Cop breaks into black man's house and murders him, put on administrative leave.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Thaluikhain:

Elijin:
If you're not interested in understanding a problem, and just want harsh consequences to be dolled out based on outrage, you're just creating future problems, not solving current ones.

Wanting police to face consequences for killing people does not require a lack of understanding of the problem. US police consistently not facing, and being seen not to face, consequences is a lack part of the problem. This is far from an isolated case.

I dont disagree with that, but consider this:

This wasnt an active duty shooting. There is no 'he reached for a gun' or 'officer was investigating something they considered suspicious' or the usual cliche excuse. This was clearly either a massive fuck up, or some sort of serious crime. If it was in fact, caused by a significant problem with over extending their officers and creating severe fatigue issues which impair their judgement and reasoning, what does shoving it under the 'cops shoot people without consequences, consequences NOW!' call actually do to solve that problem?

Similar if she was on a drugs or drunk. If this is used as a quick example of 'bad shootings get jailtime' without actually investigating the situations at that station which allow an officer to be that fucked up that soon after active duty (while in uniform and armed) then a problem with drug or alcohol use being tolerated at that station gets swept under the rug.

If this is a tragic accident caused by someone without their proper wits with a gun, and the woman didnt straight up murder the dude for some sort of neighbour rage incident, and it isnt fully investigated, what stops it from happening again?

Thaluikhain:

Elijin:
If you're not interested in understanding a problem, and just want harsh consequences to be dolled out based on outrage, you're just creating future problems, not solving current ones.

Wanting police to face consequences for killing people does not require a lack of understanding of the problem. US police consistently not facing, and being seen not to face, consequences is a lack part of the problem. This is far from an isolated case.

The problem is that when outrage is no longer a factor very little seems to be done. What happens in those cases that don't gather national media attention? Are those examples in the media of police not being charged the exception or the norm, and does the level of media coverage and emotional investment in these cases changes the consequences for the police officers?

Clearly I can't speak authoritatively (because by definition these cases don't receive national or international attention) but I think its pretty obvious that when there isn't a huge fuss, not much is done. It suits the needs of police departments to quietly put these things to bed while reassuring their officers that even screwing up will not yield consequences.

Elijin:
Similar if she was on a drugs or drunk. If this is used as a quick example of 'bad shootings get jailtime' without actually investigating the situations at that station which allow an officer to be that fucked up that soon after active duty (while in uniform and armed) then a problem with drug or alcohol use being tolerated at that station gets swept under the rug.

I just don't understand, why not both? Does being arrested for manslaughter (as opposed to administrative leave) neccesarily preclude having an investigation at the station? I would have thought that having someone at the station be arrested and charged for manslaughter would be an excellent reason to investigate the practices at that station. Frankly, I'm amazed that it wouldn't already be policy.

The people who are demanding that cops are hung from lamposts in response are clearly not worth listening to, but that doesn't mean that arresting the cop for it is going too far. The question remains: Why do police get special treatment over citizens? If there were some overriding problem for another individual who wasn't a cop, wouldn't that person also deserve the citizen equivilent of "administrative leave" ? Why is it rushing to conclusions to arrest the cop but not rushing to conclusions to arrest citizens accused of the same thing?

Seems like an atypical case that is yet indicative of just how awful our police have become. Oh my God, someone opened the door for me! *bang bang*

Trigger-happy, much?

ineptelephant:

Elijin:
Similar if she was on a drugs or drunk. If this is used as a quick example of 'bad shootings get jailtime' without actually investigating the situations at that station which allow an officer to be that fucked up that soon after active duty (while in uniform and armed) then a problem with drug or alcohol use being tolerated at that station gets swept under the rug.

I just don't understand, why not both? Does being arrested for manslaughter (as opposed to administrative leave) neccesarily preclude having an investigation at the station? I would have thought that having someone at the station be arrested and charged for manslaughter would be an excellent reason to investigate the practices at that station. Frankly, I'm amazed that it wouldn't already be policy.

The people who are demanding that cops are hung from lamposts in response are clearly not worth listening to, but that doesn't mean that arresting the cop for it is going too far. The question remains: Why do police get special treatment over citizens? If there were some overriding problem for another individual who wasn't a cop, wouldn't that person also deserve the citizen equivilent of "administrative leave" ? Why is it rushing to conclusions to arrest the cop but not rushing to conclusions to arrest citizens accused of the same thing?

