BLM end goal? In Fear of Public Scrutiny, Chicago Officer Didn’t Use Gun While She Was Beaten

[Axulus]

Is this the end goal that BLMers and their sympathizers want?

A Chicago police officer who was "viciously" beaten by a man allegedly under the influence of drugs said she was afraid to use her weapon because of the public scrutiny she would have faced, according to Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson.

The officer, identified only as a 17-year veteran, was responding to a car crash in the suburban neighborhood of Austin Wednesday when the attack took place, KTLA sister station WGN in Chicago reported.

The officer tried to talk to one of the drivers involved in the crash, a 28-year-old man believed to be high on PCP, when he became violent and struggled with police, Johnson said.

While wrestling on the ground, the the man allegedly grabbed the officer's head and slammed her face into the pavement repeatedly until she lost consciousness, he said.

The attack "went on for several minutes," according to the superintendent.

The officer's partner was able to subdue the suspect using a Taser and pepper spray, according to the Chicago Tribune, but two other officers were also injured and later hospitalized following the struggle.“As I was at the hospital last night, visiting with her, she looked at me and said she thought she was gonna die, and she knew that she should shoot this guy, but she chose not to because she didn’t want her family or the department to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news,” Johnson said.

Johnson, who was speaking at a ceremony honoring police officers and firefighters, added that he didn't know the details of the investigation and couldn't say whether or not shooting the attacker would have been justified.

"I think it's pretty apparent that it was a horrific incident," Johnson said. "Anytime you face a life-or-death situation, then you can use deadly force, because that's what he was trying to do to her."

He added it's an example of the dangers police face while doing their job.

"And because of the scrutiny going on nationwide, there (are) officers second-guessing themselves," he said. "That’s what we don’t want.”

Charges are pending against the unidentified man who is accused of attacking the officers, according to police.

http://ktla.com/2016/10/07/chicago-cop-says-she-was-afraid-to-use-gun-while-being-severely-beaten/

 

[blastula]

That story is confusing. Were the other officers not there during the beating, or just standing around?

 

[Valjean]

What does this have to do with the Bureau of Land Management?

 

[Arctish]

What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?

Are they unable to grasp the concept? Are they simply unwilling to modify the category 'Things That Matter' to include the lives of black people? Do they like it when cops act like the lives of certain people don't matter? Or do they presume their lives matter to the cops, therefore whatever happens to other citizens won't happen to them?

WRT the cop in the OP story: if she wasn't convinced the guy posed an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked, she should not have shot him. If she was convinced he presented an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked and/or once he did attack, she should have used a taser, a nightstick, or her sidearm to stop him.

It sucks that he attacked her. It sucks that she was seriously injured and could have been killed. But it sucks more when cops shoot people needlessly because the cops aren't supposed to pose a lethal threat to civilians; they're here to protect and serve us, not kill us if we step out of line.

Not every case will present itself as a clear cut choice between 100% right and 100% wrong. Sometimes cops will have to guess, and no one wants them to guess wrong. But ffs, no one sensible wants to give the cops free rein to fire at will.

If #BLM has no other effect than to reduce needless killings of civilians by cops, then it's a worthwhile cause.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?

Are they unable to grasp the concept

The people who say "all lives matter" in response definitely miss the point.

 

[Axulus]

What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?

Are they unable to grasp the concept? Are they simply unwilling to modify the category 'Things That Matter' to include the lives of black people? Do they like it when cops act like the lives of certain people don't matter? Or do they presume their lives matter to the cops, therefore whatever happens to other citizens won't happen to them?

WRT the cop in the OP story: if she wasn't convinced the guy posed an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked, she should not have shot him. If she was convinced he presented an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked and/or once he did attack, she should have used a taser, a nightstick, or her sidearm to stop him.

It sucks that he attacked her. It sucks that she was seriously injured and could have been killed. But it sucks more when cops shoot people needlessly because the cops aren't supposed to pose a lethal threat to civilians; they're here to protect and serve us, not kill us if we step out of line.

Not ever case will present itself as a clear cut choice between 100% right and 100% wrong. Sometimes cops will have to guess, and no one wants them to guess wrong. But ffs, no one sensible wants to give the cops free rein to fire at will.

If #BLM has no other effect than to reduce needless killings of civilians by cops, then it's a worthwhile cause.

She knew he posed a threat but knew shooting him would make her life hell, so she was willing to risk death to prevent that.

Once your head is being slammed against the pavement very hard like that, it is pretty much too late at that point, you are dazed and confused. The time to act is before something like that happens.

