[Discussion] Violence by or at Police

Pages

Posting news articles about recent events involving either violence directed at police officers or violence done by them, as well as discussion of those events and the general subject.

Former-marine then-police officer Stephen Mader in W. VA arrives at a scene where an armed man has threatened suicide. He falls back on his marine training to perform a full threat assessment of the person and decides from his body language (most especially the fact that he's pointing his gun at the ground) and words ("just shoot me") that the man is not actually a threat and is just trying to perform suicide by cop.

Rather than shooting to kill he tries to de-escalate the situation with soothing words and whatnot like he was taught in the marines, but unfortunately two other cops arrive and immediately shoot the man to death.

At this time they discover that the gun was not loaded, vindicating Mader's assessment that the man was not a danger. Mader was fired for not immediately eliminating a threat and thus endangering fellow officers.

This is another blatant example of something that has come up a lot, scenarios that show that that the reason many police departments are the way they are is that there aren't any/many "good cops", there are "bad cops" and there are "neutral cops" that don't disrupt the bad cops behavior to the extent they should. Good cops are drummed out one way or the other, or turned into neutral cops as their idealism wears away.

In this case Mader was on probation--the article doesn't say but I assume that he's a recent hire--so it was simple for them to just fire him and be done with it.

Yonder wrote:

This is another blatant example of something that has come up a lot, scenarios that show that that the reason many police departments are the way they are is that there aren't any/many "good cops", there are "bad cops" and there are "neutral cops" that don't disrupt the bad cops behavior to the extent they should. Good cops are drummed out one way or the other, or turned into neutral cops as their idealism wears away.

Sadly even Mader was full of excuses for the officers who rolled up and immediately shot Williams in the back of the head.

As a former officer, Mr. Mader is all too aware of the interest this case might have for those on either side of the ongoing controversy over the shootings of black men by white officers across the country.

Mr. Mader is white and Mr. Williams was black. But Mr. Mader said the other two officers — who are also white — did the right thing given their situation.

“They did not have the information I did,” he said. “They don’t know anything I heard. All they know is [Mr. Williams] is waving a gun at them. It’s a shame it happened the way it did, but, I don’t think they did anything wrong.”

If he, a rookie with barely a year on the force, was able to figure out that something was off about Willams' behavior, why weren't the more senior officers able to as well?

Wow:

Ohio cops are expected to pay $780,000 in a settlement deal pending Columbus City Council’s approval after an officer shot a 4-year-old in the leg while trying to shoot her dog that her family says was retreating from the porch when the officer unnecessarily fired his gun.

He then fled the scene.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Wow:

Ohio taxpayers are expected to pay $780,000 in a settlement deal pending Columbus City Council’s approval after an officer shot a 4-year-old in the leg while trying to shoot her dog that her family says was retreating from the porch when the officer unnecessarily fired his gun.

He then fled the scene.

Fixed that for whoever.

Demosthenes wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Wow:

Ohio taxpayers are expected to pay $780,000 in a settlement deal pending Columbus City Council’s approval after an officer shot a 4-year-old in the leg while trying to shoot her dog that her family says was retreating from the porch when the officer unnecessarily fired his gun.

He then fled the scene.

Fixed that for whoever.

Indeed. With taxation comes representation. The officer who fired the shot and their department represent the taxpayers. We are collectively responsible for what our police officers do, and for demanding better. When society does wrong by somebody, I think it's only right that society pays.

The incident in Yonder's linked article does beg the question - what sort of training should police officers get?

I don't think enrolling every aspiring cop into the Marines' boot camp is the practical answer, but it does suggest that the military's training regime might be somewhat suitable to be adapted to civil law enforcement given you guys in the US have very liberal gun laws.

That stuck out for me too. It's not odd that a marine would have training in de-escalating conflict given the nature of US deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is kind of crazy that they would be better trained for it than police.

LouZiffer wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Wow:

Ohio taxpayers are expected to pay $780,000 in a settlement deal pending Columbus City Council’s approval after an officer shot a 4-year-old in the leg while trying to shoot her dog that her family says was retreating from the porch when the officer unnecessarily fired his gun.

He then fled the scene.

Fixed that for whoever.

Indeed. With taxation comes representation. The officer who fired the shot and their department represent the taxpayers. We are collectively responsible for what our police officers do, and for demanding better. When society does wrong by somebody, I think it's only right that society pays.

Generally, I would agree. My concern comes from, that comes out of the city budget, not the police budget. I dunno, to me, that feels like "the police have been given no reason to be better, they're not the ones paying for their mistakes".

I suspect massive underfunding of law enforcement agencies (or indeed any government body) in the US would have something to do with it.

Bfgp wrote:

The incident in Yonder's linked article does beg the question - what sort of training should police officers get?

I don't think enrolling every aspiring cop into the Marines' boot camp is the practical answer, but it does suggest that the military's training regime might be somewhat suitable to be adapted to civil law enforcement given you guys in the US have very liberal gun laws.

The difference is that the military is involved with people that are actually very dangerous. Escalation, even if it means you kill someone far less armed and capable than you on that specific day, means that you and especially your buddies are going to have to deal with actual violent retaliation that will get some of them killed.

