Hey look, the guy in Houston was no angel, he just got out of prison!... For a drug-related offense. Which the murdering officer had no way of knowing about at the time. (Probably. I mean, it's not clear from the article either way, and it's always possible he knew, but IMO it's unlikely in this case.)
The officer in this case was black, FWIW, so probably not a Klan member. Just trigger-happy. To rehash how things usually go, legal liability will turn on the material facts in the 2 minutes before the shooting, and not whether an adversarial armed police response was the best way to handle someone who was clearly suicidal or otherwise crazy.
I would say this police officer is more likely than usual to be seriously punished for it, and not mainly because racists protect each other. If the murderer here was white, it would be hard to avoid making the whole case about whether or not he personally is exceptionally racist, and that's hard to prove. But since he isn't, the main issue will be whether the shooting was justified. It seems relatively easy to show that it wasn't. (Relatively.) Yes, Tasers aren't certain things, and the actual shooting wasn't on camera, but even so...
It just occurred to me that every recent example I can think of the use of the term "witch hunt" has been by people with lots of power feeling threatened by legitimate suspicions about them.
This seems vaguely related to the slightly more topical use of "a few bad apples" which elides the second part of the cliche.
I think relentless internal fearmongering about, yes, all these people who literally are about to shoot you, combined with Dick Cheney's one percent doctrine. The documentary The Force showed OPD academy trainees a year or two ago watching a police shooting video and discussing it in small groups and some of them were disgusted, but others were already developing that line of argument.
Related, I got to ask both DA candidates a question last night about how they would (or could) balance the obligation to independently investigate police misconduct with their staff's need to work hand-in-hand with police most of the time. The challenger didn't really have a systemic solution but acknowledged it was an issue, whereas the incumbent asserted full independence, sounding mildly offended I was impugning the office's professionalism. (But very polite about it, since she's a woman in politics.)
Vaguely related to 2, it occurred to me recently that horror films originally used either the sound of small children laughing or the sound of fairground music to increase the sense of creepiness because you were hearing something unsettlingly incongruous with what you were seeing on the screen - you were watching something scary, you knew that the characters were in a tense and dangerous situation, but you were hearing these noises that you associate with innocence and fun - but they used it so much that you now feel creeped by hearing either small children laughing or the sound of fairground music in a film because literally the only time you hear either of those things in a film is because it's a horror film.
5: Not true. Sometimes you hear small children laughing in sad situations, not scary ones. Arrival comes to mind. As for fairground music, agreed, don't often hear that in movies except for ones with horror-ish elements. I actually do hear it in real life now and then, though. There are a couple carousels in public places in DC, and I've been in many actual fairs in my life too. Not often, but often enough that I don't get creeped out by the music in them.
Literally the only time writers use the expression, "literally the only time", is when writers don't mean it literally, but are exaggerating for rhetorical effect.
5: I occasionally hear a child laugh. I've also seen a violin.
I don't even see musical instruments.
Natilo, what was the answer to that Trump/Harper's/1998 thing?
Sorry for the drive by comment on that. I guess where I was going with it is that any of us could easily write that article right now, and it would cover the predictable topics. Looking back 20 years though, my guess would be some kind of Clinton/Lewinsky piece about some ridiculous thing Trump had said about that scandal and the hypocrisy of the Starr investigation. But who knows? Maybe it would be an exhortation for Trump to run as a Republican.
I'm certain I heard, during the endless, farcical deliberation over Michael Brown's murder, that every shot fired by an officer was required to be independently justified.
Obviously this is has never actually been true as a matter of practice, but I am grimly curious if this is still a thing that anyone really pretends is still true, and if so, how, for example, the latter half of the 20 shots fired into the fallen Stephon Clark will be excused.
I remember a number of years ago, this reporter did ride-alongs with *black* New Jersey cops, including as they profiled black drivers. And these cops had standard-issue reasons for their actions.
And then, after the cop's shift is over, he's driving home, and he gets stopped by a cop. And in the ensuing conversation with the reporter (still present) the cop starts to ask himself "did I just get profiled?"
There are lots of reasons. They all boil down to racism. OK, there's also "police departments don't do a good job of weeding out violent, aggressive assholes, and violent aggressive assholes know not to take their aggression out on white people, who fight back with real weapons (like lawyers and politicians)". Oh right, that's racism too.
Heh (in a sad, depressed way) the cop in Minnesota who shot that pretty white Australian, is getting charged with murder. Gee, it's almost as if there's something different about him, from the cop who shot Tamir Rice. I'm having trouble putting my finger on it ....
