
Don't shoot, I'm disabled - bb101
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45739335
======
expathacker
For those of you reading these things thinking, "Oh, I don't know anybody who
has had this happen to them. This could never happen to me or anybody I know".

11 years ago, Steven Fountain, a friend of mine, a programmer / systems
administrator I met when I was working at Napster who suffered from
schizophrenia was shot to death by police in Campbell, California. He had
called the police in a moment of confusion and despair.

I had just interviewed him for a job at a company where I was working two
weeks earlier, and was trying to convince my boss to hire him even though he
was quirky, not quite realizing how bad his emotional state was until talking
to his ex-gf at the funeral.

[http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/11/09/Steven_Founta...](http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/11/09/Steven_Fountain_\(24\)_was_shot_and_killed_by_police_because_the_officer_thought_he_was_wielding_a_knife)

 _Edited for clarity and date accuracy_

------
Datenstrom
I think the biggest problem is their training. I was on a base police detail
as a temporary duty for about a year and I often see things like this and the
police act exactly as the training I had taught. The "force escalation" went
ask -> tell -> make, and they try to instill a paranoia that everyone has a
concealed gun by default and should be treated so. I think I have the old
training manual laying around somewhere still.

Training about recognizing and handling disabled persons should be mandatory,
I received none. Also, clearly what is considered "deadly force" should be re-
evaluated. Injecting someone with sedatives without knowing their medical
history definitely seems like it should be on that list.

One of most disturbing things I remember from the training was an instructor
telling us "It doesen't matter what really happened, what matters is how you
articulate what happened."

~~~
nervousvarun
We desperately, desperately need improved non-lethal deterrents for our police
force in the U.S.

This always has seemed like an enormous industry for someone out there to
disrupt.

~~~
ppseafield
The person in the first story was "non-lethally" tazed over and over, 15 times
before being dragged out of the shower and injected with multiple sedatives.
Any "non-lethal deterrents" applied that aggressively are still gonna kill
people.

~~~
sigstoat
tasers aren't considered "non lethal", they're "less lethal", because yeah,
they kill people all the time.

if somebody is advocating "non lethal" tools, and you start in on tasers,
you're not even on the same page.

~~~
ppseafield
My point was that if the police are going to act so aggressively, it won't
matter how cuddly their tools are. Pillows aren't generally considered lethal,
but if you suffocate someone with one....

------
dsego
Contrast this to how Croatian police handled a recent case where a man
suffering with PTSD blew up his own house with a propane gas tank and was
threatening and attacking with a billhook. The man was in such a delirium that
he resisted the police for 12 hours, even after suffering third degree burns
on 70% of his body. He also injured two policemen. [1] They finally managed to
overcome him with a taser, but only after hours of trying to negotiate!

One policeman was severely cut on his hands and needed stitching. [2]

More images [3].

[1] [https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/drama-u-opuzenu-
muskarac...](https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/drama-u-opuzenu-muskarac-se-
zatvorio-u-kucu-i-aktivirao-plinsku-bocu-u-pregovorima-ozlijedjen-policajac---
530829.html)

[2]
[https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/dubrovnik/clanak/id/5...](https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/dubrovnik/clanak/id/569079/isjekao-
me-je-kosirom-imam-stotinu-savova-cudo-da-sam-prezivio-policajac-otkrio-
detalje-horora-kroz-koji-je-prosao-obuzdavajuci-pomahnitalog-opuzenca)

[3][https://zadarski.slobodnadalmacija.hr/forum/clanak/id/565826...](https://zadarski.slobodnadalmacija.hr/forum/clanak/id/565826/muskarac-
koji-je-vlastitu-kucu-digao-u-zrak-svladan-elektrosokerom-sa-strasnim-
ozljedama-operiran-u-splitskoj-bolnici)

------
ljm
> She says both they and the law enforcement community have made the case that
> Ethan would still be alive if he had just followed instructions.

Statements like this are so sad to read because of the sheer lack of empathy
it demonstrates. It’s pure victim blaming and the implication is that someone
deserves to die for essentially making a mistake, or not even being aware of
it.

What does it say that this is both accepted and also that those involved (the
police) have literally zero patience for people who can’t read their minds?

Why is it okay that you get an expedited death penalty for something as minor
as not following instructions? These self-same people would be begging for
leniency in that same situation.

~~~
dvlsg
Empathy aside (which I agree is quite depressing), I've seen enough videos
where multiple officers shout conflicting commands (put your hands up / get on
the ground). In that case, it's impossible to comply. What do you do then?

And then of course there's the implication of "comply or die", which is also a
huge problem on its own.

~~~
ljm
I think you're still looking at empathy there. We shouldn't be putting it
aside. We're all human.

How do you not get shot to death by a cop when he can't even tell you what he
wants from you? And why the fuck does he have a loaded gun when he doesn't
even know that answer himself?

One thing I find consistent in these stories is prolongation and for me I
assume that the cop doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing. Why would you
fire a taser at a naked dude in a shower _fifteen_ times? Why would you unload
your gun at a black guy and leave 16 bullet wounds within him?

When you're looking at the stories about solving murder, if the detective saw
that the dead woman had 16 bullet holes in her or 32 stab wounds, they'd be
assuming a crime of passion. Because that's a lot of work to make someone
dead, way above and beyond. You don't accidentally squeeze your trigger that
many times.

