Apparently, the public execution of George Floyd wasn’t enough…
Evidently, the white cops in Kenosha, Wisconsin didn’t get the ‘world is changing’ memo:
It should be obvious; peaceful protests and marches and expressions of concern aren’t enough to discourage and dissuade racist white cops who are hell-bent from the use of excessive deadly force against unarmed black men who pose no deadly threat…
Pending federal legislation designed to reform protocols, policies, and procedures won’t be sufficient to make the wholesale societal changes needed to stop this kind of shit from happening.
Nonviolent resistance or refusal to obey the police is not justification for the use of firearms…
Yet, the police will claim that they felt threatened because the victim here ignored them and simply walked away to get into his car…The cops held him by his t-shirt while they shot him in the back seven times…
Not my idea of change in policing or anything else for that matter….
08/24/2020 @ 8:51 am
I just saw a clip of the Kenosha incident. This one is pretty easy. The shooting was justified. This one is not like many of the recent incidents. I agree that police shootings are out of control, but this one does not fit the category. It would be wrong to judge this one by what we have seen recently. After I explain it, I’ll ask you how you would handle it.
I saw the cops following closely behind the victim, and holding his shirt as he reached into his car. There are a dozen places that the guy could have had access to a gun once he reached inside the door. A gun could have been stowed several places in the door itself, under the seat, on the floorboard of the driver side, in the center console, between the seat and the console, wedged between the seat and the back rest…etc. The victim created a hazard by not following instructions and going into his car. Lots of cops get killed that way.
Now, starting at the point where the cop had him by the back of his shirt, and the man continued to get into his car, how would you have handled it?
One more thing, this particular tactical issue is never ever going to change. I can only speculate why the victim would not comply at this point, but if the public thinks they can refuse to comply under these circumstances, a whole lot more people will get shot. How would you handle it?
08/24/2020 @ 12:26 pm
@Bitey;
First, none of the incidents that result in a police shooting are “easy ” to resolve objectively.
Second:
“Now, starting at the point where the cop had him by the back of his shirt, and the man continued to get into his car, how would you have handled it?”
That’s not the correct place or starting point to begin an analysis or critique of the police behavior.
The man was said to be acting as a peacemaker in attempting to break up a fight….In other words, there’s more to this than meets the eye…
The clip here seems to show that at least one officer had his gun drawn prior to the man reaching his car….
Third:
How I might have handled the situation is irrelevant. I’m a black civil rights lawyer/warrior who went into active military service while protesting against the Vietnam War…
‘Good trouble’…
The issue here is how the police behaved. Since you are an ex-cop, maybe you could elucidate on how this situation might have been handled differently, if not better…
In my view no-one is supposed to get shot because of ‘speculation’ or what might have been…
The regs and statutes require that there be a ‘real threat’ to life or physical well-being not an imagined scenario in which something ‘could have’ taken place.
I’m not going to speculate along with you.
However, I will say this:
When white cops show up in a black neighborhood to quell a disturbance of any kind, there’s all kinds of ‘coulda, woulda, shoulda’ floating around. None of which are the basis for determining whether there is/was sufficient legal justification for the police to engage with drawn weapons or lethal force…
If you were to go into a courtroom with your case as stated here, I wouldn’t speculate or bet on you being successful re the question of holding the officers here accountable and/or culpable in this incident.
08/24/2020 @ 12:57 pm
Ron, the vast majority of people get shot based upon speculation. No one waits for a bullet flying in their own direction. Bullets are too fast for that. I’m struggling with how far your understanding is from how actions take place under real life circumstances.
There is another shooting that took place a day or two earlier where a man was walking into a gas station with a knife drawn. The cops tried to tase him and he refused to comply. They shot him at the door. That is almost the same situation. He was walking into an open business with members of the public present. It could not be known that the man did not pose a threat. You dont know what his intent was, and neither do the cops. Self righteousness will not block bullets.
08/24/2020 @ 2:25 pm
@Bitey;
My capacity to understand ‘real life’ situations is quite solid and sound…
Since you have no clue as to what I’ve done and accomplished on behalf and for the benefit of others, you would do well to cease and desist from trying to discredit me or play the social media game of ad hominem argumentation…
It’s disrespectful, insulting, condescending, and just plain annoying…
I stand by the validity and veracity of my final sentence:
“Not my idea of change in policing or anything else for that matter….”
