Shooting an unarmed man

So basically every once in a while recently there have been news stories where a cop shoots an unarmed man and there is a big outcry about how the man was unarmed and pretty much every media report mentions that the victim was unarmed, but as Thomas Sowell once pointed out in an article I read last year about the shooting in Ferguson, we know the person is armed after the fact, but in that moment the officer doesn't know that the other person is unarmed, so it's kind of a hindsight 20/20 thing or being a "Monday morning quarterback". Sowell related an incident where a man broke into his house, Sowell spotted the man and drew his gun on the man and the man ran off. Sowell said that to this day he doesn't know if the man was armed or not, he didn't wait to find out. In fact if Sowell had waited for the man to draw his weapon before Sowell drew his, Sowell might be dead.

Even bearing that in mind, aren't there some circumstances where an unarmed assailant still presents a threat to a person's life and it is justified to shoot the person.

For example if Kevin Ferguson (aka Kimbo Slice) was trying to seriously hurt or even kill Jesse Tyler Ferguson (an actor from Modern Family), would Jesse be justified in shooting even though Kimbo would be unarmed? You can't reasonably expect Jesse to be able to fight off Kimbo without using a weapon.

Or what about an old lady being attacked by a big young man (say someone about 250 pounds or so) breaking into her house, wouldn't she be justified in shooting him?

So basically what I'm saying is that some unarmed men can still be lethal threats, and people have the right to do what's necessary to protect themselves. Is it really fair for people to second guess police or civilians who use lethal force to defend themselves?

The problem is this society is too quick to blame the cop, despite the fact that we have about 450,000 cops in this country making about 12.5 million arrests per year and only 0.0009% result in the death of a suspect by shooting. That is not unarmed, that is ALL of them. Now take the small percentage of that which are unarmed, no stat i can find...but come on.... make it 50% if you want, which is outrageous and it still would be 0.004%. The true percentage is probably more like 1-3%....or 0.00001% - 0.00003% of arrests resulting in the death of the suspect by shooting.

Why is this even an issue?

@vfibsux: The media make a big deal when stuff like this happen and it seems that there is a lot of prejudice against cops in the U.S. for some reason. It's ridiculous, I remember hearing about some commentator who referred to the Ferguson police as "occupying" the city, as if they were some foreign army, not people who's job is to keep the trouble makers in line and the residents safe.

It really depends on the situation. Cops are usually better trained and better equipped to handle threats than an old lady. Plus in most encounter, the cops outnumber the threat so there are very very few scenarios where one police is in serious threat of injury or death. And police are taught to use an escalation of force, they should exhaust the less lethal options before going to lethal. Granted sometimes situation develops very quickly, and there might not be enough time go through every step of escalation of force, but studies on violent confrontations have found that majority of the time the victims sensed the threats and assailants will often times "telegraph" their intentions well before the actual assault.

Not saying it's the case in every police shooting, but sometimes the cops can just be too trigger happy or missed the sights.

yes context matters

The big problem is we get a 30 second cell phone clip and immediately every news source jumps on it, makes assumptions and then those assumptions become "fact" as more and more outlets pick up the story. It almost becomes like that game we use to play as kids where you would whisper into someones ear, then they would whispers into someone else's, then so on and so on until the original story is distorted or completely different then it originally was. The media likes to accuse without fact and it can often turn a bad situation worse. Most cops are good at what they do and respond to threats appropriately. Sure there are those who purposely discriminate and overreact to situations but it's certainly not as blown up as the media seems to portray it.

well they gotta cover that 24 hour news cycle

@whipassmt " Is it really fair for people to second guess police or civilians who use lethal force to defend themselves?"

What about civilians who use lethal force to defend themselves from armed police officers? Is it really fair for the courts to second guess their intentions? :-P

I'm not going to get into the whole debate over whether it's okay or not to shoot someone who is unarmed. Sometimes it is and I'll leave it at that.

The fact of the matter is that under the law we are given permission to use deadly force if we reasonably believe our life, or the life of somebody else, may be in danger. That means if I can make the argument that I thought I was about to die, I'm in the clear.

No cop wants to shoot a person. No cop wants to even draw their weapon. It's tragic when mistakes happen.

You guys need to remember that we're human just like you.

I don't know what's sadder, watching a man break down like that, or the comments.

