Atlanta-area police shoot dead unarmed, naked African-American man

[Loren Pechtel]

All his cases are the same class of problem: An optimization where you must balance false positives and false negatives. Note that attempting to solve such a problem by focusing only on one class of error is always wrong.

Logically that is false. If the damage or costs of one type of error greatly outweigh the costs or damages of the other type, it makes sense to focus on the error with the vastly larger costs/damages.

No--you consider the costs of the two errors and strike a balance in the harm done.

In this case the harm is comparable--a seriously injured or dead person. If anything the harm of not firing is sometimes higher because multiple people are under threat rather than just one.

 

[laughing dog]

Logically that is false. If the damage or costs of one type of error greatly outweigh the costs or damages of the other type, it makes sense to focus on the error with the vastly larger costs/damages.

No--you consider the costs of the two errors and strike a balance in the harm done.

In this case the harm is comparable--a seriously injured or dead person. If anything the harm of not firing is sometimes higher because multiple people are under threat rather than just one.

The harm is not comparable. Tamir Rice was doing nothing wrong. He was not paid to put his life on the line. He was significantly younger than either officer. And he did not have the weight of the state and its effects behind him. You are simply wrong on all counts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One should not aim for zero errors. One should aim for a minimum of bad outcomes in both directions (shooting when they shouldn't, not shooting when they should.) When you say "one is too many" you are inherently attempting to reach a non-optimal solution.

You are absolutely wrong. Not just incorrect, but wrong. When stakes are highest, so is the absolute need for the absolute highest level of professionalism, and integrity and accuracy, with a goal of zero errors. Even if the goal is not 100% obtainable, it still must be the goal. Because the stakes are so high. Note: when someone is killed 'accidentally' or in any manner which is avoidable or not completely justifiably, with no tortured justifications, there is a grave loss not just in loss of life of that one person killed but a grave loss to the public in their ability to trust and rely upon the police and law enforcement and the legal justice system. Every single death caused by police action or negligence erodes the confidence and integrity of law enforcement, to the detriment of every citizen and society as a whole.

This is about the medical industry, but it pertains to law enforcement as well:

http://qsen.org/faculty-resources/videos/chasing-zero-winning-the-war-on-healthcare-harm/

You utterly missed the point here.

The reality is that you have competing objectives (don't shoot innocents, stop suspects from shooting cops or bystanders). If you go for 100% error free in either direction you'll end up with more dead innocents. The two errors must be balanced.

This is reality, not a liberal pipe dream where a perfect solution exists.

 

[Toni]

You are absolutely wrong. Not just incorrect, but wrong. When stakes are highest, so is the absolute need for the absolute highest level of professionalism, and integrity and accuracy, with a goal of zero errors. Even if the goal is not 100% obtainable, it still must be the goal. Because the stakes are so high. Note: when someone is killed 'accidentally' or in any manner which is avoidable or not completely justifiably, with no tortured justifications, there is a grave loss not just in loss of life of that one person killed but a grave loss to the public in their ability to trust and rely upon the police and law enforcement and the legal justice system. Every single death caused by police action or negligence erodes the confidence and integrity of law enforcement, to the detriment of every citizen and society as a whole.

This is about the medical industry, but it pertains to law enforcement as well:

http://qsen.org/faculty-resources/videos/chasing-zero-winning-the-war-on-healthcare-harm/

You utterly missed the point here.

The reality is that you have competing objectives (don't shoot innocents, stop suspects from shooting cops or bystanders). If you go for 100% error free in either direction you'll end up with more dead innocents. The two errors must be balanced.

This is reality, not a liberal pipe dream where a perfect solution exists.

No, you missed the point, completely. You seem to believe that the only possible outcome is for someone to be dead. How about entertaining the notion that sometimes a naked guy is just a naked guy? Sometimes a kid playing on the playground is just a kid, playing on the playground. Actually, most of the time, it's just a naked guy and a kid playing on the playground. Almost always it's just a naked guy, just a kid. The danger part comes when (some) armed people decide they live in the wild wild west and are under siege from some dark skinned hostiles and decide that dark skin is a sufficient indicator of danger.

 

[Derec]

People forget that there are a lot of scumbags out there, and police officers encounter them as part of their jobs. Additionally, especially in the US, a lot of these scumbags are armed.
Two NYPD Officers Shot in the Bronx
Luckily they survived.

