Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 07-21-2017, 12:51 AM
Hocus Pocus Hocus Pocus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: South King County, WA
Posts: 340
I will note that some police departments are thinking they can ditch the dash-cams with the BWC's. This will result is the loss of evidence that can be crucial for determining reasonable cause for a stop. Both cams need to be used.
Advertisements  
  #302  
Old 07-21-2017, 01:00 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Ok. so here's the deal:

As a general rule, the First Amendment protects the right to speak. Against that, we have to balance the very agreeable principle that we wish to constrain threats against life and safety.

The way we do that is by determining if the speech constitutes a "true threat." Is the speech such that the speaker communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals? If it is, it's a true threat, and the speech is unprotected by the First Amendment.

This doctrine was first enunciated in 1969, in Watts v. United States. That case involved an anti-war rally in which a speaker spoke against the draft. He said that if they ever did draft him, and put a gun in his hands, the first person he'd get in his sights was the President. He was arrested and convicted for threatening the President, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the conviction. They pointed out that the speech was political, which enjoys strong First Amendment protection, and that the speaker was using hyperbole. They pointed to the reaction of the crowd and the use of a conditional ("If such-and-so happens") as opposed to a flat declaration of intent.

Overall, they said, taking into account all the circumstances, the speech was crude hyperbole, but not a true threat.

The courts in the years following this decision developed a number of tests. Without going into law-geeky detail, there is a subjective element in play: what did the speaker actually intend? And there's a objective element: what would a reasonable speaker have intended with those words in those circumstances? And what would a reasonable listener have understood in the circumstances?

Different circuits adopted different tests, but the majority favored the objective reasonable speaker view: speech is a true threat if it was made “under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm."

That's essentially* where the law sits now. In the instance described above, the joking manner and the laughter following the remark all point to the lack of a serious expression of an intent to do harm.



* In Virginia v. Black, the Court offered a sentence on threats that may have slightly changed the landscape, but isn't really relevant here. Still, if anyone's curious, it was a cross-burning case and the Court reversed convictions for (roughly) the reasons above.
All right, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

(It's hard to read context and tone from a text article. )
  #303  
Old 07-21-2017, 09:56 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
what would a reasonable speaker have intended with those words in those circumstances? And what would a reasonable listener have understood in the circumstances?
In the context of the trainer explaining to the police officers that they should be quick to kill to protect themselves, I am not sure that the reasonable listener would take that as hyperbole or an idle threat, in that he was threatening to kill someone to protect himself. I don't know that such language is illegal, but it certainly should be frowned upon. Keep in mind that this is also a government paid employee threatening a reporter for doing his job. If I were that reporter, I would hope that I would be brave enough to report on the facts as they were, but I would have some fear for my safety in breaking the story. At the very least, I would see it as putting a chilling effect on first amendment protected actions.

If nothing else, should this reporter end up dead at the hands of this cop or another in a controversially justified shooting, would the threats be relevant to the prosecution? I can certainly see someone who looks up to this trainer deciding to carry out the will of the trainer, even if they were originally meant in jest.

For a final perspective, threats to other members are highly prohibited on this board, if someone were to make that sort of threat towards another poster, would you be behind them being banned, or would you consider it to be an overreaction to hyperbole?
  #304  
Old 07-21-2017, 11:37 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus View Post
Why did you post a video w/o any information/context? Were you afraid that it would show how utterly devoid of facts your agenda is?

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?...-gill.html.csp
Read your own article and compare it to the video.
1) He followed the directions of the cop to take his hand out of the pants and was shot for it.
2) No gun was seen because the victim was unarmed.

#1 is crucial because in these situations anything can be "suspicious" and if you have your hands in your pockets it's a death warrant.
a) Suspect did not follow directions and kept his hands in his pockets. He may have had a gun.
OR
b) The suspect followed directions The suspect was taking his hands out of his pocket. He may have had a gun.


ETA: When claiming self-defense, doesn't the court/DA normally hold it against the civilian if they didn't see an actual weapon?

Last edited by Saint Cad; 07-21-2017 at 11:41 AM.
  #305  
Old 07-21-2017, 12:13 PM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,161
Saint Cad - No, I can't point out to you anything in that video that would justify the shooting without knowing more of the circumstances. That's the problem with people viewing a short video out of context. But that's a bit beside the point. The point is that BPC stated, as fact, something that was clearly not true and there is video evidence to prove it. This happens all the time. People make false allegations on social media and it spreads like wildfire. To the point where it is accepted as fact. The justified shooting of Keith Scott is a prime example. Are there "bad" police shootings? Absolutely. It does no good to hold up as examples shootings that were actually "good". That leads to a loss of credibility. I, for one, will now look at anything BPC asserts as a fact as questionable.
  #306  
Old 07-21-2017, 03:22 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,157
But here's what it boils down to - there's always something suspicious to justify a shooting: hands in pocket (suspicious), hands out of pockets (suspicious), questioning police (not following directions which should not be a death sentence), having something in your hand like a cell phone. Apparently Justine Ruszyzyk was shot* because she approached the police car she called for without being warned to stop. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the justification for the shooting and not filing charges.

