-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
First let me say that my heart goes out to the family and friends of Abu
Kassim Jeilani. No matter what he may have done or not done, his shooting
is incredibly tragic. I am also aware of and sorry for the way the US has
treated its Somali residents in the last six months. I think our national
policies the last in that time have caused us to commit some grave
injustices against our fellow humans. I can scarcely imagine how the
Somali community must have felt prior to Sunday's shooting, and it is
impossible not to sympathize with their concerns now.
On Monday 11 March 2002 10:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris Beckwith wrote:
> >Indeed. The textbook sounds rather suspect. More
> >importantly, we'd like to know where in the textbook
> >it says 15 bullets are required to immobilize a
> >street schizophrenic. Shall we look in the index,
> >perhaps under "Overkill?"
To Chris: 5 officers, all shooting three bullets gets us to 15 shots
without any single officer needing to do much shooting at all. In my view,
in a self-defense situation, three shots is a minimum.
However, I must say I'd agree that having five men or women all shooting
at one person indicates a complete lack of organizational control on their
part. I doubt this was the case, without better information I would assume
that the shooting was done by no more than one or two officers. And
remember that police weapons have magazines that can hold about 15 rounds.
It is possible to shoot 15 rounds in as many seconds.
I have not read the police reports or reviewed eyewitness testimony or any
video that may be available to ascertain when the shooting should have
stopped and when it actually did. I am willing to grant that you do not
shoot once at someone and then stop and observe them for a moment before
you take your second shot. If you miss or your shot is ineffectual, you
put yourself in grave danger by hesitating.
I have practiced with a handgun similar to that used by law enforcement
and I found it terribly difficult to hit bullseye with any regularity in a
controlled environment with a completely stationary target, even at a
fairly close range. Under circumstances involving a moving target who
might attack me, I am certain that I would shoot rapidly at least three to
five times before I would ascertain whether or not I could stop shooting.
> <sigh>
> The man would not put down his machete. Taser
> fire was ineffective. If you were a police officer,
> would you take the chance of being chopped into dog
> food in order to handcuff this man? You have to stop
> him from continuing to roam the neighborhood, and
> your tools are limited. Current training calls for
> you to continue shooting until the suspect stops.
And this is unfortunately likely to continue to be the best we can do,
unless someone equips the officers with a whole arsenal of various tools
like slime guns (which are still developmental and not something I want to
encourage the police to use yet-- given such a tool they may use it for
crowd control instead of their ever-present billy clubs and chemical
sprays). In fact, the wider the arsenal the less effective the police
might be in emergencies because of the time spent figuring out which tool
they have to use next and equipping it for use. Switching weapons even
once is a vulnerability.
Let's walk a mile in the officer's shoes before we condemn them. If this
man were in my yard, and seemed to be threatening my or my family's
safety, what tools would I want available? And in what order would I use
them? I suppose I could call the police and then proceed to evacuate the
area, so that my private use of arms is not necessary (here's hoping I
can run faster while carrying my child, than a guy encumbered by anything
more than a large knife can run). But the police do not have evacuation as
a non-violent option. They are charged with apprehending persons who pose
a threat. They must not only contain but subdue any such individual. This
is priority number one in their jobs.
> >Wouldn't a single bullet to the leg have been
> >sufficient?
> Seriously, hitting somebody in the leg (or arm,
> or hand) is damned difficult shooting under the
> best of conditions except for a trained sniper,
Agreed. This sort of policy is likely to result in an excess of stray
bullets and to be largely ineffectual. The arms and legs are completely
mobile and nearly impossible to hit when in motion. It would probably take
more than 15 shots to even have a remote chance of a good hit on the limbs
of a subject that was not already immobilized.
> The deaths of mentally ill people shot by
> the MPD are not the sole responsibility of the
> "trigger-happy" police. All of us who supported
> deinstitutionalizing the insane bear partial
> responsibility for their deaths. These people
> needed close supervision in a supportive setting,
> and instead they wound up being shot to death
> because the police are simply not equipped to
> deal with them. I hope Mayor Rybak and the
> Council can get the police what they need, since
> I'm afraid the other half of the problem won't be
> solved anywhere near as quickly.
Please be careful in enacting more serious controls over the lives of
people deemed to be mentally ill. Once a doctor has determined that the
individual is ill, this diagnosis robs them of their liberty. With mental
institutions the term of incarceration is indefinite and the longevity of
care is determined by those most likely to profit by keeping people
institutionalized. This creates an extraordinary conflict of interest
which is not easily resolved. Besides, mental illness seems to be very
unpredictable and highly resistant to treatment in many cases. Certain
dianoses amount to a life sentence. Without a provable crime justifying
life incarcertation, we are all in danger of permanent loss of liberty
dependent on the decree of a psychologist or psychiatrist.
If this poor man was not known to have violent episodes in the past, but
merely to be insane, then we would have had no right in the past to take
him off the streets for simply being sick any more than we have the right
to lock up AIDS victims for simply being sick.
This morning's Strib article does not indicate such a mental illness in
quotes attributed to family and friends. They do say he had some illness,
but not that he had dangerous episodes before. Was this man known to
police, who might have therefore known better? I haven't yet got a sense
that this is any sort of repeat of the Barbara Schneider incident, where
we might assume that police should have known better, based on prior
interactions with her.
I think it is very unfortunate that this incident follows six months of
targetting the Somali community and other ethnic groups for potential
terrorist links and harrassing them over that. In fact, given recent
deportations, I can see why this community feels persecuted. But let's not
lose sight of this in our zeal to examine these officers' actions on
Sunday. Let's not make them scapegoats for our national mood.
And if I appear to be siding with the police, I am. They are humans,
tasked with way too much to do and given as few resources to do it as
possible, and rewarded poorly for their efforts. Stop policing the heck
out of society and reserve our police force to train for and respond to
incidents such as these, and we'll all be a lot safer, including the
seemingly insane carrying machetes.
Stop overworking our police. And stop pitting them against the community
by telling them to go after every hooker and drug user and broken
tail-light they can find. You put so much pressure on these people it's no
wonder incidents like these occur! I'm surprised they even accept these
jobs given the way we treat them.
- Michael Libby, Cleveland/North Minneapolis
______Michael_C_Libby__{_x_(at)_ichimunki_(dot)_com_}______
| "even monkeys fall from trees" : "saru mo ki kara ochiru" |
| private hotmail/yahoo email is deleted unread due to spam |
|____ public key at http://www.ichimunki.com/public.key ____|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8jggJ4ClW9KMwqnMRAnU7AJ4+44BNPy96ae/9Xa2gCseMkfwwrQCfd6Ae
5WtCvrd1OdBYYIfhGpXVj/o=
=JXJQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