"How on earth are police officers not adjusting their behavior just to avoid being at the center of another controversey, even if they think it's a witch hunt? Why aren't there pervasive PD conversations at least about, 'Hey, you don't want to even give the appearance of shooting an unarmed black man, because we don't want the media circus?' "
I've been wondering this for about five years. Are they unable to change? Making a point that they won't be influenced by public opinion? Do they believe in enforcing violent white supremacy, consequences be damned? I'm not sure.
17 I'm guessing that one answer is that they really are scared. I'm not saying that their fear is justified, or not tinged with racism. But, in the moment if they think they're making a choice between being on TV and being 6 feet under, they're not worried about the controversy.
Training ought to be able to address unjustified fear, but if you put everything I know about this in a thimble, you'd have lots of room left over,
"Look out, there's a gun in the thimble."
But, in the moment if they think they're making a choice between being on TV and being 6 feet under, they're not worried about the controversy.
"Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six", they say. For most people this is not that easy of a choice, because most people think they will get sent to prison if they kill somebody. But there are different laws for police.
The times I've been a pall bearer, you hardly had to carry anything at all. It's maybe just lifting it into the hearse. The thing is on a cart with wheels for 99% of the time.
Let's have a Stephen Clark and the guy in Houson, Danny Ray Thomas, thread. Both seem cut-and-dried examples of hair-trigger police who interpret the physical motion of a black man to be an automatic threat of lethal attack.
Danny Ray Thomas definitely, Stephon Clark is not so clear. The video is way dark and it's going to depend on what motion, hand movement, etc. he made. People sometimes do crazy stuff in those situations, like point some random object like a cell phone at the cops in a gun type grip and stance. Youtube search Marquise Hudspeth for an example, or see stills here and here.
23 last: What was he actually holding there?
How on earth are police officers not adjusting their behavior just to avoid being at the center of another controversey, even if they think it's a witch hunt? Why aren't there pervasive PD conversations at least about, 'Hey, you don't want to even give the appearance of shooting an unarmed black man, because we don't want the media circus
The biggest adjustment has been a huge drop off in proactive work, particularly in cities with a large black population, and with disastrous results in the murder rate.
I'm guessing that one answer is that they really are scared.
It's a real thing. Part of it is always the fear of the gun, because we live in a country where guns are easy to come by. Part of it in IMO is we increasingly have a pool of new hires that are getting on with minimum physical requirements and have never been in a fight in their life. Couple that there's generally a huge deficit in initial and ongoing defensive tactics training and you end up with a lot of people with guns who are intervening in violent situations who have no confidence in their physical abilities. For real, our benchmarks are now 14 pushups, 25 situps, a 1.5 mile run in 15 min and a 14 inch vertical jump. Any sad sack can pass that and it shows.
It's only a difficult thing to solve in the sense that nobody wants to pay for it. The applicant pools are way down for a variety of reasons so it's not like we can be picky. No one wants to pay for the salary requisite to increase the applicant pools and the amount of training to drastically raise the capabilities of the people.
This is not out of place in the current discussion.
I think I still have a 14 inch vertical jump, but if I landed on my right root, I'd be limping for a week.
Ents would make great cops. Slow to anger, highly bullet resistant.
You know we can't do any sit ups.
It's a real thing. Part of it is always the fear of the gun, because we live in a country where guns are easy to come by.
Great argument for stricter gun control.
26: for a man?
31: For anyone, in part to try and increase recruitment of females.
I think we have higher standards for philosophy professors.
33: Right? My older daughter has her first muay thai fight on the 7th at Fitcon and if she struggled with those standards I'd disown her.
If Ents were cops, leaning out the window to grab a suspect would be standard procedure.
If Ents were cops, the PD would save a fortune on loudhailers.
If Ents were cops, no-knock warrants would be known, more accurately, as Entknocks.
If Ents were cops, all the assholes in bar fights would just voluntarily give up and go home while the cop was clearing his throat.
If Ents were cops, no-one would have to explain British English. Everyone would already know.
If Treebeard were your partner, you would patrol in a convertible, with the top down. In summer he'd cast shade, but in a good way.
If Treebeard were your partner, you'd always have to operate the radio, but when dispatch was bugging you you'd just hand over to him and they'd give up. If Treebeard were your partner, the sergeant would never call you in for a dressing-down. It would take too long. If Treebeard were your partner, you'd always win the argument, because the shift would end before he articulated a comeback.
If Treebeard were your partner, you'd say "Cover me!" then hide behind him. It would be your little joke.
If Treebeard were your partner, he would come around on weekends and let your kids climb on him. Sometimes after you put them to bed, he would be quiet for a while. He wouldn't say anything, but he wouldn't have to. You knew. Then he would go and stand under the sprinkler for a while, and he'd be fine.
If Treebeard were your partner, you would never get promoted, but it would be okay. "I don't need personal growth," you'd say. "He does enough for the both of us."
There is nuffink worse than an ent copper
Has the Tolkien estate sued for copyright infringement over Groot yet?
