[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I meant "concealed" carry... I was drunk when I wrote that.

Also, AFAIK everybody is allowed to carry on their own property.

It should also be noted that a car matching the description of the car which was jacked was in the driveway. I have to either take a swipe at King for doing so little research he was unaware, or take a swipe at him for knowing and intentionally rejecting evidence which makes the mistake appear more understandable.

My issue with this entire scenario is that the police KNEW the homeowners were on the premises because they received the 911 call from there. So common sense ought to tell them that anyone they encounter on the premises might just actually be the people requesting help. But they assumed he was the perp simply because he was armed. Check out the police statement at about 1:40 into the video contained in this link.

Originally Posted by Indianapolis PD

We do our best to give a verbal warning anytime that we can but sometimes situations unfold so quickly and a handgun or a perceived threat is introduced into that situation that there may not be ample time to give a warning.

Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery | theGrio

And that in a nutshell is the type of sh*t I'm talking about! WTF "unfold[ed] so quickly"? A homeowner opened his garage door to let the police inside? Yeah ... that sounds like something a perp would do.

I don't think anyone believes these guys set out to shoot this homeowner. But I'm not prepared to write it off as an "accident" either. Indiana is an open carry state. It's a vehicle carry state. And it's also a Castle doctrine state. So you can NOT as an officer cop just fly off the damned handle and shoot someone on sight just because they are armed. No warning. No command to drop the weapon. No threatening behavior towards you whatsoever. Just a "shoot the first black man you see with a weapon" mentality clearly on display.

OAW

[subego]

What the cops knew is unclear. I assume they didn't personally take the call. What they knew was whatever information relayed by the dispatcher.

Now, when someone is rattled, their thought process isn't always going to be 100% rational, but Lord have mercy does greeting the police while armed strike me as a bad idea, especially when they're on the hunt for a presumably armed suspect.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

What the cops knew is unclear. I assume they didn't personally take the call. What they knew was whatever information relayed by the dispatcher.

Now, when someone is rattled, their thought process isn't always going to be 100% rational, but Lord have mercy does greeting the police while armed strike me as a bad idea, especially when they're on the hunt for a presumably armed suspect.

The cops do know the law and the gun culture of their state. The fact that this is an Open Carry state makes a significant difference, it completely changes the assumptions you should make. The failure of the cop to take this into consideration is a mark against him, and to blame the victim in these circumstances for something that Open Carry/Castle Doctrine advocates use as one of their prime motivations, the ability to defend one's home, family and property, makes no sense. (If you want to criticize the overabundance and overemphasis on guns, that's another story.)

[subego]

As I said, the "gun culture" of every state is you get to be armed on your own property.

Perhaps I am mistaken, the argument is because of the gun culture, the cop should have known he encountered the homeowner and not the perp.

I don't see how the second follows from the first.

[andi*pandi]

kind of makes me think the 911 dispatcher should take descriptions of the homeowners in such situations. "Hi, I'm the victim, I'm wearing a white shirt and blue blazer with a red rose in the lapel."

that said, I probably would not be waving my gun around if the police had arrived.

[subego]

As someone who's been on the wrong end of a 911 call, getting even basic information out of me was extremely difficult.

And this was with me taking the five seconds while it rang telling myself "okay... don't be the guy who freaks out and can't communicate".

As soon as I hear "911" on the other end I was "blablablablablablablabla!"

This was over a stranger with a problem, I can't imagine what it'd be like if I felt I or a loved one had actually been in danger.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said, the "gun culture" of every state is you get to be armed on your own property.

Perhaps I am mistaken, the argument is because of the gun culture, the cop should have known he encountered the homeowner and not the perp.

I don't see how the second follows from the first.

Because of gun culture, you can't assume everyone with a gun is bad guy.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because of gun culture, you can't assume everyone with a gun is bad guy.

When cops are out there killing deaf people because they didn't follow verbal commands, I don't think we want the police to make ANY assumptions when heading into a situation, regardless of the 2nd amendment or the culture around this constitutionally protected right.

[andi*pandi]

Someone should invent some kind of flashy-light dashboard attachment for deaf folks, that goes off if it detects a siren (police, fire, or ambulance). Plus a handy card to put up to the window for responders (Hi, I'm deaf!). Could be kept with registration.

