Alton Sterling: Video 'shows US police shooting black man'

[Seth]

I saw a graphic saying that there was something like 30-40 armed citizens at that rally. Did that stop the people killing those cops? No. Did they take out the gunmen? No. I thought the solution to solving gun crime was to have everyone armed?

As usual, you didn't think much at all, but you do love to purvey falsehoods and strawmen.

Nobody said the "solution to solving gun crime" is an armed citizenry. What is true however is that taking away guns from the citizenry is NOT any sort of solution to solving gun crime, a concept that anti-gun zealots and European fascists seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding.

Nothing will "solve gun crime" because guns exist, and will always exist, and therefore will always find their way into the hands of criminals and terrorists who will use them wrongfully...everywhere on earth (can you say "Charlie Hebdo?"). That is a simple fact of life you need to somehow integrate.

That being the case, the only way for the individual to be protected AT ALL against an armed criminal or terrorist is for that person to be armed and prepared to defend him or herself if they choose to do so.

As for the Dallas event, the police responded immediately and forcefully to minimize the ability of the attacker to kill others as well as anyone could, so there was no real need for civilians to use their weapons in that instance. But that is true only because the police were there. What if the police had not been there? Then who would have laid down suppressing fire to allow others time to escape?

Go read up on the Texas Tower event, where you will find that it was precisely and exactly armed citizens, armed with hunting rifles, which the police didn't have, who laid down suppressing fire on the shooter, thereby reducing the number of deaths and injuries and giving police (and an armed civilian) time to get to the observation deck and kill the shooter.

Don't try to tell anyone about tactics, you don't have the knowledge or understanding to be qualified to do so.

[mistermack]

The thing about legally carried guns, is that no cop is going to treat you any different, just because you SAY you have a permit.
Not in a traffic stop situation. Nor in any other situation, in which he hasn't verified the truth of the matter.
That cop heard "I've got a gun", and thought to himself, "I could be dead in a split second".

He told the idiot not to move his hands, and the idiot moved his hands towards his pocket.
(to get his ID or permit or something).
If someone is pointing a gun at me, and tells me not to move, I don't move.

Anyway, legal or not, the dead man was a gun-dick. Good riddance.
But if he'd been white, the cop wouldn't have shot. That's a dead cert. He might have given him a real mouthful, but he wouldn't have shot.

We know that, because the figures prove that they don't.
Maybe they don't consciously discriminate, but in the split second that he assesses the threat, it just FEELS more dangerous if the mug is black.

[JimC]

He told him to produce ID, which is what he was reaching for.

[Seth]

He told him to produce ID, which is what he was reaching for.

Well, that's what the girl says anyway. One thing that I find annoying and somewhat significant is that nearly every MSM outlet is describing him as "being pulled over for a broken taillight." Problem is, he was not driving the vehicle, the woman was.

What this means, and it's very significant, is that if things are as the witnesses say they were, and it was a simple traffic stop, the officer had no authority to even ask the passenger in the front seat for anything, including ID because he had committed no crime or even a non-criminal traffic infraction.

It is this fact that makes me suspicious of the motives and actions of the officer and that there may very well have been racial profiling going on, since such minor equipment violations are a cop's favorite "probable cause" bootstrap that justifies the stop, which allows the officer to get a closer look inside the vehicle in order to find more PC to arrest someone for a warrant and/or search the vehicle...like an odor or drugs in plain view...or an allegation of "hinky behavior" by one of the occupants such as the next favorite excuse "he made a furtive movement which raised my suspicions and caused me to believe my personal safety was in jeopardy, so I extracted everyone from the vehicle for an investigatory detention and searched the vehicle, finding a (gun, cocaine, hash pipe, roach clip...that I had in my pocket and placed under the seat) which was probable cause for the arrest.

So, in this case I ask what the officer was doing on the passenger side of the vehicle (although this is a usual practice in some places to keep the officer out of traffic) and what he was doing questioning the male passenger in the first place, since he did not have authority to even ask him for ID.