Re the man with a knife…
“That is almost the same situation.”
Not nearly the same situation:
When a suspect is visibly armed with a lethal weapon, there is little or no speculation involved in determining danger or threat…
Under your reasoning every black person who expresses anger at the police is a threat and may be deemed a menace to society.
If I call a uniformed officer a vile and obscene name and walk away, should the officer be permitted to shoot me in the back because I might be going somewhere to get a gun or a knife or a rocket launcher?
Is the officer correct in ordering me to stop because he felt disrespected in an ugly or vitriolic verbal exchange?
Does the term or the concept of de-escalation have any meaning or value to those who are supposed to be trained to “protect and serve”?
I’m struggling with the notion of people who are expected to enforce the law who don’t know enough law to be entrusted with the responsibilities and obligations that are concomitant with wearing a badge and a gun…
There is no regulation or statute that permits the use of deadly force based on speculation, surmise, or just plain guessing.
The threat to life or physical well-being must be clear, present, and real to justify deadly force or use of a lethal weapon.
Probable cause to make an arrest isn’t sufficient justification for the use of deadly force…
There should be no finding of ‘justification’ where there was no clear and present danger or threat to the life and limb of an officer or bystanders…
08/25/2020 @ 4:03 am
Ron, this has nothing to do with what you have done. This has everything to do with what happened in the space of several seconds outside of that man’s car. Quoting John Lewis has nothing to do with this incident tactically. Any other thing has zero to do with it. Even the words stated during that incident by the man who was shot do not matter. Do NOT matter. The words of the officer(s) matter because tactically he has authority in that moment. That is not a personal choice. That is a matter of fact. I can’t hear what the officer said. I am assuming that he was telling him to stop his action. The man proceeded. Those are the only things that matter. What he was doing prior to that confrontation do not matter. What he was planning to do afterwards does not matter. Finally, their respective races in this incident do not matter. To include any of those things that are not relevant with a tactical issue that is has life and death consequences is to misunderstand the issue.
Regarding de-escalation, I asked you previously what you would have done. You slapped that away as if…actually saying that it is irrelevant. How in the world do you presume to ASK about de-escalation of me…and not ever consider answering generally what you would have done? I can glean from your question that attempt to de-escalate might have been part of your answer, but your unwillingness to offer that shows attitude…doesn’t it?
Let’s assume you cooperated and said “de-escalate” previously. My answer to you is, how do you know that he did not? PRECISELY how would you de-escalate? I know, I know…you refuse to answer. Only you get to ask the questions. That’s a blatant dodge, Ron.
The incident shown on the tape shows a serious, potentially dangerous level of chaos. As I said before, by the time he had the man by the back of his shirt…the only portion I saw on the news clip…presumably the officer was asking him to stop. He may have even told him not to enter the vehicle. Going inside the vehicle represented escalation. One possibility was to get a weapon…which would present a higher threat to the community in general. WOULD YOU…let the man enter the vehicle and do whatever he had planned? Is that reasonable? WHAT IF he shot an officer or two, or someone else in the immediate vicinity…or someone back in the group who had been fighting previously? What EXACTLY would you do in that situation where this particular man refused to cooperate or communicate? It IS relevant.
08/25/2020 @ 8:38 am
@Bitey;
My statement Re “good trouble” goes to my personal biases re critiquing the police
behavior…
Look at the video…
How do you de-escalate with guns drawn….?
How do you speculate on a gun with the man’s kids IN THE CAR?
Words matter…
Spoken words during the commission of an assault can raise the criminal act to the level of a hate crime…
I don’t understand why you don’t know that, or refuse to acknowledge that words matter…
That’s what de-escalation is all about…
That’s what I would have done and failing that I would have taken the man’s licence plate down and walked away with the intention to follow-up at another time…
There is absolutely no mention made of why the police were acting like thugs…
No mention made of any kind of wrong doing that would have warranted accosting and confronting an unarmed citizen with guns drawn…
But, it does take a certain amount of intelligence, presence of mind, and quickness of wit to de-escalate a potentially fraught situation…
It’s a skill set that most police officers just don’t have and aren’t trained well enough to acquire…
We don’t know what happened prior to the shooting, but my sense is that if the police had any ability to control the situation it would not have gotten to the point of drawn weapons and shooting an unarmed man in the presence of his children….
