It's telling that "suicide by cop" is even a thing. Cops are so notoriously trigger happy that people who want to die rely on them to make it happen frequently enough that there's a name for it.

"One of the main tenets of that training is time, distance, and cover. I did not see those tactics employed in this interaction, and it's disappointing,”

Why is The Stranger allowing comments from.people who are not telling the truth to be published in its stories? The person making this statement either did not actually watch the video -- in which case he is lying -- or did watch the video -- in which case he is lying. The officers in the video clearly were backing away from the individual with the knife. It was the individual with the knife who closed the distance, not the officers, who were doing their best to place distance between themselves and the man with the knife.

Why make the false comment? Why publish the false comment? Because the narrative matters more than the facts.

Like any fatal shooting, this is a tragedy. But just because it's a tragedy does not mean it was unjustified. The Stranger has a long history of desperately trying to make completely justified police shootings seem as though they were inappropriate (see Oscar Perez-Giron, for example). So you need to throw some comments in the article that are completely contradicted by the video.

The narrative always is more important than the facts.

Not newsworthy. Story doesn’t affect the reader. Story isn’t novel. Story has no scale. Story doesn’t involve prominent figures. Story isn’t actionable.

If you enter a secure police area, refuse police orders to leave, brandish a weapon to police, then approach backing-away police officers with said weapon, you run the risk of being shot. Good thing he approached police instead of a Home Depot shopper with that knife.

The Office of Inspector General is not the entity that decides if a shooting is justified. Serious use of force including lethal force is reviewed by an internal force review board established under the long-running federal consent decree, including examining if the use of force was consistent with policy and, potentially, whether there are policy changes needed. Alleged misconduct including wrongful use of force is reviewed by the civilian-led Office of Police Accountability, which can recommend discipline to the Chief in the event of a misconduct finding, and can also recommend policy changes. The King County inquest process explores the circumstances leading to the death, and answers questions not specifically including whether the force was “justified.” The King County Prosecutor decides whether to pursue criminal charges under the voter-approved changes in I940 that recently led to the conviction of the first officer in many decades to be convicted of homicide for a shooting on duty. None of these mechanisms works well all, or even most of, the time, but notably the OIG is not part of any of these decisions about whether force was justified in an individual case. This isn’t the most important issue in this story but it’s confusing to point people toward an OIG decision that they don’t have any role in making.

So tragic for everyone involved. The pic of the knife shows it wasn't a "small folding knife".

I'm sure if we examined the life history of the dead guy we'd find a whole list of past mental health issues that nobody (family, friends, medical profession) was able to deal with. No one cared about this guy until now when some poor cop had to take him out. This will stay with everyone involved for the rest of their lives. "Suicide by mental health professionals, family, friends" is more like it.

Definitely seems like they could have tazed him or hit him with the 40 multiple times before shooting him but... also seems like he got exactly what he came there for so...

Tragic for everyone involved.

The Police Accountable Group said: "One of the main tenets of that training is time, distance, and cover. I did not see those tactics employed in this interaction"

Question? Did they watch the video? Or, do they just see what they want to see?

The police were gave the person time, distance, and took cover. They told him to drop the weapon. Were constantly backing up. And were keeping their distance.

Tragic for sure. But the Police Accountability Group is not credible.

So many Monday morning quarterbacks here.
The police tried non-lethal force, but Seay still advanced on the them.
If someone armed with a lethal weapon made a move against my family I’d have done the same thing as Hay.
I value my family more than someone trying to hurt them, mental health crisis or not.

"I'm sure if we examined the life history of the dead guy we'd find a whole list of past mental health issues that nobody (family, friends, medical profession) was able to deal with."
--@6

when ronny raygun
emptied the 'loony bins'
and made Government 'the
Enemy' he set the stage for the
Tragedy unfolding before our very eyes

when
there's
No More
Homelessness
nor hordes of addicts
and/nor mentally ill Citizens
flooding our streets and parks et al

we'll Know
the Billionaires're
FINALLY paying Their Fair Share

but
it just
so much
Easier to Blame
the Victims -- & fuck
NO this is Not an Excuse
for the ongoing Tragedy of

our Commons

tho this being tS
with its oft-Reactionary
commentariat it'll likely be

spun that way.

