Large scale change based on civilian-police interactions are not going to change within a generation.
This is the market working. The pendulum swings too far one way, but then settles in a reasonable position as emotions become muted. It's happened with all large social movements in the past 150 years, but has always yielded a better outcome.
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
I don't know if it's possible, but is there a way to normalize based on environment? Would the reaction in a place know to have a higher incidence of crime, violent crime etc, be similar? It's hard to get into individuals' anxiety levels, sense of danger, etc, but it seems reasonable that the context of the interaction, even before the interaction takes place, might play a role.
I appreciate how you feel. Personally I am against capitol punishment, I don't own a handgun because IMO they are made for no other reason than shooting another person, and I know I could never be a policeman because I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to shoot another person.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
You posted about a white man in florida who murdered people and was eating their faces off when police came and didn't shoot him when they could have. You opined that if he were black they likely or possibly would have shot him.
You asked for examples where something similar, police perceived a threat, where the suspect was black and police didn't shoot him.
that's the example I provided. There are hundreds of them.
Ahh I see but I think you misunderstood my point (and that may've been my fault).
My point, to steve, was I wasn't saying that if the suspect was black the police would've shot him as much as why, under those conditions, the white kid NOT shot but in the case of someone like Cutcher's he was (where he wasn't a threat to the officer... except for the perceived threat she made up in her mind). That's the example I was asking for. In the case of the face-eating kid, they tried tasing him... they tried taking him alive even though he'd already killed two people and fought a few officers and at no point was a gun drawn... but in Cutcher's case it was not only drawn very quickly but fired on a man who did nothing more but (allegedly... because at the moment I don't believe her story) reached inside his vehicle.
I know that there are some... maybe even most... police officers who will try to avoid using deadly force until it's a last resort. This woman didn't.
I appreciate how you feel. Personally I am against capitol punishment, I don't own a handgun because IMO they are made for no other reason than shooting another person, and I know I could never be a policeman because I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to shoot another person.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
I don't own one either and have only held one once in my life (a handgun). I hate guns... but that's just me.
You see... you say 'wait'... I say 'verify'. I believe that an officer should be in CLEAR danger before using lethal force (that's acknowledging that there will always be circumstances that permit the opposite). How many stories have we've heard about an officer firing off his or her weapon on a person because they THOUGHT they were going for a gun only to find out it was their wallet or phone? You want to use a taser and then sort things out... fine. At least the guy still lives (especially when they haven't or are not currently breaking any laws). But it just appears to be waaaaaay to easy to shoot a person... of ANY color... and say 'Oh... I thought they had a gun!' and get a paid vacation off of it(administrative leave with pay) and in most cases nothing else happens.
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
I don't know if it's possible, but is there a way to normalize based on environment? Would the reaction in a place know to have a higher incidence of crime, violent crime etc, be similar? It's hard to get into individuals' anxiety levels, sense of danger, etc, but it seems reasonable that the context of the interaction, even before the interaction takes place, might play a role.
Yes, I state other factors could be involved. However, there have been various studies done where black men are perceived as more dangerous. Here is one where a black male sounding name makes people image a more dangerous person.
I’ve never been so disgusted by my own data,” said lead author Colin Holbrook, a research scientist in the anthropology department in the UCLA College. “The amount that our study participants assumed based only on a name was remarkable. A character with a black-sounding name was assumed to be physically larger, more prone to aggression, and lower in status than a character with a white-sounding name.” Link - ( New Window )
I appreciate how you feel. Personally I am against capitol punishment, I don't own a handgun because IMO they are made for no other reason than shooting another person, and I know I could never be a policeman because I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to shoot another person.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
they don't need to wait until fired upon. but they should have a reasonable basis for firing - it must be something more than he won't pull down his weapon - stall, negotiate, calm the target down, and if possible, they should try and aim for a part of the body that will disable but won't kill the target or use a non-lethal weapon to disable the target.
is too much and I can't afford to sit here and keep hitting Refresh to try and keep up with this thread. I may just back in later but I got stuff to take care of. Good discussion and if I don't rejoin I want everyone to have a safe and happy weekend.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
is too much and I can't afford to sit here and keep hitting Refresh to try and keep up with this thread. I may just back in later but I got stuff to take care of. Good discussion and if I don't rejoin I want everyone to have a safe and happy weekend.
