Police Shooting and Body Cameras

[RavenSky]

Now that we have an example of a body camera capturing a shooting from start to finish, does this change any viewpoints? This escalated quickly - but not by the officer. A gun was recovered.

I think something needs to be said here... most of the complaints about the recent shootings... involved people who were NOT armed with a gun. If someone has a gun, that raises a lot of complications. But for the most part the complaints have nearly been exclusively cases where unarmed people were shot and killed by Officers.

^^^ That

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At the moment he picks up his gun he's facing in the officer's direction (remember, if you drop something while running it's going to end up behind you, you'll have to turn around to recover it) but looking down at the weapon he was recovering. At that point had he decided to shoot he almost certainly would have gotten off the first shot. As it happened he rose and turned rather than simply rising but the shoot decision was made before the cop could see he was turning.

We don't know when the "shoot decision" was made. For all we knew the officer could have decided to shoot way before the suspect dropped his weapon. We aren't mind readers.

I agree that the "grab turn and run" action the suspect performed could easily have been a "grab aim and shoot" motion instead. And I agree that the two actions would have taken roughly the same amount of time which is why I described the situation as a "judgement call" for the officer whether to shoot or not shoot.

I still contend that the suspect never actually threatened the officer in the video and all 5 shots were fired at the suspect's back.

Why in the world should we think the shoot decision was made at any time other than the obvious point for it??

 

[Valjean]

What was the obvious point?
Isn't the decision made the instant before the trigger's pulled? Aren't officers trained with shoot-no shoot simulations to make quick threat assessments?

It still looks to me like the suspect was fleeing at the time he was shot. If the officer had enough time to take aim and hit the man, didn't he have enough time to notice he was aiming at the back of a fleeing target?

 

[Trausti]

What was the obvious point?
Isn't the decision made the instant before the trigger's pulled? Aren't officers trained with shoot-no shoot simulations to make quick threat assessments?

It still looks to me like the suspect was fleeing at the time he was shot. If the officer had enough time to take aim and hit the man, didn't he have enough time to notice he was aiming at the back of a fleeing target?

So the officer is just supposed to keep running after him until he turns and shoots? What about the people in that car? A fleeing suspect with a gun is risk to the public. If the police let suspects with guns run away, they'd be promptly criticized for incompetence when a bystander is injured or killed by the suspect.

 

[Valjean]

We don't even know what this suspect is suspected of. Felonious running away, perhaps?
The gun, I think, was discovered subsequent to the initiation of the chase. It might not even be admissible as evidence if the pursuit is ruled improper.
You can't just gun down everyone whom you judge suspicious or dangerous. Would you prefer to live in a police state? They're very orderly and safe, I hear.

 

[RavenSky]

What was the obvious point?
Isn't the decision made the instant before the trigger's pulled? Aren't officers trained with shoot-no shoot simulations to make quick threat assessments?

It still looks to me like the suspect was fleeing at the time he was shot. If the officer had enough time to take aim and hit the man, didn't he have enough time to notice he was aiming at the back of a fleeing target?

So the officer is just supposed to keep running after him until he turns and shoots? What about the people in that car? A fleeing suspect with a gun is risk to the public. If the police let suspects with guns run away, they'd be promptly criticized for incompetence when a bystander is injured or killed by the suspect.

So why didn't police kill everyone at the Bundy ranch?

 

[Will Wiley]

Now that we have an example of a body camera capturing a shooting from start to finish, does this change any viewpoints? This escalated quickly - but not by the officer. A gun was recovered.

Yep. We should ban cops from weddings.

 

[Will Wiley]

Something to keep in mind for those playing Monday morning quarterback:

Look at that video, see how fast the situation changed. He was chasing a suspect, at the time he didn't consider it a dangerous situation, his gun wasn't out. The guy drops his gun, turns around for it and suddenly it's a life-or-death situation. It turns out the guy was a monumental idiot who at least at that time wasn't gunning for the cop but the shoot/don't-shoot decision had to be made before the cop saw what he was doing with the gun beyond simply looking at the officer.

The cop caused the problem . He should have let the guy run away. It was none of the cops business if the guy wants to run from him.
"Why are you shaking boy"? The cop says. Then runs after him and can't wait to find an excuse to shoot him. That's what I saw

 

[arkirk]

I think something needs to be said here... most of the complaints about the recent shootings... involved people who were NOT armed with a gun. If someone has a gun, that raises a lot of complications. But for the most part the complaints have nearly been exclusively cases where unarmed people were shot and killed by Officers.

The one under discussion involved a gun although the guy didn't get his hands on his gun.

The case before it involved an attempt to grab an officer's gun.

