As Samuel L. Jackson says (repeatedly) in “Jurassic Park,” “Hold on to your butts!”
An unarmed black man was shot and killed in a confrontation with police last night in Atlanta, and protesters are already gearing up. The Atlanta Chief of Police quickly resigned, which is either smart or cowardly, I’m not sure which. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms already called for the officer who fired the fatal shots to be terminated—no investigation, no due process. This is the procedure Colin Kaepernick favors.
What happened? Oh, nobody knows for sure, but that doesn’t matter any more, right? It’s a black man, shot by police, so there is a presumption of racism. We’re still in the middle of the George Floyd Freakout, so the incident is automatically part of the same narrative. Facts don’t matter, logic doesn’t matter, fairness and consequences don’t matter. Activists are looking for an excuse to protest, or worse. See the photo? The only facts anyone cares about is that a black man was shot by police. It wouldn’t matter if he were rabid and tried to bite the officers like the zombies in “World War Z.”
Last night’s incident began about 10:30 p.m. outside a Wendy’s on University Avenue. Wendy’s employees called the police after receiving a complaint about a man asleep in his vehicle in the Drive-in line, which forced other customers to go around his car to get their food at the window. Responding to the call was the police’s first mistake. They should have asked if the man was black, and upon receiving an answer in the affirmative, should have told Wendy’s, “Sorry, you’re on your own. We’d deal with it if the guy was white, but we can’t afford any situation these where a black guy might get gets hurt. Let him sleep it off. ‘Bye!”
I’m completely serious. Any police department that isn’t under standing orders to let black lawbreakers at any level just go about their anti-social, illegal business without police intervention is asking for a disaster.
The sleeping man, Atlanta resident Rayshard Brooks, was roused by the police and given a field sobriety test. He was drunk. After failing the test, the police spokeswoman said, Brooks was told that he was being taken into custody. NOOOOO! The odds were that he would resist, and this is how so many of these encounters go out of control. Again, the police should have just let him go. Not if he was white, of course. If he was white and they just shot him for the hell of it, there would be no uproar, no riots.
During the arrest, we are told, Brook resisted and struggled with the police. What a surprise. Then the officer took out his taser. According to police, Brooks managed to take the taser away from the officer, and was shot. He later died at the hospital.
Of course there was a cell phone video. A Wendy’s customer’s recording appears to show two officers struggling with Brooks in the parking lot, but Brooks looks like he is running away from them when he is shot. Wendy’s surveillance footage appears to show Brooks turn toward the police and attempt to fire the Taser at them as he runs away. Then he’s shot.
In short, we don’t know exactlywhat happened, and in a sane world, which is certainly not the world of the George Floyd Freakout, everyone would wait for an investigation before deciding what went on, and certainly before protesting or assigning blame and responsibility. That would be fair. That would serve justice. That would be responsible. That would be ethical.
But Black Lives Matter and the anti-police Left have a metaphorical knee on the neck of local governments, whites and police, and they are no more inclined to release the pressure than Derek Chauvin was on the fateful day in Minneapolis.
And no, the facts don’t matter.
UPDATE: “Demonstrators” blocked the nearby interstate, broke windows at the restaurant, and about an hour ago (it’s 10:30 pm as I write this), someone set the Wendy’s on fire.
Sure, that’s reasonable. It’s all the restaurant’s fault.
Might as well end this post as it began, with a “Jurassic Park” quote, this one from Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum):
Ethics Alarms 
They burned down the Wendy’s. I guess for calling the police on the guy asleep in his car. Well I guess that Wendy’s won’t be making calls to the police anymore. Mission Accomplished.
See, I would have knocked on his window and called out hey, hey buddy are you okay? Do you need me to call an ambulance?
That’s just me though.
I also would have knocked on the window and asked him if he was okay. However, I also would not burn down a Wendy’s.
And if you noticed that he was drunk? In a car, driving a car? What would then your social and ethical obligation be?
Calling 9/11 is for all emergencies. Health included. And the police make an assessment.
What if he was sick? Having a heart attack?
The responsible thing to do was to call the police. And the police acted properly in investigating.
Everything after that was the man’s own responsibility.
What really are you saying? It’s code.
Asleep or drunk I’d have probably encouraged him to pull out of the drive-through and into the parking lot where I’d be happy to look the other way while he slept it off for a couple of hours.
A heart attack? If I call 911 and say someone’s having a heart attack, they’ll send EMTs.
Asleep in a drive-thru lane is a massive inconvenience, it isn’t, a threat. The responsible thing was to attempt communication before calling the police, it’s absurd to assume otherwise.
So you would have encouraged a drunk person to drive drunk?
Bingo.
