By screaming and using obscenities the officer showed lack of proper training. Also in such a high crime area shouldn't he have had a partner with him, or at least called for back up?
20
While I think I understand your point of view, I think it might be instructive for you to "ride along" in a police car for a couple of weeks. Also, I suggest that you read a little more; try The New Centurions, by Joseph Wambaugh, or Target Blue (I don't have author's name at present).
4
I am a 67=year-old white guy. I know my Constitutional rights. These stories have had a chilling effect on my willingness to exercise my rights when ordered by a police officer to do what I know to be un-Constitutional for fear of being dragged from my car, having the side of my head kneeled on, handcuffed and placed in the back or a cruiser.
23
Why do police officers have to look so mean. With their military haircuts and dark glasses and the ever present glare. Loosen up, smile and things may go your way.
20
We read: 'In that [first fatal shooting by the same officer] case, another officer testified that Morrison said, “I know you have a gun!” and “I will shoot you.”' Now, imagine you are sitting in a car. You are unarmed. Someone points a gun at you and says what Officer Morrison said. What are your options? He KNOWS you have a gun, and he WILL shoot you.
After every incident in which a cop kills an unarmed citizen, the police department should conduct a formal analysis and recommend changes in procedure to prevent recurrences. In the U.S. it is the exact opposite; an amazingly high proportion of these killings are perpetrated by cops with deadly records.
After every incident in which a cop kills an unarmed citizen, the police department should conduct a formal analysis and recommend changes in procedure to prevent recurrences. In the U.S. it is the exact opposite; an amazingly high proportion of these killings are perpetrated by cops with deadly records.
20
Ultimately, these cops are guilty of cowardice.
They are so afraid of death and injury that they are willing to kill at the slightest risk of harm, even if the risk is unjustified on rational grounds.
If they encounter a car with an uncooperative person, but see no sign of a weapon, then the risk of death is relatively small, compared to the certainty of killing a human in a potentially misguided act of pre-emptive self-defense.
In other words, to avoid a 1% chance of dying, the cop chose to kill another human with 100% certainty.
This is cowardice.
They are so afraid of death and injury that they are willing to kill at the slightest risk of harm, even if the risk is unjustified on rational grounds.
If they encounter a car with an uncooperative person, but see no sign of a weapon, then the risk of death is relatively small, compared to the certainty of killing a human in a potentially misguided act of pre-emptive self-defense.
In other words, to avoid a 1% chance of dying, the cop chose to kill another human with 100% certainty.
This is cowardice.
31
Let us see you take the risk.
12
Should police wait until they are dead before firing? Should non-compliance with officers orders end in death, absolutely not. When there is doubt about who has a weapon what is Mr. Blows answer?
13
They should wait until there is a clear threat of death. An emotional fear of injury does not suffice.
The threshold for a cop being allowed to kill is the same as the threshold for you and me: there has to be a clear threat to our lives. A visible gun. A rush with a knife. And, yes, some cops will die if they wait for the necessary evidence. This is part of being a cop. They signed up for this. They don't have a license to kill at vaguely perceived threats.
Why did Morrison kill TWO unarmed men in the same manner? As the article says: In [the first] case, another officer testified that Morrison said, “I know you have a gun!” and “I will shoot you.” Morrison was also cleared by a jury of wrongdoing in that killing.
The threshold for a cop being allowed to kill is the same as the threshold for you and me: there has to be a clear threat to our lives. A visible gun. A rush with a knife. And, yes, some cops will die if they wait for the necessary evidence. This is part of being a cop. They signed up for this. They don't have a license to kill at vaguely perceived threats.
Why did Morrison kill TWO unarmed men in the same manner? As the article says: In [the first] case, another officer testified that Morrison said, “I know you have a gun!” and “I will shoot you.” Morrison was also cleared by a jury of wrongdoing in that killing.
33
I'm glad that you think you can tell a cop when he or she can use force to protect themselves. Using your logic, the criminals signed up for getting shot by being criminals and not listening automatically and doing what the cop said, when he said to do it. But, if I made that argument you'd yell some silly "hand up don't shoot" reply and feel sanctimonious about it.
All of society needs to understand: If you don't want to get shot by a cop, don't break the law. It's pretty simple. I don't see too many businessmen and women getting gunned down in the street by the police. I wonder why.
All of society needs to understand: If you don't want to get shot by a cop, don't break the law. It's pretty simple. I don't see too many businessmen and women getting gunned down in the street by the police. I wonder why.
6
Well, Daniel, they can always pull back and call for backup. But unfortunately the police are taught not to do that, either through direct training or from peer pressure - looking weak in front of their fellow officers.
6
I've intervened in many assaults. I have never walked away - except, to my everlasting shame, just once. I was running past the local Housing Commission when I saw a very rotund and stroppy Aboriginal woman strip off her shirt and start laying into her drunken husband. I asked the children, who were silently watching, if they wanted me to intervene. Nope - they shook their heads. Did they want me to phone the cops? Again they shook their heads. Had the aggressor been a male then I would have tackled him. But because it was the mother, and she was radiant with indignation, stripped to the waist and shining with perspiration, I baulked at grabbing her around her waist, especially with her children watching. I've never forgiven myself.
I am short, timid and cowardly. I am easily flustered and cannot think on my feet. I can't punch my way out of a wet paper bag. But excepting above, I have intervened on behalf of others, no matter what the cost to myself. I don't carry or use a weapon. I have no body armour or insurance. I belong to no extended family, clan or tribe. I have no legal protection other than that of the common man.
I do not rely upon the police nor any other to sort out what needs to be fixed. I do not subscribe to the concept of the 'expert'. We get the society we deserve. I have only contempt for those who walk past on the other side, who say we should leave law and order to the police, a burning house to the fire brigade, a person choking to the paramedics.
I am short, timid and cowardly. I am easily flustered and cannot think on my feet. I can't punch my way out of a wet paper bag. But excepting above, I have intervened on behalf of others, no matter what the cost to myself. I don't carry or use a weapon. I have no body armour or insurance. I belong to no extended family, clan or tribe. I have no legal protection other than that of the common man.
I do not rely upon the police nor any other to sort out what needs to be fixed. I do not subscribe to the concept of the 'expert'. We get the society we deserve. I have only contempt for those who walk past on the other side, who say we should leave law and order to the police, a burning house to the fire brigade, a person choking to the paramedics.
14
Great piece, nicely parsing out the many interwoven issues. Sadly I don't think we as a society are capable of having a legitimate "conversation" about these things to come to any real consensus.
In the case of the specific shooting, there is a platform for those issues to be worked out, a trial. I think in the case of a police officer shooting an unarmed citizen, with no clear evidence that it was legitimate (e.g., video showing the exact circumstances and actions by the citizen providing a justification for the shooting), it is perfectly reasonable to at least consider a trial. And when there is "probable cause" to believe a crime occurred (the Eric Garner case) then a trial should definitely happen.
But sadly, I think we'll just keep yelling at each other and not listening.
In the case of the specific shooting, there is a platform for those issues to be worked out, a trial. I think in the case of a police officer shooting an unarmed citizen, with no clear evidence that it was legitimate (e.g., video showing the exact circumstances and actions by the citizen providing a justification for the shooting), it is perfectly reasonable to at least consider a trial. And when there is "probable cause" to believe a crime occurred (the Eric Garner case) then a trial should definitely happen.
But sadly, I think we'll just keep yelling at each other and not listening.
11
It's both fortunate and regrettable that each of can't know what it's like during those split seconds of should I or shouldn't I shoot.
We have a local policeman who walked up to a stopped vehicle, his weapon holstered, and was shot to death. The same thing happened to the two officers in NYC.
Charles, without your ever having been caught up in such a moment, your answer is easy to give. Had you ever been so caught up, it might not have been such an easy call.
We have a local policeman who walked up to a stopped vehicle, his weapon holstered, and was shot to death. The same thing happened to the two officers in NYC.
Charles, without your ever having been caught up in such a moment, your answer is easy to give. Had you ever been so caught up, it might not have been such an easy call.
11
If you believe that Charles Blow said, in this piece, that it was an "easy call" then I think you seriously misread his analysis. Its not an easy call but "believing" you "know" someone has a gun when they actually do not, is self-deception and self-deception is a poor pretext for making very difficult, split second decisions when you are on patrol as a police officer. Its not easy but they have to do better in such an instance. Their job is to protect not kill.
14
This is ridiculous. I'm Italian-American --- uh, of European descent --- but in summer, if I'm out a lot, my complexion goes Mediterranean; should I worry about being mistaken for a Hispanic male, more liable to be jerked around by a hothead like Morrison --- who, on the video, uses an expletive in every sentence!!! Tears don't cut it after you've wrongly killed an unarmed person, regardless of race/ethnicity. Cops like this guy should either be banned or relegated to desk duty.
32
While it is true and sad that the gun culture makes policing (and living) frightening and difficult, there is also the issue of being paranoid, adolescent or trigger happy while policing. Darren Wilson's characterization of Michael Brown before the grand jury as a "monster" or "Hulk Hogan," and saying that he "felt like a child" indicate an immature person who should definitely not be carrying a gun. The trigger happy officer in this column, having killed an innocent civilian once, should have been removed and tried. If police had more reason to fear losing their jobs and going to jail for long periods for killings like this, these incidents wouldn't be happening. Meanwhile, resisting arrest and not doing what a cop says is a "Catch 22." I am sure Michael Brown thought that what would put HIS life in danger was to stay near Wilson.
8
When there is danger, paranoia is sane.
4
While entirely anecdotal, it appears in many of the police killings discussed in the media, the response taken by police is entirely disproportionate to the danger posed to them. In the present case, if the two police officers believed that the individuals were dangerous, why didn't they call reinforcements? Shooting three shots into a car with four people, only one of which isn't complying would appear to be an irresponsible decision that needlessly endangered the other occupants of the car.
In "high crime" areas especially, best practices are what keep officers and the public safe.
In "high crime" areas especially, best practices are what keep officers and the public safe.
8
Comply with police commands - period. Oh, and don't use drugs and get agressive.
14
"Comply with police commands"
Do the citizens work for the police, or do the police work for the citizens?
Do the citizens work for the police, or do the police work for the citizens?
9
Obeying is not work.
4
All this argument is, at the end, about to give up the citizens right to life to me is a monstrosity coming from a american person the idea that cops are exempt of any criminal wrongdoing when they kill by any other reason than self defense or imperfect self defense-the inminent protection of another person's life-. Justifying murder, manslaughter , homicide by the reason of kaw enforcement job held by the criminal is equal to those extremists that kill in the name of their Prophet. First we gave up our right to liberty allowing government invasion of our privacy, then they took our homes in the mortgages crisis using the justice system to mock our right to property, now they ask us to give up our right to life..
5
Dear mr. Charles Blow,
I've caught you in a rare mistake. Police work is NOT all that risky given the fact that in 2013, overall just 110 officers died, of which 27 through criminals shooting back. The rest died because of heart failure, car accidents etc.
And this number is falling and is the lowest in 100 years or so.
Please remember that citizens killed by cops number over 400, so that means that every day an American is killed by cops . More than one per day.
The study is an FBI study.
www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2013-preliminary-s...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/law-enforcement-dea...
A big factor is culture. Cops in Canada, UK, Germany kill FAR LESS when adjusted for population size. In the UK it was zero last year. But US cops are told when in training that they are "special/chosen" people who indeed deserve MORE to make home than civilians. They are also indoctrinated (like everyone) that blacks and latinos are dangerous and that a shoot first, talk never attitude when dealing with blacks and latinos is a moral and just one. Blacks have been demonized by the media for decades, latinos as well.
I've caught you in a rare mistake. Police work is NOT all that risky given the fact that in 2013, overall just 110 officers died, of which 27 through criminals shooting back. The rest died because of heart failure, car accidents etc.
And this number is falling and is the lowest in 100 years or so.
Please remember that citizens killed by cops number over 400, so that means that every day an American is killed by cops . More than one per day.
The study is an FBI study.
www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2013-preliminary-s...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/law-enforcement-dea...
A big factor is culture. Cops in Canada, UK, Germany kill FAR LESS when adjusted for population size. In the UK it was zero last year. But US cops are told when in training that they are "special/chosen" people who indeed deserve MORE to make home than civilians. They are also indoctrinated (like everyone) that blacks and latinos are dangerous and that a shoot first, talk never attitude when dealing with blacks and latinos is a moral and just one. Blacks have been demonized by the media for decades, latinos as well.
15
Both men in Morrison were high on Methamphetamine. There is a direct link between use of this drug and violence.
A person does not have to be armed to be dangerous.
Neither man was "punished" for his actions (or inaction), but died as a consequence thereof.
It is interesting that Mr. Blow neglects to mention the race of Jason James Shaw.
Why did he omit such an important fact in column that focuses on the role racial bias might play in police killings?
A person does not have to be armed to be dangerous.
Neither man was "punished" for his actions (or inaction), but died as a consequence thereof.
It is interesting that Mr. Blow neglects to mention the race of Jason James Shaw.
Why did he omit such an important fact in column that focuses on the role racial bias might play in police killings?
10
He was Caucasian and in addition to an abdominal wound which caused fatal internal bleeding he had a lethal dose of methamphetamine in his blood.
3
What is missing here is balance. Nobody seems to care enough to dissect why a thug or criminal or distraught person kills a police officer. The weekend after Michael Brown was shot, the police chief of a small town near us was killed by a kid he was serving a warrant on. The kid pulled a gun and shot him point-blank. This was only news locally, statewide, and a brief blip on CNN because he was a police chief. A year ago, one of my city's officers was killed by armed robbers he was pursuing. I don't think any national news source bothered to write about it. Or dissect it. No one rioted or wondered about injustice. But they would have if the cop had killed the robbers. These are two of many across the country. The two NY officers who were ambushed made national attention because of the circumstances, but that is usually not the case. When a black kills a white or a Latino, whether he kills a cop or a civilian, we don't rush in with racist overtones. It is just a crime and we even minimize that he was black. White and Latino lives matter too. And so do police officers of all color. It's about time we give the police some leeway because they, not us, could easily be killed. They might make mistakes. They might in some cases be responsible, but most are simply trying to stay alive, dealing with dopers, thugs, gangs, the mentally ill, and criminals. Most, even if they kill someone armed who tried to shoot them, must now answer to the whole country. For shame.
18
We give the police far too much leeway when we allow easily enraged and emotionally unstable people to remain on the police force because they tell us they felt "afraid" in a particular situation.
I'm not sure why you are saying "for shame." Is it because we hold police officers to a higher standard than criminals? Are you saying we shouldn't? Are you saying that if somebody proves himself to be easily angered or frightened -- and if he shoots first before examining the situation, and unarmed people end up dead -- he should continue to be a cop, just because you feel sorry for him and figure he meant well?
Would you allow a nanny who shook a baby to death to continue to be a nanny because, hey, she didn't mean to kill the baby, she just overreacted? Or is it just the killing of unarmed young black men that you're okay with?
For shame indeed.
I'm not sure why you are saying "for shame." Is it because we hold police officers to a higher standard than criminals? Are you saying we shouldn't? Are you saying that if somebody proves himself to be easily angered or frightened -- and if he shoots first before examining the situation, and unarmed people end up dead -- he should continue to be a cop, just because you feel sorry for him and figure he meant well?
Would you allow a nanny who shook a baby to death to continue to be a nanny because, hey, she didn't mean to kill the baby, she just overreacted? Or is it just the killing of unarmed young black men that you're okay with?
For shame indeed.
4
There is no issue with "balance" as you suggest. The fact that police officers are shot is part of the larger issue of crime in general, which is well covered, and nobody can reasonably suggest that every murder should get national attention.
The stories getting greater attention now are questionable (or flat-out wrongful) shootings BY police of unarmed citizens. There are probably also a lot of legitimate shootings by police which also aren't getting coverage - there isn't enough time in the day.
The stories getting greater attention now are questionable (or flat-out wrongful) shootings BY police of unarmed citizens. There are probably also a lot of legitimate shootings by police which also aren't getting coverage - there isn't enough time in the day.
3
Darlene,
I think you are missing the point. Firstly, the situations you proferred require no dissecting. Crimes were committed. I highly, highly doubt either of the scenarios you mentioned failed to result in a grand jury indictment on the shooters. Secondly, I think Mr. Blow is noting that there is some leeway that should be afforded to police officers given the circumstances of the position they are in. He also appears to be noting that in many instances, even unreasonable force is likely the result of understandable motives.
I think the position that someone who is entrusted with the ability to exercise deadly force, and is provided greater leeway than the average citizen, should not be subject to scrutiny is rather indefensible. Who is to protect us from our protectors? Of course these incidents are the exception, rather than the rule, in our country, but every government power must have some check or balance to prevent corruption.
I think you are missing the point. Firstly, the situations you proferred require no dissecting. Crimes were committed. I highly, highly doubt either of the scenarios you mentioned failed to result in a grand jury indictment on the shooters. Secondly, I think Mr. Blow is noting that there is some leeway that should be afforded to police officers given the circumstances of the position they are in. He also appears to be noting that in many instances, even unreasonable force is likely the result of understandable motives.
I think the position that someone who is entrusted with the ability to exercise deadly force, and is provided greater leeway than the average citizen, should not be subject to scrutiny is rather indefensible. Who is to protect us from our protectors? Of course these incidents are the exception, rather than the rule, in our country, but every government power must have some check or balance to prevent corruption.
3
Deadly force is not represented well in our entertainment mass media which is how most people experience it's depiction. Normal people who kill others suffer because of it for a very long time afterwards. Most police officers who shoot someone in the line of duty tend to find another job within a few years afterwards. A person must have a very strong sense of being justified in having used deadly force to not be seriously disturbed. Those who kill without conscience are not normal people.
Must police officers know whether a person under the influence of drugs who move in a manner which might indicate reaching for a weapon is actually reaching for a weapon or is fumbling around before they act? Why would anyone expect such a thing? Is there a reason that police officers might be more concerned about bad acts than good ones and so be more inclined to be wary of bad intentions than to assume good ones? Can you tell what people's intentions are by their expressions or is that a big problem with those most likely to commit crimes because they have no consciences? When a confrontation occurs, should officers avoid acting before suspects actions are fully realized to remove all concerns about overreactions? Remember, the officers who overreact without any reason are very few, mostly the apparent overreaction is trying to keep control of the situation by acting in time to prevent an escalation of violence.
Where race alone is associated with threats, that's a big problem.
Must police officers know whether a person under the influence of drugs who move in a manner which might indicate reaching for a weapon is actually reaching for a weapon or is fumbling around before they act? Why would anyone expect such a thing? Is there a reason that police officers might be more concerned about bad acts than good ones and so be more inclined to be wary of bad intentions than to assume good ones? Can you tell what people's intentions are by their expressions or is that a big problem with those most likely to commit crimes because they have no consciences? When a confrontation occurs, should officers avoid acting before suspects actions are fully realized to remove all concerns about overreactions? Remember, the officers who overreact without any reason are very few, mostly the apparent overreaction is trying to keep control of the situation by acting in time to prevent an escalation of violence.
Where race alone is associated with threats, that's a big problem.
Police work is sometimes difficult and often dangerous, we know that. To what extent is hard to imagine unless you've worn a uniform. Most police officers have good intentions, unfortunately, some do not. Those officers who are proven not to be fit to serve, which is a privilege, should be terminated from law enforcement, they should not remain in uniform.
That is the least that we citizens should expect.
That is the least that we citizens should expect.
6
Power corrupts! Absolute power of one individual over another corrupts absolutely. Are all cops bad? Yes. Not because of who they are but because of what we have them do on our behalf. And as the principal is responsible for the tortious acts of his agent in the course of the agent's duties, we are responsible and corrupted by our reliance on police violence for our so-called security. It requires thinking outside the box to see they are alternatives.
6
Ned: You make valid points. Unfortunately most (it seems) really don't care as long as it isn't happening to them and is associated with "those others". Any police shooting death of an unarmed individuals is viewed through the lens of "criminality", that is- the person HAD to be doing "something" BAD otherwise they wouldn't have been shot. The common sentiment is; YOU Must Comply or Die- is a sad commentary on today's America. When officers believe than "disobeying" any command including hurling profanities at someone and shooting fractions-of-a-second later- preventing an individual to even have the ability to respond to a command.. we have a problem. When we cannot distinguish a "guy" from a 12 yr old child; when we no longer treat segments of our society as human beings- merely suspects and subjects- we are in trouble. We hold military personnel more accountable in combat mode than we hold civilian police-WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
4
All the comments about turning policemen into ninjas are very naïve. I never lost a fight in hand-to-hand combat between 16 and retirement. I almost got myself killed trying to disarm a knife wielding assailant, unsuccessfully, though. It's not as easy as Chuck Norris makes it appear in the staged fights in the movies. Sure there might be a very few police officers who could be karate-trained to fight at the Chuck Norris level, but even they'd be taking a serious risk to fight hand-to-hand with an armed assailant.
8
Last night my neighbor gave me a look that could kill. Am Inlegally immune if I blow him away. Shooting someone because they don't put their hands up fast enough is just plain mean and psychopathic. What have we the people become if we allow this type of behavior to go without punishment? Are we all insane?
9
I've never understood why the police departments do not have some type of rotational system, where police can rotate from high-crime areas, to less stressful locations on some scheduled basis. What was not clear in this article, was the officer following proper procedures (for a traffic stop, etc.) with this incident. The procedures were developed and put in place for a reason. Just thinking...
2
Dan,
There's a lot of value to having police officers known and trusted in the communities they're policing. They're much more valuable as a community partner, someone who's there every day, talking, caring, sometimes crying, then they are as a stranger who shows up for a month to arrest family members and friends.
There's a lot of value to having police officers known and trusted in the communities they're policing. They're much more valuable as a community partner, someone who's there every day, talking, caring, sometimes crying, then they are as a stranger who shows up for a month to arrest family members and friends.
It would seem that poorly self controlled, even violent individuals might just seek out police work in the same way some way some pedophiles became priests. To the church's credit they finally, after only a couple of centuries, are beginning to recognize and address their problem. But, until the police even admit the possibility that their killing of an unarmed person is bad or stupid policing, and then carte blanche is given by their departments, the courts and the government to their police officers when they do so, nothing will change. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of such injustice might well be more horrendous random murders of police officers who only want to do a good job and then go home at night to their families and friends. Hey, don't blame me, I'm just another Cassandra endowed with the gift of prophecy but fated never to be believed! It's up to the police departments, our legal system and government to change and thereby change my prophecy.
4
>>Morrison reportedly says of when he shot Ramirez, “I knew in that moment, which later was determined to be untrue, but I knew in that moment that he was reaching for a gun.” He continues, “I couldn’t take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up.” <<
The complete illogic of all of this is in this one statement. How could he say, "I knew he was reaching for a gun" - when in fact there was no gun. This statement got him off? It would get a civilian mocked in court... and found guilty. The law does not allow for idiocy.
He "knew" what? What he "Knew" was wrong! How he can state something like this, with a stunning fail in logic as well as practical sense, and still walk away? "Cop making dumb decision" should get a cop fired and up on charges. Such accountability is par for the course for every other profession.
What if Ramirez had dreams for his life, or a son he wanted to see grow up?
The complete illogic of all of this is in this one statement. How could he say, "I knew he was reaching for a gun" - when in fact there was no gun. This statement got him off? It would get a civilian mocked in court... and found guilty. The law does not allow for idiocy.
He "knew" what? What he "Knew" was wrong! How he can state something like this, with a stunning fail in logic as well as practical sense, and still walk away? "Cop making dumb decision" should get a cop fired and up on charges. Such accountability is par for the course for every other profession.
What if Ramirez had dreams for his life, or a son he wanted to see grow up?
11
Today in Boston two groups of people, pan Asian, non-black and LGBT activists shut down a major freeway during rush hour, both directions. Looking over the comments they are being generally vilified and sometimes close to threatened. 17 werre arrested. As a white woman involved in racist issues and civil rights issues with social justice I applaud the demonstrators action in that they drew attention to the scope of Blak Live Matter but am troubled by the hostility among their peers(racially).
This topic needs to move into general conversation. Police training matters. How long does it take to become a poice officer? In many if not most places it is 6 months. ertainly a longer and more nuanced training seems needed to change the culture of fear. We all need to deal with racial isolation. Can we loo arund at our schools, our faith communities, our political and business organizations and start demanding change? Yes, the persistent, generally polite but still strong demand for change? If that does not work then boycotts? Those who pay attention know the statistics, the realities.
The people in Boston had the courage today to do the best thing they could figure out to do to draw attention to the situation. I find myself wondering how much news coverage this is going to get nationally or internationally. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/01/15/protesters-shu...
This topic needs to move into general conversation. Police training matters. How long does it take to become a poice officer? In many if not most places it is 6 months. ertainly a longer and more nuanced training seems needed to change the culture of fear. We all need to deal with racial isolation. Can we loo arund at our schools, our faith communities, our political and business organizations and start demanding change? Yes, the persistent, generally polite but still strong demand for change? If that does not work then boycotts? Those who pay attention know the statistics, the realities.
The people in Boston had the courage today to do the best thing they could figure out to do to draw attention to the situation. I find myself wondering how much news coverage this is going to get nationally or internationally. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/01/15/protesters-shu...
3
I generally support almost all public protest, and feel that far too few of our citizens voice their grievences in the public arena. I also understand the frustration with the lack of political action taken in response to peaceful protests. However, the disrupton of traffic on major atreries is a real public safety problem, and this form of proyest
It's good for white people in boston to protest the culture of fear, but bad for white people in NYC to protest a culture of fear? We so soundly condemn the NYC police for protesting, and there is certainly a culture of fear; they've buried many of their own.
1
As a citizen, I appreciate all that law enforcement officers do to protect us.
What I am having trouble with are several things: (1) The belief that their actions are infallible and beyond reproach, (2) all their instructions must be unquestioningly obeyed in all circumstances, (3) their lives are more precious than those of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect. So, it is okay to shoot first and ask questions later. It is true that cops do a very dangerous job, and deserve our gratitude, but I think the pendulum has swung a little bit too far towards obsequiousness, and hero worship. As human beings--including those wearing a police uniform--we all need proper oversight--especially when that person is permitted to use deadly force.
What I am having trouble with are several things: (1) The belief that their actions are infallible and beyond reproach, (2) all their instructions must be unquestioningly obeyed in all circumstances, (3) their lives are more precious than those of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect. So, it is okay to shoot first and ask questions later. It is true that cops do a very dangerous job, and deserve our gratitude, but I think the pendulum has swung a little bit too far towards obsequiousness, and hero worship. As human beings--including those wearing a police uniform--we all need proper oversight--especially when that person is permitted to use deadly force.
12
(1) The belief that their actions are infallible and beyond reproach,
(2) all their instructions must be unquestioningly obeyed in all circumstances, (3) their lives are more precious than those of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect.
Not a true statement to be found here.
(2) all their instructions must be unquestioningly obeyed in all circumstances, (3) their lives are more precious than those of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect.
Not a true statement to be found here.
1
100% spot on.
1
In all due respect, Mr. Blow -- and I sincerely do respect you -- I think it would be a wonderful thing if you would take a leave of absence from your computer keyboard for a period of at least three years, and become a police officer, and work in a mostly black high-crime area of a major U. S. city.
Make some traffic stops. Work with homicide detectives. Make some drug arrests.
Work as an honor guard at a few funerals of police officers killed in the line of duty. Comfort their widows and children.
By working on the front lines, so to speak, you can take to your fellow workers there a special kind of understanding of the big picture, of the special kind of way of appreciating the rights and sensitivities of suspects, of the special kind of way of thinking, feeling and acting in emergencies... that onlhy a person who has labored with words, on an electronic keyboard, can fully appreciate.
Make some traffic stops. Work with homicide detectives. Make some drug arrests.
Work as an honor guard at a few funerals of police officers killed in the line of duty. Comfort their widows and children.
By working on the front lines, so to speak, you can take to your fellow workers there a special kind of understanding of the big picture, of the special kind of way of appreciating the rights and sensitivities of suspects, of the special kind of way of thinking, feeling and acting in emergencies... that onlhy a person who has labored with words, on an electronic keyboard, can fully appreciate.
9
You want reporting. This is the opinion page.
You attempt to make "the complexity of deadly force" too complex. If you are the one wearing the uniform and confronting death, it is not complex - it is
simple. Just ask any GI who has faced an enemy in battle. You do not balance and consider and judge, you DO! The outcome is not always pretty, or what you would like, but those considerations come AFTER, not DURING.
simple. Just ask any GI who has faced an enemy in battle. You do not balance and consider and judge, you DO! The outcome is not always pretty, or what you would like, but those considerations come AFTER, not DURING.
10
Is there a difference between a police officer claiming " I thought he was reaching for a gun" and a "Stand your ground" situation where a citizen also "reasonably believes they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death"? Should "Stand your ground" states also be demanding the use of video cameras for ordinary citizens.
3
Regrettably, if present trends continue, some people will feel forced to "stand their ground" before LEOs. Even more regrettably, some of them may even be justified.
2
One of the core ironies in the current national conversation about police shootings is that the same people who have red faces and popping neck veins supporting the right of the police to shoot whoever seems to frighten them for one reason or another...
...are the very same people who are encouraging everybody to go about armed at all times and in all situations...
...which, of course, only heightens the fear that the next person you stop for an illegal lane change will have a gun in the car with them. Terrific!
...are the very same people who are encouraging everybody to go about armed at all times and in all situations...
...which, of course, only heightens the fear that the next person you stop for an illegal lane change will have a gun in the car with them. Terrific!
6
Well said, Mr. Blow. Additionally, incidents like this one are the reason that many large police departments, including Philadelphia's, attempt to broaden their officers' perspective by including in officer training specific instruction in how to handle the mentally ill or impaired (which includes those under the influence of intoxicants), because the tactics police customarily use to restrain mentally able citizens are often not effective.
3
If failure to comply with a shouted order is grounds for deadly force, deaf people in Billings will need to be very careful.
9
It's quite amazing to me that so many people here condone reflexive killing of unarmed people by the police.
We readily condemn practices in some Sharia-law countries where they chop off people's arms for petty robbery. But we are quite content to excuse frequent fatal police shootings here of unarmed people doing no more than arguing with police to assert their rights or taking a few seconds to comply with their order.
The grand juries that clear these officers of wrong doing are people like you and me. Therefore it's us that allow police brutality to continue. I'd almost say that a society deserves the police force it tolerates.
We readily condemn practices in some Sharia-law countries where they chop off people's arms for petty robbery. But we are quite content to excuse frequent fatal police shootings here of unarmed people doing no more than arguing with police to assert their rights or taking a few seconds to comply with their order.
The grand juries that clear these officers of wrong doing are people like you and me. Therefore it's us that allow police brutality to continue. I'd almost say that a society deserves the police force it tolerates.
