User talk:Deunanknute/Archive 3

List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2015

(Moved from User:Deunanknute Deunanknute (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC))

Hi, First, let's be friends. You put a lot of work into this and I appreciate your efforts. In fact, I have been searching for updates on these entries and you have surpassed my efforts.Thank you.

I made entries that show why there was police contact who was contacted, their age and name, place of contact and their death. Anything beyond that is not neutral. If you say for instance that the person in the hotel who was leaving tried to kill two police officers that is not neutral. First, it is not supported by the facts and second it is the reason why the police claim they killed this fellow. It simply is not neutral.It is their version of what happened.
I put extra judical in the title because in the United States people can only be killed if they are sentenced as part of a judical proceeding. Specifically, a jury could find you guilty of murder but unless a judge sentences you to death you will not be killed. So, police officer killings are out side judical proceedings.

@Mwmccarrin:The reason I removed "extra judicial" is that it can mean "without legal authority." Police officers are legally authorized to use deadly force against someone in order to prevent that person from immediately harming the officer or others in the immediate vicinity. The exact definition varies from place to place, and can be subject to a lot of scrutiny, but the basic idea is there. Similar laws also exist for civilians. If someone is found guilty of murder, the judge doesn't decide whether or not to sentence someone to death. The judge applies the punishments as defined by the law, which defines specific punishments for specific crimes. Judges do have some leeway, but they still must remain within the prescribed punishments.

I have no problem making the list nearly 100% neutral, but if that is to be the case it needs to be extremely simplified. Also, part of the problem with being that neutral, is that what information doesn't get put in is just as non-neutral as what does. I think anything past date, name, and city/state could be construed as biased one way or another. Even the reason the police contacted the person could be biased. Do you say domestic, domestic disturbance, domestic assault, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.? What you call a thing gives it further meaning. If you want to be as neutral as possible, you need to figure out a way to classify the events that is black and white; no grey, no preconceived notions about what something means.

For example, the case of Autumn Mae Steele. You could call it a domestic disturbance, and it sounds like she wrongly was shot for arguing with a police officer who didn't want to take it. Mention that she had just gotten out of jail for a domestic abuse assault, and it sounds like she had attacked someone before, and may have attacked the officer. Even mentioning the dog, did it surprise the officer and he shot it because he didn't know what it would do? Did the dog attack the officer and he tried to shoot it and either missed or shot through it?

I see two options, though there may be others. We can either give a short blurb on the event, which would be somewhat biased, but we can attempt to show all sides fairly. Or, we can be completely neutral and just list the 100% verified facts. What do you think? Deunanknute (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Reply:Hi, Thanks for your note.

Just to clarify something I said earlier. Jury findings in the United States are not sentences. Only, the Judge can sentence you. If the Jury finds you guilty and you die before sentencing there is no conviction. Here is my thought process: There are three systems that work together but are independent of one another. They are the Police, the Prosecution and the Judiciary. If someone is killed by the police it is out side of the Judiciary and therefore extra judicial. It could be illegal and it could be a permitted use of legal force but that is not the title of the article. The article says it is neutral. Otherwise, it would be titled police killings justified by the use of legal force. If you feel that the name of the article should be changed to police killings where there was a justified use of legal force please feel free to change it. I will then include as many facts as possible that justify the legitimate use of lethal force by the police. Police can and do kill people in the United States legally under certain circumstances. There are rules and if they stay within the rules they will not be prosecuted for murder because in some circumstances they are permitted to use lethal force. You correctly pointed out this also applies to regular citizens.Also, concerning the poor upset lady who was apparently killed by mistake when her German shepherd bit the police officer I just do not understand how her past history of being upset in her domestic situation has anything to do with the police officer accidentally killing her because her dog bit him.If you read police web sites throughout the US you will find they do not all agree on their missions. I don't want to get sidetracked on the police mission. However, there are identifiable reasons why the police come in contact with citizens. Briefly, it is either part of police work or they are responding to a request from the public. So, if the article describes a 911 call or a domestic disturbance,or a pedestrian run over by the police,or a mental patient,or perhaps the service of a police warrant, a stake out,or survelliance, those things explain the why in the who, what,when, where, and why of the information. I will try to put in the who,what, when,where, and why as described in the article and you should feel free to add any details you feel make the shooting a legitimate use of police lethal force. I appreciate your thought process and your efforts. Thank you.Mwmccarrin (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)§

@Mwmccarrin:I have no argument that "extra judicial" can mean outside of the judicial process, the problem is that it can also mean outside of the law, ie. illegal. It's the second meaning that is problematic.