Drunk driving kills more people in the United States than all murders combined.
For 100 yards into the parking lot? Yep. You did notice that part right? You’re not suggesting that it’s exactly the same as telling him to go drive around in rush hour traffic?
You are, aren’t you?
Tsk.
The point is that a drunk person, in a car, driving or having driven, has been determined to be a real threat and a real danger. There were extensive campaigns against drunk drivers, weren’t there? Driving a car while drunk (or impaired with drugs) is a serious issue.
The point is that it was good — a good, a social good, a necessary enactment of good will — that the police were called. Because there is no other authority (that I am aware of) who have to power of the State to investigate. To *stop*. So, it seems fair to see, not only to say but to see, that a police investigation was part of a ‘general application’ of good social values.
If you cover for that drunk driver, if you provide opportunities for him to continue with his activity (his disregard for other people) then you are condoning it. You *enable* it. You allow it to continue.
Everything about this situation (which I assume I am reading correctly) and up to the point of arresting the man for being drunk and driving was ‘good and proper’. You can try to come up with a counter-argument but you would have to do some ‘spinning’ to get there.
His resistance was absolutely indefensible. That much is absolutely clear. But if you have a counter-argument I’m open to listening.
How could I not agree that it seems excessive that they would shoot him as he ran away? That is the only part of this that is in question.
The only way to defend this sort of use of force is to defend it universally. Anyone who fights with police must be seen as capable of killing that policeman. And anyone who fights has committed assault. If that person did it there, on the ground, he could do it again later (when cornered for instance), and if that person is capable of that type of violence that person must be considered a danger to the public. It is possible that he could do on to harm other people, take hostages, et cetera. Let me say it like this: I could see it that way. I would not be off-base. I mean, my argument would not be obviously bad. The argument is sound.
I want to be able to say next “…and deserves to be shot and killed’ if there is a genuine cause and it is not ‘execution’ as you said. (Because any firing of a weapon must be seen as a killing act; you don’t shoot to wound).
I have to say, as someone who has been robbed once at gun-point (and once at knife-point) that I meditated on the simple fact that I could have been killed, or the young fellow could have slipped and accidentally pulled the trigger and that at that point all my ideas changed.
I have to be honest: I do not care about that man. I do not care that he left 5 children behind. Or a wife. Or a life he could have lived. I simply do.not.care. And it has nothing to do with his color. But I do care about the police that were put in this situation. And they I will support.
There you have it. It is a question of ‘larger allegiances’.
And I believe you because you’ve built up so much good faith…. oh wait.
Well, I believe you because you don’t go around advocating for white nationalism…. oh wait.
Okay, I’ve got it, I’ll belive you because despite the rest you don’t go around claiming that people of other skin colors or religions that your own are inferior or evil…. oh wait.
Ya know, I just don’t feel like I can take you at your word on this one.
You owe me a lap top. I literally did a spit-take of my orange juice on your first sentence.
How about a Kindle?
Ok, fair enough. So here you go: I have been undecided about the entire question of White Nationalism. It is highly problematic for a number of reasons. I have been able to go as far as advocacy for *white well-being* and, as I have honestly revealed, I have done all kinds of research and I know, very well, the positions of many different people, in regard to everything going on.
At this point — as I watch these recent events unfold — I discern far more clearly the threat and the danger that I (and others) have been pointing to for many years. Those who have been *activists* in this cause have been doing this since loooonngggg before I was born. It was all pointed out, traced out, back in the 1910s and the 1920s (and this I have said many times).
I said — and I am always honest in what I say — that in this instance the color of this man is irrelevant to my feelings about criminals and the risk they take with them selves and with others. And that is completely true. You can spin it any way you like however. But everything that I said STANDS. And all of the contentious things I have ever said, because no one of you — and not you Jack! — can refute them, STANDS.
Good faith, did you say? This is very hypocritical. In fact (I suggest) you do not have good faith. I have good faith because I have been here always honest. You are slippery though and indirect.
If I get to the point — and that day may come — that I do advocate for White Nationalism, you will certainly know of it. Because I will have an argument to support what I understand to be true. And that is the way that I choose to engage with ethical and moral questions.
You valkygrrl are mostly irrelevant because you do not ever deal in substantial and articulated ideas. But I will say that Jack concerns me far more. Because he sets the entire tone for the general conversation and the limits of the conversation. And I have been, I really have been, analyzing things from the base-consideration of ethics. If I have an idea and I cannot defend it and the ethics which informs it, and if it is non-ethical, I must change my idea!
But white advocacy — European American advocacy — against the wave of destruction that is now operating, is ethical. I am beginning to form the opinion that if you do not come out in support of such that you-plural may well be acting unethically. On these points though I definitely stand in opposition to Jack’s general (stated) position.
