Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    --The incident---
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYRRSdjdcbo
    The above video is the body cam from the officer who shot and killed Daniel Shaver.

    The basics are, swat responded to a call, engaged a suspect leaving his room. Gave him a bunch of orders while threatening to shoot him and letting him know he could be killed, if he did not comply perfectly. He made a mistake and was warned, then after being ordered to crawl towards police, he reached for his waste band, and was shot 5xs with what appears to be an automatic riffle.
    ----------------

    Now a bunch of brouhaha has been made over this. The officers went to trial and was acquitted. Yet when you watch the video, it does seem very wrong. I think it boils down to this. Police are allowed to shoot someone without ever seeing a gun, based on the simple belief that they had a gun. I think the disconnect is right there. No one else is allowed to act this way, nor is this considered acceptable for anyone else. As long a police are allowed to shoot and kill people without ever seeing a weapon to justify their belief of danger, then their belief is not held to reality as a reasonable expectation. Everyone else must have reality line up.

    To draw a contrast, suppose I was told by a some nut that terrorists were in the streets, breaking down doors and raping and killing everyone. So I run to my room, grab my gun, then when I hear someone at the door, totally believing them to be a terrorist, I throw the door open and open fire.. killing my mail man.

    Now, if a terrorist had actually been outside my door, then my actions would have been justified, and my tactics reasonable but because the reality did not line up with my expectation.. I would have gone to jail for murder of some degree.(See 1,2 & 3). In all the examples the reality did not line up with their expectation, and so they went to jail. The last one regarding baiting is particularly interesting, because basically the man escalated the situation needlessly.

    -- Part of the job.
    I expect that a major concern will be to say that police face daily threats and thus are justified, where as Terrorist raping in the streets are hardly a reasonable expectation. Ahh, exactly though. See it is the "belief" that is appealed to. As long as an officer truly "believes" that a person is a threat, then the reality doesn't matter, and by and large they are given a pass. So my belief in terrorism or such a threat is what is the crux. By appealing to the terrorist as rare, you are really saying that you don't believe I believed that's what was going on. however that is not the problem. Police are already held to that standard. If The jury believed, that the officer didn't really feel threaten, then he would have been found guilty. So that is really not the point of contention here.

    We can use much more conservative examples.

    First rule, if it really is reasonable, then it is reasonable for everyone.

    So, if reaching for your waist band is reasonably a threat of a gun, then it is a threat of a gun to everyone in all situations. There is nothing magical about being a police officer that makes an action become a threat, when it isn't to anyone else in an similar circumstance.

    -
    Example 1-
    I'm walking down the road open carrying as is my right and legal, when I see a guy in a parked truck I think did something wrong to me. So I yell at him, and say "i want to talk to you". The man responds by getting out of his car in an angry manner, and reaching into his back seat. Immediately I fear for my life, as I believe he is reaching for a gun. So I shout "HEY HEY HEY!!" As he pulls out a long object I believe is a gun, I open fire hitting him.

    Suppose the man dies. Was I justified in my actions? Or guilty of murder?
    A.. Is my belief justified?
    B.. If the long object was in fact a shotgun, was I justified?
    C.. If the long object turns out to be a cane.. was I still justified?
    D.. If I have a badge am I now justified?
    E.. What if I feel badly for making a mistaken identity (both him and the cane)?

    How is each relevant to your distinction?

    -----------
    Conclusion--
    If we allow police to be held to a different standard, that is decidedly not a "higher" standard, they are "super citizens" with a license to kill and maim, and we are just going to have to accept that. Lets not kid ourselves, and let us call it what it is.
    However, if we should hold police to at least the same standard we are, then we are justified in feeling something is wrong with the above incidence, and the many like it. (This means that D is not relevant)
    -----------

    *1*
    http://kdvr.com/2017/07/02/sheriffs-...t-was-his-son/
    Man shot his son, thinking he was an intruder.. Booked for murder

    *2*
    http://news3lv.com/news/local/suspec...n-self-defense
    Man thought person was trying to force their way into home, shot and killed the man.. now charged with murder.

