27 ms·

Don't shoot, I'm disabled

225 points by bb101 8y ago

tobyhinloopen 8y ago
Oh, another US police brutality story. How tragic.
praestigiare 8y ago
Telling that, submitted at the same time, this story has one sarcastic comment, thile the story of a police officer selling information on the dark web has an actual discussion.
- icebraining 8y ago
  What does it tell? Frankly I can't think of anything to say about this. It only fills me with sadness for all involved.
  - larkeith 8y ago
    Perhaps that HN is a rather tech-focused community, and that the other story has more relevance to most users? Or perhaps that it's a more unique story, as depressing as that thought is. My inner cynic believes OP meant to imply that HN values technology over human lives or something similarly disingenuous, but that might be uncharitable. It could just as easily be a reflexion on the frequency of stories in this vein, that they've become commonplace, or similar.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- tomhoward 8y ago
  The other story appeared on the front page 30 minutes earlier. Yet this story now has more comments (though it's about the same if you exclude this meta subthread).
lixtra 8y ago
> "What is the state of mind for a law enforcement officer that they would literally intervene physically with someone with Down's syndrome to the point of their death?" Maybe they are not used to not being able to enforce their will? People with the mental capability comply and sue later.
- wnkrshm 8y ago
  Addressing your quote and leaving aside the cases where officers may have serious character defects and going for a view of an advocatus diaboli: I can imagine that once officers have started to apply force, they're caught in continuing it - because if they have used force, they cannot just go back one step of escalation and say "Yeah we tried beating this person, it wasn't effective and not a good idea, so we did more talking". The obvious follow up question of any kind of oversight would be "Why did you use force in the first place?". They will have to justify their use of force no matter the outcome but it will be harder if it was in error. If it is ultimately successful, I can imagine the justification is way easier. So maybe the partial but strict oversight due to documentation and the now tolerated use of 'non-lethal' means and physical force create a perverse incentive to continue to escalate. E.g. if an officer suddenly realizes they've gone too far, the easiest way out is to look for any sign to end the situation with a reason to blame the victim, in extreme cases ending up with a victim who cannot make a statement anymore.
- throwaway456321 8y ago
  this is what I can't believe. Three people thought violently taking down a man with Down's syndrome was a reasonable thing to do. Not one went to the manager and said: "he's not hurting anyone - leave him be"
TuringTest 8y ago
> She says both they and the law enforcement community have made the case that Ethan would still be alive if he had just followed instructions. > But therein is precisely the problem - his ability to follow instructions. Ethan, like Adam, did not have this ability. I find it disturbing that in the US, in practice, penalty for failing to comply with officer instructions during an arrest is a legally enforced death sentence. This seems a recurring theme in this kind of stories.
- zawerf 8y ago
  Especially horrifying when they tell you they will shoot you anyway if you fail to comply with contradictory instructions, like in the case of Daniel Shaver. Even without any disabilities, you can't survive those encounters without being a pro at Simon Says. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...
  - bb101 8y ago
    > If you make a mistake, another mistake, there is a very severe possibility that you’re both going to get shot. Do you understand?” Sgt. Charles Langley yells before telling Shaver to “shut up.” > “If you move, we’re going to consider that a threat and we are going to deal with it and you may not survive it,” Langley says. > “You do that again, we’re shooting you, do you understand?” Langley yells. > “Please do not shoot me,” Shaver begs, his hands up straight in the air. > At the officer’s command, Shaver then crawls down the hallway, sobbing. At one point, he reaches back — possibly to pull up his shorts — and Brailsford opens fire, striking Shaver five times. > According to the police report, Brailsford was carrying an AR-15 rifle with the phrase “You’re F—ed” etched into the weapon. The police report also said the “shots were fired so rapidly that in watching the video at regular speed, one cannot count them.” So a bully psychologically tortures his victim, kills him and in the end, is acquitted of murder... The mind boggles.
    - gammateam 8y ago
vezycash 8y ago
Any child who's learned electricity in class knows that water and electricity don't mix.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  With a taser, the entire idea is to electrocute the victim. I don't think it was the water that killed him.
  - M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
    No, the idea isn't to electrocute the victim. The whole point of it is to as far as possible give a non-lethal shock. If you're going to electrocute someone it would be easier to just shoot them with a conventional firearm.
    - toomanybeersies 8y ago
      The poison is in the dose. A taser electrocutes you, in theory not with enough power to cause cardiac arrest. If I get a non-lethal shock I'm still being electrocuted.
      - laputan_machine 8y ago
        Electrocution is death by electricity. A shock is different from being electrocuted (to be pedantic, sorry).
      - Sean1708 8y ago
        I'm fairly sure that an electrocution is specifically a death by electric shock, although I suppose at this point we're just arguing semantics.
      - alliecat 8y ago
        The term "electrocution" means "death or serious injury caused by electric shock", "electric shock" being the thing a taser is designed to create. They're obviously not designed to cause death or serious injury so in this case saying tasers are designed to electrocute people is probably not appropriate (depending on how cynical you are about the western world's increasingly militarised police forces). It's far more accurate to say a taser is designed to deliver a "non-lethal electrical shock", and make a note of the absurdity of expecting non-medical personnel to consistently deliver painful electrical impulses to a person without killing them. At any rate; the amount of energy the taser attempted to deliver was exactly the same as every other taser; however, due to the significantly decreased resistance of moist skin, the voltage drop across the body was a lot lower than the "normal person" the taser is designed to hurt therefore more energy made it to the victim's heart, thus killing him. ... This comment got a little more political than I expected. Sorry about that.
larkeith 8y ago
> All police in the US are, of course, armed. There is also the very real prospect that they could face criminals who are, too. While I doubt it is the sole issue, I wonder how much of the United States' absurd frequency of police killings is due to its massively pro-firearm policies and sentiment. Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  > Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation? Yes. Start giving the officers and the organizations that represent the officers (departments, unions) good reasons to kick out people who are a high risk of shooting people unreasonably. Mandatory individual liability insurance would go a long ways. Holding police to the same standard as the rest of us would also go a long ways. Pretty much anything is better than nothing. Cops shoot people dead in situations where normal armed citizens wouldn't even think about pulling a gun. Seriously, I can't even begin to convey how massive the double standard is here. Stuff that's justifiable when the cops do it would be an instant manslaughter if not murder charge for a regular person. Unnecessary police killings are one of those areas where pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate and pull the trigger at the drop of the hat that are the problem.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate I don't think it's realistic for America to get rid of guns. But it seems to me a lot of American police practices that make de-escalating hard come from officer safety concerns, which come in part from the availability of weapons* Pointing your gun at someone from 20 feet away and not getting closer until they lie face down on the floor is probably great for officer safety - but not exactly conductive to non-shouted conversations or de-escalating. * Of course knives are also an issue, so a gun ban wouldn't eliminate the problem even if such a thing was possible.
  - 8y ago
wnkrshm 8y ago
One question that all the systemic issues boil down to is: Do police departments want people of high moral integrity? Does any organization really want those? Or is it best to have people that only show just enough to not incite too much public scrutiny? A certain malleability is a basic requirement to work in an organization and whoever runs counter to the culture will not have an easy time and may have a very short career. Putting the immediate company / working group goals before certain small qualms about how things are supposed to run and how they actually run is a common occurence. The formal requirements are met by clever documentation. It's even hard to have a competent and integer police force in an environment where it's highly unlikely that a person the officers interact with has a gun. Even in that environment lethal or crippling accidents happen, though maybe not as amplified in number by the exterior threat of firearms in the populace. But and an esprit de corps (and a kind of brotherhood between executive and judicial branches) still prevails. In Germany for example, the young officers are the ones who have to go on riot control duty for weeks, because they're physically up to it - that's something that I'm sure will at least subconsciously color a person's view of the civilian public, if pushed hard enough.
- brohee 8y ago
  Even if they did want policemen of high personnal integrity, the lack of consequences for the bad ones (it's painfully obvious that a badge is a licence to kill consequence free at least once, as long as you're smart enough to do it to a minority) means people for which such a situation is attractive will flock to the profession. Tests and interviews can only weed out so many of them. Also specific to the US is the multitude of law enforcement agencies, meaning one bad cop fired from his jobs is very likely to be able to be hired in another agency, as long as he escaped condemnation, which they usually do... By making the position attractive to would be killers, and not having an efficient mechanism to get them out of the system for good once the issues are identified, it was pretty obvious what would happen...
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  That's a stange argument. In USA a victim with a gun (or anything metal) is an easy justification for police killing ciivilians. If more civilians pulled guns out, police would kill more civilians. Unarmed victim martyrs are the only tool the public has to generate political will to push back against violent policing.
ItsOkay2 8y ago
Shame about that complete lack of argument in my deleted thread.
RickJWagner 8y ago
Lifelong US citizen here. To people from outside the US, please understand that our police do not go around shooting and handcuffing people all the time. I have never personally known anyone that was wrongfully arrested or abused by the police. Even in a traffic stop, the key is to be polite and treat the police like human beings. They are understandably concered with each public contact-- American police are killed in the line of duty, sometimes with no warning. The problem is a political one, and it must be stopped. It' a wedge issue used to divide the voting public, and media sources play to both sides. If you travel to the US, please do not fear violence from the police. They really are here to 'Protect and Serve'.