As for Steele, she didn't just have a history of being upset in her domestic situation. She was very recently, less than an hour before, released from jail on a charge of domestic abuse assault causing injury. I put it in there to give context to the situation. The way it was written seemed to imply the officer shot blindly. But, that's only one specific entry.

You mention "identifiable reasons why the police come in contact with citizens." But, that's not what was listed. (Mental Patient) is not a reason. Then (Domestic Disturbance), or (Drunk and Disorderly) are used when applicable, which makes it sound like the police were called for something relatively minor. But, (Police action) is used instead of (Armed Robbery), (Brandishing a Deadly Weapon), (Susperted Murder), etc. These are still "identifiable reasons", but they make it sound more like the person was a probable threat.

Is the "why" of "why did the police initially contact the person" more pertinent than the "why" of "why did the police kill the person"? As I said before, what type of information is included or not included also affects neutrality. Deunanknute (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

To: Deunanknute:

Here is a definition of extra judicial. It just means outside of the court. It does not mean illegal.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Extrajudicial. However, I am happy to consider any definition you provide that says it means illegal.

The police cannot shoot and kill people they do not meet. There has to be a reason for police contact. If the police stop a vehicle for failure to have a working tail light and a shootout ensues resulting in the driver's death then a very minor incident caused the application of deadly force. A person who was alive is now dead because a light bulb failed and they made the wrong response.§ The initial contact is always minor unless it is a police action and the police bravely respond to a shooting or robbery in progress.

I am still confused on why you think it was OK for a police officer to shoot and kill a woman by mistake (no matter what her background) who posed no threat to him and whose dog bit the officer causing him to be confused.

I served for two years as a Military Policeman during the Vietnam war with the 101st Airborne Division. I am sure no shooter listed on this post has that experience. I never shot anyone. I could have. I chose to subdue them. I was trained to subdue them not shoot them after all these soldiers were someone's child. It is just not OK to shoot people unless they are shooting at you or someone else. The mere fact that there is no national record of police killings when there is a complete accounting of every other conceivable pattern of human behavior should raise a flag that something is wrong. If there was an accounting why would we be posting deaths? These are our citizens who are dying whether they are perfect or not. If you want to continue to try and justify why they deserved to die it is not for me to try and stop you.

You win! Or do we all lose?

@Mwmccarrin:Yes, that is the legal definition, as used in courts, written law, and things of that nature. However, I'm referring to the common definition, the one I believe people are most likely to read it as when reading the article. The Google 'quick result' is "(of a sentence) not legally authorized". The first two results I get lead to Wikipedia Extrajudicial punishment, and Extrajudicial killing. The first is more what you are talking about, but the second is closer to the wording you are using. Merriam-Webster, the first 'official' link I get from Google gives three definitions "not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings", "delivered without legal authority", and "done in contravention of due process of law". Again, definitions that seem only slightly different, but are drastically different in context. Which is why I think we should avoid using it at all.

Response: I don't see your point here your definitions are exactly the same. I do want to point out that while you decided to eliminate my appropriate characterization I simply left that stand. If you don't understand what extra judicial means maybe you are right perhaps others won't either.

Yes, the police have a reason for meeting/contacting someone before any killing. But, as I said before, how relevant is the initial contact versus the reason for using deadly force? Referring to a police killing as stemming from the reason for initial contact is not the same as the specific reason for the killing. Saying that someone was shot after being pulled over for a broken tail light sets up the incident as something that should/could have been handled 'better' by the officer. Mentioning that the person pulled a gun on the officer gives greater context to the killing itself.

Response: I don't think you understand what I said. The driver had a choice if he responded with force against the police he,the driver, not the police made a mistake. But it still was an unnecessary death because of the driver's mistake.

