The Latest Potentially-Explosive Racially-Charged Murder

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It still happens because human beings are idiots.

I don't care if you are innocent, if a police officer has drawn a gun and is telling you to lie down on the ground with your hands behind your back you fucking do it, unless you want to wind up beaten or killed. You can worry about your rights later with your lawyer present.

[Avatar]

I don't disagree, but what I'm wondering is why the cops are still shooting people apparently at will.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Did either of you watch the video or research the cop's claim? Harmon was being arrested for several felony warrants, including aggravated assault. While being handcuffed, he broke lose from the officers, ran a short distance, then clearly turned back toward the officers--as they claim. They also said he pulled a knife on them. I've watched the video several times, pausing and playing as quickly as possible, and there clearly is something shiny and long in his hand. [Edit: well, not so clear. I think I was seeing part of his clothing. But others have claimed that a slowed down version shows the knife.] He was NOT shot in the back. He was shot in the side as he turned to confront the officers. He had a hip wound, not a back wound. Three police officers saw a threat. One tells the other, "Shoot him!" You can tell from his voice that he's very frightened. This is not just shooting someone at will, as Av says. Whatever Harmon was doing, it scared at least two officers enough to think deadly force was necessary. Keep in mind that he had just thrown one police officer to the ground, and was turning with his arms up in a threatening manner when shot.

I hate being in the position of defending the police, but almost every single time one of these "racially charged murders" happens, no one bothers to get the facts right. Almost every time, it involves a criminal resisting arrest and usually in a way that puts the cops' lives in danger--or gives them reasonable suspicion of danger to warrant using force.

[Rawedge Rim]

Did either of you watch the video or research the cop's claim? Harmon was being arrested for several felony warrants, including aggravated assault. While being handcuffed, he broke lose from the officers, ran a short distance, then clearly turned back toward the officers--as they claim. They also said he pulled a knife on them. I've watched the video several times, pausing and playing as quickly as possible, and there clearly is something shiny and long in his hand. [Edit: well, not so clear. I think I was seeing part of his clothing. But others have claimed that a slowed down version shows the knife.] He was NOT shot in the back. He was shot in the side as he turned to confront the officers. He had a hip wound, not a back wound. Three police officers saw a threat. One tells the other, "Shoot him!" You can tell from his voice that he's very frightened. This is not just shooting someone at will, as Av says. Whatever Harmon was doing, it scared at least two officers enough to think deadly force was necessary. Keep in mind that he had just thrown one police officer to the ground, and was turning with his arms up in a threatening manner when shot.

I hate being in the position of defending the police, but almost every single time one of these "racially charged murders" happens, no one bothers to get the facts right. Almost every time, it involves a criminal resisting arrest and usually in a way that puts the cops' lives in danger--or gives them reasonable suspicion of danger to warrant using force.

But one should ask: How slight does the perception of danger have to be to initiate deadly force? For instance: if a 98 year old woman pulls out a butter knife and waves it at a 220 lb officer, does this meet the criteria for the officer to pull his side arm and blast the woman in self defense.

I'm sure that in a purely legal sense it does, but in every other way does it?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No--the sites where I saw the story didn't have any links to video clips. I don't disagree that a majority of these shootings are the result of suspects resisting arrest--who was that guy selling loose cigarettes on the street in New York City?--but many police are of the "shoot first ask questions later" variety.

Why can't we give police tranq guns like large animal/exotic vets use? If you see a potentially violent suspect just tranq his ass and let him wake up in the holding cell--no one got hurt.

[Zarathustra]

But one should ask: How slight does the perception of danger have to be to initiate deadly force? For instance: if a 98 year old woman pulls out a butter knife and waves it at a 220 lb officer, does this meet the criteria for the officer to pull his side arm and blast the woman in self defense.

I'm sure that in a purely legal sense it does, but in every other way does it?

Given how quickly a gun could be drawn and fired, I think we have to give the benefit of doubt to the civil servant who is putting his life on the line every day to keep the rest of us safe. Watch how quickly this turns deadly. I didn't see a gun in the video, but the cops did. Life and death decisions must be made in a split second, while the rest of us take days or weeks to criticize from our couches.

In a time when we're told almost daily that the cops are waging a war on blacks and will kill them without provocation, why the hell are black men still resisting arrest? If they really believe their lives are in danger, why poke the bear? If you break out of police custody, shove a cop to the ground, run a short distance and then turn back suddenly with your arms up in a fighting stance, you should expect to be shot. You've made your intentions clear when you act like this. The cops have every right to assume you mean to commit violence against them. If you reach toward your pockets or waistband, a cop would be a fool to wait even a fraction of a second longer to see if you intend to draw a gun and shoot. Merely acting suspicious in this situation--where you've just physically assaulted an office to evade arrest--is enough.

