Texas church shooting leaves many dead

[Bromley boy]

Watching it again I agree it's difficult to see why they couldn't have just approached him rather than making him crawl to them. Possibly because the hotel room hadn't been secured and they were concerned about exposing themselves to the doorway?

Definitely too many instructions being given to a suspect who was panicking and possibly intoxicated.

Clearly something went tragically wrong on this occasion. On the other hand I can see why the police in the US take a heavy handed approach to suspects, particularly those believed to be armed and why a jury may be unwilling to convict on the basis of a split second decision taken in the heat of the moment.

 

[najaB]

On the other hand I can see why the police in the US take a heavy handed approach to suspects, particularly those believed to be armed and why a jury may be unwilling to convict on the basis of a split second decision taken in the heat of the moment.

It's simple: police are trained that anyone within 21 feet is an immediate threat, and when cases come to court the defence says "The officer acted in accordance with his training."

Hence the Tueller drill is - de facto - a licence to kill.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's simple: police are trained that anyone within 21 feet is an immediate threat, and when cases come to court the defence says "The officer acted in accordance with his training."

Hence the Tueller drill is - de facto - a licence to kill.

The sad fact here is the suspect was 21 feet away and on his knees with his hands in the air until the police told him otherwise.

 

[Bromley boy]

It's simple: police are trained that anyone within 21 feet is an immediate threat, and when cases come to court the defence says "The officer acted in accordance with his training."

Hence the Tueller drill is - de facto - a licence to kill.

That isn't true, as we discussed extensively upthread. If a police officer shoots someone and finds themselves on trial for murder they need to establish a defence. The jury will look at the facts presented to them and judge each case on its own merits.

Of course in making that decision they will have to take into account whether the police followed correct procedures and the fact they had to make split second decision. In this case the jury chose not to convict, but nevertheless that policeman found himself on trial for murder which is a pretty big deal.

I'm not sure how the current system could really be changed. There will always cases where lethal force is used in dubious circumstances and it's quite right that these cases should be subject to the scrutiny of a criminal trial.

The best way to prevent gun deaths of this type would be to simply remove the guns from the equation but there's zero chance of that happening in the states.

 

[najaB]

That isn't true, as we discussed extensively upthread. If a police officer shoots someone and finds themselves on trial for murder they need to establish a defence. The jury will look at the facts presented to them and judge each case on its own merits.

In theory, that is nice. However, the facts speak otherwise.

• Between 2005 and 2017 there were roughly 12,000 fatal shootings by police in the USA.
• 80 officers were brought up on charges. (So there's a less than 1% chance that they will face charges).
• 28 were convicted. (Even if they face charges, there's only a 35% chance that they'll be found guilty).

That means that as a police officer, there is a 99.8% chance that you can shoot (and possibly kill) someone and not be convicted. If that's not a licence to kill, I don't know what is.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/v...tpsredir=1&article=1077&context=crim_just_pub

 

[Bromley boy]

In theory, that is nice. However, the facts speak otherwise.

• Between 2005 and 2017 there were roughly 12,000 fatal shootings by police in the USA.
• 80 officers were brought up on charges. (So there's a less than 1% chance that they will face charges).
• 28 were convicted. (Even if they face charges, there's only a 35% chance that they'll be found guilty).

That means that as a police officer, there is a 99.8% chance that you can shoot (and possibly kill) someone and not be convicted. If that's not a licence to kill, I don't know what is.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/v...tpsredir=1&article=1077&context=crim_just_pub

I haven’t crunched the numbers but wouldn’t you expect the vast majority of police shootings not to result in charges, let alone convictions, as compared to shootings between members of the general public?

The Washington Post has done a recent study:

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Meanwhile, The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.

So most killed by the police are either:
1. Holding a weapon;
2. Mentally ill/or committing suicide by cop;
3. Running away and perceived to pose a threat.

I’m not sure I’d expect charges to result from the majority of these. Would you?

There is undoubtedly a problem with gun crime in the US which sadly is a populous, heavily armed country with a high crime rate in certain areas. There are unsurprisingly quite a few police shootings. That does not mean the police have a “de facto” licence to kill, as you keep asserting.

This topic does seem to be a particular hobby horse of yours. I think you forgot we are very fortunate to live in the UK, where shootings by the police or otherwise are so rare as to be newsworthy events. In the US there is at least one gun massacre per day, according to figures on a recent thread. So it’s hardly surprising the police shoot more suspects.

Is there a danger that you are looking at this issue with UK eyes?

 

[najaB]

In the US there is at least one gun massacre per day, according to figures on a recent thread. So it’s hardly surprising the police shoot more suspects.

Which is the cart and which is the horse?