I never said in any way that the officer was at all justified in shooting the woman with the dog. I simply wanted to use that as an example of bias in information delivery, which apparently worked.

Response: This is what your rewrite says: (Domestic Disturbance) Police responded to a domestic disturbance complaint involving Steele, who had been previously charged with domestic abuse and had been released from jail less than an hour before. While trying to defray the dispute, the officer was reportedly attacked by Steele's dog. The officer responded by firing two shots, one of which struck Steele in the torso, killing her.[

It should simply say: Officer responding to a domestic disturbance accidentally shot and killed Ms. Steele while trying to kill her dog when it bit him.

Are you saying you added this extra information to bias all of the other six billion readers of your rewrite to prove to me that this is somehow a reverse situation where extra information not germane to the occurrence prejudices the perception of an innocent decedent? Seriously? "which apparently worked" Are you going to reverse this now that you have convinced me?

I have no idea the history of the officers involved in the shootings. What I do know is that in most of the cases the officers were apparently cleared of any wrongdoing. Police are trained to subdue when possible, and only kill when necessary. You say you served two years as an MP and never shot anyone. Most police officers also never shoot anyone. But, how many times were you in similar situations where you thought your life, or the lives of others were in immediate danger? And, how many similar situations were other officers in that didn't end in killing? Sometimes it is necessary for a police officer to kill someone.

Response: My answer is at least six times. Once with a 38,once with an M-14 once with a five ton truck, once with a remote controlled stick of C-4,once with an m-60 machine gun once with a grenade, about five physical assaults and one time I convinced a fellow MP not to shoot a fleeing soldier that I tackled and subdued. Whatever, their history none of them experienced the same level of violence. Clearing them of wrong doing wouldn't be necessary if there was no possibility of wrongdoing.

You said "It is just not OK to shoot people unless they are shooting at you or someone else" Are you saying that officers should only shoot, or be able to shoot, someone who has already shot at someone? So, if someone with a gun threatens to shoot someone and raises the gun towards them, officers need to wait until the person actually shoots, and possible kills, someone? They shouldn't protect people from probable harm, but only further harm, or after they're dead? I am curious as to what you meant by this. Either way, that is more about your personal opinions of what the law should be versus what it is, and has nothing to do with this article. Deunanknute (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: I wasn't trained to shoot first and answer questions later. They need to wait before shooting citizens this is not a combat zone, these are not enemy combatants. There are countries where the police do not carry weapons the police there do not have the option of shooting first. I am not sure this is just my opinion. The framers of the Constitution seemed to have similar ideas. Besides, I got my training on the subject from the government.

I do agree that it is not necessary to consider my personal opinions. However, you wouldn't be reading my personal opinions if you hadn't rewritten the article and injected your own personal opinions as to why these people were rightfully shot and killed. Whatever the status of the law is currently opinions change the law when there is a consensus for change.

The definitions are not the same. "Extra judicial" can mean either mean outside of the judicial process, or it can mean illegal. The former, the one you gave, does cover all of these killings. The later, and more common definition, implicates the officers of legal wrongdoing, which is not the case.

Yes, it would be an unnecessary death because of the driver's mistake. But if you don't mention the person pulling a gun, it implies the officers were guilty of legal wrongdoing.

I was using that as an example. Your new way inserts unfounded assumptions. Nowhere in the source article does it say the officer was trying to kill the dog, nor does it say the officer fired after being bit.

There's a big difference in the training, rules, and situations between a Vietnam era military MP, and a current police officer. You did what you were supposed to do in your situation, the officers (the vast majority of them) did what they were trained to do in their situation.

Police officers aren't "trained to shoot first and answer questions later" either. Again, this gets into the territory of opinion, not the scope of the article. Also, when I said "your personal opinions" I didn't mean to imply they were yours alone, there are many people who agree.

I was trying to balance the article without removing content. We need to get back to the initial issue; what should the article consist of?

• As a quick note - could you not reply inside of a comment, and please sign with 4 "~"'s. It's getting tricky to keep track of. Deunanknute (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Response:

I have no problem with the Rosenberg Texas entry. So to answer your question I suggested previously that I enter the basic facts as I perceive them and you do whatever it is you feel comfortable with after that.

