NYPD officers found not guilty in the shooting death of Sean Bell

[yby1]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89941766

I think it's absolutely despicable that the judge acquitted these officers. Insufficient evidence not to charge them? Bullshit. :mad:

[BTB]

Well, with an opening post like that, there's not much room for discussion, is there? ;)

I've followed the story out of human interest. It's tragic this young man died at all, and the fact that it was on his wedding day is poignant. I wasn't there that morning, and don't know all the evidence that was in front of the judge. I hope he (or she) made the correct decision under the law. From what I understand, the officers heard mention of a gun, though in retrospect we all now know neither Bell nor his friends had a weapon. The officers testified they identified themselves as police, and whether or not the men involved heard them or not, I don't know; the two survivors testified they did not. When the men tried to drive away, from what I have read they were driving at the officers.

A car aimed at you is "deadly force" according to police procedure, and if you think those driving by may be pulling a gun, you'll feel even more threatened. These are men and women who want to get home to their families alive. Certainly they are human too, and not perfect; there are crooked cops just as there are bad members of every other profession. Much has been made of the number of shots fired, but I learned this week that 5 officers fired, though only 3 were on admin leave and being tried, and that the estimated time of firing was less than one minute. These officers had to make a split-second decision, and if they failed to defend themselves it could be their families grieving.

Someone from the police department issued a statement saying "there are no winners in this case" and that is so true. It's terrible it happened the way it did, but knowing only what's been broadcast and printed and not the full scenario, I can't say the officers were in the wrong.

[jnettie]

This pretty much sums up how I feel about this whole Sean Bell thing. From Speaking of Faith (http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/thichnhathanh/transcript.shtml)

But on her first retreat with him[Thich Nhat Hanh], as a person who carries a gun for a living, she balked at the most basic principle he espouses. That is, a vow never to kill.

Captain Cheri Maples: Well, as a cop, what started to happen to me there got very interesting because — I don't know if you attended the five mindfulness trainings, but that was one of the things that happened at my first retreat — and I just assumed, well, I'd listen to this, but 'I can't do that, I'm a cop.' You know, I mean, 'I might be in a position where I have to kill somebody at some point. I can't think about taking these.' And Sister Chan Khong, who is one of the — probably the senior monastic here, was at that retreat, and she pulled me aside and she had this very wonderful conversation with me, the essence of it being, 'Who else would we want to carry a gun except somebody who will do it mindfully? Of course, you can take these trainings.'
Bolding mine.

If the situation were reversed, and the guys claimed "self defense" and they had shot undercover cops and killed them, do you think they would have been found "not guilty"?

[Adaya]

I'm extremely biased about this because of my very strong, negative opinion about cops. I'll simply say that I think the verdict was unfair. Based on the reasons the judge gave for acquitting them, I simply don't agree.

[LalaKini]

I think this case is really sad on so many levels to me.

From stictly a legal point of view, the defendants were absolutely smart to have waived their right to a jury trial, becuase I don't think that a jury would have found them innocent. The judge, on the other hand, knows his evidence rules very well, and it seems (from what I've read about the case) that the witnesses lost the case for the prosecution. There were a lot of credibility issues (don't know the specifics in terms of whether they were impeached, or whether their credibility was merely attacked) due to past records and other stuff, so I don't think the judge trusted them. If they had been deemed credible, then I think the case could have gone the other way becuase of their testimony that the officers didn't announce themselves as such. But who knows. That's just my theory.

[imagirliegirl]

I think it's absolutely despicable that the judge acquitted these officers. Insufficient evidence not to charge them? Bullshit. :mad:

I completely agree.

Here's the thing - I am sympathetic to the police. I understand how tough their job is and how a split-second decision can mean going home alive or dead. I could never, ever do their job.

I think people jump to conclusions about police actions and criticize them all too often. I cannot imagine how hard it must be to do a job where people are constantly knocking every choice you make when (I really believe) most officers are doing their very best.

That being said, I do not agree with the verdict of this case. I believe these officers did not act responsibly.

[kris97]

I think alot of the misunderstanding about the verdict comes from the fact that people don't understand the legal principles governing the case. For the judge (or jury) to find them guilty, he must find that the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the charged crimes. Given the testimony of the witnesses - many of whom gave contradictory testimony regarding whether people on the scene claimed to have a gun, and whether the undercover detective announced himself to the victims before shots were fired - it would be extremely difficult for the court to find that, beyond a reasonable doubt,the defendants committed these crimes.

Here are the judge's remarks: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--policeshooting-st0425apr25,0,1498309.story

This is a pitfall of any prosecution case, and why there are a substantial number of acquittals in New York City. Witnesses to crimes don't always give consistent testimony, and the more divergent the testimony, the greater a chance that a trier of fact will find reasonable doubt.

I think this is absolutely a tragedy, and absolutely an issue that should be addressed through improved police training and police/community relations. But it's a far cry from the Louima or Diallo cases, both in terms of circumstances; the racial background of the cops involved; and in the response of city and police officials -- and I think the response to the verdict- which is turning out to be far more muted than the Diallo verdict - reflects these differences.

[kris97]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89941766

I think it's absolutely despicable that the judge acquitted these officers. Insufficient evidence not to charge them? Bullshit. :mad:

I don't know if you meant to say "convict" them, but the officers were already charged, by the grand jury. The trial was to determine their guilt, not whether to indict them.

[kendriln]

Someone from the police department issued a statement saying "there are no winners in this case" and that is so true.

I'm from a law enforcement family -- there are a lot of police officers and federal agents in my family and so I'm sympathetic to the job that police officers have to do to keep our streets safe.

But that said, there are definitely losers in this case. My heart goes out to his fiancee who lost her love, the children who lost their father and the mother who had to bury her child.

[miel]

It's a very tragic thing for all concerned. In general, I think police officers have to be held legally accountable for shooting unarmed people who are not committing a crime and do not pose a threat. If you read the list of people shot in the last 10 years and why they were shot, it's just so shocking.

I can't speak to this case. Generally, I'd say there needs to be some regular form of legal accountability for accidentally shooting people who are innocent.

In cities I've lived in recently (1) One kid was shot when he was eating a candy bar. The cop though the candy bar was a gun (2) A woman was shot because she was asleep in her car--they tapped on the window and she started and then they claimed that she moved her hands in a threatening way and they shot her through the window (3) A man was fatally beaten because he was asleep and they went to wake him up and he was kind of scaring them in some way by lurching around in a threatening manner.

All those people were AFrican American. Then there is the Diallo case. And some other case of an unarmed black cop being shot by another cop. I'm not sure why exactly.

I know police shoot white people by accident but it never seems to happen where I've lived. In one city I lived in, I rented an apartment without seeing it and the neighborhood seemed dicey so I asked someone at the market: Is this a safe neighborhood.? And she basically said 'yes, except the police are dangerous.' But she wasn't making some political statement. She's seeing the police as the biggest threat to safety. How bad is that?

