Family of "swatting" victim want's officer charged

[woolfe9998]

Remember those videos of kids running out of Columbine with their hands up? Not all of them left them up the whole time, or up at all. I guess the cops should've shot them too, just to make sure? Putting your hands down should not be a reason to be executed. I doubt that would've even got you executed in the middle ages.

LOL, I'm sure you're right. In the middle ages, they didn't have firearms, so yes, I doubt you would have been shot for lowering your hands then.

A point of clarification: I think it does matter whether the guy lowered his hands or not. But I also think judging the guilt or innocence of the cop has to be based on the totality of circumstances. My point here is that if the cops lied and he didn't lower his hands, the cop is certainly guilty. If, on the other hand, he did lower his hands, then the cop may or may not be, depending on the circumstances.

But I'm sure you'll reply by describing my positions as, "I think the cops should be able to run around blowing people's heads off just for kicks." Because that is how you argue a point, isn't it?

 

[Subyman]

How about some rules of engagement where you have to actually see a fucking gun instead of "thinking" they may be reaching? We are talking about ending someone's life. That decision shouldn't be made on assumptions.

 

[Zorba]

I said this about the police conduct:

If this was a bad shoot on the part of the police, it was a crime of negligence.

One thing I get really tired of on P&N is this sort of thing. Either characterize what I say accurately, or don't reply to my posts.

I don't see how I am mischaracterizing what you are saying. You said "If this was a bad shoot" so you start off by implying you may have no issue with the policing shooting an unarmed man that posed no credible risk to officer, since we do know for a fact the officer did not even claim to have seen a gun. Then you said "it was a crime of negligence," this implies that you believe that the crime was only in that the police believed the 911 call and showed up in a state of fear. If you apply a little bit of logic to this statement, and put it in the context of the rest of the quoted post, plus all of your other messages in this thread, this statement clearly makes it looks like you feel the only possible issue in the shooting was that the guy wasn't actually a bad guy.

I take issue with the police gunning down people, who pose no credible risk, regardless of whether or not they are a good or bad guy. I personally don't see how shooting a man, who poses no credible risk, is anything but murder.

Again, since you said "crime of negligence" it implies the negligence is in believing the 911 call, so that means you would think it was a good shoot if he had been a real bad guy. Therefore, that means you are okay with the police using deadly force when their lives are not threatened. Meaning, you are okay with the police being judge, jury and executioner.

If you mean something else, by implying this may have been a good shoot, and the only reason it may not have been is due to the state of fear from the 911 call, please clarify.

BTW: In the last thread you were just trying to claim you were against people acting like interfacing with the police in the US was systematically dangerous. But in this thread, you are clearly defending the policing gunning down an unarmed man that presented no real risk. So maybe you should've actually said what you meant in the last thread.

LOL, I'm sure you're right. In the middle ages, they didn't have firearms, so yes, I doubt you would have been shot for lowering your hands then.

You give me crap for mischaracterizing what you said, and then you say this? Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. What I obviously meant, is in the middle ages, I seriously doubt you'd be put to death over very briefly not follow orders 100%. I picked the middle ages because it was known for its torture and execution. You do know you can kill people and give them orders without firearms, right?

A point of clarification: I think it does matter whether the guy lowered his hands or not. But I also think judging the guilt or innocence of the cop has to be based on the totality of circumstances. My point here is that if the cops lied and he didn't lower his hands, the cop is certainly guilty. If, on the other hand, he did lower his hands, then the cop may or may not be, depending on the circumstances.

My point is, I think a police office should have to have some amount of credible fear for his life before he kills someone.

Other posters were asking you if you'd be okay with them killing a hostage for putting their hands down, to which you said "And if does reach for his waist, they may assume he is the shooter and proceed accordingly." I was pointing out a very famous event where HOSTAGES didn't reliably leave their hands up, because in stressful situations people don't always do what they are supposed to do. There is a lot of science that shows this, acting like it doesn't or shouldn't happen doesn't change reality.

Again, I don't see how I am mischaratizing your point, when you just straight said it might be fine for the police to kill a hostage if they lowered their hands by pointing out hostages that have done so in the past.

But I'm sure you'll reply by describing my positions as, "I think the cops should be able to run around blowing people's heads off just for kicks." Because that is how you argue a point, isn't it?

Yeah, please go find any of my past posts that are like that. Or maybe you shouldn't just assume because someone disagrees with you in one thread that they are on the same level as taj. That is a real problem with this forum, people automatically go on full attack mode when someone disagrees with them on one point.

At the end of the day, it appears that you are okay with the police killing someone for briefly lowering their hands, even when there is no gun seen and the police having taken every possible defensive measure to protect themselves (i.e. no credible fear for their lives). I, however, am not okay with police killing people that presents no credible risk to them, as I stated in the previous thread in replies to you.

