Cops kill yet another black guy for probably no reason

[Rolfe]

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

I think we would all do well to remember that little incident. Everybody was wrong. All the reports of the victim running away from pursuers were wrong. The reports of what the victim had been wearing were wrong. The victim hadn't even been aware he was being followed, and was sitting quietly in his seat on the train when he was grabbed and seven shots pumped into his head.

The eyewitness reports of someone running down the escalator were wrong. The "bulky jacket" and the "wires trailing out of his collar" and the "police identified themselves" were all wrong. And most of all, the account of the man who said he saw it all and who was interviewed for the TV news, was a complete fabrication. (That's the one that had the victim running from pursuers "looking like a hunted fox", tripping at the entrance to the railway carriage, falling on the platform, and five cops piling on top of him.)

I've pretty much given up on alleged "eyewitness testimony" after all that.

ETA: I recall a long discussion on the part of those who believed that de Menezes was innocent, that the wires trailing from his collar could have been iPod earphones, and it wasn't as warm as all that in the morning and he was from Brazil, why wouldn't he be wearing a heavy jacket, and maybe he ran from the police because he thought they were thugs and he was about to be mugged.

He didn't have an iPod or anything else with wires attached. He was wearing jeans and a thin t-shirt, with a thin short denim jacket flapping open. He never even saw the police, never mind ran from them.

Everybody was wrong, even those who were arguing on the side which turned out to be right in the end.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your bias is showing again, Ginger. If you think a cop who fires his weapon at the driver of the car who's trying to _run him down_ is a murderer, you're not thinking clearly about the issue.

Everyone in this thread is viewing this scenario from their own bias. If mine differs from yours, that doesn't mean you don't have one.


Yes, I have an established position that some cops kill without good reason. Like I said, there is plenty of evidence of this fact on video records and convictions in courts of law.

Yes, I have an established position that cops lie, especially to cover up their mistakes and over reactions. There is plenty of evidence of this fact on record.

Yes, I have an established position that "driving while black" is a real thing and there is bias and bigotry in the justice and corrections systems in this country. There is plenty of evidence of this fact.

Yes, I have an established position that a kid in his third year in college, and one whose parents wrote praise in a high school year book, meaning they are likely to value education and their son may have gained from those family values, is more likely to be law abiding than not.

Yes, I have an established position that if cops are truly worried about being run over by a fleeing car, in circumstances like this one (a brawl as opposed to some murderer or rapist fleeing the scene), they should not get in front of the car in the first place. Fleeing the scene of a brawl, even if it had been true, is not a reason I want police using lethal force against a young person.


Those established positions are not that ALL cops are like this. Those established positions do not render me incapable of evaluating the evidence of any situation on it's own merits.

The current assessment I have of this specific situation is based on the evidence that we have in this case. It adds up to this being more likely than not, overreacting, negligent cops, possibly (but not necessarily) lying after the fact.



And I also have a ton of empathy for a family losing their son. It's terribly painful and was preventable. One can dismiss it as a stupid decision made by a young person. Or, as I see it, the police were the ones responsible to take due care with their lethal force. And this case reeks of police error, not reasonable force. One can see it as the kid driving into the cop, or, as the cop stupidly getting in front of the car. The police were the professionals here. Citizens (and parents) have a right to expect cops prevent a situation like these circumstances, (if you believe the cops' story), not shoot someone because of the police error. Kid's should not be shot for such a minor error in judgement.

It's the cops who should not have jumped or stood in front of the car. When I cross the street, I make sure I have eye contact with any drivers that are turning toward the crosswalk. I don't trust that they are going to see me. I make certain they see me. Do you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What does this have to do with whether or not he tried to attack the officers with his vehicle ?

No reason for such behavior is yet apparent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, you do.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/dui-in-a-parked-car.html
http://www.dui.com/dui-library/connecticut/news/guilty-of-dui-while-in-parked-car
http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/resources/dui-dwi/dui-defendants-rights/dui-parked-car.htm

Your links all say the cops have to show you had intent to drive, so the DUI is not for sitting in front of the wheel, parked.

And there's still no evidence the kid was drinking. He wasn't at the bar. He was there to pick others up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the kid panicked.

And yet there is no evidence of any reason for this?

...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."

Sitting in the fire lane, you've done nothing wrong, you aren't involved in why the cops were there.... cop raps on the window with a flashlight. I can see one interpreting this to move your car out of the way or to unroll your window. The latter interpretation certainly seems more likely, especially in hindsight. But that doesn't mean the former interpretation is impossible or even unlikely.


