Video of Police Shooting Kid 16 Times Released. Does Nightly Care?

[Pong Messiah]

Obviously, I'm the only person on Nightly who has a problem with police shooting unarmed, autistic 6-year olds. Is Nightly also OK with police shooting a 17-year old who poses no threat 16 times?

 

Chicago on edge after release of video of Laquan McDonald shooting

 

This one is pretty bad, too. The teenager was armed with a knife and high, so he did constitute a threat. But he was never within striking distance, nor did he raise the knife as if to throw it. Plus, something like 15 of the 16 shots took place after he was already down on the ground.

[Ryn]

Is Nightly also OK with police shooting a 17-year old who poses no threat 16 times?

Fatigue, maybe? Accepting the new norm?

 

Either way, the good cops need to denounce and speak out against extremism in their midst.

[Pong Messiah]

Accepting the new norm?

That is depressing. I hope you're wrong!

 

Also, I want to be clear that I have no problem with a police officer tazing or shooting a person who genuinely does pose a threat to the safety of others. I am not at all anti-violence, just anti-stupidity/overreaction/incompetence. If the kid was shown to be attacking the police or bystanders, I'd be fine with them shooting him as many times as it took to eliminate him as a threat; that's obviously not what happened here, though. Here, you have murderously excessive force from a lunatic cop, lies, and the video record kept under wraps by the city for 13 months. While it is good the trigger-happy cop has been charged with murder, it is understandable that the city is still under riot-watch.

 

[Brett]

Wow... the cop was actually charged? It's a Thanksgiving miracle. But yeah, what Ryn said, 100%.

I love the defense attorney's statement: "this needs to be tried in the courts and not on the streets"

**** that. Half this **** wouldn't even see a courtroom if it weren't for angry mobs.

[Guest]

Fatigue.

And there's really nothing left to say. There's nobody left to call us un-American or evil for not supporting cops no matter who they murder.

[Pong Messiah]

Half this **** wouldn't even see a courtroom if it weren't for angry mobs.

As much as i bitch about the sheer stupidity of most high-activity social media users, I really don't think it is so much to do with angry mobs as it is the deluge of video, exposure, and coverage this stuff now gets, which forces a reaction in larger/mainstream media and in a best-case scenario, legally. IMO, we are seeing more protests and such due to more exposure and coordination.

[Justus]

Watch it Pong...don't dare use "lunatic" in reference to "America's Heroes" --as trumpeted in broad fashion--by Fox News.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

Does Nightly Care?

It's not that I don't care, it's more like I don't see the point in threads like this, anymore. With all due respect to you Pong, and I really am not trying to be disrespectful here, I already have a good idea how a thread like this is going to shake out, what is likely to be said, and by whom. The sky is still blue, grass is green, and Pong hates cops and loves to post extreme examples of police brutality and shootings. Most of the Lyceum regulars will agree, save for a couple trolls here or there, and I guess at this point, I'm the de facto troll.

 

Fatigue.

And there's really nothing left to say. There's nobody left to call us un-American or evil for not supporting cops no matter who they murder.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Pong Messiah]

Chalups, it's probably fair to say my cop hatred is played out. But are these examples really so extreme? It's not like I have to scour the Internet to find all these examples of police using excessive force or abusing their position of authority -- and I often avoid raging over the more bandwagony/high profile stories, as they are more about politics and in many cases a lot less black and white than they appear.

 

With so many "extreme examples" available to choose from, I would say this is a very troubling issue!

[Guest]

I agree with both of you.

 

99.9% of cops run somewhere between good people and complete ***holes who were bullies in high school and never grew up, but still aren't beating or murdering people.

 

But that remainder is still reasonably large enough to present a serious problem, especially, IMO, when you accept that the police officer, while on duty, is the state. This wasn't just a random person shooting someone else, this was the city of Chicago killing someone. This was the mayor, the police chief, and every citizen of Chicago because that's who he was representing.

[Driver]

I'm not being critical of people who post these things (here or on social media) mind you, I understand outrage and the desire to have a discussion. But me...?

 

I've reached a saturation point on all terrible things. Be it cops, refugees, Trumps, whatever.

