7 ms·

I don't think it's reasonable or effective to entirely expect police to solve this problem. Here is the account from the article: Livingston said when the

by Dove 9y ago

I don't think it's reasonable or effective to entirely expect police to solve this problem. Here is the account from the article: Livingston said when the door opened, officers gave Finch commands to put his hands up and walk toward them. He complied for a "very short time" and put his hands back down. He raised them again, and then lowered them for a second time, Livingston said. "The male then turned towards the officers on the east side of the residence, lowered his hands to the waistband again, then suddenly pulled them back up towards those officers at the east," he said. "The officers on the north side of the street feared the male pulled a weapon from his waistband, retrieved a gun and was in the process of pointing it at the officers to the east. Fearing for those officers’ safety, the officer on the north side fired one round." From my perspective, they are describing a very threatening movement. Stuff that looks like that is how officers die. Asking them to not react when someone does that puts them in pretty serious danger. A sudden movement like that is how gunfights start. It's tragic that it's also something a panicked innocent citizen might do! But that doesn't change the fact that it's a genuinely threatening thing to do. I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation. Some of us have been insulated from violence for so long that we don't know what it looks like. We have no reason to know that innocent sudden movements can just like dangerous sudden movements. I'm not saying the guy's death is his fault. The whole thing is a tragic misunderstanding between good people. But I am saying he could have been educated to prevent it. I don't think it's realistic to ask police to solve the problem at great risk to themselves when regular people can solve it by learning that the best way to avoid misunderstandings and snap reactions is to move slowly and deliberately in any confrontation.