    *3*
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...teens/8480047/
    Man shot intruders, going to jail because he "baited them" by acting like he wasn't home.
    "He was confronted by a situation: Do or die," Meshbesher said. "Or at least he thought so because a month earlier he had guns stolen."

    *4* Huffington Post reacts with idea to disarm police
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02bd1c8c6069c
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. Thanks Ibelsd thanked for this post
    Likes evensaul liked this post
  3. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    They say hindsight is 20/20, but after seeing the full video, I would have to agree that so much was wrong with how Brailsford handled them and the situation. There were just so many signs leading up to the final moment which prove that Shaver wasn't dangerous or prepared to shoot anyone, and missing those signs, in this case, is tantamount to murder IMO. Add to that the ridiculous barrage of insane commands thrown at him, it's no wonder he lost it and failed to comply with the 110% perfection that was expected.

    Everyone knows that, under stress, people act differently. More often than not, mistakes are made which would not happen when the person is not under duress. Case in point: the officer who at first approached and started to remove Shaver's girlfriend incorrectly, needing to be corrected by his colleagues. Even he wasn't able to perform the correct actions under the extreme circumstances.

    It's clear from Brailsford's tone and utterances from the very beginning that he was on-edge and dangerously high on adrenaline and/or his tactical authority. The way he accused them of a "failure to comprehend simple instructions" right off the bat, and then felt he need to expressly repeat how they had already made a mistake ("if you make a mistake ... *pause* ... another mistake"), and multiple instances where he tripped on his own words, clearly shows he was not in control of his own dangerous emotions or able understand what was really happening right in front of him.

    Further, his criteria for people who shouldn't have problems following his insanely complex instructions is ridiculous.
    "Are you both drunk?"
    "No."
    "Alright, so you're not going to have any *massive stutter* problems understanding anything that I tell you, right?"

    Seriously? Not being drunk doesn't instantly guarantee that a person can follow any instructions no matter how convoluted, and if they aren't able to follow them it means they have a gun and are attempting to use it. Simply ridiculous. He literally set them up to fail.

    Other than that, I don't think this is more difficult or complex than other such tragedies. If it's determined that the officer was properly following their training, as it appears to be in this case, then it's the training which is at fault.

  4. Likes Ibelsd, MindTrap028 liked this post
  5. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    After reading up on the incident, it turns out that Brailsford wasn't the one issuing the commands - he's just the one who shot Shaver.

    In any case, I still think the officers handled the situation quite poorly.

    Informative article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/opinio...ano/index.html

  6. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/la-man-arr...opstories.html

    Here is another story, where an officer shot and killed an unarmed suspect, based on the movement of hands towards his waist. The whole thing was the result of a prank call, so the prank caller is being blamed for the death. .. except by the family of the man who was killed, that is.

    Again, my point is that no other person other than a police officer is justified in fearing for their life by a body movement. Realty has to line up with expectations. As it stands, this is basically the law, and we have no right to be angered over police following the law and killing people as a result. Our only recourse is to change the law, and an unwillingness to do so is a forfeiture of the right to be angered. Thus we are forced to say that the family is legally wrong, and are the ones with the incorrect perception.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,179
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    --The incident---
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYRRSdjdcbo
    The above video is the body cam from the officer who shot and killed Daniel Shaver.

    The basics are, swat responded to a call, engaged a suspect leaving his room. Gave him a bunch of orders while threatening to shoot him and letting him know he could be killed, if he did not comply perfectly. He made a mistake and was warned, then after being ordered to crawl towards police, he reached for his waste band, and was shot 5xs with what appears to be an automatic riffle.
    ----------------

    Now a bunch of brouhaha has been made over this. The officers went to trial and was acquitted. Yet when you watch the video, it does seem very wrong. I think it boils down to this. Police are allowed to shoot someone without ever seeing a gun, based on the simple belief that they had a gun. I think the disconnect is right there. No one else is allowed to act this way, nor is this considered acceptable for anyone else. As long a police are allowed to shoot and kill people without ever seeing a weapon to justify their belief of danger, then their belief is not held to reality as a reasonable expectation. Everyone else must have reality line up.