Obviously Im talking to the element in this topic who are actively saying 'Who cares why they did it, you're all just making excuses, dont shoot people, end of discussion.'

I actually asked similar questions about their special treatment, in earlier posts. Im just not so certain there is an easy answer as others.

Elijin:
Obviously Im talking to the element in this topic who are actively saying 'Who cares why they did it, you're all just making excuses, dont shoot people, end of discussion.'

If that is what they said, then I disagree with them

I actually asked similar questions about their special treatment, in earlier posts. Im just not so certain there is an easy answer as others.

But there must be some answer. This current trajectory has been continuing seemingly unchanged for a long, long time and these are the results. Its hardly unexpected by now, in fact its almost unheard of for a police officer to be charged and convicted in an incident like this (on or off duty).

I understand caution, but there is a point where arguing "The answer is hard to find" functionally leads to the position "The answer is hard to find, so we will continue to do nothing".

Elijin:

Saelune:

Agema:

Let's also bear in mind that if the cop is any normal human being, she must be utterly devastated and she's got to live with that guilt for the rest of her life. The outrage from my perspective is not so much that cops do terrible things by accident, negligence or design, it's that the justice system - and even law enforcement as an organisation - seems to operate to protect them in ways it would not do for the rest of us.

The man she killed wont be living with any guilt.

I am so beyond done with feeling bad for bad people doing bad things.

I don't care if she was tired, drunk, or whatever the fuck. She IS a cop (needs to be was) and it is HER DUTY TO NOT BE GARBAGE! I don't care what the Supreme Court says, it IS their job to serve and protect the common person from danger and injustice. And it IS their lives that should be put on the line for just society.

We need to stop trying ever so hard to excuse, and yes, excuses is what it is. When you have responsibility over other's lives, you need to be able to NOT SHOOT AN INNOCENT PERSON NO MATTER HOW TIRED YOU ARE!

It's an excuse if it's being argued that she doesn't deserve to be punished, neither of us are doing that. This is a major problem with people who see the world in such black and white terms. You know what helps shit like this from happening again? Understanding what happens, and why. If you're not interested in understanding a problem, and just want harsh consequences to be dolled out based on outrage, you're just creating future problems, not solving current ones.

I do understand the problem, people don't want to blame or punish the cops for just being horrible. That is why I responded as I have.

Elijin:
If this is a tragic accident caused by someone without their proper wits with a gun, and the woman didnt straight up murder the dude for some sort of neighbour rage incident, and it isnt fully investigated, what stops it from happening again?

Certainly, it absolutely should be investigated, but if she did shoot an innocent person, one result of that investigation should be prison time. Which is a vital step to stop, if not this exact thing happening again, to limit unjustified killings by police. Other factors (drink, overwork, etc) can also be addressed if they come up, but making US police face consequences for their actions is the vital first step.

If, for example, it turns out that police in that area are drunk while on duty, if they can see they won't face punishment for killing people while drunk, how are you going to clamp down on the lesser issue of being drunk on duty?

ineptelephant:
The problem is that when outrage is no longer a factor very little seems to be done. What happens in those cases that don't gather national media attention? Are those examples in the media of police not being charged the exception or the norm, and does the level of media coverage and emotional investment in these cases changes the consequences for the police officers?

Clearly I can't speak authoritatively (because by definition these cases don't receive national or international attention) but I think its pretty obvious that when there isn't a huge fuss, not much is done. It suits the needs of police departments to quietly put these things to bed while reassuring their officers that even screwing up will not yield consequences.

That's true, but something being done sometimes is somewhat of a step up than "nope".

I am so fucking confused as to the adversaries here. Not once have I even remotely indicated I'm in favour of her getting off. I fully agree she deserves a MINIMUM of manslaughter charges (and have said so), and I am even asking for the door to be open for senior officers to be investigated and charged if found negligent in their command post over this officer.

Fucking wow. There is no chance in hell that person wasn't out of their mind though either booze, drugs or (pretty chronic) sleep deprivation or any other combination of those. I'd like to assume that, as bad as vetting is for US police, they can still identify people with cognitive troubles that would contribute to this situation. Yes, white supremacists get through, but the power balance is a little skewed in favour of them amongst other issues. That is a very drunk-like behavior though, how easy that is to find out for sure if otherwise they adamantly deny it is another thing.

