Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday July 22 2016, @11:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the we-shot-the-wrong-unarmed-man dept.

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


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Friday July 22 2016, @04:00PM

    by tfried (5534) on Friday July 22 2016, @04:00PM (#378591)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Friday July 22 2016, @04:20PM

    by mhajicek (51) on Friday July 22 2016, @04:20PM (#378606)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @06:59PM (#378724)

      Remember Eric Garner?

    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday July 22 2016, @07:45PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday July 22 2016, @07:45PM (#378742)

      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

      by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Friday July 22 2016, @09:21PM (#378787)

      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

        by jcross (4009) on Friday July 22 2016, @09:56PM (#378811)

        Good point. Maybe some kind of escrow system?

        • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday July 22 2016, @10:06PM

          by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Friday July 22 2016, @10:06PM (#378818)

          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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @10:55PM (#378832)

      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.