6 year old shot by police

[goldberry]

Warning:  Deeply Disturbing

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/us/louisiana-body-cam-shooting/index.html

 

Police were involved in a chase of a guy who fled the scene of a disturbance.  When they stopped him they opened fire on the car.  They tried to say they were acting in self-defense, because the guy tried to ram his car into the police car.  But the evidence shows that didn't happen, and the guy had his hands up out the window when they opened fire.  They did not know a little boy was in the back seat, and he was killed.

 

The use of deadly force in another situation where, although someone was violating the law, the force was not warranted.

 

I'm sick over this....

[goldberry]

There have been several articles lately about how the training to become a police officer compares to other jobs.  I can't help but think this is a huge part of the problem, people out there put into horribly tense situations, carrying weapons, without enough training.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police-trnd/

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by goldberry

[Scarlett]

I can't even read it.  That just makes me furious....at the driver of the car for putting that child in that situation...and the police for using unreasonable force.

 

Ugh.

[goldberry]

I know.  I just want to weep for the world...

[Scarlett]

And I think the Tulsa incident happened because that officer should not have been a police officer.  Poor training and or improper screening.

[SparklyUnicorn]

To be fair we have to be angry at the jerk they were chasing.  It's really in large part his fault.  How dare he put a child in danger that way.  Not saying what the cops did was right, good, justified fully, but we are constantly blaming the cops. 

[goldberry]

Of course the dad was a completely horrible person to endanger his child like that.  

 

The cops, however, are paid professionals who should be trained to deal with exactly that kind of thing.  Shooting up a car without knowing who is inside and without being directly threatened is inexcusable.

 

I am bringing it up because the issue of how and when deadly force should be used is an ongoing one.  As a society we have some control over that issue.  We don't have much control over idiot dads and criminals.

[Corraleno]

No one thinks what the dad did was in ANY way excusable. But he didn't kill the child, the police did. The man was being pursued because police "witnessed an argument" outside of a bar — no weapon, no threat, no crime committed. NO REASON whatsoever to open fire on a car with an unarmed man who hadn't committed any crime, when police had no idea who else might have been in the car.

 

In far too many of these cases, police are shooting people for nothing more than "not following orders." That is not a capital crime and there is no excuse for the use of deadly force when an officer's life is in no way threatened. You don't get to kill someone just because they pissed you off by not doing what you told them to.

[Corraleno]

To be fair we have to be angry at the jerk they were chasing.  It's really in large part his fault.  How dare he put a child in danger that way.  Not saying what the cops did was right, good, justified fully, but we are constantly blaming the cops. 

 

What he did was extremely stupid and dangerous, but no, the child's death was not "in large part his fault." The child's death was 100% the fault of the police who opened fire on a stopped vehicle driven by an unarmed man who was in the process of surrendering. The police were 100% at fault for shooting into a car when the driver was not threatening them, and they had no idea who else might be in the car.

 

And that is why those officers have been indicted on murder charges. 

[Bluegoat]

There seems to have been a significant shift in attitudes around policing.  I think more and more there is a feeling of being a sort of armed military force, being in constant danger, and also worries about things like liability that are the focus.

 

And I think the liability issue is much larger than it seems, I know in my dh's interactions with law enforcement, they seem to be more and more concerned with self-protection, identifying hostile situations, and so on, largely because as workers the officers aren't supposed to be in any danger.  Even when it is really stupid there are a lot of things they are supposed to do because they mean the employer can be insured if something goes wrong.

 

That's here in Canada where liability stuff tends to be less crazy than in the US.

 

I just don't think good policing can happen with a mentality like that - it doesn't even make for good soldiering in a lot of cases and it's more justified in that kind of scenario.

[JumpyTheFrog]

There seems to have been a significant shift in attitudes around policing. I think more and more there is a feeling of being a sort of armed military force, being in constant danger, and also worries about things like liability that are the focus.

 

Plus, I wonder how many of these jumpy officers are former soldiers with PTSD. Add to it the military selling equip to police departments and they are being militarized in many ways.

 

I'd like to see more public discussion of the SWAT teams doing the no-knock break-ins and how sometimes they enter the wrong house and/or kill others there.

