When reading anything on The Guardian it's important to ask what they aren't telling you, because it's almost certain that they are omitting many very salient details out in order to fit the story into their own narrative. If you knew that Nieto had other problems, you likely wouldn't come away from the Guardian article believing that he was executed for being Hispanic.
How can you ignore the inciting incident in this case? Perhaps the victim was a man with some personal issues, but before being harassed by Evan Snow, Alex Nieto was a man minding his own business.
> Nieto was clearly a man having a crisis, and his purported reaction when approached by police was not that of a rational person. Told to show his hands, Nieto allegedly demanded that the cops show theirs. He then reportedly drew his taser and fired three times. And so he was shot—and shot and shot—by officers who claim they did not realize Nieto was carrying a less-than-lethal device.
This is the stuff she should have included into her article?
This platitude about mental health,
> Our jails are full of men and women whose crime is being mentally ill.
Is not a more compelling analysis of the event than Solnit's take.
This police-assisted murder is a shame but I don't understand why we expect neighborhoods to remain frozen in time forever, never changing their racial or socioeconomic makeup for as long as the area exists.
It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat the area and neighbors with the same reverence and respect that those before them did. I don't think people resent a changing neighborhood so much as they resent people with different values settling down and expecting the neighborhood to bend to their preference.
This is clearly what's at stake in the death of Alex Nieto.
> Evan Snow, a thirtysomething “user experience design professional”..., who had moved to the neighbourhood about six months earlier (and who has since departed for a more suburban environment)
> Snow never seemed to recognise that his out-of-control dog was the aggressor: “So Luna was, I think, looking to move around the benches or behind me to run up happily to get a chip from Mr Nieto. Mr Nieto became further – what’s the right word? – distressed, moving very quickly and rapidly left to right, trying to keep his chips away from Luna. He ran down to these benches and jumped up on the benches, my dog following. She was at that point vocalising, barking, or kind of howling.”
>– in his deposition for the case, under oath, his exact words were that he was distracted by a female “jogger’s butt”. “I can imagine that somebody would – could assume the dog was being aggressive at that point,” Snow said. The dog did not come when he called, but kept barking. Nieto, Snow says, then pulled back his jacket and took his Taser out, briefly pointing at the distant dog-owner before he pointed it at the dog baying at his feet. The two men yelled at each other, and Snow apparently used a racial slur, but would not later give the precise word. As he left the park, he texted a friend about the incident. His text, according to his testimony, said, “in another state like Florida, I would have been justified in shooting Mr Nieto that night”
Is this guy real? This is the sort of person I'd expect to see on Silicon Valley not in the real world, he fits the techbro stereotype exactly. After each sentence I read, I thought this guy couldn't get even more stereotypical, but he managed to lower the bar further.
This is a person Rebecca Solnit chose to single out, carefully juxtaposing reports of his (incredibly obnoxious) behavior against Nieto's shooting, to which, even by Solnit's account (read carefully), he was not a party.
I don't want to get drinks with this character in Solnit's story, either. But I'm not sure we should applaud the tactic of summoning up and focusing outrage on people like this.
Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country?
Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment?
Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.
Cops always say that they feared for their life when they end up shooting an innocent person. If we just take their word for it, we're effectively saying that there are no circumstances under which we can legitimately criticize the police for killing someone (because the officers involved will always say that they perceived their lives to be in danger).
> Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country?
this is why police continue getting away with it. there are people out there like TheMagicHorsey who just believe everything they say, no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical.
upon hearing something totally and utterly unbelievable, he thinks "this guy was crazy", instead of "the police are lying their asses off to cover their own ass, who you gonna believe, cops or the dead guy?"
and bless his heart, that's probably because he's never had to deal with the police in any meaningful way. good for him. must be nice.
That police officers get nervous and can be consumed by an adrenaline fueled fight or flight response (while armed) seems to be part of the problem.
I wonder if there's a pharmaceutical solution to this problem that would suppress the adrenaline and the fight or flight response to allow officers to remain cool headed even if someone is threatening them with a gun (or appears to be as was, perhaps, the case in this instance).
That the police shot this person at all is a tragedy, but the number of bullets --- a detail reported brethlessly in all police shooting stories --- isn't particularly important.
Police training demands they shoot to kill. The notion of using a firearm merely to wound is mostly a TV fiction. Especially with a subject they believe to be armed (as with this case, where someone called 911 reporting a gun), if the police start shooting, they're going to make sure the target can't react. Their concern will be that even a fatal shot might leave the target with 10-15 seconds with which to get off a shot in reply.
That this is probably a reasonable thing for the police to do is, for me, a strong argument that most police should not be armed with guns. But that gets us into an unproductive discussion about American gun culture and gun control.
