Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:43 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I doubt the rate of kids killed would be at zero even if the police lacked guns. This same guy, in this same situation, with a club instead, dya think he'd have used it? Probably. Do you think he would have shown restraint and only hit a little bit? Well...he fired eight bullets. I'm gonna go with no. Also, those suckers break bones. You have only to read through this thread to find other instances of police brutality where firearms were uninvolved. Removing firearms will NOT set these incidents to zero.
The thing is this. However you say this, however you might think about it. Once they put on a gun, this is going to happen. He didn't beat the kid with a pipe, nor is it likely that he would have. That's BS and you know it. It's a distraction. It implies that he went there with murder in his mind. Nothing I read indicates that is true. If this is how you see it fine, more power to you. Just one more point. Emptying your gun is a sign of poor training.


Why is it BS? I've already pointed out that this very topic includes instances of police using unjustified violence without firearms. I also note that you changed it to pipe. I said club because billy clubs, batons, etc are police issued weapons. Pipes are not. Changing the example to make it ridiculous is a poor argument.

Emptying your gun is not necessarily a sign of poor training. I see no indication that he was lacking in training. I see plenty of indication that his mentality was uncomfortably aggressive.

And yeah, enforcement on police seems to trend towards leniency and a lack of unaccountability. This would seem to give the aggressive attitude more room to become a problem.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:36 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I doubt the rate of kids killed would be at zero even if the police lacked guns. This same guy, in this same situation, with a club instead, dya think he'd have used it? Probably. Do you think he would have shown restraint and only hit a little bit? Well...he fired eight bullets. I'm gonna go with no.


Tyndmyr wrote:Why is it BS? I've already pointed out that this very topic includes instances of police using unjustified violence without firearms. I also note that you changed it to pipe. I said club because billy clubs, batons, etc are police issued weapons. Pipes are not. Changing the example to make it ridiculous is a poor argument.
Pipe or club, it's all the same. By implication your saying that he went there to murder. That's BS.

Emptying your gun that quickly after you find the situation that you are reacting to is poor training. It shows that he didn't take the time to make a proper assessment of the risks to everyone. I would guess that since a trainee was riding with him there was an element of "I'll show the rookie." But the reality of it is is we are all reacting with our biases.

Police can be and certainly are assholes at times, I have had enough run ins with them. Most of those assholes were simply that, assholes. They weren't out to murder. I have also had run ins where the behavior was cordial and friendly. And institutional protection of its members shouldn't surprise you. It's seen in every field. Doctors are a prime example that I have had run ins with. If you figure a way around this tendency for people to protect their own, patent it. It might make you a fortune.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:44 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:By implication your saying that he went there to murder. That's BS.

Emptying your gun that quickly after you find the situation that you are reacting to is poor training. It shows that he didn't take the time to make a proper assessment of the risks to everyone.

I'd argue that it shows he had already decided to execute the suspect when he initially pulled his gun.

morriswalters wrote:Institutional protection of its members shouldn't surprise you. It's seen in every field. Doctors are a prime example that I have had run ins with.

Certainly. It's just that criminal prosecution of police is by nature dependent on police not protecting their own, which is counter-intuitive. Which is why we need a procedure for criminal prosecution of police that is separate from police control, but equal to what ordinary citizens face.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Роберт » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:47 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:As natraj pointed out, police don't need a gun to jump an innocent person and beat them up.

You'll notice that he's still alive, though.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:02 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
morriswalters wrote:By implication your saying that he went there to murder. That's BS.

Emptying your gun that quickly after you find the situation that you are reacting to is poor training. It shows that he didn't take the time to make a proper assessment of the risks to everyone.

I'd argue that it shows he had already decided to execute the suspect when he initially pulled his gun.

morriswalters wrote:Institutional protection of its members shouldn't surprise you. It's seen in every field. Doctors are a prime example that I have had run ins with.

Certainly. It's just that criminal prosecution of police is by nature dependent on police not protecting their own, which is counter-intuitive. Which is why we need a procedure for criminal prosecution of police that is separate from police control, but equal to what ordinary citizens face.

War Crime Trials?

Do you know how hard that is?

Spoiler:
If it looks like a War.
If it sounds like a War.

If the fear, death and fun are Warlike.
It might be a War.

Do not tell me Wars are not fun!
I am willing to discuss it in person.
I know what people that are having fun look like.

Don't You?!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:20 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:As natraj pointed out, police don't need a gun to jump an innocent person and beat them up.

You'll notice that he's still alive, though.

Maybe. Can zombies type?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:56 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:I'd argue that it shows he had already decided to execute the suspect when he initially pulled his gun.
That would be murder. Your language is loaded. I'm not biting. I doubt that he was aware of the child's existence before he saw him. I wouldn't argue against the idea that the shooting was inevitable the moment he drew his weapon. Which is different than saying he was executed. Like most complex events it is never as simple as it seems to be. And proving it is a court of law would be fraught with difficulty, assuming that someone decides to charge him.

The cop may be racist, or a bully, or he may be a nice guy doing the wrong job. I don't have any way of knowing, and neither do you. But I suspect that he was primed to behave the way he did by events and perceptions we are unaware of. I know cops who have bullied and tormented individuals that they were aware of, and there is certainly racism at work in a lot of incidents, but I have never known them to shoot kids, not intentionally.