Did the armed passenger give him some lip? We don't know and probably never will conclusively. But in this case I think it's at least plausible that the officer was acting inappropriately and panicked when the passenger reached for his wallet. It's entirely possible he didn't even consciously pull the trigger but was instead wound so tight that after firing the first shot accidentally, the other three were just "training" kicking in and it was over before he realized what he had done.

And that's a matter for a judge and jury to determine.

[Brian Peacock]

As I've said many times before, the fear that a member of the public may be in possession of a personal firearm is perhaps a legitimate one in a country with lax gun ownership laws and a great number of guns in circulation, but as the cases in this thread highlight there seems to be a disproportionate fear about the black man in the US in circumstances where the perception of the threat a black man is perceived to represent (fear) is routinely used to justify the use of guns on black men by police officers (as in the tragic case of Philando Castile), and where there appears to be a wholly justified assumption across all communities that (predominantly white) police officers do not, and therefore will not, get charged or convicted if they shoot a black man in error - again, because the perception of the threat which the black man represents to police officers, juries and others is assumed to be a legitimate one.

[Seth]

The thing about legally carried guns, is that no cop is going to treat you any different, just because you SAY you have a permit.
Not in a traffic stop situation. Nor in any other situation, in which he hasn't verified the truth of the matter.

This is absolutely true and is in fact part of the training manual.

That cop heard "I've got a gun", and thought to himself, "I could be dead in a split second".

And that's his mistake because the mere fact that a citizen being contacted who the officer has no reason to believe is a criminal intent on using it to kill the officer is not probable cause to arrest, and is not even probable cause to detain, disarm or search the individual, no matter what the officer may think about armed citizens. In Colorado, when the CCW law was updated specific authority was given to police officers to temporarily disarm someone during a contact, provided that the firearm had to be returned, loaded and in working order, at the end of the contact unless the person was being arrested for an offense.

This was a perfectly reasonable regulation of the RKBA for officer safety. Note that disarming a citizen is not mandatory, merely optional for the officer depending on the nature of the contact.

But an officer's irrational fear of being shot merely because a citizen is armed is not and never will be justification for shooting someone, and any cop who does so needs to be tried and if convicted, put in prison even for illegally and without proper authority pointing his firearm at a citizen who is not posing a credible threat of armed physical violence! If I pull out my gun and point it at some irate driver who is cursing me out I get arrested for felony menacing. If a cop does it, nothing happens, but the cop has no more legal authority to point a gun at someone without at least reasonable suspicion that deadly force is going to be needed than I do.

It is the presumption on the part of many cops, and many administrators, that the police have carte blanche to point their weapons at citizens whenever they please using the excuse of "officer safety." But as this sad incident shows, an unreasonable or irrational fear of armed citizens should absolutely be cause for dismissal if it results in you pointing your gun at people without a compelling need to do so. This is what happens when police departments don't police the police and keep them from using their firearms as tools of terror to produce instant surrender and compliance, even in situations where no deadly force would be authorized.

My rule is that my gun never comes out until I have legal authority to shoot and kill the assailant. I never, ever use it as a threat, and when and if it comes out, it's going to be discharged because I need to apply lethal force right that second. Otherwise, any number of tactics to avoid an armed encounter are used so that shooting someone is an absolute last resort.

He told the idiot not to move his hands, and the idiot moved his hands towards his pocket.
(to get his ID or permit or something).
If someone is pointing a gun at me, and tells me not to move, I don't move.

This is the crux of the issue; was the deceased told not to move or told to produce his ID or both! It is quite common for officers to give confusing and conflicting orders in critical situations, which includes any situation where a firearm is aimed at someone, which is why I recommend NOT MOVING AT ALL even if the officer tells you to, at least until backup has arrived and things have calmed down, because the sad fact is that the cop, under stress, may not even remember what he just told you to do versus what he's thinking you might do versus what he now wants you to do...all in a split second.

Anyway, legal or not, the dead man was a gun-dick. Good riddance.

Remind me to piss on your grave, willya?

But if he'd been white, the cop wouldn't have shot. That's a dead cert. He might have given him a real mouthful, but he wouldn't have shot.