What I say — because I think it true — is that you are not ready to ‘face reality’. You cannot face the truth so you conceal your selves behind an ‘ethical façade’. Do I understand any sympathize with this choice? Yes, I do. And there are millions and millions of *yous*.
And you will effectively stand by and merely *complain* about what goes on, but not ever actually see the root causes nor show your selves capable of taking structured action, if only on an intellectual plane.
I know valkyggrl from where your essential opposition to me comes from and you know this too. That is what drives you in this silly, empty and meaningless display of *wit* that is just not that witty. I would devastate you in any open conversation where you actually a) had an idea or opinion to present and defend, and b) came out of your hole to do so.
In the months and then the years ahead half of you are no longer going to be here to face the consequences of what you have allowed to come into existence. But we are going to be here to deal with the consequences of your weakness and your moral cowardice.
Is anyone keeping a count of those who agree on occasion with Aliza? In this, I agree with the substance of her comment. Honestly if it was a vote thing, I vote COTD, not for her tone, but for her analysis of the situation. The real answer is to look as a society at the Laws we are asking the police to enforce.
I have whip lash this morning from disagreeing, agreeing, disagreeing, then agreeing with the one with whom I originally disagreed.
My head hurts.
The full version:
That’s not how 911 works in many, if not most places. Police would be dispatched as a matter of routine even during a medical emergency.
This incident also show exactly why I wouldn’t knock on his window. He freaked out and grabbed an officer’s taser. Why would I put myself at risk of being attacked to avoid calling the police?
I have had enough close calls late at night (even with a creepy old white couple that tried to get in my car), to not risk it anymore.
I can’t abide your argument here, Valkygrrl. Driving while impaired is per se unreasonable and dangerous. Suggesting that the guy pull over into a parking space to sleep it off is akin to asking a hungry bear not to eat you. History shows that impaired people are not really capable of making good decisions. This guy, in this situation, already demonstrated he can’t be trusted. He didn’t start drinking while in the drive-through line at a Wendy’s. Hell, I am not even sure eating at Wendy’s is a responsible decision.
But, let’s follow your suggestion. Employee goes out, Knocks on his window and finally gets his attention. After being told to park somewhere and sleep it off, the guy leaves instead and shortly after causes car wreck killing someone in the process. What now?
jvb
I thought the premise of Jack’s post was that people are leaping to conclusions or burning down businesses without any investigation. I did not read anywhere in this post where Jack validated the officer’s acts except conditionally yet many are condemning them unconditionally which is grossly unfair.
I think it is safe to conclude now that a certain part of the population feels that it is being targeted by police and they have a right to destroy other people’s property when that happens I say this only because too few of that segment of society have made unequivocal statements that such behavior is wrong in a civilized culture. This segment is validating all those tired beliefs that the segment is morally bankrupt, oversexed, uncivilized, and lazy that were pervasive 50 plus years ago.
Jack makes a valid point that if this segment of society will resist any and all attempts by police to do their jobs peacefully the police might as well leave them to their carnage to avoid risking offending the segment’s group sensibilities. The only problem with that is that fellow might have woken up drunk and then plowed into another vehicle killing or maiming someone who was following the law.
This has become what I term Black Privilege where any slight now matter how unconscious will result in rage by the group. It is reminiscent of a time in our history when a black man would be chased by a mob and beaten for merely talking to a white woman. The difference today is that our lynching’s are economic and we are forced to acquiesce to the mob lest we be cancelled by the culture.
We have no idea if the police knocked on the window and questioned the man about his condition. It is probable that it started out that way. The entire point is that we should review all the evidence before coming to conclusions. If we continue on this path it is likely many more will die at the hands of those who believe they are unjustly targeted and strike back.
Which segment of society is that?
Take your pick. That entire statement is colorblind. If however you have an idea to which segment I am referring you must have some evidence to support that assumption.
You need to read the last paragraph to capture the entire context.
Suffice to say. If we defund the police we will need no courts and no prisons. We will need more undertakers.
I think that last thought is absolutely spot-on..
Damn. Posted twice, even though posting it once may have been one too many times.
jvb
I’ll take one down. Eenie, meenie…
valkygrrl wrote, “See, I would have knocked on his window and called out hey, hey buddy are you okay?”
That’s what I would have done also; however, In today’s world I don’t fault the management for choosing otherwise. Not everyone is willing to stick their nose out to get involved. A old new New York City friend of min (Tiny) favorite phase was “Don’t get involved.”; I heard that phrase many times from him but that’s not who I am.
