CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

[ponderingturtle]

Given there are 900,000 sworn LEO's in the US that's a rate of 1.33 per 100,000 per year. Hardly justification to shoot people if they believe they just might be reaching for a gun.

It isn't about statistics or risk it is about the police mindset and that focuses on how randomly dangerous they are even if they are less dangerous that driving around in their patrol car and not pulling anyone over. The driving is enough of a constant that the risks there get ignored but those events especially now there is dash cams to show a few of them are blown all out of proportion in perceived risk.

 

[Caper]

I knew a (white) man who was shot and killed by a police officer when he was reaching for his ID. His three boys (about my age) were in the car. Granted, this was 40 years ago, but it's not always about race.

However, in this case I think it was a large factor.

The Chinese don't like the blacks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think most police cover up the wrongful acts of fellow cops, no.

So where is your evidence for this claim? There certainly are many murders committed by the police with other officers around that only ever came to be prosecuted because the video got out. Why does it seem only bad cops are on scene of these murders? At the least cops who will cover up and not rat on their partner over little things like murdering someone seem to be the norm.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The Chinese don't like the blacks.

That was a major point in the manslaughter conviction of a Chinese american officer in NYC for negligently discharging his pistol in a stairwell and killing a black man. A large section of the chinese comunity felt he wouldn't even have been charged if he was white. I am not sure I disagree with them on that point.

Fortunately for them the judge largely threw up the jury verdict.

 

[cullennz]

That cop should have been never allowed on the job let alone carry a gun.

He is clearly not the full deck.

 

[Pterodactyl]

It isn't about statistics or risk it is about the police mindset and that focuses on how randomly dangerous they are even if they are less dangerous that driving around in their patrol car and not pulling anyone over. The driving is enough of a constant that the risks there get ignored but those events especially now there is dash cams to show a few of them are blown all out of proportion in perceived risk.

Also, nationwide statistics mean little when responding to a situation where you expect hostility. Whether it is due to reliable information that a suspect might be armed, or an officer's intuition (justified or otherwise), it is impossible, despite any training, to completely remove the human element. Heightened awareness, focus, panic set in differently for individuals.
It is unrealistic to expect robotic sound judgement from all of these people in the heat of the moment.

 

[blutoski]

So where is your evidence for this claim?

Since the claim is about what I think (the sentence starts with "I don't think...") the literal answer is: "I am the evidence."

However, if you mean how do I support my opinion, probably in the same drawer as "most police cover up the wrongful acts of fellow cops". There isn't good evidence about activity that by definition is being covered up.

There certainly are many murders committed by the police with other officers around that only ever came to be prosecuted because the video got out. Why does it seem only bad cops are on scene of these murders? At the least cops who will cover up and not rat on their partner over little things like murdering someone seem to be the norm.

This is certainly evidence that there are nonzero quantity of crappy officers, and nonzero quantity of officers who collude to suppress evidence of their incompetence or malevolence. I don't know how to quantify how far on the continuum from 'at least one' to 'most'. Also: this estimate is different than estimates of conspiracy to suppress evidence.

 

[alfaniner]

So far, one guy with signs in front of the Police Dept. I'm guessing there will soon be more.

(This is all within walking distance.)

 

[blutoski]

I don't think the two are analogous. not that I think either is a valid claim;

'signing up to' a religion means you are signing up to a doctrine of morals or whatever, and it is pretty demonstrable that these doctrines are ethically screwed up, and also that most adherents don't actually follow what their book etc says but tend to just take the socially and morally acceptable and leave the rest, pretty much according to the century or decade, and some of them actually take it way too seriously and do some deeply wrong stuff, but that isn't actually all that at odds with what their doctrines state

signing up to be a police officer, whether or not that is the actual motivation for every single individual, is signing up to uphold the moral doctrines of society, and some of them do some deeply wrong stuff that is completely at odds with the stated doctrines...

Correct, but that's not the reasoning the 'fellow travellers' critics are employing. They're talking about how just by being silent and not repudiating everything about the category, one is giving encouragement to others in the category to do morally wrong things. For example, that a Mennonite pacifist (who has already rejected all violence) is still accountable for a Baptist's abortion clinic bombings by not repudiating their shared 'Christianity'.

ETA:

I think the key difference is, there were some actually pretty bad 'doctrines' with regards to policing, but when they updated them, they got rid of the old ones.

Religions never do this. They just have some collective understanding that they ignore certain parts. Probably why it gets such bad results sometimes, the cognitive dissonance must be a strain

Religions do this all the time - that's why there's so many of them. At any given moment, 'Islam' represents something in the neighbourhood of about a billion conflicting doctrines.

For example, Christianity: this is the doctrine where you give to the poor... or not... kill people... or not... depends on what kind of Christian. Protestantism is the rejection of the Catholic doctrines, Catholicism is the rejection of the Jewish docrines, &c.

 

[Caper]

From where she stands as a black woman, the danger zone is the entire USA at this point.

ETA: and it's not the population she's worried about: it's the police.

Yeah. I think the police in Atlanta would be fine. Your wife's hang ups are largely unfounded. The odds of her getting roughed up by a cop in Atlanta for being a successful black woman are astronomical..... Actually if shes worried more about the police then she is pretty bad at risk assessment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Chinese Cops don't like the blacks.

ftfy

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... probably in the same drawer as "most police cover up the wrongful acts of fellow cops". There isn't good evidence about activity that by definition is being covered up....

Yes there is. There is overwhelming evidence of this.

So much evidence it makes me wonder why you aren't aware of it.

 

[cullennz]

Something is seriously wrong when a woman whose partner has just been shot and whose kid is in the back seat is calm, while the person who is supposedly the authority figure and has a drawn gun is screaming like a little girl

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From where she stands as a black woman, the danger zone is the entire USA at this point.

ETA: and it's not the population she's worried about: it's the police.

How does this square with you thinking cops don't cover up for each other? How many of these cops have ever been convicted? Just the sheer number of incidents now that cameras are all over, vs the number that didn't go public because the cops always denied things regardless of how many were on the scene should be a clue.

 

[blutoski]

Yes there is. There is overwhelming evidence of this.

So much evidence it makes me wonder why you aren't aware of it.

I'm not sure it's quantitative, is the thing. "most" was the problematic word, there. Does that mean you think that >50% of police are as we speak knowingly involved in a coverup of a peer's criminal activity? I don't think there's evidence that supports these numbers.

 

[blutoski]

How does this square with you thinking cops don't cover up for each other?

It was the quantitative part of the claim I was pushing back on. And I guess the scope of the infractions involved. Would they look the other way if their partner didn't polish their boot with an approved brand of polish? Sure, probably 100% of them would.

Would they look the other way if their partner violated a serious law, a life-threating situation? I'm thinking very few would, and there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence to believe otherwise.

How many of these cops have ever been convicted?

We don't know, since we don't know how many were found innocent specifically because of conspiracy to suppress evidence among their peers.

Just the sheer number of incidents now that cameras are all over, vs the number that didn't go public because the cops always denied things regardless of how many were on the scene should be a clue.

Yes, this is something I was saying to my wife this morning (I think I even facebooked it, let me check... oh yes, i'll copy/paste it here):

I was just thinking about the stark difference between how the recent ubiquity of cameras has so negatively impacted support for UFOs, Cryptozoology, and ghosts, while simultaneously boosting the credibility of racially targeted LEO murders.

 

[cullennz]

It doesn't matter if we think its acceptable or not (obviously it's not) ... the issue is its POSSIBLE, and that makes it wise to do everything to mitigate the possibility.

My suggestion is just one way, I'm not saying the poor kid should have been shot because he should not have ... but he did not follow proper protocol for a CCW permit holder.

You don't say "I have a gun" and reach for you wallet unless you want to be shot ...

You do NOT even use the word "gun" you say, something like ...

“Officer, I want to let you know that I have a concealed carry permit, I currently have one on my person. How would you like me to proceed?”

If he asks for ID you say ... "I am Carrying in a waistband holster located about 5 o’clock which is the same general location as my wallet wallet ... do you want me to go ahead?"


Often they'll say NO and tell you to slowly get out of the vehicle.

Lol

Geezes H

 

[alfaniner]

The woman certainly had presence of mind (and a lot of time?) to start broadcasting on Facebook live. I know what the video looks like, but I am still open to the possibility that the inciting incident was something more severe than stated.

 

[fagin]

Lol

Geezes H

It's almost incomprehensible isn't it?

Just a different world I suppose.

 

[johnny karate]

It's almost incomprehensible isn't it?

Just a different world I suppose.

A world in which the people tasked with protecting the public are dangerously unstable and can react lethally with the just the slightest provocation, apparently.

Sounds like a horrible world.