Video of 5 San Francisco police officers shooting a Black man dead goes viral

boing
102

It was sarcastic of me to say: “Good thing you didn’t need to intervene, somebody could have been hurt!”. Somebody should have intervened, and because nobody did, somebody was killed.

So if they seem to have no problem doing something wrong, the public should make it easier for them? I can tell you from personal experience that cops sometimes have drastic problems with trying to control some situations. But it’s a sticky risk assessment. Is it safer letting a group kill with impunity, or trying to stop them? They are both insanely risky. But at least the latter is taking responsibility with something pro-active. Also, the public greatly outnumbers the police, so there is an advantage.

…after all, it doesn’t sound as if you expect anybody else to voluntarily fix the problem.

For police departments to even exist at all, there must be some societal consensus that social stability can be more important than an individual’s life.

Anyway, there is some “stake”. Somebody in your community is being paid, with your money, to kill another member of your community. So it implicates everybody, whether they want it to or not. If OTOH you think that it is merely “imagined community”, some abstract construct you don’t care about, then why be obligated to a government anyway? But if they exist, and they affect you, then it seems worthwhile to demand accountability to go both ways. This takes some force and resolve to make happen.

If you accept, in theory and/or daily life, that accountability is one-way - this basically tells the world that is rule by fiat, that nobody can expect to be treated fairly, nor do anything about it. Doesn’t sound practical to me.

103

Somebody should have intervened, and because nobody did, somebody was killed.

I agree. The police should have intervened. So-called “good cops” should check bad cops and should defy bad policies. And administrators in departments, district attorneys, politicians, and citizens should hold officers accountable for their actions.

Also, the public greatly outnumbers the police, so there is an advantage.

Fair enough. If you think that’s possible, you can charge ahead and try to inspire the crowd to take action. You’ll be the first to get beaten/arrested/shot.

I’m not advocating for doing nothing, but the idea that a crowd should rush armed cops who will shoot their way out with (sadly) legal impunity according to current laws and practices is just a stupid suggestion. Why turn one questionable (or unquestionably homicidal) death into multiple? That kind of event won’t change policing except to make it more entrenched and defensive. Politicians would argue for a greater need to arm police with more military-grade equipment. Cops would get more twitchy when there were crowds around. There’d be even more calls for banning the filming of cops.

Change has to be systemic, strategic, and effective. You can’t change the system by having a bunch of bystanders commit suicide.

7 Likes
104

This video shows how properly trained police officers arrest a man when he is attacking officers with a blade and not responding to pepper spray… and they do it without firing a shot.

(By contrast, US police forces train their officers to kill people instead; the SFPD officers were not rogue - their superiors are defending the killing.)

A summary of the video if you don’t want to watch it: the initial officers on the scene contain the man in a loose (rather than obstructive) ring while awaiting (SWAT-like) backup, so as not to force a showdown. When backup arrives, they use riot shields instead of their guns to immobilize him, disarm, and arrest him.

There were guns available (though UK police often do not carry). But they did not think they needed to use their guns even though this guy was much more aggressive than the man in San Francisco.

A public safety consultant in the video says that if it was US police officers responding, they would have simply killed the man outright instead of putting him into custody. SFPD evidently agrees.

14 Likes
105

Here in America we like to take the easy way out.

106

I was just reading that in this last year, three times as many cops were being charged with murder/manslaughter as an average year. Normally about five cops get charged, this year it’s 15. The difference is entirely due to video - all the cases beyond what would be prosecuted in a normal year have video evidence showing the crime (including body cams and dash cams). Which not only indicates that only a small fraction of the murderous cops in previous years were being prosecuted because of a lack of video, but that in events happening now without video evidence, cops are still getting away with murder.
Then, of course, there’s cases where the crimes are clearly caught on video, but no one gets prosecuted… we’ll see which category this one falls into.

