Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

And in the video, after being tased (for what seems like a long time, granted, but this guy *will not stop*) she tells him to show his hands and he moves them under himself instead.  The guy had plenty of opportunities to surrender, even if things got questionable at the end there.

Police get every benefit of the doubt for making bad decisions in the middle of intense situations, to the point that they can literally kill people on a bad snap judgement and it's ok.  But then you have a guy who is being shot full of voltage so that he's in intense pain and lacking full muscle control, while being screamed at first to get on the ground when he's already on the ground and then alternately to move his hands where she can see them but stop moving.  And because he was of course shaking and confused, it's justified for him to be shot and killed...

And hey, if it matters that he didn't turn out to have a weapon, does it also matter that he was driving drunk and on drugs?

If you believe that the punishment for these things should be death, then I suppose it would matter.

[Helgoland]

And hey, if it matters that he didn't turn out to have a weapon, does it also matter that he was driving drunk and on drugs?

If you believe that the punishment for these things should be death, then I suppose it would matter.

That's not what he's saying. I agree with you, but you're being unfair to poor Rolan there.

[Rolan7]

Yeah sorry, my point was that none of those things matter.  The fact that he didn't have a concealed weapon has no bearing on whether the officer made the right call or not.  It's not a game where you win if you guess right.  He was completely noncompliant until literally forced to the ground, and even then he didn't keep his hands in the open.

But yeah, being so under the influence doesn't mean he deserve to die.  Well... he was driving impaired... okay, it doesn't justify shooting him.  It kinda explains his awful judgement in hopelessly resisting arrest, and then failing to grasp the simple concept of "show me your hands".

Of course, explaining his behavior doesn't change the fact that he was noncompliant, and might have been reaching for a gun.  She stopped tazing him, *then* he hid his hands.  It's a tragedy, but not her fault.

[SalmonGod]

And hey, if it matters that he didn't turn out to have a weapon, does it also matter that he was driving drunk and on drugs?

If you believe that the punishment for these things should be death, then I suppose it would matter.

That's not what he's saying. I agree with you, but you're being unfair to poor Rolan there.

It's the common argument that comes out in every single discussion on this topic.  The suspect isn't immediately compliant in the confrontation, and the implication there is that the officer isn't responsible for how they respond to the suspect's behavior.  It's victim blaming in its purest form.  The principle of the statement is no different from "but look at what she was wearing."

Edit:

Ok if you're saying that she had no choice because self-defense, then that is different from victim blaming... mostly... sort of...

I mean police are the only people in the world who can kill someone in a fit of hyper-paranoia without being punished or at least forced into psychological evaluation... if I was in a heated argument with someone and shot them because I didn't like what they were doing with their hands, I doubt popular opinion would place the burden on my victim...

[Rolan7]

But I was attacking the common argument from the other side, that the person *turned out* to be unarmed and thus the shooting was wrong.  Which is just as wrong as victim-blaming.

[SalmonGod]

I don't think it's just as wrong to expect police to accept some personal risk, when the alternative is killing lots of people that didn't deserve it.  When police operate on the assumption that everyone they encounter in their day to day lives on the job is an armed psychopath, the natural consequence is that police become a danger to society.  And that people are more and more likely to be scared shitless by police and react in ways that get them killed by police.

[Rolan7]

I agree completely with all that!

I feel like this case was over the threshold, is all.  Lone cop, suspect tries to drive away then run, then when nonlethally subdued he keeps hiding his hands.  There's only so much we can expect from an officer.

[IronyOwl]

But I was attacking the common argument from the other side, that the person *turned out* to be unarmed and thus the shooting was wrong.  Which is just as wrong as victim-blaming.

But it means, objectively, that she was wrong. That's not a 1:1 correlation with "making the wrong decision," but it speaks poorly. Additionally, as far as I'm aware they've released no information whatsoever on why she was "certain" he had a gun which he was then reaching for, so the idea that she was behaving reasonably is pretty much purely hypothetical or based on giving her a pretty strong benefit of the doubt. We're not assuming this guy had perfectly valid reasons for running that nobody's mentioned yet, are we?

I agree completely with all that!

I feel like this case was over the threshold, is all.  Lone cop, suspect tries to drive away then run, then when nonlethally subdued he keeps hiding his hands.  There's only so much we can expect from an officer.

But again, if I pull a gun on somebody and start ordering them around, and then they hide their hands in some manner (such as to hug themselves while being shocked) and I immediately shoot them to death, would you consider that entirely justified self defense? Entirely justified self defense except that pointing a gun at somebody voids my right to not get killed by them? Entirely justified self defense if I was a cop but not any other profession for some strange reason?