Cops don't deal with anything that dangerous, so they are pushed the "nothing on this world matters more than you getting home safely tonight, damn all the consequences" training instead, which leads to a very different result.

If we were experiencing two Dallas-like attacks every week that would more closely resemble the sort of environment that has led to even our Marines being taught good policing skills. Then we would see more pressure from police officers to keep their buddies in line as they learned that the price their violent buddies were paying to get home "safely" from an avoidable encounter was their own a few days later.

Hopefully instead things like vest cameras, cell phones, and law suits like this one can ameliorate the situation FAR before we get to that point. Obviously criminal suits would be far more useful than civil ones, but unfortunately in many cases that still seems like a bridge too far.

Demosthenes wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Wow:

Ohio taxpayers are expected to pay $780,000 in a settlement deal pending Columbus City Council’s approval after an officer shot a 4-year-old in the leg while trying to shoot her dog that her family says was retreating from the porch when the officer unnecessarily fired his gun.

He then fled the scene.

Fixed that for whoever.

Indeed. With taxation comes representation. The officer who fired the shot and their department represent the taxpayers. We are collectively responsible for what our police officers do, and for demanding better. When society does wrong by somebody, I think it's only right that society pays.

Generally, I would agree. My concern comes from, that comes out of the city budget, not the police budget. I dunno, to me, that feels like "the police have been given no reason to be better, they're not the ones paying for their mistakes".

In the future it more likely will come from a liability insurance policy which police officers are increasingly beginning to carry. However, right now the reason why departments aren't directly punished with lawsuits is that they need their budget to function properly. Even if the department paid, they would have to turn right around and request more money from their district. Unless you're arguing that policing isn't a necessary service or that they're overpaid (which I'd argue are generally not the case), I'm not sure how we could expect them to pay.

Bfgp wrote:

The incident in Yonder's linked article does beg the question - what sort of training should police officers get?

I don't think enrolling every aspiring cop into the Marines' boot camp is the practical answer, but it does suggest that the military's training regime might be somewhat suitable to be adapted to civil law enforcement given you guys in the US have very liberal gun laws.

One thing the military has that law enforcement can benefit from is strict rules of engagement detailed to all personnel, and based on the current conditions of the location. Unfortunately some of those rules wouldn't be feasible with law enforcement.
For instance "don't fire until fired upon" can work in the military where soldiers are always in squads of 10 or more. It wouldn't work for the lone officer on patrol. Police would have to have officers travel in squads of 4 or more.

Trophy Husband wrote:
Bfgp wrote:

The incident in Yonder's linked article does beg the question - what sort of training should police officers get?

I don't think enrolling every aspiring cop into the Marines' boot camp is the practical answer, but it does suggest that the military's training regime might be somewhat suitable to be adapted to civil law enforcement given you guys in the US have very liberal gun laws.

One thing the military has that law enforcement can benefit from is strict rules of engagement detailed to all personnel, and based on the current conditions of the location. Unfortunately some of those rules wouldn't be feasible with law enforcement.
For instance "don't fire until fired upon" can work in the military where soldiers are always in squads of 10 or more. It wouldn't work for the lone officer on patrol. Police would have to have officers travel in squads of 4 or more.

I've had a few (21st C.) vets tell me that nobody actually practiced the RoE. I feel like that still beats not being trained, but ... .

wordsmythe wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
Bfgp wrote:

The incident in Yonder's linked article does beg the question - what sort of training should police officers get?

I don't think enrolling every aspiring cop into the Marines' boot camp is the practical answer, but it does suggest that the military's training regime might be somewhat suitable to be adapted to civil law enforcement given you guys in the US have very liberal gun laws.

One thing the military has that law enforcement can benefit from is strict rules of engagement detailed to all personnel, and based on the current conditions of the location. Unfortunately some of those rules wouldn't be feasible with law enforcement.
For instance "don't fire until fired upon" can work in the military where soldiers are always in squads of 10 or more. It wouldn't work for the lone officer on patrol. Police would have to have officers travel in squads of 4 or more.

I've had a few (21st C.) vets tell me that nobody actually practiced the RoE. I feel like that still beats not being trained, but ... .

Disclaimer - The extent of my military knowledge comes from books and movies, so you're probably right.

I think that just knowing what you're supposed to do and why arms military personnel with the necessary knowledge to participate in engagements purposefully, and it gives the brass some kind of framework with which to form policies about police conduct and activity. That's even if no one really follows them. Knowing how something is supposed to go anchors your actions into some kind of semblance of structure or tactical sense. That's why we have algorithms for how to act in the OR when the shit hits the fan. It doesn't always go that way - most times we don't follow the algorithm. But it gives you a sense of where you are.

It also arms management and top brass with the tools to deal with fallout from a bad engagement. With clear rules, you know who is to account and for what specific breaches if they occur.

With rules, an officer can decide to fire and then just eat the consequences of his actions - which he will know because they're part of the rules. Or he can stick with the rules and trust in the data. That works, too.

