Jump to content

Alton Sterling shooting.


James Arryn

Recommended Posts

Let's start over on this.

If it is the police's training to shoot unarmed autistic people with toy trucks, miss, and hit unarmed people who are clearly not resisting arrest and are not a danger to anyone, this is completely against what I want police to be doing.

If their training and policy indicates that when they accidentally shoot a bystander that they do not help that person but instead handcuff them and detain them for being near someone being shot at, this is completely against what I want police to be doing.

Their training sucking does not justify their behavior. It might make it legal (I doubt it) but it is still, flat out, the wrong thing to do, and this should be fixed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

 

The witness tried to tell a police officer who was on crowd control, not the officers confronting Kinsey and the autistic man.

 

Ohhhhhhhh, I forgot the part where cops don't work together.

ffs, you're out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I guess it depends on what you consider 'racism'.

 

The witness tried to tell a police officer who was on crowd control, not the officers confronting Kinsey and the autistic man.

Did you read the article I linked?  It's very possible they weren't ignoring it, but just didn't hear it.

They have a duty to listen.  Failure to listen in these sorts of circumstances is gross negligence.  It means they took actions that were entirely inapprotriate to the existing circumstance because they couldn't be bothered to figure out what was really happening before they used potentially deadly force... on the wrong unarmed man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

They have a duty to listen.  Failure to listen in these sorts of circumstances is gross negligence.  It means they took actions that were entirely inapprotriate to the existing circumstance because they couldn't be bothered to figure out what was really happening before they used potentially deadly force... on the wrong unarmed man.

 

If you're going to reject the proven phenomena of 'tunnel hearing' in stressful situations, then there really isn't much point in going any further with this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

If you're going to reject the proven phenomena of 'tunnel hearing' in stressful situations, then there really isn't much point in going any further with this discussion.

I'm rejecting it as a defense to acting in a Grossly negligent manner, yes.  There is no exuse for shooting in this circumstance when you had people screaming at them that there was not firearm to be worried about. 

You would have us accept that police can and should shoot people when they are expressly being told there is no reason to shoot.  That's nuts.  Their duty is to protect and defend the public.  That involves... situational awarenesss.  If they are incapable of being aware of somone saying "There is no gun it is a toy truck" then they have no business being armed and having license to use firearms as they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

No, you 'forgot' the part that was a pertinent fact.

What pertinent fact?  Are you suggesting that these cops had no way to communicate to each other, because that has not been mentioned in any statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

If you're going to reject the proven phenomena of 'tunnel hearing' in stressful situations, then there really isn't much point in going any further with this discussion.

Could you be any more apologetic for this cop.  He screwed in multiple ways and then had the police union put out a bullshit story to try and justify his screw up.  He's a shitty cop and screwed up. The police union needs to figure out that the reason people don't take their word is because the come up with dumbass stories like this to justify their screw ups.  There is no way to make this justifiable, none. 

The police unions would do better to hire an actual PR firm to help them repair their image.  Sadly, I don't think they believe they have a problem.  That's step one, convincing these guys that they have a terrible public image because of shit like this.  Their are plenty of good cops who do good things, but they are overshadowed by the bad and incompetent ones.  Making up obviously bullshit stories to justify their incompetence doesn't help their cause.  Nor does the bullshit legal analysis trying to show they were correct in their actions.  I don't care if legally they were in the right, ethically and morally they were wrong.  Until the police realize that they have an obligation to earn the public's trust, the public won't trust them.  Trust and respect are earned by actions, not because you wear a uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

What pertinent fact?  Are you suggesting that these cops had no way to communicate to each other, because that has not been mentioned in any statement.

Nor has it been stated that they had a means to communicate with each other.  Nor does it mean that the officer should have left her assigned sector of responsibility to tell them directly, or if they would have heard it coming over a radio when they didn't hear the person in front of them shouting it.

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm rejecting it as a defense to acting in a Grossly negligent manner, yes.  There is no exuse for shooting in this circumstance when you had people screaming at them that there was not firearm to be worried about. 

You would have us accept that police can and should shoot people when they are expressly being told there is no reason to shoot.  That's nuts.  Their duty is to protect and defend the public.  That involves... situational awareness.  If they are incapable of being aware of somone saying "There is no gun it is a toy truck" then they have no business being armed and having license to use firearms as they did.

