Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Training? Really? Are you sure you should be asking that question?

I am curious as well.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Ya sure. Training. I asked. Tell me. PM me if you desire. Wiki-training doesn't count.

Let's have a look at your mistakes so far...

Police can't shoot someone based on what the individual has done in the past (even recent past)

Patently false.

In your original video link, I don't think lethal force could have been justified at any point in that video

Obviously false. You really only needed to see about ten sceonds without sound to know that.

All I saw was a double homicide suspect advancing on a cop. And that's not enough to shoot.

Similar, but even more obviously false because the answer is in your statement.

To answer your question, all that is needed is a cops belief and subsequent articulation that GBH or death is imminent

You did back up on this one. But as it is written, utterly and patently false.

Trust me, that's different for everyone based on an infinite number of factors.

Wrong again. What is a reasonable fear for one person is reasonable for the next person. And what is execesive force is the same for everyone whether they are scared for their life or not.

It seems to me that you feel 5 different cops can go into the same encounter and it should be resolved in the same way each time

Yes. It should be, IF the story is factually accurate and you don't have 5 cops telling 5 different stories. That is the goal of legislation. Like I said, 5 cops shooting a misdemeanor suspect in the back at 20 paces will be wrong 5 times out of 5 unless there is no bystander video and the only witnesses are other cops. Then the "feared for my life" standard operating procedure in cop police reports works great.

Training? I suspect your gritty, real world experience is going to trump whatever I got going on. So you win that one.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Training? I suspect your gritty, real world experience is going to trump whatever I got going on. So you win that one.

So like none.


Bent Wookie appears to be speaking from a position of knowledge.

Yours....well to date....

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Let's have a look at your mistakes so far...



Patently false.



Obviously false. You really only needed to see about ten sceonds without sound to know that.



Similar, but even more obviously false because the answer is in your statement.



You did back up on this one. But as it is written, utterly and patently false.



Wrong again. What is a reasonable fear for one person is reasonable for the next person. And what is execesive force is the same for everyone whether they are scared for their life or not.



Yes. It should be, IF the story is factually accurate and you don't have 5 cops telling 5 different stories. That is the goal of legislation. Like I said, 5 cops shooting a misdemeanor suspect in the back at 20 paces will be wrong 5 times out of 5 unless there is no bystander video and the only witnesses are other cops. Then the "feared for my life" standard operating procedure in cop police reports works great.

Training? I suspect your gritty, real world experience is going to trump whatever I got going on. So you win that one.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

I feel like I'm being punk'd.

Let's just agree to disagree. You believe in a world of black and white where everyone, given a particular scenario will react identically. I, on the other hand, live in the real world where an infinite number of factors can influence an individuals decision.

[nik-]

Police can't shoot someone based on what the individual has done in the past (even recent past)

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Patently false.

And now can everyone accept that this is the rationale that's forming a basis for this poster's opinion on this subject and just refrain from engaging him on this topic?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Let's just agree to disagree. You believe in a world of black and white where everyone, given a particular scenario will react identically. I, on the other hand, live in the real world where an infinite number of factors can influence an individuals decision.

Totally agree with this. Every situation is fluid, no two situations are the same and no two people will ever respond in the exact same manner. People are taking a situation that unfolds in seconds when people are under extreme stress and high on adrenaline and breaking it down over the course of weeks and months, then applying their own bias to it.

[V]

BW is a total apologist for the cops, but I would not argue him on this point. He obviously knows what he's talking about.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So like none.


Bent Wookie appears to be speaking from a position of knowledge.

Yours....well to date....

He does? This is the guy who said a cop who is being chased by a double murder suspect on video has no legal right to use lethal force. And then calls me uninformed....

You're entitled to your opinion, it is the internet afterall.

But I think that's part of the issue in threads like this. Posters tend to post their judgments having little understanding of what it is they are posting about.

Then he makes a bunch of other factual errors as outlined above....and you think he's coming from a position of knowledge? What is that knowledge?

You believe in a world of black and white where everyone, given a particular scenario will react identically.

Arg that is not at all what I'm saying. People can and do act however they want. The interpretation of that action is what I'm talking about and that is most definitely not going to be different every time. When it comes down to answering why you shot an unarmed, fleeing, broken signal light suspect in the back at 20 paces, any miriad of personal experiences and interpretations will not help you when presented with the video.

And now can everyone accept that this is the rationale that's forming a basis for this poster's opinion on this subject and just refrain from engaging him on this topic?

It's not an opinion or rationale. It is actually part of legal precident in the USA. You can shoot a murder suspect in the back when he/she is trying to escape...the logic being, they've already committed murder or grave harm and will likely do so again. You can't shoot a guy with a broken tail light if he is trying to escape.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by omg!wtf!

i can't provide my training cuz it doesn't exist.

fyp

[nik-]

Originally Posted by nik-

And now can everyone accept that this is the rationale that's forming a basis for this poster's opinion on this subject and just refrain from engaging him on this topic?