I don't really see the logic behind "Not doing as you said and then concealing their hands immediately turns it into a you-or-him scenario, the one with the gun already drawn has no choice."

[Frumple]

I feel like this case was over the threshold, is all.  Lone cop, suspect tries to drive away then run, then when nonlethally subdued he keeps hiding his hands.  There's only so much we can expect from an officer.

Pictured: Why you should never call an ambulance or the cops in any case where you have someone injured (or having some variation of psychotic episode) but still mobile. Or maybe just ever, at this point. Non-compliance, even when compliance may not be physically possible, is apparently sufficient grounds for a police officer to kill you. Better to risk bleeding out or your family member committing suicide or whathaveyou, I guess.

Also, note. You probably don't have much coherence after you've been tazed and brought to the ground. Just kinda' throwing that out there.

[SalmonGod]

What gets me is I only see him begin to move his hands down shortly after he's fallen over and she begins screaming at him.  He never significantly moves his hands beneath him again that I could tell.  He's just shaking profusely as anyone who's being electrocuted will do.  Then she shoots him and he continues to be as compliant as you could possibly expect someone who is being electrocuted to be.  A significant amount of time goes by and then she shoots him again.  And then even though he's still conscious and vocal and if he actually had a weapon could probably still use it, she suddenly decides it must be safe to approach him.  WTF?

[IronyOwl]

What gets me is I only see him begin to move his hands down shortly after he's fallen over and she begins screaming at him.  He never significantly moves his hands beneath him again that I could tell.  He's just shaking profusely as anyone who's being electrocuted will do.  Then she shoots him and he continues to be as compliant as you could possibly expect someone who is being electrocuted to be.  A significant amount of time goes by and then she shoots him again.  And then even though he's still conscious and vocal and if he actually had a weapon could probably still use it, she suddenly decides it must be safe to approach him.  WTF?

He did "reach into his jacket" a few times, from what I saw. I'd agree that she handled the situation bizarrely poorly, though; as mentioned, there's only so much compliance you can expect while tazing the shit out of someone, and then she's basically just shouting vague instructions at him. I'd have thought a quick shock to trip him followed by telling him in a loud, calm voice to stretch out his arms and legs like a kitty would have been more effective than electrocuting him until the battery runs out then/while screaming "show me your hands!" every eight seconds.

And yes, the shot placement and distancing is bizarre.

[Rolan7]

But I was attacking the common argument from the other side, that the person *turned out* to be unarmed and thus the shooting was wrong.  Which is just as wrong as victim-blaming.

But it means, objectively, that she was wrong. That's not a 1:1 correlation with "making the wrong decision," but it speaks poorly. Additionally, as far as I'm aware they've released no information whatsoever on why she was "certain" he had a gun which he was then reaching for, so the idea that she was behaving reasonably is pretty much purely hypothetical or based on giving her a pretty strong benefit of the doubt. We're not assuming this guy had perfectly valid reasons for running that nobody's mentioned yet, are we?

I agree completely with all that!

I feel like this case was over the threshold, is all.  Lone cop, suspect tries to drive away then run, then when nonlethally subdued he keeps hiding his hands.  There's only so much we can expect from an officer.

But again, if I pull a gun on somebody and start ordering them around, and then they hide their hands in some manner (such as to hug themselves while being shocked) and I immediately shoot them to death, would you consider that entirely justified self defense? Entirely justified self defense except that pointing a gun at somebody voids my right to not get killed by them? Entirely justified self defense if I was a cop but not any other profession for some strange reason?

I don't really see the logic behind "Not doing as you said and then concealing their hands immediately turns it into a you-or-him scenario, the one with the gun already drawn has no choice."

Ah okay.  She would have been wrong if she was concluding that he definitely had a gun.  But she didn't.

Anybody *might* be armed, so you have to prepare for that.  Which doesn't mean just shooting them!  It means that they need to put their hands up, so they can't reach for a weapon they may or may not have.  That's why cops demand that people put their hands up...  It's very important!

And if someone refuses to do that, and reaches for what may be a gun or knife, the correct and necessary course of action is to stop them.  He forced her hand...  Possibly because he was too inebriated to comply, but still.  She made the right call in the situation.

Cops often do give people a lot of slack in this, particularly inebriated people, but this man had already lead her on a chase on the road and into a residential area.  This was taking place outside a house, she didn't know if it was his or what.  He could have had friends coming out to get her, or he may have been a threat to other residents.  If he had stopped he wouldn't have been tazed, if he had kept his hands up he wouldn't have been shot.

