He apparently took a swing at a cop. I feel that justifies some level of force, a level far less than shooting a man.
Supposedly he got his hands on one of the officers guns. If true, it changes things quite a bit, especially in light of the fact that he may have already assaulted a cop.
Of course I might be more willing to believe that account if "he went for my gun" wasn't the single most abused excuse on the books...
But that's just a variation on what they always say.
"He's going for my gun" is just cop speak for "The person we wanted to execute was inconveniently unarmed so we had to say something."
The fact that police no longer have any credibility in this scenario unless a person actually physically takes their gun away and shoots the cop with it first is entirely their own fault for lying about this scenario over and over again for years.
The video link in the article is gone since it was just a link to a facebook post that is no longer there. Can only find news reports that don't show the whole video instead of the couple seconds of the video, is there another link I'm missing somewhere?
He apparently took a swing at a cop. I feel that justifies some level of force, a level far less than shooting a man.
The problem is that once somebody is actively fighting, it doesn't take much for him to get ahold of an officer's gun. So by having all officers armed, you raise the stakes of every altercation.
It sounds like in that case a gun was dropped by an officer, or knocked loose, and the claim is that he reached for it or had it. At this point everybody will scrutinize the video frame by frame, ignoring that perception in real time doesn't work like that.
I don't know if I'm willing to make a call as to whether it's justified or justifiable, but I'd say it's one more example of why we need to rethink some of our policies on arming officers. With four officers present, why couldn't one or two disarm and subdue him, with backup at a standoff distance in case guns became necessary?
But we don't do that.
That's exactly military protocol for searching possibly hostile personnel. The searcher hands off their firearm and then searches the detainee while another person stands at the ready with a rifle in case the person puts up enough of a struggle that they cannot be controlled with unarmed techniques.
Now, caveating this would require increased staffing levels to implement in a lot of areas, but it's an option.
He apparently took a swing at a cop. I feel that justifies some level of force, a level far less than shooting a man.
The problem is that once somebody is actively fighting, it doesn't take much for him to get ahold of an officer's gun. So by having all officers armed, you raise the stakes of every altercation.
It sounds like in that case a gun was dropped by an officer, or knocked loose, and the claim is that he reached for it or had it. At this point everybody will scrutinize the video frame by frame, ignoring that perception in real time doesn't work like that.
I don't know if I'm willing to make a call as to whether it's justified or justifiable, but I'd say it's one more example of why we need to rethink some of our policies on arming officers. With four officers present, why couldn't one or two disarm and subdue him, with backup at a standoff distance in case guns became necessary?
But we don't do that.
That's exactly military protocol for searching possibly hostile personnel. The searcher hands off their firearm and then searches the detainee while another person stands at the ready with a rifle in case the person puts up enough of a struggle that they cannot be controlled with unarmed techniques.
Now, caveating this would require increased staffing levels to implement in a lot of areas, but it's an option.
And it's also common in detention centers, interview rooms, etc. Just not on the street.
I can understand that in some cases officers aren't available and I'm not saying it needs to be universal. But if you have 3-4 officers on hand? No reason not to eliminate that risk.
But honestly, I'm not sure they want to, because it takes away their justification for excessive uses of force (armed and unarmed).
The video link in the article is gone since it was just a link to a facebook post that is no longer there. Can only find news reports that don't show the whole video instead of the couple seconds of the video, is there another link I'm missing somewhere?
I thought cops' weapons were supposed to be secured and snapped in place like so:
...and so "he was going for my gun" is a really terrible excuse for actually pulling your gun out and shooting someone, because unless it's Pai Mei going for it, odds are they wouldn't be able to actually unholster it before you are able to fight back.
And honestly, if there still exists a police department where you don't have to undo the catch to take the gun out of the holster, why are there still police departments where the officers patrol with unsecured weapons
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
A bunch of cops with their guns out shoots somebody, and you want rando to attack them? So he could get shot as well?
I didn't want him to. I'm questioning what the hell went through his mind to make him think that was a remotely sensible course of action to pursue (which he did, like first 25 seconds of the video).
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
Did they actually yell that? Or was it more of a "drop it drop it" thing?
He yells he's going for my hand like three times over 5+ seconds whilst not moving away.
If he really was going for the gun this is probably justified.
I'm curious how this got to the end point. If you go with the dude losing control of this gun you have six officers who lose at least two weapons in an altercation with one man. That is the worst policing imaginable. So, yeah, maybe a justified shooting caused by massive incompetence.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
Did they actually yell that? Or was it more of a "drop it drop it" thing?
