Minnesota woman broadcasts police stop and shooting on Facebook Live
facebook.com
facebook.com
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
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.
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:
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:
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
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".
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.
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-...
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?
"it's okay, I'm right here with you" most heart breaking words from a 4 year old.
FB 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.
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:
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.