 

The world has always been a mixed bag of amazing and horrible. People should be informed, people should take action, people should find a way to support their causes--

 

What people should not do, is force interaction and opinions on others as a way to feel as though they are contributing a solution. Social media and the Internet is basically a big Thanksgiving table (timely!) where you mention a movie you like and ten minutes later your super racist grandma has redacted the conversation to being about how (insert minority or opposing religion) is destroying the fabric of civilized society.

 

Obviously, this is more a reaction to people putting dead Syrian kids in their feeds with no warning and not Pong's COPS AM I RITE!? But the joke he's making by asking WHY ARENT YOU OFFENDED is an apt shot at social media.

 

LOOK AT THIS! BE MAD WITH ME AND SHARE IT! LETS BE MAD ON THE INTERNET AND DO NOTHING ELSE!

 

Social media is making it impossible to have friends with opposing politics and opinions. The faux rage is dividing everyone further and further, so I am trying to remove myself from that conversation.

 

 

Unless you want to bash on the PT. I'm always ready for that hate.

[Pong Messiah]

But the joke he's making by asking WHY ARENT YOU OFFENDED is an apt shot at social media.

LOOK AT THIS! BE MAD WITH ME AND SHARE IT! LETS BE MAD ON THE INTERNET AND DO NOTHING ELSE!

Yes, your satire detectors were tingling correctly. That said, policing, along with homophobia may be the only issue where keyboard warriors have managed to actually make a truly net positive difference in changing opinions and policy. Like it or not, body cams for cops are coming (and if a city council somewhere in Colorado has them on the agenda, you know they are hearing from 10 times as many people from out of state), and you get enough angry pet owners on the twitters, legislators will get off their asses and mandate formerly "silly" ideas, like teaching an understanding of animal body language so they don't just shoot a dog that is protecting its owner's house, etc.

 

So, while I freely admit my bitching about this stuff serves cathartic needs first and foremost, I do think it is helpful to keep these issues front and center, even if it's something that happens far away from where you can actually cast a vote.

 

[Jacen123]

I'm not being critical of people who post these things (here or on social media) mind you, I understand outrage and the desire to have a discussion. But me...?

 

I've reached a saturation point on all terrible things. Be it cops, refugees, Trumps, whatever.

 

The world has always been a mixed bag of amazing and horrible. People should be informed, people should take action, people should find a way to support their causes--

 

What people should not do, is force interaction and opinions on others as a way to feel as though they are contributing a solution. Social media and the Internet is basically a big Thanksgiving table (timely!) where you mention a movie you like and ten minutes later your super racist grandma has redacted the conversation to being about how (insert minority or opposing religion) is destroying the fabric of civilized society.

 

Obviously, this is more a reaction to people putting dead Syrian kids in their feeds with no warning and not Pong's COPS AM I RITE!? But the joke he's making by asking WHY ARENT YOU OFFENDED is an apt shot at social media.

 

LOOK AT THIS! BE MAD WITH ME AND SHARE IT! LETS BE MAD ON THE INTERNET AND DO NOTHING ELSE!

 

Social media is making it impossible to have friends with opposing politics and opinions. The faux rage is dividing everyone further and further, so I am trying to remove myself from that conversation.

 

 

Unless you want to bash on the PT. I'm always ready for that hate.

[The Kurgan]

Well said, Driver.

 

 

This is a great video and I think you all ought to watch it. There's a bit of language in it, so be forwarned.

 

"I don't like this. So much nuance. I have to think. I hate thinking."

 

"There should only be two sides!"

[Pong Messiah]

"There should only be two sides!"

The problem is, sometimes there are only two sides. It is possible to acknowledge that police work is hard, and that most cops are good people. It is possible to acknowledge the stress and fear the cop who fired all those bullets into Laquan McDonald may have been feeling. It is possible to acknowledge McDonald's mental state and fact he was carrying a knife. It is possible to acknowledge that releasing the video might cause civil unrest (or, if cynical, that it might hurt certain people's political careers). But when you add it all up, it still doesn't create compelling nuance or make it some sort of "uncomfortably gray" issue. You either support murder by the state and the suppression of information or you do not.

 

 

Of course, this isn't to say every time a police officer tazes or shoots someone that it is brutality/attempted murder/murder; I'd wager that the vast majority of the time it is not, in fact. But when it is (as I believe it was with the McDonald), **** nuance -- there is only right and wrong.