The cop(s) involved in this will and should be held accountable and culpable because, apparently, the reaction to the public execution of George Floyd isn’t or wasn’t enough of a signal for these nit wits to take a different tack…
They escalated the situation instead of de-escalating it…
It was their escalation that generated the possibility of a threat…
You are engaged in baselessly blaming the victim of a police hate crime because of your biases in favor such police action….
I would defy any cop who demands that I demean myself at his/her whim simply because he/she is wearing a badge and carrying a gun.
I might even call them a dirty name or two while doing so…
I’d stop a bullet in the name of social justice.
You, on the other hand, would fire that bullet in the name of what?: police authority? law and order? self preservation? saving face?
I’ve admitted my predisposition in regard to police use of excessive or deadly force…
That’s where my reference to ‘good trouble’ comes in….
You are trying to pass your take on the matter off as an objective analysis which it isn’t…
As an attorney, I can tell you flat out that you would lose in court, where words do matter…
In that regard maybe you should simply stick with whatever it is that you know and/or do best…
08/25/2020 @ 5:02 pm
If you jump out of a 20th story window, protesting gravity, and you say “good trouble”, or whatever else, you’re still going to hit the Earth at maximum velocity. It doesn’t matter of you’re a pilot, or a poet.
You oppose Christianity because of its relationship with racism. Maybe you have a point. I see a slightly different problem with it. I see magical thinking as a serious danger. I don’t know how Jakob Blake was thinking in the moments before he was shot, but invoking the concept of “protest” in this incident could get people killed.
Ben Crump is on television at this moment with the Blake family. He just said, “they know nothing about Jakob Blake in the moments before this incident.” That is precisely the point.
08/27/2020 @ 6:55 am
@Bitey;
“…the vast majority of people get shot based upon speculation…”
I am not aware of any academic study or credible report that supports the absurdity that is at the heart of this assertion…
If there is a citation or link to anything that contains data that supports this inane proclamation, please, by all means, provide it.
08/27/2020 @ 8:48 am
Reply accidentally at top of feed
08/24/2020 @ 12:45 pm
Respectfully, RP, that’s hogwash. Allow me.
1. The man was said to be acting as a peacemaker. By whom? What does that mean? This isn’t a board game. These are human beings. The “peacemaker” could A) lie. B) change his mind. C) Be insane. D). Still be armed. Saying he’s a peacemaker means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
2. “Good trouble”….blah, blah. While that phrase exists, people still kill other people. The existence of the phrase “good trouble does not, and will not preclude cops from getting shot. In fact, there is no magical incantation that guarantees safety in a volatile domestic situation. Actions matter. Words do not.
The fact that white cops kill black people does not mean that people don’t kill cops, white, black or otherwise. Being black does not guarantee that the cop would not have been shot with a gun that the man might have stowed away in his car. There is no omniscience aspect to this event. The only thing anyone can read are the actions in order. Siddhartha once ate a strawberry. That doesn’t have fuckall to do with that man going back into his car when ordered not to. NO amount of grievance, and no previous unrelated event has any bearing on those few seconds. Your analysis is not a real world analysis. And if anyone reads that and thinks they can say “good trouble” and defy a gun pointed at them in that sort of situation, they will likely be shot.
FInally, RP, asking you what you would do is ABSOLUTELY relevant. It is a dodge to say that the problem could be solved otherwise, and have no solution that you would actually apply. It’s disingenuous. If this incident gets to court, which I doubt it will, all will be asked what a reasonable person would do in such a situation. At that time, the officer had two choices. He could stop the man…as he did, or he could let him go hoping he was not reaching for a weapon. The latter is not responsible, nor reasonable. If the man had posed a threat to the cop and shot him, he would pose a threat to the wider community. The man was “said to be…”, Winnie the Pooh. Pooh would have still been shot in that situation, and rightly so.
