Chicago police shooting incident video released

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Cops should not be allowed to kill because "they feared for their lives." Their job is to put their life on the line to protect others.

So ordinary citizens can kill because they fear for their lives, but not the cops?

There's a reason why AFAIK no country has that rule for its police. Because no one would want to be police if they were told they had at best a limited right to defend themselves. I'd rather just defund the police and be done with it than even try that.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I thought it was more like did the officer fear for his life. There doesn't need to be a gun at all, could of been a phone for instance. That's been the status quo TMK

Yes, the law of self-defense is whether, based on the facts known to the shooter at the time, he could reasonably fear for his life. All known circumstances are taken into consideration.

What the law isn't, is, gee, it turned out to be a cell phone so now you're a murderer, or gee, it turned out to be a gun, so now you're a great guy. It doesn't work that way and never has. Not for cops. Not for anyone.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
Yes, the law of self-defense is whether, based on the facts known to the shooter at the time, he could reasonably fear for his life. All known circumstances are taken into consideration.

What the law isn't, is, gee, it turned out to be a cell phone so now you're a murderer, or gee, it turned out to be a gun, so now you're a great guy. It doesn't work that way and never has. Not for cops. Not for anyone.

Right, so in reality the kid didn't even need to have a gun. The LEO's defense could argue that since shots had been fired earlier in the night, the officer was on permanent high alert and feared for his life at all times.

As I said earlier, if this is what we're going to find acceptable from law enforcement, then the officers should save their breath and just start firing away. Commands like "stop" "let me see your hands" or "drop your weapon" are just pleasantries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
So ordinary citizens can kill because they fear for their lives, but not the cops?
Yes, that is my opinion. With power comes responsibility and all that. This is how they should be trained.

There's a reason why AFAIK no country has that rule for its police. Because no one would want to be police if they were told they had at best a limited right to defend themselves. I'd rather just defund the police and be done with it than even try that.
A limited right to defend themselves with lethal force. They are being paid to serve and protect. They have a ton of gadgets and training to give them plenty of less lethal options. This is an instance of a profession where "oops, my mistake" should not be an option when it results in death. Just like it is better that 1000 criminals run free instead of executing one innocent man. Same rule should apply.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Right, so in reality the kid didn't even need to have a gun. The LEO's defense could argue that since shots had been fired earlier in the night, the officer was on permanent high alert and feared for his life at all times.

I highly doubt that argument works. Reasonableness in relation to self-defense usually means more than "it was generally a dangerous situation." There needs to be facts indicating that the person shot was a direct and imminent danger to the shooter.


As I said earlier, if this is what we're going to find acceptable from law enforcement, then the officers should save their breath and just start firing away. Commands like "stop" "let me see your hands" or "drop your weapon" are just pleasantries.

If they "just started firing away" the police would kill many more people than they do now, so is that what you're really suggesting?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
I highly doubt that argument works. Reasonableness in relation to self-defense usually means more than "it was generally a dangerous situation." There needs to be facts indicating that the person shot was a direct and imminent danger to the shooter.

Not really, just the feeling of imminent danger. That's been shown repeatedly in LEO related deaths.

If they "just started firing away" the police would kill many more people than they do now, so is that what you're really suggesting?

I'm suggesting that Americans won't care. Give them something to feel justified, and it won't matter. Let's see it for what it is. When voice commands don't matter in the result, why bother. When voice commands give conflicting instructions, why bother.

I'm open to police reform to alter the expectations, doesn't look hopeful. We have one political party that loves the government run gang as much as they hate big gubbermint, and another party that has the opportunity to make a difference right now but probably won't.

So if this is the playing field, may as well get used to LEO's "good shooting" because they were afraid, and see it for what it is.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
I highly doubt that argument works. Reasonableness in relation to self-defense usually means more than "it was generally a dangerous situation." There needs to be facts indicating that the person shot was a direct and imminent danger to the shooter.




If they "just started firing away" the police would kill many more people than they do now, so is that what you're really suggesting?

No that's the logical conclusion of where this law has/will take us.

