Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 670 (836289)
07-13-2018 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
07-09-2018 11:42 AM


The difference is that fists, pepper spray, batons, etc. are seldom fatal. When the probable result of your action is irreversible, the decision ought to be taken a lot more seriously.
Excellent point, which is why I'm kind of amazed at how little you view the lives of victims. You do understand that often their are innocent bystanders or family violence dynamics that demand a person to be rescued from someone capable and willing to do harm to them. Their actions are irreversible, and I wish that were taken more seriously.
A hero is somebody who risks his own life, not somebody else's.
Yeah, and my point is that sometimes it requires taking a life in order to safe a life. Or are you not understanding that the only justified reason to take a life is when another life is on the line?
We have too many police shootings of innocent victims. If taking the decision to shoot more seriously results in more police officers being killed, that's a reality we should be prepared for.
So, cops are expendable but homicidal people are not? Okay. Got it.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 07-09-2018 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 07-14-2018 12:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 670 (836290)
07-13-2018 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
07-09-2018 2:43 PM


"Rank and file police in most jurisdictions shouldn't have guns. That's my position. Rebut that."
I did. And then when I provide compelling reasons why you are misinformed, you disengage.
Let's talk about the time it takes for the average officer to even get to a call, let alone the time it takes for a SWAT callout. Time in these situations are critical. Lets put that to the test in an extraordinarily violent place like Chicago or Detroit. You have people already on patrol and capable of responding, but you want to disarm them over the 5% of bad shoots at the expense of 95% where it is a necessary evil.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 07-09-2018 2:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 07-14-2018 8:03 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 101 of 670 (836291)
07-13-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
07-11-2018 3:03 PM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
I'm writing not about police shootings but about why police are able to get away with shootings.
In instances of police corruption extending to the highest level, the FBI have cleaned house. The New Orleans police dept, for instance, was entirely under investigation for corruption.
Look, I'm just as disgusted as you are in the instances like this douchebag you showcased, but your solution is extreme.
Some cops become expert at manufacturing noncompliance, or whatever else they need to justify their actions.
I agree, some do -- in an extreme minority. There has never been a time of more accountability than now. The very reason why body cameras were invented was for accountability. It keeps good cops from false accusations and indicts the shit head one's that need to either be fired or prosecuted.
So, you said that I'm being biased and that you don't think cops are necessarily bad (just need to be disarmed) but it is very obvious in the manner of this discussion that you have a beef, in general, with the police. This video has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. So what's all this about bias then? That door swings in both directions, friend.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 07-11-2018 3:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 07-14-2018 8:47 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 670 (836363)
07-15-2018 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
07-14-2018 8:47 AM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
It isn't the people who are bad but the situations they are placed in. Giving them guns only makes things worse.
Giving literal "average Joes" guns but not actual vetted people makes things worse. If we were talking about the UK, maybe there would be argument (I actually still disagree), but the US is so inundated with guns that it would be reckless.
The growing ubiquity of video reveals that on any given day it could be almost any given cop. It other words, it's a solid majority, not some "extreme minority."
For every video, there are 10 more to rebut it. I'm sure if I looked I could find an entire compilation that creates the appearance that being a police officer is akin to trench warfare. But I don't want to do that because it's entirely anecdotal and you probably wouldn't care either way.
Police misbehavior is just what happens when you give normal people power and guns and put them in an environment that encourages paranoia.
So without the guns everything is going to just sort of work itself out? What do believe will happen? I believe that if your plan was implemented there would instantly be a whole lot less officers, creating the pretense for mass civil unrest nationwide in the wake of the vacuum.
The word "bias" doesn't even appear in any of my posts. What I will say is that you have a habit of responding to your feelings about what was said instead of to what was actually said.
My apologies, I should have said "slant."
quote:
Your messages mostly just reply to your own slant on what I said while ignoring what I actually said.
But not we're arguing semantics...
As I stated in the very first paragraph of the message, "I'm writing not about police shootings but about why police are able to get away with shootings."
Part of the problem is your belief that police "get away with shootings." Is it entirely possible that you don't understand what constitutes a good/bad shoot?
Okay, if you want to be that way about it then why don't you just admit it: you love guns. It has nothing to do with self-defense or policing, you just love guns. Are we getting anywhere now?
