Police shootings at Dallas BLM protest.

[Delta1212]

i think It may tip the balance on a potential rapist's decision-making. No, I don't think that if all women dressed modestly it wouldn't happen. You have framed your question as all or nothing; it isn't.

Well, I rather specifically asked a series of questions so that it was not an all or nothing situation.

 

Beyond that, though: what then, is the risk threshold?

 

How much does clothing need to cover or disguise in order to be considered acceptably safe? Is wearing make-up being too risky?

 

How much data is there on how much a given outfit increases someone's chances of being raped? Do we actually have any idea whether it matters at all or is it just a gut feeling that dressing attractively leads to getting raped more frequently?

[StringJunky]

Well, I rather specifically asked a series of questions so that it was not an all or nothing situation.

 

Beyond that, though: what then, is the risk threshold?

 

How much does clothing need to cover or disguise in order to be considered acceptably safe? Is wearing make-up being too risky?

 

How much data is there on how much a given outfit increases someone's chances of being raped? Do we actually have any idea whether it matters at all or is it just a gut feeling that dressing attractively leads to getting raped more frequently?

I think this is going off on a tangent to the general direction of this thread.

 

To keep this very short: you can't quantify these things and one has to use general experience of the neighbourhood one is in to decide what might be attention-grabbing to undesirable people or not.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Beyond that, though: what then, is the risk threshold?

How much does clothing need to cover or disguise in order to be considered acceptably safe? Is wearing make-up being too risky?

It depends on the situation now, doesn't it. People in this thread are unnecessarily over complicating an issue that has the rare benefit of collective agreement.

 

The situation needs changing. Cops shouldn't be killing citizens. People shouldn't be raped by other people. The color of your skin or plumbing of your genitals or the type or lack of clothing on your person should not be relevant.

 

They should not be, but they are.

 

As we work on improving the situation and as we each advocate forcefully and passionately for the better world we all wish to inhabit, we must exercise caution and prudence and thoughtful awareness that allows us to maximize safety and scales appropriately with the circumstances and environment.

 

Instead of bickering among people with whom we largely agree, let's add our voices to fight against those who don't.

[Delta1212]

I think this is going off on a tangent to the general direction of this thread.

The larger point to be made is that it is not always principle vs pragmatism.

 

There is a level of pragmatism inherent in asking whether the rules peerscribed for avoiding danger actually work to avoid the danger, and both in whether it is actually effective at all and in what return one is getting for the cost if it does work in some fashion.

 

Does the "solution" actually do more overall harm than good? If the answer is yes, then pragmatically it is not a good solution.

 

It's easy to say that the cost of doing what you're told or dressing modestly is very low compared to the damage that getting shot or raped represents. But that comparison presupposes that doing what you are told will keep you from getting shot in all cases, or that dressing modestly is an effective means of avoiding rape.

 

Sometimes "keep your head down" is good advice, but frequently it is a way of handing responsibility for random violence to the person who was the victim and saying "There was a way of avoiding this" even when, sometimes, there simply wasn't. And it's easy to do, even for the well-meaning people who are genuinely trying to help others avoid putting themselves in danger, because the alternative, that someone did everything right and still became a victim, is scary to contemplate.

 

I don't want to martyr anyone to a principle, but nor do I think people should give up on what should be fundamental rights in the hope that sacrificing it themselves will keep other people from taking it by force, especially if doing so doesn't actually offer the protection that is advertised.

[StringJunky]

Does the "solution" actually do more overall harm than good? If the answer is yes, then pragmatically it is not a good solution.

At the individual level, pragmatism keeps you alive but at the societal level ones pragmatism, in conjunction with everyone elses similar pragmatism is detrimental. I don't disagree with you but here lies a dilemma of which matters most; self or society? It depends which perspective you are looking from, doesn't it?

 

 

It's easy to say that the cost of doing what you're told or dressing modestly is very low compared to the damage that getting shot or raped represents. But that comparison presupposes that doing what you are told will keep you from getting shot in all cases, or that dressing modestly is an effective means of avoiding rape.

