Tension escalates in Detroit.
This shooting was almost certainly justified, but law enforcement in this area has used up any good will it had left.
BT, let's say you have just been elected police chief of Detroit. What changes, if any, would you make with respect to these situations?
BT, let's say you have just been elected police chief of Detroit. What changes, if any, would you make with respect to these situations?Tension escalates in Detroit.
This shooting was almost certainly justified, but law enforcement in this area has used up any good will it had left.
That would be a horrid job.
Doing the kind of investigation and surveillance driven police work needed to avoid these kinds of raids is manpower intensive and Detroit is probably facing cutbacks. Many of the driving factors behind these kinds of raids are deeply political and well above the chiefs pay grade. The war on drugs, property seizure policies, and some of the show boating to look tough on crime are some of these factors.
That said, the first step is to stop the hemorrhaging by immediately and publicly modifying the use of the SRT to a much more limited role.
Second, personnel changes have to made in the DPD's leadership. This is extremely difficult. When you start eliminating career officers who don't "buy into the program" you are basically making an enemy of the union and the departments leadership structure. This is the structure that the chief must use in the hierarchy to implement change. Serious institutional change is very difficult to achieve especially when external forces like federal, state, and local policies send very conflicting messages. Unfortunately I don't see any other way to change an institutions core attitudes without significant changes in the leadership structure and the loss of experience and institutional knowledge that comes with that kind of turn over. Again fundamentally changing entrenched institutional thinking in an entrenched bureaucracy that is part of even more entrenched bureaucracies is hugely difficult.
Third, an extended PR blitz must coincide with changed to policing policy and methods. Things like civilian accountability boards can be very useful in this regard if they don't become organs of political theater. Regaining the trust of citizens who feel that they have been targeted for harassment and ignored when they need help for years is also hugely difficult. It also is an incredibly uphill battle because even honest mistakes which will invariably happen are viewed with unforgiving suspicion for years.
Obviously this is an extremely abbreviated answer. There are numerous lengthy books on this topic, and there is hardly universal agreement on issues like community policing.
It's becoming much harder for law enforcement to do its job also. They are increasingly called upon to do much more than catch bad guys. Many jurisdictions use law enforcement to generate revenue through ticketing and property seizure. They are expected to act like shrinks and social workers in response to domestic disputes, homeless, disturbed and under the influence calls, and they are called upon to have a basic understanding of increasingly complex laws and procedures while trying to shield the department from liability and trying to protect lives and property.
I think we have gotten to the point where we have tasked law enforcement with so many things that it no longer does any of them especially well.
I think that this coincides with the fact that we expect the government to do more and more and it no longer does most of them very well either.
It seems to me we have come to the odd place where we expect the government and the police to a vast number of things, but we seem largely indifferent to the fact that they do few of them well.
EDIT: I hope it's clear that I'm not excusing bad behavior by law enforcement by acknowledging the difficulties they face from an institutional and policy stand point.
That would be a horrid job.
Doing the kind of investigation and surveillance driven police work needed to avoid these kinds of raids is manpower intensive and Detroit is probably facing cutbacks. Many of the driving factors behind these kinds of raids are deeply political and well above the chiefs pay grade. The war on drugs, property seizure policies, and some of the show boating to look tough on crime are some of these factors.
That said, the first step is to stop the hemorrhaging by immediately and publicly modifying the use of the SRT to a much more limited role.
You mean the swat teams? Okay, I think we can all agree on that.
Second, personnel changes have to made in the DPD's leadership. This is extremely difficult. When you start eliminating career officers who don't "buy into the program" you are basically making an enemy of the union and the departments leadership structure. This is the structure that the chief must use in the hierarchy to implement change. Serious institutional change is very difficult to achieve especially when external forces like federal, state, and local policies send very conflicting messages. Unfortunately I don't see any other way to change an institutions core attitudes without significant changes in the leadership structure and the loss of experience and institutional knowledge that comes with that kind of turn over. Again fundamentally changing entrenched institutional thinking in an entrenched bureaucracy that is part of even more entrenched bureaucracies is hugely difficult.
This is where I think most people who want to effect change lose their nerve. Surgical eliminations would have to be done, and most people are too afraid to take on the unions in any respect. However, this is a necessary step for all involved. I'm not saying that the union shouldn't complain or take action, mind, just acknowledging that people in command outside of it tend to react to it with overwhelming fear because they dont' know how to handle it/play ball/etc.
Third, an extended PR blitz must coincide with changed to policing policy and methods. Things like civilian accountability boards can be very useful in this regard if they don't become organs of political theater. Regaining the trust of citizens who feel that they have been targeted for harassment and ignored when they need help for years is also hugely difficult. It also is an incredibly uphill battle because even honest mistakes which will invariably happen are viewed with unforgiving suspicion for years.
Well, good luck on keeping CAB's apolitical!!! :-D
Otherwise, YES. If people feel the police are simply another gang- and a more volatile one at that- then they've failed uttery. They need to regain the respect of the people they serve and actively question as to why they are being percieved as jackbooted thugs instead of just giving the civilans a pat on the head and sending them on their way when they complain.
Obviously this is an extremely abbreviated answer. There are numerous lengthy books on this topic, and there is hardly universal agreement on issues like community policing.