I still hold the professional police were charged not to be trigger happy, but to take reasonable care in their duties. Why get in front of a vehicle? Was that also not a stupid mistake?

 

[brenn]

Your links all say the cops have to show you had intent to drive, so the DUI is not for sitting in front of the wheel, parked.

If it says they have to have intent to operate, that is wrong in most states, including NY where this happened:

"in New York, a defendant can be found guilty of driving while intoxicated even if he or she is asleep at the wheel of a car whose engine is not running and evidence is adduced at trial that the vehicle never moved. See People v. Marriott, 37 A.D.2d 868, 325 N.Y.S.2d 177, 178 (3d Dep't 1971). A person can also be found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated without knowing how to operate the vehicle in question. See Prescott, 722 N.Y.S.2d at 782, 745 N.E.2d 1000. Indeed, the vehicle itself need not even be operative in order to sustain a conviction for operating it while intoxicated. See People v. David “W”, 83 A.D.2d 690, 442 N.Y.S.2d 278, 279 (3d Dep't 1981) (holding that testimony regarding the inoperability of a vehicle behind the wheel of which defendant was found drunk and slumped over was inadmissible because such testimony is irrelevant to the question of guilt under statute)."

Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200, 205 (2nd Cir. 2001).

 

[brenn]

Those established positions do not render me incapable of evaluating the evidence of any situation on it's own merits.

The current assessment I have of this specific situation is based on the evidence that we have in this case. It adds up to this being more likely than not, overreacting, negligent cops, possibly (but not necessarily) lying after the fact.

Instead of posting all that, why not just list the actual evidence that leads you to the conclusion you have stated. You can even include the "we don't think he'd do it" evidence by people who weren't there, as being relevant to his reputation. Then we could really get down to looking at facts, instead of "I hate the police" rants.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm guessing Mumbles's comment was writ ironical.

Not really. I've really never heard of a case where, say, a white guy is shot dead by three cops because they confused his wallet for a gun, or some white teenager is shot in the back while he was lying subdued on a subway platform. That *may* be media bias, but I've heard plenty about the cop that yelled at snowball fighters in DC, the girl that was beaten by cops for lightly kicking a shoe at them, and people who were killed because they grabbed a gun and shot at cops during a no-knock raid.

 

[Modified]

If it says they have to have intent to operate, that is wrong in most states, including NY where this happened:

"in New York, a defendant can be found guilty of driving while intoxicated even if he or she is asleep at the wheel of a car whose engine is not running and evidence is adduced at trial that the vehicle never moved. See People v. Marriott, 37 A.D.2d 868, 325 N.Y.S.2d 177, 178 (3d Dep't 1971). A person can also be found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated without knowing how to operate the vehicle in question. See Prescott, 722 N.Y.S.2d at 782, 745 N.E.2d 1000. Indeed, the vehicle itself need not even be operative in order to sustain a conviction for operating it while intoxicated. See People v. David “W”, 83 A.D.2d 690, 442 N.Y.S.2d 278, 279 (3d Dep't 1981) (holding that testimony regarding the inoperability of a vehicle behind the wheel of which defendant was found drunk and slumped over was inadmissible because such testimony is irrelevant to the question of guilt under statute)."

Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200, 205 (2nd Cir. 2001).

Well, the last is just idiotic; a case of following the letter of the law while ignoring the intent. How much car is enough? If there's no engine, can I sit in there drunk? How about just a van seat on my lawn, does that count?

 

[sgtbaker]

Everyone in this thread is viewing this scenario from their own bias. If mine differs from yours, that doesn't mean you don't have one.

I think the general tone is to refrain from judgement until after the investigation is released; that seems rather unbaised. No one is arguing that it is impossible that this a wrongful death situation, just that we don't know all the facts to place judgement, yet.

Yes, I have an established position that some cops kill without good reason. Like I said, there is plenty of evidence of this fact on video records and convictions in courts of law.

Yes, I have an established position that cops lie, especially to cover up their mistakes and over reactions. There is plenty of evidence of this fact on record.

Yes, it happens, though not as frequent as justified use of weapons. It neither proves or disproves the claims made in this case. You are judging these officers based on the minority of incidents, none in which these officers were previously involved, yet since it has happened in the past, it must be the case in this situation.

Yes, I have an established position that a kid in his third year in college, and one whose parents wrote praise in a high school year book, meaning they are likely to value education and their son may have gained from those family values, is more likely to be law abiding than not.

If I could produce stories of other children who grew up in perfectly good homes, yet still ended up getting into altercations with the law, does it automatically make it likely that this kid was up to no good? No, because prior incidenct have absolutely nothing to do with this case. What if this kid came from a home with drug addicted, illiteral parents who scoffed at education? What if he was an alpha male-type jock who used his football skills as a free ticket to party, dropped roofies in drinks and date raped girls, would there be less of a need of an investigation?

Yes, I have an established position that if cops are truly worried about being run over by a fleeing car, in circumstances like this one (a brawl as opposed to some murderer or rapist fleeing the scene), they should not get in front of the car in the first place. Fleeing the scene of a brawl, even if it had been true, is not a reason I want police using lethal force against a young person.

Perhaps you should start a class teaching your ninja-like reaction skills because there are still incidents of people not getting out of the way in time. Established fact in this case; there was one officer on the hood of his car, already, we don't know what he was saying at this point but I will venture to say that it was probably something along the line of, "Stop." Not only was the kid not stopping he was heading toward another cop. You can play armchair quarterback all you want, you were not there and have no idea exactly how the events unfolded.

The current assessment I have of this specific situation is based on the evidence that we have in this case. It adds up to this being more likely than not, overreacting, negligent cops, possibly (but not necessarily) lying after the fact.

Half the story is not exactly a fair assessment of the evidence.

And I also have a ton of empathy for a family losing their son. It's terribly painful and was preventable. One can dismiss it as a stupid decision made by a young person. Or, as I see it, the police were the ones responsible to take due care with their lethal force.

A moving vehicle can be just as lethal as a bullet.

And this case reeks of police error, not reasonable force. One can see it as the kid driving into the cop, or, as the cop stupidly getting in front of the car.

So far, all this case reaks of is one side of the story.

The police were the professionals here. Citizens (and parents) have a right to expect cops prevent a situation like these circumstances, (if you believe the cops' story), not shoot someone because of the police error. Kid's should not be shot for such a minor error in judgement.

Even the most upstanding, law abiding, by the book officer can find his/herself in situations where they have to make snap decisions. In such cases, not everyone is going to cheer about the outcome. It is absolutely tragic that this kid died. I feel for the parents because so far, it does look as though they did everything right and they still lost their son. I can't imagine the anger they must feel, right now. However, every sad situation does not mean that someone must pay. Sometimes awful things happen to good people. Such is the way of the world. However, until such evidence is shared with the public by sources other than sympathetic journalists, interviews with outraged friends and family, and lawyers representing the family, I find it hard to fall on either side.

It's the cops who should not have jumped or stood in front of the car. When I cross the street, I make sure I have eye contact with any drivers that are turning toward the crosswalk. I don't trust that they are going to see me. I make certain they see me. Do you?

If you have access to evidence that the cops jumped in front of the car or onto the hood, I suggest you share it with the authorities.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Skeptics are not immune to the appeal of thinking one knows more than he really does.

 

[Belz...]

No reason for such behavior is yet apparent.

Irrelevant. The question is: "what happened ?", not "who ?".

Everyone in this thread is viewing this scenario from their own bias.

Not me. I haven't formed a conclusion whatsoever, except to note that people jump to conclusions in the absence of conclusive evidence, and that this is especially ironic on a skeptics forum.

It's the cops who should not have jumped or stood in front of the car.

And that illustrates what I just said quite nicely.

And yet there is no evidence of any reason for this?

I remember watching a police documentary about car chases. In the final bout, a guy ran away from the police in his truck/SUV when they tried to get him to stop for something incredibly trivial (broken light or something like that); in the chase he hit something and killed himself. It turned out he had no criminal record, no incriminating evidence in the car. Nothing. And yet he ran away. Why ? People are not rational things, Ginger. Sometimes they do things that defy understanding. That's why it's not very useful to look at their "profile" as stated by friends and family: in the end, what matters is what _happened_.

 

[Mumbles]

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,

The local report stated that the driver "Continued in the fire lane" where he was parked. It's unlikely that the driver did this, *and* turned sharply out of the fire lane where he was parked. The best assumption is that he drove straight ahead. Furthermore, since the police description was that he "accelerated", and apparently makes no mention of the driver stopping, backing up, or reversing direction, it's safe to assume that he was not reversing.

What's more, how does one end up getting hit by a side mirror, and ending up on the car's hood, by a forward-moving car, if you begin by standing at the driver's window? Not only is the mirror behind the hood, as patchbunny said, but the window is also behind the mirror. One obvious explanation - the car began to move, the officer attempted to run in front of it, and ended up jumping onto the hood and firing.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Well, the last is just idiotic; a case of following the letter of the law while ignoring the intent. How much car is enough? If there's no engine, can I sit in there drunk? How about just a van seat on my lawn, does that count?

