Support NeoGAF

[SierraOne]

It should be.

Scenario: Man shoots and kills multiple people at park, and runs.
Shoot or no shoot?

(Further information: creekbed and woods behind him, beyond that, suburban environment with housing tracks; unknown if still armed while fleeing, positively identified as shooter as you witnessed the shooting)

 

[Mesousa]

you seriously need your head examined. Your posting history is always tinged with the assertion that America is just racist down to its core, that there is some organized or concerted effort to oppress people of color.



agree with everything here.

Am I wrong though. look at this thread. kid gunned down for what? What about the man choked out in broad daylight in New York. It is in plain sight. I don't think it makes one crazy to notice these things.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Not trying to be a dick, but what situation that could be applicable in this situation that justifies the use of deadly force against an unarmed guy?

Legitimate question.

Right now the assertion is that e kid assaulted the cop and tried to get his gun. If that is I fact true, the shooting would be justified.


If it is true.

 

[SierraOne]

Not trying to be a dick, but what situation that could be applicable in this situation that justifies the use of deadly force against an unarmed guy?

Legitimate question.

No worries, I'll showcase my original thoughts on the situation:

Coming from a perspective of a fellow officer, I am a little disheartened that this department does not have cameras in their patrol vehicles -- while the veterans and old "tried and true" always prefer the old ways to the new, I have found cameras always there to help me, not hurt me.

Secondly, after reading initial reports from the news (which typically always gets things muddied and lost in details irregardless), I have a hard time firmly believing the use of force was justified after the fact of the in-car assualt. However, I will look at the other angle and see where he was coming from.

Deadly force window has the potential of opening and closing... think of it as a stop-light. If someone reaches for my gun and makes contact, then it's green light to use whatever means necessary to safeguard myself and those around me. Fighting over a gun and firing a shot inside the patrol vehicle is a terrifying notion to digest, and I can understand the fear/tension involved there in.

Thus I can see a reasonable officer believing any man capable of trying to kill an officer (committing a violent felony which could have led to GBI or death), and then fleeing may warrant deadly force so long as a call to halt (stop) was made when he was fleeing; although if memory serves me correctly, that doesn't always have to be the case either with respect to constitutional law (but my mind can't nail it down exactly, so I may be wrong there).

 

[Siegcram]

That is a worthy discussion for people greater than myself. Personally, I do not like the idea of letting a dangerous person with nothing left to lose running through my neighborhood, more than happy to commit other crimes for the sake of escape to avoid 25 to life.

You don't get to kill someone for crimes he might commit, with the probability being decided entirely by your own projection of his mindset.

If you're really a lawyer that should be pretty obvious.

 

[marrec]

Right now the assertion is that e kid assaulted the cop and tried to get his gun. If that is I fact true, the shooting would be justified.


If it is true.

That's how I see it. If the scenario where the kid tried to wrest the gun from the cop is true, then the cop might have thought he was a wider threat than should be allowed to escape and shot him after attempted to stop him through other means.

We don't know if that's actually what happened though. All we know right now is that some kid got shot in the back.

 

[benjipwns]

America's political system sure does have its issues, but when people don't actually participate they have little right to say "it's broken"

No, they maintain their full rights.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Scenario: Man shoots and kills multiple people at park, and runs.
Shoot or no shoot?

(Further information: creekbed and woods behind him, beyond that, suburban environment with housing tracks; unknown if still armed while fleeing, positively identified as shooter as you witnessed the shooting)

Why not just use the scenario that actually occurred?

You don't get to kill someone for crimes he might commit, with the probability being decided entirely by your own projection of his mindset.

If you're really a lawyer that should be pretty obvious.

Just for reference, TheChocolateWar only views these stories from a legal perspective, doesn't recognize racism and will only be concerned with the legal aftermath of these situations.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Don't you think how a community sees and interacts with it's police force is in and of itself a motor for conflict?

Like in this study, where the poorer black neighbourhood saw black officers as being better than white officers, even if there was no practical difference between their approaches?

But the middle class mixed neighbourhoods saw them more as a united force, instead of black or white.

One thing that is clear from this study is no one wants to a have segregated police forces, but if that could be of help with interactions in poor neighbourhoods (black or white), it could be a pragmatic way to bring down police/civilian conflict with racial tensions as a fuel.

Yeah there is back and forth. It is easy to say "the police are the problem". People that view the police as the enemy get treated as an enemy of police.

I mean I live 30 minutes away from this area all this is going down. To be worried a cop is going to randomly shoot at me in my neighborhood is unthinkable. But when you are in a "bad" part of town you know the cops are on edge, you have to be more careful with your police interactions.

 

[Punchy4486]

No worries, I'll showcase my original thoughts on the situation:

I appreciate the response. If all of that is true, it makes sense.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

You don't get to kill someone for crimes he might commit, with the probability being decided entirely by your own projection of his mindset.

If you're really a lawyer that should be pretty obvious.

*Shrug* Tell that to the United States supreme court. That is the rational behind the fleeing dangerous felon rule. They represent too great of a danger to the community. I am but a humble recent graduate. Go complain to Scalia. Just be careful he doesn't pull out his gun.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

You don't get to kill someone for crimes he might commit, with the probability being decided entirely by your own projection of his mindset.

If you're really a lawyer that should be pretty obvious.

In fact, you do. If a suspect is armed and has shown a willingness to use deadly force, he is for lack of a better word, fair game.

 

[kirblar]

You don't get to kill someone for crimes he might commit, with the probability being decided entirely by your own projection of his mindset.

If you're really a lawyer that should be pretty obvious.

You get to stop dangerous threats from being able to hurt people.

 

[SierraOne]

That's how I see it. If the scenario where the kid tried to wrest the gun from the cop is true, then the cop might have thought he was a wider threat than should be allowed to escape and shot him after attempted to stop him through other means.

We don't know if that's actually what happened though. All we know right now is that some kid got shot in the back.

Which is a grave issue as there is little collaborating evidence via audio recording and video recording, as it becomes an issue of reliability. (exasperated if the officer has a record of ever being dishonest, or failing to include pertinent details in his or her reports.) I'm still surprised such equipment isn't standard with every department.

 

[besada]

I think wanting to keep your employers name anonymous to protect your job is a normal thing to do in our internet connected world.

In the thread about Canadian cell phone companies, I was never asked to out my employer when I was giving information.

I think if we start prohibiting people from using anecdotal evidence in threads, we won't get far. It is up to the users to determine if such an anecdote is worth considering or not.

If you'd like to discuss moderation, feel free to PM a moderator.

 

[Nesotenso]

Am I wrong though. look at this thread. kid gunned down for what? What about the man choked out in broad daylight in New York. It is in plain sight. I don't think it makes one crazy to notice these things.

anyone who argues that there is no racism, prejudice practiced by law enforcement, the justice system or other government agencies is delusional. It exists beyond the power structures and among everyday citizens as well.

but believing that white people are inherently racist and out to get people of color is also delusional.

There are a lot of systemic ills plaguing America and we cannot pretend we are post racial society. It is a laughable suggestion. But to dismiss American society as evil and racist at its core is just plain idiotic.

 

[Dominican Power]

Why do use emotion-sensationalist mantra to state a case? Are you ignoring the given scenario of a young man assualting an officer? Or is that not a crime?

And assaulting an officer justifies you getting gun down ten times by an M16?

 

[Siegcram]

The key word is DANGEROUS.

It is illegal to shoot a fleeing felon, however, if they are a danger to others, it is not.

And the interpretation of that criterium is left entirely in the hands of people who have shown over and over again that they can't be trusted making the right call, making it utterly meaningless.

Scenario: Man shoots and kills multiple people at park, and runs.
Shoot or no shoot?

(Further information: creekbed and woods behind him, beyond that, suburban environment with housing tracks; unknown if still armed while fleeing, positively identified as shooter as you witnessed the shooting)

Hypotheticals can't be the base for a law/rule that involves taking a life. Running isn't a danger to others. It might lead to that, but that's no justifiable ground for killing someone.