 

Sometimes "keep your head down" is good advice, but frequently it is a way of handing responsibility for random violence to the person who was the victim and saying "There was a way of avoiding this" even when, sometimes, there simply wasn't. And it's easy to do, even for the well-meaning people who are genuinely trying to help others avoid putting themselves in danger, because the alternative, that someone did everything right and still became a victim, is scary to contemplate.

It's about aiming towards risk reduction rather than risk avoidance, which is a pipe-dream.

[Delta1212]

But the cost of the proposed risk-avoidance behavior is still personal, and how much protection it actually provides needs to be weighed against the cost of implementing it.

 

It's easier to see whether the overall cost is larger on a societal level, because when you look at an individual level, the outcomes are binary and extreme.

 

But it's a bit like the debate over the frequency of cancer screenings. The more frequently you are screened, the more likely any cancer is to be caught early and therefore be treatable, potentially saving your life. But frequent screenings also increase the risk of false positives, and a false positive carries its own associated risks, including health damage done from unnecessary treatments.

 

You cannot say "On a societal level, it doesn't make sense to have screenings every six months because it will result in too many false diagnoses, but on an individual level you should be screened every six months to reduce your risk of dying of cancer."

 

Similarly, I'm not talking about a prisoner's dilemma scenario where everyone seeking the best outcome for themselves results in an overall negative outcome for everyone.

 

I'm questioning whether, on average, the overall outcome for any one individual is actually better when following the proposed behaviors.

 

To determine that, you cannot merely point out that the consequences of the risk involved are greater than the consequences of the behavior intended to mitigate that risk. You need to figure out how much the risk avoiding behavior is costing an individual and how much it actually mitigates the risk involved.

 

Philando Castile did everything right and still got shot. Tamir Rice and John Crawford were killed without even being given a chance to react to the presence of police, let alone cooperate with them.

 

The latter cases mean that a person would need to spend every waking moment of their lives avoiding doing anything that even taken out of context could appear threatening enough for someone to call the police, because there is no guarantee that the police, in responding to that call, will give you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to explain yourself or otherwise react appropriately to the situation. The former case demonstrates that even doing all of that does not necessarily provide a solid mitigation of that risk.

 

So I think it is fair to ask, from a purely pragmatic perspective, is this actually helping, and even if it does provide some measure of help, is it helping more than it is hurting even on the individual level.

 

The cost associated with the solutions is often overlooked because it is smaller than the problem if you look at it on a purely case by case basis, but if everyone, most of which would never experience the larger problem personally, are forced to adhere to a set of behaviors that is detrimental to their well being and happiness on a constant basis, those people are all being harmed by the solution more than they were by the problem.

 

It's like buying $100 a month insurance to mitigate a potential $1,000 risk. Yeah, I would rather pay $100 than $1,000, but the lower cost is never just a one time cost, and in the long run, the number of people who come out ahead by paying it is going to be very low compared to the number of people who are ultimately losing out by buying into the insurance and losing out in a big way.

[Ten oz]

The larger point to be made is that it is not always principle vs pragmatism.

 

There is a level of pragmatism inherent in asking whether the rules peerscribed for avoiding danger actually work to avoid the danger, and both in whether it is actually effective at all and in what return one is getting for the cost if it does work in some fashion.

 

Does the "solution" actually do more overall harm than good? If the answer is yes, then pragmatically it is not a good solution.

 

It's easy to say that the cost of doing what you're told or dressing modestly is very low compared to the damage that getting shot or raped represents. But that comparison presupposes that doing what you are told will keep you from getting shot in all cases, or that dressing modestly is an effective means of avoiding rape.

 

Sometimes "keep your head down" is good advice, but frequently it is a way of handing responsibility for random violence to the person who was the victim and saying "There was a way of avoiding this" even when, sometimes, there simply wasn't. And it's easy to do, even for the well-meaning people who are genuinely trying to help others avoid putting themselves in danger, because the alternative, that someone did everything right and still became a victim, is scary to contemplate.

 

I don't want to martyr anyone to a principle, but nor do I think people should give up on what should be fundamental rights in the hope that sacrificing it themselves will keep other people from taking it by force, especially if doing so doesn't actually offer the protection that is advertised.

