I blame both of them equally. The prankster should go to jail. At a minimum the cop should lose his job. You can't just shoot someone walking out of their house at first sight based on some second-hand account from a phone call. Moreover, the police apparently thought it was a hostage situation. I'm not aware of a ton of hostage situations that involve the perpetrator walking out the front door the moment police arrive. Again, this is something that simply would never happen in another country. We have some asshole online playing a shooter who makes a fake police report, he tries to get someone in trouble, he gets the address WRONG, and the cops show up with a SWAT team at some innocent person's house, and shoot the first person who walks out the door. They were across the street (which looks to be at least half a football field) and they shot the guy within 8 seconds. They were yelling commands from at least 50-75 yards away. The guy probably didn't even have a chance to process what the hell was going on before he was dead. Madness every which way you turn in this country regarding cops.
I read this last night and I was dumbfounded by everyone (excluding the victim) involved in this stupidity.
Everyone is pointing the fingers at everyone else and saying "I'm not responsible," but everyone from Microsoft (or Sony or both really) to the police officer firing the shot needs to look into the mirror and ask "how could I have prevented this tragedy."
Edit: hopefully the media doesn't bury this story and sticks with it for awhile. I wouldn't mind seeing enough outrage happen that an inquiry is called regarding the entire situation.
I read this last night and I was dumbfounded by everyone (excluding the victim) involved in this stupidity.
Everyone is pointing the fingers at everyone else and saying "I'm not responsible," but everyone from Microsoft (or Sony or both really) to the police officer firing the shot needs to look into the mirror and ask "how could I have prevented this tragedy."
Edit: hopefully the media doesn't bury this story and sticks with it for awhile. I wouldn't mind seeing enough outrage happen that an inquiry is called regarding the entire situation.
The only reason I saw it was because I follow a lawyer on Twitter who is pretty outspoken about this issue. And frequently makes it very clear that what we see in news stories doesn't even scratch the surface of what they get away with. Frankly, I'm not seeing much about it anywhere. All the major news outlets eventually picked up the story, but no one is going to remember this a week from now. Just like no one remembers the Georgia SWAT team that through a flash grenade in a crib and almost killed a sleeping baby. Call me crazy, but if a SWAT team is being used for run-of-the-mill drug searches and for what turn out to be prank phone calls, maybe the bar for when they get sent out is way, WAY too low.
Update: the man who made the phone call has been arrested, but the cops, per usual, are taking NO responsibility. Once again, we hear that the person who was shot was "reaching for their waistband". It's absolutely amazing how many people reach for their waistband when shot by a cop. Apparently it is the only part of the human body people reach for when encountered by police. There is just something that makes them reach for their waistband, even when it turns out they DON'T have a weapon. What utter horseshit:
I read this last night and I was dumbfounded by everyone (excluding the victim) involved in this stupidity.
Everyone is pointing the fingers at everyone else and saying "I'm not responsible," but everyone from Microsoft (or Sony or both really) to the police officer firing the shot needs to look into the mirror and ask "how could I have prevented this tragedy."
Edit: hopefully the media doesn't bury this story and sticks with it for awhile. I wouldn't mind seeing enough outrage happen that an inquiry is called regarding the entire situation.
The only reason I saw it was because I follow a lawyer on Twitter who is pretty outspoken about this issue. And frequently makes it very clear that what we see in news stories doesn't even scratch the surface of what they get away with. Frankly, I'm not seeing much about it anywhere. All the major news outlets eventually picked up the story, but no one is going to remember this a week from now. Just like no one remembers the Georgia SWAT team that through a flash grenade in a crib and almost killed a sleeping baby. Call me crazy, but if a SWAT team is being used for run-of-the-mill drug searches and for what turn out to be prank phone calls, maybe the bar for when they get sent out is way, WAY too low.
Update: the man who made the phone call has been arrested, but the cops, per usual, are taking NO responsibility. Once again, we hear that the person who was shot was "reaching for their waistband". It's absolutely amazing how many people reach for their waistband when shot by a cop. Apparently it is the only part of the human body people reach for when encountered by police. There is just something that makes them reach for their waistband, even when it turns out they DON'T have a weapon. What utter horseshit:
Cops imagine guns everywhere. They are trigger happy because they are taught a person might have a gun anywhere. They are taught if they aren't cautious they will wind up dead. Go easy on a suspect, let your guard down just once, and they will shoot you. What a stressful job, right.
So they often go too far the other way and think there's a killer in every house.
I read this last night and I was dumbfounded by everyone (excluding the victim) involved in this stupidity.
Everyone is pointing the fingers at everyone else and saying "I'm not responsible," but everyone from Microsoft (or Sony or both really) to the police officer firing the shot needs to look into the mirror and ask "how could I have prevented this tragedy."
Edit: hopefully the media doesn't bury this story and sticks with it for awhile. I wouldn't mind seeing enough outrage happen that an inquiry is called regarding the entire situation.
The only reason I saw it was because I follow a lawyer on Twitter who is pretty outspoken about this issue. And frequently makes it very clear that what we see in news stories doesn't even scratch the surface of what they get away with. Frankly, I'm not seeing much about it anywhere. All the major news outlets eventually picked up the story, but no one is going to remember this a week from now. Just like no one remembers the Georgia SWAT team that through a flash grenade in a crib and almost killed a sleeping baby. Call me crazy, but if a SWAT team is being used for run-of-the-mill drug searches and for what turn out to be prank phone calls, maybe the bar for when they get sent out is way, WAY too low.
Update: the man who made the phone call has been arrested, but the cops, per usual, are taking NO responsibility. Once again, we hear that the person who was shot was "reaching for their waistband". It's absolutely amazing how many people reach for their waistband when shot by a cop. Apparently it is the only part of the human body people reach for when encountered by police. There is just something that makes them reach for their waistband, even when it turns out they DON'T have a weapon. What utter horseshit:
Cops imagine guns everywhere. They are trigger happy because they are taught a person might have a gun anywhere. They are taught if they aren't cautious they will wind up dead. Go easy on a suspect, let your guard down just once, and they will shoot you. What a stressful job, right.
So they often go too far the other way and think there's a killer in every house.
That is human nature, however. Too bad RL isn't like the movies where a shooter can hit whatever they're aiming at. If it was easy to hit someone in the leg that's probably what they would have done. Police are taught to aim at the torso because that's the easiest to hit. Unfortunately, all to often it's fatal. It's easy to sit at home on our couches and pass judgment but I for one can't say I'd have done any different in the same circumstances. The asshole that made that call should go to jail for life. Even if he/she meant it to be a joke it's no different than shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater...
I read this last night and I was dumbfounded by everyone (excluding the victim) involved in this stupidity.
Everyone is pointing the fingers at everyone else and saying "I'm not responsible," but everyone from Microsoft (or Sony or both really) to the police officer firing the shot needs to look into the mirror and ask "how could I have prevented this tragedy."
Edit: hopefully the media doesn't bury this story and sticks with it for awhile. I wouldn't mind seeing enough outrage happen that an inquiry is called regarding the entire situation.
The only reason I saw it was because I follow a lawyer on Twitter who is pretty outspoken about this issue. And frequently makes it very clear that what we see in news stories doesn't even scratch the surface of what they get away with. Frankly, I'm not seeing much about it anywhere. All the major news outlets eventually picked up the story, but no one is going to remember this a week from now. Just like no one remembers the Georgia SWAT team that through a flash grenade in a crib and almost killed a sleeping baby. Call me crazy, but if a SWAT team is being used for run-of-the-mill drug searches and for what turn out to be prank phone calls, maybe the bar for when they get sent out is way, WAY too low.
Update: the man who made the phone call has been arrested, but the cops, per usual, are taking NO responsibility. Once again, we hear that the person who was shot was "reaching for their waistband". It's absolutely amazing how many people reach for their waistband when shot by a cop. Apparently it is the only part of the human body people reach for when encountered by police. There is just something that makes them reach for their waistband, even when it turns out they DON'T have a weapon. What utter horseshit:
Cops imagine guns everywhere. They are trigger happy because they are taught a person might have a gun anywhere. They are taught if they aren't cautious they will wind up dead. Go easy on a suspect, let your guard down just once, and they will shoot you. What a stressful job, right.
So they often go too far the other way and think there's a killer in every house.
That is human nature, however. Too bad RL isn't like the movies where a shooter can hit whatever they're aiming at. If it was easy to hit someone in the leg that's probably what they would have done. Police are taught to aim at the torso because that's the easiest to hit. Unfortunately, all to often it's fatal. It's easy to sit at home on our couches and pass judgment but I for one can't say I'd have done any different in the same circumstances. The asshole that made that call should go to jail for life. Even if he/she meant it to be a joke it's no different than shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater...
While I agree this person should have the book thrown at them, the conversation about the cops seems more important to me. The first reason being that there doesn't seem to have been even a cursory investigation into what was supposedly going on at this home, where they had been told there was a hostage situation. Even a phone call to the house might have wielded some type of information, or a drive-by with a squad car, maybe even some officers peaking in the windows. Literally ANYTHING but sending a battalion over there.
Beyond that, we are still hearing that the guy who answered and came out the door who was killed didn't follow officers commands. This strikes me as an insane thing to expect someone to do to avoid being killed in their own home. How do you go from having a normal night at home, to realizing there is a SWAT team outside your house, to having them yell "commands" at you from across the street, then comply, within 8 seconds. Why should he have to?? And, again, we have this whole "reaching for the waistband" excuse. It's fairly clear why this is said time after time after time. It's meant to imply the officer thought he was reaching for a gun. Except this guy didn't have a gun. So why would he reach for his waistband?? To itch his balls?? What actually seems to be the issue here is that nearly ANY movement you make could potentially cause a police officer in this country to shoot. The only possible 100% defense against this trigger-happiness would be to play freeze tag. Except you can't do that either, because you also need to follow the seemingly random, incomprehensible instructions they shout at you. Add that in with the straight-up SHOCK of having your evening crashed by a SWAT team, and this guy never stood a chance.
The lawyer who posted the initial tweet that informed me about this story mentioned that the FBI had informed law enforcement across the country about this "SWATTING" nearly ten years ago, ostensibly they also told them how to identify when it was happening. Apparently this police force didn't get the memo. But it's more likely that they did, didn't really care, and never properly trained their dispatch and officers on how to recognize it.
That is human nature, however. Too bad RL isn't like the movies where a shooter can hit whatever they're aiming at. If it was easy to hit someone in the leg that's probably what they would have done. Police are taught to aim at the torso because that's the easiest to hit. Unfortunately, all to often it's fatal. It's easy to sit at home on our couches and pass judgment but I for one can't say I'd have done any different in the same circumstances. The asshole that made that call should go to jail for life. Even if he/she meant it to be a joke it's no different than shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater...
You can't say you wouldn't have done any different, but you were also not trained (or suppose to be trained) to handle these types of situations. Police officers are, and should be held to a much higher standard than people sitting on their couch.
If he wasn't trained properly, then that is on his superiors, and they too should be held accountable for his actions (suspended pending an investigation). This wasn't a minor incident. This also isn't an incident that dumb luck, such as throwing in a flash grenade into a room and it ending up in a crib, where it wasn't necessarily the acting officers fault. This is an innocent person being killed. It is unacceptable regardless of any actions prior to that gun being fired by anyone.
That is human nature, however. Too bad RL isn't like the movies where a shooter can hit whatever they're aiming at. If it was easy to hit someone in the leg that's probably what they would have done. Police are taught to aim at the torso because that's the easiest to hit. Unfortunately, all to often it's fatal. It's easy to sit at home on our couches and pass judgment but I for one can't say I'd have done any different in the same circumstances. The asshole that made that call should go to jail for life. Even if he/she meant it to be a joke it's no different than shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater...
You can't say you wouldn't have done any different, but you were also not trained (or suppose to be trained) to handle these types of situations. Police officers are, and should be held to a much higher standard than people sitting on their couch.
If he wasn't trained properly, then that is on his superiors, and they too should be held accountable for his actions (suspended pending an investigation). This wasn't a minor incident. This also isn't an incident that dumb luck, such as throwing in a flash grenade into a room and it ending up in a crib, where it wasn't necessarily the acting officers fault. This is an innocent person being killed. It is unacceptable regardless of any actions prior to that gun being fired by anyone.
There is very little chance anyone in the department will be held accountable. The first reason being that laws in this country are structured in such a way that the officer only needs to THINK he is in danger to use deadly force. That is why they almost never get convicted. Beyond that, they have a perfect scapegoat in the guy who made the prank call. He is a totally unsympathetic figure who can take nearly all of the public blame. Which means nothing will be learned in regards to how this was conducted.
That is human nature, however. Too bad RL isn't like the movies where a shooter can hit whatever they're aiming at. If it was easy to hit someone in the leg that's probably what they would have done. Police are taught to aim at the torso because that's the easiest to hit. Unfortunately, all to often it's fatal. It's easy to sit at home on our couches and pass judgment but I for one can't say I'd have done any different in the same circumstances. The asshole that made that call should go to jail for life. Even if he/she meant it to be a joke it's no different than shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater...
You can't say you wouldn't have done any different, but you were also not trained (or suppose to be trained) to handle these types of situations. Police officers are, and should be held to a much higher standard than people sitting on their couch.
If he wasn't trained properly, then that is on his superiors, and they too should be held accountable for his actions (suspended pending an investigation). This wasn't a minor incident. This also isn't an incident that dumb luck, such as throwing in a flash grenade into a room and it ending up in a crib, where it wasn't necessarily the acting officers fault. This is an innocent person being killed. It is unacceptable regardless of any actions prior to that gun being fired by anyone.
There is very little chance anyone in the department will be held accountable. The first reason being that laws in this country are structured in such a way that the officer only needs to THINK he is in danger to use deadly force. That is why they almost never get convicted. Beyond that, they have a perfect scapegoat in the guy who made the prank call. He is a totally unsympathetic figure who can take nearly all of the public blame. Which means nothing will be learned in regards to how this was conducted.
I disagree. I don't think any policeman WANTS to shoot down an unarmed man unless he/she is a psychopath. I really wouldn't want to be this person and have to live with the results of this mistake. The superiors should take the blame for this because that's the responsibility of those in positions of power. That much I can agree with. Jobs should be lost. The people in charge and the person responsible. Prison time, I just don't think so...
I very much doubt it's common for a police officer's life to depend on a quick draw. If somebody has a gun and you think they're drawing it, the rational response is to take cover unless you're in the middle of an open field. It's more likely to keep you alive and less likely to make you into a murderer.
If your first response to a hand motion is to shoot to kill, I don't think you're qualified to keep the peace.
Maybe we could run simulations to make sure police officers were trained to distinguish between drawing a gun and any other hand motion. If you can't do it, maybe other people's lives should not depend on your ability to do it.
Take cover first. Don't gamble anyone's life on a quick draw.
Maybe we could run simulations to make sure police officers were trained to distinguish between drawing a gun and any other hand motion. If you can't do it, maybe other people's lives should not depend on your ability to do it.
Take cover first. Don't gamble anyone's life on a quick draw.
There is a problem with individual police officers all over the country for sure, but the BIG problem is the culture and the training. The culture has morphed into the default position and belief that they are an occupying force, not peace officers. And the training is clearly woefully inadequate. We often compare ourselves to the UK (after all, we used to be a part of it). I looked up their procedure for hiring police. Unlike here, you spend 2 years as a student officer (in the US, it is 6 months of training). After the two years, you are placed in a specialized unit, where you further your training along that career path. Officers and detectives in this country are often moved around for their entire careers. But more than anything else, there is complete disconnect from the communities they are serving. Many of them don't live in the neighborhoods they police. The only real loyalty seems to be to the department and fraternity of police itself. In many urban areas, police are little more than mercenaries. It didn't always used to be this way, though it has been this way for African-Americans throughout the entire history of the country. While the claim that modern policing evolved from the slave patrols is controversial, even Snopes says it is at a minimum a mixed bag. Besides the slave patrols, the advent of modern policing also includes such wonderful legacies as using physcial force to break up union strikes and enforcing minority quotas. Maybe it's time we came to the realization that policing in this country is oppressive at it's roots, and that it's major function has always been to act as mercenaries to make sure the wealthy are able to stay in power:
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
I doubt this would be the outcome. There are other far less lethal responses to the perception that a weapon is coming into play. I also doubt that every police shooting that involves the excuse "I thought he was armed" is sincere. Then there are the situations where police officers had someone under control and shot them dead anyway.
Also, if you find yourself defending police for shooting people for any reason, you should probably think really hard about that.
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
We've looked before in this thread at the actual risks to police officers - which are far lower than the common perception (or the perception of police officers).
Even if there really had been a hostage situation with someone itching to use a gun, I can't imagine that the best way to avoid any casualties would be to shoot first in an uncontrolled situation.
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
I doubt this would be the outcome. There are other far less lethal responses to the perception that a weapon is coming into play. I also doubt that every police shooting that involves the excuse "I thought he was armed" is sincere. Then there are the situations where police officers had someone under control and shot them dead anyway.
Also, if you find yourself defending police for shooting people for any reason, you should probably think really hard about that.
So what's your solution then? I live near Detroit and yes, I hear about some actions of police that are reprehensible. I also hear far more often about police actions in which they apprehended criminals, broke up drug rings, ended hostage situations peacefully, found kidnapping victims, and saved lives. Again, it's easy to sit on this forum and pass judgment. I've even hated on cops myself in the past for them being douches when giving me tickets. Some of them do seem to be on a power trip. They do fill the need of keeping the public safe, though and I sure as Hell wouldn't want their job.
I rather like @jjstraka34 's idea of more training for our police officers. The only problem is where the money would come from for that training. I would actually be in favor of using some tax money for that purpose (shocking I'm sure) because if the applicants had to pay for it, that would be a major hurdle for lower income people.
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
I doubt this would be the outcome. There are other far less lethal responses to the perception that a weapon is coming into play. I also doubt that every police shooting that involves the excuse "I thought he was armed" is sincere. Then there are the situations where police officers had someone under control and shot them dead anyway.
Also, if you find yourself defending police for shooting people for any reason, you should probably think really hard about that.
So what's your solution then? I live near Detroit and yes, I hear about some actions of police that are reprehensible. I also hear far more often about police actions in which they apprehended criminals, broke up drug rings, ended hostage situations peacefully, found kidnapping victims, and saved lives. Again, it's easy to sit on this forum and pass judgment. I've even hated on cops myself in the past for them being douches when giving me tickets. Some of them do seem to be on a power trip. They do fill the need of keeping the public safe, though and I sure as Hell wouldn't want their job.
I rather like @jjstraka34 's idea of more training for our police officers. The only problem is where the money would come from for that training. I would actually be in favor of using some tax money for that purpose (shocking I'm sure) because if the applicants had to pay for it, that would be a major hurdle for lower income people.
I think anecdotal citing of the good things in your community that police have done doesnt contribute much as an argument. I'm not trying to attack you, it's just that we all understand that law enforcement has a place in modern society. Most people understand the benefit of laws, and the need for an arm of local government to enforce those laws. The issue is the militarization of that policing force which has people concerned. When the training for police officers is reduced to a zero sum "Them or us" mentality (With a militarized police force, this includes "My life or their life"), it creates a divide between the community and the people policing it.
What we need is to step away from the brinksmanship that makes too many police encounters a "hand's motion" away from a civilian death.
As a side note - "Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?" - this is part of the zero sum mentality that justifies a certain number of police officers killing civilians when deadly force isnt warranted.
It seems the FBI's investigation into Russian interference, which began in June 2016, was largely inspired by a May 2016 conversation in which George Papadopoulos revealed to an Australian diplomat that Russia had collected thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
It seems the FBI's investigation into Russian interference, which began in June 2016, was largely inspired by a May 2016 conversation in which George Papadopoulos revealed to an Australian diplomat that Russia had collected thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
Which (point being) flies in the face of everything Trump's defenders in the media and the Administration have been saying about the dossier. Also, Mueller has plead Papadopoulos down to making false statements to the FBI. Which means he could have charged him with more. Which means he is giving up info on way bigger fish.
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
We've looked before in this thread at the actual risks to police officers - which are far lower than the common perception (or the perception of police officers).
Even if there really had been a hostage situation with someone itching to use a gun, I can't imagine that the best way to avoid any casualties would be to shoot first in an uncontrolled situation.
Exactly. What if the person coming to the door was one of the “hostages?”
Edit: Even if the officer’s actions are found to be non-criminal, their bad judgement shows they shouldn’t be in the streets. They should be fired or riding a desk permanently.
It seems the FBI's investigation into Russian interference, which began in June 2016, was largely inspired by a May 2016 conversation in which George Papadopoulos revealed to an Australian diplomat that Russia had collected thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
Loose lips sink ships. Looks like Papadopoulos may have had a few too many Manhattans! Talking to Aussies can do that. They're some of the most friendly folks I've ever met...
Edit: I can't stand it when the f'ing autocorrect changes my "of"s to "if"s. I would think that 'of' is used much more often than 'if'. Is that in the algorithm just to piss me off???
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
I doubt this would be the outcome. There are other far less lethal responses to the perception that a weapon is coming into play. I also doubt that every police shooting that involves the excuse "I thought he was armed" is sincere. Then there are the situations where police officers had someone under control and shot them dead anyway.
Also, if you find yourself defending police for shooting people for any reason, you should probably think really hard about that.
So what's your solution then? I live near Detroit and yes, I hear about some actions of police that are reprehensible. I also hear far more often about police actions in which they apprehended criminals, broke up drug rings, ended hostage situations peacefully, found kidnapping victims, and saved lives. Again, it's easy to sit on this forum and pass judgment. I've even hated on cops myself in the past for them being douches when giving me tickets. Some of them do seem to be on a power trip. They do fill the need of keeping the public safe, though and I sure as Hell wouldn't want their job.
I rather like @jjstraka34 's idea of more training for our police officers. The only problem is where the money would come from for that training. I would actually be in favor of using some tax money for that purpose (shocking I'm sure) because if the applicants had to pay for it, that would be a major hurdle for lower income people.
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
I doubt this would be the outcome. There are other far less lethal responses to the perception that a weapon is coming into play. I also doubt that every police shooting that involves the excuse "I thought he was armed" is sincere. Then there are the situations where police officers had someone under control and shot them dead anyway.
Also, if you find yourself defending police for shooting people for any reason, you should probably think really hard about that.
So what's your solution then? I live near Detroit and yes, I hear about some actions of police that are reprehensible. I also hear far more often about police actions in which they apprehended criminals, broke up drug rings, ended hostage situations peacefully, found kidnapping victims, and saved lives. Again, it's easy to sit on this forum and pass judgment. I've even hated on cops myself in the past for them being douches when giving me tickets. Some of them do seem to be on a power trip. They do fill the need of keeping the public safe, though and I sure as Hell wouldn't want their job.
I rather like @jjstraka34 's idea of more training for our police officers. The only problem is where the money would come from for that training. I would actually be in favor of using some tax money for that purpose (shocking I'm sure) because if the applicants had to pay for it, that would be a major hurdle for lower income people.
Second, I already gave you my solution: Use other, far less lethal responses.
Third, as pointed out, their job isn't nearly as dangerous as people think.
Our only option isn't "police shoot civilians on sight", and arguing as if it is doesn't really get us anywhere.
If their mission was to 'shoot civilians on sight' I daresay there would be far more deaths than there are. Do you honestly believe the police really want to do that? There are 300 million people in this country. There would be thousands, if not 10's or 100's of thousands of deaths if what you say were true. Instead there is a fraction of that. I agree that's still too many but not nearly as bad as you seem to think...
Tens of thousands of people are protesting in Iran, the largest protests since 2009 after the disputed election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Part of the motive for the protests is unrest over the economy (the economy has gotten stronger since the lifting of the sanctions, but youth unemployment is over 28%), but apparently some of the protestors have also called for the Ayatollah to resign--which seems like a rather big statement given what little I know of Iran.
Iran has cracked down violently on protestors in the past, and 2 protestors have been killed already, while another 200 have been arrested. President Hassan Rouhani has said that the protestors have the right to voice their grievances but warned against destruction of property.
If police risked prison time when they murder unarmed citizens, maybe they'd be a bit less trigger happy.
Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?
I doubt this would be the outcome. There are other far less lethal responses to the perception that a weapon is coming into play. I also doubt that every police shooting that involves the excuse "I thought he was armed" is sincere. Then there are the situations where police officers had someone under control and shot them dead anyway.
Also, if you find yourself defending police for shooting people for any reason, you should probably think really hard about that.
So what's your solution then? I live near Detroit and yes, I hear about some actions of police that are reprehensible. I also hear far more often about police actions in which they apprehended criminals, broke up drug rings, ended hostage situations peacefully, found kidnapping victims, and saved lives. Again, it's easy to sit on this forum and pass judgment. I've even hated on cops myself in the past for them being douches when giving me tickets. Some of them do seem to be on a power trip. They do fill the need of keeping the public safe, though and I sure as Hell wouldn't want their job.
I rather like @jjstraka34 's idea of more training for our police officers. The only problem is where the money would come from for that training. I would actually be in favor of using some tax money for that purpose (shocking I'm sure) because if the applicants had to pay for it, that would be a major hurdle for lower income people.
Second, I already gave you my solution: Use other, far less lethal responses.
Third, as pointed out, their job isn't nearly as dangerous as people think.
Our only option isn't "police shoot civilians on sight", and arguing as if it is doesn't really get us anywhere.
If their mission was to 'shoot civilians on sight' I daresay there would be far more deaths than there are. Do you honestly believe the police really want to do that? There are 300 million people in this country. There would be thousands, if not 10's or 100's of thousands of deaths if what you say were true. Instead there is a fraction of that. I agree that's still too many but not nearly as bad as you seem to think...
I think it's exactly as bad as I think, on account of the fact that I pay attention to the statistics. You're interpreting what I said to mean that all those deaths would be happening, but I neither said nor implied any such thing.
I do stand by my characterization of your argument as "shoot civilians on sight" as the only option, because you're the one who suggested the alternative would be more dead police officers. I notice you didn't respond to Ballpointman's post about that particular point.
This article gives a quick overview of police deaths and killings in the US. Since 1970 police deaths from criminal acts (all deaths, not just shootings) have fallen from roughly 100 a year to roughly 50 - despite police numbers over that period increasing by 75%.
The government doesn't collect the numbers of civilians killed by police, but recent newspaper collations suggest the number of fatal shootings by police is round about 1,000 a year - and there are significant numbers of fatalities other than shootings in addition to that.
In interactions between police and civilians the chance of being killed is therefore considerably more than 20 times as great if you are a civilian than if you are a police officer. That really does not seem to me like a reasonably balanced system where police are acting appropriately in response to the risks they are running ...
It doesn't matter to me how many civilians are killed unless they're innocent civilians. Are there any statistics on that? Specifically I'd like to see how many innocent civilians are killed per year and how many unarmed civilians are killed (innocent or not). I don't feel particularly bad for criminals when they get into conflicts with the law. I'd also like an estimate of how many civilians would be killed if there weren't any police. I doubt there's any way to accurately calculate it but I believe that's a relevent statistic to consider as well...
It's disgraceful that we don't even collect numbers on civilians killed by police. Wherever you stand on the issue, there's no reason that we shouldn't have hard data. We shouldn't have to rely on numbers extrapolated from media reports.
Comments
They were across the street (which looks to be at least half a football field) and they shot the guy within 8 seconds. They were yelling commands from at least 50-75 yards away. The guy probably didn't even have a chance to process what the hell was going on before he was dead. Madness every which way you turn in this country regarding cops.
Everyone is pointing the fingers at everyone else and saying "I'm not responsible," but everyone from Microsoft (or Sony or both really) to the police officer firing the shot needs to look into the mirror and ask "how could I have prevented this tragedy."
Edit: hopefully the media doesn't bury this story and sticks with it for awhile. I wouldn't mind seeing enough outrage happen that an inquiry is called regarding the entire situation.
Update: the man who made the phone call has been arrested, but the cops, per usual, are taking NO responsibility. Once again, we hear that the person who was shot was "reaching for their waistband". It's absolutely amazing how many people reach for their waistband when shot by a cop. Apparently it is the only part of the human body people reach for when encountered by police. There is just something that makes them reach for their waistband, even when it turns out they DON'T have a weapon. What utter horseshit:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-arrest-man-suspected-swatting-preceded-deadly-police-shooting-n833576
So they often go too far the other way and think there's a killer in every house.
Beyond that, we are still hearing that the guy who answered and came out the door who was killed didn't follow officers commands. This strikes me as an insane thing to expect someone to do to avoid being killed in their own home. How do you go from having a normal night at home, to realizing there is a SWAT team outside your house, to having them yell "commands" at you from across the street, then comply, within 8 seconds. Why should he have to?? And, again, we have this whole "reaching for the waistband" excuse. It's fairly clear why this is said time after time after time. It's meant to imply the officer thought he was reaching for a gun. Except this guy didn't have a gun. So why would he reach for his waistband?? To itch his balls?? What actually seems to be the issue here is that nearly ANY movement you make could potentially cause a police officer in this country to shoot. The only possible 100% defense against this trigger-happiness would be to play freeze tag. Except you can't do that either, because you also need to follow the seemingly random, incomprehensible instructions they shout at you. Add that in with the straight-up SHOCK of having your evening crashed by a SWAT team, and this guy never stood a chance.
The lawyer who posted the initial tweet that informed me about this story mentioned that the FBI had informed law enforcement across the country about this "SWATTING" nearly ten years ago, ostensibly they also told them how to identify when it was happening. Apparently this police force didn't get the memo. But it's more likely that they did, didn't really care, and never properly trained their dispatch and officers on how to recognize it.
If he wasn't trained properly, then that is on his superiors, and they too should be held accountable for his actions (suspended pending an investigation). This wasn't a minor incident. This also isn't an incident that dumb luck, such as throwing in a flash grenade into a room and it ending up in a crib, where it wasn't necessarily the acting officers fault. This is an innocent person being killed. It is unacceptable regardless of any actions prior to that gun being fired by anyone.
If your first response to a hand motion is to shoot to kill, I don't think you're qualified to keep the peace.
Take cover first. Don't gamble anyone's life on a quick draw.
https://www.snopes.com/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/
Also, if you find yourself defending police for shooting people for any reason, you should probably think really hard about that.
Even if there really had been a hostage situation with someone itching to use a gun, I can't imagine that the best way to avoid any casualties would be to shoot first in an uncontrolled situation.
I rather like @jjstraka34 's idea of more training for our police officers. The only problem is where the money would come from for that training. I would actually be in favor of using some tax money for that purpose (shocking I'm sure) because if the applicants had to pay for it, that would be a major hurdle for lower income people.
What we need is to step away from the brinksmanship that makes too many police encounters a "hand's motion" away from a civilian death.
As a side note - "Maybe more of them would be killed too. Would that be a preferable outcome to you?" - this is part of the zero sum mentality that justifies a certain number of police officers killing civilians when deadly force isnt warranted.
Edit: Even if the officer’s actions are found to be non-criminal, their bad judgement shows they shouldn’t be in the streets. They should be fired or riding a desk permanently.
Edit: I can't stand it when the f'ing autocorrect changes my "of"s to "if"s. I would think that 'of' is used much more often than 'if'. Is that in the algorithm just to piss me off???
Second, I already gave you my solution: Use other, far less lethal responses.
Third, as pointed out, their job isn't nearly as dangerous as people think.
Our only option isn't "police shoot civilians on sight", and arguing as if it is doesn't really get us anywhere.
Iran has cracked down violently on protestors in the past, and 2 protestors have been killed already, while another 200 have been arrested. President Hassan Rouhani has said that the protestors have the right to voice their grievances but warned against destruction of property.
I do stand by my characterization of your argument as "shoot civilians on sight" as the only option, because you're the one who suggested the alternative would be more dead police officers. I notice you didn't respond to Ballpointman's post about that particular point.
The government doesn't collect the numbers of civilians killed by police, but recent newspaper collations suggest the number of fatal shootings by police is round about 1,000 a year - and there are significant numbers of fatalities other than shootings in addition to that.
In interactions between police and civilians the chance of being killed is therefore considerably more than 20 times as great if you are a civilian than if you are a police officer. That really does not seem to me like a reasonably balanced system where police are acting appropriately in response to the risks they are running ...