How to identify a good gang member

[Collector1337]

How long will it be before it becomes a reasonable assumption that the cop is going to shoot you if you're black, and you can then legally fire in self defence?

If you take the race part out of it. And just ask that question in general, for anyone, not a particular race.

It is actually a very valid question that you've raised.

If you know that the police are certain to kill you if you surrender. What is your best course of action?

Seth should chime in on this, minus the Black Panther nonsense.

[Seth]

You said the youth was armed when he was shot. I pointed out he was not.

You pointed out that you think he was not armed. That doesn't mean he was not armed. He almost certainly was armed, which is most probably why he ran in the first place, not wanting to be frisked by the cops and have the .22 pistol he had in his baggy pants found, which would send him to jail. His mistake was pulling the gun from his pants and tossing it under a car too soon, while the police could still see him and interpret his motions as being an immediate threat to their lives, which justified their shooting him based on the reasonable belief that their lives were in imminent danger.

[Seth]

A lot of people care about gangbangers.

Well, I care about them too. I care that they are not given the liberty to continue their unlawful and often deadly actions. I don't much care if they shoot one another, but I do care if other, innocent people get caught in the crossfire, as happens way too often.

A lot of police would not shoot you while you're running away. I'm surprised you don't know that.

I do know that, much better than you do in fact.

It was unreasonable to shoot because he was running away, did not show a gun, and did not threaten the police.

He ran away, reached for his waistband as if he had a gun, and got shot. The running away was not justification to shoot, the reaching for his waistband was, whether he was running away or standing there facing the cops. Police are NOT required to wait till a suspect produces a gun or shoots at them before they are justified in using deadly force. It's the TOTALITY of the circumstances that determines whether their actions are justified, and the combination of sudden flight, disobedience of police commands and sudden, furitive movements indicative of drawing a weapon lead to the necessary conclusion that deadly force is authorized because if the officers wait that split second to actually try and see a gun (which they wouldn't be likely to be able to see clearly anyway) then they get shot. The law does not require them to wait to get shot or even shot at or even to actually see a gun before they can form a reasonable belief that deadly force is about to be imminently used against them.

You should see if you can take a "shoot/don't shoot" police simulator course somewhere, which will give you an entirely different perspective on what's involved in making such decisions and why, exactly, as a citizen you are well advised to stand still, keep your hands visible at all times, your mouth shut and obey ALL commands the police give you slowly, carefully and completely...unless you want to risk getting shot.

Might the police learn a lesson too?

You know best how to police and evade justice, I'm not surprised.

You know nothing about police or justice, that much is clearly evident.

[Seth]

How long will it be before it becomes a reasonable assumption that the cop is going to shoot you if you're black, and you can then legally fire in self defence?

If you take the race part out of it. And just ask that question in general, for anyone, not a particular race.

It is actually a very valid question that you've raised.

If you know that the police are certain to kill you if you surrender. What is your best course of action?

Seth should chime in on this, minus the Black Panther nonsense.

I think it depends on whether you are a criminal or not. The law requires you to surrender peaceably to an arrest, even if it is not a lawful arrest. A citizen is NOT entitled to resist an arrest, but must surrender and act peaceably and take up the issue of his innocence before the court. If the police did not have probable cause to arrest, then presumably this will come out in court and your liberty will be restored. Resisting arrest, even an unlawful arrest, is its own crime. This is so because the law recognizes that the police don't always have absolute certainty about the guilt of the suspect, nor are they required to. They only need probable cause, which roughly means that it's more likely than not that you have committed a crime, in order to arrest and bring you before the bar of justice, where your innocence is presumed and your guilt will be either proven beyond a reasonable doubt or you will be free to go.

Only in the case where the police are using unlawfully excessive force that you reasonably believe will imminently result in your death or serious bodily harm, and you reasonably believe that a lesser degree force would be inadequate to prevent the unlawful harm, are you even potentially justified in using ANY sort of force to resist the force being used against you, including deadly force. A "lesser degree of force" would always be deemed to include motionless surrender and non-resistance as a first step in the chain of reasonable belief you need to use deadly force against a police officer attempting to arrest you.

If you surrender peacefully but the police continue to beat you to the point where you reasonably believe you are going to imminently going to be killed or seriously injured, THEN you would likely be justified in using force to resist the unlawful use of excessive force by the police.

The problem is usually that the arrestee thinks that the force being used is excessive (or in many cases think the arrest itself is wrongful and shouldn't be happening at all) when it's actually not excessive because the arrestee is physically resisting the arrest but either doesn't realize it due to anger, panic or other emotions, or doesn't understand that both verbal and physical actions can be deemed to be resisting arrest which justifies the use of greater degrees of physical force by the police.