8
The real problem is the courts, prosecutors and cops are all on the same team. therefore the cops hardly every are convicted so they can be more aggressive.
we need a 3d party to deal with these problems!
we need a 3d party to deal with these problems!
3
As Thich Nhat Hanh said in one of his talks, police and soldiers are taught that everyone is a possible enemy, that nobody can be trusted. That kind of conditioning leads to an aggressive, lethal kind of defensiveness bordering on paranoia - a readiness at every moment to attack a perceived enemy, often with little provocation or justification. Thus the world becomes unsafe for both the law enforcer and the public he/she is meant to protect.
2
The problem are not chokeholds but the man who used with intention to kill-regardles of his victim screams he can't breath-, the problem are not guns but the man who pulls the trigger to kill unarmed individuals, the problem are not the cops but the people who thonk all of them are the same, the problem are not killers working in law enforcement but those who allow them to be lawless, the problem is no the cop that kills but prosecutors that do not comply with their duties, judges that ignore the law and support criminal activity with their decisions, the problem is this society that make people think that those one that share their skin color are their "own people" and identify with them not matter is a criminal by the evidence and let them walk away. I hope they never have to confront one of those predators with or without uniform . It's not a matter of race but justice, concept that seems forgotten in this country.
1
I am 56 years old , never have problems with police not even a ticket but my crime was being a witness of bribe mining payments to the peruvian presidential family in salt lake city , utah the land of mormons abd mitt romney. The companies barrick gold corporation and newmont gold corporation hired a group of corrupt policemen to eliminate me and the persecution began in Utah ,washi.gton state , virginia , NEW YORK , florida. During more than four years i hace suffered the attacks and harrasement and violations of my civil rights for these corrupt policemen who have collected thousand and thousands of dollars doing this private job but using all the elements of Homeland security and the Patriotic act .
The first officer to send me a threat ( nick vicente ) said We will lose in the mountains if you talk.
I always keep my legal distance , when they ask other policemen to harrase me asking for my documents i complied , when they try to ashame me sitting me in a sidewalk with the arms in the back I complied , i knew that the corrupt policemen of slc were looking for an opportunity to shoot and collect and additional money from the mining companies. These policemen hacked my communications , bank accounts , etc and happened the same in every city i run away , and always the same group of policemen with the collaboration of the policemen . Like new york. Jose l. Fernandez. [email protected]
The first officer to send me a threat ( nick vicente ) said We will lose in the mountains if you talk.
I always keep my legal distance , when they ask other policemen to harrase me asking for my documents i complied , when they try to ashame me sitting me in a sidewalk with the arms in the back I complied , i knew that the corrupt policemen of slc were looking for an opportunity to shoot and collect and additional money from the mining companies. These policemen hacked my communications , bank accounts , etc and happened the same in every city i run away , and always the same group of policemen with the collaboration of the policemen . Like new york. Jose l. Fernandez. [email protected]
Police see the same people, day after day, doing the same things, day after day. Most of us never rub elbows with those people. In fact, until recently, I didn't even realize that they existed. I thought people were basically law abiding and truthful -- just like I am and almost 100% of my family, friends, and associates are. I honestly thought the cops were just out to "get" innocent people, that they had itchy trigger fingers, that the "criminals" answered questions truthfully and complied right away with the cop's requests. I now know differently. Given the people they deal with daily, now I'm actually surprised that more people aren't killed. Not only does it take far more bravery than most people have to be a cop, it also takes more patience. I, for one, am grateful.
3
This man seems to be too fearful of his life to be risking it as a police officer. Two people are now dead because of his baseless jitters. This isn't a certain assessment, of course -- he might instead be someone looking for opportunities to legally kill human beings, taking his shots where he feels he can justify them. Jack the Ripper killed hookers; Morrison kills methheads. Society doesn't care about the victims, so they let the killer run free to do it again.
That's a serious accusation, of course. Perhaps he's simply a coward. Will a third unarmed, nonviolent citizen die because we let a coward continue to roam the streets armed?
That's a serious accusation, of course. Perhaps he's simply a coward. Will a third unarmed, nonviolent citizen die because we let a coward continue to roam the streets armed?
9
I think I see the problem here. Morrison was not meting out punishment. He was performing his duties which in this case was apprehending people who were in fact criminals. Did either Shaw or Ramirez 'deserve to die?' Certainly not. But that is really not the issue in this particular instance.
Watch the video. The only choice the officers would have had would be to not stop this carload of people, or possibly they could have taken a single look and decided that they could not do their jobs without risking a deadly confrontation and got back in their cruiser and driven away.
Once they realized that their job required them to interview and possibly arrest one or more of the four occupants of the car the possibility of deadly force must be in their mind. As we are all aware from repeated stories in this very paper guns are everywhere and even a three year old can pull and discharge a single killing shot in an instant.
In the video we see Ramirez drop his hands toward his lap at least six times. We also know that the most common drug abused by our young people is Meth and that this drug causes a frenetic loss of self control. Further Morrison would have been trying to watch all four occupants and would be worried not only about himself but about his partner.
This was not an execution. It was a proportionate response in a very scary situation. This is a tragedy of Meth and unrestricted guns in our society, not an execution.
Watch the video. The only choice the officers would have had would be to not stop this carload of people, or possibly they could have taken a single look and decided that they could not do their jobs without risking a deadly confrontation and got back in their cruiser and driven away.
Once they realized that their job required them to interview and possibly arrest one or more of the four occupants of the car the possibility of deadly force must be in their mind. As we are all aware from repeated stories in this very paper guns are everywhere and even a three year old can pull and discharge a single killing shot in an instant.
In the video we see Ramirez drop his hands toward his lap at least six times. We also know that the most common drug abused by our young people is Meth and that this drug causes a frenetic loss of self control. Further Morrison would have been trying to watch all four occupants and would be worried not only about himself but about his partner.
This was not an execution. It was a proportionate response in a very scary situation. This is a tragedy of Meth and unrestricted guns in our society, not an execution.
7
Morrison should have called for backup, and pursued the subjects if necessary. His actions jeopardized the safety of many others besides the man he killed. If he is not evil, he is stupid, as are those who allowed him to continue as an LEO after the first killing. . And if he is not removed from police work forever and properly punished, those responsible are both evil and stupid.
5
Trials take years.
This column took hours to write.
Police officers have seconds to decide between life and death.
Philosophy of right and wrong is fine, but it can't be applied in the real world.
This column took hours to write.
Police officers have seconds to decide between life and death.
Philosophy of right and wrong is fine, but it can't be applied in the real world.
5
A conundrum. LEOs, who are given special authority, great immunity, and often effectively a license to kill, should be the best and most responsible persons, certainly better than two-time killers like Morrison. They should have sufficiently good character not to be warped by their experiences.
Unfortunately there are never enough philosopher-kings. Many of them would not and, frankly, should not be placed in the very dangerous situations that LEOs face. Nor would they accept the low pay and dismal working conditions. It's a crummy job in many ways, but an essential one. Many who accept this job are noble, others are not, and too few police themselves.
So what can be done? Training will help some, but its effect is limited. External controls seem to be the only alternative, despite the discomfort and potential danger they impose on LEOs - and the public. Otherwise, we can only await the arrival of a less racist and class-ridden society, and be careful in the meantime.
Unfortunately there are never enough philosopher-kings. Many of them would not and, frankly, should not be placed in the very dangerous situations that LEOs face. Nor would they accept the low pay and dismal working conditions. It's a crummy job in many ways, but an essential one. Many who accept this job are noble, others are not, and too few police themselves.
So what can be done? Training will help some, but its effect is limited. External controls seem to be the only alternative, despite the discomfort and potential danger they impose on LEOs - and the public. Otherwise, we can only await the arrival of a less racist and class-ridden society, and be careful in the meantime.
3
These are descendants of the police departments that overlooked thousands of killings in earlier times. The cops with slippery hands whom allowed the escape of killers of children at church, students on marches and kids walking home. Many cops were involved in premeditated beatings of students on voter registration in the sixties. These enforcers of the law receive honorable mention in Blackman's book, "Slavery by another name". We should expect the regular random killing of young Black men when we have members of Congress who make it their duty to derogate the President and his family along racist lines. Oppression and its companions are currently in the news with religion as a patina. There is a lot to be learned by people who lack the malignancy that drove Bull Connor, Thurmond, Wallace, Duke and many other leaders of racist America. The chickens are coming home.
5
So many of these accused cops are repeat offenders. In the Patrick Dorismond shooting (remember that one?) the cop, who had already had an assault charge against him and shot dead a neighbor's dog, killed the unarmed Dorismond after Dorismond got insulted when the undercover cop tried to buy drugs from him. The same officer, a few years later, was accused of ramming someone with his car and pulling a gun.
Same with the officer who killed poor Tamir Rice in Cleveland -- kicked off a suburban police force for being unstable before Cleveland hired him.
And look at that hero of the right, George Zimmerman, arrested yet again for assault this week. (He can add that to his crimes of assaulting a police officer, child molestation, and threatening a girlfriend with a gun.)
There are emotionally unstable people in all professions. The problem with the police force is that they don't get rid of those people, and the public doesn't help when they sympathetically let unstable officers off the hook again and again.
Ramirez would almost certainly be alive if Morrison had been removed from the force the first time he killed someone who was unarmed. If the police could admit that a few of their own are not infallible, we'd all have more sympathy for them.
Same with the officer who killed poor Tamir Rice in Cleveland -- kicked off a suburban police force for being unstable before Cleveland hired him.
And look at that hero of the right, George Zimmerman, arrested yet again for assault this week. (He can add that to his crimes of assaulting a police officer, child molestation, and threatening a girlfriend with a gun.)
There are emotionally unstable people in all professions. The problem with the police force is that they don't get rid of those people, and the public doesn't help when they sympathetically let unstable officers off the hook again and again.
Ramirez would almost certainly be alive if Morrison had been removed from the force the first time he killed someone who was unarmed. If the police could admit that a few of their own are not infallible, we'd all have more sympathy for them.
20
Let's face it. If you want to be a policeman it's important to know in advance that it is a peculiar job. The lack of skills and competence generate grim results. If you are worried about making it home to your family it is better to look for a position at the local USPS office.
12
WHY are we (This nation) allowing supposedly; Professional, highly trained individuals to kill individuals on the premise of a "thought"? "I thought he was going to pull a weapon..."? There must be a demand that there must be more than a 'thought' in order to use lethal force. We can no longer accept the false premise that police officers are in perpetual fear of their lives. This is a ridiculous assertion and seems to be codified in the entire mindset of civilian policing; it reeks of nothing but a departmental "cover" to absolve all police actions using deadly force and has been accepted by our culture as permissible. There is a big difference in being perpetually fearful and having a realistic appraisal of the inherent "danger" of a particular profession; lastly, would we as a society be accepting of Firefighters being constantly "fearful" of their lives every time they had to fight a fire to the point where they "refused" to do so- of course not. An airplane pilot in constant fear every time he took an aircraft "up in the air" because it is a mechanical devise flying 30,000 feet in the air- of course not. Any one who is in constant fear for their lives should not be in the occupation of a police officer as it becomes clear that individual is not competent enough to distinguish real fear from a perception of "what might happen" to the extent they cannot distinguish a reality in front of them- SHOOT FIRST AND ALWAYS FIRST then get absolved afterword - is insanity!
12
Well stated. The amazing thing is that this completely whacked logic gets a free pass from the Police brass, most Grand Juries, and many courts. The same DA who won't press charges on a trained police officer, is the exact same person who will do their level best to take down a citizen who shot and killed under far more compelling circumstances.
DAs want to be in good with the public for being tough on crime. Maybe it's time we let them know that being soft on killer cops is a career breaker. No cop who shoots in valid self defense for an event they did not escalate, should be in danger of losing their liberty, but cops who can't get it together and know what they are doing before they pull the trigger should not be on the job, and should pay for taking a life.
DAs want to be in good with the public for being tough on crime. Maybe it's time we let them know that being soft on killer cops is a career breaker. No cop who shoots in valid self defense for an event they did not escalate, should be in danger of losing their liberty, but cops who can't get it together and know what they are doing before they pull the trigger should not be on the job, and should pay for taking a life.
3
This is a very interesting column. I am a retired police officer and have two sons and a daughter-in-law who are police officers. As Mr. Blow states, this issue is not cut and dried. While we do not have the 'gun culture' in Canada that Mr. Blow refers to, the presence of firearms in vehicles has grown considerably since I retired.
The knowledge of the growing presence of firearms certainly has an effect on the perceptions of a police officer during the course of his/her duties. It cannot help but influence the decision making process, especially in tense situations.
Another influence is the experiences of the individual police officer in certain situations. This provides a basis for the decision making process, albeit a potentially negative one, depending on the situations. I suppose you could refer to it as 'economy of effort' in that you often make decisions based on previous experiences.
During my career, I came close to shooting two people, but didn't have to make the potentially fatal decision, something that I am thankful for. For the most part, police officers complete their service without having to do so.
Having been in this position, I think that while a police officer must be accountable for the decisions made, these situations are very involved, with many shades of grey. I applaud Mr. Blow for examining some of them.
The knowledge of the growing presence of firearms certainly has an effect on the perceptions of a police officer during the course of his/her duties. It cannot help but influence the decision making process, especially in tense situations.
Another influence is the experiences of the individual police officer in certain situations. This provides a basis for the decision making process, albeit a potentially negative one, depending on the situations. I suppose you could refer to it as 'economy of effort' in that you often make decisions based on previous experiences.
During my career, I came close to shooting two people, but didn't have to make the potentially fatal decision, something that I am thankful for. For the most part, police officers complete their service without having to do so.
Having been in this position, I think that while a police officer must be accountable for the decisions made, these situations are very involved, with many shades of grey. I applaud Mr. Blow for examining some of them.
14
Of course it's a high crime area.
One cop has murdered two unarmed people there.
One cop has murdered two unarmed people there.
12
If there are 4 men in a auto in a drug buyer frequented neighborhood who commit a traffic violation, should the police look the other way and not try to stop and cite the occupants of that auto?
Maybe if the people in the vehicle should not be stopped.
Why should traffic laws be enforced anyway?
If the individuals in the car do not show their hands when requested (ordered), what could be the reason for their refusal? I can only visual reasons that are concealing an illegal activity!
Maybe if the people in the vehicle should not be stopped.
Why should traffic laws be enforced anyway?
If the individuals in the car do not show their hands when requested (ordered), what could be the reason for their refusal? I can only visual reasons that are concealing an illegal activity!
3
Gerald, I guess you and I read different articles.
NOWHERE does this op-ed EVER say that the police should "look the other way."
Your response is an answer in search of a question.
Start over.
NOWHERE does this op-ed EVER say that the police should "look the other way."
Your response is an answer in search of a question.
Start over.
5
Standard procedure if you are stopped by a police officer:
While the officer is still in or exiting his vehicle, place your driver's license and registration on the dashboard in front of you, place your hands on the top of the steering wheel. Doing this will allow the approaching officer to see your hands and will prevent the need to reach for anything out of sight which could provoke a concern by the officer that you may be reaching for a weapon. Never move your hands from the officers sight.
Police officers, appropriately or not, are wary approaching a vehicle. Protect yourself from misunderstandings.
While the officer is still in or exiting his vehicle, place your driver's license and registration on the dashboard in front of you, place your hands on the top of the steering wheel. Doing this will allow the approaching officer to see your hands and will prevent the need to reach for anything out of sight which could provoke a concern by the officer that you may be reaching for a weapon. Never move your hands from the officers sight.
Police officers, appropriately or not, are wary approaching a vehicle. Protect yourself from misunderstandings.
8
Since I keep my driver's license in my jacket pocket and my registration in my car pocket, reaching for either or both of them while the officer approaches my car would be foolhardy to the point of stupidity. Since I am a 71 year old white female, I might get away with it; but if I was a 22 year old black male, I wouldn't do it for all the tea in China.
4
@ wyobserver - Tough to remember all that when you are high on methamphetamine.
3
This is all correct.
And it means that whenever we are in contact with a police officer, we are assumed to be criminals; and that we must accept that our lives are not exempt from the police officer's officer's judgment. Judge Dredd.
And it means that whenever we are in contact with a police officer, we are assumed to be criminals; and that we must accept that our lives are not exempt from the police officer's officer's judgment. Judge Dredd.
2
What police say in the aftermath of these terrrible shootings calls for more than legal scrutiny. The officer in this case said he wanted to see his son grow up. Other officers have made similar statements. Completely understandable. Perhaps even a sign that men are softening, becoming more "feminine." But should someone whose first thought & highest priority is their personal future pleasure in their children's growth be in a profession that requires putting their own life on the line. Other officers -- including one who wrote a column for the Times -- have said that just reading certain words made their blood pressure rise. Or that they thought they saw a gun, or sensed an imminent danger that was not there. Blood pressure issues sound right to me. Just look at the physical condition of many police. But should someone with blood pressure issues be allowed to carry a gun, let alone shoot to kill? In addition to a camera, police should also wear blood pressure monitors. And perhaps they should be required to sit through daily guided meditations that suggest compassion toward strangers as well as to themselves& their immediate families.
2
Fear conditioning is not becoming 'warped.' It is a natural self-preservation mechanism inherent in animal biology. We cannot fault police for becoming hypervigilant on duty.
3
Police officers have little to fear from the nations eight million holders of concealed carry permits. Their crime rate is much lower than the general population. Their incidents of violence directed at law enforcement is negligible.
I would not choose to work with officer Morrison as I do not believe he is competent after viewing the videos and reading the news accounts.
I would not choose to work with officer Morrison as I do not believe he is competent after viewing the videos and reading the news accounts.
6
You cannot "protect and serve" if you are too afraid of the people you are hired to SERVE, which includes taking the risk of dealing with people in a variety of disabled-thinking conditions... a lot. In this deranged age of the rise of the concealed carry state-of-mind, it is predictable we will see more of these sorry confrontations, with tragedy on both sides.
6
We are encroaching a Catch-22 of technology, Charles. The information available nowadays is such that anyone can play doctor, policeman, President, lone-wolf terrorist wannabes. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, but in this 20th century it is at its preconception phase. It's 20-20 now only in the minds of individuals, in the eyes of the beholder. But just knowing and learning the truth is not enough. Moving forward will take not hindsight, but a collective relationship to actually get things done, so that bad outcomes don't repeat themselves. It is collective in the sense that we must all agree, and it is a relationship because it requires action beyond the cognition in the confines of your skull. This is the illusory sales pitch of the Age of Information that includes live feeds, data, metrics, cameras. In the eye of the beholder, it is empowering, and one can live in the fantasy of an all mighty king. Power begets power and naturally is more abusive the more potent it becomes, and the first phase is always at the individual level, and perhaps explains the recent growth if individual extremism. As a society, where it stands currently, it actually fragments society and culture. There is no need to trust if you can only get the data you want to believe in to reassure yourselves and your convictions.
Let the doctor be, the teacher be, the policeman be. They are the "doers" of society. Their collective whole will correct most individual digressions, as it were for thousands of years.
Let the doctor be, the teacher be, the policeman be. They are the "doers" of society. Their collective whole will correct most individual digressions, as it were for thousands of years.
For heaven's sake, get that man off the police force, before he "just knows" that somebody else has a gun, and kills yet a third person.
8
The victim was reportedly high on an amount of meth that would kill most people. Even with the video we still don't know what exactly occurred in that car. I think I'll take the side of the cop on this one. Play with fire and you're going to get burned. Rather see an anti drug column for once.
8
An out of control, apparently unstable police officer who has now killed a second unarmed man. Despite the current grand jury finding (incredulous), it is inconceivable that this officer would be returned to duty as he purportedly was.
Policing is immensely difficult, some benefit of the doubt is deserved, but these kinds of incidents beg for much more from our justice system.
Policing is immensely difficult, some benefit of the doubt is deserved, but these kinds of incidents beg for much more from our justice system.
4
In the midst of all these cases the various police unions around the country should be the loudest voice for gun control. I imagine some have made public statements supporting various gun control legislation, but more is needed.
The NRA lobbyists prowl the legislative corridors like beasts on a trail. The more effective counterweight to their efforts could be police officers, off duty, but in uniform knocking on doors and having their picture taken with their representatives, as long as those representative support gun control. And for those that don't a simple statement saying senator so and so supports our police, but only to a limited degree.
The NRA has lots of bogus arguments about guns and freedom and lots of money to spread around. But they would have a hard time arguing with police who stand up and say that there are too many guns on the street and that is an unnecessary risk to officers lives and to the public.
Despite the differences that some protestors have with police tactics, I bet this is an issue where reformers and police officers could stand on common ground.
The NRA lobbyists prowl the legislative corridors like beasts on a trail. The more effective counterweight to their efforts could be police officers, off duty, but in uniform knocking on doors and having their picture taken with their representatives, as long as those representative support gun control. And for those that don't a simple statement saying senator so and so supports our police, but only to a limited degree.
The NRA has lots of bogus arguments about guns and freedom and lots of money to spread around. But they would have a hard time arguing with police who stand up and say that there are too many guns on the street and that is an unnecessary risk to officers lives and to the public.
Despite the differences that some protestors have with police tactics, I bet this is an issue where reformers and police officers could stand on common ground.
4
Thank you, Mr. Blow, for presenting a complex issue as such instead of in the simplistic terms of partisan politics. Unfortunately, you will now find yourself attacked by both sides.
3
We live in a culture which not only makes no effort to harness our instinct to react to any "threat" with violence but which positively celebrates it.
First,of course, there's the media filled as it is with people beating each other up in every way conceivable oftentimes with every conceivable type of weapon.
But, more significantly, there's also the tragic irony that the State is the prime purveyor of violence. And, more often than not, the State's violence seem in overwhelming excess to the actual threat (see, e.g., Iraq, Guantanamo, torture, solitary confinement, capital execution, our incarceration rates, our enabling of spooks, etc). Then, of course, there's the fact that for every "threat" we often go to "war" (ugh), whether it be a "war" against poverty or cancer or "terrorism" or drugs or crime or whatever. God, there are more than enough of our "leaders" who use the language of fear and hate against their political enemies (e.g., how often has the President been called "lawless" or some-such?).
Unfortunately, cop's killing citizens is but one tiny symptom of a society which is otherwise deeply diseased
First,of course, there's the media filled as it is with people beating each other up in every way conceivable oftentimes with every conceivable type of weapon.
But, more significantly, there's also the tragic irony that the State is the prime purveyor of violence. And, more often than not, the State's violence seem in overwhelming excess to the actual threat (see, e.g., Iraq, Guantanamo, torture, solitary confinement, capital execution, our incarceration rates, our enabling of spooks, etc). Then, of course, there's the fact that for every "threat" we often go to "war" (ugh), whether it be a "war" against poverty or cancer or "terrorism" or drugs or crime or whatever. God, there are more than enough of our "leaders" who use the language of fear and hate against their political enemies (e.g., how often has the President been called "lawless" or some-such?).
Unfortunately, cop's killing citizens is but one tiny symptom of a society which is otherwise deeply diseased
4
The Mormon Law firm defending the Police Officer in Ferguson used terms like "grunting" and "animal" to describe the man he shot. Mormons know what works.
1
I'm certain that cost is a factor and my suggestion is not a panacea, nor a guarantee (see Eric Garner) of avioding a fatal outcome, but I think it's foolish to send a police officer into potentially dangerous situations alone.
Either the officer has a partner ride with them or ,before engaging with citizens in traffic stops,he/ she enlist the support of a secondary officer.
The Ramirez incident is a perfect example where backup is essential. Four men against one officer who is frightened and trigger happy surely escalated a manageable situation into a tragic, senseless fatality.
In my blue collar occupation, I routinely seek aid from colleagues for borderline tasks that I could likely handle solo but with assistance from a coworker are made significantly safer. One could deem I'm taking a colleague away from other productive work elsewhere ,but if I'm hurt , or equipment is damaged, then costs rampantly escalate.
Replace my duties on a printing press with a police officer's potentially deadly encounters with civilians and it seem to me it's much more prudent, sensible and cost efficient for law enforcement to solicit help from fellow officers as a matter of standard operating procedure.
The pulled over vehicle can wait until the officer obtains sufficient backup. And if the vehicle tries to flee, rest assured the police will flock as bees to honey.
Either the officer has a partner ride with them or ,before engaging with citizens in traffic stops,he/ she enlist the support of a secondary officer.
The Ramirez incident is a perfect example where backup is essential. Four men against one officer who is frightened and trigger happy surely escalated a manageable situation into a tragic, senseless fatality.
In my blue collar occupation, I routinely seek aid from colleagues for borderline tasks that I could likely handle solo but with assistance from a coworker are made significantly safer. One could deem I'm taking a colleague away from other productive work elsewhere ,but if I'm hurt , or equipment is damaged, then costs rampantly escalate.
Replace my duties on a printing press with a police officer's potentially deadly encounters with civilians and it seem to me it's much more prudent, sensible and cost efficient for law enforcement to solicit help from fellow officers as a matter of standard operating procedure.
The pulled over vehicle can wait until the officer obtains sufficient backup. And if the vehicle tries to flee, rest assured the police will flock as bees to honey.
4
"First, and this cannot be said often enough, police officers do dangerous work that few of us would sign up to do."
So what? They get paid to do a job. The job is to protect and serve the public and uphold the Constitution. It isn't to ridicule, bark orders and escalate any minor lack of compliance into a life or death situation. Do these cops have any idea what they sound like when they're whining about being in fear for their lives every time someone looks at them cross eyed? The Blue Wall.... sure. More like the Blue Mound of Jello.
So what? They get paid to do a job. The job is to protect and serve the public and uphold the Constitution. It isn't to ridicule, bark orders and escalate any minor lack of compliance into a life or death situation. Do these cops have any idea what they sound like when they're whining about being in fear for their lives every time someone looks at them cross eyed? The Blue Wall.... sure. More like the Blue Mound of Jello.
2
I've watched several episodes of the television show called "cops" and have seen some excellent examples of how police can attempt arrests without shooting anyone. They call it "reality" tv, because it films actual police in various cities around the country in real encounters with possible criminal situations.
But, of course, while the crimes being investigated are real and cops and the people with whom they interact are not actors, any situation which is being documented "live" with cameras, lights and even boom microphones, plus an on-the-scene film crew, immediately loses relativity to what actually occurs daily without that film crew because police, "in the glare," are always on their best behavior.
But since those police are responding to actual indications of criminal activity that paradoxical unreal/real environment serves to reveal innovative police techniques which result in human rights being protected and arrests without shots being fired.
One example was a vehicle stop. The cops remained in their car using a very loud speaker system to order the suspects out and on the ground, leaving all doors open. Backups were called who viewed inside the vehicle with powerful lights. Only then did police get out make arrests.
If police cameras were mandatory and were auto livestreamed to cloud storage, we would probably find police everywhere being as wonderful as those on the tv show.
But, of course, while the crimes being investigated are real and cops and the people with whom they interact are not actors, any situation which is being documented "live" with cameras, lights and even boom microphones, plus an on-the-scene film crew, immediately loses relativity to what actually occurs daily without that film crew because police, "in the glare," are always on their best behavior.
But since those police are responding to actual indications of criminal activity that paradoxical unreal/real environment serves to reveal innovative police techniques which result in human rights being protected and arrests without shots being fired.
One example was a vehicle stop. The cops remained in their car using a very loud speaker system to order the suspects out and on the ground, leaving all doors open. Backups were called who viewed inside the vehicle with powerful lights. Only then did police get out make arrests.
If police cameras were mandatory and were auto livestreamed to cloud storage, we would probably find police everywhere being as wonderful as those on the tv show.
4
If a police officer reasonably fears for his/her life, why approach a vehicle with four potentially armed suspects? Why not simply wait for backup?
And, really, once an officer has killed a person, shouldn't that officer be subject to long-term counseling and a desk job to make as sure as possible that he has positively dealt with the psychological issues that affect his carrying out of his duties?
And, really, once an officer has killed a person, shouldn't that officer be subject to long-term counseling and a desk job to make as sure as possible that he has positively dealt with the psychological issues that affect his carrying out of his duties?
9
"In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments -- there are consequences."
- Robert Ingersoll
We consider ourselves to be rational animals capable of making rational decisions no matter what the circumstances. We aren't. We still have emotions that are tied to our basic survival instincts, which help us to avoid the worst of the consequences. We are the occupants of a crowded-hyper-connected tech driven world of our own creation that seems to be creating more problems than it is relieving, and we are boiling up with more festering discontent with it and with each other.
We search for ways to reduce these incidents through threat of prosecution, training, body cams, use of non-lethal force, and on, and this is our dilemma. We still have the belief that we can shape ourselves from the outside in, instead of from the inside out.
- Robert Ingersoll
We consider ourselves to be rational animals capable of making rational decisions no matter what the circumstances. We aren't. We still have emotions that are tied to our basic survival instincts, which help us to avoid the worst of the consequences. We are the occupants of a crowded-hyper-connected tech driven world of our own creation that seems to be creating more problems than it is relieving, and we are boiling up with more festering discontent with it and with each other.
We search for ways to reduce these incidents through threat of prosecution, training, body cams, use of non-lethal force, and on, and this is our dilemma. We still have the belief that we can shape ourselves from the outside in, instead of from the inside out.
2
This is terrible for surely there were better ways and methods the policeman could have used other than brutal force. This was not the first man this officer shot and killed, and no one ever fired a shot at him. Perhaps he was trained to shoot first and ask questions later, a trait usually reserved for enemy combatants in a military engagement. The two men he shot might not have been model citizens, but to take their lives from them in a moment of panic does not give any relief to the citizens of Montana who might be stopped by this police officer who clearly has lost his edge of reason. It is quite obvious that fear is what rules his decision making.
2
The unspoken thought process underlying the police and prosecutor arguments in these cases is that the occasional killing of unarmed men and boys is simply an unfortunate but inescapable collateral cost that we must accept for law and order in a heavily armed society.
But we can't allow ourselves to accept that premise. We cannot accept it anymore than we can accept the notion that the assassination of officers sitting in a patrol car is the unfortunate but inevitable societal cost of the feelings of outrage and impotence that unpunished police shootings engender. Neither argument stands.
But we can't allow ourselves to accept that premise. We cannot accept it anymore than we can accept the notion that the assassination of officers sitting in a patrol car is the unfortunate but inevitable societal cost of the feelings of outrage and impotence that unpunished police shootings engender. Neither argument stands.
4
One thing that might help a lone officer fearful for his personal safety when he pulls over a car is having a second officer with him. What happened to the days of TWO police officers working together in one car? Bring back the days of old and see if it helps.
