Imagine watching an unarmed 13 year old get shot and killed and that being your reaction.
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 feel like if the job so frequently involves killing unarmed people over stuff that really doesn't matter a whole lot, then having nobody do the job doesn't sound so bad.
What’s considered frequent out of the 10 million-ish arrests made each year, and countless other interactions that don’t involve an arrest but another form of contact?
And how many of those arrests are both of the right person, and also for something the majority of people would deem worth worrying about? Or what about the perfectly safe arrests they could make but don't because the people are too rich or the crime is too complicated to bother solving? Maybe people amped up and armed to the teeth actually aren't the ones we should be employing to do the job by and large.
Of course you're right overall. What struck me about this one is that the person did exactly what he was told and got shot due to doing that. Surely that's either got to be a problem with the instructions given (which the police would be culpable for) or the instructions were correct and we're talking manslaughter or worse?
If you do what you're told and get shot for it how are people supposed to react?
So you didn’t actually have a good point then. Gotcha, my mistake.
Well thought out line of reasoning there.
That’s not how frequency works.
The instructions should have been clearer. And when giving them you should expect that they may not do EXACTLY what you’re asking. Pausing a video and playing it screen by screen shows clearly he was unarmed. At night with a strobe light flashing and a kid raising his arms and turning towards you who had a firearm is far from ideal circumstances to try and make a split second life or death decision. I don’t want to try and rip it all apart but In hindsight he probably should have slowed down at that point. He has time on his side now, there’s no reason to rush. Give slow deliberate commands and maybe use the environment, find cover (if possible) or have him put his hands on the wall and that way you give yourself time. Having him out his hands up is the norm, but when he turns at the same time raising his hand it creates that moment of doubt of what’s happening.
Again, not to say someone still shouldn’t be held accountable if things go wrong.
If I fall over while waking once a day it may seem frequent. If I fall over once a day while walking but I walk 10,000 times a day, it’s not frequent enough for me to say I should remove my legs.
Still not how frequency works.
You provided no actual numbers of anything. Then argued about arrests made that no one cares about. Who decides that? None of my dui arrests are worth anything for anyone? Or the domestic violence incidents? Or any of the violent crimes investigated? I haven’t killed anyone but the job is better off not being done because you don’t think it’s worth it based on what? Nothing you provided.
You can still get the point, but choose to miss it if you’d like.
I think you've said it there, it's a difficult situation which he should have made easier by slowing it down. He has to be accountable for it then as the kid was as good as dead before the situation happened and he did exactly what he was told and was killed due to it. That makes it an impossible situation and means that next time they may as well shoot. That can't be what the US police are about surely?
The original point referenced the frequency with which unarmed people are killed by police.
You giving it “yea but look at all the times we don’t kill unarmed people” doesn’t lessen that.
This doesn't make sense. What if the cops are criminal?
the courts have very rarely if ever found cops to be guilty, so how are you calling them criminals?
Because they commit criminal acts.
After everything discussed in here, saying I’m diverting from any kind of issues is a strange take at this point.
his original point of “if it happens so often then we can do without them” is based on numbers that don’t support his stance of it happening so frequently that they don’t do any good.
Overly violent policing needs to be amended.
Cops can still do their jobs without the incessant civilian death.
Not every situation is a life & death one. We are discussing fantasy if thought so.
It seems that VAR is also negatively disaffecting how we view policing apparently.
And this is how they behave when they know the whole thing is being filmed.
I don't get it. That's exactly what I said?
Not making a judgment on this shooting yet. But the boy didn't do exactly what he was told did he? He ran away with the gun in hand while the officer was ordering him to stop and drop the gun multiple times. It was only the last second before he got shot that he tossed the gun behind the fence and turned to face the officer with his hands up. I do wonder if he tossed it before running away, or just dropped it when confronted initially and not fled he might be alive.
The law should go more to protect police who are attempting to enforce the law than those who are trying to break it. That's why there is qualified immunity and we authorise them to use deadly force. Obviously all of this needs to be done so that the police aren't unaccountable when they themselves break the law or go beyond their authorised powers, but it's often not going to be a black or white situation.
@choiboyx012
Overly violent policing needs to be amended.
What does overly violent mean, and how should it be amended? Sorry to use a cliche, but when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The LEO mentality in dealing with the public isn’t currently sustainable, especially for some specific segments in society. The militarization is the police materially seems to feed into its militarized mindset when dealing with the public. increased scrutiny in hiring also assist in this? I would think so.
Cops can still do their jobs without the incessant civilian death.
For the most part they do. Unless you think <1% of all police contacts is incessant And that one percent is too high. This needs to be reduced. It will never be totally eliminated, that’s silly talk, but the current rate of it is unacceptable. I would surmise you would agree with this
Not every situation is a life & death one. We are discussing fantasy if thought so.
True, but every situation CAN be a life and death one. Such is the nature of the job. Not everyone is a criminal or a suspect, of course. But the job entails responding to calls for incidents where there is a "threat" "criminal" "aggressor" "violator" and you need to investigate, which means questioning, detaining parties, and possibly enforcing with warnings/citations/arrest. People don't naturally want to be detained, cited, or arrested so believe it or not people do run, resist, fight back, and yes even shoot. When it does get to that point, human error comes into play and is more pronounced in these incidents even for trained cops. Not to excuse gross incompetence (like the Minnesota female cop) or malice (man crawling in the hallway shooting). This isn't even getting into the many ambushes and surprise attacks on LEOs from "normal everyday" situations. No one is saying that an LEO’s job is easy, but police have to do better. Simple as that. For too long, the judicial levers have been tilted in favor of LEOs being cleared of charges. This tilt needs to change.
