Police Shootings

How many trained professionals (not just police but in any field) are in jail or dead from taking unnecessary risks or making mistakes? Trained professionals aren't movie superheroes. They're just people - they're not perfect and they make mistakes, just like everyone else. There was something grammatically wrong with your words as originally written, so I've modified them to what I think you intended.If all you've got is sarcasm then I guess that's all you've got. Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying that ridicule is the proper response to unintelligible propositions - perhaps assessing whether my propositions are truly unintelligible is worthwhile before resorting to solely sarcastic responses. An obviously sarcastic response. Assumptions you're making that are reasonable but that are, at this stage, still assumptions and not facts:

• It was a head shot (or two shots - reports are that the suspect was shot twice, but there's not yet any information about where)
• The shots were at close range. There's no video that includes the actual shots.
• The head shot was unlikely to hit the vest. But what if the suspect suddenly jumps up just as a policeman is firing. If you watch the video carefully around 23 seconds you'll see the suspect appears to be rising from the ground as the last passersby is pulled off.

I'll interpret this as an inability to defend your confusion of verbiage while substituting an unsupported and unspecified accusation of misrepresentation. Since it was a fake suicide vest and the man was unarmed on the ground, this is just another case of the police claiming they felt threatened when the reality was there was no threat. Figuring out that the suicide vest was fake does present a conundrum, but separating the real from the fake is a very necessary police skill without which there would be many shootings of innocent civilians. It reminds me of the case of Tamir Rice, who was shot by police mere seconds after they arrived for carrying an authentic looking toy rifle that had lost its orange barrel marker indicating a toy. Message 368That would be your Message 356, which makes no comment about the comparative ease of a detonator switch versus a dead man's switch. Care to try again? In all the hubbub you think it likely that little wires disappearing up a sleeve would have been noticed? I've made the same point. On this we agree. OMG, you've included a link and even an excerpt in your message! Be still my heart!Unfortunately your excerpt is completely unrelated to the issue about the carnage the suspect could cause. Your excerpt was actually a response to my assertion that we couldn't know what was in the mind of the suspect, and all it does is make more claims about what you think you know about the mind of the suspect. Your ability to read minds, especially after someone is dead, is amazing. Maybe you can tell us why the Los Vegas shooter did it, that one's still a mystery. You think that while fighting off a pile-on of passersby that he would have noticed police arriving? It's certainly possible but nothing near a certainty, not even close. I've already said several times that we don't know the police were aware of the vest. It is part of the narrative that has been made public, but no video shows the vest being visible before police shoot him. There is a poor quality image I posted earlier of the deceased suspect possibly lying in what is possibly a pool of his own blood with two silver bands around his torso that could be anything, including duct tape. Here's the image again: Declaring possibilities unlikely is one way of ignoring them, but you might be missing that one must also take into account the potential consequences of any possibility. If someone said to you, "If you don't take this pill you have a .01% chance of getting a cold," you probably wouldn't take the pill. But if someone instead said, "If you don't take this pill you have a .01% chance of dying," you'd definitely take the pill. The potential consequences matter. A lot. But probability and statistics like this are not natural to the human mind. It's why most people fear shark attacks more than lightning strikes. So you're saying that you could tell the gun was pointed at the suspect's head at between 20-23 seconds.s Here's the video queued up to just that point. Please explain how you can tell where he's aiming, especially given the movement of suspect. Put it in pause mode and advance frame by frame by hitting ".", then explain how your stance makes sense: Wow, two links in one message. Again, step through that video one frame at a time starting at 20 seconds and tell me where you think you see something resembling a suicide vest being visible to police. Ah, okay, sorry. So you're saying that a fake suicide vest gives you insights into the mind of the suspect, and a real vest even more so. I'm not following you. Fake versus real suicide vests seem to lead down completely different realms of possibilities. A fake vest would lead you to consider scenarios where he wants to threaten or cause fear and panic or make people run away or make people leave him alone. A real vest would lead you to consider scenarios where he wants to kill people and/or doesn't want to be captured alive and so forth. You did claim to know. You repeatedly keep claiming to know the mind of the suspect with statements like, "But he clearly planned to die," etc. Yes, I agree, that's what I've been arguing all along. If you do say so yourself. Oh, heaven forbid, you can't think you'd ever be wrong. Where would that lead? Humility, perhaps? Can't have that. You're operating with incomplete information.--Percy

