El Cajon police say unarmed black man pointed vape at officer before he was shot to death

boing
91

Getting a little tired of these posts.

A black guy gets shot by cops? “Well… he drove drunk”. Another black guy gets shot by cops? “He had a gun and was a domestic abuser”. Again? “He had mental illness and was here illegally”.

I know plenty of mentally ill people, plenty of alcoholics/drug addicts, and abusive people, and people with criminal records, but they’re all walking around without fear of being shot by cops. I think their skin tone may have something to do with that, don’t you? Similarly, if it were a white guy who got shot, would you really go out of your way to find some evidence that the dead guy did something illegal like 15 years ago?

15 Likes
92

Makes sense. Also spray and pray is a good metaphor for life.

93

Yes and no.

It fires a “pattern” of shot. How big this pattern is and if it will hit something depends on two things, the “Choke” of the shot gun, and the type of shot.

A choke is the last 3-4" inches of the barrel where the barrel gets a bit narrower. There are differences in how narrow, and modern shot guns often allow one to adjust it by screwing in custom choke tubes.

So with a cylinder choke will have a 40" pattern at 25 yards, where as a full choke will have a 40" pattern at 40 yards.

Next, the type of shot will have some effect on what you hit. Shot for like birds or skeet shooting are tiny little pellets maybe .09" diameter. They have different sizes with the higher the number the smaller the pellet. So skeet or quail should be a 7 or 8. Something larger like a duck might be a 5.

For home defense or bigger critters, one would use buck shot. It comes in different sizes, with the common 00 Buckshot being .32" in diameter. Using buck shot for birds or a trap shooting is a fools errand because with a 40" spread you only have 9 pellets, vs with no 8 shot you have ~400 pellets.

To make things even more confusing, many shot guns can also fire slugs - which are just very large bullets. Those can be used to hit things accurately under 100 yards with ease. In short with the right choke, the shot gun is the most versatile gun out there. If I had to pick just one to survive off the land, it would be a shot gun. They are also very easy to reload for.

Yes, they are used in sport. Mostly for trap and skeet, which fling out clay pigeons. So it is a form of target shooting, but one with moving targets and one has to learn to properly swing and follow through. They are also used in 3 gun or tactical competition. I am not sure what kind of shot they use, bird shot or buck shot, but they are shooting at steel plates at fairly close ranges, so at 5 yards the pattern might be only 5" wide.

5 Likes
94

It would be really great if the world were comic book simple, with good guys vs bad guys and little ambiguity in between. Real life is seldom like that, and you cannot solve a complex issue by pretending that all the nuance does not exist. I don’t think I have ever said that a person deserved to be shot based on their previous history, and certainly not that skin color should be a factor. The only way race seems to come into it is that if the victim is Black, which is 25% of the time, it makes national news.

If we look at the Washington post database, the most recent people ( it is a couple of days behind) shot by police were-

9/27 Alfred Olongo, Black, unarmed, pointed an object at police
9/26 Nathan Desai, Indian, Armed, shot by Houston police while on a shooting spree
9/26 Leeland White, White, mentally ill and refused to drop his gun in Little Rock
9/26 Anthony Bauer, White, pointed a gun at police after a suspicious person call in Idaho
9/25 Cody Lafont, White, depressed but unarmed, shot after police called to a residence "for assistance"
9/23 Christpher Contreras, Hispanic, was wanted for assault, would not drop his gun when confronted by police in San Antonio
9/23 Oddis Calvin, Black, Bank robbery suspect, was shot when he drove towards police in Pikesville, Md
9/23 Jesse Attaway, White, pointed “an object” at police after reports of a burglary in Fair Oaks, Ca
9/21 Austin M. Baier, White, unarmed, had been driving erattically then confronted police in Louisville Ne.
9/20, Thomas Tucker, White, reached for a weapon after a foot chase in Westminster, Co
9/20 Sandy Joe Duke, White, home invasion suspect, turned towards police with a gun in Nashville
9/20 Keith Lamont Scott, Black, apparently would not drop a gun in Charlotte
9/20 Joshua Scott, White, shot at police who were serving an order for an involuntary mental health eval
9/20 Charles Dove, White, Armed robbery suspect in Tenn, shot in an altercation after a car chase
9/19 Gary Don Lafon, White, was reported to be suicidal, pointed a gun at officers at his home in Wood county, Tx
9/19 Jeremy Ray Swenson, White, reported suicidal, was threatening a woman and refused to drop his gun in Utah
9/19 Michelle Miller, White, reportedly mentally ill, pointed a gun at officers in Spring, Tx
9/18 Philip Hasan, black, police were called to a fight, shot when he pulled a gun on officers in Akron, Oh
9/17 Dahir Adan, Black, ISIS knife attack in Minn.