08/24/2020 @ 1:49 pm
@Bitey;
Good trouble refers to my continuing to protest the war while on active duty…
I made the statement re my biases against police brutality and misconduct….
Eye witnesses indicate that the man was breaking up a fight…
I’ll accept that until contrary info surfaces…
Why did the cops approach him to begin with?
Again there’s more to this than meets the eye…
Your speculative opinion would carry no weight in either civil or criminal litigation…
“..all will be asked what a reasonable person would do in such a situation.”
The question is not what would a reasonable person would do but what a reasonable trained officer of the law would do…
Your response is typical blue wall bullshit and it is clear that you believe that the officers were justified in this shooting…
The ‘facts’ here are unclear and only partially articulated.
The cops are not always right, and when they’re wrong innocent people get hurt or killed.
08/25/2020 @ 4:42 pm
I know what “good trouble” means.
This wasn’t a protest.
08/24/2020 @ 1:19 pm
I have not watched the clip.
I haven’t heard yet why there were seven shots.
I do understand why he had to be stopped, but not why he didn’t.
Cops want to go home for dinner too.
08/24/2020 @ 2:09 pm
@AWS;
“I do understand why he had to be stopped, but not why he didn’t.”
“Aye, there’s the rub.”
08/24/2020 @ 1:39 pm
“Questioning my authority was not his right.”
I think this clip goes to the heart of the problem of cops killing black people. I clipped it to the part I think is most on point. That is, the expectation the cop has of extremely deferential behavior from citizens because he is a great hero.
We, as a society, exaggerate the dangers of being a cop, the likelihood of being killed and elevate all cops to heroic status. Police work is not one of the 10 most dangerous jobs in the country. (It’s 16, not all deaths attributable to violence. More, I believe are due to car crashes.) Now, it may be that’s because the cops are free to kill before they are killed but I don’t think that explains it fully.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-according-to-bls-data.html
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/money/2020/01/24/25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/41041127/
In turn, I believe cops exaggerate the danger they’re in day to day. Mind you, I’m sympathetic. I felt it strongly when my niece the cop said, “If it comes down to whether I go home tonight or you do, I’m going home.”
But “when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” Cops are too ready to go for their guns in response to any resistance. This is visible in all the videos where the cop has the gun out first thing, in this case, long before the “bad guy” reached the car door.
I don’t know how much training is put into “de-escalation” skills or how cops might be trained to avoid gun use. It seems to me, maybe not enough. It seems like two cops could have managed a solution short of shooting the guy in the back that would have prevented him from ever reaching inside the car, whether or not it was for a gun. It seems like de-escalation techniques wouldn’t even have been necessary, just thinking ahead a little bit and the two cops working together as a team. If the guy wasn’t going to be allowed to enter his car, there should have been a cop between him and the car for starters.
Hindsight is 20/20, of course especially with an omniscient and lofty point of view. But isn’t it the function of training to anticipate what could go wrong? My niece tells me that whenever one of these incidents take place, in her department they study the videos and discuss alternative approaches. Seems like a good idea. They’re at least thinking about it in advance.
Maybe it’s arrogant for me to put myself in the position of the cops when I’ve never encountered such danger and never will. But as a good citizen I think it’s my responsibility to do just that and to understand what I expect from “protect and serve” however obvious it seems on the surface.
08/24/2020 @ 2:06 pm
@JC;
Well put!!!
08/24/2020 @ 4:39 pm
I just read that Jacob Blake’s children were watching as he was shot. Ages 3, 5 ,8. You can’t intellectualize that.
08/24/2020 @ 5:26 pm
@JC;
According to one eyewitness account, they were in the car…
08/27/2020 @ 3:20 pm
Jonna, I was curious about this quote, but had avoided it. There is a perception that is common that can be a bit misleading. Now, drawn back in by some other comments in the thread, I thought I would look into the video that you supplied for this comment before explaining what I think the issue is. You’re already aware of what I discovered. You posted a link to an ABC drama about police work. Does that really need to be explained?
Now, to take a look at judgment, how about you look at other professions. Consider going into a fire in progress, and getting involved with how the fireman is going about his tasks. Maybe he breaks a window or knocks down a door. Let’s say that door was particularly valuable. Do you object?