I actually don't even which side is arguing what anymore ... my post was based on those two lines and I'm confused. Time to leave this thread, it's chaos.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

How do police in the UK do it, given that they don't carry guns? They need to deal with a lot more knife attacks over there due to the heavier restrictions on guns, yet somehow manage without the cops needing to shoot dead everyone they see holding a possible weapon

I don't know if it's a fact at all that they deal with more knife attacks over there. But a lot of how they deal with them is by keeping their distance. Not completely different to USA and Canada's training either. Of note, in the UK in dangerous situations they still do call on the authorized firearms officers. Of course they rarely end up in police shootings there so they are doing something better, I don't disagree.

Give the officers and an assailant 30 feet between one another and by all means any good police force in any part of the world should needs to try to diffuse the situation. Discuss and plead with them to drop the weapon, if that escalates use teargas or tasers because if those fail you're not opening up yourself to be opened up.

But in the situation we are discussing the officers are a matter of a couple feet away from the man, and it has been said in a confined space. Expert opinions put them in a deadly range. They didn't have the luxury of distance.

I can't blame them when the choice became shooting the man, filling out some paper work and having internet-backseat-police talk about how they would have ninja'd the screwdriver out of his hand or potentially leaving their wives as widows. I don't see a reason for them to unnecessarily gamble with their lives in that circumstance.

Now, that is given the situation that unfolded. How they got into that situation is a bit of a separate discussion for me. Getting that close to a man yielding a deadly weapon is far far far from ideal. Lack of information? Poor training? Improper usage of training? Just getting too comfortable on the job? I don't know. Maybe not expecting the man to be at the door with the weapon was simply reasonable. That's more of a discussion for the civil suit that's coming.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

He does? This is the guy who said a cop who is being chased by a double murder suspect on video has no legal right to use lethal force. And then calls me uninformed....



Then he makes a bunch of other factual errors as outlined above....and you think he's coming from a position of knowledge? What is that knowledge?



Arg that is not at all what I'm saying. People can and do act however they want. The interpretation of that action is what I'm talking about and that is most definitely not going to be different every time. When it comes down to answering why you shot an unarmed, fleeing, broken signal light suspect in the back at 20 paces, any miriad of personal experiences and interpretations will not help you when presented with the video.



It's not an opinion or rationale. It is actually part of legal precident in the USA. You can shoot a murder suspect in the back when he/she is trying to escape...the logic being, they've already committed murder or grave harm and will likely do so again. You can't shoot a guy with a broken tail light if he is trying to escape.

Factual errors because you disagree. Right.

I just don't get it. In the video, the cop doesn't shoot. Yet another cop would. Doesn't that, in itself prove it's not this cut and dry world you live in?

You are uninformed. No two ways about. You search for things that support your argument and post them as if you know what you're talking about. I have given you plenty of reasons for my position. I have offered you ideas to get a better understanding of such encounters. Yet all you come back with is that I am wrong. Maybe that's just the attitude of internet-wiki-forum users these days. I urge you to follow-up on some of those readings.

[Itse]

In the US the FBI gives a semi-official number of 400-500 per yer, and the real number is usually estimated to be at least double that.

For comparison, the same number for UK and Wales is typically around zero.

Here's a an actual expert (an Israel Defense Force veteran and a professor of Criminal Justice in New York) commenting on the issue:

https://prospect.org/article/expert-...lly-inadequate

how you perceive the threat is a subjective thing, and how you go about neutralizing the threat is also a subjective thing, even though they're trained around this continuum of force that allows them to go from one step to another, or skip a number of stages based on their assessment of the situation. Their assessment of the situation sometimes can be exaggerated based on their previous experience, based on what's going on in any given moment, based on the bystanders' reactions. So it's a very complicated and complex issue that cannot be just explained by: "We have the right, we are authorized, and it's our discretion."

An average training in the United States is fifteen weeks. Fifteen weeks is nothing. Police forces in other countries have twice, three times as long training as we have here.

Q: Do you think that a controversy like this one will make police forces around the country more likely to reexamine how they do their training?

A: No.

Q: It won't make any difference at all?

A: No, and I'll tell you why. Ninety percent of the police budget goes to salaries in any department. So, whatever is left is allocated to equipment and some other stuff, and nothing is left for training. The majority of police departments around the country don't have in-service training. So if you don't have the money, you're not going to re-examine.

An average police department, all they care about is whether you have a GED, and you didn't use drugs in the last three years. I mean, it's ridiculous. If somebody looks at this a little bit closer, then it's really scary.

PW: Is the training and the resulting way the cops deal with the public—not just about the use of force but about everything—do you think that is superior in other Western countries, too?

MH: I don't think, I know, because I do research with police departments in other countries, I see their training, I visit the departments, their police academies. That's what I've been doing for almost twenty years, so I know exactly that it's superior over there—not in each and every country, but the majority of police forces in democratic countries today —yes, absolutely.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Factual errors because you disagree. Right.

I just don't get it. In the video, the cop doesn't shoot. Yet another cop would. Doesn't that, in itself prove it's not this cut and dry world you live in?

ok, one last time....the issue is this, you took a look at the video of the murder suspect chasing down a cop in Ohio and said that in no uncertain terms I was inccorect and that the cop had no legal gounds to shoot the suspect dead. You said I was an uninfomed internet bumpkin and I should speak about only that which I was trained in.

I then showed you the chief of police from Notsocrazycop county, Ohio who said that the video proves beyond any doubt that the officer did have the right to shoot the suspect. A cheap CNN analysis says the same thing. Tennessee vs Gardner is the specific case you could reference for the legal definitions. But somehow you are not incorrect and I'm a wiki-dunce.

Your simple mistake then turned into more errors because you tried to suggest your analysis of the video is fine because every cop and situation is different. That brought up your incorrect opinion that criminal history does not matter, that the only thing that matters is the fearful state of mind of the cop involved, and that every case is different (if it were, every case would then go to the supreme court for a precident setting ruling).

And finally, not that it matters even slightly, I have a few degrees in the subject and have taught at universities in the states. However the common sense of a ten year old is about the extent of the knowledge required to get this.

In short, every cop who would have shot the murder suspect would have been justified in doing so. Just as every cop who didn't would have been a hero. It isn't different depending on the mind set of the cop.

Anyway, I'll stop being a pain. But if you call me out you need to at least be right about the subject matter.

[Itse]

Another expert, former Madison chief of police, has his own blog which is very worthwhile. Here's a few quotes:

there’s now an additional and highly emotional issue: we need to stop the killing. There is no way I can play-down this important need today within our nation’s police.

a model policy used by one police departments reads as follows:

“Recognizing our legal and moral obligation to use force wisely and judiciously, it is the policy of this department that deadly force will never be resorted to unless an officer reasonably believes that a lesser degree of force would be insufficient…”

While the police may legally use force in a number of situations (e.g. to apprehend any person who is running away from a serious crime), they, instead, choose to limit and regulate themselves by setting a clear distinction between what they can do versus what they will do — or at least attempt to do. They are making a moral decision that they will only use deadly force if a life is being threatened.

And, of course, to put a policy like this into effect, especially when it means to change past behavior, means the police will have to teach the new standard to their officers, adequately train them to be competent in using “force wisely and judiciously,” and to take disciplinary action when they do not.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by UKflames

Genuine question from someone a long way from what is going on but why do we only see riots when a black kid gets shot by the police but never when a person of any other race gets shot? Is the % that much higher for the amount of black kids that get shot compared to other races, cannot seem to find any numbers anywhere.

Police shootings, arrests, incarceration, application of the death penalty, convictions.... you name it, it all happens more frequently to black Americans by a wide margin.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Police shootings, arrests, incarceration, application of the death penalty, convictions.... you name it, it all happens more frequently to black Americans by a wide margin.

Statistic that you used to determine more blacks die though legal intervention than whites? CDC will work as its impartial.

I'll take the death penalty stat as well.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

ok, one last time....the issue is this, you took a look at the video of the murder suspect chasing down a cop in Ohio and said that in no uncertain terms I was inccorect and that the cop had no legal gounds to shoot the suspect dead. You said I was an uninfomed internet bumpkin and I should speak about only that which I was trained in.

I then showed you the chief of police from Notsocrazycop county, Ohio who said that the video proves beyond any doubt that the officer did have the right to shoot the suspect. A cheap CNN analysis says the same thing. Tennessee vs Gardner is the specific case you could reference for the legal definitions. But somehow you are not incorrect and I'm a wiki-dunce.

Your simple mistake then turned into more errors because you tried to suggest your analysis of the video is fine because every cop and situation is different. That brought up your incorrect opinion that criminal history does not matter, that the only thing that matters is the fearful state of mind of the cop involved, and that every case is different (if it were, every case would then go to the supreme court for a precident setting ruling).

And finally, not that it matters even slightly, I have a few degrees in the subject and have taught at universities in the states. However the common sense of a ten year old is about the extent of the knowledge required to get this.

In short, every cop who would have shot the murder suspect would have been justified in doing so. Just as every cop who didn't would have been a hero. It isn't different depending on the mind set of the cop.

Anyway, I'll stop being a pain. But if you call me out you need to at least be right about the subject matter.

By right, you mean agreeing with you.

I think maybe you should reread what I have typed. I am not sure if you're just trolling at this point or just that daft.

If you do have the credentials you mentioned, you would have some basic understanding research.

[pylon]

And this has come out, and it is my personal opinion of what likely led to his broken neck:

Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...18e_story.html

I am sure time will tell, but my guess is he was trying to make it look like he was roughed up way more than he was, and somehow he ended up breaking his neck in the process. If this is the case, what are these protesters criminals going to do? Say, "Oops... sorry." Or, alternately, say "This report is a total fabrication and lizard people, and NWO, and they're stealing my thoughts."

With all the evidence out currently out there, I personally believe this is the most likely scenario.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

And finally, not that it matters even slightly, I have a few degrees in the subject and have taught at universities in the states.

Is this actually true? Do you teach students the type of stuff you've gone on about here? What courses do you teach? To who? Yeeeeeeikes.