Perhaps, but Occam's Razor might ring true in these instances. Its probably more likely that your current detractors share an ideology on the subject as a whole more closely to your own than, say, mine. Just because they may not agree with you in this one instance doesn't mean they don't vigorously agree with your overall premise. Each case has to be judged on its own merits and circumstances without the luxury of hindsight. I recently watched a video of a deputy who was completely out of control, inappropriately used deadly force, misses the intended target completely twice (from 3 feet away), and strikes the subject's mother instead. My take on that specific event was that she used inappropriate force, she should not be a cop, and should serve whatever time in prison because of it. You are responsible for every round that leaves the barrel of your gun. What I would not agree with is that it is representative of why all police should be stripped of their weapons. An execution is a person who is constrained, does not pose any kind of threat at the moment, and is deliberately being killed for a punitive reason. I think if your argument is against the death penalty, you and I would probably share the same view. I interpreted this event as the police responding to a rapidly evolving situation where milliseconds matter. You have to remember they ran up to the civilians and the subject and didn't kill anyone... until the moment they saw the hoax bomb. They observed a threat. Knowing that all it takes is fractions of a second to detonate a bomb, they reacted and, in my estimation, appropriately. I think it would be a mischaracterization to call it an execution.

natural selection at work.

The only sensible response - in line with the objectives and guidelines of this forum - is this: Message 726

I can't be sure if this is true, but sometimes it seems like you confuse Percy with Admin. I'm just Percy. I have no moderator power, especially in threads where I'm a participant. I can't keep completely separate the two personas, and as Percy I probably reference Forum Guidelines issues more than your average member, but I have no enforcement powers. My opinion about whether you should leave the forum (which you should't, in my opinion) carries no more weight than any other non-admin. The forum is approaching it's 19th anniversary, and if I've learned anything in those 19 years it's that you can't explain to people what they're doing wrong. People do what they do and post what they post because they believe it right and true. But their believing this doesn't make them right. It isn't uncommon for people to have gross misperceptions of reality, as attested to by the several conspiracy theory aficionados here.One of us must be wrong. Either you're determined to misrepresent what I say and to argue against straw men (though that's clearly not how you see it), or I don't see the wrongness in what I'm saying and so don't recognize my own ideas when they're echoed back to me by others.Arguing for the former view is that Theodoric also saw you as playing the misrepresentation game, and we both became fed up with it at about the same time.How did this happen that someone trying hard to get things right can get them so wrong while still believing he's right and being bewildered by the responses he's getting? I don't know. Your avatar still makes no sense to me - it clearly states you're anti-alt-right while your posts echo many of their talking points.--Percy

It wouldn't. Only a few people were close by and in danger from a possible explosive device. Once the last passerby was removed you don't want the suspect running toward a crowd or a bus. That's a significant part of the problem in a nutshell, that given police training if they decide to shoot that it can only be to kill. It's a binary decision dependent upon whether in their judgment lethal force is required.But the real world isn't binary. It's analog, and that means there's a continuum ranging from "clearly no lethal force is required" all the way up to "clearly lethal force is required." Where does one place the point beyond which one is close enough to the upper end of the range to use lethal force? How does one accurate assess that point? I think everyone would agree that that's a judgment call, but the evidence clearly suggests that possessing a gun makes people choose a lower threshold.And if they can hit a head, the brainstem in fact as suggested in the description of Operation Kratos tactics, then they can hit a leg. I have the same question for you as I've had for PaulK. What video and timestamp are you looking at that tells you anything about shot placement? "Nothing substantial" is kind of vague, but we're probably in agreement that doing "nothing substantial" was not appropriate. Yes, I know. I've seen no indication in the news of anyone questioning whether killing the suspect was necessary. It seems to be just me.--Percy

