Excellent idea. Let's train/condition 300 million people exactly how they should behave in stressful and life-threatening situations, and put at least part of the blame on them for any deviation from "acceptable" behaviour when put in an unknown situations with guns pointing at them.

It would take far too much time and effort to modify police training and expectations.

Perhaps we should cut funding for some more arts and phys-ed programs in public schools, and start funding "police/violence readiness prep" classes in K-12.

I am not saying the guy's death is his fault. I am saying expecting policemen not to react to certain movements just because they can be innocent is not a realistic expectation to place on them. It is safer for everyone if we all just stay calm, de-escalate, act deliberately, sort things out. Flapping around is a good way to look dangerous, and I just think things would be safer if people understood this.

People cannot reasonably be expected to “stay calm” at a moments notice. That is completely unreasonable.

Moving deliberately and keeping your hands visible around police, particularly if they seem to think you're dangerous, is a good way to stay as safe as you can, and will put them less on edge in the encounter. You want that. In a dangerous situation, you want everyone as calm as possible.

Will it always work? Of course not. Maybe you're drunk or high. Maybe you're insane. Maybe you panicked in spite of yourself. Whatever. Hopefully in that situation one of the other protections will work for you.

Wear ya damn seatbelt. Not because it always works, but because sometimes it's the only thing that saves your life.

Safety is about tradeoffs and incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. If there really is a murderer in the house, we want police to be aggressive. If it's a hoax, we want them to be cautious. But expecting them to magically know which situation it is isn't a practical solution. Making it really obvious that you aren't a tactical threat is a practical way to make the situation safer. ER!

Obviously the whole situation is super dangerous and the blame rests almost entirely with the hoaxer.

But with that said, I think it is practical and reasonable to talk about the best way to surrender safely and avoid a misunderstanding in a situation like that. It won't work in every case, but it should generally work and could improve the situation.

the vast majority of people in the US know not to run from bears. They also can identify pikachu on sight. Knowing how to respond to the unexpected appearance of police who think you're a bad guy seems to me at least as useful of a skill. And it's not a difficult concept that requires a great deal of training -- just understand that hands kill (nobody ever draws a gun with their feet, except maybe James Bond), and if you're in a stressful situation, slowly move your hands into totally visible open space (unless you're a cartoon character, you definitely can't draw a gun from midair.) No, this won't prevent 100% of police shootings, but it can prevent an awful lot of them. It's also useful for defusing a lot of other potentially violent situations.

> "and put at least part of the blame on them"

There are two types of blame. There's the "you shouldn't have done that" that you say to the guy who stabbed his neighbor over a fence dispute, and there's the "you shouldn't have done that" that you say when you're watching a zombie movie and someone wanders off alone.

One is about moral culpability, about someone's intent being wrong. And we should NEVER impose that kind of blame on victims.

The other is about risk management, about someone's actions increasing negative outcomes. It's why we have things like debriefings and post-mortems in contexts ranging from military to software development -- learn what factors can lead to negative outcomes, and develop tactics to mitigate them. And we should stop being so afraid of "victim-blaming" that we instinctively balk at this.

A bunch of police showed up at his house and pointed guns at him, and his behaviour is threatening?

I know I've made a fuss about not making sudden moves in tense situations, but if you are going to make a sudden move, definitely avoid doing exactly that.

Yes, that is what they are describing. Because of course they are.

What we don't have is video.

And what we don't have is the other guy's account of what happened – because they killed him.

Sort of like, car drivers do have the ultimate responsibility to not hit people, but it sure is a lot safer if we also tell people to generally stay on the sidewalks.

Policemen are generally going to try to do the right thing, but it's a whole lot easier for them to get it right if, in addition to being innocent, you also act safe.

You don't have a perspective here, you're uncritically adopting theirs, which is designed to present things in a certain way.

'the male' - not a person or a man; dehumanizing language

'turned towards the officers' - probably because he had just noticed their presence; this language implies intent

'the residence' - it's a house; unnecessary abstracting leads to a loss of valuable context

'lowered his hands to the waistband again' - do you wear pants or a skirt? then you have a waistband, and guess what, your hands naturally hang just below wait level; everyone who isn't naked and holding their hands in the air is assumed to be armed with a concealed handgun

'then suddenly pulled them back up towards those officers at the east' - probably because they were telling to put his hands up and most people lift their arms up in front of them rather than to the side as when doing jumping jacks; implies the action was directed at them without evidence

See? It all sounds like delightfully objective, but it's actually selective and subjective. You were manipulated into treating conclusions as if they were evidence.

I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation.

You know police departments consider hands and feet to be 'personal weapons' right? A paranoid person (and police suffer from a degree of professional paranoia) is apt to make irrational assessments of threat factors, and this problem is compounded by a deficit of integrity among some officers and police unions, so that you get police like Michael Slager claiming to be acting out of fear when actually they were shooting someone in the back for running away (fortunately he was convicted of murder, but probably only because he was caught on video).

Some of us have been insulated from violence for so long that we don't know what it looks like.

I'm not. I have a lot of experience with this. If it's alien to you then maybe join a martial arts club or visit a shooting range or whatever would broaden your experience; or don't, if you'd rather not. But insofar as you're not well able to judge this, you should absolutely not be taking the statements of people who have a vested interest at face value because by your own admission, you're not in a good position to assess their claims.

