US Politics: Stamping out Chauvinism

[TrueMetis]

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

How about a white man who trapped a cop's arm in his truck window, drove off at high speed, and then attacked the cop with his own hammer? In Minnesota too.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/us/minnesota-oeltjenbruns-arrest-hammer-mask-dispute/index.html

I don't think the issue is even whether or not the police were justified (which, arguable. knives aren't as lethal as a lot of people think, and shooting someone feet from another person is a stupid idea. Cops aren't exactly marksmen) the point doesn't actually have anything to do with whether it was justified. It's the very very clear difference in how shootings of BIPOC people vs white people are treated. Like had this sixteen year old been white could you imagine the possibility that the cops would chant "blue lives matter" afterward? Like even assuming the cops would have shot a white girl (and that's not a sure thing) the way the aftermath would be treated would be so different.

[karaddin]

Ok a few questions/points and I want to say up front I haven't, and will not, watch the video because I'm not doing that to myself.

1. Isn't the right to use deadly force to protect yourself when you're on your own property a big deal in the US? If the cops making a split second decision to shoot someone after arriving on the scene, the someone that called the police no less, that seems more than a little at odds with this right. If they're already on the scene and in control then that's different, but the impression I have from the discussion is that this is almost immediately after arriving?
2. You all know knives aren't lightsabres right? It takes considerable force and a decent knowledge of anatomy and good aim to stab someone so precisely that prompt medical attention won't help. It takes a lot more than decent knowledge of anatomy and exceptional aim to do so with less than considerable force. I think its unlikely that a 15 year old girl is going to possess either of these in abundance at her best, and extremely fucking unlikely to have them after having already been shot once. Shooting her twice I could see as "just in case the first one misses", but 3 more times after that? You're either wanting to kill, or your training is inadequate or both.
3. It takes less time for a bullet to travel a short distance after a shot is fired than it takes for a 15 year old girl with above average strength to extract a knife from someone else, pull it back and stab down again so I'm really not seeing this idea that a second of hesitation could have led to a slasher movie style mutilated corpse with many stab wounds. 

With guns I can understand the "treat it like its instant death" because it often can be, but with immediate medical attention on hand a knife really doesn't warrant the same treatment. If you're in a context where you know the person with the knife is an aggressor acting with malice then that's one thing, but again - in this case they shot the person that fucking called them for help in the first place. I think the uncertainty of inaction in this case is a better option than the certainty of the death from taking action, especially in cases of incomplete knowledge about the situation. And there's no way in hell that she should have been shot 5 times.

Now that might all be criticism of the policies and training of the police department, and if this cop acted in line with them then my opinion that those are fucked policies doesn't make him guilty of any crime, but it can still sure as fuck point out that their policies are a problem and this was not a good shooting without the cop being personally guilty.

Them taunting people with "blue lives matter" immediately afterward a shooting which at no point involved even a shred of danger to them, the shooting was supposed to be to protect a 3rd party, really really destroys any benefit of the doubt I'm inclined to give the department.

[benderschweiz]

27 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Ok a few questions/points and I want to say up front I haven't, and will not, watch the video because I'm not doing that to myself.

1. Isn't the right to use deadly force to protect yourself when you're on your own property a big deal in the US? If the cops making a split second decision to shoot someone after arriving on the scene, the someone that called the police no less, that seems more than a little at odds with this right. If they're already on the scene and in control then that's different, but the impression I have from the discussion is that this is almost immediately after arriving?
2. You all know knives aren't lightsabres right? It takes considerable force and a decent knowledge of anatomy and good aim to stab someone so precisely that prompt medical attention won't help. It takes a lot more than decent knowledge of anatomy and exceptional aim to do so with less than considerable force. I think its unlikely that a 15 year old girl is going to possess either of these in abundance at her best, and extremely fucking unlikely to have them after having already been shot once. Shooting her twice I could see as "just in case the first one misses", but 3 more times after that? You're either wanting to kill, or your training is inadequate or both.
3. It takes less time for a bullet to travel a short distance after a shot is fired than it takes for a 15 year old girl with above average strength to extract a knife from someone else, pull it back and stab down again so I'm really not seeing this idea that a second of hesitation could have led to a slasher movie style mutilated corpse with many stab wounds. 

