Another cop "fears for his life" - Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back

[Derec]

So are you suggesting that we should stop arresting, trying and convicting ALL people accused of killing someone else?

Huh? How do you get that from what I wrote.
Of course people who kill others without legal justification should be tried and, if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. convicted. And yes, that goes for cops too.

It's just that such convictions do not do the victim any good. Thus, it is a good strategy in life to avoid situations that increase one's chances of getting shot and killed.
The chance of Scott getting shot by police would have been infinitesimal had he stayed in his car. But the fact that he ran, and scuffled with Slager, increased that chance by many orders of magnitude. The probability for any particular instance is still <<1 of course, as vast majority of people who run from police do not get shot, but why take the chances by doing something as stupid as running from police? Also, if you make that a habit, the cumulative probability increases. That's what happened to Alton Sterling. When he was shot, that was actually the second time he was scuffling with police while being armed (note that probability of getting shot while armed and scuffling with police is significantly higher than getting shot just running)

Same goes for non-police shootings. If you do things that increase your chance of getting shot, the murderer getting convicted will not bring you back to life. But that in no way implies that murderers should not be brought to justice.

- - - Updated - - -

So are you suggesting that we should stop arresting, trying and convicting ALL people accused of killing someone else?

Seriously, if this site allowed for signatures, this would probably be THE quote I'd use for it because it's indicative of the transparent dislike Derec has for black people.

You and RavenSky must have aced postmodernist "creative reading" classes at your local college. Nothing in what I wrote lends itself to that interpretation, nor do I have any dislike for black people. What you think is "transparent" is merely empty space, no more substantial than a mime's box.

 

[Derec]

Are you suggesting that Jordan Edwards was NOT murdered by a police officer?

That will be determined by investigation/trial. So far it looks likely.

But no, my point was not about the Edwards shooting but that just because 83 black people might have been killed by police in 2017, it does not mean that 83 people were murdered.
If you actually read that sentence, the author is calling all police shootings of black people (and only black people) "murders". But vast majority of police shootings are justified.
Look at this site.
So far from May we have
- a 67 year old man who fired a shotgun at police in an Atlanta suburb.
- an 18 year old on probation and with a long criminal record fired at police in Grand Rapids
- a man was shot in SF while in the process of stabbing somebody
- a 28 year old man was shot in San Jose while charging at police with two knives
- a 20 year old was shot in Austin for refusing to drop a gun (very likely suicide by cop)
- a 48 old man was shot for holding two knives on a woman
- a 25 year old in Texas aimed a gun at police and was shot. He also likely murdered his ex-girlfriend's mother for some reason

The Edwards shooting has not made the site yet, but it would be the first non-justified shooting this month.

 

[Derec]

2. Okay, even if this were true (It's not in the case of police officers who are actually worth their salt) That's not a reason to pull your gun out and start firing rounds.

It increases the chances that shots will be fired by orders of magnitude.

3. So because the person is dead and nothing can bring them back, what? That's a good excuse to not prosecute the man and put him in prison? What about all the living people who's lives are made better now that this dangerous lunatic thug cop isn't out on the streets?

You are misinterpreting what I wrote. Of course unjustified shootings should be prosecuted. My point is that the suspects should not needlessly increase chances of getting shot by doing things like running, fighting with police etc.
My point is all about the fact that posthumous vindication is worse than Pyrrhic.

4. So what? The officer's job is not to escalate the situation.
5. So what? The officer's job is not to escalate the situation.
6. So what? The officer's job is not to escalate the situation.

Do you think it's the perp's job to escalate the situation? Sure, a deescalated situation is in everybody's interest, but if the suspects escalates by resisting arrest, running or even fighting then the police officer must escalate in kind. If a suspect resists arrest, some level of force will be necessary. If as suspect runs, some level of force will be necessary to stop and detain the suspect. And if the suspect responds to being caught by fighting, the level of force will be escalated again. And all that force can lead to injuries, even fatal ones, without any shots being fired - tasers can cause cardiac arrests, a suspect may fall and hit his head on a curbstone, he may run into traffic and be hit by a dump truck or a bus. He may trip and the cruiser might just run him over.
Really, it's just not a smart idea to run from the police.

Btw, how do you propose police deal with fleeing suspects? Just let them go, because deescalation über alles?

 

[laughing dog]

Btw, how do you propose police deal with fleeing suspects? Just let them go, because deescalation über alles?

One would think the obvious rational answers to your question are to either follow them or chase after them.

 

[LordKiran]

Huh? How do you get that from what I wrote.
Of course people who kill others without legal justification should be tried and, if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. convicted. And yes, that goes for cops too.

It's just that such convictions do not do the victim any good. Thus, it is a good strategy in life to avoid situations that increase one's chances of getting shot and killed.
The chance of Scott getting shot by police would have been infinitesimal had he stayed in his car. But the fact that he ran, and scuffled with Slager, increased that chance by many orders of magnitude. The probability for any particular instance is still <<1 of course, as vast majority of people who run from police do not get shot, but why take the chances by doing something as stupid as running from police? Also, if you make that a habit, the cumulative probability increases. That's what happened to Alton Sterling. When he was shot, that was actually the second time he was scuffling with police while being armed (note that probability of getting shot while armed and scuffling with police is significantly higher than getting shot just running)

Same goes for non-police shootings. If you do things that increase your chance of getting shot, the murderer getting convicted will not bring you back to life. But that in no way implies that murderers should not be brought to justice.

- - - Updated - - -

So are you suggesting that we should stop arresting, trying and convicting ALL people accused of killing someone else?

Seriously, if this site allowed for signatures, this would probably be THE quote I'd use for it because it's indicative of the transparent dislike Derec has for black people.

You and RavenSky must have aced postmodernist "creative reading" classes at your local college. Nothing in what I wrote lends itself to that interpretation, nor do I have any dislike for black people. What you think is "transparent" is merely empty space, no more substantial than a mime's box.

Oh it absolutely does! The very idea that you would type the words:

Sure, shooting them in the back is illegal in those circumstances, but e cop getting convicted is not doing any good to the dead guy.

As some sort of defense for said cop highlights it quite plainly. Further, do keep in mind that this is all in the context of a post who's entire premise is to defend an officer's decision to shoot a fleeing "Thug" suspect.

 

[PyramidHead]

Do people who flee from cops suffer from the delusion that they'll magically come back to life if the cop gets convicted for murdering them? Is this one of those memes from the black Twitters?

 

[Derec]

Do people who flee from cops suffer from the delusion that they'll magically come back to life if the cop gets convicted for murdering them?

No, I think it's more like they are under the delusion that they will get away. Like clearing wanted stars in GTA by going to your save house.

 

[Derec]

As some sort of defense for said cop highlights it quite plainly. Further, do keep in mind that this is all in the context of a post who's entire premise is to defend an officer's decision to shoot a fleeing "Thug" suspect.

Yet another person who lacks reading comprehension. It was not offered as a defense of the cop shooting the suspect. That is a separate thing altogether.

My point was about advisability of running in the first place. There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here. Check out this load of nonsense that passes for academia these days:
Why Black People Running From the Police Makes Perfect Sense

 

[PyramidHead]

As some sort of defense for said cop highlights it quite plainly. Further, do keep in mind that this is all in the context of a post who's entire premise is to defend an officer's decision to shoot a fleeing "Thug" suspect.

Yet another person who lacks reading comprehension. It was not offered as a defense of the cop shooting the suspect. That is a separate thing altogether.

My point was about advisability of running in the first place. There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here. Check out this load of nonsense that passes for academia these days:
Why Black People Running From the Police Makes Perfect Sense

That's a great article. Which part of it do you actually disagree with?

And as long as we have a policing model that’s based on arrest counts and convictions, as long as there’s a legal right to bring in people for things like court fees or traffic fines or technical violations of parole, your're creating a class of people who are arrestable on sight—a fugitive class. And then the people who don’t have these legal entanglements but are still worried that something might come up, are this secondary “maybe” fugitive class.

...

I know this guy driving his 11-year-old brother to school in his girlfriend’s car when he got stopped. Turns out that the car was stolen, so the cops charged the guy with receiving stolen property. And then they charged the 11 year old with accessory to receiving stolen property, and gave him 3 years of probation. So from now on this 11 year old is in legal jeopardy. Any less-than-positive encounter with the police could mean a violation of his probation, and send him straight to juvenile hall for the entire three years. He could be out past curfew, or sitting on the stoop with his brother’s friends, or asked to inform—anything could lead to a violation.

 

[LordKiran]

As some sort of defense for said cop highlights it quite plainly. Further, do keep in mind that this is all in the context of a post who's entire premise is to defend an officer's decision to shoot a fleeing "Thug" suspect.

Yet another person who lacks reading comprehension. It was not offered as a defense of the cop shooting the suspect. That is a separate thing altogether.

My point was about advisability of running in the first place. There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here. Check out this load of nonsense that passes for academia these days:
Why Black People Running From the Police Makes Perfect Sense

The post we're talking about has nothing to do with the feasibility of running.

Perhaps the problem is not with our ability to interpret what you type but rather your ability to put your thoughts to words accurately.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Perhaps we could stop assuming what others mean to say, instead of reading what they actually do say...

Perhaps we could strongman instead of strawman the words of others, and yield the benefit of any doubt, and seek clarification.

And perhaps we could address a point once clarified, instead of insisting that the writer meant something they've clarified they didn't mean.

Detaching our judgments about a writer from the point they make; examining the point instead of the writer, may make for better conversation.



This clearly looks like a Cop that murdered somebody.

It isn't wise to run from cops, or to threaten or scuffle or hold a weapon towards cops, because that has an increased chance of getting you dead.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps the problem is not with our ability to interpret what you type but rather your ability to put your thoughts to words accurately.

Naw. I was pretty clear. I think the problem is that some people on here read what they want to see, rather than what is actually on the screen.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps the problem is not with our ability to interpret what you type but rather your ability to put your thoughts to words accurately.

Naw. I was pretty clear. I think the problem is that some people on here read what they want to see, rather than what is actually on the screen.

You mean like people who think bringing up the wisdom of running from the police in a thread about police shooting unarmed people?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here.

Who the heck said that here?

 

[Derec]

That's a great article. Which part of it do you actually disagree with?

Pretty much all of it, but especially apologetics for lifetime criminal behavior.

And as long as we have a policing model that’s based on arrest counts and convictions, as long as there’s a legal right to bring in people for things like court fees or traffic fines or technical violations of parole, your're creating a class of people who are arrestable on sight—a fugitive class. And then the people who don’t have these legal entanglements but are still worried that something might come up, are this secondary “maybe” fugitive class.

Good example of her apologetics. Instead of encouraging people to take care of their legal problems she says that it is ok for them to perpetuate them by running as soon as they see a policeman within a half mile radius. Yes, if you don't pay your traffic fines you face arrest and suspension of your license. But the solution is not to ignore traffic fines and resort to living in the shadows indefinitely, driving with no license and taking off when approached by police. No, the solution is to be an adult and take care of the fines - which means paying them or challenging them. And note that most warrants are for things more serious than a traffic fine.
Also, I wonder what exactly she means by "technical violations of parole". Parole means that one is released from prison before the prison term is up, in many cases long before. But parole is a privilege. It is linked to conditions. You violate these conditions, you will probably go back to the big house. Also, parole is generally given on long felony convictions and thus for crimes much more serious than her go-to "traffic violations".

I know this guy driving his 11-year-old brother to school in his girlfriend’s car when he got stopped. Turns out that the car was stolen, so the cops charged the guy with receiving stolen property.

So did he steal the car from his girlfriend or did the girlfriend steal the car and give it to him? Or did they steal the car together?

And then they charged the 11 year old with accessory to receiving stolen property, and gave him 3 years of probation.

Somehow I think there is more to that story than Alice lets on...

So from now on this 11 year old is in legal jeopardy. Any less-than-positive encounter with the police could mean a violation of his probation, and send him straight to juvenile hall for the entire three years.

Then I suggest he should stay clean. And his brother should not be stealing cars nor receiving stolen cars. Maybe if he put his efforts into something productive rather than finding new ways to evade police he could do something with his life.

