FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Ben E Lou]

Eh, his first statement was that "the community" is better off without him.

And would you argue that the second statement isn't true?

[CU Tiger]

Can I vote that his death is probably a net positive for all involved, yet still the police acted incompetently.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, but that was in response to "Yeah. I bet those kids sure are better off and thankful he's gone." I think his family does count as being part of the community.

As for the second statement, it depends on the severity of his crimes, the circumstances, and when they occurred. How many domestic abuse charges do we see shrugged off for NFL players? How much sexual abuse is shrugged off for "boys being boys?" But this, this guy. THIS is the bad guy.

Guy last went to prison in 2009. Is he irredeemable? What's worse, having a flawed but loving father, or none at all? (I thought fatherless children was the downfall of African-American culture...)

[nol]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Eh, his first statement was that "the community" is better off without him.

And would you argue that the second statement isn't true?

Because if anyone knows "the black community" or "the Islamic community" it's him. Just an uncanny ability to know what's best for all sorts of communities he does not interact with.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yeah, but that was in response to "Yeah. I bet those kids sure are better off and thankful he's gone."

I don't see where he said that the kids are thankful. Am I missing something?

Guy last went to prison in 2009. Is he irredeemable? What's worse, having a flawed but loving father, or none at all? (I thought fatherless children was the downfall of African-American culture...)

Good question. Hard to say. I was merely commenting on what he actually said--that "A domestic abuser, sex offender, who deals drugs and carries guns illegally is probably not the best Father figure." I can't argue with that statement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And anyone with a trace of empathy would feel otherwise.

I don't empathize, much less sympathize, with wastes of oxygen & DNA like that.

Never have, highly unlikely I ever will. And I kind of vaguely pity people who waste either on them frankly.

[cuervo72]

Does that go for just the father, or for the wife and kids as well?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't empathize, much less sympathize, with wastes of oxygen & DNA like that.

Never have, highly unlikely I ever will. And I kind of vaguely pity people who waste either on them frankly.

From Christ's little known Sermon near the Tire Fire.

[Logan]

New Video Emerges of Alton Sterling Being Killed by Baton Rouge Police - The Daily Beast

[RainMaker]

That video looks bad. It sounds like the officer says "He's got a gun" first which puts the other on high alert. Then he says "he's going for the gun" at which point the officer shoots.

I'm not really sure what the guy could have done from that position. Seems unlikely he'd be going for his gun while on his back with two officers restraining him. And the odds of him grabbing his gun, aiming, and firing seem slim.

Will be interesting to see what the charges are. The guy who yells "he's going for his gun" would seem to be more at fault than the guy who shot in my opinion. The guy who shot was going off information he was told.

[miked]

Also, the guy who called the cops said it was not in reference to the victim.

[RainMaker]

It's also complete bullshit that the identity of the officer remains under wraps. If this was a normal citizen it would be released to the public in an hour. Public has a right to know the officer's name and history of complaints within the department.

[RainMaker]

This Falcon Heights shooting looks real bad. That video is incredible.

Edit: Here's the video. Really graphic. I thought it was fake at first because it's just so unbelievable.

http://www.citypages.com/news/graphi...-video-8415016

[Logan]

I'm really happy to not be a permitted gun holder so the cops won't shoot me.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm really happy to not be a permitted gun holder so the cops won't shoot me.

I'm also really happy I drive a car instead of swimming in the ocean (because sharks).

[Edward64]

Full story to come out and I'm okay with some wait as there should be a presumption of innocence.

Admittedly, the video is pretty sad/bad, two cops and the suspect on the ground ends up shot.

[cuervo72]

I wasn't aware we trained wild sharks.

[tarcone]

You should always be aware of domesticated wild animals.

[Neuqua]

The shooting in Minnesota looks really bad.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I wasn't aware we trained wild sharks.

I wasn't aware there was training to get people from fighting one another. Is it mandatory for all humans??? People fuckin up!

[digamma]

But seriously, Dutch, to play through your example at least in the Minnesota case, you're equating having a busted tail light to swimming with wild sharks?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by digamma

But seriously, Dutch, to play through your example at least in the Minnesota case, you're equating having a busted tail light to swimming with wild sharks?

Seriously, you say? It was tic to tic. But, Oh Jeez, gotta defend my FOFC street cred!

I was pointing out the fear (and to be fair, it was a TIC fear, as was my response) that having a gun equated to getting shot by a cop.

That being said, a few things are at play here.

1. Owning a gun for self-defense
2. Being shot by a cop while possessing a gun and getting into an altercation
3. Driving a motor vehicle
4. Being eaten by a shark

The chances of dying in a car accident are a bit better than being eaten by a shark. But we fear shark attacks more.

