Tribute

[ashbury]

I figured something would be posted on this topic today by now. Maybe It's probably too raw still. It disgusts me and infuriates me - that I know for sure.

 

This is my Tribute to Philando Castile...

The blues is probably the appropriate genre for this whole mess...

[PseudoSABR]

 

Honestly asking - is that even possible?  I'm not a soldier or a cop, is such an assessment even possible?  

 

I can only speak to situations I've been in (physically restraining a person out of control) that fluid, cognizant thinking is extremely difficult.  And that's without real risk to anyone's life being in the mix.

 

I agree about placing the emphasis on everyone walking out alive, not just the cop.  From a philosophical standpoint, I'm in total agreement.  I'm not sure when the rubber meets the road.

I think such an assessment is absolutely possible, although difficult. If a police officer can assess that a person is reaching into a pocket, that same police officer can place such an action in context of the danger/risk.  Pulling someone over for a traffic ticket is the kind of context where someone reaching for something, shouldn't automatically cause a police officer to fear for his life.    Other situations, where a crime of violence is suspected or a robbery has taken place, a suspect reaching for something unseen, might reasonably cause police to fear for their lives.   In any case, protocol that buys police officers time to make a decision, rather than just react will result in lives saved.

 

We can't take away the police's responsibility to assess each situation; we've allowed them to apply a blanket protocol (which serves to protect them and not the citizen) to all situations no matter how likely or unlikely it is for danger to actually occur.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

This is a contradiction the political left is going to have to deal with here (the right has a lot too...like the militarization of the police against citizens as one example) - their ability to skate from these situations is largely driven by negotiated policies put in place by their union.  Most of the protections that allow them to be held to a lower standard start there.  Are we willing to break that union?

I agree that police unions have shaped protocol to benefit their own.  But the union should have ZERO voice in establishing STATE protocol for citizen engagement.  We need sweeping laws that codify such protocol; police unions can't change the law, no matter how much leverage they have in negotiation.  Take the policy-making out of individual police agencies hands, and you also get rid of the influence of unions, there.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think such an assessment is absolutely possible, although difficult. If a police officer can assess that a person is reaching into a pocket, that same police officer can place such an action in context of the danger/risk.  

 

Those are two very different kinds of assessments.  Hand movements towards pockets are very different from running a mental risk analysis.  It's not like police officers haven't been shot during routine stops.  

 

I think your second post is where to look - more national policies and an emphasis on police officer protocol leading to all persons in the encounter leaving safely.  It is too police-centric now.

[Craig Arko]

Is this going to become another version of the elections thread? I don't believe that was the original intent.

[Mike Sixel]

#$^@#$^(*!  now I have RW friends posting on line that this wasn't about race.....what delusional fantasy do these people live in?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Is this going to become another version of the elections thread? I don't believe that was the original intent.

 

Maybe not.....but what better tribute than to have something change?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I judge that a black person should not be shot at while being questioned about a minor traffic violation.

 

Tell me, am I rushing that judgment?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I only commented because, unsurprisingly, the public is unanimously against the cop when all we really have about the shooting is a he said-she said, and when "presumption of innocence" was brought up, it didn't seem to apply to the cop.

We don't know everything, but we do know a bit more than the "he said-she said" -- we've got images of the immediate aftermath, that show a man (without a weapon drawn) dying while seated in a car with his girlfriend and child, and a cop continuing to point his gun at the dying man.

 

Feel free to fill in the blanks however you want about the words and actions that preceded that image, but it's almost impossible to justify the cop's actions.

[Craig Arko]

Maybe not.....but what better tribute than to have something change?

Point taken.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Point taken.

 

Though I did love the original tribute, and should have made it more clear.....as is your point. 

 

Both threads devolved a bit, to which I contributed out of frustration of the events, and few others to talk to (don't know anyone here......).

[gunnarthor]

I can't really comment on this but I'll link the ACLU MN's statement, which includes a letter to the DOJ.

 

https://www.aclu-mn.org/news/2016/07/07/aclu-statement-philando-castile-killing

[Willihammer]

We don't know everything, but we do know a bit more than the "he said-she said" -- we've got images of the immediate aftermath, that show a man (without a weapon drawn) dying while seated in a car with his girlfriend and child, and a cop continuing to point his gun at the dying man.

 

Feel free to fill in the blanks however you want about the words and actions that preceded that image, but it's almost impossible to justify the cop's actions.

Yes, facts are starting to trickle out. I was referring to the FB video because I think that's what shocked a lot of folks and raised the panic level with a lot of folks including maybe those in Dallas.