Right, people bring the behavior of the victim into the discussing without actually being able to quantify the extent of changes to behavior needed or how effective those changes might be. Rather it is more of an argument that seems to try and find common ground. Cops shouldn't kill innocent people and innocent people should behave. Simple enough yet completely redundant. If a person is innocent than they are behaving; innocent? If a police officer kills an innocent person than it is they who should change and not the other other way around.

 

We have too many instances in this country of police killing people. It impacts the black community more than any other but even if we subtract minorities away the numbers are still way too high. We are in the thousands of people shoot by police per year while other western nations are in the single digits. It is outrageous yet the average person isn't outraged. IMO that apathy toward violence is part of the reason why we also have so many mass shootings. Sandy Hook and the Dallas shootings are part of the same problem. Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin are part of the same problem. If all blacks behaved this way, all muslims behaved that way, and etc we would still have a big, big, big, problem. As a matter of culture we love guns and have a vengeful mindset towards too many things.

[dimreepr]

As a matter of culture we love guns and have a vengeful mindset towards too many things.

 

 

Vengeance is a powerful concept, and so much more entertaining than forgiveness, not easily understood by a juvenile culture; mistakes have to be made for a lesson to be fully understood.

[arc]

But the cost of the proposed risk-avoidance behavior is still personal, and how much protection it actually provides needs to be weighed against the cost of implementing it.

 

It's easier to see whether the overall cost is larger on a societal level, because when you look at an individual level, the outcomes are binary and extreme.

 

But it's a bit like the debate over the frequency of cancer screenings. The more frequently you are screened, the more likely any cancer is to be caught early and therefore be treatable, potentially saving your life. But frequent screenings also increase the risk of false positives, and a false positive carries its own associated risks, including health damage done from unnecessary treatments.

 

You cannot say "On a societal level, it doesn't make sense to have screenings every six months because it will result in too many false diagnoses, but on an individual level you should be screened every six months to reduce your risk of dying of cancer."

 

Similarly, I'm not talking about a prisoner's dilemma scenario where everyone seeking the best outcome for themselves results in an overall negative outcome for everyone.

 

I'm questioning whether, on average, the overall outcome for any one individual is actually better when following the proposed behaviors.

 

To determine that, you cannot merely point out that the consequences of the risk involved are greater than the consequences of the behavior intended to mitigate that risk. You need to figure out how much the risk avoiding behavior is costing an individual and how much it actually mitigates the risk involved.

 

Philando Castile did everything right and still got shot. Tamir Rice and John Crawford were killed without even being given a chance to react to the presence of police, let alone cooperate with them.

 

The latter cases mean that a person would need to spend every waking moment of their lives avoiding doing anything that even taken out of context could appear threatening enough for someone to call the police, because there is no guarantee that the police, in responding to that call, will give you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to explain yourself or otherwise react appropriately to the situation. The former case demonstrates that even doing all of that does not necessarily provide a solid mitigation of that risk.

 

So I think it is fair to ask, from a purely pragmatic perspective, is this actually helping, and even if it does provide some measure of help, is it helping more than it is hurting even on the individual level.

 

The cost associated with the solutions is often overlooked because it is smaller than the problem if you look at it on a purely case by case basis, but if everyone, most of which would never experience the larger problem personally, are forced to adhere to a set of behaviors that is detrimental to their well being and happiness on a constant basis, those people are all being harmed by the solution more than they were by the problem.

 

It's like buying $100 a month insurance to mitigate a potential $1,000 risk. Yeah, I would rather pay $100 than $1,000, but the lower cost is never just a one time cost, and in the long run, the number of people who come out ahead by paying it is going to be very low compared to the number of people who are ultimately losing out by buying into the insurance and losing out in a big way.

 

 

Right, people bring the behavior of the victim into the discussing without actually being able to quantify the extent of changes to behavior needed or how effective those changes might be. Rather it is more of an argument that seems to try and find common ground. Cops shouldn't kill innocent people and innocent people should behave. Simple enough yet completely redundant. If a person is innocent than they are behaving; innocent? If a police officer kills an innocent person than it is they who should change and not the other other way around.