As a point of fact, American police already kill more people than all other industrialized nations combined (that we have data for).

Is more of the same what you are suggesting?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
No that's the logical conclusion of where this law has/will take us.

As a point of fact, American police already kill more people than all other industrialized nations combined (that we have data for).

Is more of the same what you are suggesting?

No, I already made the point that the police accountability problem has to do with structural issues, not with the law. The problem is not the law of self-defense.

And so far as your statistics, we have 20x the guns per capita as they do in Europe, and far more gun violence. You wouldn't reasonably expect the same or fewer officer involved killings. Of course we have more. Which doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It's just that changing the law of self-defense is not the solution.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
No, I already made the point that the police accountability problem has to do with structural issues, not with the law. The problem is not the law of self-defense.

And so far as your statistics, we have 20x the guns per capita as they do in Europe, and far more gun violence. You wouldn't reasonably expect the same or fewer officer involved killings. Of course we have more. Which doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It's just that changing the law of self-defense is not the solution.
Yes, the way to fix the police is not to send a tiny number to prison when they commit murder (although we should!), it’s to fire cops for misconduct way more often so this culture of impunity is broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69 and JEDIYoda

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Not really, just the feeling of imminent danger. That's been shown repeatedly in LEO related deaths.

No, not really. It only works if the "feeling of danger" is specific to the individual being shot, and is justified under the circumstances. If a jury has a pro-cop bias in the way they evaluate that, that is not a problem you address by changing the law.

I'm suggesting that Americans won't care. Give them something to feel justified, and it won't matter. Let's see it for what it is. When voice commands don't matter in the result, why bother. When voice commands give conflicting instructions, why bother.

So you claim, based on the sampling of cases reported in the media, that "voice commands don't matter." You see a couple of videos where someone complies with a voice command and gets shot and that is the end of it, eh?

We have 700,000 cops in this country. Hundreds of thousands of arrests yearly. 99.99% do not result in anyone getting shot. But you're ready to make radical changes and give potentially deadly training to police because you saw a few videos?

When are you guys going to understand that these cases reported in the media are not the entire universe of police contacts with citizens? They are only being reported because there is a chance the shoot was not justified, otherwise you wouldn't hear about it at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JD50

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Yes, the way to fix the police is not to send a tiny number to prison when they commit murder (although we should!), it’s to fire cops for misconduct way more often so this culture of impunity is broken.

That is one way to address it, yes. But you have to do something about those collective bargaining agreements first. Police unions are as a general rule not playing a very constructive role in all of this.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
That is one way to address it, yes. But you have to do something about those collective bargaining agreements first. Police unions are as a general rule not playing a very constructive role in all of this.
Oh sure. I suspect the best bet is to simply disband the police union. I’ve wanted to disband the SBA and PBA for almost as long see I knew they existed as the way things currently stand the NYPD basically does whatever it wants.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
As covered already, the standard is not perfection given the benefit of hindsight. It’s a reasonable belief in the moment of death or grievous bodily harm.

If this were a homeowner coming across an armed intruder and the armed intruder spun around while dropping the gun to their obscured side in similar circumstances overall would you be in a hurry to fry him?
your example holds no water at all.......COPs are or should be held to as higher standard. No the COPs should not be given the benefit of hindsight....sounds like something Trump would say....so sorry! Back the blue....even when they are wrong!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
So ordinary citizens can kill because they fear for their lives, but not the cops?

There's a reason why AFAIK no country has that rule for its police. Because no one would want to be police if they were told they had at best a limited right to defend themselves. I'd rather just defund the police and be done with it than even try that.
If a COP fears for their life every time they put on that uniform then they need to find another freaking job! Plain and simple!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
No, I already made the point that the police accountability problem has to do with structural issues, not with the law. The problem is not the law of self-defense.

And so far as your statistics, we have 20x the guns per capita as they do in Europe, and far more gun violence. You wouldn't reasonably expect the same or fewer officer involved killings. Of course we have more. Which doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It's just that changing the law of self-defense is not the solution.

