SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
North Miami Police say they responded on July 20 to the area of Northeast 14th Avenue and Northeast 127th Street for a report of an armed man threatening suicide.
The "armed man" was a 23-year-old autistic patient who had wandered away from a nearby mental health center. He was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck.
47 year old behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey, a black man, was attending to the patient.
Multiple cops, armed with rifles, responded to the scene.
Kinsey was hit in the leg by one bullet. A photo shows Kinsey lying on his back with both hands in the air.
Speaking from his hospital bed Wednesday July 20 to a reporter for WSVN TV, Kinsey said "when it hit me I had my hands in the air, and I'm thinking I just got shot! And I'm saying, 'Sir, why did you shoot me?' and his words to me were, 'I don't know'."
The police administered no first aid. "They flipped me over, and I'm faced down in the ground, with cuffs on, waiting on the rescue squad to come", Kinsey said. "I'd say about 20, about 20 minutes it took the rescue squad to get there. And I was like, bleeding."
No gun was found at the scene.
At a Thursday July 21 press conference, the Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association said the officer was a member of the SWAT team. The head of the PBA told reporters the officer was too far away to hear what Kinsey was saying before he fired.
Heavy.com Heavy.com with video
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956:
A Florida police officer shot and wounded an autistic man's black caretaker, authorities said, in an incident purportedly captured on cellphone video that shows the caretaker lying down with his arms raised before being shot.
Source: LA Times
(Score: 2) by tfried on Friday July 22 2016, @02:18PM
The "authorities" must demonstrate that lawlessness among cops will not be tolerated in the slightest.
100% agreed.
this cop must be punished exactly as a citizen would be punished
But actually that may not be the correct approach, either. IMO, the larger problem isn't the degree of penality, it is that far too often investigations into police misconduct fail for a variety of reasons, importantly colleagues covering up for each other against better knowledge. But to do something about that problem, you do have to try to understand the other side as well:
Getting into shitty situations, regularly, is part of a police officer's job description. In fact, pretty much, it is their job description. They have a lot of opportunities to mess up, including opportunities to mess up big. I think there is a sentiment among cops - and even a well-reasoned sentiment - that every police officer will make a mistake one day. Some more, some less desastrous. They don't think it would be right to send their colleagues to jail for stuff that could happen to any of them on a bad day. So they gloss over each others bits of misconduct, are hostile to internal investigators, etc.
I don't have to go into the irony on how it is exactly this sort of behavior furthers the alienation between cops and citizens, and, in turn, makes encounters between cops and citizens ever more dangerous - for both sides. But to address it, I think we'll need a two-part strategy:
1) Absolutely do make sure to investigate properly, and place blame where blame is due.
2) After finding an officer guilty of misconduct, however, be very, very lenient WRT to the degree of punishment, even in grave cases. Except perhaps be really strict about any kind of cover up.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Friday July 22 2016, @02:56PM
that's horse-shit!
when you carry a gun under color of law, you can end a person's life and GET AWAY WITH IT. this has to stop and the fact that our poor little babies in blue are 'feared for their lives' every day - that does not man jack shit. can't do the job well? don't do it and go become some other paid thug, but don't be a paid thug under color of law!
if you have legal authority to carry a gun and kill me, the penalties should be 10x as high if you screw up. I don't carry a gun and I can't 'get away with it' like you do, mr. pig. if you screw up, people DIE. to ensure you wack jobs don't go all big-headed on us and start thinking you're better than us (yeah, too late) the penalties should be so harsh that they'd think twice about shooting innocent people. if they were personally liable, this bullshit would end tomorrow. a handful of lawsuits that empty a pig's bank account - that would send a message to them loud and clear. this shit has got to stop.
but we, no suck their cocks and give them even more room. 'they have a tough job!'. yeah right. so do many others, but we don't idolize them and give them military power that could wipe out a whole town in a few hours.
with such power - there has to be harsh punishments if the law guys don't respect the law.