 

We have too many instances in this country of police killing people. It impacts the black community more than any other but even if we subtract minorities away the numbers are still way too high. We are in the thousands of people shoot by police per year while other western nations are in the single digits. It is outrageous yet the average person isn't outraged. IMO that apathy toward violence is part of the reason why we also have so many mass shootings. Sandy Hook and the Dallas shootings are part of the same problem. Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin are part of the same problem. If all blacks behaved this way, all muslims behaved that way, and etc we would still have a big, big, big, problem. As a matter of culture we love guns and have a vengeful mindset towards too many things.

 

 

The point that both of your arguments miss is that any possible mitigable behavioral risks factors by the general public during police interaction: for example; those who are randomly stopped (tail light out), or reasonably profiled (be on the look out for a red headed bank robber), the general public's behavioral risk factors are subordinate to the officer's actual level of risk (facing off against redheaded armed robbers) or self perceived level's of risk (approaching a car alone with four redheaded young men in a rough area of town at night). Some of these shootings occurred while the officers had perceived a heightened state of risk while the unfortunate subjects assumed quite the opposite.

 

For any member of the general public it is in anyone's best interest to hope for the best but plan for the worst when interacting with any law enforcement personnel.

 

If you were the cop; What would you want people to do? What would make you less likely to react during a perceived higher level of risk?

 

 

When I was 18 I was out cruising with a friend in his very clean, straight and freshly painted hot rod 1950 Ford pickup. It was at night on the crowded boulevard where a couple of thousand other teenagers were doing the same thing. We were stopped by an unmarked police car, after we pulled into a parking lot the cop, wearing street clothes, carefully approached on the drivers side and flashed his badge while quickly scanning the truck's interior. I had my hands out where he could clearly see them but we were both wearing jackets which attracted his eyes several times as he quickly looked the truck cab over.

 

I could tell he thought we may have stolen the truck! He asked for Ken's driver's license and registration while he shifted to the rear of the driver's window opening where the back corner of the cab offered him some quick cover if things went bad for him. His face and left side of his chest and shoulder were the only thing visible from my position as he kept scanning the cab. Ken handed him his licence and then leaned over and opened his glove box door, I watched his hand go in and then come back out with shiniest 357 magnum pistol you've ever seen!

 

As I was simultaneously pissing and crapping myself I turned to see the cop's face as he was looking up from the I.D. that was in between his thumb and forefinger of his left hand. As fast as a gunslinger the cop's right hand was in his jacket pulling his real 357 magnum out of his shoulder holster. I said real because, as all that excitement was happening, Ken was just sitting back as he held up the gun and announced rather nonchalantly - "This is a toy"

 

Almost simultaneously the cop said: "Are you trying to get your #$%& ass killed!" While I sang backup with "You #$%& dumb ass!!

 

From the cop's perspective the truck was suspiciously nice to belong to just a teenager, so those two guys may have stolen it. He should pull it over and carefully check out the occupants. They may be desperate criminals.

 

While we are thinking; WOW! I hope I don't get a ticket for something.

 

BTW he had no reasons to pull us over, no bad driving or defective lights or anything that would justify the stop.

Edited July 13, 2016 by arc

[swansont]

From the cop's perspective the truck was suspiciously nice to belong to just a teenager, so those two guys may have stolen it. He should pull it over and carefully check out the occupants. They may be desperate criminals.

 

 

I disagree. Is driving a car that's "too nice" for the occupants actually reasonable suspicion? It sounds similar to Brown v Texas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Texas

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/443/47.html

 

"The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action"

 

I doubt "that's a nice auto" rises to the level of being a specific, objective fact.

 

The thing is, it's not all that hard to find a car to be in violation of some traffic statute, which gives actual probable cause to pull someone over.