Same to you T-Bone, I expect to see my name in lights Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
RE: RE: Why isn't anyone upset over the 15...... Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Not completely true. It is the tribal aspect. If it were White civilians who did this in a Black neighborhood it would be similar upset (and vice versa).
RE: RE: Why isn't anyone upset over the 15...... Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Not completely true. It is the tribal aspect. If it were White civilians who did this in a Black neighborhood it would be similar upset (and vice versa).
maintained that individuals interacting with the police above all just need to deliberately do what the cops say and follow orders are thinking fairly 1-dimensionally.
Perhaps useful advice for the sane and sober among us. Is this fully the societal contingent the police encounter?
We have as a society indirectly chosen to designate the police to deal with many of our social problems. Especially mental health. My preferred course would be to deal with it via something that begins with "Universal" and ends with "Healthcare" (coupled with decriminalizing all drugs) but that is not the course our lawmakers have chosen.
So it's often up to the cops to deal with the mentally unstable or even physically ill. "Sir, keep your hands where I can see them, please" is an order likely mechanically followed by Chip the suburban dad in the 2015 Altima. Eric Garner probably doesn't understand fully what's going on around him.
Add in insidious (often sub-conscious, to be fair) racial bias and I'm not sure I feel comfortable dictating what a poor black guy "should" do when the cops roll up on his s.l.a.b., guns drawn. I don't really know what it's like to be them wrt interactions with the cops.
--
My favorite show is South Park. One of the best episodes they made is when Randy (Stan's dad) goes on Wheel of Fortune and solves the final puzzle as niggers (the actual answer is naggers). Stan is mortified and spends the entire episode trying to convince his black friend Token (who was offended and hurt by the affair) that he, Stan understands what Token is feeling. Over and over he tries to act empathetic and that it's no big deal, that his Dad is just a dumbass.
At the end of the episode, after Cartman fights a midget (haha...), there's some moralizing about empathy, and Stan ponders... "I don't get it". Then he has an epiphany.
He runs up to Token:
Quote:
Token, I get it now. I don't get it. I've been trying to say that I understand how you feel, but, I'll never understand. I'll never really get how it feels for a black person to have somebody use the N word. I don't get it.
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
T
I'm going to post a section of law from the NYS Penal Law related to use of force. By national standards NY is pretty strict regarding use of DPF, one exception being not requiring police to retreat, basically because you pay them not to. Almost every section refers to a 'person', meaning everyone, not just the police.
In any case the standard for using DPF in the limited cases where it is allowed is reasonableness. What would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances. So you better be able to articulate why exactly you used Deadly Physical Force because you likely will have to articulate your your case before a Grand Jury and/or a Criminal Jury. And that relates to both the police AND civilians.
In the age of cameras being almost everywhere, very little is going to slip through the cracks anymore.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
There were so many WTF facts in that incident that it boggles the mind. Seriously, that officer has no business being a police either based on his decision making or in his competency with his weapon.
can't you people figure out how to delete nonpertinent quotes? Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
these are used to force better training methods for handling weapons for law enforcement. That it leads to using methods other than deadly force unless otherwise being unavoidable and it teaches police that being irresponsible has repurcussions.
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
This is definitely the most cogent thought on this matter. She sounds like she panicked, and when you're a police officer, mixing fear with weapon leading to panicked reaction is a recipe for deadly disaster.
On the other hand, we can be grateful that the clown in Miami couldn't shoot for shit, since that poor bastard who was shot is still alive today.
Or be thankful since he said he was aiming at the mentally challenged man playing with a toy. Seriously...how is that fuck even a police officer (and even in their SWAT team)?
Cell phone video of the Charlotte shooting just got released Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
Cell phone video of the Charlotte shooting just got released Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
yup, just like the officer in Minnesota. I wouldn't trust these pants pissers to pour me hot coffee, let alone "protect & serve" while armed.
"Remain calm in tense situations" would seemingly be a useful trait for those elevated to the position of police officer. There's a reason vets often make good cops.
You actually can't tell if it is a gun flung to the ground Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
To quote Dave Chappelle, "just sprinkle some crack on him"
(server) but the police likely kept her from intervening. If he posed a threat there's no way they the police would let someone else near them or the perp.
