Stephon Clark killed by Sacramento police - he was in his own family's backyard

[Gun Nut]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You missed the category of person called "Suspect". You are correct that all people are presumed innocent... and the part you missed is the part that goes... until there is probable cause to suspect the person has broken or is breaking the law... that is called a Suspect. Cops shoot Suspects that are perceived to be a danger to others. They don't shoot "civilians"... they don't shoot convicted crimminals... they potentially shoot Suspects.

 

[laughing dog]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You missed the category of person called "Suspect". You are correct that all people are presumed innocent... and the part you missed is the part that goes... until there is probable cause to suspect the person has broken or is breaking the law... that is called a Suspect. Cops shoot Suspects that are perceived to be a danger to others. They don't shoot "civilians"... they don't shoot convicted crimminals... they potentially shoot Suspects.

Suspects are civilians.

 

[Gun Nut]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You missed the category of person called "Suspect". You are correct that all people are presumed innocent... and the part you missed is the part that goes... until there is probable cause to suspect the person has broken or is breaking the law... that is called a Suspect. Cops shoot Suspects that are perceived to be a danger to others. They don't shoot "civilians"... they don't shoot convicted crimminals... they potentially shoot Suspects.

Suspects are civilians.

correct, but I was using the word as you did... someone that has presumption of innocence... I don't have a word for that... what do YOU call a non-criminal civilian? I just call them people.
edited to add... maybe call them, "persons of interest", or "detainees", or "bystanders"?

 

[Gun Nut]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You realize that the laws for what counts a sufficient threat for civilians to shoot is the same as for cops? They have a reasonable belief someone is pulling a gun on them to shoot them, they can shoot and face only civil penalties if it turns out it wasn't a gun.

Where the laws differ is a matter of what came before. A civilian who initiates the confrontation isn't allowed to shoot even in a clearly deadly threat. (You start using someone as a punching bag, they pull a gun on you--they can pull the trigger with impunity, you would be guilty of murder if you shot them instead.) Cops do not have this restriction as most such situations will arise when they confront a criminal.

That differs from State to State... but you are mostly correct... it is not self defense if you start the fight. However, if you make efforts to disengage from the fight and the other continues aggression, then the situation is "reset", in that they become the aggressor. So, in your example were the initial victim pulls out a gun, if the initial aggressor backs down, then deadly force is no longer justified.
Just because someone shoves you and says they are going to kick your ass does not mean deadly force is justified. There is a concept called "force multiplier" that is used to determine if deadly force was justified in an otherwise hand-to-hand situation. Who is trained to fight? who is larger than who? how many people on either side of the altercation? How easy would it have been to retreat?
Don't shoot people. Learn to deescalate / evade. Shooting is for those cornered or protecting someone else from deadly force. You can't shoot someone that is already pointing a gun at you... that's just suicide.

 

[laughing dog]

Suspects are civilians.

correct, but I was using the word as you did... someone that has presumption of innocence... I don't have a word for that... what do YOU call a non-criminal civilian? I just call them people.
edited to add... maybe call them, "persons of interest", or "detainees", or "bystanders"?

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

 

[Derec]

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

It depends. Unarmed does not mean that the person is not a threat. For example, if an unarmed suspect attacks a police officer, he can take control of the officer's gun.
Then there is the situation like with Stephon Clark, where he led the police on a chase in the dark, turned around and advanced and pulled out an object.
In this case, the concatenation of circumstances led to a reasonable belief by police that the suspect had a gun. They had no time to confirm 100% that it was a gun - they had to act in the moment, as opposed to all the Monday morning quarterbacks. The shooting is still justified.

 

[laughing dog]

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

It depends. Unarmed does not mean that the person is not a threat. For example, if an unarmed suspect attacks a police officer, he can take control of the officer's gun.
Then there is the situation like with Stephon Clark, where he led the police on a chase in the dark, turned around and advanced and pulled out an object.
In this case, the concatenation of circumstances led to a reasonable belief by police that the suspect had a gun. They had no time to confirm 100% that it was a gun - they had to act in the moment, as opposed to all the Monday morning quarterbacks. The shooting is still justified.

