Man behaving 'erratically' killed by El Cajon police near San Diego

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Man behaving 'erratically' killed by El Cajon police near San Diego
https://www.sott.net/article/329528-Man-behaving-erratically-killed-by-El-Cajon-police-near-San-Diego

Protests erupt in San Diego after police kill unarmed man pointing e-cigarette at them
https://www.sott.net/article/329627-Protests-erupt-in-San-Diego-after-police-kill-unarmed-man-pointing-e-cigarette-at-them

Police arrest 2, fire pepper balls at protesters in El Cajon, California following altercations
https://www.sott.net/article/329730-Police-arrest-2-fire-pepper-balls-at-protesters-in-El-Cajon-California-following-altercations

I don't think this police killing is a good illustration of police aggression and police violence.

The victim was a long time repeat criminal who had been arrested multiple times with guns, a knife, and drugs. The released photo show the victim did not have his hands up and had his hands down around his waist area. Multiple witnesses says the victim was acting strangely. I wouldn't be surprised if he was high on some drug. I think it is easily understandable that this situation would make other people fear for their lives. I conclude from the facts that something was wrong with this victim and not just on the day he died.

There's so many other clear examples of police aggression and violence, and I think this case detracts from that message because I can understand that the police acted properly in this case.

_http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Who-Was-Alfred-Olango-El-Cajon-Police-Shooting-San-Diego-395159231.html
However, he has an extensive criminal history.

Most recently, in 2011, he was charged with driving under the influence in 2011. In 2005, Olango was pulled over for a traffic stop while driving a 1990 Chevrolet Caprice. Colorado police said he was uncooperative when they tried to arrest him for carrying a loaded, 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

The same year, he was also charged with driving with a fictitious plate, driving with a license under restraint and driving an unregistered car. Inside the car, Colorado police found 185 grams of marijuana, two Ecstasy pills, a scale, Ziploc bags, $948 in cash and a folding knife.

Those were not Olango's only run-ins with the law.

In 1996, court records show Olango was convicted for taking a person's car without consent, a charge that federal prosecutors added a gang enhancement to once officers found a replica silver automatic handgun on the 17-year-old, along with a pair of fur-lined black gloves and keys to the stolen vehicle.

In 1998, records show Olango was convicted for burglarizing a friend's home; he took audio equipment, CDs and a water bong.

Olango was charged with two DUIs in 1999 and 2000.

In 2001, he pleaded guilty to a felony charge selling crack cocaine.
 
I vehemently disagree. Yeah, the guy had his hands in his pocket and wouldn't listen to police commands. Does that mean you think police were righteous in their actions to shoot and kill him? The police resorting to shoot first and ask questions later behavior is exactly the problem with police violence. If police were trained better, they would be able to actually TALK to the man, who his sister reported as having mental issues. If they were thinking, they would find a way to de-escalate the situation without killing someone. You really think the police acted properly?!?!?! I don't really know what to say to that, other than it sounds like something a fascist would say. His criminal past has nothing to do with the actual incident. Police do not have a right to shoot someone because they have a criminal past. A cop fearing for his life does not grant him the right to murder an unarmed man, period. If you think so, you are so far down the authoritative thinker hole that I don't know why are still on this forum.

Besides, the articles are more about the reaction from the public to another unarmed black man killed by police. That is exactly the kind of thing that SOTT is interested in tracking. Would you prefer we ignore all this? Just what is your point here, that the man had it coming? I don't think you are really grasping, at all, the line of force behind why these articles are on SOTT.
 
hlat said:
The victim was a long time repeat criminal who had been arrested multiple times with guns, a knife, and drugs. The released photo show the victim did not have his hands up and had his hands down around his waist area. Multiple witnesses says the victim was acting strangely. I wouldn't be surprised if he was high on some drug. I think it is easily understandable that this situation would make other people fear for their lives. I conclude from the facts that something was wrong with this victim and not just on the day he died.