The chances of being killed or attacked by another citizen are far greater than being killed by a cop. But we fear cops more.

In this case, the victim had a gun to protect him from other people (not cops) and he had it for good reason....non-cops are far more dangerous than cops. On an exponential level.

So yeah, it was for fun, to counter a silly suggestion ("Legal gun possession = Instant death at the hands of cops) to a very rare circumstance (rare as it equates to "Legal gun ownership = Protection from criminals"). I mean, there are good reasons to own a gun for self-defense, notably for somebody who feels they have good reason to fear for their life....(politicians, people who sell CDs at night in rough neighborhoods, etc).

I'm sure that guy believed he wouldn't have a CD sellin business if it weren't for that gun. Just like many of us wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for cars.

[Ben E Lou]

The reaction to the MN one is interesting to me. No footage whatsoever of the shooting, yet everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that the cop was at fault. (I've seen far more outrage--even from conservative white people--on that one so far.) I don't fully get it. Is it because the lady telling the story is calm at first, therefore she must be right? I mean, for all we *see*, the guy was reaching toward the gun and got what he deserved. I don't see how anyone could take a position either way on that one. If things have gotten to the point where we automatically trust a random citizen's word over a cop's, we're in trouble. And the sheer fact that it seems as if we DO speaks volumes.


On another note, am I the only one surprised Trump hasn't tweeted something mind-numbingly stupid about one or both of these shootings yet???

[digamma]

Her statements are important because they're an example of "present sense impressions." And quite frankly the same goes for the cop's statements in the background. They're not statements that either made after spending a day or two with lawyers. They don't appear to be orchestrated. They're real. Taking her statements and the cops together, I'm not sure if you can draw conclusions, but the fact that they're real time is really, really important, both now in the public arena and possibly later in court.

[miked]

If I get in to an altercation and shoot somebody, do I get to go home for a day or so and talk to lawyers and witnesses?

[cuervo72]

Well, I don't know if they are as "far greater" as you might think. I'm seeing numbers of about 14,000 - 16,000 homicides/manslaughter per year in the US (14,827 was the 2012 tally, and I think the general numbers have been going down). The WaPo counted 986 shooting deaths by police last year. I don't know about you, but I interact many, many more times with regular citizens than I do police. So on a case-by-case basis, I think an encounter with a LEO is a lot more dangerous.

Also, we're now talking about a second video (well, second in the context of this week's updates), where the victim was doing 1, 2, and 3 and was not selling CDs.

My quip was to the fact that we do train cops. The question is, what are we training them for?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, I don't know if they are as "far greater" as you might think. I'm seeing numbers of about 14,000 - 16,000 homicides/manslaughter per year in the US (14,827 was the 2012 tally, and I think the general numbers have been going down). The WaPo counted 986 shooting deaths by police last year. I don't know about you, but I interact many, many more times with regular citizens than I do police. So on a case-by-case basis, I think an encounter with a LEO is a lot more dangerous.

Also, we're now talking about a second video (well, second in the context of this week's updates), where the victim was doing 1, 2, and 3 and was not selling CDs.

My quip was to the fact that we do train cops. The question is, what are we training them for?

Well, again, I know for a fact that LEO get to deal with the criminal element far greater than you or I do. We have the advantage of avoiding it (mostly) whereas they are propelled into it, pretty much daily. Does that fit into the equation somewhere?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I mean, for all we *see*, the guy was reaching toward the gun and got what he deserved.

Even if that were true, and even if the cop could clearly tell the difference between movement towards the gun and movement towards his license/registration, is that the case? If he was legally permitted to carry the gun, why would a movement towards the gun demand a hostile response? What law was he violating at that point? Now if he had drawn the weapon, maybe, I don't know the specifics of the law in MN, but movement towards a legal weapon shouldn't end with a death sentence.

edit: I'll also admit it puts the cop in a very difficult position, but that's one of the end results of having so many legal carry laws.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Even if that were true, and even if the cop could clearly tell the difference between movement towards the gun and movement towards his license/registration, is that the case? If he was legally permitted to carry the gun, why would a movement towards the gun demand a hostile response? What law was he violating at that point? Now if he had drawn the weapon, maybe, I don't know the specifics of the law in MN, but movement towards a legal weapon shouldn't end with a death sentence.

edit: I'll also admit it puts the cop in a very difficult position, but that's one of the end results of having so many legal carry laws.

I don't know the specifics of the law, but that doesn't seem like it has to be terribly difficult. Inform the officer that you have it. Offer your hands to be cuffed. Officer cuffs him, removes weapon, uncuffs him. Whole thing takes less than 30 seconds and we move on.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But we fear cops more.

I think this is where the disconnect is.

