Octopus Overlords

Jaymann wrote:What is happening

It appears that a Lich has acquired a gun and is waving it around recklessly, as Liches do, but the banana lady appears completely unaware of the danger she’s in, both from the gun-waving, and the face-eating Lich in a sharp red sweater seated across from her.

Liches gonna Lich.

The problem is the kid has the gun in his hand as he turns towards the police officer, which to an officer looks as if he might be turning to shoot him. He then slyly tries to get rid of the gun as he turns, then puts his hands up. But at that point, the officer has already made a split second decision to shoot based upon seeing the gun and the turning towards the officer. A better decision for the kid would have been to stop, clearly drop the gun, then put his hands in the air, all with his back to the officer. Then the officer knows he's are not as much of a threat. I've seen several "experts" (YMMV) say the shooting, though tragic, was probably justified from the officer's perspective. That final frame with the kid with his hands in the air looks terrible, but it's not the whole story.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:02 pm This is one of those split second decisions that is hard to argue about. Though the still shows a boy with both hands up. But that is a still. It is a fraction of a second.

The bigger concern IMO is the police lied about this, the prosecutors made misstatements in court, and Lightfoot herself made statements that look skewed now that the video is released. They claimed at some point that he shot at them. They said his hands had gun powder residue (to back up the armed confrontation angle). They lied and lied and resisted releasing the video until they were forced to and their narratives are all exposed as untrue. If they went with the truth, it wouldn't have been much less inflammatory to some but at least they'd have the truth on their side.

The "police say" problem:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/media/ne ... index.html

This one is too tough to call from the benches, in my opinion. He's a kid who probably made a stupid, rash mistake, but the officer can't be expected to make that kind of judgement in a split second when a gun is involved.

But the apparent police/mayor cover up attempt after the fact is troubling. Moreso considering what they did after the shooting death of Laquan McDonald a few years ago.

Grifman wrote:The problem is the kid has the gun in his hand as he turns towards the police officer, which to an officer looks as if he might be turning to shoot him. He then slyly tries to get rid of the gun as he turns, then puts his hands up. But at that point, the officer has already made a split second decision to shoot based upon seeing the gun and the turning towards the officer. A better decision for the kid would have been to stop, clearly drop the gun, then put his hands in the air, all with his back to the officer. Then the officer knows he's are not as much of a threat. I've seen several "experts" (YMMV) say the shooting, though tragic, was probably justified from the officer's perspective. That final frame with the kid with his hands in the air looks terrible, but it's not the whole story.

So, you know how stressful these moments are for the decision-making of trained police officers? I wonder what it does to the decision-making of terrified 13-year olds?

I feel bad for both the cop and the kid in that instance. The cop saw the gun and when the kid whipped around he thought he still had it. Sure if you go frame by frame you can see his hands are empty when he gets shot, but in the heat of the moment in the dark you aren't going to be able to tell. Their press releases that aren't accurate sure don't help them though. The 21 year old should be charged with murder. I'm sure that's not possible, but everything he did led to that kid getting shot.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:06 am

Grifman wrote:The problem is the kid has the gun in his hand as he turns towards the police officer, which to an officer looks as if he might be turning to shoot him. He then slyly tries to get rid of the gun as he turns, then puts his hands up. But at that point, the officer has already made a split second decision to shoot based upon seeing the gun and the turning towards the officer. A better decision for the kid would have been to stop, clearly drop the gun, then put his hands in the air, all with his back to the officer. Then the officer knows he's are not as much of a threat. I've seen several "experts" (YMMV) say the shooting, though tragic, was probably justified from the officer's perspective. That final frame with the kid with his hands in the air looks terrible, but it's not the whole story.

So, you know how stressful these moments are for the decision-making of trained police officers? I wonder what it does to the decision-making of terrified 13-year olds?

I have a 13 year old son in 7th grade. I see him and his friends making decisions all the time. I feel confident in my opinion that good decisions are not something 13 year old boys are generally known for.

But does that mean if that bad decision is to carry a firearm, cops should be expected to just assume that a) they are facing a juvenile and b) that juvenile is just being precocious and isn't going to shoot?

Nope. Kid’s life expectancy took a dramatic dive as soon as he took that gun from his older friend. And, honestly, it was probably not trending well long before that moment.

Lawbeef got it right above. This kid, this cop . . . pawns.

+1

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:56 am But does that mean if that bad decision is to carry a firearm, cops should be expected to just assume that a) they are facing a juvenile and b) that juvenile is just being precocious and isn't going to shoot?

