Happy now BLM?

[RandBlade]

You're moving the goal post. "Thinking you're in danger" is a very different beast from "actually being in danger".

No they're the exact same thing. Is a Police Officer allowed to shoot if he's in danger? Yes. How does a Police Officer know if he's in danger? It can only be because he thinks that he is. How do you square being allowed to shoot if you're in danger with not being allowed to shoot if you think you're in danger? Do you expect the Officer in that split second life or death situation to file a 15 page risk assessment report before pulling the trigger?

And again, this allows cops to shoot anyone without consequence because they can just state: "Oh, I thought I was in danger!"

Which is the law today and why it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction. The way to deal with this is to find a way to prove that the officer beyond a reasonable doubt did not think they were in imminent danger.

Oh, and the video showed the complete opposite of what you're claiming.

The link says the officer is shown in the video saying he thought he was going for his gun.

9:05:52-9:05:55 — Castile tells Yanez: "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Castile interrupts to say "OK" and places right hand on holstered gun.


9:05:55-9:06:02 — Yanez says, "OK, don't reach for it, then." Castile says, "I'm ... I'm ... (inaudible) reaching ... Yanez interrupts to say, "Don't pull it out." Castile says: "I'm not pulling it out." His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, says, "He's not pulling it out." Yanez shouts: "Don't pull it out!" Yanez draws his gun with right hand while reaching inside driver's window with left. Yanez removes left arm from car, fires seven shots, the last at 9:06:02.

So this was all done in seven seconds. Seven seconds elapsed between Castile saying he has a gun, the officer putting his hands on his own holster after being told that, then the suspect reaching for something while the officer repeatedly shouts "don't reach for it" "don't pull it out" "don't pull it out!" and fires all of the fatal bullets. The final bullet being fired during that seven second window. Not minutes of deliberation but a snap action within seven seconds.

I'm not sure what I'd do in that situation but I'd think if I was in the suspects position and I'd been pulled over and said that I had a gun and was told not to reach for it that I would keep my hands damn still and make no sudden movements until told to do so. Not sure why he chose to say that then start reaching for his pocket.

The jury disagrees in virtually every single freaking case. You can't be that dense.

The jury are disagreeing in virtually every single case because the cops aren't beyond a reasonable doubt making lots of bad shoots where they didn't think they were acting in self defence. You're the one being dense because you're starting with a guilty until proven innocent mentality despite our rule of law being the exact opposite.

[LittleFuzzy]

No they're the exact same thing. Is a Police Officer allowed to shoot if he's in danger?

They really aren't and you promptly demonstrate that. One thing leading to another is, by definition, two different things, not the same thing.

Which is the law today and why it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction. The way to deal with this is to find a way to prove that the officer beyond a reasonable doubt did not think they were in imminent danger.

There is not now nor will there ever be a way to prove a negative regarding a person's thoughts in a single moment in time. The way to deal with this is for cops to stop thinking they're in imminent danger when they're not in any danger whatsoever, particularly not every damned time they encounter someone black.

The link says the officer is shown in the video saying he thought he was going for his gun.

And it shows another officer telling him that the victim WASN'T going for his gun, even before the attacking officer pulled out his own pistol, much less fired seven shots.

The jury are disagreeing in virtually every single case because the cops aren't making beyond a reasonable doubt lots of bad shoots where they didn't think they were acting in self defence.

Like the jury for the Rodney King beating? Or any of the dozens of examples when it was certainly clear there was no kind of self defense involved? The juries are disagreeing with the idea that cops can ever be convicted for attacking African Americans.

[RandBlade]

They really aren't and you promptly demonstrate that. One thing leading to another is, by definition, two different things, not the same thing.

Sorry but I fail to see a differential. How is an officer allowed to shoot if he is in danger but not allowed to shoot if he thinks he is in danger? How do you draw a legal distinction that works in a court of law?

People's actions are determined by the information they have at the time, not perfect information. If someone honestly and in good faith thinks they're in danger then if they're allowed to shoot if they are in danger then how can their taking what they think is a legitimate shot possibly murder? Murder requires intent and there is no intent if they thought they were in danger. How can the mens rea test of murder be passed if the officer thought he was in danger and thus allowed to shoot?

There is not now nor will there ever be a way to prove a negative regarding a person's thoughts in a single moment in time.

Agreed. Which is why it's quite difficult to get a conviction.

The way to deal with this is for cops to stop thinking they're in imminent danger when they're not in any danger whatsoever, particularly not every damned time they encounter someone black.

Entirely agreed, but not seen any of the people engaging in hysteria providing ways to reduce the imminent danger the Police regularly face so that they don't mistakenly think that they are in danger when they're not. People are naturally risk averse and perceive threats worse than they are, it is self-defence and evolutionarily makes sense. If the Police weren't so regularly in grave danger they wouldn't be so worried that they were. How many officers have been injured or killed by suspects? How many friends and colleagues do officers know who were killed or injured by suspects?

And it shows another officer telling him that the victim WASN'T going for his gun, even before the attacking officer pulled out his own pistol, much less fired seven shots.

Yes within a split seven seconds while the officer was concentrating on a suspect who was reaching into his pockets after declaring he has a gun. While the officer was himself repeatedly shouting to stop before he pulled the trigger in that seven seconds. Don't even know if the officer who fired heard and comprehended him in that time.

Like the jury for the Rodney King beating? Or any of the dozens of examples when it was certainly clear there was no kind of self defense involved? The juries are disagreeing with the idea that cops can ever be convicted for attacking African Americans.

There's a reason people instinctively reach for a 25 year old case, because such clear abuses are rare that they become memorably when they happen.

[Aimless]

Sorry but I fail to see a differential. How is an officer allowed to shoot if he is in danger but not allowed to shoot if he thinks he is in danger? How do you draw a legal distinction that works in a court of law?

People's actions are determined by the information they have at the time, not perfect information. If someone honestly and in good faith thinks they're in danger then if they're allowed to shoot if they are in danger then how can their taking what they think is a legitimate shot possibly murder? Murder requires intent and there is no intent if they thought they were in danger. How can the mens rea test of murder be passed if the officer thought he was in danger and thus allowed to shoot?

You can attempt to determine whether or not that belief was reasonable and whether or not the subsequent actions based on the belief were appropriate. Even if it may not be murder in the first degree, it may nevertheless amount to a lesser but still severe crime.

[RandBlade]

You can attempt to determine whether or not that belief was reasonable and whether or not the subsequent actions based on the belief were appropriate. Even if it may not be murder in the first degree, it may nevertheless amount to a lesser but still severe crime.

Agreed, but it should be based upon the information available to the officer at the time and if it is a crime you are accusing him of then it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is going to be tricky. A civil suit has a lower threshold of course, so its entirely possible an officer should be dismissed for making a bad shoot but not prosecuted or convicted for it.

[LittleFuzzy]

Sorry but I fail to see a differential. How is an officer allowed to shoot if he is in danger but not allowed to shoot if he thinks he is in danger? How do you draw a legal distinction that works in a court of law?

For one thing, having juries actually apply reasonable doubt when it comes to self-defense claims. Whether you THINK you're in danger is not sufficient to claim self-defense.

People's actions are determined by the information they have at the time, not perfect information. If someone honestly and in good faith thinks they're in danger then if they're allowed to shoot if they are in danger then how can their taking what they think is a legitimate shot possibly murder? Murder requires intent and there is no intent if they thought they were in danger. How can the mens rea test of murder be passed if the officer thought he was in danger and thus allowed to shoot?

Agreed. Which is why it's quite difficult to get a conviction.

And of course you don't see anything wrong with insisting on a standard which you just admitted is completely impossible to meet for things to improve.

Entirely agreed, but not seen any of the people engaging in hysteria providing ways to reduce the imminent danger the Police regularly face

THEY'RE NOT IN CONSTANT IMMINENT DANGER! I don't have to provide a way to reduce than when this perception of yours is complete make-believe.

Yes within a split seven seconds while the officer was concentrating on a suspect who was reaching into his pockets after declaring he has a gun. While the officer was himself repeatedly shouting to stop before he pulled the trigger in that seven seconds. Don't even know if the officer who fired heard and comprehended him in that time.

If he didn't then that, again, is ON HIM. HIS NEGLIGENCE. HIS FAULT. HIS CRIMINAL CULPABILITY.

There's a reason people instinctively reach for a 25 year old case, because such clear abuses are rare that they become memorably when they happen.

Actually, I reached for that one because you're across the pond and I know better than to expect you to be familiar with anything else useful.