Officer Shoots Unarmed, Naked Suspect

[DDATFUS]

I don't consider responsibility a pie meant to be divided. If you do something wrong, you accept the consequences. If you and another person do something wrong, you don't act like a kid crying "you only suffered 25% of the consequences, that's not fair." If you're doing something wrong and something bad happens, you go home licking your wounds and accept the consequences that naturally befell you whether that be 50% or 100%.

I think that you are missing Kevin's point here. The consequences in this case-- the death of Uwumagorie-- came about as a result of the actions of two people, himself and the officer. From the link Kevin posted, it looks like in this specific case the vast majority of the blame lies with Uwumagorie. But it is easy to imagine a situation in which Uwumagorie made bad choices and the officer also made bad choices. Do you think that the officer has the right to escape the consequences of his actions?

Go back to Kevin's analogy of what would happen if a student shoved him and he responded by decking the student. Does the fact that the student has shoved him and thus earned consequences of some type for his actions completely absolve Kevin of his own responsibility for having broken not only the rules of his school (one would hope) but also the law of his state? Both Kevin and the student would have committed actions with consequences, and both would be accountable.

In this case, officer Bradley committed an action-- shooting a man-- which had consequences-- an official inquiry and, in this case, a lawsuit. He had to deal with the consequences of his choice. That's fair under your rule, isn't it?

Also, if I speed and get pulled over, I have broken a rule of our society and have to pay the consequences. But what if the officer who pulled me over instead of handing me a ticket pulled out his pistol and shot me in the side of the head? Would you say "You broke the rule, deal with the consequences of your action?" Of course not. There are some consequences that we as a society condone while there are others that we do not. If someone has committed an unarmed assault, then the penalty for that offense under the law might be a sentence in jail. It isn't death. When someone suddenly suffers a consequence far, far higher than that usually sanctioned by law, then society has an interest in seeing why his consequence was higher than expected. In this case, the father's lawsuit is one of the mechanisms through which that suit can come.

I'd like to point out, of course, that we're in a hypothetical debate-- the real Uwumagorie Sr.'s motives might be purely mercenary. Kevin, Josh and I are just arguing that someone could take these actions with clean hands.

Also, I'd like to point out that you should never trust any beer light enough to see through.

[K. Cantwell]

If you do something wrong, you accept the consequences.

The problem with this is the "something" and the "consequences." Certain "somethings" bring with them reasonable "consequences."

As David said, the consequence of a student pushing me cannot reasonably be me punching the student. Even if I adhered to your view of responsibility on a personal level, by accepting a teaching position, I agree to adhere to the laws of the state and my district.

In theory I understand your point, and believe it or not, I try to do it as much as possible. It is quite easy when the consequences are reasonable. So, if my library book is late, I happily pay the fine because of my irresponsibility. If I don't check my son's homework carefully enough, I apologize to his teacher and make sure I make proper time to do in the future. If I go 58 mph in a 55 mph , I don’t look at all the other cars going 70. I accept I stepped over the line. (I haven’t been pulled over many times, but each time when the officer asks the standard, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” I have an accurate answer.)

If, however, the library decided to take my left-arm instead of my .50, we would have a problem. That is simply not an acceptable consequence for my offense. Accepting full responsibility doesn't mean accepting anything someone wishes to throw at me.

I think your approach (and mine) works on a daily basis when we encounter reasonable consequences. It is when the consequences far outstrip the confines of “reasonable” that we differ. At that point, I do make a point of pointing this out. I don’t simply accept it as my comeuppance.

I think where we would be in agreement is in the idea that all too often, people wail about “unreasonable” consequences when they are quite reasonable under the circumstances. They squirm and wiggle in an attempt to avoid the just acceptance of reasonable consequences. (I deal with this on a daily basis as a teacher.)

Still, there is a point when the acceptance of unreasonable consequences falls into the sphere of an unhealthy approach to life, or, in the extreme, self-abnegation.

The point you raise about the right to pursue the lawsuit stemming from malicious behavior is quite valid. There is no lawsuit (or death) if the police hadn’t been needed in the first place. The only answer, I think, is an appeal to our current conception of responsibility in that it isn’t static, but rather flows. Once Officer Bradley showed up, he also took on responsibility in dealing with the malicious behavior. That is what his profession demands. Malicious behavior comes in all sizes and they all don’t warrant death. I think I would be more on your side if the case ended in imprisonment and the family was complaining about that…trying to abrogate all responsibility.

Although it may seem like sniveling, it really comes down to the harsh consequence imposed for the behavior in this case.

If the library took my arm, I would sue them. The lawsuit would stem, it would seem, from my irresponsibility in being remiss in returning the book. That is what set the ball in motion, but there are steps and decison branches that must be navigated. The library overstepped and created the possibility of the lawsuit in their unreasonable response. Their response has to be reasonable.

As David said, though, this is all just an interesting discussion on the Internet and Officer Bradley did what he needed to do in this case.

Oh, and David, you need to explain to me this “light beer” you speak of. Did you mean to say “water”?

Kevin Cantwell

[Duanew]

I think the officer showed remarkable restraint and courage in the situation. He could have chosen to take a position outside the apartment and wait for backup-but instead he went into protect the lives and health of the family members inside.
He was most certainly authorized to shoot the suspect when he was in the act of drowning an infant. He chose once again to move into what is already demonstrated as a very dangerous situation to rescue the baby,and get it and another person out of the area and to safety.
Under the statutes of my state once he placed the baby in danger of serious bodily harm or death the officer was authorized to use deadly force. In this situation, as in all officers use of deadly force, if you don't know the state statutes and can't paraphrase Graham v Connor (let alone the facts surrounding the situation) you're ill equipped to make judgements regarding the situation.
I think the officer should be heralded as a hero for his actions:
placing himself in danger to insure the safety of others
saving the life of the infant
stopping a crazed attempted murderer from continuing his rampage
Dad can sue all he wants. All it requires is an attorney willing to take the case-and there are plenty of them out there. The intent it probably to make a couple hundred thousand in a settlement rather than go to trial. I hope they refuse to settle and take it to trial so he and his attorneys get nothing.

Duane

[Adam Alexander]

Still, there is a point when the acceptance of unreasonable consequences falls into the sphere of an unhealthy approach to life...

There is no such thing as an unreasonable natural consequence. There are harsh consequences. There are bad consequences. However, if they're natural, such as being killed when you enter the state of nature/war with another man, (http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/L...ond-frame.html Jefferson's inspiration for the Declaration and the philosophy that supports American freedom.) then you have received exactly what you asked for. It's heavy, but it isn't unreasonable. It's nature.

That's what I figured was the motivator for you. A belief that natural consequences "should" correspond with something unnatural... For example, intention. If you're seventeen yrs old, drinking and driving and you hit a tree, then the consequences "shouldn't" be paralyzed for life because you weren't "intending" to do anything bad or because you're "just a kid"... As if because you're young or foolish you don't "deserve" exactly what you're courting.


I don't see how your examples fit. The best I can tell is that you (and you've done this a lot) imputed some position to me and are arguing against the imputed position rather than the actual position. (I'd say straw man, but it's so over-used that it doesn't have much meaning anymore.)

I think that you are missing Kevin's point here.

In all honesty, since Kevin's perspective wasn't the one challenged, I didn't worry about it. Since my position was challenged, I felt/feel like it's up to you guys to explain why I'm wrong. Responding was an effort to help you guys understand my position better so that you could shoot holes in it if I was wrong.

[K. Cantwell]

That's what I figured was the motivator for you. A belief that natural consequences "should" correspond with something unnatural... For example, intention. If you're seventeen yrs old, drinking and driving and you hit a tree, then the consequences "shouldn't" be paralyzed for life because you weren't "intending" to do anything bad or because you're "just a kid"... As if because you're young or foolish you don't "deserve" exactly what you're courting.

This is absolutley fine and dandy with me because the tree isn't sentient and has no responsibility to discharge.

I thought your position was that once a threshold of "bad behavior" was crossed, any consequence is fine because by your irresponsibility you are courting disaster and deserve what you get. (So, if Officer Bradley had simply shot Uwumargoie on first sight, that still would have been fine with you since Uwumarogie's bad behavior caused the problem in the first place. His father still would be wrong for suing.)

If, however, the policeman that stops the 17-year old drunk driver in your example shoots him in the head as punishment, this is neither natural nor reasonable.

If I've misread your position, I do apologize. Please set me straight.

As far a Locke goes, there is much that we could bandy about concerning his conception of Nature and the notion of positive vs. negative liberty. I think this is important, though:

And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will, but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint.

Nature and reason go hand in hand for these guys. Actions should be in accord with reason (nature). So, there certainly is an "unreasonable" consequence that can ensue from "unnatural" behavior.

(Plus, I think it is more Rousseau than Locke that the founders relied on for their concept of freedom. Locke gave them an empirical rather than a rational framework.)

It is sophistry to claim "There is no such thing as unreasonable natural consequence." If the consequence is deemed reasonable it is natural and if it is natural it is reasonable. It does not follow from this that all consequences are reasonable or natural.

Again, if I've got your position wrong, I apologize. Let me know what I've screwed up and I'll rethink it.

Thanks,

Kevin Cantwell

[DDATFUS]

Oh, and David, you need to explain to me this “light beer” you speak of. Did you mean to say “water”?

Well, the stuff does look awfully like water. Water that has already been used once....

There can be some pretty extreme consequences in nature, and I suppose that if a tree fell on me the next time I walked outside that would be a "natural" consequence of me stepping out the door. But at the same time, I elect representatives into the local legislature to pass laws determining the consequences of certain behaviors, and I would generally expect the consequences of interactions with public servants and officials to loosely conform to the laws and official guidelines that have been developed. If they do not do so, then as a citizen I ask why. If a buddy of mine got shot to death by a police officer and, when I asked the department for information, someone shrugged and said, "Well, anything can happen in this world," then I doubt I'd feel very satisfied.

[Adam Alexander]

...your position was that once a threshold of "bad behavior" was crossed, any consequence is fine...

Any natural consequence is appropriate. That's what we have here. One man acted naturally in response to bad behavior. (However, this is under the assumption that the state of nature/war has been entered... or, phrased differently, under the assumption that there is no time/opportunity to appeal to law.)

So, if Officer Bradley had simply shot Uwumargoie on first sight, that still would have been fine with you since Uwumarogie's bad behavior caused the problem in the first place. His father still would be wrong for suing.

My entire criticism rests on the fact that the officer was on his back being beat. It doesn't matter to me if the officer laid down and invited the criminal to beat him, if the officer threatened to kill the guys family when he stood up or if the criminal was a paranoid schizophrenic who believed he was saving the universe from the anti-Christ and the officer was aware of it. The issue is that he put the officer in a position that required the killing.

That's why none of your examples fit.

If, however, the policeman that stops the 17-year old drunk driver in your example shoots him in the head as punishment...

Yes, that's a different story.

As far a Locke goes, there is much that we could bandy about concerning his conception of Nature and the notion of positive vs. negative liberty.

My understanding of positive liberty is that it's a leftist construct that has nothing to do with Locke or America (except the entry of non-founding ideals into the country). It's actually the polar opposite of the liberty Locke describes because it requires the obstruction of another's liberty and is actually a declaration of war. ("Natural war" as Locke describes.)

"Positive" liberty isn't liberty at all except a claim that one person can take liberty from another.

Nature and reason go hand in hand for these guys. Actions should be in accord with reason (nature). So, there certainly is an "unreasonable" consequence that can ensue from "unnatural" behavior.

Define unreasonable and unnatural. (I'm not trying to throw a bone.)

I think it is more Rousseau than Locke that the founders relied on for their concept of freedom. Locke gave them an empirical rather than a rational framework.

Source? My understanding is that Rousseau was considered naive and a laughing stock amongst the Founders. I'd have to check my bookshelf, but I distinctly remember him practically being called an idiot.

I wouldn't call him rational. However, I can't complain about it. Consistent with leftism, "positive" liberty and Rousseau, is a de-emphasis on the feelings of those with a natural capacity to succeed in favor of the feelings of those less capable of succeeding.

It is sophistry to claim "There is no such thing as unreasonable natural consequence."

Maybe, but it was that or say that your claim was silly. I was trying to be nice.

If the consequence is deemed reasonable it is natural and if it is natural it is reasonable.

That's a logic reversal. "S is P, therefore, P is S." It's irrational.

I like this site to reference my fallacies: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...tml#consequent

I think he has a couple that would better fit within another fallacy rather than having their own name, but it's nice to have on hand.

If the consequence is natural, it is reasonable. However, because reason can have an "unnatural" premise, it can still be reasonable without being natural.

It does not follow from this that all consequences are reasonable or natural.

As far as I can tell, this one is off the tracks. I can't see how I implied that.

[K. Cantwell]

As far as I can tell, this one is off the tracks. I can't see how I implied that.

if the officer threatened to kill the guys family when he stood up

This would be an example, I think.

It may be "natural" that in the "state of war," Uwumarogie was killed. However, if this were the case, the whole point about the "apple falling far from the tree" seems a bit out of place, no?

How would it be reasonable for an armed officer to threaten to kill a man's family, and then kill the man trying to protect that family? I get what you are saying about the nature of the conflict: Uwumarogie lost..such is life (or death) when you enter into conflict with someone. However, in this example the cause is simply not reasonable.

It smacks of an assassin claiming self-defense when his intended victim fights back and is killed. In you example, the officer put himself in a position of conflict by threatening to kill the man's family. I guess he could stand by and allow them to be killed, but this doesn't strike me as reasonable. You or I certainly wouldn't do it. I realize your example is extreme, but it makes crystal clear where we differ. This would be unreasonable to me.

The point about unreasonable and natural was simply that is seemed self-evident to me and was a bit of gilding the lily...making your point all pretty and such. If the consequence is reasonable, then it is a natural consequence. I'm pretty sure the reverse is true also, so you are right that you can't have a "natural and reasonable" consequence. I'm not sure what this says though. You still have to deem the consequence reasonable based on the circumstances. I get the feeling you are skiping this step.

In terms or Rousseau, I'll concede the point. Maybe I was thinking of his influence on the Revolution and extrapolated from there. I think it is pretty well established that his was the revolutionary inspiration, as everything from Communism to 20th C. fascism is thrown at this feet. You are probably right about Locke being the stronger influence after the Revolution.

Kevin Cantwell

[Bod]

Wow! Just like the good old days when there was proper debate on E-budo!

This is my take. Officer Bradley was responsible for what happened.

Since Uwumarogie had clearly lost his mind at the point Bradley came across him, in this encounter the officer was the only one capable of acting an a manner for which he could later be held accountable.

So what happened can't be blamed on Uwumarogie.

With hindsight - i.e. post the investigation into Officer Bradley's actions - it seems Bradley was finally left with a simple choice kill or be killed and allow Uwumarogie's family to be killed. He made a tough but correct choice. He acted in a brave and outstanding manner.

But before the investigation we simply have "Officer shoots naked man". This is especially so from the fathers point of view.

According to family and friends of Benjamin Uwumarogie, he was a bright, talented and caring young man. Unfortunately this was not the individual Officer Bradley encountered. Co-workers, neighbors and friends all confirmed that Benjamin Uwumarogie’s conduct in the days, hours and moments leading up to his death was bizarre at times.

This quote from the DuPage County State Press Release shows the disparity in view point of friends and family. Uwumarogie's father would have known the bright, talented caring young man. Prior to the investigation he could not have known any different, except on the word of the official spokesman for the police department. As a father he had to take responsibilty for ensuring the truth came out.

With hindsight we can say that there was no need for him to take this action, but at the time he took the action he could not have known this.

Unfortunately it seems the full truth is not obvious from the reports I've seen here. What caused Uwumarogie to lose his mind is not clear, and this is the crucial factor that, if understood, might be able to prevent another tragedy like this recurring.

[Nathan Scott]

I see it as pretty straight forward - The use of deadly force is authorized when there is an immediate threat to life or serious bodily injury (SBI).

If the officer has hopelessly lost the combative initiative, and is in danger of losing consciousness or SBI, lethal force is an appropriate action. The only question is will the department and city back him up, or will they throw him under the bus in hopes of giving the misinformed public what they want? Media is usually the officer's worst enemy. Being within policy and law won't stop the media from ruining your career if that's what they are bent on doing.

The more proactive the officer is, the more complaints and lawsuits are generated. Oh well. Scumbags will sue at any opportunity that comes their way, but it's no big deal. The city will either buckle and pay out or they won't. How the city chooses to handle law suits is out of the officer's hands, either way.

I just hope the officer doesn't let all the BS get to him.

Regards,

[K. Cantwell]

If the officer has hopelessly lost the combative initiative, and is in danger of losing consciousness or SBI, lethal force is an appropriate action.

I don't think anyone is disputing this point.

The usual point of contention is how the officer ended up in that position in the first place. There is a recent case is Indiana involving a motel ambush in which the cause is pretty clear: officers showed up and two lowlife's started shooting at them.

Sometimes, though, it is less clear...or at least the path to the confrontation isn't cut and dried. I think this is usually where you get an investigation. The officer may be quite sure that what he did was correct, but sometimes the facts need to be evaluated by a third party. This shoud be the function the media serves.

Kevin Cantwell

[Nathan Scott]

Understood. I wasn't so much trying to preach the obvious as much as demonstrate that I view the appropriateness of the final actions to be pretty straightforward - naked or otherwise!

It seems like there will always be somebody sitting in the armchair who will be able to say how they could have done it better, or differently (sometimes they are right, often times they are not). Some will say that any time a use of force happens it is because the tactics "could have been better/different".

Since every situation is unique though, I'd be more interested in hearing whether the officer himself felt he was too complacent in his approach, or did not employ reasonable tactics based on what he knew of the situation. He was there and knows what everything felt like at the time, and the timing of how it went down.

Regards,

[Adam Alexander]

How would it be reasonable for an armed officer to threaten to kill a man's family, and then kill the man trying to protect that family?

Before I answer, you're no longer in disagreement with my statement about fruit? Further, would it be accurate to say that you agree with my logic in making such a conclusion, despite the fact that you have issues with the accuracy of a premise? (The assumed premise "son received what he asked for".)

If the consequence is reasonable, then it is a natural consequence. I'm pretty sure the reverse is true also, so you are right that you can't have a "natural and reasonable" consequence.

We're not using the same definition of reasonable. I'm using as in "reasoning" or "logic" that is sound. You seem to be moving between that and "appropriate, relative to my values, consequences." (I say this because in the previous post I said,"If the consequence is natural, it is reasonable. However, because reason can have an "unnatural" premise, it can still be reasonable without being natural." This is exactly why what you just said is wrong unless you're redefining "reasonable" as you go.)

Maybe I was thinking of his influence on the Revolution and extrapolated from there. I think it is pretty well established that his was the revolutionary inspiration, as everything from Communism to 20th C. fascism is thrown at this feet. You are probably right about Locke being the stronger influence after the Revolution.

With all due respect, I think you're confusing Rousseau's relationship to the American Revolution with the French Revolution, IIRC. It's been a long time, but I think you're right to say that theories of government like Communism and fascism were laid at Rousseau's feet. However, nothing else, especially not liberty; only the theories that hold that one person should be forced to provide for another.

I would claim that Rousseau is presented as the face of those theories because it appeals to suckers; people who believe that humans are inherently good rather than some good and some bad. However, Rousseau's relevance, I believe, stops there. You have to move on to Hobbes, who was pretty nasty and claims that the Leviathan (government) regulates morality.

Rousseau and Hobbes, IMO, are eugenicists. The former believed that humans have evolved according to the government and, as I recall, sees nothing wrong with that and the other believes that the government has the right to impose selective (as in natural selection) forces on the citizenry.

Locke, on the other hand, and America's founding ideals, allow that man is best off when he/she is allowed maximum free rein. Polar opposites: Free rein is best vs. whatever the government does is best.

I believe nothing supports America's early support of preferring man in as natural a state as possible as the fact that we didn't just jump into the Constitution. The Founders tried the much looser Articles of Confederation first. Since the country couldn't be secure with them, (or, said a little differently, there wasn't sufficient government for the country to last) they negotiated the Constitution.

Further, if Revolutionary America believed anything from Rousseau, they wouldn't have granted the Bill of Rights.

It wouldn't surprise me if you were taught Rousseau was significant to the Founders. That would be consistent with my public education that presented FDR as a wonderful president without mentioning originalist Constitutional interpretation or the threat to the Supreme Court FDR launched to implement his socialist policies. (This isn't a values call. Just a statement that our leftist education system has a tendency, as does every leftist organization, to indoctrinate rather than educate students about both sides... The Monkey Trial didn't change human nature.)

[tgace]

The usual point of contention is how the officer ended up in that position in the first place.

You are correct and that argument is typically presented in a BS civil suit. If the officer was lawfully present and is assaulted, "How" he wound up in the situation is irrelevant as long as the use of force was legally justified.

[Hissho]

If the officer was lawfully present and is assaulted, "How" he wound up in the situation is irrelevant as long as the use of force was legally justified.

I would disagree with that. A stance not popular with some of my LE brethren, I know.

I think it serves the ongoing professionalism and quality of law enforcement service to concede that some absolutely, unquestionably justified shootings didn't need to happen. Clear, honest, and forthright debriefs and adjustments in training and thinking - yes, perhaps even driven by lawsuits - will hopefully improve tactics that *may* prevent similar events in the future. Each case has to be judged by its individual merits, rather than painted with a broad brush, which they usually are.

However, and I strongly want to underscore this as I think it is being missed in some of the debate here - officers are not required under law - AND SHOULD NEVER BE REQUIRED - to make the BEST decision for any particular case. Only a reasonable one for the situation in question. Police officers absolutely MUST be allowed to make mistakes and never judged from 20-20 hindsight and "coulda, shoulda, woulda..." POLICY and tactics are there to be judged by hindsight, but not the individual officer unless and until a pattern of poor decision making has been identified.

I recently read of an OIS (Officer Involved Shooting) in which several officers shot an EDP (Emotionally Disturbed Person) who came at them with a weapon in his hand. The shooting was absolutely justified, the man did just that.

But the back story was this: EDP threatens officers, then jumps into an enclosed dog run. Officers open the door of the dog run in order to take the man into custody, he charges, they shoot and kill him.

The obvious question is: why did they go in after him? He's in an enclosed area and cannot harm anyone outside that area without actually coming out. To go into that area precipitates a situation in which a shooting may happen. If he attacks them, they have to do what they have to do - but someone taking stock of the big picture, realizing he just essentially "jailed" himself, would have been able to simply say - don't go in, just make sure he doesn't get out.

As well, there have been some shootings in which officers have stopped vehicles and the driver tried to get away after the officer has already made contact with the violator at the car door, and the officer engages in a wrestling match with the driver through the window of the car, who proceeds to drive off. The officer, in perfectly justifiable fear for his life, shoots the driver.

But why on earth would you try to wrestle with a traffic violator through a car window as they proceeded to drag you away?

LE, in general, learns from these instances and develops more professional responses that in the vast majority of cases do not involve the deaths of suspects. It IS working. But there are still cases where individual mistakes may shed light on better ways to implement better practices "industry wide." A stance that never second guesses what other officers do not only stagnates growth in professionalism and tactical development, but damages the credibility of LE as a whole.