GUILTY MD - Korryn Gaines, 23, fatally shot by Baltimore police, 1 Aug 2016

[CoolJ]

It has everything to do with what happened to him. It was not an execution for his crimes. It was a death that stemmed from his own careless, violent criminal actions. Once he drove at the officers, which bordered on attempted murder, and then almost took out a pedestrian on the street, the cops knew he was willing to take them out if need be in his desperate escape. So they escalated their force to meet his prior actions/

As to the fist bump, it is cringeworthy, but I do understand the context. They were 'saluting' each other that none of them were killed and they had each other's backs. It is a life and death situation for them too. And they go through it routinely so the optics are not good at all when they do that and I doubt it will happen that way again. But it was not a fist bump celebrating the young man's death. It was about them not dying that night themselves.

That young man came at them in a deadly way, having no concern for their lives. Once that happens, the cops are looking at him as a deadly threat.

What do "prior actions" of another have to do with being in fear for your life? If they didn't get him that day, do those prior actions put a bounty on his head for an indefinite period of time?

Sounds more like a revenge killing to me than justifiable use of lethal force. But I digress, this thread is in regards to KG, who, although likely a despicable human being, could have been arrested at another time and/or place that would have kept her life, her sons life, and the lives of the men in blue at a much lower risk of injury or death.

And a fist bump is what Kopitar does to D. Brown after a PP goal.

I would expect to see a consoling hug if they were truly celebrating not being killed.

 

[katydid23]

Because the felons are the bad guys and LE are supposed to be the good guys. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Of course they don't. But when the cops, who are fallible human beings, are working under that kind of violent conditions and stress, they are going to make some errors. But it comes from self preservation. On a daily basis they see that there is a criminal gang element that has no fear of shooting and killing someone. So the cops assume that anyone they have to chase from a crime scene might be willing to kill them first. They need to have that basic assumption to stay alive on the streets.

 

[katydid23]

What do "prior actions" of another have to do with being in fear for your life? If they didn't get him that day, do those prior actions put a bounty on his head for an indefinite period of time?

Sounds more like a revenge killing to me than justifiable use of lethal force. But I digress, this thread is in regards to KG, who, although likely a despicable human being, could have been arrested at another time and/or place that would have kept her life, her sons life, and the lives of the men in blue at a much lower risk of injury or death.

And a fist bump is what Kopitar does to D. Brown after a PP goal.

I would expect to see a consoling hug if they were truly celebrating not being killed.

No. Once someone has their loaded shotgun out and is pointing it at the cops, and making threats, they cannot walk away and come back another day. That is like seeing a ticking time bomb and then shrugging and going on a dinner break.

What if they walked away and she killed her son and herself right then? Wouldn't everyone be blaming them for leaving the boy alone with a ranting, violent upset armed mother?

 

[CoolJ]

Of course they don't. But when the cops, who are fallible human beings, are working under that kind of violent conditions and stress, they are going to make some errors. But it comes from self preservation. On a daily basis they see that there is a criminal gang element that has no fear of shooting and killing someone. So the cops assume that anyone they have to chase from a crime scene might be willing to kill them first. They need to have that basic assumption to stay alive on the streets.

I see no problem with them making that assumption. I just get the feeling many of these killings(especially in places like Chicago and Baltimore) are done out of anger or revenge as opposed to having a reasonable fear for their lives or the lives of others.

 

[CoolJ]

No. Once someone has their loaded shotgun out and is pointing it at the cops, and making threats, they cannot walk away and come back another day. That is like seeing a ticking time bomb and then shrugging and going on a dinner break.

What if they walked away and she killed her son and herself right then? Wouldn't everyone be blaming them for leaving the boy alone with a ranting, violent upset armed mother?

I am not saying pack up and come back another day. I am saying... You know the type of person you are dealing with, so why not find a better(read:safer for everyone) time or place to make the arrest.

 

[katydid23]

I see no problem with them making that assumption. I just get the feeling many of these killings(especially in places like Chicago and Baltimore) are done out of anger or revenge as opposed to having a reasonable fear for their lives or the lives of others.

