Officer Brailsford Acquitted in Execution of Compliant Unarmed Man

[RDKirk]

That video made me sick. It looks like the only response is to absolutely freeze. They certainly do not have justification to shoot you if you freeze, though they may rough you up a bit. People are not trained to absolutely precisely obey, TO THE LETTER, everything the cop tells them to do, and his yelling at the tip of his lungs, .

Unless we've been through military basic training.

But even then, the instructors have actually worked out the practicability of those instructions--they are all things that you can do, if you're paying attention.

And they're not going to shoot you if you fail.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Unless we've been through military basic training.

But even then, the instructors have actually worked out the practicability of those instructions--they are all things that you can do, if you're paying attention.

And they're not going to shoot you if you fail.

Crawling with your legs crossed - while your pants are sagging, and hands are up - is something that the cop thought was easy to follow.

The cop shot him because the guy was lifting his pants up - not because he was reaching for a gun.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They had to do some pretty creative math and finagling to draw those conclusions.

Here are the actual numbers:

Any “analysis” of police killings will of course show that in absolute numbers, more white people are killed in police shootings than black people, because (non-Hispanic) whites comprise a roughly five times greater share of the U.S. population (62% vs. 13%). So any “analysis” that is based on nothing more than absolute numbers and does not take demographics into account is inaccurate and misleading.

A total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white. According to those statistics (adjusted for racial demographics), black people had a 2.7 higher likelihood of being killed by police than whites.

So the black guy from Harvard university, trying to show that blacks are killed by police more often, isn't a reliable source in your mind because...

...you're better at the math?

 

[Auriga]

That video made me sick. It looks like the only response is to absolutely freeze. They certainly do not have justification to shoot you if you freeze, though they may rough you up a bit. People are not trained to absolutely precisely obey, TO THE LETTER, everything the cop tells them to do, and his yelling at the tip of his lungs, contradictory instructions, makes it only worse. The cop SHOULD BE TRAINED for such situations.

Regardless of what preceded this, the cop had no business discharging his weapon. If he was so darned scared, he should have had the guy crawl on his belly, leaving the hands always up front, until he was where the cop wanted him to be.

Or better yet, just tell the guy to lay face down with his hands spread out in front of him and then the cop could walk up to him and cuff the guy. I didn't see any need to have him crawl towards the cop. Besides, there were 2 cops there. While one of them cuffed the guy, the other could keep him at gun point to make sure he doesn't try anything. Instead, they played a game of "Simon Says" with him, even saying that if he makes one more mistake, he will be killed. I used to play Simon Says when I was little, but the stakes were never that high.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So the black guy from Harvard university, trying to show that blacks are killed by police more often, isn't a reliable source in your mind because...

...you're better at the math?

Math is math...we know the number of people who were shot...we know the demographic breakdown of the people who were shot...we know the population sizes of the various demographic.

(non-Hispanic) whites comprise a roughly five times greater share of the U.S. population (62% vs. 13%).

A total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white. According to those statistics (adjusted for racial demographics), black people had a 2.7 higher likelihood of being killed by police than whites.


When adjusting for population size...
318/13 if we adjust that ratio to match the white population size X/62... X becomes roughly 1,516.

So, when comparing 1516 to 560... we have 2.707 time higher likelihood...which matches the number reported in the linked stats I posted before.


I've seen numerous articles before that attempt to refute that stat, and they always have to incorporate a bunch of unrelated (or barely related) statistics to try get those numbers down to where they can try to prove their point.

They'll try to change the stat perspective and make it about "x number of interactions with police", they'll try to incorporate "urban environment vs. rural".

No matter which way a person tries to creatively present the data, at the end of the day, the raw numbers are: Whites make up 62% of the population, and only 40% of the people killed by police, as where Blacks make up only 13% of the population, but 23% of the people shot by police.

If you're trying make a case for the people being killed by police attributed to something other than bias, then that's a different conversation. However, in terms of the percentages of people being killed by police (for whatever reason), the data is crystal clear on that one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Math is math...we know the number of people who were shot...we know the demographic breakdown of the people who were shot...we know the population sizes of the various demographic.

(non-Hispanic) whites comprise a roughly five times greater share of the U.S. population (62% vs. 13%).

A total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white. According to those statistics (adjusted for racial demographics), black people had a 2.7 higher likelihood of being killed by police than whites.


When adjusting for population size...
318/13 if we adjust that ratio to match the white population size X/62... X becomes roughly 1,516.

So, when comparing 1516 to 560... we have 2.707 time higher likelihood...which matches the number reported in the linked stats I posted before.