Most, but not all communities, have citizen review boards, for just this purpose. And no matter how much institutional protection he gets there will be some type of civil action.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:38 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I'd argue that it shows he had already decided to execute the suspect when he initially pulled his gun.
That would be murder. Your language is loaded. I'm not biting.

Well, no need to bite. Yes, it's a little loaded to call it an execution. But that's exactly what happened. You don't shoot seven bullets into a teenager at close range and expect him to survive.

morriswalters wrote:I doubt that he was aware of the child's existence before he saw him.

So do I, but I'm not sure how that's applicable.

morriswalters wrote:I wouldn't argue against the idea that the shooting was inevitable the moment he drew his weapon.

Yeah, the shooting was inevitable the moment he drew his weapon, and a fatal shooting was inevitable the moment he pulled the trigger. We can't say for sure that a fatal shooting was inevitable the moment he drew his weapon, of course. But that's the part that makes it very very close to being an execution.

morriswalters wrote:Proving it in a court of law would be fraught with difficulty, assuming that someone decides to charge him.

I hope they can convict him of something on the basis of negligence if nothing else.

morriswalters wrote:The cop may be racist, or a bully, or he may be a nice guy doing the wrong job. I don't have any way of knowing, and neither do you.

Well, I think we can draw reasonable conclusions based on the known psychological profile.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:45 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I'd argue that it shows he had already decided to execute the suspect when he initially pulled his gun.
That would be murder. Your language is loaded. I'm not biting. I doubt that he was aware of the child's existence before he saw him. I wouldn't argue against the idea that the shooting was inevitable the moment he drew his weapon. Which is different than saying he was executed. Like most complex events it is never as simple as it seems to be. And proving it is a court of law would be fraught with difficulty, assuming that someone decides to charge him.

The cop may be racist, or a bully, or he may be a nice guy doing the wrong job. I don't have any way of knowing, and neither do you. But I suspect that he was primed to behave the way he did by events and perceptions we are unaware of. I know cops who have bullied and tormented individuals that they were aware of, and there is certainly racism at work in a lot of incidents, but I have never known them to shoot kids, not intentionally.

Most, but not all communities, have citizen review boards, for just this purpose. And no matter how much institutional protection he gets there will be some type of civil action.

Hell-o Morris;
I'll bite.

Point one:
He was not aware of the person before this one encounter; So, it can't be murder?
Really? Rethink that.

Point two:
This murder was inevitable once the gun was taken out of its carrying case? ok.
The man that made the kill was trained to take that weapon out of its case.
Does the burden of guilt sit on the shoulders of the man that shot or the woman that trained that man?

Point three:
The case is too complex to take to trial. Too difficult to prove wrong-doing.
Wars are like that. I will not argue that any murder is complex.
Some are simple and the paperwork is easy. You are typing about one of those. right?

Point four:
You are a good and moral man. The men that you know and have known in the past are good and moral men.
Therefore; We can not judge this man. No one can. This is between this one man and God?

Morris; Your statement falls apart for me. I don't know this case and neither do you.
I know your statement falls apart for me.

There are often times when what we do is between us and our Gods.
There is never a time when a man or woman has on a uniform when what they do is unquestionable.
Not in my mind. I would like to encourage you to reexamine what you keep in that part of your mind.

I choose not to kill.
I would like to think the Men in Blue do, too.
But; I know better. Do you?

Do you want to discuss how I know better?
It seems you know what you know because your friends tell you so.

Maybe your friends don't tell you everything.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:56 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I doubt the rate of kids killed would be at zero even if the police lacked guns. This same guy, in this same situation, with a club instead, dya think he'd have used it? Probably. Do you think he would have shown restraint and only hit a little bit? Well...he fired eight bullets. I'm gonna go with no.


Tyndmyr wrote:Why is it BS? I've already pointed out that this very topic includes instances of police using unjustified violence without firearms. I also note that you changed it to pipe. I said club because billy clubs, batons, etc are police issued weapons. Pipes are not. Changing the example to make it ridiculous is a poor argument.
Pipe or club, it's all the same. By implication your saying that he went there to murder. That's BS.

Emptying your gun that quickly after you find the situation that you are reacting to is poor training. It shows that he didn't take the time to make a proper assessment of the risks to everyone. I would guess that since a trainee was riding with him there was an element of "I'll show the rookie." But the reality of it is is we are all reacting with our biases.

Police can be and certainly are assholes at times, I have had enough run ins with them. Most of those assholes were simply that, assholes. They weren't out to murder. I have also had run ins where the behavior was cordial and friendly. And institutional protection of its members shouldn't surprise you. It's seen in every field. Doctors are a prime example that I have had run ins with. If you figure a way around this tendency for people to protect their own, patent it. It might make you a fortune.


His risk assessment is off, sure. That is not necessarily a shortcoming of the training. Sometimes, people disregard training.

Note that the trainee had what, fifteen years of experience? Being trained, sure, but not really a rookie. Maybe there was showing off, who knows, but when someone empties a mag in a situation like this one, it ain't an accidental death. There's intent there. There is clearly no indication of the gunfire being warning shots, or fired at anything else...nope, at close range, he fired eight rounds at a kid.