So is it possibly the case that these civilian deaths are all crimes of
passion committed by the cops?

~~~
20after4
They are crimes of cowardice committed by mean-tempered bullies pumped up on
steroids with an itchy trigger finger and very nearly complete immunity from
prosecution and a lack of discipline beyond a paid vacation pending an
internal "investigation."

------
throwaway13337
The justification for this always comes down to a sort of 'it's dangerous job
and I have to protect myself'.

It's interesting to note, then, that police officer is not a dangerous job
compared to, say, taxi driver.

It wouldn't surprise me if most deaths on the job for police were car
accidents.

So this justification is truly moot. The public should know so as to shape
further the opinion of officers.

Here's data from labor stats on deadly jobs:

[https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf)

Those loggers put their lives on the line every day to bring us lumber!

~~~
oh_sigh
There's a difference between being killed by bad luck in an accident and being
sought out and murdered.

~~~
alphabettsy
That’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that the perception of risk seems
to be greatly skewed in the minds of officers and the public alike. About 50
officers die each year at the hands of criminals. This is compared to them
killing about 1000 citizens on average each year. Reports would seem to
suggest they kill more unarmed citizens than officers are killed at all.

Not certain how many officers are injured compared to citizens injured.

~~~
oh_sigh
From that 1000, you would need to separate out the people who 'deserved' a
police killing, due to legitimately threatening the lives of the public or of
the police officer.

~~~
alphabettsy
That’s difficult since the investigations are usually not available to the
public and mostly rely heavily on the officers account. Certainly another area
we need to do much better.

------
geggam
Any time you call a man with a gun to your location and they have immunity to
shoot you based on their fear, you run the risk of being shot.

Lately it seems that risk has grown.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
_Lately it seems that risk has grown._

I have no evidence, but I feel that it only _seems_ the risk has grown because
technology has made it harder to cover up. I think as it gets more attention,
the risk is going down.

~~~
cptskippy
Modern training techniques focus heavily, almost pathologically, on
maintaining Officer safety and controlling the situation. Training techniques,
like the Tueller Drill reinforce the notion that everyone is a threat and
should be treating accordingly.

There is very little training on de-escalation as it's incompatible with
Officer safety and often requires an Officer to relinquish control of a
situation. And unfortunately when dealing with people who have mental health
issues, you're often not in control of the situation and neither are they.

~~~
Osiris
I see training as the most important thing to change to address the shootings
that many of us, outside of law enforcement, see as preventable.

I have two brothers that are CHP. They have never discharged their weapons at
an individual, but talking to them, this attitude of their personal safety
being the most important part of how they handle a situation, makes it very
difficult for them to understand how police actions can actually _create_ the
danger they are claiming to want to prevent.

~~~
cptskippy
And it's not necessarily that the techniques being taught are wrong, just the
context of how they're presented. There's a distinction to be made between
Officer Safety and personal safety.

There's also the unfortunate reality that practical techniques like securing
your sidearm or anticipating a threat can be misconstrued as threatening or
intimating and can often escalate a situation.

There could also be some benefit to providing some training the public on what
to expect and how to behave in the presence of a Police Officer. I was pulled
over when I was a teenager and I immediately started digging in my glove box
for my insurance card and registration. When I pulled them out and turned to
my window I was greeted by the Officer's gun in my face.

There's also a lot to be said for training Officers on how to deal with the
public and de-escalate situations. I was the victim of a public assault and
while I was waiting to be interviewed by the Officer conducting the
investigation, another Officer casually approached me. She acknowledged that I
was upset, fidgety, and gesticulated when I spoke. She provided some
consultation and advised me to keep my hands at my side and speak slowly while
being interviewed by the other Officer.

------
fogetti
_District Attorney John Chisholm went so far as to rule that "there was no
basis to conclusively link Mr Trammell's death to the actions taken by the
police officers"_ \- WTF did I just read??? I can't believe it.

~~~
gammateam
I honestly feel like Prosecuters, Juries, District Attorneys, Judges,
Sheriffs, Mayors and Govenors are afraid of their police departments.

The way these investigations and prosecutions go remind me a lot of the mob
investigations, where it took the feds to really take them down.

Every municipality is different, and at different points in time, but I think
this is an overlooked part of all of this.

I think its greater than just a "blue shield" or sense of camaraderie with
officers, I think there is fear. And I've seen circumstances where that's
valid, such as when Adrian Schoolcraft was dragged out of his home and thrown
in an asylum by fellow police officers just because he showed up late to work
that day and they got paranoid he was going to out them.

------
Nasrudith
One thing that pisses me off as excuse making is "training/ lack of training
to blame" for travesties as a complete abdication of responsibility. I mean if
your babysitter got frustrated and beat your kid with an electric cord you
wouldn't accept lack of training as an excuse! It seems to be gussied up "Just
following orders."

Making matters worse is the farcical double standards where ignorance of the
law and operating based on feelings is the standard for them and perfect
knowledge of the law and situation regardless of circumstances for everyone
else. Shooting someone breaking into their house after being flashbanged -
both disoriented and threatened leaves one liable for murder because they
should have known the intruding guy in black who never announced his presence
while deafened and half blind was a cop. Meanwhile if the police empty
multiple magazines into someone who is reaching for a wallet because they
didn't know for sure jt wasn't a weapon and felt threatened and never get so
much as a grand jury indictment attempt. If we all operated on the fear for
life standard it would be a bloody paranoid anarchy of preemptive
assassinations - proving how fucking stupid it is for anyone. Feelings are
always an absolutely terrible basis for laws.

------
rocky1138
Attorney John Chisholm went so far as to rule that "there was no basis to
conclusively link Mr Trammell's death to the actions taken by the police
officers".

Perhaps he didn't watch the same footage I did.

------
mcguire
The officers in these situations are (in the US) supervised by elected
officials: the sheriff, DAs, and mayors.

The next time they are running for re-election, take out an ad with scenes
from the relevant videos, with words to the effect that, if you vote for this
individual, you are talking responsibility for their actions.

Sure, it'll be a bit expensive, but anyone can do it.

We aren't powerless, we aren't helpless victims. If we're really upset by
their actions, we shouldn't act like we are helpless.

Ranting on an internet forum is useless.