I don't fear cops at all. I have absolutely zero fear that when I get pulled over or questioned on the street or whatever that anything will happen to me. I'm fortunate, lucky, privileged, you choose the word. For many, and unfortunately the many are disproportionately minorities or poor, that isn't the case and there is real and justifiable fear.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

But yes, of course it shouldn't end in a death sentence. I'm just pointing out that we really don't know what went down prior to the video starting. The cop was clearly crazily agitated after the fact. Maybe it was because he realized "oh crap, he was reaching for his wallet and I reacted too fast." Maybe it was because he'd never shot anyone and was freaking out over that.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

For many, and unfortunately the many are disproportionately minorities or poor, that isn't the case and there is real and justifiable fear.

Yup. And, it's the major disconnect that often informs the way these sorts of discussions go. Many white people can't fathom why the black person didn't act rationally. Quite often the answer is "because the moment I saw those blue lights, I feared that my life was in danger." Most people don't act terribly rationally when confronted with everyday fears, let alone fear that their life might end in the next few minutes.

[digamma]

Here is the model policy attached tot he relevant Minnesota statute on the use of deadly force. (Municipalities must adopt as well.)

An officer is authorized to use deadly force only when the officer perceives it is necessary given the circumstances known to the officer at the time in order to:

1. protect the officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
2. effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
• involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
• if the officer believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed.

So, really in this case, it is the first prong. The officer had to protect himself or those around him from apparent death or serious injury.

Here's the statute:

Use of deadly force. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, again, I know for a fact that LEO get to deal with the criminal element far greater than you or I do. We have the advantage of avoiding it (mostly) whereas they are propelled into it, pretty much daily. Does that fit into the equation somewhere?

Yeah, propelled into it, like stopping the criminal element of a busted tail light...

There's an easy way to not be propelled into it. Choose a different occupation. Maybe one that is more safe.

42 police officers were shot and killed in 2015

Err...well, safer than the ones detailed here, anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I don't know the specifics of the law, but that doesn't seem like it has to be terribly difficult. Inform the officer that you have it. Offer your hands to be cuffed. Officer cuffs him, removes weapon, uncuffs him. Whole thing takes less than 30 seconds and we move on.

Which is what I had sense enough to do, more than once, 30+ years ago. As a freakin' teenager that considered trips to the 'burbs as being a semi-big deal.

If you don't have that much sense at this point, well ... damn.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yup. And, it's the major disconnect that often informs the way these sorts of discussions go. Many white people can't fathom why the black person didn't act rationally. Quite often the answer is "because the moment I saw those blue lights, I feared that my life was in danger." Most people don't act terribly rationally when confronted with everyday fears, let alone fear that their life might end in the next few minutes.

I utterly & completely reject the notion that race is justification for irrational behavior.

I have more regard for the capabilities of any racial group than that.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I utterly & completely reject the notion that race is justification for irrational behavior.

I have more regard for the capabilities of any racial group than that.

I didn't say it was justification. I said it was why. (There's a difference.)

And keep in mind, that can go both ways. Liberals miss it, too.

Conservative Q: "I don't understand why he ran and didn't just comply!"
A: "Because he was afraid for his life and thought running was the only way to live."

Liberal Q: "Do you really think that a guy on the ground with a cop on top of him would try to reach for a gun?
A: "Maybe. He could have been thinking 'oh shit, Eric Garner. My only chance is to shoot my way out of this.'"

Neither case is "right," per se. But to ignore the fact that it may well inform the split-second decision-making process is terribly naive. *shurg*

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yeah, propelled into it, like stopping the criminal element of a busted tail light...

There's an easy way to not be propelled into it. Choose a different occupation. Maybe one that is more safe.



Err...well, safer than the ones detailed here, anyway.

Oh I agree! Not sure who to make cops though. Conscription?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yeah, propelled into it, like stopping the criminal element of a busted tail light...

There's an easy way to not be propelled into it. Choose a different occupation. Maybe one that is more safe.
.

Or choose to ignore the criminal element. That strategy is working wonders in Chicago.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If he was legally permitted to carry the gun, why would a movement towards the gun demand a hostile response? What law was he violating at that point?

If the officer told him not to reach for the gun and he did, that would be a crime.

Whether force was justified is a different question. I keep hearing these incidents analyzed in terms of what the crime was or how bad the guy was or whether the "sentence" of death fits the crime. That's not how use of force is analyzed, it's not punishment analysis. It's a seizure question. If an officer tries to stop you for jaywalking or speeding, and the you flee or don't cooperate with commands, the officer can use force, and that can escalate to justifiable deadly force depending on the circumstances. That doesn't make it "capital punishment for speeding". Once an officer has the power to seize, it really doesn't matter what the underlying crime is when it comes to use of force. (in some circumstances what the suspected crime is could be one factor in a use-of-force analysis, but not because bad people deserve to have more more used against them, more like if someone is known to run from police, it makes more sense for an officer to put them on the ground while detaining them instead of talking them while standing.)

And if the officer uses too much force, they've violated policy or committed a crime and/or violated the 4th Amendment, but it's still not a "death sentence". The question is how much force is reasonable to use under the circumstances. And the lines are pretty grey between - justified - justified but could have been handled better - violates policy - 4th amendment violation - criminal act.

[cuervo72]

Make us all cops! That way we'd all be in the same danger. And have the same rights.

edit: yes, I'm being just silly now. But molson touches upon much of my problem with this - the justification of force, and what that burden is. To me, that burden is too low and justification is too easy (I realize not everyone feels this way). Cops nearly have carte blanche to shoot anyone and until now, there has really been no accountability for this power.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yup. And, it's the major disconnect that often informs the way these sorts of discussions go. Many white people can't fathom why the black person didn't act rationally. Quite often the answer is "because the moment I saw those blue lights, I feared that my life was in danger." Most people don't act terribly rationally when confronted with everyday fears, let alone fear that their life might end in the next few minutes.

There's a lot of fear that goes both ways in these traffic stops. Fear isn't a choice, and it can lead to really bad judgment. People are afraid of the arrogant, macho cops, but scared cops are much more dangerous. Trying to be confident and to own a situation is a way to try to subdue that fear, and to try to improve your judgment and performance. Of course, some people are going to be better than others at finding those mental sweet spots that don't go too far in either direction.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Make us all cops! That way we'd all be in the same danger. And have the same rights.

I do wonder why people like you who have figured everything out aren't drawn to fields where you can share your genius with the rest of us and fix everything.

[cuervo72]

Damn, I didn't know I had to be an officer, a lawyer, or a politician to have a place in this conversation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Damn, I didn't know I had to be an officer, a lawyer, or a politician to have a place in this conversation.

Everyone has a place in the conversation, yours just means less when everything you say is snarky and dismissive.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by molson

I do wonder why people like you who have figured everything out aren't drawn to fields where you can share your genius with the rest of us and fix everything.

Haha. This is pretty rich coming from you.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

Everyone has a place in the conversation, yours just means less when everything you say is snarky and dismissive.

My tone often depends on who I am addressing. In my responses to Dutch, yes - many of my replies have been snarky. But that's because in my opinion (and I would bet in the opinion of some others), Dutch has been...well, some of his arguments strike me as a little unorothodox, and in many instances he seems to be almost intentionally missing the point. If that's going to be the case, why not exaggerate those points?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Who else, in America, should I fear more than the police?

Well considering you're more likely to die from a doctor's bad handwriting, maybe them?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

This may be the most insane thing I've ever heard. People in general are always a threat and should be feared: anyone at any time has the ability and capacity to just decide to attack you either physically, emotionally, or spiritually, and cause irreparable harm.

This I think speaks to the disconnect between gun owners and non-gun owners. How does one arrive at a mindset where they are constantly in fear of their surroundings? I can't fathom living life like this. I can't live life in a continued state of alarm. Especially given that I have advantages that others don't (gender, race, income). Why are people always anticipating the worst?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

If the officer told him not to reach for the gun and he did, that would be a crime.

Whether force was justified is a different question. I keep hearing these incidents analyzed in terms of what the crime was or how bad the guy was or whether the "sentence" of death fits the crime. That's not how use of force is analyzed, it's not punishment analysis. It's a seizure question. If an officer tries to stop you for jaywalking or speeding, and the you flee or don't cooperate with commands, the officer can use force, and that can escalate to justifiable deadly force depending on the circumstances. That doesn't make it "capital punishment for speeding". Once an officer has the power to seize, it really doesn't matter what the underlying crime is when it comes to use of force. (in some circumstances what the suspected crime is could be one factor in a use-of-force analysis, but not because bad people deserve to have more more used against them, more like if someone is known to run from police, it makes more sense for an officer to put them on the ground while detaining them instead of talking them while standing.)

And if the officer uses too much force, they've violated policy or committed a crime and/or violated the 4th Amendment, but it's still not a "death sentence". The question is how much force is reasonable to use under the circumstances. And the lines are pretty grey between - justified - justified but could have been handled better - violates policy - 4th amendment violation - criminal act.

The death sentence comments, at least when I've used them, are because someone has decided not to argue about the correct use of force in the specific situation and resorts to arguments like, "Well, he shouldn't have (insert offense)". To me that argument is akin to saying someone deserved the death sentence for that offense, which I think is stupid and justifies any bad decision made by a law enforcement officer against someone who has done anything wrong.