One thing that I don't think we really consider in this equation is the analysis of outcomes when setting policy. The officer had some knowledge that a gun is involved but goes charging after him in the dark...alone. In a climate where police over and over put themselves in do or die moments why do we accept this outcome because of what happened in the last moment. What got the police to that moment?

So I wonder if we need to perhaps think about our policy here. Is getting one gun off the street going to make this big a difference? In some ways this is like a decision to pursue a person in a high speed chase. Is the risk of injury to the officer *or* the other party worth it. I don't know but this isn't working. Well unless "we" don't actually care about stopping police killings...which is debatable considering the lack of actual effort to stop them.

Grifman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:29 pm i am going to say this, and if I take heat for it. so be it. I don't condone any of the shootings that I have seen. That said, in most cases (I can think of a couple of exceptions, such as the Philando Castile shooting), none of this would have happened if the person had done what the police had said. A traffic stop is not the place to litigate your case, to try to explain to the police why you are innocent and why they are wrong, or tell them that they have to explain themselves. Even if you feel like they are acting illegally, the place to deal with that is in court, not by the side of the road. It seems to me that drivers education and driving tests ought to include sections on how to respond when police pull you over. You can call it victim blaming, but fewer people at traffic stops would end up being shot if they just do what the police tell them, right or wrong.

If you are in a car and you don't come out when given the order, police are going to go on edge. They don't know if you have a gun in the car, if the windows are tinted they may not be able to see if someone else is in there, and there is concern that they could be dragged off if they reach in and the car is started and put into drive. All of those things are pretty rare, but that is what is in their mind.

None of this excuses the racism, or the bad behavior of many cops. But I do think we need to train drivers how to react when pulled over in a traffic stop similarly as police train to handle a traffic stop. After all, if the goal is to save lives, then we need to do what we need to do, and approach the problem from all angles.

Catching up on this thread, I really disagree with this take, Grifman. Would shootings at traffic stops decline if every person pulled over complied to the letter with the instructions given by the cops? Sure. I think that's a given. But there would also be fewer shootings at traffic stops if our police weren't armed. Or, as you pointed out later, we just stopped making traffic stops. What does any of that prove? None of those are viable solutions to this problem. They certainly aren't policy prescriptions.

Also, while the conduct of the victim is always relevant in looking at why a police shooting took place, I think it's fundamentally wrong to try to take the reasons for the stop and the decision making of the cops leading up to the stop out of the equation. When the cops are racially profiling and pulling over black drivers because they suspect they are criminals, those cops are going to interpret everything the driver does through that lens. In that charged environment, even efforts to comply (often with contradictory and nonsensical commands) can be seen as noncompliance.

A great (horrible) example is Tae-Ahn Lea, the 18 year old homecoming king who got pulled over by the Louisville violent crimes task force and handcuffed behind a police cruiser. They pulled him over on the pretense that he made "a wide turn," but the truth is, as they explained to his parents, they suspected - because he was a black kid in a high-crime area - that he had a gun or drugs on him.

Watch that video, Grif, and tell me the answer to all this is that Tae-Ahn Lea should have just complied.

I get that your desire here is just to lessen the number of unjustified police shootings (and excessive force, generally), but the lion's share of the problem isn't with the people getting shot.

hepcat wrote:But does that mean if that bad decision is to carry a firearm, cops should be expected to just assume that a) they are facing a juvenile and b) that juvenile is just being precocious and isn't going to shoot?

No. My point was just that Grifman’s comment about what better decision that kid could have made, while pumped full of fear and adrenaline, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

I think that based on what I’ve read, this was a tough ask for the police officer, but that is a more reasonable ask than expecting this kid to have parsed out how best to avoid being killed in that moment.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:25 pm Also, while the conduct of the victim is always relevant in looking at why a police shooting took place, I think it's fundamentally wrong to try to take the reasons for the stop and the decision making of the cops leading up to the stop out of the equation.

That is fundamentally misrepresenting what I am saying. I clearly said we need to approach the problem from both ends -both the person being stopped and with the police making the stop. I never said that compliance with command is the only and total solution. Please don't misrepresent what I said.

A great (horrible) example is Tae-Ahn Lea, the 18 year old homecoming king who got pulled over by the Louisville violent crimes task force and handcuffed behind a police cruiser. They pulled him over on the pretense that he made "a wide turn," but the truth is, as they explained to his parents, they suspected - because he was a black kid in a high-crime area - that he had a gun or drugs on him.

Watch that video, Grif, and tell me the answer to all this is that Tae-Ahn Lea should have just complied.

