Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 12:01 AM
205 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 204 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,027 Year: 16,850/29,783 Month: 838/1,956 Week: 341/331 Day: 0/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 136 of 159 (839178)
09-04-2018 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2018 12:41 AM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyroglyphx writes:

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.

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.

So in your mind I guess this is just another justifiable police homicide.

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.

No, no, no, you're missing the point. 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.

There is no greater conduit for mental illness than the justice system,...

If you mean that it far too often happens that the mentally ill are inappropriately channelled into the legal system, then I agree.

...which is a testament to the overwhelming long-suffering that is exhibited towards those with mental illness.

If you mean the mentally ill are a long-suffering group at the hands of the legal system, then I agree.

But I don't agree that we have a justice system. 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.

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.

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." I don't believe the police are much involved in providing services for the mentally ill unless such service might somehow overlap with police responsibility or be a special case, such as rounding up the homeless and taking them to shelters on frigid nights that could be life-threatening.

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.

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?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2018 12:41 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2018 9:37 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 137 of 159 (839440)
09-08-2018 8:59 AM


Policewoman Murders Man in His Own Apartment
Source: A police officer walked into a manís home ó mistaking it for her own ó and killed him, police say

The basic facts are not in dispute. On September 6th an off duty but still in uniform Dallas policewoman walked into an apartment she believed her own and shot to death the man inside, the apartment's actual resident, Botham Shem Jean. She'd entered the wrong apartment. The policewoman has not yet been identified. There are a few obvious questions:

  • How did the policewoman open the door to an apartment not her own? This may or may not be a real issue. If the door to this apartment didn't shut right or if residents can set their doors to not automatically lock when closed of if Botham Shem Jean had left the door ajar to get more air into the apartment or to let a friend just walk in, or any other reasons along these lines, then the door being open isn't an issue. But what if the door was closed and locked? How did the policewoman gain entry?

  • Did the policewoman and Botham Shem Jean know each other? Had they ever had any interactions?

  • How did the policewoman not immediately realize she wasn't in her own apartment. This is analogous to trying to enter a car you think is yours but only looks like it. As soon as the car doesn't react to your key you take another look and immediately notice details that tell you it isn't your car. Or for those who have worked in cubicle farms, who hasn't turned into the wrong cubicle (often while reading a memo) and immediately realized they'ed turned a cubicle too early or too late. Not recognizing you're in the wrong apartment just doesn't ring true, unless the officer was under the heavy influence of drugs or alcohol. A blood sample was taken.

Every case is different, and this one just emphasizes once again that police are as human as the rest of us and are as dangerous with guns as everyone else, even more so since they commit a disproportionately large proportion of homicides compared to their tiny proportion of the population. As the article states:

quote:
So far this year, at least 694 people have been shot and killed by police, according to a Washington Post database on police-involved shootings. However, those cases involve officers who were on duty at the time of the shootings.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Lammy, posted 09-08-2018 11:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3578
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 138 of 159 (839446)
09-08-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
09-08-2018 8:59 AM


Re: Policewoman Murders Man in His Own Apartment
*Sigh*

This case is particularly scary because the guy was just in his apartment minding his own business. We all know what the policewoman's defense will be. He was holding what appeared to be a gun but turned out to be the tv remote. He appeared threatening. He reached for her gun. She feared for her life. He's no angel because he had a parking ticket 5 years ago.

Edit.

Also, I abhor the phrase "police-involved shooting". This is a completely made-up phrase by LEOs to downplay what happened.

Say a dog just bit a woman. Do we call it a dog-biting case or a dog-involved biting?

By the way, if anyone accuses me of cop-hating, I'm an ex LEO.

Edited by Lammy, : No reason given.


If you say the word "gullible" slowly, it sounds like oranges. Go ahead and try it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 09-08-2018 8:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Diomedes, posted 09-09-2018 10:42 AM Lammy has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 741
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 139 of 159 (839503)
09-09-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Lammy
09-08-2018 11:35 AM


Re: Policewoman Murders Man in His Own Apartment
This case is particularly scary because the guy was just in his apartment minding his own business

When I read the facts of this particular case, I have a suspicion that there is more to this entire scenario. It simply makes no sense when you take a step back and view the chain of events.

The police officer finished her shift and returned home. She went the wrong apartment and somehow got in. No details on how that happened. Was the door not locked? I am guessing she should have noticed quickly that her key didn't appear to work. And even if the door was unlocked, did that not raise a red flag with her?

But the other portion that makes no sense is that she entered the apartment and somehow didn't realize immediately that it was not her own? I lived in many apartment complexes over the years. It would take me all of one second to realize I was not in my apartment upon entry unless I was literally drunk out of my skull.

Lastly, after the man was shot, witnesses indicated she rendered no aid and was seen pacing in the hallway before other police officers arrived.