Your world revolves around guns doesn't it? You know all about guns and always defend the cops and apple pie. It looks like this guy and the running guy both were buzzed on adrenalin. The guy was "an idiot" because he wasn't thinking straight. You wave your hands and make your point...them darkies do carry guns. This is just one guy in hundreds of incidents...and the grainy video really was not conclusive even at that. Your logic always starts at the end of a conflict. We know the guy dropped something and picked it up, then resumed running. Loren will tell you how lightning fast things happen in a cop's life. Like how fast black people seem to die for one false step. I agree this video looks fairly convincing the guy could justify what he did. Add to that...so what. I feel none of us say the cops are ALWAYS WRONG. It appears he was doing his job.

Reading Loren's triumphalism of a cop finally killing someone right, my mind seemed to wander back to the cops on the NY sidewalk strangling the black guy...no guns involved. They may get something occasionally right, but it in no way justifies the wrong they do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What was the obvious point?
Isn't the decision made the instant before the trigger's pulled? Aren't officers trained with shoot-no shoot simulations to make quick threat assessments?

It still looks to me like the suspect was fleeing at the time he was shot. If the officer had enough time to take aim and hit the man, didn't he have enough time to notice he was aiming at the back of a fleeing target?

Humans don't react instantly. It's about a second from observation to action. That's enough time for the guy to turn and continue to run.

 

[dystopian]

Humans don't react instantly. It's about a second from observation to action. That's enough time for the guy to turn and continue to run.

And that somehow justifies shooting people? They *might* run? They *might* pull a gun? Take no chances, shoot first? What terrifying paranoia, that which brings on such demented justifications.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Humans don't react instantly. It's about a second from observation to action. That's enough time for the guy to turn and continue to run.

And that somehow justifies shooting people? They *might* run? They *might* pull a gun? Take no chances, shoot first? What terrifying paranoia, that which brings on such demented justifications.

In the real world we don't have perfect knowledge. An argument for perfect knowledge before defending oneself effectively means you're not allowed to defend yourself, period.

 

[laughing dog]

And that somehow justifies shooting people? They *might* run? They *might* pull a gun? Take no chances, shoot first? What terrifying paranoia, that which brings on such demented justifications.

In the real world we don't have perfect knowledge. An argument for perfect knowledge before defending oneself effectively means you're not allowed to defend yourself, period.

First. it is not an argument for perfect knowledge, it is an argument for basic human reasoning. Second, your "reasoning" justifies any shooting on the defense of "well, I thought he/she was going to kill me" regardless of the circumtances.

 

[Valjean]

What was the obvious point?
Isn't the decision made the instant before the trigger's pulled? Aren't officers trained with shoot-no shoot simulations to make quick threat assessments?

It still looks to me like the suspect was fleeing at the time he was shot. If the officer had enough time to take aim and hit the man, didn't he have enough time to notice he was aiming at the back of a fleeing target?

Humans don't react instantly. It's about a second from observation to action. That's enough time for the guy to turn and continue to run.

He had enough time to aim, taking the suspect's speed and trajectory into consideration and hit a fleeing suspect.
You're saying that noticing that a suspect is running away takes more time than aiming and firing at said suspect, which necessarily requires taking his speed and trajectory into consideration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the real world we don't have perfect knowledge. An argument for perfect knowledge before defending oneself effectively means you're not allowed to defend yourself, period.

First. it is not an argument for perfect knowledge, it is an argument for basic human reasoning. Second, your "reasoning" justifies any shooting on the defense of "well, I thought he/she was going to kill me" regardless of the circumtances.

No, you are arguing that if it's not categorically certain that he intends to harm you that you can't defend yourself. If guns are involved that means you let him shoot first--and you're probably dead.

- - - Updated - - -

Humans don't react instantly. It's about a second from observation to action. That's enough time for the guy to turn and continue to run.

He had enough time to aim, taking the suspect's speed and trajectory into consideration and hit a fleeing suspect.
You're saying that noticing that a suspect is running away takes more time than aiming and firing at said suspect, which necessarily requires taking his speed and trajectory into consideration.

One is decision making, one is basically reflex.

 

[arkirk]

What was the obvious point?
Isn't the decision made the instant before the trigger's pulled? Aren't officers trained with shoot-no shoot simulations to make quick threat assessments?

It still looks to me like the suspect was fleeing at the time he was shot. If the officer had enough time to take aim and hit the man, didn't he have enough time to notice he was aiming at the back of a fleeing target?

Humans don't react instantly. It's about a second from observation to action. That's enough time for the guy to turn and continue to run.

The bullet went in the guy's BACK, Loren. He didn't shoot early enough to call it self defense. He had already started to run away. We never saw if what he dropped was a gun. The cops talked about a gun. This also is no lily pure example of intrinsically correct action. The truth is that there are many threats to kill that are called into police departments all over the country and the usual answer is "We can't do anything till he tries." A rich guy calls the cops and they get, "Yessir! We're on it!" It really is the lack of conflict resolution protocols for cops in the first place. That endangers cops too, you know!