[Scarlett]

About 5 years ago there was a home invasion in rural OK and the homeowner chased the invaders outside with a gun and shot at the car as they fled.  He killed a child who was in the back seat of the car.

 

He wasn't charged if I recall correctly.  And I believe the robbers were charged with the child's death because it happened in the commission of their felony actions.  

 

Anyway, not sure what that has to do with anything....some cops and some people are just way to trigger happy IMO.

[SKL]

The officers were arrested immediately and indicted.  I think that suggests their actions were not in line with their training or society's view of what is appropriate police force.

 

I only watched one video, which does not show what the dad did to cause the cops to shoot.  So I can't comment on that just yet.  It is very curious if he decided to endanger his son.  I wonder if he was on drugs or something.

[FaithManor]

Fleeing is not a capitol crime according to the law. 100% police fault period.

 

On top of which there not even reasonable suspicion of commission of a felony so the guns should not have been drawn to being with.

 

I have a nephew in the army. He is gobsmacked by this stuff. He served in Iraq and was able to de-escalate every situtation he was in. When not under active fire, the go to method was not "draw gun, start shooting, and when everyone is dead, wish you could ask some questions".

 

Prison. Long prison sentences.

[Bluegoat]

The officers were arrested immediately and indicted.  I think that suggests their actions were not in line with their training or society's view of what is appropriate police force.

 

I only watched one video, which does not show what the dad did to cause the cops to shoot.  So I can't comment on that just yet.  It is very curious if he decided to endanger his son.  I wonder if he was on drugs or something.

 

It might be that he really just didn't have time to think about what he was doing, he just ran there without thinking it through because it was his car.  Under those circumstances I think it would be difficult to consider the possible outcomes properly.

[Bluegoat]

Fleeing is not a capitol crime according to the law. 100% police fault period.

 

On top of which there not even reasonable suspicion of commission of a felony so the guns should not have been drawn to being with.

 

I have a nephew in the army. He is gobsmacked by this stuff. He served in Iraq and was able to de-escalate every situtation he was in. When not under active fire, the go to method was not "draw gun, start shooting, and when everyone is dead, wish you could ask some questions".

 

Prison. Long prison sentences.

 

I think though that prison really isn't an answer.  Fear of prison isn't going to give people the skills they need to do things differently.

 

The military is trained pretty carefully about this sort of thing, and some units are countries are especially well known for being good at it.  It's something that can be learned.

 

Something is going on where a lot of police forces aren't learning it, or something is working against it being implemented in practice.  I don't think it is actually racial bias as some do - there can be plenty of that in places where there aren't the same problems. 

[Corraleno]

I have a nephew in the army. He is gobsmacked by this stuff. He served in Iraq and was able to de-escalate every situtation he was in. When not under active fire, the go to method was not "draw gun, start shooting, and when everyone is dead, wish you could ask some questions".

 

:iagree:

 

I recently read a horrifying article in the Washington Post about a former Marine turned police officer, Stephen Mader, who responded to a call from a woman who said her boyfriend was suicidal. When Mader arrived he saw a young black guy holding a gun (which turned out to be unloaded) at his side, not pointing at anyone, so he started to talk to him very calmly, trying to deescalate the situation. The suicidal man was saying "just shoot me" and twitching his wrist to try to get Mader to shoot him. Instead, Mader kept talking to him very calmly, until suddenly two more cops showed up, the guy raised his gun, and he was instantly shot & killed.

 

Three days later, Mader was fired for not immediately killing a suicidal man. He was cited for "failing to engage the suspect" and "putting fellow officers at risk." Clearly they don't want cops who are capable of diffusing situations and saving lives; the "correct" approach is shoot to kill anyone with a weapon, even if the reason for the call was that the person was despondent and threatening to kill himself.

 

  :cursing:

[poppy]

This is sick and sad and terrible. I'm so sorry for the lost child. 

[Bluegoat]

How much is "a lot?"

 

I don't know, but anecdotally i'd say all over, even here in Canada.  There are still people doing good work, but I think they are less and less supported or have things making it difficult for them.