- TomK32 8y ago
  As a European, it's really sad to see that nothing at all can be done about all this shooting, homicides and let's not forget suicides by means of firearms.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    Making the same point, after every major rampage in the US, The Onion runs a piece with the apt headline "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819580358 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na... https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819578474 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na... https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819578287 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na... https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819577935 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
- jfk13 8y ago
  As a UK citizen, I have spent quite a bit of time in the US, and offhand I can remember being pulled over by the police three times (once because my tail-lights were not working, and twice for speeding). In each case the interaction was calm and professional, and I didn't feel at all threatened. However, I suspect that if I were a different colour (and perhaps spoke with a different accent), or if the same encounters had happened in a time and place where the officer already felt stressed, the dynamic might have been quite different.
GarvielLoken 8y ago
Happened in Sweden as well. A person with Downs syndrome with a toy gun got shoot down recently. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6020997/Police-shoot-dead-20-year-old-man-Downs-Syndrome-fled-home-carrying-toy-gun.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6020997/Police-shoo...
mnm1 8y ago
American cops are cowards of the highest degree. They can't even subdue a naked man in a bathtub without tasers? I mean such cowardice deserves a medal and much more offensive terminology I'm going to refrain from here. Instead they murder an innocent man and when held accountable use the bullshit excuse that they were trying to help. How fucking disgusting. The neighbor who called the cops also deserves blame. He lives in America and should have known that calling the police in any situation is likely to make it worse. But ultimately it's these officers who know nothing about helping others that murdered him for no reason other than that's what they are trained to do. I guess we're still far, far away from holding such cowardly scum responsible for their actions. Maybe one day we'll care enough about our own citizens to police our police and hold them to higher standards than everyone else rather than lower. I'm not holding my breath for it though. In many ways they are a symptom of our hateful society.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  One more thing is the reason why the neighbor called the cops. Oh no, a naked man! Babbling nonsense! Help, I'm victimized, someone help! That reminds me of one of the few times I was in the US, in my undies in my motel room, minding my business. I guess the blinds were still open, only covered with a white curtain, and some middle aged woman must have seen me. Immediately called hotel security on me. People in the US are obsessed with seing anything naked it seems.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    This. For every stupid situation made worse by a cop there was some self-righteous jerk that called them there. That said, these are rich people problems. The cops don't have the resources to spend responding to bullshit in non-rich communities and even if you call on a slow day they still don't want to set a precedent of responding to bullshit.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      Of course, as always "the rich" are the real enemy here. Somehow.
M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
I doubt this is as much of a problem of the police officers as the American legal system. Surely the cost of a movie ticket is better settled in a small claims court than with police intervention and a criminal case. The theatre would have surely got their money even without going to court, now they get nothing instead. It's perverse, just like debtor's prison, which is still practiced in the United States. I think the police officers in these cases are mostly just acting out what the legal system expects them to do.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Eh, I'm not sure there was a "criminal case". The cops were working as security staff of the place, not on duty; seems reasonable that they would have a word with someone trying to break the movie theater rules. It's the escalation from "having a word" to "forcible removal" to "on the floor not breathing" that is absurd.
  - M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
    They stil acted as if there was. But the worst thing the kid could be accused of is being in breach of contract for seeing more screenings than indicated on his ticket. Besides, it would make a lot more business sense to take it as an opportunity to sell more tickets rather than to remove him.
Datenstrom 8y ago
I think the biggest problem is their training. I was on a base police detail as a temporary duty for about a year and I often see things like this and the police act exactly as the training I had taught. The "force escalation" went ask -> tell -> make, and they try to instill a paranoia that everyone has a concealed gun by default and should be treated so. I think I have the old training manual laying around somewhere still. Training about recognizing and handling disabled persons should be mandatory, I received none. Also, clearly what is considered "deadly force" should be re-evaluated. Injecting someone with sedatives without knowing their medical history definitely seems like it should be on that list. One of most disturbing things I remember from the training was an instructor telling us "It doesen't matter what really happened, what matters is how you articulate what happened."
- nervousvarun 8y ago
  We desperately, desperately need improved non-lethal deterrents for our police force in the U.S. This always has seemed like an enormous industry for someone out there to disrupt.
  - PostOnce 8y ago
    The story already opens with an unarmed man in the shower in his own home being repeatedly tased. If your problem is you're punching people in the head too often, the solution isn't to wear soft gloves, it's to stop punching people. How to achieve that is still a matter of debate.
    - brennebeck 8y ago
      I read the gp comment as basically: desperately needing improvement through the entire non-lethal ‘stack’. This would include new training materials, R&D for better equipment, and so on.
  - ppseafield 8y ago
    The person in the first story was "non-lethally" tazed over and over, 15 times before being dragged out of the shower and injected with multiple sedatives. Any "non-lethal deterrents" applied that aggressively are still gonna kill people.
amarant 8y ago
oh, right, that's why the US is on my no-go list. thanks for reminding me, had almost forgotten!
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Don't worry, it's only dangerous here if you're a woman, a person of color, non-Christian, an immigrant, disabled, poor, live in a city/town near industrial plants, need medical care, a senior citizen, are LGBTQ+, a sex worker, an addict, or live near natural disasters.
  - thedaemon 8y ago
    Some people may think you are joking. This is not a joke.
  - kolanos 8y ago
    White males make up the largest portion of people shot by police. [0] [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      32,658 people were killed by terrorists in 2014. Does that mean we're more likely to be killed by terrorists than by police? Of course not, because that was terrorists killed around the world. There's more people living around the world than in the US. In the US, only 3,046 people were killed by terrorists between 2001 and 2014. More white people get killed in America because there are more white people here than black people. But adjusting for population, more black people get killed in America by cops than white people. Three times more. I provided tons of links (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18168217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18168217), you can see for yourself.
      - kolanos 8y ago
        Then why aren't white males on your list?
expathacker 8y ago
For those of you reading these things thinking, "Oh, I don't know anybody who has had this happen to them. This could never happen to me or anybody I know". 11 years ago, Steven Fountain, a friend of mine, a programmer / systems administrator I met when I was working at Napster who suffered from schizophrenia was shot to death by police in Campbell, California. He had called the police in a moment of confusion and despair. I had just interviewed him for a job at a company where I was working two weeks earlier, and was trying to convince my boss to hire him even though he was quirky, not quite realizing how bad his emotional state was until talking to his ex-gf at the funeral. http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/11/09/Steven_Fountain_(24)_was_shot_and_killed_by_police_because_the_officer_thought_he_was_wielding_a_knife http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/11/09/Steven_Founta... Edited for clarity and date accuracy
throwaway13337 8y ago
The justification for this always comes down to a sort of 'it's dangerous job and I have to protect myself'. It's interesting to note, then, that police officer is not a dangerous job compared to, say, taxi driver. It wouldn't surprise me if most deaths on the job for police were car accidents. So this justification is truly moot. The public should know so as to shape further the opinion of officers. Here's data from labor stats on deadly jobs: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf Those loggers put their lives on the line every day to bring us lumber!
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  The leading causes of death for officers almost every year are car accidents and medical emergencies such as heart attack, etc. Death as a result of being killed by a suspect is always 2nd or 3rd.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  There's a difference between being killed by bad luck in an accident and being sought out and murdered.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    That’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that the perception of risk seems to be greatly skewed in the minds of officers and the public alike. About 50 officers die each year at the hands of criminals. This is compared to them killing about 1000 citizens on average each year. Reports would seem to suggest they kill more unarmed citizens than officers are killed at all. Not certain how many officers are injured compared to citizens injured.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      From that 1000, you would need to separate out the people who 'deserved' a police killing, due to legitimately threatening the lives of the public or of the police officer.
1001101 8y ago
Technology (Bluetooth beacons/app) is being developed to help stop some of these tragedies: https://thevitalsapp.com/ https://thevitalsapp.com/ "The Vitals™ app enables safer community interactions by allowing individuals with visible and invisible conditions and disabilities to create and share a personalized digital profile with authorized first responders via a secure, mobile app – improving real-time communication, reducing the risk of misunderstandings, and promoting greater independence." A number of cities are piloting this.