dmitrygr 9y ago
They accept that risk by signing on the dotted line and picking up their badge. Cops should have a policy of never shooting first unless someone who isn't a cop is in immediate clear danger. That's what we pay them for. Any bozo can shoot first and ask questions later. A trained, well-paid professional's job is precisely not doing that.
Miner49er 9y ago
Have you watched the video? It looks far less threatening when you watch the video. This was straight up murder.
mgkimsal 9y ago
> the best way to avoid misunderstandings and snap reactions is to move slowly and deliberately in any confrontation. Excellent idea. Let's train/condition 300 million people exactly how they should behave in stressful and life-threatening situations, and put at least part of the blame on them for any deviation from "acceptable" behaviour when put in an unknown situations with guns pointing at them. It would take far too much time and effort to modify police training and expectations. Perhaps we should cut funding for some more arts and phys-ed programs in public schools, and start funding "police/violence readiness prep" classes in K-12.
- Dove 9y ago
  I really do think teaching people how to be non-threatening would be one of the most effective methods of avoiding tragedy. I know you make light of educating large numbers of people, but there are a lot of things we all know about society in order to be safe. It seems to me that "sudden movements in tense situations provoke violent reaponses" isn't that hard of a thing to learn. Don't we teach people not to run from bears, for example? I am not saying the guy's death is his fault. I am saying expecting policemen not to react to certain movements just because they can be innocent is not a realistic expectation to place on them. It is safer for everyone if we all just stay calm, de-escalate, act deliberately, sort things out. Flapping around is a good way to look dangerous, and I just think things would be safer if people understood this.
  - rojoca 9y ago
    What about mentally ill people? People on medication that make them groggy? People who are drunk in their own home? People who are exhausted from a huge week at work? Children? Elderly? People cannot reasonably be expected to “stay calm” at a moments notice. That is completely unreasonable.
    - Dove 9y ago
      Special cases make bad rules. Seat belts make you safer... but not if your car gets crushed between two semis. That doesn't mean seat belts are pointless, just that they don't work in that case. Moving deliberately and keeping your hands visible around police, particularly if they seem to think you're dangerous, is a good way to stay as safe as you can, and will put them less on edge in the encounter. You want that. In a dangerous situation, you want everyone as calm as possible. Will it always work? Of course not. Maybe you're drunk or high. Maybe you're insane. Maybe you panicked in spite of yourself. Whatever. Hopefully in that situation one of the other protections will work for you. Wear ya damn seatbelt. Not because it always works, but because sometimes it's the only thing that saves your life. Safety is about tradeoffs and incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. If there really is a murderer in the house, we want police to be aggressive. If it's a hoax, we want them to be cautious. But expecting them to magically know which situation it is isn't a practical solution. Making it really obvious that you aren't a tactical threat is a practical way to make the situation safer. ER! Obviously the whole situation is super dangerous and the blame rests almost entirely with the hoaxer. But with that said, I think it is practical and reasonable to talk about the best way to surrender safely and avoid a misunderstanding in a situation like that. It won't work in every case, but it should generally work and could improve the situation.
DanBC 9y ago
Please don't use spaces to quote long lines. It's unreadable on mobile.
dawnerd 9y ago
Oh just like that hotel shooting where the cops told the guy to crawl forward with his hands behind his head (or something like that) and kept giving him conflicting tasks before opening fire?
neom 9y ago
When I watch the Philip Brailsford body cam footage, I find it hard to believe this is a sane assumption to operate under. The polite come in, in full tactical armer, to a guy in shorts and t-shirt, and execute him because he couldn't keep his pants up as he crawled across the floor towards them face down? Come on.
- Dove 9y ago
  I agree. That one's rediculous.
  - neom 9y ago
    doubt this one will be much better tbh: http://kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html http://kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html :(
    - Dove 9y ago
      Holy cats. That looked like a weapon draw to me, too. I know I've made a fuss about not making sudden moves in tense situations, but if you are going to make a sudden move, definitely avoid doing exactly that.
- y_u_no_rust 9y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8
jstanley 9y ago
> But that doesn't change the fact that it's a genuinely threatening thing to do. A bunch of police showed up at his house and pointed guns at him, and his behaviour is threatening?
keyboardmonkey 9y ago
an absurdly violent culture with too many guns. the culture needs to reduce the violence, and remove the guns already... or simply state how many innocent people you're perfectly fine with being killed for any reason each year, including if that happens to be your own family because you believe guns are fine that it's someone else's issue.
- trophycase 9y ago
  Absurdly violent culture? Culture is arguably less violent than at any point in recorded human history. If anything the issue is repression of the inherently violent human tendencies. Why else would people be so fascinated by violent movies and television?
bradbatt 9y ago
they are describing a very threatening movement Yes, that is what they are describing. Because of course they are. What we don't have is video. And what we don't have is the other guy's account of what happened – because they killed him.
- bradbatt 9y ago
  Oh … apparently we do have video. Off to find it now.
  - joe5150 9y ago
    For interested parties http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html
scarface74 9y ago
I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation. Unfortunately in America, what makes you seem threatening is based on the color of your skin. I am an African American living in a predominantly White county in the south that was made famous 30 years ago nationally for being anti-minority. While, the county has changed somewhat because of an influx of younger people to the burbs, I still worry when my son starts driving because he is a big tall dude even though he would never hurt a fly, has lived in the burbs all of his life, and his friendship circle is like the cast of a WB show.
- Dove 9y ago