I don't know enough about this case. It's hard to figure out what happened. I simply think there is no getting around the idea that police have to be accountable for their mistakes. They of all people can't get a free pass for shooting people when they pose no threat because of mistaken identity or some fear they have they will do something when they haven't done anything. I'm not sure how that's going to happen. But what's the alternative? If police aren't held accountable more often, does that mean any African American person who seems threatening is liable to being shot by the police? That's a pretty scary prospect.

People who say we owe the police so much wouldn't stand for it if they were the ones who were at risk of these shootings. Good for them for doing that job. It is necessary. But I don't think people owe them so much they should be liable to get shot and not complain.

As far as I can tell, the driving part is very iffy if the car is interpreted as a weapon because the cars were unmarked and they were having their path blocked by the cars. What would you do if that happened to you? I'd try to drive away! Wouldn't you? So it does not seem that the car was intended to be used as a weapon.

It's really awful to think that your life is toast unless you know how to react when some policeman pulls a gun on you. I remember one guy in his car, the policeman stuck his head in the car and pointed the gun at his head and the guy hit the accelerator for a second and was charged with attempted murder. Even the judge thought that wasn't fair. Diallo was shot for reaching for his wallet.

I just worry there isn't enough accountability. Of course everyone sympathizes with the police because it's a scary dangerous job. But if you read even the facts that are not in dispute they so intensely misjudged these people and suspected them even though they were not doing anything illegal. I think Bell and others had a police record but they didn't know that. There's where the problem starts, I guess. If every action you perform is read as threatening and then the police are allowed to shoot you for 'acting threatening' then I'd say this is not acceptable as a baseline. Unfortunately, the police are going to have to take greater risks at times to avoid randomly shooting people by waiting to assess the situation. That stuff about it being dark, or split second decisions, etc. only applies if you assume that the duty to protect your own life comes first--but the reason police get to carry guns is because they are supposed to be protecting other people's lives first. The risks they take to protect citizens is going to have to include taking the risk of making sure they don't shoot unarmed people. If they can't abide by that standard, they should not be allowed to carry weapons.

I don't hate the police at all. I know there are a lot of good police. I know these guys probably didn't mean to kill an innocent person and that it is a tragic accident. But they have A LOT of power over people. I think their power has to be kept in check by the community. There needs to be an outcry when they kill people. Citizens need to monitor police behavior and ensure they are not targeting and harming innocent people. The law needs to protect people from the police more than it does.

[EuropeBride]

Well said, miel!

[AmyE]

Um, here's the thing miel - there WAS an outcry. The cops were investigaged, charged, brought to trial.

The outcome of the trial was that the judge found that 'reasonable doubt' was still present, and therefore he couldn't convict.

[Adaya]

(3) A man was fatally beaten because he was asleep and they went to wake him up and he was kind of scaring them in some way by lurching around in a threatening manner.



How ironic because I just told DH that the only way cops may be found guilty in a shooting is they kill someone in their sleep. He said, "doubtful". Humph, guess he was right.

[kris97]

Also, the acquittal is not the end of official action. The police still place internal disciplinary charges and civil lawsuits. So, while they won't face prison, they still will likely be held accountable in some form. I understand this won't satisfy many people (understandably), but just wanted to make clear that this isn't over.

[yby1]

I don't know if you meant to say "convict" them, but the officers were already charged, by the grand jury. The trial was to determine their guilt, not whether to indict them.


Yes. That is what I meant. I was writing this in the car and very hastily. Thanks for correcting me.

[yby1]

I don't hate the police at all. I know there are a lot of good police. I know these guys probably didn't mean to kill an innocent person and that it is a tragic accident. But they have A LOT of power over people. I think their power has to be kept in check by the community. There needs to be an outcry when they kill people. Citizens need to monitor police behavior and ensure they are not targeting and harming innocent people. The law needs to protect people from the police more than it does.

AMEN.

[Niobe]

Over 50 rounds, from 3 officers, right? Do their guns have larger-than-average clips, or did they have to reload to continue firing? Something about the cops stopping to reload, and then firing even more shots really bothers me. :(

[Chimichanga]

I believe it said in one article there were actually 5 officers; only 3 were on trial at that time.

[phoenics]

the racial background of the cops involved;

Just because there were two black cops involved doesn't mean that it wasn't still completely racial. Black people have been indoctrinated with the same racist messages that other non-blacks have been. In some cases we are worse when we discriminate against our own.

Also look at this: http://backhand.uchicago.edu/Center/ShooterEffect/

It's a study about response times to white and blacks with and without weapons. There is a predisposition to shoot faster with AAs.

[kris97]

Just because there were two black cops involved doesn't mean that it wasn't still completely racial. Black people have been indoctrinated with the same racist messages that other non-blacks have been. In some cases we are worse when we discriminate against our own.

Also look at this: http://backhand.uchicago.edu/Center/ShooterEffect/

It's a study about response times to white and blacks with and without weapons. There is a predisposition to shoot faster with AAs.

I didn't mean to suggest that there were no racial issues involved, only that the more muted response this time compared with the Diallo shooting is attributable to several factors, one of which is the fact that this was not an all-white group of cops. It doesn't remove race as a factor, it just complicates the matter, at the very least the visceral response to this shooting.

[nylons73]

I think this was a terrible tragedy, but I have to agree with those who said the judge was justified in following the law in this instance.

From what I understand, the witnessess called for the prosecution were very shakey. Changing stories, untrustworthy seeming, etc. On the other hand, the officers involved all told rock solid stories that never changed. That, in and of itself, goes a long way with a judge.

I think the police need to be held accountable (like Miel pointed out) but I also think that it behooves the prosecution to put on the best case possible. It doesn't seem like they did that in this instance. Witnesses need to be carefully selected and prepared. You don't throw someone in there to tell the 415th version of their story and expect them to come off as credible.

I always thought that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were the main reasons the O.J. trial went like it did. People want to say it was all along racial lines, etc. But really, the O.J. prosecutors did a terrible job in prosecuting him and Johnnie Cochran (RIP) and the "Dream Team" did a great job in defending him. Sometimes, that's what makes the difference.

[phoenics]

I didn't mean to suggest that there were no racial issues involved, only that the more muted response this time compared with the Diallo shooting is attributable to several factors, one of which is the fact that this was not an all-white group of cops. It doesn't remove race as a factor, it just complicates the matter, at the very least the visceral response to this shooting.

Okay. I just want to say that I don't think this factor had anything to do with the more 'muted' response, as evidenced by the site I put up.

I got the link from someone who was black, who ALSO exhibited the trigger finger with black men (he shot at them more quickly than he shot at the white men, armed or not).