    To draw a contrast, suppose I was told by a some nut that terrorists were in the streets, breaking down doors and raping and killing everyone. So I run to my room, grab my gun, then when I hear someone at the door, totally believing them to be a terrorist, I throw the door open and open fire.. killing my mail man.

    Now, if a terrorist had actually been outside my door, then my actions would have been justified, and my tactics reasonable but because the reality did not line up with my expectation.. I would have gone to jail for murder of some degree.(See 1,2 & 3). In all the examples the reality did not line up with their expectation, and so they went to jail. The last one regarding baiting is particularly interesting, because basically the man escalated the situation needlessly.

    -- Part of the job.
    I expect that a major concern will be to say that police face daily threats and thus are justified, where as Terrorist raping in the streets are hardly a reasonable expectation. Ahh, exactly though. See it is the "belief" that is appealed to. As long as an officer truly "believes" that a person is a threat, then the reality doesn't matter, and by and large they are given a pass. So my belief in terrorism or such a threat is what is the crux. By appealing to the terrorist as rare, you are really saying that you don't believe I believed that's what was going on. however that is not the problem. Police are already held to that standard. If The jury believed, that the officer didn't really feel threaten, then he would have been found guilty. So that is really not the point of contention here.

    We can use much more conservative examples.

    First rule, if it really is reasonable, then it is reasonable for everyone.

    So, if reaching for your waist band is reasonably a threat of a gun, then it is a threat of a gun to everyone in all situations. There is nothing magical about being a police officer that makes an action become a threat, when it isn't to anyone else in an similar circumstance.

    -
    Example 1-
    I'm walking down the road open carrying as is my right and legal, when I see a guy in a parked truck I think did something wrong to me. So I yell at him, and say "i want to talk to you". The man responds by getting out of his car in an angry manner, and reaching into his back seat. Immediately I fear for my life, as I believe he is reaching for a gun. So I shout "HEY HEY HEY!!" As he pulls out a long object I believe is a gun, I open fire hitting him.

    Suppose the man dies. Was I justified in my actions? Or guilty of murder?
    A.. Is my belief justified?
    B.. If the long object was in fact a shotgun, was I justified?
    C.. If the long object turns out to be a cane.. was I still justified?
    D.. If I have a badge am I now justified?
    E.. What if I feel badly for making a mistaken identity (both him and the cane)?

    How is each relevant to your distinction?

    -----------
    Conclusion--
    If we allow police to be held to a different standard, that is decidedly not a "higher" standard, they are "super citizens" with a license to kill and maim, and we are just going to have to accept that. Lets not kid ourselves, and let us call it what it is.
    However, if we should hold police to at least the same standard we are, then we are justified in feeling something is wrong with the above incidence, and the many like it. (This means that D is not relevant)
    -----------

    *1*
    http://kdvr.com/2017/07/02/sheriffs-...t-was-his-son/
    Man shot his son, thinking he was an intruder.. Booked for murder

    *2*
    http://news3lv.com/news/local/suspec...n-self-defense
    Man thought person was trying to force their way into home, shot and killed the man.. now charged with murder.

    *3*
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...teens/8480047/
    Man shot intruders, going to jail because he "baited them" by acting like he wasn't home.
    "He was confronted by a situation: Do or die," Meshbesher said. "Or at least he thought so because a month earlier he had guns stolen."

