About Police Shootings (in America, Duh)

More
23 Nov 2019 23:06 #345999 by Rex
There's also a big difference between having essentially a proactive injunction against using force and having damages actions for the occasions when law enforcement oversteps. I think that remedies have been gutted, and still are the best overall legislative framework for law enforcement to follow.

Knights Secretary's Secretary
Apprentices: Vandrar
TM: Carlos Martinez
"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes" - Wittgenstein
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
24 Nov 2019 00:30 #346008 by
They're just enforcement officers. The root of the problem is in the Law they enforce.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Nov 2019 01:24 #346012 by Rex
Like not holding a gun to someone else's head in the video shown?

Knights Secretary's Secretary
Apprentices: Vandrar
TM: Carlos Martinez
"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes" - Wittgenstein
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Nov 2019 03:06 #346027 by OB1Shinobi

ZealotX wrote: I shouldn't have to live in fear because of what other people have done who look like me. I'm me. They are them. If an officer sees them when he sees me that's a problem.



I agree with this. You should be seen as you, not as the criminals the officer has dealt with in the past.

And that makes me and others more likely to see those guys in the white hoods when we see them. And that's a problem too. But I can't say the person reacting to the problem is wrong without first addressing the problem they're reacting to.


You think he has to not judge you based your skin but that you can judge him based on his skin and uniform? I know you like to think its not a double standard when you do it, but it is.




This idea that someone COULD be doing something threatening is being taken to an extreme. And its based on the idea that every criminal suspect is some kind of stupid wannabe action star who can, with hands already up, reach for, pull out, and shoot 2-4 officers before any of them, who already have weapons pointed center mass, can pull the trigger.


You seriously need to research VIDEO FOOTAGE of suspects pulling out guns in real life situations. Im sorry to be rude but you really dont know what youre talking about. A suspect doesnt have to shoot FOUR officers, just ONE. You want that one to be you? The worst part is that i fully believe the police are too militant and too aggressive at the policy level. Replying to you makes me seem like i think everything is hunky dory lol



And of course when they all tell the story about the kid they had to shoot, that's exactly what happened.


And you know the inner world of police officers who have shot children because....?
You dont really know at all. Your prejudice is leading you into making sweeping generalizations about a group that you see and conceptualize as a personal enemy. But again, i understand that you dont see it as a double standard when you do it.

And when the story is repeated on the news, other people hear it and think, "yup. Those *bleeps* are crazy." This is how the stereotype gets reinforced and then new police reacting to that reinforced stereotype.


You see racism everywhere. A broken clock is right often enough that it never has to doubt that its right.

And it goes both ways. Police get stereotyped too and so a suspect has to then think, what's the best way to survive the encounter. Is it to run? Is it to shoot? Or is it to cooperate when he or she might still get killed.


This was the comment that pissed me off the most, lol. Like honest average non criminal citizens are running around with guns and are going to shoot police over some traffic stop because they are otherwise good guys who are afraid of racism. Honestly, this is total utter BS.

This is how you deal with police, no matter what color you are. First of all, if youre breaking the law you need to realize that theyre doing the right thing when they arrest you. PERIOD. They are right and you are wrong. Everything that happens has to be understood from this context: if youre a criminal, they are right and you are wrong. If they find you, give yourself up. Dont argue. Dont run. Dont fight. Dont pull your arm back when they go to cuff you. Accept the fact that they have already won and obey all of their commands.

If youre not breaking the law then you still need to realize that they are doing their job and they are the ones in charge. I tend to take it personal when police bother me without a reason (which they have, many times) but really, dont take it personal. Dont tell yourself theyre picking on you because youre black or any other personal reason, theyre probably not. No matter what the reason is, theyre going to win. Dont argue. Dont run and dont fight. Be respectful and obey their commands. Get over this idea that they work for you or are your public servant. They work for the state and are allowed to kill you if you seem dangerous to them. This is true whatever color you are.