I'd have you accept that they can shoot, not necessarily that they should.  Their duty is not to protect and defend the public.  That is quite clear under constitutional law. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0

Any officer is capable of experiencing tunnel hearing.  You might as well say no police officers should be armed.

The other piece to consider is to what effect the police should trust bystanders when they can hear what is going on.  This instance is a little more clear cut, since there is one person shouting during a vague call about an armed person threatening to commit suicide.

But bystanders could be wrong, or they could be lying intentionally.  Police have to trust their own vision (also unreliable) and their instincts.  Sometimes they're wrong.  Clearly, in this case they were wrong as it was a toy, not a gun.  But you can make a mistake and still have a justified shooting.

I don't know if this officer had tunnel hearing or not.  I don't know if he was aiming for Kinsey or the autistic man.  Neither do you or anyone else here.  If you don't like the latitude given to police officers in this situation than you need to address it with the courts and with society at large.

18 minutes ago, Chris G said:

Could you be any more apologetic for this cop.  He screwed in multiple ways and then had the police union put out a bullshit story to try and justify his screw up.  He's a shitty cop and screwed up. The police union needs to figure out that the reason people don't take their word is because the come up with dumbass stories like this to justify their screw ups.  There is no way to make this justifiable, none. 

The police unions would do better to hire an actual PR firm to help them repair their image.  Sadly, I don't think they believe they have a problem.  That's step one, convincing these guys that they have a terrible public image because of shit like this.  Their are plenty of good cops who do good things, but they are overshadowed by the bad and incompetent ones.  Making up obviously bullshit stories to justify their incompetence doesn't help their cause.  Nor does the bullshit legal analysis trying to show they were correct in their actions.  I don't care if legally they were in the right, ethically and morally they were wrong.  Until the police realize that they have an obligation to earn the public's trust, the public won't trust them.  Trust and respect are earned by actions, not because you wear a uniform.

In other words, you don't care if police officers act or don't act in a legal manner as long as it fits your view of what is moral and ethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

In other words, you don't care if police officers act or don't act in a legal manner as long as it fits your view of what is moral and ethical.

Wait, what?

Are you really suggesting that police acting in way that is BOTH legal AND ethical is not possible?

 

Legal =/= Ethical; but that doesn't mean that there's no area of overlap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

In other words, you don't care if police officers act or don't act in a legal manner as long as it fits your view of what is moral and ethical.

Well. since they have special rules that allow them to act unlike other citizens, I do hold them to a higher standard.  They need to put the damn gun away and properly asses the situation.  It's not a goddamned battlefield, it's the neighborhood they supposedly live in.  Don't roll into a situation half assed, make sure you have all the information.  That means making sure your dispatchers are properly relaying all information, and your officers on the scene are properly communicating with each other. 

The culture of us vs. them has to stop.  That is the bottom line.  Until they realize their lives are not more important than anyone elses, then we may see some change.  The police have a shitty job dealing with people on their shittiest day.  If you can't handle that, get out of police work.  Don't become a cop because you don't know what else to do.  Make becoming a cop harder and weed out the psychologically unable to perform.  Make it clear that shitbag cops get run out of law enforcement.  Everywhere.  Cities should be pushing this because of the amount of money they have to pay because of bad cops.  Be accountable for your screw ups.  We all know people who suck at their jobs, but a bad cop can cost someone their life. 

So yes,  I don't care if they act legally, because legality is just a cover for them to do what they want and justify it later.  The legality of their actions has such a low threshold that it's virtually impossible for them to be illegal.  Don't try and justify obviously bad policework.  This cop did nothing right and now he has cost his city money, and has shown that it doesn't matter if you comply or not, you will probably be shot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

 

In other words, you don't care if police officers act or don't act in a legal manner as long as it fits your view of what is moral and ethical.

 Would it have been Illegal of the officer to give first Aid or attempt to stop the bleeding?    

If No, then  both not giving aid, and giving aid are both technically legal.

 

Assuming you agree that its legal to give medical aid unless the patient refuses aid.   would you not consider it a bit of a dick move to shoot someone (maybe legally) and then let them bleed out without trying to help?

 

 

Sometimes doing stuff that legal   or not doing in this case don't make it a nice moral thing to do.

 

I believe its perfectly legal for me to call you a wanker.    It doesn't make it true.  or moral,  or the right thing to do.

For the record I am not calling you a wanker,  cos I'm I nice person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Wait, what?

Are you really suggesting that police acting in way that is BOTH legal AND ethical is not possible?

 

Legal =/= Ethical; but that doesn't mean that there's no area of overlap

Legal is supposed to be a clear cut yes or no situation.  Ethics and morals are more subjective.  Of course a police officer can act both legally and ethically, but what is considered 'ethical' is much harder to define than what is 'legal'.

2 minutes ago, Chris G said:

Well. since they have special rules that allow them to act unlike other citizens, I do hold them to a higher standard.  They need to put the damn gun away and properly asses the situation.  It's not a goddamned battlefield, it's the neighborhood they supposedly live in.  Don't roll into a situation half assed, make sure you have all the information.  That means making sure your dispatchers are properly relaying all information, and your officers on the scene are properly communicating with each other. 

The culture of us vs. them has to stop.  That is the bottom line.  Until they realize their lives are not more important than anyone elses, then we may see some change.  The police have a shitty job dealing with people on their shittiest day.  If you can't handle that, get out of police work.  Don't become a cop because you don't know what else to do.  Make becoming a cop harder and weed out the psychologically unable to perform.  Make it clear that shitbag cops get run out of law enforcement.  Everywhere.  Cities should be pushing this because of the amount of money they have to pay because of bad cops.  Be accountable for your screw ups.  We all know people who suck at their jobs, but a bad cop can cost someone their life. 

So yes,  I don't care if they act legally, because legality is just a cover for them to do what they want and justify it later.  The legality of their actions has such a low threshold that it's virtually impossible for them to be illegal.  Don't try and justify obviously bad policework.  This cop did nothing right and now he has cost his city money, and has shown that it doesn't matter if you comply or not, you will probably be shot.  

In many cases it is a goddamnded battlefield.  And often times 'rolling in' is the only way you're going to get all the information.  Police training was closer to your vision before columbine.  While students were being murdered the cops waited outside.  Now they're trained to rush in first.

Their lives are always going to be more important to them.  Police officers aren't expected to lay down their lives for the public, nor should they.  It's not that their lives are more important (though in some cases, they may be.  Like when you have to put your oxygen mask on first before helping others on an airplane).  But rather, it's that to a police officer, making sure he goes home to his family is more important to him than making sure you go home to yours.  That's not going to change.

So the cop did nothing right?  He engaged with both people and gave them commands.  He tried to talk and negotiate first.  Should he not have done that?

4 minutes ago, The Shamrock that hides said:

 Would it have been Illegal of the officer to give first Aid or attempt to stop the bleeding?    

If No, then  both not giving aid, and giving aid are both technically legal.

Assuming you agree that its legal to give medical aid unless the patient refuses aid.   would you not consider it a bit of a dick move to shoot someone (maybe legally) and then let them bleed out without trying to help?

Sometimes doing stuff that legal   or not doing in this case don't make it a nice moral thing to do.

I believe its perfectly legal for me to call you a wanker.    It doesn't make it true.  or moral,  or the right thing to do.

For the record I am not calling you a wanker,  cos I'm I nice person. 

No it wouldn't be illegal.  Some might argue that it's unethical to put yourself in the position of lifesaver over someone who might testify against you.  Or to practice medicine (first aid) without a license or training.  Or to start giving first aid to one person and turn your back on your partner who is dealing with the supposedly mentally unstable armed man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Nor has it been stated that they had a means to communicate with each other.  Nor does it mean that the officer should have left her assigned sector of responsibility to tell them directly, or if they would have heard it coming over a radio when they didn't hear the person in front of them shouting it.

I'd have you accept that they can shoot, not necessarily that they should.  Their duty is not to protect and defend the public.  That is quite clear under constitutional law. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0

Any officer is capable of experiencing tunnel hearing.  You might as well say no police officers should be armed.

The other piece to consider is to what effect the police should trust bystanders when they can hear what is going on.  This instance is a little more clear cut, since there is one person shouting during a vague call about an armed person threatening to commit suicide.

But bystanders could be wrong, or they could be lying intentionally.  Police have to trust their own vision (also unreliable) and their instincts.  Sometimes they're wrong.  Clearly, in this case they were wrong as it was a toy, not a gun.  But you can make a mistake and still have a justified shooting.

I don't know if this officer had tunnel hearing or not.  I don't know if he was aiming for Kinsey or the autistic man.  Neither do you or anyone else here.  If you don't like the latitude given to police officers in this situation than you need to address it with the courts and with society at large.

In other words, you don't care if police officers act or don't act in a legal manner as long as it fits your view of what is moral and ethical.

If an officer undertakes the rescue of an idividual, as this officer has claimed, the officer has a duty to undertake that rescue with "due care". 

Not listening to the people around him tell him there is no firearm to be worried about is a violation of that duty.  The fact that it is being screamed to the officer raises the failure to listen to the man sitting right next to the guy they were called about to the level of gross negligence.  All the officer had to do was stop for 10 seconds and grab a pair of binoculars to see what the heck the autistic man actually had in his hands.  It wasn't dark, there wasn't anything blocking his veiew.  This was in broad daylight in the middle of the street. 

Yet the intreped officer decided that the best and safest course of action was to ignore all the evidence around him and take a shot at the unarmed man in the street and actually shoot the other unarmed man in the street.

Gross negligence.  If this officer is not fired I will be shocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If an officer undertakes the rescue of an idividual, as this officer has claimed.  They have a duty to undertake that rescue with "due care".  Not listening to the people around him tell him there is no firearm to be worried about is a violation of that duty.  The fact that it is being screamed to the officer raises the failure to listen to the man sitting right next to the guy they were called about to the level of gross negligence.  All the officer had to do was stop for 10 seconds and grab a pair of binoculars to see what the heck the autistic man actually had in his hands.  It wasn't dark, there wasn't anything blocking his veiew.  This was in broad daylight in the middle of the street. 

Yet the intreped officer decided that the best and safest course of action was to ignore all the evidence around him and take a shot at the unarmed man in the street and actually shoot the other unarmed man in the street.

Gross negligence.  If this officer is not fired I will be shocked.

Of course, if it was a gun he'd be sitting there like a dick holding binoculars and end up getting shot, or the person next to him could get shot, or someone else could get shot.

Your timeline is a little off there.  The officer claimed he fired to rescue the individual, which would be when due care kicks in.  The warnings would have been before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

 

No it wouldn't be illegal.  Some might argue that it's unethical to put yourself in the position of lifesaver over someone who might testify against you.  Or to practice medicine (first aid) without a license or training.  Or to start giving first aid to one person and turn your back on your partner who is dealing with the supposedly mentally unstable armed man.

ok.  a possible solution.

 

Cuff and detain the Mentally unstable person.    (and if they really must the victim you just shot.)  secure the scene.

 

then the partner - the cop who did not shoot anyone could maybe offer the guy first aid making it clear he's not medically trained.  Since the victim was able to talk he could have refused.    I would have thought that would have been a nice thing to do.

 

 

Oh and first aid is not   practicing medicine.    If its unethical to  give first aid without a license or regular training, why the hell is it taught in schools?   why are the free leaflets giving instructions often in doctors surgeries?

 

 

I get that morals and ethics are subjective, while legal dictates a minimum standard.   but gee maybe the legal standard needs to be looked at?  and maybe amended?

 

 

 

Truly makes me grateful I don't live in the grand U S of A.    Our Police officers try to give emergency first aid when safe to do so while waiting for the ambulance.   Even for those people who have clearly committed a crime or attacked them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Of course, if it was a gun he'd be sitting there like a dick holding binoculars and end up getting shot, or the person next to him could get shot, or someone else could get shot.

Your timeline is a little off there.  The officer claimed he fired to rescue the individual, which would be when due care kicks in.  The warnings would have been before that.

maybe one of the officers could have used the binoculars while they where trying to negotiate with them.   I'm sure that took a few seconds.   Nor are we suggesting that all the officers put their guns down to take a butchers.  It just needs one to do so.

 

and how the hell do you miss a guy three times who is sitting on the ground not that far from you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Nestor,

I take it you disagree with my assessment.  Please share your opinion.

 

I take it that Nestor thinks you have a brain and can use it in a logical manor to evaluate the situation carefully, and will not be easily lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...