The whole controversy is whether a lot of the killings that have happened are "needless" or whether they were to stop a legitimate threat.

We have three categories of cases:

-There was no threat and the cop shot the person anyway because they had it out for a black guy (extremely rare)
-The threat was minor and the cop made a bad decision in the heat of the moment because they perceived a threat, much like a surgeon has a slip of the knife and harms someone by mistake (not surprising that it would happen every now and again given 318 million people and about 1 million employed law enforcement)
-There is a legitimate threat and the cop acted in self defense (most common scenario)

Notice how the BLM movement rarely, if ever, distinguishes these types of cases. They rush to judge and condemn the cop before the facts are known. The end result is that more cops will be afraid to defend themselves and thus less shootings, but more dead and injured cops, and more bold attacks by criminals knowing more cops will be fearful to shoot. Yes, you will also reduce the mistakes that happen, but you will also discourage legitimate self defense putting far more cops in danger.

Where is the right balance? And who the hell would ever want to be a cop were perfection is demanded in dangerous situations, asking for something that isn't humanely possible in every single scenario.

 

[Arctish]

What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?

Are they unable to grasp the concept? Are they simply unwilling to modify the category 'Things That Matter' to include the lives of black people? Do they like it when cops act like the lives of certain people don't matter? Or do they presume their lives matter to the cops, therefore whatever happens to other citizens won't happen to them?

WRT the cop in the OP story: if she wasn't convinced the guy posed an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked, she should not have shot him. If she was convinced he presented an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked and/or once he did attack, she should have used a taser, a nightstick, or her sidearm to stop him.

It sucks that he attacked her. It sucks that she was seriously injured and could have been killed. But it sucks more when cops shoot people needlessly because the cops aren't supposed to pose a lethal threat to civilians; they're here to protect and serve us, not kill us if we step out of line.

Not ever case will present itself as a clear cut choice between 100% right and 100% wrong. Sometimes cops will have to guess, and no one wants them to guess wrong. But ffs, no one sensible wants to give the cops free rein to fire at will.

If #BLM has no other effect than to reduce needless killings of civilians by cops, then it's a worthwhile cause.

She knew he posed a threat but knew shooting him would make her life hell, so she was willing to risk death to prevent that.

She knew the guy posed an immediate threat to herself and others but she was willing to risk death rather than face possible criticism?

WTF is wrong with her? Whatever it is, she needs to re-think her chosen career path.

Once your head is being slammed against the pavement very hard like that, it is pretty much too late at that point, you are dazed and confused. The time to act is before something like that happens.

The whole controversy is whether a lot of the killings that have happened are "needless" or whether they were to stop a legitimate threat.

We have three categories of cases:

-There was no threat and the cop shot the person anyway because they had it out for a black guy (extremely rare)

FIFY.

No one here supposes the cops had it out for Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Walter Scott, Charles Kinsey, or the other unarmed persons they've shot.

In many recent cases there was no threat but the cops shot someone anyway, period.

-The threat was minor and the cop made a bad decision in the heat of the moment because they perceived a threat, much like a surgeon has a slip of the knife and harms someone by mistake (not surprising that it would happen every now and again given 318 million people and about 1 million employed law enforcement)
-There is a legitimate threat and the cop acted in self defense (most common scenario)

So we have:
1) unjustifiable shootings
2) mistakes and poor judgment leading to unjustifiable shootings
3) justifiable shootings

Notice how the BLM movement rarely, if ever, distinguishes these types of cases. They rush to judge and condemn the cop before the facts are known.

I note that shootings that appear to be unjustified are condemned. Sometimes new information becomes available that casts the shooting in a different light, but often they are exactly what they appear to be: cops using lethal force when it's not necessary.

Tamir Rice didn't pose a lethal threat to the cops who pulled up right in front of him and gunned him down in less than 2 seconds. John Crawford didn't pose a lethal threat to the cops who shot him on sight in the pet food section of a WalMart. Walter Scott didn't pose a lethal threat to the cop who shot him in the back as he ran away from a traffic stop. Charles Kinsey didn't pose a lethal threat as he lay on the ground trying to calm the autistic patient he was caring for. And yet they were all needlessly shot by cops as though their lives didn't matter.

It's up to the cops to explain to the public why they shoot people. If explanations aren't forthcoming, or if the given reasons aren't sufficient to justify a shooting, then the public should react negatively. We trust the cops to use the weapons we give them responsibly and in accordance with the law, not like a bunch of yahoos on Spring Break in Mogadishu.