He yells he's going for my hand like three times over 5+ seconds whilst not moving away.
If he really was going for the gun this is probably justified.
I'm curious how this got to the end point. If you go with the dude losing control of this gun you have six officers who lose at least two weapons in an altercation with one man. That is the worst policing imaginable. So, yeah, maybe a justified shooting caused by massive incompetence.
They had just come from an office charity butter fight.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
This isn't the case.
'Stock' (read critical) phrases get drummed in to the point that officers can use them in high stress situations. It's a key part of training, and experience.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
Did they actually yell that? Or was it more of a "drop it drop it" thing?
He yells he's going for my hand like three times over 5+ seconds whilst not moving away.
If he really was going for the gun this is probably justified.
I'm curious how this got to the end point. If you go with the dude losing control of this gun you have six officers who lose at least two weapons in an altercation with one man. That is the worst policing imaginable. So, yeah, maybe a justified shooting caused by massive incompetence.
Probably a fair assessment. At the same time, it is at least conceivable that it's just a confluence of bad luck...you have enough instances, and something freakishly unlikely will happen. And police having to manhandle violent vagrants into submission is something that happens pretty much all day, every day, if you look at the U.S. as a whole. It's something I've seen, firsthand, multiple times in just the last few years. It's something I've been actively involved in just a few years ago.
But still, probably a fair assessment. Just not definitely.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
This isn't the case.
'Stock' (read critical) phrases get drummed in to the point that officers can use them in high stress situations. It's a key part of training, and experience.
Apparently as part of officer training the phrase "He's going for my gun" is learned so effectively that officers use it when no such thing is occurring.
Which makes the use of that phrase as some sort of evidence that it's actually occurring ridiculous. Yes, an officer shouts it.
So?
Proves nothing. Zero credibility and a history of using that claim to cover for assault and murder means I no longer believe it.
Holy shit, it looks like the shooting almost kicked off a riot. Although, you can't see how many people are surrounding the dude with the camera. I will say that the cops looked like a bunch of morons with all those uniforms having such a hard time taking down two people and their night sticks flying around everywhere. It would be comical if it wasn't so horrifying.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
Did we not watch the same video? You can see the black officer near his head trying to get away before the shots go off. Go to 15 sec, watch to around 18 sec and then pause. Even in this video you can see the guy on the ground has his hands on the gun. The officer starts shouting about his gun at 20 seconds, shots are fired at 25 seconds. That is a long time in a fight. That is not just someone "accidentally" having their hands on the gun. That is an attempt to get and draw the weapon. Those holsters are also not magical locking mechanisms, they are fairly easy to open, especially the ones with the snap/strap.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
Did they actually yell that? Or was it more of a "drop it drop it" thing?
He yells he's going for my hand like three times over 5+ seconds whilst not moving away.
If he really was going for the gun this is probably justified.
I'm curious how this got to the end point. If you go with the dude losing control of this gun you have six officers who lose at least two weapons in an altercation with one man. That is the worst policing imaginable. So, yeah, maybe a justified shooting caused by massive incompetence.
It is actually really really hard to just hold someone down if they are really fighting with everything they got. Once you have a good hold you are usually golden, it is getting that hold in the first place. And the reason those clubs are on the ground in the first place is they were trying to grab the guy instead of just beating the crap out of him with batons, which look like they are just carry rings, not locked in place or anything.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
This isn't the case.
'Stock' (read critical) phrases get drummed in to the point that officers can use them in high stress situations. It's a key part of training, and experience.
OK. I'm not sure this should be a critical part of training, but OK,
Roads that don't need fixing should not get more maintenance funds than those that do not. Though ideally funds should be allocated by specific needs it's pretty clear that needs increase as crime does.
"He's going for my gun" has basically experienced the boy who cried wolf treatment. Lie about it often enough and people will no longer believe it even if it actually happens.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
This isn't the case.
'Stock' (read critical) phrases get drummed in to the point that officers can use them in high stress situations. It's a key part of training, and experience.
OK. I'm not sure this should be a critical part of training, but OK,
How about the first part?
Police are generally trained to not back up during a physical altercation as this will give the person resisting time to collect themselves and possibly pull out a weapon, among other valid reasons. Had they backed up and took a second to think and assess the situation the dude on the ground could have pulled a gun and shot the officers, and until Americas gun culture is severely diminished this is how officers in America will think 100% of the time. That fight was just as much a struggle for life for the police officers as it was the guy who got shot even though they just wanted to subdue the guy.