And then what? Valkygrrl says that she would have sat in the parking lot with him until he slept it off. Are we seriously expecting people to give up 4 – 12 hours of their day to watch someone who showed up sh*t faced in their car at a Wendy’s sleep off their bender?
Dude was in his car, impaired, asleep behind the wheel, blocking others from going about their business. Besides the fact that his actions are illegal, maybe I’m just a mom with 4 kids in a minivan. I want to get my kids fed and go home and yet somehow I’m now the a-hole because I informed Wendy’s that there’s a guy passed out behind the wheel in the drive through?
Seriously, what are the options here?
1) Wake him up. Get him out of his car. Park his car for him. And then do what with him?
2) Wake him up. Get him out of his car. Park his car for him. Put him back in his car. (He’s still engaging in illegal behavior. One cannot be in their vehicle, impaired, even if parked.) Now what?
3) Wake him up. Get him out of his car. Park his car for him. Take his keys (which maybe mitigates the situation because he no longer has the ability to start the car.) But, he’s still on private property, passed out for god knows how many hours. Bad for business. And you’ve taken his keys without permission. Now what?
4) Wake him up. Get him out of his car. Park his car for him. Put him in your car to drive him home. You are now liable for a drunk passenger. Once you arrive, you can’t get him out of your car or into his house. Now what?
It’s tempting to have these noble fantasies about what we would do in certain situations. It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback the decisions of others. At the end of the day, the dude was passed out in the drive through of a Wendy’s. The responsibility for that lies with him and only him. The police were called and it was the right call.
What followed still needs to be fully investigated.
The “independent kingdom” of CHAZ, in Seattle, had a fire (and had to call the city for help). Too bad this Wendy’s wasn’t in a similar jurisdiction…The other customers could have just beaten the guy to death, no police would need to have been called, no fire, and the restaurant would still be there! See the advantages of the new system?
So, they had his car, his license plate number, his driver’s license info, and therefore knew his name and address. He was on foot and therefore unable to drive while impaired.
Tell me, if you’ve just rolled out of bed could you pass a field sobriety test? Eh, let’s leave that for later. You shouldn’t drive when that sleepy.
Anyway, they couldn’t go to his house and arrest him later? They had to shoot him? Why?
Which is why we have investigations. Grabbing police weapons or attempting to do so—if that happened here—is a theme in a lot of the shootings.
Yes, according to the police but you also did say taser, if the police feel that’s an acceptable thing to use on people in no-life threatening situations then they obviously can’t be afraid for their lives at the thought of a taser being pointed in their general direction.
Ow is it that police manage to kill so many supposedly drunk and belligerent people while nurses and bartenders get by just fine without shooting people?
Again, I don’t know what happened. If the guy fired a taser at the officer, that’s provocation. I’m 75% serious: I don’t think cops should try to apprehend black law-breakers at all. They will resist, things go sideways, and it will be presumed to be the polices’ fault. Let them do what they want, and only police the white perps. Nobody cares if they get shot.
You don’t get to kill people for provoking you. If provocation = execution then anyone who thinks that way needs to be dismissed post-hate. If they’re trained to think that way then increased crime is likely to lead to fewer deaths than leaving cops on the street so pull them all until they’re retrained or new people found and trained better.
Hire some bartenders, they know how to deal with drunks and would probably be happy to make $100k a year plus benefits.
Did you watch that one minute video I sent you this morning? Cop suddenly stops in front of a moving person, when the person couldn’t dodge out of the way fast enough to avoid contact… contact mind you, less than I get trying to move through a crowded train, cop didn’t even get his ass grabbed like I often do… The second contact was made, the other cops tacked the guy. They were just waiting for the moment to do a little violence and make an arrest.
This is not tolerable. People like that do not belong in any position of public trust.
That video? Absolutely.
Aiming a weapon at a cop? Tasers incapacitate. I’d defend someone charged with murder who used deadly force against an attempted tasering. It’s a very close call. If a perp stole a cop’s club and came after him, a cop could shoot.
The taser or stun gun, whichever it was, was not a realistic threat to the officers in that situation, as they surely knew. Had he stopped, turned, and planted his feet, maybe (if it was a taser).
Right, because your average street thug uses guns appropriately.
Now he’s a street thug? You are just covering yourself in glory… er something at least.
I mean, we definitely have the benefit of watching these videos from multiple angles from the comfort of our stress free couches. We have the omniscience of knowing the man has no other weaponry on him as we spectate.
As soon as a suspect begins to resist arrest, ALL CALCULUS changes. You’re expecting a level of perfection and omniscience of officers working in the dark against a man who just violently opposed a simple DUI check. Why on earth would anyone reasonable flip the calculus on police officers? That knowledge alone *compels* officers to make reasonable assumptions, among them, this suspect wants to harm us.
