Shoot first, ask questions later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting

Shoot first, ask questions later.

Yeah... I don't have to go back six years to find an unarmed civilian being killed.

When 24-year-old Albert Jermaine Payton wielded a knife in front of the police in this city’s southeast corner, officers opened fire and killed him.

Yet according to national statistics intended to track police killings, Mr. Payton’s death in August 2012 never happened. It is one of hundreds of homicides by law-enforcement agencies between 2007 and 2012 that aren’t included in records kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of the latest data from 105 of the country’s largest police agencies found more than 550 police killings during those years were missing from the national tally or, in a few dozen cases, not attributed to the agency involved. The result: It is nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year

.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of ... 1417577504

Would a law mandating standardized crime reporting to the FBI be useful?

bbauska wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting

Shoot first, ask questions later.

The difference being that criminals are not paid for by, and supposedly representing the interests of, the public. The police are. They act in the name of the state, which in a democratic Republic, is the same as in the name of the people.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah... I don't have to go back six years to find an unarmed civilian being killed.

Here's a good rule of thumb that will keep you alive: don't point anything at a police officer.

Here's another: do what they tell you to do.

Other than South Carolina (which was murder), I think I've covered most every unarmed shooting.

I am thinking more along the lines that police officers not being allowed to carry guns until they have gone through an intensive state or federal certification process. I also think there should be a lot of thinking done regarding proper rules of engagement for police officers. A police officer should not be shooting at someone because they "think" they have a gun their hand-- they need to be sure.
It's actually unclear in the Long Beach case that something was actually pointed at the officer.
In any case, I think the standard for police officers when someone points something at them and they shoot them should be the same for a civilian--they better be right. If not, they need to be criminally punished. We have the wrong incentives for police officers right now. I would shoot first too if I were a police officer and there was a chance my life was in danger and I knew I would not be prosecuted. We need our police to be a bit braver than they are acting right now.

I think people have a foolish idea of what police work is like. I think they've absorbed a lot of the crap on TV and in movies as "real."

One scene on a popular TV show spoke to me. http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/13/th ... himself-in

Why? Go to the last 30 seconds. The cops form a "Polish firing squad."

From 24 to about any show you can name, we see bad guys pointing guns at officers and officers pointing guns at criminals. Many times no one shoots. In real life, officers are trained to shoot BEFORE they are shot at. They are not obliged to wait and see if you actually are armed. They only have to be able to articulate a reasonable fear. If you don't want to get shot, don't present a reasonable fear.

I know it's complicated.

freeman3 wrote:I am thinking more along the lines that police officers not being allowed to carry guns until they have gone through an intensive state or federal certification process. I also think there should be a lot of thinking done regarding proper rules of engagement for police officers. A police officer should not be shooting at someone because they "think" they have a gun their hand-- they need to be sure.

They do go through an intensive process. In California, the State sets the standards. Based on what I've seen out here, our training is far better than the east coast.

And, you're wrong.

You don't have to know for sure that someone has a gun in his/her hand. You only have to be able to articulate a reasonable fear for your safety or that of someone else. Cops have the same burden.

California standards of lethal force:

a. Justifiable homicide (see CACI 505)

1. Reasonable fear of being killed or suffering GBI
2. Reasonably believe that lethal force necessary to defend against that danger
3. No more force used than necessary to defend

Police officers can also use deadly force in situations where a suspect has committed certain serious crimes even if the defendant does not pose an immediate threat of death or GBI. CACI 507. See also Tennessee v Garner (a police officer can shoot a fleeing suspect who has committed a violent felony without violating the Fourth Amendment).

Clearly, the belief that a defendant has a gun must be reasonable. Objectively reasonable.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/docum ... uryins.pdf
(pages 217-224)

The reality is that if a police officer says a civilian pointed something at him and it turns out not to be a gun, he is not charged with anything in most cases . A civilian is going to get charged. Let's not pretend the standards are the same in practice.

freeman3 wrote:Clearly, the belief that a defendant has a gun must be reasonable. Objectively reasonable.

The legal standard is "a reasonable and prudent man . . ." which is subjective. We see that in the jury system as different juries vary on what is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Some people have this idea, which I think you are putting forth, that an officer must be able to positively ID a weapon. I think that is ideal. However, some things do look like real guns and are not--lighting, angles, etc., all play a part.

Contra what some hold, an officer does not have to wait until the other person shoots. In fact, if he/she does, they are acting contrary to their training.

The reality is that if a police officer says a civilian pointed something at him and it turns out not to be a gun, he is not charged with anything in most cases . A civilian is going to get charged. Let's not pretend the standards are the same in practice.

It always depends on the circumstances. However, again, surviving an encounter with the police is not that difficult.

Yes, it depends on the circumstances. And I certainly don't think a police officer needs to get shot at before he can shoot. And, yes, if someone points a gun replica at a police officer that's suicidal. But an officer standing at a broken window shooting a guy when he turns around? I am having trouble with that one.

Btw a subjective standard would look to what the person actually believed (e.g., the suspect has a gun). An objective standard looks to the facts available to the officer to see whether his belief his life was in danger was reasonable even though it was mistaken. So the standard is objective, though as you pointed out jurors are going to have their own interpretation of what is reasonable under the circumstances.

freeman3 wrote:Yes, it depends on the circumstances. And I certainly don't think a police officer needs to get shot at before he can shoot. And, yes, if someone points a gun replica at a police officer that's suicidal. But an officer standing at a broken window shooting a guy when he turns around? I am having trouble with that one.

Again, it depends on the circumstances.

The easiest thing to do is to read something and presume we know what should/should not have been done. It's a lot more difficult to face it in real life. This would be a situation where video would be helpful--not determinative, but helpful.

Could the cop have made a mistake? Sure.

From the article:

German Rodarte also was suspected of violating a gang injunction.

The interior of the apartment where the shooting took place was covered in gang-related graffiti, police said.

So, a gang member in an area frequented by gang members. Does that mean he SHOULD have been shot?

No, but . . . it also means he knows the drill: put your hands in the air, move slowly, do as the officer says.