Police found guilty of murder...really?

[Drowning Man]

No, I didn't say "immediately". Also, "he might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know" isn't entirely accurate. It all depends on what was happening at the time, maybe the cop who shot him had reasons to believe that he could be a threat to others, we don't know. Now that someone brought up that the second cop shot him after having interacted with him for a total of 11 seconds, now that changes things a bit.

Since the courts ruled against the cop, wouldn't that be a clue now that we do "know"?

What exactly are you holding out for?

 

[Elmo]

I dont have too much experience with mental health, but shouldn't a suicidal person call a suicide prevention hotline? How is calling the police going to help him? Cops aren't experts on mental health.

Yeah, he probably shouldn't have called the police. Since he's dead, he won't have a chance to learn from that mistake...

The fact that he was sitting in his living room is no guarantee that he wouldn't kill bystanders.

By the way I never used the word "murder". I said "kill".

I never said that mental illnesses have an increased chance of murder sprees. And in fact I never mentioned mental illnesses. I said mentally/emotionally unstable.

First, I don't care about the semantics. You can replace "murder" with "kill" in my post and the point does not change at all. "mentally/emotionally unstable" is so broad a term it is meaningless. EVERYONE is unstable sometimes. Mental illness is more precise. Suicidal thoughts are a mental illness, so it's also more accurate/useful for this discussion. But again it's just semantics and doesn't matter. If you still want to talk about "mental instability", fine. The point doesn't change.

Now, the main point is that there is NEVER a guarantee of safety when dealing with people. What matters is the probabilities.

For this discussion, lets say that the baseline threat probability is for a totally normal gun owner exercising his right to open carry while walking down a street. The threat to public safety is not 0. That totally normal gun owner could suddenly decide to start shooting into a crowd, and no one would be able to stop him before people died. Society has deemed that threat probability to be acceptably small. Which means police are NOT going to shoot the open-carrying gun owner within 11 seconds of seeing him.

Now, compare that baseline probability to this incident. In order for this shooting to be justified, there must be factors which make the threat probability significantly greater than the above baseline. The factors in this incident that might be relevant are:

1. Sitting in his own home. I consider that LESS of a threat than walking down a public street.
2. Suicidal. Increased threat to himself, but not to the public.

Maybe in the UK. But in my country, I believe when police officers encounter someone who is waving a weapon menacingly and who wont' put it when police instruct him to, they shoot.

I think they reason they do this now is because in the past police officers have been killed trying disarm such sort of dangerous people.

No, I didn't say "immediately". Also, "he might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know" isn't entirely accurate. It all depends on what was happening at the time, maybe the cop who shot him had reasons to believe that he could be a threat to others, we don't know. Now that someone brought up that the second cop shot him after having interacted with him for a total of 11 seconds, now that changes things a bit.

Yes, police do shoot people for waving weapons menacingly in America. Which is the problem. They don't make enough effort to de-escalate and resolve incidents without loss of life. I'm glad you seem to agree that 11 seconds is not enough time to properly assess and attempt to de-escalate a situation. That's progress.

 

[Elmo]

The defense was a mentally unstable man with a gun refusing to lower it , constitutes a high life danger situation in which deadly force is justified.

I disagree it justified shooting but it posed enough of a threatening situation to consider it just a tragic mistake. Cops are going to make mistakes under high situations.

Nearly all cops would eventually make a mistake like this one if put in enough high stress situations. It should not be considered a crime but it is reason for lawsuits and firing.

I'm going to assume you're a gun owner. Imagine you're walking around, and you come upon a clearly suicidal man holding his gun to his own head. Would you feel threatened enough to shoot that man? Do you think a jury would call that justified? I don't think so.

So why do you insist on holding professional law enforcement to a LOWER standard than random citizens?

 

[Simpletruther]

I'm going to assume you're a gun owner. Imagine you're walking around, and you come upon a clearly suicidal man holding his gun to his own head. Would you feel threatened enough to shoot that man? Do you think a jury would call that justified? I don't think so.

So why do you insist on holding professional law enforcement to a LOWER standard than random citizens?

 

[Simpletruther]

I'm going to assume you're a gun owner. Imagine you're walking around, and you come upon a clearly suicidal man holding his gun to his own head. Would you feel threatened enough to shoot that man? Do you think a jury would call that justified? I don't think so.