If you don't like the ramifications of your beliefs, maybe you should change them instead of lobbing personal insults at me. If I don't understand what your beliefs are, maybe you should clarify instead of lobbing personal insults.

 

[Darwin333]

IMHO, if you are willing to disobey a cop's gunpoint orders you probably don't have anything friendly in mind.

Nothing is ever going to change the OP's mind that this cop is guilty of murder. Nothing will ever make him believe the suspect did anything wrong either. He doesn't understand that for this problem to be fixed we need to train our cops to not shoot for "reaching" when no gun has been seen, but that we also need to teach the public to cooperate with law enforcement and obey their orders. You can argue your case later in court.

Anyone who refuses to obey a cops orders once they have drawn their gun is a fucking idiot. Any cop who shoots before they reasonably believe their life is in danger, like actually seeing a gun and not just simple suspect reaching, is a fucking idiot. When two idiots collide people get killed. Try not to be an idiot.

I highly doubt that this kid was trying to, or even consciously disobeying police orders, he was just confused as fuck. Being confused as fuck, rightfully so, or scared as hell, which if he was a hostage again rightfully so, shouldn't get you executed by agents of the state. Ever.

The police had every advantage and even if he had been armed he was at every disadvantage. There was absolutely zero reason for the cops not to wait until they identified an actual imminent threat before shooting him.

 

[Sunburn74]

Regular guy answering his door killed by a trained professional. People are supporting the trained professional. Boggles the mind particularly after it's clear how these trained professionals time and time again lie about the very defense given.
Remember the SC shooting in a gas station where a guy followed the officer instructions to show his driver's license and was gunned down in broad daylight?
The other SC shooting where a black man was shot in the back as he fled and a weapon planted?
The McDermott killing in Chicago which was covered up until journalists made video come to light?

The list goes on an on.

The reached for his waistband to me is not a credible defense. History suggests more often than not it's a lie or a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Trained professionals should be held to a higher standard where getting it right matters.

 

[Darwin333]

See how the Brits handle a swatting call of a guy that supposedly killed his family.

https://youtu.be/gedVHbgIt7c?t=8m5s

 

[jackstar7]

Regular guy answering his door killed by a trained professional. People are supporting the trained professional. Boggles the mind particularly after it's clear how these trained professionals time and time again lie about the very defense given.
Remember the SC shooting in a gas station where a guy followed the officer instructions to show his driver's license and was gunned down in broad daylight?
The other SC shooting where a black man was shot in the back as he fled and a weapon planted?
The McDermott killing in Chicago which was covered up until journalists made video come to light?

The list goes on an on.

The reached for his waistband to me is not a credible defense. History suggests more often than not it's a lie or a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Trained professionals should be held to a higher standard where getting it right matters.

Particularly in matters of life and death.

 

[Mike64]

To me, the US is like a frigging third-world country. Where police is afraid of its own citizens. And citizens are afraid of the police.

And now we even have our very own banana-republic-dictator wannabe in the White House to prove it!

 

[Paladin3]

I highly doubt that this kid was trying to, or even consciously disobeying police orders, he was just confused as fuck. Being confused as fuck, rightfully so, or scared as hell, which if he was a hostage again rightfully so, shouldn't get you executed by agents of the state. Ever.

The police had every advantage and even if he had been armed he was at every disadvantage. There was absolutely zero reason for the cops not to wait until they identified an actual imminent threat before shooting him.

Did you read what I said? Police should do everything they can to not shoot, including waiting until they actually see a gun and not just "reaching." But that's not what they are currently trained to do and that sucks.

That poor guy didn't keep his hands up like any sane individual would. I don't care why he didn't or how confused you want to speculate he was. It was very stupid and contributed to getting him shot and killed.

Anyone who puts 100% of the blame on the cop without even considering that what the guy who got shot did wrong is just showing their bias, IMHO. We have to at least address the "fuck the cops" attitude that cause many to do stupid shit and disobey orders from cops because they want to argue their case in the streets. That's what courts are for. You don't argue with a cop with a gun unless you want to get shot. Afterwards we can lament that it was a bad shooting, but that poor guy is still dead when he might have lived if he had just kept his hands up.

And I'm not defending this shoot in any way when I say this.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't see how I am mischaracterizing what you are saying. You said "If this was a bad shoot" so you start off by implying you may have no issue with the policing shooting an unarmed man that posed no credible risk to officer, since we do know for a fact the officer did not even claim to have seen a gun. Then you said "it was a crime of negligence," this implies that you believe that the crime was only in that the police believed the 911 call and showed up in a state of fear. If you apply a little bit of logic to this statement, and put it in the context of the rest of the quoted post, plus all of your other messages in this thread, this statement clearly makes it looks like you feel the only possible issue in the shooting was that the guy wasn't actually a bad guy.

