Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(05-15-2019, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Dill obviously the only ones who can "second guess" are other officers.  And since they are always honest and fair and clearly would never back someone up just in case they needed the same in the future it's the best way to do it.  Why have an outside, non-police officer observer when they could never understand?  

I mean it's not like internal investigations could ever be biased.  

No oversight needed. Obviously. 

Centering standards on the policeman's state of mind, and applying a "reasonableness" test to that which easily passes current standards of qualified immunity, has saved the courts a lot of time dealing with civil rights infractions.

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2019, 02:47 PM)Dill Wrote: No other option?

Well he couldn't taze her. I suppose he could have ran away or continued the struggle and given her a chance to get his firearm. Maybe if he asked her again and said pretty-please.

As to unloading a magazine if you think he should have taken a carefully aimed shot at her pinky toe you watch to much TV. 

[Au165]

(05-15-2019, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to unloading a magazine if you think he should have taken a carefully aimed shot at her pinky toe you watch to much TV. 

This is part of why "objective reasonableness" exists. Civilians watch too many movies and have to high a self belief that they could have/would have been able to do it without killing them. They put a threshold of accepted risk of the officers lives far beyond what they'd expect for themselves.

https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/

This article talks about all the reasons why an idea of "Minimum Force" makes no real sense. I like their legal observations around it specifically.

Quote:A shoot-to-wound mandate would “not be valid legally” because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.


Recognizing that violent encounters are “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving,” the Court “does not require officers to use the least intrusive method” of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but “only what’s reasonable,” Chudwin explains. When an officer’s life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.

By legal definition, the possible consequences of deadly force include both death and great bodily harm. “The law has never broken these two apart,” Chudwin says, which is what these proposals have tried to do. “The politicians who propose this kind of legislation are saying that police should only shoot someone just a little bit. Deadly force is not about ‘just a little bit.’ Any time you fire a firearm, there’s a substantial risk of great bodily harm or death. The law doesn’t even so much as suggest that deadly force should be just enough to wound but with no probability of death. That’s plain wrong legally and tactically, and sends the wrong message.”

Attorney Bill Everett, a former risk-management executive, use-of-force instructor, former LEO, and Force Science National Advisory Board member, agrees. As he explains it, use of force from a legal standpoint is a matter of “proportionality,” and there are two ways to measure it: what’s necessary and what’s reasonable.

He draws the analogy of a house being on fire. “Firefighters can pour what seems at the time to be about the right amount of water on it to stop the fire versus not using one drop more of water than necessary, even in hindsight, to put the fire out.” The former fits the “reasonable” approach, the latter is the “necessary” perspective and is the essence of the shoot-to-wound/minimal force bill.

“When you impose a standard of strict necessity, you require officers to do a whole lot of thinking in a situation where the Supreme Court recognizes there’s not a whole lot of time to think in,” Everett declares. Under a shoot-to-wound directive, “an officer faced with a suspect running at him with a jagged bottle is expected to think about getting target acquisition on an arm or a leg, while his own life is at risk.” The hesitation it is likely to create will only heighten his risk.

The critical issue of officer survival aside, Everett predicts that the kind of legislation proposed would “substantially expand the civil and criminal liability of police officers.” He asks, “What if an officer tries to wing a suspect and ends up hitting an innocent bystander? What about the liability there? What if an officer tries to shoot an offender’s limb but shoots him in the chest instead? How does his true intent get judged?

“Right now under the Supreme Court’s prevailing standard lawyers and judges in a large percentage of police shootings can look at the facts and conclude that there is no basis for allowing a civil suit to go to trial. But if you change the standard, there’ll be a lot more cases going to juries to evaluate: 1) did the officer intend to wound or did he intend to kill the suspect and 2) was the suspect’s death absolutely necessary. A trial will become the rule rather than the exception.

“Who in their right mind would become a police officer in a jurisdiction where shoot-to- wound and standards of strict necessity became the law? Those ideas may have some humanitarian appeal, but once you go beyond the Disneyish attraction and face the reality, support for this thinking has to evaporate.”

