St. Louis police shot and killed 25-year-old Kajieme Powell who refused to pay for some energy drinks and pastries. The store owner had called the police.
The lesson here, once again, is if you confront the police, the police will escalate. Powell was clearly deranged and I think coppers took the easy way out, just gun him down (with edgy justification). I wonder if they would have acted the same if my proposal was in effect?
-RW
(1) He appeared to have something in his right hand, which he had stuffed in his pocket until the cops arrived. (2) He kept advancing toward the cops. (3) He was insane, idiotic, suicidal, or a combo thereof. Combine these three facts and you will get what should be expected: a dead perpetrator, at least. And that's just the plain, incontrovertible truth. R.I.P.
ReplyDeleteI don't rule out your theories. That said, 1.Do you believe I am wrong in pointing out that police will escalate when challenged? and 2. Do you think they might have acted differently if my proposal (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/08/a-modest-first-step-proposal-to-bring.html) was in effect?
ReplyDelete1. No, you are correct here.
Delete2. Yes, perhaps they would've tried to talk some sense into him, tazered him, or not even shown up at the scene. (Of course, it depends on a cop's confidence in the likelihood he would escape prosecution for the way he "protected and served." See below.)
I do, however, think you'll need to specify the duration of a killer-cop's dismissal — and perhaps the criteria used to divine it — referenced in this paragraph:
I believe that this needs to be changed. A good first step in making police think twice about killing someone is that it should be standard policy that any police officer that kills someone should be immediately removed from the police force, his salary stopped and that he be prevented from receiving any pension or other payments that would normally be due an officer leaving the force.
Another way of looking at it:
DeleteIf you were the owner of the store that the dead guy apparently robbed and the cops were employees of a private security company you’d hired, would you be pleased with the performance?
@M.Spotter911
DeleteWhy a lifetime ban, of course. You have to remember such a copper took the life of someone without judge or jury. A lifetime ban seems a minor slap on the wrist in comparison.
I wouldn't use a blanket punishment for every kill. I would account for the officer's need to use deadly force, whether he was privately hired or publicly subsidized.
DeleteWhat if the cop kills an armed robber who was in the act and threatening to kill his victim? Or an armed maniac in the midst of a rampage. Or if the cop is being stabbed by a knife-wielding cop-hater, and stops his attacker the only way he can (by shooting to kill).
So if I "appear" to have something in my hand and walk towards cops I deserve to get the death penalty?
ReplyDeleteTroops in Afghanistan have more rigid rules of engagement.
These cops shot this man because they knew that there would be no personal responsibility or consequences for their actions. Hell, cops who shoot and kill while on duty will get a paid vacation. What happens when you reward an action.......you get more of that same action.
No, not necessarily. But you should expect the worst: to be shot to death eventually. That's just the ugly truth. It's not really a comment on morality but on logic, practicality, common sense: Kajieme Powell acted insane, idiotic, aggressive, suicidal, or whatever, by defiantly advancing toward a couple of cops whose guns were trained on him, and he got the result he should have expected (not necessarily deserved).
DeleteThe definition of government soldiers (cops included): Individuals who can cause serious harm or kill with impunity. RW is correct that incentives need to be in place, removing that impunity and placing a subjective decision in the hands of the officer - one between his life and his lucrative and powerful career.
ReplyDeleteAlso, even if the killing is deemed justified, the dismissal should be warranted since the act of killing has crossed an ethical line and the person doing the killing should be considered permanently unqualified; very much akin to animals being put down for aggressive behavior.
As always when trying to run government better, we enter the dangerous are of precedent. If such laws are written, what sort of jurisprudence will arise in the future that may work against society in general?