And shouting takes zero effort when you're trained to do so. In fact, it could take more effort to not shout
Roads that don't need fixing should not get more maintenance funds than those that do not. Though ideally funds should be allocated by specific needs it's pretty clear that needs increase as crime does.
Moral hazard is my concern. We already have substantial criminal justice failures due to some people receiving disproportionate benefit from doing justice badly, like asset forfeiture, prison guard unions advocating for longer sentences, cash for kids, "tough on crime," the DEA in its entirety, etc, etc.
We already have over enforcement of minor crimes, particularly against minorities, without cutting police a check on a per arrest basis. On the flipside, most of the easier ways to prevent this abuse also have huge intrinsic flaws .
I'm not saying it's necessarily fatally flawed, but it's certainly very precarious.
If you have time to shout, 'He's going for my gun!' then you have time to fight or draw your gun or move away.
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
This isn't the case.
'Stock' (read critical) phrases get drummed in to the point that officers can use them in high stress situations. It's a key part of training, and experience.
OK. I'm not sure this should be a critical part of training, but OK,
How about the first part?
You don't think awareness of possible loss of control of your firearm, and making nearby officers aware of same, should be a critical part of training?
Like you said...OK.
I get the boy crying wolf thing, but it is still a thing that actually happens, and when it does it is srs bsns.
So, the more I think about it, the more my response to Seattle's move is
Because frankly, even with the blurring and the lack of audio, I still think that there are massive issues with privacy there. And honestly, I don't think the developer involved has thought them through.
Yeah, it'll take some convincing to get me to accept that you can redact enough out of a bodycam video to protect privacy of those involved.
I think it may still be a necessary improvement over the status quo, but I have serious issues with it. We need to work on it.
Not to mention that the entire thing seems unnecessarily voyeuristic and publicity-oriented.
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
That said, if my choices are police action being "always being watched and published" or "get away with murder" I think I would be ok with taking that privacy hit.
Happily, we don't live in a binary world so we can hope for a middle ground!
Yeah, it'll take some convincing to get me to accept that you can redact enough out of a bodycam video to protect privacy of those involved.
I think it may still be a necessary improvement over the status quo, but I have serious issues with it. We need to work on it.
Not to mention that the entire thing seems unnecessarily voyeuristic and publicity-oriented.
It was the result of someone doing a public records request for ALL body can video.
Right, which was made for the point of illustrating that once you create this video, given how most laws relating to public records work, this is the risk.
Yeah, it'll take some convincing to get me to accept that you can redact enough out of a bodycam video to protect privacy of those involved.
I think it may still be a necessary improvement over the status quo, but I have serious issues with it. We need to work on it.
Not to mention that the entire thing seems unnecessarily voyeuristic and publicity-oriented.
It was the result of someone doing a public records request for ALL body can video.
Indeed. Which is why I feel there needs to be some reasonable limits placed on FOI / Records requests.
Obvious things would be on the list, like requesting information about you or your dependents, or a lawyer requesting information on a client. These would remain free in perpetuity.
In other areas, I think you should have to demonstrate a certain (albeit low bar) of 'public interest' for records requests. And moreover, when you make substantially 'large' requests (for example: All Body Cam video), I don't think it is unreasonable to have an associated charge for labor involved.
I think the rules would be hard to draft, but necessary. That guy who strongarmed SPD regarding the video was a clear case of 'this is why we can't have nice things' - he very nearly torpedoed the entire body cam program until SPD struck this deal with him.
Yeah, it'll take some convincing to get me to accept that you can redact enough out of a bodycam video to protect privacy of those involved.
I think it may still be a necessary improvement over the status quo, but I have serious issues with it. We need to work on it.
Not to mention that the entire thing seems unnecessarily voyeuristic and publicity-oriented.
It was the result of someone doing a public records request for ALL body can video.
Indeed. Which is why I feel there needs to be some reasonable limits placed on FOI / Records requests.
Obvious things would be on the list, like requesting information about you or your dependents, or a lawyer requesting information on a client. These would remain free in perpetuity.
In other areas, I think you should have to demonstrate a certain (albeit low bar) of 'public interest' for records requests. And moreover, when you make substantially 'large' requests (for example: All Body Cam video), I don't think it is unreasonable to have an associated charge for labor involved.
