This is how Police Get Away with ... (Article)

[javanomad]

Article today is very illustrative of current public thinking on Police Shootings.

https://www.thenation.com/article/so...-brown-police/

Read it. It's very worth reading if you are in LE.

Summary - Andrew Brown had a Felony Drug Warrant for his arrest. Dear Andrew took exception to being Arrested that day and decided to get into his car and drive off road to make his escape (car was blocked by police cruisers). And the Police feeling that Andrew using his car to make his escape constituted a deadly threat, shot Andrew who died of his wounds.

The District Attorney (in NC btw)

• Believes that the Car represented a deadly weapon that Andrew utilized, causing the Police to address his threat
• DA will not press charges against the Cops over Dear Departed Andrew

The Author

• Believes that a Car is NOT a deadly weapon, therefore Dear Andrew was "unarmed"
• Believes that this incident exemplifies how police legally kill black people
• Believes that the warrant does not justify the actions of the police shooting Andrew
• Believes that the DIRECTION of Andrew's off road driving somehow important to the debate about reasonable force

I strongly urge any Law Enforcement types to READ and RE-READ the comments associated with this article.

If a LE type gets into a dicey situation, said LE SHOULD know the mindset of the likely Jury Pool. If you thought the Floyd trial jurors were an anomaly... I think looking at the comments to this article will be eye opening.

• Comments about "catch ya' later" trope. That is the police should have let Dear Andrew get away so they could "catch ya' later". No word if any of the commenters realize how silly this comment is in a Rule of Law society... that is do we REALLY want the enforcement of Arrest Warrants to be predicated based on the EFFORT the Subject evades said Arrest? Do we as a society REALLY want that?
• Comments that "Fentanyl and Heroin are not that bad" so no need to shoot to kill the subject of the Arrest Warrant.
• Comments about the idea that Dear Andrew was indeed "unarmed" behind the wheel of his car driving in close proximity to police with guns drawn. REALLY! it seems that people do not understand that car can indeed kill people too.

Again I can't stress this enough. When a shooting occurs it appears 50 percent or so of average citizens would have PREFERRED to have the shot person get away rather than potentially kill them.

THINK LONG AND HARD about how this affects your personal LE situation. If you "think" a jury will understand a shooting as you understand shootings... you might want to reconsider.

[blues]

For perspective, @javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO? I apologize in advance if this has been covered elsewhere but I may have missed it. (Or perhaps in the judicial system?)

[Guerrero]

Unfortunately, members of my family are in agreement with the author of the article, that, since Brown was driving *away* from the officers, the car was not a "deadly weapon" and therefore the police had no cause to open fire (it was pointed out to me that police shot Brown in the back of the head).

I could not articulate why this view was incorrect, and still can't come up with a coherent answer.

[javanomad]

>>> For perspective, @javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO?

gee that sounds ominous

I remember a question like that stated differently back in the day - and the answer then was "No I am not nor ever been a member of the Communist Party"

My only background in this area is I enforced another country's laws after we er dismissed the local law enforcemetn while working on a certain US effort. That good enough to let me in the club house?
In any case then as now, public perception changed and it was important to note that change. But hey let me know if wish me to move along.

[blues]

>>> For perspective, @javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO?

gee that sounds ominous

I remember a question like that stated differently back in the day - and the answer then was "No I am not nor ever been a member of the Communist Party"

My only background in this area is I enforced another country's laws after we er dismissed the local law enforcemetn while working on a certain US effort. That good enough to let me in the club house?
In any case then as now, public perception changed and it was important to note that change. But hey let me know if wish me to move along.

You can answer or not, but there was no need to take umbrage. Generally, a simple, direct answer works best...but you do you.

I don't have the keys to the clubhouse, you've confused me with someone else.

[javanomad]

Unfortunately, members of my family are in agreement with the author of the article, that, since Brown was driving *away* from the officers, the car was not a "deadly weapon" and therefore the police had no cause to open fire (it was pointed out to me that police shot Brown in the back of the head).

I could not articulate why this view was incorrect, and still can't come up with a coherent answer.

These articles fall into two camps. One camp tries to give the facts then has the author advocate against LE. The other camp does not even try to provide neutral facts, spins the facts, ignores police positive facts, invents facts, paints perp as an angel ALL while being a full advocate against LE.

Given that this article was the first category, I wanted to post it. Frankly in the press LE is not getting any positive advocacy. The above article is one I could read disagree with and not be overwhelmed by the disinformation and anti-police propaganda.
Having some background in Information Operations. It appears to be a concerted effort to make US mainstream certain thinking.

Example - now the argument has moved to what is "armed" and what is considered a "deadly threat".

I frankly was shocked to notice in the comments that the accepted premise of a Suspect fleeing arrest is not to be met with deadly force if the situation warrants it (e.g. Suspect using a deadly weapon to affect his escape). Also the accepted premise that somehow the Crime/Reason for Police contact matters if the Police end up Shooting Suspect.

[javanomad]

You can answer or not, but there was no need to take umbrage. Generally, a simple, direct answer works best...but you do you.

I don't have the keys to the clubhouse, you've confused me with someone else.

Fair enough I appreciate the latitude in any case.

[BehindBlueI's]

If a guy is driving at my vehicle with me inside at that apparent speed, please don't shoot him with me down range. I'm more concerned with your bullets then I am his crashing into me, even if you ignore shooting the driver isn't really any sort of guarantee of stopping the vehicle. Even standing in front of the car and creating your own jeopardy so you shoot to avoid being run over is something that's still legal here, but will get you benched because it's specifically against training. Sometimes you get a fur ball and shit just happens, but when possible let's all try to be on the same plane and not a horse shoe or circle if bullets may start flying inbound or outbound.

What departments still have a policy allowing shooting into a moving vehicle? We don't. You can break policy if it's necessary for the preservation of life, such as a terrorist attack where someone is actively running people over with a UHaul sort of situation, but fleeing? Regardless of what the prosecutor says you're probably looking for a new line of work here.

[BehindBlueI's]

>>> For perspective, @javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO?

gee that sounds ominous

Pretty standard here, as part of the PF culture is how do you know what you know and what perspective you are coming from. You don't need to be an LEO to post here, but people will want to know some idea of your bonafides if you start talking on technical topics. It's one reason this forum remains relatively small, but it does keep the content value up.

[WobblyPossum]

The Author

• Believes that a Car is NOT a deadly weapon, therefore Dear Andrew was "unarmed"
• Believes that this incident exemplifies how police legally kill black people
• Believes that the warrant does not justify the actions of the police shooting Andrew
• Believes that the DIRECTION of Andrew's off road driving somehow important to the debate about reasonable force

.

I 100% believe the direction the car is being driven is important to the reasonableness of a force decision. Even if we all agree that the car can be a deadly weapon, what the subject does with the weapon is one of the things you have to base your force decision on. In Scott v. Harris, the Supreme Court determined that the officer (Scott) was reasonable in his use of deadly force to terminate the pursuit because the suspect (Harris) was driving in such a manner that he endangered the lives of the motoring public. What the suspect does with the vehicle, such as the direction the suspect drives in, is hugely important to the force decision. If the suspect is simply using the vehicle to drive away from the officers in order to escape, the officer using force better be able to articulate a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a serious threat to the safety of other officers or members of the public (see Tennessee v. Garner, which while it didn’t involve a vehicle, was THE “fleeing felon” case).

I don’t know many of the facts of this case since I haven’t followed it at all but if the actual sequence of events cited in this article is accurate, I don’t have the warm-and-fuzzies about this shooting.