  That's very fair. Unfortunately, being a big black dude is a great way to look threatening, which does suck. As a point of encouragement, though, it is worth noting that in spite of the national news, encounters with police are really rare, and deadly encounters super rare. Many officers go an entire career without ever firing their gun at anyone - it's just very rare. Your staircase is way more likely to kill you. In fact, I remember having a really interesting conversation with a friend about this stuff a few years ago. We were talking about the statistic that black people are shot by police at twice the rate white people are. And yet some black people are so afraid of police in a traffic stop, they freak out if they haven't adequately prepared for it, and white people are so unafraid that they're shocked it's perceived as anything other than paperwork by the officer and nothing about it seems even potentially dangerous. I said - the difference between those two views isn't 2x. Black people don't think cops are twice as dangerous as white people... more like infinity x. And I said, either cops are way more dangerous than I was raised to believe, or way less dangerous than you were raised to believe, or both. Well - I think it's both. I think if you are afraid of police in every encounter, a good reality check is to look up the absolute number of people killed by police anually and figure out how dangerous that really makes them compared to, I don't know, lawnmowers or something. And on the flip side, I think if you think police are really safe, a good reality check is to look at some of the training they do, some of the threats they face, understand how very fast a peaceful situation can turn violent and how easy it is to look like a threat, and understand that you have to be thoughtful and deliberate about everything you do around a cop, particularly in the situations that are most dangerous to them.
alkonaut 9y ago
This is a training issue, absolutely. But Police should be trained to deal with the population, never the other way around. No one should be shot because a police officer is spooked by a hand that isn’t where they can see it. Suspects should have the benefit of the doubt and police officers should carry all the risk.
- Dove 9y ago
  I think it is true that police carry the bulk of the burden for training and the bulk of the responsibility for making things proceed safely. But I think it is unrealistic and ineffective to give them the entire job. Sort of like, car drivers do have the ultimate responsibility to not hit people, but it sure is a lot safer if we also tell people to generally stay on the sidewalks. Policemen are generally going to try to do the right thing, but it's a whole lot easier for them to get it right if, in addition to being innocent, you also act safe.
anigbrowl 9y ago
From my perspective, they are describing a very threatening movement. You don't have a perspective here, you're uncritically adopting theirs, which is designed to present things in a certain way. 'the male' - not a person or a man; dehumanizing language 'turned towards the officers' - probably because he had just noticed their presence; this language implies intent 'the residence' - it's a house; unnecessary abstracting leads to a loss of valuable context 'lowered his hands to the waistband again' - do you wear pants or a skirt? then you have a waistband, and guess what, your hands naturally hang just below wait level; everyone who isn't naked and holding their hands in the air is assumed to be armed with a concealed handgun 'then suddenly pulled them back up towards those officers at the east' - probably because they were telling to put his hands up and most people lift their arms up in front of them rather than to the side as when doing jumping jacks; implies the action was directed at them without evidence See? It all sounds like delightfully objective, but it's actually selective and subjective. You were manipulated into treating conclusions as if they were evidence. I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation. You know police departments consider hands and feet to be 'personal weapons' right? A paranoid person (and police suffer from a degree of professional paranoia) is apt to make irrational assessments of threat factors, and this problem is compounded by a deficit of integrity among some officers and police unions, so that you get police like Michael Slager claiming to be acting out of fear when actually they were shooting someone in the back for running away (fortunately he was convicted of murder, but probably only because he was caught on video). Some of us have been insulated from violence for so long that we don't know what it looks like. I'm not. I have a lot of experience with this. If it's alien to you then maybe join a martial arts club or visit a shooting range or whatever would broaden your experience; or don't, if you'd rather not. But insofar as you're not well able to judge this, you should absolutely not be taking the statements of people who have a vested interest at face value because by your own admission, you're not in a good position to assess their claims.
- Dove 9y ago
  I do actually have a little bit of a martial arts background. That's actually why the officers' story seemed plausible to me - I know both how fast combat happens and how easy it is for an innocent person to look threatening because of the ambiguity and pace of it. I can't say that the officers acted well or badly here - I wasn't there. All I am saying is that this sounds like a tragic misunderstanding to me. And that people not understanding what real threats look like can lead them to behave in ways they don't realize are dangerous, and that's a real problem, and maybe something we can do something about on the civilian side. I find it really unlikely that cops kill people for laughs. Does their training make them too high strung and jumpy? I mean, I've seen it, and given the threats they face, I don't really think so. I do have sympathy for police. I know police officers. I train with some sometimes. I'm not saying there aren't bad ones or that there isn't bad training - I'm just saying that it would be a lot easier for them and the people they interacted with to stay safe if everyone understood what being non-threatening actually looks like, and how to surrender safely. I just hate to see a tragic outcome result from a misunderstanding. And maybe that's not what this is, but it's what it sounds like. I think a lot of people have this really unreasonable standard for police, that they're supposed to know who's good and who's evil, and who's attacking and who's panicking... and man, they're just trying to get the situation under control so it can get sorted out. They aren't God. They aren't even juries and courts. You can't just be innocent, you also gotta act safe. I understand the outrage when innocent people die - I do. I'm just trying to offer a practical way to make the world a safer place. I don't think outrage at police alone is necessarily practical. There are some practical issues when people who don't know what combat looks like wind up in a tense situation, and they're real issues, and being mad at police isn't a great solution alone. All I'm sayin.