It's becoming much harder for law enforcement to do its job also. They are increasingly called upon to do much more than catch bad guys. Many jurisdictions use law enforcement to generate revenue through ticketing and property seizure. They are expected to act like shrinks and social workers in response to domestic disputes, homeless, disturbed and under the influence calls, and they are called upon to have a basic understanding of increasingly complex laws and procedures while trying to shield the department from liability and trying to protect lives and property.
Oh yeah. Being a cop is NOT easy.
Their workload has doubled, if not tripled in recent years with respect to everything you've said. And there is only so much training you can give someone before they become equally mediocre at everything.
IN my opinion, they need backup. Not an auxiliary like we have in Brooklyn- they do a good job, but they are very rarely taken seriously by the public, particularly the criminal element due to their high visibility and lack of firearm(in most cases). I think there should be a Police Department AND a Sheriff's Department that they can share jurisdiction and duties with. Being a New Yorker, I think the PD should do the majority of the crime stuff, and that the Sheriffs and their deputies should handle the majority of the Everything Else. Note that they already do that here, the sheriff's department handles most non-criminal property seizures, especially with respect to houses. But I think their duties should be expanded so that they can act in a law enforcement capacity more, to take pressure off the PD(Both regular and auxiliary, who are often placed in a role as presence/observers which- again in my opinion- kinda sucks when you're doing it for free). It would also create a lot of jobs- and no, just because you failed the entrance exame for one path does NOT mean you can go for the other- that's what the private sector is for. In short(not sure if I'm making my point here)= Police = Violent Crime, Sheriff/Deputies = Non violent Crime/Social issues. Would this work? Am I drinking too much?
I think we have gotten to the point where we have tasked law enforcement with so many things that it no longer does any of them especially well.
I think that this coincides with the fact that we expect the government to do more and more and it no longer does most of them very well either.
It seems to me we have come to the odd place where we expect the government and the police to a vast number of things, but we seem largely indifferent to the fact that they few of them well.
Interesting summary, there...
My summery is obviously colored by my politics and to a different degree my friends in law enforcement.
I have a couple of friends who are still in law enforcement (federal and county, one in SWAT) and some who became entirely disillusioned and moved on to other fields. There is a laundry list of frustrations, but suffice it to say that the more details I learn about how we conduct law enforcement in the US at all levels the less confidence I have. Most folks go into law enforcement with good intentions I suspect, but departments of all sizes at all levels have tremendous challenges.
In the fatal shooting case, what each side says
Has anyone read about any findings beyond the autopsy?
It looks like they succeeded in dragging this out long enough for the media to lose interest thanks in part to the Gulf; very sad indeed.
If what's said here is true, it's not sad, but disgusting.
Any word on what's happened to this officer's career?
After an extensive search the only thing I can find says he's been put on a desk job.
BT, let's say you have just been elected police chief of Detroit. What changes, if any, would you make with respect to these situations?Tension escalates in Detroit.
This shooting was almost certainly justified, but law enforcement in this area has used up any good will it had left.
Also here is an article about changing the policy direction of SWAT use that I largely agree with.
Feature: Reining in SWAT -- Towards Effective Oversight of Paramilitary Police Units
A 7-year old murdered by a police officer, who shot her through a porch window?
:blink in disbelief:
Thank God there were cameras. If the parents have a good attorney, they have a chance at justice; for whatever it might still be worth to somebody who lost a child.
One can only hope that this will open a national dialogue on the appropriate level of power and discretion to be given to law enforcement officers.
I'm not sure I would use the word murdered just yet. The family's lawyer asserts that she was shot from outside as opposed to an AD (accidental discharge) after contact with the grandmother (after the SRT set the girl on fire with a flash bang).
There is still a huge amount of information that has not been released yet.
Some of my questions include:
Where was she shot from?
How many times was she shot?
What was she shot with? Did the officer have a side arm and shield?
Was there contact with an occupant that contributed to the AD?
Did the occupants comply with the officers commands or were they trying to extinguish the little girl?
Were they using night vision or visible light?
Was the warrant valid for the whole duplex or only one unit?
Could the girl have been saved if EMTs had been on site when the raid was initiated? (Some Colorado SWAT teams now incorporate dedicated EMTs on the teams.)
Why was a midnight raid chosen over a less direct method when the police knew that there were multiple children at the duplex?
What do the video tapes show?
Why was a flash bang only fired through the one ground floor window?
The shooting happened on 5-16-10 and today is 6-14-10.
The only questions that seem to have been answered are the first 2 and a half. She seems to have been shot once through the top of the head with a side arm from outside the front door. If that's correct the DPD's account seems problematic at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
The incident was video taped, and this is all that has been released to the public after almost a month?
*Facepalm!*
bump
Still nothing?
I know it comes off over the top when I talk about government enforcing laws at gun point, but this is what it comes down to.
This is how the government enforces its will for good or bad.
I know it comes off over the top when I talk about government enforcing laws at gun point, but this is what it comes down to.
This is how the government enforces its will for good or bad.
Just like private groups do.
Just like private groups do.I know it comes off over the top when I talk about government enforcing laws at gun point, but this is what it comes down to.
This is how the government enforces its will for good or bad.
When was the last time Walmart lit you up with a flash bang and automatic weapons?
