• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Police fatally shot at least 20 unarmed civilians this year

Status
Not open for further replies.

Malyse

Member
The call came through Officer Geoffrey Freeman’s radio a few minutes before 10 a.m. on Feb. 8.

“Complaint that somebody jumped a fence and tried to chase a neighbor,” the police dispatcher in Austin, Texas, said. “Black male, tall, thin, wearing jeans, boxers.”

The dispatcher left Freeman with a final detail.

“No weapons,” she can be heard saying just before the call, later released to the public, cuts out.

Freeman headed toward the disturbance, which was taking place in a pocket of suburbia a couple of miles north of the University of Texas at Austin campus.

The last of a series of 911 calls relayed to Freeman reported a “totally nude black male” in the area. Freeman, a 10-year veteran of the force, called for additional units and continued his search.

“Sounds like this guy could either be ... 10-86 [subject with mental illness] and losing it or high or something,” he told dispatch, according to a memo later published by Austin’s Citizen Review Panel.

Within half an hour of arriving, Freeman found what he was looking for. He exited his cruiser and confronted David Joseph, who was completely naked and standing in the middle of the street.

After just seconds of verbal contact, Joseph, a 17-year-old known to his friends as Pronto, lay dying on the asphalt. Freeman had shot him through the heart.

Medical examiners would officially describe Joseph as African-American, 5 feet 7 inches tall and 146 pounds. Freeman, 46 years old and also black, stood at the same height, but was nearly 100 pounds heavier than the teen. A toxicology report later found traces of marijuana, the prescription drug Xanax and an antihistamine in Joseph’s system. It’s still unclear what drove him to strip off his clothes and run around the neighborhood.

Joseph is one of the nearly 300 people police have shot and killed so far this year, according to The Washington Post’s unofficial tally. And like the rest of the names on that list, you’re probably not familiar with Joseph or his story.

There was no mention of Joseph on CNN, Fox News or MSNBC on the day he died, or on any day since, according to a Huffington Post review of programming. Instead, cable news gleefully reported that Donald Trump had called his Republican opponent Texas Sen. Ted Cruz a “pussy.” The schoolyard insult prompted numerous segments, including “experts” speculating on whether the billionaire’s vulgarity would sink his candidacy. (It didn’t.)

There have been at least 20 cases in which cops have shot unarmed civilians to death this year, and a HuffPost examination of cable news transcripts found that the major cable news networks have not covered any of them.

“I have yet to speak with a single person — on 10 college campuses — who has correctly identified” any of the victims, Shaun King, an activist and criminal justice reporter for the New York Daily News, wrote in a column earlier this month. “The hashtags and trending topics of police brutality victims that were once a staple from coast to coast have all but disappeared.”

Although the media’s interest in police shootings may have changed, the broad outlines of many of the cases haven’t. According to Freeman, Joseph didn’t comply with his commands to stop, and instead turned and charged. Freeman claimed he feared for his life and had to resort to lethal force, even though he was also equipped with a Taser, pepper spray and a baton. Joseph’s family said the teen needed help, not a bullet to the chest.

Similar accounts fueled controversy in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as other cities including New York City, Baltimore, Minneapolis and Chicago over the past two years. And like those cases, Joseph’s shooting raises many of the same questions about law enforcement’s use of force, training, racial biases and the ability to hold officers accountable for catastrophic misjudgment or misconduct.

Unlike in those cases, however, Joseph has not become a household name or part of a rallying cry in the fight against police violence.

And he’s not alone in his relative anonymity. Although police reform is still on many people’s minds — including the journalists who continue to cover it — mainstream reporting on the issue seems to have shifted away from telling the stories behind the climbing death toll.

Instead, the media has turned its sights to the heated presidential election, burning through the oxygen that had given life to stories about police brutality and reform.

“The election has distracted people and, even worse, the media has just given in to the lowest common denominator to cover every crazy and outrageous thing Trump says at the expense of actually covering issues and concerns,” Sarah Oates, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland, told HuffPost.

It’s not that wall-to-wall coverage of the presidential election has completely undercut the conversation about policing in America. Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have both reached out to the families of victims of police violence, even recruiting some of them as surrogates. And they’ve both made sweeping — though perhaps unrealistic — promises to enact police reform if elected president. But in the midst of a contentious primary season, they’ve stopped using new examples to illustrate the critical importance of the issue.

