This is the kind of case that riles up communities and doesn't give anybody any hope in the justice system actually serving justice.
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I like the take Bomani Jones had on this issue....
Where are we getting all these cops who are absolutely petrified of black people and have to shoot them to feel safe?
Also, what does this say to the general public and the historical stereotypes we have of black people/men.
I honestly think we need to stop wasting money and time on court cases...if a cop(white, black, brown) shoots a black guy...just accept the black guy is to blame and move on.
This charade of going through the justice system just makes the pain worse for the victims.
Then again, with Trump and KKK Sessions around - I don't think they'll even bother charging the officers in future.
Where are we getting all these cops who are absolutely petrified of black people and have to shoot them to feel safe?
Also, what does this say to the general public and the historical stereotypes we have of black people/men.
I honestly think we need to stop wasting money and time on court cases...if a cop(white, black, brown) shoots a black guy...just accept the black guy is to blame and move on.
This charade of going through the justice system just makes the pain worse for the victims.
Then again, with Trump and KKK Sessions around - I don't think they'll even bother charging the officers in future.
We did not see it on the video, the video began after the shooting. What led up to the shooting was not caught on video.
The fact that all a policeman has to do to be acquitted, is prove he was in fear of his life is a travesty.
He doesn't even have to prove he has probable cause.
That's straight up license to kill. Something is definitely wrong in America.
I watched the video last year, the policeman was more emotionally unstable than the girlfriend and the child.
He doesn't even have to prove he has probable cause.
That's straight up license to kill. Something is definitely wrong in America.
I watched the video last year, the policeman was more emotionally unstable than the girlfriend and the child.
I agree that the cop was very unstable. But what standard would you set for deadly force if not "fear
For life"?
The reason why it's so difficult for an officer to get convicted, and most people don't realize this, is that you have to prove criminal intent, or mens rea. It's rare that officer involved shootings are the result of malice and intent. There are plenty of negligent shootings though, the castille one being an example.
I Can't believe that I still get shocked everytime police officers get away with these stuff in 'Merica, since it happens so often.Anyone who has read the first paragraph on murder in wikipedia should know about proving criminal intent, it's not some holy legal secret.
People are frustrated because anyone can say they feared for their life and nobody can prove that. So by relying on that as a crutch when killing someone, plus a historically biased legal system means that they will get away with it. over 90% of the time.
And when that happens, can you blame communities for no trusting police officers or having faith in the system?
This has been going on for over 100 years, there's clearly a pattern.
I agree it's very difficult to prove criminal intent especially for an officer in the course of his duties. But what other standard would you suggest other than fear of death or serious bodily injury? Again, I'm not saying that the castille shooting was a good one. IMO as a police officer it was a bad shooting. But a bad shooting doesn't necessarily equate to a criminal one.
If proving criminal intent wasnt such a holy legal secret then the vast majority of people should know how futile it is to demand charges for murder.
One of the criteria for use of force policy, including shootings, is the "reasonable officer" standard based on case law Graham v Connor. Basically saying you'll be judged not just on whether you feared for your or someone else's life, but if a reasonable officer with similar training and experience under the same circumstances would have done the same thing. So in the castille incident most reasonable officers would say it was a "bad shooting". In contrast, the general consensus among officers re the Alton Sterling shooting was that it was justified and reasonable.
The guy who shot Philando wasn't up for murder, he was up for manslaughter - which is why it hurts that much more.
It seems the expectation is perfection from the civilian, and even then - they can still be shot if the officer is 'fearing for his life'.
You begin to wonder exactly how can a police officer be held to account for killing innocent civilians.
And if no one is held to account then all that's going to happen is that it will continue, which is exactly why I said it's a pattern that has been going on for over 100 years, and it shows no sign of changing.
If it was a manslaughter charge, I stand corrected.
As far as being held accountable, there are plenty of officers who lose their jobs and most likely won't ever be able to become law enforcement again, the cop who shot castille being one of them. They're just not as high profile in the media. Now that might not be enough for the people who demand murder convictions and prison time, but many are losing their livelihood.
And not all people shot by police are innocent civilians.
As far as being held accountable, there are plenty of officers who lose their jobs and most likely won't ever be able to become law enforcement again, the cop who shot castille being one of them. They're just not as high profile in the media. Now that might not be enough for the people who demand murder convictions and prison time, but many are losing their livelihood.
And not all people shot by police are innocent civilians.