Guns are a necessary evil, Percy. The next weapon is on the verge of being created. The real point that people who detest guns often overlook is that homicide existed before and will exist after guns. The real issue is why we as a species thinks violence can meaningly solve anything other than stopping a violent and determined person. The age old crux, if you ask me...

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 07-14-2018 8:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 9:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 670 (836364)
07-15-2018 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ringo
07-14-2018 12:11 PM


Bystanders can be harmed by police bullets as well as criminal bullets.
So, what, that invalidates the necessity of protecting people? You know, there's a whole lot more people who want an armed police force that don't want an armed police force.
That's the whole topic: the police don't seem to be very good at deciding when it's "necessary".
Opines Ringo...
Don't try to divert the topic. The problem here is that cops often see civilians as expendable.
So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society. Crime increase by 500% overnight. If, as you are suggesting, the actual problem is police officers then it stands to reason that a police force is unnecessary in your estimation.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 07-14-2018 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 07-16-2018 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 118 by 1.61803, posted 07-19-2018 4:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 670 (836827)
07-22-2018 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by ringo
07-16-2018 12:02 PM


Well, yes. Killing people is not a good way of protecting them.
Do you kill one person to protect two? Do you kill eighty-one people to protect eighty-two? How much time does a police officer have to do the math?
As I said, sometimes it is necessary to take the life of a violent felon in order to save an innocent hostage. Are you really going to argue that point?
There's a lot of people who want to drink and smoke and gamble. Counting noses is not the best method of setting policy.
My point being, who are you to decide for them?
Nobody is suggesting that. You're just weakening your argument by going off the deep end of absurdity.
That was your central point! You made the suggestion that the police are so quick to be heavy-handed in light of numerous instances that we ought to disarm them. If the real issue is shitty cops then whether they're armed or not seems like a secondary issue to the real problem, no?
I can play the unfounded speculation game too: Everybody gets a cookie.
It's intuitive. Just as it would be intuitive to you that disarming police would result in less shooting by cops. You don't have any actual evidence to support that which has never been tested; you're basing it off of common sense. And before you say that it has been tested in Britain, again, their streets aren't littered with firearms whereas if you got your way, everybody EXCEPT the police would armed. Brilliant plan.
Well, no, that doesn't stand to reason at all. By that logic, problems in education could be solved by eliminating schools.
In my estimation, a gun-happy police force is unnecessary. The British police are an example.
The British also aren't inundated by firearms at present, so you are comparing apples to oranges. In place of guns, they have an issue with knife-violence.
In any case, if a standing army was making incorrect force decisions in combat, would your solution be to disarm the military or would your solution be to increase training and increase punitive measures against those who violate the rules of engagement?
Common sense and good judgment dictates...

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 07-16-2018 12:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 07-23-2018 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 120 of 670 (836829)
07-23-2018 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
07-16-2018 2:38 PM


The bobbies in the UK don't have guns and their crime rate is lower than in the US.
Uh, yeah, thanks for inadvertently making my point for me. We're talking about the UNITED STATES... so in light of the violent crime rate in the US, it necessitates an armed police force. Gun control is almost as strict in Australia as it is in England, and their police force is armed. Actually, scratch that, Britain is almost the sole exception on the planet that doesn't have an armed police force. So you’re already operating way outside the norm, except you want to disarm cops in the most heavily armed citizenry on planet earth.
I highly, highly doubt that any criminal even considers armed police vs. unarmed police as a consideration in their criminal activities.
You think violent crime wouldn't increase exponentially the DAY that policy was instituted when no unarmed police force could meaningfully oppose an armed citizenry? You don't think some people would take advantage of that? Not only would violent crime increase, so would vigilantism since cops are basically now consigned to be report takers. If you did a ride-along for one day in major metropolitan area of the US it might open your eyes to some of the complexities that you are neglecting to account for.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 2:38 PM Taq has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 670 (839080)
09-03-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Percy
08-12-2018 3:35 PM


Re: Police Murdering Strangers
It's important this is clear because I want to relate a statistic I just heard cited by DeRay McKesson of Black Lives Matter while speaking on Face the Nation: one third of people murdered by strangers are murdered by police officers.
Murdered or killed? Important distinction.
There are only about 1.2 million police officers in this country (full and part time), only 0.37% of the population. So despite police officers being at most only 0.37% of the strangers, they commit 33% of the murders of strangers.
