Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20140526/police-procedure----what-happens-after-an-officer-shoots-a-suspect

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-a-police-officer-shoots-someone-in-the-line-of-duty

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

Clearly he was startled by the woman. It really is extremely rare for police officers just to shoot women in the stomach at close range for no reason.

The point of the case is why should he have thought he needed to be afraid for his life just because he was startled?

Well, it is him admitting it wasn't an accidental discharge, which some people, even the media, were thinking it might be.

 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.

So the Minneapolis Police Chief just resigned, using this as the reason. This is going to get interesting.

 Ouze wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Thank you.

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?

The thread in these screen caps is the probably the last word on what this means.

 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.

This defendant is on his fourth trial for his off-duty shooting of his daughter's boyfriend.

 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?

Not if it's a blonde white lady, most likely. Otherwise, usually.

 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?

The thread in these screen caps is the probably the last word on what this means.

This is a tragic event, but I'm a bad person and couldn't help laughing at that thread. That's some grade A, laser-designated, trolling

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

That said, no, this doesn't seem like an ND.

Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.

Why?

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.

Seaward wrote:
no ... safety manipulation needed.

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."

 Henry wrote:

"No sir, I wasn't being unsafe. I was removing the need for safety manipulation."

"Is that what they're teaching you kids in sex ed these days?"

 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?

Why did he need to have the pistol with a round in the chamber? Because an empty chamber may be a liability in self defense scenarios.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/10/9/sheriffs-tips-empty-chambers/
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/carrying-with-a-round-in-the-chamber-to-do-or-not-to-do/

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:
Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.

Why?

You might check your own police units buckey.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pistols

Note the Glocks.
Also the Germans use HKs yes?

As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/10/9/sheriffs-tips-empty-chambers/
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/carrying-with-a-round-in-the-chamber-to-do-or-not-to-do/

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.