I feel like this case was over the threshold, is all.  Lone cop, suspect tries to drive away then run, then when nonlethally subdued he keeps hiding his hands.  There's only so much we can expect from an officer.

Pictured: Why you should never call an ambulance or the cops in any case where you have someone injured (or having some variation of psychotic episode) but still mobile. Or maybe just ever, at this point. Non-compliance, even when compliance may not be physically possible, is apparently sufficient grounds for a police officer to kill you. Better to risk bleeding out or your family member committing suicide or whathaveyou, I guess.

Also, note. You probably don't have much coherence after you've been tazed and brought to the ground. Just kinda' throwing that out there.

He put his hands up a little while he was being tazed.  Then he pulled them back.
He had plenty of chances to avoid being tazed in the first place.  Maybe he was too drunk, but that's not an excuse.

And yes, the shot placement and distancing is bizarre.

Yeah I wasn't going to say anything, since obviously he did get shot, but it sure didn't look like it in the video.  I swear the second shot seemed to kick up snow a couple feet away, but multiple sites say he got shot twice.  Maybe only the first shot actually hit, dunno.  Doesn't really matter.

[IronyOwl]

Ah okay.  She would have been wrong if she was concluding that he definitely had a gun.  But she didn't.

Mearkle caught up to him in the yard. She said she was convinced he had a gun in his jacket and was reaching for it.

Anybody *might* be armed, so you have to prepare for that.  Which doesn't mean just shooting them!  It means that they need to put their hands up, so they can't reach for a weapon they may or may not have.  That's why cops demand that people put their hands up...  It's very important!

And if someone refuses to do that, and reaches for what may be a gun or knife, the correct and necessary course of action is to stop them.  He forced her hand...  Possibly because he was too inebriated to comply, but still.  She made the right call in the situation.

Cops often do give people a lot of slack in this, particularly inebriated people, but this man had already lead her on a chase on the road and into a residential area.  This was taking place outside a house, she didn't know if it was his or what.  He could have had friends coming out to get her, or he may have been a threat to other residents.  If he had stopped he wouldn't have been tazed, if he had kept his hands up he wouldn't have been shot.

But again: Does this apply to everyone, or are cops special for some reason? If I pull a gun on somebody, scream at them to put their hands up, and they bolt instead, which includes moving their hands out of my view, is it self defense to shoot them to death and why or why not?

And yes, the shot placement and distancing is bizarre.

Yeah I wasn't going to say anything, since obviously he did get shot, but it sure didn't look like it in the video.  I swear the second shot seemed to kick up snow a couple feet away, but multiple sites say he got shot twice.  Maybe only the first shot actually hit, dunno.  Doesn't really matter.

Also that, but I meant her timing; it didn't seem like she fired in response to anything in particular except losing her shit.

[Rolan7]

Ah okay.  She would have been wrong if she was concluding that he definitely had a gun.  But she didn't.

Mearkle caught up to him in the yard. She said she was convinced he had a gun in his jacket and was reaching for it.

Oh, good catch.  So yeah, she was definitely wrong about that.
She still made the right decision, but she was wrong about him actually having a gun.

Anybody *might* be armed, so you have to prepare for that.  Which doesn't mean just shooting them!  It means that they need to put their hands up, so they can't reach for a weapon they may or may not have.  That's why cops demand that people put their hands up...  It's very important!

And if someone refuses to do that, and reaches for what may be a gun or knife, the correct and necessary course of action is to stop them.  He forced her hand...  Possibly because he was too inebriated to comply, but still.  She made the right call in the situation.

Cops often do give people a lot of slack in this, particularly inebriated people, but this man had already lead her on a chase on the road and into a residential area.  This was taking place outside a house, she didn't know if it was his or what.  He could have had friends coming out to get her, or he may have been a threat to other residents.  If he had stopped he wouldn't have been tazed, if he had kept his hands up he wouldn't have been shot.

But again: Does this apply to everyone, or are cops special for some reason? If I pull a gun on somebody, scream at them to put their hands up, and they bolt instead, which includes moving their hands out of my view, is it self defense to shoot them to death and why or why not?

Had to look up citizen's arrests...  I'm going to quote the whole section, because it's pretty complicated and, I dunno, I found it interesting:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Despite the fact that citizens arrests do not carry the same constitutional requirements as a typical arrest, individuals must only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary to make the arrest. Just what exactly constitutes the reasonable and necessary amount of force depends on the facts surrounding each arrest. Juries will usually examine the facts surrounding a citizens arrest and make the determination of whether it involved excessive force.