@2 & 8 I think they're talking specifically about the officer who actually did the shooting. The rest of the officers did a good job, especially "Officer #1" who was taking the verbal lead, but (without seeing his BWV) it seems like Hay could have continued to retreat and buy time.

@5 the blade looks just under 100 mm so it's around 3.75", I'd say that's pretty small.

@12 — “ the blade looks just under 100 mm so it's around 3.75", I'd say that's pretty small.”

That “pretty small” blade is defined by state law as a deadly weapon.

“… any knife having a blade longer than three inches,…”

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.825

@13 so this?

https://www.restaurantsupply.com/winco-0030-08-9-1-4-shangarila-flatware-stainless-steel-dinner-knife

@14 — for obtuse people like you, yes.

@15 obtuse? Your whole point was the knife in question fits the statutory definition, well, so does the one I linked. If you're now saying maybe the statutory definition doesn't tell the whole story--I agree.

@12, Seattle Municipal Code defines such a knife as dangerous and outlaws carrying in SMC 12a.14.080.

The would channel of such a knife is wider and more voluminous than that of any handgun round.

At 10 feet, a human can close and strike someone in 1000 milliseconds. The margins reported in this article, and the distances shown in the video, show that the man with the knife came within mere hundreds of milliseconds of officers before one decided to fire in self-defense. That is cutting it way to damn close.

@12. Wound channel not would channel.

@7, See at 17. Arguably they waited too long and cut it too close.

@11, If you look at the overhead satellite image on Google Maps, officers were losing containment as they retreated around the corner because the area opened up. They ran out of area to retreat to without keeping a man wielding a knife at people contained to protect the public.

He is willing to draw a knife and engage in felony menacing with it toward the cops. Better the cops than the public. They needed to keep him contained after he drew a knife and advanced. The ability to continue to retreat was constrained.

@14, The RCW 9.94a.825 post of @13, should have been more fully quoted to provode context. The statute does describe the knife used in this incident as a specific deadly weapon; however, the statute also says ANY OBJECT, depending on its "manner of use" can be defined as a deadly weapon.

So what makes the knife of the deceased a deadly weapon but not your Amazon knife a deadly weapon.

Two things.

The manner of use.

The fact that such a knife was carried in public, within the limits of a city that has banned the carrying of such a knife in public.

@21 no, the RCW says a knife with a blade longer than 3" definitionally is a deadly weapon, but ALSO any object, depending on its use, can be. And @20 police had information the guy was suicidal. It's pretty safe to conclude he wasn't a threat to anyone else, he just hoped police would kill him if he acted mildly threatening and this one officer lived down to expectations. Finally @17 how's he going to close the distance and strike, assuming he even wanted to, if he's tased or bolawrapped? They didn't need to kill him.

@22, The call takers had that information.

Since nobody had gotten I.D. from the guy in the police parking lot, the call about a suicidal man was for Home Depot next door, and that call was so fresh that it had yet to get a response, there was no way to make that connection on the seconds all this unfolded.

The video and audio indicates the cop comes outside and finds an unauthorized person in a restricted area. He is not expecting to see the crime of trspaas on-view in the police parking lot.
Not routine, but not uncommon. The cop treats the guy as a trespasser and goes for the low confrontation, low paperwork route and politely but firmly directs the guy how to leave. That behavior what an officer is trained or required to do by policy with a suicidal victim, so the cops reaction is consistent with him not linking the guy in the parking lot with any other call.

He has the sense from what he is observing that the guy is "a little off." There is no evidence in the body cam that the officer was even aware of the Home Depot call. Police radio traffic is constant, like noise at a party that one tunes out, unless you hear your name jump out of the noise. Cops are that way with their call sign. Unless its theirs, and/or dispatch is triggering the tone on their radio cops don't, and shouldn't, comprehend the constant radio traffic. The investigation will show if he, or other officers on scene, were aware of The Home Depot call.

Assuming he, or other officers on scene, was aware of the Home Depot call, they didn't have enough time or information, to connect it with what they were seeing on view. That is even more so when someone is advancing with a knife. The amygdala hijacks the brain. The frontal cortex, where analysis happens, connections are made, and puzzles are solved gets involuntarily shunted aside. So to with the sense of hearing, and peripheral vision. Your amygdala focuses your eyes like a laser on the threat and prepares your body to fight or flee.

We get the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, additional information that perhaps officers never got (likely) and don't have our amygdala taking our brains and senses for an involuntary ride.

