> In Minnesota, it is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.
> A number of states do bar people from recording private conversations without consent. But as long as the recording is made “openly and not surreptitiously,” said Osterreicher, it’s fair game. According to Osterreicher, “assuming the position of holding up a camera or phone at arm’s length while looking at the viewing screen should be enough to put someone on notice that they are being photographed or recorded.”
Police do this to build a story retroactively -- we shot a person, so ... to make it excusable we arrest their "accomplices" because officer so and so will make up some report about how they threatened his life with a gun. If they don't arrest her, then it looks like murder. Also if she was arrested, her side of the story immediately is less believable -- "clearly officer had a good reason to arrest her, we can't trust her words".
This happened in another case, where a person was shot in a store (Wal-Mart perhaps). Police then proceeded to heavily interrogate the partner and try to get them to admit the victim was "unstable", "drunk", "violent" and so on. Because it builds an excusable story so the officer is cleared of charges quicker (they don't have to actually resign and move one town over to another dept., but just get a 10 days paid vacation).
"Earlier today I spoke to their deputy leader Rory O'Connor, who under broadcasting regulations must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements."
(The actual broadcasting regulation was that Sinn Fein politicians couldn't have their voices heard on TV at all -- interviews, statements etc. had to be dubbed over.)
She was detained until the scene could be cleared. All those backup officers know when responding is that an officer called in a shooting and that there is a gun in the car. They detain her until they can get all of the information and then she is released so long as they are not pressing any type of charges against her.
That seems within the law. If she is a direct witness to a fatal shooting there would be a critical need to get her side of the story as soon as possible, and usually that would be done by detectives at a police station, not the responding officers at a crime scene.
It's a good thing that was live upload, because otherwise the public might never know. What amazes me, actually, is how long the upload continued after she was in custody. Maybe they didn't realize that the phone was uploading, and assumed that they could erase the video later.
Your guess?she was handcuffed and is still in jail after watching her husband's murder. I'm sure that as she watched the life bleed out of him and she prayed for him not to die she thought of selling this, and not of her daughter who was in the back of the car at the time. What is wrong with you?
While the video is now back up, this is a prime example of why net neutrality and avoiding digital silos is so important. Facebook gets to be the arbitrator of what we see, effectively creating a filter bubble, and since its motives don't align with the public's, it's a system rife for censorship and exploitation. The police could likely get the stream taken down for being "part of an ongoing investigation" or they could take the videos down later via DMCA requests or reporting it.
We need to make a conscious effort to move away from these sole repositories of humanity's video content. Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers. As mentioned before social media sites are not ideal for this job because of onerous terms of service and arbitrary removals. "What police brutality? I don't see it." Control the content and you control the narrative. Ideally in the future we'll look back and laugh at the fact that we all entrusted our videos to a private company's servers but considering how storage space keeps going down and the "cloud" keeps getting shoved down our throats, I'm not optimistic.
> Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers.
It's not like widespread HTML5 video support marks some significant change in the landscape. We had flash support in all browsers forever; that's how youtube came about in the first place. It wasn't difficult at all to make another website that also served flash videos. It still isn't.
What youtube does that's difficult is agree to host the content. HTML5 does nothing for that.
Facebook added a disclaimer to the video. It was likely reported and automatically taken down, and they correctly added a disclaimer and brought it back online.
Facebook can't sell itself as a new live media platform and then just remove videos that are politically disturbing.
As an aside, this is the 559th person killed by police in the United States this year. His name was Philando Castile. They were pulled over for a broken tail light. He was shot with a 4 year old child in the backseat of the car.
(you can find the video on youtube, twitter, and elsewhere, but be forewarned, it is disturbing)
The shooting itself is not part of the video. Video is after the shooting, it shows a man with a blood covered white shirt clutching his arm. The lady filming is talking and asking Jesus to tell her that her boyfriend is not going to die. He looks alive in the video available.
I forgot where I read it but in some states there is a higher chance of getting killed by cops than by a criminal gang. Certainly higher risk than terrorism, it seems.
>However you defined it, I think it is still more likely to get killed by cops.
I was not disagreeing with you. I was arguing that the way in which we use language has an important impact on shaping the way in which we think about the world around us.
Being killed by police is still pretty rare in the US, even if you're not white. But then there are all the adverse nonlethal interactions.
I wonder if it's common enough for concerned people to have live feeds. Perhaps triggered by loud noises, shock waves, voice commands ("help!") etc. For groups, watching each other, and the environment.
If you compare "being killed by the police" to other causes of death, then yes, you can call it rare.
However, 600 killings in just over half a year is deeply troubling when you compare it to other first-world nations. For example, in Germany, the police kills approximately 6-8 people per year [1]. If you scale this number by the US/German population, it's equivalent to 24-32 police killing per year. Clearly, the U.S. has a problem.
