My understanding is he was reaching inside. Not outside.
That implies that the window was rolled down.
You have a good point. It's only implied, not clear based on our vantage.
Did he attempt to open vehicle's door?
I've probably seen every single episode of Cops out there, and no, this is NOT textbook police training when to shoot. I've seen dozens of times people reach into the car with guns drawn on them and the cop did not shoot them.No, it is not. You are seeing what has always been.
Society has only recently given us the capacity to experience these situations as they happen to others.
And pray tell, what is wrong? A man died, yes. But his actions were textbook police training on when you shoot.
My understanding is he was reaching inside. Not outside.
That implies that the window was rolled down.
You have a good point. It's only implied, not clear based on our vantage.
No, it is not. You are seeing what has always been.
Society has only recently given us the capacity to experience these situations as they happen to others.
And pray tell, what is wrong? A man died, yes. But his actions were textbook police training on when you shoot.
I watched the video. The original report IS what actually happened. Insofar as the opening line.
"A man was shot by a police officer Friday night after he reportedly reached into a stalled vehicle"That's proven by the video.
So he ignored police orders after guns drawn and lead officers backwards some 20-30 feet back to the vehicle where he then turned and reached inside said vehicle.
A person ignoring orders and reaching is a HUGE red flag. That's the scenario they're trained to shoot for.
No weapon was found in his vehicle, why would he wants to reach inside? for his ID?
If all police were trained the same, there should be 4 shots.
So what did the guy do to have all the cops point their weapons at him in the first place?
So the innocent black male walked "hands up, don't shoot" style back to the side of his vehicle that was innocently parked in the middle of the street and innocently reached inside his vehicle while innocently ignoring lawful commands not to, and he received a bullet in response to his innocent threatening behavior. Damn racist cops!
And that is sufficient to get him shot dead, gotcha.
I think that pretty much every formal study on this topic says the complete opposite of what you are asserting. I assure you that there is no credible literature to support your claims, but there is a mountain of literature supporting discriminatory practices against african american's by US police departments, practices that also allow for the unlawful use of force again this very vulnerable population.
.
Research Summary
Race-related debates often assume that implicit racial bias will result in racially biased decisions to shoot. Previous research has examined racial bias in police decisions by pressing “shoot” or “don't-shoot” buttons in response to pictures of armed and unarmed suspects. As a result of its lack of external validity, however, this methodology provides limited insight into officer behavior in the field. In response, we conducted the first series of experimental research studies that tested police officers and civilians in strikingly realistic deadly force simulators.
Policy Implications
This article reports the results of our most recent experiment, which tested 80 police patrol officers by applying this leading edge method. We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects.
Roland G. Fryer, Jr
NBER Working Paper No. 22399
Issued in July 2016
NBER Program(s): LE LS POL
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
You do realize the cops didnt know at the time there was no weapon in the vehicle? That is pretty common logic here man. You refuse orders and keep walking to your car and reach inside you better not think the cops are going to hand you a dozen roses. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. That is pretty much what this is going to boil down to.
And LOL @ the PCP excuse like it's still the 70's.
I get that it's tried and true, but you'd think that the scary black man on drugs narrative would change with the times a little.
It was reported that the shooter's lawyer has stated that the vehicle was checked for weapons before the shooting occurred.
You do realize this don't you? Right?
Yeah, the fact that only one cop ended up firing isn't going to bode well for the "we followed training/regulations" argument.
And that is sufficient to get him shot dead, gotcha.
Checked by who?
Video starts with one officer on the road with the man. Three more show up. In no way does this assume everyone present is fully aware nor confident that the location / vehicle is secure and without weapons. It's an interesting piece of information, but it does not immediately preclude shooting unless we have more details on that.
No, the cops should stand there and get shot by a suspect stupidly not following their instructions.
Did he attempt to open vehicle's door?
My understanding is he was reaching inside. Not outside.
That implies that the window was rolled down.
You have a good point. It's only implied, not clear based on our vantage.