When was the last time Walmart lit you up with a flash bang and automatic weapons?Just like private groups do.I know it comes off over the top when I talk about government enforcing laws at gun point, but this is what it comes down to.
This is how the government enforces its will for good or bad.
If I refuse to leave when they want me gone, they'll call in the men with guns and enforce their will just like the state does. The only moral difference here is that I actually have a limited (if shrinking fast) ability to influence the state's decisions.
If I refuse to leave when they want me gone, they'll call in the men with guns and enforce their will just like the state does. The only moral difference here is that I actually have a limited (if shrinking fast) ability to influence the state's decisions.When was the last time Walmart lit you up with a flash bang and automatic weapons?Just like private groups do.I know it comes off over the top when I talk about government enforcing laws at gun point, but this is what it comes down to.
This is how the government enforces its will for good or bad.
Odds are they'll call the cops.
If you're trespassing, property owners have the right to use force.
Are you saying that what happened to Aiyana is morally equivalent to defending ones own property? If so, I simply don't follow.
Detroits vice mayor tries to influence civilian Board of Police Commissioners
"This situation . . . creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in our deliberations," Okdie wrote.
The letter complained Green "has interfered in the day-to-day decisions of the board by influencing the votes of board members as to the hiring of staff."
Odds are they'll call the cops.
If you're trespassing, property owners have the right to use force.
Are you saying that what happened to Aiyana is morally equivalent to defending ones own property? If so, I simply don't follow.
No, but I know from experience that libertarians don't like the line of reasoning much I am suggesting much.
What I'm saying is that the use of force in the person of men with guns is not some kind of unique sin of the state. It's the ultimate mode of enforcement of every single power ever known. To pretend that it's some sort of failing of the state is absurd on the level of claiming the sun is a ball of cheddar cheese. Even if we achieved libertarian utopia tomorrow (in which case I hope I've invested in suicide booths, since millions will be killing each other over a chance to hop forward in the line) the libertarian order would still be enforcing its will through force. Every non-pacifist order would. I admit I'm no expert on your opinions, but I don't recall you being a pacifist.
Force is force. You don't get to piously object when the state uses it, even if we both agree that the use in question is beyond idiotic, and then call everything a-ok when private groups do the same. The state is just as much enforcing a social contract as Walmart is when it calls the cops to get rid of me.
Force is force. You don't get to piously object when the state uses it, even if we both agree that the use in question is beyond idiotic, and then call everything a-ok when private groups do the same. The state is just as much enforcing a social contract as Walmart is when it calls the cops to get rid of me.
But unlike the cops, private companies and individuals don't get a pass when someone dies in the crossfire.
Force is force. You don't get to piously object when the state uses it, even if we both agree that the use in question is beyond idiotic, and then call everything a-ok when private groups do the same. The state is just as much enforcing a social contract as Walmart is when it calls the cops to get rid of me.But unlike the cops, private companies and individuals don't get a pass when someone dies in the crossfire.
Tell that to Blackwater. Or for that matter, to BP.
While I understand, and agree with, the many sentiments presented I feel the need to point out something obvious to people close to this area. I live close to Detroit, travel there often, and have family there. Including my brother, that has dedicated himself to charity work in the neighborhoods for the last 15+ years. Detroit is dangerous. It's dangerous to live in. It's dangerous to work in, ignoring the commuter worker element.
A CNN film crew was in the city a few yrs ago, and featured some of my brother's efforts. transcript link from 2006 (Really wish you could see the video. Maybe this will work link ) One of the cameramen said it was worse than war zones he has filmed. Off camera, of course. That stmt really struck home to me. I grew up there, but the city I knew is no longer.
It's a tragedy that a little girl died. Especially at the hands of police, albeit accidental/negligent. It's also a tragedy that others die/are hurt at the hands of criminals. And it happens far too often. It really sets me off when they are kids.
So much needs to be fixed in the city; people, govt, and institutions. Corruption and incompetence, ignorance and apathy, desperation and violence. *sigh*
When it spirals out of control, like it has for decades, this is the result. So sad.
Tell that to Blackwater. Or for that matter, to BP.Force is force. You don't get to piously object when the state uses it, even if we both agree that the use in question is beyond idiotic, and then call everything a-ok when private groups do the same. The state is just as much enforcing a social contract as Walmart is when it calls the cops to get rid of me.But unlike the cops, private companies and individuals don't get a pass when someone dies in the crossfire.
Blackwater worked for the US Government, so I don't think that's a good example. BP you might have a point with depending on what constitutes getting a pass. Sure BP and it's subcontractor will have to pay a wrongful death settlement eventually, but it isn't like that is going to impact BP.
As for force and its use, no I'm not a pacifist by any means. I have no issue with violence per se, but I find the initiation of violence to be objectionable. Therefore I oppose preemptive war, but not a war in response to an act of war. Like wise I have no issue with violence in defense of self, others, and property.
My issues with vice laws, for example, is the state is initiating violence or the threat thereof to punish a behavior that didn't initiate violence against anyone. Does that clarify my position?
Blackwater worked for the US Government, so I don't think that's a good example.
Why should it matter who the client is? Blackwater is a private business. Yet if anything, it's been held less accountable than even these police will be.
BP you might have a point with depending on what constitutes getting a pass. Sure BP and it's subcontractor will have to pay a wrongful death settlement eventually, but it isn't like that is going to impact BP.