6
So much worthwhile here, as usual. But re. fear ("In the end, this is again about fears, what informs and activates fears"), this is why certain wily or unbright politicians and media sources such as Fox News that rely on stoking fears (along with the necessary other piece, sentimentalism, to foster group-think and a sense of being better than others) are really so devastating American society. It's a deliberate strategy to gain viewers and win political power and is sickening, deadly, and sadly very effective. Hope we turn this horrible page and become a mostly empathetic, loving people.
questionable training and seasoning before assignment to armed patrol is certainty a factor...being armed is a state of mind (altered to edginess, including but not limited to fear, by the very possession of a loaded weapon) and needs to be recognized as such in the preparation of police and armed private security personnel...on the other side of any confrontation there are also altered states, including but not limited to fear, even if the subjects of a police action are unarmed...the volitility of such encounters needs to be recognized and alternative procedures (distance and deployment of backup forces would be a good start)...and the use of alternative methods of containment (a net deployed by a compressed air gun might be a response to a carload of uncooperative individuals) and capture (stun guns have their uses and limits, but also rubber bullets, chemical disabling agents, even tranq darts, would make live fire a last resort).
It's first a matter of training and leadership from above the street cop -- and that's where questions, and their answers, should be demanded.
As human beings policeman are bound to be affected by what they see and deal with day-aftger-day, but good training and responsible leadership can do a lot about the consequences. The Catholic bishops aren't the only one who excuse themselves from what happens below them.
As human beings policeman are bound to be affected by what they see and deal with day-aftger-day, but good training and responsible leadership can do a lot about the consequences. The Catholic bishops aren't the only one who excuse themselves from what happens below them.
2
Construction workers have a dangerous job. Consequently we make safety rules and laws to protect them. What are we doing about guns? Making sure everybody has one.
7
This agenda by anecdote is getting tiresome. How many police shootings are there every year? Thousands. How many of these shootings are fatal? Several hundred. Is it likely that a small percentage of these shootings are questionable? Absolutely, in fact given that human beings are involved in stressful situations, it is a certainty. But do these relatively rare events illustrate a systemic problem with policing in the US? The fact that they are relatively rare suggests the answer is: "no".
Consider the cases used. After weeks of coverage about the Ferguson shooting, proponents of the 'racist killer cops' theory struck out when a grand jury heard witnesses and looked at the forensic evidence. But Michael Brown is still used as an example by folks with an agenda, like Mr. Blow.
Since the Ferguson case Mr. Blow has treated his readers to several other incidents almost all of which, including today's, have a unifying theme; citizens ignoring police commands and/or resisting arrest. In other words, the circumstances of the cases presented are shaded in gray; there is no bright line, right or wrong. And these are presumably the best cases Mr. Blow can find to advance his agenda. Out of hundreds of fatal shooting a year.
A suggestion? Accept that in a country of 300 million people, with thousands of policing jurisdictions, with thousands of police shootings a year, there will be questionable incidents. They are indicative of nothing more than humans are not perfect.
Consider the cases used. After weeks of coverage about the Ferguson shooting, proponents of the 'racist killer cops' theory struck out when a grand jury heard witnesses and looked at the forensic evidence. But Michael Brown is still used as an example by folks with an agenda, like Mr. Blow.
Since the Ferguson case Mr. Blow has treated his readers to several other incidents almost all of which, including today's, have a unifying theme; citizens ignoring police commands and/or resisting arrest. In other words, the circumstances of the cases presented are shaded in gray; there is no bright line, right or wrong. And these are presumably the best cases Mr. Blow can find to advance his agenda. Out of hundreds of fatal shooting a year.
A suggestion? Accept that in a country of 300 million people, with thousands of policing jurisdictions, with thousands of police shootings a year, there will be questionable incidents. They are indicative of nothing more than humans are not perfect.
12
I would accept your comments about the Ferguson case if they accorded with reality, but they do not. The grand jury process was managed by a prosecutor whose father was a police officer wounded on duty and who is notorious for his bias in favor of cops. I listened to the prosecutor's comments to the press when the grand jury's decision was announced. He listed all of the evidence that cast doubt on the officer's guilt, but none of the evidence on the other side. That tells me all I need to know about him and about the grand jury's decision.
Forget anecdotes and look at the data. In jurisdiction after jurisdiction the data show that black people are far more likely to be accosted by the police on suspicion of certain offenses even though they are no more likely to commit those offenses than others. Why is that? Until you have an answer, you should hold your peace and make no further comment on this issue.
Forget anecdotes and look at the data. In jurisdiction after jurisdiction the data show that black people are far more likely to be accosted by the police on suspicion of certain offenses even though they are no more likely to commit those offenses than others. Why is that? Until you have an answer, you should hold your peace and make no further comment on this issue.
1
And the rate at which a black male gets shot by the police is 21 times that of a white make. Can this situation be improved?
1
The issues raised here all demand attention, but have little to do with the shootings by Officer Morrison. As the police well know, meth addicts are a breed apart. Their behavior is bizarre and unpredictable. They reside in a world that has little to do with ours. Police in places where meth addiction is rampant have lots of experience trying to understand their culture, habits, and behavior. But, ultimately, it is mostly a crap shoot. The challenge for the cops is to enforce the law among what is, in essence, an alien population. Think Men in Black, where Wil Smith and Tommy Lee Jones did an admirable but imperfect job. So it is with Officer Morrison.
5
Here's a crazy thought. What if we just followed Great Britain in that most of our police stopped carrying firearms? Grant Morrison would not have had a gun on him, and Richard Ramirez probably still be alive. How hard would that be? British police don't walk around shooting people and getting away with it, because they don't have firearms on their person. One has to remind themselves, a human being is dead, for no reason other than a police officer "made a silly mistake".
5
Your absolutely right, it's a crazy thought. Why not send firemen into burning buildings without a water hose? Out of all these other so-called more dangerous occupations, logging, fishing, tightrope walking; none of those people are killed by other human beings. Cops deal with thinking, irrational, many times psychopathic, human beings. You don't call a guy with a chainsaw when your neighbor is beating up his wife and kids.
Are you serious? And you live in gun-happy Texas? Granted, most Texans don't think Austin is part of the state, but, nevertheless, you expect cops to go around with billy clubs and a smile when faced with the through-the-roof number of people carrying? The US is not the UK, where very few people own fire arms, so the police are not faced with the same risks that face our officers every day. Your plan will unquestionably ensure the deaths of more cops and a create a massive surge in the crime rate, but perhaps that's a risk you deem worthwhile.
It should not be possible to shoot someone out of fear that the person MIGHT have a gun, or MIGHT hurt you. That puts the barrier for the use of deadly force so low as to be non-existent. If you are that afraid as you go about your job, you need to change jobs. Just because you want to go home alive doesn't give you the right to shoot anyone you FEEL threatened by.
16
why didn't the Officer Morrison call for backup? That would seem to have been the most prudent decision. This lone officer was in a high crime area and solo. Why are officers solo in areas considered high risk? If Officer Morrison was waiting for backup while standing away from the vehicle, this shooting might never have happened. He should have called in their plate number and vehicle description prior to exiting his patrol car and waited for assistance. "Officer needs backup" usually elicits a very rapid response.
6
Do you work an 8 to 5 job, with Saturdays and Sundays off?
Cops don’t.
Is your work environment air-conditioned and heated?
Cops’ work environments aren’t.
Do you work virtually exclusively with lying, cheating, hostile, belligerent people - most of whom have extensive criminal records - with easy access to unknown weapons concealed about within their immediate environment?
Criminal investigators do.
Do you feel you should be a punching bag for most of the people you encounter? Daily? All day long?
Do you feel uncomfortable when your life is threatened, explicitly or implicitly? Suppose the threats are only of serious bodily injury by groups of men?
Would you feel more comfortable if you work all of this alone?
If you found all of the above appealing, then maybe police work is right for you. Or, perhaps, you need to empathize more.
My priority was to get home at the end of the day, intact, to be a good husband for my wife, a good father for my children, and be decent and respectable for society.
Cops don’t.
Is your work environment air-conditioned and heated?
Cops’ work environments aren’t.
Do you work virtually exclusively with lying, cheating, hostile, belligerent people - most of whom have extensive criminal records - with easy access to unknown weapons concealed about within their immediate environment?
Criminal investigators do.
Do you feel you should be a punching bag for most of the people you encounter? Daily? All day long?
Do you feel uncomfortable when your life is threatened, explicitly or implicitly? Suppose the threats are only of serious bodily injury by groups of men?
Would you feel more comfortable if you work all of this alone?
If you found all of the above appealing, then maybe police work is right for you. Or, perhaps, you need to empathize more.
My priority was to get home at the end of the day, intact, to be a good husband for my wife, a good father for my children, and be decent and respectable for society.
6
Thank you sir for a well written and informative piece. I ask only one question, "How do we persuade the idiots in Congress to read it and learn from it?"
2
The video of this police officer murdering a man in cold blood is nothing short of jaw dropping.
This was a traffic stop. No one in the car apparently had a weapon. As one of the passengers said on the video "He didn't do nothin'." Which was quite right.
I understand how difficult being a policeman must be. But my guess is this police officer violated just about every normal protocol which he would be expected to follow during a traffic stop. What about asking the driver for his license and registration, as an obvious example.
He should be charged and tried for murder. Why? Because that's what it was.
This was a traffic stop. No one in the car apparently had a weapon. As one of the passengers said on the video "He didn't do nothin'." Which was quite right.
I understand how difficult being a policeman must be. But my guess is this police officer violated just about every normal protocol which he would be expected to follow during a traffic stop. What about asking the driver for his license and registration, as an obvious example.
He should be charged and tried for murder. Why? Because that's what it was.
14
Charles - you were doing so well - balanced - less histrionics... then...
You close with: " Should there have been some punishment for that? Yes. Should that punishment have been death? Absolutely not."
You need to so some remedial reading on logical fallacies - perhaps start with false equivalencies
You close with: " Should there have been some punishment for that? Yes. Should that punishment have been death? Absolutely not."
You need to so some remedial reading on logical fallacies - perhaps start with false equivalencies
5
Take a look at the video of the cop who got shot in Arizona and suddenly this picture is not so black and white. Cops work under extremely dangerous conditions and any of the nutcases that they apprehend may suddenly pull out a gun. If this officer was trigger happy with unarmed people in the past, the department policies should be examined.
1
It's been decades, but there was a period of time in the '70s when police around Chicago would use the loud speaker in their vehicles at traffic stops to direct the occupants of the stopped car to "get out of the car, and keep your hands in plain site". Perhaps this is a way to reduce the risk to both the officers and those whom they stop.
1
"Morrison sobs after the shooting, at the scene, saying, 'I thought he was going to pull a gun on me.' As Morrison leans on the hood of a police cruiser, another officer seeks to comfort him, saying, 'Maybe he was. Maybe he was.'”
Officer Morrison's "sobbing" is obviously a feigned emotional episode. He knew where the cruiser's video camera was positioned and went directly to rest on the hood where he could act out as the center of attention on video. The majority of the video is devoted to the officer's "sobbing," while his officer buddies offer solace and understanding. Officer Morrison's claim that he thought the suspect was going to pull a gun has become the standard excuse police officers use after shooting unarmed civilians.
Officer Morrison's "sobbing" is obviously a feigned emotional episode. He knew where the cruiser's video camera was positioned and went directly to rest on the hood where he could act out as the center of attention on video. The majority of the video is devoted to the officer's "sobbing," while his officer buddies offer solace and understanding. Officer Morrison's claim that he thought the suspect was going to pull a gun has become the standard excuse police officers use after shooting unarmed civilians.
8
Well, Charles, how about doing some ride-alongs in some high crime areas to get a real taste of what it is like?
5
In the words of my kids (or text characters, kids rarely use words): "^^^^^^^"
My husband's cousin became a California Highway Patrol officer out of college and we watched over the course of several decades as he hardened into someone who thought everyone was a criminal and anything he saw was evidence of crime. There was also a strong attitude that everyone was 'stupid', particularly people of color or poverty. He, and his wife, became super conservative, anti this and anti that, and sadly devoted followers of faux news. We often shook our heads and thought it was because he was a police officer and saw too often just how awful people could be. He certainly stands out in a family of compassionate, kind people. Now he might have been a naturally pessimistic person but since he left that job and became an administrator with child protective services in Idaho, he appears to be regaining empathy he appeared to have lost. Although he still sees the worst that humanity has to offer, he also sees that there are innocent victims who need to be treated with care and dignity. He now sees the whole picture of how circumstances can spiral out of control in a heartbeat.
Lastly, I personally have never (knock wood) received a speeding ticket and I tell people that I am so kind, so sweet, and so 'ashamed' to readily admit guilt that I get out of it every time. The cousin tells me as a highway patrol officer they so rarely ran into someone like me that it really is a get out of jail free card.
Lastly, I personally have never (knock wood) received a speeding ticket and I tell people that I am so kind, so sweet, and so 'ashamed' to readily admit guilt that I get out of it every time. The cousin tells me as a highway patrol officer they so rarely ran into someone like me that it really is a get out of jail free card.
4
There are two statistics that overwhelmingly show us the excessive danger inherent in owning guns. The first is that the successful suicide rate of those owning guns is high, the gun meant to protect them is used to kill them selves. The second is the increased chance of a family member being injured or killed when a gun is in the family setting.
When Americans cannot protect themselves or their family members from the assault of firearms delivered to themselves or another familiy member toward another family member what do you think police have to go through when dealing with the general public in situations that deem laws are being broken and in need of police intervention?
The odds are stacked against the police officer. Hidden guns, drug use, mental illness simply add to the confusion and what we are left with is a nightmare of attempting to regulate gun use in our society.
When Americans cannot protect themselves or their family members from the assault of firearms delivered to themselves or another familiy member toward another family member what do you think police have to go through when dealing with the general public in situations that deem laws are being broken and in need of police intervention?
The odds are stacked against the police officer. Hidden guns, drug use, mental illness simply add to the confusion and what we are left with is a nightmare of attempting to regulate gun use in our society.
3
This is a thought-provoking article and in a lot of ways handles some of the many thorny issues involved in an intelligent, reasonably balanced way (for a short article at least). However, you leave out hugely significant pieces of information with respect to both of the shootings Morrison was involved in. With regard to the first shooting he was involved in, you fail to mention that the person shot WAS carrying a gun of some sort and did reach for it, it's just that the gin turned out to be a BB gun. Care to provide a picture showing how these BB pistols look basically identical to to a lethal handgun? Why not? Onto the next shooting: you completely ignore the fact that the person shot was a suspected armed robber.
Why leave such important, relevant pieces of information out unless you think that your argument would be weaker without them? Either you didn't do your research (in which case shame on you) or else you were deliberately trying to distort the reaction of readers by making the shootings seem more egregious than they are (again, shame on you).
If you fail to provide such context here how do we know we can ever trust you or your paper to be objective at least with respect to basic facts involved? It is rally sad, because otherwise your words - like I pointed out earlier - are articulate and deliberate and well-chosen and apt. But your apparently deliberate willingness to mislead the leader with respect to the facts involved make everything you say suspect.
Why leave such important, relevant pieces of information out unless you think that your argument would be weaker without them? Either you didn't do your research (in which case shame on you) or else you were deliberately trying to distort the reaction of readers by making the shootings seem more egregious than they are (again, shame on you).
If you fail to provide such context here how do we know we can ever trust you or your paper to be objective at least with respect to basic facts involved? It is rally sad, because otherwise your words - like I pointed out earlier - are articulate and deliberate and well-chosen and apt. But your apparently deliberate willingness to mislead the leader with respect to the facts involved make everything you say suspect.
9
Of course they should not have used drugs. No, they should not have been killed but that is not the question. The only question is did the police officer fear for his life or the life of others. That is the standard by which a law enforcement officer goes by when deciding to use deadly physical force. He doesn't calculate race, propriety, punishment, gender etc. He ONLY considers if his or someone else's life is in danger.
3
Just looking for a clarification here.
"Studies using simulations in 2002 and 2005 showed that people were more likely to shoot unarmed black men, while, in the case of the latter study, letting armed white people slip by."
Does this mean that people were more likely to shoot unarmed black men than to not shoot them, or that they were more likely to shoot unarmed black men than unarmed non-black men?
"Studies using simulations in 2002 and 2005 showed that people were more likely to shoot unarmed black men, while, in the case of the latter study, letting armed white people slip by."
Does this mean that people were more likely to shoot unarmed black men than to not shoot them, or that they were more likely to shoot unarmed black men than unarmed non-black men?
A major element in police shootings is that we live in a diverse society where the underlying assumption is that everyone, everywhere at anytime can be a threat to police officers. This aspect of police work is played up by police unions and politicians, in part to get higher pay and better retirement benefits.
Yes, police work requires officers to spend most of their days looking into the sewers of human existence. I saw very early on as a reporter in Dallas how this could drag people down psychologically. BUT, we have a police culture in America that comes out this way: Do exactly what I tell you, and do it now, or you will pay a heavy price.
Police officers create situations that almost require escalation. They confront citizens aggressively in an effort to "show who's boss". The process puts the citizen in the position of deciding: should I put up with being treated like this or try something else?
The US Park Police in DC ordered their officers not to stand in front of a car leaving the scene of a stop. Officers were provoking confrontations where they could shoot by deliberately blocking cars, In the Eric Garner case, his "resisting arrest" was merely to wave his arms and not comply immediately with handcuffs. In America, everyone arrested gets handcuffs, even white collar criminals who go to the police station to turn themselves in.
The "war on crime" that sprang from the unrest of the 1960s helped to create a climate of constant fear.
Doug Terry
Yes, police work requires officers to spend most of their days looking into the sewers of human existence. I saw very early on as a reporter in Dallas how this could drag people down psychologically. BUT, we have a police culture in America that comes out this way: Do exactly what I tell you, and do it now, or you will pay a heavy price.
Police officers create situations that almost require escalation. They confront citizens aggressively in an effort to "show who's boss". The process puts the citizen in the position of deciding: should I put up with being treated like this or try something else?
The US Park Police in DC ordered their officers not to stand in front of a car leaving the scene of a stop. Officers were provoking confrontations where they could shoot by deliberately blocking cars, In the Eric Garner case, his "resisting arrest" was merely to wave his arms and not comply immediately with handcuffs. In America, everyone arrested gets handcuffs, even white collar criminals who go to the police station to turn themselves in.
The "war on crime" that sprang from the unrest of the 1960s helped to create a climate of constant fear.
Doug Terry
18
Asking whether the shooting was just punishment is a false question with which to end the article. The cop is acting as police officer, not a judge.
Blow stipulates the criminals encountered did not interact properly with the police. The real questions in the case are: Is the cop is too fearful to exercise good judgment? Why don't people act with their safety in mind in police encounters?
Blow stipulates the criminals encountered did not interact properly with the police. The real questions in the case are: Is the cop is too fearful to exercise good judgment? Why don't people act with their safety in mind in police encounters?
5
In reading about all of these incidents, I guess the question (perhaps a stupid or naive one) is this - A lot of the policeman in these situations have described the events saying they were afraid they were going to be shot. They thought the other person had a gun, and was going to shoot them, and ultimately kill them. Is there a high rate of cops being shot point blank in a routine pull-over type situation. Is this a real, justified fear? Does it happen often? Do people often shoot at cops and try to kill them? (maybe yes, I don't know). I (maybe wrongly) assume that one of the things that make police officers different from the rest of us is that they are willing to walk into dangerous situations, take bullets, etc. (like the secret service, like soldiers) - this is the job they sign up for. I often get scared people have guns concealed, sometimes so much so that I will leave wherever I am just in case, maybe I will get shot if they suddely pull out this weapon I THINK they may have, but I am not a police officer. I did not sign up to be in that situation. If they are so worried about getting home to their families, and so worried about being shot that they take it upon themselves to first shoot and kill the person in front of them, maybe they are in the wrong line of business? I'm not being condescending but this is a real question I ask myself often - how afraid are the police? and how afraid should they allow themselves to be in this line of work?
9
There are 200,000,000 or more privately owned guns in this country. More than half are handguns.
When 20-something mothers in Walmart have loaded guns the presumption must be that just about anyone has a gun.
Crystal Meth, booze, gambling casinos and a bunch of young men all should raise the odds in anyone's mind that a weapon and violence are definite possibilities.
As to the invincible and fearless cop. Are you kidding me?
Secret Service agents are willing to 'take a bullet' for those they guard *only if all other means have already failed*.
Soldiers most definitely supposed to shoot the other guy and not get shot themselves.
Police are hired and tasked with maintaining the peace and enforcing the laws. There is nothing in their job description about being a target or allowing themselves to be stabbed or shot.
You, and many here, have been watching too much television. I always cringe when they get to the scene where the bad guy is pointing a gun at the cop and a conversation starts up. No way that ever happens. If you can see a gun then the time for talking or yelling is long past.
As to does it happen. Yes, quite a few cops have been shot by drivers and passengers at traffic stops. It takes less then a second to pull a gun out from between your legs and fire.
When 20-something mothers in Walmart have loaded guns the presumption must be that just about anyone has a gun.
Crystal Meth, booze, gambling casinos and a bunch of young men all should raise the odds in anyone's mind that a weapon and violence are definite possibilities.
As to the invincible and fearless cop. Are you kidding me?
Secret Service agents are willing to 'take a bullet' for those they guard *only if all other means have already failed*.
Soldiers most definitely supposed to shoot the other guy and not get shot themselves.
Police are hired and tasked with maintaining the peace and enforcing the laws. There is nothing in their job description about being a target or allowing themselves to be stabbed or shot.
You, and many here, have been watching too much television. I always cringe when they get to the scene where the bad guy is pointing a gun at the cop and a conversation starts up. No way that ever happens. If you can see a gun then the time for talking or yelling is long past.
As to does it happen. Yes, quite a few cops have been shot by drivers and passengers at traffic stops. It takes less then a second to pull a gun out from between your legs and fire.
The right to keep and bear arms is part of our Constitution. Laws against meth etc. are not. If the police have to prioritize laws for enforcement, the Constitution should come first.
it's hard to come up with a positive result in a negatively charged atmosphere. Those "negatives" are what seem to be the focus right now: abundance of guns, racial fear, economic stagnation, lack of equality before the law, etc. It might provide an insight and possibly an assist if social scientists did less work with statistics, and more listening to off-duty police unburdening themselves talking shop at their social spots and local taverns.
Well reasoned and well written Mr. Blow! As a retired NYPD officer, after every role call a reminder by the Sergeant who stated,” at the end of the day, your goal is to go home.” As a uniformed officer, the public knows who you are and can be seen either as friend or foe. Policing is inherently dangerous and officers are paid to confront and run toward danger. Fear can be an ally or a hindrance to police work. It can cloud judgment; and taint an officer’s recourse. A car stop is one of the most dangerous scenarios encountered by the police; strict compliance and minimal movement is essential for an officer to take control. Viewing the Billings, Montana video it was a bad situation: a car filled with 4 non-compliant passengers; a lone officer patrolling a high crime area; factors that can fuel suspicion, fear and alter perceptions. In a Supreme Court ruling stating that officers need not see a glean of steel in order to draw his weapon; thereby justifying that fear felt by a reasonable person is justification enough. In policing it is the officer’s job to be one up on the suspect; perhaps in the Billing's case back-up should have been called prior to initiating the stop. Fear is part of the job and can alter officer’s perceptions on what the real danger is regardless if it is real or not!
3
Police officers do NOT have the most dangerous jobs in the US -- they don't even fall in the top 10 most dangerous jobs which are: 1. Logging workers; 2. Fishers and related fishing workers; 3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers; 4. Roofers; 5. Structural iron and steel workers; 6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors; 7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers; 8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers; 9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers; and, 10. Construction laborers. See: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadli...
Nope, what we are seeing is the same problem as with the stand your ground laws: The fears of the shooter are granted more importance than the reality of the situation and an factual assessment of the situation and the status of the civilian.
The last figures I saw were that a civilian subjected to US police attention has 70 times the likelihood of being killed as compared to almost any other "first world" country. In 2014, over 1 thousand civilians were killed by police in the US, as compared to 1 in the UK.
We need a serious examination and course of correction for this problem.
Nope, what we are seeing is the same problem as with the stand your ground laws: The fears of the shooter are granted more importance than the reality of the situation and an factual assessment of the situation and the status of the civilian.
The last figures I saw were that a civilian subjected to US police attention has 70 times the likelihood of being killed as compared to almost any other "first world" country. In 2014, over 1 thousand civilians were killed by police in the US, as compared to 1 in the UK.
We need a serious examination and course of correction for this problem.
16
And out of your ten sterling examples, which ones are killed by human beings? None.
Yes we need a serious examination, but it's not the cops that need to be examined.
Yes we need a serious examination, but it's not the cops that need to be examined.
What is a coroner's inquest? Is that anything like a grand jury? Does the coroner play the part of the prosecutor (and judge and defense attorney)? Are jurors selected on the basis of being perceived to favor the police? Is there any cross examination of the police officer? Certainly there is something of a Catch 22 inherent in all these incidents, prosecutors can sanctimoniously proclaim full disclosure of all the evidence, the glaring exception being the testimony of the victim who (as the Mafia reminds us) cannot tell any tales. The catch 22 being that if the victim survives there will be no grand jury to begin with.
One thing that is different for police officers than ordinary citizens is that they don't have the option to avoid the interaction with potentially dangerous individuals. In fact it's their job to confront such people. In addition if your job is to patrol a "high crime" area and you see murders on a regular basis I don't think we should be surprised that a police officer would see every suspect as dangerous.
You can add on to that the fact that the criminal justice system is the default choice for dealing with seriously mentally ill individuals, and we've got a recipe for the problems we're seeing. It continues to amaze me the number of police involved shootings where the individual was mentally ill. But, as in a recent case here in Columbus, when someone is repeatedly charging at you with a knife, I doubt whether you worry about the individual's mental state.
You can add on to that the fact that the criminal justice system is the default choice for dealing with seriously mentally ill individuals, and we've got a recipe for the problems we're seeing. It continues to amaze me the number of police involved shootings where the individual was mentally ill. But, as in a recent case here in Columbus, when someone is repeatedly charging at you with a knife, I doubt whether you worry about the individual's mental state.
4
Cops always have the option to avoid interaction, and they often exercise that option. Witness the recent actions of the NYPD in response to the mayor's alleged rebuffs.
Too many cops see every citizen as a law breaker. A familiar theme is "You may not be guilty of this particular infraction, but you are guilty of some other infraction, so justice is served by my actions." Stereotyping and targeting is common practice.
Too many cops see every citizen as a law breaker. A familiar theme is "You may not be guilty of this particular infraction, but you are guilty of some other infraction, so justice is served by my actions." Stereotyping and targeting is common practice.
1
It is interesting that Mr. Blow mentions Billings, Montana. In the same week, The Independent, a weekly newspaper in Missoula, Montana, is profiling a local physician. In 2007, one of Dr. Walt Peschel's tenants was threatening suicide. She had taken an overdose of sleeping pills and had put a pistol in her mouth. She was sitting in her car. Peschel got into the car with her and began talking. He realized that she would have to be hospitalized for the overdose and so called 911. Police arrived. They ordered Peschel to get out of the car. He advised them that he was a physician and explained the circumstances. He was talking to the woman and waiting for the sleeping pills to take effect. That didn't matter. Peschel had disobeyed and failed to submit to authority. When the woman fell asleep, Peschel, age 67, got out of her car and was promptly tackled and subdued by police. He was severely injured. Officers charged him with several misdemeanors. There was a video tape of the event, but the police "lost" it. Around the same time, another Missoula police officer had arrested a college student for drunk driving. He brought the student to the DUI processing center, where arrestees are videotaped. The student was mouthing off. Jailers were called in and they found the student on the floor, convulsing. The back of his skull was fractured. The student was still handcuffed. The jail lost that videotape.
8
It's always hard to determine what is the mindset of any police officer in a confrontation with a suspect or criminal. It is also equally hard to determine the mindset of the suspect or criminal; especially if they are on drugs.
I do agree with Mr. Blow here; the punishment should not be death in these circumstances.
There are however, mitigating circumstances that need to be addressed.
1. Anyone who knowingly commits a crime is running the risk of a bad outcome.
2. Anyone who takes drugs which changes mental awareness or behavior is running the risk of a bad outcome.
3. Anyone who commits a crime while under the influence of drugs increases the odds of a bad outcome.
4. A police officer who stops someone who is under the influence of drugs is risking a bad outcome, even though it is their job to do so.
5. A police officer who is making an inquiry or an arrest of someone under the influence of drugs can be assumed to be in danger due to the unknowns associated with such a situation.
While it appears that poor training, poor judgement, or fear in general may have contributed to the situation; the officer was down two strikes with the car having more (4) individuals in the car than he could watch and at least Ramirez was on drugs. The driver and passengers in the car being uncooperative was the last strike.
It's sad but fault lies on both sides. Was the shooting a crime? I don't think so. Was it necessary, probably not. The answer is in the grey here, not black or white.
I do agree with Mr. Blow here; the punishment should not be death in these circumstances.
There are however, mitigating circumstances that need to be addressed.
1. Anyone who knowingly commits a crime is running the risk of a bad outcome.
2. Anyone who takes drugs which changes mental awareness or behavior is running the risk of a bad outcome.
3. Anyone who commits a crime while under the influence of drugs increases the odds of a bad outcome.
4. A police officer who stops someone who is under the influence of drugs is risking a bad outcome, even though it is their job to do so.
5. A police officer who is making an inquiry or an arrest of someone under the influence of drugs can be assumed to be in danger due to the unknowns associated with such a situation.
While it appears that poor training, poor judgement, or fear in general may have contributed to the situation; the officer was down two strikes with the car having more (4) individuals in the car than he could watch and at least Ramirez was on drugs. The driver and passengers in the car being uncooperative was the last strike.
It's sad but fault lies on both sides. Was the shooting a crime? I don't think so. Was it necessary, probably not. The answer is in the grey here, not black or white.
2
Let's add another thought.
6. Call for backup when you are outnumbered.
6. Call for backup when you are outnumbered.
3
i hadn't known that "being uncooperative," was grounds for the use of deadly force by any cop on any police force anywhere in America.
thanks for the tip.
thanks for the tip.
2
I served on jury two days ago. The DHS had a paid informant and he asked a drug addict to get him guns to ship to Mexico. Let's see, do you think the addict, a felon who can't get a job, would take this on? I think it was entrapment, but that was never on the table.
But here's the rub, the DHS was paying the informant in cash, no 1099. The informant "knew" the felon/drug addict had a gun, but never bothered to report it (no documentation). The DHS didn't finger print the gun that was sold (by a third party with the felon/addict getting a cut--if you had good eyes, and apparently I don't, you could see "money" passed between the seller and the felon/addict).
The felon/addict was obviously suffering. It's my guess he's ADHD. We're spending taxpayer money to entice people to do something that's imprinted on the DNA.
