So I was listening to the "Godless Rebelution" podcast. I really like their show, and what they're doing with it. I have really enjoyed the guests they've interviewed, especially
Lucien Greaves and
David Silverman, and I really enjoy listening to the show.
So anyways, I was listening to their
latest show today, when at around 5 minutes in, they started talking about a recent
officer involved shooting that happened recently in Salt Lake City.
So these are intelligent guys who I enjoy listening to, and they seem to be critical thinkers, which is what I'm always looking for when talking with or listening to someone, but I'm going to have to call them out on some complete bullshit they said in this episode.
So the first thing they really said about the incident was "The police were busy becuase they had to murder a teen in the city". That sounded to me like humor, so I just dismissed it, but they ended up doubling down on that remark.
To their credit, one of the guys right away said the shooting was the fault of the teenager because "the most important thing is compliance with a police officers orders - It doesn't matter what the laws are, that's totally his fault, he deserved to be murdered."
Well, it sounds like he wasn't murdered. All of the information isn't in yet, but it sounds like the police told him to drop the weapon he was using to beat a homeless man, the other teens dropped their weapons, but this one refused. it sounds like the officers invovled feared the offender was going to hit the homeless person with that weapon again, so they shot him to stop him from hurting anyone else. That's not murder, it's called a justifiable homocide. In other words, it's exactly what we pay our police officers to do for us.
But semantics aside, it went south from there.
One of the guys remarks "Just because he decided not to drop a broom stick, the police decided to shoot him."
Not really. This kid (I'm assuming it was a kid, as they keep calling him a teen, but they called Michael Brown a teen to and
he was no kid) was allegedly battering a homeless person with what could have been a deadly weapon. Strike someone in the head with a broom stick and you can easily kill them.
Are these guys really siding with an asshole committing a violent crime instead of the victim, who was a defenseless homeless person, and the police officers who arrived to help the homeless person? How on earth could you side with an asshole harming a defensless victim, unless you had to in order to side against the police officers involved? And if you were going to side with an asshole harming a defenseless person in order to side against the police officers involved, you must have a huge bias against the police. You have to be operating pretty irrationally in order to take that position, right from the start, without access to much of the information about the incident.
According to one of the guys on the show, the broom sticks were metal (that's intersting, I don't think I've ever encountered a metal broomstick before) and when the police ordered the "kid" to drop the weapon, he continued to strike the homeless person with the stick.
Next they said "the kid was in the wrong, but the police shouldn't have shot him. They should have done some kind of escalation of force; they could have tased him, they could have pepper sprayed him. The problem I have is the quick escalation of force that's being used."
Now this is the part I really want to address, and I want to address this for two reasons:
1. Up until now, their comments on this case have been pretty irrational, and what can you really say to rebut irrationality except "come on man, you're being a fucking idiot" I'm sure even these guys would agree there isn't much more you can say to someone who is being irrational. But this comment is rational. It's wrong, but it's rational, so now we have something we can talk about, and hopefully reach understanding, and meaning.
2. This seems to be a pretty common mis-conception among people in the media who tend to side against the police in these cases.
So here goes.
When dude from Godless Rebelution (sorry guys, I don't know your names yet) mentioned "an escalation" what he's talking about is the "Use of Force Continuum." The image below is what it looks like.
Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with an individual police officers decision to use force or not, a police officer has the legal authority to use force against someone in accordance with the above continuum, as long as a court, or the agency the officer works for, determines that force meets the "objectively reasonable" test. In Graham v. Connor (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police use of force must be “objectively reasonable” -- that an officer's actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation.
In other words, the officer doesn't have to use all of his less than lethal tools or tactics if they decide none of those are appropriate, and everyone doesn't have to agree after the fact that the officer made the best possible decision. When a police officer decides to shoot someone, and all the facts are considered, the court will ask was his actions reasonable. If yes, it's legal. It's not murder, it's legal.
Keep in mind that police officers make these decisions very quickly, during rapidly developing, dynamic circumstances, with only a sliver of information available to them.
Now I'm not in possession of all of the facts of this case, but from what little I'm aware of so far, it sounds like these officers were called to help this homeless guy who was being victimized by three assholes that should be in prison, not running our streets. When they arrived, two assholes dropped their weapons, one asshole continued battering the victim. The police officers apparently felt it was necessary to shoot this asshole to stop him from using a weapon to cause death or serious injury to the victim.
You can "Monday morning quarterback" a police officer all day long. "Well, why didn't the officer
karate chop him?" "Why didn't the police officer use jiu jitsu to take down and restrain the suspect" "why didn't the police officer just
shoot the weapon out of his hand", but at the end of the day, the law doesn't require the police officer to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny. The standard the officer is subjected to is "was his actions objectively reasonable given the information the officer had, and the circumstances the officer faced at the time."
When a police officer arrives on scene and sees a suspect actively engaged in assaulting a victim with a weapon, the police officer has the legal authority to take whatever measures the officer deems necessary in that moment to stop the threat to that victim. All day, every day. That's the law.
Now there are problems in law enforcement, but that isn't one. Hopefully I'll have a chance to write about what I think are the problems with law enforcement and how those problems can be fixed, but in the mean time, please try to do the following:
- Before deciding a police officer was out of line, or guilty of "brutality" please wait until all of the facts of the case are avaialble. That means waiting until the use of force investigation has been completed, the criminal investigation (if there is one) of the officers actions is completed, and the IA/personnel investigation is completed, and all of that information is made public. I know that's a long time, but reaching a conclusion before you have that information is silly.
- If you want to be a pundit scrutinizing police officers, fine. But please educate yourself about what the law requires, and about police procedure first, or you'll just sound like a biased douche bag.
Douchebag Rob Lowe - Don't be this Rob Lowe....
