Jump to content
Debp

Man Killed by Policewoman in His Own Apartment

Recommended Posts

Here is a follow-up article from David French. It is entirely possible for conservatives (like me and David French) to have issues with what we see in society.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/police-shootings-david-french-changed-writing/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Why I Changed the Way I Write about Police Shootings

David French September 12, 2018 4:09 PM

 

Yesterday I wrote a piece that’s gone viral — an extended denunciation of a terrible police shooting in Texas. A white officer went to black man’s apartment, apparently thinking it was her own. When she saw the man in the darkness, she claimed she thought he was a burglar. She shot him and killed him. It’s a horrifying story, and it’s not the only terrible police shooting to shock the American conscience.

Whenever I write about police shootings, I get a similar critique. New readers will Google me and find that I’ve been strongly critical of Black Lives Matter. Yet I’ve also written time and again to condemn unlawful police killings — even to the extent of suggesting that police sometimes are more trigger-happy than our soldiers deployed in war zones.

This seeming contradiction prompted a series of tweets from Slate’s Jamelle Bouie and the Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery:

Any time you take on issues of crime and punishment, you find yourself facing the same problem: How do you discuss a problem of immense complexity with enough clarity (and, yes, brevity) that people will actually read what you say? And of course not every piece can repeat your entire approach to an issue — especially when each individual case is often complicated enough to merit a series of pieces all on its own.

Let’s start with the easiest assertion: The existence of outrageous killings (such as the police shootings of Philando Castile, Walter Scott, and Botham Shem Jean) is no more evidence of systemic racist targeting of black men than the existence of hoaxes (such as “hands up, don’t shoot” or the claim that Charlotte’s Keith Lamont Scott was killed while holding a book) debunks claims of comprehensive racial bias.

In other words, it’s a big country. Activists can always find individual stories to support larger claims, but the individual stories do not render the larger claims true. Since 2015 — when the Washington Post began keeping an invaluable database of police shootings — we have vastly more information than we used to possess. And that information is both troubling and reassuring.

Here’s the troubling part. Police kill far more people than we thought. The FBI had long undercounted police shootings, and it took news organizations — employing better methodology — to get more accurate information. If you survey the Post data, as of today, police have shot and killed 3,648 men, women, and children since January 1, 2015.

Yes, America is a large country. Yes, we have more crime than many other developed nations. But that is still a sad and terrible toll in lives, and it doesn’t include the many thousands of others who’ve been shot and wounded. It’s a toll so high and persistent that it raises questions about deeply rooted, systemic causes, including causes related to race, culture, law, and training.

Yet there are silver linings in those dark clouds. Shootings of unarmed men dominate headlines, but they (thankfully) represent a small slice of the whole pie. The high was 9 percent in 2015. Since then the percentage has decreased to 5 percent in 2016, 7 percent in 2017, and 5 percent (so far) in 2018. In the vast majority of cases, police were confronting armed men, and while not every shooting of an armed man is justified (just as not every shooting of an unarmed man is unjustified), it is just not the case that the police have truly declared “open season” on anyone.

Moreover, while it is very true that black men represent a disproportionate share of police-shooting victims relative to their share of the general population, it is much less clear that they represent a disproportionate share of victims relative to their share of the criminal population. A population that’s more likely to engage in violent crime is more likely to encounter the police in dangerous and fraught circumstances. (The vast majority of black men are law-abiding, but black men are still far more likely to commit crimes such as murder or armed robbery than whites.)

When controlling for the facts and circumstances of individual encounters, the picture gets more complex. For example, in a widely reported 2016 study of 1,000 shootings in ten major police departments, Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer found that police were materially more likely to use nondeadly force against black men, but “in stark contrast to nonlethal uses of force, we find that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in officer-involved shootings.”

Here’s how the New York Times summarized the results:

[Black men and women] are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

No one (including the author of the study) claims this is the definitive study of police violence, but note how it gives both sides of the debate food for thought. The “blue lives matter” defenders of police should engage in serious soul-searching about the evidence of bias in nonlethal force. Black Lives Matters activists engaging in “open season” rhetoric should perhaps rethink their most extreme claims.

But I’m going to make a confession. Truth be told, the way I covered this issue in 2015 and much of 2016 shed more heat than light. Here’s what I did. I looked at the riots in Ferguson, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Charlotte, the extremism of the formal Black Lives Matter organization (which referred to convicted cop-killers as “brothers” and “mama” and said its explicit goal was to “disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure”), and the continued use of debunked claims, including “hands up, don’t shoot,” and I focused on these excesses largely to the exclusion of everything else.

Yes, I used all the proper “to be sure” language — there are some racist cops, not every shooting is justified, etc. — but my work in its totality minimized the vital quest for individual justice, the evidence that does exist of systematic racial bias, and I failed to seriously consider the very real problems that contribute to the sheer number of police killings in the U.S.

To put it bluntly, when I look back at my older writings, I see them as contributing more to a particular partisan narrative than to a tough, clear-eyed search for truth.

So I’ve set out to rectify that imbalance. A person can walk and chew gum at the same time. One can rightly condemn riots and radicalism while also noting that each time a bad cop walks free it damages the fabric of trust between the government and its citizens. One can rightly say that it’s not “open season” on black men — or that any given inflammatory allegation has been thoroughly debunked — while also noting that the same DOJ that refuted “hands up, don’t shoot” also found evidence of systematic police misconduct in Ferguson.

Most cops do what’s right. Many cops are extraordinarily brave. But I also think the best evidence indicates that race is more of a factor in modern policing than I wanted to believe. I also think a pro-police bias has infected our criminal-justice system — including the way juries decide cases — and that pro-police bias has helped bad cops walk free. Moreover, there are legal doctrines that need to be reformed or abolished (such as qualified immunity, but that explanation requires a whole separate piece). And there should be a culture change in the way officers are taught to perceive risk, a culture change that thoughtful veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars could help initiate.

