3 ms·

I do think the caller should be convicted of murder. I'm not sure exactly which charge would be most appropriate for someone who deliberately created a situati

I do think the caller should be convicted of murder. I'm not sure exactly which charge would be most appropriate for someone who deliberately created a situation in which someone could be killed, and they were. Ah — from the Wikipedia page [0] it looks like felony murder is the right charge. It's certainly at least involuntary manslaughter. I do agree with you, though, that a close look should be taken at the shooter and the situation with an eye toward possibly charging the shooter. I do think that in general, police in many parts of the US are too insulated from the consequences of such decisions. I'm not completely sure, though, based on this article, that I would consider the officer culpable. Police are trained to react quickly and to protect one another. The description here does leave me with the sense, however, that the one who fired may not have had a particularly good view of what the victim was doing. Arguably there is a systemic problem that when there are many officers, all with different and incomplete views of the situation, the odds of one thinking that something is going on that justifies opening fire get to be unacceptably high. Anyway I do hope you're not suggesting that the shooter's responsibility somehow mitigates that of the caller. ETA: Ah, I didn't know there was body cam footage we could see [1]. Okay, I have to agree with you, this looks pretty damning. There were no officers within easy target range of the victim; the shot was taken from well across the street. Even if the victim had been pulling out a gun, unless he's a Clint Eastwood character, he's going to have to take a second or two to aim it to have any chance of hitting anyone at that distance. It was not necessary to fire that quickly. I have to qualify this by saying I'm no firearms expert, but that's how it looks to me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) [1] http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192089304.html http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192089304.html

downandout 9y ago
>I'm not completely sure, though, based on this article, that I would consider the officer culpable. Police are trained to react quickly and to protect one another. If being trained to “react quickly” involves shooting people when they are not 100% sure the person has a weapon, then they are being trained to commit murder. That will likely be an aspect of the inevitable lawsuit against the police in this incident. But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone. >Anyway I do hope you're not suggesting that the shooter's responsibility somehow mitigates that of the caller. No, I’m not.
- rhizome 9y ago
  But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone. It also has psychological repercussions, where anybody who's not cop nor family is expendable by default. What is it like for a cop trained in this way to visit a mall?
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  > the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone I don't think I can agree with this. Police departments have policies for when officers should and should not shoot at people. In cases where the policy was followed, I think we have to say that relieves the individual of responsibility. In this instance, of course I don't know whether the shooting was according to policy. And of course I hope, and expect, that it wasn't. But if it was, then it's the policy that has to change first.

downandout 9y ago

>I'm not completely sure, though, based on this article, that I would consider the officer culpable. Police are trained to react quickly and to protect one another. If being trained to “react quickly” involves shooting people when they are not 100% sure the person has a weapon, then they are being trained to commit murder. That will likely be an aspect of the inevitable lawsuit against the police in this incident. But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone. >Anyway I do hope you're not suggesting that the shooter's responsibility somehow mitigates that of the caller. No, I’m not.

rhizome 9y ago
But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone. It also has psychological repercussions, where anybody who's not cop nor family is expendable by default. What is it like for a cop trained in this way to visit a mall?
ScottBurson 9y ago
> the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone I don't think I can agree with this. Police departments have policies for when officers should and should not shoot at people. In cases where the policy was followed, I think we have to say that relieves the individual of responsibility. In this instance, of course I don't know whether the shooting was according to policy. And of course I hope, and expect, that it wasn't. But if it was, then it's the policy that has to change first.