[yby1]

I tend to leans towards the side of police officers in most cases, but, to a degree, I have a problem with them being "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to these type of shoot-outs. I think that more needs to be done to justify WHY someone had to die. When you are trusted the well-being of the community, and trusted with carrying a lethal weapon, I think there comes more responsibility to justify your actions.

[kris97]

Okay. I just want to say that I don't think this factor had anything to do with the more 'muted' response, as evidenced by the site I put up.

I got the link from someone who was black, who ALSO exhibited the trigger finger with black men (he shot at them more quickly than he shot at the white men, armed or not).

I don't disagree at all about the fact that prejudice affects everyone - including black people - but I do absolutely think that a big reason there are far fewer protests today than in 2000 is because this case "feels" different to the City than the Diallo shooting, and one of the reasons is because this was a diverse group of cops rather than an all-white group of undercovers. So while the same psychology may have precipitated both events, I think the public perception of this shooting, vs. the Diallo shooting is different.

[phoenics]

Oh I definitely agree with that - but that's because I think the public is generally in the dark about how pervasive the negative images we've received concerning black men really is - to blacks and non-blacks.

[AmyE]

I have a problem with them being "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to these type of shoot-outs. .

This particular case is (another) ugly one, but I really disagree with this. (And I fully admit I'm picking on one phrase in a more complete thought.)

The BEST thing about the US judicial system is the innocent until proven guilty part. For all cases. I currently live in an Asia country where if the cops arrest someone, the prosecution rate is about 100%. See, the police - and ergo the government - would "lose face" if the courts ended up declaring someone innocent after they went through the trouble of arresting someone.

IMO, one of the WORST things about our system is that too many young black men end up in the courts and they seem to be assumed guilty first, and have to prove their innocence. Bass ackwards.

The end result of course is that guilty people will end up going free. I do believe, however, that we do a better job of keeping innocent people out of jail that way. The system, for all of its many many faults - and I think a whole pile of faults are cultural, not systemic - does seem to work better than the alternatives.

[boilermaker]

I have kept up with this story out of human interest as well and when I heard the verdict, I felt it was correct based on the information reported. Lack of credible witnesses for the prosecution, solid stories of feeling as if they were in harms way from the police. I don't think that putting any of these 3 men in jail would have served much purpose.

I do believe that there is so much of an overwhelming prejudice in society though that puts black men at a big disadvantage in this type of situation. As we learned from Katrina (or at least as I learned), the number of minorities that make up the poorest of the poor is sickening. And there is a pretty clear link between low income levels and crime. So I would imagine that as a cop, I would feel more of a perceived notion of wrong-doing and fear when dealing with people in higher crime areas, esp if I was there with the expectation of crimes being committed. If these police officers had overheard 3 well off white business men joking about a gun, I'm not sure the same tragedy would have resulted. And that is what I find so disturbing. But how do we as a society fix this? I personally don't think sending 3 police officers to jail is the answer. I have no doubt they truly felt that their lives were in danger. But the sad thing is, did they feel their lives were in danger more so because the victims were black and there is a preconceived notion that black = dangerous? To me, that is what needs to change. And it needs to change from all sides.

[karlatta]

phoenics - Thanks for that link. I did it myself and got some interesting results.

[jnettie]

I agree, Innocent until proven guilty is a very good thing, and would have to agree that it is better for these cops to be found innocent because of bad evidence than go to jail and if they are truly innocent.

But, like my first post, I don't think that cops should ever kill anyone. They CHOOSE to have a job that puts them in the line of fire, knowingly. To make a mistake when they think that they are in danger when they are not and someone WITHOUT a gun dies?? That's a horrible abuse of the cop's responsibility with his or her gun.

And, I believe that only 3 shot their guns, and one single cop fired 26 rounds, so, yes, at least one of them changed their clip. That far exceeds self-defense IMO.

Furthermore, it is well known that eyewitnesses are the WORST thing you can have. Even a "credible" witness is bad. Psychologically, we tend to inverse colors in our brains, and every individual remembers things differently. The best evidence is physical and forensic evidence.

On a side note, I work in a predominately African American neighborhood in Brooklyn, a neighborhood that usually has a lot of very conspicuous uniformed cops. On the day of the verdict, there wasn't one uniformed cop on the street. Quite interesting. Later, I heard that the NYPD pulled uniformed cops out of AA neighborhoods in the city that day.

[miel]

Um, here's the thing miel - there WAS an outcry. The cops were investigaged, charged, brought to trial.

Right. That's the first thing you have to do in a questionable case like this one. Then let the facts decide. I didn't say anything different. Perhaps the police are acquitted too easily--I don't have the data on that. It is important for the legal system to figure out how to try these cases fairly.

However, there is a lack of accountability sometimes. That is the problem. When I say accountability, I meant--a fair trial that comes to a reasonable conclusion. That is why I said that I don't know enough about this case to know because I can't say if it was fair or came to a reasonable conclusion. So what I was saying was just 'let's have accountability' not 'there wasn't any accountability here.'

I think it makes little difference that there were black cops. Of course black people are not immune to misjudgment that is based on race. They know better than to believe a lot of them but we are all bombarded with similar messages. The issue with the police is not just racial--it is the potential power they have.

[BTB]

And, I believe that only 3 shot their guns, and one single cop fired 26 rounds, so, yes, at least one of them changed their clip. That far exceeds self-defense IMO.

That is incorrect. Five officers fired. Three were charged.

I don't think that cops should ever kill anyone. They CHOOSE to have a job that puts them in the line of fire, knowingly. To make a mistake when they think that they are in danger when they are not and someone WITHOUT a gun dies?? That's a horrible abuse of the cop's responsibility with his or her gun.

The benchmark for an officer to use deadly force is NOT whether or not the individual they're facing has a gun, it's whether or not that individual is threatening the officer with deadly force. By report, the victim's car was headed toward the officers at the time the shooting started, and a vehicle aimed at you is deadly force.

Cops should never kill ANYone? You can't be serious.

[miel]

The benchmark for an officer to use deadly force is NOT whether or not the individual they're facing has a gun, it's whether or not that individual is threatening the officer with deadly force. By report, the victim's car was headed toward the officers at the time the shooting started, and a vehicle aimed at you is deadly force.


That might be their standard but that cannot be a correct legal standard. If you are dressed in a ski mask and standing in front of my car with a gun and I run try to run you over to escape and you shoot me because you are a cop, then the law would have to take a close look at whether the shooting was justified. It can't be that the cop is allowed to shoot anyone if they act in the way the cop is trained to shoot anyone. What kind of legal standard would that be? If a police officer makes you fear for your life in some way and you attempt to defend yourself and don't know he/she is a police officer then they may be criminally liable for shooting you to defend themselves. Was that one of the issues in this case? I'm having a really hard time finding out what the legal issues was. I suspect that was one of them but that's just a guess. At the very least, they exercised poor judgment.

