Brightwood Protest: MPD has lost control. They all need to be replaced.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent. I am not worried "about blame to go around". That is lame reasoning when your kid is in the morgue. As a parent I tell my kids to look both ways, I don't care if you are 'right' and in the crosswalk. You are also dead.

Same here. Maybe the kid is 'right'. But he is dead and that conclusion could have been avoided had he been wearing a helmet. Which the police COULD NOT force on his head. Only he could have impacted that decision...which resulted in his being in the morgue.

You are assuming that your kid was killed by a driver who was doing nothing wrong. But, if you child were killed in a crosswalk by a driver running a red light, you would surely want the driver to be punished. In this case, it appears the police were violating regulations and, therefore, share some of the blame. Unless you believe police should not be held accountable, I am not sure what about what you are complaining.

[Anonymous]

I work in the aviation safety world and we have a model we refer to as the "Swiss Cheese Model".

The Swiss cheese model of accident causation is a model used in risk analysis and risk management. It likens human systems to multiple slices of swiss cheese, stacked side by side, in which the risk of a threat becoming a reality is mitigated by the differing layers and types of defenses which are "layered" behind each other. Therefore, in theory, lapses and weaknesses in one defense do not allow a risk to materialize, since other defenses also exist, to prevent a single point of failure.

In order for a catastrophic failure you would have to get all of the holes in ones defense to line up for the perfect 'trajectory' shot to cause an accident.

Illustrated like this we impress upon pilots that they can only impact and make the holes smaller of the variables they can impact. The safety techniques they can ensure are used.

In this case all of the holes could have lined up resulting in the drivers death, however, the largest safety feature that may have prevented that death was SOLEY in the drivers control. The helmet.

Driver could have driven over ten people on the sidewalk and into a stop sign and would have survived with a helmet.

Were the police wrong? Yes!
Is that a contributing factor the the driver's death? Maybe.
Is that the causal factor of the driver's death? No
If the driver was wearing a helmet would he be alive today? Yes.
Blame for accident? Not determined yet, maybe the police.
Blame for death? Driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent. I am not worried "about blame to go around". That is lame reasoning when your kid is in the morgue. As a parent I tell my kids to look both ways, I don't care if you are 'right' and in the crosswalk. You are also dead.

Same here. Maybe the kid is 'right'. But he is dead and that conclusion could have been avoided had he been wearing a helmet. Which the police COULD NOT force on his head. Only he could have impacted that decision...which resulted in his being in the morgue.

So if a drunk driver hit your helmetless kid while biking you'd only blame your kid? Or you'd look to BOTH CONTRIBUTING FACTORS?

If a drunk driver hits a kid on a bike, chances are that it would make no difference whether or not the kid were wearing a helmet. Bike helmets are good for protecting your head if you fall off your bike. They don't do much in car crashes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/#78c2b467cbd4

Bike helmets and moped helmets are different, of course.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:According to the Chief Newsham, the officers have been suspended. They appear to have violated police regulations by not turning on their body worn cameras at the beginning of the chase and the chase does not appear to have been justified. The investigation is continuing and the officers could be fired.

All is good now. Scooter driver is alive. Police are in trouble. Grave stone can be etched "It wasn't my fault".

Or he could have worn a helmet. But it is the Police's fault!

Unfortunately, not all is good. A young man is needlessly dead. Police accountability is important and essential to gain the trust of citizens. As I said in my earlier post, real life is complicated. Not everything is binary or a simple right/wrong situation. Instead of picking a team and defending it against all comers, maybe consider that there is blame to go around and that there are steps that can be taken to prevent future needless deaths.

But you aren't saying there is "blame to go around." You said upthread that the officers gave him a "death sentence," so you clearly think there is only one side that should be blamed here.

I've already explained that was in reference to the poster who suggested the death was an acceptable outcome. It was not in reference to the police. But, sure, obsess about that sentence and ignore everything else I've written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Were the police wrong? Yes!
Is that a contributing factor the the driver's death? Maybe.
Is that the causal factor of the driver's death? No
If the driver was wearing a helmet would he be alive today? Yes.
Blame for accident? Not determined yet, maybe the police.
Blame for death? Driver.

There is absolutely no way for you to know that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent. I am not worried "about blame to go around". That is lame reasoning when your kid is in the morgue. As a parent I tell my kids to look both ways, I don't care if you are 'right' and in the crosswalk. You are also dead.

Same here. Maybe the kid is 'right'. But he is dead and that conclusion could have been avoided had he been wearing a helmet. Which the police COULD NOT force on his head. Only he could have impacted that decision...which resulted in his being in the morgue.

You are assuming that your kid was killed by a driver who was doing nothing wrong. But, if you child were killed in a crosswalk by a driver running a red light, you would surely want the driver to be punished. In this case, it appears the police were violating regulations and, therefore, share some of the blame. Unless you believe police should not be held accountable, I am not sure what about what you are complaining.

Jeff, of course I would sue the driver. I would get rich. But my kid would STILL be dead, for not having looked both ways.

All I am trying to say is to control the variables you can control. In my case, I tell my kid not to cross the street without looking. I don't want to be rich, I want my kid home after they walk home.

[Anonymous]

I strongly disagree with the nonsensical law-enforcement posters.

Resisting arrest and fleeing should never result in a person's death.

Children should never be attacked by police.

These are simple, basic, elementary human rights.

AND POLICE IN OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES APPLY THESE SIMPLE TRUTHS.

So why can't Americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent. I am not worried "about blame to go around". That is lame reasoning when your kid is in the morgue. As a parent I tell my kids to look both ways, I don't care if you are 'right' and in the crosswalk. You are also dead.

Same here. Maybe the kid is 'right'. But he is dead and that conclusion could have been avoided had he been wearing a helmet. Which the police COULD NOT force on his head. Only he could have impacted that decision...which resulted in his being in the morgue.

You are assuming that your kid was killed by a driver who was doing nothing wrong. But, if you child were killed in a crosswalk by a driver running a red light, you would surely want the driver to be punished. In this case, it appears the police were violating regulations and, therefore, share some of the blame. Unless you believe police should not be held accountable, I am not sure what about what you are complaining.

Jeff, of course I would sue the driver. I would get rich. But my kid would STILL be dead, for not having looked both ways.

All I am trying to say is to control the variables you can control. In my case, I tell my kid not to cross the street without looking. I don't want to be rich, I want my kid home after they walk home.

As a society, the variable we can control is the police, by holding them accountable when their dangerous conduct results in deaths, as it did in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent. I am not worried "about blame to go around". That is lame reasoning when your kid is in the morgue. As a parent I tell my kids to look both ways, I don't care if you are 'right' and in the crosswalk. You are also dead.

Same here. Maybe the kid is 'right'. But he is dead and that conclusion could have been avoided had he been wearing a helmet. Which the police COULD NOT force on his head. Only he could have impacted that decision...which resulted in his being in the morgue.

You are assuming that your kid was killed by a driver who was doing nothing wrong. But, if you child were killed in a crosswalk by a driver running a red light, you would surely want the driver to be punished. In this case, it appears the police were violating regulations and, therefore, share some of the blame. Unless you believe police should not be held accountable, I am not sure what about what you are complaining.

Jeff, of course I would sue the driver. I would get rich. But my kid would STILL be dead, for not having looked both ways.

All I am trying to say is to control the variables you can control. In my case, I tell my kid not to cross the street without looking. I don't want to be rich, I want my kid home after they walk home.

No, you wouldn't. You'd have trouble finding a lawyer to take the case, and even if you did, you'd almost certainly lose. The law is overwhelmingly stacked on the side of the driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I strongly disagree with the nonsensical law-enforcement posters.

Resisting arrest and fleeing should never result in a person's death.

Children should never be attacked by police.

These are simple, basic, elementary human rights.

AND POLICE IN OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES APPLY THESE SIMPLE TRUTHS.

So why can't Americans?

What truth's and where?

They have these problems everywhere. We can just talk about them in the US.

Have you seen Canada recently?

Try being black in Canada...spoken by a black person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I strongly disagree with the nonsensical law-enforcement posters.

Resisting arrest and fleeing should never result in a person's death.

Children should never be attacked by police.

These are simple, basic, elementary human rights.

AND POLICE IN OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES APPLY THESE SIMPLE TRUTHS.

So why can't Americans?

Talk about oversimplifying. Of course resisting and fleeing should not result in death. But it makes the likelihood of an accident, injury, and/or altercation much more likely.

As for "Children should never be attacked by police," I agree wholeheartedly . . . but that's completely irrelevant to this sad situation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent. I am not worried "about blame to go around". That is lame reasoning when your kid is in the morgue. As a parent I tell my kids to look both ways, I don't care if you are 'right' and in the crosswalk. You are also dead.

Same here. Maybe the kid is 'right'. But he is dead and that conclusion could have been avoided had he been wearing a helmet. Which the police COULD NOT force on his head. Only he could have impacted that decision...which resulted in his being in the morgue.

You are assuming that your kid was killed by a driver who was doing nothing wrong. But, if you child were killed in a crosswalk by a driver running a red light, you would surely want the driver to be punished. In this case, it appears the police were violating regulations and, therefore, share some of the blame. Unless you believe police should not be held accountable, I am not sure what about what you are complaining.

Jeff, of course I would sue the driver. I would get rich. But my kid would STILL be dead, for not having looked both ways.

All I am trying to say is to control the variables you can control. In my case, I tell my kid not to cross the street without looking. I don't want to be rich, I want my kid home after they walk home.

You seem fixated on the deceased and ignoring that there were variables that the police controlled. To the extent that they violated their regulations, they deserve to be punished. Accountability is important. Accountability for failing to wear a helmet and driving on a sidewalk would also be important, though, sadly, it is too late for that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:According to the Chief Newsham, the officers have been suspended. They appear to have violated police regulations by not turning on their body worn cameras at the beginning of the chase and the chase does not appear to have been justified. The investigation is continuing and the officers could be fired.

The body camera thing is infuriating. Actually, the whole thing is infuriating.

I generally don't agree with the no chase policy, but this shows why it's in place (and isn't going to change).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly disagree with the nonsensical law-enforcement posters.

Resisting arrest and fleeing should never result in a person's death.

Children should never be attacked by police.

These are simple, basic, elementary human rights.

AND POLICE IN OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES APPLY THESE SIMPLE TRUTHS.

So why can't Americans?

Talk about oversimplifying. Of course resisting and fleeing should not result in death. But it makes the likelihood of an accident, injury, and/or altercation much more likely.

As for "Children should never be attacked by police," I agree wholeheartedly . . . but that's completely irrelevant to this sad situation.

So does a police chase, of course.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The Swiss cheese model of accident causation is a model used in risk analysis and risk management. It likens human systems to multiple slices of swiss cheese, stacked side by side, in which the risk of a threat becoming a reality is mitigated by the differing layers and types of defenses which are "layered" behind each other. Therefore, in theory, lapses and weaknesses in one defense do not allow a risk to materialize, since other defenses also exist, to prevent a single point of failure.

This is interesting in that we follow a similar process in computer security where we talk about layered defenses. An exploit in one layer is hopefully caught by another layer. But, in your analogy, you might consider that with policing there is a layer called "race". In that layer, "black" is itself a hole. Failures in other layers are often not fatal when that layer is white.