These people call cops sociopathic murderers yet show no empathy themselves.

Here's the thing, cops are human just like rest of civilians but they are given much more leeway than ordinary citizens under most state law when it comes to deadly shootings. Regular civilians come under more scrutiny in instance of deadly force even if they REASONABLY believe their lives or the lives of someone else might be in danger at the time. In some states it's outright criminal regardless of self defense. Sure, you can make the essentially the same argument I had previously and say that police are better trained to handle these type of situations but that only further reinforce my point about the disparaity on how the law treats police shooting. Shouldn't there be more legal scrutiny precisely because of the fact that cops should be better trained so that these type of accidents or mistakes don't take place?

Also there's a separate issue of cops instinctively rationalizing or excusing actions of other cops. You claim no cop wants to shoot another person or draw their weapon. Really? Because I can't make that claim about every single people I know, much less the people that I don't. Cops are human which means they are flawed or capable of making mistakes. When they do, there shouldn't be any reason why they held less accountable than someone else who isn't a LEO.

Of course we're given more leeway. Unless you're standing in my shoes when something happens, you have no idea what prompted me to make the decision I did. Of course regular civilians come under more scrutiny: Most of them aren't given the same training I am. That's a state issue, not sure why you're bringing it up with me. There are always investigations after every shooting. Whether a DA decides to try and make a case is another matter entirely.

No there isn't. I've been very critical of police officers throughout the years on this forum. I, however, won't criticize somebody if I don't think they did anything wrong. You must know some fucked up people, then. There's not a cop in this country that wants the hassle of being involved in a deadly force incident. I see cops held accountable all of the time. Recently that ex-cop was indicted for shooting somebody in the back. That NYPD cop who shot the man in the stairwell is being held accountable as well. You should know better from being an SF. There is a reason why cops are given the benefit of the doubt.

"Unless you're standing in my shoes when something happens, you have no idea what prompted me to make the decision I did." Really, that can be an excuse for anyone for anything. It doesn't make any sense to me why civilians come under more scrutiny though. I would expect the better trained person to not make the same mistake as someone who isn't trained. Why would is the one with less excuse getting off the hook easier? That is indeed a state issue, and cops are state employees.

When you said emphatically that "No cop wants to shoot a person. No cop wants to even draw their weapon.", you're not exactly just keeping an unbiased mind; it's already made up as to the innocence of the cop whether it's true or not. And you must not been in the military for very long if you didn't met anyone whom you suspect wasn't right in the head. I would never ever claim that no soldiers joined up simply because they want to shoot people because some very well could have, I don't know EVERYONE in the military just like you don't know EVERY SINGLE cop.

I've seen many more cops escaping accountability:

http://www.today.com/id/19867423/ns/today-today_news/t/airman-mystified-verdict-clearing-deputy/#.VYxCNflViko

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/03/culpeper-cop-who-shot-and-killed-patrici

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-unaccountable-death-of-john-geer/2014/09/05/29d36d96-339a-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/nyregion/officer-in-hofstra-hostage-shooting-will-not-face-criminal-charges.html?_

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2014/feb/15/new-mexico-police-wont-face-criminal-charges-shoot/?print

In all of the above example, if the shooters weren't cops, they would have no doubt been prosecuted to the full extend of the law. But since they had badges, they either got a slap on a wrist or better yet, nothing at all.

Then change the laws if you don't like them. Or push for more accountability in the form of body cameras, like I've been doing and preaching. I wear my own personal body camera. Really? It makes perfect sense to me. Also, it's not exactly accurate that a civilian would be held to the same standards as a cop. Castle doctrine is pretty lenient with civilians in every state. The better trained person usually doesn't make a mistake. Not sure what them being state employees has to do with anything. You were talking about states and their different self defense standards.

I didn't emphatically say anything. I am keeping an unbiased mind. You're confused, I never rendered any judgment in this thread about a cop being innocent or guilty. Nor does my statement preclude me from coming to a conclusion, at a later time, that someone may or may not be in the wrong. We had **** ups, just like every other branch. I never served with a person who I considered fucked up in the head, though. Even if I concede your point, it doesn't change anything.

I've seen just as many cops being held accountable. I think you're a little brainwashed by the media, to be honest.