 

[zorq]

People forget that there are a lot of scumbags out there, and police officers encounter them as part of their jobs. Additionally, especially in the US, a lot of these scumbags are armed.
Two NYPD Officers Shot in the Bronx
Luckily they survived.

People also forget that there are a lot of scumbag police officers out there and some of them might deserve to be shot for acting outside the bounds of their profession. Corruption is a real thing and it is nearly impossible to measure.

Did you even once question the motives or character of the police officers in the story you posted? I bet you didn't, but only because they have the fairly arbitrary label of "police officer" instead of "young black man."

People are people. You can't always tell who is right and who is wrong at first glance. Open your mind.

That said, most people ARE harmless.

 

[laughing dog]

People forget that there are a lot of scumbags out there, and police officers encounter them as part of their jobs. Additionally, especially in the US, a lot of these scumbags are armed.
Two NYPD Officers Shot in the Bronx
Luckily they survived.

I don't understand how that provides any sane excuse for police to shoot unarmed civilians just because there are civilian scumbags "out there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You utterly missed the point here.

The reality is that you have competing objectives (don't shoot innocents, stop suspects from shooting cops or bystanders). If you go for 100% error free in either direction you'll end up with more dead innocents. The two errors must be balanced.

This is reality, not a liberal pipe dream where a perfect solution exists.

No, you missed the point, completely. You seem to believe that the only possible outcome is for someone to be dead. How about entertaining the notion that sometimes a naked guy is just a naked guy? Sometimes a kid playing on the playground is just a kid, playing on the playground. Actually, most of the time, it's just a naked guy and a kid playing on the playground. Almost always it's just a naked guy, just a kid. The danger part comes when (some) armed people decide they live in the wild wild west and are under siege from some dark skinned hostiles and decide that dark skin is a sufficient indicator of danger.

You're still not getting it, you're so focused on the wrongful shootings that you can't see the cases where they don't shoot and someone dies.

 

[laughing dog]

You're still not getting it, you're so focused on the wrongful shootings that you can't see the cases where they don't shoot and someone dies.

Ah, the righwing's mythical infinite number of deaths caused by the failure of the police to kill unarmed or harmless civilians.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

good

Next time you need help are you going to call a thug or 911?

Bearing in mind that your definition of "thug" is "any black person who is willing to resort to violence for any reason ever," and also bearing in mind that I am alot less likely to get shot for no reason by neighborhood thugs than by trigger happy/frightened police officers who think I'm out to get them for some reason, I would prefer the thug.

When a snap decision must be made there is not going to be perfection.

No one is asking for perfection. What we're asking for is for police officers -- and for that matter, police DEPARTMENTS -- to value the lives of citizens at least as much as they value the lives of police officers. Those who protect the community should take better care not to endanger the community.

Thus a one-is-too-many standard is impossible to meet.

Not in countries that have rational gun control laws.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, you missed the point, completely. You seem to believe that the only possible outcome is for someone to be dead. How about entertaining the notion that sometimes a naked guy is just a naked guy? Sometimes a kid playing on the playground is just a kid, playing on the playground. Actually, most of the time, it's just a naked guy and a kid playing on the playground. Almost always it's just a naked guy, just a kid. The danger part comes when (some) armed people decide they live in the wild wild west and are under siege from some dark skinned hostiles and decide that dark skin is a sufficient indicator of danger.

You're still not getting it, you're so focused on the wrongful shootings that you can't see the cases where they don't shoot and someone dies.

You have not provided a SHRED of evidence that "They didn't shoot and someone dies" is a common occurrence. It doesn't even follow LOGICALLY that that would be the case; most of the people who have been shot and killed by police "in fear of their lives" didn't actually have a prior history of homicidal behavior, and the majority weren't even violent offenders. The most you can say is that the fleeing pickpocket or petty thief might go on to pick another pocket or rob another store if he isn't apprehended immediately, but that potential threat isn't worth taking a man's (or child's) life.

Nor, really, is it worth putting police officers at risk. It is better for officers to disengage and regroup at a safe distance than risk escalating an otherwise perfectly manageable confrontation into a life or death situation. The officers have room to maneuver and create opportunities for peaceful capture, either by apprehending the suspect at a more opportune time, or by taking the effort to talk him down and convince him to come quietly.