That's not the case, as police shoot white people too.

We know that, because the figures prove that they don't.

Yes they do, almost as much as they shoot black people, depending on which cop it is and where they are...and whose statistics you choose.

Maybe they don't consciously discriminate, but in the split second that he assesses the threat, it just FEELS more dangerous if the mug is black.

That's highly likely, sadly, and it's also entirely plausible that it actually is more dangerous, based on crime statistics about the race of violent criminals, which feature young black men rather prominently.

[Seth]

As I've said many times before, the fear that a member of the public may be in possession of a personal firearm is perhaps a legitimate one in a country with lax gun ownership laws and a great number of guns in circulation, but as the cases in this thread highlight there seems to be a disproportionate fear about the black man in the US in circumstances where the perception of the threat a black man is perceived to represent (fear) is routinely used to justify the use of guns on black men by police officers (as in the tragic case of Philando Castile), and where there appears to be a wholly justified assumption across all communities that (predominantly white) police officers do not, and therefore will not, get charged or convicted if they shoot a black man in error - again, because the perception of the threat which the black man represents to police officers, juries and others is assumed to be a legitimate one.

And you are probably correct in this analysis. But one should be wary of generalizing about all cops in all places. There are 50,000 police departments in the US and they are all different. In my department the racial bias quotient was quite low and the amount of tension between the police and minorities was small because we worked at treating all people fairly and equally. There were of course exceptions, and I worked with a couple of outright racist fucks who were quit open and proud of their bias against minorities. None of them lasted very long in the department because a) there was no police union to defend them; and b) the administration and City Council and Mayor absolutely refused to tolerate such behavior and fired such people as quickly as they became identified.

Unfortunately, there are departments and places where racial bias is endemic and pervasive...and most of them have strong police unions that protect bad cops from being fired, even after dozens of cases of them beating minorities illegally.

[Brian Peacock]

As I've said many times before, the fear that a member of the public may be in possession of a personal firearm is perhaps a legitimate one in a country with lax gun ownership laws and a great number of guns in circulation, but as the cases in this thread highlight there seems to be a disproportionate fear about the black man in the US in circumstances where the perception of the threat a black man is perceived to represent (fear) is routinely used to justify the use of guns on black men by police officers (as in the tragic case of Philando Castile), and where there appears to be a wholly justified assumption across all communities that (predominantly white) police officers do not, and therefore will not, get charged or convicted if they shoot a black man in error - again, because the perception of the threat which the black man represents to police officers, juries and others is assumed to be a legitimate one.

And you are probably correct in this analysis. But one should be wary of generalizing about all cops in all places. There are 50,000 police departments in the US and they are all different. In my department the racial bias quotient was quite low and the amount of tension between the police and minorities was small because we worked at treating all people fairly and equally. There were of course exceptions, and I worked with a couple of outright racist fucks who were quit open and proud of their bias against minorities. None of them lasted very long in the department because a) there was no police union to defend them; and b) the administration and City Council and Mayor absolutely refused to tolerate such behavior and fired such people as quickly as they became identified.

Unfortunately, there are departments and places where racial bias is endemic and pervasive...and most of them have strong police unions that protect bad cops from being fired, even after dozens of cases of them beating minorities illegally.

Well this is as much about perception as about reality. I wouldn't say that all police officers are disproportionately fearful of black citizens or that every black citizen lives in fear of being randomly shot by the police, but as cases of black men being shot in error, or dying in custody, start to stack up, and as hardly any officers are charged with or prosecuted for wrong doing, and indeed have their actions excused and/or endorsed, the rift between the black community and the police force only widens. Neither black people nor police officers should live in fear that the other is a threat simply because they are black or in a uniform - but this seems to be a growing perception from both camps. And after the terrible shootings in Dallas this week--which by my lights was an act of terrorism, one which aimed to, and regrettably may have succeeded in entrenching discord, heightening tension, and promoting fear and distrust--it's going to take a lot of commitment and effort from the police and communities to foster and bolster the kind of trust and respect a civil and ordered society relies and depends on. I only hope the US is up to that task.