I have underlined the word imply here because what you are doing is reading things into what I've said because you have the same problem as so many others here - you think everyone is either on one team or the other, and if they disagree with anything you say, you assume them to be on the opposite team.

Manslaughter is a crime of negligence. This is what I was referring to. I was comparing the possible criminal liability of the cop here with that of the swatter, who IMO committed a crime of intent. If it's manslaughter, it's because it was a bad shoot, not because they believed the call. They had to operate under the assumption that the call was real, but that doesn't make it a good shoot.

I take issue with the police gunning down people, who pose no credible risk, regardless of whether or not they are a good or bad guy. I personally don't see how shooting a man, who poses no credible risk, is anything but murder.

Again, since you said "crime of negligence" it implies the negligence is in believing the 911 call, so that means you would think it was a good shoot if he had been a real bad guy. Therefore, that means you are okay with the police using deadly force when their lives are not threatened. Meaning, you are okay with the police being judge, jury and executioner.

No, none of that was implied by what I wrote.

If you mean something else, by implying this may have been a good shoot, and the only reason it may not have been is due to the state of fear from the 911 call, please clarify.

BTW: In the last thread you were just trying to claim you were against people acting like interfacing with the police in the US was systematically dangerous. But in this thread, you are clearly defending the policing gunning down an unarmed man that presented no real risk. So maybe you should've actually said what you meant in the last thread.

What I mean is, if the guy never moved his hand toward his waist, then the cop's excuse is a bogus lie and I don't see him possibly being innocent. If, OTOH, he did move his hand, then it still depends on all the factors involved, like how far away and well protected were the police, did they see a gun or any flash that looked like a gun, etc. One factor that may weigh in favor of guilt here is that the other officers didn't fire after he did, possibly because they didn't think that firing was appropriate.

You give me crap for mischaracterizing what you said, and then you say this? Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. What I obviously meant, is in the middle ages, I seriously doubt you'd be put to death over very briefly not follow orders 100%. I picked the middle ages because it was known for its torture and execution. You do know you can kill people and give them orders without firearms, right?

Fair enough, but I honestly don't think either of us has any idea what someone might have been executed for 1000 years ago. I was mocking you for your hyperbole.

My point is, I think a police office should have to have some amount of credible fear for his life before he kills someone.

Other posters were asking you if you'd be okay with them killing a hostage for putting their hands down, to which you said "And if does reach for his waist, they may assume he is the shooter and proceed accordingly." I was pointing out a very famous event where HOSTAGES didn't reliably leave their hands up, because in stressful situations people don't always do what they are supposed to do. There is a lot of science that shows this, acting like it doesn't or shouldn't happen doesn't change reality.

Right, that is what they may (as in might, not as in, is permitted to) do under those circumstances. Which doesn't make it a good shoot. It does, however, make it foreseeable to the victim, that if you lower your hands, you run a serious risk of being shot, particularly given how police seem to be trained these days. Lowering your hands is foolish. And while the cop may still be guilty of manslaughter, it's little consolation to you after you're dead.

Again, I don't see how I am mischaratizing your point, when you just straight said it might be fine for the police to kill a hostage if they lowered their hands by pointing out hostages that have done so in the past.



Yeah, please go find any of my past posts that are like that. Or maybe you shouldn't just assume because someone disagrees with you in one thread that they are on the same level as taj. That is a real problem with this forum, people automatically go on full attack mode when someone disagrees with them on one point.

At the end of the day, it appears that you are okay with the police killing someone for briefly lowering their hands, even when there is no gun seen and the police having taken every possible defensive measure to protect themselves (i.e. no credible fear for their lives). I, however, am not okay with police killing people that presents no credible risk to them, as I stated in the previous thread in replies to you.

If you don't like the ramifications of your beliefs, maybe you should change them instead of lobbing personal insults at me. If I don't understand what your beliefs are, maybe you should clarify instead of lobbing personal insults.

No, it depends on the circumstances of the case. I personally don't like the "ramifications" of people who judge every case the same way. There are plenty of people like that on this board. They're on the same side in every cop thread. I would invite you to review my past comments in other threads, such as the Castille case. For me, it's all about the facts, not opinion or ideology.

 

[Zorba]

I have underlined the word imply here because what you are doing is reading things into what I've said because you have the same problem as so many others here - you think everyone is either on one team or the other, and if they disagree with anything you say, you assume them to be on the opposite team.