As I say, this is a bizarre sequence of events. Her being a police officer notwithstanding, I just don't buy the account and I think there is more to this story. Perhaps a history between her and this other individual that has not come to light. Or maybe she is just a nut that has no business being in uniform or having a firearm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Lammy, posted 09-08-2018 11:35 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5600
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 140 of 159 (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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 141 of 159 (839563)
09-10-2018 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Hyroglyphx
09-09-2018 9:37 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyroglyphx writes:

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.

Original response after misinterpreting the above:

Police-conducted wellness checks are not about "despondent people looking to kill them."

New response after Faith clarified for me:

Of course they don't. No one's accusing the police of murderous intent.

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?

I would suggest not killing them.

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.

It is not "casting all kinds of aspersions" to say that the police should never wellness check someone to death.

So in your mind I guess this is just another justifiable police homicide.

Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Pretty open and shut.

More evidence of the attitude making clear why police shouldn't have guns.

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.

Great. 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?

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?

Point taken. Obviously I watch too many cop shows.

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.

Who said anything about a police force being loathsome, whether armed or not? The concern is about an armed police force.

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?

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.

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.

Mental Health Officers sound like a good idea, but I'd have to know more about them. It was three officers and a mental health clinician who were sent to Vanessa Marquez's apartment. Too many cooks, perhaps.

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? When I see a gun I go the other way.

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.

Only special police units would be armed.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix formatting.

Edited by Percy, : Fix first response after Faith straightened me out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2018 9:37 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 09-10-2018 2:47 PM Percy has responded
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-10-2018 5:44 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30028
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 142 of 159 (839567)
09-10-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
09-10-2018 1:48 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Percy writes:

Hyro writes:

Police don't respond to despondent people looking to kill them.

Police-conducted wellness checks are not about "despondent people looking to kill them."

You have the most amazing knack for misreading things. Isn't it obvious Hyro meant that POLICE, in responding to despondent people, aren't looking to kill them?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 09-10-2018 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 143 of 159 (839571)
09-10-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
09-10-2018 2:47 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Faith writes:

Isn't it obvious Hyro meant that POLICE, in responding to despondent people, aren't looking to kill them?

Ah, thank you, of course, I shall fix my response. In my defense, this sub-discussion is about police responding to a despondent person that they actually did think was looking to kill them, so one fired his weapon and killed her.

T-97 minutes and counting.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 09-10-2018 2:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5600
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 144 of 159 (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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 145 of 159 (839599)
09-10-2018 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Hyroglyphx
09-10-2018 5:44 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
This part of your message was amusing enough that I just had to respond now, I'll respond to the rest later:

Hyroglyphx writes:

It's my understanding that Manchester is the largest city in New England (excluding Boston).

To the rest of the country New England must seem like a jumble of tiny little states, and the details about the states themselves must seem incredibly obscure. I'm surprised you felt confident enough to venture a guess about how big Manchester is relative to other New England cities.

My guess is that Manchester is somewhere around the tenth largest city in New England, something like this (this is just a guess):

  1. Boston, MA
  2. Providence, RI
  3. Hartford, CT
  4. Worcester, MA
  5. Springfield, MA
  6. New Haven, CT
  7. Bridgeport, CT
  8. Waterbury, CT
  9. Lowell, MA
  10. Manchester, NH

Checking Demographics of New England it looks like I did sort of okay, but Manchester *is* around number ten. It's a very small city of around 110,000. Its police department has nothing resembling a mental health unit as far as I can tell from their website. The city's health department doesn't appear to have a mental health division.

Want to hear something really surprising about the size of a particular New England city? Montpelier, the capital of Vermont, has a population around 7500. It's the smallest state capital in the country and has a declining population.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-10-2018 5:44 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-10-2018 9:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5600
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 146 of 159 (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 acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 147 of 159 (839611)
09-11-2018 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Hyroglyphx
09-10-2018 5:44 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyroglyphx writes:

I would suggest not killing them.

I can only assume then you find it perfectly acceptable that they kill the police officer then.

That assumption would ignore things I've already said. These police were obviously inadequately trained and prepared to handle a wellness check, which obviously would include suicidal people who can be expected to possess the lethal means of causing their own demise. If the only response police have to a suicidal person with a gun is to shoot them, then clearly police are the last people one should call for a wellness check

Sometimes there really are situations in life where it is kill or be killed with no middle ground.

No one's disputing that. But 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. Adequately trained and prepared police wouldn't do that.

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.

Ah, blame the decedent. Good show.

More details have come out, if you're interested you can read about them here: NEW INFORMATION: Witnesses, Police Provide Details into the Shooting Death of Actress Vanessa Marquez

The gist of the new information is that officers thought Marquez appeared to be "gravely ill", was experiencing seizures, and "She looked like she was dead." After 30 minutes of polite discussion a mental health clinician arrived and discussion continued. Fire rescue was called to take Marquez to the hospital. 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?

A short while later two other officers responding to reports of a person with a gun arrived in an unmarked car. They marched into the apartment, confronted Marquez, and shot her to death. A witness says it was 19 shots, the police deny it was that many.

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.

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?

What is fundamentally reasonable about police lethally defending themselves in a situation they themselves caused?

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.

We still don't have "all the facts," but the article I cited above has a great many more details.

I'm speaking in generalities.

I'm speaking in specifics. Vanessa Marquez should still be alive. She should not have been wellness checked to death.

There is such a thing as justifiable homicide...

Granted.

...and there are less-lethal options.

Gosh, ya think?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your "proximity to the profession" has colored your judgment.

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.

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?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-10-2018 5:44 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-12-2018 3:08 AM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5600
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 148 of 159 (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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 149 of 159 (839694)
09-13-2018 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Hyroglyphx
09-12-2018 3:08 AM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyroglyphx writes:

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?

*Someone* died, you say? Who was that someone? Was it a police officer? I think not. It was the person being wellness checked. There's no other way to look at this other than a police wellness check gone horribly wrong.

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.

Now you're ignoring the additional information I supplied from the article NEW INFORMATION: Witnesses, Police Provide Details into the Shooting Death of Actress Vanessa Marquez. Repeating what I just said in the very message you're replying to, 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. However many shots were fired, it was enough to require extensive repairs to the wallboard and woodwork. Marquez's gun turned out to be a BB gun.

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?

My metric? How about not wellness checking someone to death.

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?

You're already not taking it seriously, by continuing to ignore the information supplied in the article NEW INFORMATION: Witnesses, Police Provide Details into the Shooting Death of Actress Vanessa Marquez. Two officers heard a report of someone with a gun, drove to the site, parted their car, entered the apartment, confronted that person, and shot her to death. How about at least standing outside on the sidewalk with a bullhorn for a while and trying to talk the person down. It isn't like there wasn't a mental health professional present. This was a pretty big screw up.

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.

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.

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.

News reports are that the police department is working with the DA's office to produce a report within the next six to twelve months. The involved officers are on administrative leave for now.

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.

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.

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?

You're again ignoring the information from the article NEW INFORMATION: Witnesses, Police Provide Details into the Shooting Death of Actress Vanessa Marquez, which I clearly summarized. 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.

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.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable standard, and the particulars of this case say that the officers did not act in an objectively reasonable way.

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.

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:

Hyglyphx in Message 144 writes:

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.

Back to your current message:

I have no conclusions whatsoever about this case.

You keep saying that, and that you're speaking in generalities, and you keep stating conclusions.

All I am defending is whether, prima facie, it is reasonable to shoot someone who is reaching for a weapon.

Again (and again and again), the officers making the wellness check did not shoot Marquez. They exited the apartment. That seems pretty reasonable.

In almost every instance imaginable, the answer will be "yes."

Except that, again, the the officers making the wellness check did not shoot Marquez. They exited the apartment. So obviously it is not true that, "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.

If standard police practice is to murder anyone who reaches for a gun then police shouldn't have guns. I suggest better training for such situations.

And her annoyance at police presence isn't a justified reason to kill them, as you seem to be implying.

You're calling it annoyance when it was clearly mental illness.

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.

So you're saying that mentally ill people should be held responsible for the their actions, and that murdering them is okay if in the police's view their hand is being forced, even if they initiated the confrontation?

It's not like anyone set out to terminate her life at the beginning of the day.

Regarding premeditation, I think the two officers who marched into the apartment to confront Marquez (who they thought was armed with a gun) could be said to have pretty clear intent: "If she threatens us we will shoot her."

Things evolve rapidly.

Things evolving rapidly seem pretty likely when one marches into an apartment to confront someone who supposedly has a gun. Could I suggest not marching into the apartment? Bullhorn on the sidewalk, perhaps? Of from behind one of the police vehicles?

The big take away is 'don't reach for guns in the presence of the police.'

Oh, yeah, sure, that's the answer. The mentally ill can really be expected to behave rationally.

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.

Murdering the public is not what police are 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?

You're misinformed. Taking police shootings to grand juries is not common practice. In this particular case the police department is working with the DA's office to conduct an investigation. The results of that investigation will determine whether anything is presented to a grand jury.

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.

My lack of knowledge is nowhere as complete as you claim, but what I'm really doing is insisting on standards for the police that include not murdering the public they're supposed to be protecting. If police policies, procedures and training are so great, why does my probability of being shot go up when a policeman is nearby?

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.

You didn't identify any misnomer, and you *did* bring it up out of the blue. What I said was:

Percy in Message 141 writes:

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.

Where is the misnomer in that? You replied, in part, "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."

One obvious response is what I already said, that blacks are shot by police at a rate several times higher than their proportion of the population. How could that be unless police attitudes, policies, procedures and training are inadequate.

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.

Citizens shouldn't have guns, either. If we truly value human life, guns are far too dangerous to be wielded by mere humans.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-12-2018 3:08 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2018 3:11 PM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5600
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 150 of 159 (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 responded

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

    
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018