The Rodney King incident is a prime example of the unlawful use of excessive force by the police that most certainly would have justified the use of force, perhaps including deadly force, by the victim or another person witnessing the beating who was not involved in the situation.

The Eric Gardner incident in New York City is an example of one of those extremely difficult fine-line events that defy clear conclusions. On one hand, the choke hold used was itself out of policy and potentially deadly, and the crime involved (selling loose cigarettes) certainly not serious enough to (in my opinion and the opinion of many others) justify the use of ANY physical force at all, it is also true that Gardner did in fact violently physically resist arrest, and it was HIS actions that triggered the escalation of force by the police. Had he surrendered peacefully the police would not have needed to escalate the force which ultimately resulted in his death.

In other instances, police officers have quite frequently, and in my opinion both negligently and possibly criminally, killed suspects they already have under arrest and in handcuffs through deliberate or negligent positional asphyxiation which involves leaving handcuffed subjects, particularly those who are overweight or have "beer bellies" lying face-down, which can cause the internal vicera to shift upwards, compromising the diaphragm and the subject's ability to breathe. This may cause the suspect to become agitated and continue to struggle, which the police incorrectly (or deliberately) view as "resistance," causing them to apply more force and weight to the upper chest and neck to "restrain" the subject, which causes greater distress and inability to breathe, which becomes a vicious cycle until the subject becomes unconscious from asphyxiation, at which point the police get off him and ignore him, thinking he's finally submitting peacefully when in fact he is in the process of dying.

The whole issue is so dependent on the precise situation involved that it's impossible to generalize except to say that if the suspect surrenders peaceably he or she is much, much less likely to be injured or killed during the arrest, and that any physical resistance to an arrest, legal or not, is almost always a very, very bad ideal.

[Brian Peacock]

You said the youth was armed when he was shot. I pointed out he was not.

You pointed out that you think he was not armed. That doesn't mean he was not armed.

Ah, the epistemological dilemma of "How do we know what we know?" which is so often flopped out to seemingly render all assumptions equally defensible.

Why it's defensible that the police were justified in opening fire because they didn't know that the youth didn't have a gun is an interesting moral quandary no?

[Seth]

You said the youth was armed when he was shot. I pointed out he was not.

You pointed out that you think he was not armed. That doesn't mean he was not armed.

Ah, the epistemological dilemma of "How do we know what we know?" which is so often flopped out to seemingly render all assumptions equally defensible.

Why it's defensible that the police were justified in opening fire because they didn't know that the youth didn't have a gun is an interesting moral quandary no?

Somewhat. But the law resolves this moral quandry by only requiring the police to reasonably believe that their lives, or the life of another, are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate. Thus, in reality, the burden lies with the person being addressed by the police to not act in ways which might raise such a reasonable belief or risk being shot by not doing so.

[JimC]

"reasonable belief", in practice, is a very elastic concept, and one treated quite differently from place to place, time to time, and situation to situation. I'm not disagreeing with it as a principle, but its interpretation in some US jurisdictions (and elsewhere in the world, to be fair) often seems heavily weighted in favour of the police.

[mistermack]

The whole point is that what's "reasonable" to a cop in the US doesn't appear to be reasonable to police forces in other countries.
Which suggests that they are stretching the definition of "reasonable" way past it's real meaning.

If I was black living in the US, it was be perfectly clear to me, that police are opening fire on blacks, in situations that they never open fire on whites.
This is just one of those. When was the last time police gunned down a white person who was running away?

I don't recall it. And whites are more numerous than blacks. It might happen, but it's far more rare.
And it's taken far more seriously, if it does happen.
They guys who did this one will just get a few weeks paid holiday, and then it's back to work with a medal to show for it.

[Seth]

"reasonable belief", in practice, is a very elastic concept, and one treated quite differently from place to place, time to time, and situation to situation. I'm not disagreeing with it as a principle, but its interpretation in some US jurisdictions (and elsewhere in the world, to be fair) often seems heavily weighted in favour of the police.

It certainly is! Very elastic. It's a very standardless standard that consists of armchair quarterbacking by a jury at leisure to examine all of the evidence in their own good time in the comfort of the jury room regarding the actions of a person which may have been taken in mere seconds and based on a flash perception, analysis and response to what could be a deadly threat which, if the decision is delayed one split second more, results in the defendant's death.

The question the jury must answer is "What would an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence, faced with the exact same circumstances have done?"

It's quite a knotty problem for a jury, and the ambiguity involved in regional differences in approved social behaviors (such as Texas versus New York City) makes it a very dangerous proposition for any person to face that judgment. This is one of the reasons that armed citizens like me are at least eleven times LESS likely to actually shoot someone in a violent confrontation than a police officer is, and police officers "get away with it" all the time, in part because their employer has to pay for their defense, not them.