Xprimentyl:
So now it?s no longer safe for a black man to answer his own door? Jesus fucking Christ? Michael Jackson was ahead of the curve; we black males almost NEED to disguise ourselves as white women to stand a fucking chance.

This woman, as a trained officer, should have had astute enough powers of observation to realize she was at the wrong apartment well before she decided to MURDER the person to whom it did belong because they answered the door (y?know, like ALL intruders do?) I hope they find out she was high, drunk or otherwise mentally incapacitated to strip any possibility of the badge justifying her actions and exonerating her.

This literally being so close to home, I sincerely hope this is handled as quickly and severely as it obviously, morally, ethically and legally should be. This may come as a surprise to no one, but Texas is a stubbornly conservative state, so many ?folks ?round here? quite readily take the side of the staunchly conservative white -?erm- ?RIGHT? when stuff like this happens; the cops are the ?good guys,? so anyone dead by their hand MUST have done something wrong and any mistakes are entirely explainable. I don?t look forward to the stirrings and victim blaming that will inevitably come from the mouths of those who love ?their own and guns? with an unsettling passion; we need the law to treat her like the criminal she is. NOW.

Am wondering if there would be less of an instinct for the usual conservative police brutality defense force to defend this officer with her being not of the male persuasion that they so easily identify with this time. Though it is entirely an undefendable failure of public regardless, it hasn't stopped anybody before.

Xsjadoblayde:

Am wondering if there would be less of an instinct for the usual conservative police brutality defense force to defend this officer with her being not of the male persuasion that they so easily identify with this time. Though it is entirely an undefendable failure of public regardless, it hasn't stopped anybody before.

'She was a scared frail little woman, he was a big scary black man, she is innocent'

Saelune:

Xsjadoblayde:

Am wondering if there would be less of an instinct for the usual conservative police brutality defense force to defend this officer with her being not of the male persuasion that they so easily identify with this time. Though it is entirely an undefendable failure of public regardless, it hasn't stopped anybody before.

'She was a scared frail little woman, he was a big scary black man, she is innocent'

"Black fright" no different to "gay panic" as an excuse to completely disregard all context. Nevermind the fact that she was trying to break down the door clearly as an aggressor because "that man was black and I thought he was in my house." followed by something something breaking and entering statistics.

I hope the answer to the obvious question is publicised: "Why didn't you call for backup?" She was at the door, clearly there was no way for a possible intruder to escape with her valuables. Unless you think they are going to piss in your sink or drink all your wine there is no reason to charge the door. Barring inebriation, obviously, but are these police officers seriously getting drunk and not taking off their firearms?

ineptelephant:

Saelune:

Xsjadoblayde:

Am wondering if there would be less of an instinct for the usual conservative police brutality defense force to defend this officer with her being not of the male persuasion that they so easily identify with this time. Though it is entirely an undefendable failure of public regardless, it hasn't stopped anybody before.

'She was a scared frail little woman, he was a big scary black man, she is innocent'

"Black fright" no different to "gay panic" as an excuse to completely disregard all context. Nevermind the fact that she was trying to break down the door clearly as an aggressor because "that man was black and I thought he was in my house." followed by something something breaking and entering statistics.

I hope the answer to the obvious question is publicised: "Why didn't you call for backup?" She was at the door, clearly there was no way for a possible intruder to escape with her valuables. Unless you think they are going to piss in your sink or drink all your wine there is no reason to charge the door. Barring inebriation, obviously, but are these police officers seriously getting drunk and not taking off their firearms?

You're misunderstanding the context of her comment.

Saelune is being facetious. She is one of the black and white'ers in here. The point she's making is that the cop will get off scott free because of the exact hysteria you're talking about in black fright and gay panic, and that offends her to her core.

Which, to her credit, if this cop does get away without consequence, it will be some grade A bullshit.

Saelune:
We need to stop trying ever so hard to excuse, and yes, excuses is what it is. When you have responsibility over other's lives, you need to be able to NOT SHOOT AN INNOCENT PERSON NO MATTER HOW TIRED YOU ARE!