Again, there is no one solution, and I never said there was. There are times when someone is entirely compliant and police will still abuse their power. I never denied that, and I never said that compliance was the only solution. I guarantee you can propose a solution and I can show you an exception where it did not or would not work. Does that necessarily mean your proposal is bad? No, because exceptions/outliers exist and people go against what they should be doing, even if you require it.

I get that your desire here is just to lessen the number of unjustified police shootings (and excessive force, generally), but the lion's share of the problem isn't with the people getting shot.

That fact that large numbers of people comply with police orders and are not shot would seem to argue against this. I think most of the videos we see of people being shot involves some measure of non-compliance with officers' orders, and it goes downhill from there. That doesn't justify all of those shooting (sometimes it does) but it shows that non-compliance is definitely an element in the equation. Again, we need to look at points of failure in the process and see how they can be addressed.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:52 pm

hepcat wrote:But does that mean if that bad decision is to carry a firearm, cops should be expected to just assume that a) they are facing a juvenile and b) that juvenile is just being precocious and isn't going to shoot?

No. My point was just that Grifman’s comment about what better decision that kid could have made, while pumped full of fear and adrenaline, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

I think that based on what I’ve read, this was a tough ask for the police officer, but that is a more reasonable ask than expecting this kid to have parsed out how best to avoid being killed in that moment.

I agree that the kid probably didn't have the experience to make the proper decision, and should have said so. I was speaking more from the officer perspective. It was just a bad situation all the way around.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:08 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:56 am But does that mean if that bad decision is to carry a firearm, cops should be expected to just assume that a) they are facing a juvenile and b) that juvenile is just being precocious and isn't going to shoot?

One thing that I don't think we really consider in this equation is the analysis of outcomes when setting policy. The officer had some knowledge that a gun is involved but goes charging after him in the dark...alone. In a climate where police over and over put themselves in do or die moments why do we accept this outcome because of what happened in the last moment. What got the police to that moment?

So I wonder if we need to perhaps think about our policy here. Is getting one gun off the street going to make this big a difference? In some ways this is like a decision to pursue a person in a high speed chase. Is the risk of injury to the officer *or* the other party worth it. I don't know but this isn't working. Well unless "we" don't actually care about stopping police killings...which is debatable considering the lack of actual effort to stop them.

The report to the police was that "multiple shots" had been fired. So in their mind, there was an immediate threat. It wasn't necessarily about just "getting a gun off the street". Imagine if the kid had gone on just a few minutes later to shoot and kill someone, and the officer had not pursued. Then the questions would be totally different from what the questions are now. People would be asking, "Why didn't the police do anything? Why did they let a gunman get away?" We know now that it was just a kid probably trying to ditch the gun of his buddy and he probably was not going to shot anyone, but then, at that time, what did the police know? Monday morning quarterbacking is always 100% right.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:06 am

Grifman wrote:The problem is the kid has the gun in his hand as he turns towards the police officer, which to an officer looks as if he might be turning to shoot him. He then slyly tries to get rid of the gun as he turns, then puts his hands up. But at that point, the officer has already made a split second decision to shoot based upon seeing the gun and the turning towards the officer. A better decision for the kid would have been to stop, clearly drop the gun, then put his hands in the air, all with his back to the officer. Then the officer knows he's are not as much of a threat. I've seen several "experts" (YMMV) say the shooting, though tragic, was probably justified from the officer's perspective. That final frame with the kid with his hands in the air looks terrible, but it's not the whole story.

So, you know how stressful these moments are for the decision-making of trained police officers? I wonder what it does to the decision-making of terrified 13-year olds?

I never said the kid was capable of assessing the situation correctly. I was just stating what he should have done. I agree he was probably not going to make the "right decision" because he was, in the end, just a kid. I was speaking more from the officer's perspective.

Grif, I'm not trying to misrepresent what you said at all. I get that you're suggesting increased compliance is a practical way to reduce police shooting deaths, not the only solution to the problem or even the main solution.

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:31 am Yes, blacks are pulled over far more than whites based upon their percentage of population due racism/inherent bias. Yes, there are racist cops out there who unnecessarily escalate situations like the one you mentioned in the recent video with the army officer (which I also saw and was appalled at). But a lot of the shootings we see are started when people do not obey police orders, which results in a deadly escalation.

But I think you're wrong when you suggest that these deadly escalations start when people do not comply. The point I'm trying to make is that the likelihood of a deadly escalation starts before the traffic stop is even made. There's already an unacceptable risk that that's where things will head when the police decide to pull a black man over on the pretext that he has illegal air fresheners hanging from his rearview mirror or because he made a wide turn.