Shooting Mr. Clark who posed no threat to anyone and who was unarmed - any civilized society would find that wrong and that his death was wrongful.

 

[Derec]

Shooting Mr. Clark who posed no threat to anyone and who was unarmed - any civilized society would find that wrong and that his death was wrongful.

Again, police can only be judged on what they knew at the time. Stephon led police on a chase in the dark, he pulled out a shiny object, and he turned around and advanced.
Had he acted differently in any of these points, he would highly likely still be alive. Back in prison most likely, but alive. His death is on his own hands. Police didn't do anything wrong here.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Police didn't do anything wrong here.

Police could have shot this guy in the head while he was unarmed, lying on the ground and you'd still say police did nothing wrong.

 

[bilby]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You realize that the laws for what counts a sufficient threat for civilians to shoot is the same as for cops?

In the sane 95% of the world, civilians are not expected to shoot at all. The laws in the US with regards to firearms are all batshit crazy - so why should my opinion about police behaviour take account of laws that I strongly believe to be in dire need of change? The law is not a guide to morality - it's meant to be the other way around.

They have a reasonable belief someone is pulling a gun on them to shoot them, they can shoot and face only civil penalties if it turns out it wasn't a gun.

I know. That's fucking dumb. Killing people should not be permitted to be a routine part of police work.

Where the laws differ is a matter of what came before. A civilian who initiates the confrontation isn't allowed to shoot even in a clearly deadly threat. (You start using someone as a punching bag, they pull a gun on you--they can pull the trigger with impunity, you would be guilty of murder if you shot them instead.) Cops do not have this restriction as most such situations will arise when they confront a criminal.

None of that has any relevance to my post.

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

Police should take drastic steps, including putting their own lives at risk, to avoid killing civilians. The mere suspicions of the police are insufficient grounds for summary executions. That makes policing a dangerous job - but I am completely fine with the idea that policing is a dangerous job. It's not the only dangerous job, and nobody is forced to take that job if they don't want to face a degree of risk.

If the law doesn't reflect that moral position, then the law needs to change.

 

[bilby]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You missed the category of person called "Suspect". You are correct that all people are presumed innocent... and the part you missed is the part that goes... until there is probable cause to suspect the person has broken or is breaking the law... that is called a Suspect. Cops shoot Suspects that are perceived to be a danger to others. They don't shoot "civilians"... they don't shoot convicted crimminals... they potentially shoot Suspects.

Suspects are a subset of civilians, not a subset of criminals. The only way for a suspect to become a criminal is via a court of law. Suspects have the exact same rights as other civilians. Including the right to be protected and served by the police.

That the number of innocent civilians killed by police (who categorize them as 'suspects') is FAR too high in the US can be easily seen by comparing the proportion of such of killings in the US with the proportion in other jurisdictions. In the rest of the world, it is not a routine matter for suspects to be killed by cops. If the rest of the world can arrest and bring to trial these suspects, then so could the USA, if only they would stop summarily executing them instead.

Judge Dredd is intended as a satire, not a 'how to' guide.

 

[laughing dog]

Shooting Mr. Clark who posed no threat to anyone and who was unarmed - any civilized society would find that wrong and that his death was wrongful.

Again, police can only be judged on what they knew at the time.

I think you mean police should only be judged on what they reasonably should have known at the time. Otherwise, ignorant police could never be judged under your standard.

Stephon led police on a chase in the dark, he pulled out a shiny object, and he turned around and advanced.
Had he acted differently in any of these points, he would highly likely still be alive. Back in prison most likely, but alive. His death is on his own hands. Police didn't do anything wrong here.

If the police had not gunned down this unarmed man, he'd most likely be alive today. It is logically idiotic to claim that his death is on his own hands since he literally did not kill himself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You mean the cops will magically bring people back to life?