 

[Mesousa]

anyone who argues that there is no racism, prejudice practiced by law enforcement, the justice system or other government agencies is delusional.

but believing that white people are inherently racist and out to get people of color is also delusional.

There are a lot of systemic ills plaguing America and we cannot pretend we are post racial society. It is a laughable suggestion. But to dismiss American society as evil and racist at its core is just plain idiotic.

This has nothing to do with white people. America could be populated by Green people and the result would be the same. The sickness is the nation.

Revolutionary education is the cure.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

And assaulting an officer justifies you getting gun down ten times by an M16?

Under current doctrine? Yes.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

And the interpretation of that criterium is left entirely in the hands of people who have shown over and over again that they can't be trusted making the right call, making it utterly meaningless.


Hypotheticals can't be base for a law/rule that involves taking a life. Running isn't a danger to others. It might lead to that, but that's no justifiable ground for killing someone.

You assume they only use it for a negative capacity. You have to remember we only see/hear about the bad shit law enforcement does. You never hear about the positive.

There's an issue for sure, but it's not "all of them, all the time."

 

[Nesotenso]

This has nothing to do with white people. America could be populated by Green people and the result would be the same. The sickness is the nation.

Revolutionary education is the cure.

so the issue at hand is the very existence of the nation? What would this revolutionary education entail?

 

[Malyse]

Right now the assertion is that e kid assaulted the cop and tried to get his gun. If that is I fact true, the shooting would be justified.


If it is true.

That's how I see it. If the scenario where the kid tried to wrest the gun from the cop is true, then the cop might have thought he was a wider threat than should be allowed to escape and shot him after attempted to stop him through other means.

We don't know if that's actually what happened though. All we know right now is that some kid got shot in the back.

Nope. Getting shot in the back is a wholly unreasonable response. Fuck that bullshit.

 

[googleplex]

you seriously need your head examined. Your posting history is always tinged with the assertion that America is just racist down to its core, that there is some organized or concerted effort to oppress people of color.



agree with everything here.

It is.

Do you think its just a fluke that Minorities receive harsher punishment for the same crimes as whites?

 

[SierraOne]

Hypotheticals can't be the base for a law/rule that involves taking a life. Running isn't a danger to others. It might lead to that, but that's no justifiable ground for killing someone.

The law and precedent sorely disagree with such an assertion. The law stands behind one who shoots a violent fleeing felon as there is a strong likelihood of others being in danger due to the individual's propensity to hurt others.

 

[Tedesco!]

You can either name your department or stop using it as an example. Entirely your choice.

I work for a law enforcement training agency, and I can understand why Sierra would want to not name the dept. He's offering his opinions and experience in the discussion, to name his dept. would make him "a spokesperson" for said dept. I'm sure he doesn't want to sound like he is speaking for the dept.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

And assaulting an officer justifies you getting gun down ten times by an M16?

Depending on the nature of the assault, but again, the assertion is that the teenager tried to get the officers gun.

 

[Fuchsdh]

No, they maintain their full rights.

What does that have to do with what I said? "The system failed me!" when the system was not used is a fallacy. Either way this seems to be veering away from the subject at hand, so I don't think I'll keep arguing this.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Nope. Getting shot in the back is a wholly unreasonable response. Fuck that bullshit.

That is not really confirmed.

Only thing I know for sure is he was shot 9 times.

 

[Siegcram]

*Shrug* Tell that to the United States supreme court. That is the rational behind the fleeing dangerous felon rule. They represent too great of a danger to the community. I am but a humble recent graduate. Go complain to Scalia. Just be careful he doesn't pull out his gun.

I'm not talking to Scalia, I'm talking to you. If you don't have anything to add, feel free to stop responding.

In fact, you do. If a suspect is armed and has shown a willingness to use deadly force, he is for lack of a better word, fair game.

Again those criteria are meaningless. A running human shouldn't be fair game armed or unarmed, running in the woods or a suburb.

You get to stop dangerous threats from being able to hurt people.

Everyone is potentially dangerous and has the capacity to hurt people. Literally everyone who isn't a toddler. Not to mention stopping =/= killing.