How about a surgeon. Somehow you manage to get into an operating room. The surgeon makes a choice about how to get around some obstacle, and you, as a casual observer disagree. What is the manner of your objection, and…how exactly did you get into the operating room? What I am getting to here is a challenge of your assertion that the “deference” required by the professional is about the personalities involved and not about the Situation at hand. Honestly, I have seen people from TV personalities like Bill Maher, and countless others offer this theory that cops are just doing that job because they seek respect that they could not otherwise get. Doesn’t that strike you are ridiculously simplistic and reductive? It should. Cops vary like the population of humanity varies. They are good and bad. Cowardly and brave. Happy and depressed. Intelligent and stupid. They vary in every way that humans can vary. The theories about their psychological motivations just don’t hold water. Also, a TV drama is written and acted for dramatic effect. That is not a documentary. Seriously, when I got to college, I actually had to explain to more than one person why I did not talk like people on “The Jeffersons”. More times than I can count, I had to say, that is not real.
08/27/2020 @ 9:02 pm
Bitey, I think I see your point.
I went to that clip because it had a strong emotional effect on me at the time, seems to illustrate strong ideas concisely and it has stayed with me. I don’t for a minute think all cops are cut from the same mold, any more than criminals or any other occupations. That said, there have to be similarities or commonalities, even if they grow out of the work. (e.g. surgeons are arrogant, firemen are brave or insane or something.)
Drama and fiction have their roots in reality. Seeking to analyze my reaction to this scene, it seemed realistic. Like, yeah, I can see a cop feeling like that. Not all cops but some, maybe just the weak minded or fragile egos but they will exist in the population. I can see this happening and it can explain why some cops kill citizens when you might not think they would need to. Not ALL cops, of course not. But not all cops kill citizens in ways it’s hard to understand. Maybe it’s primarily the ones with weak egos. Maybe always. I can see Derek Chauvin fitting that description. I can’t see my niece that way and if I knew you better I don’t think I’d see you that way.
The Maher example you give is, yes, ridiculously simplistic and reductive. It wasn’t my intent to put the example in the place of all cops at all times. But always it’s about a combination of both the situation at hand and the personalities of the individuals involved.
To bring your examples in line with the main one – I would not be in the operating room, I’d see a video of a surgeon going after a brain tumor with a pickaxe, I’d speak up. I’d be perfectly comfortable condemning his surgical technique. Same for a fireman spraying gasoline instead of water on a fire. And I think that’s closer to what we’re talking about here.
Remembering the video of the two cops following Jacob Blake to the car – they were both waving their guns in the air like Keystone cops. Seriously – did that look ok to you? Combined with pulling the guy by his t-shirt. Just having raised a few kids I can see that as behaviorally not productive if you want some control over someone.
The question of deference. I don’t have to have deference. I’m just some random citizen looking at a video and commenting. At most it will affect the way that I vote. Deference is expected from the person the cop is encountering in a professional circumstance. But by definition you’re not going to get it most of the time. By definition, a cop is likely to encounter the assholes of the world most often and by definition, they won’t be doing deference. If for nothing other than self defense, a cop has to be able to forego requiring deference whether or not they deserve it. And those folks are as likely as cops and everyone else to vary with respect to mood, attitude, intelligence and all the rest except they’re going to be under more emotional stress than others involved. It seems like a cop needs to be aware of that and respect it without fail.
08/25/2020 @ 10:32 am
Ron,
What part of “I agree that police shootings are out of control, but this one does not fit the category. It would be wrong to judge this one by what we have seen recently.“ adds up to “The cops are not always right, and when they’re wrong innocent people get hurt or killed?” Bitey just finished saying that the cops are not always right.
Bitey,
What would help is some case histories of cops being killed in situations like this one.
08/26/2020 @ 2:11 pm
@Koshersalaami;
The disagreement is in this assertion:
‘…this one does not fit the category…”
Bitey’s belief that the police were justified based on suppositions is beyond the pale.
It is my contention that the cops in this instance, especially in the current political and social climate, cannot and will not be vindicated and exonerated of wrongdoing…
They should and will be held to account.