Considering I agree with about 95% of your posts and I am pretty sure we have a very similar ideology, I don't think this debate has anything to do with me assuming your are on a different team. I think we can have differing opinions about something without being on differing "teams." I did probably wrote my original posts too attackish, I tend to do that on my phone because I hate typing on it.

Manslaughter is a crime of negligence. This is what I was referring to. I was comparing the possible criminal liability of the cop here with that of the swatter, who IMO committed a crime of intent. If it's manslaughter, it's because it was a bad shoot, not because they believed the call. They had to operate under the assumption that the call was real, but that doesn't make it a good shoot.

I knew what you meant by negligence. I personally don't see how if the police officer shot him, without cause, it wouldn't be 2nd degree murder. There was intent to kill when the trigger was pulled, it wasn't an accident. I know you are a lawyer and I'm not, but from my layman position, I don't see how it was just negligence.

Further, the way I read your original post that I responded to, was the you were saying since the police showed up believing they were responding to a dangerous situation, that gave them more of a pass than they otherwise would have. I know this could affect their state of mind, but I don't think it should give them a pass. If they killed a person that posed no threat to them, they should be punished. If you factor in their state of mind at all, then at a minimum you have to factor in state of mind of the victim in lowering his hands, too.

I do agree with that the originally caller showed clear intent and I am not giving him a pass.

What I mean is, if the guy never moved his hand toward his waist, then the cop's excuse is a bogus lie and I don't see him possibly being innocent. If, OTOH, he did move his hand, then it still depends on all the factors involved, like how far away and well protected were the police, did they see a gun or any flash that looked like a gun, etc. One factor that may weigh in favor of guilt here is that the other officers didn't fire after he did, possibly because they didn't think that firing was appropriate.

Based on what the police's own account, I don't see how it isn't murder. They said they didn't see a gun. "Reaching for waist" is a CYA way of saying "putting his arms in a neutral position." Just because police are scared of everything, shouldn't give them the right to gun people down. I still disagree with you that killing a guy for lowering and then raising his hands should ever be justifiable, especially when the police have the massive tactical advantage. The fact no other officers shot is telling as well.

Right, that is what they may (as in might, not as in, is permitted to) do under those circumstances. Which doesn't make it a good shoot. It does, however, make it foreseeable to the victim, that if you lower your hands, you run a serious risk of being shot, particularly given how police seem to be trained these days. Lowering your hands is foolish. And while the cop may still be guilty of manslaughter, it's little consolation to you after you're dead.

I understand what you are saying, but how is this not victim blaming? Yes, you should leave your damn hands up and do whatever they say. But people don't act predictably in unfamiliar, unexpected, stressful situations, the police should be trained to handle that. I don't think they should get a pass just because they aren't, but it seems like "reaching for the waist" is a go to get out of jail free card.

For people acting weird in unfamiliar stressful situations, I think a decent example is flight attendant training. They drill doing evacs so much it is muscle memory. Part of the their training is to actually push people out of the aircraft because passengers tend to freeze and/or back track when they get to the door. Sitting on your couch at home, everyone thinks they would jump down the slide, but reality is much different. Not to mention, some people grab their bags and some people crawl over the seats, etc. It is also law that all aircraft doors must have handles next to them for the FAs to hold on to, so passengers can't pull them down the slide with them, again because people do weird things when they are scared.

No, it depends on the circumstances of the case. I personally don't like the "ramifications" of people who judge every case the same way. There are plenty of people like that on this board. They're on the same side in every cop thread. I would invite you to review my past comments in other threads, such as the Castille case. For me, it's all about the facts, not opinion or ideology.

I'm fine with getting the facts before passing judgement, but I think our disagreement is about where the threshold of deadly force should be, as I stated in the previous thread. I think there should be a credible, direct threat to the officer, not a vague "he was moving his hands" or "he had a knife... 30 feet away from me." My grandfather was actually a cop and shot someone in the line of duty, btw, so I am not just blindly against police.

 

[woolfe9998]

Further, the way I read your original post that I responded to, was the you were saying since the police showed up believing they were responding to a dangerous situation, that gave them more of a pass than they otherwise would have. I know this could affect their state of mind, but I don't think it should give them a pass. If they killed a person that posed no threat to them, they should be punished. If you factor in their state of mind at all, then at a minimum you have to factor in state of mind of the victim in lowering his hands, too.

Sort of. What I'm saying is that whether the cop's behavior is criminal or not depends on the totality of all circumstances surrounding the incident. Of course it matters what assumptions they were making based on the information they got from dispatch. You wouldn't expect the same protocols when investigating a burglary after the fact as you would in this situation. So I would say it's a factor in mitigation. But that alone doesn't make it a good shoot. Getting a call about a dangerous situation isn't carte blanche for the police to do whatever they want.