~~~
clubm8
>Ranting on an internet forum is useless.

You just said that voting can change things. Wouldn't it logically follow that
ranting on a public forum, which people can read and be inspired to vote by,
is _very useful_?

~~~
mcguire
Voting can change things (and publicly embarrassing elected officials works,
too), but I doubt any of the people reading these comments live in the voting
districts of the officials involved in the cases in the article. Even if they
are, I doubt they're more than a tiny minority. And even in that case, well,
preaching to the choir and all that.

Even ranting on a forum local to those areas is unlikely to do anything useful
---when was the last time your mind was changed by an editorial, much less a
comment down in the crazy-text.

The power is in the votes of the legendary John Q. Public, who has either
never heard this story or caught 30 seconds of it as a sad tragedy that could
not be prevented. The effect we need is to force them to stand up and say,
"I'm ok with this kind of collateral damage." Or not.

~~~
clubm8
>Voting can change things (and publicly embarrassing elected officials works,
too), but I doubt any of the people reading these comments live in the voting
districts of the officials involved in the cases in the article.

You seem determined to _believe_ things without evidence.

------
GarvielLoken
Happened in Sweden as well. A person with Downs syndrome with a toy gun got
shoot down recently.

[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6020997/Police-
shoo...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6020997/Police-shoot-
dead-20-year-old-man-Downs-Syndrome-fled-home-carrying-toy-gun.html)

------
lixtra
> "What is the state of mind for a law enforcement officer that they would
> literally intervene physically with someone with Down's syndrome to the
> point of their death?"

Maybe they are not used to not being able to enforce their will? People with
the mental capability comply and sue later.

~~~
wnkrshm
Addressing your quote and leaving aside the cases where officers may have
serious character defects and going for a view of an advocatus diaboli:

I can imagine that once officers have started to apply force, they're caught
in continuing it - because if they have used force, they cannot just go back
one step of escalation and say "Yeah we tried beating this person, it wasn't
effective and not a good idea, so we did more talking". The obvious follow up
question of any kind of oversight would be "Why did you use force in the first
place?".

They will have to justify their use of force no matter the outcome but it will
be harder if it was in error. If it is ultimately successful, I can imagine
the justification is way easier.

So maybe the partial but strict oversight due to documentation and the now
tolerated use of 'non-lethal' means and physical force create a perverse
incentive to continue to escalate. E.g. if an officer suddenly realizes
they've gone too far, the easiest way out is to look for any sign to end the
situation with a reason to blame the victim, in extreme cases ending up with a
victim who cannot make a statement anymore.

------
wnkrshm
One question that all the systemic issues boil down to is: Do police
departments want people of high moral integrity? Does any organization really
want those? Or is it best to have people that only show just enough to not
incite too much public scrutiny?

A certain malleability is a basic requirement to work in an organization and
whoever runs counter to the culture will not have an easy time and may have a
very short career. Putting the immediate company / working group goals before
certain small qualms about how things are supposed to run and how they
actually run is a common occurence. The formal requirements are met by clever
documentation.

It's even hard to have a competent and integer police force in an environment
where it's highly unlikely that a person the officers interact with has a gun.
Even in that environment lethal or crippling accidents happen, though maybe
not as amplified in number by the exterior threat of firearms in the populace.
But and an esprit de corps (and a kind of brotherhood between executive and
judicial branches) still prevails.

In Germany for example, the young officers are the ones who have to go on riot
control duty for weeks, because they're physically up to it - that's something
that I'm sure will at least subconsciously color a person's view of the
civilian public, if pushed hard enough.

~~~
pc86
> _A certain malleability is a basic requirement to work in an organization
> and whoever runs counter to the culture will not have an easy time and may
> have a very short career._

This is part of what civil service procedures and the unionization of police
is _supposed_ to solve. You're supposed to be able to stand up for your
principles, and prove to the governing body (Civil Service) that you were
justified, and part of the union's responsibility is to watch from the outside
to make sure you're not railroaded. Instead you end up with CS commissions
disqualifying applicants who admit to smoking pot 12 years ago when they were
in high school.

~~~
amyjess
Unfortunately, current police unions spend more time attacking the public on
behalf of corrupt police officers than defending principled police officers
against employers who ask them to immoral things.

Police unions really need an overhaul.

~~~
wnkrshm
In Germany, police unions lobbied against the introduction of unique
identification numbers on the armor of each riot control officer at protests.
Before, there were only numbers/markings identifying a squad. Maybe in the
future, with better computer vision and cameras, citizens can actually gather
data about the effectiveness of such measures and compare across different
regional implementations.