I think the rules would be hard to draft, but necessary. That guy who strongarmed SPD regarding the video was a clear case of 'this is why we can't have nice things' - he very nearly torpedoed the entire body cam program until SPD struck this deal with him.
There are limits, on a state by state basis. For example, you typically won't be able to get personal information pertaining to victims, or contact information about officers in incident reports without them being censored out.
I haven't checked out this channel, but aren't the videos obscured six ways from Sunday?
Yeah, it'll take some convincing to get me to accept that you can redact enough out of a bodycam video to protect privacy of those involved.
I think it may still be a necessary improvement over the status quo, but I have serious issues with it. We need to work on it.
Not to mention that the entire thing seems unnecessarily voyeuristic and publicity-oriented.
It was the result of someone doing a public records request for ALL body can video.
Indeed. Which is why I feel there needs to be some reasonable limits placed on FOI / Records requests.
Obvious things would be on the list, like requesting information about you or your dependents, or a lawyer requesting information on a client. These would remain free in perpetuity.
In other areas, I think you should have to demonstrate a certain (albeit low bar) of 'public interest' for records requests. And moreover, when you make substantially 'large' requests (for example: All Body Cam video), I don't think it is unreasonable to have an associated charge for labor involved.
I think the rules would be hard to draft, but necessary. That guy who strongarmed SPD regarding the video was a clear case of 'this is why we can't have nice things' - he very nearly torpedoed the entire body cam program until SPD struck this deal with him.
There are limits, on a state by state basis. For example, you typically won't be able to get personal information pertaining to victims, or contact information about officers in incident reports without them being censored out.
I haven't checked out this channel, but aren't the videos obscured six ways from Sunday?
Turns out that it's really hard to anonymize data, and I doubt you could obscure things enough to make the video anonymous enough without destroying the purpose of the video in the first place.
The problem is that we're starting to see the dark side of transparency, and how it can be abused.
Posts
But that's just a variation on what they always say.
"He's going for my gun" is just cop speak for "The person we wanted to execute was inconveniently unarmed so we had to say something."
The fact that police no longer have any credibility in this scenario unless a person actually physically takes their gun away and shoots the cop with it first is entirely their own fault for lying about this scenario over and over again for years.
That's exactly military protocol for searching possibly hostile personnel. The searcher hands off their firearm and then searches the detainee while another person stands at the ready with a rifle in case the person puts up enough of a struggle that they cannot be controlled with unarmed techniques.
Now, caveating this would require increased staffing levels to implement in a lot of areas, but it's an option.
And it's also common in detention centers, interview rooms, etc. Just not on the street.
I can understand that in some cases officers aren't available and I'm not saying it needs to be universal. But if you have 3-4 officers on hand? No reason not to eliminate that risk.
But honestly, I'm not sure they want to, because it takes away their justification for excessive uses of force (armed and unarmed).
Random passerby: Why did you pick up a billie club and start attacking the cops?
Did the camera tilt away when the actual shooting part happened?
I believe he's asking why a rando did so, not suggesting they do so.
Edit: I believe the answer is "because LA."
...and so "he was going for my gun" is a really terrible excuse for actually pulling your gun out and shooting someone, because unless it's Pai Mei going for it, odds are they wouldn't be able to actually unholster it before you are able to fight back.
I didn't want him to. I'm questioning what the hell went through his mind to make him think that was a remotely sensible course of action to pursue (which he did, like first 25 seconds of the video).
Steam Me
And if you are under serious stress you are tremendously unlikely to use the same stock phrase.
I assume he was covering himself/ducking when the shots were being fired.
Which in my opinion is a very natural response.
Did they actually yell that? Or was it more of a "drop it drop it" thing?
If he really was going for the gun this is probably justified.
I'm curious how this got to the end point. If you go with the dude losing control of this gun you have six officers who lose at least two weapons in an altercation with one man. That is the worst policing imaginable. So, yeah, maybe a justified shooting caused by massive incompetence.
They had just come from an office charity butter fight.
This isn't the case.
'Stock' (read critical) phrases get drummed in to the point that officers can use them in high stress situations. It's a key part of training, and experience.
Probably a fair assessment. At the same time, it is at least conceivable that it's just a confluence of bad luck...you have enough instances, and something freakishly unlikely will happen. And police having to manhandle violent vagrants into submission is something that happens pretty much all day, every day, if you look at the U.S. as a whole. It's something I've seen, firsthand, multiple times in just the last few years. It's something I've been actively involved in just a few years ago.