And the informant is a "former" gang member, arrested for grass, deported and returned to work for the DHS.
How can we expect a crime free country when law enforcement is merely a state sanctioned Mafia (I apologize for the slur on the Mofia). We have a lot more problems with law enforcement than an occasional murder.
When you ask an addict/felon to get you a gun, you might end up getting innocent civilians murdered in the obtaining.
How do you clean up an operation that has armored tanks, grenade launchers and an arsenal of weapons bigger than most of the countries in the world?
But here's the rub, the DHS was paying the informant in cash, no 1099. The informant "knew" the felon/drug addict had a gun, but never bothered to report it (no documentation). The DHS didn't finger print the gun that was sold (by a third party with the felon/addict getting a cut--if you had good eyes, and apparently I don't, you could see "money" passed between the seller and the felon/addict).
The felon/addict was obviously suffering. It's my guess he's ADHD. We're spending taxpayer money to entice people to do something that's imprinted on the DNA.
And the informant is a "former" gang member, arrested for grass, deported and returned to work for the DHS.
How can we expect a crime free country when law enforcement is merely a state sanctioned Mafia (I apologize for the slur on the Mofia). We have a lot more problems with law enforcement than an occasional murder.
When you ask an addict/felon to get you a gun, you might end up getting innocent civilians murdered in the obtaining.
How do you clean up an operation that has armored tanks, grenade launchers and an arsenal of weapons bigger than most of the countries in the world?
3
"I *thought* he was going to pull a gun on me," said the cop, later.
Really? You THOUGHT he was going pull a gun?
This guy needs to be cashier at Walgreen's—after he gets out of jail for manslaughter. How the heck do trigger happy people like him get through the psych test for being a cop, to begin with?
I'm so disgusted with cops these days I could spit nails.
Really? You THOUGHT he was going pull a gun?
This guy needs to be cashier at Walgreen's—after he gets out of jail for manslaughter. How the heck do trigger happy people like him get through the psych test for being a cop, to begin with?
I'm so disgusted with cops these days I could spit nails.
3
Charles, enough of the myopia regarding police shootings. For cops dangerous or potentially dangerous situations are a daily event. On this car stop, or this encounter, this knock on an apartment door, with this emotionally disturbed person, this dangerous condition, this accident scene, this dispute, this speeding vehicle, this disorder or demonstration, this past or on going crime scene,q something catastrophic will happen. When? Where? How? Are all open questions but rest assured, eventually it WILL happen and an unprepared officer WILL suffer the consequences.
As for grand juries favoring cops: police officers are chosen from those who first pass a competitive exam, screened, examined, investigated, trained and put through a one year probationary period before being permitted to serve the public. While this does not mean anyone is above the law, to consider the testimony of those given police officer status with all the trust it implies to have no assumption of credibility at all is discouraging to as the least....
As for grand juries favoring cops: police officers are chosen from those who first pass a competitive exam, screened, examined, investigated, trained and put through a one year probationary period before being permitted to serve the public. While this does not mean anyone is above the law, to consider the testimony of those given police officer status with all the trust it implies to have no assumption of credibility at all is discouraging to as the least....
1
Huh. And here I'd say these defenses of the indefensible are a direct insult to all the good cops who go out and risk their lives every day, often in far more danger than these clowns were in, and make it through their entire careers without killing anybody.
Know how they do it? competent police work, backed up by being a real live grown-up man or woman who knows what their job is.
Know how they do it? competent police work, backed up by being a real live grown-up man or woman who knows what their job is.
3
I appreciated this column. Blow has gone beyond speaking rhetorically, and has brought up valid points for discussion.
4
Parents need to train their offspring that the police are always protecting the policeman's lives first.
And that not complying with a policeman's request can/will/might get you killed.
Why should a policeman endanger his own life when you, or any other person encountered by the policeman, might kill the policeman?
What if all of our police officers walk off of their jobs?
Should the police wait until the person threatening other people harms somebody else before the policeman shoots that person who is threatening other people in order to protect the public?
Was this person threatening other people also receiving mental health care? Most of the recent mass murderers were.
Should police officers only stop armed people from threatening other people after they determine that the armed person is sane and not receiving mental health care?
Insanity has now almost become a "License to Kill."
Police should not have to make any determination of any person's mental state before they stop any person from threatening other people before the police act to protect those other people by shooting, maiming or killing that person who is threatening other people and will not do what the police tell him to do. (I say him, because I do not hear of any female mass murderers.)
And that not complying with a policeman's request can/will/might get you killed.
Why should a policeman endanger his own life when you, or any other person encountered by the policeman, might kill the policeman?
What if all of our police officers walk off of their jobs?
Should the police wait until the person threatening other people harms somebody else before the policeman shoots that person who is threatening other people in order to protect the public?
Was this person threatening other people also receiving mental health care? Most of the recent mass murderers were.
Should police officers only stop armed people from threatening other people after they determine that the armed person is sane and not receiving mental health care?
Insanity has now almost become a "License to Kill."
Police should not have to make any determination of any person's mental state before they stop any person from threatening other people before the police act to protect those other people by shooting, maiming or killing that person who is threatening other people and will not do what the police tell him to do. (I say him, because I do not hear of any female mass murderers.)
4
Cops should, however, a) not get hired after being dumped feom the academy in another department for crying and dropping their gun on the firing range, b) mostly not being screaming incoherently, firing repeatedly into the air, and then shooting unarmed guys point-blank, c) getting caught belted into their car, gun unavailable, by a big guy they believe to be an armed robbery suspect, d) employing a banned chokehold, then standing around and laughing while some guy with a camera (who happens to be armed, illegally) stands there and films, e) sodomizing a suspect with a nightstick, f) standing on the opposite sides of a street in a residential neighborhood and firing 117 shots at a moving vehicle...
Wouldn't you agree? seems to me pretty much a slam dunk there.
Wouldn't you agree? seems to me pretty much a slam dunk there.
3
well, after all that, do you think the man in the back of this car deserved to die at the hands of this policeman who "thought" he might be dangerous? yes or no.
1
Times have changed. The days of the lone police officer walking the beat and keeping the peace by the nature of his position and hard knuckled approach to those that needed it have gone.
This lone sheriff approach by police makes no sense to me. If I stop a car and suspect substance use (like meth) and the car is occupied by four men (who you suspect carry guns), why would I approach it? Why wouldn't I wait till back-up arrives?
The time for macho police officers has passed. Especially, when they feel they should mete out justice before the defendants day in court.
This lone sheriff approach by police makes no sense to me. If I stop a car and suspect substance use (like meth) and the car is occupied by four men (who you suspect carry guns), why would I approach it? Why wouldn't I wait till back-up arrives?
The time for macho police officers has passed. Especially, when they feel they should mete out justice before the defendants day in court.
54
Why is "calling for back-up" supposed to be a solution? Officer(s) are still going to have to approach the car with potentially the same outcome. I'm also curious about the phrase "mete out justice" (and "punishment" in Mr. Blow's column) since the cop merely felt he was acting in self-defense at the time. Surely we need to at least consider the intent behind the actions? From what has been written, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Morrison was trying to punish anyone or mete out justice - he was just trying to stay alive in a split-second, highly charged situation. I agree this is a tragedy and I agree most (all?) of us have unconscious biases that may lead us to take ill-considered actions. I even agree that Morrison was quite probably not suited for that job, but none of that is the same as essentially saying he set-out to commit premeditate murder, which is close to what this comment seems to be suggesting.
Cuttyson;
Are you kidding,it's a lot safer to out number and encourage compliance. If there is going to be a shoot out, I'd rather have my back-up.
Regarding mete out justice, my comment was not about this particular instance, but that the idea of police acting on their own in potentially dangerous situations is unjustified and a relic of the wild west sheriff or the overly macho cop. Equally, while you may have never been on the receiving end of police justice, thousands have in this country, from minorities to protesting students to the mentally ill and the poor.
There was no need for split second actions in this case, sit in your cruiser, get motor vehicle information, driver information, wait for back-up, order men out of vehicle with hands up. Good police work means not exacerbating a already anxious and dangerous moment into a deadly one for the police and our citizens
Are you kidding,it's a lot safer to out number and encourage compliance. If there is going to be a shoot out, I'd rather have my back-up.
Regarding mete out justice, my comment was not about this particular instance, but that the idea of police acting on their own in potentially dangerous situations is unjustified and a relic of the wild west sheriff or the overly macho cop. Equally, while you may have never been on the receiving end of police justice, thousands have in this country, from minorities to protesting students to the mentally ill and the poor.
There was no need for split second actions in this case, sit in your cruiser, get motor vehicle information, driver information, wait for back-up, order men out of vehicle with hands up. Good police work means not exacerbating a already anxious and dangerous moment into a deadly one for the police and our citizens
The simplicity of deadly force in America is that Black African American Brown Hispanic/Latino males are profiled, stalked, stopped, arrested, beaten, shot and killed because they are presumed guilty of being innately uniquely ignorant, immoral, lazy, violent criminals. Particularly when they are doing the same things that white people do like living, breathing, walking, driving and shopping.
The simplicity of deadly force in America is too many of those whom we have armed uniformed badged trained and licensed to deprive us of our divinely naturally created equal certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are incompetent, intemperate, ignorant, immature, fickle, reckless bigots. And they tend to get away with it.
The simplicity of deadly force in America rests in too many guns in too many American hands and illegal drugs.
The simplicity of deadly force in America is that armed white criminals including cop killers- Oswald, Rudolph, Loughner, Holmes, McVeigh, Weaver, Miller, Frein, Moore, Fromme- are arrested alive and well. And some gun wielding white criminals like Cliven Bundy and his desperado crew are not even arrested.
In his Second Inaugural Address Abraham Lincoln pondered the notion that both the North and South prayed to the same God seeking divine blessings on their cause. But judging from the bloody results God seemed to only hear and answer the prayers of Black African American slaves and free. God blessed Black America.
The simplicity of deadly force in America is too many of those whom we have armed uniformed badged trained and licensed to deprive us of our divinely naturally created equal certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are incompetent, intemperate, ignorant, immature, fickle, reckless bigots. And they tend to get away with it.
The simplicity of deadly force in America rests in too many guns in too many American hands and illegal drugs.
The simplicity of deadly force in America is that armed white criminals including cop killers- Oswald, Rudolph, Loughner, Holmes, McVeigh, Weaver, Miller, Frein, Moore, Fromme- are arrested alive and well. And some gun wielding white criminals like Cliven Bundy and his desperado crew are not even arrested.
In his Second Inaugural Address Abraham Lincoln pondered the notion that both the North and South prayed to the same God seeking divine blessings on their cause. But judging from the bloody results God seemed to only hear and answer the prayers of Black African American slaves and free. God blessed Black America.
2
All these shootings compel me to ask what, if anything, we know about the British system in which police go about unarmed. What is their experience, and how, if at all, is it applicable to the US?
1
Only a small number of British police still go about unarmed. Do you know how fast you can be killed or seriously maimed with a razor?
What the video shows is an out-of-control police officer murdering an unarmed citizen in cold blood. There can be no defense for this. Policing in this country is doomed as long as we call this scene "law enforcement." The net result of Sandy Hook and the slaughter of two dozen first graders was looser gun laws in more states than not. Do we really think this police violence can be reined in? Let's face it, we are a fearful, violent culture. I don't expect to live long enough to see this change.
2
Having been in this officers situation numerous times (not the shooting, but the traffic stop) I'll make the following observations. First, approaching this vehicle alone, with 4 occupants, was not good police procedure. Second, opening the door was also a bad idea. At that point the officer was totally vulnerable. When the officer drew his gun he should have been stepping back and towards his cruiser, away from the occupants "line of fire" (had he been armed). Screaming profanities is also not good procedure, it creates panic and confusion for the occupants who may do something stupid without thinking. These occupants needed to hear loud, clear verbal instructions, not screaming laced with profanity. Basically this officer created the situation, something that could have been avoided with proper tactics.
5
We live in a country where guns are everywhere and still increasing in number.
So, "I couldn't take that risk" is the price we all pay for having the best Congress the gun industry can buy.
Only in America.
So, "I couldn't take that risk" is the price we all pay for having the best Congress the gun industry can buy.
Only in America.
3
Charles, I think your articles have been even handed in proportioning out blame and I understand perfectly that death is to be avoided at all costs. In the complicated mix of excuses, the police must make quick assessments and we are seeing that they can be wrong, but they must still do their jobs.
Our gun happy society is at least partially to blame for the uncertainties that occur with police "doing their job," and as sad as the recurring results of police/citizen confrontations are, I don't see how that will change.
I fear you will be writing about many more of these tragic instances.
Our gun happy society is at least partially to blame for the uncertainties that occur with police "doing their job," and as sad as the recurring results of police/citizen confrontations are, I don't see how that will change.
I fear you will be writing about many more of these tragic instances.
While being a policeman is a dangerous job, these shooting incidents are making it more and more dangerous every passing day. Add to that the fervor of open/carry advocates under the sponsorship of the NRA and the police have good reason to be worried. How often have we heard NRA and conservative officials questioning the competence of the police to protect us? How often have we heard about the jack booted thugs coming to take away our guns? Police have reasons to be scared and their "friends" seem to be some of them.
I continue to be baffled by CB's and the NYT's blind defense in general of the police bearing arms, whether they are competent to wield them or not, while summarily dismissing the good and decent American people as being incompetent or irresponsible and thus unworthy of owning guns. Over 200 years of history prove otherwise.
Are there irresponsible individuals who should not be allowed to touch a firearm? Absolutely! And we should use all lawful methods to keep them away from them.
Are there irresponsible police officers who choose this profession for the wrong reasons (propping up their low self-esteem with a powerful job, maybe) and should not be allowed to touch a gun? Absolutely! And we should make sure to keep guns away from them.
The police are a part and they should be a mirror of society, not standing apart from it. Shooting unarmed people is not the answer. And the excuse, "I thought he was reaching for a gun" should not be acceptable. The first thing I reach for in a traffic stop is my wallet. If I am sitting on it, my hands will disappear from view. The second thing I reach for is my insurance card. That's in the glove compartment.....
So the proper procedure would be for everyone in a traffic stop to exit the car. That would diffuse the situation right there, prevent criminals from hitting the gas and getting off and have hands in plain sight. In short, no reason to feel threatened.
Are there irresponsible individuals who should not be allowed to touch a firearm? Absolutely! And we should use all lawful methods to keep them away from them.
Are there irresponsible police officers who choose this profession for the wrong reasons (propping up their low self-esteem with a powerful job, maybe) and should not be allowed to touch a gun? Absolutely! And we should make sure to keep guns away from them.
The police are a part and they should be a mirror of society, not standing apart from it. Shooting unarmed people is not the answer. And the excuse, "I thought he was reaching for a gun" should not be acceptable. The first thing I reach for in a traffic stop is my wallet. If I am sitting on it, my hands will disappear from view. The second thing I reach for is my insurance card. That's in the glove compartment.....
So the proper procedure would be for everyone in a traffic stop to exit the car. That would diffuse the situation right there, prevent criminals from hitting the gas and getting off and have hands in plain sight. In short, no reason to feel threatened.
1
sure it is tough to be a cop. but each one of them out on the streets today chose that job with their eyes open. what makes these constant stories so galling is the cops want to have it all ways. they want to be absolved constantly and they want compliance always. yet most americans daily see the cops as the enemy that lies cheats and destroys much more peoples lives than they help.
2
The silent majority of Americans don't see things the way you think they do.
There is no complexity at all evident in the motivations of police officers clearly observing that their victims are unarmed and no threat yet killing them anyway. This willful disregard by the killers for the value of human life of their victims does not take complex evaluations of their intent.
Another example of this is the outrageous murder of an unarmed, homeless man camping out in a remote area of Albuquerque New Mexico. Their disdain for this man, who was mentally ill, is recorded. They approached him while he was sleeping. The escalation was by the police as if they wanted some reason to brutally abuse him. Please read an account here:
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/james-boyd/
The reality is, though understanding that the police have a tough job, and why, that there are clear instances when the police officers were in no immediate danger, but murdered the citizen anyway. They are criminals, and need to be treated as criminals by police departments across the country sending a strong message that such behavior will no longer be protected or tolerated.
In doing so, not only will citizens feel safer, but the majority of police officers will not be lumped in with the miscreants.
At least, the New Mexico police officers have been charged with murder as should all officers who break the law.
Another example of this is the outrageous murder of an unarmed, homeless man camping out in a remote area of Albuquerque New Mexico. Their disdain for this man, who was mentally ill, is recorded. They approached him while he was sleeping. The escalation was by the police as if they wanted some reason to brutally abuse him. Please read an account here:
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/james-boyd/
The reality is, though understanding that the police have a tough job, and why, that there are clear instances when the police officers were in no immediate danger, but murdered the citizen anyway. They are criminals, and need to be treated as criminals by police departments across the country sending a strong message that such behavior will no longer be protected or tolerated.
In doing so, not only will citizens feel safer, but the majority of police officers will not be lumped in with the miscreants.
At least, the New Mexico police officers have been charged with murder as should all officers who break the law.
3
“Hands up. All four of you, hands up. What were you doing?”
It is telling that Morrison began with a hostile command. He may have had reason to suspect some criminal activity; was there evidence of that? Why did he stop the car?
If I were stopped and greeted by an officer shouting "hands up," I would comply, but I also would be outraged that an officer would abuse his position of authority in such a hostile manner. I know from experience that officers don't typically confront citizens in that manner.
Morrison's opening command tells me he was predisposed to using his weapon because he already concluded that the occupants of the car were criminals with guns.
Morrison, as every police officer, has a dangerous job, but Morrison did not belong on the police force. Psychological testing should have weeded him out from ever being in such a position of authority.
It is telling that Morrison began with a hostile command. He may have had reason to suspect some criminal activity; was there evidence of that? Why did he stop the car?
If I were stopped and greeted by an officer shouting "hands up," I would comply, but I also would be outraged that an officer would abuse his position of authority in such a hostile manner. I know from experience that officers don't typically confront citizens in that manner.
Morrison's opening command tells me he was predisposed to using his weapon because he already concluded that the occupants of the car were criminals with guns.
Morrison, as every police officer, has a dangerous job, but Morrison did not belong on the police force. Psychological testing should have weeded him out from ever being in such a position of authority.
3
The last time a policeman stopped me (a holiday DUI roadblock), I told him, as required by state law, that I held a concealed carry license but was not carrying a pistol at the time. "Why not?" he asked me. "You should always carry." So much for the "anxiety" police officers have for the 8 million concealed carry permit holders that our esteemed columnist frets about.
4
Yes, one who has to deal with often dangerous and frequently warped personalities can almost not help but become cynical about people in general.
2
I wonder if it's the bloated fear of injury - which is not actually supported by fact -- that makes police more aggressive. I'm not saying police work isn't dangerous. But according to the Bureau of Labor stats, the following professions are more dangerous. While we wouldn't normally step into a blue uniform to police the streets, many of us readily take the following jobs with a higher on-the-job mortality rate in 2013:
(fatalities per 100,000 workers)
Loggers - 91
Fishing - 75
Pilots and flight engineers - 51
Roofers - 39
Garbage collection/recycling - 33
Mining machine operators - 27
Truckers/drivers - 22
Farming/ranching/agricultural - 22
Electrical workers - 22
Construction - 18
Law enforcement doesn't make the top 10. In 2013, the 111 on the job deaths in law enforcement (includes everything from shootings to slip and falls) were the lowest in 54 years according to National Law Enforcement Officers Report and represents an 8% decline from 2012. The 33 shooting deaths were the lowest since 1887. Except for a spike related to 9/11, policing has grown steadily safer since the 1970s when law enforcement deaths peaked at 280 per year.
Again, not saying I would want to don a blue suit and walk a beat, but the stats put the overall risk into perspective.
(fatalities per 100,000 workers)
Loggers - 91
Fishing - 75
Pilots and flight engineers - 51
Roofers - 39
Garbage collection/recycling - 33
Mining machine operators - 27
Truckers/drivers - 22
Farming/ranching/agricultural - 22
Electrical workers - 22
Construction - 18
Law enforcement doesn't make the top 10. In 2013, the 111 on the job deaths in law enforcement (includes everything from shootings to slip and falls) were the lowest in 54 years according to National Law Enforcement Officers Report and represents an 8% decline from 2012. The 33 shooting deaths were the lowest since 1887. Except for a spike related to 9/11, policing has grown steadily safer since the 1970s when law enforcement deaths peaked at 280 per year.
Again, not saying I would want to don a blue suit and walk a beat, but the stats put the overall risk into perspective.
3
I fail to see the complexity here. So every time a cop "feels" or "knows" someone has a gun, he can shoot that person dead? And yes, the job is dangerous but enough already with that - it's become the new mantra justifying case after case of police violence. Being a cop is not the most dangerous job in America and it has traditionally been viewed as a good job to have. It is entered into voluntarily and an officer's safety is supposed to rest on solid training/supervision and procedure. Morrison lacked the latter and, based on his actions, the former as well. In our gun-crazy culture, with movies and tv glorifying the use of violence by the police, many people become cops who have no business in the profession. This case is clear-cut and hardly the heart-tugging example of a "fraught moment" that Blow presents it as.
52
Well said, Mr. Kunstler. The fact is, most police officers do not fire their weapons from one year to the next other than on the firing range. The notion that they must do so on a daily basis has nothing to do with reality. I too am sick of hearing that cops must often make a "split second decision." No, they do not often have to do that. That situation is rare enough that they ought to be able to handle it. Morrison obviously can't. And our criminal justice system obviously can't handle cops who are just lousy at their jobs.
4
"I knew in the moment [he] had a gun";' which turned out to be untrue'. Is this really the standard we have come to accept? The answer is a resounding yes. This nation has accepted the notion it is better to "pull the trigger" first, then determine the facts after. Killing another human being under "color of authority" MUST require more than a "thought", "premise", "feeling". No other profession seems to have such a low bar for action. How have we come to accept this concept that any one who is suspect of a crime is worthy of being killed? The "limbo-bar" keeps getting lower and lower- we are already "ok" with police officers killing children with "realistic looking toy guns" sold by toy manufacturers; what will it take for us to finally say " no more"? Will it take a 4 year old being killed by "mistake" because his toy looked like a weapon? We have already arrested a 10 yr old for "petty theft" of a pack of gum and placed him in Juvenile Hall. When will be say" enough" as a society?
2
It's important not to confuse punishment and self-defense. The relevant question isn't whether being high and disobeying police orders are punishable by death - the relevant question is whether the police officer was justified in exercising deadly force.
If Morrison reasonably believed that Ramirez was about to use deadly force against him, he was entitled to pre-empt that deadly force with his own deadly force. Morrison says Ramirez reached for his waistband, and says he believed Ramirez was reaching for a gun. If the belief was reasonable under the circumstances, the officer should be exonerated.
I'm critical of police officers' general resistance to the notion that they, like everyone else, are susceptible to racial prejudices. Refusing to acknowledge the possibility of bias is the best guarantee that bias will never be rooted out. But I am also critical of quick judgments that police shootings should lead to criminal convictions.
We put police officers in extremely difficult positions when we expect them to prevent crimes and apprehend criminals among an armed populace. We not only permit police officers to use deadly force, we want them to do so - I certainly want a police officer to be ready to use deadly force to protect me if necessary.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is supposed to be a tough standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrison did not reasonably believe Ramirez was armed should be no less tough.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
If Morrison reasonably believed that Ramirez was about to use deadly force against him, he was entitled to pre-empt that deadly force with his own deadly force. Morrison says Ramirez reached for his waistband, and says he believed Ramirez was reaching for a gun. If the belief was reasonable under the circumstances, the officer should be exonerated.
I'm critical of police officers' general resistance to the notion that they, like everyone else, are susceptible to racial prejudices. Refusing to acknowledge the possibility of bias is the best guarantee that bias will never be rooted out. But I am also critical of quick judgments that police shootings should lead to criminal convictions.
We put police officers in extremely difficult positions when we expect them to prevent crimes and apprehend criminals among an armed populace. We not only permit police officers to use deadly force, we want them to do so - I certainly want a police officer to be ready to use deadly force to protect me if necessary.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is supposed to be a tough standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrison did not reasonably believe Ramirez was armed should be no less tough.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
15
When they are unarmed, they always "reach for their waistband" don't they?
2
Indeed they do, Toby. As a former administrative law judge who tried scores of disciplinary cases against New York police officers, I came to recognize certain patterns of recurring testimony, and the old waistband gambit was just one of them. New York cops have a term for it - "testilying." Cops don't need to get together to prepare a false story - they share a common understanding of what needs to be said to justify their actions.
When things got really tough, a cop being questioned about a colleague's actions would invariably testify that he had been distracted at the critical second, and therefore didn't see the key event.
The problem in a criminal case, of course, is that a general awareness of "testilying" does not translate into proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this officer is lying in this case.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
When things got really tough, a cop being questioned about a colleague's actions would invariably testify that he had been distracted at the critical second, and therefore didn't see the key event.
The problem in a criminal case, of course, is that a general awareness of "testilying" does not translate into proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this officer is lying in this case.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is supposed to be a tough standard."
Agreed; especially when you're dead.
Agreed; especially when you're dead.
2
Charles, you and I are completely on the same page, but when you say that we can't often enough the police work is in and of itsefl dangerous work, Sometimes it is, most of the time it isn't. I would point to the many nations who all have violent criminals, drug dealers, etc etc. and yet that choose not to arm their police. Most police work is routine and doesn't even require the presence of a handgun. Add to that the American policing obsession with "confronting" a situation, as opposed to de-escalation, and add to that the police's essentially racist assumptions of risk and danger, and you've set the scene for regular slaughter.
30
Police are trained to presume everyone has a weapon; unfortunately far too many are incapable of moving beyond that training mindset. In this mindset, with "everyone" with a weapon, follows that everyone with a weapon will also be "reaching for that weapon". Even when there is sufficient time to discern that there is no evidence of a weapon being "reached for", the result is a shooting of an unarmed individual. As long as we are accepting of this and police departments have no incentive to do otherwise [grand juries absolving the actions as being justified] more unarmed individuals will be murdered; God- what have we become as a civilized nation?
2
The "get out of jail free" card for these officers is that the legal bar has been set so low that simply feeling threatened is enough to justify lethal force. Whether or not the victim actually posed a threat is largely irrelevant; a non-existent gun that the officer suspects the victim might have is justification enough. Until this changes, no officer will be held responsible.
Adding to this is the increasing importance that officers, as a profession, place on "going home at the end of the day." While we all want officers to make it home alive at the end of their shift, this has become the primary, overarching objective for too many officers. It should be equally important that those they encounter also live to tell about it. Burt it isn't, and that's why officers are trained to shoot with the mere possibility of a threat. (If the suspect doesn't turn out to have a gun and/or are about to use it, there are no legal consequences, but if the suspect does, then the officer's life is in danger. That's a deadly calculus.)
Every citizen's life should be considered just as important as the officer's -- even if that person is a drug addict or has just stolen cigars from a bodega. The drawing of a weapon, much less the discharge, should be a rare event for law-enforcement officers, only when a suspect poses a verified and active threat to the safety of the officer.
Adding to this is the increasing importance that officers, as a profession, place on "going home at the end of the day." While we all want officers to make it home alive at the end of their shift, this has become the primary, overarching objective for too many officers. It should be equally important that those they encounter also live to tell about it. Burt it isn't, and that's why officers are trained to shoot with the mere possibility of a threat. (If the suspect doesn't turn out to have a gun and/or are about to use it, there are no legal consequences, but if the suspect does, then the officer's life is in danger. That's a deadly calculus.)
Every citizen's life should be considered just as important as the officer's -- even if that person is a drug addict or has just stolen cigars from a bodega. The drawing of a weapon, much less the discharge, should be a rare event for law-enforcement officers, only when a suspect poses a verified and active threat to the safety of the officer.
2
It is a very rare event. 320,000,000 Americans. How many Police shootings? Few.
Oh, and how exactly do you "verify" that threat?
Oh, and how exactly do you "verify" that threat?
Some other points to consider because no one wants to see the police harmed balanced against we should want citizens killed either. Does the pay for police officers meet the training (they should have had) and risks that they face in their jobs? If not are we attacking the most qualified individuals for the job or people who are not qualified but need a job? Are communities supporting police and fire with sufficient funding for training or have over reached in the tax cut frenzy? Why do police officers automatically assume that everyone is armed especially if they are poor, male and minority? Because it is the stereotype the NRA has sold us. You must have fear of "others" especially the one "bad person". Why are Grand Juries so afraid of indicting police officers and allowing them to stand trail where all evidence is presented? Is it that the jury members do not understand the system or the prosecutors don't want the police angry with them so they limit their presentations? The concept that the police are above the law is beginning to play out so often that America needs to face the fact that communities are ending up with fear of police rather than respect for police.
2
The "understanding" grand juries extend to officers seems to know no limits. No matter what the stopped person is doing, it seems, maximum force is applied. After the fact, as long as the officer says he was frightened there are no consequences for killing people. Thank God for the rising number of cameras around...that give us an opportunity to have a more informed conversation about force escalation. The "he was no angel" construction is having an appalling impact on the conversation. Police, who by definition run into people who are not in the moment at their best, are expected to behave perfectly in high-stress, high-emotion moments. If they fall short, even in ways that are not in any way particularly dangerous, they can be shot to death.
Every night the news from Miami opens with who shot who. Usually it is black on black shooting. No wonder the police and the people are scared. I seem to remember a time when it was illegal to publish a picture of a felon for fear of prejudice. Maybe we should try that again.
2
Dear Mr. Blow,
Your report on Officer Morrison does miss one point; you neglect to mention the race of Mr. Shaw.
All the reader knows is that both men were "high" and both unarmed.
Was Mr. Shaw in the same crime ridden part of the city? Was Mr. Shaw also a minority? Have the police in Billings had a problem with drugs and guns prior to these two incidents?
I am not defending any officer who's training fails when one needs it the most and two people are dead for "misdemeanors" it seems.
But are we comparing "apples to apples" in both cases?
If Mr. Shaw was not "of color' then Billings seems to have a "Wild Bill Hickock" in their midst who really doesn't see "color" only threats to his authority. Such a police officer must be either trained better (Though in the 2 years between the shootings, Officer Morrison might have learned something) or demoted to an "Animal Control Officer' though I would pity any animals within his sights.
Overall, a bad cop is a bad cop. Cops aren't supposed to "panic" but are supposed to "control" the situation. When they don't and use their "side arm" as a "Peacemaker", then there is a fundamental flaw in that officer's training and discipline.
Your report on Officer Morrison does miss one point; you neglect to mention the race of Mr. Shaw.
All the reader knows is that both men were "high" and both unarmed.
Was Mr. Shaw in the same crime ridden part of the city? Was Mr. Shaw also a minority? Have the police in Billings had a problem with drugs and guns prior to these two incidents?
