Another killing of a black man... but this one is quite different.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/us/atlanta-police-shooting-wendys/index.html

In this situation, the man was drunk, resisting arrest, took an officer's taser, and fired it at him while running away.

I'm not arguing that this was stellar police work... And they should definitely investigate it.  But this is just worlds away from the George Floyd situation.  And people are still protesting, demanding the police chief step down, etc.  You can acknowledge racism in the system without assuming cops are acting out of racism in every instance, or that every use of force is police brutality.  Unless there's something more to the video, I'm just not seeing this, and I think it hurts the credibility of the movement to act as though it is.

While it is unknown at this time what role racism had in this incident (as far as I am aware, we do not know how it got to the point where the fight took place), we have to seriously ask "Should police be deploying lethal force when no lives are in danger?". The man was running away. Yes, he tried to shoot a taser as he was running away, however he was running away. Possession of a taser does not require lethal force, especially when the man is running away.

I was reading a story out of Camden, NJ the other day and they were talking about the changes made after the disbanding of the police force. They brought up one instance in particular where there was a man with a knife who was fleeing from a robbery when he encountered police. Eventually he was arrested and despite swinging the knife at officers, not a single shot was fired. After the incident, the Chief said that if they had approached the situation as they had in the past, they would have had an officer involved shooting.

I see a similar pattern here. It seems like poor policing led to the escalating of the conflict, and the officer deployed lethal force as a response to a non-lethal act of a fleeing man. I don't know if it is about racism, but frankly, I don't think it matters. BLM isn't arguing that cops killing people is cool as long as they do so equally. That isn't justice. Any time an officer wrongfully or excessively uses force, that is a problem which deserves protests and demands for change. This is often the result of a system which needs reform on its use of force and that is what I see here. I don't believe this man needed to die. Let him escape and apprehend him later if necessary, but don't murder him...

While it is unknown at this time what role racism had in this incident (as far as I am aware, we do not know how it got to the point where the fight took place), we have to seriously ask "Should police be deploying lethal force when no lives are in danger?". The man was running away. Yes, he tried to shoot a taser as he was running away, however he was running away. Possession of a taser does not require lethal force, especially when the man is running away.

I was reading a story out of Camden, NJ the other day and they were talking about the changes made after the disbanding of the police force. They brought up one instance in particular where there was a man with a knife who was fleeing from a robbery when he encountered police. Eventually he was arrested and despite swinging the knife at officers, not a single shot was fired. After the incident, the Chief said that if they had approached the situation as they had in the past, they would have had an officer involved shooting.

I see a similar pattern here. It seems like poor policing led to the escalating of the conflict, and the officer deployed lethal force as a response to a non-lethal act of a fleeing man. I don't know if it is about racism, but frankly, I don't think it matters. BLM isn't arguing that cops killing people is cool as long as they do so equally. That isn't justice. Any time an officer wrongfully or excessively uses force, that is a problem which deserves protests and demands for change. This is often the result of a system which needs reform on its use of force and that is what I see here. I don't believe this man needed to die. Let him escape and apprehend him later if necessary, but don't murder him...

Tasers are not non-lethal weapons.  They are "less lethal" weapons.  A taser can be lethal. Does that justify lethal force? I don't know. But this is certainly a far different situation from kneeling on a man's neck for 8 minutes. 

There's no footage of the incident before the man was running with a taser, so I don't know how we can conclude poor policing led to escalation. Again, the man was in possession of a potentially lethal weapon, and had fired it at police. As for whether or not they should have let him escape, I'm not sure how I feel as a policy of allowing severely intoxicated people and likely violent people to run around with tasers.

Do you think this would lead to protests if it weren't so close to the George Floyd murder? I don't.  Nor do I think protests are the appropriate response every time.  There is a difference between this case and the George Floyd case.  In the George Floyd case, it was a cop who had a history of complaints of excessive force, kneeling on a man's neck for 8 minutes, with no possible threat of force against him while several other officers just watched.  That kind of thing simply can't happen without deep systematic flaws.  This is a case of an officer who was fired at by a potentially lethal weapon.  I think something like this could happen without deep systematic flaws.  Which isn't to say such flaws don't exist.

I didn't mention BLM, but their platform is simply not about excessive police force in general. You can read about it here https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ . 

Strongly disagree. The police's primary job should be to protect the public. If somebody appears to be huge threat to public safety then the police should deal with that before they have a chance to hurt anybody, regardless of whether that means killing them or not.

Now a drunk man with a taser may not have been a huge threat and probably could've been dealt with differently (ideally he wouldn't have gotten hold of a police taser in the first place) but just imagine somebody running down the street with an assault rifle or a bomb or something. I'd have no problem whatsoever with the police shooting and killing somebody like that.

It is a different situation, but I don't think that makes it irrelevant. I would say that it is unlikely that criminal charges would be filed in this situation, but I do think the department should retrain all of their officers, rework their use of force policies and fire the officer who pulled the trigger (in addition to a complete, thorough investigation). I also don't think whether these protests would have happened in the absence of the previous protests is relevant in any way. At the end of the day, we should discuss this situation on its merits, not on the back of a hypothetical discussion about how much people would have cared given x, y or z. That is entirely unproductive.