There's also things we all should learn, and learn young. How to call 911. We practice in scouts and school. How to stay in the car etc when you're pulled over, should be covered by driver's ed. First aid, again is covered by scouts but should be in schools beyond calling 911.

[The Final Dakar]

I think we can the deaf to the list with mentally disabled and mentally disturbed of people the police just have no training to deal with.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because of gun culture, you can't assume everyone with a gun is bad guy.

That is fair.

What percentage of people think it's a bad idea to greet the police with a gun in their hand?

If this percentage is high, could not the assumption have been "this is not the person who called me"?

Is this percentage vastly different in an open carry state?

[OAW]

^^^

I think it was NOT a good idea for the homeowner to greet the police with a gun in his hand. And I also think it was an even WORSE idea for the police to shoot him on sight. No warning. No order to put the gun down. Nothing. Especially when one considers the fact that a bad guy would be trying to escape out the back door. Not opening the garage door to let the police inside!!!

OAW

[subego]

Can the same statement be made if it was the carjacker coming out of the garage and not the resident?

As in, should the exact same complaint should be lodged against the cop if he had shot the carjacker on sight because of the possibility it could have been the resident?

This is an honest question. I don't have a pat answer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That is fair.

What percentage of people think it's a bad idea to greet the police with a gun in their hand?

If this percentage is high, could not the assumption have been "this is not the person who called me"?

Is this percentage vastly different in an open carry state?

It's ****ing retarded to walk around with an AR on your back too, but so long as it's legal, the burden of not killing people is on the shooter.

I'm sympathetic to the concept that "That might be the criminal" if it weren't that its been shown the problem tends to be more the skin color than actual threat level.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's ****ing retarded to walk around with an AR on your back too, but so long as it's legal, the burden of not killing people is on the shooter.

I'm sympathetic to the concept that "That might be the criminal" if it weren't that its been shown the problem tends to be more the skin color than actual threat level.

I'm arguing these two positions aren't compatible.

The sympathy is rejected because of race relations not because of the legality of open carry. If race relations weren't an issue, which is it? Do you have sympathy for the concept it could be the criminal, or do you not because it's legal?

Also, I keep harping on this, maybe I mistake its relevance, but it's legal everywhere to have a gun on your property. Why is open carry even making a difference?

[subego]

@Uncle Skeleton

I've more or less formulated my response, I just have to get it down. Sorry I'm being molasses-slow.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can the same statement be made if it was the carjacker coming out of the garage and not the resident?

As in, should the exact same complaint should be lodged against the cop if he had shot the carjacker on sight because of the possibility it could have been the resident?

This is an honest question. I don't have a pat answer.

Yes. The job of the police officer is to arrest the suspect in such a situation. The use of force ... particularly deadly force ... is supposed to be the LAST resort and not the FIRST resort. Please understand that there are no reports that the homeowner pointed the gun at the officers or in any way threatened them. He simply opened the garage door to let them inside while holding a firearm. Now in the highly unlikely event that it was the carjacker doing the exact same thing the police should have ordered him to drop the weapon and gave him the opportunity to comply. Cops encounter armed suspects all the time and do NOT shoot them on sight. For instance, these guys actually pointed weapons at the police and lived to tell the tale. Imagine that.

Here are 8 white people who pointed guns at police officers — and didn’t get killed

OAW

[subego]

I feel there are two separate questions here. The first is what is wanted for the police to do. The second is what is legal for the police to do.

My understanding is once a perp points a gun at someone's head, a police officer can shoot them. Different jurisdictions will have different laws as to whether they can get shot while fleeing, or shot without their weapon in hand, but if the perp is standing there with a gun, the shooting will be ruled as justified.

If the desire is for the police to have a higher bar. The law would have to say despite the perp threatening someone else, and standing there armed, other steps need to be taken before the shooting could be ruled justified.

I'm all for having a higher bar, but that seems too high.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm arguing these two positions aren't compatible.

The sympathy is rejected because of race relations not because of the legality of open carry. If race relations weren't an issue, which is it? Do you have sympathy for the concept it could be the criminal, or do you not because it's legal?

Sympathy (for deductive reasoning) isn't what has been rejected because of race relations. It's the deductive reasoning capability itself that has been removed because of race relations (evidently, per past outcomes). Police deserve sympathy for making honest mistakes as long as their mistakes prove to be honest ones. After their mistakes prove to be overwhelmingly race-based, then they don't deserve sympathy for their behavior of throwing deductive reasoning out the window and using race to make their decisions instead.

