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.

How many are being shot not-dead?
We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?
Good luck finding anything to back this up. 6 weeks on crutches after a traffic stop doesn't hit the headlines quite as often.

As for shooting a deaf-mute driver when he gets out, his disabilities should not factor into it. The LOE should be able to work that out before pulling the trigger.

And, we had a death-by-tazer last week, so we get similar stuff in the UK, too. Guns are not the cause of the problem, they just make them more likely to happen.

 Skinnereal wrote:
How many are being shot not-dead?
We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?
Good luck finding anything to back this up. 6 weeks on crutches after a traffic stop doesn't hit the headlines quite as often.

As for shooting a deaf-mute driver when he gets out, his disabilities should not factor into it. The LOE should be able to work that out before pulling the trigger.

Shooting is never to disable. You cannot with a gun shoot reliably and safely "to disable". If you shoot it's for lethal effect.

How many people it's currently estimated to be shot by police btw? Don't think there's official statistic of that. In Finland it has been 5 in 10 years(one being accident due to careless handling of gun). Scaled with population it would give 295 dead in america in 10 years. Albeit Finnish police seems to be unusually low even compared to other europe.

Guns certainly make problems a whole lot more fatal, though.

 Ustrello wrote:

Well you did pull a whembly and cherry picked a headline without actually reading it

found not guilty of misdemeanor larceny and had a charge of misdemeanor resisting property recovery dismissed

And you skipped the sentence above that:

Harris was previously found guilty in Connecticut of resisting an officer in 2010, said The Charlotte Observer.

Which is what I referenced. I didn't say a damn thing about the larceny charge. If you are gonna be snarky, at least be accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

You also don't refuse to pull over for 7 or so miles like this guy did.

And that warrants being shot dead does it?

tneva82 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You also don't refuse to pull over for 7 or so miles like this guy did.

You shouldn't get shot by it either. Fined yes. Why throw him in the jail. But GETTING SHOT? Getting killed is not appropriate penalty for that.

You'll have a hard time showing I said that merits being shot.

We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

Spetulhu wrote:
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

You are absolutely correct. And unfortunately, the deaf guy exacerbated the situation by not doing what the cop wanted him to do from the get go. Leading the cop on a chase raises the tension. Getting out of the car raises the tension further. It sounds like in NC the cop would not have had a way to know he was dealing with a deaf guy before the traffic stop. So heightened tension coupled with inability to communicate led to a really gakky incident. And again, if the cop screwed up at all, I hope the NC State Troopers do what is right in regards to his future, be it firing or jail time based on the outcome of the investigation.

But I'm willing to wait for the videos and investigation.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

And that warrants being shot dead does it?

No but it suggests there is more to the story than we have access to at the moment. There is currently insufficient information to make a judgement on whether it was a justified shooting.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

And that warrants being shot dead does it?

No but it suggests there is more to the story than we have access to at the moment. There is currently insufficient information to make a judgement on whether it was a justified shooting.

That would be him trying to kill the police. Was he even armed? Did he even sport toy gun?

 CptJake wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

Getting out of the car raises the tension further.

He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.

Spetulhu wrote:
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

Opening fire absolutely should not be an option for someone who ignores a police officers order, unless there's a direct threat involved. They must have other ways to force compliance.

Herzlos wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

Getting out of the car raises the tension further.

He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.

I'm going to assume that in order to get his license with his handicap he must have had some class/training on how to handle being pulled over as a deaf mute, or at least should have thought it through. Carrying a simple card explaining your condition which you hand over with your license would go a long way. Getting out of the car during a stop unless told to do so is always a bad idea.

 CptJake wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

Getting out of the car raises the tension further.

He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.

I'm going to assume that in order to get his license with his handicap he must have had some class/training on how to handle being pulled over as a deaf mute, or at least should have thought it through. Carrying a simple card explaining your condition which you hand over with your license would go a long way. Getting out of the car during a stop unless told to do so is always a bad idea.