The police in the UK did not carry deadly weapons as a matter of course. I think they might now. The police in a number of countries do not. Obviously, in raids and such they might need a gun. I think the U.S. is too violent and gun-ridden for this to make much sense. What I wouldn't give for a society where everyone wasn't packing. That's just a pipe dream here, though.

[LalaKini]

That might be their standard but that cannot be a correct legal standard. If you are dressed in a ski mask and standing in front of my car with a gun and I run try to run you over to escape and you shoot me because you are a cop, then the law would have to take a close look at whether the shooting was justified. It can't be that the cop is allowed to shoot anyone if they act in the way the cop is trained to shoot anyone. What kind of legal standard would that be? If a police officer makes you fear for your life in some way and you attempt to defend yourself and don't know he/she is a police officer then they may be criminally liable for shooting you to defend themselves. Was that one of the issues in this case? I'm having a really hard time finding out what the legal issues was. I suspect that was one of them but that's just a guess. At the very least, they exercised poor judgment.

This WAS one of the biggest issues in the case, and the reason why the officers were acquitted. The witnesses that were called by the prosecution were the problem. Did the cops announce themselves as cops? Maybe, maybe not. The case turns on that fact - becuase like you said - if they merely had a bunch of men pointin guns at them without knowing they were cops, then they have a right to defend themsleves. But if they knew they were cops, then that's another story. And this is why the case is so sad, becuase we really don't know, we won't know. We can speculate all we want. We weren't there. It's the prosecution's word against the defense. And how do you determine who's word is good? The judge applies the rules of evidence, including those that apply to the character of the witness. And the witnesses apparently (according to what I've read about the case) were unable to keep their stories straight, and were unreliable. You can't convict someone when the evidence is not consistent.

I've had a couple of pretty intense conversations about this case with my husband, who is a cop in a major city. I have also discussed it with a few of my friends who are public defenders. I am a law student who is pretty passionate about civil rights (much more so that I ever imagined - moreso in the education and health care areas, but these cases also get to me), so I guess you can say that we often educate each other about what it's like to be in each others' shoes. I think this is the most important thing anyone can do with these cases. There are always 2 sides to a story. I think there is absolutely SO much misinformation and preconceived notions about each side which tends to divide each side even further when these sort of cases arise.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone whether this case was decided right or wrong outside of a purely legal context. There are a lot of deep rooted, and justifiable biases in this world that probably won't change from anything that comes from this thread. Our own personal experiences shape our views and in a perfect world, we could all sit in a room, and see eye to eye on everything, but I'm cynical enough to realize that could never happen. I'll just say that I agree with the judge that this case is a huge tragedy for all involved. The family of Sean Bell, the community, the justice system, and even the police.

[yby1]

This WAS one of the biggest issues in the case, and the reason why the officers were acquitted. The witnesses that were called by the prosecution were the problem. Did the cops announce themselves as cops? Maybe, maybe not. The case turns on that fact - becuase like you said - if they merely had a bunch of men pointin guns at them without knowing they were cops, then they have a right to defend themsleves. But if they knew they were cops, then that's another story. And this is why the case is so sad, becuase we really don't know, we won't know. We can speculate all we want. We weren't there. It's the prosecution's word against the defense. And how do you determine who's word is good? The judge applies the rules of evidence, including those that apply to the character of the witness. And the witnesses apparently (according to what I've read about the case) were unable to keep their stories straight, and were unreliable. You can't convict someone when the evidence is not consistent.

I've had a couple of pretty intense conversations about this case with my husband, who is a cop in a major city. I have also discussed it with a few of my friends who are public defenders. I am a law student who is pretty passionate about civil rights (much more so that I ever imagined - moreso in the education and health care areas, but these cases also get to me), so I guess you can say that we often educate each other about what it's like to be in each others' shoes. I think this is the most important thing anyone can do with these cases. There are always 2 sides to a story. I think there is absolutely SO much misinformation and preconceived notions about each side which tends to divide each side even further when these sort of cases arise.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone whether this case was decided right or wrong outside of a purely legal context. There are a lot of deep rooted, and justifiable biases in this world that probably won't change from anything that comes from this thread. Our own personal experiences shape our views and in a perfect world, we could all sit in a room, and see eye to eye on everything, but I'm cynical enough to realize that could never happen. I'll just say that I agree with the judge that this case is a huge tragedy for all involved. The family of Sean Bell, the community, the justice system, and even the police.

Great post. It is a tragedy for everyone.

[phoenics]

So the case basically hinged on whether the boys knew the men holding guns on them were cops?

I can totally understand the boys running and trying to leave in the car if they didn't know the men were cops. I'd probably panic like that too - and just try to get away.

[imagirliegirl]

That might be their standard but that cannot be a correct legal standard.

Most police departments use the +1 rule. Basically, whatever the suspect is doing, the police can go a step above. I wonder if this department has their procedures online. Some do.

The police in the UK did not carry deadly weapons as a matter of course. I think they might now.

I'm in a class about UK law enforcement, so I'll go into this a little more if you don't mind. :)

There are only a handful of special forces that are armed in England. Regular officers do not carry guns, nor do they want to (or need to).

I found this statistic in my book: "There are firearms in an estimated 35-43% of US households. The comparable figure for English households is 4%." It also says, "71% of homicides in the US involved a firearm while the comparable figure in England is 9%."

It would be a really aggressive move on the part of the English police to arm their officers. It's just unnecessary.

I don't think that cops should ever kill anyone. They CHOOSE to have a job that puts them in the line of fire, knowingly. To make a mistake when they think that they are in danger when they are not and someone WITHOUT a gun dies??

I don't understand how the knowledge of danger justifies letting someone kill you. Of course there are corrupt officers, there are mistakes made, because police officers are HUMAN. There isn't a profession in existence that is free from scandal or people who make errors in judgment. The majority of police officers are good and do want to make good choices. It's not like they all just want to go around and shoot em up. To say an officer should never kill ANYone just defies logic. Should an officer just stand there and let an armed criminal point a gun at them and shoot? Should society just shrug and say sorry Officer Bob, you signed up for it!

I really wish the media would, on occasion, pick up a story about an officer that does the right thing. It is hard when we hear so much about the idiots who do the wrong things to remember that there are a large number of good people out there who wear that badge. I think people also need to remember that police exist to uphold the law. A lot of the laws they are upholding are really crappy, questionable laws. They aren't lawmakers, though.

[yby1]

I don't understand how the knowledge of danger justifies letting someone kill you. Of course there are corrupt officers, there are mistakes made, because police officers are HUMAN. There isn't an profession in existence that is free from scandal or people who make errors in judgment. The majority of police officers are good and do want to make good choices. It's not like they all just want to go around and shoot em up. To say an officer should never kill ANYone just defies logic. Should an officer just stand there and let an armed criminal point a gun at them and shoot? Should society just shrug and say sorry Officer Bob, you signed up for it!