In other words: "Therefore, they were justified in murdering him." Seriously, hlat? Think about it.
 
The following story came out a couple of weeks ago. Its an example of a cop who - in seemingly more danger than the cops mentioned in the above article - used his head in a dangerous situation to realize that no violence was required. A perfect illustration of not only what a well trained officer of the law does by using his brains, but the militarized police state culture that would have him do the opposite.

"Failed to eliminate threat": Brave cop fired for NOT killing a man who was attempting 'suicide by cop'

Weirton police officer Stephen Mader exhibited extreme bravery and restraint earlier this year when he chose not to kill a suicidal man. For displaying such courage and reserve, Mader's department fired him.

On May 6, 2016, Mader responded to a call about a domestic incident. When he showed up to the call, Mader confronted Ronald D. Williams Jr., 23, who was armed and in a diminished mental state.

Madar said that he began talking to the young man in his "calm voice."

"I told him, 'Put down the gun,' and he's like, 'Just shoot me.' And I told him, 'I'm not going to shoot you brother.' Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.

"I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and de-escalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop" situation.

Even after the 23-year-old father twitched his wrist and waved around the gun, Mader did not feel threatened enough to kill him. His restraint was nothing short of remarkable.

However, this restraint would be in vain. Just as Mader successfully began to diffuse and de-escalate the situation — backup arrived. The cops who showed up were not like Mader. As soon they got out of the vehicle, one of the cops immediately fired and shot Williams in the back of the head, killing him.

When officers approached Williams body, they found that the gun he was holding was not loaded.

An investigation ensued, and the killing of Williams was eventually ruled justified.

However, according to the Post-Gazette, the case had some peculiar twists along the way. For three days, law enforcement refused to name Williams as the deceased. Also, the investigator assigned to the case left on a week-long vacation the next day, clearly showing they had no intention of doing an actual investigation.

According to the report from the Post-Gazette:

Mr. Mader — speaking publicly about this case for the first time — said that when he tried to return to work on May 17, following normal protocol for taking time off after an officer-involved shooting, he was told to go see Weirton Police Chief Rob Alexander.

[...]
In a meeting with the chief and City Manager Travis Blosser, Mr. Mader said Chief Alexander told him: "We're putting you on administrative leave and we're going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger."

[...]
Mr. Mader said that "right then I said to him: 'Look, I didn't shoot him because he said, 'Just shoot me.' "

[...]

On June 7, a Weirton officer delivered him a notice of termination letter dated June 6, which said by not shooting Mr. Williams he "failed to eliminate a threat."
Because Mader tried to preserve life instead of end it, the department fired him. What they are essentially saying is kill for us or don't work here.

Jack Dolance, an attorney for the Williams' family, explained to the Post that Mr. Mader's termination "is pretty clear evidence of their policy and that the way they feel [the shooting of Mr. Williams] should have been handled. Not only do they think he should have been shot and killed, but shot and killed more quickly."

The police are unable to understand that had Mader been in the danger they claim he and his fellow officers were in — he would have been killed long before backup arrive. However, that simply wasn't the case.

"They did not have the information I did," he said. "They don't know anything I heard. All they know is [Mr. Williams] is waving a gun at them. It's a shame it happened the way it did, but, I don't think they did anything wrong."

These facts didn't stop Chief Alexander from going after Mader, however.

"It was like [Chief Alexander] was a good guy and the next second he's throwing me under the bus," he said.

Mader, who thought his job as a cop was the start of something great is now studying to be a truck driver.

To show just how much of a standup guy Mader actually is, he was offered the easy way out and did not take it. Many times, when officers are caught in cases of brutality or misconduct, they are allowed to resign only to go to another department without the red ink in their service records. However, Mader knew he'd done nothing wrong and refused this blue privilege.

"But I told [the attorney] 'Look, I don't want to admit guilt. I'll take the termination instead of the resignation because I didn't do anything wrong,' " Mr. Mader said. "To resign and admit I did something wrong here would have ate at me. I think I'm right in what I did. I'll take it to the grave."