Of course it is. Just like we have laws that are meant to persuade people not to commit crimes, a higher bar for self defense would also lead to a smaller reliance on shooting first to handle situations. Proper training and structural changes are also necessary but having the law also reinforce that behavior is also necessary.

You are also cherry picking data as we do have more guns per capita but that’s because people own more than one gun while the percentage of gun owners has been pretty consistent (40-44%) for the last 40+ years. Meanwhile lethal force has increased.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
That is one way to address it, yes. But you have to do something about those collective bargaining agreements first. Police unions are as a general rule not playing a very constructive role in all of this.

Well shit! If they were only some mechanism that could be put in place that would override any protection a union provides. Maybe something with consequences and enforcement behind it. I just can’t think of what that mechanism would be called.../eyeroll
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Of course it is. Just like we have laws that are meant to persuade people not to commit crimes, a higher bar for self defense would also lead to a smaller reliance on shooting first to handle situations. Proper training and structural changes are also necessary but having the law also reinforce that behavior is also necessary.

While policing as a whole is only, what, the 8th most dangerous profession, that is because rural and suburban policing is quite safe. Policing in cities with high rates of violent crime is, however, quite dangerous as it currently stands, with the way the law is.

I could be wrong, but I tend to think we'd have trouble getting people to sign up for it, especially in high crime cities.

You are also cherry picking data as we do have more guns per capita but that’s because people own more than one gun while the percentage of gun owners has been pretty consistent (40-44%) for the last 40+ years. Meanwhile lethal force has increased.

The number of guns is absolutely relevant because it speaks to the ease with which people can acquire them, including by theft, borrow, or second hand purchase, with no background checks.

If its the percentage who own guns you think is important, well Europe ranges from 2.5% (Poland) to 39% (Serbia) but averages at about 12%.

According to WaPo's latest study, 70% of those killed by American police were armed with firearms.

The notion that this disparity has nothing whatsoever to do with the disparity in police involved killings is absurd. Of course it does. It may not account for all of it, but it most definitely accounts for some.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Well shit! If they were only some mechanism that could be put in place that would override any protection a union provides. Maybe something with consequences and enforcement behind it. I just can’t think of what that mechanism would be called.../eyeroll

The poster I was responding to was saying that police should more easily be terminated for misconduct in general.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
While policing as a whole is only, what, the 8th most dangerous profession, that is because rural and suburban policing is quite safe.

8th most dangerous? Does that really take into account all the various factors such as...

-Meter maids shouldn't count
-Investigators after the fact (e.g. crime scene) shouldn't count
-"social" officers shouldn't count

We're specifically focusing on and honing in on officers that are involved in and actively engage in ACTIVE violence on a recurring (almost daily) basis. Something tells me when actively accounting for those variables it's actually much higher. If you want to focus on a certain type of cop, then your statistics should reflect that.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
No, not really. It only works if the "feeling of danger" is specific to the individual being shot, and is justified under the circumstances.

Or not shot at, because there was no firearm to begin with. But, we already know there doesn't have to be.

If a jury has a pro-cop bias in the way they evaluate that, that is not a problem you address by changing the law.

You're assuming it even goes to trial.

So you claim, based on the sampling of cases reported in the media, that "voice commands don't matter." You see a couple of videos where someone complies with a voice command and gets shot and that is the end of it, eh?

I've said it quite a few times, if we're ok with voice commands not mattering and death occurs, what's the point? Comply or die, Comply and die, as long as we feel justified in the death then it's all good and nothing will change.

At this point, it's been more than a couple, just a couple this week alone and it really highlights the cracks in the surface.

We have 700,000 cops in this country. Hundreds of thousands of arrests yearly. 99.99% do not result in anyone getting shot. But you're ready to make radical changes and give potentially deadly training to police because you saw a few videos?

What radical changes have I proposed? It's great that many arrests don't end in death, but I doubt that makes anyone involved in a police related death feel any better, it certainly doesn't bring back their loved ones.

I mean, deadly training? That's what we do already. We hire particular personality profiles and train them to be hammers, then surprised when they go around hammering everything?