We presume they thoroughly searched the man for weapons prior to attempting the arrest. But again…HE CHANGED all the assumptions in that encounter. I don’t think an officer has any reason when a man points something that looks like a gun after fisticuffs to avoid *an easy DUI stop* to run down the logical traps and assume *in the darkness* that what’s being pointed at him is the very taser he took from the officers to begin with.
While the incessant refrain will always arise “no one deserves to die for resisting arrest”… the perpetually true claim precedes this: DON’T RESIST ARREST. The calculus changes immediately and for the worse.
Your points are well taken, Michael. I’m using hindsight and making assumptions which may not be warranted. I didn’t see a pat down in any of the videos, but I would expect that was done. Still, a weapon could be missed. And I’m puzzled at the sudden change in demeanor at the point of handcuffing. Was Brooks just feigning cooperation up to that point? Axon claims its X2 has a distinctive flash when fired; I saw it in the videos and couldn’t identify it without further research, but I presume the officers had the training and would recognize it. Maybe not. To me, it does not look like a gunshot, although, at night, in a high stress situation, peak adrenaline in play, that bright instantaneous flash might look like exactly that.
So, you’ve got me wavering. Which is exactly why we should not rush to judgment.
As always, more important facts come out over time. With the latest information on Brooks’ criminal record and status, I can see why he panicked, fought the officers, and tried to run away. He was on probation with a history of some serious felonies and likely would have gone back to jail. Perhaps he thought, up until the handcuffs came out, that they would just give him a ride home.
I guess after I run away after raping and murdering someone, they can just go to my house and arrest me later!
Was he accused of raping and murdering someone or was he accused of drunk driving and attempting to make off on foot?
Do you enjoy making bad faith, everything is exactly the same, there are no degrees and nothing is situational arguments?
It makes you come off as an asshole.
He is making a corollary argument to illustrate a sound point. But I do grasp that you do not wish to understand, or to accept, the principle in question. Now why is that?
Why don’t you resolve to examine that?
If you watch the videos I posted (the body cam) you can see what was going on. Entirely normal. Exactly what police are supposed to do. Perfectly conducted. Ultra-polite.
The suspect then took actions that created everything that follow.
I support the police.
I think the point he made, which you missed, was clear…if all a miscreant has to do to avoid arrest is begin to resist and then run so the police have to apprehend later, then eventually all that miscreant has to do is resist and run again.
And again.
Ad nauseum.
And that goes for idiots who should have respectfully complied for a DUI arrest as it does for murderers and rapists.
But if we set the precedent that all suspects need to do is put up a little fight and the police back down? That’s just stupid and an open door to a slippery slope of criminality.
Realizing the hazards of trying to use facts on crazy people, I proceed nonetheless…
1. It is not usually the job description of fast food workers to police the drive-thru lanes,even for the shift manager. They are told to stay inside and call the police if the problem does not solve itself quickly. They can actually lose their jobs for engaging with poorly behaved customers. Remember, many of them are kids doing minimum wage jobs, learning how to be employees.
2. The taser is seen as a non-lethal tool, however, depending on the medical condition of the recipient bad outcomes do occur. The taser is designed to “short-out” the nervous system to temporarily incapacitate someone so physical control can be accomplished. It is not fun to be tased, but it is survivable.
3. Police officers are armed with pistols. Therefore, wherever you have a policeman you have a gun present. A big part (or should be a big part) of police firearms training is weapon retention. When a police officer loses control of his gun, bad things happen. It it works correctly, a taser can incapacitate a police officer as easily as it can anyone else.
4. Incapacitated officers are unable to exercise adequate weapon retention, thus the pistol is available to the bad guy. A large number of officers shot each year are shot with their own pistol. That is why minimum protection levels for body armor is that it protects against the caliber of the weapon the officer carries.
So there you have it. Although not specifically designed to be a lethal weapon, the taser can facilitate someone in obtaining a lethal one, thus a subject armed with a taser is a threat to an officer that justifies lethal force use. Against someone who does not possess a firearm that the person could obtain after tasing that person might not enjoy the same justification.
Its Sunday morning, and on the 8am local news was a video of the encounter beginning with conversation between the officers and decedent, on into the attempt to handcuff, the resistance, scuffle, decedent getting the taser and discharging it at the officer, chasing the officer with it as they left the field of the camera. Also body-cam was shown, but hard to decipher as shown.
This may settle some issues expressed here. Or not.