I've seen numerous articles before that attempt to refute that stat, and they always have to incorporate a bunch of unrelated (or barely related) statistics to try get those numbers down to where they can try to prove their point.

They'll try to change the stat perspective and make it about "x number of interactions with police", they'll try to incorporate "urban environment vs. rural".

No matter which way a person tries to creatively present the data, at the end of the day, the raw numbers are: Whites make up 62% of the population, and only 40% of the people killed by police, as where Blacks make up only 13% of the population, but 23% of the people shot by police.

If you're trying make a case for the people being killed by police attributed to something other than bias, then that's a different conversation. However, in terms of the percentages of people being killed by police (for whatever reason), the data is crystal clear on that one.

And what is the reasoning behind this notion that the amount of times the police shoot someone should mirror their own population demographic?

You realize nothing else does either, right? Population demographics are garbage standards for sociological associations. They mean literally nothing unless you're claiming that the entire population is entirely homogeneous.

Black men make up 38% of barbers...1.5% of doctors...75% of NBA players...yet only 6% of the population. Should they be represented in these occupations at a rate of 6% across the board?

 

[RDKirk]

Or better yet, just tell the guy to lay face down with his hands spread out in front of him and then the cop could walk up to him and cuff the guy. I didn't see any need to have him crawl towards the cop. Besides, there were 2 cops there. While one of them cuffed the guy, the other could keep him at gun point to make sure he doesn't try anything. Instead, they played a game of "Simon Says" with him, even saying that if he makes one more mistake, he will be killed. I used to play Simon Says when I was little, but the stakes were never that high.

I also frequent a couple of gun forums, and interestingly enough, not a single private gun owner on those forums has sided with the police on this one.

In fact, most of them sided with Philando Castle as well.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Alternatively, as I stated earlier, they guys with the guns and body armor could have walked forward the few feet required and cuffed the guy while he was prostrate on the floor. It truly appears in this case the cop giving the instructions was driven more by ego than common sense.

Or cowardice.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And what is the reasoning behind this notion that the amount of times the police shoot someone should mirror their own population demographic?

Nobody is suggesting that it has to be exact, however a disparity of that magnitude is something that's concerning enough that it should at least be given some consideration rather than trying to quickly dismiss it.

For example, if there was an issue with vandalism in a town of 500 families, and of the 30 incidents, 12 of them were at the houses of the two Jewish families in town...the other 18 were spread across the other 498 families...

It'd only be practical to see if antisemitism was a contributing factor in some of those cases.

I'll agree that there are some folks on the left who are too quick to look at any issue and say "How can we suggest that racism was a factor?"

...but there's an equally problematic view coming from some folks on the right, and that's "How can we completely dismiss racism as a factor in this no matter what the evidence is showing?"

In both instances, it's a case where a person is looking at an issue through partisanship lenses and going through the problem solving steps in reverse where they already have their mind made up on the conclusion, and then proceed to hone in on the particular parts of the problem that gel with their conclusion.

 

[Almost there]

Or better yet, just tell the guy to lay face down with his hands spread out in front of him and then the cop could walk up to him and cuff the guy. I didn't see any need to have him crawl towards the cop. Besides, there were 2 cops there. While one of them cuffed the guy, the other could keep him at gun point to make sure he doesn't try anything. Instead, they played a game of "Simon Says" with him, even saying that if he makes one more mistake, he will be killed. I used to play Simon Says when I was little, but the stakes were never that high.

That was the weird part. It was as if they thought something would happen to them if they entered the space he was occupying.

 

[RDKirk]

That was the weird part. It was as if they thought something would happen to them if they entered the space he was occupying.

They didn't know whether someone else was behind the door of the room between him and them. However, there were at least two highly armed police officers, and it really only takes one to handcuff a suspect. The other could keep his selective-fire weapon trained on the closed door. Both would have the advantage over any moves anyone could make.

At any rate, none of the spurious commands this officer was giving the suspect was leading to any better situation than a simple, "Lock your fingers behind your head and move slowly toward me."

 

[Auriga]

That was the weird part. It was as if they thought something would happen to them if they entered the space he was occupying.

Yeah! I mean, I've seen plenty of other arrest videos like the ones on those so-called reality cop shows where they have a camera man following the cops. Usually, all that's necessary is to have the guy lay on the ground, the cop cuffs him, and then they stand him up and then bring him somewhere to question him. The whole "lay down, hands on head with fingers interlaced, cross your legs, hands up, crawl toward me" thing doesn't seem to serve any real purpose other than to get the guy to make mistakes that the cop can then yell about. It reminds me of how interrogations are done where they ask so many questions as to confuse the person being questioned so they can use that confusion as a way to cause mistakes to be made. Not exactly "protecting and serving".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nobody is suggesting that it has to be exact, however... *snip*.

