Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

Water John

I didn't want to ref that gun because of its recent use. The M 16 really is the one I meant to reference, jungle assault rifle.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dont know what an m8 is. But if I was back in America it wouldn't bother me what they were carrying because I comply with police direction.

Plenty of people dead in the state's that have complied with police direction. The over militarisation if the police and the trained in mentality that everyone is your enemy training which comes from military contractors means no one's ever real safe. And many less safe than others due to their skin or appearance.

At no point should one be smug where there is aggressive extremely poorly trained trigger happy people given a badge a gun and a car in weeks from sign-up.

eldamo

listermint wrote: »

Plenty of people dead in the state's that have complied with police direction. The over militarisation if the police and the trained in mentality that everyone is your enemy training which comes from military contractors means no one's ever real safe. And many less safe than others due to their skin or appearance.

At no point should one be smug where there is aggressive extremely poorly trained trigger happy people given a badge a gun and a car in weeks from sign-up.

There is a horrid video doing the rounds of a white guy being ordered out of hotel room by screaming cops who want him to crawl on his belly with his hands in the air, when he fails to comply with these confusing orders, he is shot dead.

Seems just best not to cross paths with law enforcement over there.

Shooting of Daniel Shaver

Carfacemandog

"Doing the rounds" isnt all that accurate given if happened over 4 and a half years ago, with the video coming out 3 and and a half years ago. It might ring bells that it was the one where the cop had "you're f*cked" engraved in his AR15 that he used to kill Shaver with.

The police department released an edited version during the trial, and only the full video a few hours after the cop had been acquitted.

I do mainly agree though - as much as I think there are systemic issues regarding racism among some cops (and literal racist gangs with in police departments, as per federal judges, like the 3000 Boys, Jump Out Boys and Lynwood Vikings) the larger issue is the militarized, Judge Dredd type mentality of a good number of police officers who seem to view themselves as above the law, able to do what they want, and answerable to nobody whose job is less to do with keeping the peace and more to do with squashing anyone who gets in their way.

Together, that's an outrageously bad mix.

Manic Moran

Another example as to why police don't like to mess around was released today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSa2EomQAbA

Pulled over for a traffic infraction, no license, no insurance, expired registration. Car to be towed. After being patient for nearly ten minutes, then tasing once, pepper sprayed twice, and in the middle of a struggle, the man managed to shoot one cop dead, the other critically wounded. My guess is that after ten minutes of arguing and the driver playing the idiot, the cops let their guard down thinking the suspect to be unarmed.

Retr0gamer

Manic Moran wrote: »

Another example as to why police don't like to mess around was released today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSa2EomQAbA

Pulled over for a traffic infraction, no license, no insurance, expired registration. Car to be towed. After being patient for nearly ten minutes, then tasing once, pepper sprayed twice, and in the middle of a struggle, the man managed to shoot one cop dead, the other critically wounded. My guess is that after ten minutes of arguing and the driver playing the idiot, the cops let their guard down thinking the suspect to be unarmed.

Thanks for more useless anecdotal evidence

eldamo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Another example as to why police don't like to mess around was released today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSa2EomQAbA

Pulled over for a traffic infraction, no license, no insurance, expired registration. Car to be towed. After being patient for nearly ten minutes, then tasing once, pepper sprayed twice, and in the middle of a struggle, the man managed to shoot one cop dead, the other critically wounded. My guess is that after ten minutes of arguing and the driver playing the idiot, the cops let their guard down thinking the suspect to be unarmed.

That is pretty scary alright. Being a cop in america is not a job I would ever want to have.


David Anthony Ware is pleading not guilty and his legal team were the ones that wanted that video released ( I can't see much that helps them)

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/defense-wants-video-released-that-shows-officers-being-shot-during-traffic-stop/article_38c89dbe-a12e-537d-b35f-94744915947c.html


They show police videos like this as part of their training, this is obviously necessary, but clearly could put the fear of god into you out on the beat.

This is the video I had in mind from a traffic stop in georgia in 1998
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mssNOhv1UMc


America is screwed with it's proliferation of firearms, you just never know who you are going to be faced with when you pull someone over.

A lot of officers are just not suited to the job for a variety of reasons. The extremes of being so scared you will shoot someone at the first twitch and those who just want to be judge dredd out there blasting away.