A 98 year old woman pulling a butter knife on a cop tells the cop all he needs to know: this woman is not complying and she's threatening an officer with a weapon. It doesn't matter if her weapon is laughable, her intent is not. How does the cop know she doesn't have a gun? How does he know it's a butter knife, and not a surgical scalpel? If she's willing to draw a weapon on a cop, her life is forfeit.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

A 98 year old woman pulling a butter knife on a cop tells the cop all he needs to know: this woman is not complying and she's threatening an officer with a weapon. It doesn't matter if her weapon is laughable, her intent is not. How does the cop know she doesn't have a gun? How does he know it's a butter knife, and not a surgical scalpel? If she's willing to draw a weapon on a cop, her life is forfeit.

I have to agree. In fact, we have a name for this behavior now--"suicide by cop".

I suppose if we risked death every day--and police in some locales definitely risk death every day--then we would also probably be a little trigger-happy.

[Rawedge Rim]

So what I'm seeing is that any perception of danger, no matter how slight, warrants deadly force; even a six year old with a cap pistol.

If this is so, then I don't see what everyone is griping about. Law enforcement is acting a manner you approve of, and therefore we don't need them to re-examine their procedures for the use of deadly force.

[Zarathustra]

RR, children with guns, even toy guns, have been shot by the police. It's tragic, but it happens. I think context is everything here. If the child did not just break loose from being handcuffed, pushed a cop to the ground, and then turned aggressively, etc., then perhaps he should be given the chance to drop the weapon. However, once someone has already engaged in aggressive behavior toward police, they don't get the "drop the weapon" warning, especially at a distance close enough to use a knife.

You have to suspect the worst about someone who attacks a cop. Given that everyone knows cops are armed and legally justified to use lethal force, you can assume that the attacker has just committed himself to a life-and-death fight ... which means he could easily have a gun or would try to take the cop's gun and use it on him. Either way, anyone stupid enough to attack a cop--with any level of force--can be viewed as a lethal threat. They're not expecting to kick the cop's ass and walk away. Attacking a cop is an all or nothing endeavor.

[Avatar]

Nah, I was just responding to Hashi's comment. If the story is as you portrayed it, then quite different. And we know that the Tueller drill proves that somebody armed with a knife within 21 feet of you can stab you before you can draw and fire. (And that's just a guideline...that reactionary gap can differ widely between people / circumstances.)

That said, RR is not wrong either. While I don't dispute that there are times when it is legitimately justified, I do think that the cops tend to default to that response far too often to always be justifiable.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

RR, children with guns, even toy guns, have been shot by the police. It's tragic, but it happens. I think context is everything here. If the child did not just break loose from being handcuffed, pushed a cop to the ground, and then turned aggressively, etc., then perhaps he should be given the chance to drop the weapon. However, once someone has already engaged in aggressive behavior toward police, they don't get the "drop the weapon" warning, especially at a distance close enough to use a knife.

Unless your name is Tamir Rice, in which case the police decide after only a couple of seconds that you deserve to be shot.

Don't mistake my *understanding* that many police are trigger-happy for *approval*. However, it is a chicken/egg situation: do they work in a world surrounded by people who mistrust and/or attack them because they are trigger-happy or are they trigger-happy because they work in a world surrounded by people who mistrust and/or attack them?

[Rawedge Rim]

RR, children with guns, even toy guns, have been shot by the police. It's tragic, but it happens. I think context is everything here. If the child did not just break loose from being handcuffed, pushed a cop to the ground, and then turned aggressively, etc., then perhaps he should be given the chance to drop the weapon. However, once someone has already engaged in aggressive behavior toward police, they don't get the "drop the weapon" warning, especially at a distance close enough to use a knife.

You have to suspect the worst about someone who attacks a cop. Given that everyone knows cops are armed and legally justified to use lethal force, you can assume that the attacker has just committed himself to a life-and-death fight ... which means he could easily have a gun or would try to take the cop's gun and use it on him. Either way, anyone stupid enough to attack a cop--with any level of force--can be viewed as a lethal threat. They're not expecting to kick the cop's ass and walk away. Attacking a cop is an all or nothing endeavor.

abcnews.go.com/US/cleveland-cops-recklessly-shot-boy-12-toy-gun/story?id=27402837

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... tamir-rice

www.wbrz.com/news/police-officers-arres ... -year-old/


Now my point is not to disparage police, or to put them in unnecessary danger; it's to point out that the default position seems to be to shoot and worry about whether it was necessary later.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/04/2 ... mediately/

[Avatar]

Agreed.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Now my point is not to disparage police, or to put them in unnecessary danger; it's to point out that the default position seems to be to shoot and worry about whether it was necessary later.

Police have millions of contacts with the public each year. The vast majority of these encounters are conducted properly. This is supported by
reports from the public itself, where the majority of people stopped by the police admit that the police behaved properly. It's simply not true that the "default position is to shoot first." If that were the case, millions of people each year would be dead. It would be a holocaust that dwarfs what Hitler did to the Jews. You're taking a handful of cases and extrapolating a false conclusion millions of times greater than the evidence justifies. It's a lie, plain and simple.

[Rawedge Rim]

Now my point is not to disparage police, or to put them in unnecessary danger; it's to point out that the default position seems to be to shoot and worry about whether it was necessary later.

Police have millions of contacts with the public each year. The vast majority of these encounters are conducted properly. This is supported by
reports from the public itself, where the majority of people stopped by the police admit that the police behaved properly. It's simply not true that the "default position is to shoot first." If that were the case, millions of people each year would be dead. It would be a holocaust that dwarfs what Hitler did to the Jews. You're taking a handful of cases and extrapolating a false conclusion millions of times greater than the evidence justifies. It's a lie, plain and simple.

apples and grapes.


We were speaking about how low the danger perception has to be to trigger deadly force, and is race a factor. If I pull out a wiffle ball bat, is this sufficient provacation to warrant a 9mm slug to the center of mass? How about an ice cream stick?

If two people dressed identically (different times) in similar areas, are stopped for suspicion of committing a crime, and both reach into their pocket and pull an object out; one is a young white man and one is a young black man; which do you think is more likely to find themselves in the morgue shortly thereafter?

[SoulBiter]

If two people dressed identically (different times) in similar areas, are stopped for suspicion of committing a crime, and both reach into their pocket and pull an object out; one is a young white man and one is a young black man; which do you think is more likely to find themselves in the morgue shortly thereafter?

So lets get down to it. Your assertion is probably correct. The young black man is probably more likely to be shot. But why is that? No one likes to point it out but its because young black men are more likely to pull out a gun rather than a ice cream stick.

Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts.

In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings the individuals had already fired shots brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands

Below is some data that is about 8 years old but its still good data because what I'm told is that this has been happening all along and not just recently.

In NY Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the citys population. Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the citys population and were 10 percent of all stops.

The other part of the "bias" is the misuse of statistics. Some of the highest crime areas of the US are predominantly black and high crime. The people that live there have asked for more cops to go there to cut down on crime. So of course it skews the data to make it appear as if cops are killing, arresting, profiling blacks at a higher rate than whites.

So now we throw these other fact into the mix and what little bias you might find makes sense if as a cop you want to go home at night.

Now you can make a case that the underlying reason for the higher crime is by social and economic isolation in the inner city. However that doesn't matter a hill of beans to the cop that wont go home tonight because he chose to always believe the individual was pulling out a cigarette lighter rather than a revolver.

[Rawedge Rim]

If two people dressed identically (different times) in similar areas, are stopped for suspicion of committing a crime, and both reach into their pocket and pull an object out; one is a young white man and one is a young black man; which do you think is more likely to find themselves in the morgue shortly thereafter?

So lets get down to it. Your assertion is probably correct. The young black man is probably more likely to be shot. But why is that? No one likes to point it out but its because young black men are more likely to pull out a gun rather than a ice cream stick.

Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts.

In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings the individuals had already fired shots brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands

Below is some data that is about 8 years old but its still good data because what I'm told is that this has been happening all along and not just recently.

In NY Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the citys population. Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the citys population and were 10 percent of all stops.

The other part of the "bias" is the misuse of statistics. Some of the highest crime areas of the US are predominantly black and high crime. The people that live there have asked for more cops to go there to cut down on crime. So of course it skews the data to make it appear as if cops are killing, arresting, profiling blacks at a higher rate than whites.

So now we throw these other fact into the mix and what little bias you might find makes sense if as a cop you want to go home at night.

Now you can make a case that the underlying reason for the higher crime is by social and economic isolation in the inner city. However that doesn't matter a hill of beans to the cop that wont go home tonight because he chose to always believe the individual was pulling out a cigarette lighter rather than a revolver.

It still begs the question; how slight does the provocation need to be? Does running away merit a bullet in the back, even though the original stop was tail light out, and the warrant is for shop lifting? Tamar Rice was a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in the park, and was dead 2 seconds after law enforcement arrival. In Atlanta, the police raided a home, got the wrong address, and on a no knock warrant, killed a 90 year old woman who pulled a gun to defend herself from people breaking into her home.

Remember this one:www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/ar ... 60077.html

An autistic man playing with a toy truck. No freaking body had a pair of binoculars to look at the object in the poor bastards hand. Especially with the companion screaming that the guy was autistic and not competent.

[SoulBiter]

It still begs the question; how slight does the provocation need to be? Does running away merit a bullet in the back, even though the original stop was tail light out, and the warrant is for shop lifting? Tamar Rice was a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in the park, and was dead 2 seconds after law enforcement arrival. In Atlanta, the police raided a home, got the wrong address, and on a no knock warrant, killed a 90 year old woman who pulled a gun to defend herself from people breaking into her home.

Obviously those are outliers. Out of the millions of traffic stops, thousands and thousands of incidents where things could go wrong. You have these bad eggs.

You know what. Happens to white people too.

The bodycam video obtained by the Salt Lake Tribune shows police officers telling Nick Sanchez to step away from a gas station convenience store to talk. When an officer tries to grab him, the armed Sanchez runs away and one officer chases him while another shoots.

Damond, who also went by her maiden name Justine Ruszczyk, was shot and killed while wearing her pajamas and speaking to another police officer, identified as Matthew Harrity, after calling 911 to report a possible assault in an alley behind her home on July 15

I agree that there have been some egregious actions by cops. But keep in mind that in the scheme of things, this is a few out of millions of stops. Since I work with hundreds of millions of dollars of inventory at work, ten thousand dollars of loss, is immaterial. It doesn't even register on anyone's radar. Granted these are lives and not dollars, however you are asking cops to be perfect. .000001% of stops and this happens and yet the media riles everyone up about it. Yes lets ask for perfection but its not going to happen.

Lets talk military. Same thing. We are always asking them to be perfect. For the intel to never be wrong, for those that have to live in a zone where not pulling the trigger could end their own lives and the lives of those around them, to be perfect. Yet mistakes happen. Sometimes the bad eggs end up doing bad things. And when the media catches it, it creates a firestorm.

At the end of the day, when people break the law, even when its cops or military. We prosecute them. Not by the court of public opinion, but based on what you can prove.

[Avatar]

Granted these are lives and not dollars, however you are asking cops to be perfect. .000001% of stops and this happens and yet the media riles everyone up about it. Yes lets ask for perfection but its not going to happen.

Lets talk military. Same thing. We are always asking them to be perfect.

You're not wrong. But it's not much consolation to the dead, or their friends and family.

--A

[Zarathustra]

If I pull out a wiffle ball bat, is this sufficient provacation to warrant a 9mm slug to the center of mass? How about an ice cream stick?

If you are attacking a cop--even with your bare hands--and you will not submit even after he draws his weapon and aims it at you, yes, you deserve to get shot.

If two people dressed identically (different times) in similar areas, are stopped for suspicion of committing a crime, and both reach into their pocket and pull an object out; one is a young white man and one is a young black man; which do you think is more likely to find themselves in the morgue shortly thereafter?

Both are likely to be shot. This is exactly what happened here with the convenient store example you mention. The white guy had a gun in his pants, and he was reaching for it. That's why the cop lunged at him and why he got shot.

Does running away merit a bullet in the back, even though the original stop was tail light out, and the warrant is for shop lifting?

If you're referring to the event we discussed up-thread, he was not shot in the back, but in the side. He was not running away, but turning and lunging at the cops with a knife. The warrant wasn't for shop lifting, but aggravated assault.

Tamar Rice was a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in the park, and was dead 2 seconds after law enforcement arrival. In Atlanta, the police raided a home, got the wrong address, and on a no knock warrant, killed a 90 year old woman who pulled a gun to defend herself from people breaking into her home.

Remember this one:www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/ar ... 60077.html

An autistic man playing with a toy truck. No freaking body had a pair of binoculars to look at the object in the poor bastards hand. Especially with the companion screaming that the guy was autistic and not competent.

I agree that those examples show tragic lack of judgment and in the case of no knock warrants, a policy which should be ended.