Honest question.

In the laws eyes, what is the difference between a civilian fatally shooting an unarmed person (with a licensed gun) because they *thought* they were in danger and a police officer in a similar scenario?

[kandi007]

Over 50 rounds, from 3 officers, right? Do their guns have larger-than-average clips, or did they have to reload to continue firing? Something about the cops stopping to reload, and then firing even more shots really bothers me. :(

exactly.

and i come from a law enforcement family. everyone from my mm to my second cousin is a cop...and in the NYPD. my dad used to be in the same precinct as 1 of the detectives. the verdict was bull to the 100th power. and what pisses me off the most is the judge had to ordasaity(sp) to say one of the reasons was because of criminal records? so i guess 50 shots mean nothing. one standard issue police weapon holds 8 bullets. 3 "cops" that means each had to reload at least twice. so at what point do they say"hey, we may have wounded him enough to stop the threat?" they don't. and unlike with other cases i cant even really say this is a race issue. its a NYPD vs young male issue (who just so happen 90% of the time to be black. IMO anyone who can honestly say these cops were justified, or the judge gave a good verdict needs to wake up. and lets hope next time its not your brother/husband/son who is getting 50 shots pumped into his body.

[PinkMartini]

Honest question.

In the laws eyes, what is the difference between a civilian fatally shooting an unarmed person (with a licensed gun) because they *thought* they were in danger and a police officer in a similar scenario?

Very different from what I understand. 3 of my BIL's have concealed weapons permits (as well as my FIL) and DH is looking into it as well. Civillians are held a lot more accountable (?) than cops from what they've said.

[imagirliegirl]

Honest question.

In the laws eyes, what is the difference between a civilian fatally shooting an unarmed person (with a licensed gun) because they *thought* they were in danger and a police officer in a similar scenario?

I'm not a lawyer but I would think that would depend on the situation.

Why does the civilian feel he/she is in danger or that this person has a gun? Is the person in the civilian's house? What are the circumstances? Obviously if I shoot a man who has entered my home in the middle of the night, I will have an easier time proving I felt threatened than if my husband shot a woman jogging in a park in broad daylight. Ya know? With civilians, it's all about the circumstances.

When you are dealing with an officer versus a civilian, you have the issue of knowledge. So you have to determine what the officer knew. Why did they have "reason to believe they were armed and dangerous"? Things of that nature. The standard of evidence should be different.

[kedzieb]

There are only a handful of special forces that are armed in England. Regular officers do not carry guns, nor do they want to (or need to).

I found this statistic in my book: "There are firearms in an estimated 35-43% of US households. The comparable figure for English households is 4%." It also says, "71% of homicides in the US involved a firearm while the comparable figure in England is 9%."

snip

I really wish the media would, on occasion, pick up a story about an officer that does the right thing. It is hard when we hear so much about the idiots who do the wrong things to remember that there are a large number of good people out there who wear that badge. I think people also need to remember that police exist to uphold the law. A lot of the laws they are upholding are really crappy, questionable laws. They aren't lawmakers, though.


It's really alarming how many more guns there are in the US vs the rest of the world & how much more gun violence in particular. I don't know that I think the police should have to be the first to back down, but I do wish they were trained to shoot to incapacitate instead of kill. Maybe they already are. I feel like since they are trained to protect us, they should be good marksmen in general if they have to go into these situations.

Also - I don't know what I think about the acquital, but I do think based on what the judge had to work with I wasn't surprised. What really offends me in this case is kind of what you were saying about the bad laws police have to enforce. It seems like a bad idea to have a group of unidentified cops in a parking lot because they had heard that there might be illegal activity at the strip club. It was an unnecessarily dangerous situation for both the police & patrons of the club.

[kandi007]

The benchmark for an officer to use deadly force is NOT whether or not the individual they're facing has a gun, it's whether or not that individual is threatening the officer with deadly force. By report, the victim's car was headed toward the officers at the time the shooting started, and a vehicle aimed at you is deadly force.

Cops should never kill ANYone? You can't be serious.

i dont think cops should never kill, but they are taught in the academy shoot to injure not to kill. and if do shoot to kill u dont shoot 50 bullets. and heres my point. you have 5 plain clothes officers coming after a group of men who had already been in a altercation. plain clothes...so the cops have their guns and vests on but no badge. u see 5 men coming to you car, who NEVER IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AND HAVE GUNS DRAWN and you were just in a altercation inside of a club...what do u do? i would have done the SAME EXACT THING he did...accelerated. hoping i don't end up in a fight. now im not saying this is right at all but we have to think of human reaction. and just to correct the report he didn't drive toward the detectives he accelerated and hit their parked van. the thing abut this case that hurts me the most is im from NY...and spend half the year there. in te same part of queens this happened. i am african american and have a younger brother. it touches home.

[imagirliegirl]

It's really alarming how many more guns there are in the US vs the rest of the world & how much more gun violence in particular. I don't know that I think the police should have to be the first to back down, but I do wish they were trained to shoot to incapacitate instead of kill. Maybe they already are. I feel like since they are trained to protect us, they should be good marksmen in general if they have to go into these situations.


I had a professor last semester who was a former police officer and one of the cases we discussed was a coworker of hers who shot and killed a man. He was known to carry a weapon and gestured like he was reaching for it, so the officer shot him. Turns out he wasn't armed and it was a big issue in her town. Everyone said why not just shoot him to stop him? Why did he have to kill him? We all had the same question.

She said it is really hard to do that, even with training. When you're shooting at someone who is running from you, at whatever distance, it's hard to hit them, let alone just shoot them in the leg. Handguns aren't all that accurate, either. So it makes sense. Obviously that wasn't the case here, but I'm just directing my response at the shoot to incapacitate comment.

I don't know how all police are trained, but she said they were trained to aim for center mass. Aiming for center mass made it more likely that they would hit the target somewhere. Most officers don't want to have to shoot at people for the simple reason that not all of their bullets are guaranteed to hit and it's dangerous to just have bullets flying around!

[jnettie]

Cops should never kill ANYone? You can't be serious.
Absolutely. See my OP about the woman from Wisconsin. She's a former cop that started a whole training program based on the idea that all cops should promise never to kill anyone. There's no way to undo the "mistake" of killing someone accidentally. And when you have the responsibility of carrying a gun to protect the public, you have the responsibility to protect everyone. Every criminal has the right to a fair trial. A dead criminal looses that right, too.

I don't understand how the knowledge of danger justifies letting someone kill you. Of course there are corrupt officers, there are mistakes made, because police officers are HUMAN. There isn't a profession in existence that is free from scandal or people who make errors in judgment. The majority of police officers are good and do want to make good choices. It's not like they all just want to go around and shoot em up. To say an officer should never kill ANYone just defies logic. Should an officer just stand there and let an armed criminal point a gun at them and shoot? Should society just shrug and say sorry Officer Bob, you signed up for it!
You misunderstand.