Don't you see why we need police body cams? Imagine if the police had forced her to turn off the phone. This video wouldn't exist. We wouldn't have even known about this.
I remember being pulled over by the cops. I was on my phone while he was doing the license check, and the officer told me to turn off my phone. I complied, so it's interesting to see how this woman luckily got away with recording the video. If the police had told her to turn off the phone, there's nothing she could have done at that moment in time. All transparency of the incident would have been lost.
He's dead. My professor once said, "The police have gone from 'Serve and Protect' to 'Seek and Destroy'."
>the officer told me to turn off my phone. I complied
Why did you comply? He has no reason to ask that of you.
>If the police had told her to turn off the phone, there's nothing she could have done at that moment in time.
If a police officer tells you to turn off your phone, you don't have to listen to it. They cannot legally compel you to do that. They can tell you step back, and you should definitely take a couple step backwards if so. If they want you to stop recording, they need to arrest you and have probable cause for that arrest.
Not making any judgments or assumptions about what happened in this case, but there are better and worse ways of informing a police officer that you're carrying.
To start, not all states obligate concealed carry permit holders to inform police that they are carrying. However, if you're pulled over, and you do want to inform the officer, keep your hands on the wheel and calmly tell the officer that you have a permit to carry concealed. Tell them that you are currently doing so -- again, without having moved your hands. Ask them how they would like you to proceed.
You will probably be asked where the firearm is located. They might ask you to step out of the car so they can temporarily relieve you of your weapon. They might just say something like "don't reach for yours, and I won't reach for mine." Bottom line: let the officer guide you, and keep your movements slow and deliberate.
DON'T say the words "gun" or "weapon" or anything like that. Those are keywords that can trigger an instinctive reaction in the officer, and they might not be able to hear anything else you say thanks to a rush of adrenaline.
Interestingly, Minnesota is not a state where CCW holders are obligated to disclose their permit or weapon to peace officers.
The officer isn't an EMT and if he was really shot 4 times in the abdomen then nothing the officer has would stop the bleeding. Not only that but if the guy really did react in a threatening manner the officer is providing cover to make sure the gun doesn't come back out.
I'm not advocating one side or the other on this, just letting you know how the protocols work.
I never said he forgot. Only that he is not a trained EMT with access to a trauma kit that would stop 4 GSWs. From the video he is also alone and has to secure the scene until backup arrives.
Even if he had a kit in his car, he can't risk getting it with a gun still in the car. From his perspective he felt threatened enough to shoot and the gun is still with the victim(s) which could be turned against him.
The video you provided was different because they immediately realized that the undercover officer was not a threat, and had multiple people on scene as well to start helping.
> Only that he is not a trained EMT with access to a trauma kit that would stop 4 GSWs. From the video he is also alone and has to secure the scene until backup arrives.
I was trying to say even if he had a kit and was moonlighting as a rescue squad volunteer, nothing in his behavior indicated he was attempted to help.
The video I linked was an example of how "attempted to help" might look like, and there is difference there it seems.
Can see the other points of wanting to secure the scene or saying he was threated, but don't see the point at all of "well not an EMT, so that's why looked indifferent to the a person's suffering and death. If only he had a kit with him, he would have knelt down and attempted to stop the bleeding, but didn't so kept pointing the gun at him and watched him die..."
Kit or no kit, they still don't administer aid alone while there is still a potential threat. Getting that guy out of the car requires holstering your weapon and going in the car when you still might not know where the weapon is.
Safer for the officer to wait for backup. That was my point.
I made a response to a similar comment in another location (see ref 1).
I only want to respond to the following claims:
> he is not a trained EMT with access to a trauma kit that would stop 4 GSWs [gunshot wound, clarification added]
There are other cases where Minnesota police officers are documented to have responded to gunshot wounds (ref. 2) Indeed, certain MN police departments provide additional training, beyond basic first aid, for trauma situations - see the edit to ref. 1.
Further, you're implying that highly-specialized training ('EMT'), specific medical supplies ('trauma kit'), and injury severity ('4 GSWs') are important in considering rendering aid. My contention would be that, those factors absent, having a gun drawn and yelling at a victim are not appropriate responses to an event of this type.
> he is also alone and has to secure the scene until backup arrives
Backup is clearly present by the time the video is rolling and multiple officers appear on the video when Mr. Castile's girlfriend is removed from the car.
How do you know he is trained for administering GSW treatment? We don't know the full story here and I was just trying to point out why the protocol is basically to secure the scene and wait for backup when you're alone.
I am only adding these posts for posterity's sake - in MN, there is an obligation to aid individuals who have been harmed and MN officers are trained to do this. Indeed, reports exist of MN officers responding to gun shot wounds (GSWs).
And again I will suggest that and officer will not do that alone, before backup arrives after a shooting like this. I saw somewhere else that once backup arrived they started CPR which would be in line with what I am trying to point out.