[Ten oz]

@ arc, this thread is 11 pages in and despite everyone acknowledging that police should not beat or kill innocent people the primary debate has been about how young black males can potentially behave to mitigate being beaten or killed by police. It has been passively framed as something that shouldn't have to be done but may be a good idea meanwhile it is monopplizing the discussion. To the extent we are discussing the way victims may have reduced risk it is passive aggressively critical of the victims.

 

Are there no other solutions posters can imagine? Risk mitigating behavior in a sole demographic is the only thing worth discussion here? Are there no solutions that might be found in changing our gun laws, drug laws, police training, or the way we investigate and handle reports of police violence? Is this even solely about police violence or are there a bigger problems in the USA. It is not a coincidence that as a nation we are host to violent gun related tragedy after gun related tragedy. The violence has been focused at college students, child, the LGBT community, in Dallas it was focus at police, this is not a white vs black issue only nor an issue that can be resolved by the black community midgating risk factors when interacting with police.we have a hundred different dead canaries in the coal mine and we are going canary by canary in isolation debating how each one may have died from natural causes.

 

Violence begets violence. As a soceity we always acknowlegde various shootings as sad but then are always very fast to discuss how we will capture or kill in reaction. Fast to point out that while sad perhaps some had it coming. We must want to change if we are going to change and thus far in this thread all we have done is argued that perhaps it may help mitigate some violence if yound blacks males change. No clear acknowledgement that anything else needs to change just thoughts on what young blacks males might consider doing. Which mimics what we see in politics. The issue is radical Islam, blacks mans without fathers, illegal immigrants, or etc. The problem never seems to be us (society at large).

Edited July 13, 2016 by Ten oz

[swansont]

 

The thing is, it's not all that hard to find a car to be in violation of some traffic statute, which gives actual probable cause to pull someone over.

 

 

For more on this, and how it relates to the discussion at hand, read this and possibly links therein

 

http://kottke.org/16/07/police-racism-a-tale-of-two-justice-systems

 

"About sixty percent of police-citizen conflict starts in a traffic situation. It's easier to stop a person on the pretext of a traffic violation than to stop him on the street. It's a lot easier to say, "Your tail light's out." "Your plate is dented." "You didn't make that turn right." You can then search his automobile, hoping you can find some contraband or a weapon. If he becomes irritated, with very little pushing on your part, you can make an arrest for disorderly conduct. These are all statistics which help your records.

Certain units in the task force have developed a science around stopping your automobile. These men know it's impossible to drive three blocks without committing a traffic violation. We've got so many rules on the books. These police officers use these things to get points and also hustle for money. The traffic law is a fat book. He knows if you don't have two lights on your license plate, that's a violation. If you have a crack in your windshield, that's a violation. If your muffler's dragging, that's a violation. He knows all these little things....

There's also discussion of the profession attracting people with strong biases who are happy to be in a job where they can push people around, and how that behavior can be rewarded.

[Ten oz]

In past incidents we have often seen debates flurish about how militarized Police Departments have become. The debates often center around police usining tanks, camouflage uniforms, robots, and etc. One thing I think that often gets missed in the culture. Many police officers are former military. There is a who industry of law enforcement recruiters and military liasons that network to transition soldiers from the battlefield to our city streets. To Military and Law Enforcement perspective the transition and relationship seems natural.

http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/search/law-enforcement-jobs/military-transition-to-police-force.html

http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2014/01/military-vets-joining-law-enforcement.aspx

 

Yet our own Constitution actually limits our military from policing us. The Posse Comitatus Act and its various revisions over the years limits military powers ability to be used in domestic policing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

 

Not only are we militarizing our Police Departments around the country but we are also hiring soldiers as our police. Soldiers who trade their M-16s for AR-15s. Many Police Departments have default military standards for hair, facial hair, tattoos, uniform insigna, rank designation, prior drug use, and etc. Departments are also often filled with people who do not live in the communities they police. The military standards disqualifying community residence. Police offices, with military training (thank to Iraq and Afghanistan often training is real war zones), commute into communities to police then akin to the way a military force occupies and polices territories under their control.