BP's never going to pay for the value of the destroyed fisheries, lost tourism revenue, or much of anything else. Even Obama's 20 billion figure is seriously lowballing the titanic costs of its spill. Adding a zero would probably get one closer to the truth. At the very least, BP stole all that wealth from others just like it stole the lives from its workers.
As for force and its use, no I'm not a pacifist by any means. I have no issue with violence per se, but I find the initiation of violence to be objectionable. Therefore I oppose preemptive war, but not a war in response to an act of war. Like wise I have no issue with violence in defense of self, others, and property.
It's a trivial exercise to rationalize every use of force as defensive. The real world doesn't provide us with villains who twirl their mustachios and toast evil. Everybody thinks they're sufficiently provoked. But fair enough you're walking back your blanket condemnation of government force.
I don't recall ever making a blanket condemnation of government force. I simply stated that force and the threat thereof in how the state enforces law, IIRC.
Oklahoma grandmother gets shocked by Taser, sues El Reno police
Thanks Yellow Dingo!
|
Oklahoma grandmother gets shocked by Taser, sues El Reno police
Thanks Yellow Dingo!
I saw this story, and IIRC, the officer tasered her to prevent her from committing suicide (and to get her to quit brandishing the knife at him). Now I know it shocks the conscience to hear of an 87 year old woman being tasered, but in all reality, the officer would have been justified using deadly force if the woman was threatening him with a knife...would the people expressing outrage at her being tasered have preferred that instead?
|
I saw this story, and IIRC, the officer tasered her to prevent her from committing suicide (and to get her to quit brandishing the knife at him). Now I know it shocks the conscience to hear of an 87 year old woman being tasered, but in all reality, the officer would have been justified using deadly force if the woman was threatening him with a knife...would the people expressing outrage at her being tasered have preferred that instead?Oklahoma grandmother gets shocked by Taser, sues El Reno police
Thanks Yellow Dingo!
Probably not. Also the Judge in the case has ruled her mentally incompetent the last I read about it.
Goes to show you not to base your opinions on sound bites.
I saw this story, and IIRC, the officer tasered her to prevent her from committing suicide (and to get her to quit brandishing the knife at him). Now I know it shocks the conscience to hear of an 87 year old woman being tasered, but in all reality, the officer would have been justified using deadly force if the woman was threatening him with a knife...would the people expressing outrage at her being tasered have preferred that instead?Oklahoma grandmother gets shocked by Taser, sues El Reno police
Thanks Yellow Dingo!
Probably not. Also the Judge in the case has ruled her mentally incompetent the last I read about it.
Goes to show you not to base your opinions on sound bites.
So this sick old woman is such a danger to this group of officers that their only options are deadly force or LTL/taser? Seriously? I've dealt with people with dementia and Alzheimer's and knives, and I've never had to shoot or taser any of them.
The grandson makes a 911 call for medical assistance, but what he gets instead is to watch a bunch of cops use life threatening force on his sick grandmother. Try to see it from his perspective.
The story is a bit dated, so if some one has some newer stories, I'd love to see them.
|
|
And, as i suspected, she was both suicidal and threatening officers. Why should an officer risk injury or death when LTL force is available?I saw this story, and IIRC, the officer tasered her to prevent her from committing suicide (and to get her to quit brandishing the knife at him). Now I know it shocks the conscience to hear of an 87 year old woman being tasered, but in all reality, the officer would have been justified using deadly force if the woman was threatening him with a knife...would the people expressing outrage at her being tasered have preferred that instead?Oklahoma grandmother gets shocked by Taser, sues El Reno police
Thanks Yellow Dingo!
Probably not. Also the Judge in the case has ruled her mentally incompetent the last I read about it.
Goes to show you not to base your opinions on sound bites.
So this sick old woman is such a danger to this group of officers that their only options are deadly force or LTL/taser? Seriously? I've dealt with people with dementia and Alzheimer's and knives, and I've never had to shoot or taser any of them.
The grandson makes a 911 call for medical assistance, but what he gets instead is to watch a bunch of cops use life threatening force on his sick grandmother. Try to see it from his perspective.
The story is a bit dated, so if some one has some newer stories, I'd love to see them.
And, as i suspected, she was both suicidal and threatening officers. Why should an officer risk injury or death when LTL force is available?I saw this story, and IIRC, the officer tasered her to prevent her from committing suicide (and to get her to quit brandishing the knife at him). Now I know it shocks the conscience to hear of an 87 year old woman being tasered, but in all reality, the officer would have been justified using deadly force if the woman was threatening him with a knife...would the people expressing outrage at her being tasered have preferred that instead?Oklahoma grandmother gets shocked by Taser, sues El Reno police
Thanks Yellow Dingo!
Probably not. Also the Judge in the case has ruled her mentally incompetent the last I read about it.
Goes to show you not to base your opinions on sound bites.
So this sick old woman is such a danger to this group of officers that their only options are deadly force or LTL/taser? Seriously? I've dealt with people with dementia and Alzheimer's and knives, and I've never had to shoot or taser any of them.
The grandson makes a 911 call for medical assistance, but what he gets instead is to watch a bunch of cops use life threatening force on his sick grandmother. Try to see it from his perspective.
The story is a bit dated, so if some one has some newer stories, I'd love to see them.
Because the taser LTL option is life threatening in this case. She's 86, on O2, with a history of strokes. It is entirely possible that they could have killed her in the process of tasering her to keep her from killing herself. Am I the only one who finds that silly?
Of course this is the same department that tasered a diabetic in '08 for being in shock too.
And, as i suspected, she was both suicidal and threatening officers. Why should an officer risk injury or death when LTL force is available?I saw this story, and IIRC, the officer tasered her to prevent her from committing suicide (and to get her to quit brandishing the knife at him). Now I know it shocks the conscience to hear of an 87 year old woman being tasered, but in all reality, the officer would have been justified using deadly force if the woman was threatening him with a knife...would the people expressing outrage at her being tasered have preferred that instead?Oklahoma grandmother gets shocked by Taser, sues El Reno police
Thanks Yellow Dingo!
Probably not. Also the Judge in the case has ruled her mentally incompetent the last I read about it.
Goes to show you not to base your opinions on sound bites.
So this sick old woman is such a danger to this group of officers that their only options are deadly force or LTL/taser? Seriously? I've dealt with people with dementia and Alzheimer's and knives, and I've never had to shoot or taser any of them.
The grandson makes a 911 call for medical assistance, but what he gets instead is to watch a bunch of cops use life threatening force on his sick grandmother. Try to see it from his perspective.
The story is a bit dated, so if some one has some newer stories, I'd love to see them.
She's 82 years old and has a knife. Now, if she had a gun, I'd have no problem with what happened. But she's as frail as hell in all probablity, and while I completely understand she needs to be taken down before she hurts herself(long shot on hurting anyone else), the tazer could have EASILY done the job for her.
|
|
Because the taser LTL option is life threatening in this case. She's 86, on O2, with a history of strokes. It is entirely possible that they could have killed her in the process of tasering her to keep her from killing herself. Am I the only one who finds that silly?
Of course this is the same department that tasered a diabetic in '08 for being in shock too.
A) They wouldn't have known of a history of strokes.
B) She is actively threatening an officer.C) There is a chance that she could die from a taser, however isn't there a greater chance of her dying if she cuts her throat with the knife she was threatening officers with?
D)Tasers are a shiney "new" tool in the LEO's arsenal. Are they getting overused? probably. The question is would you rather have the LEOs overusing their firearms instead?
If I was the officer in the events as described, I probably would have tasered her ass too. The officer should be under no obligation to expose himself to further risk of injury by trying to disarm her without LTL force because she's 86 than they would if she were 26. At what age do you draw the line as to when it's no longer appropriate to use LTL force to quickly and (mostly) safely de-escalate a situation? How is the officer going to know the age of the person and whether or not they are allowed to use LTL force? Personally, I believe the officer's actions were appropriate and justified...if she didn't want to get tased, she shouldn't have threatened somebody with a knife.
Because the taser LTL option is life threatening in this case. She's 86, on O2, with a history of strokes. It is entirely possible that they could have killed her in the process of tasering her to keep her from killing herself. Am I the only one who finds that silly?
Of course this is the same department that tasered a diabetic in '08 for being in shock too.
A) They wouldn't have known of a history of strokes.
B) She is actively threatening an officer.
C) There is a chance that she could die from a taser, however isn't there a greater chance of her dying if she cuts her throat with the knife she was threatening officers with?
D)Tasers are a shiney "new" tool in the LEO's arsenal. Are they getting overused? probably. The question is would you rather have the LEOs overusing their firearms instead?If I was the officer in the events as described, I probably would have tasered her ass too. The officer should be under no obligation to expose himself to further risk of injury by trying to disarm her without LTL force because she's 86 than they would if she were 26. At what age do you draw the line as to when it's no longer appropriate to use LTL force to quickly and (mostly) safely de-escalate a situation? How is the officer going to know the age of the person and whether or not they are allowed to use LTL force? Personally, I believe the officer's actions were appropriate and justified...if she didn't want to get tased, she shouldn't have threatened somebody with a knife.
A) They don't know anyone's medical history that they taser, presumably. That's part of the problem. What if she had a pacemaker or an automated internal defibrillator? There are a lot of ways to kill someone in their 80 with a taser.
B) She is in her bed in her home. How about they just mind their own damned business in the first place? Her son requested EMTs not a room full of cops. If the EMTs think they can't handle it then they can call the cops. Don't the cops have anything better to do?
C) I still find the notion of using potentially lethal force on someone who is potentially suicidal to be absurd.
D) I believe you pose a false dichotomy here. The issue is not should the state overuse one kind of force over another. Rather I would like for the state to have many fewer laws and therefore much less occasion to use force.
Finally, when the state must use force I think they should do it in a way that isn't stupid. If a 6 year old or an 86 year old threatens someone with a knife should tasering them really be the first choice?
|
|
A) They don't know anyone's medical history that they taser, presumably. That's part of the problem. What if she had a pacemaker or an automated internal defibrillator? There are a lot of ways to kill someone in their 80 with a taser.
The outcome of an LEO using their sidearm is infinitely more predictable than their use of a taser.
B) She is in her bed in her home. How about they just mind their own damned business in the first place? Her son requested EMTs not a room full of cops. If the EMTs think they can't handle it then they can call the cops. Don't the cops have anything better to do?