Their job is to arrest suspects to be tried by the judicial system. The fact they manage to do this more often if you don't look like me, says something.


https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf

People are complicated.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Nov 2019 13:46 #346058 by OB1Shinobi

OB1Shinobi wrote:
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf



But i also found this one, which supports the opposite conclusion.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

People are complicated.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Nov 2019 15:40 - 24 Nov 2019 16:38 #346062 by OB1Shinobi

ZealotX wrote: .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKd_7QL-q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8G7MtRNlk


—-

Implicit bias, micro-aggressions, cultural appropriation, and white privilege are all activist-generated thought-viruses deliberately intended to exacerbate existing resentment between racial groups. The flaw with these ideas is not that they are wholly inaccurate: its that they are partially accurate, intellectual weapons. They are PSYOP weapons in a culture war. Their purpose is not to edify, clarify, or reconcile: it is to incite further division and resentment among us. I can go through the list and explain all of them but since this post was on implicit bias....


First, lets do an article:
From The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807
Warning: Spoiler!



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308926636_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Change_in_Implicit_Bias

That link takes you to the abstract where you can request the full study if you want (i have, but i dont know of i will get it or how long it will take) and underneath the abstract is a roster of OTHER relevant studies which support and bolster the general conclusions.

And heres one more study, this one you can read in full:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frederick_Oswald/publication/239732934_Predicting_Ethnic_and_Racial_Discrimination_A_Meta-Analysis_of_IAT_Criterion_Studies/links/0a85e53a9a75e2ec00000000.pdf

The gist of all of these studies is that IAT looks like junk science. It has no predictive power and whatever it might be measuring doesnt seem to be correlate-able with actual behavior.

Of course, here is where we have to exercise the old “nuance” muscles. The basic idea of implicit bias seems to me something that hits on some real phenomenon and i presume it we could something useful, if not with the IAT itself then at least with the general idea. Even the IAT may become useful if it is better developed. On that note, problem isnt really with the IAT - even at the time of its creation, at least one of the authors acknowledged that it wasnt developed enough to be applied in any real-life context. The PROBLEM is that activists took the IAT and ran with it before the research community could turn it into something with real substance. As it stands, its main functions are to provide a non-falsifiable rationale for claiming racism when no evidence of racism is present and to reinforce the victim/oppressor narrative into the minds of the general population.

People are complicated.
Last edit: 24 Nov 2019 16:38 by OB1Shinobi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Nov 2019 20:34 - 24 Nov 2019 20:35 #346084 by OB1Shinobi

OB1Shinobi wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/


On a whim, i went through the lists of unarmed people killed by police for the last three years and tallied up their races.

In 2019, 35 unarmed people have been shot by police up to this day. 14 were white, 8 were black, 5 were counted hispanic, 3 were Asian, and 5 were listed as unknown. The names of the unknown were: Melvin Watkins, Channara Tom Pheap (male), Chad Michael Breinholt, Riley Eugene Peay, and David Ingle.

47 unarmed people were shot in 2018
23 white, 18 black, 6 hispanic/latino/a

69 unarmed people were shot in 2017
31 white, 21 black, 13 hispanic/latino/a, 1 asian, 1 unknown, 1 native american, and 1 arab/middle eastern
I didnt look up the unknown for 2017 because there was only one.

People are complicated.
Last edit: 24 Nov 2019 20:35 by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
25 Nov 2019 20:52 #346142 by ZealotX
Society has decided that we are so scared of guns that we need more guns and so anyone can get a gun; which includes criminals and mentally disturbed individuals. Some people came home from service with PTSD and in reality THEY shouldn't have guns either. So yes, guns don't kill people, people do. HOWEVER, if you fail to control guns from getting into the wrong hands then that's also a people problem. If I'm in car and someone shoots someone and jumps in my car I'm probably on the hook for that murder too. But if I sell you a gun and don't care what you do with it I have no legal responsibility. Imagine if selling a gun meant that you had to share legal responsibility for what the person you sold it to did with it... wouldn't there be fewer situations like this? If you sell a person drugs you can go to jail because we've decided that drugs are dangerous. And if that person overdoses and dies you can be charged, I believe, with their death. But you can sell a gun and simply wash your hands of it.

"you should have ate crayons and finger painted with doodoo, lol. I agree with his basic sentiment: if your mental health issue drives you to murdering people, eh, youre a murderer. Id rather see the murderer killed than his victims killed."


But what if you replace his crayons with a gun? And what if he's not a murderer when you kill him? We're basically killing him because he could be a murderer and we don't know. We're assuming he will because we're scared of him. Most animals, even large ones, will attack a human if they are sufficiently scared and concerned for their own safety or the safety of another animal they're protecting. So under the wrong circumstances crayons and doodoo can "present" as something very dangerous. It's just that they don't feel threatened while they're painting with doodoo.

Harambe was a classic case (even though yes I'm comparing an animal to a person). They shot him because they didn't know what he would do and they were afraid and assumed he would hurt the child who had fallen in his pen. It wasn't his fault the child fell. And it wasn't his choice to be a display for human children to see. Maybe he would have protected the child and tried to help. But people couldn't take that risk. I think that's how cops generally treat situations with people with mental health issues. If the person seems out of control, they get scared. But we're also, as a society, contributing to the position that person is in and by extension the situation that person creates.

"This last bit makes me wonder if you actually did watch the video. The guy screaming "thats my momma" was not the guy with the gun."


I did. It was actually an article that said that the voice was another unidentified man. Had I read that part my response would have been different. That's what made me think there was a mental health issue. Without that, then I would have to withdraw my previous reasoning. And I agree with you about how the officer handled the situation. If the guy was at least talking then it gives you more, psychologically, to work with. I know its asking a lot to want officers to know some psychology but since its a matter of life and death... I kind of want them to.

Same! The irony is they also think they are "harder" because they do something stupidly extreme lol not fully understanding the only reason theyre jumping the gun is because theyre afraid theyll get their a$$ beat.


yeah, exactly. That's why I, even though guns are fun to shoot, I don't like the idea of them really. Because its too easy to kill someone. And I wish it wasn't that easy to kill someone. I think its kind of like money. If money is harder to get people tend to appreciate it more and hold on to it better and make wiser decisions with it. If its easy to get they get reckless and take it for granted. It's cheap and they treat it like they themselves are just as cheap. But yes, one of my favorite quotes is one from Dune, "fear is the mind killer".

You dont actually know a person is unarmed until theyve been restrained and searched.


I agree. That's true. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think its good to look at these things and think about what you might have done differently. In the case of the man on the bus, I think they should check people for weapons while they're unconscious. In both cases, I BELIEVE, that if they weren't questioned about weapons they would not have fired. If you disagree that's okay. But I think this is what's happening. People usually carry guns because they're afraid of guns being used on them. I think it helps to add to a certain paranoia and when you combine drugs into the mix then that paranoia is multiplied x3.

I had an old friend that I took care of for awhile because he was homeless and he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia after spending time in jail where he most likely was introduced to drugs. He was not the same when he got out and seeing how he acted around people, he could go off at any minute and get upset. People on drugs are not your normal average criminals and they, imo, have to be handled differently. And part of it, honestly, a lot of people get it into their heads that they're "not going back." You know what that means, right? If they believe they're going to get arrested it triggers that fight or flight response because for some, that arrest feels like a death sentence or worse. So they know, that once this officer pats them down, they're going to then find out that the gun isn't legal.

While officers should check for weapons for safety you also have the issue of officers looking for reasons to bust people. And when an officer goes from talking to you to trying to find out if you're carrying, that could trigger suspicions that the officer is looking for evidence to use against you. You and I might look at the video and say, no, the officer was acting properly although I don't know why he picked that moment to check for weapons. He was fine before and no one seemed threatened. But if the guy had priors, he knew all that was going to come up if the officers ran his id and they would definitely do that if they found a gun on him. So then for him it was a life or death struggle before the officer understood that's what he was triggering.

So even though it may sound like I'm defending the person in the wrong, I think SOP needs work. Standard procedure should, if a person is incapacitated, check for weapons so that EMTs and whoever else is there is safe. If you're questioning a guy you need to let him know early on that he's not a suspect and not in trouble. If he is a suspect or is in trouble then your gun needs to be drawn but aimed at a 30-60 degree angle and the suspect need to get their hands in the air.

The problem is that he was asked a question which had a triggering potential and wasn't prepared for the reaction. Because what people often hear is more than what the officer thinks he's saying. What they hear is "I'm about to arrest you and ruin your life over this. Feel free to cooperate while I bend you over and spread your legs." Officers often use terms like buddy and in an instant they're very much not your friend. And because it can turn on a dime I think you have to be careful not to trigger people if you can avoid it. And you do that by giving them the information they need to feel safe. Neither of those guys felt safe. And the guy who shot himself afterwards is just evidence of how he made a rash instinctive move because he probably knew he was in trouble. I think even temporary insanity could apply in some of these cases.

Part of the problem is the relationship between the police and the community. Some of these people are repeat offenders so they know the system. They may have been screwed over by the system several times before. We don't know their history; neither does the officer at the scene. I think the reality is that everyone wants to go home alive. And if the officer's job sometimes involves detaining people and keeping them from going home for a long time then that prospect is worth risking their lives (or perhaps even suicide by cop) to escape from. So I think we need gun reform, criminal justice reform, legalization of marijuana, etc. so that people stop thinking its the end of the world if an officer detains them. I would maybe even consider not arresting people at the scene anymore unless there's physical violence and let them report to their hearing on their own or report to jail before issuing an arrest warrant. The system goes way overboard on jail. I can tell you that for sure. Most crimes should honestly just be a predetermined fine and a hearing only if you choose to fight it. Jail does little but harden criminals and make them more likely to re-offend. If the officers in these concealed weapon videos said "hey I'm sorry but I gotta write you a ticket. If you pass a drug test you can easily get out of it though." there's a good chance no one would have died. It may be a stretch but I can feel their fear.
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
26 Nov 2019 02:38 #346189 by OB1Shinobi
Not in the mood to comment on this atm but i want to submit it into the discussion while i have it on hand.
https://www.youtube.comf/watch?v=a2r5zMQEhbI

People are complicated.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
26 Nov 2019 09:38 - 26 Nov 2019 10:24 #346204 by JamesSand
........................
Last edit: 26 Nov 2019 10:24 by JamesSand.
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
14 Jun 2020 23:18 #352724 by OB1Shinobi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhdpG2XzRXQ&app=desktop

People are complicated.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2020 00:00 #352725 by RosalynJ
Another one it seems

Pax Per Ministerium
[img



The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2020 16:11 #352729 by ZealotX
The first officer seemed like a decent guy. I watched this whole thing play out thinking, okay this isn't the guy. He's going to call for backup and its going to be someone else that actually shoots. Because the first officer seemed very respectful, even helpful, but clearly he was the driver and he started off in the wrong. He had clearly fallen asleep while waiting in line at the drive through. Therefore, they did have the right to arrest him.

The inconsistencies in the man's story could be simply due to not paying attention to the person who ordered the drinks. But doesn't matter. Both cops acted professionally, in my opinion, up until the actual shooting. And it wasn't the officer who seemed like a decent guy because that officer, to me, seemed to go out of his way to excuse the driver. But because he drove into the grass and had to back up, it was clear that, whether sleepy or drunk, he should not have been operating a vehicle. And he couldn't ignore that. So he followed protocol and called for a sobriety test. I cannot fault him for that and it appeared he was on the ground when the shooting happened. I cannot fault Wendy's for calling in the first place since the guy was originally in the drive thru.

And we can't be so defensive that we blame everyone when a bad outcome happens. We have to be fair. That being said, both officers knew that Rayshard Brooks was unarmed and the only thing he had to hurt them with was the same taser that was he deserved to be used on him for resisting if it was violent enough to warrant that level of force. It's still, after all, 2 on 1. What Brooks did was all kinds of stupid and dumb and perhaps he wouldn't have acted that way if he wasn't intoxicated which I believe he was. Maybe he did only have 1.5 drinks but if he had been smoking weed with those drinks then that could definitely explain his inability to operate the vehicle and stay awake. So I believe he was intoxicated and couldn't be trusted to drive anywhere at that point. If they wanted to they could have had someone come pick him up, but they didn't have to. My problem is that the officer involved thought it was okay to shoot this man in the back when he's running away. What he did was all types of stupid but did he deserve to die? No. But the police are trained that when a suspect has a weapon (in this case a non-lethal weapon) they are allowed to fire. It's not right.


https://apnews.com/aba8f6998ba54b06acfde0dccdc8819f
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2020 16:13 - 15 Jun 2020 16:16 #352730 by OB1Shinobi
I have to be honest, this one is not so cut and dry as George Floyd. Youre probably not going to like what I have to say.

The whole thing went bad at the moment when the officer attempted to cuff Mr. Brooks. This moment is a conundrum for officers. Sometimes giving a person time to process the situation will result in their cooperation. Logical people can look at their options in the face of arrest and realize that fighting and trying to run away is going to make everything worse. I think it is reasonable to consider that Brooks was so intoxicated that he really thought he had a chance of not being arrested. Which he was very obviously too intoxicated to be left alone. The law no longer allows officers the choice of letting drunk people drive away. Perhaps if the officer had explained this and allowed Mr. Brooks a few minutes to process the information, PERHAPS he would not have attacked the officers.

The conundrum part is this: in many instances the suspects understand that if they are arrested theyre going to spend a lot of time behind bars. Previous arrests, the nature of the charge/s, probation violations, existing warrants, etc. For those people, the more time they have to think about whats happening, the more likely they are to fight and to run. In many cases if the officer just puts the cuffs on them in an authoritative and assertive fashion, it will work. At that point, fighting and running are not options. So how does an officer tell which is which?

One thing they could have done different is to keep chasing him and call for backup. But Brooks turning back and aiming the taser at the officer really complicates this situation. Its easy to say “its just a taser” but if you say that, i dont hear “its just a taser” i hear “i have never been in anything remotely close to a dangerously violent situation, before”. Its not “just a taser” in the moment, its an attack with potentially deadly consequences for the police. You have to appreciate something about the mentality and reality of a person who is carrying a gun: anything that incapacitates them even for only a moment is a deadly threat because their gun can be taken from them and used against them or an innocent bystander. This guy was just whooping on both of them. We have the advantage of not being in the moment, ourselves. They didnt.

At the end i just have to say it like this: if you point a weapon at cop, of course theyre gonna shoot you. What else do you think they would do? Ive likely had much more interaction with the police than anyone else here (certainly more than anyone in the community had admitted to) and im telling you: they would have shot me in this situation, too. Mr. Brooks did not die because he is black. He died because he broke the law, he beat up the police whose duty it was to ardest him, and then he pointed a weapon at them.

People are complicated.
Last edit: 15 Jun 2020 16:16 by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, ZealotX

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2020 21:42 #352744 by ZealotX
I have very little criticism of what you said. Brooks did some dumb sh*t for the dumb sh*t record books. Excuse my french.

But the point of the matter is that you shouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to avoid getting murdered or executed. It is not necessary to apprehend a suspect at all costs and if you can't make the arrest then you should be allowed to kill. No. That should never be the calculus. It should never be "oh you touched my weapon? I get to shoot you now." I understand how dumb what he did was and I can't defend that dumb stuff. I can only defend his right to live and imagine how it could have been different if maybe he was white. That's the key question.

Like you said, if things had been explained to him, maybe it would have ended differently. I don't know if it was drunk, high, or 80% ignorance, but he seemed brand new to all of this stuff that he was being asked to do. So much that it annoyed me. And I know those officers were annoyed, and the second more than the first, but that doesn't give anyone the right to shoot.

If they said, hey we have a drunk tank. We need to take you there until someone can pick you up because we cannot leave you here with access to a vehicle. You might kill someone and/or yourself.

Brooks was a human being. As such he had a fight or flight response. A lot of people intellectually don't consider this and expect a person to comply because if it was them they wouldn't worry about being murdered in that situation. But there has been more than a few situations where I've seen the black suspect over react (which I'm not excusing overreactions) because in that moment they are afraid for their lives. That fear doesn't have to be rational because cops use the same fear to justify their shootings. But they are the ones who have to be trained. They are the ones being paid to respond rationally. They are the ones who should be less sensitive to dangerous situations, not more. So we have to temper our expectations when talking about suspects who have heard and seen other suspects in same or similar circumstances, even minor offences, wind up dead, not because of what they did was so terrible, but because the cop decided their lives weren't worth a chase on foot. I remember when TV shows used to have these investigative scenes about whether or not the suspect's back was turned to the officer because he wasn't allowed to shoot them in retreat.

Again... it looks dumb but when you don't know what's going to happen next you might feel like you have a split second to act in order to save your life.
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2020 21:44 #352745 by ZealotX
This article, in my opinion, is a must read.

https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759


This is a confession. Once you read this article you will probably understand what black people fear much more clearly. I wont give further commentary on it unless someone reading it wants to discuss finer points.
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
03 Jul 2020 22:08 #353144 by Malicious
My question is why does only black people being killed by cop's come to light but not white people ? I heard of an incident that an innocent white man was smothered to death in the exact same way George died about four months prior the George incident , so why hasn't people rioted over that ? Or protested over that ? The answer I think is the far left just wants to cause trouble and blame the so called racists in America including our prez Donald Trump .



=_= Malicious (+_+)

The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
03 Jul 2020 22:20 #353145 by RosalynJ
Well, I disagree that the far left just wants to cause trouble and blame racists, but can I know you reasoning?

Police reform which would hopefully include de-escalation and rules of engagement with the use of fire arms as a last resort as well as psych evaluations for police officers will likely benefit everyone. No one should be murdered by a peace officer.

Further, there are instances in which police officers are used when social workers, psychiatric emergency response teams, and other mental health workers could be used

Pax Per Ministerium
[img



The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
03 Jul 2020 22:58 #353146 by Malicious
Well first most of them say we don't need guns because we have the police , then they say the police needs to go . So I think there plan is once one of them gets into office and all guns are gone besides the military then we can't revolt to a corrupt government . They blame everything on guns but honestly if everyone had a firearm arm at all times then no one would be stupid enough to do a mass shooting , provided that everyone takes a phsyc test before being able to have one . The reason why I blame the far left on the matter is because they are the ones calling for such things . If George could say something about the riots I agree with his brother that he would want it to be peaceful . So if they ain't doing it according to how the person they are rallied for then who are they doing it for ? My answer is the far left who wants to cause panic so they can take advantage of people being even more divided and antifa who orchestrates these violent "protests" .



=_= Malicious (+_+)

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
03 Jul 2020 23:09 #353147 by RosalynJ
Lots to unpack here, let's start by asking "whom do you mean when you say "far left"?

Pax Per Ministerium
[img



Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: MorkanoWrenPhoenixThe CoyoteRiniTaviKhwang