Teen shot 7 times and killed by police officer - ruled "justified" of course

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you have fur?

No, then you must be a bird.

How long is your wing span?

She's the one with the bad logic.

- - - Updated - - -

why people conclude there’s a fight; the mind tends to fill in the blanks of what’s not known with easy answers. But skepticism requires people to not do that.

Do you accept these as facts:

1) The officer seems level headed and to be conducting a fairly routine traffic stop
2) The kid is not cooperative in the traffic stop
3) The kid was told to be lying on the ground
4) At some point after that he is on video on his feet coming at the officer swinging his arms
5) The camera breaks
6) The officers face is beaten up
7) The kid ends up shot

One possible explanation for this is that the officer shot the kid in self defense. Indeed this is the officer's explanation.

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

Putting on your nicest skeptic hat, what are the other possibilities that you feel fit the evidence better?

Exactly. I'm looking for the most likely scenario rather than the scenario that fits some particular desired outcome.

 

[Toni]

But you are assuming without evidence that the cop was "attacked".

This is only true if you ignore the video evidence. There is a link to the video in the OP.

Which does not show an attack.

Nor does it show a clenched fist or an arm cocked to throw a punch.

Frost's injury to his forehead is not consistent with being punched. The black eye might be. Taken together, they seem much more consistent with heads cracking together. I know: I accidentally gave someone a black eye that way when our heads collided horsing around.

It could have been intentional or it could have been an accident, which makes sense if Deven were dosoriented and unsteady on his feet after being tased.

- - - Updated - - -

How long is your wing span?

She's the one with the bad logic.

- - - Updated - - -

why people conclude there’s a fight; the mind tends to fill in the blanks of what’s not known with easy answers. But skepticism requires people to not do that.

Do you accept these as facts:

1) The officer seems level headed and to be conducting a fairly routine traffic stop
2) The kid is not cooperative in the traffic stop
3) The kid was told to be lying on the ground
4) At some point after that he is on video on his feet coming at the officer swinging his arms
5) The camera breaks
6) The officers face is beaten up
7) The kid ends up shot

One possible explanation for this is that the officer shot the kid in self defense. Indeed this is the officer's explanation.

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

Putting on your nicest skeptic hat, what are the other possibilities that you feel fit the evidence better?

Exactly. I'm looking for the most likely scenario rather than the scenario that fits some particular desired outcome.

Me, too.

Apparently you don't care enough to actually watch the video, though.

 

[TSwizzle]

This is only true if you ignore the video evidence. There is a link to the video in the OP.

Which does not show an attack.

Yes it does.

 

[Toni]

Which does not show an attack.

Yes it does.

Please give a time stamp. I don't see what you see. Maybe I am looking at the wrong thing.

I see no fist, no arm cocked. An arm perhaps flailing but not throwing a punch.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes it does.

Please give a time stamp. I don't see what you see. Maybe I am looking at the wrong thing.

I see no fist, no arm cocked. An arm perhaps flailing but not throwing a punch.

You know fine well where the attack happens, you just choose not acknowledge it. "an arm perhaps flailing".

Perhaps indeed.

Jog on.

 

[Toni]

Please give a time stamp. I don't see what you see. Maybe I am looking at the wrong thing.

I see no fist, no arm cocked. An arm perhaps flailing but not throwing a punch.

You know fine well where the attack happens, you just choose not acknowledge it. "an arm perhaps flailing".

Perhaps indeed.

Jog on.

So you didn't watch the video either.

Got it.

 

[TSwizzle]

You know fine well where the attack happens, you just choose not acknowledge it. "an arm perhaps flailing".

Perhaps indeed.

Jog on.

So you didn't watch the video either.

Is this an admission you didn't watch the video ?

"perhaps a flailing arm" LOL !

 

[Toni]

So you didn't watch the video either.

Is this an admission you didn't watch the video ?

"perhaps a flailing arm" LOL !

I mean neither you nor Loren seem to have actually watched the video.

But maybe I am wrong. What is the time stamp where the kid throws a punch?

 

[abaddon]

why people conclude there’s a fight; the mind tends to fill in the blanks of what’s not known with easy answers. But skepticism requires people to not do that.

Do you accept these as facts:

1) The officer seems level headed and to be conducting a fairly routine traffic stop
2) The kid is not cooperative in the traffic stop
3) The kid was told to be lying on the ground
4) At some point after that he is on video on his feet coming at the officer swinging his arms
5) The camera breaks
6) The officers face is beaten up
7) The kid ends up shot

Not all, no. And the context that the "facts" are stripped from matters too. Regarding #1: Yes, on the face of it. But to give the fact its context, Sgt Frost seems hellbent to prove a point about his high beams. A clearthinking non-belligent non-asshole would have been doing something about his headlights since he knew he was distressing other drivers, possibly endangering their safety. That was more important than any other concern (unless he got a call about a serious crime in progress, something superseding the menace he himself presented to his community that evening). So, the context of the fact is that Frost should have been doing his community a better service than he was that evening.
2) Yes
3) Yes, and he complied immediately once the officer finally clarified that “on the ground” meant “on your belly”.
4) No. I see his right arm seemingly reaching up and outward and it looks like the palm is wide open and not a fist. Maybe he’s reaching to grab the officer but I don't know and no one else does either.
5) I don’t know at what point the camera broke.
6) Yes, somewhat beaten, from whatever cause, probably from getting punched a few times but I don't know and no one else does either.
7) The kid ends up shot - Yes.

One possible explanation for this is that the officer shot the kid in self defense. Indeed this is the officer's explanation.

Yes, that’s one POSSIBLE explanation.

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

Yes, exactly.

Putting on your nicest skeptic hat, what are the other possibilities that you feel fit the evidence better?

None. I don’t know what happened. I think the most likely thing is there was a scuffle of some sort. But I’ll offer another possibility that fits the evidence too. Maybe Deven’s raised armed with open palm reaching out was to push the officer aside, the officer grabbed Deven, they tumbled, the officer smacked his face on the ground in the fall and then he started shooting whether being attacked or not. I know of no good reason to believe anything the officer says.

My interest is poking holes in the "it's justified" people's certainties. I inserted a "should" or two into my answer and I'll explain why I think finding a lesson in this incident matters more than merely trying to settle "facts":

Arguing for the horrific status quo in America, rather than arguing for something better than it, helps no one. It serves a bad cause. And that's the effect of siding with the police whenever they kill somebody though their behavior is questionable. Very often, when the police shootings of civilians are argued, people say “They both could have made better choices”. That apparently is meant to convey “It’s sad but there it is, c’est la vie”. But what it should convey to everyone is officers could make better choices. And if they could make better choices, then they really should be required to make them so that civilians don’t die from the police's bad choices. And, to give the bigger context than just this lone incident, all the scenarios that I can call to mind at the moment argued in this forum in recent months were instances where people died needlessly due to excessively belligerent, unskilled actions by the police.

 

[TSwizzle]

Is this an admission you didn't watch the video ?

"perhaps a flailing arm" LOL !

I mean neither you nor Loren seem to have actually watched the video.

But maybe I am wrong.

I can't speak for Loren, but yes, you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

It's fantasy being passed off as skepticism.

 

[Toni]

I mean neither you nor Loren seem to have actually watched the video.

But maybe I am wrong.

I can't speak for Loren, but yes, you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

It's fantasy being passed off as skepticism.

Thanks for admitting you haven't watched the video.

 

[TSwizzle]

I can't speak for Loren, but yes, you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

It's fantasy being passed off as skepticism.

Thanks for admitting you haven't watched the video.

Oh FFS, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I have watched the video that was linked in the OP.

"possibly flailing arm" LOL !!

 

[laughing dog]

I can't speak for Loren, but yes, you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

It's fantasy being passed off as skepticism.

Thanks for admitting you haven't watched the video.

Oh FFS, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I have watched the video that was linked in the OP.

Given your unsupported claims about the contents of the video, the evidence is much stronger on the hypothesis that you did not watch the video with your eyes open.

 

[dismal]

I think the most likely thing is there was a scuffle of some sort.

And perhaps you think there is some constitutional right to scuffle with an armed police officer who has told you to lie on the ground?

My interest is poking holes in the "it's justified" people's certainties

I don't claim to have any certainties. I won't say there's a zero% chance this officer was out there trolling for a white kid to kill. I won't even completely discard the possibility space aliens were involved. However all the facts available at this point seem to be consistent with the officer's story and there is nothing in particular I have seen that suggests the officer is a homicidal menace.

Arguing for the horrific status quo in America, rather than arguing for something better than it, helps no one. It serves a bad cause. And that's the effect of siding with the police whenever they kill somebody though their behavior is questionable. Very often, when the police shootings of civilians are argued, people say “They both could have made better choices”. That apparently is meant to convey “It’s sad but there it is, c’est la vie”. But what it should convey to everyone is officers could make better choices. And if they could make better choices, then they really should be required to make them so that civilians don’t die from the police's bad choices. And, to give the bigger context than just this lone incident, all the scenarios that I can call to mind at the moment argued in this forum in recent months were instances where people died needlessly due to excessively belligerent, unskilled actions by the police.

This has nothing to do with skepticism over the facts of this case. You may prefer to live in a world where officers show more restraint before resorting to lethal force than this one did but that does not cause the facts as we know them to change.

You should also be able to acknowledge the person making the really, really bad choices to escalate the situation is not the officer but the kid. He has at least 10 or 15 times where he could have taken an off ramp.

 

[abaddon]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-uXeAvpVHk[/YOUTUBE]

An “ugh, I don’t want to watch a 28 minute video” impulse will very likely lead to a lot of wasted time from a continued failure to understand the “it’s not a justifiable shooting or even traffic stop” POV, when I found an indepth analysis of the traffic stop here. If this topic intrigues, then this video is informative and very well argued.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is only true if you ignore the video evidence. There is a link to the video in the OP.

Which does not show an attack.

Nor does it show a clenched fist or an arm cocked to throw a punch.

Frost's injury to his forehead is not consistent with being punched. The black eye might be. Taken together, they seem much more consistent with heads cracking together. I know: I accidentally gave someone a black eye that way when our heads collided horsing around.

It could have been intentional or it could have been an accident, which makes sense if Deven were dosoriented and unsteady on his feet after being tased.

- - - Updated - - -

How long is your wing span?

She's the one with the bad logic.

- - - Updated - - -

why people conclude there’s a fight; the mind tends to fill in the blanks of what’s not known with easy answers. But skepticism requires people to not do that.

Do you accept these as facts:

1) The officer seems level headed and to be conducting a fairly routine traffic stop
2) The kid is not cooperative in the traffic stop
3) The kid was told to be lying on the ground
4) At some point after that he is on video on his feet coming at the officer swinging his arms
5) The camera breaks
6) The officers face is beaten up
7) The kid ends up shot

One possible explanation for this is that the officer shot the kid in self defense. Indeed this is the officer's explanation.

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

Putting on your nicest skeptic hat, what are the other possibilities that you feel fit the evidence better?

Exactly. I'm looking for the most likely scenario rather than the scenario that fits some particular desired outcome.

Me, too.

Apparently you don't care enough to actually watch the video, though.

No, you're letting your emotions color the issue. What is the most likely scenario for the unclear parts of the video??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can't speak for Loren, but yes, you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

It's fantasy being passed off as skepticism.

Thanks for admitting you haven't watched the video.

Just because we reach a different conclusion from the video doesn't mean we haven't watched it.

As far as I'm concerned the video shows reasonable police practice up to the point that it goes unclear. The kid tried to play roadside lawyer without a leg to stand on, he got arrested for it as would be expected. (That's what happens when you won't cooperate with a traffic stop.)

The taser fails, then the video goes wild, the cop gets injured and the kid gets shot. The only reasonable scenario I see here is a scuffle and the only way a scuffle could have happened is if the kid attacked.

Do you have any specific other scenario that fits the facts better? No hypothetical could have been A, could have been B type stuff. This isn't an exercise in enumerating all possible matching scenarios, the objective is to find the most likely one.

 

[ksen]

because we all know that the most likely one is always the one that happened

 

[RavenSky]

because we all know that the one Loren thinks is the most likely one is always the one that happened

. FIFY

 

[laughing dog]

The only reasonable scenario I see here is a scuffle and the only way a scuffle could have happened is if the kid attacked.

No, a scuffle could have happened if the officer attacked.

Do you have any specific other scenario that fits the facts better? No hypothetical could have been A, could have been B type stuff. This isn't an exercise in enumerating all possible matching scenarios, the objective is to find the most likely one.

LOL. You made up your hypothetical (it is A because I think it matches the facts better). And then you behave as if it is a fact. The entire argument here is only one person knows what happened (Officer Frost) and he is not a disinterested observer.