The assumption that the guy was only a threat to himself becase he was the reported Home Depot suicide guy, is one the evidence shows cops didn't, and likely couldn't make in real time. Its an armchair warriors privilege.

Asumming they made that connection, guess what, suicidal, mentally ill people change their minds. Just because he only intends to hurt himself in one second, or isn't using that as pretext for ambush, doesn't mean that is still his.intent in the next second. He may decide he doesn't care who he strikes in the next.

A mental health worker won't, by policy and training, interact with a person threatening suicide, until they are disarmed and secure. If they is ANY weapon or threat of violence, they are trained to retreat and call the cops. Its a requirement of our workplace safety laws that mental health employers have such policies and give such training. It doesn't mean we could not have a mental health worker respond, but they are going to have to interact with the guy from behind a cop until the knife goes away and threats of violence stop.

I would like this to have turned out differently, but the subject also had agency, not just the police. They kept retreating to create time and space until they couldn't and still keep the guy contained (do we want him running off to kill himslelf after he loses people who might stop him from killing himself?) When the cop fired, with a knife milliseconds from his carotid, brachial, and femural arteries, he had decided he had run out of time to see if a fellow officer had deployed a less lethal taser or 40mm projectile and he had to stop the threat. He did not have mind reading ability of the threats intentions, or mind control abilities to take whatever agency the threat had. The threats actions forced a its the threat or me choice by the cop, with tragic consequences.

@23 fair enough, it's safe to assume they didn't know about the suicidality call or that this was the guy. But still, why did the shooter not have less lethal out? Why is he the only one of the numerous cops there that "couldn't" retreat any further? Why was he even involved when there were at least four other officers handling the situation? I stand by my opinion that he didn't need to kill this guy.

Lethal and less lethal are paired in most police department manuals. I.e. You don't deploy less lethal against an armed subject, unless the less lethal officer is covered by a lethal officer.

Less lethal is highly unreliable in disabling a determined attacker.

For the taser the failure rate is as high as 40%.

For the 40mm beanbag or foam tipped pain round, one has to be close. Its not a rifled round and it curves and breaks. You miss as much as you hit, and even when hits are made the pain inflicted won't stop a determined attacker. The data is not as rigorous or conclusive but the studies are clear that one has to be within 20 feet to make a greater than th an 50 % rate of hits hits. The closer you are the higher the hit rate but the higher the probability of breaking a bone (8% in one study), taking out an eye, or otherwise seriously maiming the subject..

The data is scant, but anecdotal reports suggest it is even less reliable in disabling a determined attacker to the point they cease to be a threat. The closer the officer is, the more hits; however, that also exponentially increases the risk to the 40mm armed officer.

OC spray is even less reliable in disabling a subject.

That is why lethal and less lethal are paired. You don't bet employee (in this case an officer) safety against an arned subject SOLELY on weapons and tactics with such low probability of protecting the employee. Labor and Industries and OSHA take a dim view of that and.fine employers.

Even handguns are not entirely reliable in stopping a determined attacker. They are much more reliable in disabling an attacker; however, 75% of people shot with a handgun live, allowing the subject the opportunity to kill or seriously injure the defensive shooter because the agressor lives, or lives long enough, to get to the defensive shooter. Handguns are the most reliable, readily carriable defensive tech we have (rifles are too bulky).

To deploy less lethal you must be close enough to be in attack range of the subject. If the subject keeps coming, milliseconds is all that remains to hopefully deploy lethal (usually a handgun, preferably a rifle) in time to stop the threat.

That is tragically what appears to have happened here.

Cases like these have the participants operating on extreme margins of safety, where milliseconds are the difference between life and death for all involved.

Moral of the story is not to behave in a way that pushes things to that extreme, where rection tines are low, decision making and bodily function is highly impaired as the amygdala hijacks the brain, and subject, defender, or both have a high proabability of death. It won't end well for someone.

There were no winners here. Just those who die from the violence and those with the mental trauma of surviving a violent event.

@25 the main thing for me is, nobody would go to these lengths to justify a comparable killing by a civilian. If the guy instead stayed at Home Depot, and an employee shot him from ~20 feet away because he was holding a knife and didn't leave the parking lot when instructed, nobody would be talking about the killer's "mental trauma of surviving a violent event" or parsing everything the victim did to argue it was all their fault actually. It's only when cops kill someone that a certain segment of society becomes peak understanding, for example talking about the "amygdala hijacking the brain," and try desperately to justify the killing by any means necessary. Only cops get the immediate benefit of every possible doubt. Maybe if it wasn't that way they wouldn't shoot as many people.

First thing: The cops waited far too long to "engage" the subject with the non- lethal rounds. He stood there for a few minutes, brandishing his knife. That's the time to take him down. Not with a low probability shot once he is moving. I suspect that members of the SPD may still be spooked by some of the public sentiment and legal fallout of past non-lethal weapons use.

Second thing: So this guy was suicidal? Was that new on that day? Or had others seen it coming and failed to (or were not able to) seek help for him? This town has gone too far in letting crazys out in public. Until they snap and take themselves or others out. I am comforted by New Yorks re-enstatement of old involuntary confinement laws. As the bellwether of many other liberal jurisdictions, I can only hope that Washington will follow in recognizing those who are "a danger to themselves or others". Before that danger manifests itself. Forget about civil rights. Many suicidal people, like bridge jumpers, realize that it was a bad idea while on the way down. In the final analysis, they will appreciate the intervention.

@27 "This town has gone too far in letting crazys out in public. Until they snap and take themselves or others out."

This language is incredibly dehumanizing and offensive, but I do agree that this state should mirror NY's recent actions. Not the changes to their involuntary commitment laws--WA already has the same--but more importantly they just spent $1 billion to increase treatment capacity. I think WA should make a similar investment in expanding mental healthcare resources in this state, which are dramatically underfunded and have been for some time.

@26, This would be a justifiable shooting no matter who did it, in they hypothetical you describe. There would have been no arrest of the shooter, because there would be no probable cause that it was anything other than a lawful self-defense shooting. For it to be a crime there has to be probable cause that it wasn't a self-defense shooting.

This shooting, done by a non-cop in the circumstances you describe, checks all the boxes of our state's self-defense statute, common law self-defense, and all but 11 other state's self-defense statutes (those states require retreat before using deadly force, if its practical, and impracticality is easy to articulate).

RCW 9A.16.050:

"Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is."

A knife in hand for no apparent reason. Check.
The person is advancing on you with that knife. Check.
The person is ignoring commands to stop. Check.
The knife is a deadly weapon, unlawful weapon. Bonus Check for extra-credit.

You now have all the "reasonable ground" required by law to "apprehend a design," of the person to cause you, "great personal injury," (risk of death not required) and that "there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished."

A non-cop would likely not have waited so long to open fire, nor would the non-cop (or cop) be legally required to wait as long as the cop did in this case.

Cops, in spite of vastly higher rates of contact with violent, threatening situations kill about 1,100 times per year, legally and justifiably. Non-cops 2,300 time per year, legally and justifiably.

The amygdala hijack occurs with all humans and its involuntary. In addition to the other impacts already noted, such as sensory deprivation and shutting down higher executive function, the respiration rate skyrockets, heart rate skyrockets, fine motor control (required for things like precise aim of a taser, beanbag gun, or firearm) goes to hell, and blood gets diverted to large muscle groups from minor ones, from not immediately critical organs (e.g. digestive track) to critical ones (lungs, heart). Your ability to do anything but make major fighting movements or major running movements is what our biology prioritizes. Mental bandwidth to process anything but fight or flight is stripped away.

Cops and those in the military can have that involuntary effect dulled, but not overcome, by exposure to simulated attack, but the involuntary effect can't be overcome. The impact varies greatly from individual to individual, and in some cases when the real deal goes down, somehow the body knows, and some still freeze-up or don't respond per training and as drilled in simulation.

What we see with firearms use in popular culture is just flat out wrong and unrepresentative of reality. The reality is someone is surprised by an aggressor, usually at a range of 5 to 7 feet, and in shear panic and terror, reflexively goes for a firearm if they have one and sprays it at the threat. They hit maybe with 1 in 4 bullets (less if its not a cop or a regularly practicing shooter). Once there amygdala signals the threat is over, they lose their shit, becoming irrationally hysterical, throwing up, or becoming catatonic. They survived and now have to cope with the trauma.