There are a lot of problems with this - shooting someone in the leg isn’t less lethal than shooting them in the torso, for one - there are arteries in the leg that means you can very quickly bleed out. (I know, Hollywood has lied to us about this.) In theory, you only shoot someone because they’re a threat that must be immediately disabled, which means you shoot to kill. Also, even cops are piss-poor shots, and firing at the center of mass makes it more likely to hit (which is still by no means likely - it’s not uncommon for cops to fire dozens of rounds and hit once or twice at most). This is why it’s so damn important for cops to have something other than just a gun to stop people. Tasers should be substitutes for guns in situations like this - alternatives for when you’ve run out of options. Although the problem is, many police see tasers as substitutes for talking to people.

Although now comfortable folks seem to think that somehow this is a problem that only just came into existence. I often see people online wondering why cops are murdering and abusing so many people now; some even think the cops are simply responding to some sort of recent explosion of violence on the street, which just makes me despair. I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him feel empathy.

6 Likes
107

Where do you want to start? A job that attracts the wrong kind of personalities? A system with a history of institutional racism, that encourages demonstrably bad approaches to problems because of tradition? A system of “accountability” that supports abusers and criminals within its ranks above the safety of those they’re supposed to protect? A wider legal system that also discourages accountability and encourages bad practices?
The more documentary evidence I read about various polices forces, their practices and internal conversations, and how they fit into the criminal justice system as a whole, etc. the more depressed I get about law enforcement in this country. I thought I was cynical before…

3 Likes
108

Being shot in the leg is almost entirely nonlethal with several first aid trained responders a few yards away. A simple tourniquet will stop the blood loss even from a torn artery and there are no vital organs in your leg.
Gut-shots are mostly lethal even with equipped surgeons present.
Vital organs in your torso are vital. It always means attempting homicide.
It isn’t like in the movies at all, a person shot in the leg goes down and stays there.
A shooter unable to hit a leg from around eight yards distance or less with at least one of nine or so rounds has no business carrying.
You’re repeating nonsense you’ve heard that I’ve heard often. Not your fault.
Partial disclosure: I was decorated for shooting and know too well what I’m talking about.

2 Likes
109

You all are still missing the point. Getting shot is significantly more lethal than a taser or bean bag round or other measures. When someone dies from a taser it is usually due to health issues of the suspect or possibly abuse from the officer.

Getting shot in the leg can lead to death and permanent, expensive disability. EMS is rarely right behind the police and yes you can bleed out before help. Police aren’t all trained to deal with that sort of trauma. Furthermore, who is going to pay to repair that shattered femur? Who is going to pay if that person becomes disabled?

These people can’t seem to properly apply force half the time and you want to give them more leeway to apply sorta-lethal force?

Instead of thinking "Oh, we will just have more people shot in the leg, and less dead people."

You should be thinking, "We are going to have more people shot in the leg and killed/disabled than tased/physically restrained people."

2 Likes
110

“The officers were justified in shooting that young black man.” is his outgoing answering machine message.

111

… which is why you always hear the same story after such a shooting. “I felt afraid for my life!” Its the one sure-fire alibi for the discharge of a firearm, so thats what they are coached to say, every fuckinh single time, no matter how farfetched it seems. You think any prosecutor ia going to put away their natural ally?

3 Likes
112

I think the problem here is the militarized mindset of American police. They believe that everyday they’re going to war against “bad guys,” and that they are underpaid, understaffed, underequipped, and underrespected. They have lost perspective on the difference between being a soldier and their job as police.

This should have gone differently.

  • There should have been an officer in charge, giving orders to the other officers. Top-down control would alleviate the group’s need to look to each other for guidance. No mob mentality. Whoever is in charge should not be one of the men with his gun drawn.
  • One officer should have handled all communication with the suspect. Instead they formed a ring around him with guns drawn and all shouted random commands at the top of their lungs. That makes it difficult for someone in a precarious mental state to focus and comply.
  • Time was on their side. They should have slowed this situation down. Allow the guy with the knife to settle down. Establish a rapport and persuade him to put the knife away. There is no immediacy with a knife-wielding man. He’s not an active shooter. Cordon off the area. Rotate the officers out at the end of their shift. If it takes 72 hours for the guy to fall asleep, that’s fine. Maybe he’ll get hungry and you can feed him a pizza full of ambien.
  • There’s probably a number of police needed to contain the situation, and a number of police needed to control the site. Beyond that number just gets in the way and adds to the chaos. But in the US, more and more police pile up on sites like this. It just creates disorder and an out-of-control response. Send the extras out to police the rest of the city.
10 Likes
113

That always gets to me in these situations. It’s like the police value other people’s lives so little they literally can’t give them the time of day. As if their job is something other than serving and protecting.