Also, I keep harping on this, maybe I mistake its relevance, but it's legal everywhere to have a gun on your property. Why is open carry even making a difference?

It makes gun handling a part of the culture, and a part of the cultural background noise. Have you never heard gun enthusiasts talk about carrying it with them everywhere, like wearing a seat-belt, because if you pick-and-choose when to have it then you won't have it the one day you need it? If your property is the only place you can have your gun, then you would have to decide to have it. With open carry, you have to decide NOT to have it.

Originally Posted by subego 

@Uncle Skeleton

I've more or less formulated my response, I just have to get it down. Sorry I'm being molasses-slow.

Take all the time you need. I far prefer to wait for a well-reasoned thoughtful post than a rushed one.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm arguing these two positions aren't compatible.

The sympathy is rejected because of race relations not because of the legality of open carry. If race relations weren't an issue, which is it? Do you have sympathy for the concept it could be the criminal, or do you not because it's legal?

My sympathy is rooted in emotion. That I too would instinctively fear a man with a gun.
I empathize with the fear while condemning the logic.

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, I keep harping on this, maybe I mistake its relevance, but it's legal everywhere to have a gun on your property. Why is open carry even making a difference?

Its a good question. If anything open carry should be making it easier to distinguish good guys from bad right? But I imagine if the gun was concealed but the cops noticed the outcome probably wouldn't be much different.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm arguing these two positions aren't compatible.

The sympathy is rejected because of race relations not because of the legality of open carry. If race relations weren't an issue, which is it? Do you have sympathy for the concept it could be the criminal, or do you not because it's legal?

Sympathy is not being rejected because of race relations or the legality of open carry, the latter is not a consequence of the former. Race relations are tense because of the way police (statistically speaking) conducts itself. Implicit assumptions on culpability lead to a very different treatment of openly carrying whites and blacks, and it is the lack of self-critical thinking, involving the affected communities that leads to a lack of sympathy for cops.

In some cases that is unfortunate, because in most places the bad apples are few and far in between. But protecting the bad apples means we are punishing all the good cops as they have no legitimate avenue to force change.

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, I keep harping on this, maybe I mistake its relevance, but it's legal everywhere to have a gun on your property. Why is open carry even making a difference?

Open Carry is an indicator of how common guns are in a specific state. In a country such as Japan it is a pretty safe bet that someone with a gun who isn't wearing a uniform is a bad guy, but in the US where guns literally outnumber people this assumption is just false. You can no longer assume that someone with a gun out is a bad guy. If you are arguing that this makes things more difficult and dangerous for cops, then I agree. But as long as the gun laws don't change, this is just a fact of life for cops, and they need to take that into account when making their decisions while on duty. And I don't think part of a cop's job description is to avoid risks at all costs, just like firemen are paid to run into burning buildings, cops are being paid to expose themselves to these risks for the purpose of protecting the community. That home owner who was shot was part of the people the cop was supposed to protect. Cops have to be trained to first assert whether the armed person is a perp or not, and take normal human reactions into account (such as people freezing when they see guns pointed at them). Another thing you can do is make sure cops are never by themselves (I noticed that cops patrolling by themselves seems to be a thing in some parts of the US, I found this incredibly stupid and dangerous to the cops).

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is once a perp points a gun at someone's head, a police officer can shoot them.

Whether accidentally or intentionally, but you use the word “perp” here to also describe a home owner who was legally defending his property with a firearm. Such a person is not a perpetrator (or a crime). Given the number of guns I don't think this is a legitimate standard for use of deadly force in the US.

[subego]

I've apparently struck the motherlode.

I'm going to need to bust these posts into manageable nuggets or I'll never get to any of it. Everyone feel free to prod me if I drop something important.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Whether accidentally or intentionally, but you use the word “perp” here to also describe a home owner who was legally defending his property with a firearm. Such a person is not a perpetrator (or a crime). Given the number of guns I don't think this is a legitimate standard for use of deadly force in the US.

I wasn't referring to the homeowner as the perp. I was discussing an alternate scenario wherein the person coming out of the garage was not the homeowner, but the person the police were called to collar: the perp.