You can find lots of video of this happening to non-cops and cops alike, all over the internet. The reality is far different than the portrayal of the cop, victim, good-guy, etc. calmly deliberately and rationally drawing their weapon, considering the options, calmly reasoning with the subject, and then when all else fails, calmly shooting the subject once, to have the subject fall down or die, and the shooter calmly holster their weapon. The reality is its surprise, sheer terror, a struggle to get the weapon on target, a struggle to hit the target, a lot of grappling, and then the survivor falling apart.

@29 if police are no better trained to handle these situations than a random member of the public, if they are just as susceptible to an unthinking flight or flight response, why do we give them greater authority to use violence?

And you have entirely too much faith in the criminal system if you think a civilian wouldn't even have been arrested for this.

@30, We don't, generally speaking, give police greater authority to use violence. If you compare the statutes, police may shoot someone escaping from prison, and civilians can't. Compare RCW 9a.16.020, .040, and .050.

As to your second objection, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/woman-shoots-man-after-altercation-on-bus/

The woman was never arrested or charged. The material fact was that she was not the instigator and when the guy lunged off the bus to run after her she had "reason to apprehend a design," to do her some "great personal injury," and that there was imminent risk of said design being accomplished. She also had the same reason to apprehend the same threat to her wife and kids who were with her.

The Stranger reported on it in much more detail when the Prosecutor announced she would not be charged. I can't find it now.

You have this case where a black man with an extensive criminal history was acquitted of murder and six counts of assault for shooting by-standers, not involved in any way in the gunfight. The relevant fact was that Tolbert was not the aggressor (the first to go to unlawful violence). IMO, the arrest was probably justified, but the prosecution was not, once the Prosecutor got to review video from inside the McDonalds. Tolbert (and his co-defendant) had reason to believe they were at imminent risk of great personal injury once the guy they were "shooting at" (they were spraying bullets over their shoulder in the direction of the guy as they ran) flashed and reached for his gun.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/jury-finds-gunman-not-guilty-in-downtown-seattle-shooting-that-killed-1-injured-6/

See RCW 9a.16.030 which makes shooting bystanders justifiable provided the shooter is shooting for a lawful purpose, which self-defense is.

Both Tolbert and his co-defendant were subsequently arrested and adjudicated of other additional crimes. In Tolbert's case the most recent arrest is for serious felonies that are completely unrelated, but will likely see him in Federal Prison for a long time.

This homeless, black man, was acquitted of murder for pushing a man to his death on a subway platform. This case was a closer call, so sending it to a jury was probably appropriate. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/naeem-davis-acquitted/

Davis waived his right to speedy trial to facilitate his own defense; however, its unjust that he spent years he will never get back incarcerated for a crime he did not commit (homicide is not a crime - it may be, but by itself is not).

@28: "This language is incredibly dehumanizing and offensive'"

So was the push by the ACLU to de-institutionalize these people in the first place. But then rounding them all up again and placing them in the treatment facilities you advocate, possibly involuntarily, will be just as dehumanizing. Leaving them to camp on the street is pretty dehumanizing as well. On the other hand, so is pushing them into housing that they don't want.

The ultimate in dehumanization is to allow their behavior to degenerate to a point where a 9mm round is the only thing left.

@31 the woman on this bus WAS arrested.

"Seattlepi.com reported in April that an FBI agent who happened to be on the scene took Brereton into custody until police arrived. She was jailed for two days, then released."

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Woman-who-shot-man-at-bus-stop-won-t-be-charged-891425.php

The people in your other stories had to go to trial to clear their names. The cop here just gets a paid vacation.

@33, From the article,

"Police interviewed the woman and may book her for investigation of assault,"

"MAY book her ..."

As you note, she was never charged.

Even in a case where her attacker was unarmed.

At any rate you can find many cases.where the shooter is never arrested because the required probable cause that the shooting was a crime (i.e. not self-defense) is never developed.

Each case is going to be highly fact and circumstance dependent.

Civilians are not arrested all the time. All three cases, particularly the latter two, show that the criminal justice system acquits even the marginalized and the otherwise criminal.

Here are some other cases. "Taken into custody ..." Unfortunately, that does not tell us if the guy was merely detained or arrested. https://www.wxyz.com/news/eastern-market-shooter-will-not-be-charged-acted-in-self-defense-prosecutor-says

Shooter not arrested. Man shot was. https://weartv.com/news/local/man-shot-in-self-defense-case-at-the-flats-in-pensacola-charged-with-battery

Shooter released without being arrested after being interviewed.

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/impd-shooter-involved-in-deadly-road-rage-shooting-may-have-acted-in-self-defense/

Shooter not arrested in this case either. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/man-shot-killed-overnight-in-a-carmichael-apartment-deputies-say/

You get the idea. It's going to be determined by how much evidence of a crime there is at the scene.

@34 right, your article says "may," and the article I linked explains that she WAS booked and held for two days.

The Eastern Market shooter was arrested too.

"White said officers arrested a man from the Oakland County suburb of Oak Park who is in his 30s and is licensed to carry a gun."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2024/09/16/detroit-eastern-market-shooting-lions-tailgate-death/75249810007/

Can you find a report of a police officer being arrested on scene for shooting or otherwise killing someone, ever?

Off duty, yes.

On duty, not so much. But there are so few on-duty police shootings. 1,100 per year, all but a 1/2 dozen per year found to be not criminally culpable. The clearance rate for on-duty police shootings is 100%, meaning a perpetrator is identified. With non-police shootings the clearance rate is 57%, which means 43% of the time the shooter remains unknown.

There roughly 14,000 murders a year in the U.S. The clearance rate is only 57%, meaning ARRESTS of any kind ARE NOT MADE IN roughly 6,000 of those cases each year.

The total number of homicides is 25,000 annually.

That makes 11,000 homicides not criminally in any way. Of those 11,000, 1,100 per year are police self-defense homicides, and 2,200 are non- police self-defense homicides. The remainder of those non-criminal homicides are likely automotive related (e.g. wrongful death for running over someone while changing the radio station, running a red light while not impaired, etc.)

Roughly 81,000 people each year are shot by another person in the United States.

So in that context there just isn't any there, there in what you are asserting. In 43% of non-cop shootings we don't even know who the shooter was 43% of the time.

@36 bottom line: when a known civilian shoots and kills someone they are always detained for questioning, they are almost always arrested, and the vast majority of the time they are charged.

When a known cop shoots and kills someone they are never detained for questioning, they are almost never arrested, and the vast majority of the time they are not charged.

@37, Correct, because the cops behavior, in this day and age almost always captured on video, never meets probable cause and other evidentiary standards for arrest.

The officer is on duty and not free to go by virtue of their employment, they never flee.

The ones that are charged surrender until they make bail.

They are always questioned about the incident by internal affairs and criminal investigators (where they can take the 5th like anyone else, and asserting the 5th is not probable cause of a crime)

The evidentiary standards for a reasonable suspicion detention aren't met, let alone probable cause for arrest, with the initial information in these factually well documented cases.

Shooting someone is not a crime. It's not evidence of a crime. If all you have is a shooter and the person shot, that's all you have. You need some evidence that the shooting was actually a crime, rather than a lawful shooting.

Shooting someone for an unlawful reason is evidence of a crime, which requires evidence the shooting was unlawful.

We don't arrest non-cops when there isn't probable cause the shooting was a crime, as demonstrated to by several cases found easily in a google search and provided too you. Do we detain people while officers investigate to see if the shooting was a crime? Sure. That's perfectly permissible and reasonable under the 4th Amendment to sort out potential suspects, witnesses, and victims.

When its an on-duty cop that did the shooting, we know who the shooter is. So it's not reasonable under the 4th Amendment to detain them to identify them as the shooter or a witness.

Whether its a cop or non-cop, the alleged shooter is not obligated to say anything about their actions under the 5th Amendment.

If it's a government employee, they can be obligated to answer questions as a condition of continued employment by the government; however, if they are required to do so as a condition of employment, then nothing they say can be admitted in a criminal case. Garrity vs. N.J. (which wasn't a case involving a police employee) established that precedent in 1967. http://www.garrityrights.org/basics.html

Your problem, I think, is you don't realize how common justifiable shootings are by cops and non-cops alike. 1,100 a year by cops, 2,200 a year by non-cops. You aren't comfortable with how many of those shootings, be it a cop or non-cop, are treated as homicides (not murder) until their is probable cause of a crime.

In the age of body cameras, police shootings are some of the best documented shootings there are. We try and convict about 1/2 dozen cops a year after probable cause that the shooting was criminal is established. They are arrested, make bail, stand trial, and when found guilty, go to prison. As it should be.

6000 non-cops a year commit murder and are never detained and arrested.

You are making an issue out of something that is factually shown to be rare (a criminal on-duty shooing) even with the best documentation of a shooting that exists in the universe of shootings.

@38 "When its an on-duty cop that did the shooting, we know who the shooter is. So it's not reasonable under the 4th Amendment to detain them to identify them as the shooter or a witness.

Whether its a cop or non-cop, the alleged shooter is not obligated to say anything about their actions under the 5th Amendment."

People whose role in a situation is known are detained for further questioning all the time. And people who are just detained often are not Mirandized (because they aren't required to be). Not cops though, they get to go meet with their union rep and lawyer to get their story straight before being asked anything.

Also the people making the PC determination are their coworkers, and possibly friends, who received the same training and are part of the same culture that creates an "us vs. them" mentality, so it's not at all surprising that they typically make subjective discretionary decisions in favor of their fellow officer. Even long before bodycam.

The entire system is designed to, and in practice does, provide enhanced protections to cops who kill relative to civilians. You can make a policy argument in favor of this but it's not reasonable to deny its truth.

"People whose role in a situation is known are detained for further questioning all the time. And people who are just detained often are not Mirandized (because they aren't required to be)."

Those people are detained for only as long as is reasonable to confirm or dispel reasonable suspicion that a crime or civil infraction has been committed, is about to be committed, or is being committed. They aren't under arrest (therefore no Miranda is required) and they aren't free to leave. If they choose not to answer questions (recommended) the officer is greatly impeded in confirming reasonable suspicion and the clock is running on developing other articulable fact to support that suspicion.

The cop also isn't free to go by virtue of their employment, so why would an investigator start that clock and risk running it out and having whatever they find thrown out because they held someone unreasonably long? Now if the cop resigns on the spot, and starts to leave, then the investigator has a reason to start that clock with an investigatory detention.

If they arrest anyone, now a 72 hour clock has started on investigators developing evidence and getting it in front of a judge to show probable cause to continue to the detention. That is why murder suspects are often arrested on something unrelated like an outstanding warrant, or some other crime with elements that are easier to prove, while investigators do their work.

With cop that isn't going anywhere, why would investigators start any of those clocks?

Also with a cop shooting you have additional elements that need to be considered to establish probable cause that the force used, up to and including deadly force, was unreasonable and criminal. You have to have articulable facts and evidence to dispel that the cop wasn't using reasonable force to detain someone for a lawful reasonable suspicion stop or arrest. There have been police shootings that start with a stop for running a stop sign. The suspect refuses to provide driver's license, registration, name, insurance, or to get out the car if directed to do so (Pennsylvania v. Mimms) and escalates when cops attempt to get them into custody, to the point the cop is justified in using deadly force. The arresting officer of the cop, on suspicion of manslaughter or murder, has to have facts to show the cop was not justified by the suspects actions in the level of force used.

Investigators don't want to start time clocks if they don't have to, and the cop isn't free to go by virtue of their employment, unless they quit on the spot, so why impede the investigation by creating a situation where the involved party can prevail by running out a clock?

Investigators have additional elements to address with articulable facts and evidence to demonstrate probable cause because of the nature of what cops do. If that wasn't so, then the state would lack the power to enforce the law (e.g. forcibly compel a suspect, where there is probable cause, to remain detained, or to be arrested, to face the charges of the state).

@40 "With cop that isn't going anywhere, why would investigators start any of those clocks?"

Why would you assume a cop who killed someone is less likely to flee the jurisdiction ("go anywhere") than a civilian?

@41, Because in the cases where on-duty cops are indicted, they don't flee during the investigation, after indictment, or after conviction. There isn't a documented case of that from the news.

To the contrary. Derek Chauvin (George Floyd), Kim Potter (drew her gun and fired it instead of her taser), Brett Hankinson (Brenna Taylor), Jeffey Nelson (Auburn, WA), Lawrence Powell and Stacey Koon (Rodney King). They stay employed until dismissed by their departments, surrender when charged, and abide by bail terms. They report for their sentence when bail is granted pending sentencing and remand. Unlike those they police, cops often have retirement, home equity, and things to lose from fleeing. A career criminal, who's net worth is the total of cash in his pocket and illicit inventory, has nothing to lose by fleeing because they having nothing to take away.

Maybe you can did up an exception that proves the rule.

Lastly, the cops are easy to keep tabs on. I.e. They do or don't report for work, which is even required when they are on paid administrative leave, even if its a phone call. You can bet that if they are under investigation, investigators demand to be notified about every sick-call, vacation leave request, etc., and police agencies, unlike private employers, comply.

@41, As far as Washington State goes, the presumption of the Washington State Constitution and RCW is pretrial release without bail. When there is required bail, its has to be the lowest bail likely to induce the accused to show up for court.

The prosecutor has point to things like criminal history, failure to appear, factors that point to flight risk, etc. The burden is on the Prosecutor.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/PublicUpload/benchcard/Bail%2520Law%2520Benchcard_2018.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjigpPduK2MAxWHIjQIHfm3E4MQFnoECEAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0OcJa6c-DR_Ia49Th-tdyW

So do you want to tip your investigative hand to the suspect by arresting them, questioning them while they remain silent, etc. only to have them released on their own recognizance, or on minimal bail? Getting adversarial with your suspect when you only have a day or two of potential incarceration as leverage, is counterproductive.

Cops, know their rights.

@42 "Unlike those they police, cops often have retirement, home equity, and things to lose from fleeing."

This attitude right here is the problem.

@44, Elaborate please.

I thought it was a statement of a fairly straight forward and uncontroversial idea.

If you have nothing to lose by failing to appear in court, why appear? If you don't have equity in a house to lose, retirement, cash, etc., why appear. You can't take something from someone who has nothing. So the whole incentive of bail, putting the accused financial future in as skin in the game, evaporates.

On the other hand, if you do appear, even though you have no income or wealth at risk for failing to appear, you risk losing your liberty sooner. That is why we have 7,000,000 outstanding warrants in the United State.

Your sentence and time served doesn't change, and can't Constitutionally, for the underlying accused crime because you didn't surrender to the court as ordered. If you are accused of assault with a 36 to 40 month sentence range, you still face only 36 to 40 months if you are finally apprehended.

The whole point of bail, is to give the accused a potentially huge financial penalty for failing to appear to face the charge. Bail for a high net worth suspect is often higher (or denied entirely), because the court correctly reasons, that it might be worth say $750,000 posted as bail, of your $750,000,000 fortune, to flee to a non-extraditable country. $750k is a cheap price to pay for freedom from prosecution in the U.S. if you have $749,250,000 left over.

$750,000 in bail, if that all the equity in the home, and all the net worth of the family, what will be borrowed against to send the kids to school, etc. means a choice between trying to get to the non-extraditable country, penniless and broke, and leaving your family if any, penniless and broke is a different level of incentive.

If you have nothing financially, then there is nothing to take away if someone fails to appear. Yet in Washington, we rightly still grant bail, at a nominal amount, or release without bail, even though bail might represent everything a suspect has to live on for the week, because they are so poor.

The issue with bail, and so much else with regard to street disorder and petty crime, is you can't penalize someone if they are so destitute they have nothing society can take from them as a stick against their desperate (but not victimless and still anti-social) behavior.

The right doesn't get that, we would all be better off in public, if we gave the poorest some more skin in the game. Then they would have something to potentially lose, just like everyone else. Other countries with more generous safety nets, take them when people don't appear in court. They first give them something, and then withdraw it if the person won't obey a court order.

If you have skin in the game, you play by the games rules. If you have none, you don't care about the outcome of the game.

@46 "Elaborate please."

The false dichotomy that there are cops, and then there are "career criminal(s), who's net worth is the total of cash in his pocket and illicit inventory"

@46, Other than the small subset of criminals do you think career criminals are in the top.10% or the bottom? In the top 10% of the net worth distribution or the bottom? The Stranger repeatedly, and correctly, tells us there is a high correlation between those that are economically and socially disadvantaged and higher rates of committing criminal offenses.

Of those 7 million outstanding warrants in the U.S. only 1 million are for felonies. That leaves 6 million for failure to appear on misdemeanors like shoplifting, trespass, and other minor issues for which low six figure bail, or no bail, was put up for pre-trial release.

While all those cops who secured bail with liens on their homes, their 401k, or their life savings show up for trial and to serve their sentence.

Is it because the convicted cops are more virtuos felons? Of course not. Its because they have financial skin in the game. They and their families would be financially wiped out if they didn't.

Those that are already financially wiped out have nothing to lose by not showing up. So they don't.

The difference is skin in the game, not virtue.