You know as well as I that what should have been thought through and what happens and does get planned are 2 different things. I am 100% sure not all the info is out there. However being shot from a safe position when you are not armed is kinda overkill regardless. I am not saying this is the norm, I'm talking about this one incident, and I still can't think of one reason at all for a justified shooting from this scenario.

 CptJake wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

You are absolutely correct. And unfortunately, the deaf guy exacerbated the situation by not doing what the cop wanted him to do from the get go. Leading the cop on a chase raises the tension. Getting out of the car raises the tension further. It sounds like in NC the cop would not have had a way to know he was dealing with a deaf guy before the traffic stop. So heightened tension coupled with inability to communicate led to a really gakky incident. And again, if the cop screwed up at all, I hope the NC State Troopers do what is right in regards to his future, be it firing or jail time based on the outcome of the investigation.

But I'm willing to wait for the videos and investigation.

Hahah, you think cops will actually do something to punish another cop. How adorable.

 curran12 wrote:


Hahah, you think cops will actually do something to punish another cop. How adorable.

Some examples of it happening:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/sean-groubert-fired-arrested_n_5879694.html

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-white-officer-manslaughter-20160804-snap-story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/04/police-officer-guilty-assault-in-shooting-unarmed-man.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/nyregion/officer-peter-liang-convicted-in-fatal-shooting-of-akai-gurley-in-brooklyn.html?_r=0

So aside from snarky comments, what is wrong with wanting the system to work, and knowing it can?

And when it doesn't work, advocating folks elect mayors, sheriffs and DAs who will have better policies which they will enforce?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

You also don't refuse to pull over for 7 or so miles like this guy did.

And that warrants being shot dead does it?

If I learned anything from Dakka it's that a significant amount of posters think that yes, not behaving exactly like a cop wants you to is grounds for immediate execution. Just read any past thread on police shootings.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If I learned anything from Dakka it's that a significant amount of posters think that yes, not behaving exactly like a cop wants you to is grounds for immediate execution. Just read any past thread on police shootings.

I see.

Well, when I look at this incident, and this one as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/21/florida-police-shoot-black-man-lying-down-with-arms-in-air

I wonder why that might be the case?

Maybe it's because a few of them are in the "thin" blue line themselves?

 CptJake wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
We'll really have to wait for the car/body cams to get investigated.

But police arresting you are supposed to shout orders at you, right? And if you don't obey they have to choose what to do, one option being opening fire. If a person really is deaf he'll have trouble following a nervous officer's orders, especially if the officer is shouting from beyond the range the deaf guy can read lips.

Getting out of the car raises the tension further.

He'd likely struggle to communicate from inside the car (probably get shot because the cop thinks he was going for a gun), and won't be able to follow any commands without direct line of sight.

I'm going to assume that in order to get his license with his handicap he must have had some class/training on how to handle being pulled over as a deaf mute, or at least should have thought it through. Carrying a simple card explaining your condition which you hand over with your license would go a long way. Getting out of the car during a stop unless told to do so is always a bad idea.

But, it is his right to get out of the car. It is not the cops right to shoot him for it. Only if he is threatening him. The act of getting out of a car is not a threat and should never be interpreted as a threat. Cops should not treat every citizen as an armed hostile. This is the problem.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Cops should not treat every citizen as an armed hostile. This is the problem.

Agreed. However, that is exactly how they are trained.

 CptJake wrote:
Harris seems to have been convicted of resisting an officer before

In all likelihood, the "resisting" was due to him not being able to hear the officer in the first place, and the conviction was due to him not having the resources to contest the charge.

Just as in this case, he didn't hear the police sirens behind him, and didn't stop until he got home and saw the police. Then he got out to ask "WTF?" and was promptly shot dead.

Well that needs knocked on the head for starters. The police in my area are all armed and they aren't shooting people for little to no reason. So there's no excuse.

 Skinnereal wrote:
How many are being shot not-dead?

We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?

Nobody, I hope. At the time one escalates to deadly force, any action should have lethal consequences. Every single time. A failure to actually use a lethal weapon lethally means that the officer was not properly trained in its use.

The problem is the escalation to deadly force, which should not have happened in the first place.

I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?

Something needs to change.

Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.

If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.

Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.

I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The easiest way to prevent police shootings of civilians is to mandate that DAs charge officers to the fullest extent of the law. If every police shooting starts out with a Murder 1 indictment, that changes the entire force calculus.

As much as I'd admire that approach, it might be easier just to take the penalty judgements from lawsuits out of the union pension fund instead of a taxpayer funded insurance payout.

 Vaktathi wrote:
As much as I'd admire that approach, it might be easier just to take the penalty judgements from lawsuits out of the union pension fund instead of a taxpayer funded insurance payout.

Oooh good call

 Vaktathi wrote:
As much as I'd admire that approach, it might be easier just to take the penalty judgements from lawsuits out of the union pension fund instead of a taxpayer funded insurance payout.

Damn. That would be great. The blue wall of silence might crack then and cops might actually start being ethical feths who report the bad apples around them.

Because penalizing a retirement system for the actions of bad actors is bonkers? How about we also take out judgments from the general Social Security fund?

Or, we could stop with the stereotyping and deal with individuals as such. You know, like justice pretty much demands.

The trend seems to be that LEOs are getting more aggressively prosecuted, but, like anything, it varies. Until people can comprehend that this is not one monolithic group, but thousands spread all across the country governed by different laws and present in different communities, nothing will improve.

A very good point was raised that we expect police to be kind of catch all problem solvers and crisis intervention, from traffic to mental health, to apprehending some of the most violent criminals in the world. And then we are surprised when problems develop.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm starting to wonder, should the county/city level police forces not be abolished and replaced with expanded state forces who I'm assuming will be better trained and have more accountably. With independent organisations policing them, with the FBI as oversight?

Something needs to change.

Trevor Noah on the Daily Show last month had a good piece on the expectations society places on police to handle so many varied duties that it isn't possible for police to function properly. If we expect police to handle armed threats, traffic violations, mental health issues, and everything else in between, all that is created is a recipe for disaster.

If some of the currently assigned police duties could be relieved by organizations better trained to handle specific scenarios (like a mental health call) perhaps we'd have less incidents of cops killing innocent people.

Police also need to grow some fething balls and not act like every person is a goddamned threat.

I wonder if the policy for police departments to actively hire ex-combat veterans needs to be re-examined. I am not knocking on combat vets, but I personally don't want someone trained to function in a war zone to be seen as an asset hire for a civilian police force. Some of those ex-soldiers have mental health issues related to their deployments and "Ex-soldier = Good Cop" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The vet policy definitely needs to be re-examined. Again, no offence to vets, but I really think many of them are not prime police candidates.

Also I love the idea of the police being forced to pay for their own mistakes rather than the public. I said this before but is it not possible to pass laws stating that payouts by the police for these incidents should come from their pension pots/union funds rather than the city treasury? I guarantee that would shape them up.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
How many are being shot not-dead?

We hear about the fatalities, but is there a bigger statistic that highlights the problem better? Are LOEs shooting to disable in most instances, or are the 'bad-apple' cops just good shots?

Nobody, I hope. At the time one escalates to deadly force, any action should have lethal consequences. Every single time. A failure to actually use a lethal weapon lethally means that the officer was not properly trained in its use.

The problem is the escalation to deadly force, which should not have happened in the first place.

I disagree that when you escalate to deadly force that you should then no longer seek to de-escalate if the opportunity presents itself.

Take the Lee Rigby murder here in the UK as an example. We had two armed men, one of which had a pistol (non-functional as it turned out but the police of course didn't know that at the time) and our armed response team on the scene.

The two men charged the officers who shot them. However they were also capable of identifying when their shots had incapacitated the suspects without the suspects being dead (hits to the shoullder had made the suspects drop their weapons, for example), which allowed the suspects to be detained, first aid given and them survive to stand trial.

They were not aiming to disable but retained enough awareness of the situation as a whole to identify when the situation could be dialed back from lethal force once the suspects ability to respond in kind had been eliminated.