The end result is that more cops will be afraid to defend themselves and thus less shootings, but more dead and injured cops, and more bold attacks by criminals knowing more cops will be fearful to shoot. Yes, you will also reduce the mistakes that happen, but you will also discourage legitimate self defense putting far more cops in danger.

Where is the right balance? And who the hell would ever want to be a cop were perfection is demanded in dangerous situations, asking for something that isn't humanely possible in every single scenario.

Perfection is not possible, and no reasonable person would demand it. But responsible gun use is possible, and we do demand it of our law enforcement officers. We also demand that they act as though our lives matter even if they, personally, don't agree.

 

[zorq]

It sounds to me like a just-so, post-hoc story to attack BLM to me. It just doesn't make sense. At the very least the story is incomplete.

Female police officer approaches a victim of a traffic accident. Does she detect danger in the situation and proceed anyway? Did she approach the dangerous situation with a weapon ready or was she unarmed? Or did the situation seem harmless and she was taken by surprise? Why did the attacker have free reign to beat this officer for 2 minutes? Was she unconscious the whole 2 minutes or was she debating with herself for 2 minutes about whether to use her firearm while this guy was pummeling her? If the attacker was ultimately suppressed with a taser and pepper-spray from a different officer, why are these officers arguing now that firearms should have been used?

It makes no sense without more details. And given the propensity for police to lie, I can't trust their account without something to corroborate their story.

 

[Axulus]

It sounds to me like a just-so, post-hoc story to attack BLM to me. It just doesn't make sense. At the very least the story is incomplete.

Female police officer approaches a victim of a traffic accident. Does she detect danger in the situation and proceed anyway? Did she approach the dangerous situation with a weapon ready or was she unarmed? Or did the situation seem harmless and she was taken by surprise? Why did the attacker have free reign to beat this officer for 2 minutes? Was she unconscious the whole 2 minutes or was she debating with herself for 2 minutes about whether to use her firearm while this guy was pummeling her? If the attacker was ultimately suppressed with a taser and pepper-spray from a different officer, why are these officers arguing now that firearms should have been used?

It makes no sense without more details. And given the propensity for police to lie, I can't trust their account without something to corroborate their story.

You do make some good points. I too would like a more comprehensive detail of the events that took place. However, is it really surprising that some officers might be second guessing themselves in situations where things can take a turn for the worst in an instant, and such second guessing would lead themselves to harm in a certain number of situations?

 

[laughing dog]

She knew he posed a threat but knew shooting him would make her life hell, so she was willing to risk death to prevent that. ..

Interestingly, no one got killed. What a tragedy.

 

[Axulus]

“We can’t have a Police Department that feels like it’s better for them to just drive in a community without stopping and stopping the gang-bangers and the drug dealers. That’s not good and healthy for the community. We need to give them support to do their job,” Emanuel said last month.

“Unless we change the narrative where our police are seen as being put on the defensive, we’re not gonna get where we need to be.”

Last fall, Emanuel contended during a closed-door meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and 20 big-city mayors and police chiefs that police officers across the nation were becoming “fetal” because they’re afraid their videotaped encounters with the public will end up on YouTube.

Less than two months later, the pullback by Chicago Police officers got dramatically worse, prompting a precipitous drop in police activity.

It happened after the court-ordered release of a video played around the world of white police officer Jason Van Dyke pumping 16 rounds into the body of black teenager Laquan McDonald. The video triggered a sweeping federal civil rights investigation of the Chicago Police Department.

In a commentary that appeared last month in the Wall Street Journal, Fraternal Order of Police President Dean Angelo was quoted as saying that, “The streets are gone” because police officers no longer believe that politicians and the public have their back.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/johnson-tells-scary-story-at-police-and-fire-awards-ceremony/

- - - Updated - - -

She knew he posed a threat but knew shooting him would make her life hell, so she was willing to risk death to prevent that. ..

Interestingly, no one got killed. What a tragedy.

The defensive posture of the police is a tragedy if you think black lives matter. Far more blacks have been murdered in 2015 and 2016 in Chicago than in previous years.

 

[laughing dog]

The defensive posture of the police is a tragedy if you think black lives matter. Far more blacks have been murdered in 2015 and 2016 than in previous years.

Two observations. First, no one got killed in this situation. That is a plus. Second, do you have an actual evidence that the increase in killings is due to some alleged "defensive" posturing by the police?

 

[Arctish]

“We can’t have a Police Department that feels like it’s better for them to just drive in a community without stopping and stopping the gang-bangers and the drug dealers. That’s not good and healthy for the community. We need to give them support to do their job,” Emanuel said last month.