 

[Derec]

There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here.

Who the heck said that here?

Rhea for example, in post #95 in this thread and others. She thinks it "behooves" criminals to run from police.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's a great article. Which part of it do you actually disagree with?

I just read through it, and I have to say it seems really backwards to me.

Once you have so many young men in a neighborhood coming of age not at school or work, but in court, in probation hearings, in jail, then the whole round of social life—dating, friendship, family—it actually all gets moved into those institutions. So your first time visiting your boyfriend in jail is a big day. Supporting your husband on his court date is how you show your devotion to him. Standing in front of your house while it’s being raided by police looking for your son is what a good mother does. It’s not about checking tests, going to soccer practice or parent-teacher conferences. It’s going to fight for the freedom of your children.

Shouldn't the focus and complaint here be on why that man is in jail and why those police officers are raiding this house? Shouldn't the focus be on police abuse and treating people as criminals who haven't broken any laws (if that is the case), or how how to better shape society so they don't commit crimes (ie, better education and better welfare programs), etc? If these officers are planting evidence or breaking laws (ie, searching without a warrant) or hauling people in without any good reason, that seems far more noteworthy than criminals avoiding the police because they are criminals.

About 60% of these warrants are not for new crimes, but for technical violations of parole, unpaid court fees, unpaid child support, traffic fines, curfew violations, court fees. And it’s this group of people that are terrified. If they’re stopped by the cops, any of these reasons is enough to bring them in, to get them trapped into the system again.

If they are on parole, they are already "trapped" into the system, and are trying to escape their own responsibilities. And why are we saying "trapped"? Were they framed or set up in some way? If they actually did something wrong and got caught, that isn't a "trap".

If you’re part of this class, it means you don’t go to the hospital when you’re sick. You’re wary of visiting friends in the hospital or attending their funerals. Driving your kid to school can be daunting. You don’t have a driver’s license or ID. Most of the time, you can’t seek legal employment. You can’t get help from the government.

You could, if you, y'know, took responsibility for whatever you've done.

And as long as we have a policing model that’s based on arrest counts and convictions, as long as there’s a legal right to bring in people for things like court fees or traffic fines or technical violations of parole, your're creating a class of people who are arrestable on sight—a fugitive class. And then the people who don’t have these legal entanglements but are still worried that something might come up, are this secondary “maybe” fugitive class.

Who is creating this "fugitive class"? The fugitives! And are people really being brought in just because they have a fresh traffic fine? Or are we talking about people who have traffic fines from years ago and who are under court order to appear before a court about why they are ignoring it, and then fleeing from police that have to go get them because they refuse to comply with such a court order?

 

[PyramidHead]

Pretty much all of it, but especially apologetics for lifetime criminal behavior.

And as long as we have a policing model that’s based on arrest counts and convictions, as long as there’s a legal right to bring in people for things like court fees or traffic fines or technical violations of parole, your're creating a class of people who are arrestable on sight—a fugitive class. And then the people who don’t have these legal entanglements but are still worried that something might come up, are this secondary “maybe” fugitive class.

Good example of her apologetics. Instead of encouraging people to take care of their legal problems she says that it is ok for them to perpetuate them by running as soon as they see a policeman within a half mile radius. Yes, if you don't pay your traffic fines you face arrest and suspension of your license. But the solution is not to ignore traffic fines and resort to living in the shadows indefinitely, driving with no license and taking off when approached by police. No, the solution is to be an adult and take care of the fines - which means paying them or challenging them. And note that most warrants are for things more serious than a traffic fine.
Also, I wonder what exactly she means by "technical violations of parole". Parole means that one is released from prison before the prison term is up, in many cases long before. But parole is a privilege. It is linked to conditions. You violate these conditions, you will probably go back to the big house.

I know this guy driving his 11-year-old brother to school in his girlfriend’s car when he got stopped. Turns out that the car was stolen, so the cops charged the guy with receiving stolen property.

So did he steal the car from his girlfriend or did the girlfriend steal the car and give it to him? Or did they steal the car together?