Your mischaracterizations are astounding. Lets suppose those statistics are accurate. Even supposing they were on the low side, it's not at all surprising. See, unlike total strangers, who have an infinitesimally small chance of being involved in a homicide, justified or unjustified, police are 1. constantly patrolling and, 2. are the one's called to dangerous situations. So of course there would be a much higher likelihood that they were involved in a homicide.
But, again, you have an interesting choice in words [murder] as if to insinuate that their use of force is virtually all unjustified. They kill people that try to kill them... or someone else.
Check out these cops murdering this poor, innocent man who was simply minding his own business.
As long as I'm posting, and this isn't about a shooting, but here's a video of a Baltimore police office assaulting a man who yelled at him and slapped his hand away. He put up no resistance. The officer has been suspended pending an investigation
As he should! The Baltimore Police Department is a notoriously corrupt force that has been under FBI investigation numerous times. A total disgrace to the profession.
If you took a hard line at corruption, no one would be arguing with you right now. But it is very obvious at this point that you are convinced this nonsense represents the overall profession when it doesn't even come close. Sensationalism is sensationalizing, Percy. You never see the millions of innocuous interactions with the public, so your perception is horribly skewed towards the statistically tiny fraction of shit head officers who disgrace the profession.
If there wasn't a video do you think the beaten man's complaint would have gone anywhere? It's the same with shootings. Anyone who believes it's just a coincidence that the only time police misbehave is when there's someone recording a video with a cell phone is living in a dream world. The evidence is telling us in stark terms that our police place as at greater rather than lesser risk too often to be tolerated.
There's never been a cleaner time to be a police officer because of constant accountability. Maybe if you stepped down from the ivory tower to see what the real world is actually like, you'd have a greater appreciation of the nature of the job and all of its trappings.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 08-12-2018 3:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 09-04-2018 5:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 670 (839081)
09-03-2018 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
09-01-2018 8:41 AM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
This past Thursday in Los Angeles actress Vanessa Marquez, who appeared on 27 episodes of "ER", was shot by police at her apartment and later died in a hospital ER. Her landlord had called for a wellness check. Three police and a mental health clinician spoke with her for an hour and a half when she reached for what looked like a semiautomatic handgun but was just a BB gun. Police fired at least one shot, striking her in the torso.
Lol, how fortunate it must be for you to have the luxury of Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, as if they should have intrinsically known it was a BB gun.
This again calls into question the professionalism and adequacy of the training of our police force. Suicidal but afraid to pull the trigger? Now you don't have to. Just call the police, reach for your gun, and they'll do it for you. Police are evidently unable to handle suicide risks who possess lethal means.
Right, because who has ever heard of Suicide by Cop?' Probably never happened in history.
There is no greater conduit for mental illness than the justice system, which is a testament to the overwhelming long-suffering that is exhibited towards those with mental illness. Law enforcement, particularly in major cities, have contact with the mentally ill on a daily basis and provides them resources that they otherwise could not or would not do on their own. That's just a fact. Your representation of things is that the police murder the mentally ill when in fact that the overwhelming interactions are to help them, not to hurt them.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 09-01-2018 8:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 09-04-2018 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 140 of 670 (839527)
09-09-2018 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
09-04-2018 5:49 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
I proposed no answers. It is simply my belief that police should never wellness check a person to death. Obviously a despondent person could very likely have available the means of causing their own demise, such as a gun or knife. If the only response police have for a despondent person reaching for a knife or gun is to shoot them, then clearly the police are the last people you should call for a wellness check.
Police don't respond to despondent people looking to kill them. Again, there are probably collectively 1,000 calls a for service everyday that result in said despondent person being safely referred to mental health specialists without any issues and others who have been literally saved by police officers at the risk of their own safety. Of those that make regrettable decisions, like going for a weapon, what would you suggest?
You also forget that EMS, psychiatrists, negotiators, firefighters, refuse to go into situations with armed, suicidal subjects. And I'm guessing you wouldn't do it either, but cast all kinds of aspersions towards the one's that do.
So in your mind I guess this is just another justifiable police homicide.
Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Pretty open and shut.
This again calls into question the professionalism and adequacy of the training of our police force. Suicidal but afraid to pull the trigger? Now you don't have to. Just call the police, reach for your gun, and they'll do it for you. Police are evidently unable to handle suicide risks who possess lethal means.
Many, many, many situations have been resolved using less-lethal means when it is reasonable to employ things like Tasers, bean bag rounds, pepper spray, tear gas canisters, or other means of incapacitation. The circumstances dictate that.
In the old days you had to point your gun at the cops to commit "suicide by cop." But no more! With today's improved police forces all you have to do is reach for your gun and they'll shoot you.
LMAO!!! I feel like you're trolling me - that you couldn't possibly be that obtuse. There's never been a 'good ole day' where a cop wouldn't shoot you for reaching for a weapon. Action is faster than reaction. A bullet travels thousands of feet per second. By the time it's pointed at you, you're already dead. Why should anyone ever wait to see if they point a firearm at them when the means, capability, proximity and intent is pretty clear at that point?
What we have is a legal system. A justice system would allow evidence to be reconsidered upon appeal. A justice system wouldn't execute people. A justice system wouldn't have such a high failure rate, such as when old cases come up against DNA evidence. A justice system wouldn't employ plea bargaining as a means of coercion. A justice system wouldn't place much reliance upon eyewitness identifications. And a justice system would have outcomes independent of wealth.
There is always room for a robust conversation about all of those topics, some we might find parity in. But it doesn't undermine the basic premise that a police force is a necessity, regardless of how loathsome you find that to be.
I believe the part about police having daily contact with the mentally ill, but not the part about them providing "resources that they otherwise could not or would not do on their own."
Yeah, of course not, because why see what it's actually like when you could just read a riveting, slanted article from Salon to confirm the preconceived notion? Just about every department has a vested interest in training Mental Health Officers to deal with a litany of mental health crises that impacts both the mentally ill and the community at large. Go to Manchester and do a ride-along specifically with an MHO. You might be pleasantly surprised.
And in the overwhelming number of times the drunk makes it home safely, but we still take away his license when we catch him, right? In the overwhelming number of times the police interact with the public they manage not to murder anyone, but that doesn't mean they should keep their guns? Right?
You won't find anyone to do the job, Percy. What you'll have is a lawless hell-hole where vigilante justice replaces a judicial system. In the process of trying to treat the symptom you'll inadvertently create an infinitely worse condition.
It's already difficult to find able-bodied, able-minded people now... adding that they can no longer sufficiently be able to adequately defend themselves is a bridge too far. A mass exodus and resignation would occur. And you might relish that thought for about 3 days until the impact of that decision manifests itself. You should be careful what you ask for... it just might get it.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 09-04-2018 5:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 09-10-2018 1:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 144 of 670 (839590)
09-10-2018 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
09-10-2018 1:48 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
I would suggest not killing them.
I can only assume then you find it perfectly acceptable that they kill the police officer then. Sometimes there really are situations in life where it is kill or be killed with no middle ground.
It is not "casting all kinds of aspersions" to say that the police should never wellness check someone to death.
But that's not the goal in mind. People dictate the outcome; police simply facilitate. If they reach for a weapon then the choice has been made by them.
More evidence of the attitude making clear why police shouldn't have guns.
What is fundamentally unreasonable about self-defense? What exactly is just so patently egregious about that?
So why did you conclude justifiable homicide instead of questioning why the officer didn't employ his Taser, bean bag rounds, pepper spray, tear gas or other means?
I don't know all the facts and circumstances for this particular case. I'm speaking in generalities. There is such a thing as justifiable homicide and there are less-lethal options. But the circumstances may not always be appropriate to employ those options and each instance needs to be evaluated on their own merits and circumstances.
If someone linked to a Salon article, I didn't see it. My views are neither preconceived nor knee jerk. They derive from the many news reports of unjustifiable police shootings, particularly of people of color. I think you may be too close to your profession to be objective, and that you've become inured to the possibility that perhaps improvements are possible.
My proximity to the profession allows me to see things the way they actually are versus what spin some columnist far removed selects to confirm a preconceived bias. Also, Caucasians killed by police is twice or three times higher than any other racial subset in the United States which, statistically, makes a lot of sense since per capita they still outnumber all other racial subsets.
It was three officers and a mental health clinician who were sent to Vanessa Marquez's apartment. Too many cooks, perhaps.
MHO's just tend to have specialized training from mental health specialists for how to recognize different mental health disorders, what certain medications can do, how they can interact with different drugs, how to speak on the same level as someone in different kinds of crises, and how to find them mental health resources.
What makes you think Manchester has MHOs? Or that the Manchester Police Department provides ride-alongs to any random person who requests one? Or that I'd step into a vehicle with an armed individual
It's my understanding that Manchester is the largest city in New England (excluding Boston). I just assumed they have a department large enough and a community diverse enough to necessitate a Mental Health Unit.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 09-10-2018 1:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 09-10-2018 8:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 09-11-2018 10:09 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 670 (839603)
09-10-2018 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Percy
09-10-2018 8:10 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Actually, that makes a lot of sense... maybe not second largest in New England, but second largest in Northern New England (Maine, NH, and Vermont) just behind Portland? Providence and Hartford are obviously more populous.
I was surprised to hear it's only about 110,000. I always thought it was somewhere around 300,000.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 09-10-2018 8:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 670 (839656)
09-12-2018 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Percy
09-11-2018 10:09 AM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
That assumption would ignore things I've already said. These police were obviously inadequately trained and prepared to handle a wellness check
That may be the case, but what is it evidenced by, the sole fact that someone died while on a Check Welfare call?
Vanessa Marquez didn't walk up to police with a gun. The police approached her, a known despondent person, in her apartment. The police put themselves into a situation where they felt so threatened they felt lethal force was necessary.
Immaterial. Police are required to respond to every single call for service, regardless of how obviously it may be a civil matter and totally outside of the purview of police. Nobody forced Ms. Marquez to reach for a weapon. While tragic and unfortunate, that shouldn't automatically be viewed as a failure on the part of the police.
Adequately trained and prepared police wouldn't do that.
Adequately trained and prepared police neutralize a threat if one presents itself. What is your metric?
Ah, blame the decedent. Good show.
Again, your only other option is to just allow someone to murder you. How can I be expected to take this inquiry seriously?
Tensions quickly escalated when Marquez refused to go voluntarily and pulled a gun (a BB gun, but they didn't know that). The officers and the health clinician fled the apartment. Why hadn't they checked her for weapons?
Usually it takes some articulable facts or circumstances for frisking someone. You don't ordinarily just randomly frisk someone, especially on a welfare check, for no apparent reason. Also, ordinarily a person can always refuse EMS. There are limitations though. One, if she demonstrated an altered consciousness, she would be taken in under Implied Consent. The other reason would be if she was placed on an Emergency Detention because she exhibited either suicidal or homicidal ideations. I don't know if either of those were the case on that day.
Sounds to me like the officers who were already there were handling the situation in a way that respected life, then two other officers responded to a report of someone with a gun and without consulting with the officers and mental health clinician unnecessarily escalated the situation into a confrontation. If Marquez has family willing to pursue this, I think the police are in a lot of trouble.
It's always possible that an officer created a tense situation that was otherwise calm. That can and does happen with impatient officers, and if Internal Affairs sees some improprieties in the case, they'll handle that. But even in that case, it will come down to whether or not they appropriately used deadly force. If she reached for the gun, then there's no dispute. BUT, how a situation arrives to its conclusion is important. I'd like to see the final verdict... unfortunately this can take months.
More evidence of the attitude making clear why police shouldn't have guns.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and painting with too broad of strokes.
What is fundamentally reasonable about police lethally defending themselves in a situation they themselves caused?
So they deserved to die because a third party asked them to check on her welfare and chose to reach for a gun? Whenever you look at a case, you cannot view it in hindsight with perfect 20/20 vision... as SCOTUS has termed it. To determine what is Objectively Reasonable, you have to view it in that moment and whether or not officer with the same training and experience would approach the exact same circumstances and in a similar manner.
So why did you conclude justifiable homicide instead of questioning why the officer didn't employ his Taser, bean bag rounds, pepper spray, tear gas or other means?
I didn't conclude that. I have no conclusions whatsoever about this case. All I am defending is whether, prima facie, it is reasonable to shoot someone who is reaching for a weapon. In almost every instance imaginable, the answer will be "yes." Could there be some extenuating circumstances? There's always that possibility. But as standard practice goes, you just can't reach for a weapon. And her annoyance at police presence isn't a justified reason to kill them, as you seem to be implying.
I'm speaking in specifics. Vanessa Marquez should still be alive. She should not have been wellness checked to death.
If she should be alive then she should not have forced their hand. It's not like anyone set out to terminate her life at the beginning of the day. Things evolve rapidly. The big take away is 'don't reach for guns in the presence of the police.'
I think we have more than enough information about the Vanessa Marquez homicide to raise serious questions about police methods and actions. Also, police departments should not be making their own determinations of what constitutes a justifiable "kill". When police all across the country rule that 90% of "kills" are justified, something is wrong.
