How to identify a good gang member

[Sean Hayden]

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.

You don't have to care about gangbangers. You just have to deal with the consequences of shooting them, and it's inappropriate to shrug and say nobody cares. It's also inappropriate to make out that every criminal shot is the worst kind. That's rationalizing.

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

Thus my surprise.

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.

Police are not required to do a lot of sensible things. That's definitely a problem.

Does the simulator also accurately portray the threat posed by family pets, which have also been shot while running away? -waldo!, shoot/don't shoot

[Seth]

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.

You don't have to care about gangbangers. You just have to deal with the consequences of shooting them,

I do care about them and I don't mind dealing with the consequences of them shooting each other. We call that "sanitation."

and it's inappropriate to shrug and say nobody cares.

It might be factually incorrect, but it's not inappropriate.

It's also inappropriate to make out that every criminal shot is the worst kind. That's rationalizing.

Who said "worst?"

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

Thus my surprise.

Something I'm a constant at here, it seems.

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.

Police are not required to do a lot of sensible things. That's definitely a problem.

Of course they are, it's just that you don't understand what "sensible" means in the context of police work.

Does the simulator also accurately portray the threat posed by family pets, which have also been shot while running away? -waldo!, shoot/don't shoot

Nobody's excusing every police shooting, certainly not me. I'm way more concerned about police unnecessarily shooting family pets than I am about them shooting gangbangers who pose a threat to them.

[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

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.

They didn't know that at that instant. They appear to have reasonably believed that he was armed, which is what's required for them to be authorized to use deadly force. Armchair quarterbacking always demonstrates 20/20 hindsight.

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.

As I said that's irrelevant. He acted as if he was armed under circumstances that caused the officers to reasonably believe he was both armed and about to shoot them, which is all that is required for them to be authorized to use deadly force. The lesson is, don't do things that lead police to that belief and you're not likely to get 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?

I say he was armed both before and when he performed the act that caused the police to shoot him and you have no evidence that this was not the case, and that disposing of the gun was secondary to the fact that he was stupid in his actions. Until otherwise demonstrated I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the police, since they are constitutionally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I'm way more concerned about police unnecessarily shooting family pets than I am about them shooting gangbangers who pose a threat to them.

In some recent cases, it appears that police are shooting young black men if they don't immediately act in a subservient manner. Clearly, there will be cases where police shoot a black man who is armed, and a real danger to them an others, but it seems that many police have spun their version of events so that this is always the case, rather than being an over-reaction that could have been handled without anyone dying.

[Seth]

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.

According to the FBI, in 2013, police officers killed 461 felons in the commission of a felony (justifiable homicide). unfortunately I am unable to find any data on the race of the persons killed, which I find disturbing but not surprising.

Here's a quote from someone who crunched the numbers:

"Or, to look at the question differently, the ratio of blacks to non-Hispanic whites is .82:1 for police killings and 1.5:1 for homicides."

Source

Syndicated columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote this week that young black men are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than young white men. Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly had a much different take on his show Monday night, offering that more whites are killed by police than blacks.

"In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. There are currently more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S.A.," O'Reilly said on his program. "Same year, 326 whites were killed by police bullets. Those are the latest stats available."

Two dramatically different statistics -- and they could both be right.

...A search in 2012 for deaths caused by "legal intervention" as a result of the use of a firearm -- that is, a police shooting -- yields just the numbers O'Reilly cited Monday night. In the 15-19 age range, the database shows 20 white people killed in 2012 and 14 blacks.

Source

So, it appears that there is a significant difference of opinion even among the experts.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

I'm way more concerned about police unnecessarily shooting family pets than I am about them shooting gangbangers who pose a threat to them.

In some recent cases, it appears that police are shooting young black men if they don't immediately act in a subservient manner.

Er, you mean fail to obey police commands and act in hostile and violent ways that lead the police to believe they are in danger don't you?

Clearly, there will be cases where police shoot a black man who is armed, and a real danger to them an others, but it seems that many police have spun their version of events so that this is always the case, rather than being an over-reaction that could have been handled without anyone dying.

Go be a Detroit cop for 20 years and get back to us on that, okay? Until then your opinions are just that, and ignorant ones at that.

[JimC]

So all the media reports are lies, eh?

[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.

They didn't know that at that instant.

So you are changing your story from "the armed gangbanger who ran from the police" to the police "appear to have reasonably believed that he was armed." Your description of the youth when he was shot by the police as armed, was factually wrong. Instead of acknowledging your mistake you changed the description to something like: "The youth was thought by the police to be armed at the time they shot him." Not the same thing, is it? That's what I call moving the goalposts. And yes, I just know you'll be saying "doesn't matter" next. You always do when caught out being wrong.

[JimC]

If "I thought that the man I shot was armed" is accepted as a perfectly valid justification in court for police killings, with no forensic evidence, then it becomes open season on any individual, or class of individual that the police feel are worth shooting.

[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.

According to the FBI, in 2013, police officers killed 461 felons in the commission of a felony (justifiable homicide). unfortunately I am unable to find any data on the race of the persons killed, which I find disturbing but not surprising.

Here's a quote from someone who crunched the numbers:

"Or, to look at the question differently, the ratio of blacks to non-Hispanic whites is .82:1 for police killings and 1.5:1 for homicides."

Source

Syndicated columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote this week that young black men are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than young white men. Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly had a much different take on his show Monday night, offering that more whites are killed by police than blacks.