So that is a lot of people shot by police. It is a random sampling in that those were the latest I found on the Wapo site that could be identified. But 5 of the 19 are black, which pretty much follows the trend of just under 25% for the year.( and 26% for 2015) It does not look to me as if there is any particular trend of a “war on Black people by police”, just too many police shootings. I guess race enters the conversation when we ask why there was a violent protest today over Mr. Olongo, but almost no response at all over the shootings of Jesse Ataway, and Cody Lafont.

95

Last time I checked, African Americans did not constitute 25% of the US population, mentally ill or otherwise. The disproportionate application of lethal force against a particular racial demographic seems like it should be national news…

18 Likes
96

I guess the important question then, is what percentage of the population is Black in areas where police are likely to be called? I really don’t know. I have to assume that police are not evenly distributed among the population. We have no local police in our area. So I think a question to ask is how do the shooting rates compare to the population as encountered by police. But the general dialog today seems to be that police violence is a racial issue, and getting worse. I don’t think the numbers conform with that narrative.

97

So, with a little looking, it appears that the national average is 2.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. But Baltimore has 47 officers per 1,000 residents. It looks like large, urban areas tend to have at least ten times the officers per 1000 residents than is average.


http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Officer-to-Population-Ratios.pdf

I think someone needs to do the math, and perhaps see if the population demographics encountered by the average police officer conform with the demographics of arrests and shootings. And also, to check and see if the reported crime levels in those areas with more dense police enforcement actually support the justification for the presence of those officers.

98

And somebody else needs to quit making excuses and looking for ways to justify atrocious behavior, damn near every single time there’s another horrific incident.

18 Likes
99

In other words, police serve as occupying forces in poorer areas. This is a huge part of the problem.

15 Likes
100

Why makes that the important question? We know black people make up about 12% the population of the USA, so from your figure we know they are twice as likely to be shot by police as the general population. Sure, that could be because police are concentrated in black areas instead of simply that many treat black people horribly. The word of people who have experienced these interactions is some of both. But it would be a racial problem either way.

I think this is reinforced when you consider how many of the other police shootings are really other marginalized groups, like the mentally ill. In the case of your list of 19, everyone is armed except for one black person, one depressed person, and one erratic driver. In other words, this very small sample makes it looks like the ways to get shot are to be armed, or to be marginalized. That’s your indication against bias.

When a black person is shot by police in the USA, your statistic suggests about half the time their race must directly or indirectly have been the determining factor. Again, most people who know say it plays at least some factor a lot of the time. And yet, on each recent post about such a tragedy we have you ready to make excuses, to see we “don’t understand”, to bring up whatever record the victim may have committed and invent the possibility it was relevant, or so on.

It was puzzling, because it looks like the usual victim blaming, and yet you’re not excusing the cops. Now I see it’s an attempt to say race wasn’t a factor, even though we’ve just shown it often is. Why are you, despite saying you really don’t like it when groups are targeted for violence, so committed to erasing the possibility?

18 Likes
101

I have no doubt that race is sometimes a factor. I was not trying to sort those 19 in any particular way, I just copied down the 19 from the newest listed from the Washington Post. There were 20, but one was an unknown person shot on tribal land by tribal police, no ID or race listed.
I do think that armed people, especially those shooting at police or anyone else, are likely being shot because of the shooting, rather than race. But if we just take the unarmed people shot this year, we are talking about 43 people in total. 19 White, 16 Black. If the total arrests for violent crime are similar to 2013, the latest I can find, it is something like 2,500,000 Black people arrested for violent crime. I can’t find arrested unarmed figures, but I have to think that would be a big number, and the 16 shot unarmed would be a very small percentage.

I will agree that every shooting, armed or not, is a tragedy for those involved. But once again, we are basing a belief that cops nationwide systematically gun down unarmed Blacks on 16 shootings this year. Even if every one of those was based in whole or part on racism, it is a pretty small sample to base conclusions on. And we can look at them individually at