With guns I can understand the "treat it like its instant death" because it often can be, but with immediate medical attention on hand a knife really doesn't warrant the same treatment. If you're in a context where you know the person with the knife is an aggressor acting with malice then that's one thing, but again - in this case they shot the person that fucking called them for help in the first place. I think the uncertainty of inaction in this case is a better option than the certainty of the death from taking action, especially in cases of incomplete knowledge about the situation. And there's no way in hell that she should have been shot 5 times.

Now that might all be criticism of the policies and training of the police department, and if this cop acted in line with them then my opinion that those are fucked policies doesn't make him guilty of any crime, but it can still sure as fuck point out that their policies are a problem and this was not a good shooting without the cop being personally guilty.

Them taunting people with "blue lives matter" immediately afterward a shooting which at no point involved even a shred of danger to them, the shooting was supposed to be to protect a 3rd party, really really destroys any benefit of the doubt I'm inclined to give the department.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/hamiltoncounty/2021/04/20/cincinnati-police-charge-13-year-old-girl-stabbing-death-another-teen/7298533002/

If you hit an artery in the neck with one stab it's enough to kill even with a pocket knife.  Happened to a 13 year old earlier this week.

[Ran]

18 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Isn't the right to use deadly force to protect yourself when you're on your own property a big deal in the US?

The castle doctrine tends to apply most in your home proper, not just on your property. I Googled and came across this fairly straightforward explanation of the rules in Ohio:

Quote

In order to be protected by the Castle Doctrine, the intruder must actually be inside your home or attempting to enter (coming in/breaking through a door or window). If the intruder is simply peeking through a window and has not made an attempt to enter, you need to call 9-1-1 and request assistance from the police. For the Castle Doctrine to apply, you must actually believe that your life or the lives of your family members are in grave danger.

24 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You all know knives aren't lightsabres right? It takes considerable force and a decent knowledge of anatomy and good aim to stab someone so precisely that prompt medical attention won't help.

Or just blind dumb luck (or bad luck). Knives are the second most commonly used weapons in murders after firearms in the U.S., and the most common used weapon in most other countries that have sane attitudes towards guns, for a reason. A quick Google shows any number of cases of people dying from stab wounds, including those inflicted by teenagers on other teenagers, and sometimes from single stab wounds (including one poor Welsh lad who was stabbed in the stomach and died overnight at the hospital.)

21 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Shooting her twice I could see as "just in case the first one misses", but 3 more times after that? You're either wanting to kill, or your training is inadequate or both.

It's training, near as I can tell. American police are taught to fire multiple times and at center mass to try and insure that their target is downed out of a belief that one or even two bullets are often not sufficient to stop people immediately. It's horrible doctrine. I ended up watching a video randomly some months ago in which a Brazilian police officer -- and Brazil is considered the wild, wild west by many because of the breadth of violent crime -- dealing with a disturbed man with a knife, where he backpedalled away from him as the guy gave chase... and then calmly shot him once in the leg rather than unloading multiple bullets at center mass. In the US, the latter would have been expected and the person would almost certainly have died. Maybe he died from the gun shot to the leg, to be sure -- major artery in the thigh and all -- but it seemed to me a much saner and proportionate response.

I watched the video showing the alleged "Blue Lives Matter" chant, and I think it's slightly misunderstood. It's pretty clear that the woman recording it is not paying attention and has no idea what was said. It seems to me that the man with the camera was the one who said it because he spotted a "Blue Lives Matter" flag or banner of some kind on one of the squad cars and harangued police about it. I think that's obviously inappropriate for police officers to decorate their vehicles with political messaging of their choosing, but it's not quite the same thing as claiming they were standing around chanting "Blue Lives Matter" in response to people being angry and upset at the shooting of someone.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Ok a few questions/points and I want to say up front I haven't, and will not, watch the video because I'm not doing that to myself.

