Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

warb17 OP t1_j8d9gwn wrote

Reply to comment by warb17 in D.C. police officer shoots, wounds man in Southeast Washington by warb17

Some things that stick out to me:

They had the wrong person >the man who was shot does not appear to be the person who was reported to have attacked the woman.

The person wasn't armed >Police said no weapon has been recovered

They want to paint the person as deserving of police violence, even though the shooter didn't even know about the "suspected drugs" (which could just be weed) >once at the hospital, medical personnel found what he described as a “large quantity” of suspected drugs

The scenario that prompted the police search didn't even warrant lethal force >The woman who was hit with the pipe was taken to a hospital for treatment. Police said her injuries did not appear to be life-threatening.

−13

[deleted] t1_j8dmc15 wrote

[deleted]

59

warb17 OP t1_j8dn8ub wrote

you know, that's a much fairer critique than others have offered. like i said in another post though, my priors are to disbelieve the police. so if they use soft language to say they might've made a mistake, i'm gonna assume they really did make a mistake.

−5

Deep_Stick8786 t1_j8fj7vn wrote

It was cocaine, they stated later. Also the driver of the car fled. Possible a weapon was dropped in there but seems like there won’t be proof of that

7

warb17 OP t1_j8h09bm wrote

the driver of the car said she fled because she was nervous - understandable after someone starts shooting

−1

JohnJohnston t1_j8dg6fe wrote

>The scenario that prompted the police search didn't even warrant lethal force

  1. Situations change. If police were only allowed to respond to the exact amount of force reported on the 911 call at the time it was made there would be a lot of dead people around.

  2. An attack with a weapon certainly warrants some kind of force.

>Police said no weapon has been recovered

Could be in the vehicle that drove away.

>after officials had watched video from the officer’s body camera, said the man moved his hands, and the officer told him several times, “Stop reaching.” Police also said the female driver told the passenger to get out of the Jeep.

Leaving out the key detail of the story to push a certain narrative. Yes, let us ignore facts because it gives more evidence towards my worldview, that will surely convince people.

30

thebenron t1_j8dy0qi wrote

> Leaving out the key detail of the story to push a certain narrative. Yes, let us ignore facts because it gives more evidence towards my worldview, that will surely convince people

That's not a fact. That is the account of what happened given by the police. Police lie all the time.

−11

under_psychoanalyzer t1_j8e0d9w wrote

It's a description of body cam footage that's admitted as evidence and will probably be released publicly at some point. It's as factual as anything else in the article.

19

warb17 OP t1_j8dieht wrote

My point is that the original suspect wasn't reported to have a gun, he was reported to have a pipe. Presumably if this wrongfully shot man was "reaching" for something, it would've been a pipe. But we don't even know if he was reaching for anything or what the cop said, because cops lie all the time. Nothing they say can be trusted until we see the body cam footage.

It's amazing to me that you can be alive here in 2023 with the tens of thousands of documented cases of police overreacting with lethal force and give them any benefit of the doubt.

−24

sumpdiddlyump_ t1_j8dmbdl wrote

> It's amazing to me that you can be alive here in 2023 with the tens of thousands of documented cases of police overreacting with lethal force and give them any benefit of the doubt.

This is just bad statistics. The majority of lethal force incidents happen in cases where the suspect was armed with a gun. The second most common situation is where the suspect is armed with a knife. The third is where the suspect was using a vehicle as a weapon.

That doesn’t excuse incidents where lethal force is incorrectly used, but if you actually care about that problem, then you shouldn’t be painting with such a broad brush. When you use phrases like “it’s amazing to me” and use bad stats, it leads me to believe you’re just engaging in performative outrage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

24

warb17 OP t1_j8dp53s wrote

a knife is rarely sufficient cause for a shooting. even a gun isn't necessarily sufficient cause.

the Post link is paywalled for me, but looking at the Guardian's database for 2016, half of those killed by police had a firearm. i don't think all of those were likely justified uses of lethal force because sometimes the killed person never fires their weapon, but lets assume they were all justified. That's about 500 people per year killed without cause.

i don't have stats on hand for how many times police use lethal force without actually killing the person, but i think it's reasonable to say it's at least the same frequency, if not twice or thrice as frequent. so that's 1,000 instances of unjustified lethal force, conservatively, per year. so we hit 10,000 in a decade or less of policing. if we're less conservative, that's 10,000 in 5-7 years.