Of course they should, and those decisions have to be made in milliseconds. That's what they're trained to do.
The Washington Post ran an article about police shootings a few years ago (On duty, under fire), but they accepted police departments' own accounts. Police shootings should be investigated by an independent and appropriately adversarial body.
You mean... like a Grand Jury... which is standard practice?
Your "proximity to the profession" has colored your judgment.
And your complete lack of knowledge on the profession, the rule of law, and common tactical standards has colored yours.
Uh, yes, of course, by mathematical necessity. Why mention this? So that I can bring up that blacks are shot by police at a rate several times higher than their proportion of the population?
I didn't bring it up, you brought that up. I was correcting your misnomer.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 09-11-2018 10:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-13-2018 11:08 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 670 (839749)
09-14-2018 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
09-13-2018 11:08 AM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
There's no other way to look at this other than a police wellness check gone horribly wrong.
No one disputes that it went wrong. The looming question was whether the outcome was produced maliciously, carelessly, or whether it was the appropriate response.
when Marquez reached for a gun the police and mental health counselor exited the apartment. This was good. But then two more officers arrived in an unmarked car after hearing a report of a person with a gun, entered the apartment and confronted Marquez, then shot her to death.
Assuming any details in the article are accurate, none of that sounds outside the bounds of an appropriate response, except to say that the police left the room when they saw a gun. As I suspected, she was being placed on an Emergency Detention, or as they refer to it in California, a "5150 Hold."
Police whose policy is to shoot anyone who produces a weapon are hugely derelict if they don't first check for weapons during a wellness check of someone despondent or who displays symptoms of being mentally disturbed, both of which were the case in the Marquez murder.
Hugely derelict? This seems like a very odd statement coming from someone as liberally-minded as you; almost as if you are criminalizing mental illness. It's not against the law to be mentally ill. And the fact that it was in a home is even less reason to begin an encounter with a frisk without some articulable reason to do so. Realistically, the only time a frisk would be done was once she was taken into detention - reason being, if the first thing you do is detain her and immediately frisk her, it produces a greater chance that she will view it as hostile. The idea is to always resolve any conflict at the lowest level. Unless she was continuously reaching around in a bag or on her person, it's not justification for a frisk.
It isn't me painting with "too broad of strokes." Events themselves are painting a painfully clear picture: human beings cannot be trusted to safely wield incredibly dangerous weapons like guns, and police are human beings.
Then you don't believe in the necessity of a standing army. Your bizarrely irrational fear of guns don't supersede reality.
After the officers conducting the wellness check exited the apartment, two more officers arrived, entered the apartment, confronted Marquez, and shot her to death in a hail of bullets.
And? She was being placed in Emergency Detention. They don't just go away because now she has a gun. Now she is that dangerous, mentally unstable person, who apparently has nothing to lose, that you were referring to earlier.
You didn't conclude justifiable homicide? Gee, I'm sorry, however did I get this so wrong? Oh, wait, I know, it's because you keep saying things like this from Message 144
Right, I did NOT conclude that, as evidenced from your own source:
quote:
I don't know all the facts and circumstances for this particular case. I'm speaking in generalities. There is such a thing as justifiable homicide and there are less-lethal options. But the circumstances may not always be appropriate to employ those options and each instance needs to be evaluated on their own merits and circumstances.
You keep saying that, and that you're speaking in generalities, and you keep stating conclusions.
I'm explaining common procedural steps that you may not be aware of and the logical reasons why those procedures are in place. The fundamental premise is whether or not police should weapons. You are hinging your response on a SINGLE incident that neither you nor I have all the answers to. That's a red herring, because you apparently can't defend your own suppositions. And, as stated before, none of it is relevant. If she reached for a gun without the reasonable expectation of saving her own life and was therefore shot subsequent to her own actions, then that's all the deliberation that is required. Anything less is tacit admission that you think that people should be able to pull guns on cops without the slightest recourse. If you follow the train of logic, what else can be deduced?
You didn't identify any misnomer, and you *did* bring it up out of the blue. What I said was
Oh, did I?
quote:
They derive from the many news reports of unjustifiable police shootings, particularly of people of color.
- Message 141
In any event, you brought it up.... out of the clear blue.
Of course, take away their guns and the problem goes away. I know your reply is that that invites anarchy, but I've already said several times that I don't mean that no police should have guns, only that the rank and file police should not have guns. Obviously there need to be special units that have guns.
So let's flesh that out in light of the case that you obviously want to perform an autopsy on postmortem. So lets assume every detail in the article is accurate since we have no other sources that have been released to the public. They check on her, she produces a gun, they "run" away...
Now instead of the 2 officers going inside the apartment, lets assume no cops instead of SWAT has them. What is the appropriate response for SWAT? I can think of a few scenarios:
1. Just let her go... she wants to die anyway.
2. We have to save her from herself... she's not thinking rationally. Lets talk to her from a bullhorn. Assuming she relents, she walks out peacefully.
3. Assuming she never relents, at some point someone has to go in. If she produces a weapon, she's going to be shot and the same scenario will play itself out.
Obviously number 2 is the desired outcome. But if Number 2 has been tried and exhausted ad nauseum, then which outcome is the next best option?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-13-2018 11:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 09-15-2018 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 670 (839787)
09-16-2018 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
09-15-2018 11:06 AM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
The second group, arriving later after the first group had exited the building, appears to be part of a different chain of command, because they didn't consult with the first group but merely entered the building and confronted Marquez, treating her as a potentially dangerous armed civilian instead of as a mentally ill person. I would call this a gross lack of coordination, not carelessness.
If I were a betting man, the first group radioed that a gun was produced. Every cop on that frequency that wasn't currently on another call showed up. They probably happened to be closest to the area and showed up first. They may have assumed, quite naturally actually, that the other officers were still inside. But I don't know... because I wasn't there... and neither were you. All I do know is that if you reach for a gun you're going to die.
I'm curious about this "swoosh" that gets mentioned as an indication that a BB gun was fired. Have BB guns changed that much since I was a kid? They used to make a click.
Wasn't sure about that sound either. Your guess is as good as mine on that detail.
What do you mean that the exception to the "appropriate response" was to leave the room when they saw a gun? I hope you don't mean they should have shot her then and there.
I don't know, but I know milliseconds can matter greatly. But at the very least they should have at least trained their weapons on her. They're responsible not only for each other's protection, but the life of the clinician and possibly any other residents nearby.
Police whose policy is to shoot anyone who produces a weapon are hugely derelict if they don't first check for weapons during a wellness check of someone despondent or who displays symptoms of being mentally disturbed, both of which were the case in the Marquez murder.
It sounds as if she may have hid it under her pillow based on her previous statements. A frisk within lungeable distances can be done, but again, just being despondent and mentally ill isn't necessarily reason in itself. I'd also have to see what Pasadena PD's policy. My policy is pretty liberal in the sense that they want articulation so as to not create an impression of criminalizing the mentally ill.
I'm not a liberal. That I am not ignoring the inherent dangers of firearms and the misbehaviors of police as continually made obvious by events reported in the press does not make me a liberal. It makes me a "see problem, want to solve problem" type of person. The problem is those who see no problem and respond with mindless slogans like, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Well, that's actually a truism, conservative or liberal.
It appears you didn't understand what I said, so let me say it again, at greater length and so hopefully more clearly. If police policy is to immediately murder anyone who produces a gun, then especially for a wellness check of a despondent person who can reasonably be expected to possess the means of causing their own demise, such as a gun or knife, it is incumbent upon the police to first check that there is no gun or knife on the person's person or in the immediate vicinity, because murdering the person being wellness checked would be wholly inconsistent with the goals of a wellness check. The first group of cops appeared to understand that murdering the person being wellness checked was a bad thing.
None of that invalidates the inherent right to self-preservation. Assuming they frisked her person and she had it hiding in the nightstand, which is protected by her 4th Amendment right, would it really matter? You can't pull a gun on someone aside from imminent deadly force.
It was a multi-family dwelling.
It's a residence, which is more closely protected by the 4th Amendment is my point. There are different legal thresholds. A person isn't as protected as a car, which isn't as protected as a home, which isn't as protected as a specific object like, say, a safe.
Sure she could view a frisk as hostile - but if the police's only response is to wellness check the person to death if they produce a gun or knife, which is what you are arguing, then in order to prevent this murderous outcome they have to first check if the person has any weapons available.
So then I can suppose that had they checked her person for weapons and she ran into a bathroom and produced the gun, then you would find inherent self-protection to be justified? Because you never seem to answer when you find it acceptable for someone to shoot another person that is demonstrating intent to shoot them. Is your qualm that they neglected to frisk her (which we aren't even clear whether or not that happened)?
If police are going to immediately murder her if a gun is produced, then it is incumbent upon the police to first make sure there is no gun.
That's not always possible, Percy. And sometimes in the process of attempting to do that very thing is when the deed goes down. I don't know what to tell you. It's a job where literally anything can happen and sometimes it takes a fraction of a fraction of a second to deliberate... and you can't ever get it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snkaeOP4vHM
You're quibbling about details that, in the grand scheme, are irrelevant. Can you expect to be shot if you point a gun at an officer? Yes. Even if police procedurally could have done something better, it doesn't erase the subject's behavior.
human beings cannot be trusted to safely wield incredibly dangerous weapons like guns, and police are human beings.
Short of the uninvention of the gun, we're just going to have accept and deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it to be.
That doesn't follow from anything I've said, but as long as you mention it, there have been mass shootings on military bases, and just send a military unit into a war zone and watch the atrocities mount up. Mi Lai is one of the Vietnam atrocities we know about (and also the most egregious), but we can be sure there were many that never came to light. Or consider Blackwater's misdeeds in Iraq - we can be sure the ones we know about aren't the only ones that happened.
So then, again, human beings are so stupid that they should be incapable of wielding arms responsibly. So you then necessarily don't believe standing armies should exist either if what you say is so self-evidently true.
You're contradicting yourself. By your own admission police regard guns as so incredibly dangerous that merely reaching for one is justification for the them to unleash a hail of bullets, but you call my fear of guns "bizarrely irrational."
LOL, no one disputes that guns are dangerous - that's what they are intentionally designed to be. Your argument is that guns are incredibly dangerous, so much so, that NO ONE should be allowed to handle them because apparently just possessing one makes everyone go full-retard.
You have to make up your mind which way it is. Are guns so incredibly dangerous that it is rational for the police to murder someone who merely reaches for a gun, or are guns so incredibly safe that fearing them is "bizarrely irrational."
"Merely reaches for a gun," you can't be serious... Merely. There's nothing mere about it. And that is the epitome of a rational and normative regard for them. The "bizarrely irrational" regard I am referring for you is that you seem to think handling them is akin to tampering with a sensitive trip wire packed with explosives.
Guns kill over 30,000 people a year. Fearing them is rational, or more accurately, fearing a gun in the hands of a human being is incredibly rational.
Motor vehicle deaths produce similar lethality rates in this country. Just like a gun, I am able to appreciate the potential lethality of a vehicle without losing my mind. There is a distinction between a healthy respect versus an irrational fear.
You keep saying that, and that you're speaking in generalities, and you keep stating conclusions.
The sole conclusion I am making is that 999 times out of 1,000, there's no dispute that if you reach for a gun in the presence of an officer that the officer has the legal right to stop the threat. As it pertains to the very specific case that you want to hang your entire thesis on, is still unclear. You are focusing on every detail BESIDES the obvious one. Imagine that... When I watch the body cam footage, read all the reports, the autopsy results, etc then I'll give my final verdict on this very specific case. What I am telling you, repeatedly, is *IF* she reached or pointed a firearm, then in a general sense it MORE THAN LIKELY appears, on the surface level, to be justified. But I would always allow the possibility for some extenuating circumstance that may be relevant. Is that clear enough as to how I am able to distinguish generalities from specifics? The problem is, I don't have all the specifics. So why are you demanding that I reach a verdict here and now?
A single incident? Have you read this thread? It's full of incidents. Would you like to expand this sub-discussion to include other incidents, like where a police officer mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and murdered the resident, or where police used a Taser on an 87-year old woman, or where police shot a man three times who they were supposedly wellness checking, or where a swat team called under false pretenses murdered the person who answered the door, or where a dancing FBI agent accidentally shot someone, or about the nurse arrested in the ER for following the law about when blood can be drawn (no gun involved, just an example of a police officer losing it), or the shooting of Tamir Rice, or where NYPD cops murdered a black man waving a pipe, or where East Pittsburgh police murdered a suspect running away from them.
No, because then I'd have to produce the infinitely greater number of specific instances demonstrating that they get it right far greater than it goes wrong. And that's just more work than is necessary to determine a fundamental right.
The bottom line is that I'm not gonna change your mind... you won't change mind. And we'll be quibbling about this 'til Rapture. What's the point?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 09-15-2018 11:06 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 09-16-2018 9:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024