Cops kill yet another black guy for probably no reason

[dafydd]

I'm very glad our police aren't armed.


Not that this stops them contributing to the death of a G8 bystander, of course, but it does make it less likely. Unless you're Brazillian and fairly swarthy. Then you can be shot in the head with impunity.

Under extraordinary circumstances.

 

[sgtbaker]

It's looking worse for the cops. The kid was the designated driver, hadn't been to the bar and was waiting to give a ride home to teammates who were there. So, again, no drugs, no alcohol, no police record, 3 years in college, a close family including a father at home, not ghetto blacks or anything like that...

Even with all of those circumstances, you are not acknowledging the fact that 50 cops were on the scene. Just based on that, it's pretty safe to assume that the scene was in chaos before they even knocked on the kid's window. Considering the kid's past, the fact that he is not a trouble maker, he's probably not used to being in situations involving police. It's just a possibility, albeit, a very likely possibility the whole situation put the kid in panic mode. He wasn't out to run down police officers but the police officers are not in the business of mind reading. Tension was already running high because of the call to which they were originally responding. Now they have a kid, who to them, is so bent on fleeing the scene, that he is willing to run down officers in the process. From their perspective, it's considered assault with a deadly weapon and are considered justified to fire upon the driver.

And the cops handcuffed the kid, left him on the ground for some time before realizing his heart stopped and only then did they try to help him.

Again, standard procedure for riot or potential riot situations is to subdue the trouble makers first. In most multi offender responses, that's exactly what they do; cuff the offenders, prone position. Get the situation under control, then ask questions. At this point, what they think they have is a kid running down cops trying to flee the scene. It's possible the kid was in shock and didn't even know he'd been shot, himself. When they realized the situation, they tried to respond (according to the accounts), but it was too late.

Yes, the truth will hopefully come out. If anything changes, I'll change my assessment. At this point, killing a kid under these circumstances was overreacting, bad policing, and I don't see how these cops made calm rational skilled decisions here.

Boston Herald
Sports Illustrated
Fox Sports

None of which are sympathy pieces based on the parents' interview.

Feel free to conclude first, then wait for the story to unfold but it is clouding your judgement. All the stories are one sided because the police cannot comment on an open investigation. I'd like to point out, however, that the last piece you linked is from the perspective of the attorney that the family hired. I would hardly call that a balanced piece. They are effectively playing this case out in the court of public opinion. Poisoning the well before the police can finish the official investigation and it's clear that this tactic is working.

That is not to say that Henry's death isn't a wrongful death. After all is said and done, it very well could play out that the officers were out of order in shooting, but without hearing the other side, there's no way to say anything, for sure.

 

[brenn]

I don't think we're clear on the meaning of the word "psychotic".

If you mean to respond by pretending to take something literally that obviously was not intended literally, I don't think that advances your argument.

 

[WildCat]

How does a mirror knock you onto the hood? If you're going forward, you're already past the hood by the time you get to the mirror.

Why are you assuming he was going forward? If he was parked perpendicular to the curb, or parallel parked with an obstruction (such as another car) in front of him, he would have had to back up to get out, while turning the wheel. If the cop is standing at the driver's window, and the driver backs up with the wheels turned to the right, the cop could very easily get hit by the miror and end up on the hood,

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Why are you assuming he was going forward? If he was parked perpendicular to the curb, or parallel parked with an obstruction (such as another car) in front of him, he would have had to back up to get out, while turning the wheel. If the cop is standing at the driver's window, and the driver backs up with the wheels turned to the right, the cop could very easily get hit by the miror and end up on the hood,

Good point.

In fact, I do recall when I read the article in the local paper, I wondered why there was so little front-end damage. It's entirely possible that the car was driving backwards during the incident.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

And yet there is no report any such thing was found in the car. Where do you suppose it went?

No warrants, no drugs, no cause to run. We don't have a tox screen. I believe the article said he was 21. If you are parked, you don't get a DUI.

So what is more likely here? The kid panicked or he truly thought the cop merely wanted him to move out of the fire lane?

I think the kid panicked.

My post was about imagining myself in that situation, at that age. The worst possible thing I could do at that point is pull away. One doesn't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to realize that the cop has every reason to question your presence there.