So why do you insist on holding professional law enforcement to a LOWER standard than random citizens?

I'm going to assume you're a gun owner. Imagine you're walking around, and you come upon a clearly suicidal man holding his gun to his own head. Would you feel threatened enough to shoot that man? Do you think a jury would call that justified? I don't think so.

So why do you insist on holding professional law enforcement to a LOWER standard than random citizens?

I am not claiming it's justified.
I would definitely feel threatened with someone acting unhinged. And I would exit the scene and call for those who are paid and required to deal with to. The police are in a different situation. They can't just leave and say I felt threatened oh well nothing I can do.

It's apple and orange.

 

[Fishking]

He killed a person when he did not have to, he could have walked away from the threat

ie the cop murdered someone they were likely asked to help, not kill

Uhhh...no. A police officer could not walk away from a mentally unstable person with a gun. That's a ridiculous statement.

 

[Tiny]

Yeah, he probably shouldn't have called the police. Since he's dead, he won't have a chance to learn from that mistake...


First, I don't care about the semantics. You can replace "murder" with "kill" in my post and the point does not change at all. "mentally/emotionally unstable" is so broad a term it is meaningless.

Not sure what you meant by it being so broad a term that it's meaningless. So, we should never use the term "mentally/emotionally unstable" at all to describe someone? All because you personally regard it to be "meaningless"? I personally find a lot of politically correct terminologies to be meaningless, but that alone does not stop others (especially leftists) from using them.

EVERYONE is unstable sometimes.

Again this doesn't make sense. Yes it can be argued that everybody is unstable sometimes, however, when you are clearly not being unstable and you say, carry a weapon in a public, you aren't going to be shot at by the police. On the other hand, when you are clearly being unstable, and you are holding a gun, then guess what? Cops are going to find that to be a very dangerous situation. Not saying they should shoot you. Just saying that they will very likely perceive you as a threat.

Mental illness is more precise.

You don't get to dictate to me what terminology to use. I still maintain that there is a difference between being mentally unstable occasionally and straight up mental illness. It's like you said, everybody is unstable sometimes. You can be occasionally mentally unstable without having a formal diagnosis of a mental illness.

Suicidal thoughts are a mental illness,

Not necessarily. My understanding is that suicidal thoughts are not always a form of mental illness, especially if it's fleeting, or if it's due to circumstances, for example, a girl who has been gang-raped might want to kill herself, and it's not because she has a mental illness.

so it's also more accurate/useful for this discussion. But again it's just semantics and doesn't matter. If you still want to talk about "mental instability", fine. The point doesn't change.

Now, the main point is that there is NEVER a guarantee of safety when dealing with people. What matters is the probabilities.

For this discussion, lets say that the baseline threat probability is for a totally normal gun owner exercising his right to open carry while walking down a street. The threat to public safety is not 0. That totally normal gun owner could suddenly decide to start shooting into a crowd, and no one would be able to stop him before people died. Society has deemed that threat probability to be acceptably small. Which means police are NOT going to shoot the open-carrying gun owner within 11 seconds of seeing him.

Now, compare that baseline probability to this incident. In order for this shooting to be justified, there must be factors which make the threat probability significantly greater than the above baseline. The factors in this incident that might be relevant are:

1. Sitting in his own home. I consider that LESS of a threat than walking down a public street.
2. Suicidal. Increased threat to himself, but not to the public.

I don't disagree with you that it's a matter of probabilities. However, that should be left to the police officer to decide. Maybe they genuinely perceived the man to be a threat, for whatever reason, then they should have the final authority to decide whether to shoot. Can they make mistakes, which they will have to answer to, in a court of law? Yes. But the principle still stands. Cops decide whether the probability of someone being a threat is high enough to warrant shooting.

And about being suicidal only being a threat to the person, it's not always the case. There are also people who want to "take other people out with them" when they are feeling suicidal. I am not saying this is what happened in this case. Just saying that you are wrong when you say suicidal means only threat to self.


--continued

 

[Tiny]

Yes, police do shoot people for waving weapons menacingly in America. Which is the problem. They don't make enough effort to de-escalate and resolve incidents without loss of life.