The focus was less abstract last year. Police fatally shot 109 unarmed civilians in 2015, according to The Guardian’s unofficial tally, a steady drumbeat of bloodshed accentuated by higher-profile incidents that dominated headlines for days. National attention helped amplify the existing local activism, and under the klieg lights, city and state officials felt pressure to listen to the demands for accountability, transparency and change.

Video footage played an integral role in building that storyline. Last year, the public had little choice but to watch as bystander video of an officer opening fire on a fleeing 50-year-old Walter Scott was broadcast on repeat around the nation. In the days that passed between the Scott shooting and the release of the footage, law enforcement tried to portray the incident as a reasonable use of force. The four-minute cell phone video unwound that narrative, and eventually led prosecutors to charge the officer with murder.

In the cases from this year that HuffPost analyzed, however, there have so far been no publicly released videos clearly showing the shootings — no visual evidence to further force Americans to take a hard look at police violence and potentially challenge the notion that officers are always right. And considering that police are still killing people frequently — in incidents that often sound troublingly familiar — it’s possible that the public has developed a higher threshold for outrage.

While Clinton and Sanders have been less outspoken about issues of police violence this year, they didn’t hesitate to get involved last year. In fact, both candidates appeared to make a point of saying the names of people killed by police, channeling a cause promoted by activists aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement.

But now that Clinton and Sanders are trying to win over voters and build their national appeal, Oates says they’re taking a more delicate approach.

“It allows them to get some votes hopefully without alienating the white majority,” she said of the candidates’ overtures on police reform. “They’re kind of stuck between people who don’t ever want to hear the police criticized and people who really want to say there’s a real problem with the power that’s given to police versus the rights of the citizens.”

This shift can’t be chalked up entirely to a campaign-obsessed media that thrives on vapid political coverage. If there’s one upside to this trend, it’s that police are so far killing fewer unarmed people this year than they were in 2015. But we’re just months into 2016, and we’ve still seen a number of disturbing incidents that under different circumstances, might have resonated beyond the local level.

Take the case of Antronie Scott, a 36-year-old black man who was shot and killed by San Antonio Police Officer John Lee in February, just days before Joseph’s fatal shooting. Lee found Scott, who was wanted on two felony charges, sitting in the parking lot of his girlfriend’s apartment complex. According to Lee, Scott made a sudden turn after he stepped out of his car. Lee says he thought he saw a gun.

It was a cell phone.

Activists in San Antonio held rallies calling for justice, but Scott’s story still failed to permeate the national news cycle. Mike Lowe, a local Black Lives Matter activist, attributes part of this to the fact that the demonstrations there were less disruptive than major protests in Ferguson, Baltimore and Chicago.

“A lot of individuals may not be rebellious or have that spirit of protest in them to be like, ‘We’re just going to occupy the streets until justice happens,’” he said.

Those more confrontational attitudes have paid dividends in other cities, Lowe said. But he says politicians in San Antonio take pride in the fact that the city isn’t like its peers. After Scott’s shooting, Mayor Ivy Taylor, who is black, said in a statement that it was important for San Antonio to not compare itself — and the killing of Scott — to what has happened elsewhere.

“Every city or town also has its own context,” she said. “I will not allow our city’s story to be that of cities we see on the national news.”

“Politicizing this incident and putting it in the context of what’s happening in other cities is not the solution — just as reverting to 20th-century police techniques or protesting the very meetings that seek to provide the opportunity for constructive dialogue is not the solution,” Taylor added.

The mayor sat down with activists to discuss their concerns, and San Antonio’s chief of police said in early March that Lee would be fired. Weeks later, however, he reversed course, saying Lee would face no disciplinary action beyond additional training. Taylor quickly announced that she supported his decision.

Long article worth reading.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-shootings-2016_us_5713d98ae4b0018f9cba52d1
 

Herbs

Banned
image.php
 

Heh

Those more confrontational attitudes have paid dividends in other cities, Lowe said. But he says politicians in San Antonio take pride in the fact that the city isn’t like its peers. After Scott’s shooting, Mayor Ivy Taylor, who is black, said in a statement that it was important for San Antonio to not compare itself — and the killing of Scott — to what has happened elsewhere.

Hard not to do when, just like everywhere else, you yet continue to respond in kind by giving these officers a slap on the wrist for taking a life
 
Freeman claimed he feared for his life
Yup, there it is.