 

There is nothing wrong with veterans becoming Police Officers.Many are terrific candidates. What I am saying is that is it wrong for there to be such a fuzzy line between being a Soldier and being a Police Officer. Departments should do a better job ensuring community participation. Some reasonable amount of police hired should actually live in the cities they police. Attempts should be made to allow Officers to exercise some of the same basic cultural behaviors as the communities they polices; let them grow facial hair, wear their how how they'd like, have some tattoos, etc. They should be part of the community and not feel like foriegn invaders with an imagine and culture that is entirely separate. In the civilian world we have supervisors, managers, directors, and etc. In the majority of Police departments we have sergeants, captins, lieutenants, and etc. Surely if there were greater familiarity between Police and citizens they police it would improve things. Witness would be more likely to speak to someone they see as a neighbor rather than an occupier, an Officer of a comminuty familiar with its routine would be less likely to shoot a 12yrs playing in a park, and etc, etc, etc.

[MigL]

If I made generalized, sweeping statements about minorities, immigrants, etc., I'd hear it from everyone on this forum.

And I'd be wrong.

I have to suggest that you're also wrong making similar statements about cops, Swansont.

[iNow]

If I made generalized, sweeping statements about minorities, immigrants, etc., I'd hear it from everyone on this forum.

And I'd be wrong.

I have to suggest that you're also wrong making similar statements about cops, Swansont.

Sorry, I'm feeling somewhat slow today. Late flight last night. What comments from swansont about police are you specifically referencing here? It's probably obvious, I know, but I could use your help clarifying further.

[MigL]

The implication ( along with supporting link ) that they'll use 'any excuse' to pull someone over for a traffic stop.

And that the profession attracts those with strong biases who like to push others around, iNow.

 

There are good cops, like the ones in Dallas shielding civilians from the shooter who was targeting them.

Not all are bad. Not even the majority.

These are people like you and me who simply want to go home to their families at the end of the day.

Without getting shot, and, without shooting someone else.

People like arc's friend ( Ken ) make that extremely difficult.

Would P. Castile have been shot if he hadn't been reaching for something that the cop thought was a weapon ?

If he had kept his hands where the cop could see them ( I can't say for sure, but ) probably not.

( I do know he wouldn't have been pulled over in the first place if he wasn't black )

[DrmDoc]

Would P. Castile have been shot if he hadn't been reaching for something that the cop thought was a weapon ?

If he had kept his hands where the cop could see them ( I can't say for sure, but ) probably not.

( I do know he wouldn't have been pulled over in the first place if he wasn't black )

Castile was shot, as I understand the evidence, while reaching for his drivers license after being told to do so by the officer involved. The officer fired upon Mr. Castile, while in the process of getting his license as directed, when Mr. Castile informed the officer that he also had a weapon and license to carry that weapon--at which time, the officer proceed to simultaneously shoot Mr. Castile while ordering him not to move. He probably wouldn't have been shot, if he hadn't informed the officer that he had a weapon--as he was supposed to do, by law, in an open carry state.

Edited July 14, 2016 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

The implication ( along with supporting link ) that they'll use 'any excuse' to pull someone over for a traffic stop.

They can and often do, though many don't, not even most. It's like we're forcing disagreement where little if any really exists.

 

And that the profession attracts those with strong biases who like to push others around, iNow.

Yet another entirely valid assertion. It is a profession that often attracts people with certain tendencies, and I can confidently and accurately state this all while in parallel acknowledging that the vast majority of police are courageous, kind, and downright decent human beings not attracted to the profession for those reasons.

 

Again, it's like we're forcing disagreement where little if any really exists.

 

[mp][/mp]

Castile was shot, as I understand the evidence, while reaching for his drivers license after being told to do so by the officer involved. The officer fired upon Mr. Castile, while in the process of getting his license as directed, when Mr. Castile informed the officer that he also had a weapon and license to carry that weapon--at which time, the officer proceed to simultaneous shoot Mr. Castile and order him not to move. He probably wouldn't have been shot, if he hadn't informed the officer that he had a weapon--as he was supposed to do, by law, in an open carry state.

