Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 9:04 PM
271 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 270 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,319 Year: 15,142/29,783 Month: 1,086/1,502 Week: 84/492 Day: 47/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 151 of 157 (839770)
09-15-2018 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2018 3:11 PM


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

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.

We agree that the wellness check went horribly wrong and that it wasn't out of malice.

About whether carelessness was involved, that isn't the term I'd choose. There were two groups that interacted with Marquez. The first group consisting of two cops and a mental health clinician was cautious. 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.

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,...

Always a concern. The details may change. I understand that new details that emerge will impact my interpretations. 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.

...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.

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.

As I suspected, she was being placed on an Emergency Detention, or as they refer to it in California, a "5150 Hold."

Right. Here's the first section of that act:

quote:
ARTICLE 1. Detention of Mentally Disordered Persons for Evaluation and Treatment [5150 - 5155] ( Heading of Article 1 amended by Stats. 1969, Ch. 1472. )

5150. (a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service.


This section describes taking a mentally ill person into custody for a period of evaluation. From what we know so far, the first group of cops treated this like a 5150 situation, and the second group did not.

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;...

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."

...almost as if you are criminalizing mental illness.

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.

It's not against the law to be mentally ill.

It's not only not against the law, being mentally ill is supposed to gain you special treatment, such as the presence of a mental health clinician as was the case here. I'm going to keep saying this because you're not getting it: a despondent mentally ill person can reasonably be expected to possess the means of causing their own demise. If that gun or knife becomes apparent to the police they have to have strategies available beyond just pulling out their guns and murdering the person. Again, the first group of cops appeared to understand this.

And the fact that it was in a home...

It was a multi-family dwelling.

...is even less reason to begin an encounter with a frisk without some articulable reason to do so.

I'm going to say this again because you're not getting it. There is a very obvious and very articulable (obviously, since I've articulated it numerous times) reason to make sure a despondent (i.e., potentially suicidal) person would possess the means of causing their own demise, such as a gun or knife. If the polices's only response to the mentally ill person producing a gun or knife is to murder them, which is what you are arguing, then it is incumbent upon the police to first check if the person has such as weapon on their person or if one is present in the vicinity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your bizarrely irrational fear of guns don't supersede reality.

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." 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."

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.

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.

I think you may be putting words in my mouth. I don't recall ever characterizing Marquez in this way. I believe I usually refer to her as a despondent person, or as mentally ill.

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,...

Wrong, you *did* conclude that, as evidenced by the part you chopped from your 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:

...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.

Why are you calling this my own source? Those are your words, and I rebutted them in Message 147, basically saying that we have more than enough information to know that this is a wellness check gone horribly wrong, as you have already conceded. Where we differ is that you want to place the blame on the despondent mentally ill person, while I want to blame police policies, procedures and training.

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.

And I've explained the illogic in your arguments.

The fundamental premise is whether or not police should have weapons. You are hinging your response on a SINGLE incident that neither you nor I have all the answers to.

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.

So yeah, right, a single incident, sure. The reality is that the news is full of police misbehavior involving their guns. I don't even post most of the news reports I come across, just the most egregious ones.

That's a red herring, because you apparently can't defend your own suppositions.

Then what are you responding to if not my defenses of my "suppositions"?

And, as stated before, none of it is relevant.

Incidents reported in the news of police malfeasance involving guns is not relevant? Are you joking?

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.

So in your view the police are justified in murdering the mentally ill person being wellness checked when she reaches for a gun. Again, obviously the police are the last people you should call for a wellness check of someone who is potentially suicidal since such person can reasonably be expected to possess the means of carrying out their own demise.

Anything less is tacit admission that you think that people should be able to pull guns on cops without the slightest recourse.

Well now you're just posturing. I've never said anything of the sort, and we've already discussed other recourses, some of which you've mentioned yourself, such as Tasers and bean bag bullets, and I've mentioned bullhorns, etc.

If you follow the train of logic, what else can be deduced?

In the case of your logic, I would say garbage in, garbage out.

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.

I still have no idea what misnomer you're talking about. Do you even know what a misnomer is? If I somewhere used the wrong term, what was it and where was it.

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?

You want to call in a SWAT team? For a despondent mentally ill person with a gun? That's not what SWAT teams are called for. I think your judgment has gone far off the rails.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2018 3:11 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2018 1:47 AM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5593
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 152 of 157 (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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 153 of 157 (839795)
09-16-2018 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2018 1:47 AM


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

All I do know is that if you reach for a gun you're going to die.