Cops, fire department, and EMTs are routinely dispatched if 911 is called for a medical emergency. This is to ensure that help arrives ASAP. It's not stated in the report, but I assume that the first cop on the scene called for backup.
C) I still find the notion of using potentially lethal force on someone who is potentially suicidal to be absurd.
IIRC, whether it should be or not, suicide is a crime. Even if it is not, most people who are suicidal are not in their right state of mind. I know you are a big proponent of personal liberty, which should include a person deciding to take their own life, but if somebody is mentally ill their actions are not their own and it is more akin to murder than suicide (IMO).
D) I believe you pose a false dichotomy here. The issue is not should the state overuse one kind of force over another. Rather I would like for the state to have many fewer laws and therefore much less occasion to use force.
I think the law is less at issue than the fact that a police officer was threatened with lethal force. In that type of situation, an LEO is authorized to respond in kind. In this case he didn't and instead used LTL force.
Finally, when the state must use force I think they should do it in a way that isn't stupid. If a 6 year old or an 86 year old threatens someone with a knife should tasering them really be the first choice?
An officer should not be required to further endanger himself if presented with deadly force. Just like with suicide bombers (a bit of a reach, but same principle), given a choice between trying to talk them down (regardless of their age) and ending the threat by any means necessary, 99.99999% of the time you should end the threat.
I don't think we are going to come to an agreement over this specific case. You keep mentioning that the officers were threatened with lethal force. Threat response and force escalation are determined by the individual tactical situation. How much of a threat could this old woman have posed to a room full of armed men in body armor? Was she going to fly out of her sick bed and start killing guys like something from Army of Darkness? Seriously!
Elderly people with dementia threaten to kill people on a regular basis, and we manage not to taser the vast majority of them.
Small children threaten to kill people when they throw tantrums, and we manage not to taser most of them as well.
Your generalizations about the use of force are reasonably well founded, but they don't apply well to this specific situation.
PS Yes, I believe we have the right to end our lives as we choose as long as we don't directly harm others or their property. One of the problems with using an adjudication of mental incompetence to superceed that right is the assumption by many that suicide is inherently insane.
|
|
I don't believe that suicide is inherently insane. I do, however, believe that often times, people who commit/attempt suicide are suffering from depression. While a devastating mental illness, depression typically manifests due to a physical condition (improper production of hormones) which is very, very treatable.
People who have incurable diseases, are approaching "end-game," etc. are more than warranted in their desire to end their lives. People who simply have a chemical imbalance, on the other hand, do not have a rational reason to kill themselves and should be saved if at all possible.
I don't believe that suicide is inherently insane. I do, however, believe that often times, people who commit/attempt suicide are suffering from depression. While a devastating mental illness, depression typically manifests due to a physical condition (improper production of hormones) which is very, very treatable.
People who have incurable diseases, are approaching "end-game," etc. are more than warranted in their desire to end their lives. People who simply have a chemical imbalance, on the other hand, do not have a rational reason to kill themselves and should be saved if at all possible.
I know people with severe mental illness on both sides of that equation. I have a good friend who is disablingly bipolar. She has a family, and I gather she is pleased none of her attempts have succeeded. I have known others who don't want to continue their lives as they slide into increasingly severe and violent mental illness and lose who they fundamentally are. They are no longer considered competent however, so they no longer have any say in the matter or their treatment. The competency issue can be a very difficult one.
|
|
I know people with severe mental illness on both sides of that equation. I have a good friend who is disablingly bipolar. She has a family, and I gather she is pleased none of her attempts have succeeded. I have known others who don't want to continue their lives as they slide into increasingly severe and violent mental illness and lose who they fundamentally are. They are no longer considered competent however, so they no longer have any say in the matter or their treatment. The competency issue can be a very difficult one.
Agreed that competency is a hard concept to nail down. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect life, including protecting people from taking their own lives. As I mentioned above, there are circumstances in which protection is not needed and would cause an individual more harm than good. The latter scenario you described is where that issue becomes tricky. If the person is already on the road to mental illness and wants to end their life because of it (I am assuming it is something more severe than depression), how does one define whether or not that person is competent? They are obviously mentally ill, but to what degree? The human psyche is arguably the most complex thing in existence...there are some thing which will simply not be answered. Cases like these are great "poster children" for advance directives, living wills, etc.
Because the taser LTL option is life threatening in this case. She's 86, on O2, with a history of strokes. It is entirely possible that they could have killed her in the process of tasering her to keep her from killing herself. Am I the only one who finds that silly?
Of course this is the same department that tasered a diabetic in '08 for being in shock too.
A) They wouldn't have known of a history of strokes.
B) She is actively threatening an officer.
C) There is a chance that she could die from a taser, however isn't there a greater chance of her dying if she cuts her throat with the knife she was threatening officers with?
D)Tasers are a shiney "new" tool in the LEO's arsenal. Are they getting overused? probably. The question is would you rather have the LEOs overusing their firearms instead?If I was the officer in the events as described, I probably would have tasered her ass too. The officer should be under no obligation to expose himself to further risk of injury by trying to disarm her without LTL force because she's 86 than they would if she were 26. At what age do you draw the line as to when it's no longer appropriate to use LTL force to quickly and (mostly) safely de-escalate a situation? How is the officer going to know the age of the person and whether or not they are allowed to use LTL force? Personally, I believe the officer's actions were appropriate and justified...if she didn't want to get tased, she shouldn't have threatened somebody with a knife.