Tangle cut-n-pasted without attribution, and I sought out the source of his cut-n-paste and posted a link to the full Wikipedia article. Of what use would quoting from Tangle's cut-n-paste be?I have asked time and again for evidence or testimony of where the suspect was actually shot. It's been insisted many multiple times that he must have been shot in the head, that in fact there's video showing that he was shot in the head, and that he was shot there because he was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest. There has been no response to my repeated requests for evidence the suspect was shot in the head.I have also questioned at what point the police had visual evidence that the suspect was wearing a suicide vest, and there's been no answer to that either.I don't know why searches didn't turn this up earlier, but I have now come across an article that states where the suspect was shot, and it wasn't in the head. This is from https://www.mirror.co.uk/...ge-terrorist-bled-death-21026112:

quote:

---

London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan bled to death from "multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and abdomen" after his murderous rampage, an inquest has heard.

​

The convicted terrorist was repeatedly shot in the chest and stomach by a police marksman, the Old Bailey was told.

---

I don't consider this definitive because it's only a single report, but it's the only report we have so far. I will continue to take no firm position on where the suspect was shot until the evidence is definitive, but I will also continue to question the judgment of those who claim they know where the suspect was shot.But I'll still do a "what if." What if the police didn't think the suspect was wearing a suicide vest or thought he was only wearing a fake one or thought that it was only a suicide belt that was easy to avoid hitting. The suspect was already disarmed and lying on the ground. Why was it necessary to kill him?I know the suspect had already served time in prison for terrorist related activities, but the police didn't know that at the time. I know the police knew that he had attacked people with knives, but they didn't know that it was two fatally, and in fact one of them didn't die until after the suspect was killed.Police arrest dangerous murderous people all the time. It's why many murderers are in prisons instead in cemeteries. Why not this one?--Percy

Because it's policy and training to use lethal force in a terrorist situation where it is known that the perpetrator is trying to do as much damage as possible with no regard to his own life.That's the way the evidence falls - after studying many suicide bomber incidents in Israel and on home territory shooting them dead was found to cause the least loss of life.I have no idea where the terrorist was shot but there will be an inquest and an internal review, and maybe we'll find out. But I doubt it because nobody here cares. You won't find many, if any, here trying to second-guess the police shooting that terrorist.If he was shot in the chest, the learning point would be about why not the head, not why not the leg or arm or whatever.

quote:

---

Tangle cut-n-pasted without attribution, and I sought out the source of his cut-n-paste and posted a link to the full Wikipedia article. Of what use would quoting from Tangle's cut-n-paste be?

---

To give an accurate impression of what Tangle posted of course. The fact that you quoted material that supported your claims but not more relevant material that contradicted you is quite telling.

quote:

---

I have asked time and again for evidence or testimony of where the suspect was actually shot. It's been insisted many multiple times that he must have been shot in the head, that in fact there's video showing that he was shot in the head, and that he was shot there because he was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest. There has been no response to my repeated requests for evidence the suspect was shot in the head.

---

As I stated that appeared to be where the most likely shooter was aiming, and as Tangle posted, that is the correct action when a suicide vest is present.On the other hand you presented no evidence at all for him being shot in the body, until this post.

quote:

---

I have also questioned at what point the police had visual evidence that the suspect was wearing a suicide vest, and there's been no answer to that either.

---

The video has evidence - which I pointed out - that shows that they were unlikely to have noticed it until they had pulled at least some of the people off of the attacker. The audio has a civilian asking if the attacker was going to set off a bomb, which may refer to the belt.From the image showing the belt, it seems to me that the officers on the spot should have noticed the belt by the time they pulled the last person off.

quote:

---

I don't know why searches didn't turn this up earlier, but I have now come across an article that states where the suspect was shot, and it wasn't in the head. This is from https://www.mirror.co.uk/...ge-terrorist-bled-death-21026112:

---

That would be disturbing if it turned out to be true.

quote:

---

I know the suspect had already served time in prison for terrorist related activities, but the police didn't know that at the time. I know the police knew that he had attacked people with knives, but they didn't know that it was two fatally, and in fact one of them didn't die until after the suspect was killed.