The claim was "the police's behavior towards the homeowner was unacceptable, and would be equally unacceptable had it been the perp".

If this is the case, then in this alternate scenario, someone (the perp) who has previously put a gun to a woman's head, now approaches with gun in hand, but hasn't yet done enough to warrant the use of deadly force.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wasn't referring to the homeowner as the perp. I was discussing an alternate scenario wherein the person coming out of the garage was not the homeowner, but the person the police were called to collar: the perp.

How does the cop know which scenario he is in? That's the whole point why this is important, and your scenario sidesteps which — to me — is the crucial question.

Originally Posted by subego 

The claim was "the police's behavior towards the homeowner was unacceptable, and would be equally unacceptable had it been the perp".

No, that's not my claim at all. I was saying that police should have operated under the assumption that the armed person could be either the perp who is in the process of robbing the place or the homeowner who is scared and is trying to defend his home. And that is not a foregone conclusion that armed plus at the scene plus black = perp.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that's not my claim at all.

I'm not asserting it is.

The claim I'm discussing was the one which precipitated my use of the term "perp". My use of it was questioned, and I thought it useful to repeat the claim to which it was addressed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

or the homeowner who is scared and is trying to defend his home.

This is an important point.

It was originally proposed the Williams was meeting the police. There's definitely evidence he was instead trying to confront the carjacker.

That's going to alter my argument, and it's bad on me not accounting for it in the first place.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is an important point.

I think it is the point here. I'm looking forward to your elaboration on it.

Originally Posted by subego 

It was originally proposed the Williams was meeting the police. There's definitely evidence he was instead trying to confront the carjacker.

If he called 911 to ask for help, I don't think it makes sense to assume he actually wanted to hurt the cop. (I'm just writing that because by the way you wrote it makes it seem as if you assumed otherwise first.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sympathy (for deductive reasoning) isn't what has been rejected because of race relations. It's the deductive reasoning capability itself that has been removed because of race relations (evidently, per past outcomes). Police deserve sympathy for making honest mistakes as long as their mistakes prove to be honest ones. After their mistakes prove to be overwhelmingly race-based, then they don't deserve sympathy for their behavior of throwing deductive reasoning out the window and using race to make their decisions instead.


It makes gun handling a part of the culture, and a part of the cultural background noise. Have you never heard gun enthusiasts talk about carrying it with them everywhere, like wearing a seat-belt, because if you pick-and-choose when to have it then you won't have it the one day you need it? If your property is the only place you can have your gun, then you would have to decide to have it. With open carry, you have to decide NOT to have it.

I don't have any bones to pick with the first paragraph.

For that matter, I don't have any with the second, but it speaks to the question I was posing.

What I'm wondering is how does open carry affect the "honesty profile" of the officer's mistake.

Is the claim being made the officer's actions would have been more understandable in a state without open carry? If so, to what extent?

For purposes of answering these specific questions (as opposed to making a determination on this specific case), I would argue for eliminating the effect race relations have on the outcome. The ultimate intent is to determine what's broken. There's no argument race relations are broken, but is the protocol independent of that also broken?

If I understand correctly, the (or a) argument is "yes" in an open carry state, but "no" in other states.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My sympathy is rooted in emotion. That I too would instinctively fear a man with a gun.
I empathize with the fear while condemning the logic.

I'm confused here. Fearing a man with a gun is condemnable logic?

Pet peeve: it's reasoning, not logic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If he called 911 to ask for help, I don't think it makes sense to assume he actually wanted to hurt the cop. (I'm just writing that because by the way you wrote it makes it seem as if you assumed otherwise first.)

Hurt the cop? Absolutely not.

It was proposed Williams was letting them in.

Originally Posted by OAW 

A homeowner opened his garage door to let the police inside? Yeah ... that sounds like something a perp would do.

I've been responding to this scenario.

[Waragainstsleep]

80% of Police Force Quit After Missouri Town Elects First African American (Woman) Mayor | Urban Intellectuals

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would argue for eliminating the effect race relations have on the outcome. The ultimate intent is to determine what's broken. There's no argument race relations are broken, but is the protocol independent of that also broken?

I would argue that your priorities are upside down. Why bother fine-tuning the protocol if individual actors are going to simply ignore whatever protocol is in place (because they are being influenced by the issue of race to the exclusion of all other issues including basic logic and reasoning)?

What I'm wondering is how does open carry affect the "honesty profile" of the officer's mistake.

Is the claim being made the officer's actions would have been more understandable in a state without open carry? If so, to what extent?

"More understandable" gives the wrong impression. "Less heinous" would be a more honest description.

If I understand correctly, the (or a) argument is "yes" in an open carry state, but "no" in other states.

I think it's more like "yes" in other states and "hell yes" in open carry states. The change made by the open-carry component is that it makes an otherwise bad behavior into an egregiously bad one.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I would argue that your priorities are upside down. Why bother fine-tuning the protocol if individual actors are going to simply ignore whatever protocol is in place (because they are being influenced by the issue of race to the exclusion of all other issues including basic logic and reasoning)?



"More understandable" gives the wrong impression. "Less heinous" would be a more honest description.



I think it's more like "yes" in other states and "hell yes" in open carry states. The change made by the open-carry component is that it makes an otherwise bad behavior into an egregiously bad one.

My priorities are rooted on what's presented as a topic for discussion. If open carry is being given as a reason for why the officer was out of line, I'm being asked to consider that, no?

I originally wrote "would the officer's actions be more [adjective]", and then allowed for it to be filled in by the reader. I rejected that idea and instead chose to walk across the semantic minefield, so I get what I deserve. In other words, I take no issue with the replacement.

Perhaps my perception is too binary, but if the difference in question is between "yes" and "hell yes", then I find the open carry only relevant as supplementary information. I would say it's like the difference between "guilty" and "very guilty". One only need show the former to have made their case.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm confused here. Fearing a man with a gun is condemnable logic?

Pet peeve: it's reasoning, not logic.

Shooting the man out of fear, as a cop? Yes. Cops are held to higher standard. (Moreover, if a citizen ****s up, they're a hell of a lot more likely to see a trial judging their reasoning. Cops... not so much)

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Shooting the man out of fear, as a cop? Yes. Cops are held to higher standard. (Moreover, if a citizen ****s up, they're a hell of a lot more likely to see a trial judging their reasoning. Cops... not so much)

At least in theory, is not the legal bar for use of deadly force, for both cops and civilians, being in fear for their life or the life of others? Is it being proposed one or both bars get moved? If so, to where?

I'm all for more rigorous examination of police behavior. If the bar gets raised in an attempt to fix this, I ask is the problem where the bar is set, or is it something else?

What I would provide as evidence the problem is something else is the failure to rigorously examine the police exists for all levels of malfeasance. That it occurs with shootings is the most dire example, but it's by no means a unique one.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

At least in theory, is not the legal bar for use of deadly force, for both cops and civilians, being in fear for their life or the life of others? Is it being proposed one or both bars get moved? If so, to where?

What's the assumption here?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What's the assumption here?

I'm not sure I understand.

I'm asking where the bar for the use of deadly force should be set, and should the bar be a different height for the police.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Perhaps my perception is too binary, but if the difference in question is between "yes" and "hell yes", then I find the open carry only relevant as supplementary information. I would say it's like the difference between "guilty" and "very guilty". One only need show the former to have made their case.

You weren't so stubbornly binary when you brought up the gun itself as supplementary information, a reply to which contained the first mention of the string "open carry." Moving the goalposts?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You weren't so stubbornly binary when you brought up the gun itself as supplementary information, a reply to which contained the first mention of the string "open carry." Moving the goalposts?

Would it be too much to ask for this to be rephrased? My brain isn't making the leap.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wasn't referring to the homeowner as the perp. I was discussing an alternate scenario wherein the person coming out of the garage was not the homeowner, but the person the police were called to collar: the perp.

The claim was "the police's behavior towards the homeowner was unacceptable, and would be equally unacceptable had it been the perp".

If this is the case, then in this alternate scenario, someone (the perp) who has previously put a gun to a woman's head, now approaches with gun in hand, but hasn't yet done enough to warrant the use of deadly force.

Bingo. The standard should be "gun pointed" or in the act of raising.

Just like - Holding a gun on your property isn't a crime, pointing it at somebody (generally) is.

In my view, the cops are guilty of manslaughter.

The cop who started shooting should never have been armed, because he/she lacked the ability to remain cognizant during a perceived high-stress (but not actually) encounter. This is something you learn pretty early on if you take any firearms training beyond "How a gun works".

