4 ms·

> A man who came outside to face police, however, had done nothing wrong and did not know about the swatting call. As he stepped onto the porch, police told him

by bootsz 8y ago

> A man who came outside to face police, however, had done nothing wrong and did not know about the swatting call. As he stepped onto the porch, police told him to put up his hands. When he unexpectedly dropped his hands, he was shot and killed. The number of times I've read an account of this kind of scenario playing out in the past few years is absolutely mind-boggling and depressing. The fact that in the US you can so easily be shot to bits by police just by accidentally making a small incorrect movement is just insane to me. I understand that police face real threats and need to take precautions to protect their own lives, but surely there must a better system to accomplish this other than requiring someone to immediately perform a sequence of body movements without making a single mistake or else you kill them.

cypherg 8y ago
Non-deadly force has been completely ignored. Why not just incapacitate the suspect?
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  With the way incentives are set up right now, there’s no reason to. For all practical purposes, police are completely immune to any consequences of unjustified killings– DA’s never ever prosecute cops and internal affairs departments are do-nothing bodies designed only to make it look like there’s some accountability– so there’s no reason to not always use the maximum amount of force “just in case”.
  - erichurkman 8y ago
    Or, if you do get fired, you just move to the police department in the town next door, or from city to county, or county to state. It's the standard practice for communities with no incentive to prosecute (like the Vatican shuffling around rapist priests and bishops instead of bringing them to judgment).
- bootsz 8y ago
  Exactly. Surely we can figure out ways to incapacitate without killing. There are already options (eg tasers). If for some reason the existing tech isn't effective enough, well then too bad, that's what you get until we invent something better. Take all that govt money pouring into militarization of police and instead use it to innovate in non-lethal methods.
- foxyv 8y ago
  Tasers tend to have problems with clothing and distance, CS is easy to deal with if the person is trained, and bean bags are ineffective against large targets. Non-lethal force is useful in cases where the police have no reason to believe the other person is armed. It works sometimes but often it doesn't. Police and military are even trained to resist non-lethal chemical attacks like CS gas very successfully. When a person is armed with contact weapon like a knife or club, non-lethal is usually only used when a lethal option is in place.
velobro 8y ago
In my anecdotal experience from growing up in California's Central Valley, not one person I knew who became a cop _wanted_ to become a cop. It was always their last "honorable" job choice. As such, they aren't mentally prepared to handle dealing with the shittier parts of society which shortens their fuse tremendously. No tolerance situations like this are a symptom.
matty22 8y ago
I don't understand why police aren't legally restricted from firing their weapon unless they are fired upon or witness a suspect firing upon others. Soldiers are required to not fire unless fired upon. Yes, that means we may be putting officers in more danger, but they signed up for the job and killing innocent people is unforgivable.
- stevew20 8y ago
  "Soldiers are required to not fire unless fired upon" Not necessarily true; it depends on the rules of engagement (ROE). I've been under orders to not fire back unless I receive accurate enemy fire; I've also had a kill zone ROE, where it was open season on anything that "appears non-friendly". That said, I completely agree with the rest Police in the US are: - Sloppy: they don't follow procedures and policies, because they know they won't be punished - Above the Law: they aren't punished proportionally to their mistakes (See the UCMJ for proper recriminations) - Have a toxic "Alpha" culture: respond to anything but subservience with escalation, especially if you point out a mistake they made - Overly aggressive: I've worked with Navy SEALS, AF Combat Controllers, and MARSOC Marines; US Cops try harder than all the rest to assert their dominance through aggressiveness - Communicatively delusional: they hear what they want to hear, forget anything that doesn't align with their view of "Everyone is a lawbreaker"
- foxyv 8y ago
  There are clear rules about using lethal force in the United States which are the same for police as anyone else. The major difference is police are required to engage in situations that necessitate it rather than required to retreat from them. Unfortunately the SWATer knew exactly what to say to provide the requirements for lethal force. Jeopardy, (I will kill you), capability (I have a gun), and Imminence (I will shoot them when they come out.) The police had reasonable cause to believe the call was legitimate. Any reasonable person would have believed the same, given the information they were given and training they have gone through. Just because the guy wasn't pointing a gun at them didn't mean he couldn't do so before they can react. If you have time you can see demos and videos of situations exactly like this one that end with police and innocent bystanders being killed. The blame lies with the SWATer himself and the systems that failed to recognize that the call was bogus. We can't blame police for failing to recognize that this situation wasn't like the ten others that they or their coworkers responded to where the man was armed and the kids were dead.
technofiend 8y ago
It's slow in coming but some police are trying to move in the opposite direction of instant lethal engagement. Houston Police Department now teaches non-lethal engagement techniques and officers are supposed to use those by default. Really nothing should happen if you just drop your hands, but getting a shotgun-fired beanbag to the chest or tasered is preferable to being shot. Really the concern here is the insect-like behavior of this guy who had no concern for his fellow human beings or the consequences of his actions. I mean I'm sure he's very concerned now but the treatment of anyone who you don't agree with as an enemy needs to stop, whether we're talking about online gaming or politics. IMHO we need to reclaim our humanity; trying to get someone harassed or murdered by cop over $1.50 as happened in this story is sociopath behavior.

by bootsz 8y ago

cypherg 8y ago

Non-deadly force has been completely ignored. Why not just incapacitate the suspect?

Analemma_ 8y ago
With the way incentives are set up right now, there’s no reason to. For all practical purposes, police are completely immune to any consequences of unjustified killings– DA’s never ever prosecute cops and internal affairs departments are do-nothing bodies designed only to make it look like there’s some accountability– so there’s no reason to not always use the maximum amount of force “just in case”.
- erichurkman 8y ago
  Or, if you do get fired, you just move to the police department in the town next door, or from city to county, or county to state. It's the standard practice for communities with no incentive to prosecute (like the Vatican shuffling around rapist priests and bishops instead of bringing them to judgment).
bootsz 8y ago
Exactly. Surely we can figure out ways to incapacitate without killing. There are already options (eg tasers). If for some reason the existing tech isn't effective enough, well then too bad, that's what you get until we invent something better. Take all that govt money pouring into militarization of police and instead use it to innovate in non-lethal methods.
foxyv 8y ago
Tasers tend to have problems with clothing and distance, CS is easy to deal with if the person is trained, and bean bags are ineffective against large targets. Non-lethal force is useful in cases where the police have no reason to believe the other person is armed. It works sometimes but often it doesn't. Police and military are even trained to resist non-lethal chemical attacks like CS gas very successfully. When a person is armed with contact weapon like a knife or club, non-lethal is usually only used when a lethal option is in place.

velobro 8y ago

In my anecdotal experience from growing up in California's Central Valley, not one person I knew who became a cop _wanted_ to become a cop. It was always their last "honorable" job choice. As such, they aren't mentally prepared to handle dealing with the shittier parts of society which shortens their fuse tremendously. No tolerance situations like this are a symptom.

matty22 8y ago

I don't understand why police aren't legally restricted from firing their weapon unless they are fired upon or witness a suspect firing upon others. Soldiers are required to not fire unless fired upon. Yes, that means we may be putting officers in more danger, but they signed up for the job and killing innocent people is unforgivable.

stevew20 8y ago
"Soldiers are required to not fire unless fired upon" Not necessarily true; it depends on the rules of engagement (ROE). I've been under orders to not fire back unless I receive accurate enemy fire; I've also had a kill zone ROE, where it was open season on anything that "appears non-friendly". That said, I completely agree with the rest Police in the US are: - Sloppy: they don't follow procedures and policies, because they know they won't be punished - Above the Law: they aren't punished proportionally to their mistakes (See the UCMJ for proper recriminations) - Have a toxic "Alpha" culture: respond to anything but subservience with escalation, especially if you point out a mistake they made - Overly aggressive: I've worked with Navy SEALS, AF Combat Controllers, and MARSOC Marines; US Cops try harder than all the rest to assert their dominance through aggressiveness - Communicatively delusional: they hear what they want to hear, forget anything that doesn't align with their view of "Everyone is a lawbreaker"
foxyv 8y ago
There are clear rules about using lethal force in the United States which are the same for police as anyone else. The major difference is police are required to engage in situations that necessitate it rather than required to retreat from them. Unfortunately the SWATer knew exactly what to say to provide the requirements for lethal force. Jeopardy, (I will kill you), capability (I have a gun), and Imminence (I will shoot them when they come out.) The police had reasonable cause to believe the call was legitimate. Any reasonable person would have believed the same, given the information they were given and training they have gone through. Just because the guy wasn't pointing a gun at them didn't mean he couldn't do so before they can react. If you have time you can see demos and videos of situations exactly like this one that end with police and innocent bystanders being killed. The blame lies with the SWATer himself and the systems that failed to recognize that the call was bogus. We can't blame police for failing to recognize that this situation wasn't like the ten others that they or their coworkers responded to where the man was armed and the kids were dead.

technofiend 8y ago

It's slow in coming but some police are trying to move in the opposite direction of instant lethal engagement. Houston Police Department now teaches non-lethal engagement techniques and officers are supposed to use those by default. Really nothing should happen if you just drop your hands, but getting a shotgun-fired beanbag to the chest or tasered is preferable to being shot. Really the concern here is the insect-like behavior of this guy who had no concern for his fellow human beings or the consequences of his actions. I mean I'm sure he's very concerned now but the treatment of anyone who you don't agree with as an enemy needs to stop, whether we're talking about online gaming or politics. IMHO we need to reclaim our humanity; trying to get someone harassed or murdered by cop over $1.50 as happened in this story is sociopath behavior.