It's all just numbers. Accidents happen no matter how well trained people are, and what procedures exist. That's true even for cops with guns.

Where we can identify carelessness, laziness, malice or whatever at an individual or institutional level, let's hammer it. But the more it gets to end of the spectrum that's dumb bad luck, let's go a bit easier on the vitriol. Please do remember the peopleyou're railing at have agreed this cop has to face manslaughter charges at a minimum: no-one's arguing a free pass=.

And bear in mind, whatever you do in your job and no matter your best of intentions, you will have accidents and one day you will have a really serious one. At that moment, be thankful you do a job where accidents don't kill people, and think on how unfair it might feel if someone's bawling you out as a the worst scumbag on the planet.

I know some UK police, and they're not uncommonly sleep-deprived to the point of not really being able to follow a conversation. It's the combination of shift-work, 12+ hour shifts (some moving from a late to an early, so a few hours off between shifts) and stress of the job. That's what sleep deprivation does, and when you're suffering from it you don't realise quite how far gone you are (that is, you know you aren't right but you don't realise how not-right you are).

Not that we know whether that's the case here, and not that that would change culpability. But it would justify finding out why people are allowed to carry guns and get that strung out at the same time.

Is there a reason that US police don't keep their guns at the station?

Agema:

Saelune:
We need to stop trying ever so hard to excuse, and yes, excuses is what it is. When you have responsibility over other's lives, you need to be able to NOT SHOOT AN INNOCENT PERSON NO MATTER HOW TIRED YOU ARE!

It's all just numbers. Accidents happen no matter how well trained people are, and what procedures exist. That's true even for cops with guns.

Where we can identify carelessness, laziness, malice or whatever at an individual or institutional level, let's hammer it. But the more it gets to end of the spectrum that's dumb bad luck, let's go a bit easier on the vitriol. Please do remember the peopleyou're railing at have agreed this cop has to face manslaughter charges at a minimum: no-one's arguing a free pass=.

And bear in mind, whatever you do in your job and no matter your best of intentions, you will have accidents and one day you will have a really serious one. At that moment, be thankful you do a job where accidents don't kill people, and think on how unfair it might feel if someone's bawling you out as a the worst scumbag on the planet.

The first time it is an accident, the 20th it is a pattern.

To elaborate, if there was not a way too long history of abusive racist cops getting off without punishment (and getting paid to NOT work is a reward really), I might be some sort of sympathetic.

But there are too many corpses that my sympathy is buried.

Baffle2:
I know some UK police, and they're not uncommonly sleep-deprived to the point of not really being able to follow a conversation. It's the combination of shift-work, 12+ hour shifts (some moving from a late to an early, so a few hours off between shifts) and stress of the job. That's what sleep deprivation does, and when you're suffering from it you don't realise quite how far gone you are (that is, you know you aren't right but you don't realise how not-right you are).

Not that we know whether that's the case here, and not that that would change culpability. But it would justify finding out why people are allowed to carry guns and get that strung out at the same time.

Is there a reason that US police don't keep their guns at the station?

Cops are sleep-deprived drunk cowards too afraid for their own life, that is what every defender of killer cops is telling me.

If training cops to not be too scared to function in high-stress high-danger situations is not standard, why?

Cops need very high requirements that those who hire cops seem unwilling to create, let alone enforce. I fail to see how giving a person a gun and authority to use it means I should be even kinder to them in regards to how they feel or the problems they face? They have power, and power is supposed to come with responsibility.

Might as well blame children for bad parenting.

Saelune:

Xsjadoblayde:

Am wondering if there would be less of an instinct for the usual conservative police brutality defense force to defend this officer with her being not of the male persuasion that they so easily identify with this time. Though it is entirely an undefendable failure of public regardless, it hasn't stopped anybody before.

'She was a scared frail little woman, he was a big scary black man, she is innocent'

That is depressingly possible, yes. You make a point. Cannot magine the anger and thoughts his family and friends must feel from all this.

Saelune:
Cops are sleep-deprived drunk cowards too afraid for their own life, that is what every defender of killer cops is telling me.

No, that's what you're hearing, not what people are saying. What people are saying is that if there is a reason we have people who are so sleep-deprived/stressed/overworked that things like this happen, maybe we should look at why they're being allowed/put in a position to get that way.