I am not defending any officer who's training fails when one needs it the most and two people are dead for "misdemeanors" it seems.
But are we comparing "apples to apples" in both cases?
If Mr. Shaw was not "of color' then Billings seems to have a "Wild Bill Hickock" in their midst who really doesn't see "color" only threats to his authority. Such a police officer must be either trained better (Though in the 2 years between the shootings, Officer Morrison might have learned something) or demoted to an "Animal Control Officer' though I would pity any animals within his sights.
Overall, a bad cop is a bad cop. Cops aren't supposed to "panic" but are supposed to "control" the situation. When they don't and use their "side arm" as a "Peacemaker", then there is a fundamental flaw in that officer's training and discipline.
1
The issue of who gets the benefit of the doubt in police shootings is the same as the issue of who get the benefit of the doubt in all shootings. In the American justice system, the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt. The thing that works in police officer's favor is the question of motive.
What a well balanced, thoughtful piece! Thank you. I am so that I gave you another chance and read it. Emotions do run high in police work and need to be addressed, on both sides. At the end of the day though, what matters most is protecting people. Poor people are victims, it's true. But as anyone who has been bullied knows, the most insidious damage happens when the individual turns on him/herself. The poor unfortunately turn to drugs and violence to assuage their fears and insecurities. We need to do all we can to protect them from this devastating path... this means getting guns and drugs off the street and giving people the hope for having a decent, financially sound life.
1
In an another article in todays times may be an answer to part of the problem of todays policeman, policewoman. I am posting it here if some have missed it. Look for my comment to it. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/nyregion/hired-for-new-york-jails-desp...
Discrimination seems to be justified by at least one so called news outlet that starts with F and their broadcast license should be taken away. Lets start with them and continue to do so with all others like them. There is no free speech when it results in hate and violence.
Discrimination seems to be justified by at least one so called news outlet that starts with F and their broadcast license should be taken away. Lets start with them and continue to do so with all others like them. There is no free speech when it results in hate and violence.
We are unwilling and unable to compensate policemen at the level required to draw the perfect match of enforcer and psychologist. The military nature of police departments and the level of pay lures too many of the former.
Policemen deal too often with the underbelly of society and can't help but develop a certain cynicism. Also all of us have an innate resentment of authority and policemen react by limiting their association with "civilians". Policemen tend to associate with other policemen, they become insular over time. Imagine your feelings when you are pulled over by a policeman when you feel it is unwarranted.
One thing that stands out is the fact of so many policemen patrolling alone. Of course this is for cost reasons as local budgets demand efficiencies. Having them work in pairs would reduce many of the threats policemen feel. They would have a greater show of force and two heads to address a threatening situation. Also you could pair younger and older policemen.
As in many issues we want good government and good services but we do not wish to pay for them.
Policemen deal too often with the underbelly of society and can't help but develop a certain cynicism. Also all of us have an innate resentment of authority and policemen react by limiting their association with "civilians". Policemen tend to associate with other policemen, they become insular over time. Imagine your feelings when you are pulled over by a policeman when you feel it is unwarranted.
One thing that stands out is the fact of so many policemen patrolling alone. Of course this is for cost reasons as local budgets demand efficiencies. Having them work in pairs would reduce many of the threats policemen feel. They would have a greater show of force and two heads to address a threatening situation. Also you could pair younger and older policemen.
As in many issues we want good government and good services but we do not wish to pay for them.
1
Mike: You are being an awful apologist for incompetent hiring. A profession endowed with the power to take a life should and must be held accountable for hiring policies. Are you that willing to accept your comments if they pertained to other "critical" professions like Physicians, Architects (do you want to be in a building poorly constructed), aircraft manufacturers, and so many other critical professions where standards must be held to a superior level of consumer/public confidence- the answer is- of course not; again don't be an apologists in the case of police hiring and training policies- one day you or a loved one may find yourself facing the front of a gun from one of our "finest".
It is not a surprise that the police are concerned about citizens they encounter may be caring a gun. I would be. Why do citizens need to carry concealed weapons anyway? Between the NRA and right wing fascists in this country we are slowing returning the US to the Wild West and not in name only. How about the rights of the rest of us who do not own guns let alone carry them on their person? Don't we have the right to feel safe when we are out in public? How many citizens who are not carrying guns are shot by those that do so purposefully or by accident? I bet there aren't any statistics on this question because if they were made known most intelligent people would realize that ordinary citizens should not be carrying a weapon. If people wish to own a gun to defend their family or property then the gun needs to remain at home where it belongs.
3
After Blow's typical rants on the subject of police interactions with the (esp. black) public, this is remarkably restrained and nuanced. Let's hope it's a sign of things to come.
1
If the laws are so unpopular that it requires this kind of militarized violence to enforce them on "we the people", maybe the problem is with the laws.
The pervasive presence of guns in America make these decisions truly life and death moments which can and do occur ever more commonly. Presently, the police must deal with this issue more often than most citizens. But with 300,000,000 guns floating around, and unaccounted for, untracked, and with the owners under no obligation to secure them, the rest of us are increasingly in the same position.
While bias, and prejudice, can and do account for some of this, compare our expereince with the rest of the world. Ownership rolls with certificates of title and licences for users; liability insurance covering safe storage and use; and 'rules of the road' for guns, like cars, would lower the death toll substantially.
While bias, and prejudice, can and do account for some of this, compare our expereince with the rest of the world. Ownership rolls with certificates of title and licences for users; liability insurance covering safe storage and use; and 'rules of the road' for guns, like cars, would lower the death toll substantially.
2
There are two different problems here. One is that the police do not appear to be adequately trained and are reacting out of fear rather than in accordance with established procedures. In this case there appears to have been over-reaction. The second is that we have people on drugs driving around and then when stopped, instead of complying with the officer's instructions, they either ignore them or resist, thus raising the level of tension and the possibility of a bad outcome. The core of this problem begins with the people who are breaking the law by creating the situation in the first place, and then resisting. Does this justify their being shot? No. But it does create the situation that an foreseeable escalate to this result. People ne3ed to learn how to interact with cops when they are stopped. And cops need to be better trained in dealing with idiots so these situations that might otherwise result in a fine or slap on the wrist do not turn into a tragic fatality. It is complex, but in the end it comes down to people acting responsibly. Maybe we should start teaching that is school.
5
I viewed the video of the second shooting by this officer. As a psychologist, what I observed was an officer of the peace who was highly agitated. He may have followed procedure, but in giving orders, he issued them while screaming obscenities. The officer repeated himself several times very rapidly, stating that he would shoot one of the passengers. My impression was that the officer was severely agitated and that his actions appeared to be more reflexive, or automatic, than rationally planned. I believe that these behaviors could be evaluated by trained professionals, in the context of comparing the behavior of other officers on the same police force to determine whether the routinely exhibit such agitated, aggressive behavior. Functional behavioral analyses can be made of the videos of police traffic stops to determine the frequency, intensity and duration of the behaviors they exhibit. If, indeed, the police office who shot two unarmed civilians exhibits a significantly higher level of agitation, that suggests that it is logical to question his ability to dispatch his duty based on a rationally considered decision. If his behavior pattern differs significantly from other officers who make traffic stops, that is the basis for further investigation. Indeed, police training for traffic stops could include significant instruction of what behavioral responses are required of the officers by their commanders. Such behaviors are observable and measurable.
40
The birth of shoot-first exonerations marked the death of "reasonable man" justifications. Now police often feel that a "notion" of dangerous actions about to occur need not pass the "reasonable man would think" test. Got the notion? Shoot.
Thus what was once a sad but acceptable mode of wartime thinking becomes American law enforcement action at home and carry concealed weapons normative and shoot-first a strange anti-social social doctrine. These domestic militarizations may make Billings, Montana a new OK Corral, and every Smallville USA potentially a new and frightening Tombstone. And every cop one meets a possible RoboCop gone awry, a judge and jury armed with deadly force and no controls? God help us.
Thus what was once a sad but acceptable mode of wartime thinking becomes American law enforcement action at home and carry concealed weapons normative and shoot-first a strange anti-social social doctrine. These domestic militarizations may make Billings, Montana a new OK Corral, and every Smallville USA potentially a new and frightening Tombstone. And every cop one meets a possible RoboCop gone awry, a judge and jury armed with deadly force and no controls? God help us.
1
This is one of the most intelligently written articles I have read of late--on any issue! Rather than engaging in one-sided hyperbole, it considers all angles of the problem and incorporates psychological and societal variables into both sides of the analysis, while arrrving at a just and well-considered conclusion. Bravo, Mr. Blow!
5
I am an older American citizen and after all these years I still don't 'get' the way a majority of Americans think. After a year of incidents where people are tragic victims of guns used without sufficient reason: students killed in their schools, hopheads killed in their cars, a kid returning from buying candy, a mother killed by her toddler, a teenager having come from committing a minor offense. On and on it goes. But does America want gun control? No, they want less gun control. Bet the police are for gun control. Less fear. If things get one sided, we the people can form a militia and bear arms as stated in the Constitution.
5
Charles, I really appreciate this column -- it's divorced from simple-minded politics and sloganeering, and really makes an effort to find resolution and reconciliation. This is what we need more of in this particular debate.
4
I guess we have a Old Wild Wild West mentality when it comes to law enforcement...kill em all and let God sort out the rest.
1
"First, and this cannot be said often enough, police officers do dangerous work..."
No. First and foremost we have to be honest about how dangerous it is to be a cop. According to OSHA, it doesn't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs. #1 is lumberjack. Sanitation workers also make the Top 10 list.
Do all lumberjacks die or get seriously wounded only because of carelessness? Of course not (I know because there are several Northwest loggers in my family). Are all police injuries and deaths the result of being attacked by "the bad guys"? Of course not. In fact, FBI stats show that law enforcement deaths are almost as likely to come from other officers.
I know a lot of people in various social vocations that exist solely to improve damaged lives and reduce the likelihood of "bad guys" existing in the first place. In some cases, their jobs are as dangerous as that of police. In all cases, if they mess up, it can have a dangerously negative impact on the people involved. But nobody is super duper careful to make sure the difficulty of their jobs is emphasized in political speeches. There are no parades for them.
As for the lumberjacks who make sure that you can reload your printer, they too leave for work early each morning knowing that there is a distinct possibility of not returning home that night. Sometimes they wind up in the hospital for a week where they fall in love with the attending nurse and end up creating the father of a NYT Op-Ed commenter.
No. First and foremost we have to be honest about how dangerous it is to be a cop. According to OSHA, it doesn't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs. #1 is lumberjack. Sanitation workers also make the Top 10 list.
Do all lumberjacks die or get seriously wounded only because of carelessness? Of course not (I know because there are several Northwest loggers in my family). Are all police injuries and deaths the result of being attacked by "the bad guys"? Of course not. In fact, FBI stats show that law enforcement deaths are almost as likely to come from other officers.
I know a lot of people in various social vocations that exist solely to improve damaged lives and reduce the likelihood of "bad guys" existing in the first place. In some cases, their jobs are as dangerous as that of police. In all cases, if they mess up, it can have a dangerously negative impact on the people involved. But nobody is super duper careful to make sure the difficulty of their jobs is emphasized in political speeches. There are no parades for them.
As for the lumberjacks who make sure that you can reload your printer, they too leave for work early each morning knowing that there is a distinct possibility of not returning home that night. Sometimes they wind up in the hospital for a week where they fall in love with the attending nurse and end up creating the father of a NYT Op-Ed commenter.
29
But cops are the only ones authorized, as part of their job, to use Deadly Physical Force.
An analogy between a lumberjack and a cop makes sense only if one can say that criminals are dumb as wood and trees don't know how to protect themselves.
1
Dealing with death and violence creates a different stress than dealing with cutting down trees out in the woods or sanitation work. Police work may not cause as much death to officers on the job, but the stress it creates is far different than the top 10 dangerous jobs.
1
It seems evident that a number of policemen reach for their guns without taking the time to assess the situation and this is due to the fact that guns are so easily available to anyone. When someone reaches for a gun there is not much time to think, one's life depends on split second decisions. Thus a policeman can get away shooting someone in almost all cases by simply stating he thought the victim was reaching for a gun even if all he was doing was searching for his driver's license. Better training and removing people obviously unqualified for police work may reduce the number of such incidents but as long as guns are ubiquitous there will continue to be people shot just because a policeman fears for his life.
13
'Kill first, ask questions later' seems to have become the default position.
This is the sign of a fascist society.
Is this what we have become?
This is the sign of a fascist society.
Is this what we have become?
14
In Indiana meth is the drug of choice because most of it is home brewed. Indiana is also a state which allows open carry of of firearms. Police might indeed react out of fear for the own life in confronting someone high on meth and shoot first. The open carry laws are promoted by the NRA.
NRA policies are at the root of the problem of the proliferation of guns in this country. Now, the NRA isn't even satisfied with the fact that open carry laws require a license issued by the state. A member of the state legislature, who is also a member of the NRA board of directors, has introduced legislation to eliminate the need for a license because it is an infringement on an individual's 2nd Amendment rights.
NRA policies are at the root of the problem of the proliferation of guns in this country. Now, the NRA isn't even satisfied with the fact that open carry laws require a license issued by the state. A member of the state legislature, who is also a member of the NRA board of directors, has introduced legislation to eliminate the need for a license because it is an infringement on an individual's 2nd Amendment rights.
6
Yes, police work can be dangerous. That is why one of the requirements for becoming a police officer is being level headed and keeping your calm even in hectic and dangerous situations.
Bad cops like Morrison not only are a risk to civilians. They are also a risk to their colleague cops as they soil the image of the police with the common population and as a consequence make the common population less cooperative.
One can dispute whether the jury should have decided differently. But for me it is above dispute that a man like Morrison should not be part of the police force.
Bad cops like Morrison not only are a risk to civilians. They are also a risk to their colleague cops as they soil the image of the police with the common population and as a consequence make the common population less cooperative.
One can dispute whether the jury should have decided differently. But for me it is above dispute that a man like Morrison should not be part of the police force.
8
Police Officers do a job that involves interaction with the public. Some of the people that police encounter are dangerous. That's why they are trained, given a gun and given a radio. They aren't supposed to take undo risks, but when Barney Fife shoots into a car, simply because he got nervous or when he administers a choke hold, against department regulations, and someone dies, the officer needs to be held accountable.
9
He was held accountable, you just don't like the outcome.
1
Life is all about probabilities and risks. Most of us worry about our kids because we know how close we came to something bad happening when we were growing up. Bad decisions result, bad stuff happens with some non-zero but small chance - we all (intuitively) try to make choices that shift those odds in our favor. "Punishment" can be thought of as a shift in those probabilities (e.g., for taking drugs, acting aggressively, ... alas, being black). The police bring to their interactions prior probabilities about their risks and what they expect to happen. These probabilities are learned by experience and too often by anecdote. The result is that too often these "priors" are wrong. Minority parents teach their kids to anticipate this truth and white parents, who live with more "favorable house-odds", don't need to. That doesn't mean evil is the cause but that rather those learned priors are to blame.
1
Burglary and robbery should not be capital offenses, either. But if you break in to my house at 2AM, I must assume that you have planned to find people at home, and I will respond with any force necessary to protect myself and my loved ones.
8
What does this post have to do with police shootings?
1
How many times has that happened to you?
1
Police - regardless of the job they signed up for - must protect themselves. They deserve the same rights as any homeowner who would be defending themselves or their loved ones.
1
It strikes me that police ought to be limited to carrying a stun gun or some other kind of weapon that temporarily disables individuals when they are on patrol. Given the concealed carry laws and the LEGAL ownership statistics it is not illogical for a police officer to expect the someone in a carful of young males or someone in a group of young males on a street corner or convenience store parking lot to have a weapon. If a vehicle is being operated irrationally or not well maintained law abiding citizens would expect the police to stop that vehicle. If a group gathered on a street corner or convenience store parking lot are perceived as menacing law abiding citizens would expect the police to confront that group to provide safe access to other citizens. That is far more preferable to having another citizen with a concealed weapon feeling sufficiently threatened to take the law into their own hands. When confrontations on the highway or streets take place police need to be able to respond quickly with force… but as we've seen of late that force should be disabling and not deadly.
1
Throughout the recent incidents, bad behavior was the catalyst. When disobediance follows bad behavior, the risk of unfortunate result increases.
I wish outrage would rise to an equal crescendo for behavior and obediance.
I wish outrage would rise to an equal crescendo for behavior and obediance.
8
dlewis-- nobody ever anointed police officers as people we must "obey," or else we die. that is not the social compact and it is certainly not the law.
1
Not really. Playing with a toy gun in a park is "bad behavior"? Walking in a stairwell is "bad behavior"? Picking up a bb gun in a toy store is "bad behavior"? Even Eric Garner was breaking up a fight -- not selling loosies, and was trying to explain to the officers, whom he addressed as 'sir."
1
The law IS that one must comply with an officers lawful orders and the social compact is that we offer to respect police officers for the good they do.
When we don't obey a few die, a few more get roughed up and arrested, a few more get arrested. It is only the few that don't know how to deal with police.
When we don't obey a few die, a few more get roughed up and arrested, a few more get arrested. It is only the few that don't know how to deal with police.
1
We also have to own up to the fact that black males commit a vastly disproportionate amount of violent crime. Police must have a profile in their heads whether its legal or not. Whether they are bigots or not, whether they are minority or white. I'll bet Mr. Blow has unwarranted moments of fear in high crime neighborhoods. Everyone does. It's a simple fact that you are more likely to be a victim in a high crime area and high crime areas happen to be predominately minority.
17
In comments sections of the Irish Times, when someone pivots from the kernel of an argument, we call it "Whataboutery." It's what kids do when they're caught with a hand in the cookie jar--"What about her? She did it too?"
1
What is the difference between a police officer ordering a young man or woman to put their hands up, empty their pockets, or any kind of order when there is little or no provocation and a gestapo officer asking to see "Your papers!"?
After all there was no better example anywhere anytime of a "law and order" form of government than the nazis.
After all there was no better example anywhere anytime of a "law and order" form of government than the nazis.
1
High crime ares don't "happen to be primarily minority". They are that way because of the treatment of blacks since slavery, reconstruction and beyond. Do we think it is a coincidence that an entire race of people who were enslaved are now most likely to be living in poverty? The racism we talk about is not in the way the police treat people in those neighborhoods; it is the very reason blacks live in those neighborhoods (and yes, commit the crimes) in the first place.
2
I just wonder how many people have been stopped for a traffic violation and have been asked to put their hands up. I am an older white lady. I drive an old beaten up car. I have had two traffic stops, both at night, both in Chicago and neither time was I asked to put my hands up. In fact both times the officers, one a lone white female and the other two white males, were professional, understanding and courteous. Was I treated this way because of my color, or age, or gender, or educational level at being able to explain the circumstances, or just because of my behavior which is respectful towards police and pretty much everyone, or all of these or some of these?
I wonder how many minorities have these types of experiences with the police. How about young males or females, poor people, poorly educated people and those who have been taught to fear the police and others in power? Is it looks, manners or mannerisms. What makes a police officer ask the people in a car stopped for a traffic violation to raise their hands? Is it fear, and/or experience and/or behavior?
Does the officer doing so cause people to be more resistant and react differently, less respectfully? Does that make people afraid of the officer? Our behavior towards each other is important. It can be the difference between life and death.
What makes a police officer ask the people in a car stopped for a traffic violation to raise their hands? We need to answer this question, it is the crux of this dilemma.
I wonder how many minorities have these types of experiences with the police. How about young males or females, poor people, poorly educated people and those who have been taught to fear the police and others in power? Is it looks, manners or mannerisms. What makes a police officer ask the people in a car stopped for a traffic violation to raise their hands? Is it fear, and/or experience and/or behavior?
Does the officer doing so cause people to be more resistant and react differently, less respectfully? Does that make people afraid of the officer? Our behavior towards each other is important. It can be the difference between life and death.
What makes a police officer ask the people in a car stopped for a traffic violation to raise their hands? We need to answer this question, it is the crux of this dilemma.
9
Because it provides the officer more reaction time before the occupants could grab a weapon and do grievious bodily injury. I have been stopped several times over my 40 years of driving. I always put my hands on the wheel so they are visible. It puts the officer at ease and may have even saved me a few tickets. I am white, but good advice for any driver.
3
Independent of Grand Jury or Inquest results, I believe that the use of deadly force resulting in the death of a citizen, should automatically result in a jury trial. Grand Juries and Inquests don't have the advantage of an adversarial presentation of evidence.
Unless there is overwhelming evidence that there was a clear and present danger to either the community or the officer (ie the person shot had already shot a citizen or was threatening to shoot a citizen) then a jury trial should automatically occur. S/he was "doing everything by the book" is not an adequate defense for the use of lethal force.
Unless there is overwhelming evidence that there was a clear and present danger to either the community or the officer (ie the person shot had already shot a citizen or was threatening to shoot a citizen) then a jury trial should automatically occur. S/he was "doing everything by the book" is not an adequate defense for the use of lethal force.
7
Whatever you believe, it is not going to happen for constitutional reasons.
1
The complexities of the situation elicited by Mr. Blow are worthy of our consideration for designing policies, but they are nothing more than academic abstractions for the police officer facing a potential threat. The question is: Did the police officer have a reasonable fear for his life? A jury considering all the facts determined that he did, and the known facts do not present a prima facie case against their determination. It is now common practice for media elites to question jury outcomes (without the benefit of having witnessed the entire trial or proceedings) based on preconceived notions derived from an ideological agenda. Officer Morrison was facing four men who were refusing to comply with his direction, and at least one of them was acting in an erratic manner because he was high on methamphetamine. The officer needed to make a split-second decision. The bottom line is that when you are intoxicated on illegal drugs you expose yourself to enhanced danger when interacting with the police, because your erratic behavior is likely to be misinterpreted. The primary culpability for creating this situation must lie with the individual high on drugs, not with the police officer heroically attempting to resolve a difficult situation. We all wish that Officer Morrison could have been able to have interpreted the situation more accurately thus saving a life, but the tragedy is rooted in drug abuse, not in police abuse.
12
How many times have you been pulled over for no reason? How many times have cops roughed you up or arrested you? Until such time that a person like you can respond to those types of situations; you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation.
2
DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO? My interpretation is quite different.
1
It's not mentioned why the officer had to approach the vehicle in the first place. One way to diffuse the situation police face when approaching someone who is high would be to decriminalize the drug. No fear of arrest for being high equals no fear of the cop when he approaches equals a much better outcome.
One of my fondest memories of the new reality here in Colorado; I saw a neighborhood cop approaching a woman who had just left a legal dispensary with her bag of pot. Twenty years ago she would have been paranoid and he would have needed to hassle her, this time he smiled at her and she said "Good morning" and we all went about our lives, peaceably.
One of my fondest memories of the new reality here in Colorado; I saw a neighborhood cop approaching a woman who had just left a legal dispensary with her bag of pot. Twenty years ago she would have been paranoid and he would have needed to hassle her, this time he smiled at her and she said "Good morning" and we all went about our lives, peaceably.
1
Would the fact that the person being pulled over was a suspect in an armed robbery where someone was shot in the arm increase your fear that the person was armed and reaching for the same gun? - Ramirez Would the fact that a man, after being hit with a stun gun, reaches in a pocket where there is a BB gun replica of a handgun increase your fear that the person was armed and planning on shooting you? - Shaw By the way, the officer's race was included in this story, Ramirez's heritage and being "brown" was mentioned. I did not see any mention of Shaw's race/ethnicity. He was white.
17
Looking into the background of the deceased after he's been shot yields information, but that doesn't mean that the officer knew any of it at the time of the shooting.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to immediately realize how much information Mr. Blow was leaving out of this article. It is ridiculous to do so. Thank you for pointing this out - many readers would not otherwise have known. Thanks again.
3
Morrison is not fit to carry a badge and a gun. His psychological profile would have revealed that even before the first killing. The police-force that allowed him to go on packing after that first killing is equally responsible for the death of Ramirez.
Pan to NM where a homeless schizophrenic was killed. Video shows police in a standoff with him when he'd been found camping illegally. One cop had a rifle, another had a shot-gun of some kind. The man was packing up his stuff when someone launched a flash-bang at him. Disoriented, he scrabbled for his stuff, which apparently included knives. Six shots were fired, three hitting him, at least one in the back. "Don't hurt me again," he pleaded." They bean-bagged him five times at close range (rounds that are used for longer-range crowd-control) and they turned a dog loose on him, before handcuffing him. He died in hospital next day.
Enough is enough. At least the DA in Albuquerque has indicted the shooters.
Pan to NM where a homeless schizophrenic was killed. Video shows police in a standoff with him when he'd been found camping illegally. One cop had a rifle, another had a shot-gun of some kind. The man was packing up his stuff when someone launched a flash-bang at him. Disoriented, he scrabbled for his stuff, which apparently included knives. Six shots were fired, three hitting him, at least one in the back. "Don't hurt me again," he pleaded." They bean-bagged him five times at close range (rounds that are used for longer-range crowd-control) and they turned a dog loose on him, before handcuffing him. He died in hospital next day.
Enough is enough. At least the DA in Albuquerque has indicted the shooters.
43
I continue to wonder what is wrong with having an independent investigator assigned to each and every case involving a police officer using his/her weapon in lieu of the local DA, particularly if there is a death involved (which seems to become a too regular occurrence). The local DA/prosecutor is so intertwined with the police that one has to wonder how aggressive investigation and future police interaction would play out. Bottom line - who would be afraid of an impartial investigation?
16
Probably no one if the investigation was impartial. But in the fever of Travon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner, the mob was calling for conviction and the politicians were cowering regardless of the facts. The independent investigator is appointed by those politicians. The local DA/prosecutor is no more subject to pressure or has no more prejudices than a special prosecutor. In the Trayvon Martin case, the local prosecutor was relieved by a high powered independent state prosecutor, who lost the case miserably. The state prosecutor was then called a bum because the outcome was not what the mob wanted.
5
The problem is systemic and begins and starts with retraining the police force and ensuring that the right people become police officers. Many officers today seem to always be on the offensive, looking for a reason to confront, insult and arrest rather than deescalate or defuse potentially dangerous situations. I honestly never considered the proliferation of guns as a reason for their attitudes. What strikes me about the report however is that the officer in the Billings case was indicted and brought to trial. Even in Montana apparently the Police have greater accountability and culpability than in NYC.
27
The premise: Many officers today seem to always be on the offensive, looking for a reason to confront, insult and arrest rather than deescalate or defuse potentially dangerous situations.
Is not a real premise, right? Just a hunch.
Is not a real premise, right? Just a hunch.
Even if one argues that a policeman is justified if shooting an unarmed person because of a reasonably perceived threat, the policeman should at least be administratively sanctioned for messing up. When a policeman guess that he needs to shoot someone and he guesses wrong, he needs to be fired and prohibited from being in law enforcement. If nothing else, the policeman in Montana would have only shot one unarmed person. Certainly the officer that choked Eric Garner is at least guilty of incompetency and should loose his job.
In other occupations you get fired when you mess up. This works to weed out incompetency. Police forces across the US should try this.
In other occupations you get fired when you mess up. This works to weed out incompetency. Police forces across the US should try this.
67
Yes, absolutely. The police have high-stakes jobs, and when they mess up it can be deadly, but we can't hold them criminally responsible for split-second, high-stress decisions made in the line of duty -- if we did this then nobody in their right mind would want to be a police officer. We can, however, hold them administratively responsible. That is indeed what happened in the Ferguson case and may as yet happen in the Eric Garner case.
2
Another possibility is for police to be required by their employers to carry their own professional liability insurance in order to be hired. Similar to any other professional, whose "mistakes" can have adverse effects on "customers", an unbiased third party will assess and evaluate and make the actuarial analysis necessary to decide the risk of each person on the force. Body cameras would supply the data and premiums would obviously be based on each officer's ability to defuse/escalate routine situations among other factors like routine drug testing, etc.. If the premiums get too high, the officer should look for work elsewhere, just like any other professional who cannot afford his malpractice insurance. In the event of a well trained and insured public safety officer getting caught up in extraordinary circumstances and making an erroneous judgement call, that generates a claim on the officer's insurance policy not on the taxpayer's insurance policy. Each officer should be responsible for their own deductible, as well.
1
This is a constructive and thoughtful piece. On TV crime dramas, there are often legal or in-Court discussions about the "state of mind" of a person choosing to take violent action. There may be many police officers who are more likely to fear for their lives when they are confronting a person not from their own ethnic background -- there is an element of human nature in that, that needs to be trained out of police officer candidates -- but, much more than any element of "profiling", I believe, most officers are trying to do the right thing without getting themselves killed. And it is not surprising that they can make mistakes as a result of heightened anxiety.
We do ourselves a disservice if we just assume the people we ask to protect us should consistently behave as if they were in a relaxed, non-threatening set of conditions, no matter where they are or who they encounter. Walk a mile in their shoes, and then make recommendations for positive change. Mr. Blow is on the right track, I believe.
We do ourselves a disservice if we just assume the people we ask to protect us should consistently behave as if they were in a relaxed, non-threatening set of conditions, no matter where they are or who they encounter. Walk a mile in their shoes, and then make recommendations for positive change. Mr. Blow is on the right track, I believe.
16
A society filled with guns and drugs, then add in racism ----you have a deadly mix.
7
Charles...why not do a month of ride-alongs with the police? You could report first-hand what really goes on out on the streets at night. Your columns have become kind of stale lately, relying on hearsay for your information about what a policeman faces everyday.
11
Not to mention the fact that he leaves out crucial context with respect to both of Morrison's shootings: the first guy had a gun and was reaching for it (turned out to be a look-alike BB gun) and the second was wanted for a recent armed robbery in which he had shot someone.
3
When a cop stops you and tells you to put your hands up, that is what you do. We have been told that when pulled over, don't reach for your cell phone, keep your hands on the steering wheel, don't put your hands in your pockets, do nothing that will arouse suspicion. But I guess when you're on drugs, those warnings are not supposed to count - you can do anything that may lead the cop to believe that you will harm him. Think about when cops pull over a car that has all tinted windows. They have no idea what is lurking in the darkness. Yes, it is a complex issue, certainly not black and white, as Blow usually suggests.
15
so the officer stays at his patrol car and using the PA system has the occupants of the car with tinted windows get out of their car or waits for back-up. Sometimes I think the officers are strutting their stuff rather than taking a calm slow means to enforce the law. I read an article awhile back where other nationalities of police use time and patience to apprehend people without having to shot for protection as often as happens here. why didn't the officer in this article simply back away (meaning run) from the suspects when he thought that things were going wrong,
17
As Mr. Blow pointed out- with so many states allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon- how does that square with the mindset of far too many Police Officers's fears of individuals who may have a weapon? Since people are allowed to carry them concealed- is it now permissible to kill any citizen who is stopped for fear of them having a weapon? Having a Weapon and "reaching for a weapon" are different however in the current state of civilian policing- they have become synonymous and becoming the basis for using lethal force, based solely on a perception of "fear".
1
Actually, it IS a black and white issue - it's called SOP, or Standard Operating Procedure.
CALL FOR BACK-UP and don't approach the vehicle by yourself.
CALL FOR BACK-UP and don't approach the vehicle by yourself.
2
In 2013 the NYPD shot and killed 8 individuals. About one individual per 1M local residents. In 1971, the number of individuals shot and killed by the NYPD was 93. This says a lot about the NYPD in terms of hiring, training, tactics and leadership. In 2013, if FBI statistics are accurate (they may underestimate the total number of police shootings), 1.5 individuals per 1M residents were shot and killed by police throughout the rest of the country.
Perhaps the rest of the country could take a lesson from New York and follow the example of the NYPD in bringing police shootings and killings to the barest of minimums.
Perhaps the rest of the country could take a lesson from New York and follow the example of the NYPD in bringing police shootings and killings to the barest of minimums.
3
Those statistics don't include police killings by means other than shooting -- for instance, smothering to death, which is the way Eric Garner was dispatched. According to the FBI, police across the country last year fatally shot 461 felony suspects, the most in two decades. Again, this wouldn't include the killing of Eric Garner, since he was smothered to death and not shot.
1
I have read comments from some of these people over and over. With all due respect many of you are absolutely clueless about life on the street. I understand your sentiment is cocooned in middle class or wealthier America. Still your rhetorical ideology about perfect policing seems so naive as to be childish and almost mean spirited in it's lack of reality.
8
"Reality" is what people make of it. Rules of engagement need to be followed. Otherwise, having rules don't matter. And EVERYONE should be required to follow them, police included.
Police are out on the "mean streets". I get that. But they have to be the standard-bearers for following rules, not just other people not following rules.
Police are out on the "mean streets". I get that. But they have to be the standard-bearers for following rules, not just other people not following rules.
The reality in both cases cited here is that a cop murdered two people in separate incidents who did nothing wrong.
Words fail us when faced with the video showing one police officer approaching a car with four people inside, four people who, given the state and the specific location could be armed, high, and too many.
Comments by the 5 Verifieds, all of whom I maintain contact with, are helpful but given what two of them (Moses, Regas) write leads me to suggest that we need something more from a professional analyst.
The analyst would explain the alternative procedures that a lone officer is trained to consider in a situation like this. The analyst might also explain the possible role of protective clothing.
The scene reminds me immediately of the scene in Cleveland. So I want an analyst to tell me why the police do not maintain their distance in settings like this, calling for backup, and more.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Comments by the 5 Verifieds, all of whom I maintain contact with, are helpful but given what two of them (Moses, Regas) write leads me to suggest that we need something more from a professional analyst.
The analyst would explain the alternative procedures that a lone officer is trained to consider in a situation like this. The analyst might also explain the possible role of protective clothing.
The scene reminds me immediately of the scene in Cleveland. So I want an analyst to tell me why the police do not maintain their distance in settings like this, calling for backup, and more.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
3
If you see this reply go to Andrew Smallwood (at present with 62 well deserved recommendations) since he was answering my questions at the same time that I was writing my comment.
You can find him at 62+ recommendations or via my reply to him at
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/charles-blow-the-complexity-of...
After reading his comment there is no way to justify the behavior of the police officer in question,
You can find him at 62+ recommendations or via my reply to him at
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/charles-blow-the-complexity-of...
After reading his comment there is no way to justify the behavior of the police officer in question,
Two mistaken shootings by one policeman is too much.. That man is not suited to being a policeman and must stop before he kills another innocent human being.
3
Maybe so and worth pursuing.
For every victim of over policing, there are a thousand times as many Americans who have been harmed by our atrocious education system. An education system built on resistance to change and dominated by a cozy relationship between elected leaders, school administrators and the union employees doing the teaching. It seems to me that describes almost a mirror image of the litany of columns Blow has been writing about our justice system, the police and their unions.
I would have a modicum more respect for Blow's anger, passion and the call for change to our justice system if it were just as righteously focused on education in America - a system that has and continues to stunted and deformed the future of more Americans, and especially minority Americans, than incidents of police abuse ever will and that is one of the major causes of over policing in America.
I would have a modicum more respect for Blow's anger, passion and the call for change to our justice system if it were just as righteously focused on education in America - a system that has and continues to stunted and deformed the future of more Americans, and especially minority Americans, than incidents of police abuse ever will and that is one of the major causes of over policing in America.
I realize that some people can only focus on one thing at a time, but I think Blow--and most people--can focus on both the fact that some of our schools do a terrible job and that some police consider themselves prosecutor, jury, judge, and executioner. Being concerned about one thing doesn't mean that you aren't concerned about any others.
Mr. blow asks if police are "warped" by the people they have to deal with all the time. It stands to reason that they are effected. But "warped" ? Why not ask if readers of the Times are "warped" because they rarely have to deal with the people who are, or should be, in our prisons? Neither the police, nor the readers are warped. But both develop partial perspectives that they must work equally hard to correct.
5
"He draws his gun and fires 3 shots into the car." Who was officer Morrison aiming at or was he just firing into the car? This is outrageous behavior. The officer had not seen a gun and had shouted 'hands up', but did not seem to want to wait.
I fear for the future of our country as more and more states allow citizens to walk around with guns. The result will be an even more nervous police forces, and more deaths by second amendment.
I fear for the future of our country as more and more states allow citizens to walk around with guns. The result will be an even more nervous police forces, and more deaths by second amendment.
9
There is clearly a psychopath in the video, possibly under the influence of amphetamines, and that is officer Morrison. At no point in the video is there the slightest indication that he has received training as an officer of the law or is behaving in a professional manner. Bizarre.
9
Mr. Blow's columns on the subject of police killings of unarmed black and Latino suspects have been so logical and in-depth. They should be required reading for police in training.
While it's true that policing is hard work, and cops get nervous when someone doesn't immediately obey their commands, there is no excuse for the recent killings and failure to appropriately prosecute the police who killed. If Michael Brown appeared armed when he approached the policeman in the street , there were other methods to stop him other than fatally pumping bullets into him. The situation in New York was ludicrous. The viewing of the instant gunning down of the youngster, Tamar Rice, with no attempt to save his life by the group of cops standing around afterwards and the wrestling down and cuffing of his distraught sister brought tears to my eyes and probably further terrified and broke the heart of most black parents who viewed it.
Thanks Mr Blow, for your analysis and keeping it real.
While it's true that policing is hard work, and cops get nervous when someone doesn't immediately obey their commands, there is no excuse for the recent killings and failure to appropriately prosecute the police who killed. If Michael Brown appeared armed when he approached the policeman in the street , there were other methods to stop him other than fatally pumping bullets into him. The situation in New York was ludicrous. The viewing of the instant gunning down of the youngster, Tamar Rice, with no attempt to save his life by the group of cops standing around afterwards and the wrestling down and cuffing of his distraught sister brought tears to my eyes and probably further terrified and broke the heart of most black parents who viewed it.
Thanks Mr Blow, for your analysis and keeping it real.
10
In a better world we'd all be cops - for a year or two. Or ER docs. Or any dangerous job, or any job where one has to interface with the worst mankind can cough up. Doing those jobs long-term can only screw you up, harden you, or in some cases, turn you into a monster. To be surprised that such jobs warp a person is to be naive, and to fail to understand the society in which you live. A capitalist society exaggerates all of this, so that at the very pinnacle, say the CEO of a Wall Street bank, sit the survivors: sociopaths rewarded for being the most aggressive a-holes in the room. It is systemic and it is a system which is assuring our extinction.
www.jonjost.wordpress.com
http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2015/01/15/on-the-supersonic...
www.jonjost.wordpress.com
http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2015/01/15/on-the-supersonic...
2
I have a decades long lack of enthusiasm for our capitalist society and have hopes humanity will organize itself in a more just and humane fashion in the future. But it is shallow thinking that inaugurating the socialist, libertarian or whatever utopia will see all abhorrent human behavior wither away.
Easing the pressure on the human condition will certainly decrease the desperation and lack of dignity that fuels much of the antisocial conduct we see today. But do you think no person will bully another, drive a motor vehicle recklessly or injure another just because they can? The sociopaths you find sitting at the top of the capitalist heap will still be born and still behave badly in your utopia and that utopia will need a professional class whose job it is to stop them.
Easing the pressure on the human condition will certainly decrease the desperation and lack of dignity that fuels much of the antisocial conduct we see today. But do you think no person will bully another, drive a motor vehicle recklessly or injure another just because they can? The sociopaths you find sitting at the top of the capitalist heap will still be born and still behave badly in your utopia and that utopia will need a professional class whose job it is to stop them.
Blow, you do not have a clue on what 'mortal fear' is, best you join our real army and experience combat, then you will be able to write about these subjects in an informed matter.
13
This is an important column. Recognition of the complexity of the problem of police use of force is an essential step in addressing the problem effectively. Because these situations are often factually and morally complex and ambiguous, perhaps we need to devote more energy to figuring out how to minimized the incidence of police violence and a little less to moralizing about individual instances.
We should start from the premise that police violence in general, not just unjustified use of force, should be minimized to the extent consistent with the safety of the public and the officers. In other words, we should shift some of our attention from the question whether each individual use of force is morally and legally justified and concentrate more on the question of how we can reduce the use of force by the police, whether justified or not.
I suggest one way to start would be hold police executives accountable for the frequency and severity of the use of force by their subordinates - not just unlawful use of force, but all use of force. We have become accustomed to using statistical data on the level of public safety in a precinct to evaluate the performance of the precinct commander. Why not also take into account the level of police violence in the precinct? The objective should be to encourage police executives to be creative and proactive in devising ways to reduce both crime and police violence at the same time.
We should start from the premise that police violence in general, not just unjustified use of force, should be minimized to the extent consistent with the safety of the public and the officers. In other words, we should shift some of our attention from the question whether each individual use of force is morally and legally justified and concentrate more on the question of how we can reduce the use of force by the police, whether justified or not.
I suggest one way to start would be hold police executives accountable for the frequency and severity of the use of force by their subordinates - not just unlawful use of force, but all use of force. We have become accustomed to using statistical data on the level of public safety in a precinct to evaluate the performance of the precinct commander. Why not also take into account the level of police violence in the precinct? The objective should be to encourage police executives to be creative and proactive in devising ways to reduce both crime and police violence at the same time.
3
Come on. This is America, leaders never take responsibility for anything. Torture, police brutality, corporate crime, there is always some low level employee who gets the blame.
As Always, Mr. Blow provides a well nuanced column. I'd suggest, although I hate to say this, that once a police officer has killed a person, he or she should not be placed in a position where they may kill another again. Human psychology is too difficult to comprehend; we are all simply too fragile. I don't want to second guess Mr. Morrison, but he should not have been placed in that position. Place him in a desk job, or doing something else needed by the police. If he has killed someone, something that does great injustice to all involved, he should never be placed in that position again, for his own benefit. Had that happened, Mr. Ramirez might still be with us today. What a tragedy!
9
"I thought he was...."
"Maybe he was..."
There is *NO* court in this country that allows instantaneous faulty and rash judgement exercised by civilians to be a valid defense. This is just Reality.
Why, therefore do Cops get to use "I feared" and "I thought" as a get away from even a trial? Grand Jury after Grand Jury, and courts too, mostly give police officers a pass for stuff like this: a professional benefit of doubt. Why? Any life taken better come with a heap of doubt!
It cannot be said more strongly: lack of instant response and compliance is *never* even remotely an excuse for deadly force!
Where's decency and simple common sense? All cops are supposed to be thoroughly well trained to exercise cool judgement, patience, and restraint. If they can't, then why for the love of God are we putting guns and badges in the hands of the overly aggressive, the disdainful, the power hungry, or the overly fearful? Where's the respect for the civilian? What ever happened to the absolute mandate that long before a cop walks outside his precinct's door, he/she is a true professional in every possible way. Recently the excuses coming forward are lame, pathetic stunners no rookie could have used 10-15 years ago.
Cops want us to respect the uniform. Is it too much to ask that they do the same by bringing sterling professionalism to their daily actions? The badge should bring accountability, not a free pass for yet another shoot first miscue.
"Maybe he was..."
There is *NO* court in this country that allows instantaneous faulty and rash judgement exercised by civilians to be a valid defense. This is just Reality.
Why, therefore do Cops get to use "I feared" and "I thought" as a get away from even a trial? Grand Jury after Grand Jury, and courts too, mostly give police officers a pass for stuff like this: a professional benefit of doubt. Why? Any life taken better come with a heap of doubt!
It cannot be said more strongly: lack of instant response and compliance is *never* even remotely an excuse for deadly force!
Where's decency and simple common sense? All cops are supposed to be thoroughly well trained to exercise cool judgement, patience, and restraint. If they can't, then why for the love of God are we putting guns and badges in the hands of the overly aggressive, the disdainful, the power hungry, or the overly fearful? Where's the respect for the civilian? What ever happened to the absolute mandate that long before a cop walks outside his precinct's door, he/she is a true professional in every possible way. Recently the excuses coming forward are lame, pathetic stunners no rookie could have used 10-15 years ago.
Cops want us to respect the uniform. Is it too much to ask that they do the same by bringing sterling professionalism to their daily actions? The badge should bring accountability, not a free pass for yet another shoot first miscue.
41
They say that after you have killed a human being once, it becomes easier to do it again. So this Officer Morrison has now killed twice with no personal consequence other than having to explain how afraid he was.
I hope someone has warned the young black men in Billings. After two "free" kills, Morrison will be even more likely to kill.
I hope someone has warned the young black men in Billings. After two "free" kills, Morrison will be even more likely to kill.
I looked up news reports of these shootings. It looks like Mr Blow left out a couple of key facts -
Ramirez was a suspect in an armed robbery in which a person was shot in the arm
Shaw was carrying a BB gun replica of a Walther handgun which he appeared to reach for after he was tasered.
Perhaps the officer and juries were considering these facts. Why weren't they included in this piece?
Ramirez was a suspect in an armed robbery in which a person was shot in the arm
Shaw was carrying a BB gun replica of a Walther handgun which he appeared to reach for after he was tasered.
Perhaps the officer and juries were considering these facts. Why weren't they included in this piece?
19
The police that morning were briefed that there had been an armed robbery the day before. They were also briefed that this could have been a drug deal gone wrong as the injured man was uncooperative with police. It is unclear why Morrison did not wait for backup before approaching the car. Backup car was about a minute away. It is unclear why he did not light up the car with lights police cars have. It is unclear why, if he thought Ramirez might be armed and in the car, he did not call to people in the car from behind his vehicle. The jury were given information on the number of times in the past that police had been called to the Ramirez house in the past year and told that there was a part of Billings they may not know about. I am not clear how that connects to the actual shooting except to show the policeman's state of mind. Meth is a scary drug.
Billings recently voted down a Public Safety mill levy. We do have more crime and more people with the same number of policeman. I wonder if more funding might help with more training . Also, one commenter wrote that "you need multiple cops to provide more options".
I know a man who had been a Billings policeman who was a true hero who recently killed himself . Most Billings police ,I believe , are professionals who do well and have been trained to deal with mentally ill people and with very complicated and high risk situations. They very professionally do welfare checks on people. This video was disturbing.
Billings recently voted down a Public Safety mill levy. We do have more crime and more people with the same number of policeman. I wonder if more funding might help with more training . Also, one commenter wrote that "you need multiple cops to provide more options".
I know a man who had been a Billings policeman who was a true hero who recently killed himself . Most Billings police ,I believe , are professionals who do well and have been trained to deal with mentally ill people and with very complicated and high risk situations. They very professionally do welfare checks on people. This video was disturbing.
1
This shooting is even more idiotic than I first thought. He knows the car, has an idea of who might be inside, that they might be dangerous and he doesn't call for help?
1
This was a very good job of acting by this policeman, he knew just what to do because of his killing of another unarmed man. It did not matter what he did, he was NOT going to ever be convicted of shooting an unarmed minority. The criminal justice system doe snot work for minorities, especially for African Americans.
W. E. B. DuBois said: A system cannot fail those it was never meant to protect.
W. E. B. DuBois said: A system cannot fail those it was never meant to protect.
37
It's a dangerous job, to be sure. But it doesn't even make it to the Labor Department's Top 10 most dangerous jobs, a list that includes roofers, commercial fishing and garbage collecting. And according to the FBI, a criminal suspect is more likely to be shot by a cop than a cop is likely to be killed in the line of duty. Sounds to me like it's the public that needs to be protected from the cops.
65
richcpl-- the cop defenders absolutely hate your facts. Ever since 9/11 the deification of cops (firefighters too) has done nothing positive for our country, other than to get them out-sized pay and pensions, allow them to retire at age 50, and encouraged their glorification as heroes, no matter the circumstances.
Perhaps it's also time to do away with the claims about blacks being the victims more often as well.
1
When an officer goes on patrol, there is always the fear that he may get hurt.That fear cannot be erased. Encounters with possible law breakers are not one shot events but includes the total activities that happened. If the stopped person doesn't respond to the officer or physically resists an arrest, the policeman's alert system is engaged and concern for his own well being takes over and overrides out any detailed event analysis that could be made. I' would like to know how many deaths would have occurred, if the accused hadn't broken the law and did cooperate and answer questions by the officer. The most publicized recent cases would not have resulted in a fatality.
3
I believe most police understand their job is to resolve situations without shooting people. It is the reason we expect police departments to be careful and exacting in their hiring. The pool of potential recruits would greatly expand if the job was pull people over and shoot them.
Mr. Morrison seems particularly unfit. He knew the car and had a pretty good idea of who was inside and that they probably were high. Being alone, he should have called for help. Viewing the video from outside the profession, this would seem to be common sense. Or is having the brains of a fence post now the primary qualification for becoming a police officer?
Mr. Morrison seems particularly unfit. He knew the car and had a pretty good idea of who was inside and that they probably were high. Being alone, he should have called for help. Viewing the video from outside the profession, this would seem to be common sense. Or is having the brains of a fence post now the primary qualification for becoming a police officer?
The Morrison case was recorded and aired on NPR yesterday. It sounded frightening. No mention of a previous shooting was made on NPR. Really bad reporting.
Cases like this deserve to go before a special prosecutor who does not work with the police, does not rely on police support, and is representative of the general public. The grand jury system is at fault, not the police. Individual incidents like this and the Garner, Rice, and Brown cases deserve to be tried and to accomplish that, we must reform the Grand Jury system. Failure to reform the system stacks the public, minorities in particular against trusting the justice system and the police. The defensive response by policemen stems from their being blamed for the outcome of the flawed grand jury system in which justice is compromised. Support the police, reform the grand jury, end the distrust and betrayal.
Cases like this deserve to go before a special prosecutor who does not work with the police, does not rely on police support, and is representative of the general public. The grand jury system is at fault, not the police. Individual incidents like this and the Garner, Rice, and Brown cases deserve to be tried and to accomplish that, we must reform the Grand Jury system. Failure to reform the system stacks the public, minorities in particular against trusting the justice system and the police. The defensive response by policemen stems from their being blamed for the outcome of the flawed grand jury system in which justice is compromised. Support the police, reform the grand jury, end the distrust and betrayal.
26
I clicked on the link in the article for the video showing the killing in Montana.
The officer got out of his car and went to the offside rear passenger door which he opened and without drawing his weapon leant inside. Had there been an armed and dangerous man inside this is when the officer would have been shot. It indicates very poor training. He had also given the driver the opportunity to roar off into the night.
Still standing much too close to the car he drew his weapon then started shouting commands at the occupants. Within seconds he was literally screaming at them. By doing this he had singlehandedly elevated a simple traffic stop into a potentially serious confrontation.The occupants of the car at this stage had done nothing but this officer had already lost control of both himself and the situation. He was no longer a policeman but a foolish and hysterical man with a gun who had worked himself into a frenzy. I was a 30 second operation so amateurish, incompetent and bungled as to boggle the mind.
Less than a year before the same officer had stopped a car. Within seconds he was foul mouthed and screaming at one of the occupants. The pattern repeated. In both cases he shot and killed an unarmed man.
The point here is that both the grand juries which absolved him and his superiors seemed to find his performance adequate and he was retuned to duty. This speaks volumes about the caliber of the grand juries and the Billings police department.
The officer got out of his car and went to the offside rear passenger door which he opened and without drawing his weapon leant inside. Had there been an armed and dangerous man inside this is when the officer would have been shot. It indicates very poor training. He had also given the driver the opportunity to roar off into the night.
Still standing much too close to the car he drew his weapon then started shouting commands at the occupants. Within seconds he was literally screaming at them. By doing this he had singlehandedly elevated a simple traffic stop into a potentially serious confrontation.The occupants of the car at this stage had done nothing but this officer had already lost control of both himself and the situation. He was no longer a policeman but a foolish and hysterical man with a gun who had worked himself into a frenzy. I was a 30 second operation so amateurish, incompetent and bungled as to boggle the mind.
Less than a year before the same officer had stopped a car. Within seconds he was foul mouthed and screaming at one of the occupants. The pattern repeated. In both cases he shot and killed an unarmed man.
The point here is that both the grand juries which absolved him and his superiors seemed to find his performance adequate and he was retuned to duty. This speaks volumes about the caliber of the grand juries and the Billings police department.
200
@ Andrew Smallwood - You could not know when you were writing your very fine comment that somebody - American in Sweden - was asking for some analyst to answer the questions you raise. I was not as observant as you were, at least in my first viewing.
Thanks for your analysis and I hope there might be more of the same.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
My comment accepted at the same as yours but about 20 down from yours.
Thanks for your analysis and I hope there might be more of the same.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
My comment accepted at the same as yours but about 20 down from yours.
2
While it would not fix the problem, I believe that any police office who shoots an unarmed person should be immediately and permanently relieved of duty.
1
Not surprising that with the Avalanche of gun availability, officers assume that anyone they stop is armed. And obviously this officer should not be carrying a badge or gun given how easily he panics. 2 murders of the unarmed in one career is way too many.
9
Looks like it's time to issue free bullet-proof vests to anyone who walks or drives while being black or Hispanic.
6
A USA Today study conducted after the Michael Brown shooting revealed that on average white police officers each year kill about 400 people, including about 96 African Americans. This means that about 24 percent of those killed by white police officers are black. It also means that about 76.5 percent of people killed by white police officers are not black.
2
At least Mr. Blow is admitting this is a complex issue. Complex issues are hard. It sounds so obvious but the answers I see ignore this.
You're not getting Super-Cops. Stop asking. All cops make decisions with partial and/or flawed information. The latest issue of "The Philosophers Magazine" looks at "Acting in Uncertainty". This is not a simple question. Grant Morrison has less then a minute to decide what to do when faced with a disobedient drug user while out numbered 4 to 1.
In all of the cases mentioned it was a lone cop with a choice of lethal force or nothing. You need multiple cops present to provide more options. Shooting is the logical thing to do in the cases mentioned. Officer Morrison doesn't know what is in the car. He has to make a series of assumptions. There is a high probability that if the suspect is armed it is with a gun, the suspect is *not* going to act rationally. How long do you wait before you shoot? There is a limited set of choices.
I find one flaw in Mr Blows thinking. He comes back to the issue that none of the crimes of the accused carried penalties like death. That point is specious. All of the actions taken were because the suspects presented a real threat to the police officer. Why they were stopped was irrelevant. This is as sad as it seems.
You're not getting Super-Cops. Stop asking. All cops make decisions with partial and/or flawed information. The latest issue of "The Philosophers Magazine" looks at "Acting in Uncertainty". This is not a simple question. Grant Morrison has less then a minute to decide what to do when faced with a disobedient drug user while out numbered 4 to 1.
In all of the cases mentioned it was a lone cop with a choice of lethal force or nothing. You need multiple cops present to provide more options. Shooting is the logical thing to do in the cases mentioned. Officer Morrison doesn't know what is in the car. He has to make a series of assumptions. There is a high probability that if the suspect is armed it is with a gun, the suspect is *not* going to act rationally. How long do you wait before you shoot? There is a limited set of choices.
I find one flaw in Mr Blows thinking. He comes back to the issue that none of the crimes of the accused carried penalties like death. That point is specious. All of the actions taken were because the suspects presented a real threat to the police officer. Why they were stopped was irrelevant. This is as sad as it seems.
8
In neither case was there a real threat.
timbo, your statement admits there was a threat.
while we can debate the good and bad in society, the simple fact remains, and the outcome would be very different if each of the people mentioned in the article had followed the police instructions.
10
The problem is that the police are dealing with people who are too ignorant, too inured to arrest, too young and too high to comply. That's where training must kick in.
9
You've described America very well. And of course, the police, like the politicians, are of the people, not a breed apart.
Correct. Which is one good reason that some parents - like Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City - take time to teach their children how to be act around police officers. I have never understood why police union leaders took this fact to be an "insult".
Would police accept this deal – immunity from prosecution, but reduced job security?
Our society gives some of its members dangerous tools. When these tools must be used under pressure, some people will respond better than others. If a flustered surgeon makes the wrong decision above the operating table, the worst that will happen is a lawsuit. When an aircraft pilot responds to a stall improperly, prosecution is the least of his worries.
Shouldn’t police officers, given guns and placed in situations where their use must be decided in a split-second, be immune from prosecution if there was no premeditation?
But if after a review it is shown that their response was fatally wrong, they should be forced into a different line of work, which should also be the case for a surgeon or a pilot who cannot respond properly to an emergency.
Our society gives some of its members dangerous tools. When these tools must be used under pressure, some people will respond better than others. If a flustered surgeon makes the wrong decision above the operating table, the worst that will happen is a lawsuit. When an aircraft pilot responds to a stall improperly, prosecution is the least of his worries.
Shouldn’t police officers, given guns and placed in situations where their use must be decided in a split-second, be immune from prosecution if there was no premeditation?
But if after a review it is shown that their response was fatally wrong, they should be forced into a different line of work, which should also be the case for a surgeon or a pilot who cannot respond properly to an emergency.
3
Mr. Blow you are too kind. America has a virulent racist political makeup. Dog whistles abound. Our POTUS has been exposed to the most unsavory attacks, because his skin is not white. You have been striking in your outspokenness within The Grey Lady. I hope your support is enough to sustain you, America needs this.
I have been around this wonderful country and have been appalled by the racist nature of our society. It is most overt in the southeast but it has a general undertone everywhere I have been. The solution may be to bludgeon the audience into understanding. Please keep it up.
I have been around this wonderful country and have been appalled by the racist nature of our society. It is most overt in the southeast but it has a general undertone everywhere I have been. The solution may be to bludgeon the audience into understanding. Please keep it up.
16
A lot of words to cover two very simple facts.
Being stopped by a police officer in general, and even more in some cases (like the 4 men in a car at night in a high crime neighborhood by a lone officer), is a very charged situation, fraught with peril.
Any suspect being stopped who fights (Brown), resists (Garner) or fails to comply with lawful instructions (Ramirez), has unnecessarily escalated the encounter, and from that moment on is primarily responsible for any harm that comes his/her way.
Simple.
Police has a duty to be reasonable in the initial approach and lawful instructions. People being stopped have a duty to comply. Those failing to comply bear nearly all the responsibility from that point on.
Being stopped by a police officer in general, and even more in some cases (like the 4 men in a car at night in a high crime neighborhood by a lone officer), is a very charged situation, fraught with peril.
Any suspect being stopped who fights (Brown), resists (Garner) or fails to comply with lawful instructions (Ramirez), has unnecessarily escalated the encounter, and from that moment on is primarily responsible for any harm that comes his/her way.
Simple.
Police has a duty to be reasonable in the initial approach and lawful instructions. People being stopped have a duty to comply. Those failing to comply bear nearly all the responsibility from that point on.
10
The one responsible is the one pulling the trigger.
It's reasoning like this that let's one justify murdering an unarmed, non-violent person, doing so while firing into a crowded vehicle of all things, when the cop set it all in motion by engaging 1 on 4 without backup.
This officer is a disgrace to the uniform and utterly unqualified to carry and have license to use a lethal weapon.
It's reasoning like this that let's one justify murdering an unarmed, non-violent person, doing so while firing into a crowded vehicle of all things, when the cop set it all in motion by engaging 1 on 4 without backup.
This officer is a disgrace to the uniform and utterly unqualified to carry and have license to use a lethal weapon.
failure to comply will result in your death. Sounds a bit like something from the cold war eastern bloc countries, or maybe North Korea.
Garner had his hands up, backing away because he was trying to demonstrate that there was no reason to manhandle him. Blaming the victim won't fly.
Justifying putting anyone down on the ground with the assist of other officers piling on top of the supine body and then putting that unarmed person in an illegal, deadly choke hold; is justifying deliberate murder.
Justifying putting anyone down on the ground with the assist of other officers piling on top of the supine body and then putting that unarmed person in an illegal, deadly choke hold; is justifying deliberate murder.
As stupid judgment calls to shoot, and then ask questions, continues, we must call into question the sanity and preparation of some police officers, and their racial profiling as well. The fact that some of these well documented cases of excessive lethal force go unpunished, impunity, basically, is what leads to an enraged public to try to take revenge by themselves, worsening what is already an awful situation. As the police have the upper hand in force and equipment and, hopefully, knowledge, restraint is most important, so not to abuse the mission we have assigned them. By now, I am convinced not all officers deserve to carry lethal guns, a privilege requiring maturity and empathy. With our current technology, I see no reason to kill 9 unarmed men for minor infractions, so to make sure the real bad 10th guy gets it; even then, sober judgement may carry the day...and a bullet not shot.
4
"...officers must encounter a disproportionate number of people who break the law, and we must ask to what degree that skew — the types of people they encounter — warps their perception of citizens in general."
Officers skew is out of survival, not warped, but pragmatic given the circles they are sent to enforce. An officer at a party, or at a mall is not sizing people up, or in fear. But, put that same officer, put anyone, put you or I, on a side road approaching a car full of skittish meth heads, who may or may not have a gun, who are acting ambiguous when told to raise their hands, and there is no telling what instincts might trigger.
I have empathy for these officers, and I am proud of them--most of the time. Like any job of this size and scope and responsibility, there will be bad apples who abuse their power. But most are trying very hard to serve and protect while working under a stress that is very hard for civilians to imagine. Everyday is a question mark: Will there be death at the car crash, will there be a teen suicide call, will there be a need to separate a family due to domestic violence call, will there be a drug overdose, a bar room brawl, a gun pulled, a rock thrown, a knife, a needle, a curse, a spit, a group of disrespecting teens, a riot after the game--what will the day bring? It's like no other job, and we all need to take that to heart, and thank our peace keepers more often than not.
