My virtue-signalling left-wing friends have been raising Cain over a shooting back down in Georgia, where two former police officers (who happen to be father and son) shot and killed a jogger. The shooters were white, the jogger was black, and the shooters appear to have taken him for a burglar and tried to make a citizens' arrest. That's legal in Georgia, provided that you bring the arrested before a magistrate in very short order.
The jogger grappled with one of them, who was holding a shotgun. The other one shot him, as he had taken up an elevated covering position by standing in the back of their pickup truck.
Generally this is being portrayed as a white-supremacist-hate-crime. Perhaps it was, although so far I haven't seen any evidence suggesting it besides the fact that they are white and the dead man was black. I am instantly struck, however, by the fact that they would probably not even be charged if they were still cops. 'Suspect grappled with the responding officer, and was going for his gun. Backup officer applied necessary force to ensure arresting officer was not killed in a struggle over the gun. Suspect died of wounds.'
In fact I suspect they will be cleared at trial for just that reason. A struggle over a gun with a suspected criminal poses an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm of just the sort that the Georgia self-defense laws permits. A third party may use lethal force to save the life of another so threatened. Since the dead man had a criminal record that did include burglary, and the shooters were former law-enforcement, my guess is the jury will break their way if they aren't convinced to take a plea bargain. At worst they'll likely get a mistrial; they may well be acquitted.
That said, what really happened here is probably what AVI was talking about: reversion to training. They did what the police are trained to do, and I can't imagine charges being brought against two police officers who did exactly the same thing. Here's a case in which training can actually work against you, because as your role in society changes over time, old training remains part of your state of character. A man is dead because of how they were trained as police officers.
36 comments:
I suspect one critical difference is that actual police officers would have been readily identifiable as such by their uniforms, or they would have announced themselves were they in plainclothes.
Otherwise, what I see from published reports is two trigger happy guys who profiled badly and got over-anxious. And why did the one get close enough to the putative suspect to let him grab the shotgun and seriously struggle for control of it?
The other side of the story is that the victim was defending himself against two thugs who accosted him, and they won the struggle. And a victim who was spring-loaded to paranoia because of his record. And a black victim, because for all the progress we've made there's still bigotry afoot, who was made anxious by the rapid approach of two white guys brandishing firearms and yelling at him with their vehicle stopped in the middle of a secluded road.
Nor do I have any concern--based on those same published reports--about law enforcement's apparent inactivity until the partial video of the event (edited for publication?) was published. I have no idea what the police were doing quietly, as such investigations must be done, especially at their outset.
There are too many questions left unanswered for any serious conclusions to be drawn.
Eric Hines
And they weren't police officers during the incident. It is an interesting example of training, because I have at times encountered mentally-ill people getting out of control outside the hospital and started rehearsing what I might do to calm them, and possibly bring them under control physically. But outside the hospital, it not my jurisdiction and I have a different role to play. That was also part of my training - quite specifically, in fact.
I think it would be confusing if it were one of my many patients who has come into the hospital repeatedly who is out of control in the community. It would still be "not my problem, call 911," but I might be more automatic in (wrongly) attempting to intervene.
BTW, there is at least one case of a hospital employee getting hit with a serious breach-of-confidentiality lawsuit when trying to calm a frequent patient of his by calling him by name and saying "You know me. I don't want you to get hurt," even though no specific reference to how he knew the other man was stated. I recall that the fine was beyond what an average person would ever be able to pay.
The law can be very strict as to what your role is in specific situations.
Mr. Hines:
...actual police officers would have been readily identifiable as such by their uniforms...
Yes, that is a good reason to be careful about conducting citizen's arrests where it is legal. (It is not in NC.) And you raise a good point about letting him get that close -- although how do you stop him? The police would likely have shot him for charging, before it got to grappling.
The other side of the story is that the victim was defending himself against two thugs who accosted him, and they won the struggle. And a victim who was spring-loaded to paranoia because of his record. And a black victim, because for all the progress we've made there's still bigotry afoot, who was made anxious by the rapid approach of two white guys brandishing firearms and yelling at him with their vehicle stopped in the middle of a secluded road.
That's a good point. I often reflect on these kinds of stories that the jury might well have acquitted the other side too, if it had gone the other way. If he'd won the struggle for the shotgun and had killed both, he might well have walked once it got to trial. He was also in immediate fear of death or grievous bodily harm, and reasonably so (as sadly proven by events).