Because the laws the officers are enforcing, tell them to arrest people for “crimes” If the cop uses discretion he gets written up and disciplinesd. The system is full of perverse incentives. Reforming the police doesn’t have to mean defunded…hell when I was a kid you ran to the policeman if you were in trouble, nowadays, not so much….this blogger does a decent summation….http://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2020/06/open-letter-to-police.html
“Facts don’t matter, logic doesn’t matter, fairness and consequences don’t matter. Activists are looking for an excuse to protest, or worse. See the photo? The only facts anyone cares about is that a black man was shot by police.”
Some time back, I was chastised for wanting more information, that ethical decisions sometimes have to be made now. So, my comments are based on what we know now.
The shooting was not justified.
We can’t know at this point if an arrest was justified, so let’s assume it was while acknowledging that assumption might be wrong. That two officers could not subdue Brooks does not speak well for them. Regardless, he was running away. He had either a stun gun or a taser (CNN said one and then the other in the same article). Neither presented a realistic threat to the officers. I doubt anyone reading here, unlike the CNN reporter, is unaware of the differences, nor how ineffective either would have been in that situation.
It also appears that under Georgia law, neither is considered a deadly threat.
The immediate firing of one officer and suspension of the other was justified. That there would be demonstrations and more was a given; immediate action could help limit that.
The resignation of the police chief was the honorable thing to do. That an officer in her department would think shooting to kill in that situation was the right thing to do shows either a failure in hiring or in training or both.
Protests, to the extent they were peaceful, were absolutely appropriate. Torching Wendy’s was not.
Honorable police officers will not step back from doing their job, despite how politically charged the climate in which they must now work. It is unethical to suggest they do so. They took the badge and the responsibility that goes with it. Unlike the soldier who finds himself in a war he doesn’t support, they can simply resign if they cannot do the job. But, they must make sure their actions are both lawful and proper for the situation.
The man killed was holding a Axion X2 taser. It can shoot 25 feet and fire twice without reloading. The officer never fired so both shots were available.
https://global.axon.com/products/taser-x2
If you think a cop should take a tasering after a physical altercation you’re insane. This does not help reforming police officers. Punishing police in this case is setting up a backlash. I’m pretty anti-cop but damnit stupid doesn’t help your side.
Precisely…if the man fleeing is able to turn, fire an accurate shot, and stun the officer, the man is in a position to take the officer’s gun. That has the potential to have a deadly result for the officer.
Sure, the man was intoxicated and not likely to do all of those things, but in that one moment of instant decision, I believe the officer has to protect himself.
Honorable police officers will not step back from doing their job, despite how politically charged the climate in which they must now work.
Now THAT we know is not true, and there is plenty of data that shoes it, in Baltimore, in Ferguson, elsewhere. You will get passive policing, and people will die.
In Baltimore, after Freddie Gray was killed, there was a downward trend in active policing, i.e., police observing and acting on actual or apparent criminal activity. That trend has persisted. Not sure that is honorable.
In Ferguson after Michael Brown was killed, and certainly elsewhere, especially large cities with a large black population, trust in police declined substantially, resulting in fewer calls for help and thereby fewer criminals being arrested. There is at least some evidence that police responding to calls were as professional and thorough as before, and that would be honorable.
In Baltimore, passive policing resulted in the homicide rate soaring.
It is possible to decide that the shooting was unjustified and excessive. And it is possible to suggest that American police begin to do things differently. I do not think there is any police force that acts as decisively as the American police. But I always thought that had to do with the strong American sense of ‘rule of law’. If you resist the ‘rule of law’ — the authority of the police officer — then you risk escalation. They do not back down, and they are not supposed to back down because it undermines their authority in a larger sense. That they do not back down, and that American police do not back down, is part of a longstanding ethics it seems to me.
But now the Colored Multitudes spearheaded by Black Americans has been mobilized. Who mobilized them and to what purpose? It is hard to get one’s perception in order because so much is going on. Is this mobilization, in the end, connected to the tremendous efforts to inhibit Donald Trump’s reelaction? Is it ‘largely connected’ to that motive? Three-quarters? Half? Am I correct in *reading between the lines* that this is the larger function?
But what does that mean? That requires interpretation. I have always said, and see no reason to see differently, that what is happening today is a continuation of the displacement and essential dispossession of the white demographic. This was set in motion. It has continued in motion. And now it is being carried out. Is it ‘unjust’? Is it unethical to have undermined or diluted the ‘original demographic’ to the point where race struggles arise?
Now, hundreds of major businesses and corporations have made the only sort of decisions that they ever really make — business decisions — to take a side. Do they do so in a genuine way? Or is it that they *see the demographic writing on the wall*? What about the ‘Government’. That is, the entire structure of government? When you see the writing on the wall, what do you do? Answer: you shift your alliance.