 

[besada]

I work for a law enforcement training agency, and I can understand why Sierra would want to not name the dept. He's offering his opinions and experience in the discussion, to name his dept. would make him "a spokesperson" for said dept. I'm sure he doesn't want to sound like he is speaking for the dept.

You are also welcome to PM a mod if you'd like to discuss moderation. What we won't be doing is discussing it in the thread.

 

[SierraOne]

And assaulting an officer justifies you getting gun down ten times by an M16?

Depends, if that individual attempted to inflict GBI/death on that officer, then the justification is highly arguable.

Why not just use the scenario that actually occurred?

I wanted something more black/white, where as the given scenario here holds a lot of gray.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Nope. Getting shot in the back is a wholly unreasonable response. Fuck that bullshit.

Again, depends on what actually went down. In this case it may have been. However, in previously mentioned scenarios it's not an inappropriate response.

 

[marrec]

Nope. Getting shot in the back is a wholly unreasonable response. Fuck that bullshit.

It's unreasonable to ask a police officer to make the decision to shoot at a potential killer while worrying about what your personal morals about shooting someone in the back are.

 

[Jado]

you seriously need your head examined. Your posting history is always tinged with the assertion that America is just racist down to its core, that there is some organized or concerted effort to oppress people of color.

There are a lot of systemic ills plaguing America and we cannot pretend we are post racial society. It is a laughable suggestion. But to dismiss American society as evil and racist at its core is just plain idiotic.

There's a big difference between believing America is "racist to its core" vs. "evil" and involved in an "organized/concerted effort to oppress people of color."

I think America really is deeply racist based on current events and past history. That's not a delusional observation that one needs to have his head checked for.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Again those criteria are meaningless. A running human shouldn't be fair game armed or unarmed, running in the woods or a suburb.

Perhaps not, but they currently are.

 

[Mesousa]

so the issue at hand is the very existence of the nation? What would this revolutionary education entail?

As it currently exists yes.

Revolutionary education would seek to put the power in the hands of the people, from there they could decide which way they want to go. that is the perfect outlet for the rage in which you saw with these riots. True representation. Not just some jack leg politician who only shows up at their church one day every 6 or so years so that he can steal votes from them without giving anything.

 

[Nesotenso]

It is.

Do you think its just a fluke that Minorities receive harsher punishment for the same crimes as whites?

I am not going to defend a broken system. But I will always disagree with the blanket assertion that American society has racism as one of its core guiding principles.

As it currently exists yes.

Revolutionary education would seek to put the power in the hands of the people, from there they could decide which way they want to go. that is the perfect outlet for the rage in which you saw with these riots. True representation. Not just some jack leg politician who only shows up at their church one day every 6 or so years so that he can steal votes from them without giving anything.

Riots here or elsewhere ( like in Europe) are always a symptom of a larger ill plaguing society and I don't think simply dismissing them as violence for the sake of violence is helpful. But I don't think that labeling them as the only justifiable response or protest is helpful either. Looting a neighborhood store or lighting a gas station on fire doesn't really make people affected by them sympathetic to your cause. All they see is their source of livelihood go up in flames.

 

[googleplex]

But to dismiss American society as evil and racist at its core is just plain idiotic.

Evil to its core? probably not. But racist at its core? Fuck yes!

 

[TheChocolateWar]

I'm not talking to Scalia, I'm talking to you. If you don't have anything to add, feel free to stop responding.

And I gave you the law. The law is; don't assault a police officer. Plain and simple. Fleeing dangerous felons that engage in dangerous or enumerated felonies will be shot to prevent danger to the community. Personally? It is nice to know that there are not people with nothing left to lose running around outside my house who would be more than happy to bash in a window to hide.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

I'm not talking to Scalia, I'm talking to you. If you don't have anything to add, feel free to stop responding.

Again those criteria are meaningless. A running human shouldn't be fair game armed or unarmed, running in the woods or a suburb.

Everyone is potentially dangerous and has the capacity to hurt people. Literally everyone who isn't a toddler. Not to mention stopping =/= killing.