And then they charged the 11 year old with accessory to receiving stolen property, and gave him 3 years of probation.

Somehow I think there is more to that story than Alice lets on...

So from now on this 11 year old is in legal jeopardy. Any less-than-positive encounter with the police could mean a violation of his probation, and send him straight to juvenile hall for the entire three years.

Then I suggest he should stay clean. And his brother should not be stealing cars nor receiving stolen cars. Maybe if he put his efforts into something productive rather than finding new ways to evade police he could do something with his life.

The article does not say it's okay for them to run from the police, it provides a context in which their behavior makes more sense than just irrationally fleeing for no reason. The guy whose girlfriend's car turned out to be stolen is a perfect example of the kind of situation that pushes some people into desperation mode. The fact that you automatically assumed either he or his girlfriend must have stolen the car illustrates one aspect of the problem. People who live in ghettos don't always have the luxury or the funds to just stroll into a used car dealership and buy a legitimate vehicle. They buy it from a friend or a family member, who got it from someone else, who got it as a favor, and in this case the chain of transactions began with someone stealing the car. It's therefore not as simple as "just don't drive stolen cars". The whole point, then, is that now the 11 year-old has to do everything he possibly can to "stay clean", because he has something on his record that you and I don't, increasing the stakes to the point where avoiding police contact becomes a legitimate option in his adolescent brain. Combine that with the constant reports of trigger-happy cops such as Slager, and an environment where the police are there to arrest rather than protect, and I can definitely see myself panicking if I were in his shoes. I think that might be because I don't assume everybody has access to the privileges I do by virtue of being born in a middle class suburb with fair skin.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

On further reading of what the original author wrote, rather than the linked-to article about what she wrote, she actually gave an interesting look into fugitive culture, whether or not it is self-imposed. Fugitives actually practice the art of running away.

If a successful escape means learning how to identify the police, it also requires learning how to run. Chuck, Mike, and their friends spent many evenings honing this skill by running after each other and chasing each other in cars. The stated reason would be that one had taken something from the other: a CD, a five-dollar bill from a pocket, a small bag of weed. Reggie and his friends also ran away from their girlfriends on foot or by car.

One night, I was standing outside Ronny’s house with Reggie and Reggie’s friend, an eighteen-year-old young man who lived across the street. In the middle of the conversation, Reggie’s friend jumped in his car and took off. Reggie explained that he was on the run from his girlfriend, who we then saw getting into another car after him. Reggie explained that she wanted him to be in the house with her, but that he was refusing, wanting instead to go out to the bar. This pursuit lasted the entire evening, with the man’s girlfriend enlisting her friends and relatives to provide information about his whereabouts, and the man doing the same. Around one in the morning, I heard that she’d caught him going into the beer store and dragged him back home.

It wasn’t always clear to me whether these chases were games or more serious pursuits, and some appeared more serious than others. Regardless of the meaning that people ascribed to them at the time or afterward, these chases improved young men’s skill and speed at getting away. In running from each other, from their girlfriends, and in a few cases their mothers, Reggie and his friends learned how to navigate the alleyways, weave through traffic, and identify local residents willing to hide them for a little while.

 

[PyramidHead]

Derec, do you imagine that everybody in the world can just put their life on pause to acquire all the trappings of civilized society you take for granted? These things don't materialize out of thin air, and they aren't free. When you're already on a razor-thin margin and choosing between feeding your kids and paying your heating bill this month, all while working 60 hours a week and trying to get those kids an education, one speeding ticket from when you didn't want them to be late for class is enough to put you underwater. Compound all that with the fact that police presence in these neighborhoods is almost nonexistent unless they are trying to cuff somebody to meet a quota, and you've got your trap. It saddens me to think you've probably never encountered an example of someone else's misfortune and thought, you know, maybe I don't get the whole dynamic of what this person goes through, and I should give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he's screaming and nobody seems to hear him. No, your first impulse is to find the context that preserves your omniscience about what other people should and shouldn't be capable of withstanding. It has to be there. It can't be that you just don't know what you're talking about because you sit on your ass all day with plenty to eat and nobody out to get you.