You can argue about what the intent was based on(bad perceptions, etc), but there's no terribly plausible explanation that doesn't have him deciding the kid is going to die.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Note that the trainee had what, fifteen years of experience? Being trained, sure, but not really a rookie. Maybe there was showing off, who knows, but when someone empties a mag in a situation like this one, it ain't an accidental death. There's intent there. There is clearly no indication of the gunfire being warning shots, or fired at anything else...nope, at close range, he fired eight rounds at a kid.

You can argue about what the intent was based on(bad perceptions, etc), but there's no terribly plausible explanation that doesn't have him deciding the kid is going to die.

Though he may not have known Andy was a kid when he made this decision.

The real question is whether he decided that the kid was going to die when he first pulled his gun, or whether he only decided it when he first pulled the trigger. In the latter case, it's manslaughter; in the former case, it's murder.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:06 pm UTC

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/justice/g ... mat-death/


Macon, Georgia (CNN) -- Nearly 10 months after their son died, the parents of Kendrick Johnson are finally getting what they've been asking for: another investigation into the teen's mysterious death in the gym of Lowndes High School in Valdosta, Georgia.

Michael Moore, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, said Thursday that federal authorities will investigate the circumstances behind the death of Johnson, whose bloody body was found inside a rolled-up gym mat on January 11.



Authorities found Kendrick's body on January 11, wedged into a rolled-up wrestling mat in the high school gym.

Imagery obtained by CNN -- a 15-minute video and nearly 700 photos taken by sheriff's investigators -- show his body clad in jeans and layered orange and white T-shirts.

His face was bloated with pooled blood, some of which had poured out of his body, soaking his dreadlocks and spilling onto the floor.

Within 24 hours of finding the body, Lowndes County Sheriff Chris Prine announced that investigators had no reason to suspect foul play in the death.

But a former FBI agent contacted by CNN to review the materials questioned those conclusions.

Harold Copus, now a private investigator, questioned how authorities handled evidence in the case, including blood smears found on a nearby wall they said were unrelated to the case.

Copus also questioned the handling of a pair of gym shoes that had a substance that appeared to be blood on them.

Investigators told CNN the shoes weren't collected as evidence because the substance was not blood.

Despite the findings of state medical examiners who found no evidence of foul play, a private pathologist hired by the family to conduct a second autopsy after exhuming the teen's body found that Johnson had a blow to the right side of his neck "consistent with inflicted injury."

The pathologist also discovered that the teen's organs had not been returned to his body after the initial autopsy. It had instead been stuffed with newspapers.
Last edited by Thesh on Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:12 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Note that the trainee had what, fifteen years of experience? Being trained, sure, but not really a rookie. Maybe there was showing off, who knows, but when someone empties a mag in a situation like this one, it ain't an accidental death. There's intent there. There is clearly no indication of the gunfire being warning shots, or fired at anything else...nope, at close range, he fired eight rounds at a kid.

You can argue about what the intent was based on(bad perceptions, etc), but there's no terribly plausible explanation that doesn't have him deciding the kid is going to die.

Though he may not have known Andy was a kid when he made this decision.

The real question is whether he decided that the kid was going to die when he first pulled his gun, or whether he only decided it when he first pulled the trigger. In the latter case, it's manslaughter; in the former case, it's murder.

What?
Dear God; How human of you.
If it was an old woman then is is ok?

See? It's not an underage threat.
It is a worthless, used up old person. so its ok?

The point is: These are acts of War.
Civilians being killed by uniformed thugs.

If it is declared a War by the UN or someone will the US get aid for the hardest hit areas?
We don't need money. We are trillions of dollars in debt. We need humanitarian aid.

Here: We will give the UN a boat load of meaningless paper and they can give us some educated, competent, compassionate professionals.

Wars are like Storms.
They do not effect all persons the same.

One area in one state may be as Peaceful as a garden of delight.
Another area in another state may be one of the most dangerous places on the planet.

That is War. I know this stuff.
I prefer Peace! If we ever had any, what was it like?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:31 pm UTC

addams wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:about what the intent was based on(bad perceptions, etc), but there's no terribly plausible explanation that doesn't have him deciding the kid is going to die.

Though he may not have known Andy was a kid when he made this decision.

What?
Dear God; How human of you.
If it was an old woman then is is ok?

See? It's not an underage threat.
It is a worthless, used up old person. so its ok?

You misunderstand. "was a kid" is understood to imply "was an unarmed, defenseless kid" -- he probably didn't know this.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:18 pm UTC

Anyone know if it's SOP for autopsies to keep organs, especially when 'no foul play' is suspected?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:His risk assessment is off, sure. That is not necessarily a shortcoming of the training. Sometimes, people disregard training.

Note that the trainee had what, fifteen years of experience? Being trained, sure, but not really a rookie. Maybe there was showing off, who knows, but when someone empties a mag in a situation like this one, it ain't an accidental death. There's intent there. There is clearly no indication of the gunfire being warning shots, or fired at anything else...nope, at close range, he fired eight rounds at a kid.

You can argue about what the intent was based on(bad perceptions, etc), but there's no terribly plausible explanation that doesn't have him deciding the kid is going to die.
I have never heard of he police using warning shots. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I was under the impression that if you fired your weapon the idea was to hit the target. Certainly there was intent. I don't doubt he meant to fire. The question in court would be why? Did he fear for his life? Not was the threat real, but did he think it was real? That's the ugly part of this.

davidstarlingm wrote:The real question is whether he decided that the kid was going to die when he first pulled his gun, or whether he only decided it when he first pulled the trigger. In the latter case, it's manslaughter; in the former case, it's murder.
I'm not a Lawyer but I don't think that is how it works, and sad to say I'm fairly sure that is not the test for police under the law.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:09 am UTC

I think one of the main problems in the US is fear.

There is this well known quote from the movie 'V for Vendetta': "People should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people". And this seems to be a popular sentiment among for example libertarian groups. The idea is that government is kept honest (thus avoiding a decline to tyranny) by a little bit of fear of its population. Sounds sensible.

But more and more, I'm starting to realize that it's horribly wrong. The most repressive aspects of the US governments in fact seem to have arisen because the US fears its citizens. The patriot act, the massively expanded NSA with limitless wiretapping and spying are two examples of this. But these kind of shootings are another.

US police officers are constantly trained to fear for their lives. Everybody not in the force is a potential threat. They live in a constant culture of fear where it's constantly hammered home that their lives are in danger in every single interaction with civilians. No wonder then that they are very trigger happy. If you approach every civilian you see as a potential threat, every encounter, even the most mundane ones, has a potential for escalation. And it stands to reason that if you create more situations where things can go wrong, then things will go wrong more often.

The reverse is true as well of course. The US public lives in the same culture of fear. Which I'm sure doesn't make police work in the US any easier.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:19 am UTC

Diadem wrote:I think one of the main problems in the US is fear.

There is this well known quote from the movie 'V for Vendetta': "People should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people". And this seems to be a popular sentiment among for example libertarian groups. The idea is that government is kept honest (thus avoiding a decline to tyranny) by a little bit of fear of its population. Sounds sensible.

But more and more, I'm starting to realize that it's horribly wrong. The most repressive aspects of the US governments in fact seem to have arisen because the US fears its citizens. The patriot act, the massively expanded NSA with limitless wiretapping and spying are two examples of this. But these kind of shootings are another.

US police officers are constantly trained to fear for their lives. Everybody not in the force is a potential threat. They live in a constant culture of fear where it's constantly hammered home that their lives are in danger in every single interaction with civilians. No wonder then that they are very trigger happy. If you approach every civilian you see as a potential threat, every encounter, even the most mundane ones, has a potential for escalation. And it stands to reason that if you create more situations where things can go wrong, then things will go wrong more often.

The reverse is true as well of course. The US public lives in the same culture of fear. Which I'm sure doesn't make police work in the US any easier.

Thank you for your observation.
From across the Pond you seem to have a fairly clear view.

The Terrorists have won.
We are Terrified.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:32 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Note that the trainee had what, fifteen years of experience? Being trained, sure, but not really a rookie. Maybe there was showing off, who knows, but when someone empties a mag in a situation like this one, it ain't an accidental death. There's intent there. There is clearly no indication of the gunfire being warning shots, or fired at anything else...nope, at close range, he fired eight rounds at a kid.

You can argue about what the intent was based on(bad perceptions, etc), but there's no terribly plausible explanation that doesn't have him deciding the kid is going to die.
I have never heard of he police using warning shots. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I was under the impression that if you fired your weapon the idea was to hit the target. Certainly there was intent.

Well, obviously there was an intent to hit the target. But the number of rounds expended is fairly obvious evidence that there was also an intent to kill. At a range where 7 of his 8 bullets hit the teenager, he knew by the third round that the kid was going down. To keep firing after the third round meant he intended to kill.

morriswalters wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:The real question is whether he decided that the kid was going to die when he first pulled his gun, or whether he only decided it when he first pulled the trigger. In the latter case, it's manslaughter; in the former case, it's murder.
I'm not a Lawyer but I don't think that is how it works, and sad to say I'm fairly sure that is not the test for police under the law.

In this case, the timing of the "I'm going to kill him" decision is the primary indicator for whether this was murder or manslaughter. But since that timing can't be proven in court, you're correct that this wouldn't be how it would work at trial.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:03 pm UTC

When an officer fires a gun at a person, it is always to kill. The training is to shoot until the person stops moving; a fatal wound isn't good enough. Because in the real world, unless hit in the brain, a person that's shot may still be able to shoot back.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:When an officer fires a gun at a person, it is always to kill. The training is to shoot until the person stops moving; a fatal wound isn't good enough. Because in the real world, unless hit in the brain, a person that's shot may still be able to shoot back.

Hmm. Training.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby skeptical scientist » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:21 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Well, obviously there was an intent to hit the target. But the number of rounds expended is fairly obvious evidence that there was also an intent to kill. At a range where 7 of his 8 bullets hit the teenager, he knew by the third round that the kid was going down. To keep firing after the third round meant he intended to kill.

The first rule of gun safety is never fire a gun at someone you don't intend to kill. I don't understand why you are so concerned about the intent to kill.

If I was a cop, and I saw someone turning towards me with a rifle after I ordered them to drop their weapon, you better believe I would start shooting rather than waiting to see if I would get shot first. Would I regret the necessity of that? Certainly. I would be even more regretful if what I thought was a rifle turned out to be something else, or if the victim turned out to be underage. But the cop's behavior does not seem unreasonable to me.

In this case, the timing of the "I'm going to kill him" decision is the primary indicator for whether this was murder or manslaughter. But since that timing can't be proven in court, you're correct that this wouldn't be how it would work at trial.

The test of whether this was murder, manslaughter, or a justified self-defense is whether the cop had reasonable justification to fear for his life. I would argue that he did.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:53 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:When an officer fires a gun at a person, it is always to kill. The training is to shoot until the person stops moving; a fatal wound isn't good enough. Because in the real world, unless hit in the brain, a person that's shot may still be able to shoot back.

Hmm. Training.

Training?
ok. This is the twenty-first century.

Every moment of every class can be on TV!
Every moment of every class should be on TV!

What are these men and women being trained to do?
What are these men and women being told about us?

When is that moment? Is it a class or a change within the person?
When is that moment, when the trainee is no longer a trainee and as much a civilian as they were when first considering the course work;
When is that moment when the person becomes a professional.

We should be watching. It is easy to do.
Chanell #X is C-SPAN.
Chanel #X is FOX.
Channel #X is basic reading, material for the 4-6 year old.
Channel #X is Anatomy and Physiology I at 10:00 12:00 and 2;00
Channel #X is Police Training. During the day it is training. At night it is watching the pros. work.
Boring. Yet; Someone will be watching and better yet;
They will know they are being watched. When they giggle about us, we will know.

It is fucking easy to do. And should have been done, yesterday!

Is it a National Security Issue? Yes!
Our nation seems to be both too secure and scared shitless.
A refection of our Police? Or; Do they reflect us?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

elasto
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:11 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:If I was a cop, and I saw someone turning towards me with a rifle after I ordered them to drop their weapon, you better believe I would start shooting rather than waiting to see if I would get shot first.


The problem is that sets up your society with totally irreconcilable viewpoints: If you're an innocent citizen carrying a gun and someone behind you orders you to drop it - should you? What if they're a mugger?

Let's combine this logic with the logic in the other thread about the blind having a reasonable right to arm themselves for self-defence. What should they do if someone shouts at them that they're a police officer and to drop their weapon? And there's the obvious problems with officers gunning down deaf people for 'refusing to obey orders'.

It's the same issue when it comes to no-knock warrants: Society says that it's ok to defend your property from home-invasion by owning a gun and using it the moment someone steps across your threshold uninvited - but that's just inviting tragedy in a world where no-knock warrants are used.

It's the same issue again when it comes to plain-clothes cops, with weapons drawn, pulling motorists over. If you are driving and some unknown person pulls out a gun and orders you to stop, telling you they're a cop, should you believe them?

Someone has to take a risk here and wait to see if the other guy is actually going to shoot first... And I say, if you're going to extol the virtues of an armed civilian population (of dubious logic to me but that ship has sailed for you guys) then it should be the professional who volunteers to take on the additional risk - ie. the one with the years of training and the cool head and the bullet-proof vest and one armed partner backing him up right there and dozens more only minutes away.

The civilian is not the one who should be expected to err on the side of caution by immediately obeying anything anyone says - just so long as they say it with enough perceived authority...

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Spambot5546 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:33 pm UTC

Which is why most states that allow carry either require conceal carry or that you keep the weapon holstered when not in use.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:38 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Well, obviously there was an intent to hit the target. But the number of rounds expended is fairly obvious evidence that there was also an intent to kill. At a range where 7 of his 8 bullets hit the teenager, he knew by the third round that the kid was going down. To keep firing after the third round meant he intended to kill.

The first rule of gun safety is never fire a gun at someone you don't intend to kill. I don't understand why you are so concerned about the intent to kill.

I don't think that's the first rule of gun safety. Intent to kill should not be a prerequisite for pulling the trigger.

Now, if you're going to pull the trigger, you should be prepared to accept the likelihood of causing death. But that's very different from an actual intent to kill.

Shooting with the intent to neutralize what you reasonably believe to be a threat is an acceptable defensive use. Shooting with the intent to kill is an offensive use.

skeptical scientist wrote:
In this case, the timing of the "I'm going to kill him" decision is the primary indicator for whether this was murder or manslaughter. But since that timing can't be proven in court, you're correct that this wouldn't be how it would work at trial.

The test of whether this was murder, manslaughter, or a justified self-defense is whether the cop had reasonable justification to fear for his life. I would argue that he did.

I think we would have to differ on that.

Spambot5546 wrote:Which is why most states that allow carry either require conceal carry or that you keep the weapon holstered when not in use.

Let me know when you figure out how to conceal or holster a pellet rifle.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Spambot5546 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:50 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:I don't think that's the first rule of gun safety. Intent to kill should not be a prerequisite for pulling the trigger.

Now, if you're going to pull the trigger, you should be prepared to accept the likelihood of causing death. But that's very different from an actual intent to kill.

Shooting with the intent to neutralize what you reasonably believe to be a threat is an acceptable defensive use. Shooting with the intent to kill is an offensive use.

The reason that's the first rule of gun safety is to emphasize that a firearm is extremely dangerous, and should only be used when you have to kill. If you're in a situation where you feel you have the luxury of stopping a threat through nonlethal means then your sights should stay toward the ground, if you ever drew the weapon to begin with. The officer in this scenario clearly didn't feel he had that luxury.

davidstarlingm wrote:
Spambot5546 wrote:Which is why most states that allow carry either require conceal carry or that you keep the weapon holstered when not in use.

Let me know when you figure out how to conceal or holster a pellet rifle.

Remember that the issue with this pellet rifle is that it had been altered to look like a real weapon. It's supposed to have an orange tip.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:56 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:Which is why most states that allow carry either require conceal carry or that you keep the weapon holstered when not in use.


That's for pistols. Rifles are carried pretty much everywhere. Now, obviously, there's some situational stuff to this. You don't generally carry a rifle through a mall in most states. In some, you *can*, but even there, it is usually uncommon enough to raise an eyebrow. Walking down the street is somewhat different. Carrying a rifle down the street, while not legal in CA, is not unusual in the US. Hell, in deer season, it's commonplace in most states.

There's a difference in how you hold a gun when you're planning to fire it, tho. A certain degree of readiness and aiming is usually inherent that isn't when someone is just walking. Merely turning should not cause confusion as to intent, unless someone is rather paranoid. In fact, people turning towards someone yelling at them is pretty normal. If someone yelled something at me, and I didn't quite catch it, I'd likely do the same. At least look in their direction. It's a normal human reaction, and not a good indicator of hostile intent.

Spambot5546 wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
Spambot5546 wrote:Which is why most states that allow carry either require conceal carry or that you keep the weapon holstered when not in use.

Let me know when you figure out how to conceal or holster a pellet rifle.

Remember that the issue with this pellet rifle is that it had been altered to look like a real weapon. It's supposed to have an orange tip.


This is incorrect. Toys are required to have a orange tip. Pellet rifles are not. Pellet rifles do actually shoot things(albeit fairly small, slow things). They don't fall under either the classification of a firearm or of toys, generally. Pellet guns are not orange tipped. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect modification.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Spambot5546 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:04 pm UTC

Oh, I guess I misunderstood the article. The child was carrying something that could actually be dangerous, instead of a toy that was mistaken for such. I guess that makes the cop more of a bad guy some how.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
D.B.
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby D.B. » Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:10 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
skeptical scientist wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Well, obviously there was an intent to hit the target. But the number of rounds expended is fairly obvious evidence that there was also an intent to kill. At a range where 7 of his 8 bullets hit the teenager, he knew by the third round that the kid was going down. To keep firing after the third round meant he intended to kill.

The first rule of gun safety is never fire a gun at someone you don't intend to kill. I don't understand why you are so concerned about the intent to kill.

I don't think that's the first rule of gun safety. Intent to kill should not be a prerequisite for pulling the trigger.

Now, if you're going to pull the trigger, you should be prepared to accept the likelihood of causing death. But that's very different from an actual intent to kill.

Shooting with the intent to neutralize what you reasonably believe to be a threat is an acceptable defensive use. Shooting with the intent to kill is an offensive use.

I'm of the opinion that if this is what was taught, people would get shot (and probably killed) more often, not less. Killing inherently neutralises a target, but the converse is not always true - so if you base your shoot/don't shoot on intent to neutralise rather than intent to kill, you'll end up shooting when you otherwise wouldn't. You've lowered the bar.

And no, in practise people can't do something like 'shoot in a less lethal way', like aiming at their legs instead of their torso, when they want to do one of these neutralise-but-not-kill shots. Snipers can. But for ordinary folks, a) a shot anywhere can be lethal, b) most people don't have the skill to place their shots like that, making it more likely they'll miss and hit a bystander, c) if you manage to hit them in a non-lethal way they'll quite possibly be capable of shooting back at you, so if they were armed the whole situation just got worse.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:29 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I don't think that's the first rule of gun safety. Intent to kill should not be a prerequisite for pulling the trigger.

Now, if you're going to pull the trigger, you should be prepared to accept the likelihood of causing death. But that's very different from an actual intent to kill.

Shooting with the intent to neutralize what you reasonably believe to be a threat is an acceptable defensive use. Shooting with the intent to kill is an offensive use.

The reason that's the first rule of gun safety is to emphasize that a firearm is extremely dangerous, and should only be used when you have to kill. If you're in a situation where you feel you have the luxury of stopping a threat through nonlethal means....

A gun has a high potential for lethality. Thus, to use a gun to stop a threat, you need to be okay with that level of potential lethality. You don't have to have intent to kill. Is that a clear distinction?

Spambot5546 wrote:Oh, I guess I misunderstood the article. The child was carrying something that could actually be dangerous, instead of a toy that was mistaken for such. I guess that makes the cop more of a bad guy some how.

A pellet rifle is not actually dangerous to an adult human being, much less an adult human being wearing a bulletproof vest behind a car door. They are dangerous to squirrels. And maybe small cats, though the kill zone for a cat would be very very small.

In any case, that's immaterial. If the central issue is whether the gun had an orange tip, then we've got bigger problems. What's to stop a criminal from painting the tip of his (real) gun orange to catch a police officer off-guard? By that logic, police should immediately open fire on anything that looks remotely like a gun, orange tip or not, just in case it's an ambush. Does the gun have an obvious plastic housing and a chrome barrel? Too bad, it might be a trick. EVERYONE SHOOT NOW.

Which is exactly what this cop did. He assumed that the gun-shaped object carried under the crook of the boy's left arm was: A) a real gun, B) loaded, and C) likely to be fired at any second. And he assumed all this simply on the basis that there was someone walking down a residential street carrying something that looked like a gun. This is not a good assumption to make.

