Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[ponderingturtle]

Can't read that here in old blighty. Probably similar to stories we had over here about the dangers of accidents during high speed pursuits caused by the police about 10 to 15 years ago. It was recognised that there had to be strong grounds for why a high speed pursuit was reasonable and proportionate given the increased risk to the public. Caused a national review of the issue and new guidelines and tests being introduced - see: https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...ng-2/police-pursuits/#national-decision-model

Boils down to the idea that a 10 mile high-speed pursuit because someone jumped a red light is not strong grounds to put the public at additional risk. Pursuing a violent offender is.

ETA: it boils down to training again - police need structures and training to ensure they don't let the understandable "in the heat of the moment" thinking dictate their actions.

This was just a normal traffic accident of someone running a red light not anything involving a pursuit or any claim in the article that they were urgently going somewhere. Just cops ignoring traffic rules as they frequently do because who is going to ticket them?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can't read that here in old blighty. Probably similar to stories we had over here about the dangers of accidents during high speed pursuits caused by the police about 10 to 15 years ago. It was recognised that there had to be strong grounds for why a high speed pursuit was reasonable and proportionate given the increased risk to the public. Caused a national review of the issue and new guidelines and tests being introduced - see: https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...ng-2/police-pursuits/#national-decision-model

Boils down to the idea that a 10 mile high-speed pursuit because someone jumped a red light is not strong grounds to put the public at additional risk. Pursuing a violent offender is.

ETA: it boils down to training again - police need structures and training to ensure they don't let the understandable "in the heat of the moment" thinking dictate their actions.

As the story is reported so far, there's nothing to indicate there was any urgency beyond ordinary impatience. The van was not pursuing any vehicles or responding to a call, it was just gunning it to try to catch the light.

 

[azazal]

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/up775an920sdw6v/Illinois_Nazis.gif?raw=1[/qimg]

Late to the show, but I was rewatching The Blues Brothers over the weekend and caught a joke I had never noticed before. The nazi group call themselves American Socialist White People's Party. I just now caught what their acronym is. see below. And as they are a group, making the acronym plural is so appropriate.

American
Socialist
White
People's
Party

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Grand Rapids police shot unarmed black man in back of head while on top of back.

Grand Rapids cop shot and killed an unarmed black man while on top of his back during a scuffle on the ground. 3rd party cellphone camera shows the shooting clearly, with the cop struggling with the face down man before drawing his pistol and firing a single shot to the head.

They struggle, and the officer can be heard telling Lyoya to "stop" and to "let go of the Taser."

After a couple of minutes, the officer is lying on top of Lyoya, who is face down on the ground, still yelling for him to "let go of the Taser," and proceeds to shoot him.

The Grand Rapids police officer shot Lyoya, a 26-year-old Congolese refugee, near the intersection of Nelson Avenue and Griggs Street on April 4.

The police officer has not been named.

At Wednesday's news conference, city manager Mark Washington said the city is "determined to get this right … our community deserves answers.”

Hundreds of protesters have since swarmed the streets, calling for accountability and justice for Lyoya.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/04/13/grand-rapids-police-shooting-video-patrick-lyoya/7304984001/

Link to press conference that includes the video, which shows the police killing. Police worn bodycam did not capture the shot as it was deactivated immediately prior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8uTKq8lTms

Video shows our killer cop make no attempt to render aid, not that it would have made any difference.

 

[Warp12]

The guy probably should have let go of the taser. First thought.

Violently struggling with an officer is never the answer. Do people ever learn?

"No attempt to render aid", lol.

 

[bruto]

Even if the fellow did have a taser and wasn't about to let go, it's hard to justify shooting him in the head from behind when he's on the ground, and impossible to justify turning off the camera before the killing.

If it is true, as reported, that the cop turned off his body camera right before he shot the victim, I believe he should be fired summarily just for that. I think if he had the ability to do this, not only does it suggest that he was not in a desperate fight for control, but it should be considered prima facie evidence of the intent to do murder. What other possible motive is there for turning off the camera?

You can come up with all sorts of evidence, much of it even reasonable, for why Lyoya was a bad fellow, a stupid one, invited harm, should have acted differently, and all the rest. You could even, with a considerable stretch, manage perhaps to suggest that the cop who was obviously on top of him as he was face down on the ground was fearing the loss of control, and was angry and upset. But I don't think you can come up with ANY good reason why the cop turned off his body camera before he killed him. This action should be absolutely, always, terminally forbidden.

I really mean this. I think that any reasonable person, given the fact that the cop turned of his camera, should conclude that he intended to do murder and intended to lie about it.

 

[lomiller]

The guy probably should have let go of the taser. First thought.

Violently struggling with an officer is never the answer. Do people ever learn?

"No attempt to render aid", lol.

Obey the go government at all times, never resist never argue just do what you're told when you're told and you won't be executed.

TBH that really doesn't seem like a country I'd want to live in...

 

[Warp12]

I really mean this. I think that any reasonable person, given the fact that the cop turned of his camera, should conclude that he intended to do murder and intended to lie about it.

Did he turn off the camera, or did something happen during the struggle that caused it to shut off? I mean, it very clearly was a protracted struggle, and quite physical. The Taser was discharged twice.

It appears to me that the officer was overwhelmed by the situation, and reacted poorly due to stress. Just based on what I saw on video, I suspect he will stand trial. Based on what we've seen so far, that seems reasonable.

As for the dead guy, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[bruto]

Did he turn off the camera, or did something happen during the struggle that caused it to shut off? I mean, it very clearly was a protracted struggle, and quite physical. The Taser was discharged twice.

It appears to me that the officer was overwhelmed by the situation, and reacted poorly due to stress. Just based on what I saw on video, I suspect he will stand trial. Based on what we've seen so far, that seems reasonable.

As for the dead guy, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I agree with the "if." I think it's a big one, though, and I'd want a very good explanation of how the camera was "inactivated" at such a convenient time. I suppose it depends on the camera, but in one recent case (in which cops gunned down a person in a driveway for no good reason and then left him to die) the cameras, though they conveniently neglected to turn them on until after the murder, recorded sound before.

I imagine some of this may never be known, and some will depend on when and whether we see all the alternate video of the event. My cursory reading of the article in the link did not come up with actual video, only stills, so at least so far, we don't know all that transpired, including how the camera got turned off or how the suspect got hold of the taser.

Of course I wouldn't expect you to have any sympathy for the victim. Mine is limited, but not absent. It's customary to justify a cop killing a suspect when that suspect poses a danger either to the cop or the public. It remains to be seen why he appears to have panicked, but it's kind of hard to think even a bad and stupid person, even one with a taser in his hands, deserves to be shot point blank in the head for a misdemeanor traffic charge.

 

[bruto]

Obey the go government at all times, never resist never argue just do what you're told when you're told and you probably won't be executed.

TBH that really doesn't seem like a country I'd want to live in...

Fixed a little if you don't mind. Incidents of people being killed while completely subdued, unaware of what is happening, and even while actively surrendering, are rare, but I don't think they're nonexistent.

 

[Warp12]

Obey the go government at all times, never resist never argue just do what you're told when you're told and you won't be executed.

TBH that really doesn't seem like a country I'd want to live in...

Yeah, you should be able to violently struggle with law enforcement and reach for their weapons whenever you want, without fear of repercussions. Right?

 

[lomiller]

Yeah, you should be able to violently struggle with law enforcement and reach for their weapons whenever you want, without fear of repercussions. Right?

You should be able to struggle against anyone who attacks you whether they represent the government or not.

Furthermore you don't get to kill someone because "they might get hold of a taser" this is especially true for agents like police who act under the authority of the government. Police are servants of the public, and that includes Everyone even the people they need to arrest.

If police loose that trust they loose their authority, at least that's how it works in free countries. You just need to decide whether you want to live in a free country or not.

 

[Warp12]

Police are servants of the public, and that includes Everyone even the people they need to arrest.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't give those being detained and/or under arrest the right to resist violently and grab Police weapons. Which is what we saw happening in the video.

 

[bruto]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't give those being detained and/or under arrest the right to resist violently and grab Police weapons. Which is what we saw happening in the video.

I think we can all agree that one should not do certain things, and that when you do certain things you deserve punishment, and incur greater risk. If Lyoya did grab a taser, which it appears he did, he certainly warrants an arrest for that, and I think it's pretty reasonable that he would be handled roughly, even badly hurt if he continued to evade control (though one wonders what harm would have occurred if he's just been allowed to run away - I mean, where's he going to go?).

That is one thing. Suggesting that escalation from a traffic stop should result in a point-blank shot to the head of a subject whose face is on the ground is not the same thing.

It takes a pretty violent and bigoted viewpoint to suggest that killing this man performed any service to any public anywhere.

 

[gnome]

You do, technically, have the right to use force to resist a police officer unlawfully using force on you. When they do that, it's an assault, not a legal arrest, and it's a matter of self-defense.

On the other hand, it is likely to earn the person injury or death, and very difficult to gain sympathy in court if they do survive the encounter. So in all but the most extreme situations it's a very foolish move.

Nor do I insist this was an unlawful arrest in the first place. Just making the point.

 

[Warp12]

That is one thing. Suggesting that escalation from a traffic stop should result in a point-blank shot to the head of a subject whose face is on the ground is not the same thing.

I am not suggesting that it is acceptable. As I say, I expect the officer to stand trial, unless some other evidence comes forth.

That is independent of me feeling absolutely zero sympathy for the dead guy.

 

[bruto]

I am not suggesting that it is acceptable. As I say, I expect the officer to stand trial, unless some other evidence comes forth.

That is independent of me feeling absolutely zero sympathy for the dead guy.

Maybe a matter of how one says things, but to me "absolutely zero sympathy" amounts to saying he deserved being shot point blank in the back of the head. I don't think he did. I think few people on earth do.

 

[Babbylonian]

Maybe a matter of how one says things, but to me "absolutely zero sympathy" amounts to saying he deserved being shot point blank in the back of the head. I don't think he did. I think few people on earth do.

Sociopathy is a helluva thing.

 

[Warp12]

Maybe a matter of how one says things, but to me "absolutely zero sympathy" amounts to saying he deserved being shot point blank in the back of the head.

Odd analysis.

He clearly created the scenario that led to his demise. It isn't a matter of what he "deserved". I'm not going to feel sympathy for someone who chose to violently struggle with a member of law enforcement, while grabbing their weapon.

How about we nominate the dead guy for an award? A Darwin Award.

 

[bluesjnr]

Sociopathy is a helluva thing.

To whom are you referring?