They aren't meaningless, for some reason you aren't understanding a peace officer's obligation to protect the general public.

An armed individual, who has shown willingness to use deadly force is a danger to the public and needs to be incapacitated.

Can you imagine the law suit if the police decide "whelp, he's no longer facing us, let's pack it up and go home" them the armed individual goes on to break I to a house and god forbid kill someone, fatally carjack someone?

 

[Fuchsdh]

As it currently exists yes.

Revolutionary education would seek to put the power in the hands of the people, from there they could decide which way they want to go. that is the perfect outlet for the rage in which you saw with these riots. True representation. Not just some jack leg politician who only shows up at their church one day every 6 or so years so that he can steal votes from them without giving anything.

This is one of the most mindnumbingly foolish things I've heard on NeoGAF.

What will make this revolution of yours different from the vast majority of revolutions, i.e., just making the oppressed the oppressors and resulting in massive amounts of human slaughter and pain?

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Revolutionary education would seek to put the power in the hands of the people, from there they could decide which way they want to go. that is the perfect outlet for the rage in which you saw with these riots. True representation.

Apparently true representation also comes complete with a new set of 30" rims.

 

[mre]

Publicly revealing his department would be an exceptionally foolish decision. I can think of one judge off he top of my head that I think resigned due to message board posts, and one Ausa that was fired. I also know that all agencies have very strict online presence guidelines. It is difficult to balance the desire to present a different viewpoint that you feel is under represented and one based on personal experience and expertise without the issue of verification and truthfulness arising. It is probably better for this poster to just ignore topics like these than run into having to make this choice.

This guy: http://www.nola.com/news/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/arkansas_judge_outed_as_geauxj.html

Because he was a fucking idiot.

 

[SierraOne]

It's unreasonable to ask a police officer to make the decision to shoot at a potential killer while worrying about what your personal morals about shooting someone in the back are.

Which is something that is routinely forgotten, officers are expected to make quick responses to events that are rapidly evolving. The reasonable officer standard will come to play here. The sheer thought of one going after my gun, and having a round go off while struggling in a patrol vehicle is an absolutely terrifying notion. (assuming the initial reports are accurate)

 

[Siegcram]

You assume they only use it for a negative capacity. You have to remember we only see/hear about the bad shit law enforcement does. You never hear about the positive.

There's an issue for sure, but it's not "all of them, all the time."

I apply the same reasoning to this as I do to the death penalty.
As long as the chance exists you use it on someone who is innocent of the criteria of said action (wrongfully convicted or running away in panic with no intent to harm others) the policy of capital punishment or killing for the act of fleeing itself isn't valid.

 

[Infinite]

Apparently true representation also comes complete with a new set of 30" rims.

Please don't do this

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

This guy: http://www.nola.com/news/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/arkansas_judge_outed_as_geauxj.html

Because he was a fucking idiot.

Indeed. The other hand is that it allows a better view of the character of the person behind the political facade.

 

[jamesinclair]

If 'he reached for my gun" is an automatic license to kill without penalty, and it's easy to see how prone to abuse that could be.

In the same manner than every time a cop arrests someone who is 100% innocent throws in "resisting arrest" as a charge.

Which is something that is routinely forgotten, officers are expected to make quick responses to events that are rapidly evolving. The reasonable officer standard will come to play here. The sheer thought of one going after my gun, and having a round go off while struggling in a patrol vehicle is an absolutely terrifying notion. (assuming the initial reports are accurate)

Maybe the solution should be limiting access to guns. There's is no reason someone needs to respond to petty shoplifting with a gun. Have a rifle in the car, nothing on the cop.

 

[mre]

Which is something that is routinely forgotten, officers are expected to make quick responses to events that are rapidly evolving. The reasonable officer standard will come to play here. The sheer thought of one going after my gun, and having a round go off while struggling in a patrol vehicle is an absolutely terrifying notion. (assuming the initial reports are accurate)

One of the issues for me is the existence of the presumption that the officer acted correctly. When you have an officer involved shooting there should be no presumption either way.