------
_nalply
Deaf people are being shot by the police, too. Being a Swiss Deaf I wonder
whether it's risky to travel to the US and rent a car.

~~~
mcguire
Realistically, you'd be in more danger just driving a car. In Switzerland.
Let's not get too melodramatic.

------
tomazio
My heart goes out to all the victim's families, as these are all very tragic.
I have a brother with down syndrome and reading the story about Ethan and how
the situation played out sounds exactly like how it could play out with my own
brother, heaven forbid he ever ends up in a similar situation. While I agree
the shoot first ask questions later methodology is not the best, I think
education surrounding common mental handicaps/disabilities would go a long way
to helping officers better understand the situations and better equip them to
judge the threat level of situations. I can attest that people with down
syndrome can freeze up and easily experience a paralysis through analysis as
they are put in confusing and unfamiliar situations, especially once someone
starts shouting commands at them and they are not sure what do. Just knowing
this simple fact and general behaviors surrounding people with down
syndrome/mentally handicapped would give officers the knowledge to know "hey
person has x or y disability and is acting this way because of z, this is a
non threatening situation." It's almost ironic to me, where a profession
that's main job responsibility is dealing with all different types of people
all day isn't required to know any more specific social dynamics or behaviors
surrounding them. I think requiring a psychology/sociology for police officers
so they have a better understanding of human behavior might help in this
regard.

EDIT: Grammar.

------
vezycash
Any child who's learned electricity in class knows that water and electricity
don't mix.

~~~
toomanybeersies
With a taser, the entire idea is to electrocute the victim. I don't think it
was the water that killed him.

~~~
sokoloff
A Taser is not _designed_ ("entire idea") to injure or kill with electricity.
It's designed to temporarily incapacitate, with a side effect/risk of injury
or death.

~~~
qwertay
"Temporarily incapacitating" someone in a wet, slippery area with very hard
surfaces seems like it might have a high risk of going wrong. Article even
says he had broken ribs.

------
throw2016
These are deeply disturbing. Given the sheer number of police killings and the
repetition of the same odious frivolous justifications one can only conclude
there is no desire for a more humane police force.

The problem is not only the police but a justice system that seems to justify
brutality and arbitrary killings. This not only sustains the cycle of violence
but 'normalizes' police executions and police officers who think they can kill
at will and be protected. This is a dangerous level of power to give to the
police in any civilized society and none accept it.

To the victims this is a police state, there is no accountability and no
justice and forgot any rights their right to life can be extinguished in
seconds with no consequences and accountability. This is not the behavior of a
civilized state.

------
dsego
Sgt Corey Nooner had many other choices concerning his safety. Why is it so
important to stand ground? How about warning shots? What sane person would
attack a police officer pointing a handgun with just a knife?

------
1001101
Technology (Bluetooth beacons/app) is being developed to help stop some of
these tragedies:

[https://thevitalsapp.com/](https://thevitalsapp.com/)

"The Vitals™ app enables safer community interactions by allowing individuals
with visible and invisible conditions and disabilities to create and share a
personalized digital profile with authorized first responders via a secure,
mobile app – improving real-time communication, reducing the risk of
misunderstandings, and promoting greater independence."

A number of cities are piloting this.

~~~
chris_mc
No, I shouldn't have to share more information to be treated like a human, the
cops should be better trained.

~~~
majewsky
No matter how much training they receive, policemen are not going to be about
to make psychological diagnoses in the heat of the moment. They need to know
upfront that the person in question has schizophrenia so that they can apply
appropriate behavior. (And that's the part of the training that needs
improving, then.)

~~~
chris_mc
Then maybe they shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later.

------
TuringTest
_> She says both they and the law enforcement community have made the case
that Ethan would still be alive if he had just followed instructions._

 _> But therein is precisely the problem - his ability to follow instructions.
Ethan, like Adam, did not have this ability._

I find it disturbing that in the US, in practice, penalty for failing to
comply with officer instructions during an arrest is a legally enforced death
sentence. This seems a recurring theme in this kind of stories.

~~~
zawerf
Especially horrifying when they tell you they will shoot you anyway if you
fail to comply with contradictory instructions, like in the case of Daniel
Shaver. Even without any disabilities, you can't survive those encounters
without being a pro at Simon Says.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2017/12/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-
officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/)

~~~
bb101
> If you make a mistake, another mistake, there is a very severe possibility
> that you’re both going to get shot. Do you understand?” Sgt. Charles Langley
> yells before telling Shaver to “shut up.”

> “If you move, we’re going to consider that a threat and we are going to deal
> with it and you may not survive it,” Langley says.

> “You do that again, we’re shooting you, do you understand?” Langley yells.

> “Please do not shoot me,” Shaver begs, his hands up straight in the air.

> At the officer’s command, Shaver then crawls down the hallway, sobbing. At
> one point, he reaches back — possibly to pull up his shorts — and Brailsford
> opens fire, striking Shaver five times.

> According to the police report, Brailsford was carrying an AR-15 rifle with
> the phrase “You’re F—ed” etched into the weapon. The police report also said
> the “shots were fired so rapidly that in watching the video at regular
> speed, one cannot count them.”

So a bully psychologically tortures his victim, kills him and in the end, is
acquitted of murder... The mind boggles.