    *4* Huffington Post reacts with idea to disarm police
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02bd1c8c6069c
    I appreciate the post, but disagree with your conclusion which seems to be that the police should be limited to using force by being held to same standards as a civilian, particularly with respect to deadly force. However, there is one major difference between a civilian and a policeman. Civilians have the option to run away. Policemen typically do not. As a police officer, the job requires individuals to confront menace. Society teaches civilians to avoid menace. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the standards differ.

    However, I do not believe police get a free pass. In the video of the man in the hallway who was shot after reaching for his waistband, it was clear that the guy was terrified/panicked and the police officer made a series of complex and, frankly, mind boggling requests. That man was dead because of a series of events which were not controlled by the officer leading up to the point where the man reached for his waistband. The final outcome had little to do with the rules for using deadly force and more about the events which led them to that point.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes DevilPup John, Squatch347 liked this post
  9. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by ibelsd
    I appreciate the post, but disagree with your conclusion which seems to be that the police should be limited to using force by being held to same standards as a civilian, particularly with respect to deadly force. However, there is one major difference between a civilian and a policeman. Civilians have the option to run away. Policemen typically do not. As a police officer, the job requires individuals to confront menace. Society teaches civilians to avoid menace. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the standards differ.

    However, I do not believe police get a free pass. In the video of the man in the hallway who was shot after reaching for his waistband, it was clear that the guy was terrified/panicked and the police officer made a series of complex and, frankly, mind boggling requests. That man was dead because of a series of events which were not controlled by the officer leading up to the point where the man reached for his waistband. The final outcome had little to do with the rules for using deadly force and more about the events which led them to that point.
    The event in the hallway, is actually an example of how the police did a lot of things right. I mean, the man was shot 5xs, and that was the direct result of an officer using a fully automatic rifle. I'm not actually upset about that, because I expect police to arrive at an active shooter situation with superior fire power. It is unfortunate that he was struck 5xs, but I'm actually o.k. with that. Also, the man was actually struck, which means the officer didn't miss. In the old man cain example (not sure if I linked it here) the officer fired many shots, with only one hitting the target, and the rest endangering everyone else, especially the innocent bastards. errr bi-standards in the passenger seat.

    That said, when you pull the trigger you are responsible, and if you are highly trained, then you are MORE responsible.
    Which brings me to your point about being held to the same standard. Per the above, I don't think police should be held to the exact same standard as civilians in all things (Ie automatic weapons). However, certain actions are either threats, or they are not. A police officer doesn't get, or rather shouldn't get a lower bar for feeling threatened. Just as I am held to the standard of actually being threatened, and not simply "thinking" there may be a gun. I expect police to be held to the same standard, and trained.

    To the highly trained, higher standard. point. I think the recent news proves something very important. Namely, people who are unarmed "reach" for their waistband. As it is a common action, it makes it a non justification action for violent force, and police need and should be trained to tell the difference between a common action, and a threatening one. Namely, the difference between simply reaching for your pants or wallet, and reaching for a gun. This is why I think that "reaching" is and should be considered insufficient and lacking justification for violent force, for anyone. I certainly feel that my comparison to a civilain highlights the logical flaw in taking a common, non threatening action, and treating it as an immediate threat. I don't think I am asking too much to require as a minimum standard that they at least think they see an actual gun.

    This "common action" is also the basis for my objection to the officer that mistook a man reaching into his truck for his cain, as a man reaching into his truck for a shotgun. There are simply too many people who have cain's that will do this same action .. making it common, making an officer required to tell the difference. .. and thus liable when he fails to make that distinction. This is the standard in all industries where people are trained to tell the difference in something.

    --Running away--
    This is countered I think by the fact that police officers are allowed to escalate situations, where civilians are killed for doing exactly that. Sure, police are not supposed to escalate situations unnecessarily, but as in the hallway video, it does seem that all the yelling and threatening his life was escalating.

    -------
    Bottom line.
    ------
    This is really a thread about considering that police are in fact held to a different and much lower standard, and asking. Are we really willing to accept it, and is it justified.

    Right now, "reaching for your waistline" is justification for the police to kill you. As compared to a regular citizen, this would be considered absurd as a justification.
    does the fact that police can't run away, justify the lowered bar? Should it? I don't think so. Give the police infrared, give them fully automatic weapons, flash bang, tazers, Body armor, armored vehicles, ground to air missiles. whatever. But please, at lease say you saw a gun, and then go get re-trained to know what the hell a gun actually looks like, so you stop mistake wallets, and phones, and cains as weapons when they are not. These are things every citizen has, and should not be shot for.


    The next level--
    That doesn't even address, that people do in fact have a right to be armed, and just because they have a gun doesn't mean they are reaching for it. So that is a whole other ball of wax that I'm basically giving up. I could pull up plenty of videos where an officer freaks out once he is informed.. by the gun owner no less... that they are armed ..and shoots them. Having a gun doesn't = threatening the life of an officer... or does it?

    Sorry for the long response. I appreciate your input.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,179
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The event in the hallway, is actually an example of how the police did a lot of things right. I mean, the man was shot 5xs, and that was the direct result of an officer using a fully automatic rifle. I'm not actually upset about that, because I expect police to arrive at an active shooter situation with superior fire power. It is unfortunate that he was struck 5xs, but I'm actually o.k. with that. Also, the man was actually struck, which means the officer didn't miss. In the old man cain example (not sure if I linked it here) the officer fired many shots, with only one hitting the target, and the rest endangering everyone else, especially the innocent bastards. errr bi-standards in the passenger seat.

    That said, when you pull the trigger you are responsible, and if you are highly trained, then you are MORE responsible.
    Which brings me to your point about being held to the same standard. Per the above, I don't think police should be held to the exact same standard as civilians in all things (Ie automatic weapons). However, certain actions are either threats, or they are not. A police officer doesn't get, or rather shouldn't get a lower bar for feeling threatened. Just as I am held to the standard of actually being threatened, and not simply "thinking" there may be a gun. I expect police to be held to the same standard, and trained.

    To the highly trained, higher standard. point. I think the recent news proves something very important. Namely, people who are unarmed "reach" for their waistband. As it is a common action, it makes it a non justification action for violent force, and police need and should be trained to tell the difference between a common action, and a threatening one. Namely, the difference between simply reaching for your pants or wallet, and reaching for a gun. This is why I think that "reaching" is and should be considered insufficient and lacking justification for violent force, for anyone. I certainly feel that my comparison to a civilain highlights the logical flaw in taking a common, non threatening action, and treating it as an immediate threat. I don't think I am asking too much to require as a minimum standard that they at least think they see an actual gun.

    This "common action" is also the basis for my objection to the officer that mistook a man reaching into his truck for his cain, as a man reaching into his truck for a shotgun. There are simply too many people who have cain's that will do this same action .. making it common, making an officer required to tell the difference. .. and thus liable when he fails to make that distinction. This is the standard in all industries where people are trained to tell the difference in something.

    --Running away--
    This is countered I think by the fact that police officers are allowed to escalate situations, where civilians are killed for doing exactly that. Sure, police are not supposed to escalate situations unnecessarily, but as in the hallway video, it does seem that all the yelling and threatening his life was escalating.

    -------
    Bottom line.
    ------
    This is really a thread about considering that police are in fact held to a different and much lower standard, and asking. Are we really willing to accept it, and is it justified.

    Right now, "reaching for your waistline" is justification for the police to kill you. As compared to a regular citizen, this would be considered absurd as a justification.
    does the fact that police can't run away, justify the lowered bar? Should it? I don't think so. Give the police infrared, give them fully automatic weapons, flash bang, tazers, Body armor, armored vehicles, ground to air missiles. whatever. But please, at lease say you saw a gun, and then go get re-trained to know what the hell a gun actually looks like, so you stop mistake wallets, and phones, and cains as weapons when they are not. These are things every citizen has, and should not be shot for.


