Print

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

[Cthulhu]

The point of laws like that (or like having stuff hanging from your mirror) is to give cops a variety of excuses to stop and levy fines or search people at any time.  This is how cities balance their lopsided budgets.  Cops are essentially highwaymen, or maybe privateers depending on how you look at it.  They will stop you on the road and take your money and if you resist this they'll kill you.

Step one is striking a colossal number of minor infractions off the books. 

[Folly]

Hanging out with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun is not a reason for summary execution.

The kid was not hanging out while carrying a gun. The kid was brandishing a gun in his hands after a lengthy police chase. There's a pretty big distinction there.

[hector13]

Hanging out with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun is not a reason for summary execution.

The kid was not hanging out while carrying a gun. The kid was brandishing a gun in his hands after a lengthy police chase. There's a pretty big distinction there.

Do you understand what “brandishing” and “lengthy” mean? Because 20 seconds is not a significant amount of time to be running doing anything really, and the kid appeared to place the gun behind a fence prior to the conclusion of said chase.

[Bumber]

So I'm hearing that you think the kid should have shot first?  And that the police don't have a duty of public care, wtf?

Equating that officer with a 'sensible person' whose 'life is in imminent danger' is high farce.

No, it's very illegal shoot cops attempting to arrest you*. The kid should have dropped the gun in plain sight while running.

Duty of public care goes out the window when someone is a active threat. Police aren't required to allow themselves to be shot, nor are they allowed to endanger someone else's life by inaction towards a threat.

*Unless they don't identify themselves, as appeared to be the case with Breonna Taylor.

If the officer arrived at the scene with the intention of shooting the kid (perhaps conditional on gun possession) and then carries through on that action, yes.  A full second is more than enough to time to question whether it is appropriate to shoot or not.

That's a bit more than 20 seconds, isn't it? We don't have evidence of anything more than that, and presumably the officer had been on the force for a long time without any such incident.
(Edit: No record of him ever discharging his firearm as a police officer.)

A bit less than a full second, and that was just since the gun was dropped out of sight, not since the officer was able to see the kid's hands were empty. The average human reaction time is ~0.25 to notice anything, and more to choose an appropriate response. But, then, maybe you know better as an expert on such matters.

Hanging out with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun is not a reason for summary execution.

An appeal to emotion and a strawman all in one. A summary execution is when you're brought to your knees and shot in the head. What got him shot was the appearance he was going to use it, regardless of the 20-20 hindsight that he had already dropped it.

Why not blame the gang, and the one who gave the kid a gun after using it to fire at a passing car?

[Frumple]

Blame is not a limited resource, nor have I noticed anyone saying the gang involved was somehow faultless. At the end of the day, though, they weren't the ones that shot and killed the kid. So, y'know. Blame where it's due.

[feelotraveller]

No, it's very illegal shoot cops attempting to arrest you.

Back up a bit there son, you just said

If someone has a gun, they're a potential threat. If a sensible person would believe that their life was in imminent danger, then shooting first is justifiable use of lethal force, not murder.

The cop had a gun ergo he is a potential threat.  And in fact he is pointing it at the kid finger on the trigger ready to shoot at a moments notice without giving it further thought.  It would be sensible for the kid to believe that there is a real chance that their life is in imminent danger.  (Personally I strongly recommend neither of them to start shooting.)

Duty of public care goes out the window when someone is a active threat. Police aren't required to allow themselves to be shot, nor are they allowed to endanger someone else's life by inaction towards a threat.

But the kid was not an active threat.  In fact although having possession of a gun temporarily they never even (to the best of my knowledge) pointed it anyone.  The kid was raising their empty hands in compliance to the orders of the officer in the second the cop decided to shoot.  The danger to the public in that situation was the trigger-happy cop.

My point about premeditation also harks back to your comment

A split second to figure out if the kid was bringing a gun out from behind his back with intent to fire.

but it is entirely valid - premeditation extends from earlier planning to the split second decision to pull the trigger. Otherwise premeditation would never be possible.  The cop had clearly decided ('been trained' might also be accurate) before the confrontation that if they were in an uncertain circumstance of possible danger that they would shoot first and ask questions later and they followed through with this to tragic effect.

Hanging out with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun is not a reason for summary execution.