Because the number of unarmed people shot by the cops is very low. To make a large reduction in the number would have to make it negative.

Must you twist everything? Clearly the large reduction is in relation to the total.

No, because the obvious thing to measure it against is the number of people killed by cops. Most of them are clear enough that even BLM can't find a way to blame the cops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You realize that the laws for what counts a sufficient threat for civilians to shoot is the same as for cops? They have a reasonable belief someone is pulling a gun on them to shoot them, they can shoot and face only civil penalties if it turns out it wasn't a gun.

Where the laws differ is a matter of what came before. A civilian who initiates the confrontation isn't allowed to shoot even in a clearly deadly threat. (You start using someone as a punching bag, they pull a gun on you--they can pull the trigger with impunity, you would be guilty of murder if you shot them instead.) Cops do not have this restriction as most such situations will arise when they confront a criminal.

That differs from State to State... but you are mostly correct... it is not self defense if you start the fight. However, if you make efforts to disengage from the fight and the other continues aggression, then the situation is "reset", in that they become the aggressor. So, in your example were the initial victim pulls out a gun, if the initial aggressor backs down, then deadly force is no longer justified.
Just because someone shoves you and says they are going to kick your ass does not mean deadly force is justified. There is a concept called "force multiplier" that is used to determine if deadly force was justified in an otherwise hand-to-hand situation. Who is trained to fight? who is larger than who? how many people on either side of the altercation? How easy would it have been to retreat?
Don't shoot people. Learn to deescalate / evade. Shooting is for those cornered or protecting someone else from deadly force. You can't shoot someone that is already pointing a gun at you... that's just suicide.

Using someone as a punching bag implies they aren't able to meaningfully defend themselves hand to hand. Punching bags simply take hits, they don't block, dodge or fight back. And when you're at hand-to-hand range retreat isn't a meaningful option.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suspects are civilians.

correct, but I was using the word as you did... someone that has presumption of innocence... I don't have a word for that... what do YOU call a non-criminal civilian? I just call them people.
edited to add... maybe call them, "persons of interest", or "detainees", or "bystanders"?

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

Note that "unarmed" includes those with fake weapons. A sniper takes down a hostage-taker with a fake bomb and it's an "unarmed" shooting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the sane 95% of the world, civilians are not expected to shoot at all. The laws in the US with regards to firearms are all batshit crazy - so why should my opinion about police behaviour take account of laws that I strongly believe to be in dire need of change? The law is not a guide to morality - it's meant to be the other way around.

While in most of the world civilians will not have access to guns the same concept applies. Most of the world was outraged at the woman in Iran who was sentenced to death (I'm not sure if she was executed or not) for the woman who accidentally killed her would-be rapist.

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

Police should take drastic steps, including putting their own lives at risk, to avoid killing civilians. The mere suspicions of the police are insufficient grounds for summary executions. That makes policing a dangerous job - but I am completely fine with the idea that policing is a dangerous job. It's not the only dangerous job, and nobody is forced to take that job if they don't want to face a degree of risk.

If the law doesn't reflect that moral position, then the law needs to change.

Are you completely fine with a society in which the criminals are in basically complete control? Because that's what you're asking for.

You look down at the number of people killed here--ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the dead are criminals. We look down at the risk to the average person in societies such as yours. The average person here is safer than in places where the criminals don't fear the law abiding.

 

[laughing dog]

You mean the cops will magically bring people back to life?

Because the number of unarmed people shot by the cops is very low. To make a large reduction in the number would have to make it negative.

Must you twist everything? Clearly the large reduction is in relation to the total.

No, because the obvious thing to measure it against is the number of people killed by cops...

No, because that includes people who are armed and dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

Note that "unarmed" includes those with fake weapons. A sniper takes down a hostage-taker with a fake bomb and it's an "unarmed" shooting.