~~~
gammateam
one officer was yelling directions, the other officer shot him

the officer yelling directions was prosecuted, and that obviously failed
because he was not the one shooting

not sure how to prosecute that, or what procedures in Arizona are available

~~~
08-15
So they were in collusion and should both be prosecuted. If there was a will
to prosecute feral police officers, there would be no practical difficulty.

------
writepub
If local/state attorney generals refuse to investigate, this can and should
become a federal investigation, that now includes the said attorney generals
too - or so I understand.

Can any lawyers chime in?

------
YeGoblynQueenne
"I have to make sure I go home to my family at night,"

Well, in that case- maybe don't become a _police officer_?

I mean, I don't know that I've ever heard a fireman, or a doctor, a rescuer, a
lifeguard, etc, say that sort of thing - "my first priority is to go home
safely tonight". That doesn't mean that they're expect to _sacrifice_ their
lives in the line of duty, it means they're expected to _risk_ their lives, to
save someone else's (the doctor, if you were wondering, because they can
easily catch something nasty).

The police officer who made the comment shot a szhizophrenic woman who was
holding a knife (that's all we're told about that case). So presumably he shot
her because he was afraid she'd stab him. Presumably, also, that was part of
his training.

That is very dangerous. Giving someone a gun and telling them that when their
live's in danger their priority is to come out of it alive, is dangerous for
everyone around the person with the gun. Because the easiest way to make sure
you "go back to your family" when you have a gun and the crazy lady is holding
a knife is to shoot her dead. I mean, duh.

I should also probably point out that I think this is a peculiarly US thing. I
doubt that anywhere else in the developed world police officers are adviced to
shoot first and ask questions later, or in any case, as a first line of
defense.

~~~
akerl_
They definitely tell lifeguards and firefighters and first responders that
their "first priority is to go home safely tonight".

If you have a small group of people who can help, and a much larger group that
_need_ help, it's critically important that your helpers don't get themselves
killed by being reckless with their own lives.

The overuse of force by police in the US is terrible. It's a combination of
bad judgement, bad training, and no repercussions. But that's fully separate
from the fact that "keep yourself alive" is a core tenet of all the jobs you
listed.

~~~
craftyguy
They generally do _not_ give lifeguards, firefighters, and first responders
firearms and instruct them to kill the survivors if they feel like their life
is in danger.

~~~
isoskeles
I don't understand why people are typing on this thread as if the officers
shot this man to death with bullets. It seems disingenuous.

~~~
rahimnathwani
"Tragically, Magdiel never heard the police commands - because he was deaf.
During the stand-off, neighbours shouted to the officers to tell them this,
but they shot him anyway."

------
mnm1
American cops are cowards of the highest degree. They can't even subdue a
naked man in a bathtub without tasers? I mean such cowardice deserves a medal
and much more offensive terminology I'm going to refrain from here. Instead
they murder an innocent man and when held accountable use the bullshit excuse
that they were trying to help. How fucking disgusting. The neighbor who called
the cops also deserves blame. He lives in America and should have known that
calling the police in any situation is likely to make it worse. But ultimately
it's these officers who know nothing about helping others that murdered him
for no reason other than that's what they are trained to do. I guess we're
still far, far away from holding such cowardly scum responsible for their
actions. Maybe one day we'll care enough about our own citizens to police our
police and hold them to higher standards than everyone else rather than lower.
I'm not holding my breath for it though. In many ways they are a symptom of
our hateful society.

~~~
m_mueller
One more thing is the _reason_ why the neighbor called the cops. Oh no, a
naked man! Babbling nonsense! Help, I'm victimized, someone help!

That reminds me of one of the few times I was in the US, in my undies in my
motel room, minding my business. I guess the blinds were still open, only
covered with a white curtain, and some middle aged woman must have seen me.
Immediately called hotel security on me. People in the US are obsessed with
seing anything naked it seems.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
_One more thing is the reason why the neighbor called the cops. Oh no, a naked
man! Babbling nonsense! Help, I 'm victimized, someone help!_

The article doesn't say that the neighbour felt victimised.

If I had a mentally ill neighbour that started walking around naked and
talking about the devil, I'd call the police too. They are probably trained in
first aid or CPR and methods to de-escalate any situations. It's a reasonable
way to get help in a situation you may not be trained to deal with.

Except in America.

~~~
m_mueller
> Except in America.

That's the thing, something in the US doesn't square. Either you have the
police being first responders _and_ focused on deescalation and help, _or_ you
have some other agency responsible for such calls where violence has
absolutely no place as a solution.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
In my country, if a situation needs a calm de-escalation by professionals, we
call the police. If someone needs shooting, we call the police. Somehow they
manage both roles just fine.

~~~
m_mueller
That was my point, I think police in general is focused on de-escalation and
helping people who are in a dangerous situation. The whole point is to keep
things calm and orderly through perceived safety. In the US the order through
fear aspect seems a lot stronger.

------
amarant
oh, right, that's why the US is on my no-go list. thanks for reminding me, had
almost forgotten!

~~~
peterwwillis
Don't worry, it's only dangerous here if you're a woman, a person of color,
non-Christian, an immigrant, disabled, poor, live in a city/town near
industrial plants, need medical care, a senior citizen, are LGBTQ+, a sex
worker, an addict, or live near natural disasters.

~~~
kolanos
White males make up the largest portion of people shot by police. [0]

[0]: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-
de...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-
police-by-race/)

~~~
peterwwillis
32,658 people were killed by terrorists in 2014. Does that mean we're more
likely to be killed by terrorists than by police?

Of course not, because that was terrorists killed _around the world_. There's
more people living around the world than in the US. In the US, only 3,046
people were killed by terrorists between 2001 and 2014.

More white people get killed in America because _there are more white people
here than black people_. But adjusting for population, more black people get
killed in America by cops than white people. Three times more. I provided tons
of links
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18168217](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18168217)),
you can see for yourself.