They will not go unpunished for both their actions and their failures as officers of the law.
08/26/2020 @ 6:20 pm
I doubt they’ll be vindicated. I’d still like Bitey to talk about the history of the risks. That’s what would best make his point.
08/27/2020 @ 4:46 pm
KS, I have no personal stake in whether or not they are/ he is vindicated, but that is how I see the situation as it played out. Further, it has come out that Jacob Blake has admitted that he had a knife in his possession. The way the law discusses it in situations like these is ‘constructive control.’ Did Blake have constructive control of a weapon? The weapon could be on his person, or (in this situation) in his vehicle. From what little I saw, Blake was opening his car door. The knife was found on the floorboard on the passenger side of the vehicle. That is constructive control.
When I saw the small portion of the video, it appeared that Blake was either trying to get into his vehicle or grab something from it. While the officer was holding his shirt, he had to answer for himself what Blake was doing, even IF Blake was also answering. Blake’s verbal answer in this situation would need to correspond to what was happening, and the relevance to the officer’s commands at that time. Was Blake reaching for a weapon? We don’t know. Was he reaching for what turned out to be a knife? We don’t know. Would it be acceptable for any officer to allow Blake to reach into his car, against orders, and retrieve a weapon or a knife? My answer is based on the belief that under no circumstances (within this type of situation) would that be allowed. To say that the officer would not be vindicated in that action assumes that it would be allowable for him to retrieve a weapon generally, or a knife…as it turned out to be. To allow that would be to allow an escalating threat to the people assembled primarily, and the cops secondarily.
You interpreted one of my previous statements about speculation as being an “it them or us” point of view. That’s not accurate. The primary objective is protecting the community, and the officers after that. The primary threat is to the community, even when the action of the threat is directed at the officer personally. The officer represents and is part of the community. This is not a security guard for some corporation. This is a public office holder with a specific charge. “Either him or us” is prejudicial and inaccurate.
As facts continue to develop from this incident, we have come to know that there was a report of a man at the incident that “was not supposed to be there.” There was some sort of court order banning one an specifically. Was that man Blake? We don’t know yet. The officers knew there was a man there who was ordered not to be, but may or may not have known that Blake was that man. Either way, that places more concern on men and women in the immediate area. This was likely a domestic violence incident, irrespective of what the call was. DV calls are the most violent, least rational incidents that officers face in pursuit of public peace. (Don’t make me have to state the obvious). Whether or not the officer is charged with a crime will be influenced by, if not entirely hinge on, what Blake was doing there, and why he did not comply with the officer’s commands. “Protest” is an absurd suggestion, and protests of this sort in the future will get people killed. Will.
Honestly, I wish someone would answer the ‘what if’. What if Blake had been allowed to retrieve his knife? What then? What there some emergency whittling to be done at that particular moment? I am not making light of this tragedy. I only say that to say, what is the purpose for not complying with the command from the office in that moment?
08/26/2020 @ 6:21 am
(crying)
08/26/2020 @ 9:45 am
08/27/2020 @ 8:45 am
You’ve got to be kidding. The alternative is that Black suspects are getting killed because cops like shooting Black guys or want to rid America of Black guys and are looking for murder opportunities. That’s an accusation that would have to be substantiated. But speculation about a threat level, particularly given what we know about police training, with its heavy emphasis on If its you or them, let it be them? Bitey’s point is obvious.
08/28/2020 @ 6:02 am
@Koshersalaami;
“You’ve got to be kidding. The alternative is that Black suspects are getting killed because cops like shooting Black guys or want to rid America of Black guys and are looking for murder opportunities. That’s an accusation that would have to be substantiated.”
Your incredulity is disingenuous in light of the reems and volumes of materials on the subject that are available and readily accessible:
https://time.com/5861644/1898-wilmington-massacre-essential-lesson-state-violence/
https://theconversation.com/the-racist-roots-of-american-policing-from-slave-patrols-to-traffic-stops-112816
08/27/2020 @ 2:14 pm
“I am not aware of any academic study or credible report that supports the absurdity that is at the heart of this assertion…
If there is a citation or link to anything that contains data that supports this inane proclamation, please, by all means, provide it…”
You asked this question as a response to my statement that the vast majority get shot based upon speculation. I’ll explain that for you. To do so, it will take explaining some basics.