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:31 am The real question is do we really want to reduce deaths? If that is our goal, then we need to tackle the problem from both ends. When looking at solving a problem in a system, you need to look at the points of failure. Once the traffic stop has been made, we have two points, the driver's actions and the officer's actions. (Note, there may have been a point of failure which actually led to the stop but that is beyond our scope here). From one end, drivers need to obey police orders. The moment they do not obey orders, that automatically puts the officer on alert, and dramatically raises the threat level in the mind of the officer. On the other end, police need to do everything they can to remain calm, make the driver feel at ease, and deescalate any rising tensions if possible. There definitely needs to be more training there. But we need to approach the problem from both sides if we really want to save lives.

And again, this is where we disagree. You can't take the reasons for the stop out of the equation, and my point is that emphasizing compliance as a practical solution to this issue is focusing on the wrong thing. I don't think it's useful to arbitrarily declare that the systemic points of failure that lead to the stop are "beyond our scope." I don't think the failure to comply is what "automatically puts the officer on alert and dramatically raises the threat level in the mind of the officer." The officer is already on alert and acting under a perceived enhanced threat level because of the race of the driver and the belief that that driver is likely to be a threat. After all, that's why they're making the stop in the first place, not because they give a shit about what's hanging from the rearview mirror or whether a turn was a little wide.

There are TOO MANY “stops”. Period.

I don’t care if you catch a bad guy on his way to rob a bank every once in a while.

NOT. WORTH IT.

Pulling ppl over or chasing them (car or foot) for stupid bs shit has to be reduced or stopped.

So many cases where shit escalates to someone (cop or “bad guy”) dying over stuff like possibly passing a counterfeit bill? Or a car air freshener?

Fuck that.

I think we do need police (does anyone reasonable NOT think that?) but I also think some of these behaviors, attitudes, and tears if training are too ingrained and systemic, and probably just need to start over, with a 21st century eye/attitude hopefully.

I remember when I got my first ticket as a youngster. Cop got me for going 45 in a 35 on a road with no posted speed limit sign, total speed trap.

So I'm scared to death, and the cop maybe sensing my nervousness says, "Listen, just get a lawyer and pay your $100 and it's not a big deal."

So my lawyer gets it dropped to the old improper equipment offense, I show up at the court house to pay my fine. I'm envisioning standing alone before a panel of black-robed judges banging gavels and sternly passing judgment upon me. Instead I walk in and see a line wrapped around the entire courtroom of bored people standing in line to pay their money and get out.

And that's when my naive teenage brain realized, "Holy shit, this is all just a big money-making scheme." I'll never forget that moment, it was like getting pulled out of the Matrix.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:50 pm I remember when I got my first ticket as a youngster. Cop got me for going 45 in a 35 on a road with no posted speed limit sign, total speed trap.

So I'm scared to death, and the cop maybe sensing my nervousness says, "Listen, just get a lawyer and pay your $100 and it's not a big deal."

So my lawyer gets it dropped to the old improper equipment offense, I show up at the court house to pay my fine. I'm envisioning standing alone before a panel of black-robed judges banging gavels and sternly passing judgment upon me. Instead I walk in and see a line wrapped around the entire courtroom of bored people standing in line to pay their money and get out.

And that's when my naive teenage brain realized, "Holy shit, this is all just a big money-making scheme." I'll never forget that moment, it was like getting pulled out of the Matrix.

I had a similar experience expect mine was straight up robbery. I was driving into a private facility. There was a three way stop and a median. He was parallel to the median on the far side in a parking lot. I saw him, stopped, looked at him, and made my turn. He pulled me over for not stopping at the stop sign. Only later did I find out that it was an illegal stop (it was a non-public road). I should have fought the ticket, not withstanding the complete bullshit around a failure to stop. This unfortunately was long before cameras in cars and I didn't know I could even fight the ticket. It was only a small taste of injustice and pales in comparison to what others face but it was an early lesson that the police weren't necessarily to be trusted.

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:44 pmI never said the kid was capable of assessing the situation correctly. I was just stating what he should have done. I agree he was probably not going to make the "right decision" because he was, in the end, just a kid. I was speaking more from the officer's perspective.

I mean, he shouldn't have taken the gun and run, but things happen. It's a shame, and under these circumstances, man is it hard to hold the officer accountable.

Looking at that last pic, I knew spending tons of hours playing Half-Life would pay off one day! Apparently that day has come.

Time to look for my crowbar I guess.

I mean...

There's a church in Brooklyn Center that was harboring people hurt by police violence during the #DaunteWright protests, and this was how the cops responded.

(Photograph by Scott Streble)

Somebody should have sprayed superglue all over them.

That's more cops than they had to protect the US Capitol on 1/6.

Apparently they’re even arresting medics now.

