Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

The cop should be in jail.

From the video we have seen, you are correct. But 6-12 persons from the community thought otherwise. The question is why they came to that conclusion.

[WingsFan]

The video is all over twitter now, the man for some reason did reach back, maybe to pull up his pants? Not something you should do when warned multi times. That's when he was killed, the police thought he had a real gun. He had a pellet gun in his room, he used for work.

[WingsFan]

My question for you Geezer is - why confront this man reported with a gun in the hallway? Things seem like they could unravel badly (and they did). Could they have not waited for him to be in his room and bust the door down as a raid, something they have much experience doing? Its not like anyone had been hurt up to that point, and anyone could have heard shouting in the hallway and walked into a firestorm.

[iam416]

The relevant study showed police bias against blacks for every category of police interaction save officer-involved shooting, IIRC

Correct. And if the talking point was general unfair treatment, then I'd sing a different song. As it is, the the talking point was the police execution of minorities.

I don't know how that's race baiting. Police brutality is an issue in this country amongst all races and if white people see as much as possible it's not just a crutch to the black community, the better.

I took issue with what I took to understand as a presumption that white people don't care if police shoot innocent people. White folks still are over half of the people shot by police (of known race using WaPo database). More unarmed white people are shot each year than any other race.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The man who was killed by cops was holding his pellet rifle near his hotel window. May have even been pointing it outside. Someone saw him and called the police. It may have been a stupid thing to have done but didn't merit execution in the hallway by off-the-handle cops.

I just put myself in the guy's shoes and if I had had 3-4 beers sitting in my hotel room. The cops scream at him for not dropping to the ground within one second of ambushing him. And they scream at him for not following directions fast enough. And they promise that the next mistake he makes, they will shoot to kill. How many of us would keep a level head in that situation? Does anyone have confidence they wouldn't panic? How many situations like this are NOT caught on camera?

And even when caught on camera, our legal system has given enormous leeway to cops. Virtually anything can be defended as "I thought I was in imminent danger". Maybe in this case the jury felt that a murder charge was too strong - manslaughter more appropriate. I dunno. It's just hard to watch that video and come to the conclusion that it was rational for the cop to feel so imperiled that lethal force was the only recourse.

[iam416]

In this specific instance, the cop should go to jail. And it'd be horrific to be caught in that situation. Just as it was for Tamar Rice (and his parents) or Eric Garner. But, when you're asked to thinking about if that could/would happen to you, then you're forced to confront one larger question directly and another indirectly.

First, how representative is his particular cop? From the numbers it would seem he's a massive outlier. You're considerably more likely to get killed by one of your fellow citizens. Second, if you have the grave misfortune to run across a police asshole sociopath (or any sociopath), what are your chances of redress? For the latter, we know you have a pretty good chance. But, for the former it seems very difficult to achieve. The doctrine of qualified immunity and, perhaps, more importantly, how juries view the police make it very difficult, and that bothers me.

I've been mulling it over and one thing that came to mind was a more limited version of qualified immunity. Let's say you get qualified immunity for a murder charge. But for a manslaughter or lesser charge, there is no immunity. I'd have to think about this in terms of the intent of each crime -- qualified immunity is use to negate intent. Alternatively, maybe each state establishes a review board that determines whether the police officer can assert qualified immunity. That's probably more difficult to work with. And regardless, I'm not sure it matters if juries give the benefit of the doubt to police officers.

That said, wrongful death claims do succeed. The officers lose their jobs. But that's not how we punish criminal behavior. Even if you want to excuse greater offenses, some criminal sanction is necessary in a few of these cases.

So, I don't see the systemic problem with shootings, but I do think you could make a systemic case for how the legal system handles bad shootings.

[Mainevent]

Posted this in another forum regarding this incident, two thoughts immediately jumped to mind when watching the video (the full version)


1. I don't know if it's poor training or the cops poor execution, pretty much everything that they did seemed to increase the chance of something going wrong - from screaming at the subjects and threatening to shoot them, to giving confusing, multiple instructions to a clearly impaired person, just terrible all around.

2. I hate to make assumptions on limited data, but at first blush the shooter - all tatted up, his own AR-15 with "You're Fucked" written on the side - seems like somebody itching for "action" and precisely the type of person to have an itchy trigger finger in these types of situations.