[mistermack]

He told him to produce ID, which is what he was reaching for.

The impression I got was that the cop asked him for his ID.
As the man was reaching for his ID, he thought it best to mention that he was carrying a gun for which he had a permit. (which would make sense, you wouldn't want the cop to just spot the gun).
The cop then got alarmed, quite rightly, as that could be a bluff about the permit, and the guy was about to pull the gun. So the cop then shouted for him to keep his hands still, but the guy carried on, reaching for his ID, and the cop shot him.

At least, that's what the cop was saying, seconds later, when she started recording.
He was shouting, "I told him not to move his hands, why did he ignore me?" and he clearly FELT that he had been forced to shoot. (or maybe he was covering his tracks?).

Anyway, normally, less than perfect communication doesn't usually result in death.
It's the presence of guns that make the difference.
Fuck him. He like his guns. Now he found out what they actually do.

[Seth]

Roland G. Fryer Jr., an economics professor at Harvard University, commissioned the study in the wake of the high-profile police shootings of black men such as Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. The study looked at more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across 10 major police departments in California, Florida and Texas.

The study found that while police may show racial bias in terms of other types of force — such as the use of hands, pushing a suspect to the ground or against a wall and pointing a weapon — there was no indication of racial bias when it comes to firing a gun.

Also revealed was that police officers were more likely to shoot a suspect in incidents without having first been attacked in cases where the suspects were white. It also found that black and white suspects were equally likely to have been carrying their own weapons when involved in a police shooting.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” Fryer told the New York Times. Source

[Seth]

He told him to produce ID, which is what he was reaching for.

The impression I got was that the cop asked him for his ID.

That's what we know from the driver. Whether this is true is still undetermined.

As the man was reaching for his ID, he thought it best to mention that he was carrying a gun for which he had a permit. (which would make sense, you wouldn't want the cop to just spot the gun).
The cop then got alarmed, quite rightly, as that could be a bluff about the permit, and the guy was about to pull the gun. So the cop then shouted for him to keep his hands still, but the guy carried on, reaching for his ID, and the cop shot him.

The question is whether the sequence of events was as you suggest or was something on the order of "Give me your ID, don't move [bang, bang, bang, bang] before the man had a chance to comply with the conflicting orders.

At least, that's what the cop was saying, seconds later, when she started recording.
He was shouting, "I told him not to move his hands, why did he ignore me?" and he clearly FELT that he had been forced to shoot. (or maybe he was covering his tracks?).

That's the crux of the issue. Did he keep moving his hands as he was ordered to do, or did he keep moving his hands when ordered not to, or was he complying with one order when a conflicting order was given a fraction of a second before the cop fired and had no opportunity to stop moving before he was shot. The latter seems likely given what we know right now, but other scenarios are still in play until we know more.

Anyway, normally, less than perfect communication doesn't usually result in death.
It's the presence of guns that make the difference.

No, it's the use of guns that makes the difference. His gun, so far as we know, remained safely in his holster, where it provided not one iota of justification for the cop shooting him.

Fuck him. He like his guns. Now he found out what they actually do.

Remind me again to piss on your grave...

[Seth]

As I've said many times before, the fear that a member of the public may be in possession of a personal firearm is perhaps a legitimate one in a country with lax gun ownership laws and a great number of guns in circulation, but as the cases in this thread highlight there seems to be a disproportionate fear about the black man in the US in circumstances where the perception of the threat a black man is perceived to represent (fear) is routinely used to justify the use of guns on black men by police officers (as in the tragic case of Philando Castile), and where there appears to be a wholly justified assumption across all communities that (predominantly white) police officers do not, and therefore will not, get charged or convicted if they shoot a black man in error - again, because the perception of the threat which the black man represents to police officers, juries and others is assumed to be a legitimate one.

