrity, killing Damond. Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said he would decide whether to charge Noor in Damond’s death, but convened a grand jury to gather additional evidence. A spokesman for Freeman declined to comment, as did Noor’s attorney Thomas Plunkett.
Damond’s fiancé, Don Damond and his family, along with Damond’s father, John Ruszczyk and the Ruszczyk family, applauded the charges in a joint statement, calling it “one step toward justice for this iniquitous act.”
“While we waited over eight months to come to this point, we are pleased with the way a grand jury and County Attorney Mike Freeman appear to have been diligent and thorough in investigating and ultimately determining that these charges are justified,” the statement said. “We remain hopeful that a strong case will be presented by the prosecutor, backed by verified and detailed forensic evidence, and that this will lead to a conviction. No charges can bring our Justine back. However, justice demands accountability for those responsible for recklessly killing the fellow citizens they are sworn to protect, and today’s actions reflect that.”
) I entirely sympathize with the stigma placed on mental health. I avoided treatment for a decade because I didn't want to be classified as "crazy" and be ostracized by my family. Turns out it was my family and friends who were the most supportive and my fears were ultimately misplaced.