OK so anything "suspicious" justifies a police shooting. We also have evidence that corrupt police are shielded from the system and are not prosecuted or lose their jobs. Not only that, police are not punished even when they commit perjury and their testimony is later used to convict people. You cannot face facts and say that police are held to the same standards by the legal system that civvies are.

Now when you combine both of these realities you get cops getting away with murder.


*I understand that it is still under investigation and more information may come out.
  #307  
Old 07-21-2017, 03:59 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Saint Cad - No, I can't point out to you anything in that video that would justify the shooting without knowing more of the circumstances. That's the problem with people viewing a short video out of context. But that's a bit beside the point. The point is that BPC stated, as fact, something that was clearly not true and there is video evidence to prove it. This happens all the time. People make false allegations on social media and it spreads like wildfire. To the point where it is accepted as fact. The justified shooting of Keith Scott is a prime example. Are there "bad" police shootings? Absolutely. It does no good to hold up as examples shootings that were actually "good". That leads to a loss of credibility. I, for one, will now look at anything BPC asserts as a fact as questionable.
I never brought up Keith Scott. You may be thinking of Walter Scott, who was murdered by Michael Slager last year.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 07-21-2017 at 03:59 PM.
  #308  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:12 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
But here's what it boils down to - there's always something suspicious to justify a shooting: hands in pocket (suspicious), hands out of pockets (suspicious), questioning police (not following directions which should not be a death sentence), having something in your hand like a cell phone. Apparently Justine Ruszyzyk was shot* because she approached the police car she called for without being warned to stop. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the justification for the shooting and not filing charges.

OK so anything "suspicious" justifies a police shooting. We also have evidence that corrupt police are shielded from the system and are not prosecuted or lose their jobs. Not only that, police are not punished even when they commit perjury and their testimony is later used to convict people. You cannot face facts and say that police are held to the same standards by the legal system that civvies are.

Now when you combine both of these realities you get cops getting away with murder.


*I understand that it is still under investigation and more information may come out.
I have had two employees and a few friends tell me (I haven't been pulled over in over a decade.) that when they got pulled over in the last few years, one cop approached their window, while the other stood behind the car, with his gun pointed at the driver's head. I find this trend to be disturbing, all it takes is one twitch, and the officer now needs to lie on his report.

I have no info, as there was no body cam footage, but I would WAG that the partner had his gun out and pointed at the woman as essentially standard operating procedure. Then he either twitched or had an itch, and boom, gun goes off. He may not have even meant to pull the trigger.
  #309  
Old 07-21-2017, 05:21 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I have had two employees and a few friends tell me (I haven't been pulled over in over a decade.) that when they got pulled over in the last few years, one cop approached their window, while the other stood behind the car, with his gun pointed at the driver's head. I find this trend to be disturbing, all it takes is one twitch, and the officer now needs to lie on his report.
I have never in my life gone to a city council meeting, but I would be at the very next one loudly calling this STATE TERRORISM and demanding that the city government order our town's police to stop this immediately. I'd also be calling the local newspapers and media, making as much noise about it as possible, and purchasing a dual-dash cam.

"I have never in my life been arrested or charged with any crime. Why am I being stopped and a gun pointed at the back of my head? This is not a reasonable policy or practice and it is not for anyone's safety. It is for intimidation and terror."
  #310  
Old 07-21-2017, 05:45 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I have had two employees and a few friends tell me (I haven't been pulled over in over a decade.) that when they got pulled over in the last few years, one cop approached their window, while the other stood behind the car, with his gun pointed at the driver's head. I find this trend to be disturbing, all it takes is one twitch, and the officer now needs to lie on his report.

I have no info, as there was no body cam footage, but I would WAG that the partner had his gun out and pointed at the woman as essentially standard operating procedure. Then he either twitched or had an itch, and boom, gun goes off. He may not have even meant to pull the trigger.
What area is this? That is incredibly disturbing.
  #311  
Old 07-21-2017, 05:50 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
I have never in my life gone to a city council meeting, but I would be at the very next one loudly calling this STATE TERRORISM and demanding that the city government order our town's police to stop this immediately. I'd also be calling the local newspapers and media, making as much noise about it as possible, and purchasing a dual-dash cam.

"I have never in my life been arrested or charged with any crime. Why am I being stopped and a gun pointed at the back of my head? This is not a reasonable policy or practice and it is not for anyone's safety. It is for intimidation and terror."
That's what I told them. One of my friends actually defended the practice, saying that they were just looking out for their safety. This took me a bit aback. They had a gun pointed at your head, and you're okay with that?

Pretty sure that the one that pulled over my employee (who was in tears when she got to work) was a statey, so local council meetings wouldn't help with that.

I know that I would have some issues with the practice myself. I'm not a big fan of people pointing guns at my head.

I do agree with the dash cam, I plan on doing some research to get one at some point (I'm a white, middle aged male with over a decade of perfect driving, so I'm not actually all that concerned for myself, so no hurry), but it is something that everyone should be looking into these days. That way, it's not your word against a cop's.
  #312  
Old 07-21-2017, 05:54 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
What area is this? That is incredibly disturbing.
Not far north of you. One incident was in South Lebanon (that is the one where the driver was defending the cop's actions), and the other that I know where it took place was on 129 (hamilton I-75 connector). The others were anecdotes that I didn't get as much detail on, but probably in the general hamilton/middletown ish area.
  #313  
Old 07-21-2017, 08:41 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
For a final perspective, threats to other members are highly prohibited on this board, if someone were to make that sort of threat towards another poster, would you be behind them being banned, or would you consider it to be an overreaction to hyperbole?
I'd support the ban decision. But I also don't think there's a useful analog between the private SDMB and the government's penal law. The SDMB has no requirement to analyze First Amendment interaction with their moderation decisions; they can ban based on simply desiring to avoid even the hint of violent imagery. That's not a position the government can take.

Also please note I haven't said I support the result here. I'm explaining the state of the law, not endorsing it.
  #314  
Old 07-22-2017, 06:02 AM
davida03801 davida03801 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I have had two employees and a few friends tell me (I haven't been pulled over in over a decade.) that when they got pulled over in the last few years, one cop approached their window, while the other stood behind the car, with his gun pointed at the driver's head. I find this trend to be disturbing, all it takes is one twitch, and the officer now needs to lie on his report.

I have no info, as there was no body cam footage, but I would WAG that the partner had his gun out and pointed at the woman as essentially standard operating procedure. Then he either twitched or had an itch, and boom, gun goes off. He may not have even meant to pull the trigger.
I have to think this is a bit of storytelling and someone letting hysteria getting the best of them.

2nd officer behind the car, yes I believe that.
2nd officer gun drawn and holding at a shooting angle to the drivers head. That I do not believe occurs with the average traffic stop.

Now if the plates came up as stolen, or there is some other suspicious reason then yes I could believe it. However, I highly doubt this is normal activity for common traffic stop
  #315  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:22 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by davida03801 View Post
I have to think this is a bit of storytelling and someone letting hysteria getting the best of them.

2nd officer behind the car, yes I believe that.
2nd officer gun drawn and holding at a shooting angle to the drivers head. That I do not believe occurs with the average traffic stop.

Now if the plates came up as stolen, or there is some other suspicious reason then yes I could believe it. However, I highly doubt this is normal activity for common traffic stop
One was driving a beater car, this is the one who was not hysterical in any way shape or form, in fact, he thought it was a good idea for the cop to be threatening his life, and the other had recently bought her car from a car dealer, I would have to talk to her again to get the details, but there was something odd about the dealer plate and she was being accused of having stolen the car.

I'd have to speed past one of the speed traps on my way home some time to get first hand info. I can afford the ticket, that is, if I don't get my head blown off.
  #316  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:02 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by davida03801 View Post
I have to think this is a bit of storytelling and someone letting hysteria getting the best of them.

2nd officer behind the car, yes I believe that.
2nd officer gun drawn and holding at a shooting angle to the drivers head. That I do not believe occurs with the average traffic stop.

Now if the plates came up as stolen, or there is some other suspicious reason then yes I could believe it. However, I highly doubt this is normal activity for common traffic stop
Hopefully this is truly not the norm.
  #317  
Old 07-25-2017, 02:32 PM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I never brought up Keith Scott. You may be thinking of Walter Scott, who was murdered by Michael Slager last year.
I never said that you did bring it up. I did. As an example of a baseless claim of police shooting an unarmed man. Unless you believe that the cops planted the gun and ankle holster and fabricated witness statements, including the previous report by Scott's wife that he had a gun, this was a justified shooting. Yet, Charlotte PD had to deal with "civil unrest" because the masses bought into the swill on social media. Why let facts get in the way of the narrative? BTW, I agree that Slager murdered Scott.
  #318  
Old 07-25-2017, 09:47 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus View Post
Why did you post a video w/o any information/context? Were you afraid that it would show how utterly devoid of facts your agenda is?

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?...-gill.html.csp
You know I'was reflecting on this and I think you unintentionally proved my point. ISTM that the reason for a cop shooting a suspect should be so obvious that a snippet of video should be enough: he reaches behind his back or pull an object out of his pocket. If you say you need a context to a video then the cop is probably in the wrong and you are grasping at straws defending him.
  #319  
Old 07-26-2017, 11:29 AM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,161
You absolutely need context. This is what is known as "the totality of circumstances" and is well settled in the law. On top of that, what may be obvious to a trained officer may not be obvious to someone without the training. Relying on snippets and sound bytes without explanation is a recipe for disaster. That's why we have actual trials, not trial by social or "regular" media. I'm not defending this particular video since, as I type, I haven't looked at it. It doesn't matter. All police uses of force should be judged in light of the totality of circumstances. To do otherwise is downright foolish.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017