Mader's case illustrates a haunting truth of why good cops are so rare. Being a good cop and showing restraint is not compatible with modern policing and their training requiring them to escalate to deadly force without haste. When the proverbial good cop is found within their ranks — they are removed.

The department will now fill the void left by Mader with someone who will promise to kill for them, and fast.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
hlat said:
The victim was a long time repeat criminal who had been arrested multiple times with guns, a knife, and drugs. The released photo show the victim did not have his hands up and had his hands down around his waist area. Multiple witnesses says the victim was acting strangely. I wouldn't be surprised if he was high on some drug. I think it is easily understandable that this situation would make other people fear for their lives. I conclude from the facts that something was wrong with this victim and not just on the day he died.

In other words: "Therefore, they were justified in murdering him." Seriously, hlat? Think about it.

A good example of the ponerizing of the mind. We USED to try people before executing them. And execution itself is a highly questionable solution to human social problems.
 
Laura said:
Approaching Infinity said:
hlat said:
The victim was a long time repeat criminal who had been arrested multiple times with guns, a knife, and drugs. The released photo show the victim did not have his hands up and had his hands down around his waist area. Multiple witnesses says the victim was acting strangely. I wouldn't be surprised if he was high on some drug. I think it is easily understandable that this situation would make other people fear for their lives. I conclude from the facts that something was wrong with this victim and not just on the day he died.

In other words: "Therefore, they were justified in murdering him." Seriously, hlat? Think about it.

A good example of the ponerizing of the mind. We USED to try people before executing them. And execution itself is a highly questionable solution to human social problems.

I agree. Killing this victim is simply not justified. Surely you'd think the police get trained in how to diffuse and deal with people/situations like this without having to kill them. Sadly, the police are simply getting out of control due to militarization of the police force. Whatever happened to presumed innocent till proven guilty?

Edit: spelling
 
To start, to try to make clear, I am not sure whether the police killing the victim Alfred Olango was unjustified or justified.

Beau said:
Besides, the articles are more about the reaction from the public to another unarmed black man killed by police. That is exactly the kind of thing that SOTT is interested in tracking. Would you prefer we ignore all this? Just what is your point here, that the man had it coming? I don't think you are really grasping, at all, the line of force behind why these articles are on SOTT.

You are right about the importance of the reaction from the public. I had asked myself if I am wrong, and that was the conclusion I reached, that the protests made it necessary to cover the police killing that was the reason for the protest.

My point was my first sentence, that I made as a standalone paragraph, and my last sentence, that I also made as a standalone paragraph. "I don't think this police killing is a good illustration of police aggression and police violence." "There's so many other clear examples of police aggression and violence, and I think this case detracts from that message because I can understand that the police acted properly in this case." Here's an attempt to try to state it another way. Say there's 10 separate instances of police killing an unarmed black man. Out of the 10, 1 of the killings has several facts that pro-police people can pick out, like arguing that the police fired when they thought the victim was reaching for a gun. Out of the 10, 9 of the killings don't have facts that pro-police people can spin in their favor. In this example, I think including the 1 killing that has facts that pro-police people can pick out would distract from the other 9 glaring murders, and that distraction weakens the message that police are attacking innocent people with no consequences to the police.

I understand the argument that the police acted properly, and I understand the argument that police murdered the victim. With the photo of the victim with his hands around his waist and the witnesses describing the victim acting strangely, I think a lot of people can easily understand the scenario of the victim reaching for a gun and the police shooting him in response.

Beau said:
I vehemently disagree. Yeah, the guy had his hands in his pocket and wouldn't listen to police commands. Does that mean you think police were righteous in their actions to shoot and kill him? The police resorting to shoot first and ask questions later behavior is exactly the problem with police violence.