    The next level--
    That doesn't even address, that people do in fact have a right to be armed, and just because they have a gun doesn't mean they are reaching for it. So that is a whole other ball of wax that I'm basically giving up. I could pull up plenty of videos where an officer freaks out once he is informed.. by the gun owner no less... that they are armed ..and shoots them. Having a gun doesn't = threatening the life of an officer... or does it?

    Sorry for the long response. I appreciate your input.
    I have to say you and I have very different views on the hallway officer shooting incident. It was clear that the officer was not in control of that situation. The guy was in a prone position on the floor, didn't appear to be armed (he was in a t-shirt and shorts and barefoot). A woman came out before him it looked like and she didn't appear to be acting like there was an active shooting. The commands given to the guy were just increasingly bizarre and complex. And, yes, the guy made a move for his waistband. In this case, the cop, in my mind (not the jury's) was too on edge. I kept wondering why there was no one there for backup. Why wouldn't he move to the guy once the guy was on his stomach? The thing just seemed odd and as I'm watching it, I kept thinking there's no way this cop isn't going to shoot the guy. Somehow, you saw the same thing and believe its an example of proper procedure. Yet, you used this video to try to substantiate your point. So, if we look at the end result, an innocent guy got shot, then something clearly went wrong. Your position is that cops shouldn't use reaching for a waistband as a justification for shooting a weapon. However, in the chain of events leading up to that point, is your claim that the officer couldn't have handled himself better? I contend that there were several chains links leading up to the shooting where the officer could have yielded a different result. You are focused on the final link. It should never have gotten there. In a situation where an officer believes he is dealing with a violent/dangerous individual then I do not believe it is reasonable for the cop to positively id a gun prior to using deadly force. Things move too fast and cops have the right to go home after their shift.

    I've been watching a lot of Cops on tv recently and I do wonder one thing. Why is every call dealt with by paramilitary police units? I mean to do some research into this history where using the German police model became the norm.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. Likes DevilPup John liked this post
  12. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    -------
    Bottom line.
    ------
    This is really a thread about considering that police are in fact held to a different and much lower standard, and asking. Are we really willing to accept it, and is it justified.

    Right now, "reaching for your waistline" is justification for the police to kill you. As compared to a regular citizen, this would be considered absurd as a justification.
    I think it could be helpful to put a civilian and a police officer in reversed situations to make a valid comparison.

    So let's say the police officer is standing in line at a fast food joint. A guy in the next line looks at the police officer and then reaches for his waistline. Will the police officer pull his gun and shoot? No, because there is no reason to suspect the other man is a threat. And if he did shoot, wouldn't he'd be held to the same standard as any other person?

    Now let's consider a civilian walking into a liquor store who sees someone apparently dead on the floor. Civilian pulls out his concealed carry. A man comes from the back room and freezes when civilian points the gun at him. Civilian tells suspect to raise his hands. If the suspect reaches for his waistline, does the civilian have a right to pull the trigger? Absolutely, because there is sufficient reason to fear for his life.

    It really depends on the situation, and whether the shooter has a valid reason to believe his life is danger. Police officers just find themselves in that type of situation much more often than a typical civilian.
    Last edited by evensaul; January 3rd, 2018 at 04:19 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  13. Likes Squatch347, Belthazor liked this post
  14. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I think it could be helpful to put a civilian and a police officer in reversed situations to make a valid comparison.

    So let's say the police officer is standing in line at a fast food joint. A guy in the next line looks at the police officer and then reaches for his waistline. Will the police officer pull his gun and shoot? No, because there is no reason to suspect the other man is a threat. And if he did shoot, wouldn't he'd be held to the same standard as any other person?

    Now let's consider a civilian walking into a liquor store who sees someone apparently dead on the floor. Civilian pulls out his concealed carry. A man comes from the back room and freezes when civilian points the gun at him. Civilian tells suspect to raise his hands. If the suspect reaches for his waistline, does the civilian have a right to pull the trigger? Absolutely, because there is sufficient reason to fear for his life.