I think you've made this post in multiple places but it's not applicable in this situation - see a reported image of police officers performing chest compressions on Mr. Castile in the article below [1].
More broadly, EMTs are not the only individuals capable of providing support after a shooting. Indeed, some state governments (e.g., VT and MN) have a statutory "duty to rescue" those exposed to grave physical harm for all individuals.
One would hope that police officers would be the most likely to do this, especially after a grievous injury - even if the wounds proved not to be survivable, this is hard to assess from feet away, with a gun drawn.
As an aside to counter a point you make elsewhere, there are multiple other police on the scene in the video, though it's not clear at what point they arrive.
My main point is that any officer would not likely provide that treatment without backup after a shooting like this.
Also officers are not usually covered under the good samaritan laws, so their actions can lead to lawsuits if they cause more damage and don't have training. So a lot of times they do just wait for the EMTs.
What I don't understand is why any EMTs weren't called right then.. they might have been able to save his life if they hadn't waited so long (he died later in the hospital)
They probably were. Whenever the officer would radio "shots fired" the dispatcher would automatically start an ambulance. Just depends on how long it takes them to get there.
Not surprised a bit. Then they handcuffed her as well.
That is not just "got confused by adrenaline" at that point. It is a very deliberate tactic police use (I already mentioned below, but in case it gets pushed down I'll mention again) -- The police have to act like they just caught the most vile gang bangers who are wanted for some despicable crime, almost got killed by them, and only due to "rigorous" training and quick judgment by officer so-and-so the day was saved. Starting to help him means, he is not as dangerous maybe, so it looks like murder now. Not arresting her means, the situation wasn't really that dangerous and it looks even more like murder. And besides, if she is arrested, her testimony is now the testimony of an "accomplice" or a suspect -- clearly cannot be trusted.
America has some institutional and cultural problems that no other developed, westernized democracy has, at least in terms of the extent of the problems. One of these is policing.
What happens in these cases is taxpayers will need to pay for a settlement. The officers, and their departments, are often not held seriously accountable. In the recent shooting of Alton Sterling that just happened, the officer's body cameras "fell off." Oh, oops. Why is that acceptable? Compare this to other professions: A surgeon makes a mistake during a procedure, the response is not "oops." It is: you will lose your life savings, even potentially their medical license. Police should be the most transparent of organizations, and the most scrutinized, not immune to it. What happened to protect and serve?
It's true, they all carry malpractice insurance so that doesn't happen. It does not change the fact they can easily make a mistake and lose a case that will cost them their life savings or more, even if it is possible to carry insurance to cover that cost.
> A surgeon makes a mistake during a procedure, the response is not "oops." It is: you will lose your life savings, even potentially their medical license.
Medical errors are a significant cause of death. If the responsible clinician involved lost their life savings every time someone died after a mistake the US wouldn't have any doctors.
It also sounds like a lousy way to prevent medical error or to learn from mistakes.
Did you mean "mistake", or did you mean something like reckless negligence?
>Did you mean "mistake", or did you mean something like reckless negligence?
The comparison was to the body camera falling off, which seems closer to reckless negligence, but we don't often hear that language used when discussing policing. Maybe it should be, but let us please not go microscopic in a debate about the meaning of words here -- the comparison is valid, I believe, and I don't think you've shown why it is not?
All my argument is saying is that the bar is set extremely high for doctors, extremely low for policeman, and that police officers have an equally important job to do in society, and should be subject to similar standards.
Why can't we just take guns away from police officers. It would improve the safety of minorities, and also likely help reduce the attitude problems many officers have.
The disturbing thing for me is the cop seemed more concerned with keeping his gun out and barking orders than in administering any sort of aid. It seems the God complex is strong in this one that he can't even render aid to a dying human being but instead belittles him "I told you not to move" as if that excuses all of this. That lack of compassion is so disturbing.
I'm not a cop, I don't know why it is more important to point a gun at a dying man than render aid, but that's just one of the many thoughts this video evoked for me. So sad. I'm sure there's much more to this story to come.
Edit: if you are going to down vote please explain why. The cop is literally watching the man die right in front of him.
Posting this again as I replied to another user above:
The officer isn't an EMT and if he was really shot 4 times in the abdomen then nothing the officer has would stop the bleeding. Not only that but if the guy really did react in a threatening manner the officer is providing cover to make sure the gun doesn't come back out.
I'm not advocating one side or the other on this, just letting you know how the protocols work.
I've made these statements elsewhere; I simply want to be thorough in responding to your comments.
In Minnesota, there is an obligation to aid individuals who have been harmed and MN officers are trained to do this. Indeed, reports exist of MN officers responding to gun shot wounds (GSWs).