Based on what the police's own account, I don't see how it isn't murder.

It isn't. Murder that is. It would be manslaughter. This cop didn't go into the situation with malice and intent to kill. If he's guilty, it's because he was criminally negligent, having over-reacted to a situation which didn't present sufficient danger to justify the shoot.

They said they didn't see a gun. "Reaching for waist" is a CYA way of saying "putting his arms in a neutral position." Just because police are scared of everything, shouldn't give them the right to gun people down. I still disagree with you that killing a guy for lowering and then raising his hands should ever be justifiable, especially when the police have the massive tactical advantage. The fact no other officers shot is telling as well.

If I was the prosecutor, I would expect the defense to call the other cops to the stand and say they saw the victim lower his hands, and that they thought it was a good shoot. In cross, I would ask each one, then why didn't you discharge your own weapon? Would be tough to answer.

Strangely enough, I would also argue that his firing of only one shot tends to support guilt. The way cops are trained, if someone is a real danger, you fire multiple times to make sure you put the person down. A single shot suggests it was a momentary impulse and he thought better of it after squeezing the trigger one time. Unfortunately for the victim, his marksmanship was good.

I understand what you are saying, but how is this not victim blaming? Yes, you should leave your damn hands up and do whatever they say. But people don't act predictably in unfamiliar, unexpected, stressful situations, the police should be trained to handle that. I don't think they should get a pass just because they aren't, but it seems like "reaching for the waist" is a go to get out of jail free card.

It's victim blaming, after a sort. I don't think the foolishness of a victim diminishes the moral and legal responsibility of the attacker. Yet if the victim was foolish, the victim was foolish. The problem with the allegation of "blaming the victim" is that it implies that recognizing an error on the part of the victim is excusing the killer/rapist/thief. Yet the one has nothing to do with the other.

I don't know about you, but if someone is pointing a gun at me, whether a cop or an armed robber, I'm going to do whatever that person says.

I'm fine with getting the facts before passing judgement, but I think our disagreement is about where the threshold of deadly force should be, as I stated in the previous thread. I think there should be a credible, direct threat to the officer, not a vague "he was moving his hands" or "he had a knife... 30 feet away from me." My grandfather was actually a cop and shot someone in the line of duty, btw, so I am not just blindly against police.

I'd like to see more evidence come out in this case before I decide. I'm leaning toward it being a bad shoot, but just barely. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[interchange]

I personally don't see this as criminal, and that's not saying that the cop acted appropriately or consistently with his training. My threshold for criminality here would be either 1. intent despite knowing there was know actual imminent threat or 2. gross negligence in choosing to act upon the perceived threat. For gross negligence, you would have to show, for example, that the cop had been trained to respond to these situations differently and willfully chose to disregard that training or had a pattern of disregarding training or treating training with contempt. To me, it is not clear that he even acted negligently. Again, I agree that he acted wrongly. But acting wrongly does not mean that it was negligent. The most likely scenario that I am imagining is that he did act negligently but not intentionally and not grossly negligently. Even still, if evidence exists that he had intent or gross negligence, I think it would be extremely hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt short of the officer's own words admitting guilt.

That said, this would be the thing I would want to support criminal prosecution. I'm sure those definitions line up with some murder/manslaughter statutes, but I don't get to say what the laws are, so they have to follow along that.

Generally, I don't support bringing cases to trial that you do not believe you have evidence to prove. It's a waste of taxpayer resources. However, this kind of case has significant societal value in prosecuting even if the anticipation is loss. My fear would be that a jury, however, would apply their personal feelings toward cops shooting innocent people instead of the evidentiary requirements for the crime. So I would advocate charges if prosecutors had significant evidence to believe that intent or gross negligence existed even if they thought they could not prove it. But I would not support bringing the case to a jury out of public interest if they felt the man was innocent.

 

[pmv]

It's victim blaming, after a sort. I don't think the foolishness of a victim diminishes the moral and legal responsibility of the attacker. Yet if the victim was foolish, the victim was foolish. The problem with the allegation of "blaming the victim" is that it implies that recognizing an error on the part of the victim is excusing the killer/rapist/thief. Yet the one has nothing to do with the other.

What makes something smell like 'victim blaming' is the context and the choice of priorities. It's the way (across several different topics - I'm more used to noticing it when people blame cyclists or pedestrians for getting run over, rather than police shootings) people are suspiciously quick to give their first priority to finding something the victim did wrong. They also seem to adopt what, to me, seems to be an unreasonable standard of perfect behaviour from them.