An appeal to emotion and a strawman all in one. A summary execution is when you're brought to your knees and shot in the head. What got him shot was the appearance he was going to use it, regardless of the 20-20 hindsight that he had already dropped it.

Why not blame the gang, and the one who gave the kid a gun after using it to fire at a passing car?

Quoting the first sentence of the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
"A summary execution is an execution in which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without the benefit of a full and fair trial."

The cop shot an unarmed suspect who was currently complying with all orders issued by that cop.  At that point in time it had not been confirmed (although it was subsequently) that the kid even had been in possession of a firearm.

No-one is defending the gang but two wrongs don't make a right.  I see this as desperation on your part.

[feelotraveller]

Separately:

George Floyd may get posthumous pardon for Houston drug charge

(Apologies for double-post.)

[bloop_bleep]

I'll reiterate: The cop doesn't know that the gun has been dropped.

And what do we do when we don't actually know what's going on kids?

o P e N f I r E! Better a 90% chance of dead kid than a ?% chance of a dead cop amirite?

And why does the cop's life not matter? The kid was the one bringing out his gun first. Why do you expect the cop to potentially just completely discard his own life by waiting around to be shot when faced with an opposing armed person?  I'd like to see you act completely calmly and make a split second analysis of the situation. The situation is terrible and we don't know all the details, myself I've not settled on a view on the situation, but I'm just bringing up the nuance.

EDIT: To avoid escalation.

[Doomblade187]

Just saying, but maybe a police officer that is supposed to protect and serve (I know not legally, but this is the *ideal*) should put the lives of civilians first.

[Rolan7]

And that's probably a false dichotomy.  "Put civilians first" vs "Survive a deadly encounter".

Fact is that deadly encounters are extremely rare.  People know what happens if you open fire on cops.  It goes poorly for your entire community, especially your family (and of course you're excessively dead, with the protocol of overkill).  As such, it's exceptionally rare.  Being a cop is NOT a dangerous job compared to civilian jobs like garbage management, because civilian suspects have learned to flee rather than fight.

It's extremely counterproductive that cops still, sometimes, respond to flight with deadly force.  Sometimes even if the suspect stops, drops the weapon, and tries to comply with shouted orders.

Taken with all the incidents where cops shot fleeing suspects and got off with a slap on the wrist, it's pretty clear that fearing the police isn't enough to survive them.

If a police officer saw a suspect have a gun earlier, that doesn't shouldn't forfeit the suspect's life.  There needs to be a way for that person to surrender.  If they are good as dead as soon as they stop running and move to comply - what message does that send?

[Bumber]

The cop had a gun ergo he is a potential threat.  And in fact he is pointing it at the kid finger on the trigger ready to shoot at a moments notice without giving it further thought.  It would be sensible for the kid to believe that there is a real chance that their life is in imminent danger.  (Personally I strongly recommend neither of them to start shooting.)

Cops are allowed to carry guns as part of the nature of their job. If they discharge one without cause, they are subject to discipline and possible legal consequences for it. If you're not resisting arrest and they can see your hands are empty, your chances of being shot by a cop are practically nil. It is strictly illegal to shot a cop for doing their job. I hope you're not being deliberately obtuse on this.

But the kid was not an active threat.  In fact although having possession of a gun temporarily they never even (to the best of my knowledge) pointed it anyone.  The kid was raising their empty hands in compliance to the orders of the officer in the second the cop decided to shoot.  The danger to the public in that situation was the trigger-happy cop.

But the cop doesn't know that! He knows the kid was holding a gun a second ago while being chased. He doesn't see the kid's hands or gun while the kid's hands are behind their back. The cop makes a reasonable assumption, based on only what he sees and knows, that the gun is still in the kid's hands. When the kid quickly pulls his hands out from behind his back (to surrender), the cop has only a tiny fraction of a second to decide between:
A) The kid still has the gun in his hands, and is likely moving them to aim and fire
B) The kid doesn't have the gun in his hands, and what was true less than a second ago is now false

Cops aren't psychic. They can only work with what they see and know. Monday morning quarterbacking about how the kid had dropped the gun just before being shot isn't useful. (Media and others saying "a cop shot an unarmed kid" without context is deceitful, and many were happy to do so before the facts came out.)

My point about premeditation also harks back to your comment
but it is entirely valid - premeditation extends from earlier planning to the split second decision to pull the trigger. Otherwise premeditation would never be possible.  The cop had clearly decided ('been trained' might also be accurate) before the confrontation that if they were in an uncertain circumstance of possible danger that they would shoot first and ask questions later and they followed through with this to tragic effect.

You're basically describing any type of potentially lethal self-defense training as premeditation to murder. That would never fly in court.

For premeditation, you need to show someone has decided to kill someone, and then has taken steps to carry it out. If the cop had orchestrated putting the gun in the kid's hand, or told (or goaded) the kid to draw his gun, then that would be premeditation.

Instead, the officer ordered the kid to drop his gun several times during the pursuit, which went ignored until the end, when the kid dropped it out of sight.

Quoting the first sentence of the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
"A summary execution is an execution in which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without the benefit of a full and fair trial."

Hey, look what I found in the very next sentence:
"Executions as the result of summary justice (such as a drumhead court-martial) are sometimes included, but the term generally refers to capture, accusation, and execution all conducted within a very short period of time, and without any trial."
(Emphasis mine.)

The cop shot an unarmed suspect who was currently complying with all orders issued by that cop.  At that point in time it had not been confirmed (although it was subsequently) that the kid even had been in possession of a firearm.

No-one is defending the gang but two wrongs don't make a right.  I see this as desperation on your part.

Aside from having been fleeing the cop, and not dropping the gun earlier, yes he was currently complying with orders. Unfortunately, it didn't look like that from the cops perspective, which makes it a tragedy rather than a murder. Obviously the cop thought or knew the kid had been in possession of a firearm, or he wouldn't have asked him to drop it in the first place.

But there's not even a mention of the gang. No analysis of the circumstances that lead the cop to shoot. It seems it's just the cop's fault for being child-murdering swine.

[Vector]

I just keep thinking about explaining all of this to his mother. What bothers me about this conversation isn't the logical positions, it's the idea that the course of action is obvious and unremarkable.

[feelotraveller]

Keep digging - viz: why is that course of action (thought to be) obvious and unremarkable?

[feelotraveller]

If they discharge one without cause, they are subject to discipline and possible legal consequences for it.

Sure, let's hope it's the case here.

You're basically describing any type of potentially lethal self-defense training as premeditation to murder. That would never fly in court.

Good job on removing the context... again ("an uncertain circumstance of possible danger").  If it is a clear case of existent danger then self-defense applies.  Training should distinguish a vague and possible threat from a distinct and verified one. Lethal force is an extreme measure and needs suitably strong justification.


Ya know, when someone has their arms raised in the air and is being held at gunpoint I think it's fair enough to calll it 'captured'. (giggles)  Maybe you could have also bolded the 'generally'...  Besides we're only discussing premeditation because of your insistence that the cop did abolutely nothing wrong.  But to go on with citing that wikipedia page the essence of it is:

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No man shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily.

[The death] penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 6.1 and 6.2

Strange that you say

No analysis of the circumstances that lead the cop to shoot.

Because that is exactly the discussion.  What was it about the kid's actions that led to the cop arbitrarily depriving them of their life?

It is indeed a tragedy, but that doesn't stop it being a gross mistake: on the part of the cop (and the judicial system) on my take; or premeditated murder on yours.

That 'It was inevitable' just returns us to Vector's unease.

[MorleyDev]

Also, again: Why does a lone police officer need to be pursuing an armed suspect? Is it not safer to all involved for multiple police officers to operate in a co-ordinated manner to isolate the area the suspect is in, clear civilians out of that area, and work together to bring them in safely and alive, and only open fire when that becomes a clear and immediate threat? This lone ranger bullshit is just making people twitchy and leading to needless deaths. Especially if police training isn't sufficient in the USA that police can't readily distinguish surrender from attacking.

And then if police were doing that instead, why then would all police need to be armed? Couldn't city police then be separated into patrolling unarmed police and armed rapid response squads?

Is it just that gun crime is so common in America that the entire country would be in a permanent state of lockdown?

(Fun fact: In some countries  (UK for example), a civilian carrying a weapon with the purpose of self-defence and then using it to kill someone 'in self-defence' is (and I am of the opinion should be) regarded premeditated murder btw. You went out with a weapon with the intent of using it to kill someone, then did so. That's what premeditated murder literally means.).