The officer was indoctrinated to behave this way, to exhibit forceful authority, and is clearly heard to be battling his personal instinct that he fucked this one up, and doesn't have a single clue what to do because his conscience says one thing and his training says another and he is too young to have developed the detachment from self that older officers and soldiers do. I took his "you should've kept your hands up" as a tortured mind desperately trying to save itself from crushing guilt over having snuffed out the life of an innocent man.
I'm not condoning or condemning the behavior of the officer. Nor am I trying to garner sympathy for him. The fact is a man was fatally shot, and he didn't have to be, and we do not know who ... really who ... is to blame. It's natural to rush to judgment and a sense of vigilante justice, to reconcile the debt owed to the community and to society at large. But this sort of thing is a symptom of something much bigger than a slogan or a talking point. Honestly, I'm struggling with figuring out what can we, as technologists, do to make this country less panicky and prejudiced, without being dismissed by the people we would seek to help.
There is a lot that we don't and can't understand about the way the officer was thinking. Only that he was panicked and relatively young, and perhaps that shines a light on a part of the story we don't talk about enough: who SHOULD be policing the streets? What is done to ensure their psychological health and mental capacity to exhibit calm decisiveness in the face of so many potentially fatal unknowns?
Incidentally, that town isn't an area where cops often use their firearms. White-on-black (or, it seems in this case, Asian-on-black) violence from law enforcement isn't endemic to that part of the country.
Sorry I'm rambling. I'm really saddened by this story. Nothing about it should've gone down the way it did.
From what little information we have so far, he was a good guy, with a minor criminal history who sought to improve his life, ultimately resulting in working the same job for over a decade. That last point is more than can be said about a lot of us here on HN, let's be frank about that. Other than my own business, I haven't held a job longer than a few years. It shows a commitment to his community and the kids he literally and figuratively served while on the job.
He tried to do what he knew was the right thing to do. Sadly, it wasn't exactly the right thing in the eyes of the officer involved. Therein will lie the crux of this matter: what led this officer to believe that shooting the man was the correct response? Where did the system fail? Was it at the precinct leadership level? The academy level? Societal or socioeconomic? Because there was a pair of failures here: something or someone failed to prepare the officer for how to handle this situation, and more heart-breaking, something or someone failed to keep the man alive.
As someone who carries on a regular basis, the #1 rule when dealing with the police is compliance.
Yes sir, no sir, the weapon is on my hip, my hands are on the steering wheel and you don't move unless told to do so. A cop is always on edge during a traffic stop but even more so after you tell them you have a weapon. Quick movements after you tell them you are armed is not going to end well.
Obviously we don't know the whole story here as the video starts after the shooting, but hopefully there is body cam footage to clear everything up.
Oh, I think since cell phone cameras became ubiquitous we know enough stories to know the whole story, even if we haven't seen the exact details of this particular case yet.
> we know enough stories to know the whole story, even if we haven't seen the exact details of this particular case yet
So you're assuming something happened without any evidence? That is a horrible way to go about things.
We saw the same thing in the Micheal Brown case, people threw crazy stories out there about him being executed with his hands up and people rioted, looted, and burned the town down. Then a few months later we saw the actual evidence that proved he attacked that officer, ran away, and came back.
I'm not assuming anything. I know that despite whatever happened in this particular case (though it would seem rare to tell a cop you have a gun and then try to shoot him with it, and then be a cop freaking out, cursing and shaking over what you have just done, and by all accounts this guy was a super stand up guy, great school employee, no rap sheet, etc, etc, etc), that despite whatever happened in this particular case we have a problem with institutionalized violence against bodies of color in the United States, especially Black males. We have a structural problem with highly militarized police that believe they are fighting a war against the people they are paid to protect. We have a problem with holding those police accountable for their actions. The whole story is a long story, starting with slavery, continuing through redlining and segregation, etc but this whole story is a story about cops that kill more people in a day in this country than other industrialized countries have in a year. It's a story about unarmed Black men being killed at disproportionate rates even while white mass shooters are brought in alive and heavily armed. It's a whole story about a lot of things actually - a prison industrial complex grown bloated, a war on drugs that doesn't work, police training that is incomplete or wrong, complacent citizens, etc.
But again, I'm not passing judgement on whether this particular killing was "justified" or not. I'm just saying we already know the whole story, and the whole story is bigger than this particular tragic ending.
I'd agree with you that some police are too heavy handed for the everyday situation. However, there are a lot of violence / gang problems within the black communities in the US. That leads to cities and police forces cracking down on those violent areas which leads to even more heavy handedness and even more distrust by those communities. Its a perpetual cycle.
It seems that we need a revolution on both sides for anything meaningful to happen. Sadly we probably won't see that happen anytime soon.
Hopefully we can at least pass some meaningful reform related to drug imprisonment which would keep a lot of people out of jail for petty things, which just ends up feeding the cycle to begin with.
I can't fully address your comment as I don't have access to the relevant data (regarding black community violence and its correlation with "heavy handed" police).