Riots are vicious and wrong. Cop-killers are depraved. We should defend, not disrupt, the nuclear family. We should tell the truth even when the truth hurts our own side. Racism still plagues our land, and race too often plays a pernicious role in American policing. It is not “open season” on black men, yet too many bad cops go free, and too many black men die at the hands of the state. Our laws and culture grant the men in blue too much latitude and too many privileges. All of these things can be true at the same time. All of them are true at the same time. It’s the immense and monumental American challenge that we must deal with them all at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I agree, as well. Due process must be maintained. However, Guyger's sworn testimony is that she trespassed and shot a man in his own apartment that later died. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that she is quite probably guilty.

could be but i just feel like trial by media is not the way to go.....

 

i prefer to let the jury decide......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Equippers said:

could be but i just feel like trial by media is not the way to go.....

 

i prefer to let the jury decide......

Agreed, that's why I said

48 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Due process must be maintained.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Not all testimonies are truthful...

Matthew 26:59-61 NASB
[59] Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. [60] They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, [61] and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'"

 

i can relate to this

i was destroyed by bunch of false testimonies today......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Not all testimonies are truthful...

Do you think it will look better or worse to a jury if she has perjured herself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Equippers said:

i can relate to this

i was destroyed by bunch of false testimonies today......

I'm sorry to hear that, it must be very difficult.

In Guyger's case, though, she is the one that gave the sworn testimony.

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

The jury will hopefully take into account all the evidence.

I hope they do, as well.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually stand with the idea that the news is fake and the details come out later that prove, once again, the leftist media lied. However what limited knowledge i have about this, and being from texas and knowing the laws here the police officer is guilty, at least for negligent homicide. 

In texas if someone enters your home after dark, you can peel caps until it goes click and MOST of the time you dont even go to jail.  However this was not her home and so this part of the law does not apply.  In Texas you are responsible for every bullet fired.  there is an attorney attached to every bullet.  I didnt mean to does not hold water in a Texas courthouses, and this applies to LEO's also...  even in the case of over penetration of a discharged round.  Also, since it was technically not her habitation, if the man did not respond to commands dont matter either.  If someone is not a direct threat to life or safety, deadly force is not authorized.  In texas if someone is just standing a fair distance away from you holding a knife by their side... or even thrusting it at you, but they are far enough away from you they cant harm you... and they are not approaching, deadly force is not authorized.  if they are coming towards you or they raise the knife in a way that it can be thrown at you or become a projectile then the use of deadly force is authorized.  On top of all this cops are not to be held unaccountable for negligence.  all of this is texas law, and i am very well aware of it because I use a shotgun for home defense, which is at the top of the list of weapons that can and do over penetrate.  I have researched these laws diligently.  Another key thing in Texas in using deadly force is if you felt your life was in danger.  People have gone to prison because they shot someone once or twice... in their home and stopped the threat.  the judge ruled that because there were still rounds in the weapon unfired they were not in fear of their life. 

My question is, she saw the man but not that the furniture was different, or that it was not her apartment?  is this tuna or mackerel i smell?

If a civilian did this it would be open and shut case.  It seems like to me there are some wanting a free pass because its a cop.   the law is the law. 

no matter how you slice this...even in the least, its negligence.  Law enforcement is to be above this, especially in this manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cletus said:

I usually stand with the idea that the news is fake and the details come out later that prove, once again, the leftist media lied.

It would be my tendency, especially with such a hot topic, to wait for conclusive details to be presented, as well. But Guyger’s sworn testimony in this case leads me to believe that she was clearly at fault in Jean’s death.

It feels a little weird, but I find myself agreeing with you 100%, Cletus! I think I like it!

Edited by one.opinion
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Loved it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 2:37 PM, Yowm said:

What happened to the 'innocent until proven guilty' line of justice we are afforded here in the U.S.?

That is in a court of law, the court of public opinion has no such rules. 

On the other hand, if I happened to be armed, and went into my residence and found a stranger there in the dark, I would close the door, a person being somewhere, is not an excuse to take their life, in my opinion. I would call the police, and let them handle it. If I was the police, I would call for backup. I am not going to deprive someone of life, or children of their father, a wife of her husband, a mother and father of their so, nor even friends of their friend, just because by stuff was at risk. 

Shooting at someone, is an invitation to be shot back at, fleeing is safer. If I were a frail, arthritic, 90 pound granny who could not run, I might think differently. I police person, should use her training, As far as I know, failure to respond to a command by a police officer, is not a capital crime, nor justification to shoot someone, though it might be to draw your gun.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It would be my tendency, especially with such a hot topic, to wait for conclusive details to be presented, as well. But Guyger’s sworn testimony in this case leads me to believe that she was clearly at fault in Jean’s death.

It feels a little weird, but I find myself agreeing with you 100%, Cletus! I think I like it!

she made a mistake and someone is dead.  its negligible homicide.  from what i have read, and based on texas law thats what it is.  If i was on a jury that is what I would lean towards.   it irks me that cops are to be held to higher standards but when they do mess up they are usually given a light sentence, but if i did that they would lock me up and throw away the key.  

not all cops, but a good many of them are way to trigger happy these days.   in police type work you are supposed to think first and then shoot and they train that way.  assess before firing.  sounds like panic to me.  someone with that mindset does not have what it takes to do that job.  not to be judgmental or condemning but not everyone is cut out to be a cop, just like not everyone is cut out to be a construction worker.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...