I can't say that the officers acted well or badly here - I wasn't there. All I am saying is that this sounds like a tragic misunderstanding to me. And that people not understanding what real threats look like can lead them to behave in ways they don't realize are dangerous, and that's a real problem, and maybe something we can do something about on the civilian side.

I find it really unlikely that cops kill people for laughs. Does their training make them too high strung and jumpy? I mean, I've seen it, and given the threats they face, I don't really think so.

I do have sympathy for police. I know police officers. I train with some sometimes. I'm not saying there aren't bad ones or that there isn't bad training - I'm just saying that it would be a lot easier for them and the people they interacted with to stay safe if everyone understood what being non-threatening actually looks like, and how to surrender safely. I just hate to see a tragic outcome result from a misunderstanding. And maybe that's not what this is, but it's what it sounds like.

I think a lot of people have this really unreasonable standard for police, that they're supposed to know who's good and who's evil, and who's attacking and who's panicking... and man, they're just trying to get the situation under control so it can get sorted out. They aren't God. They aren't even juries and courts. You can't just be innocent, you also gotta act safe. I understand the outrage when innocent people die - I do. I'm just trying to offer a practical way to make the world a safer place. I don't think outrage at police alone is necessarily practical. There are some practical issues when people who don't know what combat looks like wind up in a tense situation, and they're real issues, and being mad at police isn't a great solution alone. All I'm sayin.

For one thing, combat is something that happens between two belligerents. I've been in a lot of fights and I've never, ever, gone off on someone by mistake because it's legally safer to risk a bit of disadvantage than to create a situation where none exists.

I absolutely disagree that we need to 'doing something on the civilian side' to make civilians more accommodating of police anxiety. That's literally the recipe for a police state, and there's good arguments for the proposition that we already inhabit one, it's just that it's benefits and costs are so unevenly distributed and the structure of it so decentralized that it's hard to perceive.

Knowing police officers gives you some xtra insight, as it has me. I suggest you expand your awareness to include information from criminals, attorneys in the criminal justice system, and other participants. Right now you seem to think that because you know some martial arts and some cops you're far enough ahead of the general population that you're half expert already. I think that's more likely knowing one corner of a field and thinking you've seen the whole thing.

I have no idea what you're talking about with a police state. Understanding how to be non-threatening violates no rights of yours, and is a very practical life skill in any physically tense situation.

Look, there are plenty of things that are messed up about the way police function - though nothing that applies to all of them, either good or bad, since police are a local institution. But in general, civil asset forfeiture is very bad, and often a grave injustice. Policemen lying under oath to get a conviction are very bad. Arrest quotas are bad. The high price of justice in the courts is very very very bad. There are bad things, and I am all for working to make them better. But on the other hand, I think police are people who deserve empathy and fair treatment as much as anyone does, and who absolutely deserve the right to protect themselves and work safely as much as is practical. I don't think understanding what that entails and putting them at ease and keeping yourself safer is building a police state. It's just being smart and decent.

Unfortunately in America, what makes you seem threatening is based on the color of your skin.

I am an African American living in a predominantly White county in the south that was made famous 30 years ago nationally for being anti-minority.

While, the county has changed somewhat because of an influx of younger people to the burbs, I still worry when my son starts driving because he is a big tall dude even though he would never hurt a fly, has lived in the burbs all of his life, and his friendship circle is like the cast of a WB show.

In fact, I remember having a really interesting conversation with a friend about this stuff a few years ago. We were talking about the statistic that black people are shot by police at twice the rate white people are. And yet some black people are so afraid of police in a traffic stop, they freak out if they haven't adequately prepared for it, and white people are so unafraid that they're shocked it's perceived as anything other than paperwork by the officer and nothing about it seems even potentially dangerous. I said - the difference between those two views isn't 2x. Black people don't think cops are twice as dangerous as white people... more like infinity x. And I said, either cops are way more dangerous than I was raised to believe, or way less dangerous than you were raised to believe, or both.

Well - I think it's both. I think if you are afraid of police in every encounter, a good reality check is to look up the absolute number of people killed by police anually and figure out how dangerous that really makes them compared to, I don't know, lawnmowers or something. And on the flip side, I think if you think police are really safe, a good reality check is to look at some of the training they do, some of the threats they face, understand how very fast a peaceful situation can turn violent and how easy it is to look like a threat, and understand that you have to be thoughtful and deliberate about everything you do around a cop, particularly in the situations that are most dangerous to them.

He gave me two tickets - one for speeding and one for no insurance. I paid the speeding ticket by phone when I got home and faxed them my insurance card and they dropped the other one.

I can't walk around with a chip on my shoulder expecting the worse out of people when I live in a county where when I show up to my sons school for the first time they immediately know who my stepson is even though we look nothing alike.

But I still tell my son if he's stopped put both hands on the top of the steering wheel, make no sudden movements and always tell the policeman what he is about to do - if he is reaching to grab his wallet, etc. if it's night, turn the inside lights on in the car before he stops and if he is wearing a hoodie because it's cold, take it off.

You got me LOLing with that one.

Cat = Calista Flockhart playing Cat Grant. Cat: All four of you standing there doing nothing. You look like the attractive yet non-threatening, racially diverse cast of a CW show. Who are you?