"In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. There are currently more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S.A.," O'Reilly said on his program. "Same year, 326 whites were killed by police bullets. Those are the latest stats available."

Two dramatically different statistics -- and they could both be right.

...A search in 2012 for deaths caused by "legal intervention" as a result of the use of a firearm -- that is, a police shooting -- yields just the numbers O'Reilly cited Monday night. In the 15-19 age range, the database shows 20 white people killed in 2012 and 14 blacks.

Source

So, it appears that there is a significant difference of opinion even among the experts.

That is true, Ollie. We are looking at three ratios. The first one (21:1) appears to be an extreme statistical outlier. The last one (4.67:1) has way too low a sample rate to be of statistical significance. The one in the middle (2.52:1) seems the most likely, though I'm sure there is plenty of space for argument leading to revised results left. No matter, though, which statistics you accept, it makes no sense to quote total numbers of people killed without relating them to total number of population segments they belong to. Even the lowest estimate suggests that police officers kill way more blacks than whites on a pro rata basis.

[Hermit]

If "I thought that the man I shot was armed" is accepted as a perfectly valid justification in court for police killings, with no forensic evidence, then it becomes open season on any individual, or class of individual that the police feel are worth shooting.

Especially if the reason for the belief "I saw him pull his pants up by its waist band so he could run away at a greater speed, and that made me think he was pulling out a gun." is regarded as reasonable. Cynics might get the impression that the way things are going, simply saying "I believe he was armed because he was black" with the optional addition of "and we are in Chicago, aren't we?" will soon be deemed to be reasonable belief that someone is armed. This is one of the traps of profiling. Too often it kills the wrong target, and the wrong target usually is an individual who shares some, though not the critical characteristics of the properly targeted person.

[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

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.

They didn't know that at that instant.

So you are changing your story from "the armed gangbanger who ran from the police" to the police "appear to have reasonably believed that he was armed." Your description of the youth when he was shot by the police as armed, was factually wrong. Instead of acknowledging your mistake you changed the description to something like: "The youth was thought by the police to be armed at the time they shot him." Not the same thing, is it? That's what I call moving the goalposts. And yes, I just know you'll be saying "doesn't matter" next. You always do when caught out being wrong.

You challenged my original statement, I clarified. As I said, it doesn't matter whether the youth was factually armed at the moment he was shot because those who shot him had no way of knowing he was not armed and a reasonable belief that he WAS armed and about to shoot them. If my initial statement was unclear or imprecise, it's no longer unclear or imprecise and your obsession with seizing victory is just pettifoggery. Fine, claim a victory over me, as if I give a damn.

As far as I'm concerned, the individual who was shot was illegally armed and the fact that he tossed the gun before he got shot is meaningless under the circumstances. He was armed when he ran and he got shot for making the police believe he was going to shoot them. Now, if it is proven that he was not in fact armed when he ran, which is what every black person in the community and a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals elsewhere will insist, because they want to maintain the idiotic fiction that no black youth is ever armed and that no black youth, even if he is armed, is willing and prepared to shoot at the police and that they are all "innocent children" who did nothing whatever to justify being shot by the police. This is a purely political issue of denialism that they can maintain because the individual shot did not have a smoking gun clutched in his grasp when he was shot. But because no smoking gun was found in his grasp does not mean he was not illegally armed and ready to shoot someone, including the police, when he bolted from the police and then engaged in movements that raised a reasonable belief in the officers that they were about to be shot.

You'd think that all the "Hands up! Don't shoot" rhetoric that flew about would have taught people, particularly black youths, not to bolt from the police and then reach for their waistbands as if they are going to draw a gun and shoot the police. Apparently not. Apparently they are just too stupid to understand the realities of life in the 'hood.

Don't run from the police. Keep your hands in plain sight at all times. Move slowly and only as commanded by the police. And most importantly, exercise your right to remain silent.

Oh, and don't illegally carry guns or other weapons and don't be a gangbanger.

[Seth]

If "I thought that the man I shot was armed" is accepted as a perfectly valid justification in court for police killings, with no forensic evidence, then it becomes open season on any individual, or class of individual that the police feel are worth shooting.

It's not "I thought..." It's "Did the defendant have a reasonable belief that his life, or the life of another was in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily harm and that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate?"

Just because he invokes the self-defense justification doesn't mean that a) the judge has to allow it; or b) that the jury will accept it. In order to raise the self-defense justification you essentially have to incriminate yourself by admitting that you did in fact shoot the individual you are charged with killing.

Thus, it's pretty dangerous to do so unless you are actually justified in killing someone. One of the things that happens is that when the self-defense justification is raised, there is a separate hearing, outside of the hearing of the jury, about the events at which the defendant explains his justifications and the judge rules whether, as a matter of law, self-defense can be raised as a defense at trial. If the judge rules that as a matter of law the defendant cannot raise such a defense, then he cannot do so at trial and the prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the self-defense claim may be raised, then the defendant must testify as to his state of mind and the circumstances as he perceived them at the time, and the jury then determines if his decisions were reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

People raise the self-defense justification all the time...and are subsequently found guilty by the jury, so it's not nearly as dire as you seem to think it is. Self-defense is not an absolute immunity from prosecution or conviction...except where "Castle Doctrine" laws apply to persons in their homes who are faced (in Colorado at least) with an intruder there to commit a crime other than the unauthorized entry who uses any degree of force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. In such a case, the use of deadly force is authorized and the actor is immune from both civil and criminal prosecution if the facts established by the forensic investigation show that he acted within the law.