I think it is contradictory to say the police shot first and to also say the victim wouldn't listen to police commands, because the police are not shooting first if they are commanding first. It's wholly different than other police killings where the police go in without a word and just shoot and kill. I don't know if two police were asking Olango questions; it does seem clear Olango was not responding to their commands, had his hands down, and was acting strangely.

Beau said:
If police were trained better, they would be able to actually TALK to the man, who his sister reported as having mental issues. If they were thinking, they would find a way to de-escalate the situation without killing someone.

If Olango quickly moved his hands from his waist to facing one police with an object that could look like a gun, moved so quickly that there's only a split second to decipher if the object was a gun or not, then that could make the police justified in shooting. That's goes towards the point I've been trying to make, that the ambiguity in this killing takes away from messages like training needs to be better.

Beau said:
A cop fearing for his life does not grant him the right to murder an unarmed man, period.

You are right. The thing is I have not said that police can kill a person who the police know is unarmed.

It is not the same when police face a person who acts like he may have a gun, and then kill the person when police fear for their safety. This case may fall in this category. The ambiguity whether it falls in this category is the point I was trying to make.

Beau said:
Police do not have a right to shoot someone because they have a criminal past.

Yes you are right.

Beau said:
His criminal past has nothing to do with the actual incident.

I'm not sure about this. I think the criminal past increases the likelihood that the victim's strange behavior was due to drugs, either being on drugs or past drug use damaging the brain and making him less able to cope with stresses like a best friend dying. Anti-psychotic pharmaceuticals destroy the brain, and many illegal drugs are similar to those pharmaceuticals.

Also, the article writers included the criminal past in the articles. They did that because the criminal past are facts that affect many people. It could be a System 1 response that provides a cascading association to lots of negative ideas, for both pro-police people as well as neutral people. So in an instant, lots of people reading the articles are going to have negative ideas about the victim because the mention of the criminal past, and that steers people in the wrong direction, steering away from police who are out of control.

Approaching Infinity said:
In other words: "Therefore, they were justified in murdering him." Seriously, hlat? Think about it.

Well, I didn't say that quote.

If Olango quickly moved his hands from his waist to facing one police with an object that could look like a gun, moved so quickly that there's only a split second to decipher if the object was a gun or not, then that could make the police justified in shooting. That's goes towards the point I've been trying to make, that the ambiguity in this killing takes away from messages like training needs to be better.

Ennio said:
The following story came out a couple of weeks ago. Its an example of a cop who - in seemingly more danger than the cops mentioned in the above article - used his head in a dangerous situation to realize that no violence was required. A perfect illustration of not only what a well trained officer of the law does by using his brains, but the militarized police state culture that would have him do the opposite.

"Failed to eliminate threat": Brave cop fired for NOT killing a man who was attempting 'suicide by cop'

This previous police killing of Ronald Williams doesn't have, or has much less, facts the pro-police people can use. It demonstrates the kind of shoot first and ask questions mentality that Beau mentioned, as the back ups just got out and started shooting. It also demonstrates the kind of training police should have in Stephen Mader's actions.

Laura said:
We USED to try people before executing them. And execution itself is a highly questionable solution to human social problems.

One reason execution is not a good solution is because innocent people are convicted and executed.

I think execution would be proper and good in cases like Daniel Wozniak (murder for money) and Brock Turner (rape).
https://www.sott.net/article/329207-Intraspecies-predator-Ex-actor-Daniel-Wozniak-sentenced-to-death-in-grisly-double-murder-and-cover-up
https://www.sott.net/article/327228-Huge-armed-protest-outside-Stanford-rapists-house-to-greet-him-after-being-released-from-jail

Laura said:
A good example of the ponerizing of the mind.

I don't rule out the possibility that I could be wrong, because we all have been very wrong before. So I'd like to look at (1) what is the evil in society (2) that I'm supporting.

Arwenn said:
Killing this victim is simply not justified.

I don't know. I'm not sure.

Arwenn said:
Surely you'd think the police get trained in how to diffuse and deal with people/situations like this without having to kill them.

I don't know that police are getting proper training. I think the point is they are not getting proper training.

Arwenn said:
Sadly, the police are simply getting out of control due to militarization of the police force.

Yes, you are right about out of control now. I'm not sure the police were in control in the past.

--

I want to see if I understand you all correctly. Are you all saying that there are no understandable facts that police acted properly in killing Olango? I can understand both views, police acted improperly and police acted properly. Are you saying that it is clear that police acted improperly in killing Olango? It is not clear to me.

Beau said:
I don't really know what to say to that, other than it sounds like something a fascist would say.
...
If you think so, you are so far down the authoritative thinker hole that I don't know why are still on this forum.

I'm quoting this to show that you appear to be quick to name calling. Maybe you were low on energy for whatever reason, like being tired, and I can understand if that was the case. It doesn't mean I agree or support what you said. If this is some kind of test or scratch, I don't know if it worked.

I wrote most of this last night, slept on it, waited to the today so I had more energy, and made little revisions. I've tried to think about and respond to each comment.

Here is another police killing, and I'm not sure that it shows that police need more training or acted improperly.

https://www.sott.net/article/329738-Kansas-police-officer-dodges-charges-after-killing-mentally-ill-man-all-because-of-an-expired-license-plate
According to the investigation, the encounter between Weber and the officer initially started as a traffic stop, when Hauptman noticed an expired license decal. However, Weber disobeyed the lights and siren and did not stop immediately. That move prompted Hauptman to arrest Weber for failing to obey the order, treating it as a felony.

Hauptman then shouted to Weber to get his hands out of the window while waiting for backup. However, the man refused to do so, instead starting driving again as additional law enforcement approached. Hauptman pulled up behind Weber's vehicle and followed him until they eventually stopped the 2300 block of Timber Drive.

"He was pursued by three law enforcement vehicles. He eluded the officer for several minutes and stopped in the 2300 block of Timber Drive," said Drees.

Weber further ignored Hauptman's command to get on the ground. Despite being at gunpoint, the man started running and was eventually forced to the ground.

Weber attempted to pull a gun away from Hauptman, who then pushed the barrel in the man's chest and fired one shot, killing him.

The police killing of Joseph Weber did not involve an unarmed black man and did not result in protests like in Olango's killing. The police didn't shoot first without doing anything else. If it is to be believed, Weber tried to take a police gun during a struggle.
 
hlat said:
I understand the argument that the police acted properly, and I understand the argument that police murdered the victim. With the photo of the victim with his hands around his waist and the witnesses describing the victim acting strangely, I think a lot of people can easily understand the scenario of the victim reaching for a gun and the police shooting him in response.

hlat said:
I don't rule out the possibility that I could be wrong, because we all have been very wrong before. So I'd like to look at (1) what is the evil in society (2) that I'm supporting.

hlat said:
I don't know that police are getting proper training. I think the point is they are not getting proper training.[...]

Yes, you are right about out of control now. I'm not sure the police were in control in the past.

The point is, that what we are witnessing now is an epidemic of police violence, that no amount of nitpicking and "analyzing" is going to justify.

Besides, if there is one thing that any educated person should do is know their history, or the history of the topic they are talking about. And when it comes to police violence, or police being "trigger happy", here's a longish (but very relevant) quote from the book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell. By the way, the book is on the recommended reading list.

Anyways, I would advice to read entire text very carefully. And remember that the book was published in 2005. Meaning, that it took only 10 years to go from this level to what we have now. And by "this level" I mean that there were always "trigger happy" cops, and there were always cases of police violence, but definitely not in the scope of what is happening now. Notice in the text that despite the outcome being distinctly negative, policemen did go through some sort of thinking process. Today in most cases this "thinking process" is practically nonexistent. Therefore your argument is intrinsically invalid.

It could be valid back in 1999. Maybe...Nowadays, and on this forum, you just come off like someone very far down the authoritative thinker hole.

Seven Seconds in the Bronx: The Delicate Art of Mind Reading

The 1100 block of Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview neighborhood of the South Bronx is a narrow street of modest two-story houses and apartments. At one end is the bustle of Westchester Avenue, the neighborhood’s main commercial strip, and from there, the block runs about two hundred yards, flanked by trees and twin rows of parked cars. The buildings were built in the early part of the last century. Many have an ornate façade of red brick, with four- or five-step stoops leading to the front door. It is a poor and working-class neighborhood, and in the late 1990s, the drug trade in the area, particularly on Westchester Avenue and one street over on Elder Avenue, was brisk. Soundview is just the kind of place where you would go if you were an immigrant in New York City who was looking to live somewhere cheap and close to a subway, which is why Amadou Diallo made his way to Wheeler Avenue.

Diallo was from Guinea. In 1999, he was twenty-two and working as a peddler in lower Manhattan, selling videotapes and socks and gloves from the sidewalk along Fourteenth Street. He was short and unassuming, about five foot six and 150 pounds, and he lived at 1157 Wheeler, on the second floor of one of the street’s narrow apartment houses. On the night of February 3, 1999, Diallo returned home to his apartment just before midnight, talked to his roommates, and then went downstairs and stood at the top of the steps to his building, taking in the night. A few minutes later, a group of plainclothes police officers turned slowly onto Wheeler Avenue in an unmarked Ford Taurus. There were four of them—all white, all wearing jeans and sweatshirts and baseball caps and bulletproof vests, and all carrying police-issue 9-millimeter semiautomatic handguns. They were part of what is called the Street Crime Unit, a special division of the New York Police Department, dedicated to patrolling crime “hot spots” in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Driving the Taurus was Ken Boss. He was twenty-seven. Next to him was Sean Carroll, thirty-five, and in the backseat were Edward McMellon, twenty-six, and Richard Murphy, twenty-six.

It was Carroll who spotted Diallo first. “Hold up, hold up,” he said to the others in the car. “What’s that guy doing there?” Carroll claimed later that he had had two thoughts. One was that Diallo might be the lookout for a “push-in” robber—that is, a burglar who pretends to be a visitor and pushes his way into people’s apartments. The other was that Diallo fitted the description of a serial rapist who had been active in the neighborhood about a year earlier. “He was just standing there,” Carroll recalled. “He was just standing on the stoop, looking up and down the block, peeking his head out and then putting his head back against the wall. Within seconds, he does the same thing, looks down, looks right. And it appeared that he stepped backwards into the vestibule as we were approaching, like he didn’t want to be seen. And then we passed by, and I am looking at him, and I’m trying to figure out what’s going on. What’s this guy up to?”

Boss stopped the car and backed up until the Taurus was right in front of 1157 Wheeler. Diallo was still there, which Carroll would later say “amazed” him. “I’m like, all right, definitely something is going on here.” Carroll and McMellon got out of the car. “Police,” McMellon called out, holding up his badge. “Can we have a word?” Diallo didn’t answer. Later, it emerged that Diallo had a stutter, so he may well have tried to say something but simply couldn’t. What’s more, his English wasn’t perfect, and it was rumored as well that someone he knew had recently been robbed by a group of armed men, so he must have been terrified: here he was, outside in a bad neighborhood after midnight with two very large men in baseball caps, their chests inflated by their bulletproof vests, striding toward him. Diallo paused and then ran into the vestibule. Carroll and McMellon gave chase. Diallo reached the inside door and grabbed the doorknob with his left hand while, as the officers would later testify, turning his body sideways and “digging” into his pocket with his other hand.

“Show me your hands!” Carroll called out. McMellon was yelling, too: “Get your hands out of your pockets. Don’t make me -flicking- kill you!” But Diallo was growing more and more agitated, and Carroll was starting to get nervous, too, because it seemed to him that the reason Diallo was turning his body sideways was that he wanted to hide whatever he was doing with his right hand.

“We were probably at the top steps of the vestibule, trying to get to him before he got through that door,” Carroll remembered. “The individual turned, looked at us. His hand was on—still on the doorknob. And he starts removing a black object from his right side. And as he pulled the object, all I could see was a top—it looked like the slide of a black gun. My prior experience and training, my prior arrests, dictated to me that this person was pulling a gun.”

Carroll yelled out, “Gun! He’s got a gun!”

Diallo didn’t stop. He continued pulling on something in his pocket, and now he began to raise the black object in the direction of the officers. Carroll opened fire. McMellon instinctively jumped backward off the step and landed on his backside, firing as he flew through the air. As his bullets ricocheted around the vestibule, Carroll assumed that they came from Diallo’s gun, and when he saw McMellon flying backward, he assumed that McMellon had been shot by Diallo, so he kept shooting, aiming, as police are taught to do, for “center mass.” There were pieces of cement and splinters of wood flying in every direction, and the air was electric with the flash of gun muzzles and the sparks from the bullets.

Boss and Murphy were now out of the car as well, running toward the building. “I saw Ed McMellon,” Boss would later testify, when the four officers were brought to trial on charges of first-degree manslaughter and second-degree murder. “He was on the left side of the vestibule and just came flying off that step all the way down. And at the same time, Sean Carroll is on the right-hand side, and he is coming down the stairs. It was frantic. He was running down the stairs, and it was just—it was intense. He was just doing whatever he could to retreat off those stairs. And Ed was on the ground. Shots are still going off. I’m running. I’m moving. And Ed was shot. That’s all I could see. Ed was firing his weapon. Sean was firing his weapon into the vestibule. . . .

And then I see Mr. Diallo. He is in the rear of the vestibule, in the back, towards the back wall, where that inner door is. He is a little bit off to the side of that door and he is crouched. He is crouched and he has his hand out and I see a gun. And I said, ‘My God, I’m going to die.’ I fired my weapon. I fired it as I was pushing myself backward and then I jumped off to the left. I was out of the line of fire. . . . His knees were bent. His back was straight up. And what it looked like was somebody trying to make a smaller target. It looked like a combat stance, the same one that I was taught in the police academy.”

At that point, the attorney questioning Boss interrupted: “And how was his hand?”

“It was out.”

“Straight out?”

“Straight out.”

“And in his hand you saw an object. Is that correct?”

“Yeah, I thought I saw a gun in his hand. . . . What I seen was an entire weapon. A square weapon in his hand. It looked to me at that split second, after all the gunshots around me and the gun smoke and Ed McMellon down, that he was holding a gun and that he had just shot Ed and that I was next.”

Carroll and McMellon fired sixteen shots each: an entire clip. Boss fired five shots. Murphy fired four shots. There was silence. Guns drawn, they climbed the stairs and approached Diallo. “I seen his right hand,” Boss said later. “It was out from his body. His palm was open. And where there should have been a gun, there was a wallet. . . . I said, ‘Where’s the -flicking- gun?’”

Boss ran up the street toward Westchester Avenue because he had lost track in the shouting and the shooting of where they were. Later, when the ambulances arrived, he was so distraught, he could not speak.

Carroll sat down on the steps, next to Diallo’s bullet-ridden body, and started to cry.

1. Three Fatal Mistakes

Perhaps the most common—and the most important—forms of rapid cognition are the judgments we make and the impressions we form of other people. Every waking minute that we are in the presence of someone, we come up with a constant stream of predictions and inferences about what that person is thinking and feeling.

When someone says, “I love you,” we look into that person’s eyes to judge his or her sincerity. When we meet someone new, we often pick up on subtle signals, so that afterward, even though he or she may have talked in a normal and friendly manner, we may say, “I don’t think he liked me,” or “I don’t think she’s very happy.” We easily parse complex distinctions in facial expression. If you were to see me grinning, for example, with my eyes twinkling, you’d say I was amused. But if you were to see me nod and smile exaggeratedly, with the corners of my lips tightened, you would take it that I had been teased and was responding sarcastically. If I were to make eye contact with someone, give a small smile, and then look down and avert my gaze, you would think I was flirting. If I were to follow a remark with a quick smile and then nod or tilt my head sideways, you might conclude that I had just said something a little harsh and wanted to take the edge off it. You wouldn’t need to hear anything I was saying in order to reach these conclusions. They would just come to you, blink. If you were to approach a one-year-old child who sits playing on the floor and do something a little bit puzzling, such as cupping your hands over hers, the child would immediately look up into your eyes. Why? Because what you have done requires explanation, and the child knows that she can find an answer on your face.

This practice of inferring the motivations and intentions of others is classic thin-slicing. It is picking up on subtle, fleeting cues in order to read someone’s mind—and there is almost no other impulse so basic and so automatic and at which, most of the time, we so effortlessly excel. In the early hours of February 4, 1999, however, the four officers cruising down Wheeler Avenue failed at this most fundamental task. They did not read Diallo’s mind.

First, Sean Carroll saw Diallo and said to the others in the car, “What’s that guy doing there?” The answer was that Diallo was getting some air. But Carroll sized him up and in that instant decided he looked suspicious. That was mistake number one. Then they backed the car up, and Diallo didn’t move. Carroll later said that “amazed” him: How brazen was this man, who didn’t run at the sight of the police? Diallo wasn’t brazen. He was curious. That was mistake number two. Then Carroll and Murphy stepped toward Diallo on the stoop and watched him turn slightly to the side, and make a movement for his pocket. In that split second, they decided he was dangerous. But he was not. He was terrified. That was mistake number three.

Ordinarily, we have no difficulty at all distinguishing, in a blink, between someone who is suspicious and someone who is not, between someone brazen and someone curious, and, most easily of all, between someone terrified and someone dangerous; anyone who walks down a city street late at night makes those kinds of instantaneous calculations constantly. Yet, for some reason, that most basic human ability deserted those officers that night. Why? These kinds of mistakes were not anomalous events. Mind-reading failures happen to all of us. They lie at the root of countless arguments, disagreements, misunderstandings, and hurt feelings. And yet, because these failures are so instantaneous and so mysterious, we don’t really know how to understand them.

In the weeks and months that followed the Diallo shooting, for example, as the case made headlines around the world, the argument over what happened that night veered back and forth between two extremes. There were those who said that it was just a horrible accident, an inevitable by product of the fact that police officers sometimes have to make life-or-death decisions in conditions of uncertainty. That’s what the jury in the Diallo trial concluded, and Boss, Carroll, McMellon, and Murphy were all acquitted of murder charges. On the other side were those who saw what happened as an open-and-shut case of racism. There were protests and demonstrations throughout the city. Diallo was held up as a martyr. Wheeler Avenue was renamed Amadou Diallo Place. Bruce Springsteen wrote and performed a song in his honor called “41 Shots,” with the chorus “You can get killed just for living in your American skin.”

Neither of these explanations, however, is particularly satisfying. There was no evidence that the four officers in the Diallo case were bad people, or racists, or out to get Diallo. On the other hand, it seems wrong to call the shooting a simple accident, since this wasn’t exactly exemplary police work. The officers made a series of critical misjudgments, beginning with the assumption that a man getting a breath of fresh air outside his own home was a potential criminal.

The Diallo shooting, in other words, falls into a kind of gray area, the middle ground between deliberate and accidental. Mind-reading failures are sometimes like that. They aren’t always as obvious and spectacular as other breakdowns in rapid cognition. They are subtle and complex and surprisingly common, and what happened on Wheeler Avenue is a powerful example of how mind reading works—and how it sometimes goes terribly awry.
 
Back
Top Bottom