And as I previously stated, I do believe that this situation is emblematic of deeper systemic flaws regarding the use of force. Nothing I saw in that video warranted killing this man. Ideally, as soon as he took the taser (which arguably shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place), if the officers are worried about their safety, they should not be chasing after this man waving their pistols. If they believe he presented a threat to him, they should have exhausted all other options before deploying force (namely, let him get away if he is already in the process of running away). This is a fundamental part of progressive police reform which was not followed in this case. Additionally, it doesn't matter how comfortable you are with a drunk man running with a taser, we cannot execute people in the street because of crimes they may commit in the future. This is simply an extension of the issue of shooting fleeing criminals in the back. It should never be allowed. End of story.

If the officer does not believe that his life is in danger from a taser, he can pursue the man under the knowledge that he may be shot with the taser but at that point, I don't believe he has the ability to claim self defense (under police policy, not under the law) unless something substantial changes, as he knowingly put himself in this situation.

I'm also not sure what point you are trying to make with that BLM link. The fundamental proposals relating to the issues we are seeing today virtually all include changes to the use of force procedures. It is not just about removing bias and racism, it is about ensuring that officers only use force when necessary.

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. 

So he should be retrained to do a better job and not react the way he did ;)

I've always been baffled by the police car chases in the US. Maybe in the 50s people could actually get away yet nowadays with police helicopters, traffic cameras, instant license plate look up, cross country collaboration, no reason to put others in danger
https://www.thefinelawfirm.com/people-killed-in-police-chases/

Yes, there are fundamental problems in how the police in the US is educated.

I believe the unknowns are cases still in trial or unresolved? not sure if/when the data is updated but we are talking about the FBI here, what would be the point of releasing statistics if the method of recording them is highly skewed by things like rural/urban areas as you suggest...

I have no idea.  That's why I'm not making any conclusions.  As for why the FBI releases data as they do, you'd have to ask them for methodology.  Many agencies simply report the data that they have access to.  The FBI is not conducting a scientific study, they're not trying to create a random sample.

Again, there are only categories for black and white, so the rest of the population is most likely represented in that data to some extent. I don't think this data point has any relevance in this conversation, and don't care enough to look it up.  If you think it is, then you should probably do a little of that thing called research to find out how the statistics came about.  

I am sorry that the 49% figure is inaccurate or outdated yes, but it would not lead me/anyone to wrong conclusions anyway, you are only making it a big matter because you disagree with me in general, if I was someone who agrees with you, you wouldn't bother to ask for sources at all...

Far as I can tell, it's not just inaccurate or outdated... it's literally made up.  You still haven't said where that figure came from. 

Please back up that claim if you're going to make accusations... I do not yet have an opinion on this matter, so I don't exactly agree with anyone.  I definitely disagree with some people though... People who are posting misinformation.

Let's not forget that you started this by asking people what they thought about the statistics you posted. I told you that your statistics are wrong, and actually provided a source.  How dare I :-/ 

find reasons to declare the statistics as inaccurate does not make them ineligible, my point is not whether they commit 4x or 6x more crimes, the point is that they commit significantly more such to take it into account

Wait what?  The statistics being inaccurate does not make them ineligible?  Yes... yes it absolutely does. O_o... Don't even know what to say to the assertion that invalid statistics are usable.  And this is the disingenuousness that's running through this whole thing. 

"I based my opinion on these statistics."

"But those statistics are wrong..."

"Oh well, sure the statistic may be wrong, but my point is still right."

If this is the case, then the opinion came first and was in no way guided by the statistics. Does that make your point wrong? Not necessarily. But it makes it obvious that the conclusion came first.  

And 4 times vs 6 times is absolutely a huge difference... If you're arguing that there's a correlation between police brutality and crime rate, then 4 times versus 6 times is incredibly statistically significant.  Before you send me that statistics book you suggested, you should probably skim it first.

And of course you're still making up random stats you can't support. As of 2017, black people made up 27% of arrests. Less than half as much as white people. Definitely not significantly more.  

They are still overrepresented in terms of arrests, which again is different than committing crimes.  They are still overrepresented, but only by about 2x.  A much smaller amount, which can way more likely be based to a large extent on enforcement strategies or non-racial factors such as poverty levels and such. 

These are facts which are easily accessible to you (FBI statistics). You should look them up before making claims. Don't you think you should look up those statistics before making claims?

I am asking by suggesting my dear, as I said above, shaping up my opinion, not being absolute, not stating it

When claim your explanation makes sense, you're stating it's a valid conclusion, or at least that you believe it's a valid conclusion.  Especially when you say it "must be the case". You are claiming the proposition that "it must be the case that crime rates are the cause of racism" makes sense. That's a conclusion.

"Just asking questions" is a common example of bad faith argument, and a very common trolling tactic. It's a way to make put forward a position while maintaining plausible deniability. It makes sense that since you're using common troll tactics, you must be a troll.  Don't you think you're a troll?

Now, if you call me out for accusing you of trolling and I say "oh no no, I was just asking a question to shape my opinion good sir" would you buy that? (For the record I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just giving an example.)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

https://katenasser.com/people-skills-professional-replace-the-deadly-dont-you-think-leadership/

https://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/dont-you-think

Stop being disingenuous. 

by that thinking of yours no one should have an opinion about matters, where shall I base my opinion on if not statistics, mass trends and asking other people for more opinions/articles/numbers? you are acting as if I'm about to publish my opinion on the news :P

No.  By that thinking people should only express an opinion after they have done sufficient research on the topic.  Not after looking for data on wikipedia, asking people who are not experts, and looking at statistics while admittedly not caring where there source is from or if the statistics are actually accurate. Of course, the level of research one should do is also in proportion to the importance of the topic.

Honestly, how much time have you spent researching this issue?  Do you think that amount of research is enough to form an accurate conclusion?

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. 

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.