- chris_mc 8y ago
  No, I shouldn't have to share more information to be treated like a human, the cops should be better trained.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    No matter how much training they receive, policemen are not going to be about to make psychological diagnoses in the heat of the moment. They need to know upfront that the person in question has schizophrenia so that they can apply appropriate behavior. (And that's the part of the training that needs improving, then.)
    - chris_mc 8y ago
      Then maybe they shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  I'm sure there's no way this could be misused. Perhaps training the police to not shoot people on sight might be a better solution?
- DanBC 8y ago
  In the linked article the police knew he was unarmed, and I'll, and had been told by neighbours that he was not violent, and they saw that he was not violent, but despite that the police helped him so hard he died.
geggam 8y ago
Any time you call a man with a gun to your location and they have immunity to shoot you based on their fear, you run the risk of being shot. Lately it seems that risk has grown.
- dec0dedab0de 8y ago
  Lately it seems that risk has grown. I have no evidence, but I feel that it only seems the risk has grown because technology has made it harder to cover up. I think as it gets more attention, the risk is going down.
  - jedrek 8y ago
    Really? I feel the risk has grown. Based on numerous cases, cops have realized that getting filmed killing an unarmed person pleading for their life barely impacts their career, much less their freedom.
    - kzrdude 8y ago
      This is why we need facts and numbers, because media stories only give us a glimpse of it, without putting it into context. Yes, the problem is bad and it exists. But we need more facts to see: Is it getting better? What's working to prevent it?
  - theseatoms 8y ago
    To this point, I've looked for (and failed to find) year-over-year statistics for murders by police. I agree with the parent that technology is revealing existing problems in greater light. Whether or not the problem itself is getting better or worse is a separate issue.
    - geggam 8y ago
      The reason I feel it has grown is in my almost 5 decades of life I have seen police go from peace officers to law enforcement. I have witnessed the changes. It used to be when a kid did something wrong there was tolerance for his youthful ignorance and he was allowed to learn from his mistakes without having a criminal record. Now zero tolerance has stopped the pouring out of beer with a stern warning next time parents / legal matters would be involved. Law enforcement is the mission. It is not a good mission because it is actually disrupting a peaceful society. I wish we could bring back the peace officers and the mission of keeping the peace using laws instead of enforcing the laws at the cost of social peace.
rocky1138 8y ago
Attorney John Chisholm went so far as to rule that "there was no basis to conclusively link Mr Trammell's death to the actions taken by the police officers". Perhaps he didn't watch the same footage I did.
fogetti 8y ago
District Attorney John Chisholm went so far as to rule that "there was no basis to conclusively link Mr Trammell's death to the actions taken by the police officers" - WTF did I just read??? I can't believe it.
- gammateam 8y ago
  I honestly feel like Prosecuters, Juries, District Attorneys, Judges, Sheriffs, Mayors and Govenors are afraid of their police departments. The way these investigations and prosecutions go remind me a lot of the mob investigations, where it took the feds to really take them down. Every municipality is different, and at different points in time, but I think this is an overlooked part of all of this. I think its greater than just a "blue shield" or sense of camaraderie with officers, I think there is fear. And I've seen circumstances where that's valid, such as when Adrian Schoolcraft was dragged out of his home and thrown in an asylum by fellow police officers just because he showed up late to work that day and they got paranoid he was going to out them.
_nalply 8y ago
Deaf people are being shot by the police, too. Being a Swiss Deaf I wonder whether it's risky to travel to the US and rent a car.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Realistically, you'd be in more danger just driving a car. In Switzerland. Let's not get too melodramatic.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
"I have to make sure I go home to my family at night," Well, in that case- maybe don't become a police officer? I mean, I don't know that I've ever heard a fireman, or a doctor, a rescuer, a lifeguard, etc, say that sort of thing - "my first priority is to go home safely tonight". That doesn't mean that they're expect to sacrifice their lives in the line of duty, it means they're expected to risk their lives, to save someone else's (the doctor, if you were wondering, because they can easily catch something nasty). The police officer who made the comment shot a szhizophrenic woman who was holding a knife (that's all we're told about that case). So presumably he shot her because he was afraid she'd stab him. Presumably, also, that was part of his training. That is very dangerous. Giving someone a gun and telling them that when their live's in danger their priority is to come out of it alive, is dangerous for everyone around the person with the gun. Because the easiest way to make sure you "go back to your family" when you have a gun and the crazy lady is holding a knife is to shoot her dead. I mean, duh. I should also probably point out that I think this is a peculiarly US thing. I doubt that anywhere else in the developed world police officers are adviced to shoot first and ask questions later, or in any case, as a first line of defense.
- akerl_ 8y ago
  They definitely tell lifeguards and firefighters and first responders that their "first priority is to go home safely tonight". If you have a small group of people who can help, and a much larger group that need help, it's critically important that your helpers don't get themselves killed by being reckless with their own lives. The overuse of force by police in the US is terrible. It's a combination of bad judgement, bad training, and no repercussions. But that's fully separate from the fact that "keep yourself alive" is a core tenet of all the jobs you listed.
  - rrauenza 8y ago
    They also express it that "now we've got N+1 victims we have to rescue, and one less helper."
  - GW150914 8y ago
    There’s a difference between telling people to not put themselves in risky situations thst will just lead to adding a casualty (firefighter running into a collapsing building) and shooting people to “be on the safe side.” The equivalent for a cop would be to wait for backup, not murdering someone else because they’re scared.
ljm 8y ago
> She says both they and the law enforcement community have made the case that Ethan would still be alive if he had just followed instructions. Statements like this are so sad to read because of the sheer lack of empathy it demonstrates. It’s pure victim blaming and the implication is that someone deserves to die for essentially making a mistake, or not even being aware of it. What does it say that this is both accepted and also that those involved (the police) have literally zero patience for people who can’t read their minds? Why is it okay that you get an expedited death penalty for something as minor as not following instructions? These self-same people would be begging for leniency in that same situation.
- dvlsg 8y ago
  Empathy aside (which I agree is quite depressing), I've seen enough videos where multiple officers shout conflicting commands (put your hands up / get on the ground). In that case, it's impossible to comply. What do you do then? And then of course there's the implication of "comply or die", which is also a huge problem on its own.
  - ljm 8y ago
    I think you're still looking at empathy there. We shouldn't be putting it aside. We're all human. How do you not get shot to death by a cop when he can't even tell you what he wants from you? And why the fuck does he have a loaded gun when he doesn't even know that answer himself? One thing I find consistent in these stories is prolongation and for me I assume that the cop doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing. Why would you fire a taser at a naked dude in a shower fifteen times? Why would you unload your gun at a black guy and leave 16 bullet wounds within him? When you're looking at the stories about solving murder, if the detective saw that the dead woman had 16 bullet holes in her or 32 stab wounds, they'd be assuming a crime of passion. Because that's a lot of work to make someone dead, way above and beyond. You don't accidentally squeeze your trigger that many times. So is it possibly the case that these civilian deaths are all crimes of passion committed by the cops?
    - 20after4 8y ago
dsego 8y ago
Contrast this to how Croatian police handled a recent case where a man suffering with PTSD blew up his own house with a propane gas tank and was threatening and attacking with a billhook. The man was in such a delirium that he resisted the police for 12 hours, even after suffering third degree burns on 70% of his body. He also injured two policemen. [1] They finally managed to overcome him with a taser, but only after hours of trying to negotiate! One policeman was severely cut on his hands and needed stitching. [2] More images [3]. [1] https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/drama-u-opuzenu-muskarac-se-zatvorio-u-kucu-i-aktivirao-plinsku-bocu-u-pregovorima-ozlijedjen-policajac---530829.html https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/drama-u-opuzenu-muskarac... [2] https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/dubrovnik/clanak/id/569079/isjekao-me-je-kosirom-imam-stotinu-savova-cudo-da-sam-prezivio-policajac-otkrio-detalje-horora-kroz-koji-je-prosao-obuzdavajuci-pomahnitalog-opuzenca https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/dubrovnik/clanak/id/5... [3]https://zadarski.slobodnadalmacija.hr/forum/clanak/id/565826/muskarac-koji-je-vlastitu-kucu-digao-u-zrak-svladan-elektrosokerom-sa-strasnim-ozljedama-operiran-u-splitskoj-bolnici https://zadarski.slobodnadalmacija.hr/forum/clanak/id/565826...
mcguire 8y ago
The officers in these situations are (in the US) supervised by elected officials: the sheriff, DAs, and mayors. The next time they are running for re-election, take out an ad with scenes from the relevant videos, with words to the effect that, if you vote for this individual, you are talking responsibility for their actions. Sure, it'll be a bit expensive, but anyone can do it. We aren't powerless, we aren't helpless victims. If we're really upset by their actions, we shouldn't act like we are helpless. Ranting on an internet forum is useless.
- clubm8 8y ago
  >Ranting on an internet forum is useless. You just said that voting can change things. Wouldn't it logically follow that ranting on a public forum, which people can read and be inspired to vote by, is very useful?
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Voting can change things (and publicly embarrassing elected officials works, too), but I doubt any of the people reading these comments live in the voting districts of the officials involved in the cases in the article. Even if they are, I doubt they're more than a tiny minority. And even in that case, well, preaching to the choir and all that. Even ranting on a forum local to those areas is unlikely to do anything useful---when was the last time your mind was changed by an editorial, much less a comment down in the crazy-text. The power is in the votes of the legendary John Q. Public, who has either never heard this story or caught 30 seconds of it as a sad tragedy that could not be prevented. The effect we need is to force them to stand up and say, "I'm ok with this kind of collateral damage." Or not.