But still, probably a fair assessment. Just not definitely.
Apparently as part of officer training the phrase "He's going for my gun" is learned so effectively that officers use it when no such thing is occurring.
Which makes the use of that phrase as some sort of evidence that it's actually occurring ridiculous. Yes, an officer shouts it.
So?
Proves nothing. Zero credibility and a history of using that claim to cover for assault and murder means I no longer believe it.
Did we not watch the same video? You can see the black officer near his head trying to get away before the shots go off. Go to 15 sec, watch to around 18 sec and then pause. Even in this video you can see the guy on the ground has his hands on the gun. The officer starts shouting about his gun at 20 seconds, shots are fired at 25 seconds. That is a long time in a fight. That is not just someone "accidentally" having their hands on the gun. That is an attempt to get and draw the weapon. Those holsters are also not magical locking mechanisms, they are fairly easy to open, especially the ones with the snap/strap.
It is actually really really hard to just hold someone down if they are really fighting with everything they got. Once you have a good hold you are usually golden, it is getting that hold in the first place. And the reason those clubs are on the ground in the first place is they were trying to grab the guy instead of just beating the crap out of him with batons, which look like they are just carry rings, not locked in place or anything.
OK. I'm not sure this should be a critical part of training, but OK,
How about the first part?
Roads that don't need fixing should not get more maintenance funds than those that do not. Though ideally funds should be allocated by specific needs it's pretty clear that needs increase as crime does.
Police are generally trained to not back up during a physical altercation as this will give the person resisting time to collect themselves and possibly pull out a weapon, among other valid reasons. Had they backed up and took a second to think and assess the situation the dude on the ground could have pulled a gun and shot the officers, and until Americas gun culture is severely diminished this is how officers in America will think 100% of the time. That fight was just as much a struggle for life for the police officers as it was the guy who got shot even though they just wanted to subdue the guy.
And shouting takes zero effort when you're trained to do so. In fact, it could take more effort to not shout
Moral hazard is my concern. We already have substantial criminal justice failures due to some people receiving disproportionate benefit from doing justice badly, like asset forfeiture, prison guard unions advocating for longer sentences, cash for kids, "tough on crime," the DEA in its entirety, etc, etc.
We already have over enforcement of minor crimes, particularly against minorities, without cutting police a check on a per arrest basis. On the flipside, most of the easier ways to prevent this abuse also have huge intrinsic flaws .
I'm not saying it's necessarily fatally flawed, but it's certainly very precarious.
You don't think awareness of possible loss of control of your firearm, and making nearby officers aware of same, should be a critical part of training?
Like you said...OK.
I get the boy crying wolf thing, but it is still a thing that actually happens, and when it does it is srs bsns.
Even with the changes, I'm not sure I like this.
Because frankly, even with the blurring and the lack of audio, I still think that there are massive issues with privacy there. And honestly, I don't think the developer involved has thought them through.
I think it may still be a necessary improvement over the status quo, but I have serious issues with it. We need to work on it.
Not to mention that the entire thing seems unnecessarily voyeuristic and publicity-oriented.
Happily, we don't live in a binary world so we can hope for a middle ground!
It was the result of someone doing a public records request for ALL body can video.
Right, which was made for the point of illustrating that once you create this video, given how most laws relating to public records work, this is the risk.
We already knew this, too. See: mugshot sites.
Indeed. Which is why I feel there needs to be some reasonable limits placed on FOI / Records requests.
Obvious things would be on the list, like requesting information about you or your dependents, or a lawyer requesting information on a client. These would remain free in perpetuity.
In other areas, I think you should have to demonstrate a certain (albeit low bar) of 'public interest' for records requests. And moreover, when you make substantially 'large' requests (for example: All Body Cam video), I don't think it is unreasonable to have an associated charge for labor involved.
I think the rules would be hard to draft, but necessary. That guy who strongarmed SPD regarding the video was a clear case of 'this is why we can't have nice things' - he very nearly torpedoed the entire body cam program until SPD struck this deal with him.
There are limits, on a state by state basis. For example, you typically won't be able to get personal information pertaining to victims, or contact information about officers in incident reports without them being censored out.
I haven't checked out this channel, but aren't the videos obscured six ways from Sunday?
Turns out that it's really hard to anonymize data, and I doubt you could obscure things enough to make the video anonymous enough without destroying the purpose of the video in the first place.
The problem is that we're starting to see the dark side of transparency, and how it can be abused.