Cops kill yet another black guy for probably no reason

[aggle-rithm]

FWIW, a friend of mine in high school was involved in a very similiar incident. He was an honor student, and a soccer star at our high school. He was parked in the parking lot of the high school at a football game; occupants in the back seat were cutting out a few lines of coke when a police officer rapped on the window. My friends horrified reaction was to put the car in drive and haul a** away. The cop was not hit by the car, and no one else was around, but of course he radiod for help and my friend was pulled over a few miles from the incident - minus any illegal substances which had been jettisoned. They were arrested (I think - maybe just taken in to the station, its been decades) but got off. His explanation was that he didn't recognize the officer as a cop - there had been trouble between the two schools (fights, brawls) at the football games and his alibi was "fear of being attacked". I think he had friends at the station as well, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if "good, well-behaved, honor student" type kids like my friend didn't panic precisely because they had so much to lose by being busted for recreational drug use.

Young people behave rashly.

A guy I sang in the high school choir with was at a party about a year after graduation, when he got into a fight with someone there and killed him with a fork. The last person you would expect to do something like this, but there it was.

 

[Maus]

My recommendation if you're in fear of getting struck by a vehicle trying to leave a parking space is to not stand in front or behind of it.

Being on the hood is not the best place to be either, and the driver can't always see you in time if you're in motion.

If all else fails just shoot the driver and hope not to hit innocent bystanders.

-Maus

 

[Architect]

Why do you hate America?

 

[One Skunk Todd]

At what point, while an Officer is hanging onto your hood, does one continue to drive forward?

Without commenting on whether the shooting was justified, once the driver was shot he was probably no longer capable of making rational decisions. Especially if he was going into shock. I imagine that's one of the reasons police departments have such a difficult time dealing with issue of what to do about fleeing criminal or dangerous drivers.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Young people behave rashly.

A guy I sang in the high school choir with was at a party about a year after graduation, when he got into a fight with someone there and killed him with a fork. The last person you would expect to do something like this, but there it was.

I don't even think that his reaction was rash; unless you count the whole lines of coke thing that way. If he had been busted in the school parking lot he would have been expelled per school policy. Rutgers Law may never have happened for him. He instinctively chose the lesser of two evils; *but* if another cop had walked out from between parked cars at the worst possible time he could have been charged with something like aggravated assault or manslaughter - the cops would have found the drugs and his flight would have been seen as evading arrest.

 

[brenn]

Well, let's introduce some skepticism. The article said:

Police said that when they tapped on Henry’s car window, he accelerated, knocking Hess onto the hood and driving at Beckley. Both officers opened fire, striking Henry and two passengers, including Brandon Cox, 20, also of Easton, who was grazed on the arm.

If that is true, it would certainly justify deadly force in most places in the U.S.

So we have "Police said" - what is the evidence to the contrary?

I read the article and, other than a vague reference to "conflicting accounts" from his father, who wasn't present, I don't see where a single person with direct evidence disputes the police account. Having some involvement with how these things play out in the real world, let alone New York, I have to think they'd have been glad to print any anti-police witness comments.

That seems to leave Schrodinger's Cat with a position unsupported by the evidence in the article (which looks like a very standard article about a police shooting).

 

[C_Felix]

Not much to add, just want to echo the main sentiment: We need more info.

He said.
She said.
They said.

 

[brenn]

Not much to add, just want to echo the main sentiment: We need more info.

He said.
She said.
They said.

If we want to find out what the full details are, we need more information.

However, precisley for that reason we can already conclude that many posters on this thread are perfectly willing to reject critical thinking and fall back on irrational statements when it suits their personal prejudices. That is more interesting to me - the shooting case is run of the mill.

 

[Mumbles]

f that is true, it would certainly justify deadly force in most places in the U.S.

So we have "Police said" - what is the evidence to the contrary?

The article notes that friends inside the car accused the officer of running in front of the car and firing without warning.

Why would one cop shoot at an oncoming car, while another officer is on the hood of the car and also firing? This would put the officer on the hood in grave danger of being shot. Also, shooting the driver of a car that's heading at you seems like a bad idea, since even if you kill the driver, all you have is an out of control car headed at you.

Look, the simple fact is, there are two main reasons why people are skeptical:

1) The kid doesn't seem like the type that would get into trouble:

2) the Blue Wall of Silence, where cops routinely stick up for one another after doing unconscionable deeds. Radley Balko's article this week discusses this, and what happens to the whistle-blowers.

Personally, having had several friends (almost all black) who were beaten and/or arrested for sitting on a porch, walking down the street, not walking down the street, and on and on, I have to extend a great deal of skepticism about the police account, particularly given the incredibly reckless nature of the police's supposed actions.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, what I love about threads like this is how, with little information, we can drop our usual skeptics act and accuse others of being racists because the victim was black. Of course, that is, in and of itself, racist, because had the victim being white, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Belz...]

1) The kid doesn't seem like the type that would get into trouble:

Perhaps. Though this brings us back to the "your honor, as you well know my esteemed client is a respected member of this community" type of justice system.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The article notes that friends inside the car accused the officer of running in front of the car and firing without warning.

Why would one cop shoot at an oncoming car, while another officer is on the hood of the car and also firing? This would put the officer on the hood in grave danger of being shot. Also, shooting the driver of a car that's heading at you seems like a bad idea, since even if you kill the driver, all you have is an out of control car headed at you.

Look, the simple fact is, there are two main reasons why people are skeptical:

1) The kid doesn't seem like the type that would get into trouble:

2) the Blue Wall of Silence, where cops routinely stick up for one another after doing unconscionable deeds. Radley Balko's article this week discusses this, and what happens to the whistle-blowers.

Personally, having had several friends (almost all black) who were beaten and/or arrested for sitting on a porch, walking down the street, not walking down the street, and on and on, I have to extend a great deal of skepticism about the police account, particularly given the incredibly reckless nature of the police's supposed actions.

At what point, while an Officer is hanging onto your hood, would you assume you should just keep going?

How long do you think the Officer was on the hood? A few seconds? Let's put it this way - the Officer was on the hood long enough to pull out his sidearm and fire shots. That's not just 1-2 seconds.

Your bias is clearly evident in your post by simply hand-waving away the simple, basic facts - 1 Officer had been hit by the car, another was hanging onto the hood, and the kid kept driving.

Should the Officers have tasered the driver through the...oh, wait, taser through the window wouldn't work.

Should the Officers have let the driver just drive away with...oh, wait, an Officer was still on the hood.

Should the Officers have just left the driver alone in the first pl...oh, wait, there was a large fight with plenty of Officers called to the scene - it's routine for the Officers, in this situation, to check out everybody at the scene.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, those power-drunk cops really get their panties in a bind when you don't obey their silly little show-of-power commands like "drop the knife" or "stop beating that little old lady."

What pricks!

There are dozens of caught in the act videos as well as numerous court cases that contradict your conclusion this never happens.

I did not say all cops. And if anyone thinks I was implying the majority of cops, that is not what I meant. But for some reason you seem to think one cannot speak to the facts here because you don't like the message. Yes, some cops are pricks. It happens in any profession.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why are we discounting the possibility that the kid actually was trying to run over some cops? Because he was a college student? How does that figure?

I fail to see how that scenario is more likely than the one where one or more of the cops overreacted.

But even if true, do you get out of the way, or murder the 'punk' who isn't obeying you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

FWIW, a friend of mine in high school was involved in a very similiar incident. He was an honor student, and a soccer star at our high school. He was parked in the parking lot of the high school at a football game; occupants in the back seat were cutting out a few lines of coke when a police officer rapped on the window. My friends horrified reaction was to put the car in drive and haul a** away. The cop was not hit by the car, and no one else was around, but of course he radiod for help and my friend was pulled over a few miles from the incident - minus any illegal substances which had been jettisoned. They were arrested (I think - maybe just taken in to the station, its been decades) but got off. His explanation was that he didn't recognize the officer as a cop - there had been trouble between the two schools (fights, brawls) at the football games and his alibi was "fear of being attacked". I think he had friends at the station as well, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if "good, well-behaved, honor student" type kids like my friend didn't panic precisely because they had so much to lose by being busted for recreational drug use.

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?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If we want to find out what the full details are, we need more information.

However, precisley for that reason we can already conclude that many posters on this thread are perfectly willing to reject critical thinking and fall back on irrational statements when it suits their personal prejudices. That is more interesting to me - the shooting case is run of the mill.

One can look at the evidence available and still be open to changing one's view if more is revealed.

Is there any evidence the kid had a reason to run? No

Does it make any sense at all the kid would take such a drastic action as running down cops who clearly this kid would have known had guns? No

Does it make sense the kid truly thought the cop just wanted him to move out of the fire lane? Yes

Does the police story make sense that the side mirror on a car moving forward would strike an officer and the officer would end up on the hood? No

Is it plausible the one cop (let's call him gung ho) misunderstood the kid's action and jumped in front of the car to stop the kid from "fleeing" the scene? Yes

Is it plausible the kid didn't have time to react and stop the car before 'gung ho' opened fire? Yes

 

[dtugg]

I fail to see how that scenario is more likely than the one where one or more of the cops overreacted.

But even if true, do you get out of the way, or murder the 'punk' who isn't obeying you?

If the kid was trying to run down the cop killing him is not murder, by definition.

 

[Mumbles]

First off, I must note that you didn't answer my basic questions - if I'm a cop, and another cop is on the hood of an oncoming car, what possible logic is there in me shooting at the oncoming car? Again, if I hit the driver, I now have an out of control car coming at me. And if I the cop on the car hood, I just shot another cop. And those are, basically, the only two outcomes I should expect in this situation.

At what point, while an Officer is hanging onto your hood, would you assume you should just keep going?

Who's to say that he, like everyone else, didn't simply panic? In any case, it's not a good idea to slam your breaks if someone jumps onto your hood - you'll just end up tossing them onto the pavement, which is actually a good way to kill them. Pavement is *much* harder than a car hood.

How long do you think the Officer was on the hood? A few seconds? Let's put it this way - the Officer was on the hood long enough to pull out his sidearm and fire shots. That's not just 1-2 seconds.

Evidence? In any case, even if you assume that he's trying to escape, it only takes a few seconds to blaze out of a city block, if you really want to escape.

Your bias is clearly evident in your post by simply hand-waving away the simple, basic facts - 1 Officer had been hit by the car, another was hanging onto the hood, and the kid kept driving.

Again, this is what the police say. The people in the car have said otherwise.

In any case, my bias showed through when I acknowledged my bias against police in these sorts of situations. My evidence is the simple fact that the story told by the cops makes no sense, and that the person killed had no reason to suddenly go on a cop-killer rampage.

 

[dtugg]

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?

You can most definitely get a DUI for being at the steering wheel of a parked car.

 

[Mumbles]

Ah, what I love about threads like this is how, with little information, we can drop our usual skeptics act and accuse others of being racists because the victim was black. Of course, that is, in and of itself, racist, because had the victim being white, this thread wouldn't exist.

Wel, not really. In my case, I'm simply skeptical of the police report. Things just don't add up in it.