−18

paulHarkonen t1_j8e912j wrote

This is where you've lost me. I was with you on the assumptions of incompetence and concerns with the level of force used, but this is where you've taken reasonable concerns into the territory of unreasonable.

The difference between a lethal blow from a pipe or knife and a non-lethal one is the point of impact and luck. Assaulting someone with a pipe (or any other weapon) is a potential justification for lethal force. While guns are the second easiest way to kill someone, that doesn't make knives and other weapons any less lethal, especially when someone has already proven their willingness to use it for violence.

The officer in question clearly screwed up here and there should be a thorough (ideally independent) investigation of how and why, probably ending with the officer's termination (unless they can come up with a damned good explanation). That doesn't mean that lethal force is unreasonable against future armed criminals, especially when they have already used those weapons.

14

warb17 OP t1_j8gzs7f wrote

a knife could be thrown, but it's mostly a melee weapon. cops should keep a little distance and de-escalate when a knife is out, not shoot. if they can't handle that with all the training they get, they don't deserve the gun in the first place.

−4

paulHarkonen t1_j8hrf6j wrote

Awfully tough to de-escalate with someone committed to doing violence.

Look, I applaud your belief that no one needs to die at the hands of police and I agree that policing in the US is deeply broken right now. But when you take more extreme stances and use hyperbolic examples/statements you undermine the goals of actual change.

Yes the police should reduce their use of force, yes they should improve their training to avoid these types of incidents, but also yes, sometimes lethal force is necessary to protect themselves and the public for violent people with weapons (not just guns).

7

warb17 OP t1_j8ipxxb wrote

the whole point of de-escalation is to apply it to someone originally intending to do violence.

also, i haven't said that lethal force is never required, even with a knife. i've said that it's heavily overused. if my sentiments feel extreme to you, maybe you should do some more reading on police and prison abolition. this article was written by someone skeptical of police abolition and might be useful: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/12/21283813/george-floyd-blm-abolish-the-police-8cantwait-minneapolis

−1

paulHarkonen t1_j8ir5tp wrote

I've read quite a bit on the subject and your comment was extreme. While you're right that you didn't say "never" you did say "rarely" and then used that stance to justify why it is unjustified when dealing with a suspect that had already used the weapon.

Again, I understand the concerns. Police need to be heavily regulated, on camera 24/7, reduced funding that is redirected toward mental health and social welfare resources. I'm onboard. The whole system needs to be completely restructured from the top to bottom.

Your stance and hyperbole here hampers that goal. Sometimes we do need police armed and prepared to use lethal force. Someone utilizing a potentially lethal weapon is one of those times. Do they need better training? Yes. Do they need more oversight? Yes. Should they be locked up in cases of misuse of force (such as shooting unarmed people)? Yes. Does that mean lethal force is unjustified when dealing with suspects wielding weapons other than firearms? No.

2

warb17 OP t1_j8ivcb7 wrote

a person with a knife is generally a threat that can be contained and so as a general practice i'm going to default to assuming that the police acted irresponsibly if they shot the person.

i genuinely appreciate that you are willing to consider some reforms; we have some common ground there. i don't mean this in an antagonizing way but please keep in mind that my stance is not reform of police - it's abolition - so i'm not surprised if you feel like my stance is somewhat at odds with yours, because it is.

have you seen this pdf? if you haven't, it's a great tool for thinking about reforms that do or do not move towards abolition. you've mentioned some of the things in green, and so like i said, we do have common ground.

but my position is that policing and prisons as we know them are fundamentally problematic institutions and our aim should be to build a society free of them.

0

paulHarkonen t1_j8iwft1 wrote

I think your stance is self destructive and not only does it result in worse outcomes but advocating for it undermines the possibility of improvement. So yes, I am certainly at odds with that stance.