Well, that's a problem, and that you refuse to acknowledge it makes you part of the problem. You seem to be shifting toward a less flexible position. What happened to alternative course of actions like Tasers, bean bag bullets, bullhorns, strategic retreat and negotiation, etc.

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.

You're still missing the point. If the police's only way of dealing with someone who produces a gun is to murder them, then it is incumbent upon the police, especially during a wellness check of someone despondent who is likely to possess the means of causing their own demise such as a gun, to make sure no gun is present.

But if the police have other means available, such as Tasers, bean bag bullets, strategic retreat (which the first group of cops did), negotiation, etc., then checking for a gun isn't essential (though it still seems advisable to me).

Is that clear now? It all depends upon the alternatives police have available for dealing with a despondent person. If when a gun is produced they can only respond by murdering the person, then they're derelict if they don't first check for a gun. If they have other non-lethal means at their disposal then checking for a gun becomes a less essential priority.

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.

What, you're endorsing "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"? That's just "sweep the problem under the rug" sloganeering.

None of that invalidates the inherent right to self-preservation.

If police don't have the right to insure they're not placing themselves in lethal danger, then this "inherent right to self-preservation" that you cite means they should refuse to enter the room.

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?

The court defines a number of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment - I'm sure cops are allowed to make sure a despondent person has no lethal weapons within reach.

You can't pull a gun on someone aside from imminent deadly force.

Cops pull their weapons all the time when there's no threat of imminent deadly force. How do you think unarmed people get shot by police?

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.

Of course there are situations where lethal force is justified, but that wasn't the case with the Marquez murder.

Is your qualm that they neglected to frisk her (which we aren't even clear whether or not that happened)?

Clearly they either didn't check for weapons or did it very poorly.

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.

Granted, but we're talking about the Marquez case. When police entered her apartment she appeared very sick and to be suffering seizures. Checking for guns would have been easy.

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.

And yet they did get it wrong - lethally wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snkaeOP4vHM

You can embed YouTube videos in messages by saying [utube=snkaeOP4vHM]. I'll watch your YouTube video when you make your point in the message and only provide the video as a supporting reference. I rarely watch videos, they're painfully, achingly slow, i can read far, far faster.

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.

You're avoiding the subject again and blaming the despondent mentally ill decedent for causing a "murder by cop" situation.

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.

England didn't uninvent the gun, they mostly don't have guns, and England is reality. Isn't that amazing.

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 again putting words in my mouth. You're misstating my argument and then rebutting the misstated argument. I have in fact argued the opposite. Human beings are not stupid, just imperfect, which is why there are so many accidental discharges of firearms. Flipping a light switch is an incredibly simple and easy thing to do, yet how many times have you failed to flip the switch on the first try? Plenty of times, right? And it isn't because you're stupid or uncoordinated or careless, you're just imperfect. It's goes with being human.

This imperfectness is just as much present with firearms, but the effects can be lethal. You thought there was no bullet in the chamber, but there was. You thought you unloaded the gun but you didn't. You thought you locked the firearm away, but you didn't. You thought the safety was on, but it wasn't. The list of possible mistakes just goes on and on.

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're again putting words in my mouth. You should try rebutting the arguments I actually make instead of the ones you make up.

I did not argue that "just possessing one makes everyone go full-retard." I argued that human beings are not perfect and cannot be trusted with so lethal an instrument. The number of accidental gun deaths every year, around 500, makes this clear. The number of unjustified police shootings also makes this perfectly clear (I know almost all police shootings are ruled justified, but that's too absurd for anyone to believe).

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.

The analogy of handling a gun as "akin to tampering with a sensitive trip wire packed with explosives" is your analogy, not mine. I have used facts. Guns kill more than 30,000 people a year. Police fear them, I fear them. There is nothing "bizarrely irrational" about fearing guns.

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.

You're confusing rates with numerical quantities. The more than 30,000 deaths per year by guns and motor vehicles are not rates, they're quantities. Motor vehicle death rates are stated as deaths per 100 million miles traveled, around 1.25. There is no equivalent rate for guns. There is also no pressure to make guns safer as there is for motor vehicles.

Just like a gun, I am able to appreciate the potential lethality of a vehicle without losing my mind.