    - clubm8 8y ago
      >Voting can change things (and publicly embarrassing elected officials works, too), but I doubt any of the people reading these comments live in the voting districts of the officials involved in the cases in the article. You seem determined to believe things without evidence.
dsego 8y ago
Sgt Corey Nooner had many other choices concerning his safety. Why is it so important to stand ground? How about warning shots? What sane person would attack a police officer pointing a handgun with just a knife?
tomazio 8y ago
My heart goes out to all the victim's families, as these are all very tragic. I have a brother with down syndrome and reading the story about Ethan and how the situation played out sounds exactly like how it could play out with my own brother, heaven forbid he ever ends up in a similar situation. While I agree the shoot first ask questions later methodology is not the best, I think education surrounding common mental handicaps/disabilities would go a long way to helping officers better understand the situations and better equip them to judge the threat level of situations. I can attest that people with down syndrome can freeze up and easily experience a paralysis through analysis as they are put in confusing and unfamiliar situations, especially once someone starts shouting commands at them and they are not sure what do. Just knowing this simple fact and general behaviors surrounding people with down syndrome/mentally handicapped would give officers the knowledge to know "hey person has x or y disability and is acting this way because of z, this is a non threatening situation." It's almost ironic to me, where a profession that's main job responsibility is dealing with all different types of people all day isn't required to know any more specific social dynamics or behaviors surrounding them. I think requiring a psychology/sociology for police officers so they have a better understanding of human behavior might help in this regard. EDIT: Grammar.
Nasrudith 8y ago
One thing that pisses me off as excuse making is "training/ lack of training to blame" for travesties as a complete abdication of responsibility. I mean if your babysitter got frustrated and beat your kid with an electric cord you wouldn't accept lack of training as an excuse! It seems to be gussied up "Just following orders." Making matters worse is the farcical double standards where ignorance of the law and operating based on feelings is the standard for them and perfect knowledge of the law and situation regardless of circumstances for everyone else. Shooting someone breaking into their house after being flashbanged - both disoriented and threatened leaves one liable for murder because they should have known the intruding guy in black who never announced his presence while deafened and half blind was a cop. Meanwhile if the police empty multiple magazines into someone who is reaching for a wallet because they didn't know for sure jt wasn't a weapon and felt threatened and never get so much as a grand jury indictment attempt. If we all operated on the fear for life standard it would be a bloody paranoid anarchy of preemptive assassinations - proving how fucking stupid it is for anyone. Feelings are always an absolutely terrible basis for laws.
writepub 8y ago
If local/state attorney generals refuse to investigate, this can and should become a federal investigation, that now includes the said attorney generals too - or so I understand. Can any lawyers chime in?
throw2016 8y ago
These are deeply disturbing. Given the sheer number of police killings and the repetition of the same odious frivolous justifications one can only conclude there is no desire for a more humane police force. The problem is not only the police but a justice system that seems to justify brutality and arbitrary killings. This not only sustains the cycle of violence but 'normalizes' police executions and police officers who think they can kill at will and be protected. This is a dangerous level of power to give to the police in any civilized society and none accept it. To the victims this is a police state, there is no accountability and no justice and forgot any rights their right to life can be extinguished in seconds with no consequences and accountability. This is not the behavior of a civilized state.
lysp 8y ago
Here is an exert from one state in Australia's police force review from 1994. This took place _24_ years ago. Even though it was so long ago, it seems to directly reflect issues mentioned in the article. For the TLDR crowd: * Too much force was being used by police * Mental illness was a factor in some shootings / use of force (4%) * Standardised training for all police members * Safety first approach taken: * - Safety of offender is included in that approach (officers first, public next, offender third) * - Contain first, avoid confrontation, avoid force * - If needed only use minimum force required * - Forced entry only as last resort * All police undertake mandatory 5 day mental health training * Police to take refresher mental health training every 6 months * Any use of force - from minor (forced fingerprinting/cuffing) through to major (riots) - to be placed on register for tracking * Increased trends noticed in force register will be addressed in 6 monthly training ------------------------- 3. Project Beacon The establishment of Project Beacon followed a number of shooting incidents involving the use of firearms by the Victoria police. Between 1987 and 1994, officers were involved in operational incidents which resulted in the deaths of 29 offenders or suspects. Police were required to attend 15 to 20 incidents per day where use of force was employed and up to three "critical incidents" per week. A critical incident is defined as "any incident requiring police management which involves violence or a threat of violence and is, or is potentially, life-threatening". By mid-1994 this trend became the catalyst for fundamental change in operational safety tactics and training within the Victoria police. Expert analysis revealed that a number of factors may have contributed to this increase; namely, a feeling of vulnerability within the police force, a desire on the part of the community for instant solutions and a belief within the force that "there was no one else to solve these problems". It was also felt that this trend was in part contributed to by the de-institutionalisation of patients with mental illness in Victoria in the early 1990s. Six of nine fatal shooting incidents in 1994 by police (and one in 1995) involved persons with a mental illness. Statistics revealed that such persons were involved in 44% of all critical incidents reported to Project Beacon between October, 1994 and December, 1995. It was further noted that persons with mental illness were involved in approximately 4% of all "use of force" incidents, i.e., where force is used or threatened by or against the police. Emotionally disturbed persons attempting suicide and/or self-mutilation constituted a further 3.5% of use of force incidents. In general, a significant number of emotionally disturbed persons and people with behavioural problems, who may not have had histories of mental illness, regularly came to the police attention. A number of reviews, both internal and with the assistance of international policing experts, were undertaken in an attempt to identify solutions. On 6th April, 1994, the Commissioner of the Victoria police, Mr. Neil Comrie, wrote to all commissioned officers emphasising the philosophy that "the success of an operation will primarily be judged by the extent to which the use of force is avoided or minimised". On 19th September, 1994, Project Beacon was established and involved the standardisation of training so that all officers were trained to the same level of competence. The core principles of Project Beacon inform the response to every incident and the planning of operations which may involve any potential use of force. These core principles may be summarised as follows: * "Safety First — the safety of police, the public and the offender or suspect is paramount. * Risk Assessment — is to be applied to all incidents and operations. * Take Charge — effective command and control must be exercised. * Planned Response — every opportunity should be taken to convert an unplanned response into a planned operation. * Cordon and Containment — unless impractical, a cordon and containment approach is to be adopted. * Avoid Confrontation — a violent confrontation is to be avoided. * Avoid Force — the use of force is to be avoided. * Minimum Force — where the use of force is to be avoided, only the minimum amount reasonably necessary is to be used. * Forced Entry Searches — are to be used only as a last resort. * Resources — it is accepted that the "safety first" principle may require the deployment of more resources, more complex planning and more time to complete". The primary principle of Project Beacon is "safety first". The safety of the police officer is paramount, followed by the safety of the public and the safety of the subject. Mr. Shuey utilised the example of a doctor attending a collision to treat a patient: "the doctor wouldn’t stand in the middle of the road to do the treatment of the patient because he would be exposing himself to the risk of being run over by a car". If the police officer is in a position of security, he or she will be more competent and capable of handling the situation. If a police officer is not involved in anything which is unsafe, he will have a clearer perspective of what is happening and be able to deal with the situation accordingly. If you expose a police officer to a "kill or be killed" situation, the risk of a fatal confrontation increases. A significant objective of Project Beacon was to assist police in dealing with persons with mental illness, emotionally disturbed individuals and persons with behavioural problems. Project Beacon, in collaboration with the Victoria Department of Health and Community Services, developed a comprehensive integrated approach for dealing with such persons which was incorporated into police training courses. The training involved video scenarios and role-playing and in December, 1995, a video called "Similar Expectations" was produced. It offered a range of methods for dealing with persons with mental illness, and provided advice from mental health experts. The video received widespread acceptance in law enforcement and mental health agencies and was automatically incorporated into every police officer’s training; it was not confined to the training of those who participated in dedicated negotiators courses. Further training programmes were developed by persons with expertise in psychiatric mental health with the assistance of a police psychologist. 8,500 police officers, student and operational, were placed on an initial, five day training course complemented by mandatory two-day refresher training every six months. It is now part of ongoing training of police officers in the state of Victoria. Training for the Special Operations Group is rigorous and ongoing, taking place on most occasions when its members are not involved in operational response duties. A "use of force register" is now maintained by the Victoria Police. Use of force incidents range from the forcible obtainment of fingerprints and handcuffing, through to riot situations. All such incidents are recorded in the register. This enables the police force in Victoria to track the number of incidents where force is a factor, and enables trend analysis in relation to the type of force and weapons that are used. This acts as a "catalyst" for the next six months of training. The information is analysed and if there is an excessive increase in crimes involving firearms or knives etc., the training in the following six months will be highlighted in that direction.

225 points by bb101 8y ago

Oh, another US police brutality story. How tragic.

Telling that, submitted at the same time, this story has one sarcastic comment, thile the story of a police officer selling information on the dark web has an actual discussion.

icebraining 8y ago
What does it tell? Frankly I can't think of anything to say about this. It only fills me with sadness for all involved.
- larkeith 8y ago
  Perhaps that HN is a rather tech-focused community, and that the other story has more relevance to most users? Or perhaps that it's a more unique story, as depressing as that thought is. My inner cynic believes OP meant to imply that HN values technology over human lives or something similarly disingenuous, but that might be uncharitable. It could just as easily be a reflexion on the frequency of stories in this vein, that they've become commonplace, or similar.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
tomhoward 8y ago
The other story appeared on the front page 30 minutes earlier. Yet this story now has more comments (though it's about the same if you exclude this meta subthread).

lixtra 8y ago

> "What is the state of mind for a law enforcement officer that they would literally intervene physically with someone with Down's syndrome to the point of their death?" Maybe they are not used to not being able to enforce their will? People with the mental capability comply and sue later.

wnkrshm 8y ago
Addressing your quote and leaving aside the cases where officers may have serious character defects and going for a view of an advocatus diaboli: I can imagine that once officers have started to apply force, they're caught in continuing it - because if they have used force, they cannot just go back one step of escalation and say "Yeah we tried beating this person, it wasn't effective and not a good idea, so we did more talking". The obvious follow up question of any kind of oversight would be "Why did you use force in the first place?". They will have to justify their use of force no matter the outcome but it will be harder if it was in error. If it is ultimately successful, I can imagine the justification is way easier. So maybe the partial but strict oversight due to documentation and the now tolerated use of 'non-lethal' means and physical force create a perverse incentive to continue to escalate. E.g. if an officer suddenly realizes they've gone too far, the easiest way out is to look for any sign to end the situation with a reason to blame the victim, in extreme cases ending up with a victim who cannot make a statement anymore.
throwaway456321 8y ago
this is what I can't believe. Three people thought violently taking down a man with Down's syndrome was a reasonable thing to do. Not one went to the manager and said: "he's not hurting anyone - leave him be"

TuringTest 8y ago

> She says both they and the law enforcement community have made the case that Ethan would still be alive if he had just followed instructions. > But therein is precisely the problem - his ability to follow instructions. Ethan, like Adam, did not have this ability. I find it disturbing that in the US, in practice, penalty for failing to comply with officer instructions during an arrest is a legally enforced death sentence. This seems a recurring theme in this kind of stories.

zawerf 8y ago
Especially horrifying when they tell you they will shoot you anyway if you fail to comply with contradictory instructions, like in the case of Daniel Shaver. Even without any disabilities, you can't survive those encounters without being a pro at Simon Says. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...
- bb101 8y ago
  > If you make a mistake, another mistake, there is a very severe possibility that you’re both going to get shot. Do you understand?” Sgt. Charles Langley yells before telling Shaver to “shut up.” > “If you move, we’re going to consider that a threat and we are going to deal with it and you may not survive it,” Langley says. > “You do that again, we’re shooting you, do you understand?” Langley yells. > “Please do not shoot me,” Shaver begs, his hands up straight in the air. > At the officer’s command, Shaver then crawls down the hallway, sobbing. At one point, he reaches back — possibly to pull up his shorts — and Brailsford opens fire, striking Shaver five times. > According to the police report, Brailsford was carrying an AR-15 rifle with the phrase “You’re F—ed” etched into the weapon. The police report also said the “shots were fired so rapidly that in watching the video at regular speed, one cannot count them.” So a bully psychologically tortures his victim, kills him and in the end, is acquitted of murder... The mind boggles.
  - gammateam 8y ago

vezycash 8y ago

Any child who's learned electricity in class knows that water and electricity don't mix.

toomanybeersies 8y ago
With a taser, the entire idea is to electrocute the victim. I don't think it was the water that killed him.
- M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
  No, the idea isn't to electrocute the victim. The whole point of it is to as far as possible give a non-lethal shock. If you're going to electrocute someone it would be easier to just shoot them with a conventional firearm.
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago
    The poison is in the dose. A taser electrocutes you, in theory not with enough power to cause cardiac arrest. If I get a non-lethal shock I'm still being electrocuted.
    - laputan_machine 8y ago
      Electrocution is death by electricity. A shock is different from being electrocuted (to be pedantic, sorry).
    - Sean1708 8y ago
      I'm fairly sure that an electrocution is specifically a death by electric shock, although I suppose at this point we're just arguing semantics.
    - alliecat 8y ago
      The term "electrocution" means "death or serious injury caused by electric shock", "electric shock" being the thing a taser is designed to create. They're obviously not designed to cause death or serious injury so in this case saying tasers are designed to electrocute people is probably not appropriate (depending on how cynical you are about the western world's increasingly militarised police forces). It's far more accurate to say a taser is designed to deliver a "non-lethal electrical shock", and make a note of the absurdity of expecting non-medical personnel to consistently deliver painful electrical impulses to a person without killing them. At any rate; the amount of energy the taser attempted to deliver was exactly the same as every other taser; however, due to the significantly decreased resistance of moist skin, the voltage drop across the body was a lot lower than the "normal person" the taser is designed to hurt therefore more energy made it to the victim's heart, thus killing him. ... This comment got a little more political than I expected. Sorry about that.

larkeith 8y ago

> All police in the US are, of course, armed. There is also the very real prospect that they could face criminals who are, too. While I doubt it is the sole issue, I wonder how much of the United States' absurd frequency of police killings is due to its massively pro-firearm policies and sentiment. Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
> Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation? Yes. Start giving the officers and the organizations that represent the officers (departments, unions) good reasons to kick out people who are a high risk of shooting people unreasonably. Mandatory individual liability insurance would go a long ways. Holding police to the same standard as the rest of us would also go a long ways. Pretty much anything is better than nothing. Cops shoot people dead in situations where normal armed citizens wouldn't even think about pulling a gun. Seriously, I can't even begin to convey how massive the double standard is here. Stuff that's justifiable when the cops do it would be an instant manslaughter if not murder charge for a regular person. Unnecessary police killings are one of those areas where pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate and pull the trigger at the drop of the hat that are the problem.
- michaelt 8y ago
  pretty much everyone pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead officers who don't de-escalate I don't think it's realistic for America to get rid of guns. But it seems to me a lot of American police practices that make de-escalating hard come from officer safety concerns, which come in part from the availability of weapons* Pointing your gun at someone from 20 feet away and not getting closer until they lie face down on the floor is probably great for officer safety - but not exactly conductive to non-shouted conversations or de-escalating. * Of course knives are also an issue, so a gun ban wouldn't eliminate the problem even if such a thing was possible.
- 8y ago

wnkrshm 8y ago

One question that all the systemic issues boil down to is: Do police departments want people of high moral integrity? Does any organization really want those? Or is it best to have people that only show just enough to not incite too much public scrutiny? A certain malleability is a basic requirement to work in an organization and whoever runs counter to the culture will not have an easy time and may have a very short career. Putting the immediate company / working group goals before certain small qualms about how things are supposed to run and how they actually run is a common occurence. The formal requirements are met by clever documentation. It's even hard to have a competent and integer police force in an environment where it's highly unlikely that a person the officers interact with has a gun. Even in that environment lethal or crippling accidents happen, though maybe not as amplified in number by the exterior threat of firearms in the populace. But and an esprit de corps (and a kind of brotherhood between executive and judicial branches) still prevails. In Germany for example, the young officers are the ones who have to go on riot control duty for weeks, because they're physically up to it - that's something that I'm sure will at least subconsciously color a person's view of the civilian public, if pushed hard enough.

brohee 8y ago
Even if they did want policemen of high personnal integrity, the lack of consequences for the bad ones (it's painfully obvious that a badge is a licence to kill consequence free at least once, as long as you're smart enough to do it to a minority) means people for which such a situation is attractive will flock to the profession. Tests and interviews can only weed out so many of them. Also specific to the US is the multitude of law enforcement agencies, meaning one bad cop fired from his jobs is very likely to be able to be hired in another agency, as long as he escaped condemnation, which they usually do... By making the position attractive to would be killers, and not having an efficient mechanism to get them out of the system for good once the issues are identified, it was pretty obvious what would happen...
fjsolwmv 8y ago
That's a stange argument. In USA a victim with a gun (or anything metal) is an easy justification for police killing ciivilians. If more civilians pulled guns out, police would kill more civilians. Unarmed victim martyrs are the only tool the public has to generate political will to push back against violent policing.

ItsOkay2 8y ago

Shame about that complete lack of argument in my deleted thread.

RickJWagner 8y ago

Lifelong US citizen here. To people from outside the US, please understand that our police do not go around shooting and handcuffing people all the time. I have never personally known anyone that was wrongfully arrested or abused by the police. Even in a traffic stop, the key is to be polite and treat the police like human beings. They are understandably concered with each public contact-- American police are killed in the line of duty, sometimes with no warning. The problem is a political one, and it must be stopped. It' a wedge issue used to divide the voting public, and media sources play to both sides. If you travel to the US, please do not fear violence from the police. They really are here to 'Protect and Serve'.

TomK32 8y ago
As a European, it's really sad to see that nothing at all can be done about all this shooting, homicides and let's not forget suicides by means of firearms.
- FabHK 8y ago
  Making the same point, after every major rampage in the US, The Onion runs a piece with the apt headline "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819580358 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na... https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819578474 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na... https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819578287 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na... https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819577935 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
jfk13 8y ago
As a UK citizen, I have spent quite a bit of time in the US, and offhand I can remember being pulled over by the police three times (once because my tail-lights were not working, and twice for speeding). In each case the interaction was calm and professional, and I didn't feel at all threatened. However, I suspect that if I were a different colour (and perhaps spoke with a different accent), or if the same encounters had happened in a time and place where the officer already felt stressed, the dynamic might have been quite different.

GarvielLoken 8y ago

Happened in Sweden as well. A person with Downs syndrome with a toy gun got shoot down recently. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6020997/Police-shoot-dead-20-year-old-man-Downs-Syndrome-fled-home-carrying-toy-gun.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6020997/Police-shoo...

mnm1 8y ago

American cops are cowards of the highest degree. They can't even subdue a naked man in a bathtub without tasers? I mean such cowardice deserves a medal and much more offensive terminology I'm going to refrain from here. Instead they murder an innocent man and when held accountable use the bullshit excuse that they were trying to help. How fucking disgusting. The neighbor who called the cops also deserves blame. He lives in America and should have known that calling the police in any situation is likely to make it worse. But ultimately it's these officers who know nothing about helping others that murdered him for no reason other than that's what they are trained to do. I guess we're still far, far away from holding such cowardly scum responsible for their actions. Maybe one day we'll care enough about our own citizens to police our police and hold them to higher standards than everyone else rather than lower. I'm not holding my breath for it though. In many ways they are a symptom of our hateful society.

m_mueller 8y ago
One more thing is the reason why the neighbor called the cops. Oh no, a naked man! Babbling nonsense! Help, I'm victimized, someone help! That reminds me of one of the few times I was in the US, in my undies in my motel room, minding my business. I guess the blinds were still open, only covered with a white curtain, and some middle aged woman must have seen me. Immediately called hotel security on me. People in the US are obsessed with seing anything naked it seems.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  This. For every stupid situation made worse by a cop there was some self-righteous jerk that called them there. That said, these are rich people problems. The cops don't have the resources to spend responding to bullshit in non-rich communities and even if you call on a slow day they still don't want to set a precedent of responding to bullshit.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Of course, as always "the rich" are the real enemy here. Somehow.

M_Bakhtiari 8y ago

I doubt this is as much of a problem of the police officers as the American legal system. Surely the cost of a movie ticket is better settled in a small claims court than with police intervention and a criminal case. The theatre would have surely got their money even without going to court, now they get nothing instead. It's perverse, just like debtor's prison, which is still practiced in the United States. I think the police officers in these cases are mostly just acting out what the legal system expects them to do.

icebraining 8y ago
Eh, I'm not sure there was a "criminal case". The cops were working as security staff of the place, not on duty; seems reasonable that they would have a word with someone trying to break the movie theater rules. It's the escalation from "having a word" to "forcible removal" to "on the floor not breathing" that is absurd.
- M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
  They stil acted as if there was. But the worst thing the kid could be accused of is being in breach of contract for seeing more screenings than indicated on his ticket. Besides, it would make a lot more business sense to take it as an opportunity to sell more tickets rather than to remove him.

Datenstrom 8y ago

I think the biggest problem is their training. I was on a base police detail as a temporary duty for about a year and I often see things like this and the police act exactly as the training I had taught. The "force escalation" went ask -> tell -> make, and they try to instill a paranoia that everyone has a concealed gun by default and should be treated so. I think I have the old training manual laying around somewhere still. Training about recognizing and handling disabled persons should be mandatory, I received none. Also, clearly what is considered "deadly force" should be re-evaluated. Injecting someone with sedatives without knowing their medical history definitely seems like it should be on that list. One of most disturbing things I remember from the training was an instructor telling us "It doesen't matter what really happened, what matters is how you articulate what happened."

nervousvarun 8y ago
We desperately, desperately need improved non-lethal deterrents for our police force in the U.S. This always has seemed like an enormous industry for someone out there to disrupt.
- PostOnce 8y ago
  The story already opens with an unarmed man in the shower in his own home being repeatedly tased. If your problem is you're punching people in the head too often, the solution isn't to wear soft gloves, it's to stop punching people. How to achieve that is still a matter of debate.
  - brennebeck 8y ago
    I read the gp comment as basically: desperately needing improvement through the entire non-lethal ‘stack’. This would include new training materials, R&D for better equipment, and so on.
- ppseafield 8y ago
  The person in the first story was "non-lethally" tazed over and over, 15 times before being dragged out of the shower and injected with multiple sedatives. Any "non-lethal deterrents" applied that aggressively are still gonna kill people.

amarant 8y ago

oh, right, that's why the US is on my no-go list. thanks for reminding me, had almost forgotten!

peterwwillis 8y ago
Don't worry, it's only dangerous here if you're a woman, a person of color, non-Christian, an immigrant, disabled, poor, live in a city/town near industrial plants, need medical care, a senior citizen, are LGBTQ+, a sex worker, an addict, or live near natural disasters.
- thedaemon 8y ago
  Some people may think you are joking. This is not a joke.
- kolanos 8y ago
  White males make up the largest portion of people shot by police. [0] [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    32,658 people were killed by terrorists in 2014. Does that mean we're more likely to be killed by terrorists than by police? Of course not, because that was terrorists killed around the world. There's more people living around the world than in the US. In the US, only 3,046 people were killed by terrorists between 2001 and 2014. More white people get killed in America because there are more white people here than black people. But adjusting for population, more black people get killed in America by cops than white people. Three times more. I provided tons of links (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18168217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18168217), you can see for yourself.
    - kolanos 8y ago
      Then why aren't white males on your list?

expathacker 8y ago

For those of you reading these things thinking, "Oh, I don't know anybody who has had this happen to them. This could never happen to me or anybody I know". 11 years ago, Steven Fountain, a friend of mine, a programmer / systems administrator I met when I was working at Napster who suffered from schizophrenia was shot to death by police in Campbell, California. He had called the police in a moment of confusion and despair. I had just interviewed him for a job at a company where I was working two weeks earlier, and was trying to convince my boss to hire him even though he was quirky, not quite realizing how bad his emotional state was until talking to his ex-gf at the funeral. http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/11/09/Steven_Fountain_(24)_was_shot_and_killed_by_police_because_the_officer_thought_he_was_wielding_a_knife http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/11/09/Steven_Founta... Edited for clarity and date accuracy

throwaway13337 8y ago

The justification for this always comes down to a sort of 'it's dangerous job and I have to protect myself'. It's interesting to note, then, that police officer is not a dangerous job compared to, say, taxi driver. It wouldn't surprise me if most deaths on the job for police were car accidents. So this justification is truly moot. The public should know so as to shape further the opinion of officers. Here's data from labor stats on deadly jobs: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf Those loggers put their lives on the line every day to bring us lumber!

alphabettsy 8y ago
The leading causes of death for officers almost every year are car accidents and medical emergencies such as heart attack, etc. Death as a result of being killed by a suspect is always 2nd or 3rd.
oh_sigh 8y ago
There's a difference between being killed by bad luck in an accident and being sought out and murdered.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  That’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that the perception of risk seems to be greatly skewed in the minds of officers and the public alike. About 50 officers die each year at the hands of criminals. This is compared to them killing about 1000 citizens on average each year. Reports would seem to suggest they kill more unarmed citizens than officers are killed at all. Not certain how many officers are injured compared to citizens injured.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    From that 1000, you would need to separate out the people who 'deserved' a police killing, due to legitimately threatening the lives of the public or of the police officer.

1001101 8y ago

Technology (Bluetooth beacons/app) is being developed to help stop some of these tragedies: https://thevitalsapp.com/ https://thevitalsapp.com/ "The Vitals™ app enables safer community interactions by allowing individuals with visible and invisible conditions and disabilities to create and share a personalized digital profile with authorized first responders via a secure, mobile app – improving real-time communication, reducing the risk of misunderstandings, and promoting greater independence." A number of cities are piloting this.

chris_mc 8y ago
No, I shouldn't have to share more information to be treated like a human, the cops should be better trained.
- majewsky 8y ago
  No matter how much training they receive, policemen are not going to be about to make psychological diagnoses in the heat of the moment. They need to know upfront that the person in question has schizophrenia so that they can apply appropriate behavior. (And that's the part of the training that needs improving, then.)
  - chris_mc 8y ago
    Then maybe they shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I'm sure there's no way this could be misused. Perhaps training the police to not shoot people on sight might be a better solution?
DanBC 8y ago
In the linked article the police knew he was unarmed, and I'll, and had been told by neighbours that he was not violent, and they saw that he was not violent, but despite that the police helped him so hard he died.

geggam 8y ago

Any time you call a man with a gun to your location and they have immunity to shoot you based on their fear, you run the risk of being shot. Lately it seems that risk has grown.

dec0dedab0de 8y ago
Lately it seems that risk has grown. I have no evidence, but I feel that it only seems the risk has grown because technology has made it harder to cover up. I think as it gets more attention, the risk is going down.
- jedrek 8y ago
  Really? I feel the risk has grown. Based on numerous cases, cops have realized that getting filmed killing an unarmed person pleading for their life barely impacts their career, much less their freedom.
  - kzrdude 8y ago
    This is why we need facts and numbers, because media stories only give us a glimpse of it, without putting it into context. Yes, the problem is bad and it exists. But we need more facts to see: Is it getting better? What's working to prevent it?
- theseatoms 8y ago
  To this point, I've looked for (and failed to find) year-over-year statistics for murders by police. I agree with the parent that technology is revealing existing problems in greater light. Whether or not the problem itself is getting better or worse is a separate issue.
  - geggam 8y ago
    The reason I feel it has grown is in my almost 5 decades of life I have seen police go from peace officers to law enforcement. I have witnessed the changes. It used to be when a kid did something wrong there was tolerance for his youthful ignorance and he was allowed to learn from his mistakes without having a criminal record. Now zero tolerance has stopped the pouring out of beer with a stern warning next time parents / legal matters would be involved. Law enforcement is the mission. It is not a good mission because it is actually disrupting a peaceful society. I wish we could bring back the peace officers and the mission of keeping the peace using laws instead of enforcing the laws at the cost of social peace.

rocky1138 8y ago

Attorney John Chisholm went so far as to rule that "there was no basis to conclusively link Mr Trammell's death to the actions taken by the police officers". Perhaps he didn't watch the same footage I did.

fogetti 8y ago

District Attorney John Chisholm went so far as to rule that "there was no basis to conclusively link Mr Trammell's death to the actions taken by the police officers" - WTF did I just read??? I can't believe it.

gammateam 8y ago
I honestly feel like Prosecuters, Juries, District Attorneys, Judges, Sheriffs, Mayors and Govenors are afraid of their police departments. The way these investigations and prosecutions go remind me a lot of the mob investigations, where it took the feds to really take them down. Every municipality is different, and at different points in time, but I think this is an overlooked part of all of this. I think its greater than just a "blue shield" or sense of camaraderie with officers, I think there is fear. And I've seen circumstances where that's valid, such as when Adrian Schoolcraft was dragged out of his home and thrown in an asylum by fellow police officers just because he showed up late to work that day and they got paranoid he was going to out them.

_nalply 8y ago

Deaf people are being shot by the police, too. Being a Swiss Deaf I wonder whether it's risky to travel to the US and rent a car.

mcguire 8y ago
Realistically, you'd be in more danger just driving a car. In Switzerland. Let's not get too melodramatic.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

"I have to make sure I go home to my family at night," Well, in that case- maybe don't become a police officer? I mean, I don't know that I've ever heard a fireman, or a doctor, a rescuer, a lifeguard, etc, say that sort of thing - "my first priority is to go home safely tonight". That doesn't mean that they're expect to sacrifice their lives in the line of duty, it means they're expected to risk their lives, to save someone else's (the doctor, if you were wondering, because they can easily catch something nasty). The police officer who made the comment shot a szhizophrenic woman who was holding a knife (that's all we're told about that case). So presumably he shot her because he was afraid she'd stab him. Presumably, also, that was part of his training. That is very dangerous. Giving someone a gun and telling them that when their live's in danger their priority is to come out of it alive, is dangerous for everyone around the person with the gun. Because the easiest way to make sure you "go back to your family" when you have a gun and the crazy lady is holding a knife is to shoot her dead. I mean, duh. I should also probably point out that I think this is a peculiarly US thing. I doubt that anywhere else in the developed world police officers are adviced to shoot first and ask questions later, or in any case, as a first line of defense.

akerl_ 8y ago
They definitely tell lifeguards and firefighters and first responders that their "first priority is to go home safely tonight". If you have a small group of people who can help, and a much larger group that need help, it's critically important that your helpers don't get themselves killed by being reckless with their own lives. The overuse of force by police in the US is terrible. It's a combination of bad judgement, bad training, and no repercussions. But that's fully separate from the fact that "keep yourself alive" is a core tenet of all the jobs you listed.
- rrauenza 8y ago
  They also express it that "now we've got N+1 victims we have to rescue, and one less helper."
- GW150914 8y ago
  There’s a difference between telling people to not put themselves in risky situations thst will just lead to adding a casualty (firefighter running into a collapsing building) and shooting people to “be on the safe side.” The equivalent for a cop would be to wait for backup, not murdering someone else because they’re scared.

ljm 8y ago

> She says both they and the law enforcement community have made the case that Ethan would still be alive if he had just followed instructions. Statements like this are so sad to read because of the sheer lack of empathy it demonstrates. It’s pure victim blaming and the implication is that someone deserves to die for essentially making a mistake, or not even being aware of it. What does it say that this is both accepted and also that those involved (the police) have literally zero patience for people who can’t read their minds? Why is it okay that you get an expedited death penalty for something as minor as not following instructions? These self-same people would be begging for leniency in that same situation.

dvlsg 8y ago
Empathy aside (which I agree is quite depressing), I've seen enough videos where multiple officers shout conflicting commands (put your hands up / get on the ground). In that case, it's impossible to comply. What do you do then? And then of course there's the implication of "comply or die", which is also a huge problem on its own.
- ljm 8y ago
  I think you're still looking at empathy there. We shouldn't be putting it aside. We're all human. How do you not get shot to death by a cop when he can't even tell you what he wants from you? And why the fuck does he have a loaded gun when he doesn't even know that answer himself? One thing I find consistent in these stories is prolongation and for me I assume that the cop doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing. Why would you fire a taser at a naked dude in a shower fifteen times? Why would you unload your gun at a black guy and leave 16 bullet wounds within him? When you're looking at the stories about solving murder, if the detective saw that the dead woman had 16 bullet holes in her or 32 stab wounds, they'd be assuming a crime of passion. Because that's a lot of work to make someone dead, way above and beyond. You don't accidentally squeeze your trigger that many times. So is it possibly the case that these civilian deaths are all crimes of passion committed by the cops?
  - 20after4 8y ago

dsego 8y ago

Contrast this to how Croatian police handled a recent case where a man suffering with PTSD blew up his own house with a propane gas tank and was threatening and attacking with a billhook. The man was in such a delirium that he resisted the police for 12 hours, even after suffering third degree burns on 70% of his body. He also injured two policemen. [1] They finally managed to overcome him with a taser, but only after hours of trying to negotiate! One policeman was severely cut on his hands and needed stitching. [2] More images [3]. [1] https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/drama-u-opuzenu-muskarac-se-zatvorio-u-kucu-i-aktivirao-plinsku-bocu-u-pregovorima-ozlijedjen-policajac---530829.html https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/drama-u-opuzenu-muskarac... [2] https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/dubrovnik/clanak/id/569079/isjekao-me-je-kosirom-imam-stotinu-savova-cudo-da-sam-prezivio-policajac-otkrio-detalje-horora-kroz-koji-je-prosao-obuzdavajuci-pomahnitalog-opuzenca https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/dubrovnik/clanak/id/5... [3]https://zadarski.slobodnadalmacija.hr/forum/clanak/id/565826/muskarac-koji-je-vlastitu-kucu-digao-u-zrak-svladan-elektrosokerom-sa-strasnim-ozljedama-operiran-u-splitskoj-bolnici https://zadarski.slobodnadalmacija.hr/forum/clanak/id/565826...

mcguire 8y ago

The officers in these situations are (in the US) supervised by elected officials: the sheriff, DAs, and mayors. The next time they are running for re-election, take out an ad with scenes from the relevant videos, with words to the effect that, if you vote for this individual, you are talking responsibility for their actions. Sure, it'll be a bit expensive, but anyone can do it. We aren't powerless, we aren't helpless victims. If we're really upset by their actions, we shouldn't act like we are helpless. Ranting on an internet forum is useless.

clubm8 8y ago
>Ranting on an internet forum is useless. You just said that voting can change things. Wouldn't it logically follow that ranting on a public forum, which people can read and be inspired to vote by, is very useful?
- mcguire 8y ago
  Voting can change things (and publicly embarrassing elected officials works, too), but I doubt any of the people reading these comments live in the voting districts of the officials involved in the cases in the article. Even if they are, I doubt they're more than a tiny minority. And even in that case, well, preaching to the choir and all that. Even ranting on a forum local to those areas is unlikely to do anything useful---when was the last time your mind was changed by an editorial, much less a comment down in the crazy-text. The power is in the votes of the legendary John Q. Public, who has either never heard this story or caught 30 seconds of it as a sad tragedy that could not be prevented. The effect we need is to force them to stand up and say, "I'm ok with this kind of collateral damage." Or not.
  - clubm8 8y ago
    >Voting can change things (and publicly embarrassing elected officials works, too), but I doubt any of the people reading these comments live in the voting districts of the officials involved in the cases in the article. You seem determined to believe things without evidence.

dsego 8y ago

Sgt Corey Nooner had many other choices concerning his safety. Why is it so important to stand ground? How about warning shots? What sane person would attack a police officer pointing a handgun with just a knife?

tomazio 8y ago

My heart goes out to all the victim's families, as these are all very tragic. I have a brother with down syndrome and reading the story about Ethan and how the situation played out sounds exactly like how it could play out with my own brother, heaven forbid he ever ends up in a similar situation. While I agree the shoot first ask questions later methodology is not the best, I think education surrounding common mental handicaps/disabilities would go a long way to helping officers better understand the situations and better equip them to judge the threat level of situations. I can attest that people with down syndrome can freeze up and easily experience a paralysis through analysis as they are put in confusing and unfamiliar situations, especially once someone starts shouting commands at them and they are not sure what do. Just knowing this simple fact and general behaviors surrounding people with down syndrome/mentally handicapped would give officers the knowledge to know "hey person has x or y disability and is acting this way because of z, this is a non threatening situation." It's almost ironic to me, where a profession that's main job responsibility is dealing with all different types of people all day isn't required to know any more specific social dynamics or behaviors surrounding them. I think requiring a psychology/sociology for police officers so they have a better understanding of human behavior might help in this regard. EDIT: Grammar.

Nasrudith 8y ago

One thing that pisses me off as excuse making is "training/ lack of training to blame" for travesties as a complete abdication of responsibility. I mean if your babysitter got frustrated and beat your kid with an electric cord you wouldn't accept lack of training as an excuse! It seems to be gussied up "Just following orders." Making matters worse is the farcical double standards where ignorance of the law and operating based on feelings is the standard for them and perfect knowledge of the law and situation regardless of circumstances for everyone else. Shooting someone breaking into their house after being flashbanged - both disoriented and threatened leaves one liable for murder because they should have known the intruding guy in black who never announced his presence while deafened and half blind was a cop. Meanwhile if the police empty multiple magazines into someone who is reaching for a wallet because they didn't know for sure jt wasn't a weapon and felt threatened and never get so much as a grand jury indictment attempt. If we all operated on the fear for life standard it would be a bloody paranoid anarchy of preemptive assassinations - proving how fucking stupid it is for anyone. Feelings are always an absolutely terrible basis for laws.

writepub 8y ago

If local/state attorney generals refuse to investigate, this can and should become a federal investigation, that now includes the said attorney generals too - or so I understand. Can any lawyers chime in?

throw2016 8y ago

These are deeply disturbing. Given the sheer number of police killings and the repetition of the same odious frivolous justifications one can only conclude there is no desire for a more humane police force. The problem is not only the police but a justice system that seems to justify brutality and arbitrary killings. This not only sustains the cycle of violence but 'normalizes' police executions and police officers who think they can kill at will and be protected. This is a dangerous level of power to give to the police in any civilized society and none accept it. To the victims this is a police state, there is no accountability and no justice and forgot any rights their right to life can be extinguished in seconds with no consequences and accountability. This is not the behavior of a civilized state.

lysp 8y ago

Here is an exert from one state in Australia's police force review from 1994. This took place _24_ years ago. Even though it was so long ago, it seems to directly reflect issues mentioned in the article. For the TLDR crowd: * Too much force was being used by police * Mental illness was a factor in some shootings / use of force (4%) * Standardised training for all police members * Safety first approach taken: * - Safety of offender is included in that approach (officers first, public next, offender third) * - Contain first, avoid confrontation, avoid force * - If needed only use minimum force required * - Forced entry only as last resort * All police undertake mandatory 5 day mental health training * Police to take refresher mental health training every 6 months * Any use of force - from minor (forced fingerprinting/cuffing) through to major (riots) - to be placed on register for tracking * Increased trends noticed in force register will be addressed in 6 monthly training ------------------------- 3. Project Beacon The establishment of Project Beacon followed a number of shooting incidents involving the use of firearms by the Victoria police. Between 1987 and 1994, officers were involved in operational incidents which resulted in the deaths of 29 offenders or suspects. Police were required to attend 15 to 20 incidents per day where use of force was employed and up to three "critical incidents" per week. A critical incident is defined as "any incident requiring police management which involves violence or a threat of violence and is, or is potentially, life-threatening". By mid-1994 this trend became the catalyst for fundamental change in operational safety tactics and training within the Victoria police. Expert analysis revealed that a number of factors may have contributed to this increase; namely, a feeling of vulnerability within the police force, a desire on the part of the community for instant solutions and a belief within the force that "there was no one else to solve these problems". It was also felt that this trend was in part contributed to by the de-institutionalisation of patients with mental illness in Victoria in the early 1990s. Six of nine fatal shooting incidents in 1994 by police (and one in 1995) involved persons with a mental illness. Statistics revealed that such persons were involved in 44% of all critical incidents reported to Project Beacon between October, 1994 and December, 1995. It was further noted that persons with mental illness were involved in approximately 4% of all "use of force" incidents, i.e., where force is used or threatened by or against the police. Emotionally disturbed persons attempting suicide and/or self-mutilation constituted a further 3.5% of use of force incidents. In general, a significant number of emotionally disturbed persons and people with behavioural problems, who may not have had histories of mental illness, regularly came to the police attention. A number of reviews, both internal and with the assistance of international policing experts, were undertaken in an attempt to identify solutions. On 6th April, 1994, the Commissioner of the Victoria police, Mr. Neil Comrie, wrote to all commissioned officers emphasising the philosophy that "the success of an operation will primarily be judged by the extent to which the use of force is avoided or minimised". On 19th September, 1994, Project Beacon was established and involved the standardisation of training so that all officers were trained to the same level of competence. The core principles of Project Beacon inform the response to every incident and the planning of operations which may involve any potential use of force. These core principles may be summarised as follows: * "Safety First — the safety of police, the public and the offender or suspect is paramount. * Risk Assessment — is to be applied to all incidents and operations. * Take Charge — effective command and control must be exercised. * Planned Response — every opportunity should be taken to convert an unplanned response into a planned operation. * Cordon and Containment — unless impractical, a cordon and containment approach is to be adopted. * Avoid Confrontation — a violent confrontation is to be avoided. * Avoid Force — the use of force is to be avoided. * Minimum Force — where the use of force is to be avoided, only the minimum amount reasonably necessary is to be used. * Forced Entry Searches — are to be used only as a last resort. * Resources — it is accepted that the "safety first" principle may require the deployment of more resources, more complex planning and more time to complete". The primary principle of Project Beacon is "safety first". The safety of the police officer is paramount, followed by the safety of the public and the safety of the subject. Mr. Shuey utilised the example of a doctor attending a collision to treat a patient: "the doctor wouldn’t stand in the middle of the road to do the treatment of the patient because he would be exposing himself to the risk of being run over by a car". If the police officer is in a position of security, he or she will be more competent and capable of handling the situation. If a police officer is not involved in anything which is unsafe, he will have a clearer perspective of what is happening and be able to deal with the situation accordingly. If you expose a police officer to a "kill or be killed" situation, the risk of a fatal confrontation increases. A significant objective of Project Beacon was to assist police in dealing with persons with mental illness, emotionally disturbed individuals and persons with behavioural problems. Project Beacon, in collaboration with the Victoria Department of Health and Community Services, developed a comprehensive integrated approach for dealing with such persons which was incorporated into police training courses. The training involved video scenarios and role-playing and in December, 1995, a video called "Similar Expectations" was produced. It offered a range of methods for dealing with persons with mental illness, and provided advice from mental health experts. The video received widespread acceptance in law enforcement and mental health agencies and was automatically incorporated into every police officer’s training; it was not confined to the training of those who participated in dedicated negotiators courses. Further training programmes were developed by persons with expertise in psychiatric mental health with the assistance of a police psychologist. 8,500 police officers, student and operational, were placed on an initial, five day training course complemented by mandatory two-day refresher training every six months. It is now part of ongoing training of police officers in the state of Victoria. Training for the Special Operations Group is rigorous and ongoing, taking place on most occasions when its members are not involved in operational response duties. A "use of force register" is now maintained by the Victoria Police. Use of force incidents range from the forcible obtainment of fingerprints and handcuffing, through to riot situations. All such incidents are recorded in the register. This enables the police force in Victoria to track the number of incidents where force is a factor, and enables trend analysis in relation to the type of force and weapons that are used. This acts as a "catalyst" for the next six months of training. The information is analysed and if there is an excessive increase in crimes involving firearms or knives etc., the training in the following six months will be highlighted in that direction.