Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Winnie

For real?

How would the cops have known that this guy wasn't armed? Just by looking at his hands and seeing there was no gun there? Is that really how easy people think it is? Would it still be super clear that the guy was unarmed if he put his hand in his pocket and lunged at one of the officers? I mean, you still haven't seen a gun at that point either.

The reality is that anyone can be armed at any time, and cops have to deal with this every day. Again, this is why being an idiot around them is a really bad idea.

Jesus Christ.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Jesus Christ.

Please explain.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Jesus Christ.

Great post.

I agree with Winnie. It sucks, but assuming people are armed until proven otherwise is a hell of a lot safer than doing it the other way around.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Great post.

I agree with Winnie. It sucks, but assuming people are armed until proven otherwise is a hell of a lot safer than doing it the other way around.

Of course its safer for the police. but its also more dangerous to the public. im not willing to make that trade off.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Great post.

I agree with Winnie. It sucks, but assuming people are armed until proven otherwise is a hell of a lot safer than doing it the other way around.

I disagree.

It doesn't suck; it's oppressive, authoritarian, and borderline fascist in its methods.

Blurring the lines between an unarmed running/dancing man with a running/dancing man trying to shoot you in the head is a horrible precedent and an unacceptable outcome. The line justifying the use of deadly force by police officers has continually blurred at the detriment of the unarmed civilian. If we start excusing the abuse / shooting of unarmed running / dancing people, then the next line we're going to test is "well, I *thought* he was about to run, which would have made him a mortal threat, so I had to..."

And please don't get me wrong. I think police officers follow the mandate that we as society pass onto them explicitly and implicitly. We endorse the unnecessary treatment of certain classes and turn a blind eye to the civil violations and mistreatment they suffer. That, in turn, helps set a standard that the police force expectedly adhere to. Nobody's fault but that of society at large.

And in the interest of clarifying that standard, it's in no one's interest for armed and unarmed to blur into similar threats.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Of course its safer for the police. but its also more dangerous to the public. im not willing to make that trade off.

So as a matter of process the police should go into every situation assuming the subject is unarmed, instead of armed? Are you sure you don't want to keep your paper bag?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I disagree.

It doesn't suck; it's oppressive, authoritarian, and borderline fascist in its methods.

Blurring the lines between an unarmed running/dancing man with a running/dancing man trying to shoot you in the head is a horrible precedent and an unacceptable outcome. The line justifying the use of deadly force by police officers has continually blurred at the detriment of the unarmed civilian. If we start excusing the abuse / shooting of unarmed running / dancing people, then the next line we're going to test is "well, I *thought* he was about to run, which would have made him a mortal threat, so I had to..."

And please don't get me wrong. I think police officers follow the mandate that we as society pass onto them explicitly and implicitly. We endorse the unnecessary treatment of certain classes and turn a blind eye to the civil violations and mistreatment they suffer. That, in turn, helps set a standard that the police force expectedly adhere to. Nobody's fault but that of society at large.

And in the interest of clarifying that standard, it's in no one's interest for armed and unarmed to blur into similar threats.

I never mentioned anything about shooting someone over that assumption.

I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you're saying, I simply think that's a fantasy

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Of course its safer for the police. but its also more dangerous to the public. im not willing to make that trade off.

Then more cops get killed and the whole thing gets worse.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Winnie

Cops are trying to do a serious job. As we've seen, there's a fine line between someone running up to you and dancing, and the same person running up to you and shooting you in the head. That's why you don't be an idiot around the cops when they're trying to do their job - pretty simple.

But when you consider the possible outcomes that exist when a citizen runs up to a police officer, the range between '... and seeks assistance with something' and '... shoots you in the head' is really wide. When you consider the number of interactions police officers must have with the citizens they are paid to protect (rather than suspect as some seem to be arguing), getting shot in the head has to be a very extreme and very uncommon rarity. I'd far rather that police assumed a citizen approaching them be for benign reasons than have them all ready for such a phenomenally negative interaction. If that is what they are expecting, that is what they will see, and we will have far more cases of people being shot by the police.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I disagree.

It doesn't suck; it's oppressive, authoritarian, and borderline fascist in its methods.

Blurring the lines between an unarmed running/dancing man with a running/dancing man trying to shoot you in the head is a horrible precedent and an unacceptable outcome. The line justifying the use of deadly force by police officers has continually blurred at the detriment of the unarmed civilian. If we start excusing the abuse / shooting of unarmed running / dancing people, then the next line we're going to test is "well, I *thought* he was about to run, which would have made him a mortal threat, so I had to..."

And please don't get me wrong. I think police officers follow the mandate that we as society pass onto them explicitly and implicitly. We endorse the unnecessary treatment of certain classes and turn a blind eye to the civil violations and mistreatment they suffer. That, in turn, helps set a standard that the police force expectedly adhere to. Nobody's fault but that of society at large.

And in the interest of clarifying that standard, it's in no one's interest for armed and unarmed to blur into similar threats.

Assuming someone is unarmed is simply not an option for the police. Fascism? More like common sense.

I don't think anyone (including the police in this scenario) is blurring the lines between a dancing idiot doing something stupid and a dancing idiot with a sub-machine gun. The former gets called a f'n idiot and is encouraged to go home. The latter probably gets to experience the use of deadly force.

Someone who starts acting out of the ordinary after moving into the middle of a group of police is obviously going to have some issues, because it could easily be a dangerous situation.

[White Out 403]

It's literally as if Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are writing some of this stuff. I feel really sorry for people who thnk the world is so frightening that cops should treat dancing idiots like high level threats. That's really all I can say about this.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

But when you consider the possible outcomes that exist when a citizen runs up to a police officer, the range between '... and seeks assistance with something' and '... shoots you in the head' is really wide. When you consider the number of interactions police officers must have with the citizens they are paid to protect (rather than suspect as some seem to be arguing), getting shot in the head has to be a very extreme and very uncommon rarity. I'd far rather that police assumed a citizen approaching them be for benign reasons than have them all ready for such a phenomenally negative interaction. If that is what they are expecting, that is what they will see, and we will have far more cases of people being shot by the police.

I agree with you. I think if this guy had just walked up to one of the cops to ask for directions, there wouldn't have been any problems. There would have been no assumptions about his intentions and his experience would have been the same as the other thousand people who walked by that night.

But this guy walked into the middle of them and started being an idiot. That's when the police would have to start figuring out what the guy is on or what he's about to do and assume that it's not good. If they had pulled their tazers out and blasted him at that point, then there would be a problem. They just treated the guy for what he was, an idiot who clearly isn't smart enough to realize that what he did was a bad idea.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

It's literally as if Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are writing some of this stuff. I feel really sorry for people who thnk the world is so frightening that cops should treat dancing idiots like high level threats. That's really all I can say about this.

I think cops should treat dancing idiots like dancing idiots. While dealing with dancing idiots they should take the necessary precautions. Not sure where I said they should be treated like high level threats (not sure that happened in the video either).

Cops must be doing a good job if there are people out there who feel that cops can go into situations assuming people are unarmed. Hugs for everyone!

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Winnie

I think cops should treat dancing idiots like dancing idiots. While dealing with dancing idiots they should take the necessary precautions. Not sure where I said they should be treated like high level threats (not sure that happened in the video either).

Cops must be doing a good job if there are people out there who feel that cops can go into situations assuming people are unarmed. Hugs for everyone!

What a horrifying world you must live in.

Life in a safe room?

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by nik-

What a horrifying world you must live in.

Life in a safe room?

Go back and read what I posted and let me know what would lead you to that conclusion.

This is a thread about supposed police overreaction. The most recent video was used as an example of police overreaction, where I thought it's an appropriate reaction given the circumstances. Did I/you miss something?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Winnie

Go back and read what I posted and let me know what would lead you to that conclusion.

This is a thread about supposed police overreaction. The most recent video was used as an example of police overreaction, where I thought it's an appropriate reaction given the circumstances. Did I/you miss something?

I read it, and laughed, because it's so hyperbolic it's hilarious. Unless you're serious, then it's just kind of sad.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Winnie

So as a matter of process the police should go into every situation assuming the subject is unarmed, instead of armed? Are you sure you don't want to keep your paper bag?

No, I think police should be trained well enough to access each situation as a separate and completely different set of circumstances and act in accordance with that specific set of circumstances.

Nutjob with a loaded gun waving it around and threatening to shoot at people--damn right the police need to go into that situation on high alert.