 

The RCMP used to be well known for good community policing, and for very high performance standards, and now they are having huge problems.  Liability issues are part of it, and budget stuff, officers are often being sent out alone which changes the dynamic.  That's our national police force, and the same thing seems evident in many local ones as well. 

 

I don't know enough about how people are being taught to say more - but I do know how I and others were taught in the military, and it was very much a skill that needed to be practiced and learned and that could be done effectively. But that seems not to be happening for some reason in a lot of police training, or the officers are being blocked or discouraged in some ways from using that training.

[MercyA]

According to this article, one of the police officers knew the father before the incident. Some bad blood there, maybe? 

 

Absolutely inexcusable and horrifying. 

[SKL]

I don't know, but anecdotally i'd say all over, even here in Canada.  There are still people doing good work, but I think they are less and less supported or have things making it difficult for them.

 

The RCMP used to be well known for good community policing, and for very high performance standards, and now they are having huge problems.  Liability issues are part of it, and budget stuff, officers are often being sent out alone which changes the dynamic.  That's our national police force, and the same thing seems evident in many local ones as well. 

 

I don't know enough about how people are being taught to say more - but I do know how I and others were taught in the military, and it was very much a skill that needed to be practiced and learned and that could be done effectively. But that seems not to be happening for some reason in a lot of police training, or the officers are being blocked or discouraged in some ways from using that training.

 

I think the majority are very good cops who act appropriately.  That is why most of them never make the news.  Also most US cops never discharge their firearm (while dealing with the public) throughout their career.

 

We have to be careful not to let the outliers determine our impression of how everyone else acts.

 

[Bluegoat]

Are the RCMP a national police force?  I always thought they were.  I assume there are providence and local police forces too?

 

Yes, they are.  So they tend to work in rural areas and small towns.  Cities and some towns have their own forces, though more and more often towns are finding they cannot afford it and are disbanding them.

[EMS83]

Boot camp for prospective police officers, maybe?

[Bluegoat]

I think the majority are very good cops who act appropriately.  That is why most of them never make the news.  Also most US cops never discharge their firearm (while dealing with the public) throughout their career.

 

We have to be careful not to let the outliers determine our impression of how everyone else acts.

 

 

Hmm, well, yes and no.  I think there are some significant patterns beyond these really bad incidents that reflect on things like policy and usual practice.  Just because nothing goes horribly wrong doesn't mean there isn't a set of bad policies. 

 

The idea that a suspect who even shows a gun should be shot is an example - that would not be the line in a lot of older policies that call for officers to try and defuse situations.

 

Or you could even look at something like wearing bullet proof vests regularly.  That's a liability issue insisted on by insurance companies and lawyers for workers compensation, and one that often is stupid because it's actually more dangerous with the kinds of firearms those officers are most likely to encounter. 

 

But it also has an effect on the way police are perceived and perceive themselves.  It's a bit ironic to me that among military groups that are known for doing hearts and minds work in communities in war zones, its recognized that wearing body armour or helmets affects the interaction, and so they don't, while police forces are done up like they are going into battle.

[Angie in VA]

Oh, my goodness. 

 

There was a child in the back seat of the car when Philando Castille was shot and killed by a police officer. Besides my horror at his being killed, I was shocked that this happened with not only a passenger beside him, but also a child in the back seat. 

 

So awful. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Angie in VA

[FaithManor]

Boot camp for prospective police officers, maybe?

Probably not a bad idea. Put them through the same training my nephew had.

 

But regardless of training there really is ZERO excuse for the go to reaction for every encounter to be "draw guns, prepare to shoot". Seriously, murder, rape, and kidnapping are pretty much the only "capitol" crimes in most states and that only when a jury recommends it. So if the police are not being fired on, and other civilians are not being fired on, the default should not be "shoot dead". Just shouldn't. It makes the average cop the judge, jury, and executioner. No trial. No representation.

 

And in this instance a totally innocent person, a child no less, died because someone who has been entrusted with serving his/her community did not stop to use even a modicum of critical thinking skills.

 

No more excuses. Enough is enough.

[Anne in CA]

The sort of thing that makes this even more maddening to me is that the nearest city to me has a disproportionate number of mentally ill homeless people/ drug addicts and the police manage day in and day out scenarios like this where no civilians get hurt and even criminals don't get hurt. There are police forces out there who do a good job and know their stuff.

 

Shooting at a man who had his hands up is not okay. Officers who do it, bad training or not, need to be permanently removed from law enforcement. Because once someone gets away with bad behavior they generally become emboldened. It is unlikely they will learn from this, it is more likely that if they only get a slap on the hand and retrained they will do something worse next time.

 

Somewhere a mother has a broken heart tonight, and a whole community is less whole than before, because these guys let their adrenaline guide their actions. 

[Anne in CA]

This incident happened last year.  These guys are already charged and their trial will be later this year. 

Thanks, I went back and looked it over more carefully. This is still horrifying to me.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Very horrifying.  oh my word

 

 

[goldberry]

The thing is, we can't even really know how often it is happening because there is not reliable data for reporting.  That would be a good place to start, requiring that police shootings be reported so that it could be properly investigated.

 

 

[Amy in NH]

A FB friend posts a new video or news story about a new episode of police brutality and militarization just about every day.

[Ravin]

I think though that prison really isn't an answer.  Fear of prison isn't going to give people the skills they need to do things differently.

 

The military is trained pretty carefully about this sort of thing, and some units are countries are especially well known for being good at it.  It's something that can be learned.

 

Something is going on where a lot of police forces aren't learning it, or something is working against it being implemented in practice.  I don't think it is actually racial bias as some do - there can be plenty of that in places where there aren't the same problems. 

 

It's not necessarily racial bias. But it often is. 

 

It's also over-reliance on deadly force (or force generally) and dehumanizing people police interact with.

[Ravin]

I think the majority are very good cops who act appropriately.  That is why most of them never make the news.  Also most US cops never discharge their firearm (while dealing with the public) throughout their career.

 

We have to be careful not to let the outliers determine our impression of how everyone else acts.

 

 

There are plenty of bad cops who still manage to not kill anyone. They just harass them, beat them up, rough them up, unnecessarily employ taser and pepper spray against unarmed and non-aggressive people with the slightest provocation...

[Amy in NH]

There are plenty of bad cops who still manage to not kill anyone. They just harass them, beat them up, rough them up, unnecessarily employ taser and pepper spray against unarmed and non-aggressive people with the slightest provocation...

 

We had an officer like that a couple towns over who kept bullying the same local guy over and over again until the guy snapped and killed him.  But the news only wanted to report that the officer was a hero who died in the line of duty, not the history that led to the deaths.

 

ETA: Local people blocked the highway being renamed in honor of the officer.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Amy in NH

[Bluegoat]

It's not necessarily racial bias. But it often is. 

 

It's also over-reliance on deadly force (or force generally) and dehumanizing people police interact with.

 

I think as far as it goes, racial bias is tricky, because race issues map on so much to economic and education issues, and then all the things that stem from those.  Race becomes a stand-in for perceptions about class, which may have some statistical validity.  How to pull those things apart - I don't know, it might be impossible.

 

Notwithstanding that though, my real point was that it is quite possible to train people to react and act appropriatly even when there is racial or other types of bias present, or even outright racism.  So I tend to think that there are significant training and policy failures going on.

[Guest]

So I personally don't completely buy into all the presumptions inherent in this research BUT what they have to say is really interesting.

 

One of those things is that racial bias is not really a given, but in-group bias is. IOW, with the slightest reason to include people of other races in their in-group, people usually do.

 

Soooo to my mind the ticket is indoctrinating the police to be always cognizant that they are part and parcel of their communities and NOT glorify the rhetoric that they are the thin blue line keeping the rest of us  animals from destroying ourselves.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, dehumanizing is a problem in many jobs like that - to prevent it going on to the extent it becomes a problem requires a lot of awareness on the part of the managers.

[Bluegoat]

So I personally don't completely buy into all the presumptions inherent in this research BUT what they have to say is really interesting.

 

One of those things is that racial bias is not really a given, but in-group bias is. IOW, with the slightest reason to include people of other races in their in-group, people usually do.

 

Soooo to my mind the ticket is indoctrinating the police to be always cognizant that they are part and parcel of their communities and NOT glorify the rhetoric that they are the thin blue line keeping the rest of us  animals from destroying ourselves.

 

Yes, I think there is some real truth to the idea of in-groups being the main issue.  There are all kinds of differences between people, but what we see as significant group identifiers is learned.  So - sure, it could be ethnicity or physical racial things, it could be accent, clothing styles, whatever.

 

This becomes very fraught for many though, because it seems to lead to the suggestion that in order to combat racism, we should try and get to a point where people don't "read" race as something significant, any more than eye-colour.  But then many also feel that attemts to create a colour-blind situation like that will allow more racism in the present.  So at that level, there comes at least two ideas about how to improve the situation that are not only exclusive, they tend to see the other as being retrograde.

 

That being said, I think it's interesting that a lot of ethnic/racial tensions that actually have disappeared in our culture have done so largely because people have stopped interpreting something (an Irish last name, say) as a significant category.  So it seems to me that can work, at least sometimes, and without necessarily losing a sense of ethnic identity.

 

But I think you are 100% correct that identity with community is important in making policing work.  I don't know whether it's possible to do it only by indoctrination though - it may be there has to be something more real or concrete to go along with that. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Bluegoat

[MercyA]

There are plenty of bad cops who still manage to not kill anyone. They just harass them, beat them up, rough them up, unnecessarily employ taser and pepper spray against unarmed and non-aggressive people with the slightest provocation...

 

Like this guy who apparently sent one of his victims a "Sorry I Tased You" cake. I wish I were kidding. 

 

ETA: I looked for this story on Snopes before posting here, but they hadn't mentioned it yet. Correction: the police officer sent his victim a photo of a "Sorry I Tased You Cake," not an actual cake. Classy.

Edited October 2, 2016 by MercyA

[Ravin]

This might be something that becomes difficult to overcome.  Lots of police deal with the worst of the worst, all the time.  When a mother kidnaps her 2 kids and then kills them, the police have to deal with that.  When a guy shoots his niece and her 4 yr old, when a girl is killed by a stray bullet while sitting on her bed doing her homework, when a nutcase kills 26 kindergarteners, when a dead body is discovered in a burning vehicle, the cops are the ones that deal with all that.  And I would think that in order to be able to do their job, and still be able to go home, love on their family, to sleep, they have to be able to detach from all that.  I imagine it's very difficult to not "dehumanize" the people they interact with. 

 

Except that is NOT what most police deal with all the time. Those are extreme outlier situations.

 

I regularly read police reports where the police have decided before an encounter where they have NOT been told anyone is armed, to draw a weapon; where the police decide who the "bad guy" is in a DV situation between family members based only on the word of whoever called them; where the police disregard or fail to investigate any evidence of bad conduct by person X because person X is bleeding so it's easier to arrest person Y because Person Z said person X bleeding was person Y's fault; where police assume individuals are drunk and arrest them without so much as a field sobriety test, or conduct invalid field sobriety tests when they are elderly, or diabetic, or have difficulty walking because of old injuries, etc.

 

Where the police think only of "getting the bad guy" and don't stop to think that maybe it's not a good idea to spray pepper spray at him when he's cowering in the pantry where his family (who called for help) keep all their food. Where they never consider that some people use the police as a weapon in their own family disputes.

 

I see where police escalate situations instead of de-escalating them, where they use weapons instead of words, where they use abusive words instead of reasonable ones, where they pull people over based on flimsy pretext traffic violations so they can look and smell in their cars in hopes of busting someone for drugs, where afterward, the family members of the person they arrested feel like calling for help was a mistake because the police did more harm than good in the situation.

 

Property is not worth a person's life. Nor is nosing in on an argument. In this situation, the hot pursuit was completely unreasonable. They had no reasonable suspicion for which to stop the man, and if they did, it certainly was not of anything that warranted giving chase in a risky-high speed vehicular situation, or shooting at a car with live people inside it.

[Ravin]

I do think police need to have trauma counseling and support available to them, and they should be encourage to utilize those resources and be screened and, when necessary, let go from their positions (with a benefits parachute). I had one client where the patrol officer really jumped down their throat when he ticketed them for reckless driving; he had worked the scene of a bad accident at that same bend in the road the year before. The way he behaved towards my client (not the ticketing part, his demeanor and the way he spoke to them) was way out of line, and at the risk of being an armchair psychologist, it struck me as likely that he was speaking from trauma.

[FaithManor]

I do think police need to have trauma counseling and support available to them, and they should be encourage to utilize those resources and be screened and, when necessary, let go from their positions (with a benefits parachute). I had one client where the patrol officer really jumped down their throat when he ticketed them for reckless driving; he had worked the scene of a bad accident at that same bend in the road the year before. The way he behaved towards my client (not the ticketing part, his demeanor and the way he spoke to them) was way out of line, and at the risk of being an armchair psychologist, it struck me as likely that he was speaking from trauma.

Totally agree. For those that cannot find immediate help from therapy, I am all for, as a tax payer, providing an early pension and transition plan to help these officers move into new careers.

[katilac]

To be fair we have to be angry at the jerk they were chasing.  It's really in large part his fault.  How dare he put a child in danger that way.  Not saying what the cops did was right, good, justified fully, but we are constantly blaming the cops. 

 

I 100% blame the cops in this particular situation. Not only was it not "justified fully," it was not justified at all, in any way, shape, or form. This is not a case with any blurred lines. As soon as it occurred and the video was reviewed, there were police officers going on record as saying it was the worst case they had ever seen, that it was unjustified, illegal, and showed horrific judgement. The head of the Louisiana State Police called it "incredible" and "disturbing" at a news conference. 

 

This is not a case that is hard to understand, not a case where the officers were in danger and under pressure, not a case where pursuit should have been considered, much less shooting. 

 

As far as the father fleeing, MercyA is correct in noting that at least one of the officers knew the suspect - likely more, since it's a very small town. He may have felt in danger for some reason related to that, he may have fled for another reason. We don't know yet, because there is a gag order on the case. It is known that he did NOT have outstanding warrants (which would not have justified a high speed pursuit in any case, they could have picked him up another day!).

 

More generally, let me give a little more information about the town, the police force, and the marshall situation. 

 

The two that shot and killed Few were marshalls, not police officers. In Louisiana, marshalls are part of law enforcement, yes, but they are generally restricted to activities like serving arrest warrants and delivering court documents. They don't give tickets, they don't arrest people, and they don't engage in high-speed pursuits.

 

Due to some budget feuding in the city, marshalls were given additional duties. This was due to ongoing battles to get funding restored to certain departments, not for safety reasons. Why do I say that? First, it was court funding that got cut, not police funding. Second, the tiny town of Marksville has twenty-five police officers! That number does not include marshalls, who report to a different department. 

 

To put that in perspective, cities that have over 50,000 people usually average about 17 police officers per 10,000 residents. Marksville has 24 police officers and 5,500 residents. 

 

So, you have an excessive amount of law enforcement, combined with a town culture of fighting for and displaying power. That helped lead to a ridiculous situation where four law enforcement officers wound up pursuing a person who did not have a weapon, did not have a warrant and was not presenting a current danger to anyone. Police were called initially because he was arguing loudly with his girlfriend in a parking lot, not because he robbed a bank or was a violent fugitive. When they arrived, he and his girlfriend were already in separate cars, driving away.  

 

Also, if the father bears part of the blame, then so does the city judge who gave unprecedented police duties to marshalls because of a power struggle in the town. 

 

I will be very interested in what comes out at the trial. I really only see two scenarios for how the chase started, both of them appalling. Either they engaged in a dangerous high speed pursuit without ever speaking to him, or they did pull him over as they first stated. The first implies reckless endangerment from the pursuit alone (they had no reason to think he was dangerous or that stopping him was imperative). The second implies that they should have known a child was in the car (the little boy was shot to death while strapped into the front seat right next to his father). 

Edited September 30, 2016 by katilac