NC Cop shoots dead a tased, restrained, 100lb teen: "we don't have time for this"

Did the other two cops arrest the killer cop for murder? You know, the murder they witnessed? No? They put him on paid administrative leave?

Well then, they are just as guilty as is every cop in that chain of command.

The very idea of an investigation is ludicrous. There were two police witnesses to the murder and 2 civilian witnesses. Call a grand jury, get the case on the docket, and hope than North Carolina decides the death penalty is justified in this case.

This two sets of rules for citizens and cops is disgusting. Justice is blind and every person should be treated equally under the law. Otherwise the law is meaningless. It stops being democratic law and becomes feudalism where the state and its enforcers enjoy power and privilege not to serve the public, but to control it.

The people of this country aren’t idiots. We know there are two sets of laws. We also know we are powerless to change that fact. We know because we have been trying for over 200 years now with no progress having been made. Voters aren’t apathetic, they just know the system is rigged and rarely bother to get themselves soiled in the theater of process.

4 Likes

This is a topic that needs to enter the public debate. Our prisons are terrible places that seem designed to ensure all inmates become damaged, violent, criminals which makes sense when you consider that many prisons are run by profit seeking companies who lobby for increased prison sentences and mandatory population levels. It’s a thoroughly disgusting state of affairs.

6 Likes

This was a case I remember being really uneasy about, and look - no charges!

http://m.savannahnow.com/news/2012-12-13/no-bill-port-wentworth-officers-june-death

What if medicine was handled by all able-bodied adults on a rotating basis? Would you let an untrained stranger set your broken leg? Advise you on your depression? What about airline pilots? Should that be a job assigned as a rotation?

If having trained professionals is desirable for almost any other job, why is something as difficult as policing an exception? The problem with the scenario in the post appears to be the result of a combination of lack of training and poor filtering for removing unempathic individuals from the job.

We know how to solve the problems of poor training and personalities unsuited for a job, it’s not hard — unless you’re blinkered by idealism of one form or another.

Why would you insult a peaceful, tasty animal by comparing it to such vile humanoid scum?

It’s fucking gross how American TV fetishisizes police, a badge & gun doesn’t make them above the law or right!

Incompetent juries can be almost as deadly as incompetent police. Individual jurors have less opportunity to abuse power than individual police, so jury service isn’t as attractive to those who would abuse power. But people consider random selection of jurors an important defense against abuse of power. So although personally I’d object, it doesn’t seem any more inherently unreasonable to suggest random selection of police aside from certain skilled tasks such as evidence collecting.

An electronics screwdriver. Have you ever seen how tiny those things are? They’re probably TSA-approved, that’s how non-dangerous they are.

1 Like

Policing isn’t jury service, neither is it lawyering or judging. What makes you think that any three randomly selected civilians could handle a schizophrenic any better than the trio in the post? And deal with, say, a traffic accident competently; search for a missing child; patrol a neighbourhood and spot crimes in progress or in potentia that an ordinary person would miss; et cetera, et cetera?

Nearly all of a police officer’s duties are specialised and require training in order to execute competently, never mind the training required to avoid panic in stressful situations (which clearly didn’t take with the shooter in this unhappy story). I don’t know why anyone would think that the average person off the street with minimal or no training would act like the two competent officers in this case and not like the incompetent one.

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t going to pin you down and shoot you in the chest.

2 Likes

when people are going to do something?

two words: tipping point

It’s extremely unlikely that with any three randomly selected people, one of them would have shot the schizophrenic teenager to death. With rare exceptions, the way any three randomly selected people would handle the situation would have begun with trying to talk him down, and if absolutely necessary, physically restraining him.

And I frequently see ordinary people dealing with strangers who have mental health issues. It’s a routine part of working class urban life. They almost always handle those situations better than I see police handle them.

My partner used to work in mental health services. Her clients often came into conflict with the police, and the police nearly always handled situations badly. Police, in general, had little training in how to handle people in mental health crises, and generally handled situations insensitively and were excessively quick to resort to physical force, and so further traumatized already traumatized people and made it more difficult for social workers to win their trust.

A few weeks ago, I was waiting on a street corner at a busy intersection, when I saw a minor car accident – no apparent injuries, but one car was disabled. At first, there was a lot of confusion among the drivers, and I thought, “For once, it would really help to have a cop around.” However, within a few minutes, people had self-organized: a few people had pulled over and got out of their cars to help, and so the driver of the disabled car, a passenger, and another person were pushing the car to a side street away from traffic, as another two people used coats as flags to direct traffic around them.

Years ago, I was in a car accident on the freeway. When we discovered that we were still alive, and that the car still ran, we pulled off the freeway, and got out of the car and stood around for a few minutes, trying to sort out what had happened and what to do. A couple of cars came by on the side road where we had pulled off, and the drivers stopped and asked if we were all right and if we needed any help. After a while, a CHP officer pulled up. He gruffly asked for the driver’s license, then said he was going to go back and check if we’d damaged any state property. That was all, and we never heard from him again. Eventually, we found a place to park the car, and managed to make our way to meet up with friends for a political tabling. Every single person we talked to that day, to whom we mentioned that we’d been in a car accident, asked how we were feeling, and almost every one asked if we were experiencing headaches, dizziness, or nausea, out of concern for the possiblity that we had experienced head injuries without being aware of it. But not the CHP officer, who couldn’t spend 30 seconds on expressing sympathy, checking if we were injured, or looking at our car.

As far as I can make out, what specialized training and skills police possess are mostly intended as checks on their proclivities to abuse their authority and use excessive force. Apparently, that training is not enough. And I believe that the real problem is the social role of police, and that the very concept that law enforcement must be the business of technical specialists is anti-democratic.