The standard advice of trainers to new CCW permitees is "if you have to shoot someone it will probably cost you a minimum of $50,000 per round you fire, even if you are absolutely justified in doing so." It's a great deterrent to hasty or negligent use of a firearm.

And this is why the common canard foisted by anti-gunners who object to an armed citizenry that blood will run in the gutters if more people can legally carry guns is just so much bilge.

[Seth]

The whole point is that what's "reasonable" to a cop in the US doesn't appear to be reasonable to police forces in other countries.
Which suggests that they are stretching the definition of "reasonable" way past it's real meaning.

Actually, it suggests that the police forces, and the citizens of other countries, don't know what the hell they are talking about and are pretty much completely ignorant of the threats faced by American police officers on a daily basis.

If I was black living in the US, it was be perfectly clear to me, that police are opening fire on blacks, in situations that they never open fire on whites.

Except that if you actually bother to look at the actual numbers, you'll find that police officers actually shoot MORE white people than they do black people overall.

This is just one of those. When was the last time police gunned down a white person who was running away?

Probably pretty recently. That you don't read about it only means that the press is engaged in biased reporting, which is not all that unusual.

I don't recall it. And whites are more numerous than blacks. It might happen, but it's far more rare.

Actually, it's not. Do some homework. The FBI can provide you with the appropriate statistics if you care to check them out.

And it's taken far more seriously, if it does happen.

Not really.

They guys who did this one will just get a few weeks paid holiday, and then it's back to work with a medal to show for it.

Well, if it turns out to be a justified shooting, then of course they should.

[Brian Peacock]

You said the youth was armed when he was shot. I pointed out he was not.

You pointed out that you think he was not armed. That doesn't mean he was not armed.

Ah, the epistemological dilemma of "How do we know what we know?" which is so often flopped out to seemingly render all assumptions equally defensible.

Why it's defensible that the police were justified in opening fire because they didn't know that the youth didn't have a gun is an interesting moral quandary no?

Somewhat. But the law resolves this moral quandry by only requiring the police to reasonably believe that their lives, or the life of another, are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate. Thus, in reality, the burden lies with the person being addressed by the police to not act in ways which might raise such a reasonable belief or risk being shot by not doing so.

I guess that depends on what you mean by reasonable. Is it reasonable, as in fair and appropriate, to believe a black guy running away is an a danger, or is it reasonable in the sense of being in accordance with rational and logical thinking to assess a black guy running away as a danger, or is it just considered reasonable locally to open fire on a black guy because many people believe that they're all wrong 'uns who probably hate you and would probably kill you if they had the chance anyway?

The problem here is that in any given situation what constitutes 'sincere belief' can readily confused for reasonable, as well as being heavily weighted in favour of authority, and an sincere and honest belief is not always reasonable and can easily follow from any number of irrational assumptions.

Here we're simply being asked to endorse an assessment that a guy running away is a danger to officers and/or unspecified others.

[Hermit]

You said the youth was armed when he was shot. I pointed out he was not.

You pointed out that you think he was not armed

You called the youth who was shot by the police an armed gangbanger. I said he was not armed at the time the police released a volley of bullets aimed at hitting him. He was not armed then. A gun was found underneath a car, and so far nobody has claimed yet that it was handled by the youth who was shot. He was not armed when he was shot.

So now, instead of acknowledging that you got a matter of fact wrong, you move the goal posts by arguing that the cops were entitled to shoot the youth because he might have been armed. Different issue compared to the assertion that he was armed, don't you think?

[Hermit]

if you actually bother to look at the actual numbers, you'll find that police officers actually shoot MORE white people than they do black people overall.

If you bothered to look at the actual numbers a bit more closely, you'll find that on a pro rata basis police officers shoot 2.6 black people for each white one.

[JimC]

if you actually bother to look at the actual numbers, you'll find that police officers actually shoot MORE white people than they do black people overall.

If you bothered to look at the actual numbers a bit more closely, you'll find that on a pro rata basis police officers shoot 2.6 black people for each white one.

Shooting the poor bloody 0.6 of a black man is definitely overkill...

[mistermack]

if you actually bother to look at the actual numbers, you'll find that police officers actually shoot MORE white people than they do black people overall.

If you bothered to look at the actual numbers a bit more closely, you'll find that on a pro rata basis police officers shoot 2.6 black people for each white one.

Shooting the poor bloody 0.6 of a black man is definitely overkill...

Especially, as everyone knows, that 0.6 of a black man is dick.