Able to go home each day alive, and while that should always be the goal, of such priority causes one to panic and escalate a situation when there may be another way, then one doesn't have any business being a police officer.
Too often these incidents happen because those involved were too fast in drawing their weapons for the sake of self preservation.
RE: They identified one of the items tossed on the ground Â
is that if my wife has just been shot, I'm screaming like a wailing mourner, rushing to her side and completely freaking out. I'm not standing there with a video camera saying "She better not be dead. She better not be dead".
I know it is hard to judge situations, but a person has clearly been shot and may be dying and his spouse seemed more upset before the shooting than afterwards.
Showing video to family is not a problem, might even be the recommended course of action. Making it publicly available - caving in to public outcry. IMO, not the way to go.
ends up clearly showing a threat? Do people go back and make reparations for the destruction?
I don't know what value showing the video has. Even the wife who released the video shows the police clearly yelling "Drop the gun" over and over again. Pretty much debunks the idea it was onl a book in the man's hand.
I agree. My wife pointed out her flatness in emotion after the shooting and she made the point that had that been me, she'd freak out after the shooting where she said the wife seemed to freak out more before the shooting.
I can't judge how another one acts - it just seems odd and not in the expected way.
This is the market working. The pendulum swings too far one way, but then settles in a reasonable position as emotions become muted. It's happened with all large social movements in the past 150 years, but has always yielded a better outcome.
This IS a free market working.
Quote:
In comment 13137434 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
Quote:
In comment 13137424 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13137389 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137367 Les in TO said:
Quote:
how about this case, a Raleigh man (white), was (1) pointing a shotgun at passing cars (2) pointed the shotgun at an officer (3) pulled a pistol out from a close distance and shot at the officer (and thankfully missed).
in this case, no matter what the skin color of the perp, the officer would have been fully justified in shooting him as his life and the life of civilians were in danger beyond any reasonable doubt.
yet the officer used discretion to subdue the man and arrest him, without a nick or a scratch.
would the officer have taken the same approach if the perp was black? Link - ( New Window )
Exactly my point Les. I'd like to think he would... but... based on my own past personal experiences... and what's been going on lately... well...
T-Bone, there are incidents you can easily find through very basic Google searches if you care to showing similar incidents of all races of suspect and police officer. Some ended with the suspect alive and some dead. it depends on so many factors. I prefer not to think that race is the main motivator in almost any incident, I think it's split second decision making of an officer deciding the level of threat and the proper force to use.
If race plays a part in that it impossible for me to say, but I simply won't pretend to be in the shoes of either party and speculate as to the intent in their heart and mind. I won't do that and I think it's unfair for anyone to do that. But is sure seems like if these officers were compelled to shoot someone just based on their race they could have easily done so here.
One simple google search just now and the first result is the story linked below from July of this year that of course we heard nothing about, because when the person doesn't die it's not news.
In this case I think the person was even intentionally trying to antagonize police.
Quote:
Man arrested after threatening Whitehall officers; gun found in his pocket
Quote:
WHITEHALL, OH (WCMH)–A man was arrested for threatening two Whitehall Division of Police officers while they were eating lunch at a Bob Evans on Wednesday.
The officer who took the report says he and another officer were eating at a table in the restaurant next to a large glass window.
A man, later identified as 47-year-old Gregory Gibson, entered the business and came up to the officers “with an aggressive/angry demeanor.” The officer says Gibson approached his colleague, leaned in, then slowly backed away and said “f*** you” and laughed. The officer said his laugh “felt menacing to the point the restaurant became quiet.”
Gibson turned around and left the business. The officer says he got up and walked to the window to watch him leave. Gibson and another man got into their vehicle. Gibson reportedly turned around and made a gesture as if he were shooting the officer with his fingers.
The two men got into the car and drove around to the window where the other officer was eating. Gibson was reportedly reaching down on the left side of the vehicle towards the floor board. The first officer drew his gun and pointed it at Gibson, telling his colleague he may be in danger. Gibson “slammed on the gas” and drove to the rear of the building, and the officer radioed for assistance.
The officer says he left Bob Evans and went into his cruiser. Gibson reportedly drove around the building and stopped his vehicle behind the cruiser. The officer got back out of his car and drew his gun, ordering Gibson to show his hands. Gibson reportedly began to “reach around inside of his vehicle and did not comply” with the orders.
