The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The cops have to make their decisions in a very tense situation in real time. They do not have the benefit of watching video multiple times and adjust their response. "Arrest of Alton Sterling, take 3" is not an option.

It is always a crime.

Wrong.

If cowards can't control themselves they shouldn't do the work.

Alton Sterling had an illegal gun. He resisted arrest. He was a career criminal who at least once before resisted arrest while armed. I give him at least 80% of the blame for the shooting.

Everything you say may be 100% accurate. Nevertheless, every police officer everywhere should be trained to know that what happened here is absolutely unacceptable, however things fall out in the end, whether there are murder charges or not. Of that much I am certain.

 

[Bronzeage]

The cops have to make their decisions in a very tense situation in real time. They do not have the benefit of watching video multiple times and adjust their response. "Arrest of Alton Sterling, take 3" is not an option.

It is always a crime.

Wrong.

If cowards can't control themselves they shouldn't do the work.

Alton Sterling had an illegal gun. He resisted arrest. He was a career criminal who at least once before resisted arrest while armed. I give him at least 80% of the blame for the shooting.

How much of this information was known to the officers before he was shot?

Suppose none of that was true and he had acted in the same way? Does his 80% blame drop to at 75% at the most?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, and making an erroneous assessment in real time is not necessarily a crime. That said, cops make millions of arrests every year. A significant fraction of them are against a resisting subject. Teh law of big numbers states that even when the individual likelihood is low, the cumulative probability becomes high.
In any case, the best way to lower the likelihood of being shot is to not resist. Why is that simple statement so controversial on here?

No.

The use of deadly force when your life is not in immediate danger is a crime.

It is always a crime.

If cowards can't control themselves they shouldn't do the work.

No.

1) It's perfectly legal to shoot when someone else's life is in danger. The right of self-defense transfers from the victim to anyone aiding him--although in the case of some states this is restricted to certain relationships for civilians.

2) You can use lethal force to prevent sufficiently serious harm even when there's no real threat to one's life. Shooting a rapist is fine even if you know he's not going to kill you afterwards.

3) When it comes to the cops they have the right to shoot if it's the last chance to save someone's life even if the threat is not immediate. (Local example: The cops pick up a guy for murder. As they're taking him in he figures out who talked and says he's going to kill the person. The cops do not know where that person is, but it appears the killer does. When he escapes they shoot.)

 

[laughing dog]

My son served in Afghanistan for 18 months in a war zone. When they were on patrol in villages during the war in a war zone, they were under strict orders to only shoot when someone was pointing a weapon at them. They were not permitted to shoot because they just "feared for their lives" or that someone might have a weapon nearby or that someone was reaching for a weapon or that someone had a weapon in his or her hand. And the consequences for disobeying the order was immediate and severe.

Yet in this country, we routinely excuse police for actions that soldiers in a war zone would be immediately arrested for and punished. So this "real time" excuse is just that - an excuse but it is not an acceptable explanation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The cops have to make their decisions in a very tense situation in real time. They do not have the benefit of watching video multiple times and adjust their response. "Arrest of Alton Sterling, take 3" is not an option.

Isn't this why they should enter a situation calmly?

If cowards can't control themselves they shouldn't do the work.

Alton Sterling had an illegal gun.

The cops did not know he had a gun until after he was tasered.

He resisted arrest. He was a career criminal who at least once before resisted arrest while armed. I give him at least 80% of the blame for the shooting.

You mean death, right? Don't have all the facts, but at least you have presented your statistical analysis for blame of this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No.

The use of deadly force when your life is not in immediate danger is a crime.

It is always a crime.

If cowards can't control themselves they shouldn't do the work.

No.

1) It's perfectly legal to shoot when someone else's life is in danger. The right of self-defense transfers from the victim to anyone aiding him--although in the case of some states this is restricted to certain relationships for civilians.

Who's life was in danger. It isn't even known whether he was going for the gun that was in his pocket.

2) You can use lethal force to prevent sufficiently serious harm even when there's no real threat to one's life. Shooting a rapist is fine even if you know he's not going to kill you afterwards.

That would imply a crime was currently being committed. Of which is terribly OT for this thread.

3) When it comes to the cops they have the right to shoot if it's the last chance to save someone's life even if the threat is not immediate. (Local example: The cops pick up a guy for murder. As they're taking him in he figures out who talked and says he's going to kill the person. The cops do not know where that person is, but it appears the killer does. When he escapes they shoot.)

This doesn't seem applicable here either.

Any other examples that have nothing to do with this killing you'd like to bring up?

 

[Bronzeage]

...
3) When it comes to the cops they have the right to shoot if it's the last chance to save someone's life even if the threat is not immediate. (Local example: The cops pick up a guy for murder. As they're taking him in he figures out who talked and says he's going to kill the person. The cops do not know where that person is, but it appears the killer does. When he escapes they shoot.)

Yes, because there is no other option than to shoot him in the back.

No one would suspect the police have made up this story after having been panicked by their own incompetence to let a suspect escape and shot him to cover up the mistake.

The idea policeman would let a suspect go, just to have a reason to murder him is out of the realm of possibility.

Policemen are not the angel of death. They have no more right to kill than any other citizen. For some reason we have granted police leniency in these cases when the facts are somewhat murky. We realize the danger and stress under which they operate and give them a pass when they fuck up.

In most cases, doing something that results in the death of another person is a serious matter. If I were to allow someone to ride in the back of my van, knowing they were physically unable to fasten their seatbelt, and they were injured, I would be facing some kind of legal problem. When this happens to a handcuffed suspect in a police van, it's nobody's fault.

We give the police great power and then do not hold them to a great standard. Up to now, our standard has been, "Oops."

 

[Ford]

Alton Sterling had an illegal gun. He resisted arrest. He was a career criminal who at least once before resisted arrest while armed. I give him at least 80% of the blame for the shooting.

Sterling was on the ground being restrained by two officers. One of those officers was able to hold Sterling still while he pulled his sidearm and pointed it at Sterling's chest. The officer then shot him to death for the crime of continuing to move.

I didn't realize that struggling while being restrained is punishable by on the spot execution. Perhaps you can quote the relevant Louisiana statute?

 

[Derec]

Isn't this why they should enter a situation calmly?

Any evidence that they didn't enter it calmly?

The cops did not know he had a gun until after he was tasered.

Their call was about a man threatening the caller with a gun.

You mean death, right? Don't have all the facts, but at least you have presented your statistical analysis for blame of this.

That's my opinion, and there is obviously a margin of error, but he certainly carries a significant majority of the blame.

- - - Updated - - -

My son served in Afghanistan for 18 months in a war zone. When they were on patrol in villages during the war in a war zone, they were under strict orders to only shoot when someone was pointing a weapon at them. They were not permitted to shoot because they just "feared for their lives" or that someone might have a weapon nearby or that someone was reaching for a weapon or that someone had a weapon in his or her hand. And the consequences for disobeying the order was immediate and severe.

What do overly restrictive rules of engagement have to do with anything other than that the DOD should relax the rules of engagement?

- - - Updated - - -

How much of this information was known to the officers before he was shot?

Suppose none of that was true and he had acted in the same way? Does his 80% blame drop to at 75% at the most?

But everything was known to Alton himself. That's what caused him to act the way he did. He knew that if they detained him and find the gun, he was going back to prison.

 

[Derec]

In a tense situation, EVERYBODY has to make their decisions in real time.

Right, but since the police officers entered the tense situation because of what the perp did I will give the benefit of the doubt to police.

For some unknown reason, some people only extend the benefit of understanding this to the police. You know, the ones that are supposed to be trained to stay calm and collected under pressure.

And the left wing posters do not extend any understanding to police. They can't even bring themselves to admit that resisting arrest, especially when armed, is wrong, stupid and dangerous.

 

[laughing dog]

What do overly restrictive rules of engagement have to do with anything other than that the DOD should relax the rules of engagement?

The Army realized you had to win over the hearts and minds of the locals. The Army realized that needlessly killing civilians was counterproductive to that goal. If the police wish to win the hearts and minds of their communities, they need to do a better job with community relations. Part of that improvement is not killing civilians. So, if soldiers in a war zone can be held to such a standard, it is not unreasonable to hold police officers to a higher standard than "its real time and shit happens".

 

[Bronzeage]

Right, but since the police officers entered the tense situation because of what the perp did I will give the benefit of the doubt to police.

For some unknown reason, some people only extend the benefit of understanding this to the police. You know, the ones that are supposed to be trained to stay calm and collected under pressure.

And the left wing posters do not extend any understanding to police. They can't even bring themselves to admit that resisting arrest, especially when armed, is wrong, stupid and dangerous.

And is that a capital offense?

 

[Playball40]

The man was tasered. Your body is going to react to that kind of abuse/pain. This is not 'resisting arrest', this is avoiding pain and not something that most people can simply control. Please put your hand on a hot burner and leave it there until someone else tells you to remove it. See how well you do.

 

[Malintent]

If any of the posters in these types of threads that ask "couldn't the cop have done X, instead of shoot", spend a day as a cop, they would probably get themselves, or even several bystanders, killed, like immediately.

 

[Derec]

And is that a capital offense?

Capital offense is something that can get you sentenced to death. Being shot because police perceive an imminent threat to themselves or others (rightly or wrongly) is not a capital offense. Had Alton survive the encounter he'd not have been charged with a capital crime.

This inane question gets repeated in these situations over and over again but it really makes no sense.

 

[Bronzeage]

If any of the posters in these types of threads that ask "couldn't the cop have done X, instead of shoot", spend a day as a cop, they would probably get themselves, or even several bystanders, killed, like immediately.

I hear that a lot. Of course if most people spent a day as an airline pilot, they might kill an entire plane load of people. Pilot's are generally held in high esteem and respected by all, but no one hesitates to call pilot error when they see it.

If a pilot ever botches a landing(and survives) because it was a stressful situation and he had only seconds to decide what to do, there won't be any of this, "fly a mile in his shoes" bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

And is that a capital offense?

Capital offense is something that can get you sentenced to death. Being shot because police perceive an imminent threat to themselves or others (rightly or wrongly) is not a capital offense. Had Alton survive the encounter he'd not have been charged with a capital crime.

This inane question gets repeated in these situations over and over again but it really makes no sense.

He was killed by an agent of the state during the exercise of his duties. That is an execution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If any of the posters in these types of threads that ask "couldn't the cop have done X, instead of shoot", spend a day as a cop, they would probably get themselves, or even several bystanders, killed, like immediately.

WTF man?! Was the guy waving a gun when they arrived on site? Were people in immediate danger? The answer seems to be no, because the shop owner didn't seem to think there was any trouble outside at all. This is crucial to calling out the BS in your post. People weren't fleeing the location because some guy was waving a gun. So the immediate threat didn't seem to exist.

So it would be wise to assess the situation, enter it alarmed, but calmly. Treat the guy that is twice your weight with some decency. This would seemingly put people at ease and continue keeping a calm situation calm, instead of the rough / do what we say or die approach.

Because when they didn't bother to go the humane option, they tasered him, wrestled him to the ground, and then killed him. It seems the cops lost control pretty early and once again seem to allow bad stuff to result from earlier bad decisions.

 

[laughing dog]

If any of the posters in these types of threads that ask "couldn't the cop have done X, instead of shoot", spend a day as a cop, they would probably get themselves, or even several bystanders, killed, like immediately.

I know someone who spent over 15 months patrolling in a war zone. And he is consistent in his view that if he or his patrol mates acted like some of these officers while on patrol, they'd have been immediately punished for disobeying orders. And they were subjected to bombings and shootings on a routine basis.

But your post and the posts of the other unthinking apologists for the police are evidence of the unthinking deference the police receive by the general public and the legal system.

The police have a difficult and dangerous job. It is becoming more dangerous in part because, as a group, they are losing the respect and trust of a growing portion of the civilian community. This is a legacy of the unthinking deference. The cure is not more deference but to re-engage critical deference. Until that happens, this cycle of violence is going to get worse, not better.

 

[Malintent]

I hear that a lot. Of course if most people spent a day as an airline pilot, they might kill an entire plane load of people. Pilot's are generally held in high esteem and respected by all, but no one hesitates to call pilot error when they see it.

As a licensed pilot myself (with commercial rating), I can speak to this. The reason that the NTSB is quick to call pilot error is threefold... one, they are in bed with the multi-billion dollar airplane manufacturers, and are hesitant to blame the hardware. Two, it is rarely the hardware.. .the Pilot is, by far, the weakest link. Three, if airplanes were blamed for incidents, people would trust airplanes less. With the pilot being blamed, one can feel confident that they are on a flight with a different pilot (but not so quick to feel like it is a different plane manufacturer).

If a pilot ever botches a landing(and survives) because it was a stressful situation and he had only seconds to decide what to do, there won't be any of this, "fly a mile in his shoes" bullshit.

ah but there is... more like, fly 1,000's of miles in his shoes, in a simulator, trying to figure out what could have gone wrong... that is just one of the many things that are routinely done in even the most minor of incidents.

- - - Updated - - -

And is that a capital offense?

Capital offense is something that can get you sentenced to death. Being shot because police perceive an imminent threat to themselves or others (rightly or wrongly) is not a capital offense. Had Alton survive the encounter he'd not have been charged with a capital crime.

This inane question gets repeated in these situations over and over again but it really makes no sense.

He was killed by an agent of the state during the exercise of his duties. That is an execution.

So anytime a perpetrator is exchanging gunfire with the police, and the police shoot and kill the shooter, it is an "execution"?

 

[Ford]

So anytime a perpetrator is exchanging gunfire with the police, and the police shoot and kill the shooter, it is an "execution"?

Sterling was not exchanging anything. He was restrained by two officers. Rather than continue to restrain him, one of the officers decided it was a better idea to plug a couple bullets into his chest.