Normally, I wouldn't post footage of a shootout like this unless something controversial happened. I don't think anything in this shootout was controversial...with the exception of how it ended...and perhaps the statements made by the police chief.
Warning....this footage is extremely violent.
So there's a lot of stuff to takeaway here....
1. The demeanor of the cop just outside the car door talking to the man in the backseat. He's either the friendliest cop ever...or he has taken a lot of criticism aimed towards the police in the past decade too seriously. Cops often adopt a demeanor that can be described as "intimidating" or "potentially dangerous"...and the reason why is exactly what we see in this video. What little research exists on the subject of "why did this criminal decide to assault/murder that cop" shows the answers are surprisingly similar. "He looked weak", "I thought I could take him", "I wasn't going to allow that guy to take me in". A very high percentage of subjects viewed the cop as someone they could easily victimize.
Now, I'll gladly admit that it's a fine line between intimidating and professional...and rude/disrespectful/unprofessional.
2. The relative dangers of policing. You may have seen articles and charts floating around a year or more ago, claiming that because more roofers die annually than cops...they have the more dangerous job. This is stupid, as I pointed out whenever someone made this claim. Nobody is actively trying to kill roofers. Watch the video and ask yourself at what point the lives of these cops isn't in danger? When the suspect is dead...that's about it. The idea that because these cops didn't die... their job isn't extremely dangerous is just an ignorant viewpoint.
3. Warrior training. The training for spontaneous life-and-death struggles that is commonplace amongst police departments across the US is often called "warrior training"...and has been the subject of some controversy because people seem to believe in #2 "policing isn't that dangerous". Warrior training attempts to prepare a regular person for the very real possibility of a sudden and deadly attack on their lives...like the one in the video. People freeze up, make mistakes, fail to remember proper policies and procedures. Cops need to be able to adopt the correct mindset at the drop of a hat. I can understand why activists see this training as problematic. The thing is, cops get shot at hundreds of times a year....of those, very few actually die. Outcomes like the one in the video are more common than the opposite because cops train for this situation.
5. Qualified immunity. The last cop who shot probably has no idea how many times he fired. We can't see the subject on the ground but let's assume (for the sake of discussion) the cop standing above him saw the subject reaching for his gun....or into his pants for another weapon.
Qualified immunity is what keeps the subject's family from suing that cop for excessive force.
One could argue that one or two bullets would have been sufficient force to stop the subject and anything beyond that is "excessive". There was a child in the backseat, and it's not hard to imagine a stray bullet from the police ricocheting and killing the girl. Qualified immunity would keep the cop from facing murder charges.
I don't want to say that qualified immunity is necessary for police to be able to do their jobs....but it really is.
Thoughts?
Warning....this footage is extremely violent.
So there's a lot of stuff to takeaway here....
1. The demeanor of the cop just outside the car door talking to the man in the backseat. He's either the friendliest cop ever...or he has taken a lot of criticism aimed towards the police in the past decade too seriously. Cops often adopt a demeanor that can be described as "intimidating" or "potentially dangerous"...and the reason why is exactly what we see in this video. What little research exists on the subject of "why did this criminal decide to assault/murder that cop" shows the answers are surprisingly similar. "He looked weak", "I thought I could take him", "I wasn't going to allow that guy to take me in". A very high percentage of subjects viewed the cop as someone they could easily victimize.
Now, I'll gladly admit that it's a fine line between intimidating and professional...and rude/disrespectful/unprofessional.
2. The relative dangers of policing. You may have seen articles and charts floating around a year or more ago, claiming that because more roofers die annually than cops...they have the more dangerous job. This is stupid, as I pointed out whenever someone made this claim. Nobody is actively trying to kill roofers. Watch the video and ask yourself at what point the lives of these cops isn't in danger? When the suspect is dead...that's about it. The idea that because these cops didn't die... their job isn't extremely dangerous is just an ignorant viewpoint.
3. Warrior training. The training for spontaneous life-and-death struggles that is commonplace amongst police departments across the US is often called "warrior training"...and has been the subject of some controversy because people seem to believe in #2 "policing isn't that dangerous". Warrior training attempts to prepare a regular person for the very real possibility of a sudden and deadly attack on their lives...like the one in the video. People freeze up, make mistakes, fail to remember proper policies and procedures. Cops need to be able to adopt the correct mindset at the drop of a hat. I can understand why activists see this training as problematic. The thing is, cops get shot at hundreds of times a year....of those, very few actually die. Outcomes like the one in the video are more common than the opposite because cops train for this situation.
5. Qualified immunity. The last cop who shot probably has no idea how many times he fired. We can't see the subject on the ground but let's assume (for the sake of discussion) the cop standing above him saw the subject reaching for his gun....or into his pants for another weapon.
Qualified immunity is what keeps the subject's family from suing that cop for excessive force.
One could argue that one or two bullets would have been sufficient force to stop the subject and anything beyond that is "excessive". There was a child in the backseat, and it's not hard to imagine a stray bullet from the police ricocheting and killing the girl. Qualified immunity would keep the cop from facing murder charges.
I don't want to say that qualified immunity is necessary for police to be able to do their jobs....but it really is.
Thoughts?