---

Given the nature of the attack and the location I am certain that terrorism was on their minds. This is not the first terrorist knife attack at London Bridge.

More importantly, they can't even tell if either type of switch even exists. Oh, okay, I understand now that "the argument" and "it" referred to an argument you had made, not me. I was assuming the opposite. Could you please remake your point if you think it important? With the knives taped to his wrists, why can't his hands be in fists?Further I think you're thinking of a switch like this, and it doesn't have to be this kind of switch: You can't say you never claimed the vest could be seen because you said exactly that in Message 367: "The suicide vest wasn’t noticed until they were pulling people off him." Unless I'm parsing this wrong, this says that they saw the vest after pulling off the passersby. That information was in support of the point that there is much that we do not know. What we have is fragmentary video from different cameras with different perspectives that might not even be arranged in the correct time order, and we have the words of police spokespeople.Given the information that the suspect was killed with multiple body shots (which should not yet be accepted as gospel, but it's from https://www.mirror.co.uk/...ge-terrorist-bled-death-21026112), it's possible he was first shot in the chest and/or body at close range, then the police retreated because they saw what looked like a suicide belt (not a vest since they were willing to take body shots), then when he continued moving (as shown in the video on the bus) they took more body shots from greater range.I earlier argued that the bomb squad should have been called to help deal with the suspect, and some reports say that bomb squad vehicles were observed at the site (e.g., A total of three dead after “terror” incident at London Bridge – South London News).--Percy

quote:

---

More importantly, they can't even tell if either type of switch even exists.

---

No, the important thing is it leaves no reason to think he’s holding a live deadman switch.If you were genuinely concerned with the risk of the bomb being set off that would decide it. But you aren’t you’re just determines to say that the shooting was wrong, no matter what.

quote:

---

Oh, okay, I understand now that "the argument" and "it" referred to an argument you had made, not me. I was assuming the opposite. Could you please remake your point if you think it important?

---

Your whole idea about the police confusing a manual detonator with a deadman switch was a daft idea you made up.

quote:

---

With the knives taped to his wrists, why can't his hands be in fists?

---

Because that would make it harder to use the knives.

quote:

---

You can't say you never claimed the vest could be seen because you said exactly that in Message 367: "The suicide vest wasn’t noticed until they were pulling people off him." Unless I'm parsing this wrong, this says that they saw the vest after pulling off the passersby

---

The point was that it wasn’t noticed earlier. Maybe they didn’t notice it until later but I think they would have noticed it by the time they pulled the last man off since it’s visible in a photo.

quote:

---

That information was in support of the point that there is much that we do not know. What we have is fragmentary video from different cameras with different perspectives that might not even be arranged in the correct time order, and we have the words of police spokespeople.

---

Which does not help your argument in the slightest. And, by the way, it is obvious that the videos are not a sequence.

quote:

---

Given the information that the suspect was killed with multiple body shots (which should not yet be accepted as gospel, but it's from https://www.mirror.co.uk/...ge-terrorist-bled-death-21026112), it's possible he was first shot in the chest and/or body at close range, then the police retreated because they saw what looked like a suicide belt (not a vest since they were willing to take body shots), then when he continued moving (as shown in the video on the bus) they took more body shots from greater range

---

In that situation the first shot seems questionable, but once the risk of an explosion is apparent, it is not clearly unreasonable to incapacitate him.

quote:

---

I earlier argued that the bomb squad should have been called to help deal with the suspect, and some reports say that bomb squad vehicles were observed at the site (e.g., A total of three dead after “terror” incident at London Bridge – South London News).