I recall a whole spate of videos from the 1990s of violent suspects being cornered and talked down by police; the toughest of them, sometimes armed with knives or clubs, were pelted for several minutes with beanbag rounds, followed by pepper spray, followed by taser darts, and finally -- once the knife was lowered or the suspect seemed sufficiently incapacitated -- tackled to the ground by teams of officers who rushed him in a coordinated effort to disarm him. Any one of a dozen different steps that would make the different between a live suspect facing a trial and a dead suspect facing his own entrails.

Who did LaQuan McDonald kill?
Who did Tamir Rice kill?
Who did Michael Brown kill?
Who did Eric Garner kill?
Who did Cameron Massey kill?
Who did Bette Jones kill?
Who were any of them GOING to kill, if killing them is supposed to prevent further deaths?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still not getting it, you're so focused on the wrongful shootings that you can't see the cases where they don't shoot and someone dies.

Ah, the righwing's mythical infinite number of deaths caused by the failure of the police to kill unarmed or harmless civilians.

Is it even possible for you to write an on-topic reply?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Next time you need help are you going to call a thug or 911?

Bearing in mind that your definition of "thug" is "any black person who is willing to resort to violence for any reason ever," and also bearing in mind that I am alot less likely to get shot for no reason by neighborhood thugs than by trigger happy/frightened police officers who think I'm out to get them for some reason, I would prefer the thug.

No. My definition of thug is a person who routinely resorts to violence to get their way.

When a snap decision must be made there is not going to be perfection.

No one is asking for perfection. What we're asking for is for police officers -- and for that matter, police DEPARTMENTS -- to value the lives of citizens at least as much as they value the lives of police officers. Those who protect the community should take better care not to endanger the community.

Thus a one-is-too-many standard is impossible to meet.

Not in countries that have rational gun control laws.

Except we have erroneous shootings even from such countries. I'm thinking of one that made international news from England.

I'm also thinking of a policewoman in Europe who got stabbed because they didn't fire on a knife-wielding assailant. (I'm sure there's more but most of the news from there won't be in English.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still not getting it, you're so focused on the wrongful shootings that you can't see the cases where they don't shoot and someone dies.

You have not provided a SHRED of evidence that "They didn't shoot and someone dies" is a common occurrence. It doesn't even follow LOGICALLY that that would be the case; most of the people who have been shot and killed by police "in fear of their lives" didn't actually have a prior history of homicidal behavior, and the majority weren't even violent offenders. The most you can say is that the fleeing pickpocket or petty thief might go on to pick another pocket or rob another store if he isn't apprehended immediately, but that potential threat isn't worth taking a man's (or child's) life.

It's not a common occurrence in America because they generally shoot when they should. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen if they held their fire when facing a knife-armed BLM hero.

Nor, really, is it worth putting police officers at risk. It is better for officers to disengage and regroup at a safe distance than risk escalating an otherwise perfectly manageable confrontation into a life or death situation. The officers have room to maneuver and create opportunities for peaceful capture, either by apprehending the suspect at a more opportune time, or by taking the effort to talk him down and convince him to come quietly.

And what if your kid is the hostage he grabs in order to escape? Because disengage and regroup means you leave them free to get to civilians.

Or what if you get killed by the guy trying to force the cops to kill him? (I've got the above-mentioned BLM hero in mind. It was a suicide by cop and he was heading for gawkers when they fired.)

I recall a whole spate of videos from the 1990s of violent suspects being cornered and talked down by police; the toughest of them, sometimes armed with knives or clubs, were pelted for several minutes with beanbag rounds, followed by pepper spray, followed by taser darts, and finally -- once the knife was lowered or the suspect seemed sufficiently incapacitated -- tackled to the ground by teams of officers who rushed him in a coordinated effort to disarm him. Any one of a dozen different steps that would make the different between a live suspect facing a trial and a dead suspect facing his own entrails.

If you have them completely surrounded and they're not moving you can do this. You don't always have that situation.

Your examples don't prove your point because they were stopped.

Who did Michael Brown kill?

Had he not been shot the officer very well might have died.

Who did Eric Garner kill?

Wasn't a shooting in the first place. Once in a while fights go much worse than one would expect.

Who did Cameron Massey kill?

Again, had he not been shot the officer was at risk of being dragged to death. This is a common cause of unarmed police shootings--the suspect is simply trying to escape and does not realize that their actions pose an extreme danger to the officers they are trying to escape from.

Who did Bette Jones kill?

Who??

 

[laughing dog]

Is it even possible for you to write an on-topic reply?

I think this is evidence that you should be asking yourself if it is possible for you to recognized an on-topic reply. Since "you can't see the cases where they don't shoot and someone dies", you are simply handwaving a response - in essence, assuming there are an infinite supply of those deaths.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Bearing in mind that your definition of "thug" is "any black person who is willing to resort to violence for any reason ever," and also bearing in mind that I am alot less likely to get shot for no reason by neighborhood thugs than by trigger happy/frightened police officers who think I'm out to get them for some reason, I would prefer the thug.

No. My definition of thug is a person who routinely resorts to violence to get their way.

Unless they're black, in which case they only have to do it once.

Except we have erroneous shootings even from such countries.

AFAIK, Australia and the U.K. average one "erroneous" shooting by police officers every two or three years. They consider that to be a national tragedy worthy of soul searching and deep, passionate recriminations. It's almost as if they value the lives of the people police officers accidentally kill.

It's almost as if you don't.

I'm also thinking of a policewoman in Europe who got stabbed because they didn't fire on a knife-wielding assailant.

They DID fire on him. Seconds later, in fact. The stabber was killed, and the cop made a full recovery.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's not a common occurrence in America because they generally shoot when they should. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen if they held their fire when facing a knife-armed BLM hero.

I'm not going to waste my time asking you to back this claim up with evidence because we both know you don't have any. You are again supplying an imaginary scenario based on what you assume to be your infallible knowledge of the world based on absolutely nothing except TV movies and your wife's restaurant tips.

This claim, in other words, is bullshit. Moving on...

And what if your kid is the hostage he grabs in order to escape?

He only needs a hostage if they're chasing him on foot through a crowded area they do not really control, with guns drawn, in a conflict that is not being properly defused.

Because disengage and regroup means you leave them free to get to civilians.

Only if you deliberately release control of the situation, which no competent police officer would do.

On the other hand, no competent police officer would pull a Bruce Willis action hero "jump out of a car and shoot him" maneuver against a twelve year old in the park, so that might actually be a valid objection.

Or what if you get killed by the guy trying to force the cops to kill him?

... has never happened in the history of this country. This question -- and the implied scenario -- is bullshit. Moving on...

If you have them completely surrounded and they're not moving you can do this. You don't always have that situation.

But you always CAN. "Hang tight and wait for backup" would have been the ideal first step in 90% of the questionable police killings over the past decade. The only one I can think of where it DIDN'T help was the case of Eric Garner, but I suppose his loose cigarettes were a huge threat to the general public...

Your examples don't prove your point because they were stopped.

I have never killed anyone. I am not going to kill anyone. I have no PLANS to kill anyone. But I won't give police credit for preventing me from killing someone if one of them accidentally runs me over with his car because he mistakes me for a burglary suspect.

So your point is bullshit. Moving on...

Who did Michael Brown kill?

Had he not been shot the officer very well might have died.

That doesn't answer my question.

Who did Eric Garner kill?

Wasn't a shooting in the first place.

That doesn't answer my question.

Who did Cameron Massey kill?

Again, had he not been shot the officer was at risk of being dragged to death.

Aside from the fact that he would be the first officer in history to be "dragged to death" by a car that no one was driving (Massey was in the passenger seat) that doesn't answer the question.

Who did Bette Jones kill?

Who??

That doesn't answer the question.

You're claiming ALL of these people are potential murderers, and killing them prevented them from taking the life of someone else. You're claiming that delaying subduing or arresting them for the fifteen to thirty minutes it would take to calm them down and de-escalate the situation is a time in which they would have shot and killed someone.

Suppose Darren Wilson got back into his car, locked the door and called for backup? What was Michael Brown going to do? Rip the car to pieces with his bare hands? Incinerate him in the driver seat by shooting laser beams out of his eyes? Was Michael Brown just five minutes away from turning into a Super Saiyan and blasting Wilson and his SUV into Low Earth Orbit with a with a Spirit Bomb? Or would he, like most people, RUN LIKE A COWARD straight back to his mother's house and consider himself damn lucky to have gotten away?

You are claiming that EVERYONE who is killed by police is a potential murderer. This claim is bullshit. You need to move on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. My definition of thug is a person who routinely resorts to violence to get their way.

Unless they're black, in which case they only have to do it once.

That's your assertion, not mine. I don't consider one act of violence to make a thug.

Except we have erroneous shootings even from such countries.

AFAIK, Australia and the U.K. average one "erroneous" shooting by police officers every two or three years. They consider that to be a national tragedy worthy of soul searching and deep, passionate recriminations. It's almost as if they value the lives of the people police officers accidentally kill.

It's almost as if you don't.

1) You have to consider the number of times cops are in a position to be making such a call. It happens far more in the US. It's the error percentage that we should be looking at.

I'm also thinking of a policewoman in Europe who got stabbed because they didn't fire on a knife-wielding assailant.

They DID fire on him. Seconds later, in fact. The stabber was killed, and the cop made a full recovery.

Yeah--they fired after she was stabbed. In the US they wouldn't have waited for her to get hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what if your kid is the hostage he grabs in order to escape?

He only needs a hostage if they're chasing him on foot through a crowded area they do not really control, with guns drawn, in a conflict that is not being properly defused.

He needs a hostage if he wants to escape.

Because disengage and regroup means you leave them free to get to civilians.

Only if you deliberately release control of the situation, which no competent police officer would do.

You can't back off and yet retain control of the situation.

Or what if you get killed by the guy trying to force the cops to kill him?

... has never happened in the history of this country. This question -- and the implied scenario -- is bullshit. Moving on...

How do you know it's not happened?

If you have them completely surrounded and they're not moving you can do this. You don't always have that situation.

But you always CAN. "Hang tight and wait for backup" would have been the ideal first step in 90% of the questionable police killings over the past decade. The only one I can think of where it DIDN'T help was the case of Eric Garner, but I suppose his loose cigarettes were a huge threat to the general public...

Hang tight and wait for backup often lets the bad guy escape.

Who did Michael Brown kill?

Had he not been shot the officer very well might have died.

That doesn't answer my question.

If you won't look the situation how can you even make a judgment?

Who did Eric Garner kill?

Wasn't a shooting in the first place.

That doesn't answer my question.

Nobody intended to kill Eric Garner. Sometimes when you get into a fight bad things happen. Too bad.

You're claiming ALL of these people are potential murderers, and killing them prevented them from taking the life of someone else. You're claiming that delaying subduing or arresting them for the fifteen to thirty minutes it would take to calm them down and de-escalate the situation is a time in which they would have shot and killed someone.

I didn't respond to all of them--there were some that they should not have shot.

Suppose Darren Wilson got back into his car, locked the door and called for backup? What was Michael Brown going to do? Rip the car to pieces with his bare hands? Incinerate him in the driver seat by shooting laser beams out of his eyes? Was Michael Brown just five minutes away from turning into a Super Saiyan and blasting Wilson and his SUV into Low Earth Orbit with a with a Spirit Bomb? Or would he, like most people, RUN LIKE A COWARD straight back to his mother's house and consider himself damn lucky to have gotten away?

And next time the cops find him he punches one and leaves. In your world he's almost impossible to arrest.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Unless they're black, in which case they only have to do it once.

That's your assertion, not mine. I don't consider one act of violence to make a thug.

Bullshit.

You referred to the Jamar Clark protestors as "thugs" for shoving the provocateurs who later opened fire on them; this was a SINGLE incident, ONE ACT, and you did not even extend that label to include the shooters.

And WHY did you consider the protestors to be thugs? Because somebody put the videos on youtube.

Your justification is bullshit. Moving on...

Yeah--they fired after she was stabbed. In the US they wouldn't have waited for her to get hurt.

The guy ran up to them and ambushed her as she was getting out of her car and was immediately shot by her partner on the other side OF the car (he also hit HER by accident, which turned out to be the far more serious injury).

So, yeah, this is pretty much EXACTLY how it would have happened in the United States... with the important distinction that an Islamist terrorist in the United States is going to find it ALOT easier to gain access to an assault rifle and therefore probably wouldn't have attacked her with a knife.