As I've proposed in the past, increase in police accountability and reallocating funds to social services seems like a good start. It will certainly be presented as drastic by the "back the blue" crowd because they enjoy the benefits of the status quo.

When are you guys going to understand that these cases reported in the media are not the entire universe of police contacts with citizens? They are only being reported because there is a chance the shoot was not justified, otherwise you wouldn't hear about it at all.

Hey, a helpful reminder. I'll try to keep that in perspective here. It doesn't really change what I've said in this thread, but an important point.

I appreciate your and fski's takes on these matters, don't think I'm not reading them. I'm just of the opinion that for every one of these public incidents, there's many more bad apples behaving badly without consequence. To elaborate more, I think people rationalizing this by saying "the kid was out too late anyways" or "he shouldn't have had a gun" and so on, are really missing the point.

If you watch the video, it seems like the cop already had his mind made up by the time he reached the kid. I'm not gonna debate the legality with you, I'm unarmed :D , but I'm a citizen and this is my opinion. It's shameful the way we compartmentalize deaths like this and move on.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
That is one way to address it, yes. But you have to do something about those collective bargaining agreements first. Police unions are as a general rule not playing a very constructive role in all of this.

There is a much bigger problem here. The police themselves, if they believed in being right/good/honorable, would voluntarily disband those unions themselves. The fact that they don't do that speaks to a much larger problem: they WANT to get away with whatever they do whether it is good or evil. They do not believe that they should ever be held accountable. For a group of people who love childish sayings such as "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", they do everything in their power to play stupid games while avoiding their stupid prize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
There is a much bigger problem here. The police themselves, if they believed in being right/good/honorable, would voluntarily disband those unions themselves. The fact that they don't do that speaks to a much larger problem: they WANT to get away with whatever they do whether it is good or evil. They do not believe that they should ever be held accountable. For a group of people who love childish sayings such as "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", they do everything in their power to play stupid games while avoiding their stupid prize.

The police get better wages and benefits because of said unions. No one is ever going to disband their own union when they benefit from it so much.

Similarly, all unions, and I mean all of them, tend to make it near impossible to fire people. This is true of teacher's unions and even many private sector unions.

The solution isn't disbanding unions. It's passing laws which bar the inclusion of provisions in CBA's which make it too difficult to terminate people, especially for misconduct.

There is also another set of provisions specific to police CBA's which give the cops special rights in cases of being accused of a crime, like not being incarcerated for several days, giving them a chance to destroy evidence. That too needs to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69 and ch33zw1z

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
The police get better wages and benefits because of said unions. No one is ever going to disband their own union when they benefit from it so much.

Similarly, all unions, and I mean all of them, tend to make it near impossible to fire people. This is true of teacher's unions and even many private sector unions.

The solution isn't disbanding unions. It's passing laws which bar the inclusion of provisions in CBA's which make it too difficult to terminate people, especially for misconduct.

Show me when/where the "good guys" have pushed for this.

There is also another set of provisions specific to police CBA's which give the cops special rights in cases of being accused of a crime, like not being incarcerated for several days, giving them a chance to destroy evidence. That too needs to go.

The cops WANTED this provision. Show me when/where the "good guys" fought the provisions that allow them to avoid collecting their stupid prize.

There is a bigger problem and it isn't that the "poor cops" are trapped with bad rules.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Show me when/where the "good guys" have pushed for this.



The cops WANTED this provision. Show me when/where the "good guys" fought the provisions that allow them to avoid collecting their stupid prize.

There is a bigger problem and it isn't that the "poor cops" are trapped with bad rules.

Yes the cops wanted it. Every single last union employee in every field wants provisions in their CBA's which make it difficult for them to be fired.

Blaming the employees for wanting this kind of protection is silly. If we don't want them to have it, then we use the law to take it away.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Yes the cops wanted it. Every single last union employee in every field wants provisions in their CBA's which make it difficult for them to be fired.

Blaming the employees for wanting this kind of protection is silly. If we don't want them to have it, then we use the law to take it away.

Oh now you are suddenly for changing the law or at least using the law to enact change.