Officers skew is out of survival, not warped, but pragmatic given the circles they are sent to enforce. An officer at a party, or at a mall is not sizing people up, or in fear. But, put that same officer, put anyone, put you or I, on a side road approaching a car full of skittish meth heads, who may or may not have a gun, who are acting ambiguous when told to raise their hands, and there is no telling what instincts might trigger.
I have empathy for these officers, and I am proud of them--most of the time. Like any job of this size and scope and responsibility, there will be bad apples who abuse their power. But most are trying very hard to serve and protect while working under a stress that is very hard for civilians to imagine. Everyday is a question mark: Will there be death at the car crash, will there be a teen suicide call, will there be a need to separate a family due to domestic violence call, will there be a drug overdose, a bar room brawl, a gun pulled, a rock thrown, a knife, a needle, a curse, a spit, a group of disrespecting teens, a riot after the game--what will the day bring? It's like no other job, and we all need to take that to heart, and thank our peace keepers more often than not.
6
It is an incredibly difficult job, no doubt about it, and i too carry great respect for these men and women who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us....i just have a slight problem with the few who "misuse" the immense authority they are given is all.
1
Yeah, I'm not so sure they aren't "sizing people up" even when they are off duty.
It's a hard job, not an entitlement, to be a police officer. Once it's clear that an officer can no longer dispatch his duties dispassionately, it's time to make a career move. We, as a society, can't have police officers who are in constant fear, engage in reckless behaviors--and, yes, a single officer engaging four potentially armed suspects without backup is reckless--without respect for the Rule of Law.
It's a hard job, not an entitlement, to be a police officer. Once it's clear that an officer can no longer dispatch his duties dispassionately, it's time to make a career move. We, as a society, can't have police officers who are in constant fear, engage in reckless behaviors--and, yes, a single officer engaging four potentially armed suspects without backup is reckless--without respect for the Rule of Law.
1
@R, Yes, I agree. I think all the officers in the news recently for using deadly force should be indicted and brought to trial. And even if found not guilty of a crime, each should be demoted to a desk job until they are properly trained and deemed fit to handle the pressure. Just the indictment should change their role indefinitely. The issue is the no indictment call that seems too pervasive (although not in the Morrison case as he was indicted). It's clear these officers made terrible choices in the heat of pressure that led to unnecessary death. And we need to change a culture within some police departments that encourages a shoot first mentality.
That said, we also need to start acknowledging, more often, the majority that do the job well--they seem to never make the news.
That said, we also need to start acknowledging, more often, the majority that do the job well--they seem to never make the news.
Whatever else is true, it's obvious that Grant Morrison is in the wrong profession. His bad judgment has cost two innocent and unarmed men their lives. For God's sake, get a desk job and save the next life you'll otherwise take, officer!
20
Why is there no press on the black cop that shot and killed the unarmed white kid for noncompliance? It was a good shoot but it is conspicuously absent in the discourse over here on the left. You have to go too far right to hear any reference to it and that speaks ill of the intellectual honestly over her on the left. Why must I go out of my way to listen to people I fundamentally disagree with to actually see a fair treatment of both sides of an issue in this country?
7
Maybe it hasn't been mentioned because it happens so infrequently. And even you didn't actually provide any links to it or provide any details of it.
And how has the coverage of the three or more separate events been unfair?
And how has the coverage of the three or more separate events been unfair?
1
What sort of person does the police force want to attract today? Look at the advertisements for a clue: recently discharged military personnel are at the top of the list. And what sort of person does the military want to recruit? Look at the surreal commercials seen on television or in the movie theater before the main feature begins.
Those advertisements bluntly appeal to individuals in search of an identity. The screen is filled with exciting imagery - jets soaring and macho tanks rolling forward, and images of young men and women looking, I am sorry to report, like zombies in search of an identity, with the commanding voice-over promising to make them into somebody strong, somebody honorable, somebody just like a cartoon action hero.
All of that would make sense to an eight year old, or, at least an eight year old trapped in a man's body.
Those advertisements bluntly appeal to individuals in search of an identity. The screen is filled with exciting imagery - jets soaring and macho tanks rolling forward, and images of young men and women looking, I am sorry to report, like zombies in search of an identity, with the commanding voice-over promising to make them into somebody strong, somebody honorable, somebody just like a cartoon action hero.
All of that would make sense to an eight year old, or, at least an eight year old trapped in a man's body.
9
Police department in my area caused a stir two decades ago when the chief let it out that they are not looking for those types you mention. We don't want them anymore he said and hide questions in the application to determine if someone will likely be over aggressive. They have a good reputation so it must work, even earning accolades from minority organizations for their dedication to community policing and sensitivity and diversity awareness.
Calls for reform of the police are great but the best solution is to start with the hiring process.
Calls for reform of the police are great but the best solution is to start with the hiring process.
Apparently science only matters at the NY Times when the subject is global warming. According to the CDC there's a Vietnam war of gun violence going on in America, and the police are only a small minority of those doing the shooting. Why is Mr. Blow censoring this?
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr...
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr...
10
WHy am I sure that you are against gun control?
He seems to imply that we live in that culture of violence. Reading what you want read in his words are not helpful. Gun violence is a huge problem in our society and you are correct that the police in general are really not a significant player in that, but the public has a right to feel safe and not threatened.
It sounds like Morrison is so frightened that everyone he stops will have a gun and use it, that his standard operating procedure is to shoot them first. And kill them.
The problems here are not simply that the NRA has worked to arm everyone in America - including the people high on meth that Morrison pulls over (though ironically, not in the Ramirez case) - and that our militarized police are increasingly inclined to view every American as a "perp", not a citizen; as guilty and hostile, not a member of the public they are sworn to forget (ah, how quickly they forget!).
The problem is that cops like Morrison, so afraid for themselves that they shoot unarmed people out of paranoid fear, should not be cops. He shouldn't be anywhere near this kind of situation, because he clearly is unable to think rationally in the face of it, much less act responsibly.
Bad policing. Bad police. And it's up to us, the voting public of the US, to do something about it. Thank you to Charles Blow for bringing this latest travesty to people's attention.
The problems here are not simply that the NRA has worked to arm everyone in America - including the people high on meth that Morrison pulls over (though ironically, not in the Ramirez case) - and that our militarized police are increasingly inclined to view every American as a "perp", not a citizen; as guilty and hostile, not a member of the public they are sworn to forget (ah, how quickly they forget!).
The problem is that cops like Morrison, so afraid for themselves that they shoot unarmed people out of paranoid fear, should not be cops. He shouldn't be anywhere near this kind of situation, because he clearly is unable to think rationally in the face of it, much less act responsibly.
Bad policing. Bad police. And it's up to us, the voting public of the US, to do something about it. Thank you to Charles Blow for bringing this latest travesty to people's attention.
17
No way Morrison should ever have been a policeman: he is obviously completely unsuited for any occupation involving firearms. At a minimum, he should never serve as one again.
17
What a letdown! When I saw “Cats” in the headline I thought that Gail had finally written something humorous, something I could tell friends about to get them to look at the Times opinion ghetto for once.
Instead, poor Gail is tasked yet again to warn us of the deadly consequences of non-Liberals running for the Presidency. Horrors!
Of course, you get better leaders from the state governments because those people have actually had to balance budgets and insist on stuff actually getting carried to completion.
Instead, poor Gail is tasked yet again to warn us of the deadly consequences of non-Liberals running for the Presidency. Horrors!
Of course, you get better leaders from the state governments because those people have actually had to balance budgets and insist on stuff actually getting carried to completion.
Richard Ramirez was not shot because he was high on meth. He was shot because:
a) a witness told the police that Ramirez had shot him in the arm during a robbery
b) Morrison recognized Ramirez as an armed robbery suspect
c) Morrison told Ramirez to put his hands up - six times
d) Ramirez repeatedly reached for his waistband instead of complying, probably to try and hide drugs.
Can Charles Blow really say with a straight face that this officer made the wrong call, given that set of facts? No, he can't - so he leaves the facts out.
a) a witness told the police that Ramirez had shot him in the arm during a robbery
b) Morrison recognized Ramirez as an armed robbery suspect
c) Morrison told Ramirez to put his hands up - six times
d) Ramirez repeatedly reached for his waistband instead of complying, probably to try and hide drugs.
Can Charles Blow really say with a straight face that this officer made the wrong call, given that set of facts? No, he can't - so he leaves the facts out.
13
Please tell me this isn't true!
According to the LATimes:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-montana-officer-dashcam-20150113-sto...
The officer recognized Ramirez as a suspect in a recent armed robbery, during which someone was shot. The officer wouldn't have recognized Ramirez until he was right on top of him.
I have always had a great deal of respect for Mr. Blow's writing, accomplishments and ideas. The fact that Mr. Blow leaves those facts out of his description is very, very disturbing. Mr. Blow has repeatedly left out key details regarding the behavior and actions of criminals who were shot by police in split-second decisions. If you want to have this conversation Mr. Blow, you need to be more forthcoming with the facts in each case.
According to the LATimes:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-montana-officer-dashcam-20150113-sto...
The officer recognized Ramirez as a suspect in a recent armed robbery, during which someone was shot. The officer wouldn't have recognized Ramirez until he was right on top of him.
I have always had a great deal of respect for Mr. Blow's writing, accomplishments and ideas. The fact that Mr. Blow leaves those facts out of his description is very, very disturbing. Mr. Blow has repeatedly left out key details regarding the behavior and actions of criminals who were shot by police in split-second decisions. If you want to have this conversation Mr. Blow, you need to be more forthcoming with the facts in each case.
1
The vast majority of police officers do not shoot or kill people. This officer shot and killed two people in two years. His ratio is far higher than almost any other cop. He has made the same mistake twice. Those bullets killed real people and they cannot be taken back. The families rightfully ask why? Did the victims do anything that rose to a level justifying being shot and killed so quickly or at all?
The questions now are should he allow himself to be back on the street? Should his police department allow him back on the street? What if he kills yet another person in 2015? How many deaths are acceptable for a pattern to be detected, and he is finally deemed trigger happy (extremely, excessively fearful before it is warranted) and removed from the chance to do it again?
This cop should obviously not be a cop anymore. He should be removed from ever having the chance to kill a third time.
Full disclosure: Two of my brothers (we are black) were cops, and one of my brothers experienced extreme police brutality as a youth before he eventually became a cop.
The questions now are should he allow himself to be back on the street? Should his police department allow him back on the street? What if he kills yet another person in 2015? How many deaths are acceptable for a pattern to be detected, and he is finally deemed trigger happy (extremely, excessively fearful before it is warranted) and removed from the chance to do it again?
This cop should obviously not be a cop anymore. He should be removed from ever having the chance to kill a third time.
Full disclosure: Two of my brothers (we are black) were cops, and one of my brothers experienced extreme police brutality as a youth before he eventually became a cop.
4
Too often the police are separate from the community they are supposed to serve. I have read reports about efforts to bring the police and the community together. Community policing seems to make a huge difference. Some police forces start up programs that involve the youth. The more the police are involved with the community the less each side regards the other as the enemy. The police shouldn't be frightened just to go out. The community should feel comfortable talking with the police. Studies show improved quality of policing and overall safety.
The recent intense criticism of the police by the Blow, de Blasio, Et Al. certainly help to "warp" the police's view of the populace.
Police are people, too!
Police are people, too!
8
And guns don't kill people; people kill people.
1
I don't buy it. One time can be a tragic accident. Twice by the same cop in the same manor for the same reason? That is, in the very least, terrible training and deadly failure to learn from a mistake.
7
I really think this column misses the point. What do we want to happen when an officer encounters an unarmed suspect who, in truth, poses no threat to the officer's life? Do we want the officer to kill him? Of course not. If that is the result, then there is something wrong with the officer or something wrong with his training or both.
Can policing be dangerous? Yes. But the officer's job is to protect innocent life, not to protect his own safety at the cost of killing an innocent person. Anyone who can't do that has no business wearing a badge - he is as much a problem for the community as the criminals he is supposed to apprehend. Shame on a city that employs such people. I will never go near Billings, and no one in his right mind should.
Can policing be dangerous? Yes. But the officer's job is to protect innocent life, not to protect his own safety at the cost of killing an innocent person. Anyone who can't do that has no business wearing a badge - he is as much a problem for the community as the criminals he is supposed to apprehend. Shame on a city that employs such people. I will never go near Billings, and no one in his right mind should.
4
I think police departments should put a rule into effect that when an officer feels the need to fire his gun and kill a civilian, then that officer must undergo psychological counseling and be put on desk work for a minimum of one year.
Much as our returning military veterans suffer from PTSS, police involved in violent confrontations have to be mentally damaged. The example in the article proves my point.
Much as our returning military veterans suffer from PTSS, police involved in violent confrontations have to be mentally damaged. The example in the article proves my point.
5
For once I am somewhat in agreement with Mr. Blow. When a white policeman patrols a poor black neighborhood, where the level of criminality is vastly higher than his own, and where he has to deal on a regular basis with the worst people in that bad neighborhood, it probably has to warp his perception of black people in general. I can easily see how this could lead to his treating blacks badly when they don't deserve it.
Where we disagree is in the nature of the problem. For Mr. Blow, and liberals in general, the problem is white racism, because..., well, because the problem is *always* white racism. I wouldn't deny that white racism still exists (anyone who can read the comments section of a YouTube video can see that it does), but I don't believe it is anywhere near as important as liberals would have it. I think the primary problem is black crime. South Asians can be every bit as dark skinned as American blacks, yet they don't have much trouble with the police, because they don't commit anywhere near as much crime as blacks, and the police know it. If black people started behaving as well as Asians, they would eventually be treated as well as Asians.
To put it as bluntly as possible, I think the fight against racism is wasted, because racism isn't the real problem. I think the fight should be focused pretty much entirely on bad behavior in the black community. If that problem can be fixed, the other problems will go away on their own, and everyone will win.
Where we disagree is in the nature of the problem. For Mr. Blow, and liberals in general, the problem is white racism, because..., well, because the problem is *always* white racism. I wouldn't deny that white racism still exists (anyone who can read the comments section of a YouTube video can see that it does), but I don't believe it is anywhere near as important as liberals would have it. I think the primary problem is black crime. South Asians can be every bit as dark skinned as American blacks, yet they don't have much trouble with the police, because they don't commit anywhere near as much crime as blacks, and the police know it. If black people started behaving as well as Asians, they would eventually be treated as well as Asians.
To put it as bluntly as possible, I think the fight against racism is wasted, because racism isn't the real problem. I think the fight should be focused pretty much entirely on bad behavior in the black community. If that problem can be fixed, the other problems will go away on their own, and everyone will win.
7
I wonder about the effects of these videos. I hope they lead to changes in policing. But suppose as videos of all kinds keep increasing and are just thrown up on TV screens in our homes, people just get used to seeing depictions of brutality and violence—by police, or anyone. Think of the vast increase of these depictions since the Rodney King beating shocked us.
Already there are various TV shows using video of disturbing or tragic events for what—infotainment? The NYT’s article last week -- NY Pres Hospital taking cameras into the emergency room and filming incoming patients—without their permission. And excused for all kinds of reasons. Many find it repugnant and a gross intrusion. A woman is suing the hospital after being shocked at seeing her husband dying on TV. She did not know this was filmed at all, at NY Hospital. What have we come to, when one of our most prestigious hospitals thinks this is ok--to gain publicity?
Then there are prison shows on msnbc weekends, entertaining with inmate stories. And caught on camera and others with fighting, crime, tragedy.
We now see the necessary showing of cop abuse on citizens on daily news shows over and over along with the discussion of legalities etc. How many thousands of times did TV show the cops ganging up on Eric Garner, and we know he’s minutes from his death.
Will video help change cop abuse, by showing proof? Will people become callous to it, instead of shocked and outraged?
Already there are various TV shows using video of disturbing or tragic events for what—infotainment? The NYT’s article last week -- NY Pres Hospital taking cameras into the emergency room and filming incoming patients—without their permission. And excused for all kinds of reasons. Many find it repugnant and a gross intrusion. A woman is suing the hospital after being shocked at seeing her husband dying on TV. She did not know this was filmed at all, at NY Hospital. What have we come to, when one of our most prestigious hospitals thinks this is ok--to gain publicity?
Then there are prison shows on msnbc weekends, entertaining with inmate stories. And caught on camera and others with fighting, crime, tragedy.
We now see the necessary showing of cop abuse on citizens on daily news shows over and over along with the discussion of legalities etc. How many thousands of times did TV show the cops ganging up on Eric Garner, and we know he’s minutes from his death.
Will video help change cop abuse, by showing proof? Will people become callous to it, instead of shocked and outraged?
One wonders if Mr. Blow has heard of Mexican Cartels which operate extensively with the US boarders? Some of those guys are less than nice.
3
Canadian borders too?
So? That excuses profligate use of deadly force by police?
Just shows another police coward. No courageous person would shoot someone until they actually saw a gun. If you are that scared don't take the job.
6
"Another video in another police shooting emerged this week — and it shows yet another case that demands empathy, and an understanding of the fraught moments that can lead to such an outcome, and the complexity of the legal process that follows."
I can't understand you at all. What is complicated in the least about this situation? This cop sees guns that are not there. He is psychotic. The cop in Cleveland you wrote about got half the normal score on an IQ test. He is retarded. Neither of them should have been let anywhere near a gun, let alone be made policemen. But they were, and when they murdered people their buddies rallied round them and their departments protected them.
The only complicated question I can see is why do we tolerate such dysfunctional institutions?
I can't understand you at all. What is complicated in the least about this situation? This cop sees guns that are not there. He is psychotic. The cop in Cleveland you wrote about got half the normal score on an IQ test. He is retarded. Neither of them should have been let anywhere near a gun, let alone be made policemen. But they were, and when they murdered people their buddies rallied round them and their departments protected them.
The only complicated question I can see is why do we tolerate such dysfunctional institutions?
23
It's hard to restrain the police when they can reasonably assume anybody is armed. If you think a person is armed you assume the worst about whatever movements they make. The NRA should be spending most of it's time in court. That's the approach that finally restrained Big Tobacco.
10
Trying to draw universal lessons from anecdotal information is not going to result in reliable answers. The lesson however is this - we take young men and women, give them some basic police training and put them on the street with lethal force to protect and serve. Even if all the rules were the same for all the officers in all the municipalities and even if every one of them were color blind and executive directors of non for profit organisations, when it comes down to street level encounters and their life is perceived to be in danger, you do not know how they will react any more than you know how you would react. Some officers never draw a gun for their entire career. Imagine the impossible complexity of what goes through the mind of those who draw it for the first time. Im 24 years old. Is my life in danger? Does he have a gun? What are the rules of engagement? Will I be prosecuted? How long should I wait? Must I kill? All in one half of one split second. And after the officer shoots someone, the investigation into that one half of one split second parses every thought, action, reaction, rationale, judgement and regret. And then the lawsuits and the demonstrations begin. So yes, there is enormous complexity to deadly force, but 99% of that chaos exists in the mind of the shooter, which given the insanity of the required instant reaction, does not feel right to judge harshly, unless there is evidence of actual malice.
4
Aren't suspects supposed to be arrested and turned over to the criminal justice system? Why isn't law enforcement working? How can a cop who shoots an unarmed man still have a job, and twice? Why doesn't law enforcement see they have a problem and get on it? Law enforcement has a serious function in a civilized society and are risking looking like a fraternity or a gang undeserving of respect. And the prosecutors aren't doing their job either. Do they want solution to come outside law enforcement and the criminal justice system? So far lots of questions, no answers.
3
My Dad was a NYC Police Captain who died of a heart attack in 1972 who advised me not to become a Cop as he felt the level of recruits was going down hill & the training wasn't adequate for such a difficult job. In his 20+ year career he luckily never had to draw his weapon & saved someone from drowning. I have great respect for the police but it's obvious that deadly force is used far to often. I can't remember the last time I heard a story of an officer shooting someone to disable them rather than killing them. I find it questionable that Officer Grant has been responsible for 2 deadly shootings. He is either very unlucky or to quick to pull a trigger. Why could he not wait for back up & surround the car & demand everyone in the car to come out?
Our Society & the World in General has become more violent & the police unfortunately see many of the worst in our Society & I for one think that after 10 years that they get another job for these officers so they are not subject to the worst in Society. Also the prepondence of guns certainly would have many law enforcement rightfully fearful. Unfortunately too many of our fellow Citizens have been propagandized by the NRA into thinking that somehow they are protecting OUR 2nd Amendment rights. First I would suggest that they actually Read the 2nd Amendment so they can see exactly what it says. With a little investigation they will see the NRA for what they are a Front for the gun manufacturers so they can make more $$$.
Our Society & the World in General has become more violent & the police unfortunately see many of the worst in our Society & I for one think that after 10 years that they get another job for these officers so they are not subject to the worst in Society. Also the prepondence of guns certainly would have many law enforcement rightfully fearful. Unfortunately too many of our fellow Citizens have been propagandized by the NRA into thinking that somehow they are protecting OUR 2nd Amendment rights. First I would suggest that they actually Read the 2nd Amendment so they can see exactly what it says. With a little investigation they will see the NRA for what they are a Front for the gun manufacturers so they can make more $$$.
6
I must agree with your comment, however police are trained to shoot to kill; none are taught sharpshooting that we see in the movies. This officer should definitely be off the force, and probably undergo psychological counseling. That being said, you are of course, familiar with the Albuquerque police force which has a particularly high incidence of killings of unarmed civilians. If I am not mistaken, two are being charged with the murder of an unarmed homeless man, caught on their own video cams. I am very familiar with New Mexico, especially Santa Fe, and have been in Madrid several times, as well as Albuquerque. Nice places to visit, not my choice as a place to live. There are lots of guns in those areas....why choose to live there?
1
Consider the numbers. There are roughly 320 million people in the United States. There are roughly 300 million guns in the United States. If I was a police officer who knows this data, the odds are likely that more often then not anyone you encounter in a traffic stop or anything else, the odds are that person has a gun.
320 million people.
300 million guns.
Hey people, lock and load. Thank you Second Amendment.
320 million people.
300 million guns.
Hey people, lock and load. Thank you Second Amendment.
39
Bad arithmetic - what if most gun owners own more than one gun?
1
Why the police unions aren't in the forefront of calling for gun control is beyond me.
Wouldn't disarming the citizenry be one of your first orders of business?
Australia's successful gun buyback program is an obvious model to use.
Here's to hoping that a sensible mayor tries this in some progressive city and demonstrates how effective this can be in reducing crime and saving the lives of police officers and the citizens they serve and protect.
Wouldn't disarming the citizenry be one of your first orders of business?
Australia's successful gun buyback program is an obvious model to use.
Here's to hoping that a sensible mayor tries this in some progressive city and demonstrates how effective this can be in reducing crime and saving the lives of police officers and the citizens they serve and protect.
The articles and video did not reveal that this is a second shooting. What else has happened in the officer's career that affected his level of fear? The previous shooting does not prove that under the law this shooting was or was not a reasonable mistake. But it is very rare for an officer in an entire career to ever fire his or her gun. Watching the video, I had no doubt that the officer's fear was intense. That is not the legal issue.
The law gives wide latitude for reasonable mistakes made in tense, rapidly- evolving situations. Was the officer's fear reasonable? From the video, it appears that Ramirez was not keeping his hands in plain view. The officer made it clear that he was afraid of the movement of hands out of view or toward the waistband. He should have been afraid. This case is very, very different than the Albuquerque case. Each case is fact specific and field conditions are difficult to simulate in experiments. We need more and better research and the human factors analysis that follows a plane crash.
The term "punishment" seems misplaced and loaded, yet from the point of view of the Ramirez family, it was punishment for disobeying a clear command. The legal issue is whether another reasonably trained officer would have feared imminent serious injury or death. That is often not easy to know. Experts disagree in civil suits. The after-acquired information is normally excluded.
The law gives wide latitude for reasonable mistakes made in tense, rapidly- evolving situations. Was the officer's fear reasonable? From the video, it appears that Ramirez was not keeping his hands in plain view. The officer made it clear that he was afraid of the movement of hands out of view or toward the waistband. He should have been afraid. This case is very, very different than the Albuquerque case. Each case is fact specific and field conditions are difficult to simulate in experiments. We need more and better research and the human factors analysis that follows a plane crash.
The term "punishment" seems misplaced and loaded, yet from the point of view of the Ramirez family, it was punishment for disobeying a clear command. The legal issue is whether another reasonably trained officer would have feared imminent serious injury or death. That is often not easy to know. Experts disagree in civil suits. The after-acquired information is normally excluded.
2
What's so complex about it?
The way we learned about these fact patterns in law school and in the State Bar exam preparation, unless you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, deadly force is not warranted.
Thus, in a sane society, in a former America where the rule of law held sway most of the time, Morrison would be doing 20 years in prison.
Last night on Univision, I saw video those Albuquerque / Bernalillo Co. sheriff deputies shoot a schizophrenic man in cold blood on a mountain. Call me naive, but I never thought I'd see something like that on television in America. Not even in a drama. Thank goodness the female DA is standing up for what is murder.
We live in a fascist police state, and why these guys are so insulated with legal protection I cannot fathom.
The way we learned about these fact patterns in law school and in the State Bar exam preparation, unless you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, deadly force is not warranted.
Thus, in a sane society, in a former America where the rule of law held sway most of the time, Morrison would be doing 20 years in prison.
Last night on Univision, I saw video those Albuquerque / Bernalillo Co. sheriff deputies shoot a schizophrenic man in cold blood on a mountain. Call me naive, but I never thought I'd see something like that on television in America. Not even in a drama. Thank goodness the female DA is standing up for what is murder.
We live in a fascist police state, and why these guys are so insulated with legal protection I cannot fathom.
120
I doubt that they taught you in law school what you say you learned. The legal question is not whether Morrison was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The legal question is whether Morrison reasonably believed he was in such danger.
That question has two parts: did Morrison actually believe he was in such danger, and if so was his belief reasonable?
Morrison says he believed Ramirez was about to pull a gun. It's extremely unlikely that any prosecutor anywhere could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrison did not believe Ramirez was about to pull a gun.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrison's belief was not reasonable is only slightly less unlikely. The fact that Ramirez didn't actually have a gun is essentially irrelevant.
One can make an intelligent argument that this is not what the law should be, but there is no intelligent argument that this is not what the law is.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
That question has two parts: did Morrison actually believe he was in such danger, and if so was his belief reasonable?
Morrison says he believed Ramirez was about to pull a gun. It's extremely unlikely that any prosecutor anywhere could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrison did not believe Ramirez was about to pull a gun.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrison's belief was not reasonable is only slightly less unlikely. The fact that Ramirez didn't actually have a gun is essentially irrelevant.
One can make an intelligent argument that this is not what the law should be, but there is no intelligent argument that this is not what the law is.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
4
Ecce Homo:
The fact that Ramirez didn't actually have a gun is essentially irrelevant.
****
There are many people who believe it is the law that is irrelevant. At times like these, the law is the only protection the police have from them.
The fact that Ramirez didn't actually have a gun is essentially irrelevant.
****
There are many people who believe it is the law that is irrelevant. At times like these, the law is the only protection the police have from them.
AACNY,
Lawyers like to test theories by posing "hypotheticals." So let's test your theory that it should be relevant whether Ramirez actually had a gun with a hypothetical:
Let's say that Ramirez said to Morrison, "I have a loaded .357 Magnum in my waistband and you have until the count of three to get out of my face or I'm going to kill you." Ramirez then counts to three, reaches a hand into his waistband, and makes a fast motion with that hand toward Morrison.
Morrison shoots him. It later turns out that Ramirez was bluffing and had no gun. Would you still say Morrison was unjustified in shooting him?
Surely not. I think the law is wise to make "reasonable belief" the dispositive issue, not "accurate belief." All 50 states have exactly that rule, and always have.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Lawyers like to test theories by posing "hypotheticals." So let's test your theory that it should be relevant whether Ramirez actually had a gun with a hypothetical:
Let's say that Ramirez said to Morrison, "I have a loaded .357 Magnum in my waistband and you have until the count of three to get out of my face or I'm going to kill you." Ramirez then counts to three, reaches a hand into his waistband, and makes a fast motion with that hand toward Morrison.
Morrison shoots him. It later turns out that Ramirez was bluffing and had no gun. Would you still say Morrison was unjustified in shooting him?
Surely not. I think the law is wise to make "reasonable belief" the dispositive issue, not "accurate belief." All 50 states have exactly that rule, and always have.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
3
Police officers have no incentive to do anything but shoot to kill. If they are found at fault so what. They are back on the job, or maybe a desk job. Cops are allowed to judge themselves or the DA's office does which must work day in and day out with the officers. There simply must be a 3rd party to scrutinize such situations, which is beginning to happen in a few states, and then cops must bear some of the burden of using excessive force.
46
Trigger-happy cops may be a problem, and there should be psychological testing to rid police departments of those who have difficulty behaving cooly under pressure. But admittedly, they're in a job where quick decisions have to be made about how to react to a possible personal threat. Perhaps bullet-proof vests, to the extent they're able to stop a bullet fired at close range, should be worn by police that patrol known dangerous areas.
But the main problem in this country is the great proliferation of firearms, many of them unregistered and carried by criminals. We have the NRA and a tradition of violence to thank for that. In other nations where serious gun control laws exist, police don't feel threatened in the same way when dealing with problems. But it's probably too late for that now in our country, where there are more weapons than there are people.
But the main problem in this country is the great proliferation of firearms, many of them unregistered and carried by criminals. We have the NRA and a tradition of violence to thank for that. In other nations where serious gun control laws exist, police don't feel threatened in the same way when dealing with problems. But it's probably too late for that now in our country, where there are more weapons than there are people.
55
I agree. Which then gets to the issue of why are Blow, the media and so many other people wasting ink, air time and the distraction to society by tilting at windmills about our hyper-violent society and the heavily armed police forces we have out there?
Let the 2nd Amendment loose so that people can have the freedom to protect themselves and their loved ones - and also run the high risk of being shot by the police.
Let the 2nd Amendment loose so that people can have the freedom to protect themselves and their loved ones - and also run the high risk of being shot by the police.
1
Police and soldiers are taught to shoot the head to kill fast.
1
Blow now seems to be growing up and wanting to have an adult conversation about the complexity of this issue rather than throwing around these inflammatory anecdotes about white women not getting shot no matter what they do. Those anecdotes do not serve the truth or the cause of better policing. Twice as many whites get killed by cops than blacks. After adjusting for population, blacks are about 3.5 times as likely to be killed by cops. But after further adjusting for black participation rates in violent crime, blacks are by some measures LESS likely to be killed by police than non blacks. Black young men commit something like 7 to 10 times the amount of violent crime. They are 3 times more likely to kill a cop than whites. Police killings of black males has dropped 75% per capita over the last 50 years. So there probably was a real problem but now not a much smaller one. With tens of thousands of stressful interactions with the police each month, mistakes are going to happen just as medical professionals make preventable mistakes in hospitals which lead to many more deaths than cop shootings. The wildly inflammatory tone on the Brown and Garner killings in not helpful. There is no epidemic of unwarranted cop shootings of black men.