Under stress the fight-or-flight response kicks in and a lot of fine motor skills and training goes out the window. An instructor of mine said that when the adrenaline hits, at best you have half of your trained skill, lose a lot of fine motor control, and won’t be able to think coherently for thirty to sixty seconds. You’ll do what was trained to the point of being automatic or is simple. Police officers typically get somewhere around one hundred hours of firearms training during academy and anywhere from eight to fifty hours of annual retraining, practice, and/or recertification. This is a lot less than needed to become or remain proficient. Had someone asked any of the officers immediately afterward how many times they pulled the trigger they probably would have answered two or three times or that they don’t know.
This article seems to miss some crucial details. How does a jury go from the given description of a man armed with only a Taser being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed and vote unanimously in the police's favor? Was the question asked to the jury more specific, did the Guardian leave something out or was the jury really racist as the Guardian implies (by listing their races)?
> being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed
There is no such thing as "shoot to disable" with firearms. Firearms are lethal weapons. They should only be used when deadly force is justified, and cannot reliably be used to "disable" someone apart from killing them.
The article provides some key details you don't mention here:
> It was a civil trial, so the standard was not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just the “preponderance of evidence”. No one was facing prison, but if the city and officers were found liable, there could be a large financial settlement and it could affect the careers of the policemen. The trial was covered by several local media outlets. On Thursday 10 March, after an afternoon and morning of deliberations, the eight jurors – five white, one Asian woman and two Asian men – unanimously ruled in favour of the police on all counts.
Namely:
- It was a civil trial,
- preponderance of evidence was required,
- the penalty would come back to hurt the tax-base,
- the jurors were insulated from the racial component.
How can you not get one Hispanic juror on your jury in San Francisco? This to me, is mind blowing. I'm not saying the jury was racist necessarily, just ignorant. Some people go against all reason and trust cops despite common sense that says not to. It's hard to fathom, but I think that's where a lot of these problems come from. One minute, you have a senior in high school who bullies, beats up other students, and can't be trusted with anything and the a few months later, this same person carries around a gun and a badge and society basically absolves him of wrongdoing. Until those attitudes change, the police will continue to get away with blatant murders like this one. Even if every police person in the US stops being racist at once, there will still be murders until our society starts to hold the police and courts responsible for their actions. You do not get to over 2 million people in jail (mostly non-white) without society approving such a mass crime against humanity.
It is true that this case has the signs of unnecessary, racially-biased police brutality written all over it. It is also true that gentrification in SF is causing serious problems and culture clashes.
But I think it's unfair and quite a stretch to take this example and say that 'gentrification' is directly responsible for this killing. The underlying problems here are racism and police brutality, which in this case are correlated to, but an entirely separate issue from, the sudden influx of wealth.
The death wasn't caused by racism and police brutality in the abstract. It was caused by the confluence of the two that manifests in the context of gentrification. Cities have a huge incentive to police these neighborhoods in a way that makes the gentrifiers "feel safe." That causes an atypically unstable situation.
Allegedly. In any case, that makes it to trial, the police by default have always claimed that a weapon was pointed at them, and the suspect refused to cooperate.
It's the only reasonable defense, and plays out better than the more realistic "cooperation wasn't instantaneous, we argued, and then my fellow officer started shooting for unknown reasons so I automatically shot too".
Er, the taser some officers claim was pointed at them, and the one that was lying on the ground beside his collapsed body as it was still being shot by officers
Lacking any “real” contradictory evidence, I guess we have to take the police’s claim reluctantly at face-value. The police don’t exactly have an impeccable track record when it comes to on-the-record honesty, but in this case their (often inconsistent) testimony is all we’ve got. And when you combine that with the lead-up to his police encounter, where basically everyone he ran into (in this narrative) treated him disrespectfully, then it starts to smell understandably fishy.
EDIT: Is it too much to ask for responses in lieu of down-votes? Discussions work better when we work together on our ideas instead of just shutting down the stuff we disagree with.
The word 'xenophobia' literally means fear of strangers. But apparently it applies only if those strangers are Syrian illegals and not when they're white techies. It's unfortunate that the media is stoking this phenomenon. Strangely enough, here a British newspaper is concerned about the supposed invasion of a city half a world across from Britain.
What about the "UnProvoker": free floating handcuffs that at the press of an easily accessible button will clamp on your hands and fingers, so if the incoming cop team shoots you, they won't be able to claim you acted menacing? Also the cops then have to come untie you, maybe time enough to start a conversation about racial profiling?
Some other articles have mentioned that he was previously on some pretty powerful psych meds and there weren't any found in his system by the coroner. Quitting those medications cold turkey can make someone with previously minor mental health problems go full "point a taser at the cops" crazy.