First of all, the gun is a tool. The presence of that tool is primarily to prevent the escalation of a conflict between participants, whether officer to suspect, or mutual combat between suspects. The gun is used primarily to leverage fear and bring inaction on one’s counterpart. Leaving out the group of insane sadistic criminals, the larger group is composed of people with a gun seeking a specific end. Maybe it is a car thief who wants the car more than he wants to actually shoot you for it. The cop who wants the arrest more than to actually shoot you dead…etc. Clear enough?
Now, when the situation escalates to actually firing the gun, in the vast majority of cases, the situation did not go as the person with the gun had planned. The response from the target may not be what the person with the gun perceives, or maybe it is, but in either case, the shooter chooses to shoot as plan B. (It could also be plan C, D, E, etc, but is almost certainly not the first choice).
There are a number of things to consider when using a gun in a crime, or in police work, over alternatives. (For an officer the choice is simpler because the law paves the way for the selection of a gun, so I will limit this to a criminal use of the gun.) Using a gun has obstacles like cost, and laws regulating the use. Robbing a bank is much more serious if the robber has, or indicates that he has a gun than if he does not. (Most often, banks are robbed with notes, and no mention of a gun, for exactly that reason.) So, the choice to use a gun takes on certain risks and has certain costs. The benefits of using a gun are power and speed. This is where the speculation comes in. As opposed to alternative weapons, guns have a recognized potency regarding thread, and speed. (A knife used by an assailant across a large room with doors behind the target is not particularly potent, while a gun in the same situation is. Conversely, a knife at close quarters can be more threatening than a gun, and ADW (assault with a deadly weapon) laws reflect that in most states). Now, with the gun’s main value being speed and power, is it clear yet how speculation is involved in the decision to use it, and results in more shootings than not? No?
If someone is armed with a gun, and intending not to use it UNLESS… Then they see alternative B pass by, and perhaps alternative C, they shoot the gun before alternative D arrives…whatever that may be. The assailant, or the cop, sees the arrival of the next step in the order as taking their advantage away to some degree or totally. They shoot to stop the action of the target from proceeding through their own defensive steps. In the vast majority of cases, the shooter is trying to hold on to advantage and shoots to prevent circumstances from devolving into having less or no advantage. That is not to say that they will devolve, and it is not to say that what the shooter is doing is based upon good reasoning. What it is saying is the SPECULATION is used to stay ahead of the action. Get it now?
Now, one more thing, RP. None of what I have said previously or in this case has anything to do with what I have done, or what you have done. I have not mentioned it once. With everything I have explained from the beginning to the end, you can replace individuals with varying experiences, races, genders, ages, or mental conditions, and the steps ALL remain the same. Not one step has anything to do with experience. It is an unbiased as is possible. Conversely, you have quoted John Lewis, takes about being a social justice warrior, attorney…etc. Your argument was chock full of subjectivity. Mine had none. Go back and read it again. The speed of your apology will gauge the depth of your character. Your assertions were pure projection.
08/27/2020 @ 8:58 pm
@Bitey;
You get no apology because none is warranted…I stated that my perspective is biased re my background and experience…
I stated how I would have handled the situation…
You refuse to accept and acknowledge that your ‘analysis’ or ‘critique’ is full of ‘blue wall’ propaganda….
The cops here will be held to account and at least one will be dismissed from the department…the one who saw fit to fire seven shots into the back of an unarmed black man while holding on to the man’s t-shirt as his children watched while seated in the back seat of the car…
BTW
I did my active duty with the USAF at what was then Lockbourne, AFB in Columbus, Ohio…
Back then there was a night spot called the Castle on or near the campus of The Ohio State University…
Was the place still there during your time at OSU?
08/27/2020 @ 9:03 pm
No.
