Board 8 > Protesting in Pittsburgh over Black Teen shot by Cop

(+) Yeah! (+)

Running away is some degree of admission of guilt in my eyes as well. Whether you're guilty of what you're being pursued for is the question and why you obviously don't just take the shot.

It's like that Breaking Bad where Walt has a cop pull him over and he starts to panic cause he's paranoid and thinks it's about Meth cooking or something and it's because of a broken tail light. Well, it's like that in reverse, I guess.
---

I think it's pretty good to base our legal arguments over tv shows.
---

pyresword posted...

Not that this is something that would apply in court, but like you have no reason to run away from the police unless you've done something wrong

This is not necessarily true, and also this is where the fact that he was 17 comes into play. Not that the cops could have known, but I could totally imagine a scenario where an innocent black teenager feels like his best option is to run
---

Jakyl25 posted...

pyresword posted...

Not that this is something that would apply in court, but like you have no reason to run away from the police unless you've done something wrong

This is not necessarily true, and also this is where the fact that he was 17 comes into play. Not that the cops could have known, but I could totally imagine a scenario where an innocent black teenager feels like his best option is to run

Of course you would because you view an inordinate amount of things as racist.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

I think it's pretty good to base our legal arguments over tv shows.

It's realistic though. Like you've never had a situation where a cop flashes their lights behind you, and you get skittish because you think they're gonna harass you for speeding or some nonsense and then they blow past you when you pull to the side? Same thing.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

pyresword posted...

Not that this is something that would apply in court, but like you have no reason to run away from the police unless you've done something wrong

This is not necessarily true, and also this is where the fact that he was 17 comes into play. Not that the cops could have known, but I could totally imagine a scenario where an innocent black teenager feels like his best option is to run

I don't actually disagree (so I suppose I misspoke), but I would prefer that police acted as if what I said were true.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

pyresword posted...

Not that this is something that would apply in court, but like you have no reason to run away from the police unless you've done something wrong

This is not necessarily true, and also this is where the fact that he was 17 comes into play. Not that the cops could have known, but I could totally imagine a scenario where an innocent black teenager feels like his best option is to run

Of course you would because you view an inordinate amount of things as racist.

You put black teen in the title
---

pyresword posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

pyresword posted...

Not that this is something that would apply in court, but like you have no reason to run away from the police unless you've done something wrong

This is not necessarily true, and also this is where the fact that he was 17 comes into play. Not that the cops could have known, but I could totally imagine a scenario where an innocent black teenager feels like his best option is to run

I don't actually disagree (so I suppose I misspoke), but I would prefer that police acted as if what I said were true.

I definitely agree that if someone is fleeing from police, resources should be used to make sure he is apprehended.
---

Lopen posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

I think it's pretty good to base our legal arguments over tv shows.

It's realistic though. Like you've never had a situation where a cop flashes their lights behind you, and you get skittish because you think they're gonna harass you for speeding or some nonsense and then they blow past you when you pull to the side? Same thing.

I am very used to watching cop shows where they approaching a suspect, and the suspect always runs.

To be fair, they never shoot the suspect, but there's an ingrained belief that people always run. Is it true? I don't know. I'm not a cop.
---

Well cop shows pretty much always have the right guy when the guy runs (or the guy gives a neat explanation of why they ran) so it's probably not against what I was saying even if you believe it's realistic.
---

To be fair, usually on cop shows

1.) Theyre picking the most exciting arrests

2.) Theyre not accused of murder. Hopefully NO ONE here thinks cops should be gunning down runners from a crack house bust.
---

Oh you meant literally Cops

Then yeah that would be the exciting factor in place

And no I'd never condone gunning down anyone who hadn't pulled a lethal weapon in a non deadly crime. When they're fleeing the scene of a murder and very possibly armed though waiting for them to literally pull a gun borders on naivete and I don't think you'd hold someone you didn't have an agenda against to that standard, even if we happen to agree in this case that shooting the guy wasn't yet warranted.
---

Can we all agree that it would be for the best if the department was as transparent as possible in their review of the incident?
---

Would be for the best of everyone for sure. Including the department.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Can we all agree that it would be for the best if the department was as transparent as possible in their review of the incident?

Yes.

Also more body cams.

This incident is a reproach of departments who have not adopted a widespread use of cameras.
---

Transparency is almost always a good thing yes
---

Okay I am glad to find that common ground.

Because again, my goal is not to vilify police. My ideal is to vastly improve police accountability, and step one is transparency.

If we know precisely why some cops get cleared and some cops get the boot, with community communication along the way, then we can learn what practices we might like to criticize or change and go about doing that the right way.
---

I havent read the 3rd page, which I assume is Lopen Lopening, but just so Im clear.

