9 ms·

Why do police officers shoot someone who was never a threat ? Kids will be kids, there will always be kids who do things that are completely irresponsible, by d

Why do police officers shoot someone who was never a threat ? Kids will be kids, there will always be kids who do things that are completely irresponsible, by design. The fact that the person who pulled the trigger is not responsible at all for all this is beyond me.

jacquesm 8y ago
Because they've been falsely informed that there is such a threat. That doesn't make it right but it at least explains a part of what happened.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Low burden of proof isn't it.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    That's not how that works. If you are a police officer in the United States and you've been told you are going into a situation where your opposition is armed and has already killed at least one person you will be very nervous. "Barriss allegedly then called the emergency 911 operators in Wichita and said he was at the address provided by Viner, that he’d just shot his father in the head, was holding his mom and sister at gunpoint, and was thinking about burning down the home with everyone inside." That's a situation where if it is true somebody is likely going to end up hurt and I suspect the police officers tried very hard to make sure that wasn't them. And so innocent people paid the price for a bunch of idiots duking it out over a $1.50 bet. The part that makes no sense to me is that swatting is even possible, there are enough indicators that the call is not originating from the location indicated by the caller. I still think this should not have happened but there is at least a little bit of leeway on seeing how this could have happened. Keep in mind that the swatters had a lot of experience in tuning their story for maximum effect on LE. This or something like it was their intention all along.
    - keepper 8y ago
      And "somehow", only people that are swatted in the US wind up dead... even though 'gamer culture' is larger in Europe and Asia. ( and in many countries in both, swatting has been attempted ).
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        The number of guns floating around in the US has a whole pile of effects that are active in this case: more guns increases the chance of a gun really being present, it increases the number of dead LE officers the ones in the SWAT team are familiar with and it increases the chance of the officer not making it home. Add poor training, the SWAT team already being only called in into situations that are supposedly dangers and you're a stupid mistake away from one or more people being killed. USA police always struck me as super insecure in the few interactions I had with them compared to Canadian and European police. Even in Latin America the police in general was a lot more relaxed. Incidentally, in the military there were similar issues with something called 'force protection'.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      > That's a situation where if it is true somebody is likely going to end up hurt and I suspect the police officers tried very hard to make sure that wasn't them. They also try very hard to make sure it isn't the mom and sister.
      - abiox 8y ago
        > They also try very hard to make sure it isn't the mom and sister. did they all come out together?
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        I don't know, and I wasn't specifically referring to this incident. I was replying to jaquesm's point, which I took to be saying that officers are worried about self-preservation going into a situation where they believe there is an armed hostage-taker. They almost certainly are worried about their own life, but that's not all they're worried about. They also are worried about the lives of the (alleged) hostages. The life of the (alleged) hostage-taker? That's a lower priority.
- cpncrunch 8y ago
  And also because the victim lowered his hands to his waistband, and the officer thought he had a gun: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-killed-andrew-finch-swatting-mistake-won-t-n865626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-kil...
  - polartx 8y ago
    the officer also fired partially behind cover using a rifle at a distance of over 100 feet (http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/v70e0w/picture193294014/alternates/FREE_768/bodycam http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/v70e0w/picture1932940...) if there had been a concealed weapon in the victims waistband, it could only have been a handgun or something less lethal. Ever try and hit a target at 100 feet with a pistol? It can be done if you concentrate, have steady hands, and aim slowly; with practice. My point is that the officer should have waited long enough to confirm the threat. The element of surprise plus the advantage of distance, hardware, cover, armor, and backup afforded him at least 1 second of better judgement.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
    Additionally, consider how disorienting it would be to wake up, hear a commotion outside, walk out your front door, and suddenly you're blinded by lights and a bunch of different voices are yelling at you to do stuff. It is completely unreasonable to expect an ordinary person to have perfect comprehension and self control in such a situation. Which is why the procedures police follow need to anticipate this very problem.
jandrese 8y ago
Because they were told he was a threat. Also because of our highly militarized police tactics designed to reduce potential harm to officers at the cost of everything else.
- simlevesque 8y ago
  > Because they were told he was a threat. Ok but when they saw him, was he a threat ? Are hearsay enough to pull the trigger ? That seems irresponsible too.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Wait to evaluate if the guy is a threat and he could have already shot you. Safer to shoot him first. This is what people are talking about when they complain about militarized police. Treating unknowns as threats that must be neutralized instead of something you need to observe closer is how you end up throwing grenades on sleeping babies and shooting innocent people. But the converse is that the suburban drug lord pulls out his AR15 and shoots down 3 cops before they have a chance to figure out what is happening.
    - retbull 8y ago
      IMO it is the police's responsibility to die first. They are putting themselves out to protect the public from threats not to kill the public who might be a threat to them or a fellow police officer. I am aware that currently legally it is the exact opposite and they have no responsibility to save or protect anyone only themselves.
      - zzzcpan 8y ago
        The police was invented as the exact opposite of protecting the public. To protect the government, the rich and the powerful, the system, all from the public under the pretense of protecting the public.
        8y ago
jessaustin 8y ago
Because they have received poor training, and bad influence from a community of peers that is very bad at risk assessment and judging priorities.
