Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Are Inhumane Police Tactics Preferable to Murder?
In July I wrote about Nashville police injecting unruly suspects with Midazolam, a "strong sedative" that caused short-term amnesia. I suggested that it was a bad idea (and in general, I still think it's a bad idea), but then three weeks ago, two DC police officers shot David Kerstetter to death in his own bathroom. His death brings up some interesting questions about the use of force. Jason Cherkis, a colleague at Washington City Paper, has the details:
Two cops arrived—a rookie and a master patrol officer with more than 20 years on the job. They were greeted by the Iowa employee and led to Kerstetter’s condo.
The veteran officer, Frederick Friday, says the employee called up to Kerstetter, asking him if he could come upstairs. Friday says Kerstetter shouted back that he knew he was lying—that he was with the police and refused to let him upstairs.
The employee pleaded with Kerstetter some more. But it was no use. Eventually, Friday and his partner went inside. “We have to check—that’s our job,” Friday says. “Can’t just leave him.”...
Allegedly, Kerstetter was holding a knife when he met the two cops.
Kerstetter was shot multiple times, according to his mother, who cites the death certificate. He was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead a short time later.
In the coming months, the department will investigate the circumstances surrounding Kerstetter’s death, though D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has already told the Washington Post her people acted in self-defense. She did not return repeated calls seeking comment.
What’s unlikely to come out of the investigation, however, is the answer to this straightforward question: How did a man who seemed to pose no danger to anyone besides himself end up being killed by the police in his own bathroom?
According to a police press release, officers were forced to use lethal force after “a struggle ensued.” The shooting occurred after officers “repeatedly ordered the man to drop the weapon.”
There's no doubt that Kerstetter had mental problems that made him unstable, if not dangerous (he suffered from bipolar disorder and extreme paranoia, seldom took his medication, and had a history of meth addiction), but there's also evidence—enough to spark a rigorous MPD Internal Affairs investigation—that the responding officers didn't make an adequate effort to engage Kerstetter before resorting to lethal force: the officers didn't suffer any injuries, nor were their clothes torn; the glass door leading into the bathroom wasn't damaged, nor was the vase that was on the floor just inside the door. Yet Kersetter, emaciated, half-naked, and armed with only a kitchen knife, was shot to death in a confined area.
D.C. has a poor record of responding to people with mental disorders (the day after Kerstetter's death, the Department of Mental Health sent a memo that it had been sitting on to the MPD detailing appropriate responses to mentally-ill suspects), so here's my question: If police officers find themselves face to face with a potentially dangerous and mentally unstable citizen, are inhumane methods for restraint preferable to lethal force? (For the sake of this particular thought experiment, let's pretend that police don't regularly abuse tools such as tasers, batons, etc., etc.)
Jack Webb|11.28.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Eventually, Friday and his partner went inside. "We have to
check-that's our job," Friday says.
Just the facts Ma'am.
ktc2|11.28.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Was there some urgent reason they had to go get him at
all?
Something so urgent they couldn't wait for him to come out?
ktc2|11.28.08 @ 3:38PM|#
A rigorous internal affairs investigation?
Is that where they actually say to the officers "Hey, you guys did
everything you could first right?" twice?
|11.28.08 @ 3:55PM|#
are inhumane methods for restraint preferable to lethal
force?
If I had to make a choice, non-lethal beats lethal, no
contest.
-jcr
Paul|11.28.08 @ 4:00PM|#
If I had to make a choice, non-lethal beats lethal, no
contest.
Au contraire.
This sounds like one of this situations which is going to be just
on the edge. It's hard for me to fault the police for shooting an
armed man, especially one who's agitated and acting erratically.
Assuming that all sides are telling the truth, my gut feeling is
this case is probably justified.
And while it's easy to make assumptions based on his attire (naked)
and mental condition, I can assure you that a naked, agitated man
of unstable mental condition can be extremely
deadly.
Excerpt of incident where Deputy Herzog (slain) confronted an
agitated, naked and unarmed man in a traffic
median:
Witnesses and police say the deputy got out of his car and attempted to calm Matthews, who had been wandering through traffic and had stood in front of a Metro bus.
Moments later, the deputy sprayed the naked man with pepper spray to try to subdue him.
According to witnesses, the two scuffled and the man grabbed Herzog's .40-caliber semiautomatic Glock handgun.
Herzog retreated, and police and witnesses say the assailant repeatedly shot him. Some witnesses said the man stood over the fallen deputy and fired several times from nearly point-blank range.
"It certainly appears," Reichert said, "that Deputy Herzog was executed."
D.A. Ridgely|11.28.08 @ 4:13PM|#
I don't understand. Why didn't the cops just follow standard procedure and drop a perp weapon and a couple rocks of crack by the body after shooting it?
|11.28.08 @ 4:16PM|#
It seems that the officer acted in self-defense. A person who has bipolar disorder, extreme paranoia and a meth addiction is indeed a dangerous person. The same concept can apply to a person who is so doped up with drugs and cannot feel anything. Even if non-lethal methods were applied, I don't think that would have stopped the guy. Finally, a person with a knife against a person with a gun up close can win the fight.
|11.28.08 @ 4:22PM|#
As a previous commenter mentioned, this does sound like an on
the edge incident that could go either way. However, before
lambasting these cops for shooting a naked, knife-armed man, you
should do a little research.
Look up the Tueller Drill. If a knife-armed suspect is within 21
feet of an officer with a holstered handgun, the person with the
knife can generally charge and injure or kill the officer before he
has time to fire his weapon. If these officers were in Kerstetter's
apartment, then they were certainly within 21 feet of him.
|11.28.08 @ 4:25PM|#
If I had to make a choice, non-lethal beats lethal, no
contest.
Some here may have noticed that I don't exactly side with the cops
all of the time. ;-)
I'm not sure these guys did anything wrong. If they had a
taser, that should have been tried first, but the facts are bit
sketchy to go tossing blame around.
They call for the mental health folks, and the guy kills himself
while they're waiting? Not good, we start blaming cops for being
timid.
They go after the armed guy with batons in an enclosed space and a
cop gets knifed? Even worse. We then blame the cops for placing
themselves in unnecessary danger with their cowboy attitude.
They don't carry knockout gas and mace has limited range and won't
necessarily stop a crazed individual, it may be the worst
thing to do in that case. We, and the cops, just don't know.
This case and many other similar ones should instead lead to an
examination of de-institutionalization the seriously mentally ill.
Walk the streets of a major city for a couple of hours and you
can't count the the number of folks "who should be locked up" on
your fingers. The quandaries raised when considering the treatment
of the mentally ill makes me feel a tad bit humble.
Would the guy have been better off, would we as a society been
helping him, by placing him in a secure mental health facility and
treating his illness rather than let hin exercise his rights as a
free adult to be left alone?
I have questions galore but the answers are in short supply.
|11.28.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Stupid lowlife cops. These are EXACTLY the kind of cops that I
just LOVE to hear about in the news that get clipped in the line of
duty. Sad, if that were my father they KILLED, I would not hesitate
to show up that their houses and deal with them (and anyone else in
the house) personally! Losers!
Jess
www.privacy.mx.tc
Elemenope|11.28.08 @ 4:36PM|#
D.C. has a poor record of responding to people with mental
disorders...
I know of no city that is exactly good at dealing with crazies. My
own hometown's cops just shot one to death a few months ago, and
similar situation from the write-up.
MAX HATS|11.28.08 @ 4:37PM|#
(For the sake of this particular thought experiment, let's pretend that police don't regularly abuse tools such as tasers, batons, etc., etc.)
An argument that excludes the most critical elements of the
discussion is not of much use.
And the argument doesn't even apply to this case. If the police are
afraid to tackle and restrain the suspect, how then is injecting
the suspect with drugs a credible alternative to shooting? Putting
a small needle in a body is much harder than punching a face.
Elemenope|11.28.08 @ 4:40PM|#
If a knife-armed suspect is within 21 feet of an officer
with a holstered handgun, the person with the knife can generally
charge and injure or kill the officer before he has time to fire
his weapon. If these officers were in Kerstetter's apartment, then
they were certainly within 21 feet of him.
It is quite unlikely that the cops entered the residence of an
uncooperative man, whose location and armament status was
uncertain, had their weapons holstered.
However, I have heard of this rule of thumb. It was one of the
factors that caused my alma mater's police to remain without
firearms: many engagement distances were determined by the
dimensions of the dorm rooms, which were needless to say smaller
than twenty feet in most directions, less with stuff in them.
|11.28.08 @ 4:42PM|#
While I hate to defend the cops, and I question why they had to
go in in the first place, a dude with a knife in an enclosed space
is fucking dangerous. Especially if your hands are full of gun. If
he can close on you, he can cut you up. I'd shoot him if he came at
me too.
Now, as for non-lethal, the problem here is that they need to
subdue him before he can be on one of them using the knife. A
gun-style taser can do this (as long as you don't miss and it
works), but do you really want to risk it?
In situations such as this one, you can't ask the police to not
shoot to kill, because it's the only sure way of stopping the guy
if he comes at them. Unfortunate, but true.
|11.28.08 @ 4:42PM|#
I know of no city that is exactly good at dealing with
crazies. My own hometown's cops just shot one to death a few months
ago, and similar situation from the write-up.
It's on page 3 of the metro section when it happens here. It's
common and far too easy to blame the cops for situations that our
society has failed to address, situations that are out of control
before the cops are even called to the scene.
Warty|11.28.08 @ 4:56PM|#
If the privacy troll's privacy wasn't so private, I'd publicly kick his ass.
Fluffy|11.28.08 @ 5:02PM|#
I have to say I don't understand why they went in the house
either.
They were called to the scene because the front door was open. The
front door being open is only relevant if they thought there was an
intruder in the house. Since the maintenance man had spoken to this
guy through the window, they knew there was no intruder in the
house. This guy wasn't a renter, so if he wants to kick his own
front door in that's his own damn business.
Once the cops established that the homeowner had kicked in his own
door, they should have left. A policy that says they have to
confront the guy in his own house because his front door is damaged
is absurd.
Fluffy|11.28.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Not only that, but this guy told them to leave. The maintenance
man talked to this guy frequently and it doesn't sound like there
was any doubt about his identity. So the police had no probable
cause to enter this condo. "Suspect didn't call his mother back
when she wanted him to" and "Suspect kicked in his own front door
when his keys wouldn't work" doesn't sound like probable cause of
ANY crime to me, and he told them to leave.
So if the cops come to my house with no warrant and no probable
cause and stroll in the front door after I tell them to leave and
confront me while I'm buttering some toast, if I tell them to fuck
off they get to shoot me? Fuck that noise.
|11.28.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Epi, see my previous. Your thoughts?
I agree with you, it's a very difficult subject. Ideally you try to
only lock up those that are a threat to others. It's determining
that that can be very difficult.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Why didn't the cops just follow standard procedure and drop
a perp weapon and a couple rocks of crack by the body after
shooting it?
Perhaps that's why this may be justified. They didn't feel they
needed to.
|11.28.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Cop commandment; when faced with a person in possession of a knife or other edged tool and when this person is within 21 ft of you, he is a fast moving zombie who can slice & dice you before you can draw and fire (less than a second), so shoot first, we'll cover you later.
airforce|11.28.08 @ 5:53PM|#
This shooting was probably justified. A deranged man with a
knife is, indeed, dangerous. But the question asked was an odd one:
Is inhumane, non-lethal force preferable to lethal force when
attempting to take a violent person into custody?
Well, duh. If there is a humane, pain-free way of arresting someone
who doesn't want to be arrested, I don't know it. OF COURSE
non-lethal force is preferable to lethal force.
In this particular instance, if I had been the cops, I would have
contained the man in the bathroom and placed a call for someone
with a Taser to respond to the scene. We all know the problems
associated with Tasers, and using them in a confined area is even
more dangerous.
But it's still safer than a couple gunshot wounds.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 5:58PM|#
It is quite unlikely that the cops entered the residence of
an uncooperative man, whose location and armament status was
uncertain, had their weapons holstered.
And that's where you'd be wrong, sir.
My wife works as a CDMHP. (County Designated Mental Health
Professional). Those are the people that go with cops to houses
inhabited by potentially dangerous, unstable people and try to make
assessments if the person needs to be detained "against their
will".
There are dozens of situations where cops force their way into the
homes of mentally ill or unstable people when the neighbor has
called because the person has exhibited extremely disturbing
behavior. The cops will literally break in doors. No guns
drawn.
Many a door has been kicked in by police with no guns drawn. It
truly depends on what the exact circumstances are.
Suspect didn't call his mother back when she wanted him to" and
"Suspect kicked in his own front door when his keys wouldn't work"
doesn't sound like probable cause of ANY crime to me, and he told
them to leave.
Fluffy: see above.
It's not always about crime and warrants. There are laws in place
to deal with just this situation. I'm going out on a limb here and
guessing that Mr. Kerstetter had a bit of a reputation-- even if
only within his own family.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that his mom didn't just call the
police out of the blue-- she probably called them knowing his
propensity for highly disturbed behaviour; he probably had been
getting increasingly agitated over time and it finally came to a
head when his behaviour reached its nadir and she could no longer
get ahold of him.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
call for someone with a Taser to respond to the
scene.
Ever seen that video of that cracked/coked/methed out guy get hit
with the taser WEB.. the one that shoots an entire 'net' of taser
points. It's a nighttime video, he's on his roof, screaming at
cops, no shirt on-- he gets hit with half a dozen taser points, you
can see the blue electrical arcs surging all over his chest, he
calmly rips the entire apparatus off his chest and continues to
stand there yelling at the cops.
|11.28.08 @ 6:14PM|#
I have bipolar disorder (or at least I've been diagnosed
somewhere on the spectrum), I hope that doesn't mean I'm therefore
bought and paid for.
This seems to me like a case of "legally justified, should have
done something different anyway."
So I think it's a matter of work related punishments rather than
legal ones (likely neither will happen).
I wonder if maybe there should be linebacker police (big, fast and
strong) who get used for precisely this sort of stuff. Out of shape
or undersized or otherwise physically limited officers really have
fewer options, one of which is their gun. A Brian Urlacher police
crew may have been able to distract and/or overwhelm the guy. And
of course such a crew might also provide an additional deterrent
effect when it comes to potential physical confrontations.
I'm only half-kidding and obviously there's a downside to gangs of
officers who are physically intimidating. It's tough to tell
whether the benefits when used in the proper situations would
outweigh the downsides when over applied.
Crow Eating Dumbass|11.28.08 @ 6:22PM|#
"Would the guy have been better off, would we as a society been
helping him, by placing him in a secure mental health facility and
treating his illness rather than let hin exercise his rights as a
free adult to be left alone?"
I'm just curious, do libertarians support these mental hospitals of
which J sub D speaks? Are they privately funded or is this an ok
thing for government to fund (equivalent to jails)?
CED|11.28.08 @ 6:27PM|#
"Well, duh. If there is a humane, pain-free way of arresting
someone who doesn't want to be arrested, I don't know it. OF COURSE
non-lethal force is preferable to lethal force."
Let's cut Riggs (one of my faves here on Reason) some slack, I
imagine what he means is what should police policy be, to use have
as first option in such situations something like tazer/Midazolem
or the old fashioned pull your gun, knowing that if the former is
chosen cops will be less hesitant to go that route than they would
the latter (since it often ends up in a death). The tazer and drugs
are being sold as "hey it's non-lethal so use it without a second
thought."
anarch|11.28.08 @ 6:33PM|#
obviously there's a downside to gangs of officers who are physically intimidating
Whence this useful
fellah.
Madmans Revenge|11.28.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I think a great way to get rid of ones enemies would be to call a mental health professional on them and accuse them of bipolar disorder or child abuse or elder abuse.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 6:43PM|#
I have bipolar disorder (or at least I've been diagnosed
somewhere on the spectrum), I hope that doesn't mean I'm therefore
bought and paid for.
You and 3/4's of most of the successful people in the world. My
wife (the CDMHP) is bipolar.
I'm just curious, do libertarians support these mental
hospitals of which J sub D speaks? Are they privately funded or is
this an ok thing for government to fund (equivalent to
jails)?
This libertarian supports a reform of the system as it exists. The
new old way of doing things isn't working. There are people with
real mental illnesses suffering on the street who while lacking a
technical justification of being a danger to themselves... clearly
are.
Society doesn't have a satisfactory answer to dealing with the
severely mentally ill because, in the end, they aren't
rational.
So how does society deal with a small subset of people who are
simply beyond any rational action?
It comes down to this: We could dismantle 65% government and its
functions, and have more than enough left over to literally
wallpaper our current medical system with reasonable care and aid
for the relatively tiny percentage of people with completely
debilitating mental illness.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 6:46PM|#
ones enemies would be to call a mental health professional
on them and accuse them of bipolar disorder or child abuse or elder
abuse.
It used to be that way. It was called "committing dear old dad"
right after he made out the will that didn't throw his estate your
way because hey, clearly he's not being rational. Then we changed
the law and said you can't be committed against your will unless
you're a danger to yourself or others.
One note: one cannot be 'accused' of bipolar. It's a diagnosis,
just like AIDS, cancer, or the flu. And bipolar don't get you
committed, otherwise Martha Steward would be in prison.
Oh wait...
Elemenope|11.28.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Whence this useful fellah.
There is something about the way that thing's legs move that is
simply deeply disturbing.
Otherwise, very cool.
anarch|11.28.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Then we changed the law and said you can't be committed against your will unless you're a danger to yourself or others.
Or, if I'm not mistaken, mentally retarded. And yes, mental illness
!= developmental disability. Just trying to be complete here.
CED|11.28.08 @ 6:57PM|#
"I think a great way to get rid of ones enemies would be to call
a mental health professional on them and accuse them of bipolar
disorder or child abuse or elder abuse."
Or the at times manic abuse of the elder child. Triple
effect.
I keed.
Fluffy|11.28.08 @ 7:00PM|#
It's not always about crime and warrants. There are laws in
place to deal with just this situation. I'm going out on a limb
here and guessing that Mr. Kerstetter had a bit of a reputation--
even if only within his own family.
OK, I'll bite. What laws?
Who cares what his reputation is within his own family?
If a neighbor called with a complaint about an actual crime - even
something simple like excessive noise - I can see the cops knocking
on the door.
But these cops came to the door of a man who had committed no crime
and been accused of no crime on the basis of nothing more than a
statement from the maintenance guy that the front door was broken.
What's the police basis for forcing their way into my home and
confronting me just because my front door is open? I don't care if
I'm carrying around an M-16 in my house just because I think it's
fun - if the police have no warrant and no probable cause, they
should have no right to enter my house, no right to demand that I
put my M-16 down, no right to make any demands whatsoever. Hit the
fucking bricks. I understand that the police can intervene if a
mentally ill person is a threat to others, but having a weapon
in one's own home doesn't fit that definition by any
stretch of the imagination, no matter how high you are and no
matter what psychotic episode you're in the middle of. If I come
outside, then we'll talk, but if I'm in my own house we won't.
Mad Max|11.28.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Fluffy raises a good point about why the cops were in the house
in the first place. I presume the investigation will cover that
topic, and we can have a whole discussion about that.
Once the cops are legitimately in the same place as a
knife-wielding maniac, then that is the paradigmatic example of the
justifiable use of force. If the cops had a right to be there (a
point to be established), then when confronting a crazy
knife-wielder, they have the right of self-defense. That includes
using guns.
I emphasize this because until Fluffy's comments raised important
new issues, the case was framed in terms of, "OMG the police
overreacted to a crazy knife-brandishing guy!"
|11.28.08 @ 7:36PM|#
And while it's easy to make assumptions based on his attire
(naked) and mental condition, I can assure you that a naked,
agitated man of unstable mental condition can be extremely
deadly.
Unless they're posting in their mother's basement on H&R, in
which case they're just trolls.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 7:43PM|#
OK, I'll bite. What laws?
You're kidding, right? You actually believe that all entrances onto
private property by police personnel must be accompanied by a
warrant?
This could have easily fallen under the umbrella of a
welfare check. Especially if the mother requested it.
What it sounds like you're trying to conflate is the ability of law
enforcement to enter the premisis on the basis that there may have
been a crime committed, and where police enter the premisis on the
same pretext, but end up arresting the occupants because when they
do come in, they found a joint in the ashtray.
The laws will make distinctions about arresting someone on the
premise of non-related criminal activity due to searches in plain
sight and lack of warrants, etc. But that's not what we're talking
about here.
What we're talking about here is a case where an agent of the
building's owner (maintenance guy) found a door kicked in and
requested a check by police.
One would certainly hope that police would enter a home if being
held hostage after a home invasion robbery, and the 'perp' was
yelling down "Nnnoope, nothing wrong here, nothing to see here,
please go away!".
Had these police performed this check and then arrested Kerstetter
because after entering, they found a dime bag of marijuana sitting
on his kitchen table, then this conversation would be entirely
different.
We have no idea how the man responded, what he said exactly, and
what subtle circumstantial evidence there was for police to be
concerned or suspect something was amiss, and hence entered the
property.
Who cares what his reputation is within his own
family?
*rubbing temples*
You do realize that many a CDMHP visit (with cops in tow) is very
often referred by either a family member or... an apartment manager
or some such thing? Again, it seems that you're insisting that the
police were acting as if they were going to arrest Kerstetter
before they even arrived at the scene. Is there any evidence of
this?
Fluffy raises a good point about why the cops were in the house
in the first place.
No he doesn't. He merely questions the evidence that brought the
police into the house and based on a rather thin description of the
circumstances, leads him to believe that the police can't enter
private property without a warrant unless there's clear evidence of
ongoing criminal activity.
Crow Eating Dumbass|11.28.08 @ 7:45PM|#
fluffy and prole
Your answers to my q at 6:22?