[Ghengis Jon]

Part of the issue IS the training. Cops are taught to use the "Command Voice", which is to basically scream non-negotiatable commands that do not require a verbal response. Most people, when startled by a screamed instruction, will comply. That is the premise for its use. However, when multiple cops are screaming commands, it can cause confusion. Cops are also taught that failure to comply with the 'Command Voice' is a type of resistance that situationally must be assessed. When you have multiple cops screaming at someone, confusion reigns to which command (if any) should be obeyed. Being impaired further complicates the scene. Cops are additionally taught that resistance (failure to obey) is an escalation. This, obviously, can spiral into something bad. Multiple cops screaming multiple commands is a recipe for disaster.

[Jeff Buchanan]

........ you're second point, Main, is rendered moot by talent's arguments above. To wit: Jury's will probably give the police the benefit of the doubt.

I made a post two days ago asking that we not go through this data crap all again. Nobody paid any attention to that, no surprise there, and I'm glad this discussion progressed. It's different.

I'd like to here Jon's view of this circumstance.

For me, I can see why the perp ended up dead. He encountered a cop with a high likelihood of acting incorrectly and impulsively due to whatever - he's a sociopath, poorly trained, etc.

What's an appropriate societal outcome here? I think talen has it right .....

"So, I don't see the systemic problem with shootings, but I do think you could make a systemic case for how the legal system handles bad shootings."

Edit ...... thanks Jon.

[iam416]

In Ohio, my boss is responsible for Peace Officer training. I have two anecdotal experiences. First, I've seen training (for reasons related to entrepreneurship, but nonetheless). It was probably a class of 50. In my brief 90 minutes I could see that maybe 2 of them "looked" to be of the demeanor/mindset that was not encouraging. Maybe. But, I'm sure the trainers can tell as these people move through training. Second, there are companies working up analytics (fancystats!) to profile out potential "problem" issues. And also to provide systems of more immediate feedback when dangerous behavior occurs in the field.

The point on both of these is that there are ways to improve the screening and response processes and I think a lot of people are working in this direction. It's not going to be foolproof. And if you "only" have 50 unarmed shootings a year out of, what, millions? of police encounters then improving the quality of peace officer may reduce that number by 1 or 2? Some very small percentage. That's not to say we shouldn't do it -- but it is to say I wouldn't expect significant results.

That gets me back to redressability.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the cop who killed Tamir Rice had previously been fired by Parma (or some other suburb) essentially for being psychologically unfit to be a cop. Then Cleveland somehow hired him. Was that because Parma never released the reasons for his dismissal to the Cleveland PD? My memory's failing me. Stuff like that should never be allowed to happen. Not sure if it might've been a union thing too.

[iam416]

I'm not sure on the facts of the Rice case other than the cop should have never been a cop. Like ever. The City was rightly hit with a huge civil suit.

But, yes, that's the type of basic screening stuff that ought to be in place everywhere.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Richard Shelby, the other Republican Senator from Alabama, went on a morning show today and just unloaded on Roy Moore. He didn't have to make that appearance just two days before the election. The guy seriously doesn't want Moore to win.

Dunno if he'll have an effect. Moore supporters will probably go bananas with rage. Will the more suburban, educated Republicans stay by Moore or pick up on Shelby's hints to write-in another candidate/stay home?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/10/shelby-alabama-moore-senate-288642

[Mainevent]

........ you're second point, Main, is rendered moot by talent's arguments above. To wit: Jury's will probably give the police the benefit of the doubt.

I don't see how my opinion of the guy being the wrong type for the situation is rendered moot.

Talent's post right after points out some steps being taken to weed out those individuals who could be problematic. It's never going to be full proof, but the process should continue to evolve and strive for better results. And it shouldn't stop once somebody becomes a cop. Police need to be continuously reviewed and evaluated over time due to the stress level involved with the job, as it can certainly alter a person's psyche. The biggest hurdle there is the whole blue wall mentality. I'm sure if you walk into any cop shop and asked the officers off the record which guys they consider a danger or prone to cracking in tense situations, they can tell you.

[Kapture1]

I'm not sure on the facts of the Rice case other than the cop should have never been a cop. Like ever. The City was rightly hit with a huge civil suit.

But, yes, that's the type of basic screening stuff that ought to be in place everywhere.

See, this is what most people get wrong about the Rice case, of the two cops, which was most at fault for that shooting? its not the one that pulled the trigger. His partner, the driver of the car that pulled right up to Rice, and put his partner in that situation IMO is most at fault. The problem is these things are not as black and white as you say they are.

I like Sam Harris' take on it

[ame]https://youtu.be/s-H9xYs0Xls[/ame]