by Dove 9y ago

dmitrygr 9y ago

They accept that risk by signing on the dotted line and picking up their badge. Cops should have a policy of never shooting first unless someone who isn't a cop is in immediate clear danger. That's what we pay them for. Any bozo can shoot first and ask questions later. A trained, well-paid professional's job is precisely not doing that.

Miner49er 9y ago

Have you watched the video? It looks far less threatening when you watch the video. This was straight up murder.

mgkimsal 9y ago

> the best way to avoid misunderstandings and snap reactions is to move slowly and deliberately in any confrontation. Excellent idea. Let's train/condition 300 million people exactly how they should behave in stressful and life-threatening situations, and put at least part of the blame on them for any deviation from "acceptable" behaviour when put in an unknown situations with guns pointing at them. It would take far too much time and effort to modify police training and expectations. Perhaps we should cut funding for some more arts and phys-ed programs in public schools, and start funding "police/violence readiness prep" classes in K-12.

Dove 9y ago
I really do think teaching people how to be non-threatening would be one of the most effective methods of avoiding tragedy. I know you make light of educating large numbers of people, but there are a lot of things we all know about society in order to be safe. It seems to me that "sudden movements in tense situations provoke violent reaponses" isn't that hard of a thing to learn. Don't we teach people not to run from bears, for example? I am not saying the guy's death is his fault. I am saying expecting policemen not to react to certain movements just because they can be innocent is not a realistic expectation to place on them. It is safer for everyone if we all just stay calm, de-escalate, act deliberately, sort things out. Flapping around is a good way to look dangerous, and I just think things would be safer if people understood this.
- rojoca 9y ago
  What about mentally ill people? People on medication that make them groggy? People who are drunk in their own home? People who are exhausted from a huge week at work? Children? Elderly? People cannot reasonably be expected to “stay calm” at a moments notice. That is completely unreasonable.
  - Dove 9y ago
    Special cases make bad rules. Seat belts make you safer... but not if your car gets crushed between two semis. That doesn't mean seat belts are pointless, just that they don't work in that case. Moving deliberately and keeping your hands visible around police, particularly if they seem to think you're dangerous, is a good way to stay as safe as you can, and will put them less on edge in the encounter. You want that. In a dangerous situation, you want everyone as calm as possible. Will it always work? Of course not. Maybe you're drunk or high. Maybe you're insane. Maybe you panicked in spite of yourself. Whatever. Hopefully in that situation one of the other protections will work for you. Wear ya damn seatbelt. Not because it always works, but because sometimes it's the only thing that saves your life. Safety is about tradeoffs and incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. If there really is a murderer in the house, we want police to be aggressive. If it's a hoax, we want them to be cautious. But expecting them to magically know which situation it is isn't a practical solution. Making it really obvious that you aren't a tactical threat is a practical way to make the situation safer. ER! Obviously the whole situation is super dangerous and the blame rests almost entirely with the hoaxer. But with that said, I think it is practical and reasonable to talk about the best way to surrender safely and avoid a misunderstanding in a situation like that. It won't work in every case, but it should generally work and could improve the situation.

DanBC 9y ago

Please don't use spaces to quote long lines. It's unreadable on mobile.

dawnerd 9y ago

Oh just like that hotel shooting where the cops told the guy to crawl forward with his hands behind his head (or something like that) and kept giving him conflicting tasks before opening fire?

neom 9y ago

When I watch the Philip Brailsford body cam footage, I find it hard to believe this is a sane assumption to operate under. The polite come in, in full tactical armer, to a guy in shorts and t-shirt, and execute him because he couldn't keep his pants up as he crawled across the floor towards them face down? Come on.

Dove 9y ago
I agree. That one's rediculous.
- neom 9y ago
  doubt this one will be much better tbh: http://kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html http://kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html :(
  - Dove 9y ago
    Holy cats. That looked like a weapon draw to me, too. I know I've made a fuss about not making sudden moves in tense situations, but if you are going to make a sudden move, definitely avoid doing exactly that.
y_u_no_rust 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8

jstanley 9y ago

> But that doesn't change the fact that it's a genuinely threatening thing to do. A bunch of police showed up at his house and pointed guns at him, and his behaviour is threatening?

keyboardmonkey 9y ago

an absurdly violent culture with too many guns. the culture needs to reduce the violence, and remove the guns already... or simply state how many innocent people you're perfectly fine with being killed for any reason each year, including if that happens to be your own family because you believe guns are fine that it's someone else's issue.

trophycase 9y ago
Absurdly violent culture? Culture is arguably less violent than at any point in recorded human history. If anything the issue is repression of the inherently violent human tendencies. Why else would people be so fascinated by violent movies and television?

bradbatt 9y ago

they are describing a very threatening movement Yes, that is what they are describing. Because of course they are. What we don't have is video. And what we don't have is the other guy's account of what happened – because they killed him.

bradbatt 9y ago
Oh … apparently we do have video. Off to find it now.
- joe5150 9y ago
  For interested parties http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html

scarface74 9y ago

I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation. Unfortunately in America, what makes you seem threatening is based on the color of your skin. I am an African American living in a predominantly White county in the south that was made famous 30 years ago nationally for being anti-minority. While, the county has changed somewhat because of an influx of younger people to the burbs, I still worry when my son starts driving because he is a big tall dude even though he would never hurt a fly, has lived in the burbs all of his life, and his friendship circle is like the cast of a WB show.

Dove 9y ago
That's very fair. Unfortunately, being a big black dude is a great way to look threatening, which does suck. As a point of encouragement, though, it is worth noting that in spite of the national news, encounters with police are really rare, and deadly encounters super rare. Many officers go an entire career without ever firing their gun at anyone - it's just very rare. Your staircase is way more likely to kill you. In fact, I remember having a really interesting conversation with a friend about this stuff a few years ago. We were talking about the statistic that black people are shot by police at twice the rate white people are. And yet some black people are so afraid of police in a traffic stop, they freak out if they haven't adequately prepared for it, and white people are so unafraid that they're shocked it's perceived as anything other than paperwork by the officer and nothing about it seems even potentially dangerous. I said - the difference between those two views isn't 2x. Black people don't think cops are twice as dangerous as white people... more like infinity x. And I said, either cops are way more dangerous than I was raised to believe, or way less dangerous than you were raised to believe, or both. Well - I think it's both. I think if you are afraid of police in every encounter, a good reality check is to look up the absolute number of people killed by police anually and figure out how dangerous that really makes them compared to, I don't know, lawnmowers or something. And on the flip side, I think if you think police are really safe, a good reality check is to look at some of the training they do, some of the threats they face, understand how very fast a peaceful situation can turn violent and how easy it is to look like a threat, and understand that you have to be thoughtful and deliberate about everything you do around a cop, particularly in the situations that are most dangerous to them.

alkonaut 9y ago

This is a training issue, absolutely. But Police should be trained to deal with the population, never the other way around. No one should be shot because a police officer is spooked by a hand that isn’t where they can see it. Suspects should have the benefit of the doubt and police officers should carry all the risk.

Dove 9y ago
I think it is true that police carry the bulk of the burden for training and the bulk of the responsibility for making things proceed safely. But I think it is unrealistic and ineffective to give them the entire job. Sort of like, car drivers do have the ultimate responsibility to not hit people, but it sure is a lot safer if we also tell people to generally stay on the sidewalks. Policemen are generally going to try to do the right thing, but it's a whole lot easier for them to get it right if, in addition to being innocent, you also act safe.

anigbrowl 9y ago

From my perspective, they are describing a very threatening movement. You don't have a perspective here, you're uncritically adopting theirs, which is designed to present things in a certain way. 'the male' - not a person or a man; dehumanizing language 'turned towards the officers' - probably because he had just noticed their presence; this language implies intent 'the residence' - it's a house; unnecessary abstracting leads to a loss of valuable context 'lowered his hands to the waistband again' - do you wear pants or a skirt? then you have a waistband, and guess what, your hands naturally hang just below wait level; everyone who isn't naked and holding their hands in the air is assumed to be armed with a concealed handgun 'then suddenly pulled them back up towards those officers at the east' - probably because they were telling to put his hands up and most people lift their arms up in front of them rather than to the side as when doing jumping jacks; implies the action was directed at them without evidence See? It all sounds like delightfully objective, but it's actually selective and subjective. You were manipulated into treating conclusions as if they were evidence. I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation. You know police departments consider hands and feet to be 'personal weapons' right? A paranoid person (and police suffer from a degree of professional paranoia) is apt to make irrational assessments of threat factors, and this problem is compounded by a deficit of integrity among some officers and police unions, so that you get police like Michael Slager claiming to be acting out of fear when actually they were shooting someone in the back for running away (fortunately he was convicted of murder, but probably only because he was caught on video). Some of us have been insulated from violence for so long that we don't know what it looks like. I'm not. I have a lot of experience with this. If it's alien to you then maybe join a martial arts club or visit a shooting range or whatever would broaden your experience; or don't, if you'd rather not. But insofar as you're not well able to judge this, you should absolutely not be taking the statements of people who have a vested interest at face value because by your own admission, you're not in a good position to assess their claims.

Dove 9y ago
I do actually have a little bit of a martial arts background. That's actually why the officers' story seemed plausible to me - I know both how fast combat happens and how easy it is for an innocent person to look threatening because of the ambiguity and pace of it. I can't say that the officers acted well or badly here - I wasn't there. All I am saying is that this sounds like a tragic misunderstanding to me. And that people not understanding what real threats look like can lead them to behave in ways they don't realize are dangerous, and that's a real problem, and maybe something we can do something about on the civilian side. I find it really unlikely that cops kill people for laughs. Does their training make them too high strung and jumpy? I mean, I've seen it, and given the threats they face, I don't really think so. I do have sympathy for police. I know police officers. I train with some sometimes. I'm not saying there aren't bad ones or that there isn't bad training - I'm just saying that it would be a lot easier for them and the people they interacted with to stay safe if everyone understood what being non-threatening actually looks like, and how to surrender safely. I just hate to see a tragic outcome result from a misunderstanding. And maybe that's not what this is, but it's what it sounds like. I think a lot of people have this really unreasonable standard for police, that they're supposed to know who's good and who's evil, and who's attacking and who's panicking... and man, they're just trying to get the situation under control so it can get sorted out. They aren't God. They aren't even juries and courts. You can't just be innocent, you also gotta act safe. I understand the outrage when innocent people die - I do. I'm just trying to offer a practical way to make the world a safer place. I don't think outrage at police alone is necessarily practical. There are some practical issues when people who don't know what combat looks like wind up in a tense situation, and they're real issues, and being mad at police isn't a great solution alone. All I'm sayin.