If I hear the cop was clearly making "get the hell out of here" gestures then I'll change my mind on this. Otherwise, this isn't ambiguous - a cop staring directly at you through your side window means "roll down your window and explain yourself", not "we instinctively see your goodness - you have a free pass to disassociate yourself from this confused and dangerous situation."

I don't know what he may have thought was incriminating inside his car, but he didn't have time to poll its occupants and reach a consensus. He only had to think that there was a strong possibility that there was something in his car that would forever change his parents impression of what he was doing outside of the home. At that age, regardless of our own behaviour, we all have associated with that guy - neighborhood friendships outweigh the normal selection process rearding who you hang out with. You leave them behind eventually, but at that age they are part of your life.

Furthur information could drastically change my instinctive impressions of what went down, but I am certain of two things -

Everyone there who wasn't a cop will side with the kids, and

Each and every cop there was terrified. Guns are plentiful and life is held cheap. If I was a cop in this day and age I'd get a job at Wal-Mart.

My heart goes out to the family - kids like this are precious regardless of race or ethnicity. I blame those cops who have sullied the reputation of their brethren, and I blame the barbaric animals in the drug subculture who have put all cops on the thin edge of panic.

Gasoline, meet Mr. Match. Play nicely, now.

 

[patchbunny]

Why are you assuming he was going forward? If he was parked perpendicular to the curb, or parallel parked with an obstruction (such as another car) in front of him, he would have had to back up to get out, while turning the wheel. If the cop is standing at the driver's window, and the driver backs up with the wheels turned to the right, the cop could very easily get hit by the miror and end up on the hood,

I based it on the news reports. If the vehicle is backing up, there's nothing to keep you from sliding off the hood and back onto the ground. If the vehicle is driving towards another officer and they open fire, I'd expect to see bulelt holes in the rear of the vehicle. There are none visible. And since the vehicle crashed into a police vehicle and there's front end damage, the story would now be the vehicle was backing up, hit the officer knocking him on the hood, came to a stop, went forward, and in all that time, the police officer on the hood never tried to get off. Umm, no.

We'll see where it goes. Right now, the description of events doesn't make any sense.

 

[Architect]

there is evidence he tried to flee - his reason isn't known or even relevant to the events claimed in the article.

I assume you're not suggesting that fleeing from the Police is, in itself, justification for deadly force? Presumably you would agree that the officer has to have reasonable cause to believe that his life is in immediate and real peril.

FWIW, trying to mow down an officer with a car would probably fulfill the latter category, if the officer is unable to simply evade or step out of the way.

 

[brenn]

I assume you're not suggesting that fleeing from the Police is, in itself, justification for deadly force?

You should have read that the quote you responded to was my response to the claim "Is there any evidence the kid had a reason to run? No" which was quoted above it. It was clearly not a reference to the justification for use of force. The justification for the use of force was running into and at the police, not running from them.

Presumably you would agree that the officer has to have reasonable cause to believe that his life is in immediate and real peril.

Usually we say "imminent danger of death or serious physical injury," but there are also numerous other deadly force justifications, including just running away, in certain cases. In fact, the first and most important U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of deadly force was precisely on the issue of using deadly force solely for the purpose of stopping a suspect from escaping (Tennessee v. Garner).

FWIW, trying to mow down an officer with a car would probably fulfill the latter category, if the officer is unable to simply evade or step out of the way.

Maybe, but in most states there is no legal requirement to step out of the way - attempting to hit you with a car is an imminent threat that justifies deadly force. In a minority of states, there is a "retreat if possible" requirement.

 

[brenn]

I based it on the news reports. If the vehicle is backing up, there's nothing to keep you from sliding off the hood and back onto the ground. If the vehicle is driving towards another officer and they open fire, I'd expect to see bulelt holes in the rear of the vehicle. There are none visible. And since the vehicle crashed into a police vehicle and there's front end damage, the story would now be the vehicle was backing up, hit the officer knocking him on the hood, came to a stop, went forward, and in all that time, the police officer on the hood never tried to get off. Umm, no.

We'll see where it goes. Right now, the description of events doesn't make any sense.

You seem to be stretching beyond both the evidence and your ability to make inferences from it. What makes you think the officers had to fire from behind the vehicle, even though the fact evidence in the article said that one of the firing officers was beside it?