Florida police kill black man while he eats dinner in his backyard

Maybe more information will come out. Even keeping in mind the tendency of police to shoot without cause, this story seems especially egregious.

I feel physically ill after reading those two stories.

Brought over from news story thread.

farley3k wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

It's more likely Roof wasn't shot because he complied with police commands and didn't resist arrest. The encounter started with 4 officers approaching Roof's car with weapons drawn.

it is rather hard to argue it wasn't race when not 2-3 months ago a black man completely and fully complying with police commands was shot and we all go to see how his girlfriend sobbed over his body while the police did not even try to offer aid.

I'm not saying race wasn't a factor in the shooting of Castile. It absolutely appears to be a significant factor. The fact is of the approximately $12,000,000 arrests made annually including roughly 500,000 for violent crimes almost all of those encounters ended without anyone getting shot.
That Roof wasn’t shot isn’t in any way a confirmation of racial bias.

Trophy Husband wrote:

Brought over from news story thread.

farley3k wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

It's more likely Roof wasn't shot because he complied with police commands and didn't resist arrest. The encounter started with 4 officers approaching Roof's car with weapons drawn.

it is rather hard to argue it wasn't race when not 2-3 months ago a black man completely and fully complying with police commands was shot and we all go to see how his girlfriend sobbed over his body while the police did not even try to offer aid.

I'm not saying race wasn't a factor in the shooting of Castile. It absolutely appears to be a significant factor. The fact is of the approximately $12,000,000 arrests made annually including roughly 500,000 for violent crimes almost all of those encounters ended without anyone getting shot.
That Roof wasn’t shot isn’t in any way a confirmation of racial bias.

Wait, what? Is your point that a single incident can't confirm a trend?

I'm making a specific statement regarding the Roof arrest not resulting in a shooting. I'm not trying to apply it across a broader generalization. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

Trophy Husband wrote:

I'm making a specific statement regarding the Roof arrest not resulting in a shooting. I'm not trying to apply it across a broader generalization. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

I think that happens a lot. Not just by you, but also by media in general and large swathes of the population. I think people should be applying it across broader generalizations, because that's how trends become visible. That Roof wasn't shot is a data point in favour of racial bias.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

I'm making a specific statement regarding the Roof arrest not resulting in a shooting. I'm not trying to apply it across a broader generalization. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

I think that happens a lot. Not just by you, but also by media in general and large swathes of the population. I think people should be applying it across broader generalizations, because that's how trends become visible. That Roof wasn't shot is a data point in favour of racial bias.

Yup. Independent tracking of police killings by The Guardian and The Washington Post shows that black people are 2.5 times as likely to be killed by the police than white people.

But comparing the number of people killed by the police to the number of people arrested paints a very incomplete picture of the problem. A more comprehensive picture would look at all police interactions with civilians, not just incidents that ended in an arrest, and it would include both fatal and nonfatal uses of force.

To get a better idea of that we have to turn to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS). The PPCS is a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey that collects data on crime--both reported and not--from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents.

What the PPCS reveals is that the police have contact with minority populations at much higher rates than whites and that they also use force (threatened or actual) against minorities at statistically significant higher rates.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/uegNxnUl.png)

And those statistically significant higher rates of nonfatal uses of force apply to virtually every type of police interaction, especially for blacks.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/45XubA1l.png)

And use of force ramps up much more quickly for minority groups that have multiple interactions with the police throughout the year than whites.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/jUJbulvl.png)

It's very hard not to look at all of that and not conclude that there's considerable racial bias within police departments.

To clarify, my initial post was in direct response to this:

SixteenBlue wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

A white kid matching the description of an armed robbery suspect, who pulls out a realistic looking handgun would (should?) probably also get shot.

I am honestly not sure of that. Dylan Roof didn't get shot.

Wasn't saying racism doesn't exist. Not saying cops treat blacks the same as whites, or that black people aren't likely to be treated worse, and be at a greater risk of violence during any police altercation.

Yup. Independent tracking of police killings by The Guardian and The Washington Post shows that black people are 2.5 times as likely to be killed by the police than white people.

When you look at just unarmed victims shot by police that number jumps up to 6-1.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5...

"Accidentally" my blindingly pale ass.

Wonder what the correlation between deleted data and times where the cop had either a use of force or complaint at the time is.

I heard that if the Oakland police can find the missing footage trump will release his medical history

farley3k wrote:

I heard that if the Oakland police can find the missing footage trump will release his medical history tax returns

FTFM.

The Oakland PD is totes squeeky clean.

You just have to ignore that they've monitored by the federal government for nearly 15 years because police corruption.

And that one of their officers committed suicide this year because he was about to be found out for having sex with an underage prostitute (along with 14 other Oakland PD officers and 14 other officers and sheriffs from nearby jurisdictions).

And that the same officer's wife committed suicide a year before using his off-duty gun. Two shell casings were found by the body.

And that they burned through four police chiefs in ten days because they either had known about the sex scandal and covered it up or because they had been involved in a spate of racist text messages sent by command staff and other officers.

Pages