What I will suggest is that overall violence does not seem to be correlated with the rate of police killings - see the third image in ref. 1.
I can't reply to you due to the HN rate limit. Please see my response below:
I appreciate your response but I take issue with the data source behind that post (ref 1). I don't intend to take it apart fully, but it appeared to included factors (e.g., average commute time) that:
1. Systematically disfavor urban areas
2. Have little bearing to the question at hand, whether violence is correlated with police killings
Additionally, my claim above (2) is that violence and police killings, across the municipalities with the highest rates of police killings, are not correlated (ref. 3).
It is possible that it is a victim of the HN ranking algorithm, which I believe discriminates against posts that acquire a lot of comments relative to age/votes as a way to avoid "controversial" posts.
Although personally, it struck me as very strange that someone who's just witnessed her partner being shot (and who is currently in some need of medical treatment) that her reaction is to reach for her phone and the live streaming feature of an app. I certainly think that falls under "evidence of an interesting new phenomenon".
Edit: I don't mean "strange" in any kind of moral judgement. My heart goes out to this woman and her child who had to witness this and who've lost someone close to them. I mean strange in the sense that this isn't how I would expect someone to react.
Police brutality has been a serious problem in the US for decades, and it seems that putting a streaming video camera in everyone's pocket might help shift the narrative back in the people's favor.
Her actions demonstrated amazing presence of mind. She's probably not trained as an EMT. But she did think to document the situation. It's just very lucky that they didn't shoot her too.
Yesterday a man was killed by an officer in Louisiana. Headline: "Man shot by BRPD multiple times to chest and back; two officers placed on leave".
How the heck is "leave" a punishment worthy of homicide? And why are these videos always recorded by witnesses rather than body cameras on the police?
If we want to stop this from happening then change the officer's punishment to be a prison sentence, strap a camera on every police officer, make the footage available to the public, and fire people when the camera "falls off" or is "obstructed".
They are placed on leave because, even for Cops, we afford them the presumption of innocence. They are on leave while the investigation proceeds. I'm noting this exogenous to the video evidence that's in the public record now, and that I still believe that leave is appropriate while an investigation proceeds. Otherwise what we have is mob rule. I'm by no means defending the conduct of the officers that we've seen in these videos, but rule of law matters here. Even for Cops.
They're placed on leave because they might be guilty, I think. Because we want to keep trigger-happy cops off the street. If they're clearly guilty, they're fired, even before trial.
After reading a few comments on how to behave when police stops you and how to tell them you're carrying gun I can't shake the feeling that this country is trapped in some sort of a deadly staring contest, if you blink you can die. You have armed people trying to police a nation where everyone can have a gun, and many do. With this sort of tension on a daily basis things will go wrong, someone will make a mistake, which seems to be what is happening every week. And then people see the news, get scared and buy more guns, because they feel in danger, and later you read more comments on how they should calmly explain that they had a gun when police stopped them.
i am so saddened by the loss of life and i am so amazed by lavish and her girl
they are both affectingly strong
my best attempt at keeping my composure as well as them:
are officers trained to withhold giving medical aide?
i've seen this a lot in police videos, especially where a death is involved
why is this officer continuing to point a gun at a dying person?
was the officer preparing to shoot either the person bravely live broadcasting the situation in defiance of the gun, or the child in the backseat, if one tried to apply pressure to the wound or offer water to the victim?
120 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 205 ms ] threadFB probably had no choice but to remove it.
http://wiretapping.uslegal.com/state-laws/minnesota/
> In Minnesota, it is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-offi...
> A number of states do bar people from recording private conversations without consent. But as long as the recording is made “openly and not surreptitiously,” said Osterreicher, it’s fair game. According to Osterreicher, “assuming the position of holding up a camera or phone at arm’s length while looking at the viewing screen should be enough to put someone on notice that they are being photographed or recorded.”
This happened in another case, where a person was shot in a store (Wal-Mart perhaps). Police then proceeded to heavily interrogate the partner and try to get them to admit the victim was "unstable", "drunk", "violent" and so on. Because it builds an excusable story so the officer is cleared of charges quicker (they don't have to actually resign and move one town over to another dept., but just get a 10 days paid vacation).
"Earlier today I spoke to their deputy leader Rory O'Connor, who under broadcasting regulations must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements."
(The actual broadcasting regulation was that Sinn Fein politicians couldn't have their voices heard on TV at all -- interviews, statements etc. had to be dubbed over.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
She was detained until the scene could be cleared. All those backup officers know when responding is that an officer called in a shooting and that there is a gun in the car. They detain her until they can get all of the information and then she is released so long as they are not pressing any type of charges against her.
They can't take a statement on the street?