08/27/2020 @ 2:36 pm
“It is my contention that the cops in this instance, especially in the current political and social climate, cannot and will not be vindicated and exonerated of wrongdoing…“
Do you see anything wrong with this statement? Here is is. “…especially in the current political and social climate…”
Understand this. We are looking at this differently. I am looking at why the officer shot, and what the standards are for taking that action. The statement is limited to the parameters that I stated at the beginning, and I stand by that. Yours is quite different. Yours says, “in this current political and social climate…”. That is a very different analysis. That is actually not only unjust, but it unravels ALL of the social justice that you proclaim for yourself. Given your parameters there, slavery in America was just…given the current(historical) political and social climate. The Holocaust…the same. Most social injustices that you can name were sustained by historical political and social climate. That’s not the question at all. It is also clear why you refuse to answer how you would handle it differently.
I feel as strongly as you do that the incident is a tragedy. Things probably could have been handled differently long before the portion I cited regarding the video. Once the action on the video was occurring, only two things could happen. The cop did what he did to stay ahead of whatever the man was reaching for. That much is intuitive.
It does not fit the pattern of what happened to George Floyd because the scenarios were too different. There are more differences than there are similarities. The similarities that you can cite are speculation on your part.
08/27/2020 @ 3:06 pm
“In the current political and social climate” would, in circumstances where a shooting had less ambiguity than this one, mean exactly the opposite: that what a Prosecutor would normally make go away they don’t currently have the cover to pull off. The current climate is generally closer to what should be normal, not further. That being said, introducing excesses in the opposite direction isn’t a good idea either. And what will contribute to these excesses is the original unjustifiable excesses.
By this statement I disagree with both of you, but over different things. I don’t think the new normal is worse than the old normal, but I think the contention that most police shootings are not intrinsically speculative is more insulting to police than they deserve. That contention puts them in the role of racial Einsatzgruppen. I don’t think the evidence points toward a police plan for racial extermination, which is way too close to what a lack of speculation in most of these cases would mean.
08/27/2020 @ 8:38 pm
@Koshersalaami;
20/30 or more years ago cops routinely got away with this kind of shit because they lied in their reports and there was no credible evidence to overcome the lies and omissions contained in the ‘official ‘ documentary record…
Since the horrific beating of Rodney King the political and social climate has changed…
Just as the political and social climate changed In the 60 or so years between Plessey v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education…
Bitey’s contention might have been enough to persuade a jury 20 or 30 years ago when the only ‘record’ was the report filed by police. However, I repeat no regulatory language or statute establishes police ‘speculation’ as the justification for the use of deadly force…
08/27/2020 @ 2:52 pm
@Bitey;
“…the vast majority of people get shot based upon speculation…”
I am not aware of any academic study or credible report that supports the absurdity that is at the heart of this assertion…
If there is a citation or link to anything that contains data that supports this inane proclamation, please, by all means, provide it…”
The vast majority of car accidents occur when cars are in motion. The vast majority of them are with a car moving forward. All of the controls of the car are in the front of the car, and oriented forward so that the driver can control the car facing forward. Collisions resulting from the movement of the car generally assign responsibility to the driver controlling the direction of the vehicle. A collision from behind is the responsibility of the driver approaching from behind, while the collision in front of you is your responsibility, EVEN IF you are propelled forward by the impetus of the car from behind. Responsibility is assigned to what you can control and or prevent which is ahead of you. Perception, analysis, judgment, speculation are all involved in this process. When you proceed thru a 4-way intersection, you speculate that the cars at the red lights on the cross street will remain stationary. There is nothing physically preventing them from entering the intersection in the “vast majority of cases.” Do you require a study for that as well?
08/27/2020 @ 8:18 pm
@Bitey;
Automobile accidents and police shootings…
A false equivalency if ever there was one…
The studies and data abound re causation and causal factors re automobile accidents….
The majority of automobile accidents occur when vehicles are in motion is no where near equivalent to:
“…the vast majority of people get shot based upon speculation…”
Ironically you chose an area where there is ample and accessible data which reinforces the assertion re moving vehicles as the cause of automobile accidents to compare to your assertion re ‘speculation’ as the cause of the “vast majority of shootings”…
I don’t believe you can produce credible data to support your contention because, from where I sit/stand, none exists….
Your “I used to be a cop so I should know better than you” posture cannot cut the rhetorical mustard here….
08/27/2020 @ 8:28 pm
Ok, Ron. Take care.