He certainly put on a good show for the dashcam. You see him striding confidently among his colleagues from about 0:30 to 0:43. Only when he's nicely framed in the dashcam's lens do the theatrics begin.

Lights! Dashcam! Action!

:-D

Except that you can hear him crying before he even appears on the dash cam.

True. It was silly, inept trolling on my part. I'm trying to break the habit! :-(

Shit had me in tears bless him. I must admit cops have a tough job especially in those situations, you have your own life to think about plus theirs.

The video after this one is pretty heavy also.

Wow. That was very big of you.

I don't make the law. The only thing I can do to affect a change is vote for local officials that promise more police oversight or reform which I do. I'm all for body cameras and it's good that you do it on your own volition, but there are plenty of LEOs that are against them for whatever reason. As long as it's not SOP or required, cops are free to spin the story however they like and courts are going to side with them most of the time. I don't have the actual statistics but I'm guessing it would show that courts are much more forgiving of police in shootings than civilians in SD shootings. That's generally the way the system works, and one would be incredibly naive to believe otherwise. You mentioned that it's a state issue and my point was police is a state entity; they are also the one actively influencing state courts policies on handling cop cases. So it's related. To clarify, I'm not arguing for courts to lax their prosecution of civy shooting cases to the standards which they used for police shootings, but rather for police shootings to be handled by the more strict legal standards and heavy sentences of civilian cases.

Nothing confusing or unclear about these statements: "No cop wants to shoot a person. No cop wants to even draw their weapon. It's tragic when mistakes happen." If I paraphrase your statements and claim that "no man wants to kill another person. It's tragic when mistakes happen." I'm essentially saying that every killing is unintentional and accidental in nature. And we all know that's bullshit. I don't know what your military experience was like or how long you've served. I have 7 years (3 enlisted and 4 commissioned) and I have served in joint roles with all branches. I come from a big military family. So I have good understanding of what it means to serve and a good amount of respect for everyone serving or who has served but realistically speaking, vouching for everyone you ever met in the military? **** no. And there's more of command oversight in the military than police. Plus institutionalized racism is much more of an issue with police than in the military.

And I think you're more than a little biased, the difference is it makes sense for you to be, given your association with the police. Look, I'm in no way saying that every cop is a murderous psycho. Some like yourself, are trying to do right. But others are simply bullies and thugs with badges. A lot of my opinion isn't from the media; reports only goes to reinforce what I've personally experienced. Being in the military I've been all around the US. Some are respectful and even down right friendly especially toward military members, but some are high on their own authority especially in area where there's little or no civilian oversight. What's surprising to me is how some cops can be blatantly racist in an area that's fairly liberal and diverse. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that's a universal truth. It frustrates me particularly when the good condone or rationalize the bad simply because they belong to the same organization. This feed the whole us (cops) vs them (civilians) bullshit.

The media wants click bait and controversy sells.

Your rationale reveals a distorted conception of the profession of policeman. Essentially, the unjustified death of a suspect is a serious matter that should remain an isolated occurrence, yet it happens often in the U.S. That reveals a distortion in the code of conduct of these policemen; they don't understand the hazards of the profession, but instead, they feel they're a side in a confrontation and they must protect themselves at all cost. That's not the case; as a policeman you voluntarily signed up for the police corps to serve and protect as a professional. You may be motivated by a sense of duty or a desire to help, but you receive a wage for the job you do and you're a part of bureaucracy. Part of that professionalism is accepting the hazards of your profession instead of resorting to excessive and preemptive force. You're expected to restrain yourself and be circumspect of all possibilities, even if that puts you at risk. If you're can't afford that then don't join the police force - find another, more timid career.

Also, it's safe to say that for every unjustified death of a suspect, there are dozens of unjustified wounded suspects and hundreds of unjustified mistreatment of suspects. So while the numbers of dead suspects don't directly point to police brutality, the reality they reflect does.

You make some really good points. I feel the root of the issue is that some cops feel and act like they reign over civilians rather than a public servant as their job implies. And sometimes the local government just treat their police force like tax collectors.

When I first watched the video, it was with the sound turned way down so that I couldn't hear it properly. When I watched it again with headphones, it had a very different effect on me. :-(

if you really don't want to shoot anyone, or draw your weapon, you won't put yourself in a position to begin with, where you may have to do exactly that at some point, 5 days a week, 8-12 hours a day (not counting possible off-duty incidents)

the logic is pretty straightforward

i'm not saying cops want to shoot people per se, i'm just saying they're accepting of the fact that they may very well have to shoot people. In that token, you can't say they don't want to shoot people.

You lot are certainly human. That's not saying much though, from an ethical standpoint. (x

Especially when humans are so easily corrupted when given a bit of authority. Yeah, I don't think he realize that particular statement about cops being human was a double edge sword so to speak.

Just because I don't want to shoot anyone doesn't mean I won't if my life, or the life of somebody else, is put in jeopardy. So you're incorrect in your characterization of me.

Not sure what you're trying to infer with your last statement. You don't really know any of my ethics.

No where in my contract does it say I'm required to give my life in the performance of my duties.

I think you're confused with how you think police officers should act and how the real world actually works.

Some people* are easily corrupted when given a bit of authority. As you have previously pointed out, you can't speak for everyone.

A bit defensive there.

I don't think he's question your ethics but simply addressing the point you were making by reminding us that police are human beings. Weren't you were trying say that all human feel empathy toward each other in a way? I think he was just pointing out that humans don't necessarily have qualms about killing one another as a counter point.

Of course.

Difference is I didn't say EVERY human is easily corrupted.

This coming from a guy who claims no cop want to draw their weapons or shoot another person? Rather ironic no? Me think he isn't the only one confusing how they think cop should act and how the real world actually works.

I'm not defensive. I'm pointing out facts.

He can answer himself as to what he meant with his last sentence.

You were vague. I corrected you.

I don't think you know what the definition of ironic is. Furthermore, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Pretty hard to say what's confusing and what isn't when one can't even understand what you're trying to say.

@airshocker: I would argue that some is as vague as not saying anything.

Again, defensive.

That what is as vague as not saying anything? You're being so vague that you're obfuscating. It's making it extremely difficult to talk to you.

Deadly force should be repelled by deadly force. A weapon need not be present for a human being to kill another.

However, there are plenty of instances where a taser, or similar subduing device is more suitable for the situation.

Not really. Just don't understand why you would respond to a post that wasn't directed at you.

Am I supposed to not respond to you when you say something to me? I don't see how it's conducive to a good discussion when all you say is I'm being defensive. I'm actually not even entirely sure what the point is of saying that someone is defensive. Other than to simply act childish and not address the statements that person is making.

So stop, it's a free country last I checked.

Or you could be clear and we could continue. Unless you're just playing childish forum games for the lulz.

Just because you obtuse to see the irony of what you are accuse that poster of and what you claim earlier. Your idea of how cops should be is the reason you claim that no cops would ever want to draw or fire their weapons at another person; that's not "how the real world actually works". There are cops who are trigger happy and do want to shoot another person. So in a sense, you are just as confused about the difference as the person you are accusing.

And I don't understand why you would have an issue with someone responding to a post that wasn't directed to them.

Would have the same reaction if the post is supportive of your points and position? Your reaction is pretty defensive to me.

You're calling me obtuse when you can't even be bothered to clarify what it is you post? LOL.

We're not talking about what I previously said to you and then conceded. Re-read the post. The difference is, now I have the facts on my side: No where in my contract does it say I'm required to give up my life. So no, I'm not as confused as GazaAli.

LOL in my dreams. Not even close when it comes to US cops. With our cops, it's all rights, no responsibilities - to the citizen/suspect, that is. Did you read that Amnesty story? US police don't even come close to the level of conduct of cops in comparable countries.

Because you aren't BiancaDK. You don't know what he meant when he replied to me. So you trying to explain him is useless, especially when you've been showing an unwillingness to be clear yourself.

I don't care what you support. But you're doing a disservice to myself and the rest of this community by acting like a child. Nobody cares if my posts sound defensive to you. The only reason I even have to bring this up is because you're using that tag line as some kind of excuse to not address what it is I'm saying. That's in extremely poor taste.

Since no one asked me to clarify what I meant, I can only assume the issue is your ability to comprehend my post.

Also what you said wasn't said just to me. And you conceded what? I'm still not see the difference, there are cops who wanted to draw and fire their weapons at other people, that's a fact as well.