You talk like the police is always at fault for not doing enough to "de-escalate" situations. You realize that in a lot of cases, the person in question simply cannot be reasoned with, right? And how do you "resolve" the incident when there is a madman waving a weapon menacingly, and not only that, when the police order him to put the weapon down, he doesn't comply? How do you "de-escalate" this situation?

Are you a cop? If you aren't and you are not completely familiar what they do and the kinds of situations that they have to risk their lives to deal with, then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge them.

I'm glad you seem to agree that 11 seconds is not enough time to properly assess and attempt to de-escalate a situation. That's progress.

There is no need for you condescension. Let's all try and be civil.

 

[Fishking]

If the guy was simply holding a gun to his own head and had made no threatening moves against the cops or other people, the shooting was unjustified.

If the guy is already holding a gun in his hand, all that has to happen is one weird move and it's shoot time. This isn't the movies. The time it takes for a loaded gun in hand to being pointed and fired is < 1 second. There's no time for some kind of 15 second inner monologue to figure out what is going on.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Uhhh...no. A police officer could not walk away from a mentally unstable person with a gun. That's a ridiculous statement.

There already was a cop there dealing with the man, the cowardly cop could have left and let a good cop deal with the situation

 

[Tiny]

There already was a cop there dealing with the man, the cowardly cop could have left and let a good cop deal with the situation

Its like I said, it was probably a breakdown in communication. I don't know why the second cop just barged in and then shot the man within 11 seconds. Was he given enough information on the situation? Why did the first cop call him in for help anyway?

 

[Elmo]

I am not claiming it's justified.
I would definitely feel threatened with someone acting unhinged. And I would exit the scene and call for those who are paid and required to deal with to. The police are in a different situation. They can't just leave and say I felt threatened oh well nothing I can do.

It's apple and orange.

I understand your point, but in many situations (including this one) tactical retreat is a completely valid option. That's the advantage of the man being in his own home. Police can retreat and establish a perimeter behind cover. Minimize the threat to police while keeping him contained so there's no additional threat to the public. Not to mention, this particular situation was already being deescalated when Darby arrived. If he felt threatened he absolutely could have just left and let the deescalation continue.

This is what I consider the fundamental problem with the way policing is done. They reach for the gun almost immediately when they have many options which could resolve situations peacefully. Deescalation, communication, retreat, nonlethal force, containment, etc etc.

 

[Tiny]

This is what I consider the fundamental problem with the way policing is done. They reach for the gun almost immediately when they have many options which could resolve situations peacefully. Deescalation, communication, retreat, nonlethal force, containment, etc etc.

I don't know about all the others, but personally I think the usage of nonlethal force appears very promising to me. Maybe they can use some type of gas that makes people choke and then have to do anything they can to come out of wherever they are hiding, and probably also drop their weapon because they are choking so badly. In fact I think some forces are already doing this.

 

[vanceen]

If the guy is already holding a gun in his hand, all that has to happen is one weird move and it's shoot time. This isn't the movies. The time it takes for a loaded gun in hand to being pointed and fired is < 1 second. There's no time for some kind of 15 second inner monologue to figure out what is going on.

All that is true. But until the moment that the guy in question moved to make a threat, there was no justification for shooting him.

If you have a gun drawn and pointed at someone with a gun to their own head, that one second you cite is plenty of time to fire. Until that second occurs when the guy starts moving the gun to point it at somebody, there is no imminent threat.

 

[Tiny]

All that is true. But until the moment that the guy in question moved to make a threat, there was no justification for shooting him.

But if the cop waits till the guy moves to make a threat, he (the cop) could have been dead.

 

[vanceen]

But if the cop waits till the guy moves to make a threat, he (the cop) could have been dead.

As I explained above, the guy holding a gun to his own head could not have instantaneously pointed the gun at anyone else. With a gun drawn and pointed, the cop would have had time to respond.

I debated with someone on another board, years ago, who said that shooting to kill an intruder who was fleeing your property was justified because "he might come back and kill you". I think your argument here is simlar, and similarly wrong.

The standard for use of lethal force is an imminent threat to life. It's always possible to construct a scenario where something "might" happen. The possibility that an imminent threat might arise is across the line from an actual imminent threat, and that line is the difference between justified and unjustified used of lethal force.

 

[Tiny]

As I explained above, the guy holding a gun to his own head could not have instantaneously pointed the gun at anyone else. With a gun drawn and pointed, the cop would have had time to respond.

Huh? I am not sure what you are trying to say. Anyway, its true that the gun could not have been pointed at anyone else, however, all it takes is about 1 second for the guy to aim the gun at the cop instead of himself. And by the time that happens, the cop very well could have been dead.

 

[vanceen]

Huh? I am not sure what you are trying to say. Anyway, its true that the gun could not have been pointed at anyone else, however, all it takes is about 1 second for the guy to aim the gun at the cop instead of himself. And by the time that happens, the cop very well could have been dead.

Again, as I said above, one second is enough time for the cop to pull the trigger when his gun is drawn and pointing at somebody.

 

[Tiny]

Again, as I said above, one second is enough time for the cop to pull the trigger when his gun is drawn and pointing at somebody.

I am not sure about that.

Are you trained in the law enforcement? Or a very seasoned gun-owner?

 

[vanceen]

I am not sure about that.

Are you trained in the law enforcement? Or a very seasoned gun-owner?

I'm not trained in law enforcement. I'm a gun owner, I don't know for sure what you mean by "seasoned".

I do, however, see the distinction between an imminent threat and the lack of an imminent threat. A person with a gun aimed at their own head is not an imminent threat, especially to someone who already has a gun trained on the person with a gun to their head.

If the account given in the link is factual and there are not other aggravating circumstances, it was not necessary to kill the man.

 

[Tiny]

I'm not trained in law enforcement. I'm a gun owner, I don't know for sure what you mean by "seasoned".

I do, however, see the distinction between an imminent threat and the lack of an imminent threat. A person with a gun aimed at their own head is not an imminent threat, especially to someone who already has a gun trained on the person with a gun to their head.

I am not even arguing about this particular case anymore. It's about what you said about what is and isn't an imminent threat. It is not up to you (or me) to decide. The only person who has the right to decide that is the cop.

 

[Drowning Man]

I am not even arguing about this particular case anymore. It's about what you said about what is and isn't an imminent threat. It is not up to you (or me) to decide. The only person who has the right to decide that is the cop.

Er...nope. As can be seen by this case, the courts certainly have a say...

 

[Simpletruther]

I understand your point, but in many situations (including this one) tactical retreat is a completely valid option. That's the advantage of the man being in his own home. Police can retreat and establish a perimeter behind cover. Minimize the threat to police while keeping him contained so there's no additional threat to the public. Not to mention, this particular situation was already being deescalated when Darby arrived. If he felt threatened he absolutely could have just left and let the deescalation continue.

This is what I consider the fundamental problem with the way policing is done. They reach for the gun almost immediately when they have many options which could resolve situations peacefully. Deescalation, communication, retreat, nonlethal force, containment, etc etc.

He should have retreated yes

 

[Tiny]

Er...nope. As can be seen by this case, the courts certainly have a say...

Well, the way I see it, yes, judges and possibly juries do get to decide whether the shooting was justified and that implies that they get to decide whether someone was a true imminent threat or not. However, I feel that this is not an ideal situation, because technically these people were not present at the scene, and their knowledge of the situation might not be as complete as the cop's. And another thing you have to take into account is that for the cop, he was probably being pumped full of adrenaline when he was dealing with a potential threat, and this is another thing that's missing in the judges and juries and it further shows that their perception of the situation is likely very different from that of the cop's. It's easy for one to say, "he posed no threat! Why did you shoot him!!" when one is being safe and sound in a court room. Again, not trying to absolve the cop, just pointing out a few things.

And my point still stands, vanceen does not decide whether a man is an imminent threat or not. The cop decides that.

 

[vanceen]

I am not even arguing about this particular case anymore. It's about what you said about what is and isn't an imminent threat. It is not up to you (or me) to decide. The only person who has the right to decide that is the cop.

I disagree. The cop does not have unilateral and complete autonomy on that decision. There are laws, and courts to make decisions whether the cop was really facing an imminent threat. The alternative is that any cop would be free to kill anyone they claimed they thought "might be" a threat. Cops have a tough job and I have a lot of sympathy for them, but we are in the end a society of law.

By your argument the cop would never be in the wrong. We know that's not the case, unfortunately.