People say all the time that Police risk so much, and their jobs are dangerous that it's ok to shoot someone if they feel their lives are in danger. Somehow, that implies that the life of the cop is more important than the life of the alleged criminal. I say, if you are uncomfortable with having your life on the line in your job, don't be a cop. If you sign up to be a cop, expect that one day you may be looking at the business end of someone else's gun. Do what you can to save your own life, but also spare the life of the person aiming at you. Maybe it ultimately does mean you have to kill someone, but that should be a last resort.

These cops could have done a lot of things that didn't involve unloading 50 bullets on these guys. Shoot out the tires, for example. In other cases, you could shoot someone in the knee. Hurts enough to stop them from shooting you, but doesn't kill them.



I've seen a lot of plain clothes cops reveal themselves. When I've seen it, it's usually pretty obvious. I've seen lights go on in taxi cabs and sports cars. I've seen women dressed like hookers whoop out a badge. When a plain clothes cop makes himself known, it's known. That it is so iffy as to whether the cops let the guys know they were cops sends up a huge red flag for me.

[imagirliegirl]

Somehow, that implies that the life of the cop is more important than the life of the alleged criminal. I say, if you are uncomfortable with having your life on the line in your job, don't be a cop.

...

Maybe it ultimately does mean you have to kill someone, but that should be a last resort.

I never meant to imply that an officer's life is more important than a civilian because I absolutely do not think that is true, nor do I think someone who is uncomfortable with the job description should sign up for the job then complain about it being unfair. I was merely responding to the comment that a police officer should NEVER kill someone, because I think that was an unreasonable thing to say.

I do not believe the general rule that police officers should be able to shoot/kill when necessary applies to this situation. These particular officers, based on the information that has been made available, did not seem to act reasonably or on a basis of necessity.

Also, police officers are trained to use deadly force as a last resort and the vast majority use it only as a last resort. It isn't something that they (as a majority) particularly enjoy. These officers don't speak for all officers and I think it's important to not lose sight of that.

[jnettie]

From Speaking of Faith (http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/thichnhathanh/transcript.shtml)

But on her first retreat with him[Thich Nhat Hanh], as a person who carries a gun for a living, she balked at the most basic principle he espouses. That is, a vow never to kill.

Captain Cheri Maples: Well, as a cop, what started to happen to me there got very interesting because — I don't know if you attended the five mindfulness trainings, but that was one of the things that happened at my first retreat — and I just assumed, well, I'd listen to this, but 'I can't do that, I'm a cop.' You know, I mean, 'I might be in a position where I have to kill somebody at some point. I can't think about taking these.' And Sister Chan Khong, who is one of the — probably the senior monastic here, was at that retreat, and she pulled me aside and she had this very wonderful conversation with me, the essence of it being, 'Who else would we want to carry a gun except somebody who will do it mindfully? Of course, you can take these trainings.'

[yby1]

I'm not a lawyer but I would think that would depend on the situation.

Why does the civilian feel he/she is in danger or that this person has a gun? Is the person in the civilian's house? What are the circumstances? Obviously if I shoot a man who has entered my home in the middle of the night, I will have an easier time proving I felt threatened than if my husband shot a woman jogging in a park in broad daylight. Ya know? With civilians, it's all about the circumstances.

When you are dealing with an officer versus a civilian, you have the issue of knowledge. So you have to determine what the officer knew. Why did they have "reason to believe they were armed and dangerous"? Things of that nature. The standard of evidence should be different.



I agree that it depends on the circumstances, but it seems like there are stricter rules of accountability for the civilian.

While the officer might be more knowledgeable about the circumstances, if they were in danger, and agree that their testimony should probably hold a little more weight. On the other hand, I feel that they should hold a bit more accountability, because they are more knowledgeable in these types of situations than a civilian.

[yby1]

Absolutely. See my OP about the woman from Wisconsin. She's a former cop that started a whole training program based on the idea that all cops should promise never to kill anyone. There's no way to undo the "mistake" of killing someone accidentally. And when you have the responsibility of carrying a gun to protect the public, you have the responsibility to protect everyone. Every criminal has the right to a fair trial. A dead criminal looses that right, too.


You misunderstand.

People say all the time that Police risk so much, and their jobs are dangerous that it's ok to shoot someone if they feel their lives are in danger. Somehow, that implies that the life of the cop is more important than the life of the alleged criminal. I say, if you are uncomfortable with having your life on the line in your job, don't be a cop. If you sign up to be a cop, expect that one day you may be looking at the business end of someone else's gun. Do what you can to save your own life, but also spare the life of the person aiming at you. Maybe it ultimately does mean you have to kill someone, but that should be a last resort.

These cops could have done a lot of things that didn't involve unloading 50 bullets on these guys. Shoot out the tires, for example. In other cases, you could shoot someone in the knee. Hurts enough to stop them from shooting you, but doesn't kill them.



I've seen a lot of plain clothes cops reveal themselves. When I've seen it, it's usually pretty obvious. I've seen lights go on in taxi cabs and sports cars. I've seen women dressed like hookers whoop out a badge. When a plain clothes cop makes himself known, it's known. That it is so iffy as to whether the cops let the guys know they were cops sends up a huge red flag for me.

While I agree with the sentiment of your post, shooting the tires of a car isn't a realistic thing to do. Bullets can ricochet off of the tire wall and hit the perp, a cop, or an innocent civilian. Shooting knees is not an easy thing to do.

[BTB]

u see 5 men coming to you car, who NEVER IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AND HAVE GUNS DRAWN and you were just in a altercation inside of a club...what do u do? i would have done the SAME EXACT THING he did...accelerated.

It's not a known fact that the policemen never identified themselves. If I accepted it as fact, perhaps I'd agree with you, but it is, as we've said many times in this thread, one of the tragic unknowns of this case.

Jnettie, no need to quote your own post. I read your comments about the "training" course the first time around, and don't agree with them any more now. Personally, I want cops to be trained to use their weapons AND willing to use them when they have to. If I'm a bank teller in a robbery, I don't want a pacifist coming to save me.

[LalaKini]

i dont think cops should never kill, but they are taught in the academy shoot to injure not to kill. and if do shoot to kill u dont shoot 50 bullets. and heres my point. you have 5 plain clothes officers coming after a group of men who had already been in a altercation. plain clothes...so the cops have their guns and vests on but no badge. u see 5 men coming to you car, who NEVER IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AND HAVE GUNS DRAWN and you were just in a altercation inside of a club...what do u do? i would have done the SAME EXACT THING he did...accelerated.