I wondered the same thing when I read the last one. I thought about looking up the NY definition of "vehicle" asit applies to DUI statutes, but then I decided my cat was more interesting. Feel free to look it up, though.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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

You obviously haven't familiarized yourself with the case. At all.

It prohibits the use of deadly force for the sole purpose of stopping a fleeing suspect.

 

[Slayhamlet]

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

What exactly is uncivilized about the Tennessee v. Garner decision? Or is this just a cheap excuse for a slur?

 

[doobiedoright]

Everyone in this thread is viewing this scenario from their own bias. If mine differs from yours, that doesn't mean you don't have one.


Yes, I have an established position that some cops kill without good reason. Like I said, there is plenty of evidence of this fact on video records and convictions in courts of law.

Yes, I have an established position that cops lie, especially to cover up their mistakes and over reactions. There is plenty of evidence of this fact on record.

Yes, I have an established position that "driving while black" is a real thing and there is bias and bigotry in the justice and corrections systems in this country. There is plenty of evidence of this fact.

Yes, I have an established position that a kid in his third year in college, and one whose parents wrote praise in a high school year book, meaning they are likely to value education and their son may have gained from those family values, is more likely to be law abiding than not.

Yes, I have an established position that if cops are truly worried about being run over by a fleeing car, in circumstances like this one (a brawl as opposed to some murderer or rapist fleeing the scene), they should not get in front of the car in the first place. Fleeing the scene of a brawl, even if it had been true, is not a reason I want police using lethal force against a young person.


Those established positions are not that ALL cops are like this. Those established positions do not render me incapable of evaluating the evidence of any situation on it's own merits.

The current assessment I have of this specific situation is based on the evidence that we have in this case. It adds up to this being more likely than not, overreacting, negligent cops, possibly (but not necessarily) lying after the fact.



And I also have a ton of empathy for a family losing their son. It's terribly painful and was preventable. One can dismiss it as a stupid decision made by a young person. Or, as I see it, the police were the ones responsible to take due care with their lethal force. And this case reeks of police error, not reasonable force. One can see it as the kid driving into the cop, or, as the cop stupidly getting in front of the car. The police were the professionals here. Citizens (and parents) have a right to expect cops prevent a situation like these circumstances, (if you believe the cops' story), not shoot someone because of the police error. Kid's should not be shot for such a minor error in judgement.

It's the cops who should not have jumped or stood in front of the car. When I cross the street, I make sure I have eye contact with any drivers that are turning toward the crosswalk. I don't trust that they are going to see me. I make certain they see me. Do you?

Why are you making the assumption the police got in his way?
Is it not just as likely the black kid aimed for the police?
You know what happens when you assume?
I used the young mans race as you seem to think it was a factor in his tragic death!
I doubt police had time to worry about the race of this young man....these things are usually a split second thing!

 

[Uncayimmy]

Your links all say the cops have to show you had intent to drive, so the DUI is not for sitting in front of the wheel, parked.

No, that is not what they say. Just admit you were wrong.

The first link says, "The main issue is whether a court could reasonably determine that an individual was about to operate their vehicle. "

The second link says, "The Court agreed, stating that the Connecticut DUI statute specifies that ‘operating’ a vehicle, not just driving, is enough for a drunk driving arrest...The Supreme Court thus ruled against Haight in his 2001 case, saying that by placing the key in the ignition he had set in motion actions that were meant to start and move the car."

The third link says, "Drinking or doing drugs and then getting into the driver’s side seat of a vehicle to rest or take a nap can lead an officer to believe that you are planning to drive while under the influence."

The presumption is that you are going to drive. Therefore, these lawyers recommend that you do not put the key in the ignition, and if you need to sleep it off, do not get in the driver's seat. In the context of this situation, sitting in the fire lane to pick up your buddies to drive them home would most certainly result in a DUI arrest were he intoxicated.

And there's still no evidence the kid was drinking. He wasn't at the bar. He was there to pick others up.

I was simply rebutting your utterly wrong assertion that you do not get a DUI for being parked. You can. Since we know nothing about his toxicology, that explanation is still on the table.

 

[Architect]

It prohibits the use of deadly force for the sole purpose of stopping a fleeing suspect.

Thus the smiley. Feel free to apologise.

 

[brodski]

Indeed. "Irish" accent and all that.

Violent criminal with a history of illegal weapons possession and all that. But hey, let’s focus on the accent.