~~~
kolanos
Then why aren't white males on your list?

~~~
peterwwillis
Because it's a list of things that makes it risky to live in this country, not
just people getting shot. I list several groups without gender or race, and
white males can still be in those groups. But just being a white male in and
of itself isn't risky. That's the least risky group.

~~~
kolanos
And that's just factually and verifiably false.

~~~
peterwwillis
I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, if you have any evidence. Can
you provide me a single metric of a societal risk to white males more than any
other group, adjusted for population? (That is to say, a risk that is caused
by society and isn't health/genetic related, like prevalence of disease)

~~~
kolanos
The link I provided clearly shows that white males are second only to black
males in terms of how likely they are to be shot by police. My point is that
excluding white males as victims of police violence or framing the problem as
something that does not affect white males helps no one.

~~~
peterwwillis
So, because it's not helping white males, it helps no one?

~~~
blockinator
I don't think it's helpful for anyone to essentially make a statement saying
"the US is a dangerous place unless you're a white male"

It's just a divisive thing to say and I highly doubt it's true.

~~~
peterwwillis
Well first off, if you doubt it's true, all you need to do to disprove it is
to provide a single example of white males being the subject of more risk than
any other group by population, in any metric, that isn't genetic or similar. I
haven't found one. Again, they are certainly included in risk-prone groups, as
I listed, but as far as I can tell, not as the sole members of a most-risk-
prone group.

Second, the whole point of all of this is to look at who is most at risk. Yes,
white males do encounter risk. But that's not what's important: what's
important is, who is _most_ at risk? The answer, in the apparent absence of
evidence to the contrary, would appear to be "not white males".

It's usually at this point, when someone says that this is divisive and not
helpful, that we get to "All Lives Matter".

Black Lives Matter was explicitly intended to only point out the risks of
being black in this country, in order to raise awareness of those unique
risks, and to try to reach some social justice. This had the unfortunate side
effect of shining a light _away_ from white people's problems. White people
still had problems, and they still wanted people to care. Some white people
even felt personally attacked by Black Lives Matter. So white people found the
phrase divisive, and made up a new phrase to take the focus away from BLM's
core issues: _All_ Lives Matter. "Don't worry about only black people's
problems, because I want you to worry about my problems, too."

It may make white males _feel_ that it's divisive, but really it's just
difficult to accept that other people may be more in need, in one aspect or
another. The goal of all this is to focus on the groups that are at the _most_
risk, acknowledge them, and try to address their issues.

The US is dangerous no matter who you are. It's just that in every category of
risk, it's less dangerous if you're a white male.

~~~
belorn
> Well first off, if you doubt it's true, all you need to do to disprove it is
> to provide a single example of white males being the subject of more risk
> than any other group by population, in any metric, that isn't genetic or
> similar.

White men are subject to more risk of being shot by police than black females.

White men are subject to more risk of being shot by police than white females.

White men are subject to more risk of being shot by police than any female of
any skin color.

> It's just that in every category of risk, it's less dangerous if you're a
> white male.

False. The largest prediction for high risk for being shot by the police is
social econimic status. Second largest predictor is being male. Third largest
is african american skin color. Poor black male has the highest risk, and rich
white female the lowest risk. White male as an demographic has higher risk
than the average (50%) in the US population because the trait "male" is a
larger predictor to risk of being shot by the police than the trait "white".

------
lysp
Here is an exert from one state in Australia's police force review from 1994.

This took place _24_ years ago. Even though it was so long ago, it seems to
directly reflect issues mentioned in the article.

For the TLDR crowd:

* Too much force was being used by police

* Mental illness was a factor in some shootings / use of force (4%)

* Standardised training for all police members

* Safety first approach taken:

* - Safety of offender is included in that approach (officers first, public next, offender third)

* - Contain first, avoid confrontation, avoid force

* - If needed only use minimum force required

* - Forced entry only as last resort

* All police undertake mandatory 5 day mental health training

* Police to take refresher mental health training every 6 months

* Any use of force - from minor (forced fingerprinting/cuffing) through to major (riots) - to be placed on register for tracking

* Increased trends noticed in force register will be addressed in 6 monthly training

\-------------------------

3\. Project Beacon

The establishment of Project Beacon followed a number of shooting incidents
involving the use of firearms by the Victoria police. Between 1987 and 1994,
officers were involved in operational incidents which resulted in the deaths
of 29 offenders or suspects. Police were required to attend 15 to 20 incidents
per day where use of force was employed and up to three "critical incidents"
per week. A critical incident is defined as "any incident requiring police
management which involves violence or a threat of violence and is, or is
potentially, life-threatening". By mid-1994 this trend became the catalyst for
fundamental change in operational safety tactics and training within the
Victoria police. Expert analysis revealed that a number of factors may have
contributed to this increase; namely, a feeling of vulnerability within the
police force, a desire on the part of the community for instant solutions and
a belief within the force that "there was no one else to solve these
problems".

It was also felt that this trend was in part contributed to by the de-
institutionalisation of patients with mental illness in Victoria in the early
1990s. Six of nine fatal shooting incidents in 1994 by police (and one in
1995) involved persons with a mental illness. Statistics revealed that such
persons were involved in 44% of all critical incidents reported to Project
Beacon between October, 1994 and December, 1995. It was further noted that
persons with mental illness were involved in approximately 4% of all "use of
force" incidents, i.e., where force is used or threatened by or against the
police. Emotionally disturbed persons attempting suicide and/or self-
mutilation constituted a further 3.5% of use of force incidents. In general, a
significant number of emotionally disturbed persons and people with
behavioural problems, who may not have had histories of mental illness,
regularly came to the police attention.

A number of reviews, both internal and with the assistance of international
policing experts, were undertaken in an attempt to identify solutions. On 6th
April, 1994, the Commissioner of the Victoria police, Mr. Neil Comrie, wrote
to all commissioned officers emphasising the philosophy that "the success of
an operation will primarily be judged by the extent to which the use of force
is avoided or minimised".

On 19th September, 1994, Project Beacon was established and involved the
standardisation of training so that all officers were trained to the same
level of competence. The core principles of Project Beacon inform the response
to every incident and the planning of operations which may involve any
potential use of force. These core principles may be summarised as follows:

* "Safety First — the safety of police, the public and the offender or suspect is paramount.

* Risk Assessment — is to be applied to all incidents and operations.

* Take Charge — effective command and control must be exercised.

* Planned Response — every opportunity should be taken to convert an unplanned response into a planned operation.

* Cordon and Containment — unless impractical, a cordon and containment approach is to be adopted.

* Avoid Confrontation — a violent confrontation is to be avoided.

* Avoid Force — the use of force is to be avoided.

* Minimum Force — where the use of force is to be avoided, only the minimum amount reasonably necessary is to be used.

* Forced Entry Searches — are to be used only as a last resort.

* Resources — it is accepted that the "safety first" principle may require the deployment of more resources, more complex planning and more time to complete".

The primary principle of Project Beacon is "safety first". The safety of the
police officer is paramount, followed by the safety of the public and the
safety of the subject. Mr. Shuey utilised the example of a doctor attending a
collision to treat a patient: "the doctor wouldn’t stand in the middle of the
road to do the treatment of the patient because he would be exposing himself
to the risk of being run over by a car". If the police officer is in a
position of security, he or she will be more competent and capable of handling
the situation. If a police officer is not involved in anything which is
unsafe, he will have a clearer perspective of what is happening and be able to
deal with the situation accordingly. If you expose a police officer to a "kill
or be killed" situation, the risk of a fatal confrontation increases.

A significant objective of Project Beacon was to assist police in dealing with
persons with mental illness, emotionally disturbed individuals and persons
with behavioural problems. Project Beacon, in collaboration with the Victoria
Department of Health and Community Services, developed a comprehensive
integrated approach for dealing with such persons which was incorporated into
police training courses. The training involved video scenarios and role-
playing and in December, 1995, a video called "Similar Expectations" was
produced. It offered a range of methods for dealing with persons with mental
illness, and provided advice from mental health experts. The video received
widespread acceptance in law enforcement and mental health agencies and was
automatically incorporated into every police officer’s training; it was not
confined to the training of those who participated in dedicated negotiators
courses. Further training programmes were developed by persons with expertise
in psychiatric mental health with the assistance of a police psychologist.

8,500 police officers, student and operational, were placed on an initial,
five day training course complemented by mandatory two-day refresher training
every six months. It is now part of ongoing training of police officers in the
state of Victoria. Training for the Special Operations Group is rigorous and
ongoing, taking place on most occasions when its members are not involved in
operational response duties.

A "use of force register" is now maintained by the Victoria Police. Use of
force incidents range from the forcible obtainment of fingerprints and
handcuffing, through to riot situations. All such incidents are recorded in
the register. This enables the police force in Victoria to track the number of
incidents where force is a factor, and enables trend analysis in relation to
the type of force and weapons that are used. This acts as a "catalyst" for the
next six months of training. The information is analysed and if there is an
excessive increase in crimes involving firearms or knives etc., the training
in the following six months will be highlighted in that direction.

------
M_Bakhtiari
I doubt this is as much of a problem of the police officers as the American
legal system.

Surely the cost of a movie ticket is better settled in a small claims court
than with police intervention and a criminal case. The theatre would have
surely got their money even without going to court, now they get nothing
instead. It's perverse, just like debtor's prison, which is still practiced in
the United States.

I think the police officers in these cases are mostly just acting out what the
legal system expects them to do.

~~~
icebraining
Eh, I'm not sure there was a "criminal case". The cops were working as
security staff of the place, not on duty; seems reasonable that they would
have a word with someone trying to break the movie theater rules. It's the
escalation from "having a word" to "forcible removal" to "on the floor not
breathing" that is absurd.

~~~
M_Bakhtiari
They stil acted as if there was. But the worst thing the kid could be accused
of is being in breach of contract for seeing more screenings than indicated on
his ticket.

Besides, it would make a lot more business sense to take it as an opportunity
to sell more tickets rather than to remove him.

------
praestigiare
Telling that, submitted at the same time, this story has one sarcastic
comment, thile the story of a police officer selling information on the dark
web has an actual discussion.

~~~
icebraining
What does it tell? Frankly I can't think of anything to say about this. It
only fills me with sadness for all involved.

~~~
larkeith
Perhaps that HN is a rather tech-focused community, and that the other story
has more relevance to most users? Or perhaps that it's a more unique story, as
depressing as that thought is.