We need to train cops not to assume bad things like that.

D.B. wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:[Now, if you're going to pull the trigger, you should be prepared to accept the likelihood of causing death. But that's very different from an actual intent to kill.

Shooting with the intent to neutralize what you reasonably believe to be a threat is an acceptable defensive use. Shooting with the intent to kill is an offensive use.

I'm of the opinion that if this is what was taught, people would get shot (and probably killed) more often, not less. Killing inherently neutralises a target, but the converse is not always true - so if you base your shoot/don't shoot on intent to neutralise rather than intent to kill, you'll end up shooting when you otherwise wouldn't. You've lowered the bar.

I don't mean to say that we should base shoot/don't shoot on "intent to neutralize". The decision to use potentially lethal force should be based on reasonable apprehension of imminent serious physical harm.

My point is that "don't shoot unless you're willing to kill" is different from "shoot until you're sure they are dead".

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:35 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
skeptical scientist wrote:If I was a cop, and I saw someone turning towards me with a rifle after I ordered them to drop their weapon, you better believe I would start shooting rather than waiting to see if I would get shot first.


The problem is that sets up your society with totally irreconcilable viewpoints: If you're an innocent citizen carrying a gun and someone behind you orders you to drop it - should you? What if they're a mugger?

Let's combine this logic with the logic in the other thread about the blind having a reasonable right to arm themselves for self-defence. What should they do if someone shouts at them that they're a police officer and to drop their weapon? And there's the obvious problems with officers gunning down deaf people for 'refusing to obey orders'.

It's the same issue when it comes to no-knock warrants: Society says that it's ok to defend your property from home-invasion by owning a gun and using it the moment someone steps across your threshold uninvited - but that's just inviting tragedy in a world where no-knock warrants are used.

It's the same issue again when it comes to plain-clothes cops, with weapons drawn, pulling motorists over. If you are driving and some unknown person pulls out a gun and orders you to stop, telling you they're a cop, should you believe them?

Someone has to take a risk here and wait to see if the other guy is actually going to shoot first... And I say, if you're going to extol the virtues of an armed civilian population (of dubious logic to me but that ship has sailed for you guys) then it should be the professional who volunteers to take on the additional risk - ie. the one with the years of training and the cool head and the bullet-proof vest and one armed partner backing him up right there and dozens more only minutes away.

The civilian is not the one who should be expected to err on the side of caution by immediately obeying anything anyone says - just so long as they say it with enough perceived authority...

OK. That makes sense.
If you put on a uniform, the standards change.

It seems in your mind, the uniform should be a sign of a superior human being.
Not by birth, but by choice and education.

Do you talk to the Police where you come from?
Have you ever? What was that like?

What would you suggest we do? As individuals and as groups?
It is really scary over here some places. It is also very beautiful.

Completely Off Topic:
Spoiler:
My nation is physically lovely.
It is beautiful.

The thought crossed my mind, "It is like a lovely house. Maybe someone could buy it and fix it up a bit."

Of course, the squirrel on the hamster wheel keeps going.
"It is like a lovely house, with bad tenants."

"How the fuck would you ever evict all these people? The 'bad guys' would have to be evicted."

Wait. Wait. Don't tell me. umm. Squirrel! Stop!
nope. Squirrel keeps going. Dawg gone, Squiral.

"Cheney sold this nation. He sold the house. How are the people being evicted?
Who is the Brains behind this outfit? He is not that smart; Is he?"


A debet of X trillions of dollars is for something. Bombs and guns are expensive. Not that expensive.


Well?....(?) I asked you for advice.
You seem smart and level headed.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby skeptical scientist » Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:05 am UTC

Side by side comparison of Andy Lopez' gun and an actual assault rifle:
Image
(by the way, that article also relates another incident which gives additional justification to the idea that the cop was overly aggressive, although it's thin on details).

davidstarlingm wrote:And he assumed all this simply on the basis that there was someone walking down a residential street carrying something that looked like a gun. This is not a good assumption to make.

There are two possibilities:
1) If it was a fake gun, and he assumed wrong, he put a boy's life at risk.
2) If it was a real gun, and he assumed wrong, he put his and his partner's life at risk.
This is not a good position to be in. This is not a good position to put a cop in. This is not a good position to put anyone in. Don't walk around looking like you're armed with an assault rifle and ready to fire. Nothing good can come of that, whether it's real or not. I'm sure some people will hate me for saying so, but the victim is not blameless in this.

The bigger problem here is that we live in a society where people can and do own assault rifles, and so much of the populace is armed that the cops also have to be armed and on ready alert for danger. But given that we do live in such a society, I don't think the cop's behavior was unreasonable. Probably he could have handled the situation better, but it's easy to say that with the hindsight to know that he was never actually in danger.

davidstarlingm wrote:gun-shaped object carried under the crook of the boy's left arm

Where did you find how he was carrying the gun? I couldn't find anything about that, only that the deputy perceived the barrel as rising when the boy turned. If he was carrying the gun in a way where he clearly wasn't ready to use it, that certainly changes things.

davidstarlingm wrote:My point is that "don't shoot unless you're willing to kill" is different from "shoot until you're sure they are dead".

Given that you should never shoot in the first place at anything you don't think is threatening imminent bodily harm, the rule should be "shoot until the target no longer poses a threat". The difference between that and "shoot until they are dead" is likely to be pretty minute.

By the way, I misremembered the rule. It should be, never point a gun at someone you don't intend to kill.[source]
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:18 am UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:Given that you should never shoot in the first place at anything you don't think is threatening imminent bodily harm, the rule should be "shoot until the target no longer poses a threat". The difference between that and "shoot until they are dead" is likely to be pretty minute.

By the way, I misremembered the rule. It should be, never point a gun at someone you don't intend to kill.[source]

Still an utter bullshit rule, written down by a mad lunatic, if you ask me.

Whenever you shoot at someone, there is the risk of you killing that person, so yes, you should always be prepared to take that risk if you are gong to shoot at someone. That does not mean it should always be your goal. In fact if you are a police officer it should almost never be your goal. A suspect that is known to be armed and dangerous running away from you is no immediate threat, but he still needs to be taken out, so shoot at the feet. Of course is he's not armed and dangerous you shouldn't shoot at all, better to let a suspect go then to accidentally kill them in that case.

A suspect attacking you with a knife, but still far away, doesn't have to be shot at until your clip is empty either. A single shot aimed at a non-vital area will be enough to stop them in 99% of cases, and if you miss there is still time for more drastic measures.

In both cases you might end up accidentally killing the suspect, and this is a risk you should be willing to take. But the "shoot until it stops moving" strategies of some US police are horrible. And if this is their official training, I can only call that evil.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby K-R » Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:49 am UTC

Diadem wrote:A suspect that is known to be armed and dangerous running away from you is no immediate threat, but he still needs to be taken out, so shoot at the feet...A single shot aimed at a non-vital area will be enough to stop them in 99% of cases

You don't know much about guns, do you?

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:07 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:Given that you should never shoot in the first place at anything you don't think is threatening imminent bodily harm, the rule should be "shoot until the target no longer poses a threat". The difference between that and "shoot until they are dead" is likely to be pretty minute.

The difference can also be murder - this is taught explicitly at gun safety courses. If you keep shooting after they are not a threat it is no longer justifiable homicide, as, funnily enough, the justification was removed.

skeptical scientist wrote:By the way, I misremembered the rule. It should be, never point a gun at someone you don't intend to kill.[source]

There's nothing wrong with the rule in terms of gun safety - the problem is using it outside gun safety. When you're talking about not hurting people, reminding the gun handler that "guns kill, therefore don't point the gun at people" is a good thing. Extrapolating that to a situation like this is just plain stupid - especially for a police officer whose job may occasionally entail the threat of force without using it.

But if we look at the last rule, we'll notice that it's "Be sure of your target.":
Know what it is, what is in line with it, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified. Be aware of your surroundings, whether on the range or in a fight. Do not assume anything. Know what you are doing.

How many of these did the officer achieve?

Either way, this is distracting from the fact that you're confusing gun safety guidelines with rules of engagement.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:10 pm UTC

Umm, no, you never shoot to wound. Ever. It's shoot to kill or not at all; there is absolutely no place in the human body you can be shot that may not lead to death. Think a leg isn't a vital area? Not if you hit the femural artery.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mambrino » Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:49 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Umm, no, you never shoot to wound. Ever. It's shoot to kill or not at all; there is absolutely no place in the human body you can be shot that may not lead to death. Think a leg isn't a vital area? Not if you hit the femural artery.


I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you advocating that a police officer should always make their best to kill the suspect if weapons are to be used in the first place? I've been told that shooting suspect at their feet may be fatal but quite often is not, but shooting suspect at e.g. head or vital organs in torso is far more likely to be fatal.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:23 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Umm, no, you never shoot to wound. Ever. It's shoot to kill or not at all; there is absolutely no place in the human body you can be shot that may not lead to death. Think a leg isn't a vital area? Not if you hit the femural artery.

The rule wasn't shoot, it was point. I don't have a problem with the officer pointing his gun at someone he thought had an assault rifle. But the rest of the way he handled it, including the multiple shots, are where I have a problem.

But anyway, even though any shot could be fatal, that doesn't mean that you always aim for the heart. Citation seriously needed on any kind of guidelines that say you should always shoot to kill and not just to stop.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:39 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Umm, no, you never shoot to wound. Ever. It's shoot to kill or not at all; there is absolutely no place in the human body you can be shot that may not lead to death. Think a leg isn't a vital area? Not if you hit the femural artery.

The rule wasn't shoot, it was point. I don't have a problem with the officer pointing his gun at someone he thought had an assault rifle. But the rest of the way he handled it, including the multiple shots, are where I have a problem.

But anyway, even though any shot could be fatal, that doesn't mean that you always aim for the heart. Citation seriously needed on any kind of guidelines that say you should always shoot to kill and not just to stop.

Peace time rules and war time rules are different.
Right? Was this man acting inside a war?

Even if the war was only in his mind, it is a war none the less.
If we have a bunch of guys that are at war;
That is a war for the rest of us, whether we believe in their cause or not.

I these guys support the war within the minds of one another and are willing to show slick justifications for their actions;
That is a war for the rest of us, whether we believe in their cause or not.

These are War crimes. right?
War crimes investigations do not focus on the Agent that pulled the trigger.
War crimes are committed by supervising officers.

Who trained that guy? Was he trained at a computer screen by you and you and you?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests