440
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
440 points (98.2% liked)
News
23259 readers
1545 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I edited it with a link when I realized you weren't in that comment chain.
We want them to do it in a way that doesn't involve folks who aren't violent criminals getting shot to death though, right?
My inability to provide a scenario you are happy with doesn't mean there wasn't one in which this woman could have lived, even while recognizing that she, the untrained person, might not behave correctly due to fear or other circumstances. And when you have police who realize they could be actually targeting the wrong person, it seems pretty reasonable to bring the entire precinct down to surround the car if that's what's needed to prevent a wrongful death.
Roll back the tape a little and let her see 10 cop cars blocking the exit of the parking lot, and have a cop there with a bullhorn or a sign telling her that coming out is her only option and see if it plays the same as smashing her window. Might it inconvenience the cops more? Yep. Should she probably end up with charges for the behavior? Yep. Does it save a wrongful death? YEP.
Yes. However in this case they had every reason to believe they had a violent suspect. The circumstance just has a very unfortunate overlap where a non-violent suspect with a warrant got confused with a violent one in the same area wearing the same colour top and roughly the same ethnicity. It's harder to imagine a situation where the police wouldn't reasonably think she was the suspect they were after, given her behaviour.
I'd be reluctant to call it a wrongful death, even. It was probably avoidable, however in the heat of the moment she was driving her car through a crowd of officers, so the officers have every right to shoot her to get her to stop.
It's very easy to sit back in your chair with the luxury of hindsight and say how things could have been handled differently - they could have had more cars, they could have surrounded her better, whatever. That doesn't mean that it's reasonable to expect all of that to be done in a high pressure situation. I mean, can you really argue that they should have done all that without arguing that she shouldn't have tried to drive away?
I'm arguing that one of those two entities is an (almost certainly) quite well outfitted police department who are supposed to be professionals and who are trained to operate in high pressure situations.
She was a random pregnant woman who could also have been any of those other things I previously listed (or more), and who panicked in a very human response to a threat. You can claim she only panicked because she had a warrant, but that's at least as speculative as anything I've said, and IMO more so. LOTS of people, especially of color, fear police, whether they have done anything wrong or not, and would especially do so in a circumstance such as this.
If they aren't training to allow for that possibility in a high pressure situation and behaving accordingly, there is a gigantic mismatch between what police are supposedly for and what they appear to actually be for.
Their mandate requires them to be authorized to use deadly force when they deem necessary, and basic ethics requires them to take all possible care to avoid application of that force against the wrong people, or without sufficient provocation.
They should cheerfully expect be criticized from every corner and required to aggressively look for modifications to their own processes whenever their actions result in a questionable death, or else they shouldn't accept the responsibility of being legally empowered to deploy deadly force.
Edit: And by the way. I don't accept this dismissal whatsoever:
These are peoples' lives. I don't need qualification to be able to render a thoughtful and ethical opinion about the ease with which our police force ends, alters, or otherwise permanently changes them when they make these mistakes without accepting culpability for the outcomes. If it's within our legal framework for them to be able to do so, then our legal framework needs some work.
Your argument seems to be that all the responsibility lies with police, simply because they're police.
She wasn't just a random pregnant woman. She partially matched the description they'd been given (female, white tank top, part hispanic) and while she didn't have a chest tattoo and was pregnant these might not have been immediately obvious - we don't know how far along she was and they probably didn't have a chance to look for a tattoo before she jumped in the car. Her refusal to identify herself (which she is legally obligated to do) further makes her seem like their suspect. The police had every reason to think she was the knife robber.
Assume for a moment: what if she was the knife robber? The police are then faced with the urgency of preventing further crime - if they allow her to escape, there's a high likelihood that she will a) cause harm to someone with reckless driving while trying to escape, or b) go on to rob someone else, which could easily lead to harm if they don't comply. The police have to stop her.
The police definitely deserve criticism and should be looking to modify their behaviours, in general. Here though, the criticism doesn't have much weight behind it, because the suspect holds a significant amount of responsibility for what happened. She did not identify herself to the police. She inadvertently led them to believe she was their violent suspect. She tried to escape and drive through police officers. We can certainly discuss whether or when it was necessary to smash the window (in particular, I think smashing the passenger window was stupid - if they'd smashed the driver's window she might not have reacted so quickly) however the police had every right to detain her and use force due to her non-compliance.
These are peoples' lives. And police have to balance the suspect's life against those of the suspect's potential victims. Again, the police had every reason to think she was their knife suspect, who could go on to harm someone. If she was, and the police didn't stop her, and she did go on to kill someone, then the police would be blamed for their inaction.
My dismissal is because you're assuming perfect knowledge of the situation. That isn't practicable, and is downright unlikely in these circumstances - and a big part of that is because of the actions of the suspect.
It's within the legal framework for police to use reasonable force to stop a violent criminal. They had every reason to think she was their violent criminal.
How would you suggest the legal framework be changed, such that it could both protect a non-compliant but non-violent criminal while simulatenously allowing necessary force to be used to stop violent criminals? The issue at the core is mistaken identity, but the suspect refused to identify themselves, so how can the legal system or police fix that?
Most of your response indicates that either I'm failing to adequately convey my viewpoint or you are failing to fully comprehend it. The fault might very well be mine, but I'm not really enthusiastic about trying to rephrase it again, especially with the likelihood that you'll reject it out of hand again.
I'll just pluck at these two points.
My argument is that the vast, vast majority of the responsibility lies with police because their training and behavior are the controllable variables in the interaction, and they are the ones empowered to end lives and deploy violence based on their assessment of the situation, and who should be trained to do so with the utmost care.
The very clear answer is that they do so by treating people as innocent until they have more to go on than a failure to comply and a partial description match (christ, "you match the description" is the most commonly cited example of racial profiling I can remember hearing) to decide otherwise. Had they done so, something less escalating than smashing out a window would have been done, regardless of whether you and I agree on the details of what that something could have been.
Frankly, with no snark intended, I think there's little chance that further discussion is going to cause either of us to change our minds.
But she wasn't innocent. She had warrants out for her arrest, and while the police did not know about that, she did refuse to identify herself which is also an offense. Then, when she drove the car into the officers she presented a very real threat to them. This isn't an example of racial profiling, either, and one way or another they would have had to get her out of the car, which was probably going to involve smashing a window at some stage.
While ordinarily and in general I agree with your points, they really don't apply well enough here. The police were far from perfect, but she was further.
She was innocent of the crime you have used to justify their escalation throughout this entire discussion. Had they treated her with the presumption of such, given their extremely shaky evidence to the contrary, different decisions could have (and should have) been made, as I've expressed a number of times already.
Thank you, and have a good day.