What is the ‘larger meaning here? What will be the ‘larger effect’? What comes next? The answer should be pretty plain and easy.
I have asked myself — often in fact — if I blame Blacks or People of Color or a New Demographic of America for desiring to assume more power in America and to direct the show. And in that process carry out the knocking over of statuary which is, obviously, a symbol for what they do and will continue to do as the years progress. It is an ideological remaking of America, isn’t it? It is a redefinition of *what America is*.
How did the following come about? What is your relationship to it?
That’s half of it. It certainly is a large part of why officers get wide latitude from most of the public. There are two other factors though: Americans are among the most violent prone in response, and we are awash in guns. Let’s not pretend being a cop here isn’t somewhat risky.
That’s pretty much what the right here thinks. 2020: impeachment, COVID over-reaction to kill the economy, and then race riots. There are plenty asking what’s next.
I think it will backfire badly. Particularly with this incident. The media won’t be able to contain the facts.
Looks as if John Bolton’s book alleging Trump misconduct is next on the agenda once Covid-19 and BLM peter out and move off the radar screen: https://www.axios.com/john-bolton-book-trump-misconduct-794e8e01-18a3-44ae-ae35-1ee2c4fddad4.html
I see Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler will be back on stage by July or so. That’s my bet for what’s next.
The number one reason officers like Chauvin stay on the force is police unions.
Good job Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, the Atlanta PD rank and file are now going to fight for their union with a vengeance.
Has anyone heard of James Flair? Probably not because his killing does not shock the conscience of the people or the media. There will be no outrage in the black community or the white community. The nation will not grieve for his family for he is unimportant in the struggle to fundamentally transform the United States. He is simply collateral damage. Only his family will grieve.
https://www.modbee.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article243515927.html
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/man-who-murdered-officer-captured-deputy-77-killed/
I post this to remember a decent human who was cut down by one that is not who took the deputy’s weapon and used it against him during a transport to a mental health checkup.
An addendum to the Wendy’s burning.
You’re just now noticing many (the majority?) of protestors/rioters seem to be earnest white women in their thirties and forties?
Uh…the Wendy’s is already engulfed in flame. You did watch the video right? Not that any of it proves anything other than rioters ruin things for good faith protesters everywhere.
What does it matter what race the arsonist is?
Seems that everywhere you look, you see a klansman.
When and where did resisting arrest change from being a chargeable offense to standard operating procedure?
Would you believe this is not the first black man to be shot by police after falling asleep in a fast food drive thru? There was another one just last year, Willie McCoy in Vallejo, California.
It doesn’t surprise me.
A few years ago I was traveling. My hotel was near a Wendy’s and around midnight all hell broke loose. Apparently one of the basketball stars at the nearby university was going through the drive through very drunk and passed out. The major difference is that when he passed out, he floored the car. It jumped the curb, shot across the lawn, crossed a four lane road and ran into a retaining wall.
When the cops arrived, the driver was still passed out in his car. The guy was too drunk to fight and was hauled to the hospital peacefully.
That’s when I learned drunken drive throughing is a thing.
I was previously a TASER instructor and have experienced the effects of the weapon many times in training scenarios. (My experience ended with the X-26 Model which my agency was using at the time of my retirement in 2014.) Powered by compressed nitrogen in the weapon’s cartridge, the TASER fires two small barbed darts (they look like straightened fish hooks) intended to puncture the skin and remain attached to the target individual. The darts are connected to the TASER by thin copper wires and carry an electric current which disrupts muscle control, causing “neuromuscular incapacitation”. The TASER is marketed as “less-lethal” since the possibility of serious injury or even death exists any time the weapon is deployed, especially if it is deployed incorrectly or by untrained persons. Officers are trained to scrupulously avoid any TASER shots above the shoulders due to the possibility of serious eye injury from the darts and/or delivery of the electrical current to the head/brain.
If someone had violently taken my TASER from me and was trying to use it against me, I would likely have shot them. My presumption would be that the subject intended to incapacitate me, take my firearm and use it to kill me. I never shot or shot at and would never shoot or shoot at a subject who was merely fleeing an arrest for a non-violent crime. If it turns out to be the case in the Atlanta shooting that the subject fired or was attempting or preparing to fire the TASER at the officer, I suspect the shooting will be ruled as justified. I withhold judgement pending the investigation.
Officers are required to use an amount of force that is reasonably necessary, not the “minimum necessary” as is often said. How would I know in advance what that minimum force is? If I try too low a level of force and it doesn’t work, I might not have time or opportunity to select a bit higher level of force and give that a whirl. Based on training and experience, officers choose and employ reasonable force options.