We need to make a conscious effort to move away from these sole repositories of humanity's video content. Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers. As mentioned before social media sites are not ideal for this job because of onerous terms of service and arbitrary removals. "What police brutality? I don't see it." Control the content and you control the narrative. Ideally in the future we'll look back and laugh at the fact that we all entrusted our videos to a private company's servers but considering how storage space keeps going down and the "cloud" keeps getting shoved down our throats, I'm not optimistic.
It's not like widespread HTML5 video support marks some significant change in the landscape. We had flash support in all browsers forever; that's how youtube came about in the first place. It wasn't difficult at all to make another website that also served flash videos. It still isn't.
What youtube does that's difficult is agree to host the content. HTML5 does nothing for that.
As an aside, this is the 559th person killed by police in the United States this year. His name was Philando Castile. They were pulled over for a broken tail light. He was shot with a 4 year old child in the backseat of the car.
(you can find the video on youtube, twitter, and elsewhere, but be forewarned, it is disturbing)
I'm not game to click it to see if the video actually loads as I actively avoid disturbing content.
And yes it loads.
http://www.startribune.com/aftermath-of-officer-involved-sho...
We define that as Americans as a brown, probably Muslim, wearing a burqa, and motivated by religious cause.
The Google definition is: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Do you really think the police and US government does not use violence and intimidation against their own citizens in the pursuit of political aims?
Who are the terrorist that kill the most Americans, then?
However you defined it, I think it is still more likely to get killed by cops.
> Do you really think the police and US government does not use violence and intimidation against their own citizens in the pursuit of political aims?
I was trying to imply that between the lines. But yes, that was the intended connection.
I was not disagreeing with you. I was arguing that the way in which we use language has an important impact on shaping the way in which we think about the world around us.
I wonder if it's common enough for concerned people to have live feeds. Perhaps triggered by loud noises, shock waves, voice commands ("help!") etc. For groups, watching each other, and the environment.
However, 600 killings in just over half a year is deeply troubling when you compare it to other first-world nations. For example, in Germany, the police kills approximately 6-8 people per year [1]. If you scale this number by the US/German population, it's equivalent to 24-32 police killing per year. Clearly, the U.S. has a problem.
[1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_...
I remember being pulled over by the cops. I was on my phone while he was doing the license check, and the officer told me to turn off my phone. I complied, so it's interesting to see how this woman luckily got away with recording the video. If the police had told her to turn off the phone, there's nothing she could have done at that moment in time. All transparency of the incident would have been lost.
He's dead. My professor once said, "The police have gone from 'Serve and Protect' to 'Seek and Destroy'."
Why did you comply? He has no reason to ask that of you.
>If the police had told her to turn off the phone, there's nothing she could have done at that moment in time.
If a police officer tells you to turn off your phone, you don't have to listen to it. They cannot legally compel you to do that. They can tell you step back, and you should definitely take a couple step backwards if so. If they want you to stop recording, they need to arrest you and have probable cause for that arrest.
Pretty grim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wuyXayGMB8
Apparently owning a gun and letting the police know of that fact is enough to get you killed. Good luck sorting things out.
To start, not all states obligate concealed carry permit holders to inform police that they are carrying. However, if you're pulled over, and you do want to inform the officer, keep your hands on the wheel and calmly tell the officer that you have a permit to carry concealed. Tell them that you are currently doing so -- again, without having moved your hands. Ask them how they would like you to proceed.
You will probably be asked where the firearm is located. They might ask you to step out of the car so they can temporarily relieve you of your weapon. They might just say something like "don't reach for yours, and I won't reach for mine." Bottom line: let the officer guide you, and keep your movements slow and deliberate.
DON'T say the words "gun" or "weapon" or anything like that. Those are keywords that can trigger an instinctive reaction in the officer, and they might not be able to hear anything else you say thanks to a rush of adrenaline.
Interestingly, Minnesota is not a state where CCW holders are obligated to disclose their permit or weapon to peace officers.
It's just unconscionable that a trained safety officer would allow someone to bleed like that, and even worse that the officer pulled the trigger.
I'm not advocating one side or the other on this, just letting you know how the protocols work.
I think the shots were in the man's arm. I could be mistaken.
Hmm, not sure I agree with "he isn't helping just because he forgot or never learned first aid stuff".
For example, there is footage out there of cops shooting their own, and here is what "trying to help even though not an EMT" might look like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5SWkEAX64U
Even if he had a kit in his car, he can't risk getting it with a gun still in the car. From his perspective he felt threatened enough to shoot and the gun is still with the victim(s) which could be turned against him.
The video you provided was different because they immediately realized that the undercover officer was not a threat, and had multiple people on scene as well to start helping.
I was trying to say even if he had a kit and was moonlighting as a rescue squad volunteer, nothing in his behavior indicated he was attempted to help.
The video I linked was an example of how "attempted to help" might look like, and there is difference there it seems.
Can see the other points of wanting to secure the scene or saying he was threated, but don't see the point at all of "well not an EMT, so that's why looked indifferent to the a person's suffering and death. If only he had a kit with him, he would have knelt down and attempted to stop the bleeding, but didn't so kept pointing the gun at him and watched him die..."
Safer for the officer to wait for backup. That was my point.
I only want to respond to the following claims:
> he is not a trained EMT with access to a trauma kit that would stop 4 GSWs [gunshot wound, clarification added]
There are other cases where Minnesota police officers are documented to have responded to gunshot wounds (ref. 2) Indeed, certain MN police departments provide additional training, beyond basic first aid, for trauma situations - see the edit to ref. 1.
Further, you're implying that highly-specialized training ('EMT'), specific medical supplies ('trauma kit'), and injury severity ('4 GSWs') are important in considering rendering aid. My contention would be that, those factors absent, having a gun drawn and yelling at a victim are not appropriate responses to an event of this type.
> he is also alone and has to secure the scene until backup arrives
Backup is clearly present by the time the video is rolling and multiple officers appear on the video when Mr. Castile's girlfriend is removed from the car.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12047969
[2] http://www.startribune.com/documents-detail-accidental-eden-...
Then he didn't provide basic assistance to someone shot even though he his trained for it.
See my earlier posts:
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12047969
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12048024
More broadly, EMTs are not the only individuals capable of providing support after a shooting. Indeed, some state governments (e.g., VT and MN) have a statutory "duty to rescue" those exposed to grave physical harm for all individuals.
One would hope that police officers would be the most likely to do this, especially after a grievous injury - even if the wounds proved not to be survivable, this is hard to assess from feet away, with a gun drawn.
As an aside to counter a point you make elsewhere, there are multiple other police on the scene in the video, though it's not clear at what point they arrive.
1. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shot-dead-minn-...
EDIT:
For posterity's sake, here's a press-release description of medical training that many Minneapolis/St. Paul are police officers receive:
https://hcmcnews.org/2013/01/09/hcmc-network-feature-real-li...
Also officers are not usually covered under the good samaritan laws, so their actions can lead to lawsuits if they cause more damage and don't have training. So a lot of times they do just wait for the EMTs.
That is not just "got confused by adrenaline" at that point. It is a very deliberate tactic police use (I already mentioned below, but in case it gets pushed down I'll mention again) -- The police have to act like they just caught the most vile gang bangers who are wanted for some despicable crime, almost got killed by them, and only due to "rigorous" training and quick judgment by officer so-and-so the day was saved. Starting to help him means, he is not as dangerous maybe, so it looks like murder now. Not arresting her means, the situation wasn't really that dangerous and it looks even more like murder. And besides, if she is arrested, her testimony is now the testimony of an "accomplice" or a suspect -- clearly cannot be trusted.
Based on recent events, I'd venture to guess that this is true if you're white. If you're not, they may just start shooting.
Deaths from gun suicides > deaths from cops killing civilians > terrorists killing civilians.
Yes the problem is definitely mexicans crossing the border and Muslims in the country /s
What happens in these cases is taxpayers will need to pay for a settlement. The officers, and their departments, are often not held seriously accountable. In the recent shooting of Alton Sterling that just happened, the officer's body cameras "fell off." Oh, oops. Why is that acceptable? Compare this to other professions: A surgeon makes a mistake during a procedure, the response is not "oops." It is: you will lose your life savings, even potentially their medical license. Police should be the most transparent of organizations, and the most scrutinized, not immune to it. What happened to protect and serve?
Really? Don't they have insurance for that?
Medical errors are a significant cause of death. If the responsible clinician involved lost their life savings every time someone died after a mistake the US wouldn't have any doctors.
It also sounds like a lousy way to prevent medical error or to learn from mistakes.
Did you mean "mistake", or did you mean something like reckless negligence?
The comparison was to the body camera falling off, which seems closer to reckless negligence, but we don't often hear that language used when discussing policing. Maybe it should be, but let us please not go microscopic in a debate about the meaning of words here -- the comparison is valid, I believe, and I don't think you've shown why it is not?
All my argument is saying is that the bar is set extremely high for doctors, extremely low for policeman, and that police officers have an equally important job to do in society, and should be subject to similar standards.
I'm not a cop, I don't know why it is more important to point a gun at a dying man than render aid, but that's just one of the many thoughts this video evoked for me. So sad. I'm sure there's much more to this story to come.
Edit: if you are going to down vote please explain why. The cop is literally watching the man die right in front of him.
The officer isn't an EMT and if he was really shot 4 times in the abdomen then nothing the officer has would stop the bleeding. Not only that but if the guy really did react in a threatening manner the officer is providing cover to make sure the gun doesn't come back out.
I'm not advocating one side or the other on this, just letting you know how the protocols work.
In Minnesota, there is an obligation to aid individuals who have been harmed and MN officers are trained to do this. Indeed, reports exist of MN officers responding to gun shot wounds (GSWs).