3

warb17 OP t1_j8ix5v1 wrote

well, at least we can advocate for reduced funding for MPD together and get those funds redirected to social services.

−1

joe_sausage t1_j8etvhy wrote

You think if someone’s coming at you with a pipe and you have enough time to shoot them, we haven’t figured out anything less destructive and less lethal than that, in 2023, that could keep you and the suspect both alive?

That’s just silly.

−6

paulHarkonen t1_j8flmpj wrote

Actually I do think we have very few reliable non-lethal ways to stop someone intent on harming you. Most ways of stopping them reliably pose a significant risk of killing them.

5

__main__py t1_j8dni7d wrote

> Presumably if this wrongfully shot man was "reaching" for something, it would've been a pipe

There's absolutely no reason to assume that. You assume that the officer was still looking for the original suspect, when it is entirely possible that he arrived at the scene and found a completely different incident.

> But we don't even know if he was reaching for anything or what the cop said, because cops lie all the time

This might shock you but criminals lie too! Except cops wear bodycams, so we'll see.

16

warb17 OP t1_j8dr5bh wrote

well, at least we agree that cops lie.

3

theman_bearpig t1_j8dsl4e wrote

do you agree that criminals lie as well?

14

warb17 OP t1_j8dt338 wrote

didn't i just say that?

>we agree that cops lie

0

FkDavidTyreeBot_2000 t1_j8e9ipc wrote

There's the bad faith

17

warb17 OP t1_j8gzxp8 wrote

where would this conversation have gone? no one asking that question has an open mind because it has an obvious answer and doesn't serve any purpose but to regain rhetorical footing.

0

__main__py t1_j8eahuh wrote

Do you think being acerbic towards strangers on the internet helps sway them towards your viewpoint in any way whatsoever?

13

warb17 OP t1_j8gzu64 wrote

a silly question gets a silly answer

−2

__main__py t1_j8hxg3k wrote

“Ha ha I’m just kidding why are you mad bro”

1

warb17 OP t1_j8iotlv wrote

sorry your moral grandstanding in your last comment didn't have the effect you hoped haha

−1

theman_bearpig t1_j8duozr wrote

let me help you out here with your reading comprehension. you said “we agree that cops lie” and yes, I agree. however, nowhere is the word “criminal” stated in that sentence.

now one more time, do you agree that criminals(the people causing the police response) lie as well?

9

paulHarkonen t1_j8e98lq wrote

They believe all cops are criminals.

5

warb17 OP t1_j8h31zu wrote

the preferred term is bastards but you've got the right spirit haha

−2

JohnJohnston t1_j8djhsh wrote

> Presumably if this wrongfully shot man was "reaching" for something, it would've been a pipe.

Apparently it's a well known fact that people can only carry one weapon at a time. TIL.

>It's amazing to me that you can be alive here in 2023 with the tens of thousands of documented cases of police overreacting with lethal force and give them any benefit of the doubt.

Couldn't care less about what amazes you or not. I'm countering your narrative, not saying the police are infallible or that this was guaranteed a justified shooting. You haven't seen the video either.

However, given that the chief of police knows in this day and age the bodycam footage will be released, I doubt he is making up the fact that the person was reaching for things, refused to stop reaching for something, and probably made some movement to his pockets/under the seat after being repeatedly told to stop. There are many such videos of this happening.

13

warb17 OP t1_j8dl0hj wrote

lol you're living a delusion.

did you read the initial report that the Memphis police filed after the Tyre Nichols murder? they knew that bodycam footage would likely get out eventually and they lied through their teeth. if they'll lie about that they'll lie about anything. it's called damage control and getting ahead of the narrative.

5

[deleted] t1_j8dkej8 wrote

Police kill about 1000 americans per year. Thats before you count unarmed/unjustified killings.

You could save more lives by reducing national sodium intake by 1 percent.

Theyre unrelated but its important to have perspective.