“Unless we change the narrative where our police are seen as being put on the defensive, we’re not gonna get where we need to be.”

Last fall, Emanuel contended during a closed-door meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and 20 big-city mayors and police chiefs that police officers across the nation were becoming “fetal” because they’re afraid their videotaped encounters with the public will end up on YouTube.

Less than two months later, the pullback by Chicago Police officers got dramatically worse, prompting a precipitous drop in police activity.

It happened after the court-ordered release of a video played around the world of white police officer Jason Van Dyke pumping 16 rounds into the body of black teenager Laquan McDonald. The video triggered a sweeping federal civil rights investigation of the Chicago Police Department.

In a commentary that appeared last month in the Wall Street Journal, Fraternal Order of Police President Dean Angelo was quoted as saying that, “The streets are gone” because police officers no longer believe that politicians and the public have their back.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/johnson-tells-scary-story-at-police-and-fire-awards-ceremony/

- - - Updated - - -

She knew he posed a threat but knew shooting him would make her life hell, so she was willing to risk death to prevent that. ..

Interestingly, no one got killed. What a tragedy.

The defensive posture of the police is a tragedy if you think black lives matter. Far more blacks have been murdered in 2015 and 2016 in Chicago than in previous years.

What is the formal name of the fallacy where everything is presented as a choice between two extreme positions and one must choose one of them? The excluded middle fallacy?

The choice isn't between police having free rein to shoot anyone they choose without facing criticism or no policing at all. The change #BLM advocates and their allies want to see is police not shooting someone unless and until they have a reasonable belief that shooting him/her is the only way to prevent a worse outcome. They want the police to recognize that their lives and their civil rights matter, and to stop abusing them.

Last fall, Emanuel contended during a closed-door meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and 20 big-city mayors and police chiefs that police officers across the nation were becoming “fetal” because they’re afraid their videotaped encounters with the public will end up on YouTube.

Less than two months later, the pullback by Chicago Police officers got dramatically worse, prompting a precipitous drop in police activity.

It happened after the court-ordered release of a video played around the world of white police officer Jason Van Dyke pumping 16 rounds into the body of black teenager Laquan McDonald. The video triggered a sweeping federal civil rights investigation of the Chicago Police Department.

Is Emmanuel contending that police will become "fetal" unless they can murder people like Laquan MacDonald without anyone knowing about it? If so and if he's right, then it's time for us to get a new system of law enforcement 'cause the one we have right now is fubar.

 

[blastula]

The defensive posture of the police is a tragedy if you think black lives matter. Far more blacks have been murdered in 2015 and 2016 in Chicago than in previous years.

Non sequitur.

 

[Derec]

What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?

You do realize that there is a difference between that and the movement called "Black Lives Matter". Notice the capitalization. #BLM as a movement cares only about black people shot by police, and pretends that even justifiable shootings are "racist murders". Recall the rioting after Sylville Smith, an armed thug, was shot and killed.

Are they unable to grasp the concept? Are they simply unwilling to modify the category 'Things That Matter' to include the lives of black people?

You are assuming that that's not already the case.

Do they like it when cops act like the lives of certain people don't matter?

Do they? Police shoot white people too, including under questionable circumstances. The difference being, media does not make a huge deal out of it and there are no protests/riots/looting when police shoot somebody white.

It sucks that he attacked her. It sucks that she was seriously injured and could have been killed. But it sucks more when cops shoot people needlessly because the cops aren't supposed to pose a lethal threat to civilians; they're here to protect and serve us, not kill us if we step out of line.

The point is, had she shot him it would not have been "needless", but she hesitated because of #BLM and that could easily have cost her her life.

- - - Updated - - -

The people who say "all lives matter" in response definitely miss the point.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Derec]

She knew the guy posed an immediate threat to herself and others but she was willing to risk death rather than face possible criticism?

It's not just "possible criticism", it's death threats against her and her family, it's rioting in the streets, it's possibility of being railroaded by the DA to appease said rioters.

WTF is wrong with her? Whatever it is, she needs to re-think her chosen career path.

Unfortunately, in light of all the damage #BLM is doing, I am sure many police officers and prospective police officers are doing just that.

No one here supposes the cops had it out for Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Walter Scott, Charles Kinsey, or the other unarmed persons they've shot.

Maybe not "here", but #BLMers are in the habit of calling police who shoot black suspects "racist murderers", implying just that.

So we have:
1) unjustifiable shootings
2) mistakes and poor judgment leading to unjustifiable shootings
3) justifiable shootings

And likelihood of #BLMers rioting is unrelated to which category a shooting falls in. For example, shooting of Sylville Smith was clearly in group 3), and yet #BLMers rioted.

I note that shootings that appear to be unjustified are condemned. Sometimes new information becomes available that casts the shooting in a different light, but often they are exactly what they appear to be: cops using lethal force when it's not necessary.

Sometimes #BLMers rush to judgment and do not allow an investigation to proceed before they condemn the shooting. That is the case for example with Michael Brown, which caused arsons and rioting in Ferguson (#BLM's coming out party) even before anybody knew what actually happened. Same goes for Keith Lamont Scott, whose death caused rioting in Charlotte because the family spread a false narrative ("he had a book, not a gun") and the rioters did not want to wait for the actual investigation to be completed.

Tamir Rice didn't pose a lethal threat to the cops who pulled up right in front of him and gunned him down in less than 2 seconds. John Crawford didn't pose a lethal threat to the cops who shot him on sight in the pet food section of a WalMart.

Note that neither of these caused rioting. Michael Brown, Jamar Clark, Freddie Grey etc. did.
I will not rehash these cases again, except to add that both are tragic instances where many things played together to create the tragic situation.

Walter Scott didn't pose a lethal threat to the cop who shot him in the back as he ran away from a traffic stop.

Note that the cop in question is being tried for 2nd degree murder. Seems like black lives do matter after all.

Charles Kinsey didn't pose a lethal threat as he lay on the ground trying to calm the autistic patient he was caring for.

Has it been established that the cop was aiming at him and not the (white) patient?

It's up to the cops to explain to the public why they shoot people. If explanations aren't forthcoming, or if the given reasons aren't sufficient to justify a shooting, then the public should react negatively.

Public should react negatively? Is that what you really said? Negatively, now? Like this?

Or this?

Or this?

The problem is that investigations take time and police are bound by laws regulating when they can release information. In the meantime, family and others can lie without restrictions, be it "hands up don't shoot" or "he had a book, not a gun". As Mark Twain supposedly said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"

We trust the cops to use the weapons we give them responsibly and in accordance with the law, not like a bunch of yahoos on Spring Break in Mogadishu.

I did not know Mogadishu was a hot Spring Break destination.

Perfection is not possible, and no reasonable person would demand it.

Well, #BLMers certainly aren't reasonable.

But responsible gun use is possible, and we do demand it of our law enforcement officers. We also demand that they act as though our lives matter even if they, personally, don't agree.

Police lives matter too. And no police officer should have to expose themselves to undue danger just to avoid #BLM backlash that happens when a black suspect is shot.

 

[Derec]

The change #BLM advocates and their allies want to see is police not shooting someone unless and until they have a reasonable belief that shooting him/her is the only way to prevent a worse outcome.

Bullshit. They support black perps even when the shooting is justified. Just look at Patrisse Cullors,one of #BLM founders, and Melina Abdullah, a professor (showing just how low US academia has sank) and #BLM organizer, attacking LAPD over shooting of armed perp Carnell Snell. Abdullah even said that releasing information about Snell, such as that he was armed with a gun, is "character assassination".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?

Are they unable to grasp the concept? Are they simply unwilling to modify the category 'Things That Matter' to include the lives of black people? Do they like it when cops act like the lives of certain people don't matter? Or do they presume their lives matter to the cops, therefore whatever happens to other citizens won't happen to them?

WRT the cop in the OP story: if she wasn't convinced the guy posed an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked, she should not have shot him. If she was convinced he presented an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked and/or once he did attack, she should have used a taser, a nightstick, or her sidearm to stop him.

It sucks that he attacked her. It sucks that she was seriously injured and could have been killed. But it sucks more when cops shoot people needlessly because the cops aren't supposed to pose a lethal threat to civilians; they're here to protect and serve us, not kill us if we step out of line.

Not every case will present itself as a clear cut choice between 100% right and 100% wrong. Sometimes cops will have to guess, and no one wants them to guess wrong. But ffs, no one sensible wants to give the cops free rein to fire at will.

If #BLM has no other effect than to reduce needless killings of civilians by cops, then it's a worthwhile cause.

Given her injuries, shooting was the appropriate course of action. She's lucky she survived. But she's just a cop, her life doesn't matter, does it?

 

[Elixir]

Just look at Patrisse Cullors,one of #BLM founders, and Melina Abdullah,

You should get teh Donald to grab them by the pussy, Derec. THAT would teach 'em not to be so uppity!

 

[repoman]

Derec, your absence in the Trump hot mic thread has been questioned. Just giving you a heads up.