All of 44 is great and 44.4 is perfect.
All of 44 is great and 44.4 is perfect.
Noor Salman acquitted on all charges.
According to a friend who is a Chicago detective, many of the cops who have reacted tend to spend their shifts watching Netflix behind a big box store. They only react to calls when they have to. Fewer cautious cops at these scenes should result in less cautious cop behavior in general.
Can someone explain to me why the cops don't leave the guns locked in the trunk of the car in case they really need them? Seems that "call for more help" or "wait" might be a better response than trying to subdue someone with a gun drawn. I try to think of the likely harm of a more measured approach and I don't get the current practice. I've watched COPS enough to wonder if much of the time the police should just handle situations differently.
52: One expected (by them) harm is that they're in a fast-draw situation. The other guy is going to pull out a gun right now and shoot them. This is not an entirely irrational fear; it does happen. Still, I agree that a more measured, rational approach would be appropriate and lead to better outcomes.
There is a worst-case scenario where they die; they've heard of it happening to other officers, or maybe even know someone who died. Dealing with unlikely but risky situations is hard. Still, I've heard of worst-case scenarios where other civilians die horribly and I mostly don't let them rule my life. I wish more effort were put into training for proportional response, de-escalation, and recognition of biases. (And of course, given how many police department there are, changes in best practices won't filter to every organization for years or decades.)
I do think the observation Malcolm Gladwell made about SUVs (they survive crashes better but also get into more crashes) is a pattern that fits a lot of real life. De-analogized, a strategy can feel advisable because it means you prevail in confrontations while in fact it's bad for everyone as well for you specifically because it also increases the base number of confrontations.
I've been wondering about identifying the specialties of police work and separating those out. Some shouldn't require guns (mediation, walking patrols, detection) and could be more properly seen as public health work (dealing with the mentally ill, or a collapsed homeless person).
If those specialties were made explicit, the cops that are dealing with the non-violent portions of police work shouldn't be carrying guns. If they anticipate violence, they can partner with the gun-trained cops on that occurrence.
If I thought of this on my own, I am sure there's a large body of work around it that I don't know of.
56: Love that idea. I also don't know why cops need to be doing traffic stops. If you want a highway helper person to fix your tail light, fine, but the kind of things more people are pulled over for (non-dangerous minor infractions) are pretty absurd. I see no reason to create confrontations. If there are people who pose a real danger to others, fine, deal with the situation. But it seems like things get escalated instead of de-escalated all the time.
The US is relatively unusual in doing traffic stops, right?
The problem is that Republicans don't want to fund that part. You can only get funding for that kind of work if it's done by people with guns. See also the military vis-a-vis foreign aid and scientific research and development.
58: That thing where the cop kept saying "meow" isn't actually standard practice.
One indication that better tactics could make a big difference in the number of homicides by police is the vastly different rates of homicides by police in different states (and regions within states), adjusted for violent crime levels. New England and the NE generally do much better, but this is not an area where your stereotypes of racist cops is that accurate. IIRC contrary to stereotype the worst place to be is the interior West in general including California; you probably have more to fear, statistically, from police homicide as a Latino in San Bernadino or Riverside counties, CA, than you do as a black man in Virginia or the Carolinas. Too lazy to look up a link but this comes from Peter Moskos and is pretty definitive.
Did you read Ghettoside? It isn't my field so I don't know if it has the right recommendations, but I was real persuaded.
The US is relatively unusual in doing traffic stops, right?
What counts as a traffic stop? In Britain if they see you driving erratically or have other reasons to suppose that you're in some way impaired and shouldn't be on the road, they pull you over and go through your car with a fine tooth comb, having first checked your breath for alcohol and warned to to present your license at a station within a few days. If they're still suspicious that you might be high or something, they'll take you in for more serious tests. If not, and if they can't find anything illegal about the state of your car, they may or may not ticket you for dangerous driving, depending on their mood.
What they won't do is point a gun at you.
They're regular Boy Scouts. Be prepared!
64: Do they pull you over for speeding, or having something wrong with your car (classic example is a burned-out tail-light)?
65.
Back in the 70's when I was briefly involved in "law enforcement" they were real guns referred to as drop guns.
Back in the 80s when I was watching cop shows, they called them "drop pieces".
68 I thought those were "side pieces"
Its both. When someone tells you about their "side piece" you need to pay very close attention to context.
66. Usually only if you're driving like a complete prat, which includes egregious speeding or speeding outside a school gate etc. but isn't restricted to that. Minor infringements like a tail light out, it'll depend how busy they are. Usually they'll ignore it because they have better things to do, but if they're bored or in a foul mood they may pull you over and say, "Your off side tail light's out. Get it fixed!" and then wave you on.