12
If you wait a while, The Times eventually regains its senses. It definitely went off the deep end on this issue. "Racism" must be an issue to which it cannot tolerate any serious challenge. Throw in a fellow liberal mayor in trouble, who pleaded for help from fellow democrats in drumming up criticism against the cops, and it lost all objectivity.
5
Had there been no video, I'm sure that he would be telling us about how Ramirez had been shot on his knees, with his hands in the air.
3
There are two things that need to be considered here. For one, a police force is not a compulsory arm of society. This is a volunteer organization. They sign up for this. And I think what we're finding is that the majority of these human beings that engage in this line of work are not mentally, physically or psychologically prepared to do so.
Two, it's also a fact that the educational standards to engage in this line of work are suspiciously low. And as we already know, racism and sexism correlate with low education levels.
So we have a force of individuals that are at large psychologically and intellectually below where we really need them to be.
naturally all of this gets made worse by a culture that is obsessed with guns and glorifies violence.
Good luck to us all. @otherminds
Two, it's also a fact that the educational standards to engage in this line of work are suspiciously low. And as we already know, racism and sexism correlate with low education levels.
So we have a force of individuals that are at large psychologically and intellectually below where we really need them to be.
naturally all of this gets made worse by a culture that is obsessed with guns and glorifies violence.
Good luck to us all. @otherminds
6
There are psychological tests (see https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) that look for unconscious biases towards blacks, gay people, conservatives, and more. If these were mandatory as a part of police training it could help both rookies and experienced officers become self-aware and perhaps better able to deal with their own biases; help identify those who are "at-risk" of unwarranted violence; and be used as post-tests after training to help eliminate these biases. The science is there and we are too slow to take advantage of it.
2
When a policeman is on his job ,he is always afraid the next offender he approaches could be dangerous. He is definitely scared that he might be harmed or even shot at, and does not know if that person is also armed. That fear alone and the instinct for self preservation often over shadows the need to carefully evaluate the situation before taking any action especially if the suspect does not respond to his orders. All parents teach their kids not to cross a street against the light. Parents should teach ALL kids black,white or an in between color, that when approached by a policeman to follow his orders, Period. If that were done, then the cases in the news would have been entirely different!!!!.
5
the biggest reason for all these shootings in recent years is training. you see folks this is a result of the ongoing militarization of law enforcement. you can not give military tools without military training. there is a difference between military and law enforcement training and a very different mind set.
police work is supposed to use deadly force as a last resort, military operations are shoot first and dont worry about asking questions later, kill the enemy. i was a paratrooper for 22 years i know this first hand
now as far as the shoot dont shoot situation goes, that is always going to be hard, and looking at it in hind sight is always easy. till you have been in one of those kinds of situations you can not and DO NOT have a clue as to what is going on. you can not and DO NOT know, understand, or even begin to comprehend the fear. like the cop said in the article, i just wanted to get home to see my son.. that is all, and that will make a person shoot first and ask questions later. now should he have called for help, yes and he probubly did. but again this is where the training comes in. it used to be sit and wait for back up, but now it is control the situation at all costs quickly.
this will not change anytime soon as there is not a president who will stop the militarization of law enforcement. why because the president has to authorize the turn over of military weapons and gear to law enfforcement in the first place. something about being the commander in chief.
police work is supposed to use deadly force as a last resort, military operations are shoot first and dont worry about asking questions later, kill the enemy. i was a paratrooper for 22 years i know this first hand
now as far as the shoot dont shoot situation goes, that is always going to be hard, and looking at it in hind sight is always easy. till you have been in one of those kinds of situations you can not and DO NOT have a clue as to what is going on. you can not and DO NOT know, understand, or even begin to comprehend the fear. like the cop said in the article, i just wanted to get home to see my son.. that is all, and that will make a person shoot first and ask questions later. now should he have called for help, yes and he probubly did. but again this is where the training comes in. it used to be sit and wait for back up, but now it is control the situation at all costs quickly.
this will not change anytime soon as there is not a president who will stop the militarization of law enforcement. why because the president has to authorize the turn over of military weapons and gear to law enfforcement in the first place. something about being the commander in chief.
5
Mr. Blow raises an excellent question when he asks why police have to worry about the presence of firearms so frequently. Gun possession, and its counterpart, gun control, are hot-button subjects in this country, and at least at present, the freedom to own guns is winning. We must recognize that along with that right goes the fact that the police will expect more people they stop to be carrying guns, and therefore for the police to shoot more quickly in perceived, if not real, self-defense. It is way too easy for us to sit at our computer keyboards and say the police should "be slower on the draw" when we aren't in the same situation. More guns means more police shootings. We can't have it both ways.
20
Not true at all. Jurisdictions where it's common for citizens to carry have a much lower incidence, because cops are better trained, and everyone knows knows the stakes are high from the get-go.
1
Meth heads should have no constitutional rights.
5
That is literally an unAmerican statement. Every citizen has constitutional rights. Every person in this country no matter their state of citizenship has some constitutional rights. Why is this so hard to fathom?
3
Yet again another tragic story of mis-perception regarding the presence of a firearm that led to an unnecessary death -- a death caused by a fearful cop who will go unpunished. The result is continued, unaltered Black and brown community mistrust of law enforcement and the familiar failure of whites to grasp the gravity of the fundamental disbelief in the integrity of the enforcement arm of the state. Disarmingly (pun intended) silent is any enlightenment from the National Rifle Association (NRA). The common element in each (the Garner case being the exception) horrible tragedy is a firearm, whether legally or illegally present, perceived or mis-perceived to be real or fake, whether perceived to be present or not at all. A firearm is discharged mistakenly with tragic consequences. One would think that the NRA might have something to offer. Or should we be led to assume that the silence means that any words would have to be taken as consent to some sensible controls? I pray, Lord let it be.
6
Just like the wild west. Shoot first and ask questions later.
Seems there is always the line from the shooter, policeman, "I thought he had a gun or was going to pull a gun on me". So, the police shoot first. What is wrong with this picture. This is not law and order. These folks are out of control. Do we really think that police camera's will help?
Seems there is always the line from the shooter, policeman, "I thought he had a gun or was going to pull a gun on me". So, the police shoot first. What is wrong with this picture. This is not law and order. These folks are out of control. Do we really think that police camera's will help?
4
Cameras helped a lot in this case. Few who have been involved in an encounter like this - on either side of the law - would look at it and find the outcome surprising or unjust.
2
In reading yet another incident where a white police officer uses deadly force against an unarmed minority citizen because of "justified fear for life". What the article did not mention in juxtaposition is the recent arrest without incident of a white woman who was threatening and firing a hand gun. I find it extremely difficult to reconcile how police did not find an armed and dangerous white woman firing a hand gun was not a sufficiently "deadly threat" but several minority males failing to respond to police commands was sufficient grounds to justify blindly fire upon them while sitting in their vehicle.
I am aslo uniformed of the imputed provision to the Constitution which exempts agents of the State from due process if they are afraid. It seems more reasonable to me if someone is so fearful of the duties of their job they cannot honor their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution they should pursue other employment.
I am aslo uniformed of the imputed provision to the Constitution which exempts agents of the State from due process if they are afraid. It seems more reasonable to me if someone is so fearful of the duties of their job they cannot honor their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution they should pursue other employment.
51
There are many (!) videos on the internet showing police shooting and killing unarmed white men and horrifically beating white men and women, a few to death. I discovered those accidentally while looking for video of the Garner incident, and was shocked by how many there were as they are so infrequently reported. A common thread in many was: police worried that the white person was going to pull a gun. The fear in the police voices was palpable. In the videos I saw the white person had no gun and no one had reported they had a gun. Police fear of a gun being pulled on them spans across races.
When the only incidents mentioned in articles and editorials, are of white white police shooting minorities, it presents a distorted picture: that it only happens to minorities, that there is "white privilege", that police fear minorities but not whites in similar circumstances. If the issues are police training, prevalence of guns in our culture, better ways to handle dangerous situations police face, fine. But to so skew this topic so as to imply police force, deadly police force, is only or mostly used against minorities is wrong. And in all but one of the videos I saw the police were not charged. The one where they were is the blatantly wrong New Mexico shooting, where 2 policeman were just charged this week.
To select individual cases and say: police did this to a minority person but not to a white person, when the reverse could be found in countless cases, proves nothing.
When the only incidents mentioned in articles and editorials, are of white white police shooting minorities, it presents a distorted picture: that it only happens to minorities, that there is "white privilege", that police fear minorities but not whites in similar circumstances. If the issues are police training, prevalence of guns in our culture, better ways to handle dangerous situations police face, fine. But to so skew this topic so as to imply police force, deadly police force, is only or mostly used against minorities is wrong. And in all but one of the videos I saw the police were not charged. The one where they were is the blatantly wrong New Mexico shooting, where 2 policeman were just charged this week.
To select individual cases and say: police did this to a minority person but not to a white person, when the reverse could be found in countless cases, proves nothing.
3
The Police need to stop protecting Bad Police officers or they risk losing their credibility entirely. Also America has to choose whether to have a healthy society or a society where with so many ordinary citizens armed, the police are going to become more like a military in response. Can't have it both ways, guns are incompatible with a peaceful society.
14
Could it be that people were breaking the law?
8
Last I heard we had a judicial system to mete out punishment for lawbreakers. And nowhere in this country is drug use a crime meriting the death penalty.
3
I do not support the use of drugs other than for medicinal purposes.
1
Furthermore, as the Pew Research Center found last month: “For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control.”
After the televised, ah, 'protests' in Ferguson, and similar occurrences in Oakland, not to mention massive street blockages in NYC, is anyone surprised that gun rights are more popular? When the police are unwilling or unable to control mobs, arming oneself is a very rational response.
After the televised, ah, 'protests' in Ferguson, and similar occurrences in Oakland, not to mention massive street blockages in NYC, is anyone surprised that gun rights are more popular? When the police are unwilling or unable to control mobs, arming oneself is a very rational response.
3
It is known that the vast majority of police will go an entire career and never shoot a citizen.
This cop, in five years, shoots and KILLS two?
At the very least this man should not be on a police force.
This cop, in five years, shoots and KILLS two?
At the very least this man should not be on a police force.
115
When I see white cops using a chokehold against a very big non-white man, I can accept that this probably happens hundreds of times across America every day, and that it's a pattern that requires focused attention, not merely through moral suasion but by changes in law and court procedure. But it seems very unreasonable to me to use the matter of a police officer, based on past experience who might be concluded to be unsuited to police work because he seems to shoot people at the drop of a hat, as representative of some widespread problem. How many incidents similar to the one described happen in a year in America?
Billings needs to look seriously at this young officer, and the town fathers need to ask themselves why he was allowed to make the same deadly mistake twice. And as a cautionary opportunity, police forces across the country should review shootings by their officers for root causes and take whatever actions might be indicated as necessary.
In the end, though, Charles has a point: we brutalize all our society when basically trivial crime carries with it a possible capital punishment.
Billings needs to look seriously at this young officer, and the town fathers need to ask themselves why he was allowed to make the same deadly mistake twice. And as a cautionary opportunity, police forces across the country should review shootings by their officers for root causes and take whatever actions might be indicated as necessary.
In the end, though, Charles has a point: we brutalize all our society when basically trivial crime carries with it a possible capital punishment.
35
"Not that criminals, by definition, care much about laws anyway, but now even more people can legally have concealed guns on them. "
This is called having your editorial cake and eating it too.
This is called having your editorial cake and eating it too.
8
Here we have an officer who has shot TWO unarmed citizens in the space of five years and yet is still armed and working as an officer! This is why police are losing the respect of citizens - we need higher standards for police behavior. Killing ONE unarmed citizen should be the end of a police officers career.
68
How many lives might have been saved if a Paris police officer had been a little quicker to shoot?
We are always going to give the police the benefit of the doubt, by a wide margin. If you don't want to have problems with the Po Po, don't break the law. I would not have had much sympathy if an Oakland Police officer had shot one or more of the 'boys' who assaulted my mother when she was in her 80's. (No one was caught, welcome to Oakland.)
Once the heat of the moment is passed, we should be able to expect more from the police. Eric Garner should not have been left lying on the ground in that fashion. Either the police were not adequately trained regarding handling morbidly obese people in handcuffs, or they didn't care about what was happening.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just get rid of all handguns that are less than say, seven inches long? Clearly you can't defeat UN soldiers in black helicopters with tiny little handguns. Good luck getting even that accomplished anytime soon.
We are always going to give the police the benefit of the doubt, by a wide margin. If you don't want to have problems with the Po Po, don't break the law. I would not have had much sympathy if an Oakland Police officer had shot one or more of the 'boys' who assaulted my mother when she was in her 80's. (No one was caught, welcome to Oakland.)
Once the heat of the moment is passed, we should be able to expect more from the police. Eric Garner should not have been left lying on the ground in that fashion. Either the police were not adequately trained regarding handling morbidly obese people in handcuffs, or they didn't care about what was happening.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just get rid of all handguns that are less than say, seven inches long? Clearly you can't defeat UN soldiers in black helicopters with tiny little handguns. Good luck getting even that accomplished anytime soon.
5
The police officer in the Charlie Hebdo offices fired two shots before he was cut down by fire from the terrorists AK-47s.
2
Taken to it's logical extreme, your last paragraph can be compared to:
walking out mindlessly into traffic isn't smart, but do those pedestrians who from time to time get hit by cars and trucks deserve a death sentence?
Using drugs and behaving threateningly to police (and not following orders to put your hands where they can be seen) is risky behaviour. Prople can get hurt doing that, hopefully not often and maybe we should talk about minimizing the risks.
I think comparing it to a judicial death sentence is false. The deaths described in the artcle were not deliberate.
I find myself feeling sympathetic to the officer described, although I don't know all the facts, and if I did I might not anymore. I am going to guess the officers were following protocol, and maybe that needs to be looked at and changed
When a child runs into traffic and is killed, two families are for ever utterly damaged. The same can be said about these young men.
walking out mindlessly into traffic isn't smart, but do those pedestrians who from time to time get hit by cars and trucks deserve a death sentence?
Using drugs and behaving threateningly to police (and not following orders to put your hands where they can be seen) is risky behaviour. Prople can get hurt doing that, hopefully not often and maybe we should talk about minimizing the risks.
I think comparing it to a judicial death sentence is false. The deaths described in the artcle were not deliberate.
I find myself feeling sympathetic to the officer described, although I don't know all the facts, and if I did I might not anymore. I am going to guess the officers were following protocol, and maybe that needs to be looked at and changed
When a child runs into traffic and is killed, two families are for ever utterly damaged. The same can be said about these young men.
5
Mr Blow ... I think it would be enlightening to do a similar analysis for police officer fatalities. For example, are police officer fatalities due to ambush, due to hesitancy to open fire, killed in an exchange of gunfire, others?
8
How much risk should a police officer incur before firing his weapon? Wait until alleged suspeect draws his weapon? Wait until suspect fires first? How much time is involved?
7
You are beating a dead horse my friend. Unfortunately until the current generation of middle age and older whites that serve on these juries "get religion" and see the errors of standing up for cops and authority figures no matter what they do, the killings will continue. At the same time rogue cops will continue to get away with murder. Also unfortunately the 90 % or so of cops who at least try to do the right thing will be tainted by the action of these rogue officers, If you think for a minute that Tamir Rice will get due justice in the system as it stands, please call;I have a bridge to sell you.
4
Equally disturbing is the number of recent shootings over trivial crimes (jaywalking, waving toy guns, camping in the woods, minor traffic offenses). Perhaps the NY police force set the right example by refusing to enforce minor laws. But this rapid escalation of routine arrests to shooting is a sad reflection of our infantile gun culture and police far too willing to shoot. The perception of many, probably unfounded, is that the police are racist and out of control. This will not serve them well in the long run, and society, too, will pay a price.
5
"we must ask to what degree that skew — the types of people they encounter — warps their perception of citizens in general."
My father often talked about that, during his 35 years of police work. He and the others were very aware that they were who you call to deal with the worst among us. They also were aware of, talked about, the effect on them. They compensated, deliberately.
My father even warned me that the way the news is written could have the same effect on the nation, because we give disproportionate notice to the worst things among us. Just as with police, that is part of the function, but it distorts.
The same is true of some doctors, such as those who deal with drug dependence.
The same is true of many of our counselors, who are meant to be so very understanding, but are given only disasters as people to understand.
The same is true of course for those who do certain kinds of legal work.
It isn't just police. It is part of life for many professions. We deal with it. Police generally do deal with it. Some deal much better than others. If you can't deal with it, do something else.
Shooting because someone might draw an unseen gun is over the line. Waiting a few moments more is dangerous. Waiting is also part of the job. They can't just shoot people because they are scared. Again, if you don't want to do that, don't do that job.
My father often talked about that, during his 35 years of police work. He and the others were very aware that they were who you call to deal with the worst among us. They also were aware of, talked about, the effect on them. They compensated, deliberately.
My father even warned me that the way the news is written could have the same effect on the nation, because we give disproportionate notice to the worst things among us. Just as with police, that is part of the function, but it distorts.
The same is true of some doctors, such as those who deal with drug dependence.
The same is true of many of our counselors, who are meant to be so very understanding, but are given only disasters as people to understand.
The same is true of course for those who do certain kinds of legal work.
It isn't just police. It is part of life for many professions. We deal with it. Police generally do deal with it. Some deal much better than others. If you can't deal with it, do something else.
Shooting because someone might draw an unseen gun is over the line. Waiting a few moments more is dangerous. Waiting is also part of the job. They can't just shoot people because they are scared. Again, if you don't want to do that, don't do that job.
171
Having had a family member who was a police officer, I agree. He spent most of his time with the worst offenders, with only flashes of humanity's best. I always wondered what the effect was on him of his daily interaction with people who had no regard for the law, authority or each other.
That said, even the military has rules of engagement. Police departments need to train, train, and train some more. Charges against the police need to be tracked. Now they are not. This should be elevated in union negotiations.
Unfortunately, this will lead to more grandstanding and sensationalized attacks against police departments. They are a favorite punching bag because the groups with which they interact have their own advocates. Plus, a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to cops. They don't appreciate being stopped, ticketed, etc.
It's natural for police to feel they are involved in a "war" at times because, in my view, they are.
That said, even the military has rules of engagement. Police departments need to train, train, and train some more. Charges against the police need to be tracked. Now they are not. This should be elevated in union negotiations.
Unfortunately, this will lead to more grandstanding and sensationalized attacks against police departments. They are a favorite punching bag because the groups with which they interact have their own advocates. Plus, a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to cops. They don't appreciate being stopped, ticketed, etc.
It's natural for police to feel they are involved in a "war" at times because, in my view, they are.
10
As the saying goes, "If all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
3
From your lips.....
I've frequently, and sometimes stridently, argued here for more training, more frequent qualifications, and then more practice. Departments that make that investment have the best results, the best records, and are recognized as the most professional. Departments that don't pay the most settlements, have the highest turnover and the lowest morale. They also have the least respect for the rights of citizens and the rule of law. The results are Eric Garner and Tamir Rice.
I've frequently, and sometimes stridently, argued here for more training, more frequent qualifications, and then more practice. Departments that make that investment have the best results, the best records, and are recognized as the most professional. Departments that don't pay the most settlements, have the highest turnover and the lowest morale. They also have the least respect for the rights of citizens and the rule of law. The results are Eric Garner and Tamir Rice.
2
Police work does not bring out the best in people. I was a Juvenile Hall counselor in San Francisco soon after completing college. After a (mostly black or Hispanic) suspect was brought to the facility, he would be placed in a holding cell. Sometimes an arresting officer and one of the counselors on the administrative side would beat the crap out of him. These were unarmed 16 year old boys, who cried out in pain and begged for mercy.
Most cops are professionals and are not sadists, but the psychos in their midst are given a wide berth. Comrades understand that the work can make you a little crazy. I recommend the movie Mulholland Drive for a good study of this phenomenon, especially for a city like Los Angeles- or St. Louis, or Dallas.
More troubling than the enabling of psychopathic rogue cops is the militarization of police forces around the country. They get assault vehicles, body armor, and serious weaponry from the Pentagon at bargain rates. Heavily armed police forces are a menace regardless of location. There are numerous historical examples, from Robin Hood days to the thugs of Cardinal Richelieu, or Hitler's Brown Shirts. It's all about intimidation, always in the service of the status quo.
I learned this in Berkeley in 1967-70. The Alameda County Sheriffs and California Highway Patrol were Reagan's storm troopers, and shot me and my girlfriend in the back. For no reason.
Most cops are professionals and are not sadists, but the psychos in their midst are given a wide berth. Comrades understand that the work can make you a little crazy. I recommend the movie Mulholland Drive for a good study of this phenomenon, especially for a city like Los Angeles- or St. Louis, or Dallas.
More troubling than the enabling of psychopathic rogue cops is the militarization of police forces around the country. They get assault vehicles, body armor, and serious weaponry from the Pentagon at bargain rates. Heavily armed police forces are a menace regardless of location. There are numerous historical examples, from Robin Hood days to the thugs of Cardinal Richelieu, or Hitler's Brown Shirts. It's all about intimidation, always in the service of the status quo.
I learned this in Berkeley in 1967-70. The Alameda County Sheriffs and California Highway Patrol were Reagan's storm troopers, and shot me and my girlfriend in the back. For no reason.
207
"Police work does not bring out the best in people."
Police work brings out very strongly what is in people, as they act under pressure.
It brings out selflessness too. It can bring out greatness.
Some of the finest men I've ever known were cops. They were tested, and they showed it, over and over. They earned respect, and only a fool didn't see that in them.
It also brought out in some rather disturbing traits. More than a few cops showed that, too. They generally had to move on, from among good cops. They knew each other very, very well. It couldn't be hidden.
However, the command must be willing to see it in their people, the good to reward and the bad to be rid of. Instead, some of the command is the mediocre promoted too far for the wrong reasons. Cops know that about their command too, including the other senior officers who've seen a lot and know exactly what they are seeing.
That is why I focus my attention about bad cops on the leadership of the cops. They know, and it is their jobs to do something about it rather than let disaster creep in.
Police work brings out very strongly what is in people, as they act under pressure.
It brings out selflessness too. It can bring out greatness.
Some of the finest men I've ever known were cops. They were tested, and they showed it, over and over. They earned respect, and only a fool didn't see that in them.
It also brought out in some rather disturbing traits. More than a few cops showed that, too. They generally had to move on, from among good cops. They knew each other very, very well. It couldn't be hidden.
However, the command must be willing to see it in their people, the good to reward and the bad to be rid of. Instead, some of the command is the mediocre promoted too far for the wrong reasons. Cops know that about their command too, including the other senior officers who've seen a lot and know exactly what they are seeing.
That is why I focus my attention about bad cops on the leadership of the cops. They know, and it is their jobs to do something about it rather than let disaster creep in.
89
Perhaps the movie you're recommending is "Mulholland Falls."
We put a man on the moon, as the saying goes, but the best we can do is shoot during these incidents? There's no technological innovation that can help determine if the civilian is armed? There's no technological innovation that can temporarily disable a suspect until the situation can be managed safely?
43
There's Karate, Krav Maga, Judo, Jiu-Jitsu, Tae Kwon Do, and for those really incredibly difficult cases, I suppose, tasers, except we've seen video surface of tasers being abused. We need cops with better ethics. I think that would be the best start.
37
"There's Karate, Krav Maga, Judo, Jiu-Jitsu, Tae Kwon Do"
Apply those to one with a gun. I'll bet on the guy with the gun.
Apply those to one with a gun. I'll bet on the guy with the gun.
4
Diana is so right. What about tasers or non-leathal bullets and such? Sure they cost more; is the legal liability of serious wounds so much higher that it is now the agency policy to just let the possible plaintiffs die? That would be truly scary.
2
Being high on meth is being armed and dangerous. Quadruple the paranoia and the aggression and the typical jerky movements of a meth-head -- within a confined space -- and you can empathize with this officer. It's really not fair to say that he "punished" the victim without also being able to see the behavior that was going on inside that vehicle.
There's a huge meth problem in Billings, which no doubt exacerbated the cop's hair trigger mentality. That his other victim was also high on meth is probably no coincidence. The whole area is a boom town, flush with cash from the Bakken oil fields. The drug is a popular, powerful stimulant in high demand by the truckers and field workers to help them stay awake. Police say that the crystal meth hitting Billings is 95% pure.
So while it's right to protest against police violence, this violence is only part of our larger sick and violent society. The meth comes from Mexican drug cartels, whose funds are laundered by American banks. As we know, not one bankster has gone to jail for crimes against humanity. And then there are the guns, trafficked here there and everywhere with the full collusion of our elected officials.
That the USA, wealth disparity capital and largest arms dealer on the planet, either cannot or will not control the lucrative weapons and drug industries should come as no surprise.
Cops, therefore, are both reflection and collateral damage of the corrupt political and economic system that employs them.
There's a huge meth problem in Billings, which no doubt exacerbated the cop's hair trigger mentality. That his other victim was also high on meth is probably no coincidence. The whole area is a boom town, flush with cash from the Bakken oil fields. The drug is a popular, powerful stimulant in high demand by the truckers and field workers to help them stay awake. Police say that the crystal meth hitting Billings is 95% pure.
So while it's right to protest against police violence, this violence is only part of our larger sick and violent society. The meth comes from Mexican drug cartels, whose funds are laundered by American banks. As we know, not one bankster has gone to jail for crimes against humanity. And then there are the guns, trafficked here there and everywhere with the full collusion of our elected officials.
That the USA, wealth disparity capital and largest arms dealer on the planet, either cannot or will not control the lucrative weapons and drug industries should come as no surprise.
Cops, therefore, are both reflection and collateral damage of the corrupt political and economic system that employs them.
224
The NYPD slowdown proved that the NYPD is bloated. Crime didn't go up. There was no looting or more murders. What we should be learning is that the police unions are a special interest. They want their ranks to grow, not shrink. Using tactics such as those Pat Lynch used is one way to do it. But do we really want to turn a blind eye to the fact that departments have been indiscriminate in their hiring practices? Do we want to turn a blind eye to some of the most horrendous abuses?
It's tough to be a cop. They need to be tougher and better than some of the people they are there to police or get out of jobs they shouldn't be in. Everyone should have a right to live, even the ones who have flaws.
It's tough to be a cop. They need to be tougher and better than some of the people they are there to police or get out of jobs they shouldn't be in. Everyone should have a right to live, even the ones who have flaws.
84
Uh...Rima, you do realize that just because arrests are not being made laws can still be enforced. Ever get off with just a warning?
4
That is ridiculous hyperbole. Meth may make you aggressive but it does not make you "armed."
8
It's up to society to set its rules. Right now, the authoritarian part of society is trying to impose its will. Whether it's a cop in Montana, Utah, Milwaukee, or a city's police department thumbing its nose in New Mexico, the underlying issue is the same. Do police departments have the upper hand?
If all these killings bother us as a society, meaning all of us, then it is high time we reasserted our authority. We need to ask ourselves whether, in our heart of hearts, we feel that Richard Ramirez had the right to live? The right to have the chance at cleaning up his life, one day, The same question can be asked of that homeless man who was shot to death in Albuquerque New Mexico. There, the District Attorney has filed murder charges. A couple of days later, after yet another police involved shooting happened, the Albuquerque police got smart. They locked out that DA and prevented, for now, their investigation from taking place.
Police unions are looking at the NYPD to see who wins the fight. Many have been flexing their muscles for a long time. It is a rare PD where shootings aren't somehow exonerated or settled out of court. We need to decide whether shoot first, exonerate no matter what, is really what we want to allow. Whether it's the NYPD slowing down on the job or the ABQ police shutting down the DA, who's boss? Should they be?
Remember, today, it's the most vulnerable on the streets and highways, tomorrow, who knows? Might be someone in your neighborhood.
If all these killings bother us as a society, meaning all of us, then it is high time we reasserted our authority. We need to ask ourselves whether, in our heart of hearts, we feel that Richard Ramirez had the right to live? The right to have the chance at cleaning up his life, one day, The same question can be asked of that homeless man who was shot to death in Albuquerque New Mexico. There, the District Attorney has filed murder charges. A couple of days later, after yet another police involved shooting happened, the Albuquerque police got smart. They locked out that DA and prevented, for now, their investigation from taking place.
Police unions are looking at the NYPD to see who wins the fight. Many have been flexing their muscles for a long time. It is a rare PD where shootings aren't somehow exonerated or settled out of court. We need to decide whether shoot first, exonerate no matter what, is really what we want to allow. Whether it's the NYPD slowing down on the job or the ABQ police shutting down the DA, who's boss? Should they be?
Remember, today, it's the most vulnerable on the streets and highways, tomorrow, who knows? Might be someone in your neighborhood.
73
""There was a violation of James’ constitutional rights," said Summer Osburn, longtime friend of Barker and Salt Lake City defense attorney. "There was no reasonable suspicion for him to detain James.""
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2049612-155/salt-lake-city-police-union-backs
Albuquerque bars DA from latest shooting case after she files murder charges against cops
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/albuquerque-bars-da-from-latest-shoot...
"In January 2008, a teenage high-school student in the Bronx had an argument with her principal. An NYPD officer assigned to the school quickly arrived to subdue the unruly student.
What happened next was caught on video: The officer put the student in a chokehold."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/nypd-chokehold_n_6457652.html
Commissioner Bratton was on TV late last month on Face The Nation and Meet The Press. What did he really say?
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/12/commish-bratton-was-on-tv-twice-what-di...
Remember the expression "give an inch, and they'll take a mile?" Are we there yet?
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2049612-155/salt-lake-city-police-union-backs
Albuquerque bars DA from latest shooting case after she files murder charges against cops
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/albuquerque-bars-da-from-latest-shoot...
"In January 2008, a teenage high-school student in the Bronx had an argument with her principal. An NYPD officer assigned to the school quickly arrived to subdue the unruly student.
What happened next was caught on video: The officer put the student in a chokehold."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/nypd-chokehold_n_6457652.html
Commissioner Bratton was on TV late last month on Face The Nation and Meet The Press. What did he really say?
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/12/commish-bratton-was-on-tv-twice-what-di...
Remember the expression "give an inch, and they'll take a mile?" Are we there yet?
25
"Right now, the authoritarian part of society is trying to impose its will."
Police are simply the enforcement arm of the State, please remind me who holds the highest office in the land?
Police are simply the enforcement arm of the State, please remind me who holds the highest office in the land?
5
It's funny how The Left just loves public employee unions - with the notable exception of the police union.
9