Originally Posted By Dabob2 "What the cop SHOULD have done is largely irrelevant here because he didn't." And I'd say that what the victim should have done is irrelevant because he didn't. And once he didn't,the cop could have chosen a lethal response or a non-lethal one. The victim had every right to expect a nonlethal one, because anyone with a shred of humanity would've chosen the nonlethal one. So it's on him, and we shouldn't freaking put it on the victim. "As for the woman in your example, no she should not be raped. On the other hand, she isn't dressed very sensibly for a first date with a man she's never met. People can't go along living in some make-believe world where nothing ever happens that shouldn't happen. If they do they may end up raped or dead. " And blamed for the crime that others commit against them. Great. People do dumb things sometimes. No one is disputing that. What we're disputing is that they should end up dead for it, and if they do, be blamed or even half blamed for it. Good God.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No, they should not be blamed. But anyone who does not exercise necessary caution in today's world is being foolish. It isn't Leave it to Beaver out there anymore. I'm not happy about that one little bit. I'm old enough that I remember growing up in the 50's and remember how idyllic it was (at least if you were white). But it is what it is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Caution is good. I agree. But have we really reached the point where someone does not have a reasonable expectation of not being shot in the back if he runs away from a police officer?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And so I'm not misunderstood, let me clarify. I don't think most cops would have shot that guy in the back. It is absolutely reasonable to expect that that not happen. So it really is on the cop, not the guy who ran.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't have that expectation. I don't know if it ever really existed until maybe the 70's or 80's. I know cop shows aren't always based on reality, but I seem to remember a bunch of them where cops would say "Halt (Freeze) or I'll shoot" to a criminal attempting to flee.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't have that expectation. I don't know if it ever really existed until maybe the 70's or 80's. I know cop shows aren't always based on reality, but I seem to remember a bunch of them where cops would say "Halt (Freeze) or I'll shoot" to a criminal attempting to flee.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It appears that today's policies concerning police use of deadly force came about in response to a 1985 Supreme Court decision. So I guess my memory isn't faulty... that has NOT always been the expectation in the United States. <<Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.">> Source: Wikipedia
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Difference in expectations depending on age. I was 33 years old in 1985. I never grew up with that expectation and still don't have it. Of course it would have never occurred to me to NOT follow a cops orders, so I guess it makes no difference.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "What the cop SHOULD have done is largely irrelevant here because he didn't. We are talking about self-preservation here." No we're not. We're talking about cop culture getting out of control. That some people can be smarter how they act around cops is a pretty obvious idea that sidetracks the conversation. "Let's face it, our country is a war zone." Huh? You should visit a war zone some time. "Look at all of the gun violence our police need to be ready for. Is it any wonder our police are mirroring the violence they combat?" Violent crime has been has been decreasing pretty consistently for a while now. Shouldn't law enforcement be following that trend?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Violent crime has been has been decreasing pretty consistently for a while now. Shouldn't law enforcement be following that trend?" Huh? You should visit Long Beach or Los Angeles or Chicago or Detroit or Philadelphia or........... sometime.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Of course it would have never occurred to me to NOT follow a cops orders, so I guess it makes no difference.> I don't think the cop even yelled "stop or I'll shoot" or even "stop," did he? I've seen the video and you can't hear much, but you can hear the shots, and if anyone had yelled (as opposed to conversational voice, which presumably a copy wouldn't use if he's going to yell "stop!" at someone running away), I think that should have been audible as well. From what we saw of the video at the car, Scott DID follow the cop's instructions. Then at a certain point he decided to run. Not a great decision, but again - not supposed to be a death sentence.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "...which presumably a cop wouldn't use..." In fact, I think one the reasons the video is so alarming is the fact that - at least in what we can see - the cop is so calm and matter of fact about shooting Scott in the back. Almost as if Scott is more a nuisance than a living person.
Originally Posted By ecdc Why all the deference to cops? Why the assumption that they must've had a good reason for what they did? (And why the convenient ignoring of the fact that this one has been charged w/ murder?) Is there any other scenario where someone is killed where we just kinda shrug and blame them for their death? If someone is getting mugged and they run away in a panic and get shot, do we comb through their past looking for excuses for them to be dead? If a white teenage girl shoplifts a CD and a mall cop shoots her dead, is the response really, "Well, I guess she shouldn't have stolen that CD, huh?" Of course, it's really less about people taking the path of self-preservation than it is people in a position of privilege (who will never have to make the choice of self-preservation) lecturing those people who are frequently targeted by police on how they should behave. It's long past time to stop assuming that if a cop does something, it's because they have good reasons. The racial discrepancies make it clear that is not always the case.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I never said the cop had a reason for doing what he did. I said the victim made a stupid decision when he ran.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss The shooting is so surreal that I'm surprised I haven't read anything about it being a conspiracy of some kind.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I said the victim made a stupid decision when he ran.>> It's a non-sequitur. Doesn't matter if he ran away from the cop. Doesn't matter if he had solid justification for running away (mental illness, cop threatened him physically, etc) or was wanted in 50 states. The only thing that matters is what the cop did: 1) Shoot an unarmed man *in the back* from a significant distance. 2) Refuse any attempt to resuscitate or revive the man. 3) Plant fake evidence near the body. 4) Report false info to his fellow cops and supervisors. Even if the man he shot was wanted for multiple murders, it simply does not matter. The man he shot was unarmed with his back turned. End of story.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <End of story.> skinner, we mostly agree on this issue (wow!) The real story in this particular case is what the cop did. It was murder. He was caught. He will be prosecuted. It's tragic. However, there is nothing wrong with saying he shouldn't have ran. Good advice for all: don't run away from a cop trying to work with you. It's a very small story, but it does matter.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "End of story." Of course it isn't. But like I said earlier, have at it.