The second officer came out of the restaurant and pointed his gun at the passenger. Gibson reportedly put the vehicle in drive and began to drive toward the first officer, yelling, “what are you going to do, shoot a black man?” before putting the vehicle back in park.
The second officer said he could see a folding combat knife clipped to Gibson’s pants pocket. Backup officers arrived. Gibson reportedly continued to reach around in the vehicle. Officers removed him from the vehicle. The reporting officer said Gibson would not comply with verbal commands to place his hands behind his back and spread his feet.
Gibson, whose address is listed as Columbus, was arrested for aggravated menacing. Police searched him and located a combat knife, pepper spray, homemade “slapjack” weapon, and a 9mm handgun, which was in his left front pants pocket. Police said it was fully loaded. One of the officers had asked Gibson if he was armed, and Gibson reportedly said no.
Gibson does not have a CCW permit.
The passenger reportedly told the officers that Gibson had been watching the news and was upset with police. Gibson allegedly was driving down E. Broad St. when he saw the two Whitehall Police cruisers at Bob Evans and decided to stop.
Link - ( New Window )
pj - not trying to be a wise guy but I'm not sure what this post is in response to? I'm not sure of the point of it.
You posted about a white man in florida who murdered people and was eating their faces off when police came and didn't shoot him when they could have. You opined that if he were black they likely or possibly would have shot him.
You asked for examples where something similar, police perceived a threat, where the suspect was black and police didn't shoot him.
that's the example I provided. There are hundreds of them.
Ahh I see but I think you misunderstood my point (and that may've been my fault).
My point, to steve, was I wasn't saying that if the suspect was black the police would've shot him as much as why, under those conditions, the white kid NOT shot but in the case of someone like Cutcher's he was (where he wasn't a threat to the officer... except for the perceived threat she made up in her mind). That's the example I was asking for. In the case of the face-eating kid, they tried tasing him... they tried taking him alive even though he'd already killed two people and fought a few officers and at no point was a gun drawn... but in Cutcher's case it was not only drawn very quickly but fired on a man who did nothing more but (allegedly... because at the moment I don't believe her story) reached inside his vehicle.
I know that there are some... maybe even most... police officers who will try to avoid using deadly force until it's a last resort. This woman didn't.
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
I don't own one either and have only held one once in my life (a handgun). I hate guns... but that's just me.
You see... you say 'wait'... I say 'verify'. I believe that an officer should be in CLEAR danger before using lethal force (that's acknowledging that there will always be circumstances that permit the opposite). How many stories have we've heard about an officer firing off his or her weapon on a person because they THOUGHT they were going for a gun only to find out it was their wallet or phone? You want to use a taser and then sort things out... fine. At least the guy still lives (especially when they haven't or are not currently breaking any laws). But it just appears to be waaaaaay to easy to shoot a person... of ANY color... and say 'Oh... I thought they had a gun!' and get a paid vacation off of it(administrative leave with pay) and in most cases nothing else happens.
Quote:
In comment 13137442 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 13137434 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
It is a matter of not getting the same benefit of the doubt.
Then we come full circle back to how there are unharmed white men who are also shot.
Steve, you can't just go by raw numbers. Perhaps this article may help you out. While your absolutely correct police shoot unarmed white men, unarmed black men are 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police.
Certainly, there could be other factors involved, but it's hard to dismiss that Black men aren't being persevered as more dangerous.
Aren't more White People than Black shot and killed by police? Yes and No. - ( New Window )
I don't know if it's possible, but is there a way to normalize based on environment? Would the reaction in a place know to have a higher incidence of crime, violent crime etc, be similar? It's hard to get into individuals' anxiety levels, sense of danger, etc, but it seems reasonable that the context of the interaction, even before the interaction takes place, might play a role.
Yes, I state other factors could be involved. However, there have been various studies done where black men are perceived as more dangerous. Here is one where a black male sounding name makes people image a more dangerous person.
I’ve never been so disgusted by my own data,” said lead author Colin Holbrook, a research scientist in the anthropology department in the UCLA College. “The amount that our study participants assumed based only on a name was remarkable. A character with a black-sounding name was assumed to be physically larger, more prone to aggression, and lower in status than a character with a white-sounding name.”
Link - ( New Window )
That said I don't expect police officers to have to wait until fired upon before they fire their weapons and I guess that is where we differ.