It is an interesting example of training, because I have at times encountered mentally-ill people getting out of control outside the hospital and started rehearsing what I might do to calm them, and possibly bring them under control physically. But outside the hospital, it not my jurisdiction and I have a different role to play. That was also part of my training - quite specifically, in fact.... The law can be very strict as to what your role is in specific situations.
I have my doubts about police training in general as regards lethal force, but you make me think that maybe there should be mandatory training on leaving the force. A cop is in some sense always on duty; even off duty if he encounters a serious crime he is both permitted and expected to act as an officer. So when you do stop carrying a badge, you should probably be retrained carefully for your new role.
I have no problem with the concept of citizen's arrest--when the bad man comes, and seconds count...--and I don't like that NC bars them. But a citizen's arrest does put a premium on the citizen being as careful and considered in the act as we expect our police to be. We are, after all, making ourselves police when we attempt one.
How do I stop the guy I'm trying to arrest from getting close enough to grab my firearm? In the NC case, I have the impression (which could be wrong) that it was the shotgun holder who approached the victim, not the other way around. The first step, especially if I had backup, like Shotgun did, is don't get that close in the first place. My wife and I are well practiced at what the USAF used to call fluid-two tactics as applied to the ground. The two NC guys also appeared to have worked out the principles of acting as a team in that sort of situation.
If the guy approaches me with my firearm, I either step back--my backup will have already called the police--we leave altogether, or I shoot him before he gets too close. Most likely--not definitely--our visible weapons will hold him in place. If he charges despite them, I shoot, and most likely--not definitively--he's hopped up on drugs, and blood/urine tests, or forensics, will demonstrate that. That won't prove my self defense, but it'll support the claim.
Too, when my wife and I are outdoors and carrying, we carry pepper spray, too. We'd much rather spray the man down than shoot him. Indoors, the small, closed environment changes the decision radically.
So when you do stop carrying a badge, you should probably be retrained carefully for your new role.
We have started preparing retiring military for civilian life; it makes absolute sense to do that for our retiring police, too. And for cops who aren't retiring but who are leaving after some time on the force.
Eric Hines
I don't believe that's the case- I believe that he never fires a shot and that all the shots discharged were from the shotgun. Assuming that this is more or less correct, that would seem to be the case.
"There are too many questions left unanswered for any serious conclusions to be drawn."
I believe this is the only correct take at this time. Yet almost everyone is intent on picking a side. I was especially disappointed by Tim Scott. He seems to have already tried and convicted.
I had not thought of specific "you are no longer an officer of the law, here are your new rules" training, but I think that is sensible. I can testify to the reality that one starts to respond to a situation in one's most usual way before stepping back. That is likely truer when a situation is intense.
This isn't self defense, because the citizens armed, could always leave. They had guns and a pickup, which creates space.
This is what they call a "mutual fight". The dead person can claim self defense, because he is being accosted by two armed persons that conceivably could kidnap him and kill him in off site secondary location. All the more reason if the person is part of the lower class of criminals, because these people are specially "alert" to kidnappings and other shenanigans, because they have seen others do it.
The hunter/predator mentality that police undergone as conditioning to remove their social conditioning or human soul against harming others, tends to get picked up by others as "threat aura". If they had official police markings, perhaps this threat aura would motivate people to comply and Obey, as Americans have kneeled down in the face of Corona and offered up their lives and freedoms to the State as sacrifice for the healing of Fauci/WHO/CDC vaccines. But without this, who actually would comply with orders to "get out of the car". "Put your hands up, disarm, and face away from me"?
You gonna do that for a stranger, Grim? Well, sayonarra then.
Humans are broken. These events happen because of human shenanigans. People sometimes call it original sin but... that's not all that accurate.
It's not about which side is right or wrong. If you poke a lioness enough times, maybe she gets out of the cage and takes your face off. Shrugs. Who is at fault? Animals do what animals do. Humans do what humans do.
There's nothing about it.
Counter A: but human civilization is superior and better!
Sure... and humans crucified a Son of God, you may know him as Jesus or Yeshua.
You know, people do not want to think about it but... when your human family is full of sociopaths and psychopaths that are engaged in child rape and crucifying the messengers of God... maybe there's a problem with the family? It's not the laws. It's not society. It's not the nation or America or the police or whatever.
See this report, which will leave LOTS of questions in your mind.
https://georgiarecorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Barnhill-letter-Brunswick-shooting.pdf?mod=article_inline
And just for kicks, if I interested in burglary of a particular neighborhood, "jogging to do surveillance" is a very creative scheme.