Re: your analogy of children and bad parenting, that's exactly the point. If low-level cops are being forced to work crazy hours and the result is stuff like this, you are the one blaming the child (low-level cop) for the bad parenting (the police force).

I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to excuse what happened, but what's more constructive: chuck this one in jail and forget about it, or find out if there's a systemic issue that's letting it get this way?

Baffle2:

Saelune:
Cops are sleep-deprived drunk cowards too afraid for their own life, that is what every defender of killer cops is telling me.

No, that's what you're hearing, not what people are saying. What people are saying is that if there is a reason we have people who are so sleep-deprived/stressed/overworked that things like this happen, maybe we should look at why they're being allowed/put in a position to get that way.

Re: your analogy of children and bad parenting, that's exactly the point. If low-level cops are being forced to work crazy hours and the result is stuff like this, you are the one blaming the child (low-level cop) for the bad parenting (the police force).

I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to excuse what happened, but what's more constructive: chuck this one in jail and forget about it, or find out if there's a systemic issue that's letting it get this way?

I am compiling defenses from multiple cases, not just this one.

Many quick-trigger cases have people defending it as 'They were fearing for their life that they had to shoot', even when it is say...a groundhod in a road.

Edit: Look it up on youtube. Don't know if linking it will get me in trouble.

So essentially, she's arguing in bad faith. Ignoring all the discussion here, to say 'somewhere else, people say something else, therefore BLANKET STATEMENT'

Elijin:
So essentially, she's arguing in bad faith. Ignoring all the discussion here, to say 'somewhere else, people say something else, therefore BLANKET STATEMENT'

Im right here ya know.

Saelune:
The first time it is an accident, the 20th it is a pattern.

For the entire law enforcement personnel of the USA?

The USA probably has, at a guess, 500,000 - 1 million cops. Even at a rate of major fuck-ups being 1 in 1,000,000, you'd expect one a day. More to the point, even to the extent the USA has a problem with racist cops, that doesn't mean any one individual case is due to racism.

Think of it in terms of a multiple choice exam with 5 options per question. If you know nothing, statistically, you should score ~20% just by putting random answers down. If you know the answers to 20% of the questions, statistically you should score 38%: the 20% you know, and 20% of the remaining 80% by random chance. But someone marking your exam has no idea which you knew and which you lucked out on. And thus you can't know whether any dodgy shooting of a non-white is racism and which is not without a whole heap more knowledge of the circumstances.

Saelune:

Elijin:
So essentially, she's arguing in bad faith. Ignoring all the discussion here, to say 'somewhere else, people say something else, therefore BLANKET STATEMENT'

Im right here ya know.

Was unaware you'd taken me off ignore.

Agema:

Saelune:
The first time it is an accident, the 20th it is a pattern.

For the entire law enforcement personnel of the USA?

The USA probably has, at a guess, 500,000 - 1 million cops. Even at a rate of major fuck-ups being 1 in 1,000,000, you'd expect one a day. More to the point, even to the extent the USA has a problem with racist cops, that doesn't mean any one individual case is due to racism.

Think of it in terms of a multiple choice exam with 5 options per question. If you know nothing, statistically, you should score ~20% just by putting random answers down. If you know the answers to 20% of the questions, statistically you should score 38%: the 20% you know, and 20% of the remaining 80% by random chance. But someone marking your exam has no idea which you knew and which you lucked out on. And thus you can't know whether any dodgy shooting of a non-white is racism and which is not without a whole heap more knowledge of the circumstances.

If they punished it and advocated against it, I would not be this upset. That is one of the underlying problems.

If I could trust that justice would be served, I would not have even made the topic. But will it? Will she be properly punished? Too many have not been because the police prefer to give paid leave and musical chairs with their postings.

When organizations work together to protect their 'bad apples', it makes the whole group guilty.

Elijin:

Saelune:

Elijin:
So essentially, she's arguing in bad faith. Ignoring all the discussion here, to say 'somewhere else, people say something else, therefore BLANKET STATEMENT'

Im right here ya know.

Was unaware you'd taken me off ignore.

I currently only have one person on ignore and it is because it literally wont let me take them off my list.

This situation is not in a vacuum. This is one straw on a big heavy pile of problems the police have. The context of police brutality and protection of their wrongdoings is why I am so adamant about her guilt in this as well as the fact that being given a gun and a legal right to kill people in certain situations means that there needs to be oversight on this stuff.