6 Likes

I sort of get what you’re saying. These things are rarely black-and-white and I don’t think most cops who use unnecessary force do it simply because they’re assholes and feel like it.

But even if this teen was being violent and the cop felt threatened, it doesn’t change the story in any way for me. He was stil a 100lb teen. Any cop worth his badge should be able to restrain a kid, even if he is holding a screwdriver. If a cop’s first instinct is to grab a taser and then also shoot, something is very wrong here.

Being a cop means your work days are going to be hectic, unexpected and just tough. They should be able to handle the most difficult situations. Yes, there will be times when you just have no choice but to shoot, but cops should do that only when they’ve exhausted all their other options and there’s no other way out.

Also, and this is very important; shoot in the fucking kneecap! Using your gun doesn’t mean someone has to die.

I don’t know what the numbers are for cop abuses per capita in America. But the stories we see are just the tip of the ice berg. For every white kid that got shot, there are several members of minorities who got the same treatment. I have a hard time believing this is just a few bad apples; to me, it seems like it’s a state-wide problem in the training and mind set of the police.

First of all, I do agree with you that actually putting random people on the street to try to stop crimes is not a terribly realistic suggestion right now. In a country with compulsory military service it might make more sense, especially because they could use that compulsory service to do appropriate training.

But it’s actually very hard to solve the problem of poor training and “unsuitable personalities”. It’s not hard in the way that solving climate change isn’t hard - just get everyone to act differently and we’re done. The circle-the-wagons mentality is so strong in police forces that they defend even murderers, and people who seem to be regular decent people who are not interested in murdering teenagers with mental health issues become accomplices rather than stopping their colleague or turning them in.

I don’t think these are easy issues to fix.

2 Likes

This is actually opposite of police policy. Shooting to wound is considered an error, if the situation has gone downhill so much that you’re shooting, then you shoot to kill. The reasoning is that someone who is wounded may still be a threat and may die anyway (nick an important artery for example), so guns to remain in the holster and in the safe position until the situation deteriorates so badly that they are absolutely necessary. I think the underlying idea with this philosophy is to discourage cops from ever pulling their guns, as the price is so high, but I’m not sure it’s working as intended.

That’s one reason why so many cops are tazer happy, they can be pulled at a far lower threshold of danger.

This case looks pretty damning for the cop, but it’s not impossible to consider a situation where the teenager had grabbed one of his buddies guns and was about to shoot or something.

could we break into a cops with mandatory always on audio-video recording devices debate?

1 Like

Really? I didn’t know that. That’s interesting, and explains a lot.

I guess the easiest way to disarm a dangerous person is to kill him, but I still can’t really support that kind of policy. In my mind, the most important thing is to keep everyone alive, but I suppose for police it’s “keep the cops alive”. I think you can shoot someone in the knee and then quickly try to disarm him, but that obviously won’t work every time. You could also shoot the arm that’s holding the weapon, but that takes some accuracy (which the cops should have). There’s also usually several officers on the site. If it was one-on-one, sure, don’t take any chances, but when you have three or more cops, they should have the competence to disarm someone without lethat shooting. I don’t think that’s too much to expect from armed enforcers of the law.

The police seem to think that if you get yourself in a situation where you armed officers pointing guns at you, you must have done something wrong enough that you can’t blame them if you die. But as we’ve seen, there are cases when the cops have complately mistaken someone’s identity, like barging through the wrong door.

I don’t know if my strong opposition to all and any killings stems from the fact that I’m just coming from a different minset, culturally. We don’t have any laws about being able to shoot to death an intruder on your property. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to suggest that Americans are somehow bloodthirsty - but you just seem to have stronger ideas about self defense (Stand Your Ground laws etc).

It’s certainly not impossible. I’d like to hear more details about this case, as well.

1 Like

thanks!

where are from? wherever it is, let me assure that not all of the US has laws that say its perfectly alright to shoot anyone under the correct circumstance. there is a precedent of a persons home being their castle, but only in a few places is that codified into law with checkboxes to make sure your butt is covered (looking at you Texas and Florida) before you pull the trigger.

Oh, okay. But can you still get away with shooting someone on your property in other states, even if it’s not exactly a law? Or do they just appeal to general self-defense and not the “trespassing on your property” part? Obviously self-defense can be a good reason in and of itself, and is probably used as a defense in courts everywhere in the world, but I’ve been under the impression that if it happens on your property in America, you’re likely to get acquitted.

I’m from Finland. The land of snow and sauna and people who kill themselves, not others. Here even someone getting injured is news. A few years ago people were majorly pissed off and even protested because the goverment wasted tax money to buy the members of the parliament designer blankets. I know… we have nothing going on.

I hope I don’t come off us a smug foreigner who is just trying to show off how muich better her country is. I actually care about what happens in America and part of me still feels like an American.

I used to be engaged to an American. I’ve visited the States four times and spent 8 months there, in total. There was a time when I was certain that I’m going to move there. So I’ve seen the culture (or at least the culture of Washington, where everyone smokes weed and drinks Starbucks), and I’ve still got a love/hate relationship with the country.

Or, when you get enough people believing it, you get a government designed from the ground up with built in checks and balances, and a constituting document that makes provision for itself to be altered by the governed.

Things are a mess just now with (US) government because incentives and rewards have drifted apart over time; the checks and balances are out of whack. We can change that, as soon as we identify the problem and choose to act.

Things are a mess with abuse of police powers (in the US), because incentives and rewards are driven by (presently) flawed politics. We can change that, as soon as we identify the problem and choose to act.