If it’s right that the shots came directly from the shotgun during a struggle over it that the jogger initiated, and it’s impossible to prove whether the gun went off accidentally, it may be hard to obtain even an involuntary manslaughter conviction.
Georgia law is pretty accepting of the use of lethal force. There’s a clear standard, but often whoever survives the encounter will prove to have met it. NC has a much tighter standard that turns on who was the aggressor. Even here, though, it’s not murder if someone grabbed your gun and accidentally shot themselves in the process.
Dad29, thatnks for that document.
Bsking king points out the gender reversal aspect, that if the victim had been a woman, no one would think she had the least obligation to respond if two guys in a pickup stated that they wanted to talk to her.
Heh. No one would think to take a shotgun and backup to confront a female burglar either.
At some point we will have to confront that we really don’t believe in gender equality. Liberation of women, yes, but there’s no appetite for imposition of male hardships or violence upon them. Equality is not what any of us really want. Justice, but not exactly equal treatment.
No one would think to take a shotgun and backup to confront a female burglar either.
Maybe to their detriment. A neighboring air base in Germany ran a penetration exercise once--their sky cops were the defenders--and they asked for volunteer penetrators from our radar squadron. One of our female officers--looked like a mousey little thing, skinny and barely made the height minimum to get into OCS--was one of the penetrators.
She was dressed as an ordinary civilian, wandered on up to one of the sky cops on guard patrol and just snatched his rifle from him and reversed it on him (mostly--she treated the weapon as though it were loaded and considered the peacetime exercise that the situation was).
Sky Cop got some...retraining...after the exercise. Lt Mouse got some beers back at the squadron.
Eric Hines
That trick only worked because he did take a gun. :)
Still, it’s a trick that works in other ways. A woman I knew was the heroine of Grenada. She was able to travel freely as a ‘tourist’ taking photos of the airfield, even got dayglo paint smuggled into the students so they could mark their building’s roof for the SEALs.
Despite their claim of a string of burglaries in the area, there had apparently been only one. The incident they were familiar with was 6-7 weeks ago.
Like a good mystery novel, this one may keep revealing new levels going forward, but at the moment it doesn't look there was justification.
That trick only worked because he did take a gun. :)
Not so much. Lt Mouse only looked like that. If Sky Cop had been foolish enough to be on patrol without his weapon, she would have kicked him where it matters. This was a penetration exercise.
Eric Hines
“... it doesn't look there was justification.”
The DA seems to feel otherwise. Georgia law is different. I think basically any situation in which deadly force comes to be used will end up authorizing deadly force by both parties given the way the law is constructed.
The real rule in Georgia is that if you get into a gunfight, don’t lose.
No one would think to take a shotgun and backup to confront a female burglar either.
You've forgotten the DC execution of the mother in the car then...
And Ruby Ridge.
Humans are broken. They do all kinds of stuff due to fear control. Just look at the world as it is under totalitarian domination due to some "minor" pandemic.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JuqJKxRdurpV/ Some advanced human woke up and is now trying to wake the rest of the broken human sheep. Maybe it works... maybe it does not. Doesn't really matter one way or another.
Obey the Law.
Follow your Orders.
Totalitarian Power will save you from death.
Or Else.
Counter: Or Else what?
Y: Or else the Heavens Fall and Justice be done, even if all X billion of you humans need to burn.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8303297/Man-filmed-Ahmaud-Arbery-slaying-claims-witness-says-getting-threats.html
This reminds me of that... who was it, some kind of US military veteran that survived some kind of ambush, got back home in Texas, and some youths shot his therapy dog and he ran them down. No casualties, other than the dog... that is.
How did this military guy have his safeties and social conditioning on but not these two guys with guns?
Because humans are broken. They function more like zombies, pet dogs, or pet cats. Same for both sides. The car following behind filming all this, isn't helping either, because they have effectively "sandwitched" the target between two cars, with no cover on the sides. Try to run from an overwatch position in the open for more than 30 ft before getting executed.
The proper tactical position is to assault in force the ranged threats first.
“... basically any situation in which deadly force comes to be used...”
That’s somewhat carelessly phrased. Armed robbery isn’t justified, for example, and if it leads to death that’s a capital crime (felony murder, that is, murder while committing a felony).
I mean that any situation in which you are trying to do something lawful. The presence of a firearm creates a reasonable fear, which can end up justifying force that itself ends up justifying force because of the struggle over the firearm. It’s going to be hard to convict, especially since the defense can cite the DA’s legal brief as evidence that a reasonable prosecutor agreed there was no crime.