We simply can not trust the police to do a good job. I would say anymore, but historically, the police have done alot of evil, and not a few people, but the entire forces raiding and abusing minorites cause they could.

Saelune:

Elijin:

Saelune:
Im right here ya know.

Was unaware you'd taken me off ignore.

I currently only have one person on ignore and it is because it literally wont let me take them off my list.

This situation is not in a vacuum. This is one straw on a big heavy pile of problems the police have. The context of police brutality and protection of their wrongdoings is why I am so adamant about her guilt in this as well as the fact that being given a gun and a legal right to kill people in certain situations means that there needs to be oversight on this stuff.

We simply can not trust the police to do a good job. I would say anymore, but historically, the police have done alot of evil, and not a few people, but the entire forces raiding and abusing minorites cause they could.

That is more reasonable than your other rhetoric in here, and none of us are disagreeing with it. We're just interested in understanding how and why this happened in order to try prevent it in the future. Which is how ALL shootings should be treated. But there's obviously a problem in that being delivered consistently.

Elijin:
I am so fucking confused as to the adversaries here. Not once have I even remotely indicated I'm in favour of her getting off. I fully agree she deserves a MINIMUM of manslaughter charges (and have said so), and I am even asking for the door to be open for senior officers to be investigated and charged if found negligent in their command post over this officer.

What level of sleep deprivation are we talking here? Enough to not recognize numbers, react violently to strangers, and not realize when a key doesn't work, but also cogent enough to drive, walk, say 'Police! Open up!', pull out a gun, successfully shoot someone, and dial the phone(someone recognizing numbers again) to call 911.
If you are so sleepy you can't tell the different between a 3 and a 4, how can you tell the difference between red and green? Or the brake and the accelerator? Or a push door vs a pull door?
I've stayed up for 2 days straight during my Krav training battery, it was the most exhausted I have ever been, and I could still tell numbers apart. I mean we're talking what, at minimum 3 days straight with no sleep? 6 consecutive 12hr shifts?

That's a lot of ducks to fall in a row, when drunk or high just needs one duck.

Baffle2:
I know some UK police, and they're not uncommonly sleep-deprived to the point of not really being able to follow a conversation. It's the combination of shift-work, 12+ hour shifts (some moving from a late to an early, so a few hours off between shifts) and stress of the job. That's what sleep deprivation does, and when you're suffering from it you don't realise quite how far gone you are (that is, you know you aren't right but you don't realise how not-right you are).

Yet another reason I'm glad our boys in blue don't carry guns

Baffle2:
Not that we know whether that's the case here, and not that that would change culpability. But it would justify finding out why people are allowed to carry guns and get that strung out at the same time.

Is there a reason that US police don't keep their guns at the station?

That whole Second Amendment thing I'd imagine

Palindromemordnilap:

Baffle2:
Not that we know whether that's the case here, and not that that would change culpability. But it would justify finding out why people are allowed to carry guns and get that strung out at the same time.

Is there a reason that US police don't keep their guns at the station?

That whole Second Amendment thing I'd imagine

I mean the gun they carry in a professional capacity -- I understand they might own a personal firearm (though I don't think people should), but I'd have thought the police-issued one should only be carried while on duty.

Saelune:
When organizations work together to protect their 'bad apples', it makes the whole group guilty.

That's totally fine and I agree.

But let's not hammer this one, particular individual cop until we're sure she's a racist bad apple, and let's see what the PD and justice system do about her before we call this another shitty example of organisational protection of bad apples.

Silentpony:

What level of sleep deprivation are we talking here? Enough to not recognize numbers, react violently to strangers, and not realize when a key doesn't work, but also cogent enough to drive, walk, say 'Police! Open up!', pull out a gun, successfully shoot someone, and dial the phone(someone recognizing numbers again) to call 911.

I'm not sure if anyone is saying this is sleep deprivation, only that it's something that affects people's judgement and can contribute to events like this.

And the cognitive impact is quite odd -- some things are so ingrained in us that we can do them practically on auto-pilot, like drive a route we drive every day (not safely, obviously) and have no memory of doing so. And it makes people irrational and limits the ability to process information (e.g. once she decided the door she was trying to open was hers, the chain of events from her perspective would all have made sense, as long as the information that to the rest of us says 'This is clearly not your home' wasn't being processed).

I mean, I can't see this being a sleep deprivation issue; if it was an accident I'd assume drink or drugs, and lots of them.

Baffle2:

I'm not sure if anyone is saying this is sleep deprivation, only that it's something that affects people's judgement and can contribute to events like this.

And the cognitive impact is quite odd -- some things are so ingrained in us that we can do them practically on auto-pilot, like drive a route we drive every day (not safely, obviously) and have no memory of doing so. And it makes people irrational and limits the ability to process information (e.g. once she decided the door she was trying to open was hers, the chain of events from her perspective would all have made sense, as long as the information that to the rest of us says 'This is clearly not your home' wasn't being processed).

Exactly. As you say, we do stuff on autopilot without concentration or memory - lots of us probably do things like leave the house in the morning and can't remember whether we locked the door even by the time we've walked 50m down the road. Maybe someone goes up two storeys to get to his or her door, but if distracted goes up one and thinks it's two, or goes up three because of forgetting one staircase. Surely everyone has done something like that. In an identikit apartment block, the corridors look the same, the doors look the same - it seems for all the world like that person's door, he or she has surely gone to the right floor like normal...

If in this situation someone's in a mental fog, thinks it's their door and then someone unexpectedly opens it, it's like falling asleep and suddenly kicking back to high awareness and attention with a jolt. At that moment of shock, adrenaline rushes, instinct is more likely to kick in, and for someone trained to respond to threats it might well use force. After that, the person is "wide awake" and likely to process things fairly effectively.

If someone's drunk or sleep deprived (the cognitive effects are remarkably similar) it makes such errors more likely - impaired memory, lower concentration and attention, etc. to doze one's way into error, and impaired judgement and impulse control when action is suddenly prompted.

Agema:

Baffle2:

I'm not sure if anyone is saying this is sleep deprivation, only that it's something that affects people's judgement and can contribute to events like this.

And the cognitive impact is quite odd -- some things are so ingrained in us that we can do them practically on auto-pilot, like drive a route we drive every day (not safely, obviously) and have no memory of doing so. And it makes people irrational and limits the ability to process information (e.g. once she decided the door she was trying to open was hers, the chain of events from her perspective would all have made sense, as long as the information that to the rest of us says 'This is clearly not your home' wasn't being processed).

Exactly. As you say, we do stuff on autopilot without concentration or memory - lots of us probably do things like leave the house in the morning and can't remember whether we locked the door even by the time we've walked 50m down the road. Maybe someone goes up two storeys to get to his or her door, but if distracted goes up one and thinks it's two, or goes up three because of forgetting one staircase. Surely everyone has done something like that. In an identikit apartment block, the corridors look the same, the doors look the same - it seems for all the world like that person's door, he or she has surely gone to the right floor like normal...

If in this situation someone's in a mental fog, thinks it's their door and then someone unexpectedly opens it, it's like falling asleep and suddenly kicking back to high awareness and attention with a jolt. At that moment of shock, adrenaline rushes, instinct is more likely to kick in, and for someone trained to respond to threats it might well use force. After that, the person is "wide awake" and likely to process things fairly effectively.

If someone's drunk or sleep deprived (the cognitive effects are remarkably similar) it makes such errors more likely - impaired memory, lower concentration and attention, etc. to doze one's way into error, and impaired judgement and impulse control when action is suddenly prompted.

Her going to the wrong apartment cause she is tired? Acceptable, understandable. Everything after that is not and she is 100% guilty for her own actions.

Baffle2:

Palindromemordnilap:

Baffle2:
Not that we know whether that's the case here, and not that that would change culpability. But it would justify finding out why people are allowed to carry guns and get that strung out at the same time.

Is there a reason that US police don't keep their guns at the station?

That whole Second Amendment thing I'd imagine

I mean the gun they carry in a professional capacity -- I understand they might own a personal firearm (though I don't think people should), but I'd have thought the police-issued one should only be carried while on duty.

I think it depends on the state. I know in California police aren't even allowed to be wearing their uniform if they're off duty. The moment they're no longer on the clock they have to take it off as well as their sidearm. Since this officer was coming home still in uniform the rules are clearly different in Texas.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here