Human beings are notoriously bad at estimating relative dangers. Here's the reality in the form of the odds of being killed by various means (Source: Your chances of dying from a plane crash, a shark attack or lightning strike):

  • Motor vehicle accident: 1 in 112
  • Firearm death: 1 in 358
  • Place crash: 1 in 8015
  • Poisonous animal or plant: 1 in 42,120
  • Lightning: 1 in 164,968
  • Shark attack: 1 in 3,700,000

How about that, firearms are second on the list.

There is a distinction between a healthy respect versus an irrational fear.

I see. When police fear firearms so greatly that they respond to a firearm with a hail of bullets they have a rational healthy respect, but when I fear firearms I have an "irrational fear." I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

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

Why are you quoting something I said two messages ago as if I just said it?

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.

And the police have clearly demonstrated that they do not deserve this right. It's a license for murder.

As it pertains to the very specific case that you want to hang your entire thesis on, is still unclear.

As just stated in the very message you're replying to, this thread is full of cases. Why don't we switch to the Tamir Rice case, which the police handled so wonderfully and responsibly that the City of Cleveland settled for $6 million.

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?

Reserve judgment all you like. If Marquez's family brings a civil lawsuit it is highly likely that the city of South Pasadena will be paying out millions. Want to lay odds?

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,...

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.

What a surprise - of course you don't want to examine other cases.

The police do not have a fundamental right to murder. That the laws and courts are stacked against plaintiffs in such cases doesn't change what is actually true.

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?

The point is that guns are too dangerous for most people to have. Including the police.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2018 1:47 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2018 3:49 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5593
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 154 of 157 (839809)
09-16-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
09-16-2018 9:53 AM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
The point is that guns are too dangerous for most people to have. Including the police.

And any attempt to rationalize otherwise is a futile endeavor for me to undertake. I think we've both sufficiently explained our positions that leads to a perpetual stalemate. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. We've found common ground on other debates, but I think we just see things too differently on this issue.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 09-16-2018 9:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 155 of 157 (839899)
09-18-2018 9:32 AM


It is possible to not mistake a cellphone for a gun
Juan David Ortiz, the Border Patrol agent who killed four women in Texas, tried and failed to commit "suicide by cop". This is from Border Patrol agent implicated in 4 murders tried to commit ‘suicide by cop,’ authorities say:

quote:
Juan David Ortiz, fleeing police after a series of killings in Laredo, Tex., wanted to die, authorities said.

He positioned himself in a hotel parking garage as a SWAT team closed in early Saturday morning. He had left a firearm behind earlier.

But he had a cellphone, authorities said, that he wanted to look like a gun.

It didn’t work. Ortiz, 35, a Border Patrol agent, was arrested without incident in the slayings of four women in a two-week period, including two women who were killed after another woman escaped his truck Friday night and alerted police, authorities said.


Ortiz, an officer trained in firearms, was trying to make the SWAT team members think his cellphone was a gun. He wanted the SWAT team to think he was pointing a gun at them. He wanted the SWAT team to kill him. It didn't work. Apparently there are effective and non-lethal means of dealing with potentially lethal threats - a hail of bullets isn't necessary.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 156 of 157 (840977)
10-06-2018 8:36 AM


On October 20, 2014, 17-year old and black Laquan McDonald failed to follow police instructions to drop the knife he was carrying while walking down South Pulaski Road in Chicago. Police officer Jason Van Dyke fired all 16 bullets of his 9mm semi-automatic pistol into McDonald, killing him.

Based upon police reports the department initially ruled the McDonald homicide justifiable and the case received little national attention for over a year until a court ordered release of Officer Van Dyke's dashboard video which showed a different sequence of events. It showed McDonald walking erratically away from Van Dyke, who advanced upon McDonald and began firing. Van Dyke was arrested and charged with murder.

Yesterday in a Chicago courtroom Jason Van Dyke was found guilty of second degree murder, which is good news but not the end of the story. Three other Chicago police officers have been charged with covering up what really happened on South Pulaski Road. Eight police vehicles were at the scene, and while no charges will likely result, three of their eight dashboard videos are missing.

The story of the release of the key video is a story in itself involving an anonymous witness, inconsistencies in police reports, a whistleblower, 15 Chicago Police Department denials to release the video, and finally a court order.

The Laquan McDonald tragedy tells us once again that police are more likely to shoot blacks, that police officers lie to protect themselves and their own, and that police departments tenaciously withhold information to protect their officers. That police departments are permitted to decide whether a homicide is justifiable is reprehensible and unacceptable.

That police lying and withholding of information is so universal tells us that we're not seeing some strange grouping of the dishonest into police departments. We're seeing human nature in action, the instinct for self-preservation. What it means is that police departments cannot police themselves. They must be policed by an independent and fair but adversarial department, perhaps on offshoot of the prosecutor's office.

Sources:

--Percy
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 157 of 157 (841391)
10-12-2018 8:14 AM


Why am I not surprised?
Today's Chicago Tribune (note the city - see a pattern here?) reports that Officer Brandon Ternand is innocent of any wrongdoing in the murder, oops, excuse me, justifiable homicide of Dakota Bright, who was shot in the back of the head while running from Officer Ternand: Chicago Police Board clears cop in controversial fatal shooting of 15-year-old boy

What a surprise, the Chicago Police Board clearing one of their own, and just a year after the city's police watchdog agency (Civilian Office of Police Accountability aka Independent Police Review Authority) found Officer Ternand at fault and recommended his firing. The city has already paid out about a million dollars to Bright's family.

The facts of the case are straightforward. Bright was on the street and not breaking any laws when Officer Ternand tried to stop him. Possibly because he had been beaten by the police before, Bright ran away. Officer Ternand gave chase and shot Bright in the back of the head from 50 feet away, killing him.

A .22-caliber gun was found in the front yard of a house nearby. Bright's fingerprints were not found on the gun as far as I have been able to determine. Officer Ternand claimed that Bright had turned his head and was reaching toward his left pocket when he fired. Nothing was found in Bright's left pocket.

Office Ternand's account has additional details that seem unlikely. Though Bright was walking from a friend's house to his grandmother's home, Officer Ternand said he encountered Bright in an alley holding a gun. Bright fled while trying to stick the gun in his waistband. The pursuit involved jumping fences and running through backyards.

The accounts of other police at the scene support Officer Ternand's account, but the Independent Police Review Authority charged collusion, saying they were not just coworkers but friends who socialized together. They had ample time and opportunity to coordinate their stories. They testified that while running Bright was holding his side in the way perpetrators do when trying to prevent a gun from falling out of their waistband. How they observed this after Bright put considerable distance between he and them while jumping fences and crossing backyards isn't explained. Since no gun was found on his person, why Bright would have made a gesture toward a non-existent gun is also unexplained.

This is the same story we've heard time and again. A cop shoots a civilian and invents testimony to clear himself. In this case, as in so many others, the cop is white, the other cops on his team are white, they're all friends, and the decedent is black. Officer Ternand has been named in a half dozen lawsuits that have cost Chicago taxpayers $1.1 million so far. He has opened fire while on duty on at least two other occasions.

Had there been bodycam footage Officer Ternand would undoubtedly have been found to be lying. I don't say this because of hard evidence but because whenever there's video footage the police are invariably found to be lying. Bright was light and wiry and undoubtedly fast. Officer Ternand realized that Bright would easily escape, so he fired his weapon. Walking up to the fallen Bright and realizing he might possibly have killed him, he carefully removed a small .22-caliber pistol from his pocket that he carried for just this eventuality, taking care to put no fingerprints on it, and tossed it into a nearby front yard. Or perhaps one of the other cops at the scene did this.

Officer Ternand is not a bad egg. Under the bell shaped curve of Chicago police officers (who operate in a very dangerous environment) he is undoubtedly toward the more aggressive end, but statistically if you give a group a lot of guns in a town with a lot of crime and tell them it's their job to prevent crime, inevitably people will be shot and some will be killed. The Chicago cops, by and large, should not have guns. Most cops should not have guns.

Speaking statistically again, the vast majority of crime does not take place in front of cops. It largely takes place out of sight of cops. Catching criminals in the act is rare, so rare that it cannot serve as justification for handing cops guns.

Reported crimes must be investigated, but cops investigating crimes don't need guns either. The perpetrator isn't there anymore. As an example, I reported a stolen car 40 years ago. Four hours later two cops showed up at my door, took down information, and told me the chances of recovering my car were very slim. Very few stolen cars were ever recovered. We could have had that conversation over the phone. Both cops had guns, totally unnecessary

Some crime scenes are dangerous or still active. Special armed squads can investigate those scenes.

--Percy


    
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018