The key point I think, is that the stakes are very high for the potential victim so they already have every incentive to get things right - so if people are consistently making 'mistakes' and getting killed for it, then the first thought ought to be that maybe something is wrong with the whole setup. If such mistakes are fairly common then it's not reasonable or practical to think the problem can be solved by somehow changing human nature so as to ensure nobody ever makes such mistakes.

Humans make mistakes, that much is a given and probably not changeable. So the emphasis should be on changing the wider context so that those mistakes don't lead to death. If people go straight to looking for and pointing out those mistakes, rather than looking at that wider system in which those mistakes occur, then that's victim blaming.

 

[woolfe9998]

What makes something smell like 'victim blaming' is the context and the choice of priorities. It's the way (across several different topics - I'm more used to noticing it when people blame cyclists or pedestrians for getting run over, rather than police shootings) people are suspiciously quick to give their first priority to finding something the victim did wrong. They also seem to adopt what, to me, seems to be an unreasonable standard of perfect behaviour from them.

The key point I think, is that the stakes are very high for the potential victim so they already have every incentive to get things right - so if people are consistently making 'mistakes' and getting killed for it, then the first thought ought to be that maybe something is wrong with the whole setup. If such mistakes are fairly common then it's not reasonable or practical to think the problem can be solved by somehow changing human nature so as to ensure nobody ever makes such mistakes.

Humans make mistakes, that much is a given and probably not changeable. So the emphasis should be on changing the wider context so that those mistakes don't lead to death. If people go straight to looking for and pointing out those mistakes, rather than looking at that wider system in which those mistakes occur, then that's victim blaming.

I've advocated "changing the wider context" by altering the way police are trained. In my opinion, police are over-primed to favor self-protection over protection of citizens. In the other swatting thread I gave an example of the video depicting officer Dinkheller being shot which has been shown to police across the country as a training video, and conveys the unfortunate message that any sort of hesitation on the part of the officer will result in his death. Maybe they should show the Philando Castille video alongside the Dinkheller video for a more balanced presentation.

So far as not complying with a demand to keep their hands up, I'm not sure how really "common" that is. I suspect it's actually quite uncommon because we are endowed biologically with an instinct for self-preservation, meaning most of us are afraid of getting shot. What I do think, however, is that at least some of these people who do not comply are thinking, I'm innocent, why should I be treated like a criminal. What I would urge is not to have an attitude if an officer is pointing a gun at you. You can complain later. Some others who don't comply may be drunk or high. In those cases, the only solution is for the police to handle the situation responsibly.

 

[Paratus]

I've advocated "changing the wider context" by altering the way police are trained. In my opinion, police are over-primed to favor self-protection over protection of citizens. In the other swatting thread I gave an example of the video depicting officer Dinkheller being shot which has been shown to police across the country as a training video, and conveys the unfortunate message that any sort of hesitation on the part of the officer will result in his death. Maybe they should show the Philando Castille video alongside the Dinkheller video for a more balanced presentation.

So far as not complying with a demand to keep their hands up, I'm not sure how really "common" that is. I suspect it's actually quite uncommon because we are endowed biologically with an instinct for self-preservation, meaning most of us are afraid of getting shot. What I do think, however, is that at least some of these people who do not comply are thinking, I'm innocent, why should I be treated like a criminal. What I would urge is not to have an attitude if an officer is pointing a gun at you. You can complain later. Some others who don't comply may be drunk or high. In those cases, the only solution is for the police to handle the situation responsibly.

Completely agree about the inappropriateness of the training and us vs them environment many of the departments involved in these types of shootings exhibit.

(As an example how comfortable would you be if the police rolled up to your house in this car?

What headspace do you think their officers are in?)


That’s the first place to start in fully preventing these types of police shootings. Better training, better hiring, and metrics to track police-populace interactions.

The problem is that currently the police and most juries seem to feel that it’s acceptable to fear for their lives starts as soon as they leave the police station. That cannot be the standard when their mission is to “protect and serve”.

What I disagree with is your characterization that most people will react appropriately in these circumstances. In the human spaceflight biz we spend lots of time and money making sure crew and ground can first recognize life and death situations and second react appropriately because it’s not common.

This is especially a problem for innocent people confronted by the police. The innocent person has to accurately assess their life is in danger and react accordingly in a split second while overcoming the natural reaction to flinch or jerk when suprised. A criminal at least knows a confrontation is likely.

 

[woolfe9998]

Completely agree about the inappropriateness of the training and us vs them environment many of the departments involved in these types of shootings exhibit.

(As an example how comfortable would you be if the police rolled up to your house in this car?

What headspace do you think their officers are in?)


That’s the first place to start in fully preventing these types of police shootings. Better training, better hiring, and metrics to track police-populace interactions.