People need to obey police in those situations and if they are being unfairly suspect while that may not be just it is only more the reason why they need to obey. Take up the issue of whether it was unjust afterwards in another forum such as legal action or filing formal complaint.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
Same to you T-Bone, I expect to see my name in lights Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday.
Quote:
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Because they weren't perpetrated by police who are allegedly there to protect us.
What a dumb fucking question. Any more brain teasers?
Perhaps useful advice for the sane and sober among us. Is this fully the societal contingent the police encounter?
We have as a society indirectly chosen to designate the police to deal with many of our social problems. Especially mental health. My preferred course would be to deal with it via something that begins with "Universal" and ends with "Healthcare" (coupled with decriminalizing all drugs) but that is not the course our lawmakers have chosen.
So it's often up to the cops to deal with the mentally unstable or even physically ill. "Sir, keep your hands where I can see them, please" is an order likely mechanically followed by Chip the suburban dad in the 2015 Altima. Eric Garner probably doesn't understand fully what's going on around him.
Add in insidious (often sub-conscious, to be fair) racial bias and I'm not sure I feel comfortable dictating what a poor black guy "should" do when the cops roll up on his s.l.a.b., guns drawn. I don't really know what it's like to be them wrt interactions with the cops.
--
My favorite show is South Park. One of the best episodes they made is when Randy (Stan's dad) goes on Wheel of Fortune and solves the final puzzle as niggers (the actual answer is naggers). Stan is mortified and spends the entire episode trying to convince his black friend Token (who was offended and hurt by the affair) that he, Stan understands what Token is feeling. Over and over he tries to act empathetic and that it's no big deal, that his Dad is just a dumbass.
At the end of the episode, after Cartman fights a midget (haha...), there's some moralizing about empathy, and Stan ponders... "I don't get it". Then he has an epiphany.
He runs up to Token:
Quote:
In comment 13137402 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137379 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
T
I'm going to post a section of law from the NYS Penal Law related to use of force. By national standards NY is pretty strict regarding use of DPF, one exception being not requiring police to retreat, basically because you pay them not to. Almost every section refers to a 'person', meaning everyone, not just the police.
In any case the standard for using DPF in the limited cases where it is allowed is reasonableness. What would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances. So you better be able to articulate why exactly you used Deadly Physical Force because you likely will have to articulate your your case before a Grand Jury and/or a Criminal Jury. And that relates to both the police AND civilians.
In the age of cameras being almost everywhere, very little is going to slip through the cracks anymore.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Quote:
In comment 13137350 Les in TO said:
Quote:
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
There were so many WTF facts in that incident that it boggles the mind. Seriously, that officer has no business being a police either based on his decision making or in his competency with his weapon.
Quote:
In comment 13137175 BlueHurricane said:
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
Exactly my point
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
This is definitely the most cogent thought on this matter. She sounds like she panicked, and when you're a police officer, mixing fear with weapon leading to panicked reaction is a recipe for deadly disaster.
Or be thankful since he said he was aiming at the mentally challenged man playing with a toy. Seriously...how is that fuck even a police officer (and even in their SWAT team)?
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up
video link - ( New Window )
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up
video link - ( New Window )
"Remain calm in tense situations" would seemingly be a useful trait for those elevated to the position of police officer. There's a reason vets often make good cops.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
To quote Dave Chappelle, "just sprinkle some crack on him"
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Probably got a call from the mayor
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Because if she intervened she would almost certainly be shot as well?
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Because if she intervened she would almost certainly be shot as well?
Probably got a call from the mayor
Too often these incidents happen because those involved were too fast in drawing their weapons for the sake of self preservation.
There is something that appears to be the gun at 1:05 behind the officer wearing the red shirt.
They believe it "keeps things even and prevents planted evidence"
They believe it acts as a modulating voice reminding police of consequences for uneven treatment
Some believe the media is a the court that modulates uneven power
"Cant we all just get along?"
I know it is hard to judge situations, but a person has clearly been shot and may be dying and his spouse seemed more upset before the shooting than afterwards.
I don't know what value showing the video has. Even the wife who released the video shows the police clearly yelling "Drop the gun" over and over again. Pretty much debunks the idea it was onl a book in the man's hand.
I can't judge how another one acts - it just seems odd and not in the expected way.