Part of me thinks libertarians would not be for mental institutions
paid for with tax payer money. But then I assume libertarians
believe in tax funded jails for those who are a danger to one's
property and body and a mental asylum for the dangerous might be
equivalent to a prison. But then how about the "treatment" part?
Can a libertarian advocate that be paid for with taxpayer
dollars?
airforce|11.28.08 @ 7:48PM|#
[cite]Ever seen that video of that cracked/coked/methed out guy
get hit with the taser WEB.. the one that shoots an entire 'net' of
taser points. It's a nighttime video, he's on his roof, screaming
at cops, no shirt on-- he gets hit with half a dozen taser points,
you can see the blue electrical arcs surging all over his chest, he
calmly rips the entire apparatus off his chest and continues to
stand there yelling at the cops.[/cite]
I was personally a witness to an incident something like that. A
deranged man walked into the hospital emergency room with a gun in
his waistband. Security evacuated the waiting room and isolated the
man there, and called the police for assistance.
When police arrived, the man as standing in an apparent catatonic
state. arms at his side, chin resting on his chest, and the gun
still in his waistband. He refused to acknowledge and verbal
orders, remaining motionless, and the decision was made to use a
Taser.
He was hit four times with the Taser. Each time, his head would
jerk up momentarily, then fall back to his chest. There was no
other response. We finally tackled him, taking him to the floor,
and placed medical restraints on him.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 7:48PM|#
This is a much more pertinent situation to what Fluffy is
referring. Cops do welfare check and stumble across meth lab.
http://www.crossville-chronicle.com/local/local_story_303115714.html
CED|11.28.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Paul
Good points, but I think the easy answer might be that things such
as meth should not be illegal to begin with.
I can see good reasons for cops to demand entry and once they are
in I think a bit strange to make them ignore evidence of criminal
activity plainly in view, but I think criminal activity should be
limited to things like murder, rape, kidnapping and such, not
things like drug possession or porn possession, etc.
Paul|11.28.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Good points, but I think the easy answer might be that
things such as meth should not be illegal to begin with.
I know. But that's totally irrelevant to the point. Replace meth
lab with bodies up on hooks...
And besides, even if Meth becomes legal, meth labs on your back
property will probably remain illegal for all sorts of other
reasons. Sort of like it's illegal to run a still and sell whisky
in your backyard.
Annonymous|11.28.08 @ 8:01PM|#
that the responding officers didn't make an adequate effort
to engage Kerstetter before resorting to lethal force: the officers
didn't suffer any injuries, nor were their clothes torn;
You people are nuts. You can easily kill someone by throwing a
knife at them. Were they to wait until the maniac caused them
injury, perhaps a knife through the heart?
Why doesn't Reason do an analysis of the amount of people killed by
cops a year vs. cops being killed? Or how about people killed
innocently by cops every year versus the doubling or tripling of
the murder rate of the last 40 years since the expansion of "civil
liberties"? Put some of these stories you're obsessed with into
statistical perspective.
CED|11.28.08 @ 8:11PM|#
But I can also see fluffy's point: if a cop can demand entry to
any person's home and when that person says through the door "go
away" the cop can just say "well, I still had to go in just in case
the guy was being held hostage or was getting ready to harm
himself" then there would be no ability of the homeowner to not
allow entry to cops, and that disturbs me.
I'm guessing an answer might lie in the diagnosis of mental illness
creating probable cause.
MAX HATS|11.28.08 @ 8:13PM|#
ou can easily kill someone by throwing a knife at them.
Not really, no.
?|11.28.08 @ 8:14PM|#
people killed innocently by cops (emphasis added)
?!?
since the expansion of "civil liberties" (emphasis added)
Seriously, put down the crack pipe.
the innominate one|11.28.08 @ 8:32PM|#
@ anonymous @ 8:01:
police officers voluntarily choose to assume risk as a consequence
of being employed as police officers, much like the military
mentally unstable people don't voluntarily choose to be mentally
unstable
innocent people who get their homes no-knock raided in the middle
of the night because LEOs made a mistake don't voluntarily choose
to be no-knock raided
et cetera
CED|11.28.08 @ 8:37PM|#
"Why doesn't Reason do an analysis of the amount of people
killed by cops a year vs. cops being killed?"
52 law enforcement officers feloniously killed nationally in
2003.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31572003.pdf
Numbers for civilians killed by cops are hard to find (suprise?)
compared to cops killed, but check this out, in NYC alone 14
civilians were killed by the police in 2003.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E7DD123BF937A35751C0A9629C8B63
So I'm betting WAY more civilians are killed by cops than vice
versa.
Annonymous|11.28.08 @ 8:51PM|#
"52 law enforcement officers feloniously killed nationally in
2003.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31572003.pdf
Numbers for civilians killed by cops are hard to find (suprise?)
compared to cops killed, but check this out, in NYC alone 14
civilians were killed by the police in 2003.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E7DD123BF937A35751C0A9629C8B63
So I'm betting WAY more civilians are killed by cops than vice
versa."
I don't doubt it, but who were these 14? What percentage of people
killed by cops are representative of the kind of stories Reason
runs about innocent people shot for smoking a joint and having
people over for poker?
Let's look at murder in the US compared to other Western
nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_US#International_comparison
Why is the US murder rate 2-5x higher than the rest of the Western
world? There's over 15,000 murders a year in the US. At times in
our history its been much lower. Why the overwhelming focus on the
miniscule number of cops shooting people?
CED|11.28.08 @ 8:57PM|#
Well anon, for one thing, doesn't it strike you as strange you
can find the civilian killing civilian number and the civilian
killing cop number so easily but not the cop killing civilian
number?
And, because I'm not the boss of civilian killers but I (and you)
are the boss of police.
SIV|11.28.08 @ 9:33PM|#
I can't judge this as I wasn't there.
While a non-lethal outcome is preferable I don't think it should be
required. I assume a scenario involving a rookie and a "master
patrol officer" probably goes strictly by the book.The guy might
have a better chance with a couple of veteran big ol' boys who
didn't want the bureaucratic hassles of a shooting.
If they were in his residence legitimately and he threatened with
the knife after they had their weapons drawn he probably got
exactly what he wanted.
.|11.28.08 @ 10:08PM|#
I assume a scenario involving a rookie and a "master patrol officer" probably goes strictly by the book.
A man is dead, it's totally reasonable to assume everything was
done correctly.
Elemenope|11.28.08 @ 10:55PM|#
I can't judge this as I wasn't there.
Well, the people who eventually will be tasked with judging (in
whatever official capacity) weren't there either, so it behooves us
to circumvent this particular impediment.
robc|11.29.08 @ 12:36AM|#
Did the cops consider the option of walking (running) away when
confronted by the guy with the knife? At that point, just leaving
is an option. He wasnt a criminal, they werent there to arrest him
or question him about a crime.
This goes to Fluffy's point, but allows for some warrantless entry
to check up on a mentally ill person. They could leave with a "Yup
he's ill". Then bring in the professionals instead of just
shooting.
Elemenope|11.29.08 @ 12:39AM|#
Did the cops consider the option of walking (running) away
when confronted by the guy with the knife? At that point, just
leaving is an option. He wasnt a criminal, they werent there to
arrest him or question him about a crime.
This was my first reaction as well. It makes sense: your reason for
being on the scene is exhausted, and prolonging the contact only
endangers everyone longer. Why wouldn't you withdraw?
Maybe there's an epidemic of jock-douchebag culture in police
departments that makes the social pressure against doing the
not-stupid-thing-that-won't-kill-a-guy very strong. Strong enough
to encourage fatal risks?
|11.29.08 @ 7:59AM|#
Did the cops consider the option of walking (running) away when confronted by the guy with the knife?
That's what occurred to me too. As others have noted we don't
really have the whole story and while the kneejerk "cops are wrong"
reaction is the one I'm prone to, reflection should lead one to
give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Still I can't help feeling that retreat, containment and calling
for qualified help might have been more appropriate here. I'm not
sure I see them facing the emergency they apparently thought they
did.
Maybe there's an epidemic of jock-douchebag culture in police departments...
I don't know about an "epidemic" but it does appear to be
common.
Oh, and one other thing. One of the first steps to demilitarizing
our law enforcement is to stop legitimizing the slang use of the
term "civilians" to refer to the general public. For
Civilian Policing to work cops need to remember that
they a civilians too.
|11.29.08 @ 8:10AM|#
OK, The comments here are filled with statist douchebags.
The police were not attacked by anyone and did not have to "defend"
themselves. They attacked a mentally ill man with a knife.
I don't even see where it says why they were the there, but the
partial story indicates perhaps he was suicidal? and was no threat
to anyone but himself...
So why did the pigs attack him? They forced entry and assaulted a
mentally ill man yet it's somehow his fault they killed him?
Give me a fucking break.
This is where we separate the libertarians/decent folks and the
violent statist douchebags.
Anyone who thinks police should be breaking in home to kill people
for the crime of wanting to harm themselves....
Well what the fuck can I say?
Happy Thanksgiving, turkeys.
|11.29.08 @ 8:19AM|#
A couple more thoughts:
1. It saddens me that anyone here would actually support
incarcerating someone for the "crime" of mental illness. There
seems to be as much support for using the "right" state violence
against this man as, you know, maybe they shouldn't be using ANY
force against this guy and leave him alone.
2. For those who wanted the cops to walk/run away, then if
something were to happen we'd have to put up with all the comments
from "libertarian" writers and all-around douchebags mocking the
cops for "bravely running away." If the guy threw the knife in the
back of one of the officers and killed him, some "libertarian"
would write a 1000 page ode to the murderer with 800 pages on how
much of a coward the cop was, interspersed with a 100 page love
letter to Sarah Palin.
Mad Max|11.29.08 @ 8:31AM|#
paul,
Whether the cops had the right to be in the house in the first
place is a legitimate issue. I don't know. What interests me is
that *if* they had the right to be there, they certainly had the
right to use deadly force against a knife-wielding lunatic.
It is possible, of course, to imagine a scenario when their use of
force turned out to be unreasonable. Maybe the guy had passed out,
maybe he was trying to drop the knife and surrender. But if he was
waving that thing around like he wanted to stab someone, and if (as
seems likely) he declined numerous invitations to drop the weapon,
then I'm inclined to give the cops the benefit of the doubt on the
reasonablness-of-the-force issue.
|11.29.08 @ 9:40AM|#
If I made my living kicking people's doors down, and I found out some Bozo kicked his own door in...well, he's gotta go.
|11.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#
OK, The comments here are filled with statist
douchebags.
Damn, it's early but ...
DRINK!
SIV|11.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#
The "qualified professionals" who deal with deranged persons armed with knives are the police.Who did you expect? Men in white coats with a giant butterfly net?
SIV|11.29.08 @ 10:34AM|#
At some point, the police were with David in the master
suite. The home's interior design and lavish touches had once been
featured in Metro Weekly
I wondered why this was even "news". The deceased wasn't some
borderline homeless guy in a welfare SRO. From the linked article
sounds like an open and shut case of the guy committing
suicide-by-cop.
|11.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Damn Epi.
I guessed the link you provided before I clicked on it. Thinking
along the sames line as you strikes me as rather disquieting,
worrisome even.
I think I'll have to get an analyst and talk to her.
SIV|11.29.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Kerstetter had started self-medicating with crystal meth
about a decade ago.
How tragic, he wasn't some kind of dirty junkie speed freak tweeker
just a rich mentally ill gay man who was self-medicating.
|11.29.08 @ 11:17AM|#
I guessed the link you provided before I clicked on it.
Thinking along the sames line as you strikes me as rather
disquieting, worrisome even.
It should. Especially since I am coming off a
Percocet/Vicodin/tramadol/alcohol bender. Maybe you are too, and
that's why you guessed the Napoleon XIV.
SIV|11.29.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Trivia!
MPD issues either the Glock Model 17 or 19 to MPD members
assigned to patrol duties.
Kerstetter was shot with a Glock.
|11.29.08 @ 11:32AM|#
They're Coming to Take Me Away was one of my favorite childhood
silly songs.
Remember this
one?
|11.29.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Personally, I'm not sure that what happens with a meth-addled bipolar schitzophrenic is all that enlightening or instructive for figuring out how police should interact with the rest of us.
Elemenope|11.29.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Personally, I'm not sure that what happens with a
meth-addled bipolar schitzophrenic is all that enlightening or
instructive for figuring out how police should interact with the
rest of us.
Perhaps the way in which the anti-social among us are treated
indicates something about the society?
|11.29.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Remember this one?
That stuff is before my time, Jsub. I listened to Napoleon XIV on
Dr. Demento's show, not in original release.
Personally, I'm not sure that what happens with a meth-addled
bipolar schitzophrenic is all that enlightening or instructive for
figuring out how police should interact with the rest of
us.
If the cops were capable of handling a meth-addled bipolar
schizophrenic non-violently and without harm, that would be a
credit to them and could indicate that they probably handle less
volatile situations very well. Except they didn't, and they
don't.
|11.29.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Dr Demento is still alive? And still attracts listeners?
It takes all kinds, I guess.
|11.29.08 @ 12:39PM|#
I'm not sure that what happens with a meth-addled bipolar
schitzophrenic is all that enlightening or instructive for figuring
out how police should interact with the rest of us.
If policeman are incapable of empathy, we're all at
risk fucked.
It might be a little easier to justify shooting that guy, but don't
expect them not to shoot you.
anarch|11.29.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Hazel Meade,
I'm not sure that what happens with a meth-addled bipolar schitzophrenic is all that enlightening or instructive for figuring out how police should interact with the rest of us.
seems uncharacteristic of your comments here.
Likely I'm missing your point, but which element(s) of the set make
the deceased's killing by the police acceptable? And if I've
misconstrued and/or read into, please apprise me.
Elemenope|11.29.08 @ 1:17PM|#
In a sane society, the mentally ill would be
sterilized.
In a society that compelled sterilization, there would be no
sanity.
Annonymous|11.29.08 @ 1:25PM|#
In a society that compelled sterilization, there would be no
sanity.
In modern America retarted women have 50% more children then non
retards. What is the libertarian answer to this?
anarch|11.29.08 @ 1:29PM|#
In modern America retarted women have 50% more children then
non retards. What is the libertarian answer to this?
Clearly, the answer begins by fashionably invoking the term
"Retard" as an insult, a taboo from which the past 25 years have
liberated us.
|11.29.08 @ 1:32PM|#
In modern America retarted women have 50%
more children then non retards
And people who can spell neither anonymous nor retarded are Full
Retart.
|11.29.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Open weekend thread claim.
Re: Historic preservationists who lack the money to actually buy
the stuff they want to save.
Fuck 'em.
anarch|11.29.08 @ 1:45PM|#
As in if you lack the money to start your own website, just knock off the cornices on a perfectly good thread and replace it by your own? ;-)
|11.29.08 @ 2:17PM|#
anarch,
It just seems like a rather bizarre and exceptional case. A
paranoid schitzophrenic is difficult enough to deal with. Add meth
addiction and bi-polar disorder, and I'm not sure there is anything
set of procedures the police could possibly institute that would
avoid harm in all such cases.
If they had know he was mentally ill maybe they could have called
in medical professionals who are trained in dealing with mental
illness. Can't imagine how you could give cops that kind of
training. They're not going to be up to it.
There's going to be lots of cases where the police are dealing with
an unmedicated mental patient and not know it. Shit will happen.
The mentally ill are often a danger to themselves precisely because
they'll do things that will scare or endanger others.
|11.29.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Added: To me it seems like a case of this guy being on a
downward spiral that was likely to end up with someone getting
hurt. If it wasn't the cops shooting him, he probably would have
overdosed on meth, got in a fight with some drug dealers, or shot
someone he thought was spying on him. Apparantly he thought his
neighbors were in a conspiracy against him.
This is pretty close to being "suicide by cop".
Tryptophan Catatonia|11.29.08 @ 2:32PM|#
In modern America retarted women have 50% more children then
non retards. What is the libertarian answer to this?
Conforms with this stat
Naga Sadow|11.29.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Carful Epsiarch, or Annonymous wll use his mighty spelling erors and go FULL RETART on you.
|11.29.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Yet another cops are pigs story! it's time for us to take a stand against their corruption. Keep the stories coming.
anarch|11.29.08 @ 3:49PM|#
LMNO: I don't usually do this either, but joez must get his £ of
flesh.
LOLLOP
Hazel Meade:
I'm not sure there is anything set of procedures the police could possibly institute that would avoid harm in all such cases.
Which is why we do well to leave them out of so many situations
discussed on this board.
To me it seems like a case of this guy being on a downward spiral that was likely to end up with someone getting hurt. If it wasn't the cops shooting him, he probably would have overdosed on meth, got in a fight with some drug dealers, or shot someone he thought was spying on him. Apparantly he thought his neighbors were in a conspiracy against him.
Since you accurately qualified your predictions by "likely" and "probably," I demur that
This is pretty close to being "suicide by cop".
CED|11.29.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I only got one answer to this, how do libertarians feel about
state funded mental asylums? I assume you guys support jail/prison
for those who violate the laws (the minimal laws of a libertarian
state). What about those who violate the laws because or (if you
are into the whole Szasz thing) are simply also bonkers? Should
they just be put in jail/prison, or a different place? Would this
place have "mental health" treatment and is it ok to fund it with
taxpayer money? If so, why not fund it preventively outside of the
asylum?
I'm not trying to trap anyone (I already know how I feel about
this), I'm just curious as to libertarian answers to this. I'd
appreciate links to any Cato or such stuff on this topic too.
Thanx
CED|11.29.08 @ 4:24PM|#
And for Epi:
I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded
don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they
don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes,
don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might
go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all
fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they
hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do.
They all want cake.
|11.29.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Carful Epsiarch, or Annonymous wll use his mighty spelling
erors and go FULL RETART on you.
You never go Full Retart, Naga.
|11.29.08 @ 4:27PM|#
"Mrs. Blank, we're doing our best to weed them out, but some of these retards are extremely clever."
CED|11.29.08 @ 4:31PM|#
And Epi I don't know if you are aware of the comic genius of
Dave Attell, but:
They say she's retarded, but those titties ain't retarded!
CED|11.29.08 @ 4:34PM|#
"Especially since I am coming off a
Percocet/Vicodin/tramadol/alcohol bender."
They say that Hemingway liked Fitzgerald around because Scott's
drinking made Ernie's seem controlled.
Epi, you are my Fitzgerald.
|11.29.08 @ 4:47PM|#
They say that Hemingway liked Fitzgerald around because
Scott's drinking made Ernie's seem controlled.
Epi, you are my Fitzgerald.
Does your wife buy that?
Elemenope|11.29.08 @ 5:26PM|#
CED --
The whole mental health system thingee is an issue, and one I react
to with great ambivalence. On one hand, crazy people generally do
not present a great enough threat to any particular property for
there to be an economic incentive for a private solution. So
government action is not right out.
On the other hand, there is a problem with what exactly we've
decided to medicalize and shunt into the medical system *instead
of* the criminal justice system. There are many different types of
mental illness. Defects of logic and an inability to discriminate
reality from fantasy are one thing, but anti-social compulsion is
another entirely. Do we put kleptomaniacs in prison or in a
hospital?
I also do not feel comfortable with the state being able to more
freely wield medical diagnoses as tools of personal control.
I think if there were to be an acceptable option of state-funded or
run mental health apparatus, it would only be able to act after a
pattern of discrete incidents indicated clearly and convincingly
that a person is an imminent danger to themselves or others.
CED|11.29.08 @ 5:33PM|#
"I also do not feel comfortable with the state being able to
more freely wield medical diagnoses as tools of personal
control.
I think if there were to be an acceptable option of state-funded or
run mental health apparatus, it would only be able to act after a
pattern of discrete incidents indicated clearly and convincingly
that a person is an imminent danger to themselves or others."
LMNOP
I agree totally here.
SIV|11.29.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Crow Eating Dumbass,
The "tragedy" of de-institutionalization wasn't the release of
those confined against their will but of those acculturated to the
asylum who didn't want to leave.I have no problem with voluntary
institutionalization although in a perfect world the lunatic
asylums would be run by private charities.For the "mentally ill"
who commit crimes worthy of imprisonment, prison/ jail is where
they belong.If you advocate locking up people against their will
because they are "crazy", even if they have broken no law, you are
on the wrong fucking blog's comments.
CED|11.29.08 @ 7:18PM|#
SIV
This is one of the rare moments I agree with you. Locking someone
up who has harmed no other person is something I look down upon.
People have the right to be "strange" and "crazy" if they are not
harming others.
Do you think we can't commit someone until they have harmed
someone? I'm inclined to agree with that statement, but I have
reservations. And do you think someone who is very retarded should
be put in "normal" prison? What about someone with brain lesions
(even Szasz says these people are fucked up beyond their
responsibility)? "regular" jail or a special institution? If there
is no private institution (remarkably charities do not always
address everything that maybe should be addressed!), is it OK to
use tax funds to fund an establishment that would "treat" these
people?
CED|11.29.08 @ 7:20PM|#
SIV
I hope you think the national media is as silly as I do for harping
on the GA senate race as a "horse race". Chambliss is obviously
going to win.
Fluffy|11.29.08 @ 7:27PM|#
What we're talking about here is a case where an agent of
the building's owner (maintenance guy) found a door kicked in and
requested a check by police.
Um, no. The building's owner was the dead guy. This was a
condominium, and not an apartment building. That means that any
role the maintenance guy has as an agent disappears as soon as they
hear from the actual owner - the dead guy.
The article indicates that the cops stood there while the
maintenance guy and the building owner talked through the window at
some length. There is no indication they thought they were speaking
to some home invader with really good voice impressionist skills.
They knew they were talking to the homeowner and that he didn't
want any assistance. Once that was established, they should have
left.
But fine, they made a mistake and didn't leave. Maybe they thought
there was some kind of kidnapping going on and the homeowner was
telling them to leave under duress. As soon as they entered the
building, they knew that was not the case. So if they didn't leave
when they talked to the guy through the window, they should have
left when they entered the building and saw that the homeowner was
home and was not under duress.
"Buh-buh-but he had a knife and was being a dick!" Tough shit,
coppers. Get the fuck out. The homeowner was right and they were
wrong, so I don't really care if they felt threatened. Want to not
feel threatened? Get the fuck out of the house you had no right to
enter.
You're kidding, right? You actually believe that all entrances
onto private property by police personnel must be accompanied by a
warrant?
This could have easily fallen under the umbrella of a welfare
check. Especially if the mother requested it.
The police can check to see if a crime is in progress, and they can
check to see if the homeowner is injured. Once they established
that no crime was in progress and the homeowner did not want their
assistance, both of those were no longer options, and they should
have left. That means they should never even have SEEN the guy's
knife. No warrant, no probable cause, no legitimate welfare check,
no legitimate belief a crime was in progress. I'm not seeing any
gray area here. It seems like a gray area to you only because you
accept the premise that the cops should get to push their way into
houses just to satisfy their curiosity.
The weakest point in Fluffy\'s|11.29.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Explain this: Why was it Greycat hier but gray area hier?
|11.29.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Do you think we can't commit someone until they have harmed
someone?
I don't think we should involuntarily commit anyone unless it is an
alternative form of sentencing, rather than imprisoning them, after
a crime has been committed and they have been found guilty.
They don't necessarily need to harm someone BTW -- we have laws
against drunk driving because even if the behavior didn't
physically harm someone that time, the behavior drastically changed
the probability that they would have harmed someone.
If you are crazy but able to act in a way that doesn't pose
unreasonable threats to others or cause them harm, society should
leave you alone.
Elemenope|11.29.08 @ 8:05PM|#
I imagine it would help to separate criminality from insanity if
we were to pin down whether the relevant element of crime is the
act or the actor.
If it is the act, then criminal law is decently-prepared to deal
with nutters who happen to contravene the law. As prolefeed says,
it becomes an issue only as to sentencing, by providing for an
adequate environment for housing the criminal, such that the
housing is humane and effective at rendering the criminal
harmless.
If it is the actor, however, then the law is fairly useless for
dealing with insanity, because the issue becomes hung upon how the
crazy person differs in kind from the criminal, and thus is
(entitled to? deserving of?) differing status and treatment as a
matter of course, rather than as from a consequentialist rubric for
harm reduction and salubrious placement.
|11.29.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Fluffy, I was under the impression that the maintenance man had
been called because the guy's family were worried and afraid that
he might be in danger. It sounded like the maintenance man may have
been informed that the guy might be in danger. Say, possibly he
mgiht try to commit suicide or harm someone else. So the police
might have suspected that there could be a suicide in
progress.
Also, there's the possibility that a burglar might have been
holding the guy hostage. Yelling through the window isn't really
enoguh to know for sure that someone else isn't inside with a gun
to the guy's head. I personally would want the police to see and
check in person to make sure there's nothing wrong, if it was my
condo, with the screen torn and the door kicked in.
Remember the whole deal with Jeffrey Dahmer, where the police left
a victim in his control who was killed?
I can totally see why they might feel the need to enter the condo
and look for themselves.
|11.29.08 @ 11:30PM|#
As far as insanity goes, judging from the whole article, it
sounds like this guy was definitely a candidate for
commitment.
He was sleeping in his closet cause he thought his neighbors were
sneaking into the house through the attic and plotting against him.
He thought they were planting drugs in his house, and was hearing
voices.
If I were those neighbors, I'd have a rational reason to fear for
my life. A crazy meth addict next door thinks I am out to get him.
Hell yeah.
.|11.29.08 @ 11:33PM|#
So the police might have suspected that there could be a suicide in progress.
That guy sure was lucky the cops stopped him before he could kill
himself.
|11.30.08 @ 2:22AM|#
"The employee pleaded with Kerstetter some more. But it was no
use. Eventually, Friday and his partner went inside. "We have to
check-that's our job," Friday says. "Can't just leave
him."..."
No, certainly not. Better to kill him. Just to be sure of the
situation...
Naga Sadow|11.30.08 @ 2:40AM|#
Elemenope,
I out did myself on that one. I'm usually more subtle with my
humor.
Episiarch,
I got some of that thar' "Booty Sweat" energy drink for ya'.
"Tugg Speedman: There were times while I was playing Jack where I
felt...
[pause]
Tugg Speedman: ...retarded. Like, really retarded.
Kirk Lazarus: Damn!
Tugg Speedman: In a weird way I had to sort of just free myself up
to believe that is was ok to be stupid or dumb.
Kirk Lazarus: To be a moron.
Tugg Speedman: Yeah!
Kirk Lazarus: To be moronical.
Tugg Speedman: Exactly, to be a moron.
Kirk Lazarus: An imbecile.
Tugg Speedman: Yeah!
Kirk Lazarus: Like the dumbest mother fucker that ever lived.
Tugg Speedman: [pause] When I was playing the character. "
Elemenope|11.30.08 @ 9:25AM|#
No, certainly not. Better to kill him. Just to be sure of
the situation...
Ah, bullshit. If they were going for this, they would have nuked
the site from orbit.
|11.30.08 @ 11:38AM|#
A couple few* questions for the
board.
What percentage of those in prison would you guesstimate are
insane? I'm not speaking of the merely mentally ill because most of
humanity is mentally ill to some extent, but insane.
Can we determine insanoty prior to the commision of a crime? Is it
moral to imprison (a mental facility is a prison if you can't
leave) the insane? Most would agree that quarantine is justified
for those with infectious disease (typhoid, smallpox if it ever
rears its ugly head again, polio) because they pose an unreasonable
danger to others through no fault of their own
Would not the same reasoning apply to the possibly violent or
destructive insane? I realize that that would be pre-emptive
punishment (treatment?) which is an anathema to most here.
Even if we wait until the insane individual commits a crime, say
assault which normally garners the offender less than a year, can
we place the person in a mental facility until "cured" or no longer
a danger, far longer than your garden variety punk?
Does any of this relate to pedophiles and rapists?
* One thing leads to another.
Elemenope|11.30.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Can we determine insanity prior to the commission of a
crime?
Not really. Insanity is a defect of internal and subjective (and
obviously inaccessible) mental states. Thus, diagnosis relies
primarily on patterns of behavior and self-report. Most mental
diseases have no clinical test.
Is it moral to imprison (a mental facility is a prison if you
can't leave) the insane?
I have a quibble. Assuming for the sake of ease that mental
hospitals exist to provide treatment and/or palliative care to
disturbed individuals, it is very much distinct from a penal
prison. If you mean in the bare metaphysical sense of "a building I
cannot by force of will and locomotion leave", then sure, but
that's also practically true of a lot of other places, like a
school for a student, normally not equivocated directly with a
prison (even if there are fruitful *comparisons* to be made!)
As to its morality, preemptive commitment firmly falls within the
rubric of a consequentialist ethic, and so I'm not quite sure that
moral rightness is really a factor for policy. After all, very
little of what the state does is buttressed by a (legitimate,
non-laughable) moral claim. States are a necessary and unfortunate
evil, and their worth is determined not by moral rectitude but by
utility.
And, no, it wouldn't be moral. Even a private individual
undertaking such an act would be subordinating one human will to
their own, denying self-ownership. But even if it isn't moral,
sometimes it can be necessary.
anarch|11.30.08 @ 3:33PM|#
denying self-ownership
Isn't this a case of abandoned or unclaimed property? And no, I
haven't figured out a litmus test for that. Nobel Prize to the
first who succeeds.
|11.30.08 @ 4:12PM|#
J sub D --
Yer answers:
What percentage of those in prison would you guesstimate are
insane? I'm not speaking of the merely mentally ill because most of
humanity is mentally ill to some extent, but insane.
Depends on how you define "insane" versus "mentally ill" versus
"normal". Plenty of people are crazy about some stuff and
well-grounded otherwise -- invite some Mormon missionaries in your
house and feign interest about J. Smith, but then also ask them
their views on the proper fiscal role of government. First part
batshit insane, second part generally more libertarian than
average.
And liberals tend to think libertarians hold crazy, whackjob
notions about the proper role of government.
Can we determine insanoty prior to the commision of a
crime?
Yes, once the definition of insanity is pinned down. Some people
are clearly out of touch with reality, yet haven't committed a
crime. Some may continue to be crazy and never commit serious
crimes. Some people who are not crazy commit serious crimes.
Is it moral to imprison (a mental facility is a prison if you
can't leave) the insane?
Yes, if they have committed acts that have harmed, or seriously
elevated the probability of harming (such as drunk driving),
others. Otherwise, no.
Most would agree that quarantine is justified for those with
infectious disease (typhoid, smallpox if it ever rears its ugly
head again, polio) because they pose an unreasonable danger to
others through no fault of their own
Would not the same reasoning apply to the possibly violent or
destructive insane?
Not entirely comparable situations. If you have a highly infectious
disease such as typhoid, and take steps to essentially quarantine
yourself, such as confining yourself to the grounds of your house
and avoiding contact with others, then no government action should
be taken. If you refuse to take all the actions to prevent the
spread of these diseases, then your actions significantly endanger
others and steps to stop that endangerment are morally
justified.
But, how would you know that someone is "possibly" violent or
destructive if they haven't in fact done any acts that are actually
violent or destructive or significantly endanger others? I believe
the movie "Minority Report" addresses this notion of suppressing
"future crime". I believe much of the WoD is predicated on this
notion of "possibly".
I realize that that would be pre-emptive punishment
(treatment?) which is an anathema to most here.
And rightfully so.
Even if we wait until the insane individual commits a crime,
say assault which normally garners the offender less than a year,
can we place the person in a mental facility until "cured" or no
longer a danger, far longer than your garden variety
punk?
This is a matter of having laws on the books that allow appropriate
discretion in sentencing and paroling that takes into account the
probability that someone who has harmed others will continue to
harm others if released back into society -- whether they have
formed the recognizance of the wrongness of their acts so as to
prevent reoccurrances -- admittedly a tricky thing to get even
approximately right. If the problem is that garden variety punks
are being released despite intending to continue to harm others,
then the appropriate remedy is to not release the punks
prematurely, rather than seeking a distorted view of "justice" by
also releasing people incapable for other reasons of not repeating
their harmful acts.
Does any of this relate to pedophiles and rapists?
Obviously it does. The overall question is how to restrain people
who have committed harm to others from continuing to do so, and
discouraging others from acting similarly, in a manner that
accomplishes that purpose while minimizing unnecessary and
counterproductive losses of liberty of the perpetrators.
As a casual review of Radley Balko's blogs would reveal, our
various levels of government fall *somewhat* short
of optimizing that libertarian approach toward implementing the
NIOF principle.
anarch|11.30.08 @ 4:52PM|#
how would you know that someone is "possibly" violent or destructive if they haven't in fact done any acts that are actually violent or destructive or significantly endanger others? I believe the movie "Minority Report" addresses this notion of suppressing "future crime".
So have real-life situations of schoolkids getting into huge
trouble for writing violent fantasy-fiction [Citation needed. So
shoot me].
|11.30.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Can we determine insanoty prior to the commision of a
crime?
In some cases. Having auditory hallucinations is pretty
straightforward evidence of schizophrenia. There are objectively
measurable differences between schizophrenic brains and those of
normal people.
Is it moral to imprison (a mental facility is a prison if you
can't leave) the insane?
If they have behaved violently in the past, or their delusions are
something that would likely lead them to harm others. For instance,
as in this case, if an insane man thinks that a specific individual
is out to get him, following him with armed goons, and bugging his
house, it's totally reasonable for that individual to be afraid
that the insane guy is going to try to harm him. If a crazy person
was following me around accusing me of persecuting him, I would
totally want police protection. No question.
|11.30.08 @ 6:53PM|#
So have real-life situations of schoolkids getting into huge
trouble for writing violent fantasy-fiction [Citation needed. So
shoot me].
You have solicited an act of Future Crime TM with your statement of
"so shoot me". Police bots will be on the scene shortly to take you
into custody.
anarch|11.30.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Damn server squirrels, Officerbot! The complete thought was "So shoot me a line if you know where I can link the story."
Federale|11.30.08 @ 11:57PM|#
Well which one of you libertarians wants to get into a knife fight at close range? In a knife fight in a confined space you wanted the cops to do what? Talk? Someone with a knife in a confined space can kill you in a second. Shooting him was the only solution.
Fluffy|12.1.08 @ 9:08AM|#
In a knife fight in a confined space you wanted the cops to
do what?
1. Never enter the confined space.
2. If you fuck up and don't do #1, leave the confined space.
Simple. Really, really simple.
deluded1|12.1.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Several readily available issues from the article not mentioned
in H&R comments:
1. Veteran officer on scene had prevented Kerstetter from
committing suicide a year prior. (exhaust from his van, hose in the
window)
2. Kerstetter had threatened to kill himself and others on numerous
occasions in the past
3. Police department had responded to numerous assault and suicide
calls at the residence (apparently his partner and he got into lots
of physical altercations)
I dislike pigs, but from the verifiable information on the article,
I don't see the officers at fault, especially since the initial
call from the mother initiated a welfare check by the maintenance
guy. Police who knew Kerstetter reported to a break in call at his
residence. They talked to him, but would not allow him to come up.
Knowing his history with attempted suicide, made the decision to
investigate after calling for support (psychiatrist, case
worker)for 20 minutes. Kerstetter, a Gulf War vet, was brandishing
a knife (butter, combat, who knows?). Seems like the vet decided to
talk him down. Kerstetter threatened suicide, then the cops either
shot him for no reason, or he charged for death by cop. Note that
he failed several previous suicide attempts.
So yes, police officers escalated the violence level by entering
the home. However, given the history, shouldn't they have at least
checked on him? Then seeing him about to do the deed, talk him
down?
That being said, non-violent should always be chosen were
applicable, but the previous posts regarding 21 ft make me curious.
If I can't pull a gun in 21 ft, how could I be expected to tase or
baton a guy in 21 ft? Doesn't that basically mean police would have
to shoot anything threatening them with a bladed weapon within a 21
ft radius?
|12.1.08 @ 12:37PM|#
This is another example of why you don't call the cops to help
someone. If there is a crime, I'd call them. But not for anything
else.
A mother learned this lesson in NYC a couple of months ago. A crazy
man was standing on an awning about 10 feet off the ground. His mom
called the cops to help get him down. The cops tazed him, the guy
fell on his head and died. So lethal vs non-lethal only matters if
a dumbass isn't pulling the trigger. The officer that ordered his
guy to shoot ended up killing himself. Sad.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245