JWeinCom said:
I agree that the situation should be discussed on its own merits. Do you think that's what people protesting this are doing? Or is their perspective on the matter biased based on other events? Would the Wendy's be burning down now if people were judging it on its own merits (like seriously the fuck did they do)? In this case, I just don't see a way of saying going from the event to the assumption that all police officers need to be re-trained. Even if the system were perfect, incidents would still occur. The murder of George Floyd was a case that was so egregious that it demonstrates a system failure. There are many checks that should have been in place that clearly were not. This case though? I think even if police were generally well trained you could have cases like this occur. That doesn't mean they are, but this case doesn't show clear evidence of a systemic problem. In the video, you can clearly see what appears to be him firing the taser. There's about 2 seconds between the taser being fired and the shooting. It was a reaction, not a plan. Was that the best reaction? Obviously not. Should that action lead to discipline? Probably. Does it show anything more than a police officer doing a bad job? I don't think you could say that. |
I think criticism of this incident is valid. That is all I care to say about that first point, because that is all I believe to be relevant.
As for the second point, it is possible that this incident was an individual breaking internal use of force policies. If that is the case, I still believe that additional training is warranted, however, possibly not to the same extent. However, given that the progressive policies regarding use of force are fairly rare across the country, I would say that it is far more likely that this is a result of outdated policies and training, and if that is the case, additional training is required. Further, if this was an instance of an individual breaking internal policies, it is still very much important to examine how and why this violation occurred, and often, again, that results in further training.
And looking quickly into Atlanta's policies, they have no requirement for deescalation in place, they have no requirement to exhaust all alternatives before shooting and the have no requirement that the officer must issue a warning before shooting. These are only three things which the Atlanta PD lacks, however, there are likely many more changes that can be made.
Lastly, I don't think the distinction between "action" and "plan" is necessary. If someone uses excessive force as a reaction, it should still be punished and addressed, and policies should be in place to cut this off before such a reaction was even necessary. Again, if the officer thought he was in mortal danger from a man running away with a taser, he should not have chased after him from that range in the first place. We need to examine the decision making involved in this incident, not just from the moment he pulled the trigger, but from the beginning of the encounter to see how this should have been handled differently.
Ka-pi96 said:
Alternative situations aren't separate anymore when you make it into "we need to stop shooting people" rather than "this person shouldn't have been shot". I also take issue with "It should never be allowed". The majority of the time, yeah it shouldn't happen. But there are also situations where not only do I think it's permissible but I'd actually be disappointed in cops that didn't shoot somebody, even if they're running away. Shooting people seems to be one of the preferred options for American cops at the moment, which is a sad state of affairs, but it should still remain as an option for extreme situations. |
I actually somewhat agree with Atl's policy on fleeing suspects:
"2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect's escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person"
This is generally what I believe. If you have someone who is an imminent danger to the public, they may be shot while attempting escape, such as in the case of a mass shooter or a bomber. However, often, this is not the case and officers need to be trained to make this distinction. The mere presence of a weapon is not suitable in meeting this requirement. In most cases, a fleeing individual with a weapon isn't a serious and imminent danger to the public, including the case at hand and further, the officers should still attempt to de-escalate the situation if possible.
I apologize for the imprecise language, though.
Last edited by sundin13 - on 14 June 2020