Honestly if you're an armed cop fearing for your life by someone who is completely naked (so you KNOW he's unarmed) you should honestly just quit. You're clearly not fit for that line of work
 
I've been very disappointed in how it's dropped out of coverage and out of the political conversation.

I guess it's too dangerous a subject for a political year. Better to just let them keep killing people.
 

Guevara

Member
People lost interest, basically.

Police brutality was the hot topic of 2015, but now we got an election to watch.
 

TheJLC

Member
A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.
 

Perfection


Might need a few more though

A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.

That their more reliable course of action is lethal force is a problem too. If you hear this news and your first thought is "these may have been justified killings," then you have missed the point completely.
 

Malyse

Member
A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.
Yo.
Within half an hour of arriving, Freeman found what he was looking for. He exited his cruiser and confronted David Joseph, who was completely naked and standing in the middle of the street.

After just seconds of verbal contact, Joseph, a 17-year-old known to his friends as Pronto, lay dying on the asphalt. Freeman had shot him through the heart.

You really wanna push that narrative? Really?
 

guek

Banned
A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.

Basically you're saying a cop can never be unjustified in shooting anyone, ever, as long as they claim they feel their life was in danger at any point, which often such as this case is impossible to substantiate, and is based on a testimony given by a biased source who has a vested interest in justifying the use of lethal force whenever it is used.

Riiiiiiight.


Also, for-profit 24hr news is a fucking cancer. A CANCER.
 
A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.

Officers have non-lethal options for disarming/disabling people if need be yet lethal force seems to be the first response. Do you not think there's an issue with that? And the narrative of unarmed civilians getting shot isn't only about the initial encounter but the fallout as well. Do you not believe punishment of some sort is appropriate when given the authority to kill and getting the answer wrong? Because in many of these cases civilians seem to trade their lives for the sake of officers getting demoted to desk duty or put on suspension. Save for cases like the Walter Scott one where an officer would have possibly gotten away with using lethal force unnecessarily if not for a video recording from a fellow civilian. That's more of an issue than utilizing lethal force in the first place and both together creates a precedent where civilians feel like officers are not being held accountable despite the power they wield over the populace.
 

Inversive

Member
You should probably put the country in the title because i'm sure English police shot nobody this year, but then again it's so obviously an American thread :eek:
 

Wray

Member
Just for comparisons sake, but how many unarmed American citizens has ISIS killed this year?

Genuinely curious.
 

Krejlooc

Banned
"i feared for my life" reminds me of that south park where hunting becomes illegal unless you are in danger, so they make sure to scream "He's coming right for us!" before using a bazooka at a bunny rabbit.
 

Malyse

Member
You should probably put the country in the title because i'm sure English police shot nobody this year, but then again it's so obviously an American thread :eek:
I think that at least 20 unarmed people were shot by police if you add up all the countries internationally too.

And there's a character limit.
 

cameron

Member
A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.
The whole "split-second decision" and "feared for their lives" narratives ignores police behaviour during an encounter, prior to the shooting. An officer running up to a suspect and then freaking out when the suspect does something unexpected shouldn't justify a lethal response.
 

FelixOrion

Poet Centuriate
A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.

Yet these issues don't plague British cops. Or Canadian cops. Or Australians. Or Japanese. Or [insert literally nearly any other industrialized nation here]. Hmm.

Us Americans must just have shitty eyes and reaction times, right?
 

darkinstinct

...lacks reading comprehension.
300 shot dead this year. In Germany police shot 300 dead over the past 33 years. We have 1/4th the citizens and 1/100th the guns.
 

Heshinsi

"playing" dumb? unpossible
A suspect doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that in order to use lethal force and officer has to be in reasonable apprehension of receiving grave bodily harm or death. You don't need a weapon to kill or injure an officer and that officer be justified in using lethal force.

The whole narrative of "unarmed civilians" ignores the fact that officers have less than a second decision in a heated situation to determine if a suspect is armed or not. What may appear as a weapon to an officer in a life/death situation may later end up not being a firearm, but in that moment the officer was reasonable in his/her use of force because believed it was. The totality of circumstances in a split second decision can justify or unjustify the use of lethal force whether or not a suspect is armed.

My God, police in my neck of the woods must be super soldiers for not only facing down people armed with knives and machetes, but also folks completely unarmed without resorting to killing them. Our police must not know what fear is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom