Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ser Scot A Ellison

Law Enforcement and its abuse of power

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Are you intentionally ignoring the part where I said that was talking generally? That the whole point was training officers to make snap judgements within seconds of arriving on the scene is training them to act without sufficient knowledge.

I am not.

I’m disagreeing with this sentiment that such judgements could never morally abided and this perception of ignoring the individual context of a case and instead lumping in with a general trend.

What had happened to Bryant isn’t an example of the failures of police training in America.

55 minutes ago, karaddin said:

For a different shooting that I'd like to think we can all agree was an emphatically terrible shooting, Tamir Rice was shot within a couple of seconds of the car pulling up. I'd rather the police sometimes fail to take action resulting in some injuries and less deaths than police gunning down innocent people due to making incorrect snap judgments. I think generally its unreasonable to fault individuals to making the wrong snap judgement when that's what they've been trained to do, so I have consistently argued that I think its bad policy and bad training - a systemic issue, not an individual one.

Examples like Chauvin murdering Floyd, that dickhead in...Buffalo was it? Walking his bike over the head of a protestor that had fallen over etc are also individual problems that are thriving within a systemic one. This isn't that, but its still a problem.

I think the problem lies with trying to treat every case of a police killing someone as if they can and should be looked at as the same way and criticized from the same standpoint.

Ignore the individual circumstances.

I don’t think that’s really nuanced. 

there was a clear difference in Rice and Bryant that I think should be fairly obvious.

Rice wasn’t  attacking anyone. Bryant was. There was time for police to try to talk to rice to get him to lay down what would be a toy gun.

There was no time for the officer in Bryant’s case to try to de-escalate before someone got stabbed and possibly murdered. Whatever happened before then would not change the context of what he was faced with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Being being a victim of a crime doesn’t mean you just get to murder the person who committed a crime against you and it’s really unreasonable to expect police officers to operate in this mindset.

That sounds very unamerican to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think part of the disconnect between Varys' perspective and mine, Week's etc is that Varys sees the "only a couple of seconds to react" as a point in favour of the shooting - someone's life appeared to be in danger, so the cop must take immediate action to protect that persons life. My perspective is that the lack of time is an argument against it - you've just arrived on the scene, you cannot possibly have any reasonable grasp of the situation and could easily wind up killing the victim for an attempted murderer. I don't think they should be using lethal force in scenarios where they can't have any reasonable confidence about what the situation is, and that training which teaches them to do this is going to result in a lot of bad shootings regardless of whether you think this one was justified, although clearly I do not think this one was.

This, 150%.
Part of the reason for me discussing this at all is that I watched the footage multiple times because I didn't exactly understand what was going on.
So from the start, I've assumed the officer did not have 100% certainty about what was happening (he was literally asking "what's going on", so that's a pretty big clue) when he killed Bryant.
There are many reasons why it's not a great idea to kill someone attacking someone else with a knife within seconds of arriving on a scene, and I don't think I even have to explain that.

Hard truth? That officer was "lucky" because he made a call that turned out to be correct. And people with a brain are able to see how that call could easily have turned out to be wrong. It's not rocket science ffs, and it's impossible to claim these calls never turn out wrong, because we fucking know they do, with alarming regularity.

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The key I think you are missing is that using a firearm to attempt to hit an extremity dramatically increases the possibility of hitting someone you didn’t intend to hit.

I don't buy the "dramatically" part. But anyway you can't exactly generalize, because it depends a lot on the angle. And if the angle is bad for a leg shot, it's probably bad for a torso shot as well while, conversely, if the torso shot is easy, then the leg shot shouldn't be much more difficult.

Also, from the start most people here have exchanged as if the US was the only country in the world with law enforcement... When in fact the police in most developed countries do operate with different training and doctrine... And it doesn't seem to lead to terrible outcomes. Sometimes the criminals get killed and sometimes they don't, and I've yet to see a case where it was said that "if lethal force was used, the victim wouldn't have died."
I mean, seriously, I've never heard that in my entire life (and there's one country right next to mine where most cops don't even have guns).
The reason for that is that being trained to incapacitate doesn't mean you can't kill when necessary. If shooting to incapacitate does in fact "dramatically increase the possibility of hitting [an innocent]" then the officer can always shoot to kill instead.

There's a surreal inability for some people here (not necessarily you Scot) to see that being trained or equiped to do more cannot result in worse outcomes.
If you take a step back, you should realize that giving police officers more options can absolutely not be a bad thing. I'm not even sure why we're even having a discussion tbh, because it's a pretty consensual argument to make. And at this point in time, given the context and the news, it's crazy that anyone from the US would even try to argue against it.
I'm genuinely astonished that anyone is actually trying to discuss this at all ; I wouldn't have thought the thread would get more than 3 pages.

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This doesn’t seem to have answered my question; when it ever acceptable for law enforcement to use lethal force in your opinion?
Like you’ve said you’re not the against the concept in every instance.
Sowhat ones are in your mind appropriate. Be specific.

My previous message actually explains a great deal, and can be summed up as "if non-lethal methods are obviously inferior to lethal force."

And I'd be curious to see someone demonstrate that lethal force is in fact faster than non-lethal means at least in most cases, or come up with a general rule as to when and why ; you're asking me to be specific, but you haven't been. From a cursory look at google, the idea that "killing is easier and faster" is the assumption in the US, and that assumption is debatable to say the least. It's actually based on the moral position that defending the victim is paramount, almost regardless of the overall consequences, and that violent criminals often deserve to die.
I think this is the actual core of the disagreement. I don't think we're discussing law enforcement, police training, or Bryant's death. What we're really discussing here is the death penalty for violent criminals.

I've played rather nice until now, but I can easily shift the burden of proof here. Can you prove that lethal force was in fact the best solution to neutralize Bryant? Because at this range and given Bryant's light clothes, there's no way a trained officer could miss with a stun gun ; plus there were two officers within range, not one. I can also argue that if the officers had drawn stun guns, they could have shot Bryant seconds earlier, thus ensuring she had absolutely no chance of even swinging the knife toward the other girl. I think there's a case to be made here that non-lethal force was a better way to protect the girl in pink.
So tell me, why do you think lethal force was the way to go?

See, it's easy to base your entire argumentation on one -possibly- flawed assumption.
You have systematically argued that lethal force is in fact better to protect victims. I challenge you to prove that. And I mean prove it, not just quote the countless US experts who will argue that.
Hard truth? You won't be able to do it. Just as I can't conclusively prove that non-lethal methods work (they don't always), you can't conclusively prove that they are necessarily inferior (they're often not).
You're making one assumption based on moral values, and I'm making one based on different ones. And the longer this conversation continues and the more we'll be talking about morality, and treating each other as someone with flawed moral values.

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

I've played rather nice until now, but I can easily shift the burden of proof here. Can you prove that lethal force was in fact the best solution to neutralize Bryant? Because at this range and given Bryant's light clothes, there's no way a trained officer could miss with a stun gun ; plus there were two officers within range, not one. I can also argue that if the officers had drawn stun guns, they could have shot Bryant seconds earlier, thus ensuring she had absolutely no chance of even swinging the knife toward the other girl. I think there's a case to be made here that non-lethal force was a better way to protect the girl in pink.
So tell me, why do you think lethal force was the way to go?

 

If US tasers have similar issues to ours they are not remotely accurate, and can get blocked by thick clothing. If someone was trying to stab you, you would choose the police shoot them everytime.  

Edited by BigFatCoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You know what greatly reduces the likelihood you’ll hit someone you didn’t intend to? Not firing the gun.

I’m not arguing that point (however, it is well taken).

 The point is that if a firearm is discharged aiming at a smaller target that is more likely to be in motion puts more people at risk.  Hence, sharpshooters are trained to aim for center mass, not at extremities.

We can, and should, have a serious discussion about when and whether law enforcement in the US should be armed.  I have said numerous times I believe it is time to stop arming beat cops with firearms.

@Rippounet

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

My previous message actually explains a great deal, and can be summed up as "if non-lethal methods are obviously inferior to lethal force."

Again this is too vague to mean anything.

It’s a circular statement to the question. When is it appropriate to use lethal force? When it’s appropriate. 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

And I'd be curious to see someone demonstrate that lethal force is in fact faster than non-lethal means at least in most cases, or come up with a general rule as to when and why ; you're asking me to be specific, but you haven't been.

I have; I’ve given a parameters for scenarios to which I’m content with Law-enforcement using lethal force.

I have not stated it is optimal for every conceivable dispute.

When someone is posing an immediate threat to someone else’s life, there’s no significant amount to attempt to deescalate, and not doing so poses  a significant increased risk to others.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

From a cursory look at google, the idea that "killing is easier and faster" is the assumption in the US, and that assumption is debatable to say the least. It's actually based on the moral position that defending the victim is paramount, almost regardless of the overall consequences, and that violent criminals often deserve to die.

defending the victim is paramount. It’s not a matter of if the person who gets shot deserving to be killed. It’s a matter of the victim deserving to have their lives protected.