Dude, she's 80 fraking -6. Come on. She isn't a danger to anyone but herself at this point. I find it odd that the officer even claimed to be threatened(did he? Cuz I'd be wanting a damn good explanation if I was his boss)- I'd say he rather wanted a reason to use his shiny new toy.
|
|
Dude, she's 80 fraking -6. Come on. She isn't a danger to anyone but herself at this point. I find it odd that the officer even claimed to be threatened(did he? Cuz I'd be wanting a damn good explanation if I was his boss)- I'd say he rather wanted a reason to use his shiny new toy.
I don't care if she was 86...why should an officer risk his health and safety trying to take a knife from anybody, regardless of age, if they can end the situation without risk? I knew a guy whose military career was ended by a little slip with a knife...it was an accident, but he cut a nerve in his hand and lost 90% of the function in one hand. This could easily have been done by the woman wielding this knife. There are any number of things that could have happened that were prevented by using a taser. The woman is just looking for a settlement (and the sad thing is, she'll probably get it).
Dude, she's 80 fraking -6. Come on. She isn't a danger to anyone but herself at this point. I find it odd that the officer even claimed to be threatened(did he? Cuz I'd be wanting a damn good explanation if I was his boss)- I'd say he rather wanted a reason to use his shiny new toy.I don't care if she was 86...why should an officer risk his health and safety trying to take a knife from anybody, regardless of age, if they can end the situation without risk? I knew a guy whose military career was ended by a little slip with a knife...it was an accident, but he cut a nerve in his hand and lost 90% of the function in one hand. This could easily have been done by the woman wielding this knife. There are any number of things that could have happened that were prevented by using a taser. The woman is just looking for a settlement (and the sad thing is, she'll probably get it).
At 86??!? Considering her age and how long it would take to get out of court, would she even live to spend it?
I don't think we're going to agree on this. A taser is NOT a completely safe weapon. Every edp is not a ninja assassin with epic stats that must be dropped via a sniper from a half a mile away.
|
|
Dude, she's 80 fraking -6. Come on. She isn't a danger to anyone but herself at this point. I find it odd that the officer even claimed to be threatened(did he? Cuz I'd be wanting a damn good explanation if I was his boss)- I'd say he rather wanted a reason to use his shiny new toy.I don't care if she was 86...why should an officer risk his health and safety trying to take a knife from anybody, regardless of age, if they can end the situation without risk? I knew a guy whose military career was ended by a little slip with a knife...it was an accident, but he cut a nerve in his hand and lost 90% of the function in one hand. This could easily have been done by the woman wielding this knife. There are any number of things that could have happened that were prevented by using a taser. The woman is just looking for a settlement (and the sad thing is, she'll probably get it).At 86??!? Considering her age and how long it would take to get out of court, would she even live to spend it?
I don't think we're going to agree on this. A taser is NOT a completely safe weapon. Every edp is not a ninja assassin with epic stats that must be dropped via a sniper from a half a mile away.
She might not, but her family would definitely benefit from it, don't you think?
I know people with severe mental illness on both sides of that equation. I have a good friend who is disablingly bipolar. She has a family, and I gather she is pleased none of her attempts have succeeded. I have known others who don't want to continue their lives as they slide into increasingly severe and violent mental illness and lose who they fundamentally are. They are no longer considered competent however, so they no longer have any say in the matter or their treatment. The competency issue can be a very difficult one.Agreed that competency is a hard concept to nail down. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect life, including protecting people from taking their own lives. As I mentioned above, there are circumstances in which protection is not needed and would cause an individual more harm than good. The latter scenario you described is where that issue becomes tricky. If the person is already on the road to mental illness and wants to end their life because of it (I am assuming it is something more severe than depression), how does one define whether or not that person is competent? They are obviously mentally ill, but to what degree? The human psyche is arguably the most complex thing in existence...there are some thing which will simply not be answered. Cases like these are great "poster children" for advance directives, living wills, etc.
I don't think you have mentioned rational suicide, a la Carolyn Heilbrun. I firmly believe that some healthy people rationally calculate their futures to hold more suffering than pleasure and fulfillment. I really dislike the attitude that so many seem to espouse nowadays, namely that we all must cling to life at all costs (and foist that on others, too). Sometimes people are finished with life, and that is OK. Many don't want or need to be saved from themselves.
I know people with severe mental illness on both sides of that equation. I have a good friend who is disablingly bipolar. She has a family, and I gather she is pleased none of her attempts have succeeded. I have known others who don't want to continue their lives as they slide into increasingly severe and violent mental illness and lose who they fundamentally are. They are no longer considered competent however, so they no longer have any say in the matter or their treatment. The competency issue can be a very difficult one.Agreed that competency is a hard concept to nail down. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect life, including protecting people from taking their own lives. As I mentioned above, there are circumstances in which protection is not needed and would cause an individual more harm than good. The latter scenario you described is where that issue becomes tricky. If the person is already on the road to mental illness and wants to end their life because of it (I am assuming it is something more severe than depression), how does one define whether or not that person is competent? They are obviously mentally ill, but to what degree? The human psyche is arguably the most complex thing in existence...there are some thing which will simply not be answered. Cases like these are great "poster children" for advance directives, living wills, etc.