---

Of course they would be. If there was a chance he had a real bomb it had to be checked out, and disarmed if found.

I meant that this is a tough one, on the surface, to question the propriety of the police shooting. Yeah, pretty much. When the suspect was killed the police only knew that he had attacked people with knives. They didn't know if anyone had been killed, or that the suspect had served time in prison for terrorist related activities. And I'm questioning that policy. All policies, no matter how well thought through, evolve and change over time in reaction to how well they work in reality and to changing circumstances and improved insights. I never got into the legality of the killing of the suspect. I'm simply saying that the currently available information leads me to think it was possibly wrong and unnecessary. So am I. I have already commented a couple times on how the stubbornness and determination of gun nuts pushing for gun rights has, in my opinion, pushed people's views to the right such that they're more likely to consider a given shooting as right and proper.--Percy

Thats's a real problem. The situations are not in anyway comparable, but it does speak to your starting point. Let's be honest neither of us know what they knew. But, we do know that they are armed police, that they have been called to an emergency terrorist incident and it's not the first time. Yup, but the policies in place at the time are the ones used. And so far I'm not hearing anything better. You have no feasible way of assessing that. It was a terrorist incident in progress, they acted to policy and training. If they didn't they're in trouble, that's the way it works.

Very well, thank you for clarifying. Not necessarily, because most of this boils down to perception and opinion. If we were discussing facts, like about the legality of the shooting, then I would agree someone is right, someone is wrong, or both could potentially be correct in some instances and incorrect on another. You and I disagreeing on the current topic, whether it was morally right or wrong to shoot this person, is a matter of opinion no different than me trying to convince you that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla... which it clearly does. Sometimes we, and I include myself in this indictment, have a tendency to try to read between the lines. Sometimes it could be helpful to examine what a person's ulterior motives might be but sometimes we make false accusations by imagining motives that may not actually exist. Your interpretation is your interpretation. I can only attempt to make persuasive argumentation -- you either accept or reject my rationale. But maybe our communications at times get lost in the weeds. I'll accept any failing on my part that could have alleviated any miscommunication and try to better articulate a position going forward. The avatar change is a bit of irony, a bit of trolling but also a bit of extending an olive branch by saying "Fuck the Alt-Right, I'm not one of them and I'm willing to go this far to prove it." By way of comparison between you and I, sure, I might as well be Hitler incarnate. I certainly agree that some of my positions are far more right-leaning than that of yours -- this thread being demonstrable to that fact.But I maintain that while there may be some overlap between myself and the Alt-Right the core of what they stand for is at odds with my own ideology. Richard Spencer and I may both believe that liberal media attempts to drive a narrative versus objectively reporting facts and so he and I may agree on that point. But Richard Spencer is an actual Nazi sympathizer that wants to bring back segregation! I mean, c'mon, give me some fucking credit here! I don't want that kind of poisonous ideology in my country any more than you do.I think part of the problem is the Us vs Them mentality that is tightening more and more by the day with its ever-increasing constraints of pigeonholing. Its to the point where you have to buy into ALL of the talking points to now be on Team Conservative or Team Liberal otherwise you risk being excommunicated for not being a true believer. And if you dare go against the grain then you are either a de facto Triggered Tree Hugging Hippie or a Nazi Stormtrooper Antisemite. There's no more nuance to ideological positions... Life is complicated. Positions are complicated, especially as to how people arrive at their conclusions on any given position. Its not fair to brandish someone with a Scarlet Letter for holding a single position that may be aligned with someone who we don't agree with. Hitler apparently loved dogs... oh, you love dogs too.? Fucking fascist!!! We shouldn't have to give up our agency or individuality in trying to defend a socio-political position. Believing that kneeling during the National Anthem is more patriotic than standing doesn't make you an ANTIFA supporting anarchist. It just means that you have a compelling reason for it. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

That is, indeed, official policy. British police are authorised to fire only "when absolutely necessary in self-defence or in defence of another when there is an immediate risk to life from unlawful violence".