There is rent control in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Oakland, CA. People get priced out of the market through an increase in demand and a lack of corresponding supply opportunities.
1. The lessee stays in a rent controlled location during a period of price increases, absolving themselves of the real-world price increase that is occurring to the landlord. So, to move from the house would mean the costs the landlord absorbed will be now absorbed by the lessee, meaning there is a large expense in moving. So, you either make the lodging you are in work, or else you move out. If you move out, lacking a corresponding wage increase, you will be priced out.
2. For San Francisco, there are height and zoning restrictions galore in the city. Supply to meet the demand is just not going to be allowed by the locals who push for "Keeping San Francisco like San Francisco." Since, demand increases, supply is static and those who would like to come in at $X wage are simply priced out of the market.
San Francisco has very strong rent control laws that limit rent increases to below the rate of inflation, that ensure well-behaved tenants generally can hold onto an apartment for their entire life if they want, and keep paying an ever-discounted rate, and they even apply when the tenant is wealthy.
But when poor tenants voluntarily move out, they're usually replaced by someone willing to pay a lot more.
Also, in any given year, a very small fraction of landlords (less than 1/10th of one percent) decide they don't want to be landlords anymore, and an extremely controversial California law called the Ellis Act allows them to decline to renew the lease and stop being landlords.
Yes SF and NYC have rent control. And other regulations that make it less profitable to build and rent out homes. This reduces supply of rental homes, which increases prices.
"In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city - except for bombing." - Assar Lindbeck
[+] [-] laurencerowe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcromartie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmschulman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] musesum|10 years ago|reply
I suspect that if neighborhoods were more static, then the neighbors would know who was a real threat; fewer false positives.
[+] [-] jcromartie|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RodericDay|10 years ago|reply
This is the stuff she should have included into her article?
This platitude about mental health,
> Our jails are full of men and women whose crime is being mentally ill.
Is not a more compelling analysis of the event than Solnit's take.
[+] [-] dmschulman|10 years ago|reply
It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat the area and neighbors with the same reverence and respect that those before them did. I don't think people resent a changing neighborhood so much as they resent people with different values settling down and expecting the neighborhood to bend to their preference.
This is clearly what's at stake in the death of Alex Nieto.
[+] [-] navait|10 years ago|reply
> Snow never seemed to recognise that his out-of-control dog was the aggressor: “So Luna was, I think, looking to move around the benches or behind me to run up happily to get a chip from Mr Nieto. Mr Nieto became further – what’s the right word? – distressed, moving very quickly and rapidly left to right, trying to keep his chips away from Luna. He ran down to these benches and jumped up on the benches, my dog following. She was at that point vocalising, barking, or kind of howling.”
>– in his deposition for the case, under oath, his exact words were that he was distracted by a female “jogger’s butt”. “I can imagine that somebody would – could assume the dog was being aggressive at that point,” Snow said. The dog did not come when he called, but kept barking. Nieto, Snow says, then pulled back his jacket and took his Taser out, briefly pointing at the distant dog-owner before he pointed it at the dog baying at his feet. The two men yelled at each other, and Snow apparently used a racial slur, but would not later give the precise word. As he left the park, he texted a friend about the incident. His text, according to his testimony, said, “in another state like Florida, I would have been justified in shooting Mr Nieto that night”
Is this guy real? This is the sort of person I'd expect to see on Silicon Valley not in the real world, he fits the techbro stereotype exactly. After each sentence I read, I thought this guy couldn't get even more stereotypical, but he managed to lower the bar further.
[+] [-] tptacek|10 years ago|reply
I don't want to get drinks with this character in Solnit's story, either. But I'm not sure we should applaud the tactic of summoning up and focusing outrage on people like this.
[+] [-] TheMagicHorsey|10 years ago|reply
Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment?
Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.
[+] [-] foldr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|10 years ago|reply
http://missionlocal.org/2016/03/witness-testified-alex-nieto...
[+] [-] hutzlibu|10 years ago|reply
So either the police was lying (as one witness said) or they did not identify themself as police
[+] [-] beachstartup|10 years ago|reply
this is why police continue getting away with it. there are people out there like TheMagicHorsey who just believe everything they say, no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical.
upon hearing something totally and utterly unbelievable, he thinks "this guy was crazy", instead of "the police are lying their asses off to cover their own ass, who you gonna believe, cops or the dead guy?"
and bless his heart, that's probably because he's never had to deal with the police in any meaningful way. good for him. must be nice.
[+] [-] zahmahkibo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eric_h|10 years ago|reply
I wonder if there's a pharmaceutical solution to this problem that would suppress the adrenaline and the fight or flight response to allow officers to remain cool headed even if someone is threatening them with a gun (or appears to be as was, perhaps, the case in this instance).
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Fiahil|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|10 years ago|reply
Police training demands they shoot to kill. The notion of using a firearm merely to wound is mostly a TV fiction. Especially with a subject they believe to be armed (as with this case, where someone called 911 reporting a gun), if the police start shooting, they're going to make sure the target can't react. Their concern will be that even a fatal shot might leave the target with 10-15 seconds with which to get off a shot in reply.
That this is probably a reasonable thing for the police to do is, for me, a strong argument that most police should not be armed with guns. But that gets us into an unproductive discussion about American gun culture and gun control.
[+] [-] rlonstein|10 years ago|reply
Under stress the fight-or-flight response kicks in and a lot of fine motor skills and training goes out the window. An instructor of mine said that when the adrenaline hits, at best you have half of your trained skill, lose a lot of fine motor control, and won’t be able to think coherently for thirty to sixty seconds. You’ll do what was trained to the point of being automatic or is simple. Police officers typically get somewhere around one hundred hours of firearms training during academy and anywhere from eight to fifty hours of annual retraining, practice, and/or recertification. This is a lot less than needed to become or remain proficient. Had someone asked any of the officers immediately afterward how many times they pulled the trigger they probably would have answered two or three times or that they don’t know.
[+] [-] czechdeveloper|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hutzlibu|10 years ago|reply
But that was apparently not the case here.
[+] [-] the-dude|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinco|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jemfinch|10 years ago|reply
There is no such thing as "shoot to disable" with firearms. Firearms are lethal weapons. They should only be used when deadly force is justified, and cannot reliably be used to "disable" someone apart from killing them.
[+] [-] RodericDay|10 years ago|reply
> It was a civil trial, so the standard was not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just the “preponderance of evidence”. No one was facing prison, but if the city and officers were found liable, there could be a large financial settlement and it could affect the careers of the policemen. The trial was covered by several local media outlets. On Thursday 10 March, after an afternoon and morning of deliberations, the eight jurors – five white, one Asian woman and two Asian men – unanimously ruled in favour of the police on all counts.
Namely:
- It was a civil trial,
- preponderance of evidence was required,
- the penalty would come back to hurt the tax-base,
- the jurors were insulated from the racial component.
[+] [-] joesmo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] advaits|10 years ago|reply
But I think it's unfair and quite a stretch to take this example and say that 'gentrification' is directly responsible for this killing. The underlying problems here are racism and police brutality, which in this case are correlated to, but an entirely separate issue from, the sudden influx of wealth.
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|10 years ago|reply
http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...
[+] [-] RVuRnvbM2e|10 years ago|reply
The police wouldn't have even been there if some dude hadn't decided to call 911 on the guy for "walking while hispanic":
> Fritz said he only saw Nieto pacing near a bench and eating from a bag but did not himself see any weapon.
http://missionlocal.org/2016/03/witness-testified-alex-nieto...
[+] [-] true_religion|10 years ago|reply
It's the only reasonable defense, and plays out better than the more realistic "cooperation wasn't instantaneous, we argued, and then my fellow officer started shooting for unknown reasons so I automatically shot too".
[+] [-] marbletiles|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangerlibrary|10 years ago|reply
The four police officer's stories contradict one another as well as some of the physical evidence.
[+] [-] egwynn|10 years ago|reply
EDIT: Is it too much to ask for responses in lieu of down-votes? Discussions work better when we work together on our ideas instead of just shutting down the stuff we disagree with.
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] puppetmaster3|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polotics|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1812Overture|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|10 years ago|reply
And somehow people moving into a certain area think that what was there before should cater to all of their demands
Really
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ashray|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Agustus|10 years ago|reply
1. The lessee stays in a rent controlled location during a period of price increases, absolving themselves of the real-world price increase that is occurring to the landlord. So, to move from the house would mean the costs the landlord absorbed will be now absorbed by the lessee, meaning there is a large expense in moving. So, you either make the lodging you are in work, or else you move out. If you move out, lacking a corresponding wage increase, you will be priced out.
2. For San Francisco, there are height and zoning restrictions galore in the city. Supply to meet the demand is just not going to be allowed by the locals who push for "Keeping San Francisco like San Francisco." Since, demand increases, supply is static and those who would like to come in at $X wage are simply priced out of the market.
[+] [-] raldi|10 years ago|reply
But when poor tenants voluntarily move out, they're usually replaced by someone willing to pay a lot more.
Also, in any given year, a very small fraction of landlords (less than 1/10th of one percent) decide they don't want to be landlords anymore, and an extremely controversial California law called the Ellis Act allows them to decline to renew the lease and stop being landlords.
[+] [-] laut|10 years ago|reply
"In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city - except for bombing." - Assar Lindbeck
[+] [-] known|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EvanMiller|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]