I do have a question Here is the January 28, 2015 entry where the fellow in a motel room was pinned in by an SUV after the police made noise to scare him from his hotel room. You say that he tried to kill two police officers. I don't see that in the cited article.

Phoenix police officers shot and killed a fugitive Tuesday night after the man repeatedly rammed a stolen vehicle into a police SUV, a department spokesman said.

No officers were injured.

The shooting occurred at a Motel 6 off Interstate 17 and Indian School Road at about 7 p.m.

Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman, said officers went to the motel on a tip that the 25-year-old man -- who was linked to several carjackings and a restaurant robbery -- had been staying there.

Officers approached the room he was renting and made a "ruckus," hoping the suspect would emerge, Crump said. When the man did, Crump said, he immediately entered a stolen Honda Civic parked nearby and locked the doors.

Officers used a police SUV to pin the Honda in place, but the suspect began revving the engine. He rammed the police vehicle several times to maneuver the car around, and that's when two officers shot at him, Crump said.

The man, whose name was not released, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police had most of the motel taped off Tuesday night during their investigation.

Now back to Ms. Steele and facts assumed not in the article according to you.

The article is titled "Neighbor blames dog for shooting that left woman dead."

The editor of the publication read this article and titled it as above.

I read the article it says the neighbor watched as the German Shepherd startled the police officer. The officer then fired twice, one shot striking and killing Ms. Steele. Later, the police officer was treated for at least one dog bite. So, this means to me that the officer had his gun drawn, he had a round in the chamber, he had the safety off, and he had his finger on the trigger and he either was pointing the weapon directly at Ms. Steele or he was pointing it at an object that caused the bullet to deflect after discharge into Ms. Steele's torso. None of these facts are in the article but it is fair to assume that Ms. Steele would not have been shot if the police officer did not have a round in the chamber, the safety off, his finger on the trigger and the pistol pointed at Ms. Steele or at an object capable of deflecting a bullet into Ms. Steele's body. If his weapon was holstered there would not have been a discharge and therefore no death. So, by prepping the weapon for discharge the death occurred as a result of the intervening dog's attack and bite according to the witness and the hospital/police department report of treatment for dog bite. Obliviously, the police officer was not provoked by Ms. Steele he was talking with her trying to calm the situation. He was provoked according to the witness by the dog. Why is it an assumption to say he was trying to shoot the dog when he was attacked? The only thing that could be added for more clarity is that he had prepped his weapon for discharge and involuntarily discharged it when bitten by the German Shepherd killing Ms. Steele.Mwmccarrin (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

He tried to hit the officers with the car. I probably got that from another article and forgot to cite it. Here's one [1]

Here's an updated article on Steele [2] You're relying too much on what one witness said. As far as a round being in the chamber, plenty of police keep one there at all times. Some departments do allow it. He was not talking with her trying to calm the situation, he ran over to stop her from beating up her husband, again. Even his pointing the gun at her is iffy. Obviously the gun was pointed at her, but did he actively point it at her, or was it because of the slip? It's still his fault, granted, but there's a question of neglegence.

I'm thinking the article would be best with the barest amount of information possible, and several links for each. Deunanknute (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

One last Thing: Mr. John Greer (deceased August 2013) report in Wikipedia

2013-08-29 Greer, John (46) Virginia (Springfield) After police responded to a call of a domestic dispute at a house in Springfield, an officer fired a shot at John Greer, killing him. Greer was reported to be armed with a firearm. The case is being investigated.[3]

Turns out four out of five responding police officers stated he was shot for no reason by a fifth officer after telling the officers he didn't want to die that day and he didn't want to hurt anyone. He placed the weapon on the ground and his hands on the top of the screen door and after chatting with the officers near him the fifth officer shot him in the chest killing him. This is why I think these articles should be neutral. Obviously, reporting he had a gun could make someone think the police shot him before he hurt them or someone else when that was not the case.

You be the Judge. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/officer-who-shot-john-geer-says-he-moved-hands-toward-waist-3-other-officers-say-no/2015/01/31/7cc2c0da-a7f6-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html Mwmccarrin (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done more than glance at any page except Jan '15 yet. I should be back in around 10 hours or so. Deunanknute (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)