[Driver]

I think it's a basic fault of police training. It goes back to the LAPD in the 40s, when they were training themselves like soldiers-- and eventually every PD in the country followed suit.

 

Soldiers should be trained like soldiers-- police should be trained to be peace-keepers. There's a difference. Obviously, police should be armed, and killing in the line of duty is something that could be trained for and justified-- but as a last resort. The should be trained in crisis management, and there are so many non-lethal ways to subdue people, from tazers to rubber bullets to mace-- these should be the go-tos, not firearms.

 

If the suspect is on PCP and a the taxer doesn't work-- then switch up and shoot him, by all means.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Chalups, it's probably fair to say my cop hatred is played out. But are these examples really so extreme? It's not like I have to scour the Internet to find all these examples of police using excessive force or abusing their position of authority -- and I often avoid raging over the more bandwagony/high profile stories, as they are more about politics and in many cases a lot less black and white than they appear.

 

With so many "extreme examples" available to choose from, I would say this is a very troubling issue!

It is still extreme when it is not the norm, and yes it is troubling when it happens. That is not what I am saying. This is a large country, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 900,000+ cops, so yeah, there are going to be some that are bad. A number of them will commit murder. It's just pure statistics. What I was getting at is this topic has come up before, and will again. A bad cop shoots someone unjustifiably, another shoots by mistake, and yet another is in a righteous shooting but because of who it is, it gets publicized as a wrongful shooting because of politics. Do we learn anything from any of those cases? Does it change anything? Are we surprised when the nightly regulars post their regular opinions? When you ask if nightly cares, that is what I am getting at.

 

 

I think it's a basic fault of police training. It goes back to the LAPD in the 40s, when they were training themselves like soldiers-- and eventually every PD in the country followed suit.

 

Soldiers should be trained like soldiers-- police should be trained to be peace-keepers. There's a difference. Obviously, police should be armed, and killing in the line of duty is something that could be trained for and justified-- but as a last resort. The should be trained in crisis management, and there are so many non-lethal ways to subdue people, from tazers to rubber bullets to mace-- these should be the go-tos, not firearms.

 

If the suspect is on PCP and a the taxer doesn't work-- then switch up and shoot him, by all means.

Largely agree with you here. The LAPD police model treats the community as a whole as criminals, and its their job to "occupy" their police beat, and treat the people as a whole as if they are prison guards, and the neighborhood is a prison. Now to a point, maybe it is necessary now, but I wonder which came first: the gang infested streets that are more dangerous than walking around in Kabul, or the LAPD model. Does the LAPD style of policing act as a recruiting tool for the gangs in the same way that US soldiers did in the late 2000s in Iraq? I think regardless of what came first, the LAPD police model has helped create the danger it experiences, and now it is the the point where they have no choice but to continue, just to get a handle on things. Gone are the days where street cops walk the beat in almost any town. Walking beats were how the police could put a human face on their officers with the community, and at the same time the police saw the people in their neighborhoods as people, and get to know them too. Nowadays, in some cities, a walking beat is just impossible, and one might as well place a bullseye on the back of a cop, and police departments know this. So you get cops staying in their patrol cars, and people fearing cops, and criminals taking advantage of that fear and recruiting more criminals.

 

But with the militarization of gangs and organized crime, and their willingness to be brutal in their crimes, right, wrong, or indifferent, the police end up responding in kind. In the end, both sides of the law have ramped up, and in some cities, it literally is a war. Gang bangers often walk as if they can go to war at any minute, and gangster rap is their cadence that inculcates that mentality. The police respond in kind, and when you get a few bad cops out there that go to far, or just straight up become criminals themselves, the whole cycle just becomes one infinite loop of violence.

 

But like I did with Pong, I ask you have we learned anything new here? Can anything be done to reverse this trend? Probably not.

[Driver]

Side bar-- check out John Buntin's LA Noir.

 

It was the basis for a TNT tv show that failed, and it covers very familiar territory with being about the rise, fall and conflict between LA Police Chief William Parker and Mickey Cohen.

 

Literally every Noir cop movie made that is set in LA touches on it-- but this book covers the real history.

 

There's a lot of pages covering how Parker shaped the LAPD. Why he did it, and how it spread. When you realize that Darryl Gates was Parker's protege you have a pretty clear image of what racism means-- not simple stereotyping and bigotry, but deeply entrenched structural classism and oppression.