The problem is that currently the police and most juries seem to feel that it’s acceptable to fear for their lives starts as soon as they leave the police station. That cannot be the standard when their mission is to “protect and serve”.

What I disagree with is your characterization that most people will react appropriately in these circumstances. In the human spaceflight biz we spend lots of time and money making sure crew and ground can first recognize life and death situations and second react appropriately because it’s not common.

This is especially a problem for innocent people confronted by the police. The innocent person has to accurately assess their life is in danger and react accordingly in a split second while overcoming the natural reaction to flinch or jerk when suprised. A criminal at least knows a confrontation is likely.

First off, you're in the "space flight biz?" Like, for NASA? If so, that's totally bad ass.

However, while people may need training to "recognize life and death situations" in the space flight biz because those situations are not always obvious, it's totally obvious that your life is in danger when someone is pointing a gun at you.

I can think of exactly four reasons someone would lower their hands when told by a person holding a gun on them to keep them up. 1. The person has an attitude and thinks they shouldn't have to comply, and probably underestimates the risk of being shot after non-compliance, 2. the person is severely intoxicated, 3. the person has a physical condition which literally prevents them from keeping their hands up, or 4. the person is reaching for a gun.

Even stupidity doesn't explain it. There is no level of stupidity where you don't understand the danger of a gun. No training is needed to recognize this danger. A 6 year old understands it.

 

[interchange]

The culture around policing in this country is bad. It cuts both ways, but the police certainly have a higher standard of integrity they ought to hold themselves too. I think the public automatically vilifying the police based on limited information and experience simply promotes police to see the world as us vs. them. It's still their problem. The public isn't the reason for it. But a responsible member of the public who recognizes their contribution to the divisive culture should still alter their behavior and advocate for a more moderated view on police accountability. So we need to help them be more accountable instead of expecting radical accountability. Although police are afraid of the power of public attack on their credibility, a great majority of them want police to be held to a higher standard. When they imagine more accountability, however, they imagine being misunderstood, persecuted, and without ally. That does not represent reality, but people don't act based on reality, they act based on their perception of reality.

 

[Paratus]

First off, you're in the "space flight biz?" Like, for NASA? If so, that's totally bad ass.

Yup, there’s a reason I live in Texas.

However, while people may need training to "recognize life and death situations" in the space flight biz because those situations are not always obvious, it's totally obvious that your life is in danger when someone is pointing a gun at you.

Is it though? I agree that once you’ve recognized that someone is pointing a gun on you it’s obvious your life is in danger.

However this awareness doesn’t happen instantaneously.

Found an interesting article on traffic accident reconstruction and human reaction time:
http://www.technology-assoc.com/articles/reaction-time.html

After a person becomes aware of a dangerous situation, some time will elapse before he can take evasive or defensive action against it. This time interval, commonly called the reaction time, has been found to be roughly 0.7 seconds for all normal persons, regardless of their background and training.

It also takes a finite amount of time for a person to perceive that there is a dangerous situation that requires action; the combined time for a person to perceive a threat and react to is is known as the perception-reaction time. This combined time is, of course, slightly longer than the reaction time; in cases relevant to accident reconstruction it is often on the order of 1.5 seconds, though it can be slightly faster (near 0.7 seconds) if the situation is anticipated to some degree.

Alternatively, a highly ambiguous situation, where the need for a reaction is not obvious, can result in an even higher perception-reaction time.

While I’m not sure about the exact timing of the situation in the OP take the Tamir Rice shooting. From the time the police showed up until the time he was shot was about 2 seconds according to video.

Did Rice know his life was in danger and have time to react appropriately before he was shot?

Also note from the article that if the situation is expected (police point of view) reaction times are lower than if they are not expected (innocent citizen point of view). So the police will almost always be able to react quicker than the citizen in these specific circumstances.

I can think of exactly four reasons someone would lower their hands when told by a person holding a gun on them to keep them up. 1. The person has an attitude and thinks they shouldn't have to comply, and probably underestimates the risk of being shot after non-compliance, 2. the person is severely intoxicated, 3. the person has a physical condition which literally prevents them from keeping their hands up, or 4. the person is reaching for a gun.

Even stupidity doesn't explain it. There is no level of stupidity where you don't understand the danger of a gun. No training is needed to recognize this danger. A 6 year old understands it.

I still believe there are other reasons that are not fully under control of the person. Once their hands are up any movement of the hands and arms is technically towards the waist . This includes involuntarily shielding ones eyes from a bright police light, tripping while being told to get down on the ground, or as was theorized about the one guy shot by police in the hotel involuntarily reaching to pull up your pants while trying to crawl forward with hands up.