...
Is that a universal fact? I've read stories where cops terminated or let go in one department just move onto the next department willing to take them. Is there a system that flags officers with previous disciplinary issues?
Are they not innocent until proven otherwise?
A lot of them aren't even under arrest when they're killed.
Like this woman.
Oh I'm sure it does happen. But it is very difficult to do. You still have to go through an extensive background process just like any other Joe blow applicant with no prior law enforcement experience. Any dept will find out why an applicant resigned or was fired from their previous dept. At the end of the day, it all boils down to liability. No department or municipality with any common sense is going to hire someone who cost their city or county millions in lawsuits or negative press due to his poor judgment/tactics/discipline/professionalism, especially involving high profile uses of force or deadly force. It's all on a case by case basis but jumping from one dept to another after getting fired might have been more common prior to the 90's though.
One story that immediately pops into my mind is a former LAPD officer who was involved in a shootout and lost one of his eyes. I believe he was forced to medically retire. He eventually got Fullerton PD in neighboring Orange county to take a chance on him. He and another officer were involved in a use of force on a homeless man who ended up dying from his injuries (look up Kelly Thomas)several years ago. Both officers were charged and convicted and I believe went to prison. Orange county is more conservative and very pro- police so I remember it being a big deal at the time because they were the first officers to get convicted in decades in the OC.
In the court system? Yes.
Everyday contacts between persons and officers isn't court though. You respond and act according to a person's behavior and threat level if any. One doesn't need to be under arrest to have force used against them. It could be a regular contact/ investigation and if, like the woman in the above article, suddenly presents a knife and approaches the officers in close quarters, then she becomes a deadly threat and should be stopped with deadly force. I'm not saying that that's exactly what happened, and I'll save my comments for that incident until there's more information revealed.
Utter nonsense. You don't need to kill someone just because they appear to be threatening. She wasn't a terrorist holding a detonator, she was just holding a knife. Officers should be able to disarm her or stop her without deadly force.
You believe that?!?!
He does sadly, no offense to the guy but ya'll are wasting your time. Cops tend to avoid being critical of other cops.
They also display this mindset in America, where lethal force seems to be a preferred means of solving confrontation. Or at least widely accepted. Whereas when you talk to law enforcement in other countries they usually favour non-lethal, unless absolutely necessary. My opinion on what I've seen and heard...
Last edited:
Wait.. if someone is definitely threatening your life, then what else is the proper response other than defending it?
Well you've qualified it by saying 'definitely'... My argument is to do with using non lethal force unless you have no choice. Most of the problems stem from occasions where the use of lethal force seems unwarranted.
Threatening your life how? What do they have? Who are they with? How close are they to you or others? More importantly how likely is it they manage to do something before you could restrain them using non lethal force? I figure this is part of police training...
Think about it, you're insinuating that the only way to defend your life is to take another's. I was talking about US police having that mindset but you've pointed out clearly that it's actually not just the police.
Americans have such a ridiculous mindset towards guns. No wonder you all kill each other in such large numbers.
Even the most level headed citizens will jump from danger to deadly force in a split second.
You're the expert so, ok
Well we're talking about lethal force...
Do you disagree with him?
I'm not an expert, just using common sense.
But this is what I don't understand.
Surely police officers are trained to deal with situations where the suspect is armed?
Are they expected to shoot to kill on sight?
And if that's the case then surely you can understand why people who fall within certain statistics don't trust police officers.
How's "common sense" going to help you when you're stabbed and bleeding to death?
The situation he gave was the possibility that the person came at the police with a deadly weapon. If you do that to me, what other mindset should I have? To roll over and take it? To try to "talk to you"?
Oh please. If I attacked you with a deadly weapon and you didn't make that mental jump in a split second, I win.
And every time someone who happens to be an American talks about defending their right to live, it doesn't mean it has something to do with the 2nd Amendment. I'll fight you to live with my bare hands if I have to.
Yes you're supposed to use non lethal force if appropriate and we are trained to do so until a threat escalates to defending life or serious bodily injury. The problem is most use of force incidents are very fluid, dynamic, and unpredictable. And non lethals like tasers, batons, oc spray, have surprisingly high fail/no effect rates.
A knife is considered a deadly weapon. Again, I don't want to speak too much on the Seattle incident, but if she was within lunging distance and wasn't listening to commands to get back or drop the knife, i would hope my partner doesn't take out his taser or baton.
