Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
philo
Trad climber
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel or a tr
|
|
Meanwhile the Nation of Iceland is in mourning because a cop just killed someone for the first time in their history.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
It's not fair to just blame our culture of racism and gun violence on the police. They just work for us. Yea us! Now let's go fall to our deaths.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
The problem is that police officers are given such latitude in using deadly force that the simple perception of a threat, reasonable or not, is considered justification for killing someone.
Not sure if you mean that as a statement of law or the way things work in practice, but as a statement of law, I don't believe that's correct, either regarding police or anyone else, anywhere in the US.
In other words, true or false:
if you kill someone and your justification is an unreasonable perception of a threat, you've just committed a crime, if you're a cop or not, if there's a so-called "make my day" law or not, anywhere in the US.
I believe that's true; but I have to admit, I'm not sure about it.
As an example, below is Colorado's "make my day" law (I know this isn't strictly relevant to police shootings, but is an example of a very pro-self-defense law):
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
In some ways that's a pretty crazy law and we can come up with some hypotheticals where deadly force would be legally justified but incredibly out of proportion to most sensibilities.
But the law still requires a reasonable perception of force.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Meanwhile the Nation of Iceland is in mourning because a cop just killed someone for the first time in their history.
Yeah, well, just don't mess with their cod, ya hear? Didn't the Iceland Coast Guard fire
real weapons at British fishermen in the 70's? It's all about priorities, right?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
From A Buick 6
|
|
The problem is that police officers are given such latitude in using deadly force that the simple perception of a threat, reasonable or not, is considered justification for killing someone.
Not sure if you mean that as a statement of law or the way things work in practice, but as a statement of law, I don't believe that's correct, either regarding police or anyone else, anywhere in the US.
What about the stand your ground laws?
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
My bold.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Gary, the SYG law you cited explicitly requires that person using deadly force "reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
In other words, if you don't have that reasonable belief, you can't use or threaten deadly force (or at least you don't get any benefit from the statute).
I'm glad you brought that up--there was clearly a huge amount of misunderstanding as to SYG laws manifested in the thread about the Zimmerman case.
While I think some of the SYG laws are poorly written and bad policy, to my knowledge, none of them immunize someone to use deadly force based on an unreasonable perception of a threat.
Certainly the one you cited does not.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Taken in the context of a population of 300 + million, the incidence of Police murdering people does not rise to a logical level that an average person needs to live in fear of the Police. Taken in the context of other "modern" nations, particularly in the EU for example, people not committing violent crimes live with significant danger from the police. Particularly if you are not "white". As the Guardian is finally showing us.
In this case, The Emperor indeed has no clothes.
See my earlier posts regarding death rates from police in UK and Germany.
Go ahead, find another "modern", "democratic" nation that has a death rate by cop anything near ours. And no, Russia doesn't count.
No one is claiming it's a conspiracy. It is partly that the police have never been required to report their own killings to the FBI. With no accountability there is no corrective action for either the individual cop or for their incompetent or sometimes venal police management. See the post-riots report on racism in the Ferguson, MO police dept for starters.
The police do have a much greater fear they may be confronted by an opponent with a firearm than in civilized countries. Thank you NRA.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
In a sense they too are like you and me; many of them grew up in this society that at once ahbors and then cherishes violence. We were shown by people such as Clint Eastwood, that a MAN settles his problems with force and violence. And his tool of choice (hehe) is his gun.
Maybe you should have watched other Eastwood films like The Bridges of Madison County if you were going to look to Hollywood to form your own personal beliefs and values?
Pee wee's big adventure may have helped as well.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
It's the way things work in practice. Laws only work when they are enforced consistently.
Dave, there's a big difference between laws enforced consistently and laws enforced perfectly. No society enforces its laws perfectly - but then, what society has perfect laws in the first place?
I read the Guardian daily, and I rather doubt their aim is simply disinterested research. They approach the issue as we all do - with an agenda.
I would like to see someone compile statistics showing police shootings that occur when the person shot followed all police instructions during the entire encounter, compared with incidents where the person shot defied police instructions during at least part of the encounter. I, at least, would be more likely to find a police officer's fear reasonable if the suspect led the officer on a high speed chase, refused an order, showed belligerant resistance, etc. This would be particularly true given the tendency of people on "angel dust" to act - and the threat "dusted" individuals pose to anyone in law enforcement.
This leads to my major criticism with this exercise. It tries to divorce the shootings from the context of the shootings. I'm used to seeing claims of excessive force that arose when the suspect resisted arrest. I don't recalling seeing many - if any - in California in the last few decades where the suspect obeyed all police orders.
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
This leads to my major criticism with this exercise. It tries to divorce the shootings from the context of the shootings. I'm used to seeing claims of excessive force that arose when the suspect resisted arrest. I don't recalling seeing many - if any - in California in the last few decades where the suspect obeyed all police orders.
John, it's all in the nuance of practice, isn't it?
I've now seen a number of videos of police bashing the hell out of someone on the ground, trying to cover their head, while the police is yelling "stop resisting", to cover their ass for applying a beating. I believe that this is often taught as a standard technique to police by senior officers.
Many officers carry "throwaway" guns, with serial numbers filed off, so they can throw them down at a scene where they claim the offender had a gun.
What cop would be stupid enough to tune up a suspect, without stating in their report that they had "resisted", whether they had or not???
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Does the Guardian have this guy on their site yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/us/boston-police-shooting/
Interesting contrast as to how this one unfolded compared to in England, when the terrorists cut the soldier's head off and waved it around, mocking bystanders and, as I recall, unarmed police, who just say around waiting until someone useful (that is, armed with a gun) arrived.
The terrorists will get more US cops and regular civilians in future attacks, I'm sure, but at least some of us have the tools to defend ourselves.
(Oh and I saw that one of the terrorists in the UK attack got life without parole, but the other will be eligible for parole after 45 years, so will likely enjoy a pleasant old-age strolling around merry old England.)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Is failure to follow police instructions a capital offense exempt from due process?
Particularly when one cop is shouting at you, at gunpoint: "DONT MOVE",
and another is shouting at you, at gunpoint: "PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD"
"Your honor, I clearly told him not to move, then he raised his right hand, and I thought he had a gun in it, preparing to shoot me"
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ken and Dave, I think we all agree that police sometimes use excessive force. My issue is really with the notion that we have reason to fear violence from encounteres with law enforcement. I don't think that notion holds in all circumstances. In particular, I think the likelihood of police violence (justified or otherwise) increases if one disobeys an officer, and I think the likelihood that an officer has reason to fear the suspect also increases if the suspect disobeys.
Divorcing compliance from this context leaves out what I consider to be a highly relevant explanatory variable.
John
|
|
Banks
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
Nobody is saying in all circumstances, but if you have black or brown skin, then you have damn good reason to be afraid that an encounter with the police will turn violent.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
Oh pud you don't have a leg to stand on re Clint Eastwood. Don't be silly. That man has preached violence in celluloid for 50 years. He is one of the standard setters. Dang, you made me laugh out loud. Got any other ridiculous comparisons? Any which way but Eastwood, lol.
Everyday I can put a smile on someone's face is a good day.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
I will try this here again:
Did anyone see the Army captain killed by jail guards. Who smother him and refuse him aid?
I walked into find it on the tube? It was a hard core faces of death type thing they showed
Him begging then gasping and loosing consciousness. I was and am freaked , I saw this thread open at the same time and thought that that was the topic.
That the story was horrific and tragic goes without saying .
The Inside Edition episode interview of the mother sitting with the wife was hart breaking as the finding vindicate the cops as always. The stress of confinement triggered the army capt. PTSD, he snapped causing the beat down that led to his death due to , Cicel cell. . .a stress response . . . ??
It must be findable - I know that I have been lost in Disney TV and movies but this was a killing on TV.
So for-warned (I have only watched it the one time) it is rough to listen to too.
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/10656-army-sargent-with-ptsd-dies-in-custody-mother-claims-they-are-standing-there-watching-him
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
In particular, I think the likelihood of police violence (justified or otherwise) increases if one disobeys an officer, and I think the likelihood that an officer has reason to fear the suspect also increases if the suspect disobeys.
And often, the perp is a mentally ill person, or a person under the influence to the extend that they are incapable of consent.
which means that those people are at very high risk of execution.
I envision that poor mentally ill son of a cop, beaten to death by police while he wailed and cried for his father.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
And often, the perp is a mentally ill person, or a person under the influence to the extend that they are incapable of consent.
Therefore, my desire for more information. We can speculate as to how often any particular scenario exists, but I want to see something more precise than "often."
I agree with Dave (and, I'm sure, you), that an officer shooting an unarmed person is normally unjustified, but how often does that really happen, and what did the unarmed victim do other than exist in proximity to the officer?
If I'm unarmed, encounter a police officer, and obey the officer's commands, how likely am I to be subject to violence from the officer(s), and how does that likelihood change based on my race or ethnicity, my gender, my age, the clothing I'm wearing, and the neighborhood in which the encounter takes place? How do those likelihoods change if I fail to obey the officer's command(s)?
We should compile reports with those factors, and probably others (where's Crimpie when I need her?) if we want to understand whether, and the extent to which, we have a real problem. Too often, I hear or read people describing the issue with imprecision, or with loaded (so to speak) words like execution or thug or pig. I was a Berkeley resident from 1969-1973, and also remember all too well the 1970's when certain people used their hatred of police to "take matters to the next level." I don't care to experience a repeat.
John
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I agree with Dave (and, I'm sure, you), that an officer shooting an unarmed person is normally unjustified,
It is an interesting thought experiment to see if your opinion would change if you were put into a room with someone like the late Michael Brown who was intent on doing you harm.
I don't think a typical person would survive very long against a violent, 400 pound drug-fueled maniac.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
From A Buick 6
|
|
It is an interesting thought experiment to see if your opinion would change if you were put into a room with someone like the late Michael Brown who was intent on doing you harm.
I don't think a typical person would survive very long against a violent, 400 pound drug-fueled maniac.
Or maybe a 12 year-old kid like the late Tamir Rice. Imagine the horror of facing an unarmed 5' demon!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!