- segmondy 8y ago
  Nah, they wanna be RAMBO! America police is no longer fine with neatly pressed uniform and polished shoes. They want combat boots and outfit. Machine gun if possible, and all sorts of tactical gear that belongs in a battle field. They can't wait to toss a stun grenade and dive and role play as if they are military. It's really amusing to them, you should see a bunch of officers have their bro talk about a raid even a botched one, there's no ounce of regret that they broke down the wrong door and traumatized a family. It's all fun and giggles so long as no officer was hurt. It's the new police culture.
  - jboles 8y ago
    From my interactions with them in some traffic stops, it does seem like there's a bit of power-tripping going on sometimes.
  - jstarfish 8y ago
    When the majority of threats are otherwise unknown (pulling over a speeder? You dont know if hes going to quietly accept the ticket or if hes a wanted felon who will open fire in traffic with an assault rifle to avoid capture), it is all too easy to over-respond to a presumably clear threat.
    - chmod775 8y ago
      By all means let's also put every officer into 20cm thick rubberized suits, because you never know when you're pulling over a speeder if you'll be hit by another passing car. Actually that's way more likely than the situation turning otherwise violent... [/sarcasm]
    - nitwit005 8y ago
      If you're going to "over-respond" by shooting people, you probably shouldn't be a cop. You probably shouldn't have any job that involves holding a gun, in fact. A bad day at work generally shouldn't result in a corpse.
romanovcode 8y ago
> Kids will be kids Both persons are over 18 years old.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  Clearly not mentally however. (not arguing that this should affect their sentences however)
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Please don't conflate this sort of irresponsible, malicious, homicidal behavior with general mental illness/disability.
    - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
      > homicidal behavior I was not talking about the officer. In any case, I stand by what I said.
un-devmox 8y ago
Your tone suggest that these were a couple of irresponsible 8 year olds playing a prank. There were 17/18 yo and the person that called in the swat was 25. They all are plenty old enough to know what our LE system is all about. As far as the 25 yo serial swatter, it was just a matter of time before something like this happened.
iteriteratedone 8y ago
Its a dangerous job , and that will not change. We want (I) them to protect themselves. Its the responsibility of any person to act in an honest manner. Officer says I shot because I felt threatened. Teen says I swated the person becsuse I felt threatened. Who do you believe. Same thing with yelling fire on a crowded room. Intent is very important. Officer is not responsible because we pay them to be tough on bad guys. The fact this wasnt a bad guy is not his/her fault. Now I all for solutions to false positives, but I wont do it at the expense of making an officer or citizens less safe. A strong police force is needed. Especially in a world with political tensions and violence occuring.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
Because, in the current climate, a cop who shoots first is certainly going home to their family at night and is certainly going to retire in good health. Even though the chances of getting injured by a person are pretty low, the chances of getting injured by a dead person are zero. Cops are humans with concrete human motivations and the risk/reward balance of shooting people is biased heavily towards reward.
- bachmeier 8y ago
  This is definitely not correct. You are saying the police are safer if their strategy is "shoot immediately". If that is the case, they've just eliminated any incentive for someone with a gun to not shoot at them or to resist arrest. In many cases, the cops do not have the advantage, and if you know with certainty that you will die if the police get the first shot, you will shoot at the police at the first opportunity. You don't open the door and talk to the police. You find a place where you'll be protected and wait for the police to walk into the room. I don't know the exact probabilities of each of these events, and it would depend on the situation, but it's dangerous to assume that the police are better off if they open fire just to be sure they kill the bad guy.
  - loeg 8y ago
    > If that is the case, they've just eliminated any incentive for someone with a gun to not shoot at them or to resist arrest. Yes, I think that's a good point — it is a vicious cycle and sort of self-perpetuates.
- rosser 8y ago
  > Cops are humans with concrete human motivations and the risk/reward balance of shooting people is biased heavily towards reward. There is demonstrably little risk in the US for police who shoot people, absent specific evidence of bad faith. There's also no "reward" for shooting people, unless they're actually murdering people opportunistically under cover of their badges. Then again, consider the case in Baltimore of a ring of officers carrying toy guns to plant on people after shooting them, and how the cooperating member of the ring was found dead of an apparent suicide just before he was going to testify. [0] Or that it's only the happenstance of a bystander with a camera phone recording a cop shooting someone in the back, then planting his taser on the body, and reporting the victim had taken it. [1] Or the car chase that ended in a death, during which the sheriff's deputy's body cam recorded him saying, "I love this shit. God, I tell you what, I thrive on it. If they don’t think I’ll give the damn order to kill that motherfucker they’re full of shit." [2] Those are just what we've found. I get that being a law enforcement officer is a dangerous job, and that they're risking their lives every time they respond to an unknown situation. The thing is, they signed up for that. It's not like cops getting shot was a surprise sprung upon them only after they were sworn in. They're also given the authority to use deadly force, and — ideally — the trust that they will do so judiciously. Not only do they sometimes abjectly fail to do that, the system fails to penalize egregious abuses of that trust. We've somehow chosen as a society to lionize the police, and give them incredibly wide latitude and presumption of good faith. Most cops are good cops, and probably can be trusted with substantial latitude. A permissive attitude invites abuse, however, and not only are there bad cops, but the good ones, and the system itself, abet them (which, I submit, severely mitigates their good cop-ness). [0] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-gun-trace-task-force-gttf-testimony-highlights-20180126-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-gun... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer... [2] https://www.salon.com/2018/02/08/tennessee-sheriff-recorded-saying-shoot-him-before-suspect-died/ https://www.salon.com/2018/02/08/tennessee-sheriff-recorded-...

jacquesm 8y ago

Because they've been falsely informed that there is such a threat. That doesn't make it right but it at least explains a part of what happened.

conanbatt 8y ago
Low burden of proof isn't it.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  That's not how that works. If you are a police officer in the United States and you've been told you are going into a situation where your opposition is armed and has already killed at least one person you will be very nervous. "Barriss allegedly then called the emergency 911 operators in Wichita and said he was at the address provided by Viner, that he’d just shot his father in the head, was holding his mom and sister at gunpoint, and was thinking about burning down the home with everyone inside." That's a situation where if it is true somebody is likely going to end up hurt and I suspect the police officers tried very hard to make sure that wasn't them. And so innocent people paid the price for a bunch of idiots duking it out over a $1.50 bet. The part that makes no sense to me is that swatting is even possible, there are enough indicators that the call is not originating from the location indicated by the caller. I still think this should not have happened but there is at least a little bit of leeway on seeing how this could have happened. Keep in mind that the swatters had a lot of experience in tuning their story for maximum effect on LE. This or something like it was their intention all along.
  - keepper 8y ago
    And "somehow", only people that are swatted in the US wind up dead... even though 'gamer culture' is larger in Europe and Asia. ( and in many countries in both, swatting has been attempted ).
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      The number of guns floating around in the US has a whole pile of effects that are active in this case: more guns increases the chance of a gun really being present, it increases the number of dead LE officers the ones in the SWAT team are familiar with and it increases the chance of the officer not making it home. Add poor training, the SWAT team already being only called in into situations that are supposedly dangers and you're a stupid mistake away from one or more people being killed. USA police always struck me as super insecure in the few interactions I had with them compared to Canadian and European police. Even in Latin America the police in general was a lot more relaxed. Incidentally, in the military there were similar issues with something called 'force protection'.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    > That's a situation where if it is true somebody is likely going to end up hurt and I suspect the police officers tried very hard to make sure that wasn't them. They also try very hard to make sure it isn't the mom and sister.
    - abiox 8y ago
      > They also try very hard to make sure it isn't the mom and sister. did they all come out together?
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        I don't know, and I wasn't specifically referring to this incident. I was replying to jaquesm's point, which I took to be saying that officers are worried about self-preservation going into a situation where they believe there is an armed hostage-taker. They almost certainly are worried about their own life, but that's not all they're worried about. They also are worried about the lives of the (alleged) hostages. The life of the (alleged) hostage-taker? That's a lower priority.
cpncrunch 8y ago
And also because the victim lowered his hands to his waistband, and the officer thought he had a gun: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-killed-andrew-finch-swatting-mistake-won-t-n865626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-kil...
- polartx 8y ago
  the officer also fired partially behind cover using a rifle at a distance of over 100 feet (http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/v70e0w/picture193294014/alternates/FREE_768/bodycam http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/v70e0w/picture1932940...) if there had been a concealed weapon in the victims waistband, it could only have been a handgun or something less lethal. Ever try and hit a target at 100 feet with a pistol? It can be done if you concentrate, have steady hands, and aim slowly; with practice. My point is that the officer should have waited long enough to confirm the threat. The element of surprise plus the advantage of distance, hardware, cover, armor, and backup afforded him at least 1 second of better judgement.
- jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
  Additionally, consider how disorienting it would be to wake up, hear a commotion outside, walk out your front door, and suddenly you're blinded by lights and a bunch of different voices are yelling at you to do stuff. It is completely unreasonable to expect an ordinary person to have perfect comprehension and self control in such a situation. Which is why the procedures police follow need to anticipate this very problem.

jandrese 8y ago

Because they were told he was a threat. Also because of our highly militarized police tactics designed to reduce potential harm to officers at the cost of everything else.

simlevesque 8y ago
> Because they were told he was a threat. Ok but when they saw him, was he a threat ? Are hearsay enough to pull the trigger ? That seems irresponsible too.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Wait to evaluate if the guy is a threat and he could have already shot you. Safer to shoot him first. This is what people are talking about when they complain about militarized police. Treating unknowns as threats that must be neutralized instead of something you need to observe closer is how you end up throwing grenades on sleeping babies and shooting innocent people. But the converse is that the suburban drug lord pulls out his AR15 and shoots down 3 cops before they have a chance to figure out what is happening.
  - retbull 8y ago
    IMO it is the police's responsibility to die first. They are putting themselves out to protect the public from threats not to kill the public who might be a threat to them or a fellow police officer. I am aware that currently legally it is the exact opposite and they have no responsibility to save or protect anyone only themselves.
    - zzzcpan 8y ago
      The police was invented as the exact opposite of protecting the public. To protect the government, the rich and the powerful, the system, all from the public under the pretense of protecting the public.
      - 8y ago

jessaustin 8y ago

Because they have received poor training, and bad influence from a community of peers that is very bad at risk assessment and judging priorities.

segmondy 8y ago
Nah, they wanna be RAMBO! America police is no longer fine with neatly pressed uniform and polished shoes. They want combat boots and outfit. Machine gun if possible, and all sorts of tactical gear that belongs in a battle field. They can't wait to toss a stun grenade and dive and role play as if they are military. It's really amusing to them, you should see a bunch of officers have their bro talk about a raid even a botched one, there's no ounce of regret that they broke down the wrong door and traumatized a family. It's all fun and giggles so long as no officer was hurt. It's the new police culture.
- jboles 8y ago
  From my interactions with them in some traffic stops, it does seem like there's a bit of power-tripping going on sometimes.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  When the majority of threats are otherwise unknown (pulling over a speeder? You dont know if hes going to quietly accept the ticket or if hes a wanted felon who will open fire in traffic with an assault rifle to avoid capture), it is all too easy to over-respond to a presumably clear threat.
  - chmod775 8y ago
    By all means let's also put every officer into 20cm thick rubberized suits, because you never know when you're pulling over a speeder if you'll be hit by another passing car. Actually that's way more likely than the situation turning otherwise violent... [/sarcasm]
  - nitwit005 8y ago
    If you're going to "over-respond" by shooting people, you probably shouldn't be a cop. You probably shouldn't have any job that involves holding a gun, in fact. A bad day at work generally shouldn't result in a corpse.

romanovcode 8y ago

> Kids will be kids Both persons are over 18 years old.

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
Clearly not mentally however. (not arguing that this should affect their sentences however)
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Please don't conflate this sort of irresponsible, malicious, homicidal behavior with general mental illness/disability.
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    > homicidal behavior I was not talking about the officer. In any case, I stand by what I said.

un-devmox 8y ago

Your tone suggest that these were a couple of irresponsible 8 year olds playing a prank. There were 17/18 yo and the person that called in the swat was 25. They all are plenty old enough to know what our LE system is all about. As far as the 25 yo serial swatter, it was just a matter of time before something like this happened.

iteriteratedone 8y ago

Its a dangerous job , and that will not change. We want (I) them to protect themselves. Its the responsibility of any person to act in an honest manner. Officer says I shot because I felt threatened. Teen says I swated the person becsuse I felt threatened. Who do you believe. Same thing with yelling fire on a crowded room. Intent is very important. Officer is not responsible because we pay them to be tough on bad guys. The fact this wasnt a bad guy is not his/her fault. Now I all for solutions to false positives, but I wont do it at the expense of making an officer or citizens less safe. A strong police force is needed. Especially in a world with political tensions and violence occuring.

xkcd-sucks 8y ago

Because, in the current climate, a cop who shoots first is certainly going home to their family at night and is certainly going to retire in good health. Even though the chances of getting injured by a person are pretty low, the chances of getting injured by a dead person are zero. Cops are humans with concrete human motivations and the risk/reward balance of shooting people is biased heavily towards reward.

bachmeier 8y ago
This is definitely not correct. You are saying the police are safer if their strategy is "shoot immediately". If that is the case, they've just eliminated any incentive for someone with a gun to not shoot at them or to resist arrest. In many cases, the cops do not have the advantage, and if you know with certainty that you will die if the police get the first shot, you will shoot at the police at the first opportunity. You don't open the door and talk to the police. You find a place where you'll be protected and wait for the police to walk into the room. I don't know the exact probabilities of each of these events, and it would depend on the situation, but it's dangerous to assume that the police are better off if they open fire just to be sure they kill the bad guy.
- loeg 8y ago
  > If that is the case, they've just eliminated any incentive for someone with a gun to not shoot at them or to resist arrest. Yes, I think that's a good point — it is a vicious cycle and sort of self-perpetuates.
rosser 8y ago
> Cops are humans with concrete human motivations and the risk/reward balance of shooting people is biased heavily towards reward. There is demonstrably little risk in the US for police who shoot people, absent specific evidence of bad faith. There's also no "reward" for shooting people, unless they're actually murdering people opportunistically under cover of their badges. Then again, consider the case in Baltimore of a ring of officers carrying toy guns to plant on people after shooting them, and how the cooperating member of the ring was found dead of an apparent suicide just before he was going to testify. [0] Or that it's only the happenstance of a bystander with a camera phone recording a cop shooting someone in the back, then planting his taser on the body, and reporting the victim had taken it. [1] Or the car chase that ended in a death, during which the sheriff's deputy's body cam recorded him saying, "I love this shit. God, I tell you what, I thrive on it. If they don’t think I’ll give the damn order to kill that motherfucker they’re full of shit." [2] Those are just what we've found. I get that being a law enforcement officer is a dangerous job, and that they're risking their lives every time they respond to an unknown situation. The thing is, they signed up for that. It's not like cops getting shot was a surprise sprung upon them only after they were sworn in. They're also given the authority to use deadly force, and — ideally — the trust that they will do so judiciously. Not only do they sometimes abjectly fail to do that, the system fails to penalize egregious abuses of that trust. We've somehow chosen as a society to lionize the police, and give them incredibly wide latitude and presumption of good faith. Most cops are good cops, and probably can be trusted with substantial latitude. A permissive attitude invites abuse, however, and not only are there bad cops, but the good ones, and the system itself, abet them (which, I submit, severely mitigates their good cop-ness). [0] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-gun-trace-task-force-gttf-testimony-highlights-20180126-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-gun... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer... [2] https://www.salon.com/2018/02/08/tennessee-sheriff-recorded-saying-shoot-him-before-suspect-died/ https://www.salon.com/2018/02/08/tennessee-sheriff-recorded-...