Corrik, is it your position that Cops are justified to straight up shoot any person who has been suspected of violent crime?

Because from what I read, the Cop didnt actually see the shooting happen, he just knew that someone in that car did it, so if any of the three people ran, their 5th Amendment Rights were forfeit?
---

Because the next logical step is guy who fits a description but didnt commit a violent crime flees because of fear, gets justifiably killed.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I havent read the 3rd page, which I assume is Lopen Lopening, but just so Im clear.

Corrik, is it your position that Cops are justified to straight up shoot any person who has been suspected of violent crime?

Because from what I read, the Cop didnt actually see the shooting happen, he just knew that someone in that car did it, so if any of the three people ran, their 5th Amendment Rights were forfeit?

That seems to be his position from my perspective

EDIT: Assuming they run
---

I'm being completely reasonable here I'll have you know. I'm in fact mostly agreeing with you liberal scum.
---

Surrender, or die in obscurity! - Ramza Corrik Beoulve
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I havent read the 3rd page, which I assume is Lopen Lopening, but just so Im clear.

Corrik, is it your position that Cops are justified to straight up shoot any person who has been suspected of violent crime?

Because from what I read, the Cop didnt actually see the shooting happen, he just knew that someone in that car did it, so if any of the three people ran, their 5th Amendment Rights were forfeit?

If you are a reasonable suspect of a violent crime or purported crime (as radioed in - Such as in SWATTing incidents and the hotel incident with the drunk kid) and you run from the cops, I think the cops can reasonably shoot you. Not that they have to, but that there is reasonable justification for it. Same with reaching for your belt line in the scenario.

And, as for what Jakyl said, there should always be complete transparency. Why wouldn't there be? It is why I always argue I am not against cameras everywhere and being a surveiled society. Being more transparent as citizens is also good. If you are worried about your privacy, you are likely doing something wrong.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You put black teen in the title

If this teen was white, this wouldn't be protested in Pittsburgh. Thus, it was pertinent to the title.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Because again, my goal is not to vilify police. My ideal is to vastly improve police accountability, and step one is transparency.

How about improving citizen accountability?
---

Corrik posted...

If you are worried about your privacy, you are likely doing something wrong.

Okay there, Emperor Vlado.
---

v_charon posted...

Corrik posted...

If you are worried about your privacy, you are likely doing something wrong.

Okay there, Emperor Vlado.

What
---

Corrik posted...

If you are a reasonable suspect of a violent crime or purported crime (as radioed in - Such as in SWATTing incidents and the hotel incident with the drunk kid) and you run from the cops, I think the cops can reasonably shoot you.

And if theyre wrong and you are in fact completely innocent?

If you are worried about your privacy, you are likely doing something wrong.

This is stupid.
---

Corrik posted...

If you are a reasonable suspect of a violent crime or purported crime (as radioed in - Such as in SWATTing incidents and the hotel incident with the drunk kid) and you run from the cops, I think the cops can reasonably shoot you. Not that they have to, but that there is reasonable justification for it. Same with reaching for your belt line in the scenario.

What the fuckin hell?

Lmao you literally cited swatting incidents, which are FAKE, as giving reasonable justification for the cops to shoot people??

What happens if the Cops kick your door in, and your pure instincts tell you to run to your kids bedroom to protect/assure them?

You could be justifiably killed in your own home, for the crime of being scared.

And Corrik is ok with that.

Holy fuck.
---

Lmao I didnt even see the part where Corrik was for full-on fascist surveillance state
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

If you are a reasonable suspect of a violent crime or purported crime (as radioed in - Such as in SWATTing incidents and the hotel incident with the drunk kid) and you run from the cops, I think the cops can reasonably shoot you. Not that they have to, but that there is reasonable justification for it. Same with reaching for your belt line in the scenario.

What the fuckin hell?

Lmao you literally cited swatting incidents, which are FAKE, as giving reasonable justification for the cops to shoot people??

What happens if the Cops kick your door in, and your pure instincts tell you to run to your kids bedroom to protect/assure them?

You could be justifiably killed in your own home, for the crime of being scared.

And Corrik is ok with that.

Holy fuck.

Yeah? Are you like completely out of it? If a cop is told you are violent or have a gun or has a REASONABLE suspicion you have a gun, you have to follow the cops commands and not run or reach to your belt line.

It is that simple. A cop can only work with the information provided to him.

That is why calling in a fake report such as swatting must be prosecuted to the fullest extent. It is basically attempted murder.

The cop in the high profile cod swatting wasn't held responsible for that mistaken shooting. The people who called the report were.

I mean, this is common sense. But, hey, common sense is asking a lot out of some of you.
---

Maybe, just maybe, we think that if a police officer is going to be tasked with the responsibility of shooting/killing bad guys, maybe just maybe s/he should be held to just a little bit of a higher standard when a weapon is discharged and a person is killed. You seem to hold the opinion that the police are 100% above the law, which is what leads certain communities (you'll complain that I'm making this about race, but whatever) to become instinctively fearful for their own lives when confronted by a police officer. And that agitation leads to the police becoming more trigger happy for their own safety, which leads to the public becoming more fearful of police, which just continues a downward spiral that is going to make things worse and worse.

Police hold a LOT of power under the current police vs. public dynamic, and they need more accountability, rather than finding every single justification possible to absolve them of all guilt.
---

Inviso posted...

Maybe, just maybe, we think that if a police officer is going to be tasked with the responsibility of shooting/killing bad guys, maybe just maybe s/he should be held to just a little bit of a higher standard when a weapon is discharged and a person is killed. You seem to hold the opinion that the police are 100% above the law, which is what leads certain communities (you'll complain that I'm making this about race, but whatever) to become instinctively fearful for their own lives when confronted by a police officer. And that agitation leads to the police becoming more trigger happy for their own safety, which leads to the public becoming more fearful of police, which just continues a downward spiral that is going to make things worse and worse.

Police hold a LOT of power under the current police vs. public dynamic, and they need more accountability, rather than finding every single justification possible to absolve them of all guilt.

It is simple. Cops are not robots. They have to do their job with the information they have at hand. If they are given faulty information, where the faulty information came in is the issue. If they are given limited information, they have to make reasonable decisions based on the information at hand.

The problem is that everyone wants perfection from cops and it is unrealistic. They are humans operating the best they can with the information provided. Usually. There is bad cops out there. Do not think there isn't.
---

Corrik posted...

If this teen was white, this wouldn't be protested in Pittsburgh.

citation needed
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

If this teen was white, this wouldn't be protested in Pittsburgh.

citation needed

Because he wouldnt have been shot
---

trdl23 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

If this teen was white, this wouldn't be protested in Pittsburgh.

citation needed

Because he wouldnt have been shot

Whites are shot more than Blacks, for understandable reasoning. That said, it wouldn't be considered newsworthy past a small little mention.
---

Corrik posted...

If a cop is told you are violent or have a gun or has a REASONABLE suspicion you have a gun, you have to follow the cops commands and not run or reach to your belt line.

So the falsely accused aren't allowed to be fearful for their lives? Especially if they happen to hear multiple stories of people fitting their skin color being shot and killed under false pretense? Or even shot and killed despite following cop commands? After a while one could start to suspect compliance isn't enough to save them.

That's not to say "Never listen to cops", but you seem to be forgetting that suspects are also human as well. They're allowed to be scared, and people tend to panic when they're scared. The difference is that most suspects don't have multiple friends with guns out.

Corrik posted...

The problem is that everyone wants perfection from cops and it is unrealistic.

No, people want cops to be held to standards. No one's perfect, but it seems like a cop is allowed to fuck up and get away with it because "Well I was scared". Switch it around. A civilian accidentally shoots a cop because they were scared for their life. I don't think such a scenario would ever result in a "not guilty".

Cops should be held to higher standards, but it seems like they're held to lower standards. It makes no sense.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Corrik posted...

If a cop is told you are violent or have a gun or has a REASONABLE suspicion you have a gun, you have to follow the cops commands and not run or reach to your belt line.

So the falsely accused aren't allowed to be fearful for their lives? Especially if they happen to hear multiple stories of people fitting their skin color being shot and killed under false pretense? Or even shot and killed despite following cop commands? After a while one could start to suspect compliance isn't enough to save them.

That's not to say "Never listen to cops", but you seem to be forgetting that suspects are also human as well. They're allowed to be scared, and people tend to panic when they're scared. The difference is that most suspects don't have multiple friends with guns out.

Corrik posted...

The problem is that everyone wants perfection from cops and it is unrealistic.

No, people want cops to be held to standards. No one's perfect, but it seems like a cop is allowed to fuck up and get away with it because "Well I was scared". Switch it around. A civilian accidentally shoots a cop because they were scared for their life. I don't think such a scenario would ever result in a "not guilty".

Cops should be held to higher standards, but it seems like they're held to lower standards. It makes no sense.

You can do whatever you want to do. One just gets you out of the situation alive and one may not. And it would be not be the cops fault in the situation. He is just doing his job with the information at hand to the best of his abilities.
---

I think the issue is less that cops being held to higher standards, which I think is a good thing, and more that when they fail to meet those standards they're automatically treated like "HE WAS JUDGE JURY AND EXECUTIONER" like there are a bunch of Clint Eastwood badasses on the police force when really ninety nine times out of one hundred the problem is they made a poor judgment call due to panic, faulty information, or whatever else.