But without seeing it you lose the clearest context and some of your questions answer themselves. When the video freezes just before the first shot is fired you can very clearly see Bryant with a steak knife in her hand, pulled back and ready to strike in the direction of the girl/woman in pink's abdomen and she was cowering back in a way that left her totally defenseless. I think it's reasonable to assume that if the officer was not there it's possible she would have been stabbed several times based on the limited footage we can see. It's terrible that this happened, but ask yourself this, if you were the girl/woman in pink, would you be feeling differently given that the police might have saved your life? 

[S John]

I don’t think I’d be too comfortable with a teenager taking a wild stab at me even if paramedics were holding my hand when they did it. 

[karaddin]

@Ran - you're right on the dumb luck - when I was mentally composing the post I meant to include that, then forgot it when actually typing it up lol. 

@Tywin et al. that's why I give that disclaimer up front. My mental health is utter dog shit at the moment and every time I get online I see news of yet another onslaught against people like me, I will not inflict the harm on myself of watching a black girl get killed by police. I'll accept the reduction in context that gives me and be up front about that fact. That's also why I concede the officer in question may have been 100% acting in line with departmental policy and not personally responsible at all, and focused a lot of criticism on the broad policy and the number of shots.

I'm also not trying to make out that there was no risk in not shooting, I'm just favouring the uncertain outcome of possible death in a complicated situation over the guaranteed outcome of the police killing the kid that called them for help.

ETA: Other considerations - if you believe in the importance of police and the value of what they're supposed to do, then a bunch of young people getting the message "if you call them for help you might be signing your death warrant" is also a harm that you need to balance. Because this sure as shit wouldn't encourage me to call them.

[Mudguard]

After watching the video, I agree with the others that think this appears to be a justified use of force.  Tragic, but justified.  It explains why the cops were so quick to release the tape.  If the cop looked bad, I'm pretty sure that they'd be dragging their feet on releasing the tape. 

The cop was called because of someone was threatening people with a knife.  When he arrived, he saw a girl with a knife, Bryant, chase one girl until she fell to the ground, and then lunged towards a second girl in a manner that looked like she was about to stab the second girl.  I have no idea what really started this altercation, and who was initially at fault, but at this point, it was certainly not a matter of self-defense.  Bryant was chasing and attacking multiple people.  It's possible that Bryant was just trying to threaten and scare the other two girls, because I don't think she actually stabbed anyone.  But there wasn't really enough time for the cop to come to the conclusion based on the very limited information that he had.  He had to make one of the those split second decisions, and given the circumstances, I see zero percent chance that he'll be charged with anything.

I'm still confused about the lead up to the shooting.  The details around that part is still very sketchy.  I think one of Bryant's relatives has claimed that Bryant was the one who made the call to 911 claiming that she was being threatened with a knife, at least according to the article that karaddin cited a while back, but the police have not yet confirmed that Bryant made the 911 call.  If Bryant was really the one being threatened with a knife, how did it go from that to her appearing to attack two people with a knife?  It's possible it started as self-defense and then spiraled out of control, and I think there's a possibility she was just trying to scare off the other two girls, but we still don't have enough information to tell what really happened yet.  It's possible that the information from Bryant's relatives is incorrect.  

[mormont]

I also haven't watched the video, and don't intend to. I just want to raise the question: how would this have been dealt with in a country that does not routinely give police firearms? Are you all under the impression that in such a case, the police would have been powerless to intervene? Do people believe that the use of a firearm here was the only option, or that it should have been the officer's first resort? Don't US police carry tasers, for example?

Because the common thread I see here is the culture and training of US police officer. What I would be worried about in these cases is what has already been discussed - the inclination to resort to lethal force when a threat is present, whether actual or perceived. The secondary element is the heightened perception of threat where the person they're dealing with is black, which at this point is an undeniable fact.

Basically, I think the case maybe isn't as straightforward as some others but still reflects problematic facets of how the US is policed.

[Ran]

48 minutes ago, mormont said:

I also haven't watched the video, and don't intend to. I just want to raise the question: how would this have been dealt with in a country that does not routinely give police firearms?

The shooting happened outside of the range of police-issued tasers, which is like 10 feet; this looks like it was maybe 15 feet, give or take. If the officer waited to get in range to use the taser, the victim would have made at least one full stab at the face/throat of their target, instead the interrupted attack.

In countries with neither firearms nor tasers, the police would... I don't know what they would do. Either physically intervene, meaning more time for the target to be attacked, or wait for back up and attempt to de-escalate, with more time for the target to be attacked.

Quote

Do people believe that the use of a firearm here was the only option,

Given the limitations of tasers and given the fact that the first shot interrupted what looked like a full-on attempt to slash or stab the face/neck of the target, I'll be honest, this is one of the times a police shooting seems, sadly, justified (though I think four shots was at least two too many, on the balance, when weighing the risk both to the victim and the target). Trying to stab someone in the face or neck with a deadly weapon is the kind of thing I would want police to prevent, and the only tool the police officer had that could prevent that was their pistol because of the situation.

 

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

In countries with neither firearms nor tasers, the police would... I don't know what they would do.

Not to fault anyone for that (I'm not sure myself, and honestly even the likes of bfc may be looking at it and not really sure how he'd have reacted), but I do think this is really a critical factor, without which it's hard to say for sure whether this was justified or a further example of how US policing is problematic.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

Ok a few questions/points and I want to say up front I haven't, and will not, watch the video because I'm not doing that to myself.

1. Isn't the right to use deadly force to protect yourself when you're on your own property a big deal in the US? If the cops making a split second decision to shoot someone after arriving on the scene, the someone that called the police no less, that seems more than a little at odds with this right. If they're already on the scene and in control then that's different, but the impression I have from the discussion is that this is almost immediately after arriving?
2. You all know knives aren't lightsabres right? It takes considerable force and a decent knowledge of anatomy and good aim to stab someone so precisely that prompt medical attention won't help. It takes a lot more than decent knowledge of anatomy and exceptional aim to do so with less than considerable force. I think its unlikely that a 15 year old girl is going to possess either of these in abundance at her best, and extremely fucking unlikely to have them after having already been shot once. Shooting her twice I could see as "just in case the first one misses", but 3 more times after that? You're either wanting to kill, or your training is inadequate or both.
3. It takes less time for a bullet to travel a short distance after a shot is fired than it takes for a 15 year old girl with above average strength to extract a knife from someone else, pull it back and stab down again so I'm really not seeing this idea that a second of hesitation could have led to a slasher movie style mutilated corpse with many stab wounds. 

With guns I can understand the "treat it like its instant death" because it often can be, but with immediate medical attention on hand a knife really doesn't warrant the same treatment. If you're in a context where you know the person with the knife is an aggressor acting with malice then that's one thing, but again - in this case they shot the person that fucking called them for help in the first place. I think the uncertainty of inaction in this case is a better option than the certainty of the death from taking action, especially in cases of incomplete knowledge about the situation. And there's no way in hell that she should have been shot 5 times.

Now that might all be criticism of the policies and training of the police department, and if this cop acted in line with them then my opinion that those are fucked policies doesn't make him guilty of any crime, but it can still sure as fuck point out that their policies are a problem and this was not a good shooting without the cop being personally guilty.

Them taunting people with "blue lives matter" immediately afterward a shooting which at no point involved even a shred of danger to them, the shooting was supposed to be to protect a 3rd party, really really destroys any benefit of the doubt I'm inclined to give the department.

I want to make sure I understand your position.  Are you suggesting it’s okay to stand back and let someone armed with a knife and threatening another person stab the potential victim... before... the use of force to stop that attack would be warrented?

And please allow me to qualify this question by noting that I have long believed the British model of unarmed police with “rapid armed response teams” on stand by makes a great deal of sense to me.

[Fez]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

ETA: Other considerations - if you believe in the importance of police and the value of what they're supposed to do, then a bunch of young people getting the message "if you call them for help you might be signing your death warrant" is also a harm that you need to balance. Because this sure as shit wouldn't encourage me to call them.

It's not actually confirmed that she's the one who called the police. Her family says she did, but they also said she dropped the knife when the police arrived; which the video footage debunked.

Even if she is the one who called though, all the police see when they arrive is her chasing down and tackling one person and then getting up and lunging towards another person with a knife. At that point, they have no way of knowing who she is or what the situation is that led to this. She's no longer engaged in self-defense, she is the aggressor. All they can know is that she is an imminent threat to others and their only options are to neutralize that threat or let her attack someone.

[Fez]

In other news, sometimes SCOTUS is exactly what you expect it to be these years... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-1259_8njq.pdf

6-3 decision exactly on ideological lines, holding that Mississippi's law allowing life sentences without the possibility of parole for minors under age 18 is constitutional. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, and tries to soften it by claiming that it doesn't mean the plaintiff in this case actually should've gotten a life sentence without the possibility of parole; just that the law as written is fine. Sotomayor is pissed in her dissent; she even dropped the standardized "I respectively dissent" from the end of it.

[Fury Resurrected]

10 hours ago, benderschweiz said:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/hamiltoncounty/2021/04/20/cincinnati-police-charge-13-year-old-girl-stabbing-death-another-teen/7298533002/

If you hit an artery in the neck with one stab it's enough to kill even with a pocket knife.  Happened to a 13 year old earlier this week.

You still have time to be saved. This is exactly what happened with someone I am acquainted with and the victim was able to make it down a flight of stairs to a person who called 911 and wait for the ambulance. She required surgery, but she lived. You don’t bleed to death instantly.

[aceluby]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

In other news, sometimes SCOTUS is exactly what you expect it to be these years... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-1259_8njq.pdf

6-3 decision exactly on ideological lines, holding that Mississippi's law allowing life sentences without the possibility of parole for minors under age 18 is constitutional. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, and tries to soften it by claiming that it doesn't mean the plaintiff in this case actually should've gotten a life sentence without the possibility of parole; just that the law as written is fine. Sotomayor is pissed in her dissent; she even dropped the standardized "I respectively dissent" from the end of it.

Pro-life-behind-bars

[IheartIheartTesla]

Hey, in somewhat good news (as a counterpoint to the doom and gloom), the White House did announce its 2030 target for climate change ahead of the climate summit, which is 50% reduction by 2030.

Not sure how they plan to accomplish it just yet, but it does have the benefit of encouraging other nations to step up their emissions targets as well; and signalling to the world at large the US is on their side again.

[Mudguard]

11 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You still have time to be saved. This is exactly what happened with someone I am acquainted with and the victim was able to make it down a flight of stairs to a person who called 911 and wait for the ambulance. She required surgery, but she lived. You don’t bleed to death instantly.

It depends on whether a major artery was severed or significantly cut.  You'll bleed out really quickly if the carotid artery in the neck is severed or significantly cut.  Same thing with some of the other major arteries.

[TrueMetis]

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

It depends on whether a major artery was severed or significantly cut.  You'll bleed out really quickly if the carotid artery in the neck is severed or significantly cut.  Same thing with some of the other major arteries.

And if I punch you in the nose right I can kill you instantly. Probably shouldn't be basing how dangerous we consider things on the most extreme cases.

[Fury Resurrected]

8 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

It depends on whether a major artery was severed or significantly cut.  You'll bleed out really quickly if the carotid artery in the neck is severed or significantly cut.  Same thing with some of the other major arteries.

In this case it was and there was still plenty of time for her life to be saved. This victim had her whole throat cut. It’s possible you *could* die very quickly, but it isn’t a foregone conclusion and a knife shouldn’t be treated like a gun