Where the hell do they have to be, and why don’t they care about striving for excellence in their work?

It’s just so shoddy. They setup situations that end in violence when it’s totally avoidable, and it’s happening so often it looks to me like this behavior is intentional and targeted at people they just don’t like dealing with.

7 Likes
114

I just stop there.

2 Likes
115

Perfect example: Cop shoots a schizophrenic teen who had been tasered already after the cop says, “We don’t have time for this.” The cop had only been in the house for 70 seconds before this transpired.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/04/3243731/bryon-vassey-keith-vidal-indictment/

8 Likes
116

Four cops on one target might qualify as a mass.

4 Likes
117

Then kicked off a set of events that requires hours and hours of paperwork and interviews. Because he was “short on time.”

Yeah. Right.

That cop just wanted to kill the guy. Because he didn’t want to deal with the situation. Or maybe just because he gets his kicks out of killing people. Or perhaps he’s murderously lazy.

6 Likes
118

Do they want riots? Because that is how you get riots. Dear California: Please be more progressive, like Oklahoma, and decapitate the police department over this. Fire, and prosecute, these bastards. If your laws won’t let you, change your damn laws. Laws are like pants. When they are shitty, change them. There are ways to effect change that don’t involve getting a sympathetic court to rule in your favor

4 Likes
119

You too are missing a few points.

You might see where[quote=“Mister44, post:109, topic:70224”]
can bleed out before help
[/quote]

is different then getting shot until you quit twitching.

It’s America. People generally like death sentencing, even though it costs the tax payers millions to kill a killer back.
At the same time (again more often Hispanic and Black) lives get taken by cops because it could cost millions not to kill but possibly maim them. The dissonance hurts.
And the tendency to killing.

But they’re trained to deal with needlessly having killed some dumbass?
All cops and all military personnel are trained to apply a leg-tourniquet. Also other people, like just about every Israeli, German or French tourist, so I’ve learned.

I’m pointing out that even when lethal force is used, the aim should be to neutralize the danger not kill the target. [quote=“Mister44, post:109, topic:70224”]
You should be thinking, “We are going to have more people shot in the leg and killed/disabled than tased/physically restrained people.”
[/quote]
Do you feel I endorse the use of lethal over less lethal weapons?
No, I really don’t at all mean to endorse the use of lethal force by giving law enforcement an option to shoot without intending to kill, when homicide is not necessary to defuse a possibly life-threatening scenario.
What I dislike about less lethal weaponry is that, as predicted, it is more and more used as a tool to force compliance. That is gross misuse of equipment.
Better training and better training are the only answer.
These cops did exactly as they were trained to do, in a situation which in their minds is congruent to this execution scenario. They might have felt like fucking killing that -------, but they did it by the book as they were taught it. Theirs is not a nuanced book. They didn’t feel like they did wrong.

In a just legal system disabling an attacker without killing him should remove, not add liability. It is after all the aggressor that caused what happened to him.

European cops are not that much smarter than American ones, they have slightly better rules.
Either that or they have the advantage of not having to deal with inherently dangerous Afro-American beasts. Maybe “European Africans” are just not so damn shootable.
(Is that too much snark, dear mods?)

5 Likes
120

What you heard from police officers is basic firearms discipline that is drilled into the head of nearly anyone who takes a CCW class. The idea is, that since courts assume lethal intent when you shoot at someone, you don’t shoot at something you don’t want to kill. Otherwise bad marksmanship could be confused for an admission that lethal force was not necessary. This is not to endorse this shooting. They’re murderous bastards. But it is to highlight that the legal environment surrounding firearms incentivizes a lack of mercy or restraint–which is a bit perverse

1 Like
121

Sometimes I wonder if I should bother caring anymore. It seems too me that human beings are the most dispicable creatures that walk this earth. Obviously we can use any excuse to exterminate each other. It’s beyond my comprehension.

1 Like