[Au165]

I'd like to once again come back around on this and say, there are plenty police shootings that aren't warranted; this isn't one of those. If this is where anti police shooting activists want to plant their flag then they are hurting the cause.

[Dill]

(05-15-2019, 02:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is exactly why "objectively reasonable" was established. Thanks for proving my point, also kudos to you for torpedoing your own argument by bring it into the discussion lol.

The Rodney King verdict would also prove your point, though his actions did not involve a death.

This is why juries disagree on what counts as "objectively reasonable." And why the consequences of such legal standards need to be continually evaluated in light of empirical evidence to make sure the standard in question is functioning as intended.

And what is my "argument" exactly--beyond a preliminary effort to align actions reported with current law?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Analyzing this question from my sanitized position of online leisure, 

looks like an "average officer" let a girl take away his taser.

I wonder if you realize how incredibly sexist this comment is?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2019, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Dill obviously the only ones who can "second guess" are other officers.  And since they are always honest and fair and clearly would never back someone up just in case they needed the same in the future it's the best way to do it.  Why have an outside, non-police officer observer when they could never understand?  

I mean it's not like internal investigations could ever be biased.  

No oversight needed. Obviously. 

Posts like this is why I call complete BS on your claims of having no anti-LEO bias.  You literally just intimated that LEO's are corrupt and will protect a bad shooting. 

[Dill]

(05-15-2019, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well he couldn't taze her. I suppose he could have ran away or continued the struggle and given her a chance to get his firearm. Maybe if he asked her again and said pretty-please.

As to unloading a magazine if you think he should have taken a carefully aimed shot at her pinky toe you watch to much TV. 

Where was his pepper spray?

I suppose he could have stepped back and warned her before shooting, or shot her in the leg.  She was on the ground, after all.

Some cops refuse to run away or shoot, or sometimes even taze. How do they disarm violent armed men?


I have probably watched too much video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4

[Dill]

(05-15-2019, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wonder if you realize how incredibly sexist this comment is?

"Girl" was a deliberate choice, used by a male who considers himself a feminist.

So no, I probably don't realize how incredibly sexist it was.

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2019, 03:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Where was his pepper spray?

I suppose he could have stepped back and warned her before shooting, or shot her in the leg. 

Some cops refuse to run away or shoot, or sometimes even taze. How do they disarm violent armed men?


I have probably watched too much video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4

You don't go down in force you go up. So he should have said "Stop or I'll shoot" and then shot her in the leg? Yep, too much TV. 

You draw your weapon, aim center mass, and shoot until the threat is eliminated. 

But as I said: Someone that finds fault with this LEO shooting will find fault with all LEO shootings. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2019, 03:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Where was his pepper spray?

You can't deploy OC spray when you're grappling with someone, you need some distance our you'll get hit as well.

Quote:I suppose he could have stepped back and warned her before shooting, or shot her in the leg. 

Sincerely, I am so tired of hearing the inane "shoot to wound" argument.  It's been thoroughly debunked I don't know how many times and it still keeps getting repeated.

Quote:Some cops refuse to run away or shoot, or sometimes even taze. How do they disarm violent armed men?

The same way they disarm violent women.  If there is a criticism of this officer it's that he attempted to detain this woman on his own.  That being said, if she's attempting to flee the scene he can't choose to wait for backup.

Quote:I have probably watched too much video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4

I can't watch this at work.

(05-15-2019, 03:53 PM)Dill Wrote: "Girl" was a deliberate choice, used by a male who considers himself a feminist.

So no, I probably don't realize how incredibly sexist it was.

So then, why did you use "girl" deliberately, what was the point?

[Dill]

(05-15-2019, 04:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can't deploy OC spray when you're grappling with someone, you need some distance our you'll get hit as well.

Sincerely, I am so tired of hearing the inane "shoot to wound" argument.  It's been thoroughly debunked I don't know how many times and it still keeps getting repeated.

I don't think anyone expects an officer to "shoot to wound" if a gun/knife/axe-wielding person is bull rushing the officer.
But this woman was sitting when she was shot 5 times. The officer had disengaged.

But in point of fact officers do shoot to wound-
https://ktla.com/2019/05/12/armed-ex-felon-shot-in-the-leg-by-police-during-late-night-foot-pursuit-near-fontana-church/

--sometimes before properly working to de-escalate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-officer-cleared-after-shooting-suspect-holding-screwdriver-leg-n898576

So it is a thing.

[Au165]

(05-15-2019, 03:32 PM)Dill Wrote: The Rodney King verdict would also prove your point, though his actions did not involve a death.

This is why juries disagree on what counts as "objectively reasonable." And why the consequences of such legal standards need to be continually evaluated in light of empirical evidence to make sure the standard in question is functioning as intended.

And what is my "argument" exactly--beyond a preliminary effort to align actions reported with current law?

There is a difference between surrounding an unarmed man with a gang of officers and beating him and what we have here. Part of the issue is in trying to prove misconduct here people are continuing throughout this thread to project true past injustices into this situation. In no other example people have tried to use in this conversation when they talk about "second guessing cops" and "objectively reasonableness" have they used a comparable situation where an officer escalated force gradually until the suspect obtained a weapon and forced the officer into using deadly force. People keep wanting to use cases where officers beat unarmed people as a reason why this case must be another police screw up.

Your "argument" was that a police officer "Should" be able to do all these things in a moments notice when faced with danger (see comments about "Let's a girl take is taser"). You have essentially defined what an officer should be able to do in dangerous situations without having any actual qualifications to do so. Courts have agreed (Graham vs Connor) that it is not up to arm chair police officers to determine what the capabilities of people in high stress situations should and shouldn't be capable of. It is based on standards developed by people who have experience in those situations and what could reasonably be expected by someone who is adequately trained for that position in that situation.

For the third time now....Yes! Police have a history of brutality and violence, especially against people of color. This is not however one of those situations. This is a case where little force was used to start and rather than going immediately to deadly force the officer used less than deadly force. The situation was then escalated by the actions of the suspect to a deadly force situation and the officer was forced to use deadly force. 

[Au165]

(05-15-2019, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think anyone expects an officer to "shoot to wound" if a gun/knife/axe-wielding person is bull rushing the officer.
But this woman was sitting when she was shot 5 times. The officer had disengaged.

But in point of fact officers do shoot to wound-
https://ktla.com/2019/05/12/armed-ex-felon-shot-in-the-leg-by-police-during-late-night-foot-pursuit-near-fontana-church/

--sometimes before properly working to de-escalate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-officer-cleared-after-shooting-suspect-holding-screwdriver-leg-n898576

So it is a thing.

Officers are not trained to "shoot to wound" the article explained why that I posted. If they choose to go against training then they are choosing to risk their own lives at a level beyond expectation.

[Dill]

(05-15-2019, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't go down in force you go up. So he should have said "Stop or I'll shoot" and then shot her in the leg? Yep, too much TV. 

You draw your weapon, aim center mass, and shoot until the threat is eliminated. 

But as I said: Someone that finds fault with this LEO shooting will find fault with all LEO shootings. 

You go from taze to kill?  Over a misdemeanor?  Even that guy could have shot a woman in the leg if she were sitting down.

Frankly, I don't want police on the street who cannot monitor tense situations well but are prepped to "shoot until the threat is eliminated."

Here is an LEO shooting I don't find fault with.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2019/04/30/indio-police-officer-involved-shooting-departments-third-month/3627251002/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2019, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think anyone expects an officer to "shoot to wound" if a gun/knife/axe-wielding person is bull rushing the officer.
But this woman was sitting when she was shot 5 times. The officer had disengaged.

But in point of fact officers do shoot to wound-
https://ktla.com/2019/05/12/armed-ex-felon-shot-in-the-leg-by-police-during-late-night-foot-pursuit-near-fontana-church/

--sometimes before properly working to de-escalate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-officer-cleared-after-shooting-suspect-holding-screwdriver-leg-n898576

So it is a thing.

I can't speak to department policy for every law enforcement agency.  I can tell you that any policy to allows for shoot to wound is a bad policy for reasons I have covered ad naseum.  Also, you're making an immense assumption in the KTLA link that the leg is what the officers were aiming at.  Lastly, I find it curious you would use the second example as the DA's office actually charged the officer in the incident.  I'd be willing to bet he was also out of policy by aiming at an extremity instead of center mass.

Just so everyone is clear, if you shoot you aim center mass.  The only exceptions would be for a person wearing body armor, in which case you aim for the head of, preferably IMO, the pelvic girdle.  Anything else is asking to miss and hitting something behind your target.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2019, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Posts like this is why I call complete BS on your claims of having no anti-LEO bias.  You literally just intimated that LEO's are corrupt and will protect a bad shooting. 

You said before you believe I hate cops.

I don't.

I hate dirty ones and the ones that protect them...that's who I was talking about.

(I'm sure what I said never happened?  Thanks.)

And I want police to be BETTER.  I've posted multiple times about increased training like is done in other countries with emphasis on how to handle situations before shooting.  I want MORE police. So they can work and get to know a neighborhood not just get called there for crimes and confrontations.  I want changes to HELP the police not be in situations where they feel "afraid" and shoot people multiple times.  Changes that would help limit situations where police try and arrest the wrong person without even knowing their name. 

I want BETTER oversight on people who can take your freedom, property and life...legally...even if they made a mistake.


Silly me.

Me and my "anti-LEO bias".

That's a joke accusation...but it's not funny.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2019, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just so everyone is clear, if you shoot you aim center mass.  The only exceptions would be for a person wearing body armor, in which case you aim for the head of, preferably IMO, the pelvic girdle.  Anything else is asking to miss and hitting something behind your target.

This is something I think a lot of people don't realize with regards to "shooting to kill." The policy isn't "shoot to kill," it is "aim center mass." The reason isn't to kill someone, though that is often the only guaranteed way to end the threat, but it's because it reduces the chances of a miss. If you kill a person presenting a threat, even if there are these questions about how much of a threat they were, it is better than missing and hitting a bystander or not ending the threat and the person harming the officer or a bystander.

I'm not a very pro-police person, I'm in favor of reducing the reliance on deadly force and all sorts of other policies that highlight my position as a more liberal person (the police are fascist tools of the bourgeoisie! ), but this isn't the type of incident that does well to highlight trigger-happy police.

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2019, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: You go from taze to kill?  Over a misdemeanor?  Even that guy could have shot a woman in the leg if she were sitting down.

Frankly, I don't want police on the street who cannot monitor tense situations well but are prepped to "shoot until the threat is eliminated."

Here is an LEO shooting I don't find fault with.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2019/04/30/indio-police-officer-involved-shooting-departments-third-month/3627251002/

No you go from taze to eliminate the threat. The Leo didn't want to kill her hell he immediately started preforming CPR (not like that "girl" officer that immediately started worrying about losing her job), but when you escalate the force, you follow guidelines and that's to aim center mass and eliminate the force. Dude had a tough choice to make and didn't have a long time to make it. And given what we know, no one should find fault with his actions.

Let's say officer Dill decides he's going to "wing" her. What if she is also carrying a weapon/ what if she returns fire with the tazer and renders Officer Dill unconscious? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2019, 05:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is something I think a lot of people don't realize with regards to "shooting to kill." The policy isn't "shoot to kill," it is "aim center mass." The reason isn't to kill someone, though that is often the only guaranteed way to end the threat, but it's because it reduces the chances of a miss. If you kill a person presenting a threat, even if there are these questions about how much of a threat they were, it is better than missing and hitting a bystander or not ending the threat and the person harming the officer or a bystander.

I'm not a very pro-police person, I'm in favor of reducing the reliance on deadly force and all sorts of other policies that highlight my position as a more liberal person (the police are fascist tools of the bourgeoisie! ), but this isn't the type of incident that does well to highlight trigger-happy police.

This level of logic isn't going to sit well with some.