It is hard to tell in individual cases, but I do think the police need to stop defending the indefensible and hold their hands up and make an example of their own when they are clearly in the wrong, not the usual dirty tricks of losing body cam footage and trying to undermine the person who has been shot.


This should be an open and shut case, the civilian in this case escalated something simple, had that gun to hand, called a getaway vehicle.


You can debate that he might not have been given the time to behave like this if he had been a different ethnicity, but we know nothing of these officers character to claim that.

Sorry, this is all a bit wishy washy, you might ask why I would bother posting on here if I don't have a strong opinion that I definitely feel confident on. This is just a complex and multi layered and horrible situation.

Never let guns get into our small island to the extent that they have them over there.

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Another example as to why police don't like to mess around was released today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSa2EomQAbA

Pulled over for a traffic infraction, no license, no insurance, expired registration. Car to be towed. After being patient for nearly ten minutes, then tasing once, pepper sprayed twice, and in the middle of a struggle, the man managed to shoot one cop dead, the other critically wounded. My guess is that after ten minutes of arguing and the driver playing the idiot, the cops let their guard down thinking the suspect to be unarmed.

Thats the job though, right?
I mean the other option is that you shoot first and ask questions later.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Another example as to why police don't like to mess around was released today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSa2EomQAbA

Pulled over for a traffic infraction, no license, no insurance, expired registration. Car to be towed. After being patient for nearly ten minutes, then tasing once, pepper sprayed twice, and in the middle of a struggle, the man managed to shoot one cop dead, the other critically wounded. My guess is that after ten minutes of arguing and the driver playing the idiot, the cops let their guard down thinking the suspect to be unarmed.

Well that settles it, cops should just shoot people and let god sort it out yeah

Manic Moran

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Thanks for more useless anecdotal evidence

No more or less anecdotal than videos of what appears to be unnecessary escalation of force by police. If we are going to use actual, albeit rare examples of police abuse of force as a basis for discussion (or protest), it is not unreasonable to frame it in the context of actual, albeit rare examples of how things go lethal for the police in in the blink of an eye in confrontations.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats the job though, right?
I mean the other option is that you shoot first and ask questions later.

Well, there is the medium position of using more force than Europeans (for example) might be comfortable with but which results in all parties surviving to the end of the day. After all, you can also say "That's just the risks of the job" for criminals who end up getting shot as well, if you want to take that perspectice.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Well that settles it, cops should just shoot people and let god sort it out yeah

I can understand why they would. Any trivial routine interaction with the public could result in you being murdered.

A lot of this is to do with the ease of gun ownership over there though. If that was scaled back, so too would be the number of needless deaths.

AbusesToilets

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can understand why they would. Any trivial routine interaction with the public could result in you being murdered.

A lot of this is to do with the ease of gun ownership over there though. If that was scaled back, so too would be the number of needless deaths.

It's not gun ownership, it's illegal gun possession. The people involved in shootings like that are rarely using legally held firearms.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not gun ownership, it's illegal gun possession. The people involved in shootings like that are rarely using legally held firearms.

Surely one begets the other though?

illegal guns exist because of the ease and availability of guns that likely started out legal or close to it in the 1st place.

The same proliferation of weapons doesn't prevail anywhere else does it?

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, there is the medium position of using more force than Europeans (for example) might be comfortable with but which results in all parties surviving to the end of the day. After all, you can also say "That's just the risks of the job" for criminals who end up getting shot as well, if you want to take that perspectice.

What about the totally innocent people who get shot by eager police? I think thats kinda what people are talking about, rather than any strawman about dangerous criminals being shot...

How much more force do you think the cops in your example could have used?

Do accept that, by the nature of the job, even doing everything correctly, some police are going to get shot and killed and that this is a better outcome than any innocent person being shot and killed by the same police force?

"To Protect & Serve", immediately puts them on the back foot, it not "To safeguard ourselves above all others".

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not gun ownership, it's illegal gun possession. The people involved in shootings like that are rarely using legally held firearms.

Where did they get the guns from though?

Would you draw the same distinction between lets say North Korea having nuclear ICBMs? Do you care where they got them from or just the fact that they have them and that they are a danger to everyone else?

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

What about the totally innocent people who get shot by eager police? I think thats kinda what people are talking about, rather than any strawman about dangerous criminals being shot...

How much more force do you think the cops in your example could have used?

Do accept that, by the nature of the job, even doing everything correctly, some police are going to get shot and killed and that this is a better outcome than any innocent person being shot and killed by the same police force?

"To Protect & Serve", immediately puts them on the back foot, it not "To safeguard ourselves above all others".

So are you saying that a policeman’s life is worth less than a civilians?
Looks like it.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

So are you saying that a policeman’s life is worth less than a civilians?
Looks like it.

No, not worth less.
I am saying that 1 of the people involved has accepted the risks involved in the encounter, the other hasnt.

I figure you can guess which is which.

Would you be ok with Firemen dousing your house in foam in case it were to one day go on fire and they died while trying to save it?

eldamo

GreeBo wrote: »

rather than any strawman about dangerous criminals being shot...

GreeBo wrote: »

Would you be ok with Firemen dousing your house in foam in case it were to one day go on fire and they died while trying to save it?

The straw does nothing!!!!!!

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

No, not worth less.
I am saying that 1 of the people involved has accepted the risks involved in the encounter, the other hasnt.

I figure you can guess which is which.

Would you be ok with Firemen dousing your house in foam in case it were to one day go on fire and they died while trying to save it?

Totally different argument.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

Totally different argument.

Why is it different?

You are saying that the cops shouldnt have to wait to get shot before they use lethal force to prevent getting shot. I'm saying that firemen shouldnt have to wait for a building to go on fire before the douse it in foam as a preventative measure.

You accept that firemen put their lives on the line but not police?

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

Why is it different?

You are saying that the cops shouldnt have to wait to get shot before they use lethal force to prevent getting shot. I'm saying that firemen shouldnt have to wait for a building to go on fire before the douse it in foam as a preventative measure.

You accept that firemen put their lives on the line but not police?

I’m not saying that at all.
Both react to incidents but usually it’s only the police who are attacked and specifically because they’re police.
Firemen are rarely attacked because they’re firemen.

Manic Moran

You're kindof going from one extreme to the other here.

Yes, there is an inherent risk to the job. Much as there is with firemen, soldiers, air/sea rescue, or whatever else. An expectation of 'zero casualties' is unreasonable. In all the jobs, there are mitigations which can be taken, though, to include, for the example of firemen, a decision to simply not engage or enter the building if it's considered too hazardous or the coast guard helicopter pilot concluding it's too dangerous to fly. With law enforcement, though, in what is a consciously adversarial situation where the active decisions of others are the hazard (as opposed to just a dangerous situation where personal lapses are more the issue), walking away isn't normally an option. A fireman can make an estimated judgement on the structural integrity of a building. What estimations for such judgements are available to police?

As a result, it is not unexpected that if they can't walk away, and the active threat is unpredictable, then they will take what active measures they can to ensure that risks are minimized. That may well result in a standard of force which is closer to 'unacceptable' than most people will feel comfortable with but which normally results in an outcome that everyone involved goes to sleep alive that night.

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Surely one begets the other though?

illegal guns exist because of the ease and availability of guns that likely started out legal or close to it in the 1st place.

The same proliferation of weapons doesn't prevail anywhere else does it?

Not to rehash the gun control debate again, but the point I'm making is that talking about gun control legislation as a solution to gun crime misses the target entirely. You won't decrease gun violence by making it more difficult for Joe soap to purchase a pistol. The much lauded Assualt Weapons Ban did shag all to improve gun violence for example.

There are other countries with similar levels of gun availablity, but without the crime rates. Unfortunately, most of the gun violence is found within the black community, and I'd imagine most of it commited with illegally held guns, tho I don't have a source to back that up. Just my opinion.

GreeBo wrote: »

Where did they get the guns from though?

Would you draw the same distinction between lets say North Korea having nuclear ICBMs? Do you care where they got them from or just the fact that they have them and that they are a danger to everyone else?

I would imagine they purchase them illegally, from similar sources that would provide drugs illegally. Tend to exist in support of one another.

Retr0gamer

Manic Moran wrote: »

No more or less anecdotal than videos of what appears to be unnecessary escalation of force by police. If we are going to use actual, albeit rare examples of police abuse of force as a basis for discussion (or protest), it is not unreasonable to frame it in the context of actual, albeit rare examples of how things go lethal for the police in in the blink of an eye in confrontations.

No it doesn't work like that. One is unfortunate sure but it's the dangers of the job the police take. It's a tragedy and shouldn't be happening but it's part of the job when working with dangerous criminals who are unpredictable.

Police abuse of force on the other hand should not be happening ever but on top of that is well within control of the police. The Police are actively out there hurting the people whose job it is to protect. Their job isn't to cause GBH to civilians exercising a constitutional right.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

I’m not saying that at all.
Both react to incidents but usually it’s only the police who are attacked and specifically because they’re police.
Firemen are rarely attacked because they’re firemen.

And I'm saying that putting yourself in the line of fire is part of the job for a US cop.
In a similar vein private security cant just shoot anyone who approaches their subject.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would imagine they purchase them illegally, from similar sources that would provide drugs illegally. Tend to exist in support of one another.

But you don't agree that the fact that they are available legally makes them more available illegally?
It's not like someone manufacturers illegal guns.

Water John

GreeBo wrote: »

But you don't agree that the fact that they are available legally makes them more available illegally?
It's not like someone manufacturers illegal guns.

Guns have been, normalised, in US society.

johnnyskeleton

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No it doesn't work like that. One is unfortunate sure but it's the dangers of the job the police take. It's a tragedy and shouldn't be happening but it's part of the job when working with dangerous criminals who are unpredictable.

Do you accept though that those dangerous and unpredictable criminals could pose a danger to other people and, if so, the Police can, where appropriate, use potentially or actually lethal force?

For example, in hostage situations occasionally the perpetrator will be killed if they do not surrender and they still pose a threat to civilians.

Police abuse of force on the other hand should not be happening ever but on top of that is well within control of the police.

Saying that abuse of force should not be happening ever is a much trickier concept to grapple with. Obviously you are correct, but what is not at all clear is what constitutes abuse and how you think abuse can be stopped in human systems.

For example, if a police officer honestly but mistakenly believes that someone is reaching for a gun, with which they could pose a threat to the police officer, their partner or a member of the public, is that an "abuse of force" or is that a mistake in judgment or perhaps even an unavoidable aspect of policing?

If the former, how do you stop this abuse of force other than not allowing the police to have weapons at all and not allowing them to use lethal force in any circumstances? Bearing in mind that An Garda Siochana, who are one of the most peaceful police forces in the world, still require firearms and the lethal use of force on occasion.

If the latter, then it is a good argument for more training and looking into ways of using non-lethal force instead, although that in itself is a difficult argument.

The Police are actively out there hurting the people whose job it is to protect.

I really can't say for certain that some police in America aren't actively out there hurting people - it's a country of over 300m people with hundreds of thousands of police officers in over 10,000 separate police jurisdictions. There are also some well reported instances of unsavory characters such as white supremacists and separatists infiltrating local law enforcement agencies.

But I don't think that can be said of the police overall, the majority of whom do try to do their job as best they can. The solution to there being police who abuse their power is that there are systems in place to weed them out, monitor their activities, remove opportunities to abuse power and to investigate and prosecute any such abuses. It's not a catchy slogan and it isn't in sinc with the public mood in parts of the USA, but the reality is that the solution is police reform rather than tarring all police as bad.

Their job isn't to cause GBH to civilians exercising a constitutional right.

What if the person isn't exercising a constitutional right but is committing an offence? Let's look at another example, when Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes was shot when he was mistaken for one of the London bombers. That was clearly a tragedy, and the police officer made a very serious mistake. The appropriate response is to learn from those mistakes and to put systems in place to prevent it happening again. More and better training is the key to that.

Now when you compare the London Metropolitan Police who are pretty well trained, and compare them to local and State police in parts of the USA, where the training is far closer to that of a security guard, the solution seems clear.

Ultimately, it is not possible to design a perfect system that avoids any bad actions absolutely. The best we can do is design a system that can prevent those things happening as much as possible, and then to review the systems constantly whenever something bad does happen.

Retr0gamer

Reform is desperately needed in America but the powers that be won't implement that reform. Instead they cheerlead and enable more of these crimes which just escalates tensions of the already disgruntled masses.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

But you don't agree that the fact that they are available legally makes them more available illegally?
It's not like someone manufacturers illegal guns.

To a point perhaps. The logic is sound, but the argument that you can reduce that number by further restricting gun access isn't imo. That's bolting the stable after the horse has already bolted. There are more guns in the US than people, and at this point criminals won't be the ones affected by any legislation passed.

It also doesn't tackle the larger issue, which is violence in those communities. That's driving the majority of murders with guns.