the only thing human beings understand is pleasure and pain. they get their pleasure from being 'big guys' and flaunting it around us, bossing us around, getting away with it. they should, then, get their pain from citizen courts that strip them of their rank and convert them to poor people, pennyless and unemployable. they'll soon understand and fall back in line again.
we won't do this. the republican bootlickers love authorities and will never cross them (at least in public). so we have this stalemate where we allow our thugs in blue to run amok and no one punishes them in any serious way. we give them paid vacations, in fact!
punish them so severely that they won't do bad shit anymore. its how to teach children. and that's all I have to say about this right now. sometimes, adults need to be treated as misbehaving children.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Friday July 22 2016, @04:00PM
Well, I kind of expected to provoke disagreement, but I'll try to explain some points better.
1. Enforcing the law is a two step process: a) Establishing who did what, and what they did wrong. b) Determine an appropriate punishment. Essentially my point is that our actual problem is in step a). And if we don't solve that, step b) is completely irrelevant. And in fact overly strict expectations about b) can be a hindrance for a).
2. Cops actually killing people (for no good reason) is terrible. But it's merely the tip of the iceberg. What I am actually worried about more is the many levels of roughing before that. Twisted arms, punshes, guns drawn for no good reason, that sort of thing. The sort of thing were any decent lawyer will tell you to "swallow your anger and don't complain. I do believe your story, and not only because I'm paid to do so, but if you try to get justice, all you'll get is a counter-claim for resistance. And they will win, because they'll summon five officer to support their story, no matter how wrong it was."
Odds are fairly good that a bad officer will do a lot of that sort of bullying, before they ever get in a situation to do lethal damage. But the problem is it will never be on their record, because victims are rightfully afraid to speak up, and if they do, colleagues will still cover up. My point is: Work hard to make sure it does get reported, and it does get on their record (instead of resorting to double edged means such as this , for example). Actually punishing any single misconduct is totally second to that, and in fact it is probably detrimental to the goal.
3. No my story is not a well-rounded plan. You'd have to flank it with many additional measures to make it work. More internal investigators, independent observers, etc. Importantly, however, you will have to spin it in a way that the average police officer will understand that such measures are meant to help identify mistakes, not to end heaps of careers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Friday July 22 2016, @04:20PM
I think the solution is pretty simple. Mandate that all police interactions with the public be recorded in both audio and video, with the recordings automatically uploaded for the public to view, with a reasonable delay (6 hrs?) for security.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @06:59PM
Remember Eric Garner?
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday July 22 2016, @07:45PM
and any loss of time or part (audio or video) constitutes an automatic 'the cop lied' verdict.
if they can't ensure that their equipment is working, they have no business using it. we will soon depend on this a/v recording. its going to happen and no one can stop it. but we have to make sure that 'oops!' stuff does not happen when its most convenient for the cops. like, right before he punches your lights out, a sudden loss of a/v recording, or the video is pointing up in the sky, on purpose.
any bullshit that gets in the way of fact-finding should be an automatic win for the accused/citizen.
if you don't do it that way, it WILL be abused and untrustable.
oh, and the film has to be digitally signed. we all know that. they don't and they will fight us every step of the way. expect it. but lets fight them and get what's right.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday July 22 2016, @09:21PM
What happens when the police film me,and I have no problem with the interaction? Why is footage of me (talking to the cops, which may be taken out of context) being uploaded to the internet? Or if they even arrest me, but I'm later found innocent. But the arrest video follows me forever.
Having them record their actions for review in situations like this make sense. But controlling viewing is the most important part of a policy.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Friday July 22 2016, @09:56PM
Good point. Maybe some kind of escrow system?
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday July 22 2016, @10:06PM
Probably requiring some nasty bureaucracy. Showing up in person (to verify you're on the tape you're requesting), knowing the time and date and officer, and paying a fee to get a DVD burned.
All of which is not great, but I don't know a better system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @10:55PM
I think the solution is pretty simple. Mandate that all police interactions with the public be recorded in both audio and video, with the recordings automatically uploaded for the public to view, with a reasonable delay (6 hrs?) for security.