But that is the assumption you're working off of...isn't it? That if blacks make up 13% of the population, they should be running into this problem, more or less, 13% of the time?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But that is the assumption you're working off of...isn't it? That if blacks make up 13% of the population, they should be running into this problem, more or less, 13% of the time?

again...nobody is saying it'd have to be 100% exact right down to the number.

However, when it's 2.7 times that of another demographic, it becomes something worth looking into.

There's a difference between small and huge deviations.

For example, if Jewish people in a city were being assaulted at a rate of 1.2x that of non-Jewish folks, one could rule it as somewhat coincidental or possibly attribute it to other factors.

However, if it were 2.7x that of non-Jewish folks, then it's only reasonable to start looking into whether or not antisemitism is playing a factor.

That's why we have these statistics and why the FBI and DOJ reviews them. Statistics are very useful in identifying potential issues.

It's no different that reviewing the obesity statistics and seeing that the obesity rate in one state is over twice that of another state and saying "I think we need to put some focus on this and see what the problem is here"

 

[Auriga]

Crawling with your legs crossed - while your pants are sagging, and hands are up - is something that the cop thought was easy to follow.

The cop shot him because the guy was lifting his pants up - not because he was reaching for a gun.

Actually, he seemed to understand that it was not easy to do. He told the guy to keep his hands up while crawling toward him and that if he fell, he was going to have to fall on his face. The guy ended up putting his hands down to crawl anyway. I'm shocked that he didn't get shot at that point--not that it would have been right.
Seeing this video, I think I would simply lay on the floor and not move no matter what the cop says if I found myself in a similar situation. The cop would probably get mad at me for not going through all the motions he demanded of me, but we've seen what the alternative is. He'd have to shoot me while I'm laying perfectly still with my arms outstretched. But they wouldn't do that, right???

 

[RDKirk]

Seeing this video, I think I would simply lay on the floor and not move no matter what the cop says if I found myself in a similar situation. The cop would probably get mad at me for not going through all the motions he demanded of me, but we've seen what the alternative is. He'd have to shoot me while I'm laying perfectly still with my arms outstretched. But they wouldn't do that, right???

Actually...yes, precisely that:

Florida cop charged in shooting of unarmed behavioral therapist

 

[Ana the Ist]

again...nobody is saying it'd have to be 100% exact right down to the number.

However...*snip*

Since you failed to answer and instead provided another analogy....I'm going to assume that yes, you are working off of what I can only call a flawed assumption (that instances should somehow mirror population rates). The only question now is...why?

If you truly believed what you're claiming...then isn't it a much bigger disparity that men make up the overwhelming majority of these instances yet make up less than half the population? It makes that 2.7 seem like a rather insignificant disparity, doesn't it? Do you believe the police are sexist as well?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Seeing this video, I think I would simply lay on the floor and not move no matter what the cop says if I found myself in a similar situation. The cop would probably get mad at me for not going through all the motions he demanded of me, but we've seen what the alternative is. He'd have to shoot me while I'm laying perfectly still with my arms outstretched. But they wouldn't do that, right???

In most civilised countries, no.....

 

[Ancient of Days]

There was no reason why they couldn't have had him cuffed 30 seconds after they exited the room. Its murder plain and simple. Looks like they are handing out police badges in Mesa via cracker jack.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Since you failed to answer and instead provided another analogy....I'm going to assume that yes, you are working off of what I can only call a flawed assumption (that instances should somehow mirror population rates). The only question now is...why?

If you truly believed what you're claiming...then isn't it a much bigger disparity that men make up the overwhelming majority of these instances yet make up less than half the population? It makes that 2.7 seem like a rather insignificant disparity, doesn't it? Do you believe the police are sexist as well?

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding. Nobody said exact... Nor did I say it has to precisely mirror population rates.

However, if the law is being enforced equally, and the treatment of citizens by police is supposed to be applied consistently, then one would expect the outcome to be much more close to equal than a disparity of 2.7 to 1.

You're intentionally asking a loaded question here.


So, even though I know you're going to twist this answer into claiming that I'm "working off of a flawed premise", I'll answer this as concisely as I can.

The rates do not have to be exact mirrors of population sizes, however, a disparity of 2.7:1 is a reasonable cause for concern and worth looking into.


Why don't you just come out with what you're trying to imply here? We all know what you're getting at.