Either way we should remove the guy from duty and look into better training and accountability, but one unnecessarily demonizes the intent of police to no productive end.
---

Yeah I do think that's what causes a lot of the disconnect. I think most people come out of situations like this thinking "cops need to receive better training", but I think the bar for "legal action should be taken against the individual officer" is much higher and should only be done in the most extreme cases. Removing the officer from the field and/or retraining him is more of a judgement call and very well might be the best option here.

Also since I never came out explicitly and said this--yes, I believe that actively and purposely resisting those responsible for enforcing the law should be valid grounds for losing the right to due process of the law, both from an ethical and from a logical standpoint. Any real ruling on this would have to be carefully worded to prevent abuses, but hopefully it's clear what I'm trying to communicate in regards to this specific case.
---

pyresword posted...

but I think the bar for "legal action should be taken against the individual officer" is much higher and should only be done in the most extreme cases.

Would you count the officer that killed Philando Castille as one of those cases?
---

My memory is a bit vague but my answer is to say probably, if it's the one I'm thinking of? I also would not be comfortable making such a judgment without reviewing the case more closely though. I remember not being 100% convinced by the video in the way that everyone else was.
---

The fact that there are so many questionable incidents that you cant be sure that you remember one of the highest profile ones should say something about the state of police training <_<
---

pyresword posted...

Also since I never came out explicitly and said this--yes, I believe that actively and purposely resisting those responsible for enforcing the law should be valid grounds for losing the right to due process of the law, both from an ethical and from a logical standpoint. Any real ruling on this would have to be carefully worded to prevent abuses, but hopefully it's clear what I'm trying to communicate in regards to this specific case.

Lets make Judge Dredd IRL
---

Think this officer is going to get raked due to politics. Mayor and Senator calling for a trial on it.
---

Corrik posted...

You can do whatever you want to do. One just gets you out of the situation alive and one may not.

The thing is, is that really a guarantee? Because again, once you've heard a certain amount of stories about "Man obeyed cops, was killed anyway" you start to get a little worried.

Corrik posted...

Think this officer is going to get raked due to politics. Mayor and Senator calling for a trial on it.

I'd be surprised if anything serious happens. If he "feared for his life" then he'll get off light. It's not like the police force hasn't dealt with politics before.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

HotDogButts posted...

The shooting wasn't necessary, but it's pretty hard to get up in arms about a drive-by suspect, in a car with bullet holes in it, running from the cops, who ditched a gun on the floor of the car, had an empty clip on him and gun residue on his hands, getting wrongfully shot by the cops.

If you don't want to get killed by cops don't participate in a murder. We literally have people protesting and crying over a murderer.

Murderer's lives matter bro!

Am i doing it right?
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Corrik posted...

You can do whatever you want to do. One just gets you out of the situation alive and one may not.

The thing is, is that really a guarantee? Because again, once you've heard a certain amount of stories about "Man obeyed cops, was killed anyway" you start to get a little worried.

Even if it's not a guarantee, why should that change how the law treats this situation?
---

pyresword posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

Corrik posted...

You can do whatever you want to do. One just gets you out of the situation alive and one may not.

The thing is, is that really a guarantee? Because again, once you've heard a certain amount of stories about "Man obeyed cops, was killed anyway" you start to get a little worried.

Even if it's not a guarantee (which it clearly is not a 100% guarantee >.>), why should that change how the law treats this situation?

Well I'm just saying, someone running because they're panicking shouldn't be an automatic death sentence when it's apparently perfectly fine to kill someone in a panic if you have a badge on. If they're going with the "They messed up because they were scared, go easy on them" excuse... why are police the only ones allowed to fuck up when they're frightened?

Again that's not to say "People should be allowed to disobey cops if they're afraid" or "Everyone should get a light sentence if they accidentally kill someone when panicking", but it's odd how people who take up a dangerous but necessary job with kid gloves all the time. Police are humans like everyone else, but if you have a hair trigger and a lack of nerve you absolutely shouldn't take the job.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Corrik posted...

You can do whatever you want to do. One just gets you out of the situation alive and one may not.

The thing is, is that really a guarantee? Because again, once you've heard a certain amount of stories about "Man obeyed cops, was killed anyway" you start to get a little worried.

Corrik posted...

Think this officer is going to get raked due to politics. Mayor and Senator calling for a trial on it.

I'd be surprised if anything serious happens. If he "feared for his life" then he'll get off light. It's not like the police force hasn't dealt with politics before.

He didn't fear for his life.
---