Both professionally and privately, I am a big supporter of advance directives and living wills.
|
|
I don't think you have mentioned rational suicide, a la Carolyn Heilbrun. I firmly believe that some healthy people rationally calculate their futures to hold more suffering than pleasure and fulfillment. I really dislike the attitude that so many seem to espouse nowadays, namely that we all must cling to life at all costs (and foist that on others, too). Sometimes people are finished with life, and that is OK. Many don't want or need to be saved from themselves.
I'm not familiar with her, but I believe the reason why this type of suicide isn't discussed (and TBH, the reason why I didn't think to bring it up) is that it's a hard concept for many to wrap their heads around.
I would have no problem if somebody wanted to check out early if they are of sound mind. I also think it's fair of me to say that a majority of suicides and attempts do not fall into this category. I would think that most suicides and attempts are due to depression/mental illness and not for the reasons you mentioned. It is my belief that, if a person is attempting to take their life due to a chemical imbalance, then it is more akin to murder than suicide, and they should be prevented from doing so until they have been deemed of sound mind and body. If, after that, they still wish to end it, I would have no problem with them doing so. Would I understand it? Nope. Would I respect their decision? Sure.
I don't think you have mentioned rational suicide, a la Carolyn Heilbrun. I firmly believe that some healthy people rationally calculate their futures to hold more suffering than pleasure and fulfillment. I really dislike the attitude that so many seem to espouse nowadays, namely that we all must cling to life at all costs (and foist that on others, too). Sometimes people are finished with life, and that is OK. Many don't want or need to be saved from themselves.I'm not familiar with her, but I believe the reason why this type of suicide isn't discussed (and TBH, the reason why I didn't think to bring it up) is that it's a hard concept for many to wrap their heads around.
I would have no problem if somebody wanted to check out early if they are of sound mind. I also think it's fair of me to say that a majority of suicides and attempts do not fall into this category. I would think that most suicides and attempts are due to depression/mental illness and not for the reasons you mentioned. It is my belief that, if a person is attempting to take their life due to a chemical imbalance, then it is more akin to murder than suicide, and they should be prevented from doing so until they have been deemed of sound mind and body. If, after that, they still wish to end it, I would have no problem with them doing so. Would I understand it? Nope. Would I respect their decision? Sure.
Can we agree that the burden should be on the state to prove incompetence rather than the other way around?
Can we agree that the burden should be on the state to prove incompetence rather than the other way around?I don't think you have mentioned rational suicide, a la Carolyn Heilbrun. I firmly believe that some healthy people rationally calculate their futures to hold more suffering than pleasure and fulfillment. I really dislike the attitude that so many seem to espouse nowadays, namely that we all must cling to life at all costs (and foist that on others, too). Sometimes people are finished with life, and that is OK. Many don't want or need to be saved from themselves.I'm not familiar with her, but I believe the reason why this type of suicide isn't discussed (and TBH, the reason why I didn't think to bring it up) is that it's a hard concept for many to wrap their heads around.
I would have no problem if somebody wanted to check out early if they are of sound mind. I also think it's fair of me to say that a majority of suicides and attempts do not fall into this category. I would think that most suicides and attempts are due to depression/mental illness and not for the reasons you mentioned. It is my belief that, if a person is attempting to take their life due to a chemical imbalance, then it is more akin to murder than suicide, and they should be prevented from doing so until they have been deemed of sound mind and body. If, after that, they still wish to end it, I would have no problem with them doing so. Would I understand it? Nope. Would I respect their decision? Sure.
Proving or disproving competence, when fully put into the hands of either side leads to a lot of trouble and unhappiness for all involved. I would rather people build a case to prove or disprove and give the individual their day in court.
Proving or disproving competence, when fully put into the hands of either side leads to a lot of trouble and unhappiness for all involved. I would rather people build a case to prove or disprove and give the individual their day in court.Can we agree that the burden should be on the state to prove incompetence rather than the other way around?I don't think you have mentioned rational suicide, a la Carolyn Heilbrun. I firmly believe that some healthy people rationally calculate their futures to hold more suffering than pleasure and fulfillment. I really dislike the attitude that so many seem to espouse nowadays, namely that we all must cling to life at all costs (and foist that on others, too). Sometimes people are finished with life, and that is OK. Many don't want or need to be saved from themselves.I'm not familiar with her, but I believe the reason why this type of suicide isn't discussed (and TBH, the reason why I didn't think to bring it up) is that it's a hard concept for many to wrap their heads around.
I would have no problem if somebody wanted to check out early if they are of sound mind. I also think it's fair of me to say that a majority of suicides and attempts do not fall into this category. I would think that most suicides and attempts are due to depression/mental illness and not for the reasons you mentioned. It is my belief that, if a person is attempting to take their life due to a chemical imbalance, then it is more akin to murder than suicide, and they should be prevented from doing so until they have been deemed of sound mind and body. If, after that, they still wish to end it, I would have no problem with them doing so. Would I understand it? Nope. Would I respect their decision? Sure.
Given the loss of rights that comes with an adjudication of mental incompetence I think the burden should be entirely on the state, and I think the bar should be set higher than it is now.