    It really depends on the situation, and whether the shooter has a valid reason to believe his life is danger. Police officers just find themselves in that type of situation much more often than a typical civilian.
    Indeed, we act like police can not, well, should not, make a mistake. Sure, when they do, it can have catastrophic consequences, but they are people like you and me. Trained better in these situations hopefully, but just people. Watch Cops a few times. I wonder why anyone would take this job in the inner city.

    On the other hand:
    "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
    When you have the "power" of life/death, you need to be scrutinized (again why would anyone take this job??....)

  15. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    IBELSD -
    So, there are a few things. First i agree with you that there were a lot of things wrong and a lot of broken links. however, I think you have some facts wrong about the incident. There were at least 3 officers in the video and they were all on trial (as I understand it). The officer issuing the orders is not the officer that is holding the gun, from which we get the video. My "support' is the level of response. I think these were swat officers, not standard cops, hence the full auto weapons. That is pretty much where my support ends. As a note. The police had him get back up off the ground instead of approaching him, because they said they were afraid of more people in the room. This claim doesn't hold up IMO, as they approach him as soon as he is shot. So i think it was a bit of CYA.
    I think that leaves us with only the disagreement about "reaching" as a justification.
    I am not calling for "positive ID". As that would hold them liable for incorrect identification. My contention is that reaching for a waist band is in fact not an indication of a gun or a threatening action.
    Again, that is where wallets are kept. Reaching for pants =/= reaching for a gun, and being trained to think it is, is what is getting citizens killed. (as well as all the other screw ups leading up to).

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    I think it could be helpful to put a civilian and a police officer in reversed situations to make a valid comparison.

    So let's say the police officer is standing in line at a fast food joint. A guy in the next line looks at the police officer and then reaches for his waistline. Will the police officer pull his gun and shoot? No, because there is no reason to suspect the other man is a threat. And if he did shoot, wouldn't he'd be held to the same standard as any other person?

    Now let's consider a civilian walking into a liquor store who sees someone apparently dead on the floor. Civilian pulls out his concealed carry. A man comes from the back room and freezes when civilian points the gun at him. Civilian tells suspect to raise his hands. If the suspect reaches for his waistline, does the civilian have a right to pull the trigger? Absolutely, because there is sufficient reason to fear for his life.

    It really depends on the situation, and whether the shooter has a valid reason to believe his life is danger. Police officers just find themselves in that type of situation much more often than a typical civilian.
    No as a citizen, you would be put in jail for shooting an innocent person, especially if your only justification is "he reached for his pants". This is supported by the examples listed earlier in the thread, where citizens went to jail for shooting what they thought was an intruder. IE they really felt like they were threatened and that was not sufficient justification because they were wrong.

    Again, I hold that 'reaching for pants" is not sufficient justification. I think for civilans this has been supported, while for police it is allowed as a much lower bar. Just to put more mud in your eye, I would be willing to be that a civilian would be charged with assault just for pulling a gun on an innocent person.

    Lastly, just being pulled over by a police officer does not equate to a justification for thinking there is a threat. Such as traffic stops, where officers shoot people, and then are not charged.
    Neither is a person being armed an inherent threat. There has to be something else going on, those bare facts are equivilant to standing in line at a fast food place.
    The problem with your comparison, is that you say the police officer "won't" do that.. when in fact there are plenty of cases where the officers has, and was not convicted simply because 'he reached....".