People look at guns as if they are automatically a sign that your life is in danger, despite cars being far more likely to kill you (yet those don't implicate the same response). It's an issue of familiarity and if you don't have it, you shouldn't be a cop.

People see cars all the time not killing people, but our culture is such that guns can rarely be in view (except in some open carry states). How could those who've rarely been exposed to guns gain the same comfortability?

[subego]

Should that be the bar for just cops or for everyone?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Should that be the bar for just cops or for everyone?

Cops should be held to a different standard, because not only have they been specifically trained for this, but they also have rights and duties that ordinary citizens don't. That is they should be held to a higher standard.

Due to the proliferation of legal guns in the US, you can't draw the conclusion that an armed individual is an armed “perp” as you put it. Unless you want to and can significantly reduce the number of legally owned guns, this will be a fact of life as a cop in the US. Hence, I think police procedure must account for situations like the one above where a citizen can wait for the cops armed without fear of being shot right away.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The cop who started shooting should never have been armed, because he/she lacked the ability to remain cognizant during a perceived high-stress (but not actually) encounter.

These are situations that cops do and should be specifically trained for, and because of your training, I expect more. However, I think we should look beyond mere fire arms training, because IMHO one of the weaknesses of training cops in the US is the overwhelming focus on the use of force. So the tool gets misapplied because cops aren't able to (because they haven't trained for) reading the situation correctly.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is something you learn pretty early on if you take any firearms training beyond "How a gun works".

Personally, I think this goes beyond gun training you can expect of civilians, but you're right, the more training you have, the more I expect that you don't simply react and start shooting people just because you are panicking.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Cops should be held to a different standard, because not only have they been specifically trained for this, but they also have rights and duties that ordinary citizens don't. That is they should be held to a higher standard.

Is "a police officer should have more legal restrictions on the use of deadly force than an ordinary citizen" a fair way to rephrase this?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is "a police officer should have more legal restrictions on the use of deadly force than an ordinary citizen" a fair way to rephrase this?

No, because it is only correct in certain circumstances. In others, police officers have more rights than ordinary citizens when it comes to shooting. Depending on the location, citizens are limited where they may shoot to defend themselves (e. g. in some jurisdictions cars are included in the “Castle Doctrine” whereas in others they aren't). Cops have no such limitations, they could use deadly force to defend someone else's property.

Plus, the way you phrase the question presupposes that an ordinary citizen may get away with the use of deadly force. I think that's the wrong way to look at it because the person has already jumped to conclusions.

[subego]

My apologies. That should have been "restrictions on the use of deadly force to defend themselves".

A police officer should have more legal restrictions on the use of deadly force to defend themselves than an ordinary citizen.

I used "should" in the statement to indicate it is not limited by what is, and is instead a reflection of what is desired.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Would it be too much to ask for this to be rephrased? My brain isn't making the leap.

No prob

<aug 24>

Opening a garage door while black.

The gun isn't a pertinent detail? *
Only if there isn't open carry.

<aug 28>

If open carry is being given as a reason for why the officer was out of line...
I find the open carry only relevant as supplementary information. ***

* correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're suggesting the gun is supplementary information: it doesn't show that the officer is justified, but it might raise the question of whether the officer is partially justified.
*** now you're saying this has to be THE pivotal piece to tip the scales, or it's not what it says on the can. I don't think anyone suggested it was other than supplementary information, a rebuttal to other supplementary information like whether the officer can use the presence of a gun as a justification for being too quick to use his. In a state where guns are rare, the officer might be able to claim that the sight of a gun is enough to put him on edge (that's not his whole case, it's only supplementary). In an open carry state where guns are everywhere, the officer shouldn't be able to even try that excuse.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

These are situations that cops do and should be specifically trained for, and because of your training, I expect more. However, I think we should look beyond mere fire arms training, because IMHO one of the weaknesses of training cops in the US is the overwhelming focus on the use of force. So the tool gets misapplied because cops aren't able to (because they haven't trained for) reading the situation correctly.

Personally, I think this goes beyond gun training you can expect of civilians, but you're right, the more training you have, the more I expect that you don't simply react and start shooting people just because you are panicking.