Now in an ideal, by the book knife situation like we would do in the academy, where you have distance and time, one officer should have a gun and the next officer should have a taser or rubber bullet gun. You give verbal commands and eventually try to incapacitate the person to take into custody. But those ideal, step by step, linear use of force incidents are more rare than not.
Imagine that I'm from a country where the population don't use guns, or where knife attacks are resolved without the use of lethal force. Imagine I'm talking about how a trained police officer should act (see below) and not @Carolina Red?
This is what we expect, and when it doesn't happen, or when there are doubts, we have problems.
Re-read what he said.
He stated exactly what I stated... If the person is within striking distance with a deadly weapon (a knife), in a real life situation, they're mentally prepared and physically ready to use deadly force to stop that person.
And I'm using myself in the scenario is because I'm placing myself in the officer's shoes.
Yes of course we train to handle armed people. No, cops cannot just shoot on sight. If you have distance, cover, and time then a person usually isn't an IMMEDIATE threat and you can't just shoot. If you're in close quarters, or if a person suddenly in a split second draws a knife, a bat, or a gun and indicates behavior that he'll use it on the officer or other bystanders then the situation becomes immediate.
But you aren't trained though so I don't get your point.
And @choiboyx012 has posted twice now stating 'you're supposed to use non lethal force if appropriate and we are trained to do so until a threat escalates to defending life or serious bodily injury'. To clear this up I'll assume you have taken as fact the lady had a deadly weapon in close quarters. Ok fair enough, but I will wait for further information because afaik that hasn't been cleared up. If it has just post it in here.
Look, I agree that most cops tend to avoid being critical of other cops even when they shouldn't. I have pointed out "bad shootings" when warranted on this thread. There's only a handful of LEO's on the caf and I'm only trying to give a viewpoint on certain incidents from a police perspective which I gather most here would not get otherwise
I've not taken it as a fact that the woman had a weapon or threatened the police. I'm commenting on the situation that Choiboy posed. I'm not one to defend police action no matter what, and if you look through my posts on this thread and elsewhere, you'll see that.
And no, I'm not a police officer, but you don't have to be one to know and understand how they're trained to deal with different threat scenarios. When Choiboy posted that "if, like the woman in the above article, suddenly presents a knife and approaches the officers in close quarters, then she becomes a deadly threat and should be stopped with deadly force", I know that he is referring to the possibility that the woman is within a certain distance of the officer that she stands a better chance of stabbing him than he stands a chance of stopping her without the use of deadly force.
@choiboyx012 - is the "Tueller Drill" still used in regards to knife vs. holstered gun?
The 2 terrorists in London had a knife why the cops didn't shoot the guys legs? Disarming someone with a knife is a tremendous risk and basically only in the movies, you read about the 3 guys helping the muslim girl - 2 dead and one in the hospital, 3 guys couldn't handle a man with a knife?
Yeah I get that, but I'm going from the article. I'm sure it also happens when you're frightened or out of your depth and the first and only thought in your head is to shut the threat down.
Of course that's a possibility, and when deadly force is used and it is unwarranted, I'll be right there alongside you having a problem with it.
If you go back and look at my first post in this exchange though, it was to question Choiboy being questioned for believing that deadly force is a justified response to the deadly threat that scenario that he posed.
Part of this makes sense, but part doesn't.
Yes, the situation in Oregon (iirc) shows how hard it is to subdue someone with a bladed weapon. But "shooting to wound" isn't advised. You're more likely to miss and less likely to stop the bad guy.
https://www.policeone.com/patrol-is...e-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/
http://www.ajc.com/news/national/he...the-case-deadly-force/IV4ohtIm6r8FaEMj78u1bO/
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/shooting_to_kill_why_police_ar.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-trained-shoot-wound-experts/story?id=40402933
Ok well from my perspective it seems like a perceived threat to a police officer is enough to go full lethal not accidental lethal, it's also an excuse to do so. So it's good to hear the nuanced answer rather than the 'If someone threatens my life I can killem'.
Because they had just finished carving up bystanders? These guys were considered an imminent threat. Kinda thought that was obvious tbh...
What are the relative statistics of the US compared to other Western countries? As in, what is the amount of people killed by cops per 100.000 people compared to the same data for European countries (or Canada)?
I'm a bit more plainly spoken sometimes, I'll readily admit that. I was just trying to cut to the chase.