For some reason, you feel that is relevant because once again you feel the need to have twist everything. The context of this discussion is not hostage takers. Tamir Rice had a toy weapon and he died a wrongful death.

 

[bilby]

While in most of the world civilians will not have access to guns the same concept applies. Most of the world was outraged at the woman in Iran who was sentenced to death (I'm not sure if she was executed or not) for the woman who accidentally killed her would-be rapist.

Police should take drastic steps, including putting their own lives at risk, to avoid killing civilians. The mere suspicions of the police are insufficient grounds for summary executions. That makes policing a dangerous job - but I am completely fine with the idea that policing is a dangerous job. It's not the only dangerous job, and nobody is forced to take that job if they don't want to face a degree of risk.

If the law doesn't reflect that moral position, then the law needs to change.

Are you completely fine with a society in which the criminals are in basically complete control? Because that's what you're asking for.

Really??
You think that criminals are in complete control in the UK, Germany, Sweden, Australia?

Because all of these nations (and plenty more) are exactly as I describe.

You look down at the number of people killed here--ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the dead are criminals. We look down at the risk to the average person in societies such as yours. The average person here is safer than in places where the criminals don't fear the law abiding.

That's utter horseshit. All of the nations I listed above are safe places with low levels of crime. And there are literally dozens of others I could have included. None are significantly more dangerous than the USA. All have very low levels of police shootings of civilians, compared to the USA, and in none is a shooting by a police officer considered a routine or casually accepted event in the way that it is in the USA.

 

[marc]

Note that "unarmed" includes those with fake weapons. A sniper takes down a hostage-taker with a fake bomb and it's an "unarmed" shooting.

For some reason, you feel that is relevant because once again you feel the need to have twist everything. The context of this discussion is not hostage takers. Tamir Rice had a toy weapon and he died a wrongful death.

I know of two incidents with fake weapons. One was Tamir Rice, who wasn't even holding the toy when he was shot, and the other was John Crawford, who was holding a BB rifle in an nonthreatening way, that he got in that store with the intent to buy it. A far cry from the 'fake bomb hostage' scenario. And those are the incidents with fake weapons. Most of these stories the person was not holding any type of fake weapon (cell phone, wallet) and certainly not pretending they were a real weapon.

But none of that matters. If the victim had a fake weapon then the cops are not blamed because they couldn't take the time to see if it was real. If the victim was holding something that wasn't a fake weapon, then the cops are not blamed because they couldn't take the time to see if the person was actually armed or any kind of threat at all. If the victim had nothing in their hands at all then the cops are not blamed because the person 'could have overpowered the cops and taken their gun'.

I forget, did they also defend the cop who shot the guy laying on the ground with his hands in the air to show he was unarmed?

 

[J842P]

Note that "unarmed" includes those with fake weapons. A sniper takes down a hostage-taker with a fake bomb and it's an "unarmed" shooting.

For some reason, you feel that is relevant because once again you feel the need to have twist everything. The context of this discussion is not hostage takers. Tamir Rice had a toy weapon and he died a wrongful death.

I know of two incidents with fake weapons. One was Tamir Rice, who wasn't even holding the toy when he was shot, and the other was John Crawford, who was holding a BB rifle in an nonthreatening way, that he got in that store with the intent to buy it. A far cry from the 'fake bomb hostage' scenario. And those are the incidents with fake weapons. Most of these stories the person was not holding any type of fake weapon (cell phone, wallet) and certainly not pretending they were a real weapon.

But none of that matters. If the victim had a fake weapon then the cops are not blamed because they couldn't take the time to see if it was real. If the victim was holding something that wasn't a fake weapon, then the cops are not blamed because they couldn't take the time to see if the person was actually armed or any kind of threat at all. If the victim had nothing in their hands at all then the cops are not blamed because the person 'could have overpowered the cops and taken their gun'.

I forget, did they also defend the cop who shot the guy laying on the ground with his hands in the air to show he was unarmed?

Yes, Loren defended that. And so did a few other "libertarians."