And you are probably correct in this analysis. But one should be wary of generalizing about all cops in all places. There are 50,000 police departments in the US and they are all different. In my department the racial bias quotient was quite low and the amount of tension between the police and minorities was small because we worked at treating all people fairly and equally. There were of course exceptions, and I worked with a couple of outright racist fucks who were quit open and proud of their bias against minorities. None of them lasted very long in the department because a) there was no police union to defend them; and b) the administration and City Council and Mayor absolutely refused to tolerate such behavior and fired such people as quickly as they became identified.

Unfortunately, there are departments and places where racial bias is endemic and pervasive...and most of them have strong police unions that protect bad cops from being fired, even after dozens of cases of them beating minorities illegally.

Well this is as much about perception as about reality. I wouldn't say that all police officers are disproportionately fearful of black citizens or that every black citizen lives in fear of being randomly shot by the police, but as cases of black men being shot in error, or dying in custody, start to stack up, and as hardly any officers are charged with or prosecuted for wrong doing, and indeed have their actions excused and/or endorsed, the rift between the black community and the police force only widens.

A large part of the problem involves ignorant punditry and knee-jerk reactionism by both anti-gun zealots and BLM adherents who are quick to judge ANY shooting of a black to be unjustified even if it is entirely justified. There were blacks dancing and celebrating that the Dallas gunman killed cops. BLM doesn't care to make a measured and careful response like the NRA does in such situations, they just go off like a bomb and start rioting because they PRESUME that the black person was innocent and was "murdered" when in point of fact the evidence shows that except in less than 10 percent of the cases the shootings were entirely justified by the deceased having illegally carried a firearm which he used to threaten and shoot at police before he got shot by them.

Neither black people nor police officers should live in fear that the other is a threat simply because they are black or in a uniform - but this seems to be a growing perception from both camps.

Indeed, and nobody should stoke the fires of fear by making wild accusations and idiotically bigoted statements that do nothing to probe the truth of the matter but serve only to inflame emotions and generate more hatred and conflict...which of course is exactly what BLM wants to do...start a race war.

And after the terrible shootings in Dallas this week--which by my lights was an act of terrorism, one which aimed to, and regrettably may have succeeded in entrenching discord, heightening tension, and promoting fear and distrust--it's going to take a lot of commitment and effort from the police and communities to foster and bolster the kind of trust and respect a civil and ordered society relies and depends on. I only hope the US is up to that task.

Most of us, of every color, are reasonable, rational people who don't fly off the handle and riot or kill people because bad shit happens. We're a nation of 300 million people and one, two or twelve people being killed unlawfully doesn't cause anyone but the most radical minority to expand the violence. We just let the law follow it's due course and we trust that the legal system will prevail and dispense justice, which it usually does.

[Brian Peacock]

I see we are in uncommon accord on much of this Seth. Which is... weird.
BTW, #blacklivesmatter is not an organisation but a banner, nor is it only one 'side' stoking the fires of distrust with ill-judged inflamatory rhetoric. Comparing #blacklivesmatter to the KKK, or pinning the actions of a lone nutter with a grudge and gun on Obama, or suggesting that "real America" is preparing to wage "war" on #blacklivesmatter, is not helpful either. One also has to bear in mind the context and reasons that the #blacklivesmatter hashtag caught people's imagination and gained so much ground so quickly, as well as accepting that it's not just black people who are identifying with its premise.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

We'll get to what you'd do if someone was trying to pull a gun on you to kill you later.

Not really a problem for us in the civilised world...

Tell it to all the people killed by guns...or knives...or clubs...or gasoline bombs...or Semtex. It's not a problem for you until it is, and then it's too late to arm yourself for self defense, which is fine with me since I don't give a fuck if you get yourself killed. What bothers me is when European fuckwits try to export their fuckwitted ideas to the US, as the UN is trying to do at this very moment.

That's offensive! We're Australian fuckwits, not European fuckwits..

[pErvinalia]

He told him to produce ID, which is what he was reaching for.

Well, that's what the girl says anyway. One thing that I find annoying and somewhat significant is that nearly every MSM outlet is describing him as "being pulled over for a broken taillight." Problem is, he was not driving the vehicle, the woman was.

He was sitting in the left hand seat. Unless this was an imported right hand drive car, she can't have been driving.