My inner cynic believes OP meant to imply that HN values technology over human
lives or something similarly disingenuous, but that might be uncharitable. It
could just as easily be a reflexion on the frequency of stories in this vein,
that they've become commonplace, or similar.

------
larkeith
> All police in the US are, of course, armed. There is also the very real
> prospect that they could face criminals who are, too.

While I doubt it is the sole issue, I wonder how much of the United States'
absurd frequency of police killings is due to its massively pro-firearm
policies and sentiment. Can police lethality be significantly reduced without
fundamentally changing opinions on gun regulation?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
> Can police lethality be significantly reduced without fundamentally changing
> opinions on gun regulation?

Yes. Start giving the officers and the organizations that represent the
officers (departments, unions) good reasons to kick out people who are a high
risk of shooting people unreasonably.

Mandatory individual liability insurance would go a long ways. Holding police
to the same standard as the rest of us would also go a long ways. Pretty much
anything is better than nothing.

Cops shoot people dead in situations where normal armed citizens wouldn't even
think about pulling a gun. Seriously, I can't even begin to convey how massive
the double standard is here. Stuff that's justifiable when the cops do it
would be an instant manslaughter if not murder charge for a regular person.

Unnecessary police killings are one of those areas where pretty much everyone
pro-gun and anti-gun agrees that guns aren't the problem, it's hothead
officers who don't de-escalate and pull the trigger at the drop of the hat
that are the problem.

~~~
MrLeftHand
I think when the police's top priority is to get home to their families rather
then protect and serve... That speaks volumes.

The danger of being shot every time they get a call to a scene is very real.
This creates the mentality of shooting first and asking questions later.

Hot headed officers?! In a country where everybody can own a gun there is a
real fear of getting shot. The only worse profession is to be in the army.

Surprisingly other countries have armed police as well, but somehow they wont
pull the trigger that often then the Americans. Wonder why... Oh wait, maybe
because there is a minuscule chance of being shot by another person?

~~~
maeln
No, it is not just the risk inherent to their job.

In France, the police officer, since the Paris attack, got more and more
power, and can now carry their work firearm outside of service.

Since this decision has been made, the number of people shot by a police
officer (in or out of service) has increase by +54% in one year.

But their job didn't get any more dangerous, there is no significant increase
in firearm possession or, globally, criminality between 2016 and 2017. Nothing
at least that would be close to a _+54%_ increase in one year.

But, on the other end, officer are more and more protected and usually don't
even end up in court, even when they blatantly violated the police
instruction.

This tend to show one thing, that I thing have been proven time and time
again: Give more power to someone and none of the responsibilities that should
come with it, and you get people who will abuse their power over and over
again.

EDIT: Source for the +54% (in French): [https://www.lemonde.fr/police-
justice/article/2018/06/27/le-...](https://www.lemonde.fr/police-
justice/article/2018/06/27/le-recours-aux-armes-a-feu-par-les-policiers-a-
fortement-augmente-en-2017_5321753_1653578.html)

EDIT2: The +54% is the increase in firearm _usage_ by the police, not the
number of people shot.

~~~
MrLeftHand
There are certain government reactions which are nonsense, I agree. Like the
reaction to 911 in the US and creating the massive hysteria around airport
security, which failed miserably, but still nobody does anything about it. I
am not justifying stupid laws and decisions made by governments here.

I am not an advocate of how the police and law enforcement works in the US,
bit I see the relation why it works like that or at least what would be one of
the main causes of it.

Whilst people are crying about giving less control and force to the police,
there is no counter measure on the civilian side regarding the ownership of
guns in the US.

------
RickJWagner
Lifelong US citizen here.

To people from outside the US, please understand that our police do not go
around shooting and handcuffing people all the time. I have never personally
known anyone that was wrongfully arrested or abused by the police.

Even in a traffic stop, the key is to be polite and treat the police like
human beings. They are understandably concered with each public contact--
American police are killed in the line of duty, sometimes with no warning.

The problem is a political one, and it must be stopped. It' a wedge issue used
to divide the voting public, and media sources play to both sides.

If you travel to the US, please do not fear violence from the police. They
really are here to 'Protect and Serve'.

~~~
Someone1234
> To people from outside the US, please understand that our police do not go
> around shooting and handcuffing people all the time.

Yes, the police shooting "handcuffed" individuals in rare. The police shooting
civilians in general is not:

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-
counted-...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-
police-killings-us-vs-other-countries)

> American police are killed in the line of duty, sometimes with no warning.

The largest percentage of which is traffic accidents. Between 27 (2013) up to
69 (2011) police were killed nationally in "felonious" circumstances per the
FBI. Police shot and killed 987 or more people, but there's poor national data
on this (the FBI doesn't track it).

So the police kill about 93% more people than they themselves are killed, and
the 987 figure is considered fairly conservative.

> They really are here to 'Protect and Serve'.

Actually they aren't. The Supreme Court and appeals courts in "Warren v.
District of Columbia", and "Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales" ruled that they
have no such legal duty[0][1].

> If you travel to the US, please do not fear violence from the police.

If that were true why are you offering people advice on avoiding police
violence earlier in the post: "Even in a traffic stop, the key is to be polite
and treat the police like human beings."

The "key" is to act a certain way to avoid a violent encounter but there's no
concern about that in the US?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales)

~~~
vasama
> the police kill about 93% more people than they themselves are killed

Don't you mean 1330%?

~~~
Sholmesy
"Of all people killed in police/civilian altercations, 93% of them are
civilians"