2 things:

1) officers are NOT taught in the academy to shoot to injure. They are taught to shoot to hit the target. Which means they are taught to shoot for the torso - the largest target, reducing the chances they will miss. Period. IF in fact they belive they have the probable cause or reasonable suspicion to draw their weapons and shoot (which is intended to be a last resort), they don't want to shoot, miss and create the potential for someone else nearby to be hit. Yes of course it would be great if you could shoot to 'injure.' But what does that mean, exactly? Shooting a leg, when often those legs are moving? Do you know anyone at all - anyone - that could make that shot a HIGH percentage of time? Not even the greatest marksmen of all time would be able to to hit that kind of shot with dependable accuracy.

Also - I believe that 5 officers were involved in the 50 shots. 4 of them fired a small amount of shots (between 3-5 each). One of the officers, (I believe it was Det. Gescard Isnora?) fired over half of those shots - which I think is...pretty bad. I'm curious as to the testimony about that.

2) Again. Coming to conclusions when we were not there is what gets to me. We know that one of the big issues is the fact that the officers were undercover. But we do not know who was telling the truth about if they knew the cops were cops. Some witnesses from the prosecution said that no, they did not. But as I mentioned before, these witnesses were deemed unreliable, becuase the stories were not all consistent. The Defense had witnesses that the officers were shouting "Police, show us your hands!" So who do you believe? That was the judge's decision, and becuase the presecution's witnesses were combative and inconsistent, he could not convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

FWIW - I do believe that if in fact, the officers did not identify themselves, I agree with you - I would have tried to get ass outta dodge too put in the same situation. Which is why this is so sad. We don't know this key fact. And because of that, the cops were acquitted. Acquittal doesn't mean INNOCENCE.

People say all the time that Police risk so much, and their jobs are dangerous that it's ok to shoot someone if they feel their lives are in danger. Somehow, that implies that the life of the cop is more important than the life of the alleged criminal. I say, if you are uncomfortable with having your life on the line in your job, don't be a cop. If you sign up to be a cop, expect that one day you may be looking at the business end of someone else's gun. Do what you can to save your own life, but also spare the life of the person aiming at you. Maybe it ultimately does mean you have to kill someone, but that should be a last resort.

So here's a question. Most of the time, an officer's gun is in their holster. I pray every night that my husband works that he won't have to use it. And in most situations, they don't need it. But there are more people than you think that couldn't give a rat's ass about other people and their lives. I don't know where you live, but the country's gang problem is pretty serious. And I can tell you, an awful lot of them walk around armed. Gang members shoot at each other DAILY. So, should we just be ok with this? Survival of the fittest? Becuase there is no way, no how that police are going to intervene without being able to defend themselves on an equal level as the criminals. You would suggest that police deal with these situations by just rolling up in their car, and talking it out? How is it that you suggest that police officers control/apprehend violent criminals when a lot of them have no qualms about shooting a cop? If they knew they wouldn't shoot back - would that make for a better scenario? Highly unlikely. No one would sign up to be an officer if that was the case. I know my husband sure as hell wouldn't. He (and a lot of others) is willing to put up with all the crap that goes down out there if he can change the life of just one kid out there (he has worked a lot with gang members). But are you kidding me with the - you accept the fact that you may be staring into the barrel of someone's gun - but that's what you chose and if you do you can't fight back? Being a cop is a thankless job -so unless you want to live in this country where there is no law enforcement, then I think you have to put an officer on the same playing field as criminals. Saying it's ok for a criminal to kill a cop becuase the cop "chose" that profession? Oh hell no.

I apologize I'm so passionate. It just hits home. It seems like you don't understand or try to understand what a police officer deals with on a day-to-day basis. Or at least - it seems you don't care. I live with it.

Sorry for the novel.

[miel]

Maybe it ultimately does mean you have to kill someone, but that should be a last resort.

You know, I really think police partly carry weapons for psychological effect. They have to be seen as holding the threat to shoot. In American culture, this is weirdly necessary maybe. But then the police have an inappropriate level of power when dealing with poor people who lack social power. So I don't know. Maybe I can't think outside the box. Americans are kind of insane and addicted to violence. It fits within our culture that the arm of the law has to have this potential for hair trigger violence.

As for the +1 standard. The legal standard for unjustified killing should not simply be identical with what the police are taught to do as a form of police procedure. It can't just be 'oh, they are taught to shoot through the heart when they see a gun.' That's the big problem, in my opinion. For example, some guy in my city last year was mentally ill and his wife said he might have a gun. He was kind of sitting outside in the yard or something, muttering to himself. The police pull up and BAM! He's dead. Yes, they did what they were told to do. I know that they are supposed to shoot to kill if there is some belief the person is armed and threatening. Well, he wasn't. He had no gun. They can say they did what they were told to do. But I personally think either they need to be given a different and more flexible procedure or they need to be tried for involuntary manslaughter or something. There are just far too many cases like this where a little patience and care would have saved someone's life. Either change the procedure or make them accountable. I realize they get scared or what have you. But 'better safe than sorry' simply doesn't mean gunning down a mentally ill person in his yard just in case.

[miel]

So who do you believe?

Well, personally, I don't think a guy on his bachelor night is going to be like:" Oh, it's the police! Let's kill them! Sure, they are armed and we aren't but we have a CAR." Doesn't strike me as plausible. Call me crazy.

Best thing that can be said is that it was a mistake. They spoke and they weren't heard. Now that I hear this though, I'm thinking hmmm. Geez. No wonder people are mad. If those are the facts, them I'm really starting to have some doubts.

[LalaKini]

miel - first, the "who do you believe" was a rhetorical question. That was the question the judge had to answer, not you, not me, not a jury. Judges are *required* to follow the rules of the court, not with how the facts of the case make them feel.

second - even if the judge has doubts about the defense's innocence - this does NOT mean they should be convicted. The prosecution has the burden of presenting a rock solid case. If there is ANY doubt presented - they lose, the defendants are acquitted. Like I said in my previous post - being acquitted does NOT mean you are innocent. Our system was set up this way because we would rather see a guilty person walk free than an innocent man punished. That said, the system is obviously not perfect by any means. Far from it.

[imagirliegirl]

It can't just be 'oh, they are taught to shoot through the heart when they see a gun.'

Huh? Police are not trained to "shoot through the heart when they see a gun".

Anyway, police encounter far more people that have guns that result in no incident than people with guns that result in the use deadly force or any force at all. I think it's a tad naive to assume that every story we hear about on CNN is representative of every police officer's experience with guns. Most of the time, they diffuse the situation, and we don't hear about it because it's just not juicy enough.

I'm not saying that society shouldn't be upset when there is a miscarriage of police power or justice, but I am just saying that society does need to put things into perspective.

But then the police have an inappropriate level of power when dealing with poor people who lack social power.

For what it's worth, I think this statement is absolutely true. This is to a large degree because their job is to uphold laws that promote inequality. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

[kris97]

Can I just speak from a prosecutor's experience?