This discussion is just like gun control. Nothing can be accomplished by only amending one side’s behavior, just like nothing can be accomplished through gun control by just focusing on one side of the issue. There needs to be active measures taken on both sides. But, the historical balance has favored LEO,
especially legally; more needs to be done there. The status quo isn’t acceptable.
There will always be a tug & pull in regards to the two different sides to this coin. The last thirty years has illuminated the challenges with policing in this country. It’s always a healthy argument to have for change & betterment, no matter how few incidents occur or how terrible they look to the public. Again, the status quo is not acceptable to many in this country. Betterment needs to be strived for.
Sorry for the funkiness here, your reply didn’t show up correctly in the reply for some reason.
Overly violent policing needs to be amended.
What does overly violent mean, and how should it be amended? Sorry to use a cliche, but when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The LEO mentality in dealing with the public isn’t currently sustainable, especially for some specific segments in society. The militarization is the police materially seems to feed into its militarized mindset when dealing with the public. increased scrutiny in hiring also assist in this? I would think so.
Cops can still do their jobs without the incessant civilian death.
For the most part they do. Unless you think <1% of all police contacts is incessant And that one percent is too high. This needs to be reduced. It will never be totally eliminated, that’s silly talk, but the current rate of it is unacceptable. I would surmise you would agree with this
Not every situation is a life & death one. We are discussing fantasy if thought so.
True, but every situation CAN be a life and death one. Such is the nature of the job. Not everyone is a criminal or a suspect, of course. But the job entails responding to calls for incidents where there is a "threat" "criminal" "aggressor" "violator" and you need to investigate, which means questioning, detaining parties, and possibly enforcing with warnings/citations/arrest. People don't naturally want to be detained, cited, or arrested so believe it or not people do run, resist, fight back, and yes even shoot. When it does get to that point, human error comes into play and is more pronounced in these incidents even for trained cops. Not to excuse gross incompetence (like the Minnesota female cop) or malice (man crawling in the hallway shooting). This isn't even getting into the many ambushes and surprise attacks on LEOs from "normal everyday" situations. No one is saying that an LEO’s job is easy, but police have to do better. Simple as that. For too long, the judicial levers have been tilted in favor of LEOs being cleared of charges. This tilt needs to change.
This discussion is just like gun control. Nothing can be accomplished by only amending one side’s behavior, just like nothing can be accomplished through gun control by just focusing on one side of the issue. There needs to be active measures taken on both sides. But, the historical balance has favored LEO,
especially legally; more needs to be done there. The status quo isn’t acceptable.
There will always be a tug & pull in regards to the two different sides to this coin. The last thirty years has illuminated the challenges with policing in this country. It’s always a healthy argument to have for change & betterment, no matter how few incidents occur or how terrible they look to the public. Again, the status quo is not acceptable to many in this country. Betterment needs to be strived for.
Sorry for the funkiness here, your reply didn’t show up correctly in the reply for some reason.
It's because he wrote his answers inside the quote. Just use the quote function (Insert, the three dots in the tool tab).
Not sure I follow, but I will give it a whirl next time I am presented with this.
If there's nothing to quote (like his post, which was all a quote on its own). Just highlight some text, then choose that. Or copy the text into the brackets.
I see what you are saying. I getcha. I was overthinking it.
If there's nothing to quote (like his post, which was all a quote on its own). Just highlight some text, then choose that. Or copy the text into the brackets.
Hope this mentality gets more proliferated inside the institution.
Never expected @Skizzo to sound like this.
He was armed though. He throws the gun through the fence just before he turns around.
Now the issue is obviously in the heat of the moment the cop failed to realise he was no longer armed, and out of self preservation/instinct decided to fire and deal with it afterwards.
A lot of things could have been done better in the situation. It's not a surprise so many of these incidents happen when it's literally shoot or be shot, being a policeman in situations like this must be very difficult.
Things will never change until gun control is much tighter.
I think the other issue is why/how on earth is a 13 year old kid running around the streets with a gun? wtf is the parents doing?
Why?
When I first heard of the incident I thought "wow how stupid must they be to be dealing with a kid like that", and then you see the video and you realise they wouldn't have a clue how old he was, why would he be treated any differently at that point in time. I don't know the back story, you just see somebody running away with a gun in hand failing to stop.
About the Daunte Wright shooting, I remember watching the video and thinking she could have easily shot her colleague too. It was that chaotic.
He was unarmed when he was shot and killed.
The cop instructed him to put his hands up. He did. He got shot.
The only justification for that would be if he pulled a gun on the cop. But he didn’t.
It’s not ok for a cop to shoot someone “just in case”.
I'm not saying it is at all, but they didn't know he he'd thrown his gun away. You can barely just make it out on the video when it's slowed down/paused.
The most important issue is they didn't give him time to react, but it's easy to say in hindsight. I think in those situations the kid should have just stood there with his back to them, drop the gun on the floor so they can see it. Wait for them to arrest you.
Anyway it's a very sad situation but let's not pretend he was a 13 year old angel. If you're old enough to roam the streets with a gun unfortunately you'll get caught up with trouble.
Why are we expecting more composure from a 13 year old boy than from a trained professional?
You’re literally blaming the victim here.
It doesn’t matter whether he knew he’d throw away the gun. He told him to put his hands up and then immediately shot him without making any kind of assessment of the situation.
The only reason for shooting him at that moment was because he thought (feared) something could go a different way and that’s not acceptable, cops are trained to handle these situations and there’s no excuse for pulling the trigger having not seen a gun in the hand.