 

[Belz...]

If you mean to respond by pretending to take something literally that obviously was not intended literally, I don't think that advances your argument.

Your post was clearly adverserial. I simply commented that the use of the word "psychotic" in your case was incorrect, while the other poster had used it correctly in context.

 

[Architect]

In fact, the first and most important U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of deadly force was precisely on the issue of using deadly force solely for the purpose of stopping a suspect from escaping (Tennessee v. Garner).

And you call yourselves civilised.......

 

[Normal Dude]

And you call yourselvbes civilised.......

Oooga! Oooooga ooga! <Throws rock, clubs the ground>

 

[Belz...]

And you call yourselvbes civilised.......

I'm sure we count find something about the UK that somebody would call uncivilized, but then why would we want to bring nationality into this ?

 

[Rolfe]

This conversation reminds me a lot of the discussion in the early days of the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting. Wildcat may remember this. There was much speculation on the event, in particular posters declaring that de Menezes had "committed suicide" by running from police officers who were (presumably) identifying themselves and waving badges at him.

It transpired, after much inquiry, that all the initial reports had been wrong. Some people had been mistaken, having seen a running policeman and assumed it was de Menezes. Some speculation had been entirely unfounded, because it had never been claimed that anyone showed a badge. And some of it was completely invented - the "eyewitness" with the most detailed and newsworthy story was discovered to have made it up.

In that case, the horror of the unprovoked shooting turned out to be far far worse than even the most pessimistic commentators had speculated. But it might have been the other way round. How can anyone possibly say, on the basis of a couple of newspaper articles?

Rolfe.

 

[patchbunny]

You seem to be stretching beyond both the evidence and your ability to make inferences from it. What makes you think the officers had to fire from behind the vehicle, even though the fact evidence in the article said that one of the firing officers was beside it?

I made reference to firing from behind the vehicle, as the claim was made by Wildcat that the vehicle could have been backing up, which is how a vehicle would be moving 'towards' the second shooter. I felt that made no sense, and said so in my post.

"The officer on the hood shot at the driver, but the vehicle continued in the fire lane in the direction of a third Mount Pleasant officer. That officer also fired at the vehicle, according to the police press release." I read that as the vehicle was heading towards the second officer, not that he was standing beside it.

There is no evidence of any bullet impacts on the sides of the vehicle, only in the windshield and hood. If an officer was firing from beside the vehicle, I'd expect to see impacts in the vehicle side. The bullet strikes in the windshield align with a firer in front of the vehicle. I don't see the word "beside" in either the Op's article or the CNN article in post #20, so I don't see any validation for your claim an officer was beside the vehicle.

I'm hoping with that many police cars there someone's dash cam picked up the incident and the whole thing won't boil down to a 'he said, she said' incident.

 

[WildCat]

This conversation reminds me a lot of the discussion in the early days of the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting. Wildcat may remember this.

I remember it well, which is why I'm not jumping to conclusions this time around.

 

[patchbunny]

In that case, the horror of the unprovoked shooting turned out to be far far worse than even the most pessimistic commentators had speculated. But it might have been the other way round. How can anyone possibly say, on the basis of a couple of newspaper articles?

Rolfe.

True enough. There was a recent shooting at a Las Vegas Costco where police officers killed a man legally carrying a concealed weapon, and the firearms forums went nuts with claims of police abuse. There was a public inquest, and it was revealed that the individual was on enough prescription narcotics that his ability to function was impared, and when the police confronted him in repsonse to the store's 911 call that a man was tearing up merchandise, he drew his firearm and pointed it at police, so the police shot and killed him.

We'll never know why he did what he did, but there was far more involved than revealed in the press. We'll have to wait and see what comes of this.

 

[WildCat]

I made reference to firing from behind the vehicle, as the claim was made by Wildcat that the vehicle could have been backing up, which is how a vehicle would be moving 'towards' the second shooter.

Presumably, after backing out of the parking space he would then go forward.

But really, we have no idea what actually happened. But some of this discussion reminds me of conspiracy theorist's mocking the single bullet theory. It makes no sense out of context, but once you understand everyone's position it makes complete sense.

 

[brenn]

And you call yourselves civilised.......

I notice a lack of any substance in your comment. How would your law differ from Tennesssee v. Garner?