Your case is only as good as the witnesses you have. And witnesses to crime often come with credibility problems. The more chaotic a scene or the more witnesses you have, the greater the chance there are inconsistencies in testimony, and the greater the chance the trier of fact will find reasonable doubt and acquit.

As for the standards of force and what kind of weaponry police should carry, I just want to echo the posts above about the realities that law enforcement face. I think the vast majority of us are extremely fortunate that we don't come into contact with violence and handguns on a regular basis, but in many high crime areas this is the case. Drug dealers carry guns all.the.time. People committing assaults and robberies carry guns all.the.time. The police come into contact with weapons all.the.time. It would be wonderful if we could police this country with batons, but I seriously question the efficacy of a wooden stick when an assailant is holding up a bodega with a Tech 9. I am all for holding police to higher standards than the general public, but really, who in their right mind will join a police force if you're allowed so little to defend yourself and the public?

[miel]

If there is ANY doubt presented - they lose, the defendants are acquitted.

I thought it had to be reasonable doubt. It can't be any doubt. If it was any doubt, then the defendant could have been impersonated by a robot when people saw him commit his crime. It has to be within the realm of what a reasonable person would believe. I tend to assume judges do their jobs with care and so forth. Usually, they do. As do juries. This is why I don't think I'm really in a position to say.

I just think the 'who do you believe' thing just strikes me as bizarre about this situation. I think perspective plays a role. So, as an outsider, I am second guessing and saying--I would certainly wonder whether this would make sense if they'd all been white guys. Ironically, I actually think black men would be less likely to take that risk because they'd be more aware of the consequences.

I think maybe you have to have a certain perspective or set of experiences to see that something seems strange. I'm not African American. I just think people see things through a racialized lens. We'd be so perplexed if some rich white banker dude when ramming into a police car if a policeman said 'Stop! Police!' I think the whole thing seems colored by racial stuff but I can't say enough about it.

I simply speak from personal experience in terms of what things have happened where I live. Current events cause me to question the criminal justice system. But I also do think it can work at times and that cases are complex so I do not fool myself into thinking I can judge what the factual issues in a case were or why it was decided a particular way. If certain kind of evidence is absent, this can play havoc with an otherwise good case, if witnesses aren't any good, etc.

Most of the time, they diffuse the situation, and we don't hear about it because it's just not juicy enough.

It's always a little anecdotal although the U.S. Justice Department released some fairly damning statistics that I don't have time to look for a few years ago. But it's not CNN where I am getting these stories. It's small towns I've lived in. Not necessarily safe small towns. But not giant cities like LA. Every single place I've lived there's always one or two of these a year. Sometimes more. These are the ones that stick in my head.

And actually, in a smallish city and town, you hear about most incidents involving police, even the ones where they are defused. In my town, every single call is actually in the newspaper. But of course most police never even fire their weapons. So of course I realize they aren't around shooting down everybody. I'm only talking about things that happened in my own cities.

The example I was using wasn't saying what their procedure is. I don't know what their procedure is. What I'm saying is that their procedure for dealing with threats simply should not be the ultimate arbiter of criminal guilt or innocence in shootings by police. That is, they may be professionally exonerated and still liable to prosecution. If not, then there will be very little accountability. All that would have to be shown was that the police officer feared there was a gun. Which is often the standard some want to set. That's a ridiculous standard. It allows for criminal levels of stupidity and negligence and willful indifference to human life. It can't be 'well, it was dark.' 'Well, he looked like this other guy who someone said had a gun.' 'Well, he was holding a cellphone/candybar/shiny object.' If that's the standard, that's like saying it is open season for any trigger happy bozo to shoot almost anyone.

But how can we say it isn't a problem when unarmed African Americans are shot so frequently? That just strains credulity. It can't just be the cost the African American community has to pay for being black. That treats them worse than second class citizens.

[LalaKini]

Dude. Yes. You have to prove your case beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If any REASONABLE doubt arises, the defense wins. Most of the time when I discuss standards with others (at school)- the reasonable person standard is the presumed standard unless you specify a higher standard (reasonable doctor, reasonable congressman, whatever) or a lower, subjective standard. That doesn't change my argument about the evidence that was presented to the judge. If there are conflicting stories about a key fact, a reasonable person would not convict unless the prosecution's witnesses are credible. And they weren't according to the judge.

I don't pretend to be blind to racial issues in this country. That is not my point in arguing in this thread. I think it goes way beyond a simple black and white issue here, it's much more deep rooted than that. And yes, I think it's scary to see the statistics regarding young black men in the system. I agree with you. But I'm not debating that. That's another, very long and heated thread topic.

I also think it would be unfair to hold someone personally culpable for incidents where they were doing what they were trained to do and how they were trained to act. The government agency is absolutely responsible for setting the standard to which an officer is to be held. It would be pretty effed up, IMO to be like, yeah - you did everything right - but oh, sorry, you're going to jail. You have to know what you will be held accountable for in order to act accordingly. That goes for anyone, cop or civilian. It's the policies of the police departments that should change if the behavior of it's officers is unacceptable. I can think of a couple of policies within my husband's department that have changed in response to incidents that have happened. In the case we're talking about in this thread, had the cops not announced themselves as police, then their actions would be outside the policy of just about any department.

[AmyE]

Separate from the case in NY:

When I lived in SE Washington DC, the family across the street had one of their adult sons killed. Then a second son. Turns out the killer was their own uncle, who was shot a few weeks later by a member of the sons' drug crew about 50 yards from our house, near "dealers' corner." The family members had ended up competing for drug business in the same area, apparently.

No, I don't think the cops in my old neighborhood (never saw a white cop there, for the record) should promise never to kill anyone. If someone draws a gun on them, I think the officers should be able to shoot. People who are willing to kill their own brothers, nephews, neighbors of 30 years...they aren't going to stand around and "reason" with a cop after they (not the cop) pull a gun. If the "alleged criminal" with the gun ends up dead, I will feel sorry for his mother and family, but that's about it.

Handguns are amazingly inaccurate, especially if you are outside of the perfect conditions of a shooting range. Aiming - and hitting - a leg or arm is nearly impossible unless you are 15 feet away and your target is obliging enough to stand still while you fire a couple of rounds.

Many years ago I was in a training class on what to do if taken hostage, and the hostage takers started shooting hostages. The training said we were supposed to try to get the gun away (heck, if they are about to shoot you, you aren't risking much at that point), then "fire two rounds, center mass." If I really though someone was about to kill me, then yeah, I'd do whatever it took to stop them. "Center mass" stops them, if you can hit it.

In other words, I'd be that person on the jury saying that if the person's life really was in imminent danger - cop or civilian - then I would not convict them.

The real issue is where the line on "imminent danger" is drawn. But to say cops should promise not to kill anyone? Honestly, I'd complain and fire my city council if that were the policy. I expect them to do so as a "last resort" - but defending their own lives would fall into "last resort," as far as I'm concerned.