2/4 Antronie Scott, was being arrested for outstanding warrants, spun around with a cellphone in his hand. San Antonio
2/8 David Joseph, attacked police when they responded to a call of a naked and aggressive person in Austin, Tx
2/13 Calin Roquemore shot when he refused to show his hands after a traffic stop, Beckville, Tx
2/13 Dyzhawn L. Perkins Crashed through a window to attack officers called for a burglary. Virginia
2/24 Christopher J. Davis was a passenger in a car in a high speed chase fleeing a drug arrest in East Troy, Wi.
3/12 Peter Gaines charged an officer after vandalizing traffic signs in Houston
4/5 Kevin Hicks attacked officers who were trying to stop him from assaulting his wife in Indianapolis
5/19 Jessica Nelson-Williams shot after crashing a stolen car in San Francisco
5/22 Michael Eugene Wilson Jr Shot driving away from officers investigating car burglaries in Fl.
5/22 Vernell Bing crashed a stolen car into a patrol car, and jumped out at deputies who had ordered him to stay in the car, Jacksonville, Fl
6/18 Antwun Shumpert attacked officers and dogs after a chase in Tupelo
6/22 Deravis Caine Rogers shot fleeing from car burglaries in Atlanta
7/28 Donnell Thompson was shot while fleeing a carjacking chase, but his accomplice had fired on police. Los Angeles
8/30 Levonia Riggins shot in a house during a drug home search in Tampa
9/16 Terence Crutcher, Shot walking away from officers in Tulsa
9/27 Alfred Olango, El Cajon, Ca.

Yes, another list. But those are the 16 unarmed Black people shot by police this year, spread over 9 states. I guess nearly every one of these could have been avoided using non-lethal means or de-escalation. Assuming that the officers could reasonably tell that they were unarmed. But once again, 16 is a pretty small sample to establish a nationwide attempt to murder unarmed Black people.
But the population percentage thing. A police officer in Detroit is likely to encounter Black people at a rate of 83%, assuming that police interaction is spread evenly through the population. It cannot be assumed that if that officer arrests mostly Black people, he or she is a racist. But it does not preclude it either.
If a police officer knows he or she is dealing with a person with a history of violence, they are going to be more likely to be ready to use deadly force. It is a factor, not an excuse. I might also think that a person who has had many encounters with police would know the safest behavior during such an encounter. Like keeping hands in sight, and not rushing the officers.
I accept that there are some racist cops and unjust shootings. Those involved should be fired and prosecuted. I guess the disagreement is whether the whole system is hopelessly corrupt and racist. I just don’t think the numbers support that assertion. I do think that there is too much use of force in general, and that it is a solvable problem that needs to be addressed. But I am open to any proof that I am wrong.
MB

102

So tell me then, why do you think there’s this whole movement these days called Black Lives Matter? Seriously, what do you think it’s all about? Are you saying those who support and take part in it are just, delusional? (Never mind for now your consistent refusal to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that the criminal justice system functions in many, many racist ways.)

10 Likes
103

I don’t claim that they are delusional. I think their goals are unrealistic, and I disagree with some of them. And agree with others. I do not think that inciting violence while speaking against it is very productive. I think basing their policy on the Black Panther’s 10 point program is a mistake. I do believe that most of the BLM protesters are sincere and mean well, but they would have been better off focusing strictly on police militarization and excess use of force, rather than expanding their positions to include lots of unrelated progressive and radical causes.
I wish there was a movement to realistically address the problems of police violence, without adding to racial tension and animosity. They would have my support.
The existence of a movement does not legitimize all of their positions.

104

#Citation needed.

Where does the official movement promote or incite violence?

And I’m not talking about after LEO’s have started macing, rousting or arresting protesters first; I’m not referring to reactionary behavior in response to being man-handled, or opportunists who take advantage of the chaos when protests go awry, or any outliers on the fringe.

#SHOW ME WHERE THE OFFICIAL BLM MOVEMENT ENDORSES VIOLENCE.

Don’t worry, I’ll wait…

18 Likes
105

Of course they don’t. Anyone committing violence is, by definition, not an official member. And a member who advocates for violence is not speaking on behalf of BLM. But I don’t think “In Defense of Looting” is a plea for pacifism.
The rhetorical distinction between a BLM “supporter” and a BLM “Official member” is irrelevant to people who are the victims of looting or physical violence.
But we are really just talking about a rhetorical trick. Making a public statement that your organization does not officially condone violence does not actually exempt you from moral responsibility when your events turn into orgies of mob violence. Which seems to happen more and more frequently. When “Black Lives Matter protest turns violent” is a common headline, it is pretty delusional to pretend that all the violence has nothing at all to do with BLM.
I will admit that many people likely do take their nonviolence and support for BLM seriously. Others do not.

106

It’s more “delusional” to turn a willful blind eye to the harsh reality before you when it doesn’t directly affect you personally, in my opinion.

It’s disingenuous to attempt to move the goal posts, when the fact of the matter is that you always seem to seek out justification for unjustifiable behavior in these discussions, no matter how clear cut the evidence may be.

It’s gotten to the point that I don’t know what it would take before you finally acknowledge the pattern that is so flagrantly obvious to so many other people.

I don’t even want to imagine what kind of nightmarish scenario that you’d have to witness with your own two eyes before you’d finally stop with the willful denial and bullshit justifications under the thinly veiled guise of being “reasonable and impartial.”

3adb62458565e775daf44731fabf2b92.jpg640×640 50.7 KB

FYI, based solely upon the content that you post here on the BBS, I do not believe you fit the affirmative adjective used in that quote… but the action described therein seems quite accurate.

Good day.

15 Likes
107

Who are “they”? BLM is a broad, variegated, international movement. Who is this centralized “they” of whom you speak? (Can’t say that I’m surprised to hear you lump the peoples of this broad, disparate movement into one monolithic them…)

And what’s wrong with (some of them) “basing their policy on the Black Panthers’ Ten Point Program”? Should they not do so just because white folks get skeered by the “Black Panthers!” boogey man?

Your persistently greater concern for the violence that a few black protesters inflict on others – primarily on the mere property of others – than for that long inflicted, and still inflicted, on black people in general is duly noted (not to mention, morally sickening).

Why? Progressive and radical causes are not unrelated to police militarization and excessive use of force. Instead, the former address the broader context and root causes of the latter. Why should they only address one symptom of a larger disease?

16 Likes
108

I was asked about BLM, so I answered. I don’t think recycling the Black Panther’s Marxist plan is going to work any better for BLM than it did for the Panthers in 1968. If the goal of the organization is to actually gain popular support, and bring about effective, lasting change, they are probably going to need to have a message that will appeal to mainstream Americans.
I caught that on the morning after rioting, looting, and assaults, we should just dismiss it as a bit of broken glass, of no importance. But anyone with eyes knows that it is much more than that. My concern is not that walmart gets looted. They are part of the problem. Or an attack on a police station. You have a beef with the cops, an attack on the station would be direct action. I am concerned with the workers at businesses that get looted and torched, especially if they are at the place when it is attacked. I am particularly concerned that the rioting might one day move into a neighborhood where the residents are prepared to defend their property and families. There could be a bunch of escalated violence. How will we step back from that?
I guess it gets to the long-term goals of the movement. A focused and inclusive campaign against police violence might actually achieve solutions.
I think it is pretty troubling that my expressing skepticism on the tactics of BLM in respect to the real problem of excess police violence so quickly devolves into my receiving some pretty mean spirited personal attacks.

109

So, to summarize your general positions here:

Cops should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should wait for more details before passing judgement when they shoot someone.

BLM supporters are worrisome because they might start rioting, attack a police station, or even start rioting in a neighborhood where “the residents are prepared to defend their property and families”.

So cops should not be judged until we have all of the details, but BLM people can be judged on what might occur.

That’s double standard number one, and a particularly racist standard–cop actually shoots someone, you say to hold back, BLM people haven’t attacked anyone, you say that they might, and that you are “particularly concerned” about one scenario that is literally been one of the primary fear-mongering scenarios on the part of those who buy guns on the fear-and-hope that they’ll get to use them to “defend themselves”.

Next, “voter inflation” is of great concern to you, to the point where you’ll willfully misinterpret the topical discussions of others in order to make a point about it when it effectively doesn’t exist above the level of statistical noise, but actual discussions of “we are disenfranchising voters for explicitly political goals” doesn’t merit any attention or mention from you, which is odd, as robbing people of their enfranchisement is a first step towards dehumanizing them in a legal manner, which you have emphasized as being something that you call out “whenever I see it”.

And, again, the people being disenfranchised are predominately minorities, as are the people being killed by cops at higher-than-population-percentage rates. So that’s painting a disturbing picture of your priorities.

You also have repeatedly attempted to move the goalposts in regards to explaining why black people are shot at statistically over-proportioned rates and to excuse the police’s behavior in such incidents, routinely engaging in massive logical fallacies to arrive at (what we can only presume in the face of such a consistent pattern of behavior) the result that you wish to be true.

The really telling point, however, is you leaping to the defense of dehumanized Trump supporters and repeatedly emphasizing how much the singular incident of those supporters being spat upon has affected you. In contrast, you have never spoken up on this forum against the rhetoric being espoused by his followers that dehumanizes entire ethnic groups and religions.

So I’ll say this: You claim to be a moderate. You may even possibly be one. But every single position and stance that you have vocally taken have not been moderate positions. The closest that you have to that is the golden mean fallacy, where you attempt to blame both sides, even when the degree of offense and incidence is nowhere near equal. But your positions that you have taken have all been emphatically those of a right-wing nature, and you have not even taken token left-wing positions or stances on other topics. As a result, you claim one position, but your words spoken–and the words that you haven’t spoken–speak louder than your claimed view.

21 Likes
110

Depending on your race, there is never a went, but this was always the case. We’re just talking in depth about it now, because people are taping shootings/police violence and putting them up online for the world to see a slice of reality we might not otherwise know.

12 Likes