In these situations it only takes a small accidental movement to trigger an officer who is expecting a violent confrontation.

I believe appropriate police training could reduce the risk of these accidental shootings from occurring. It would be safer for citizens and safer for police.

 

[Maxima1]

The facts that @s0me0nesmind1 stated can't be said enough. There was a retardedly low probability that he could have ever gotten a shot off before the officers actually saw a gun and lit him up. There is even less of a probability that he would have hit anyone with the one wild shot if he had gotten one off, hell if he was given a free shot to take as long as he wanted to aim it is still very unlikely for him to hit anything. That is why the officers had long guns and was actually killed with an AR-15. That is even truer since most of the officers were behind cover. There was absolutely zero reason to shoot this man.

If he was a hostage he would have been in a state of shock and following orders would have been very difficult for most people. They would have very likely have shot him if he was an actual hostage and came running out of the house trying to escape his captor and used the same justification.

To add, not just a hostage. This guy would have came out thinking WTF was going on because he would know there was zero reason for them being there.

As you point out, it's ludicrous how low of a threshold the threat level before the cops reason they should shoot. Cover, rifles vs. potential handgun at a distance, etc. Pathetic.

 

[Darwin333]

Generally, I don't support bringing cases to trial that you do not believe you have evidence to prove. It's a waste of taxpayer resources. However, this kind of case has significant societal value in prosecuting even if the anticipation is loss. My fear would be that a jury, however, would apply their personal feelings toward cops shooting innocent people instead of the evidentiary requirements for the crime. So I would advocate charges if prosecutors had significant evidence to believe that intent or gross negligence existed even if they thought they could not prove it. But I would not support bringing the case to a jury out of public interest if they felt the man was innocent.

Juries are notorious for not convicting cops that are beyond any reasonable doubt guilty. Granted they often get help from prosecutors who overcharge or don't bring the best case because 9 times out of 10 they really don't want to convict the cop. Their entire livelihood is dependent on all of his buddies working hand in hand with them, piss all of them off and they put you on the wrong side of their "thin blue line" and their career could very well end up in the toilet. The entire way that we investigate and prosecute cops needs to change but it never will because police unions are way too powerful and they won't stand for it.

The police unions kick, scream and fight over a law that makes it illegal for cops to fuck hookers before they arrest them making all sorts of bullshit claims about how they won't possibly be able to enforce the law now. We would see every politician that supported a bill that actually increased police accountability in any meaningful way labeled as anti-police on TV ads 24/7, police strikes or "blue flu" and press releases saying murders won't be arrested, your wives and daughters are going to be raped, cats and dogs, sky will fall, armageddon will be upon us!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Well i'm sick of seeing this kind of over reaction and callousness from the police.

 

[Darwin333]

First off, you're in the "space flight biz?" Like, for NASA? If so, that's totally bad ass.

However, while people may need training to "recognize life and death situations" in the space flight biz because those situations are not always obvious, it's totally obvious that your life is in danger when someone is pointing a gun at you.

I can think of exactly four reasons someone would lower their hands when told by a person holding a gun on them to keep them up. 1. The person has an attitude and thinks they shouldn't have to comply, and probably underestimates the risk of being shot after non-compliance, 2. the person is severely intoxicated, 3. the person has a physical condition which literally prevents them from keeping their hands up, or 4. the person is reaching for a gun.

Even stupidity doesn't explain it. There is no level of stupidity where you don't understand the danger of a gun. No training is needed to recognize this danger. A 6 year old understands it.

Do you have even the slightest idea of what "fight or flight" is and how it works? The more stressful a situation is the more likely people are to fuck up. It's why trained police officers can hit a target with every shot at the range but miss with 80% of their shots against a stationary target in real life. It's why people panic and drown when caught in rip currents and 1000s of other scenarios. Panic kills people in situations that they are otherwise very accustomed to like driving or swimming, otherwise good people will trample and kill people when in fear of their life, and so many more examples.

 

[Darwin333]

To add, not just a hostage. This guy would have came out thinking WTF was going on because he would know there was zero reason for them being there.

As you point out, it's ludicrous how low of a threshold the threat level before the cops reason they should shoot. Cover, rifles vs. potential handgun at a distance, etc. Pathetic.

Oh absolutely, I mentioned that previously in the thread. This guy walked outside confused as fuck, he was probably looking around to see who else they must be talking to since there was zero reason for a single cop to be there much less the entire house surrounded by an untold number of cops. Add to the severe confusion, bright lights being shined in his eyes, guns pointing at him and multiple people screaming at him and you get the perfect scenario for a fight or flight reaction that a person literally can't resist because the brain takes over.