I don't think so. I don't see many cops that would be willing to throw their own lives away, which is what happens with an on duty shooting, out of revenge or anger. I think it happens when they fear they are about to be shot or run over or stabbed.

 

[CoolJ]

I don't think so. I don't see many cops that would be willing to throw their own lives away, which is what happens with an on duty shooting, out of revenge or anger. I think it happens when they fear they are about to be shot or run over or stabbed.

Good then it is settled. We agree. LE should only use lethal force when their lives are in imminent danger.

 

[katydid23]

Good then it is settled. We agree. LE should only use lethal force when their lives are in imminent danger.

I totally agree. But of course the problem is that everyone's definition of that situation differs. If someone reaches into their waistband, a cop might think it is imminent danger. Does he need to wait and see the perp pull out the gun?

 

[Elley Mae]

No, it doesn't make you a bad person. It just shows how different our opinions can be at a fundamental level. But maybe you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying you have to like the people, I am not even saying you have to respect them. I am just saying we should cherish each human life the same. That is what is meant by #alllivesmatter, is it not?
Yes, sometimes lethal force needs to be used. But should we not try to preserve human life as much as possible without putting other lives at risk?
Do everything utterly possible to preserve human life. That is all I am saying.

I love that I live in a country(Canada) that still views it this way though the eyes of the law. Very grateful for that.

Human life worth saving?

bbm, Yes it would be different, as Canada laws are different, as are the people. But you already knew that. As a person that has lived in the mid east coastal region the majority of my life in Md and having lived in Georgia and North Carolina and Virginia have been to Canada camping/snowmobiling, (by the way the people 2 hrs north of Quebec is Joliette they hate the Québécois, what does that say. .) ot all is well in canada.

bbm, Not all, think hitler. jmo

 

[katydid23]

I am not saying pack up and come back another day. I am saying... You know the type of person you are dealing with, so why not find a better(read:safer for everyone) time or place to make the arrest.

Well, in an optimum world, that makes sense. But the police force is a government bureaucracy. They have x amounts of warrants to serve on a given day. They go out on each one and have to figure it out as they go. This was not a murder suspect they were picking up. She was one of many they had in their stack. How were they to know she was going to make it a deadly confrontation?

 

[CoolJ]

Well, in an optimum world, that makes sense. But the police force is a government bureaucracy. They have x amounts of warrants to serve on a given day. They go out on each one and have to figure it out as they go. This was not a murder suspect they were picking up. She was one of many they had in their stack. How were they to know she was going to make it a deadly confrontation?

Had I seen that video of the traffic stop, I would have known what to expect. No doubt in my mind they knew this was going to be a hostile arrest. They should have gone to get her in a situation where she wasn't likely to be armed. Should have used the same officers that were at the traffic stop. Those guys understand de-escalation. They listened to her and did not reciprocate her combativeness.

 

[CoolJ]

I truly believe the two sides of these debates are misunderstanding each other more so than they are disagreeing with each other.
I say, lets spend more time trying to understand each other.
JMO

 

[ohreally]

IMO the police tried to serve her the warrant in the safest place. I don't know if the officers that went to serve her the warrant knew about her prior attitude or not. Even if they did there would of been no indication she was going to pull a gun on them.
If the previous officer had written a book on her there wouldn't of been a chapter that warned the warrant officers that she would pull a gun on them. As bad as she was during the ticket stop I don't recall her threatening the officers lives. She talked crazy to the officers, grabbed her one year old from the back seat to use as a shield to not be taken out of the car, and told her five year old to fight the officers, but she never threatened the officers lives. She never said to the officers that they are lucky that she didn't have her gun. She never said to the officers if they dare come to her home she would kill them.
It's easy to say there was a better time and place to serve the warrant, but when would that be?

 

[CoolJ]

IMO the police tried to serve her the warrant in the safest place. I don't know if the officers that went to serve her the warrant knew about her prior attitude or not. Even if they did there would of been no indication she was going to pull a gun on them.
If the previous officer had written a book on her there wouldn't of been a chapter that warned the warrant officers that she would pull a gun on them. As bad as she was during the ticket stop I don't recall her threatening the officers lives. She talked crazy to the officers, grabbed her one year old from the back seat to use as a shield to not be taken out of the car, and told her five year old to fight the officers, but she never threatened the officers lives. She never said to the officers that they are lucky that she didn't have her gun. She never said to the officers if they dare come to her home she would kill them.
It's easy to say there was a better time and place to serve the warrant, but when would that be?