Bingo. Edited July 14, 2016 by iNow

[arc]

This is where we are at in all this mess in this country. Respect for the law is posed against a suppressed segment of society who's self worth in many ways is weighed in the currency of compromising oneself, for generations, in the face of oppression. And too, the value placed by that segment on, and of, individuals that resist to the point of losing their lives by not simply in many cases following a few basic instructions by police.

 

I just wanted to reiterate my position on this in case anyone may misinterpret my opinions on this subject. I fully acknowledge the roll of law enforcement's official and unofficial involvement in the oppression and even murder in the historical context of racism. But, I believe sincerely that a traffic stop or any other such random and potentially life changing interaction with law enforcement is the wrong time and place to let old or new grievances with the law take away the control you have of the situation.

 

As I related with my own brush with death in Ken's truck, he could have:

 

1. Informed the officer that there was a toy gun in the glove box.

 

2. If he had forgotten it was there until he put his hand on it he could have just left it there and proceeded to option 1.

 

3. If he was going to be so stupid as to take it out, holding it backwards by the barrel would have been preferred rather than the grip like he did that night. Fortunately for both of us his hold on it was low enough on the grip (the bottom half) and pointing up and away from the cop, that it may have prevented tragedy.

 

Either I or ken could have made it more difficult for the cop. What would have happened if we had acted angry or uncooperative when he had first approached us? I could have just put my hand down at my sides or in my coat pockets where he couldn't see them. When I saw ken's gun I could have panicked and tried to flee, the cop could have interpreted that move as hostile, the gun coming out of the glove box in one suspect's hand and the other suspect is trying to get out to ambush from over the rear of the truck, remember he had stepped to the back corner of the cab to be safer.

 

We could have completely screwed ourselves. "Suicide by cop" for dummies!

 

Cops will not tip their hand and ask a suspect who has been reported to have a gun, if he does really have a gun, unless they are so close that they have physical control of him or have taken him down to the ground and want him to tell them where he has it. At that point if he is still fighting with them he, unfortunately, is controlling his own destiny to the discretion of the arresting officers. Those two bailiffs that were just killed by a hand cuffed prisoner makes this rather poignant.

 

So, because of the horrendous misdeeds of the past, we are now in a place in this country where some people are going to oppose the oppression of the system during any interaction with law enforcement. Some of these people are going to also increase by there own actions, irregardless of the present officer's reasons for the contact or their presumed bias, the likely hood that at least two lives will be changed for the worse.

 

Some cops are bad, but most are good. But you can cause your own demise at the hand of either one by not staying calm and being smart about your situation. I once had a concealed carry permit due to a deranged convicted felon that acted, quite convincingly, like he wanted to kill me for giving the authorities a video of him running a stolen bulldozer that he said he didn't have in his possession. But really, I was more afraid at the time that my gun might reveal itself without me knowing. I had more stress worrying about cops pulling me over and going CERT on me before I could inform them of my status then I did about that crazy guy.

 

Though all that was probably because of ken.

[Ten oz]

 

I just wanted to reiterate my position on this in case anyone may misinterpret my opinions on this subject. I fully acknowledge the roll of law enforcement's official and unofficial involvement in the oppression and even murder in the historical context of racism. But, I believe sincerely that a traffic stop or any other such random and potentially life changing interaction with law enforcement is the wrong time and place to let old or new grievances with the law take away the control you have of the situation.

It is random to the person being pulled over but not to the Law Enforcement Officer who knows that they are about to stop a person and why they are stopping them. Officers are well trained and practiced at traffic stops. The common citizen is not.

 

10 per 100,000 people in the USA die in car accidents every year. That is significantly down from the late 1960's when it was 26 per 100,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

 

While driving habits can reduce the risk of accidents it is changes in infrastructure, vehicle safety, and medical response that has accounted for the biggest reduction in fatalities. Everyone is required to wear seat belts, cars have airbags, glass is shatter proof, more roads have lights, more roads have reflectors, more roads have road medians, and etc. And we are not done many newer cars will alert drivers when someone in in their blind spot, have breaking systems that activate automatically when the vehicle gets to too close to an object, and GPS systems that know what the environment is like and can advise safer routes. A lot more energy went into improving the safety or our roads and vehicles than went into changing the way people drive. Which only makes sense because the average person isn't prepared all day everyday for all possible circumstances.