The use of excessive force can open up the arresting individual to civil and criminal liability, and this is especially true when individuals use deadly force to apprehend criminals. States have different rules about the use of deadly force during a citizens arrest, and failure to comply with the law in this area can result in serious consequences.

Some states prohibit the use of deadly force except in circumstances where the person making the arrest or someone else is faced with the threat of serious bodily injury or immediate use of deadly physical force. In these situations, the person making the arrest may use deadly force in order to prevent harm to themselves or others.

Other states allow people making a citizens arrest to use deadly force to stop a fleeing arrestee as long as the person making the arrest used reasonable methods in order to make the arrest. Some states go further and require that the person using deadly force first attempt to restrain the subject of the arrest, and other states require pursuit and an explicitly stated intent to arrest before using deadly force.

Any use of deadly force during a citizens arrest that does not comply with the applicable state law could result in manslaughter or murder charges against the arresting individual, as well as a wrongful death lawsuit from the family of the suspected criminal.
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-arrest.html#sthash.ImWutmQo.dpuf

Of note it does depend on whether a felony was *actually* committed.  So a citizen making an arrest better be sure about what they're doing, which I suppose is meant to curb excessive vigilantism.

But in short, yeah I think it works the same.

It's also really not hard, people shouldn't reach for hidden items when they're at gunpoint jeez.  That's true whether the armed person is a cop or a robber or a vigilante...  Reaching for a concealed item forces the person's hand.

Of course, most law enforcement situations don't escalate to a gun being drawn.  They try to avoid that, because it raises the stakes.  But some people are very unwilling to comply :/

And yes, the shot placement and distancing is bizarre.

Yeah I wasn't going to say anything, since obviously he did get shot, but it sure didn't look like it in the video.  I swear the second shot seemed to kick up snow a couple feet away, but multiple sites say he got shot twice.  Maybe only the first shot actually hit, dunno.  Doesn't really matter.

Also that, but I meant her timing; it didn't seem like she fired in response to anything in particular except losing her shit.

He had his hands exposed (a little) but then he moved them back towards him.  When she fired they were hidden behind his head.

[IronyOwl]

Had to look up citizen's arrests...

Alright, but I'm more interested in hearing how you think it should work than reading case law on how it typically plays out. I've been taking "the officer is not at fault" and "but he refused to comply" and so on as statements of reasonability on her part, rather than legal or effective immunity.

Of note it does depend on whether a felony was *actually* committed.  So a citizen making an arrest better be sure about what they're doing, which I suppose is meant to curb excessive vigilantism.

And how do you feel about that, in relation to whether or not somebody had a gun or being drunk not mattering?

But in short, yeah I think it works the same.

It's also really not hard, people shouldn't reach for hidden items when they're at gunpoint jeez.  That's true whether the armed person is a cop or a robber or a vigilante...  Reaching for a concealed item forces the person's hand.

But in your personal opinion, should a robber be able to claim self defense for shooting somebody who does not comply with their orders and conceals their hands? Obviously it's a poor idea on the victim's part, but when they bring the guy in for armed robbery and triple homicide, do you feel the homicides should get thrown out because it was him or them? And if not, why, and what makes cops or vigilantes different?

Of course, most law enforcement situations don't escalate to a gun being drawn.  They try to avoid that, because it raises the stakes.  But some people are very unwilling to comply :/

And again, why is an arrest with a gun drawn different from going to the pub or the park? If some little kid has her hands in her jacket, what makes that not a potentially lethal situation, whereas if I've got her mother on the ground at gunpoint it would be?

Because if it's the fact that I've already drawn and therefore escalated the situation, that has some disturbing connotations. If it's that "they're a criminal," likewise. If it's that they failed to comply with my orders, well, I imagine it's not hard to get to that point, and if it's some nebulous legal or authority thing I'd like to hear why you feel that's a good system to have.

And yes, the shot placement and distancing is bizarre.

Yeah I wasn't going to say anything, since obviously he did get shot, but it sure didn't look like it in the video.  I swear the second shot seemed to kick up snow a couple feet away, but multiple sites say he got shot twice.  Maybe only the first shot actually hit, dunno.  Doesn't really matter.

Also that, but I meant her timing; it didn't seem like she fired in response to anything in particular except losing her shit.

He had his hands exposed (a little) but then he moved them back towards him.  When she fired they were hidden behind his head.

Right, but he couldn't have had a gun there, so "oh shit he's about to draw on me" doesn't make sense. It's like she just finally freaked out enough to pull the trigger.