Absolutely - I agree. I was attempting to illustrate that a cops training in firearms alone is lacking, when they should be trained not only in firearms but use-of-force escalations up to and including the use of those firearms. The training seems to be below what many private citizens go through, which should be a wake up call for all of us that the cops in certain jurisdictions just need more/better training period.

I also happen to be of the mind that there should be minimum age for being a cop (exempted for military vets/ reserve members) of approximately 25 or so - or at least in a use-of-force decision making capacity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No prob

<aug 24>

Opening a garage door while black.

The gun isn't a pertinent detail? *
Only if there isn't open carry.

<aug 28>

If open carry is being given as a reason for why the officer was out of line...
I find the open carry only relevant as supplementary information. ***

* correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're suggesting the gun is supplementary information: it doesn't show that the officer is justified, but it might raise the question of whether the officer is partially justified.
*** now you're saying this has to be THE pivotal piece to tip the scales, or it's not what it says on the can. I don't think anyone suggested it was other than supplementary information, a rebuttal to other supplementary information like whether the officer can use the presence of a gun as a justification for being too quick to use his. In a state where guns are rare, the officer might be able to claim that the sight of a gun is enough to put him on edge (that's not his whole case, it's only supplementary). In an open carry state where guns are everywhere, the officer shouldn't be able to even try that excuse.

Thank you for clarifying!

Perhaps I misconstrued, but I understood the statement "opening a garage door while black" as presenting a case for the shooting being an example of racial bias.

Regardless, that was what I was questioning. Is the gun a pertinent detail to the determination of whether the finger can be pointed at racial bias?

If I'm understanding correctly, the statement "only if there isn't open carry" wasn't even intended to answer that question. It was intended to rebut the claim I supposedly made of the gun having relevance to the shooting's justifiability.

I wasn't making this claim. If this scenario is correct I feel a case can be made for me being confused by a sudden change of subject.

Likewise, am I mistaken in placing the goalposts for the gun's relevance to the question of racial bias differently than I place those for the gun's relevance to the justifiability of the shooting?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

My apologies. That should have been "restrictions on the use of deadly force to defend themselves".

A police officer should have more legal restrictions on the use of deadly force to defend themselves than an ordinary citizen.

But cops don't just defend themselves. I think you're trying to shoehorn the issue into a single, neat question, and I am not sure this is possible. Even if we could, I have the impression that you'd then continue by probing examples which are borderline and we'd argue one way or the other. I don't think this is the conversation to have. You might ask whether it is justified to shoot a teenager who holds what looks like a gun, but that presupposes that the question whether or not to have to shoot couldn't be avoided in the first place if the police officers had behaved differently.

I would start from the question: What do citizens want their police to be like? One of the premises which I would question is the question of “officer safety”, because to me there is an overemphasis on it. Just like we pay firemen to run into burning buildings, we pay police officers to take certain risks. Of course it is the public's job to equip police officers properly just like we issue flame retardant suits to firemen. For instance, properly trained police officers can disarm someone with a knife safely without injuring themselves or killing the wielder of the knife – this is a skill I would like every cop to have. It's an additional tool in his or her belt. I would not hold a civilian to the same standard, though, precisely because they lack this training. And of course, to link back to the discussion, I think cops are obligated to check whether an armed person is a threat or a civilian who makes use of his or her Second Amendment rights. Right now the American public is in support of having more weapons than people in their country, and this is a reality cops need to come to grips with. And we need to train cops to take the human element better into account, e. g. that people can freeze up when they are afraid (or in rare instances deaf) so that they don't always obey your commands. Expect that if you stop them at a gas station, and ask them for license and registration that they reach behind them to get their wallet. Don't pull the trigger because you are afraid this person might reach for a gun.

Of course, answering this question will cause tension because it goes against many “established” police procedures that have been engrained into the old guard (who tend to be the ones in charge) especially. But IMHO this is the discussion we need to have. There are plenty of good cops out there, and we need to give them more weight in the discussion. One of the ways we could give good cops more power is by doing a better job at holding bad cops accountable, i. e. if we catch them on film doing something bad (such as planting evidence), they should go to jail.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I also happen to be of the mind that there should be minimum age for being a cop (exempted for military vets/ reserve members) of approximately 25 or so - or at least in a use-of-force decision making capacity.

That's a very good idea, mental development isn't complete until you hit that age.