What happens when the gang informant enters the police station to give testimony against his fellow gang members? Or when the abused spouse reports to the police how his wife has been threatening him with a knife? Or when the police run into somebody doing something legal but embarrassing or stigmatized by society (say... nude sunbathing in their private backyard)?
I assume these don't go on public record. But now you have gaps you need to account for, and when there is a gap, people will assume maleficence.
I personally think that having mandatory public records of interactions is probably a good idea, but it's far from being "pretty simple" once you start to think of a way to implement it.
(Score: 1) by nethead on Friday July 22 2016, @09:03PM
You lost me at "Mr. Pig." And I'm an old hippie.
How did my SN UID end up over 3 times my /. UID?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @09:40PM
Interesting. Do you hold the same view of punishment for other crimes? Stiffer sentences and such across the board?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @03:37PM
A mistake is arresting someone you dont have the right to. A mistake is violating someones 4th ammend right.
If it involves your weapon, that is NOT A MISTAKE.
I am a veteran. We were taught you do NOT point your weapon at something you're not willing to destroy. Therefore if its even drawn it should not be aimed at ANYONE that you cannot VERIFY with CERTAINTY that they are a danger.
This BS about "fearing for their life" from unarmed or lightly armed, or armed but nonthreatening people should NOT be an excuse. That is NOT a mistake. Call it what it is cowardice.
Something else they taught us in the military. No matter what you are ALWAYS responsible for where that round ends up, even if it is an AD (accidental discharge). You ARE responsible.
In this case the COP IS RESPONSIBLE, and should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:15PM
Albeit at a much older age than he himself learned it (he was a military brat).
You don't pull or point a gun unless you're ready to kill with it. You may be able to resolve the situation peacefully with just the presence of it, but once the gun is out of the holster you have to be prepared to either kill, or accept the consequences if you or somebody else is killed as a result.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by donkeyhotay on Friday July 22 2016, @06:56PM
I am also a veteran and everything you say is correct.
There are a couple of things I've noticed about this story. My comments are based on different statements that have been made about what happened, mostly from the police. I don't know *precisely* how things played out, and it does not sound like the police have figured out yet what story they're going with. They seem to be floating different ideas, trying to see which one "plays" best.
1) The police have (supposedly) claimed that they were too far away to hear what the caregiver was saying, yet they also claim to have been "negotiating" with the two men. Just how far away were they? How were they "negotiating" if they could not hear what was being said? They claim that they thought the man who was holding a toy truck, was holding a gun. That must have been some distance, even if they did not have any binoculars. Didn't anyone have any binoculars? Not even the SWAT team?
2) They are now claiming that the officer who fired his weapon was aiming for the autistic man who was holding a toy truck. Damn! Just how far away WERE they? In my prime, I qualified as sharpshooter in the Navy. That's not bad, but I would think nowhere nearly good enough to be on a SWAT team. Yet, I would still have no problem getting, say, a 20-inch grouping at 200 meters with iron sights. I could surely do better than that with a scope. It sounds like this SWAT officer missed his intended target by at least a meter, maybe more -- with a scope, no less. And, again, the man has a scope. Could he still not discern that the autistic man had a toy and not a gun? I repeat: just how far away WERE they?
3) It sounds like the cops were so far away that they had absolutely no idea what was going on.
This seems pretty cowardly for police work. I don't consider myself particularly brave, but I'm pretty sure I would have no problem holstering my gun and calmly walking up close enough to get a good look at the situation. It might be a little scary, but that's life. Sometimes you have to suck up your balls and keep a tight asshole.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:19AM
they claim that they thought the man who was holding a toy truck, was holding a gun. That must have been some distance
An obvious conclusion then: the police may aim and shoot at any group of people, as long as the officers are sufficiently far away to not see clearly what's happening within that group.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 22 2016, @08:37PM
A mistake is arresting someone you dont have the right to. A mistake is violating someones 4th ammend right.
Neither of those are merely mistakes; they are egregious violations of someone's liberties, and should result in harsh punishments.