Referenced posts:
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12047969
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12048024
I'm not condoning or condemning the behavior of the officer. Nor am I trying to garner sympathy for him. The fact is a man was fatally shot, and he didn't have to be, and we do not know who ... really who ... is to blame. It's natural to rush to judgment and a sense of vigilante justice, to reconcile the debt owed to the community and to society at large. But this sort of thing is a symptom of something much bigger than a slogan or a talking point. Honestly, I'm struggling with figuring out what can we, as technologists, do to make this country less panicky and prejudiced, without being dismissed by the people we would seek to help.
There is a lot that we don't and can't understand about the way the officer was thinking. Only that he was panicked and relatively young, and perhaps that shines a light on a part of the story we don't talk about enough: who SHOULD be policing the streets? What is done to ensure their psychological health and mental capacity to exhibit calm decisiveness in the face of so many potentially fatal unknowns?
Incidentally, that town isn't an area where cops often use their firearms. White-on-black (or, it seems in this case, Asian-on-black) violence from law enforcement isn't endemic to that part of the country.
Sorry I'm rambling. I'm really saddened by this story. Nothing about it should've gone down the way it did.
He tried to do what he knew was the right thing to do. Sadly, it wasn't exactly the right thing in the eyes of the officer involved. Therein will lie the crux of this matter: what led this officer to believe that shooting the man was the correct response? Where did the system fail? Was it at the precinct leadership level? The academy level? Societal or socioeconomic? Because there was a pair of failures here: something or someone failed to prepare the officer for how to handle this situation, and more heart-breaking, something or someone failed to keep the man alive.
"it's okay, I'm right here with you" most heart breaking words from a 4 year old.
Yes sir, no sir, the weapon is on my hip, my hands are on the steering wheel and you don't move unless told to do so. A cop is always on edge during a traffic stop but even more so after you tell them you have a weapon. Quick movements after you tell them you are armed is not going to end well.
Obviously we don't know the whole story here as the video starts after the shooting, but hopefully there is body cam footage to clear everything up.
So you're assuming something happened without any evidence? That is a horrible way to go about things.
We saw the same thing in the Micheal Brown case, people threw crazy stories out there about him being executed with his hands up and people rioted, looted, and burned the town down. Then a few months later we saw the actual evidence that proved he attacked that officer, ran away, and came back.
But again, I'm not passing judgement on whether this particular killing was "justified" or not. I'm just saying we already know the whole story, and the whole story is bigger than this particular tragic ending.
It seems that we need a revolution on both sides for anything meaningful to happen. Sadly we probably won't see that happen anytime soon.
Hopefully we can at least pass some meaningful reform related to drug imprisonment which would keep a lot of people out of jail for petty things, which just ends up feeding the cycle to begin with.
What I will suggest is that overall violence does not seem to be correlated with the rate of police killings - see the third image in ref. 1.
[1] http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/2015
EDIT:
I can't reply to you due to the HN rate limit. Please see my response below:
I appreciate your response but I take issue with the data source behind that post (ref 1). I don't intend to take it apart fully, but it appeared to included factors (e.g., average commute time) that:
1. Systematically disfavor urban areas
2. Have little bearing to the question at hand, whether violence is correlated with police killings
Additionally, my claim above (2) is that violence and police killings, across the municipalities with the highest rates of police killings, are not correlated (ref. 3).
[1] http://places.findthehome.com/#guide
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12048043
[3] http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5...
http://kdvr.com/2015/05/08/by-the-numbers-here-are-the-most-...
Although personally, it struck me as very strange that someone who's just witnessed her partner being shot (and who is currently in some need of medical treatment) that her reaction is to reach for her phone and the live streaming feature of an app. I certainly think that falls under "evidence of an interesting new phenomenon".
Edit: I don't mean "strange" in any kind of moral judgement. My heart goes out to this woman and her child who had to witness this and who've lost someone close to them. I mean strange in the sense that this isn't how I would expect someone to react.
Police brutality has been a serious problem in the US for decades, and it seems that putting a streaming video camera in everyone's pocket might help shift the narrative back in the people's favor.
How the heck is "leave" a punishment worthy of homicide? And why are these videos always recorded by witnesses rather than body cameras on the police?
If we want to stop this from happening then change the officer's punishment to be a prison sentence, strap a camera on every police officer, make the footage available to the public, and fire people when the camera "falls off" or is "obstructed".
i am so saddened by the loss of life and i am so amazed by lavish and her girl
they are both affectingly strong
my best attempt at keeping my composure as well as them:
are officers trained to withhold giving medical aide?
i've seen this a lot in police videos, especially where a death is involved
why is this officer continuing to point a gun at a dying person?
was the officer preparing to shoot either the person bravely live broadcasting the situation in defiance of the gun, or the child in the backseat, if one tried to apply pressure to the wound or offer water to the victim?