BBM
How About while she is goin about her daily business and less likely to be armed. If preservation of life is important, if #alllivesmatter, these are the type of proactive solutions we should be looking at to keep our officers safe. Not to mention our citizens. And I have no doubt they knew all about her hostile ways.

 

[ohreally]

The traffic stop was totally different than the one at her house. Most importantly she didn't have a weapon in the traffic stop. In the traffic I think she pretty much knew she may spend a few days in jail. At the house I would think that she knew once she pointed the gun at the officers she was going to go to prison for a long time. Add to that there was heroin in the house, and she knew once that was found there would be added charges. IMO she would rather die then go to prison, and she made sure she got what she wanted, by giving the officers no choice but to shoot her. IMO

 

[ohreally]

BBM
How About while she is goin about her daily business and less likely to be armed. If preservation of life is important, if #alllivesmatter, these are the type of proactive solutions we should be looking at to keep our officers safe. Not to mention our citizens. And I have no doubt they knew all about her hostile ways.

How did they know about her hostile ways with a gun? I have seen nothing that indicates she threatened anyone with a weapon. We don't know that after her traffic stop that she didn't start carrying the gun with her while she went about her daily business. I think it is very likely she did. It would of been so much worse had this happened on the streets IMO.

 

[CoolJ]

How did they know about her hostile ways with a gun? I have seen nothing that indicates she threatened anyone with a weapon. We don't know that after her traffic stop that she didn't start carrying the gun with her while she went about her daily business. I think it is very likely she did. It would of been so much worse had this happened on the streets IMO.

She was begging for them to put her in a body bag. If they didn't know, they should have. Maybe communication is something that can be improved upon.

 

[ohreally]

Yet she made two trips to the hospital during her two day stay at the jail. Medical staff must not of picked up on her desire to die as she was released back to the jail, yet the police are suppose to mind read.

 

[K_Z]

Good then it is settled. We agree. LE should only use lethal force when their lives are in imminent danger.

BBM. Or when other lives are in imminent danger. Civilians with CCPs can't use their weapons in public in that manner, but LE is charged with protection of others, as well as themselves. They can, and should, use lethal force to protect others from imminent severe bodily harm or death. That includes other officers. Along with bystanders, victims, EMS, firefighters, etc.

Use of force is a continuum. Here's an overview of the model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

Listed below are examples of how subjects are classified.
Passive compliant – a person who recognizes the authority of the officers presence and follows the verbal commands of the officer.[9][15][16]

Passive resistor – a person who refuses to follow the verbal commands of the officer but does not resist attempts by officers to take positive physical control over them.[9][15][16]

Active resistor – a person who does not follow verbal commands, resist attempts by the officer to take positive physical control over them, and does not try to inflict harm on the officer.[9][15][16]

Active aggressor – a person who does not follow verbal commands, resists attempts by the officer to take positive physical control over them and attempts to cause harm to the officer or others.[9][15][16]

Generally, the passive subjects and active resistors fall under levels 1–3 of the use of force continuum, while active aggressors fall under levels 4–6. The officers are trained to apply the proper measure of force within the continuum based on the actions and classification of the subject.[17]

Such situations, once known as use of force incidents, are now commonly referred to as response to resistance incidents, because a law enforcement officer must respond to resistance offered by another.

 

[human]

BBM. Or when other lives are in imminent danger. Civilians with CCPs can't use their weapons in public in that manner, but LE is charged with protection of others, as well as themselves. They can, and should, use lethal force to protect others from imminent severe bodily harm or death. That includes other officers. Along with bystanders, victims, EMS, firefighters, etc.

Use of force is a continuum. Here's an overview of the model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

As I posted above, LE wants to change the approach. It is too much of a toll on officers and of course, the social issues and lawsuits do not help.