I'm not so comfortable with the "citizen's arrest" approach if they didn't catch the guy in the act. It sounds like they confronted him on the street while he was out jogging. They weren't in uniform. What was he supposed to think? Two armed guys accosted him out of the blue. He struggled in what looks a whole lot like self-defense. They then killed him in what they assert is self-defense, but they were armed and he was not, and they accosted him.
I was always sympathetic towards George Zimmerman because, to judge from his account, Trayvon Martin attacked him first. There was a question whether Martin was provoked, but it was fairly clear he wasn't provoked in the sense of having someone draw a weapon on him and try to make a citizen's arrest; it was more that he resented being trailed or scoped out. It sure doesn't sound like Arbery saw an armed guy and sucker-punched him, which is the only way the self-defense argument would work for me.
I give the police great leeway in demanding an immediate surrender, because they're in uniform and either executing a warrant or operating under exigent circumstances. Amateur sleuths operating on a warrantless hunch don't get the same consideration.
I’m only making an argument about what I think Georgia law will find here, rather than an argument about what’s right. Mostly I believe in minding your own business. If you’re not on my property, there’s no danger that I’ll come after you with a gun to find out what you’re doing.
If you’re not on my property, there’s no danger that I’ll come after you with a gun to find out what you’re doing.
That also depends on the situation. If he's on my neighbor's property (in one case, I know of the wife's disability, too, which spring-loads me) and acting suspiciously, I'm likely to approach, armed but not necessarily with weapon in hand. I suspect that's the case with you, too.
Eric Hines
My closest neighbors are out of sight. If I were to move to a place where I could see my neighbors, possibly.
But you’d have to be pretty bold to go robbing houses up here. Everyone is armed. I don’t carry a gun myself, but pretty much all the men do and more than a few of the women. I only go get a gun if people are on the property who don’t belong —and if I do, it’ll be a longarm. Even in Iraq, I carried a knife for closer work, and I always have one of those handy.
The picture is changing now. It seems a neighborhood home was under construction, and the suspect entered the home, as captured on security camera from across the street. A neighbor, also across the street, came out into his yard as he called the law to report. The suspect is seen running from the construction site and on down the road, having become aware of the neighbor's attention. The house next door to the site is apparently the home of the shooters, who come out of their home to give chase in their truck. The mother has apparently identified her son on the video. It will be interesting to see how the story moves from here. I do not happen to think that the chasers had good reason to confront the deceased on the basis of trespass, JMHO. In the age of the cell phone, it has become very easy to track and report. We shall see what transpires as the deceased's history comes to light.
If he was caught in the act, or at least running away from the scene of the crime, I may end up with a very different view of the father/son team.
Where are you reading about the events leading up to the shooting, Aggie? I’d love to know more about what happened.
One thing that strikes me in watching the video repeatedly is that the younger McMichael, once engaged with Aubrey, is almost always attempting to backpedal- to put distance between himself and Aubrey. This makes sense as he's carrying a gun, but perhaps also speaks to state of mind/sense of aggression.
I'm starting to suspect that this was a case of legal overreaction that lead to panic in the suspected burglar and ended tragically for all involved.
We shall see, I suppose.
The shotgun guy got out of his car. Tactically, big mistake. He should be driving, and the guy up top should be talking and over watching with the gun. I don't think the police are used to that sort of approach but it is a lot more "safe" than getting out of the car when a target is already approaching your car from the right side. Because there isn't enough distance. The target is on the right side of the truck, literally, and the driver with the shotgun is coming from the left side door, across the front of the truck. Where do you all think the meeting point is? Not across a distance of 21 feet I can guarantee that.
These people are just inexperienced hunting targets down. US Seals and SF, are far better at it even as civilians.
Larry, the DailyMail reconstruction is close to that narrative.
I do not know if it is accurate, but the origin of the car filming indeed looks like it is a neighbor, across the street, of an open construction area. Meaning, the walls and doors are up. There is no "break in entering" because there is no door.
And with no backpack, not sure what you can "steal" that would be worth anything.
Texan, Martin had a survival sense that somebody was following him. And he was right. Zimmer was told to go look for street signs and to track the target. Obeying orders is a good thing, right?
"Stay on the Phone" may have meant something different in 911 manuals if they realized people could walk around with their phones on the streets.
People who are paranoid, which means criminals in general or those that live around such people, have a more refined sense of who might be hunting them down. Often times, this fear causes over reactions, because it is a combat mentality.
Post a Comment