A guy walking through Walmart with a bb gun he picked up on the shelf--walk in and observe him, assess that he isn't a threat, move on with your life.

An idiot wanting to be cute and dancing around an officer--roll your eyes, chuckle at him and walk away.


Every single situation is dramatically different. An officer should never approach two separate circumstances with one blanket reaction. They should be trained well enough to use their skills of observation and deduction to determine the level of threat and react accordingly.


Why is this so hard to understand? No one wants to disarm the police entirely. No one wants to disband all police forces. No one wants police to die unnecessarily.

But I also don't want civilians to die unnecessarily. I don't want officers abusing their power. I want a system in place where there is some way to ensure that officers are using their power properly. None of this is radical thinking, I don't understand all the arguments.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Every single situation is dramatically different. An officer should never approach two separate circumstances with one blanket reaction. They should be trained well enough to use their skills of observation and deduction to determine the level of threat and react accordingly.


Why is this so hard to understand? No one wants to disarm the police entirely. No one wants to disband all police forces. No one wants police to die unnecessarily.

But I also don't want civilians to die unnecessarily. I don't want officers abusing their power. I want a system in place where there is some way to ensure that officers are using their power properly. None of this is radical thinking, I don't understand all the arguments.

I think that this is where the disconnect lies, though. They generally are following their training (like it or not)but the problem is they start at the top and work backwards as things are proven. Don't know if the suspect has a gun? Assume he does until you know otherwise. Don't know if there's a knife? Assume there could be, until proven otherwise. Don't know if the guy is a black belt in 5 different forms of martial arts? Assume he is until otherwise proven. No gun? Great, step down a response level. No melee weapons? Great, step down another response level. Keep proceeding until the situation is resolved.

But folks seem to be thinking that they should start at the bottom, and work their way up. Assume the person can't do anything or has anything on them until it's proven that they do. Sadly, given how fast most weapons work, this really is 'backwards', unsafe thinking that, if the suspect has a weapon they intend to use, will more likely than not get the officer killed.

So while every situation IS different, it's approached as if the people involved have guns, knives and black belts and are willing to use them until proven otherwise. To do otherwise is unsafe and unwise for all involved.

(This part got cut off, for some reason)

A guy walking through Walmart with a bb gun he picked up on the shelf--walk in and observe him, assess that he isn't a threat, move on with your life.

An idiot wanting to be cute and dancing around an officer--roll your eyes, chuckle at him and walk away.

How do police know he got it off the shelf? Is it loaded? You realize you can actually kill with a bb gun, right? How do you KNOW, for certain, that he's not a threat?

Dancing idiot. roll your eyes, chuckle, turn to walk away...and he pulls out a gun and shoots you in the back or a knife which he attacks you from behind with.

Thing is, most folks don't think like that, they don't HAVE to, but Police do. Or if you don't, you highly risk going home in a box.

[combustiblefuel]

N/m


I just can't believe how many People are OK with how the police act.


They are Humans but they definitely should be help to a higher standard or stop calling them the Cities finest.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I think that this is where the disconnect lies, though. They generally are following their training (like it or not)but the problem is they start at the top and work backwards as things are proven. Don't know if the suspect has a gun? Assume he does until you know otherwise. Don't know if there's a knife? Assume there could be, until proven otherwise. Don't know if the guy is a black belt in 5 different forms of martial arts? Assume he is until otherwise proven. No gun? Great, step down a response level. No melee weapons? Great, step down another response level. Keep proceeding until the situation is resolved.

But folks seem to be thinking that they should start at the bottom, and work their way up. Assume the person can't do anything or has anything on them until it's proven that they do. Sadly, given how fast most weapons work, this really is 'backwards', unsafe thinking that, if the suspect has a weapon they intend to use, will more likely than not get the officer killed.

So while every situation IS different, it's approached as if the people involved have guns, knives and black belts and are willing to use them until proven otherwise. To do otherwise is unsafe and unwise for all involved.

I think a large part of the problem is that a lot of American towns or small cities don't have anywhere the professional Police Force a place like Calgary does. Probably a lot of those smaller towns have bumpkins or someone's cousin or some vet who might not be the best choice for an officer.

However, a city like New York, this really shouldn't be the case.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by nik-

I read it, and laughed, because it's so hyperbolic it's hilarious. Unless you're serious, then it's just kind of sad.

OK then.