However the second the criminal—is incapacitated it is morally imperative for law enforcement to do everything in their power then on to insure the person in their care lives.

 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I think this is the actual core of the disagreement. I don't think we're discussing law enforcement, police training, or Bryant's death. What we're really discussing here is the death penalty for violent criminals.

No.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I've played rather nice until now, but I can easily shift the burden of proof here. Can you prove that lethal force was in fact the best solution to neutralize Bryant? Because at this range and given Bryant's light clothes, there's no way a trained officer could miss with a stun gun ; plus there were two officers within range, not one.

Because Bryant was out of reach for his stun gun? 

Second given how close Bryant was it she could reasonably be expected to get in a couple stabs in before she was tackled.

But maybe Bryant’s victim would have survived. Or Maybe she would have died.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

You have systematically argued that lethal force is in fact better to protect victims.

In a few limited capacities yes.
Such as here quite frankly. 
You acted like no such thing has ever occurred. Which is ridiculous.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I challenge you to prove that. And I mean prove it, not just quote the countless US experts who will argue that.

No, I will not argue in every conceivable instance cops are allowed to use lethal force when protecting someone or themselves.

That’s a straw man you’d like to beat up. Your position so far has been extreme so you’re trying to frame me as the exact opposite extreme to sound more reasonable. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If US tasers have similar issues to ours they are not remotely accurate, and can get blocked by thick clothing.

But in this case there were two officers within about 15 feet of Bryant, who was not wearing thick clothing. Is it your professional opinion that a stun gun would not have worked?

[this is an honest question: if it is, that ends that aspect of the debate as far as I'm concerned]

24 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If someone was trying to stab you, you would choose the police shoot them everytime.  

If that were the case, I would not be arguing this forcefully.
I've found myself twice facing an aggressor with a knife, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted a cow-boy waltzing in and unloading their weapon in the name of my protection. I'd much rather risk a stab wound than a bullet wound, thank you very much. I can outrun a lunatic with a knife, but I can't outrun a cowboy's bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NYT had a piece a year or two back about the fact that the capabilities and reliability of tasers were wildly oversold by the companies that produced them. That's where the average effective range (10 feet -- under it and over it they become increasingly less reliable) statistic I cited comes from. 

In the ideal world, you have weapons you can set to "stun" like in Star Trek and you use that and no one is ever killed again by police officers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

That sounds very unamerican to me.

 

I mean legally in the US that is right. Bryant was per reports fighting two other people who came on her property and threatened her family. Between the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws she was far better off to never have the police show up and legally say she had a right to defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Karlbear said:

I mean legally in the US that is right. Bryant was per reports fighting two other people who came on her property and threatened her family. Between the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws she was far better off to never have the police show up and legally say she had a right to defense. 

That was I was thinking from some of the killings in the US I have read about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

I mean legally in the US that is right. Bryant was per reports fighting two other people who came on her property and threatened her family. Between the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws she was far better off to never have the police show up and legally say she had a right to defense. 

Castle doctrine generally stops when people flee you’re property and are clearly no longer a threat to you’re person or property.

We don’t actually know who even called 9-11.

https://komonews.com/news/local/spanaway-convenience-store-owner-who-shot-killed-thief-sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Because at this range and given Bryant's light clothes, there's no way a trained officer could miss with a stun gun

No really. Officers miss at a high rate regardless if it’s a gun or a taser, and the inverse of this is actually what may get Potter off in regards to the shooting of Daunte Wright.

19 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

I mean legally in the US that is right. Bryant was per reports fighting two other people who came on her property and threatened her family. Between the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws she was far better off to never have the police show up and legally say she had a right to defense. 

Not sure stand your ground or the castle doctrine applies here considering she chased them into the street and she had superior force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The woman or girl in pink who was nearly stabbed had a dog in her arms. Looked like a Boston Terrier or maybe a French Bulldog. Off its leash, too. That might be considered dangerous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I have; I’ve given a parameters for scenarios to which I’m content with Law-enforcement using lethal force.

And so have I.
In fact, I'm pretty sure I've been exploring parameters in very clear terms (distance, clothing, situation/standards... ) and need not waste time repeating myself.

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s not a matter of if the person who gets shot deserving to be killed. It’s a matter of the victim deserving to have their lives protected.

As much as you're desperately trying to dodge the question, it is quite clearly the same matter, with the added subtlety that one should clearly define and identify "victims."
In real life, there are many situations in which the most dangerous person turns out to be the actual victim.

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Your position so far has been extreme so you’re trying to frame me as the exact opposite extreme to sound more reasonable. 

Because my position is objectively very far from extreme.
By any metric one can take, police brutality in the US is an outlier among highly developed countries, and the use of lethal force has very often been described as excessive. At this present time, there's a pretty broad consensus that something has to be changed in the way US police officers are trained and equiped. This was even a campaign promise of Biden's.
Attempting to portray my position as extreme today is nuts.

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

In the ideal world, you have weapons you can set to "stun" like in Star Trek and you use that and no one is ever killed again by police officers.

A bit like in Sweden you mean? :P

3 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Bryant was per reports fighting two other people who came on her property and threatened her family. Between the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws she was far better off to never have the police show up and legally say she had a right to defense. 

But you see, she made the mistake of running after the trespasser in the street. If she'd remained within her family's property (just a few feet closer to her house), it would have been a bad police killing. But because she stepped outside her property, it was a good police killing, since she magically went from victim to violent criminal, from a person who deserves assistance to a person who deserves to die.

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

No really. Officers miss at a high rate regardless if it’s a gun or a taser,

Ok, but I'm genuinely confused now. Is this a possible argument in favor of them using lethal force? ;)

Seriously though, some of you are way too comfortable with the idea of the police routinely killing people. I mean, I watched all the Dirty Harry movies as a kid, and already at the time there was a nagging voice at the back of my head wondering whether Harry was supposed to be the good guy...
"Fun" fact: when I was a kid (5 or 6), an adult (my mom I assume, but the memories are fuzzy) sat down with me and told me never ever to run away from a US cop, as that could give them an excuse to shoot me.
And I'm freaking white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I've found myself twice facing an aggressor with a knife, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted a cow-boy waltzing in and unloading their weapon in the name of my protection. I'd much rather risk a stab wound than a bullet wound, thank you very much. I can outrun a lunatic with a knife, but I can't outrun a cowboy's bullet.

I took a guy down who pulled a shotgun on some friends of mine; two years later I had two guys come to my house to kill me [one had a nine mm] and after a struggle and one shot fired, they ran; much later, after a hockey game outside the arena I took a guy down who wanted to be the 3rd in an already 2v1, and held him there, then made sure the guy who got beat by the other two was alright. While some more than others, all of these were dangerous situations. All of that to say, I'm not a trained law enforcement officer.     

I've watched it a few times since the incident, and what I saw was someone who had multiple opportunities to stab those two women, yet didn't. Felt more like an blustery act of defiance to me, but even so, from the body cam footage there was at least one officer who could've physically interceded and stopped the altercation but instead cranked his dial right to lethal force. 

So, in this particular case [and more broadly] 'bullet vs taser' seems a rather constricting argument. This was definitely a law enforcement fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Castle doctrine generally stops when people flee you’re property and are clearly no longer a threat to you’re person or property.

We don’t actually know who even called 9-11.

https://komonews.com/news/local/spanaway-convenience-store-owner-who-shot-killed-thief-sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison

 

Spanaway is in Washington and we don't have stand your ground here. They do in Ohio. And being on your driveway or around it is generally still considered a threat to your property and yourself in prior law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No really. Officers miss at a high rate regardless if it’s a gun or a taser, and the inverse of this is actually what may get Potter off in regards to the shooting of Daunte Wright.

Not sure stand your ground or the castle doctrine applies here considering she chased them into the street and she had superior force.

Superior force for syg doesn't matter either. You are allowed to defend yourself in a manner of your legal choosing if you feel threatened at home, and you can attack first with syg. And both knives and guns are allowed in each. 

Basically the idea that Bryant was attacking a victim here is also a bad narrative, at least in the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws are a lot more complicated, but suffice it to say the young woman holding a lapdog and standing on a public sidewalk or verge of a road was not the kind of aggressor that these laws were made for. Ma'khia Bryant was entirely in the wrong in attempting to stab her.

I am even more confused by everything because the owner of the house (and the young woman who was attacked) have apparently given a very different account of what happened. If this is accurate, the narrative that the young woman who was attacked was part of some group that had followed Ma'khia Bryant home and wanted to "jump" her seems wildly wrong, since in fact she was a former foster child of the homeowner (Ma'khia's foster mother) and was at the house to celebrate the homeowner's birthday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...