For anyone who thinks EMS should have been called to Wendy’s instead of police, I can assure you that EMS would almost certainly have called the police themselves and not dealt with the subject until the police told them it was safe to do so. I have been called to “clear” countless EMS calls (render the scene safe) while the medics waited down the street. Not being critical here; that is a normal division of duties.
As far as allowing or even asking the intoxicated subject to just drive the car across the lot, I would caution that the officer would be assuming liability for whatever harm was committed by the subject if he drove away and injured anyone in any manner. Not happening.
Just my two cents; your mileage may vary.
James Hodgson,
He actually shot the taser, it can be seen clearly in a video.
I heard the claim that the taser missed with one dart and the other got the officer in the knee.
The Atlanta police use a taser with two shots before reloading, and that the officer never got a shot off. So the suspect could have shot again and demonstrated a willingness to use it.
After-the-fact knowns:
1. The drunken man resisted arrest.
2. The drunken man was NOT unarmed at the time of the shooting.
3. The drunken man shot the taser at the police officer.
I don’t know the laws in the Atlanta area regarding the acceptable use of deadly force but this one might easily fall under those laws.
If I had the hind sight of knowing the man was shooting the taser that he violently stole from the officer I would not have shot for two reasons:
1. The taser used is not considered a deadly weapon.
2. There were two officers there; if the taser had made its mark on the perusing officer there was another officer there in case the man turned around to follow up the taser attack with violence including possibly getting the officers side arm.
My gut tells me that the officers did not know the man was shooting a taser and under the situation they were under (violent man resisting arrest and turns to point a weapon) could have just as easily considered what the man shot as a deadly firearm which gives them every right to protect themselves. In the heat of the moment, the officer may not have reasonably known that the weapon fired was a taser, the man turned and pointed a weapon at them and the officer fired. In another equally violent situation the man may have actually had a deadly weapon. In the heat of the moment I would not have made an assumption that the weapon pointed at me was not lethal, if you make assumptions like that you get dead; I would have shot the man too.
Prediction; the police department will use the officer that shot as a scapegoat and throw him under a bus (as it appears they already have) regardless of the situation the officer faced.
I hear the DA is agitating to bring charges.
There will be no conviction here. No way. I question if they can even bring an indictment.
The union and the rank and file officers aren’t going to be quiet either.
This is not the hill to die on for the activists as they don’t have a case. It sure is for the officers and their union.
Funny, in charging some Atlanta officers (5 black, 1 white) for an incident about two weeks ago, they classified the officers’ tasers as “deadly weapons” when used. One was charged with aggravated assault for merely pointing (not firing) “a deadly weapon, a Taser”
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/protests/atlanta-officers-charged-protest-arrests-warrants-details/85-f6a42147-0f03-4e1a-8053-2085a439e7b8
The charges:
Ivory Streeter: Faces aggravated assault and pointing or aiming gun or pistol at another. The warrant for Streeter’s aggravated assault charge says he “intentionally and without justification used a deadly weapon, a Taser, against Messiah Young, which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury.” His pointing a gun warrant states he “intentionally and without justification pointed or aimed, a hand gun, at Messiah Young, whether the gun was loaded or unloaded.”
Mark Gardner: The other fired officer faces one aggravated assault charge. The warrant for him states, as it did for Streeter, that he “intentionally and without justification used a deadly weapon, a Taser,” against Taniyah Pilgrim.
Armon Jones: His aggravated battery charge says he “caused bodily harm to another, Messiah Young, by depriving him of a member of his body, by rendering a member of his body useless, his left arm, when he dragged Messiah Young from a parked vehicle and slammed him into a paved street.” Young was seen at a press conference yesterday wearing a cast on the arm. Jones also faces a point or aiming a gun charge.
Lonnie Hood: Hood, alone among the officers facing three charges, two aggravated assault charges for using a Taser against both Young and Pilgrim. A third charge, simple battery, states he “intentionally and without justification made physical contact with Taniyah Pilgrim, of an insulting or provoking nature, by violently pulling Taniyah Pilgrim out of a parked vehicle and throwing Taniyah Pilgrim down onto the paved street.”
Willie Sauls: He faces aggravated assault charge similar to the others, though his warrant states he “pointed a deadly weapon, a Taser, at Tanniyah Pilgrim,” rather than used, as the warrants state for the other officers. He also faces a criminal damage charge which states he “intentionally and without justification damaged the property of another person without her consent and the damage thereto is less than $500.00, by repeatedly striking and caused damage to the driver’s front window of a 2017 Black Mazda belonging to Taniyah Pilgrim, with an expandable asp baton.”
Roland Claud: Claud faces the least serious accusation among the officers, a criminal damage charge which states he damaged Pilgrim’s car “by breaking the windows, with a window punch.”