NPR - Some Key Facts We've Learned About Police Shootings Over The Past Year

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by shadowraiths, Apr 16, 2015.

  1. shadowraiths

    shadowraiths LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    [​IMG]

    We've done a lot of writing and reporting at Code Switch over the past year on deadly police shootings of unarmed black people, cases that have become such a part of our landscape that they have a tendency to melt into each other. Indeed, sometimes the pattern of facts seems to barely change: Just last fall, we followed the story of an unarmed black man in South Carolina who was shot following a police traffic stop. The officer in that shooting, like Michael Slager — the officer who shot Walter Scott in the back as he ran away after a traffic stop — was later fired and arrested once the video of that encounter surfaced and contradicted his initial report.

    While names and places change, the backdrop against which these stories play out does not. We decided to pull together what we've learned along the way, along with some thoughtful commentary from other outlets about this case and the larger questions it raises.

    [​IMG]

    link
     
  2. Loading...


  3. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,674
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One thing that I have noticed, that seems to be a pattern---the victims of the shootings were usually fleeing felons that were being aggressive and threatening before their demise.
     
  4. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Excellent article shadowraiths - thank-you. Such articles are meant to help make things better, imo.
     
  5. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    With all due respect - the 'usually' argument is old and out of touch. If one reads the article to which you are replying, the Supreme Court decided fleeing is not a reason to shoot someone.

    One of the big problems there imo, if the door is opened one inch for one incident, the door eventually becomes wide open for future incidents. Where does it stop if no clear line is drawn? Cops are making their own rules - not at all how things started out.

    The recent beating of the guy in a California desert - horseback - says he was fleeing because cops have beat him before. Yeah he admits to felonies - you can't rid the country of 'undesirable' people with bullets. It's getting precariously close to history repeating itself imo.
     
  6. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,674
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "It's crucial to remember that all these calamities play out against a backdrop of falling — even record-low — crime. As the anxieties around the kinds of crime that we saw in the 1980s and 1990s recedes, there's more space for us to ask what exactly it is we want our police to do, and whether stopping a jaywalker here or a person selling cigarettes there is worth introducing the prospect of deadly violence.''

    That is a disingenuous argument. The deadly violence was not 'introduced' because of the jaywalking or cig sales. It was 'introduced' because of the assault on the cops or the resisting of the arrest. Love the way NPR left that part out.
     
  7. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,674
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BBM

    I think you left something out of your statement. It is not correct the way you put it there. You left out the word UNLESS...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
    Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."



    See that part^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^above? >>>>>UNLESS the suspect poses a threat....
     
  8. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I have to comment that while well written, this is an extremely biased article, against police officers, and justifying or rationalizing the behavior of those stopped by police he describes as insignificant, or not worth pursuing. I can't agree with that. Along with that, he has a lot of his facts wrong.

    For an example of the author's bias, the author repeatedly refers to the Scott case as a "murder." At this point in time, the accused officer hasn't even been indicted, let alone convicted. It maybe the author's opinion it was a murder, but he never makes that distinction.

    It's my opinion this is an op-Ed masquerading as investigative journalism. The bias of the author is very clear.
     
  9. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And I also noted he quoted Jamelle Bouie. He is one of the most biased "journalists" I've ever had the misfortune to read. He's not a journalist at all, just a guy with an opinion, and a platform to publish it, IMO. (And rather obnoxious, IMO.) I avoid Jamelle Bouie's articles, because I don't think his opinions are well thought out or supported, and he's kind of arrogant in his writing. I also think he hates white people. There. I said it, PC or not.
     
  10. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Pretty sure everyone gets 'unless' - to argue people don't get that is old as well, imo.

    An assault on an officer has not occurred every time time a cop chases someone and shoots or beats the crap out of them. There are many new cases here where no such violence preceded a chase. Pretty sure that's the point of posting so many of late.

    It's Ok imo, to support LE can do whatever they want, whenever they want - and accept the costs that go with that. The same respect has to be given to those that don't agree. Yes?
     
  11. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,674
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO. You misinterpreted the legal meaning of the Garner case, imo. You said the Supreme Court ruled that "fleeing is not a reason to shoot someone."
    And that is not what the ruling was. You left off a very important part of that sentence which qualifies the entire thing. Fleeing is not a reason to shoot UNLESS THAT FELLING PERSON POSES A THREAT.

    I think that in the vast majority of recent shooting cases, that is what has happened. The police had determined the fleeing suspect posed a threat.

    In a very small percentage that may not be true. Those are anomalies. In fact, your article agrees that:

    The report noted that those 4,800 arrest-related deaths came during a period in which the FBI estimated that there were nearly 98 million arrests made nationally. That's .005 percent of all arrests, some of which will be deemed justifiable homicides.


    So .005% of all arrests end in deaths. How many of them involve resisting arrest, assaults on the officer or posing a public safety risk? I am going to estimate about 80%. JMO
     
  12. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,674
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has anyone here ever said that LE should be able to do whatever they want--whenever they want? If so, I must have missed that.
     
  13. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    'Police determining' a situation to be a certain way has come under scrutiny. Charges reflect that - Walter Scott would be one of many.

    You are entitled to your opinion.
     
  14. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,674
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    YES. It has come under scrutiny. But the perps/victims have come under scrutiny as well. The general public wants to balance the power but they do not want the fleeing felons to have all the power either.

    No one wants to see a situation where the public condones the resisting of every arrest or fleeing from car stops. And that is the danger here, imo. You cannot tie the officers hands and make them stand by helplessly and watch criminals run away, scot free. I do not think that the public wants that either. JMO
     
  15. shadowraiths

    shadowraiths LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    [​IMG]

    Can We Apply Common Sense to the Police Shootings Debate?

    One of the most frustrating aspects of the loud and vitriolic debates over police shootings is the extent to which they ignore common sense and human nature. In the quest to find grand narratives, we’re too quick to discount the simple realities of how human beings react during times of stress, and we minimize the reciprocal moral and legal responsibilities that citizens owe police and police owe citizens.

    First, when wary, angry, and/or frightened citizens interact with wary, angry, and/or frightened police — often at odd hours and in moments of maximum stress — there will inevitably be a certain number of both tragic mistakes and heinous crimes.

    [...]

    While he was running a background check, he started yelling at me for not pulling over on the side of the interstate but taking him to an “ambush.” He said he’d been shot at earlier this week and wasn’t going to let any punks put him down. As my future hopes and dreams were flashing before my eyes (I’d just been accepted to law school), he discovered I had no record or outstanding warrants, so he let me go with a traffic citation.

    [...]

    Our nation is imperfect, and police misconduct absolutely occurs. But the story of police shootings in America isn’t a story of mass-scale police slaughter; it’s one of infrequent, tragic incidents that arise as a natural byproduct of mass-scale, intensely stressful interactions between a very human police force and the very human citizens they’re sworn to protect.

    [​IMG]

    link
     
  16. KaaBoom

    KaaBoom `·.¸¸ ><((((º> ...·´`·.¸¸ ><((((º>...·

    Messages:
    4,414
    Likes Received:
    974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last time I checked, driving too slowly, malfunctioning lights, and failure to signal were not felonies. I think you are assuming that they were felons.
     
  17. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No one, imo, wants to tie the hands of LE - old argument imo. No one, imo, wants or expects felons to run 'scot' free - whatever or whoever that is. Cops can't find people when they have taken their vehicle and know where they live and who their family/friends are? Should lead to where they work, where they bank among other key elements. All I can take away from these arguments is cops have become rather lazy - people will run - and apparently that is a small segment of stops LE make.

    Don't get where cops should have a problem with fleeing to the point of shooting is the only resolution. Fleeing means having to shoot someone in the back. Heroic? Taxpayers have an opinion - and with that should come options, imo.
     
  18. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Failure to signal or a burned out light is not a felony, but attacking or "tussling" with a police officer is a felony. Resisting arrest is a felony. It doesn't matter what the reason was that they were pulled over or encountered a police officer. If someone attacks a LEO, that's a serious felony action that could result in their death. Even most young children can understand that.
     
  19. KaaBoom

    KaaBoom `·.¸¸ ><((((º> ...·´`·.¸¸ ><((((º>...·

    Messages:
    4,414
    Likes Received:
    974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the pattern for that, is usually cops who jump in front of a fleeing suspect's cars and then shooting the driver (e.g.
    CO - Jessica Hernandez), claiming their life was in danger. Totally ignoring the fact that it was their own actions that put their life in danger.
     
  20. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,674
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But running from the traffic stop because you have a suspended license, no registration or insurance and a warrant, that is another matter entirely.
     
  21. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And a bullet in the back is the only solution for no registration etc? Not in my opinion.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice