another police shooting - a therapist helping a man with autism

[Murphy101]

Many groups that support disabilities do this in different geographic areas. Not all law enforcement takes advantage. Additionally it is not the responsibility of the special group to make sure the police know how to respond appropriately.

 

Law enforcement groups should be seeking this training. Not waiting for various support groups to ask "do you want to learn about people who have xxx?" The responsibility is on the police to know about the who live, work and visit in their community.

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

Now, to my way of thinking, if you aim at one person and hit another person, you have "shot the wrong guy." No mention of the fact that he shouldn't have been shooting in the first place. "Authorities" should have known the man had autism, Mr. Kinsey was saying it as plain as day. 

 

It's one thing to claim to have accidentally "shot the wrong guy".  Then he handcuffed the "wrong guy" he shot -- was this an accidental handcuffing too?

[zoobie]

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

This citizen with challenges had a trained mental health professional with him who tried to assist the police. The police shot the therapist.

[TX Native]

A contradictory statement from the police union. Wait, what?

 

Rivera offered an explanation Thursday, saying that the police officer opened fire because he thought the white man, whom authorities later learned has autism, was going to harm Kinsey.

 

"This wasn't a mistake in the sense that the officer shot the wrong guy or he thought that Kinsey was the bad guy," Rivera said in a press conference Thursday.

"The movement of the white individual made it look like he was going to discharge a firearm into Mr. Kinsey and the officer discharged trying to strike and stop the white man and unfortunately, he missed the white male and shot Mr. Kinsey by accident."

 

 

Now, to my way of thinking, if you aim at one person and hit another person, you have "shot the wrong guy." No mention of the fact that he shouldn't have been shooting in the first place. "Authorities" should have known the man had autism, Mr. Kinsey was saying it as plain as day.

And WHY handcuff a calm, cooperative man that just got shot accidentally if the intent was to save his life from the man with the toy truck??? I am not for this next scenario, but it would make more sense if they truly believed the therapist was the victim and the autistic man was about to shoot: Why not handcuff the guy they thought had a gun and was ready to shoot and figure out it was true he was an autistic guy with a toy truck after the fact???? It would have been equally terrible to rush in and raid the autistic man and cuff him after the fact, BUT how can their argument the cops were protecting the therapist from harm stand if the cops treated the therapist like the criminal after the shooting? Edited July 22, 2016 by TX native

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

Actually the police are expected to do more than just "enforce the law", which is why they take an oath to protect and serve.

[TechWife]

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

 

Yet, the only law that was being broken was that the young man was sitting in the middle of the street, obstructing traffic. 

 

They need to enforce the law in a responsible manner. It is well known by police departments everywhere that they encounter people who are distressed for a variety of reasons, who may be acting irrationally and at the same time may not be doing anything wrong. It is their job to become equipped to handle the situations in the best way possible. 

 

There is no obligation on the part of the disabled to approach law enforcement to teach them how to do their job. 

[Murphy101]

This citizen with challenges had a trained mental health professional with him who tried to assist the police. The police shot the therapist.

Yes and that is awful. The question is, did the cop see it that way? It's entirely possible he didn't given the distance between them. I had a hard time hearing the therapist in the video, so I can speculate the cop who was much further away had an even harder time. It might come to light that the cop is a bad cop who would take any opportunity to kill a black guy. It might come to light that all three cops couldn't understand the man on the ground, but by his body language and the other man yelling at him to shut up and so forth, they assessed that he was under immediate threat.

 

Giving consideration to either scenario doesn't make it okay the man was shot or mean that the cops shouldn't investigate and evaluate how this could have been avoided.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Murphy101

[SproutMamaK]

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

What laws are they enforcing? The law to not walk down the street with a toy truck? The law to not mutter to one's self, or rock back and forth? In the diabetic's case, the law to not be disoriented? In Castile's case, the law to not reach for ID? In Sterling's case, the law to not twitch when being tased? In Crawford's case, the law to not buy a toy gun at a WalMart?

 

These people aren't disobeying the laws or disturbing the peace. They have no need for law enforcement. They're going about their everyday lives and getting shot anyway. 

 

The ironic thing about saying that it is their responsibility to approach law enforcement about how to work together so that this does not happen is that this is exactly what BLM is doing. Generally speaking, LEOs and police unions seem to hate them even more for it.

 

I actually agree with you, consideration should be given to the scenarios that may have made this happen. The problem is that such considerations are normally given with the perspective of excusing the officer involved. If we can look at the scenario, figure out what happened, and learn from it so that it doesn't happen again, everyone is better off. But when you also say "They are not psychiatrists," it doesn't seem as if the rationale behind the conversation would be to better prepare the cops to deal with mentally ill/disabled people. It seems as though it is to excuse them from needing to be well-prepared to do so.

Edited July 22, 2016 by SproutMamaK

[TX Native]

It might come to light that the cop is a bad cop who would take any opportunity to kill a black guy. It might come to light that all three cops couldn't understand the man on the ground, but by his body language and the other man yelling at him to shut up and so forth, they assessed that he was under immediate threat.

Again, if the cops assessed the therapist was under immediate threat due to not being able to hear the therapist, WHY treat the therapist like a criminal after a bad attempt to save his life from that threat??? I just can't get why the news report the statement the police were defending the therapist, not intentionally shooting at the therapist, but NO ONE has spat right back at that argument that they treated the therapist like a criminal for no reason! This is really bothering me and even my husband thinks I need to take a chill pill over it. It should be automatic, "So you shot someone accidentally while meaning to shoot the person you felt was a danger to a person? The automatic reaction isn't to go treat the person you were protecting like a criminal!"

 

Taking deep breaths and trying to step away from the situation.

[TechWife]

Yes and that is awful. The question is, did the cop see it that way? It's entirely possible he didn't given the distance between them. I had a hard time hearing the therapist in the video, so I can speculate the cop who was much further away had an even harder time. It might come to light that the cop is a bad cop who would take any opportunity to kill a black guy. It might come to light that all three cops couldn't understand the man on the ground, but by his body language and the other man yelling at him to shut up and so forth, they assessed that he was under immediate threat.

 

Giving consideration to either scenario doesn't make it okay the man was shot or mean that the cops shouldn't investigate and evaluate how this could have been avoided.

 

It is awful. If the cops didn't see it that way, they weren't doing their job correctly.  I certainly do hope that the police department learns something from this. I also think that the police offer that shot the man should not go unpunished. At the very least, he made a grave error in judgement and has atrocious marksmanship skills. At worst, he intentionally shot a man for no good reason. 

 

Did the cop see it that way? Apparently not, but what he did was still wrong and it was avoidable. He should not go without consequences. 

 

The North Miami Police Dept. statement says they "attempted to negotiate with two men on the scene." If that is the case, then why didn't they make sure they could hear and understand Mr. Kinsey? You can't negotiate with someone you can't hear or understand. That seems like gross negligence to me. 

[TX Native]

And now, after deep breaths and a gradual rising of my blood pressure again. The officer told the therapist, "I don't know," when asked why he shot. A sane officer who was rational enough to assess there was possible immediate danger to the therapist would have said something like, "I felt the other guy was about to harm you and I was trying to protect you, but I missed the shot."

[zoobie]

Yes and that is awful. The question is, did the cop see it that way? It's entirely possible he didn't given the distance between them. I had a hard time hearing the therapist in the video, so I can speculate the cop who was much further away had an even harder time. It might come to light that the cop is a bad cop who would take any opportunity to kill a black guy. It might come to light that all three cops couldn't understand the man on the ground, but by his body language and the other man yelling at him to shut up and so forth, they assessed that he was under immediate threat.

 

Giving consideration to either scenario doesn't make it okay the man was shot or mean that the cops shouldn't investigate and evaluate how this could have been avoided.

 

You put the responsibility on people with disabilities to somehow be able to communicate that to police. Most cannot afford that or have no access to that, and it's an impossible standard. This guy actually did have an incredible amount of assistance, and his therapist was trying to help. What more do you want people with disabilities to do than come with a 1:1 aide when the cops shoot the aide? The guy had a toy truck. He wasn't advancing toward officers with a weapon. He was sitting in the street with a toy truck. You simply cannot put this on the shoulders of the man with disabilities.

[Anne in CA]

This whole situation is just unbearable. Why are the police not taking any responsibility for this gross mistake???? If they want respect they need to take responsibility at some point. I taught my children to respect police, and where I live the police are awesome, they work under lots of pressure, and we have had zero incidents like this even though the number of drug addicts and low IQ people on the street make the sort of occurrence that this therapist got shot for look like nothing.

 

If you saw that by my sandwich shop almost every day someone nutty (of all races) blocks traffic, or does something similar and the police handle it so well... I just think part of the issue needs to be that the community needs to hold this police department's feet to the fire to own their stuff. We had an 84yo woman get beaten to death by a meth head recently and the police methodically dealt with all manner of unsavory people looking for the suspects without anyone getting hurt. Policing without people getting hurt is possible. I see it every day.

[debinindy]

 

 

 My dad, a 70yo vet has been pulled over and hog-tied on the side of the road without so much as an apology. He's a vet with sarcoidosis and looks like a bodybuilder but his lungs are shot and uses oxygen. None of that mattered.

 

 

 

Sneezyone, I just wanted to say that I am very sorry that happened to your dad.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Yes and that is awful. The question is, did the cop see it that way? It's entirely possible he didn't given the distance between them. I had a hard time hearing the therapist in the video, so I can speculate the cop who was much further away had an even harder time. It might come to light that the cop is a bad cop who would take any opportunity to kill a black guy. It might come to light that all three cops couldn't understand the man on the ground, but by his body language and the other man yelling at him to shut up and so forth, they assessed that he was under immediate threat.

 

Giving consideration to either scenario doesn't make it okay the man was shot or mean that the cops shouldn't investigate and evaluate how this could have been avoided.

So, basically, we need to treat the police like wild animals who may misinterpret anything we say or do and the punishment for that is bodily harm or loss of life. If that is the justification, then why do we need a police force if we have to fear them as much as criminals. If this is how they assess danger, then they need training. Ordinary encounters should not be treated like a war zone.

 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[8circles]

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

 

Good lord, do we live in a police state?  That's an awfully low bar to set for our police officers.

 

Last I checked our police swear to do much more than that. http://www.iacp.org/What-is-the-Law-Enforcement-Oath-of-Honor  

[TechWife]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5682cef0e4b06fa6888140d6

 

Have we discussed this aspect, the way several of the high profile killings have been treated as they lay bleeding? This article is very disturbing. And if we're only speaking here of the therapist, he claims to have been handcuffed and bleeding in the street for nearly 20 minutes.

 

We haven't discussed it in depth. Just from the outset, my personal conclusion would be that it's possible police are wrongfully preoccupied with the procedures that take care of the officer's interests, not the person who has been shot. It's strange, because I would think that the officers would want to do everything they could to keep someone from dying at their hands. 

[obsidian]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5682cef0e4b06fa6888140d6

 

Have we discussed this aspect, the way several of the high profile killings have been treated as they lay bleeding? This article is very disturbing. And if we're only speaking here of the therapist, he claims to have been handcuffed and bleeding in the street for nearly 20 minutes.

And Tamir's 14yo sister handcuffed and put in the back of the squad car when she ran over to her brother after he was shot. :( That article is so sad. Edited July 22, 2016 by STEM

[Murphy101]

You put the responsibility on people with disabilities to somehow be able to communicate that to police.

No I do not. I do not expect a diabetic in the middle of very low sugars to be able to do that. But I do expect those who care about diabetics and proport to advocate for them to step up and address the problem rather than leaving cops and the general public to learn by tragic error alone.

 

I don't want cops deciding the best way to handle a diabetic. I want diabetics to explain to cops the best way to handle them.

 

This whole thing sounds like one big cluster to me.

 

The people and place that were supposed to be taking care of this autistic man lost him and had to go find him.

 

Neighbors freaked out over a grown man wandering around talking violently and speculating he had a weapon put already tense cops on heightened threat assessment.

 

A man laying on the ground with his hands up and being yelled at by a possible gun holder. When the kid turned to him, IF the cop actually thought he was going to shoot someone, the officer fired rather than just stand there and let him shoot the man on the ground. I imagine the crap storm if they had video of a cop just letting a guy shoot a black man wouldn't be any better than this.

 

What we need are a lot more cops and a lot more funding for training. A very long list of training.

But I don't see it happening. Sadly.

 

And lots more funding for care for autistic and other disabled people.

But I don't see that happening either.

 

Because ... politics which means it's against board rules.

[ktgrok]

Also, am I the only one that thought if a police officer didn't have a shot to take, without endangering civilians, they aren't supposed to shoot?

[HomeAgain]

 

Neighbors freaked out over a grown man wandering around talking violently and speculating he had a weapon put already tense cops on heightened threat assessment.

 

A man laying on the ground with his hands up and being yelled at by a possible gun holder. When the kid turned to him, IF the cop actually thought he was going to shoot someone, the officer fired rather than just stand there and let him shoot the man on the ground. I imagine the crap storm if they had video of a cop just letting a guy shoot a black man wouldn't be any better than this.

 

What we need are a lot more cops and a lot more funding for training. A very long list of training.

But I don't see it happening. Sadly.

 

 

 

And the most important part left out -  they handcuffed the man they shot, who was communicating with them, telling them the autistic man was unarmed.

 

They did not handcuff the autistic man.

 

They handcuffed the man they shot.  At that point, they negate any story they have about thinking the autistic man was a threat.

[TX Native]

No I do not. I do not expect a diabetic in the middle of very low sugars to be able to do that. But I do expect those who care about diabetics and proport to advocate for them to step up and address the problem rather than leaving cops and the general public to learn by tragic error alone.

 

I don't want cops deciding the best way to handle a diabetic. I want diabetics to explain to cops the best way to handle them.

 

This whole thing sounds like one big cluster to me.

 

The people and place that were supposed to be taking care of this autistic man lost him and had to go find him.

 

Neighbors freaked out over a grown man wandering around talking violently and speculating he had a weapon put already tense cops on heightened threat assessment.

 

A man laying on the ground with his hands up and being yelled at by a possible gun holder. When the kid turned to him, IF the cop actually thought he was going to shoot someone, the officer fired rather than just stand there and let him shoot the man on the ground. I imagine the crap storm if they had video of a cop just letting a guy shoot a black man wouldn't be any better than this.

 

What we need are a lot more cops and a lot more funding for training. A very long list of training.

But I don't see it happening. Sadly.

 

And lots more funding for care for autistic and other disabled people.

But I don't see that happening either.

 

Because ... politics which means it's against board rules.

But you still haven't answered my curiosity is how the cop could justifiably cuff the man the police spokesman is saying the cop was trying to protect?

[TechWife]

The people and place that were supposed to be taking care of this autistic man lost him and had to go find him.

 

Neighbors freaked out over a grown man wandering around talking violently and speculating he had a weapon put already tense cops on heightened threat assessment.

 

A man laying on the ground with his hands up and being yelled at by a possible gun holder. When the kid turned to him, IF the cop actually thought he was going to shoot someone, the officer fired rather than just stand there and let him shoot the man on the ground. I imagine the crap storm if they had video of a cop just letting a guy shoot a black man wouldn't be any better than this.

 

What we need are a lot more cops and a lot more funding for training. A very long list of training.

But I don't see it happening. Sadly.

 

And lots more funding for care for autistic and other disabled people.

But I don't see that happening either.

 

Because ... politics which means it's against board rules.

 

The group home did not loose the man with autism. People who have autism sometimes run and/or wander, it's just a fact. This man had his personal, one-on-one behavior therapist with him, he was not lost. There is no indication whatsoever that the group home or Mr. Kinsey did anything to put their client in danger. 

 

In the very same post, you have called the man with autism "an over grown man" and "kid." Neither is a correct assessment. 

 

You have no idea what the man who has autism was saying. All indications are that when the police arrived, the man was already sitting down, not wandering around. 

 

If cops can't make good decisions in tense situations, they don't need to be cops. A "possible gun holder" is very different than a disabled person with a toy truck, very different. 

 

It is problematic that most of our society sees funding for both officer training and for care of our most vulnerable citizens as a political issue, because at it's very root, it is a moral issue. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by TechWife

[SKL]

And WHY handcuff a calm, cooperative man that just got shot accidentally if the intent was to save his life from the man with the toy truck??? I am not for this next scenario, but it would make more sense if they truly believed the therapist was the victim and the autistic man was about to shoot: Why not handcuff the guy they thought had a gun and was ready to shoot and figure out it was true he was an autistic guy with a toy truck after the fact???? It would have been equally terrible to rush in and raid the autistic man and cuff him after the fact, BUT how can their argument the cops were protecting the therapist from harm stand if the cops treated the therapist like the criminal after the shooting?

 

I don't know - did they also handcuff the man with autism?  Maybe they handcuffed both of them.

Someone above said it's standard procedure to handcuff a guy you shot, so I am going to withhold judgment on that for now.  I could see why they would make it standard procedure, even though the underlying reasons probably didn't apply here.

 

[SKL]

Actually the police are expected to do more than just "enforce the law", which is why they take an oath to protect and serve.

 

Right, and I believe that police officers would want to receive the kind of training that would allow them to do this as well as possible.  Perhaps better funding and planning for this sort of thing needs to be addressed.

 

[Ravin]

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

 

This mentality is part of the problem. Police officers should be peace officers first, enforcers of public safety second, and law enforcement third. And they should ALWAYS keep in mind that the individuals they interact with, including "suspects," are all part of the community they have sworn to serve and protect.

 

When responding to an anonymous/unverified phone tip, particularly where there is no allegation the some one has ACTUALLY been hurt, they should be operating in investigation mode, not confrontation mode. Guy walking around with gun does not equal active shooter. The response should not be the same. Officers thinking in terms of INVESTIGATION rather than confrontation would have been more likely to heed (hear and listen to) what the therapist was saying.

 

It's part and parcel of making "innocent until proven guilty" meaningful. 

[Ravin]

I don't know - did they also handcuff the man with autism?  Maybe they handcuffed both of them.

Someone above said it's standard procedure to handcuff a guy you shot, so I am going to withhold judgment on that for now.  I could see why they would make it standard procedure, even though the underlying reasons probably didn't apply here.

 

 

And it's exactly things like making automatic handcuffing of someone you accidentally shot, for whom you had no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing of any kind, part of your standard operating procedure, that is part of the problem.

[goldberry]

 That the public expects them to protect them, so if there is a call about a shooter who is possibly dangerous they have to act right away, because they would be blamed if the suspect shot someone while they were evaluating.

 

Wonder how that fits in with open carry.  Anyone open carrying could be viewed as "possibly dangerous" couldn't they?  Depends who is doing the viewing.

[Carrie12345]

But you still haven't answered my curiosity is how the cop could justifiably cuff the man the police spokesman is saying the cop was trying to protect?

 

Looking at the video again, the officers don't appear to be much, if any farther away than the person recording.  His shouting that it's only a toy truck is pretty clear, even over the wind on the microphone.  Why would a man who was in danger insist that a suspect was holding a toy truck?!?

(On top of the whole "handcuffing a victim" baloney.)

[SKL]

And I do think the special needs community [caregivers, families, spokesmen] would be well-advised to get involved in making sure the cops get training.  Even if it isn't their responsibility legally, it would be in the interest of their community.

[SKL]

Looking at the video again, the officers don't appear to be much, if any farther away than the person recording.  His shouting that it's only a toy truck is pretty clear, even over the wind on the microphone.  Why would a man who was in danger insist that a suspect was holding a toy truck?!?

(On top of the whole "handcuffing a victim" baloney.)

 

The recording didn't sound very clear to me.  We knew going in what the guy was saying.  The cops didn't.

 

I just think that if they couldn't see or hear what was going on, they should not have been shooting.  In he end, if the man with autism had an actual gun and shot his caregiver, we would be just where we are now (one caregiver shot) - but with a lot more understanding, because the man with autism probably wasn't responsible for his actions.

 

I thought there were rules against these sorts of actions that clearly endanger bystanders without sufficient reason.

[Ravin]

We haven't discussed it in depth. Just from the outset, my personal conclusion would be that it's possible police are wrongfully preoccupied with the procedures that take care of the officer's interests, not the person who has been shot. It's strange, because I would think that the officers would want to do everything they could to keep someone from dying at their hands. 

 

Over time, this kind of thinking--officers' interests first--has been used to justify the erosion of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, one little bit at a time.

[SKL]

Oh and the guy yelling "don't shoot" with his hands up might have been taken as being yelled to the autistic man, if the other words did not come across clearly.

[Ravin]

And now, after deep breaths and a gradual rising of my blood pressure again. The officer told the therapist, "I don't know," when asked why he shot. A sane officer who was rational enough to assess there was possible immediate danger to the therapist would have said something like, "I felt the other guy was about to harm you and I was trying to protect you, but I missed the shot."

 

In fairness to the officer, while his initial response to his victim is most likely the honest one, putting together a calm and well-thought out reply explaining a series of split-second decisions on which you have had not time to reflect when you have just shot someone in the heat of the moment is not a reasonable expectation.

 

That doesn't mean I don't think the Union's official line isn't a load of hooey.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Ravin

[goldberry]

 

Someone above said it's standard procedure to handcuff a guy you shot, so I am going to withhold judgment on that for now.  I could see why they would make it standard procedure, even though the underlying reasons probably didn't apply here.

 

 

So if I'm in a convenience store and a policeman shoots me accidentally while trying to take down a robber, he is supposed to handcuff me rather than help me stop bleeding?  Okay, not getting it....

 

I don't think this is a case of a cop "going after" a black man.  It sounds like a case of general angst and fear (enhanced by the black skin color) leading a cop to go totally bonkers and forget any training he had, if he in fact had any.  The cop just sounds like he flat out lost his mind.

[Ravin]

Good lord, do we live in a police state?  That's an awfully low bar to set for our police officers.

 

Last I checked our police swear to do much more than that. http://www.iacp.org/What-is-the-Law-Enforcement-Oath-of-Honor

 

In some communities, we just about do, yeah.

[TechWife]

Over time, this kind of thinking--officers' interests first--has been used to justify the erosion of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, one little bit at a time.

 

I can't "like" this, but it is certainly true. 

[Miss Peregrine]

 

In the very same post, you have called the man with autism "an over grown man" and "kid." Neither is a correct assessment.

 

I think you read that wrong.

[FaithManor]

Yet, the only law that was being broken was that the young man was sitting in the middle of the street, obstructing traffic.

 

They need to enforce the law in a responsible manner. It is well known by police departments everywhere that they encounter people who are distressed for a variety of reasons, who may be acting irrationally and at the same time may not be doing anything wrong. It is their job to become equipped to handle the situations in the best way possible.

 

There is no obligation on the part of the disabled to approach law enforcement to teach them how to do their job.

God help us if we become the nation that has a defacto death penalty for slowing traffic!!! Seriously, when is the populace going to wake up??? Edited July 22, 2016 by FaithManor

[Laurie4b]

I don't know - did they also handcuff the man with autism?  Maybe they handcuffed both of them.

Someone above said it's standard procedure to handcuff a guy you shot, so I am going to withhold judgment on that for now.  I could see why they would make it standard procedure, even though the underlying reasons probably didn't apply here.

 

 

I am under the impression that handcuffing after shooting someone you shot on purpose to subdue them is policy. No sense whatsoever in knowing you shot the wrong person and handcuffing your clear victim and letting him lie in the street and bleed. None. 

[Laurie4b]

The officer who shot the therapist was on the city SWAT team. Hmm. He should have had more training than your average LEO about when to take a shot, right?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91160077.html 

 

Here is his statement through the chief of police: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/us/miami-officer-involved-shooting/

"Mr. Kinsey [ETA: Kinsey was the victim] did everything right, let's be real clear about that," (Chief said this).ETA: IOW, no victim blaming.

 

The LEO who shot him "wishes nothing but the best for Mr. Kinsey and the officer is praying for his speedy recovery as are we."

"I took this job to save lives and help people," according to the officer's text statement. "I did what I had to do in a split-second to accomplish that, and hate to hear others paint me as something I'm not." 

 

I think most officers to take the job to help people and will take this guy at his word that he did, too. But I will note that while he apparently sent expressions of sympathy through his boss, he ended with a focus on himself. That's just not appropriate. Among friends, sure, but when you shoot someone you didn't mean to, you focus on the victim not on yourself.  Take responsibility. 

 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Laurie4b

[Ravin]

The problem comes back around to framing it as an issue of individual responsibility. If this officer did "everything right" based upon his experience and training, then there was something VERY WRONG with that training and the mindset that accompanied that experience. Because in a sane and just system, this is recognizable as a total FUBAR. The officer and his boss are making it clear that it is a SNAFU.

 

People getting hurt because of SNAFUs should simply not happen in an organization whose principal purpose is to "serve and protect."

 

[Laurie4b]

It is the responsibility of police to enforce the law. They are not psychiatrists. They are not medics. They are are not snipers. (Well some might be, but most are not.) They are not social workers. They are law enforcement.

 

It is the responsibility of every citizen to obey the law and not disturb the peace. If a group of people cannot do that, they have an obligation to approach law enforcement about how to work together.

 

Police officers are professionals and we as a society need to train them to do their jobs in way that best protects both themselves and the public. To that end, police work very much is like social work a good bit of the time.

 

You don't need to be a psychiatrist to identify someone who is not behaving in a neurotypical way. Most people make that identification intuitively, but it doesn't take a heck of a lot of training to be able to de-escalate. The steps tend to be similar. Police should be able to do it. That doesn't mean that they don't have specialized teams in some places where they have a crisis team which responds to situations where a mental health issue is known, but basic officers should be able to do De-escalation 101. 

 

I am a social worker by training and had to learn to deal with very violent clients sometimes physically. There is cross-over between professions. 

 

The guy who missed the shot and shot the guy he was trying to protect was on the SWAT team according to the Miami Herald. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Laurie4b

[SKL]

I am under the impression that handcuffing after shooting someone you shot on purpose to subdue them is policy. No sense whatsoever in knowing you shot the wrong person and handcuffing your clear victim and letting him lie in the street and bleed. None. 

 

Some people would react violently to being shot though (whether or not it was an accident).  Another consideration is that the person might try to go for the cop's gun or otherwise hurt the cop while the cop was giving first aid or whatever.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if both of these have happened and additional people got shot as a result (in past situations), thus leading to a rule to prevent this.

 

As for the bleeding, I think the policy is to call for an ambulance ASAP and administer first aid.  I do not have information to indicate the cops just left the guy bleeding in the street while they went and had a donut or whatever.  Without further information I don't know that they could have attended to his wound or moved him to a better location faster.

[Laurie4b]

The problem comes back around to framing it as an issue of individual responsibility. If this officer did "everything right" based upon his experience and training, then there was something VERY WRONG with that training and the mindset that accompanied that experience. Because in a sane and just system, this is recognizable as a total FUBAR. The officer and his boss are making it clear that it is a SNAFU.

 

 

 

Yes, exactly. 

 

We hold hospitals responsible for figuring out what led to medical errors. Most of the time, the solution is not to discipline the individual physician or nurse, though sometimes that is appropriate. Far more often, there is something about the system that made human error more likely. We expect them to fix it. 

 

It's not good to be making the same mistake twice. The second mistake is preventable. 

 

I really don't want to see decent cops railroaded by a public calling for blood and am very uncomfortable when the community says it wants "a conviction." I am very comfortable with the community wanting justice. The fact is that significant change rarely follows one of these incidents. 

 

If I go back to the hospital analogy: if your loved one dies due to medical error and the doctor is a jerk about it, yes, people tend to want the doctor's head. However, with a physician who admits human error, most people feel they have justice if things are fixed so that it doesn't happen to someone else. I think this is a missing piece that helps drive our country into two sides Black Lives Matter vs. Blue Lives Matter. 

 

The fact is, both families of LEO and families of law-abiding black husbands, sons, and fathers feel fear that their loved one won't come home some night.  I believe the situation can be greatly improved, but it will take more than what has been done in most locales to bring about that level of change. 

 

Sadly, Dallas was one of the areas working hardest. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Laurie4b

[Murphy101]

But you still haven't answered my curiosity is how the cop could justifiably cuff the man the police spokesman is saying the cop was trying to protect?

I did answer that previously.

 

With:

 

Idk. Which is true. I don't know. Neither does anyone else here so far.

 

And then I speculated, same as everyone else is about this that:

 

*Possibly* bc it is not unreasonable to think a man shot in the leg could get really pissed off and combative, best to handcuff him to avoid possible more physical interaction. It wouldn't surprise me if that were a general policy of procedure.

[goldberry]

 

 

"I took this job to save lives and help people," according to the officer's text statement. "I did what I had to do in a split-second to accomplish that, and hate to hear others paint me as something I'm not." 

 

I think most officers to take the job to help people and will take this guy at his word that he did, too. But I will note that while he apparently sent expressions of sympathy through his boss, he ended with a focus on himself. That's just not appropriate. Among friends, sure, but when you shoot someone you didn't mean to, you focus on the victim not on yourself.  Take responsibility. 

 

 

Painting him as something he is not?  As someone who screwed up?  Because it was a screw up.  When you shoot an unarmed person laying on the ground, it's a screw up.  Just own it.  You don't have to be a bad person to screw up.  "The situation was confusing, I couldn't hear what was being said, I felt threatened, and I reacted poorly. I apologize for my actions."

 

He is painting what he did as "what he had to do" to "save lives and help people".  That is totally not acknowledging that he did not handle the situation properly.  

[Murphy101]

People getting hurt because of SNAFUs should simply not happen in an organization whose principal purpose is to "serve and protect."

But they do. All. The. Time.

Because humans screw up and sometimes those screw ups have heavy consequences.

 

Medicine is a prime example. The sole purpose is to do no harm and heal people, but medical error is a huge factor in injury and death. But good luck getting the professionals responsible for the injury or death to ever say they did it wrong or are sorry. That almost never happens.

[Anne in CA]

Painting him as something he is not?  As someone who screwed up?  Because it was a screw up.  When you shoot an unarmed person laying on the ground, it's a screw up.  Just own it.  You don't have to be a bad person to screw up.  "The situation was confusing, I couldn't hear what was being said, I felt threatened, and I reacted poorly. I apologize for my actions."

 

He is painting what he did as "what he had to do" to "save lives and help people".  That is totally not acknowledging that he did not handle the situation properly.  

Exactly.

 

There is no shame in admitting to mistakes. Whitewashing mistakes should be something law enforcement should be completely above. No one should be more open to correction and self examination than someone who enforces the law. Period.

 

This person should not be and LEO. Period.

 

There are lots of careers that help people where you don't need to carry a gun. He got lucky that this mistake didn't kill anyone, but the next person might not be so lucky. And since he doesn't seem to be willing to learn from his mistake, it is quite likely he will do something similar again. The community needs to make sure this person does not have a badge again.

[zoobie]

And I do think the special needs community [caregivers, families, spokesmen] would be well-advised to get involved in making sure the cops get training. Even if it isn't their responsibility legally, it would be in the interest of their community.

Autistic Lives Matter? But then they'd be accused of hating cops.