 

In isolation most things have various outcomes which may have been possible if those involved just did X,Y, and Z. Most of the turn of the century construction workers who fell to their deaths would have lived had they just watched their footing better and held on to something right? Unfortunately humans are not that exacting. We do things like walk into the kitchen and then forget why we walked into the kitchen. When city workers have manhole and other street level cover open they have someone stand by it and direct foot traffic, why; street cones and tapes have statistically proven to not be enough. Sure people can and should pay attention to where they are walking but they don't and people have gotten hurt so for the sake of public safety a person stands by and directs foot traffic. In a perfect world everyone would just do everything right all the time but that is not the world we live in. Not losing ones cell phones seems easy enough until you are running late to work and your scrambling around looking for cell phone. Giving a brief at work seems easy until you are up in front of everyone and suddenly your vioce doesn't want to work. Doing everything a police officer says the way they say it seems easy enough until you have flashlights in your face, a gun drawn on you, and hearing stern vocal demands.

[swansont]

The implication ( along with supporting link ) that they'll use 'any excuse' to pull someone over for a traffic stop.

And that the profession attracts those with strong biases who like to push others around, iNow.

 

 

You might note that these were not my observations. I was paraphrasing the observations of a police officer. Someone on the inside.

 

If you're suggesting that this characterization applies to no police officers, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[DrmDoc]

In follow-up to the Castile shooting, a CNN television commentator reports that police records show officers had previously stopped Castile a total of 52x with only three stops resulting in real but minor traffic violations. This appears to suggest that police were familiar with Mr. Castile and his carry license. Further, recently released initial audio recordings of the officer's report to his command center reveal that the officer initially stopped the vehicle believing Castile matched the description of a robbery suspect, although the officer informed the driver of a nonexistent broken vehicle light as his reason. Subsequently released photos of the alleged robbery suspect did appear to match the driver. If these additional details are accurate, this might explain but not excuse the heighten response of the officer during the stop. From another report, if accurate, it should also be noted that the involved officer's partner, stood on the opposite side of the vehicle during the shooting event, within view of the vehicle's occupants, but did not discharge his weapon. Frequent stops, an acknowledged weapon, and an agitated officer suggest that Mr. Castile experienced a perfect storm of tragic consequence.

Edited July 14, 2016 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

...police records show officers had previously stopped Castile a total of 52x with only three stops resulting in real but minor traffic violations...

And this gets to the heart of the frustration in the community and why police are not always viewed in the best light.

[Phi for All]

...police records show officers had previously stopped Castile a total of 52x with only three stops resulting in real but minor traffic violations.

 

If I'd been pulled over 52 times in my whole life with only three actual violations, I'd be convinced the police were deliberately harassing me. This all happened to Castille "in recent years" from the stories I've seen, and resulted in thousands of dollars in fines as well.

[DrmDoc]

And this gets to the heart of the frustration in the community and why police are not always viewed in the best light.

 

 

 

If I'd been pulled over 52 times in my whole life with only three actual violations, I'd be convinced the police were deliberately harassing me. This all happened to Castille "in recent years" from the stories I've seen, and resulted in thousands of dollars in fines as well.

 

What would be interesting to know, if investigated, is whether any of those prior traffic stops involved the officer who shot Mr. Castile. That would suggest that the officer likely had knowledge of Mr. Castile's weapon and license to carry prior to the shooting. Therefore, one may question why the officer felt deadly force was necessary during his subsequent stop, particularly since Mr. Castile didn't have a criminal record precluding his license to carry. One may also ask that if Mr. Castile actions demanded deadly force, why didn't the officer's partner also discharge his weapon? There are, of course, a lot of unanswered questions; however, when an official of government like Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton--who likely had more access to evidence than had been publicly released--during his press conference subsequent to the shooting suggests that Mr. Castile would likely not have been shot if he were White, a non-racial narrative is exceedingly difficult to argue or believe.

Edited July 14, 2016 by DrmDoc