13

warb17 OP t1_j8dmsm5 wrote

then let's do both lol

the difference though is that police & their violence are a major means by which oppression is conducted. police violently enforce laws that contribute to racism, pollution, poverty, and more. police violently suppress protest against those laws. and because the government depends on police to fill those roles, the government tends to look the other way when police do shit like this.

government gets more corrupt when it has a militia it can use to suppress the public's discontent. if we want a truly accountable government, we need to get rid of the police as they currently exist.

5

MyTornArsehole t1_j8ddvd2 wrote

"Stop reaching" case closed. What I found funny is Contee trying to plea with the woman driving the red jeep with a rear missing hubcap, "We just want to talk to you to find out what happened"

3

__main__py t1_j8dgcgo wrote

> The person wasn't armed

> > Police said no weapon has been recovered

Weird how you left out the second half of the sentence: "Police said no weapon has been recovered, though they noted they have not yet found the vehicle"

I'm withholding judgement until there's more information available.

25

MyTornArsehole t1_j8dh4z8 wrote

I agree with you, the reality is the police said "stop reaching" case closed

0

truce_m3 t1_j8e5h1c wrote

You're saying it's "case closed" that the man deserved to be shot?

1

__main__py t1_j8dn5z0 wrote

Oh sorry, I responded to the wrong comment. My bad.

0

warb17 OP t1_j8dj6kd wrote

sure, if they find a gun in the car and the body cam footage shows that the man pointed the gun at the officer, then i'll revise my opinion.

but there are thousands of cases where police have shot someone with no provocation at all and then lie about it afterwards, so my priors are to assume the man was actually unarmed.

0

__main__py t1_j8dn1hs wrote

I'd recommend you read the MPD general order around the use of force. Again, once we see the body cam footage we will be able to determine if the victim was actively threatening the officer, the driver of the car, or someone else. Probably best to just withhold judgement until we do.

13

truce_m3 t1_j8e5d3m wrote

What is reading that general order going to prove?

−4

JohnJohnston t1_j8dsb70 wrote

> then i'll revise my opinion.

Come on now, be honest at least. We both know that won't happen.

9

warb17 OP t1_j8dsfdx wrote

it certainly would. maybe you're just projecting.

2

warb17 OP t1_j8diyw3 wrote

it's amazing that you think this is sufficient for a person to be shot.

do you think you deserve to be shot when you go over the speed limit in your car? that's more dangerous and criminal than what this man did.

6

MyTornArsehole t1_j8dqtzk wrote

No, but tell that to the USADA and a jury. Case closed.

−1

warb17 OP t1_j8dr0cp wrote

then you don't really think this person should've been shot either. you just enjoy feeling more powerful than someone else.

5

Turbo2x t1_j8dnrze wrote

You know the situation is bad when even the Washington Post is having a hard time justifying the actions of a police officer.

−1

Feisty_Law_3321 t1_j8dghz0 wrote

Sounds like another criminal will soon be off the street. The gunshot victim with the large quantity of illicit drugs should be held criminally accountable as well.

−5

warb17 OP t1_j8di0kj wrote

how do you know the drugs were illicit?

how do you know the person committed any crime?

5

Feisty_Law_3321 t1_j8di7d2 wrote

You’re right it was probably a bottle of aspirin.

8

warb17 OP t1_j8dljj5 wrote

the point is that "drugs" is a convenient excuse for police brutality.

the war on drugs was a racist policy from the start, cops plant drugs on people, and even if they guy was carrying drugs we don't know what they were. and then on top of that regardless of the criminality of the drugs, it's included in the article in a way that's meant to bias the reader against the shooting victim and to partially justify the cop's actions. even though the possession of drugs is not a violent offense and provides no justification for attempted murder.

9

Turbo2x t1_j8dx5b6 wrote

It's a classic ex post facto justification. The cop shot a bystander... but it's okay, because he had drugs on him! Of course, ignoring the fact that police lie literally all the time you can't just shoot someone and hope it works out later. That's not how the law works.

4

damnatio_memoriae t1_j8dy6s9 wrote

it could very well be weed. and even if it's not, possessing drugs is hardly a legitimate reason to shoot someone or lock someone up. we learned that decades ago.

1