They're up to war crimes now?

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:48 pm They're up to war crimes now?

Not sure you can just slap on a hard hat with a red cross on it and have Geneva Convention protection as a combat medic.

No, but the police seemingly treat the protesters as an enemy instead of a population they serve so the metaphor feels right.

Not one word about an elected official that crosses state lines and makes statements inciting violence by telling protestors to "become more confrontational" if the verdict doesnt go the way she wants it to go?
How does that rhetoric help eases tensions between the public and police? It doesnt.
It raises the furor that is already festering. And then there is outrage when things DO become more confrontational?

If Trump or any Republican made these statements, you all would be calling for their head.
Why does she get a free pass? Where is the outrage over her statements? Where is the call for an investigation into her actions?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu ... 3aa8da68bc

That's depends on the situation.

I don't know how to weigh in on this. I want tensions to be reduced but more than that I want police to stop jumping to 11 and shooting people or killing them when they are in custody, especially PoC who seem to be be killed in greater numbers by police going to 11.

I don't have an answer for Maxine Waters. OtOH, shouldn't Lauren Boebert, the great defender of liberty, be stepping up to defend the protestors just like she did the murderers and insurrectionists who wanted to take my vote away from me? Out of Waters vs Boebert, who has any form of credibility?

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 am Out of Waters vs Boebert, who has any form of credibility?

Neither, but if you're going to condemn one, shouldnt you condemn the other?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:23 pm I mean...

There's a church in Brooklyn Center that was harboring people hurt by police violence during the #DaunteWright protests, and this was how the cops responded.

(Photograph by Scott Streble)

For what it's worth, a cop in Minneapolis (whom I do not know personally) is saying this picture is deceptively framed, and the caption is an outright lie.

According to him, the church is not "harboring people hurt by police violence" and the cops are not surrounding the church. The church is right next to the police station, and the cops are practicing formations on the lawn.

I have no way to confirm or deny this, but on closer examination of the picture, the cops are not actually surrounding the church...they're surrounding a small tree - for seemingly no purpose whatsoever, so the practice theory does make sense.

If the church is in any way associated with the protests that are happening, I find it hard to believe it's just a random coincidence that the police are engaging in any type of practice/drill/rally point activity *right there*. I have no doubt they know their presence is intimidating for any number of reasons.

But yeah, I'm sure there's always more to the story.

stimpy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:51 am

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 am Out of Waters vs Boebert, who has any form of credibility?

Neither, but if you're going to condemn one, shouldnt you condemn the other?

I don't have an answer for that. That's where I'm back and forth. All things being equal I would say yes. Condemn one. Condemn the other. All things don't seem equal though. So I'm torn.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:21 am If the church is in any way associated with the protests that are happening, I find it hard to believe it's just a random coincidence that the police are engaging in any type of practice/drill/rally point activity *right there*. I have no doubt they know their presence is intimidating for any number of reasons.

But yeah, I'm sure there's always more to the story.

If MN law enforcement had a track record of behavior that actually supports the public they serve in upholding the peace, rather than continually treating the public like a hostile enemy and acting like a group of militarized thugs, then they might actually get the benefit of the doubt in such a situation.

Alas...

Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:09 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:23 pm I mean...

There's a church in Brooklyn Center that was harboring people hurt by police violence during the #DaunteWright protests, and this was how the cops responded.

(Photograph by Scott Streble)

For what it's worth, a cop in Minneapolis (whom I do not know personally) is saying this picture is deceptively framed, and the caption is an outright lie.

According to him, the church is not "harboring people hurt by police violence" and the cops are not surrounding the church. The church is right next to the police station, and the cops are practicing formations on the lawn.

I have no way to confirm or deny this, but on closer examination of the picture, the cops are not actually surrounding the church...they're surrounding a small tree - for seemingly no purpose whatsoever, so the practice theory does make sense.

The thing that stands out to me is that the formation is blocking access to a driveway that presumably leads to a parking area. If you look at the location on Google Maps, there is a driveway like that leading into the church parking lot, and one down the street that leads to the police station parking area. If the police were formed up to block access to their own parking lot, there would be several trees and a residential building blocking the view of the church. So, if they are just "practicing on the lawn", why are they doing it on the church property and blocking access to the church parking lot?

Overhead view:


Street View from the church driveway:


Street View from the cop shop driveway:

Yeah seriously. The 'practice' idea doesn't make much sense. I'll go to basics here. The cop's narrative here isn't trustworthy. Especially since it is a cop defending other cops. They lie especially when protecting other cops. It does however make some sort of sense (to me) that they chose to stage response there and it has nothing to do with the church.