 

And to be clear, I'm not justifying the outcome. We need to be able to police ourselves without killing ourselves. But we should also make sure our outrage isn't misdirected and that might mean pumping the breaks for a few days while the smoke on this situation clears.

 

Sorry if I derailed the thread. Its obviously a tragic event, we all feel terribly about it, especially the little girl in the back seat. I'll open another thread if braoder discussions about police violence, race, etc should be taken up separately.

[Craig Arko]

Though I did love the original tribute, and should have made it more clear.....as is your point. 

 

Both threads devolved a bit, to which I contributed out of frustration of the events, and few others to talk to (don't know anyone here......).

No, I understand; my hope too is that change results. But my feeling is the same deep pessimism some of the other folks express towards the Twins. A deep hole without egress.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I might characterize the presumption we should put in place is one to protect life at even the risk to the cop him/herself.  The problem is the training that seeks to protect police from any potential risk with deadly force.  The standard should never be "the person was reaching in his pocket": the tactical training of a police officer whose weapon is drawn should allow for enough time for the police to assess the situation.

Agreed.

 

I've read a lot lately about how police have to work in harm's way, and I don't doubt that is true.  (It was certainly true in Dallas last night, and in many other situations.)

 

But the officer in St. Anthony doesn't seem to have gone particularly close to harm's way before he decided to preemptively fire.  The officer had a weapon drawn, the victim did not; the officer had a more advantageous physical position; the officer had backup, with presumably more on the way.  Same thing for other recent incidents where police have shot unarmed individuals already tackled to the ground by other police officers -- sure, there was a chance those individuals could have grabbed a weapon (usually from one of the cops tackling him) and caused more trouble, but I think that chance has to be a lot higher before a trained officer should take a life.  (Also an aside: if there are multiple officers on the scene and only one suspect -- maybe have an unarmed officer do the tackling?)

[PseudoSABR]

 

(Also an aside: if there are multiple officers on the scene and only one suspect -- maybe have an unarmed officer do the tackling?)

I think there's all kinds of tactics and resources that the police don't avail themselves of that could be useful in such situations.  First, the police need to realize that there's no hurry to 'solve' the situation.  If a person isn't complying in some way but also isn't presenting an articulable danger, the tactic that preserves life is to freaking wait it out.

 

I imagine if police started investing in non-deadly weaponary, industry would invent/provide all kinds of clever tools and devices to take perpetrators down.  Heck, throwing a net over a person, shooting a bean bag at the persons head to knock them out, freaking lasso the guy before needing use a fire arm.  

 

We need to take deadly-force out of the police tool box and replace it with alternative tools that better protect citizens, and probably will better protect the police as well.

[PseudoSABR]

Speaking of reform; Baltimore recently overhauled their use of deadly force policy, focusing on the 'sanctity of human life'.

 

In reading about that policy reform, I came across the Peelian principles of policing, which I find very relevant and something to aspire to.  The nine principals are:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I judge that a black person should not be shot at while being questioned about a minor traffic violation.

Tell me, am I rushing that judgment?

 

On that, absolutely not.

[TheLeviathan]

I like that, kudos to Baltimore on that front.  I think that's the direction to take things.

[Craig Arko]

One of my Facebook buddies said it's feeling like 1968 again, and I agree.

 

For those of you were not around in those days, here is a sampler of the critical events of that single year:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/us/1968-important-events/

 

Note that Denny McLain's 31-6 season couldn't crack the list.

[twinsnorth49]

Yet another life wasted.....for what?.

 

Someone explain it to the little girl.

[biggentleben]

 

Yet another life wasted.....for what?.

Someone explain it to the little girl.

 

Sadly, she was the one trying to explain it to her mother...

[Craig Arko]

More officers targeted in Georgia, Tennessee, and Missouri. Don't know if there are any casualties.

 

Here is some info.

 

http://time.com/4399366/georgia-man-police-officer-shooting/

[ashbury]

One of my Facebook buddies said it's feeling like 1968 again, and I agree.

I may not have the best handle on 1968 but I view that year as one of pulling apart.

 

This matter of police use of deadly force strikes more as of coming together on a major principle.

[Willihammer]

Gofundme for Castile family. 

https://www.gofundme.com/philando

[Craig Arko]

I may not have the best handle on 1968 but I view that year as one of pulling apart.

 

This matter of police use of deadly force strikes more as of coming together on a major principle.

I hope you are right. I don't think so, but I hope so. I think this will get much worse before it gets any better.