    I mean talk about standing in line at a fast food place, the two people in the news today (first one linked in op) is people who were minding their own business, and had police drive out of their way to shoot him.
    That would be like a guy getting fast food, and the police man chasing him out the door and as the guy reaches for his keys the cop shoots him. The "innocents" here are not the initiators of the exchange. So your examples are flawed, and wrong. .. but I appreciate the input. I do agree that circumstance matters, but not in regards to "reaching" , unless a weapon has already been identified. The assumption that there is a weapon when there is not, and without sufficient justification to think there is = invalid justification for pulling a trigger.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  16. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    *1*
    http://kdvr.com/2017/07/02/sheriffs-...t-was-his-son/
    Man shot his son, thinking he was an intruder.. Booked for murder
    It sounds from the news article(s) like detectives believed the father, Frank Leo Hunter Jr, wanted to murder his son. If that is the case, should it be ignored? We don't have very much evidence to consider, so let's see what is presented in court if I can find it when the case goes to trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    *2*
    http://news3lv.com/news/local/suspec...n-self-defense
    Man thought person was trying to force their way into home, shot and killed the man.. now charged with murder.
    It appears this guy, Kevin Hoskins, had someone try his door to see if it was locked. Hoskins opened the door, went outside and shot the guy twice. "Detectives updated the investigation and said they found no evidence at the scene of an attempted entry into Hoskins apartment. Authorities also said that further evidence indicated two shots were fired from outside of the apartment." http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/35683...-murder-charge Sounds like murder to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    *3*
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...teens/8480047/
    Man shot intruders, going to jail because he "baited them" by acting like he wasn't home.
    "He was confronted by a situation: Do or die," Meshbesher said. "Or at least he thought so because a month earlier he had guns stolen."
    This man, Bryon Smith basically set up a situation where he could execute two kids because he had been the victim of a previous burglary. You and I don't have all the facts, but a jury of his peers found Smith guilty of murder. While I want to be on his side, because I'd be tempted to do exactly what he did, I would know that what I was doing was murder.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  18. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    The main point is that realty must line up for citizens, where as for police they are not held to reality, only their own fears and thoughts matter.
    Of course civilians are not given their statement of fear as fact, the situation must also reflect it. So " I thought he was reaching for a gun" in regards to an unarmed man is more likely to be concluded as murder for a civilian. Where as a cop, is probably never even brought into question if his stated thought is true or not. .. Like the police claiming they were concerned about other people in the room, then advancing once the suspect was killed even though the tactical situation of the room had not changed. The facts don't back up the statements of the cops, but no matter... all in a days work.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ... all in a days work.
    ...or even when on the way home after work. Such was the case with officer Wayne Isaacs, who was in an unmarked car on his way home. A case of typical "road rage" caused another man to come up and punch Isaacs through an open window. Instead of rolling up the window or driving away, Isaacs grabbed his semi-automatic and shot the guy three times, killing him. Had I been on the jury, he'd have been found guilty or perhaps there would have been a mistrial. But Isaacs was aquitted, probably because he was a cop and had other officers show up in their uniforms as support. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/n...shooting-.html

    So, I understand your general position, and yes there is a double standard. But in response to your question in the op "Are we willing to accept it and is it justified", I'd say that for most people who haven't been in an encounter with police, or who don't expect to be, yes they are willing to accept that double standard. But is it justified...sometimes. In a case where the officer clearly has a legitimate fear for his life, a sudden move toward the waist by a suspect is sufficient reason to fire. And that is because, as Ibelsd put it, things move too fast. It might take less than half a second for a suspect to pull a gun and fire. I'm willing to give police the benefit of the doubt in most cases. But in a case like your hallway office or officer Isaacs, I really don't think it was justified. Alas, you and I are not judge and jury.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  21. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by - Police vs Citizens - Reaching for a gun?

    I think on the most practical level, if I got exactly what I ask for. All we are talking about is police changing their verbiage.
    In other words instead of saying "he reached for his waist, so I felt threatened", they would just say "I thought i saw a gun".
    No one is really going to challenge an officer that says that.

    Again, here my request is that they at least think they see a weapon. So maybe this is mutch ado about nothing..
    though, I would equally be appalled if police continually mistake an open hand for a gun.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trapped by: Marathon Bombing and the police response
    By MindTrap028 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: May 20th, 2013, 07:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •