Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 06-06-2017, 10:11 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm unconvinced that these factors explain/exculpate any more than a small part of the discrepancy (differences in police practices, including how armed they are, is not an excuse -- perhaps we should consider emulating some of these practices), but at least we've found the root of our disagreement.
You don't find it compelling that over a million armed police officers in the US verse a couple 10's of thousands in the UK would kill approximately 1000 more people a year?? Just that factor alone seems to point to why this is so...let alone the REASON every police officer is armed in the US verse only a small percentage in the UK. I mean, YMMV, but it seems to me that if you have a million people with a gun verse, say, 20,000 with a gun, and you have an armed population on one side verse what is basically a disarmed population on the other, probability wise alone you are going to account for most of the difference between 1 and 1000....heck, just based on those stats the US number should be a lot higher.

Last edited by XT; 06-06-2017 at 10:12 AM.
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 06-06-2017, 10:26 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You don't find it compelling that over a million armed police officers in the US verse a couple 10's of thousands in the UK would kill approximately 1000 more people a year?? Just that factor alone seems to point to why this is so...let alone the REASON every police officer is armed in the US verse only a small percentage in the UK. I mean, YMMV, but it seems to me that if you have a million people with a gun verse, say, 20,000 with a gun, and you have an armed population on one side verse what is basically a disarmed population on the other, probability wise alone you are going to account for most of the difference between 1 and 1000....heck, just based on those stats the US number should be a lot higher.
Those might be part of the explanation, but I'm saying that the UK may be doing things better than us -- perhaps we should have fewer gun-armed cops, and cop-violence might go down. I'm saying that I'm very troubled by the discrepancy, and whether or not more armed cops contributes to this discrepancy does nothing to ease my concerns -- maybe we have too many heavily armed cops (in addition to training, bias, and other problems).
  #153  
Old 06-06-2017, 10:46 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Those might be part of the explanation, but I'm saying that the UK may be doing things better than us -- perhaps we should have fewer gun-armed cops, and cop-violence might go down. I'm saying that I'm very troubled by the discrepancy, and whether or not more armed cops contributes to this discrepancy does nothing to ease my concerns -- maybe we have too many heavily armed cops (in addition to training, bias, and other problems).
Alternatively, maybe there are more people in the US that need killing*. It's easy enough when you assume the correct answer. You could take the same set of information, and be troubled that there are so many people in the US that need killing vs the number of people in the UK that need killing.



*I don't actually think this, but it's indicative of the weakness of comparing across countries. It would be much more informative to compare across states or even cities of similar populations.

Last edited by Bone; 06-06-2017 at 10:46 AM.
  #154  
Old 06-06-2017, 11:15 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Alternatively, maybe there are more people in the US that need killing*. It's easy enough when you assume the correct answer. You could take the same set of information, and be troubled that there are so many people in the US that need killing vs the number of people in the UK that need killing.



*I don't actually think this, but it's indicative of the weakness of comparing across countries. It would be much more informative to compare across states or even cities of similar populations.
Yes, this is just a single data point (or a single comparison), and my concern is significant because of this and many additional factors -- not just one.
  #155  
Old 06-06-2017, 11:49 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Those might be part of the explanation, but I'm saying that the UK may be doing things better than us -- perhaps we should have fewer gun-armed cops, and cop-violence might go down. I'm saying that I'm very troubled by the discrepancy, and whether or not more armed cops contributes to this discrepancy does nothing to ease my concerns -- maybe we have too many heavily armed cops (in addition to training, bias, and other problems).
Sure, I agree...which is why I listed several factors, not just one. The main point, though, is even looking at this one factor (i.e. a large number of police armed verse a small number), shows a profound difference in attitude, and explains a lot of the difference. Then you add in the large number of Americans who are armed or have access to a gun, the large number of guns available, the larger socio-economics differences, the different historical differences in race relations, and just the general difference in types and frequencies of crime between the US and UK, and it's not that puzzling why there are differences.

As for learning lessons, I don't see it to be honest. Unless you make fundamental and systemic changes to America and the American people you aren't going to be able to get like results. Disarming the police in the US isn't a way to fix the issue since it ignores WHY the police in the US are more heavily armed than their UK counterparts. Personally, I don't find these sorts of comparisons beneficial at all. Better, IMHO, to compare like to like...compare the number of police shootings in the US today to 5 years ago, or 10...or 50. Has the general trend been up or down? What about civilian shootings, or shootings of police officers by civilians? What are the trends there? Then maybe look at general crime across the board. Then perhaps look at specific areas...states, cities or even countries. Maybe shootings by police in a certain region are up and it's skewing the results...or maybe crime is up...or officer shootings are up. Or a host of other things. But comparing the US as a whole to the UK and expecting to glean some useful info from it is just not in the cards, IMHO. YMMV of course.
  #156  
Old 06-06-2017, 11:53 AM
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 4,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Alternatively, maybe there are more people in the US that need killing*.

...

*I don't actually think this
I do. There are many more police officers in the US shot at every year than in the UK. They need to be stopped by being shot back at, and that often results in death.

I know a lot of cops. I've had these types of discussions with them before. Many of them work in dangerous cities like Paterson, NJ and NYC. They walk into projects for calls and patrol. If they were no longer allowed to carry guns, I've been told they'd quit on the spot. It ain't London in there.
  #157  
Old 06-06-2017, 12:36 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
They need to be stopped by being shot back at
Ah, if the issue were about cops' shooting back at people then the question would be very different. I would favor much different standards for a cop's shooting at someone who has already shot at him.
  #158  
Old 06-06-2017, 12:43 PM
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 4,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Ah, if the issue were about cops' shooting back at people then the question would be very different.
The issue for a couple of dozens of posts now has been largely about US police shooting vs UK. That's what I'm responding to. Just looking at numbers doesn't say much, but if we're going to look at numbers, considering that US police get shot at much more than UK police do, shows us that we're not dealing with similar landscapes to just judge shooting justification or justification for disarming police based on number comparisons of homicides by police of different countries.
  #159  
Old 06-07-2017, 08:38 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by boffking View Post
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/2...t-arundel-man/
This happened this morning.
There doesn't appear to have been any attempts at using pepper spray, tasers, or even attempting to talk to the person. They just shot him and killed him.
I've noticed this pattern a lot recently, that police will ignore the possibility of negotiation or less-lethal weapons, and simply shoot the person dead. Why does this keep happening?
Maine has had several fatal police shootings this year, and most of them very quickly escalated to the suspect being killed. Sometimes the victim didn't even have a real gun.
Mostly because we haven't created comfortable iron man armor for every day police use.

When you make cops virtually immune to small arms fire, they will start exhibiting much more restraint in the use of deadly force.
  #160  
Old 06-07-2017, 09:17 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Mostly because we haven't created comfortable iron man armor for every day police use.

When you make cops virtually immune to small arms fire, they will start exhibiting much more restraint in the use of deadly force.
There are tons of variations in US police forces today -- some departments have changed their training and practices and shoot far, far fewer people than they used to; others have made no changes. It's not nearly as simple as armor.
  #161  
Old 06-07-2017, 06:49 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There are tons of variations in US police forces today -- some departments have changed their training and practices and shoot far, far fewer people than they used to; others have made no changes. It's not nearly as simple as armor.
Well making them invincible would help I think.
  #162  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:42 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It's not clear to me whether or not "show me your ID" is something the cops can demand in California. The ACLU says they can't; this guy, who also claims to be a lawyer, says they can.

Regards,
Shodan
Which guy because all three replies said you are not required to show ID except for things like driving a car or getting on an airplane.

I would also point out that even if it were required the cops did not ask the white woman for her ID.
  #163  
Old 06-26-2017, 06:09 AM
elbows elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 12,666
(Not having read every response, sorry!)

I feel the most obvious answer to why police are so quick to kill is that they are very rarely held to account for doing so.

We all WANT/NEED to believe our policing forces are only acting as required by circumstance. Even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary., we need to believe. Otherwise who can we turn to, what holds our society together, who is protecting us? And from whom?

The lack of accountability, coupled with deafening silence from what we once assumed were the majority, 'good, honest cops', is predictably and very rapidly undermining the credibility of all police services.

And outside of, after shooting press conferences and the top cop offering assurances that there WILL be consequences, there rarely are. And though they always say they won't stand for this, and they will see this changes, that even more rarely occurs. People aren't deaf and blind. They know Top cop is just repeating what we've all heard a dozen times now. It has ceased to be in any way believable.

But as long as they keep pulling it off, and killer cops walk away, they think we're buying it.

And whereas a lack of measurable change that the people wanted, (as opposed to what politicians wanted) led directly to a, "Burn down the house!", candidate. The response, when it comes, (and it must, sooner or later), to no change in this state of affairs, will be far more worrisome than a Trump for president in my most humble opinion.
  #164  
Old 06-26-2017, 07:07 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Which guy because all three replies said you are not required to show ID except for things like driving a car or getting on an airplane.
The first attorney said -
Quote:
2)HOWEVER, once the police have a reason to stop a person the can demand identification and legally hold someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine their identification. As for the reasons to stop, the 4th amendment has been interpreted to allow a stop based only on reasonable suspicion. This is a VERY low standard and can be found based only on innocent behavior, coupled with an officer's training and experience that a crime MIGHT be afoot. (See Terry v. Ohio).

These stops can also be sustained based on calling the police to report a crime, being in the location where a crime was reported or even being a witness to a crime or accident.

3) if you are stopped lawfully and you do not have a license, the police have several actions they can choose from. These range from taking a thumb print at the scene to finally arresting someone and hold then at the police station pending positive identification.
Regards,
Shodan
  #165  
Old 06-29-2017, 09:31 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,253
Thailand has high gun ownership, both legal and illegal (though of course just a fraction of U.S., which has far more guns in private hands than the rest of the world combined.)

Recently, so I saw in my Facebook feed, a man threatened a Thai policeman with a knife. Here is a video record of the result. If these were U.S. police would they be severely reprimanded?
  #166  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:32 AM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,145
Not very likely. That said, we don't know much about what happened here, based on that short video. Maybe the officer sensed that the guy with the knife didn't really mean any harm. It is a gamble to guess someone's intentions and, in this case, it paid off. Sorry that I don't have a cite but I've heard the percentage of cops who, at some point in their career could have legally fired their weapon but didn't is somewhere around 75-80%. In informal surveys of officers that I train that number seems about right. Where an officer could get jammed up is if his failure to justifiably employ deadly force results in the risk of, or actual death or injury, to an innocent person or another cop. There is a case in W. Virginia where an officer was fired for not shooting a "suicide by cop" subject. A back-up officer shot and killed the man. The officer is suing to get his job back and my guess is that he will win, based on the little I know about the case.

Last edited by MikeF; 06-29-2017 at 11:32 AM.
  #167  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:26 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,074
So let me clarify the question Shodan.
1) Two people are in an argument (no crime being committed). If a person is not being detained do they need to produce identification upon demand from an LEO in California?
2) Assuming no, then can the officer arrest the person for failing to show ID?
3) If no and the officer arrests the person on this non-existent crime, what safeguard* is there against the officer adding on "resisting arrest", thus the original charge is thrown out but the person still committed a crime.


* I know it is a crime to resist arrest even if no crime is committed. This question is more about the abuse of that law.
  #168  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:47 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So let me clarify the question Shodan.
1) Two people are in an argument (no crime being committed). If a person is not being detained do they need to produce identification upon demand from an LEO in California?
2) Assuming no, then can the officer arrest the person for failing to show ID?
3) If no and the officer arrests the person on this non-existent crime, what safeguard* is there against the officer adding on "resisting arrest", thus the original charge is thrown out but the person still committed a crime.


* I know it is a crime to resist arrest even if no crime is committed. This question is more about the abuse of that law.
IANAL, and I probably don't understand the law.

1) You don't need to produce ID, You do need to identify yourself.

2) The officer can arrest you or detain you while he verifies your identification of yourself. How he verifies it, without a license or ID card, could be done in a lot of ways, including dragging you off to the station to have your fingerprints checked, asking around if anyone recognizes you, Heaven knows what. (I am not a cop either).

3) I don't think the officer can arrest you for resisting arrest just for not showing ID. The safeguard against his doing so is the judge, assuming you appear before one. If the judge asks, "In what way did the defendant resist arrest" and the response is "he refused to give his name and birthdate and address", I don't think a charge of resisting arrest is going to stick. If the answer is "he tried to run away" or "he wouldn't let me cuff him" then it might.

Like I said, this is not at all clear. The ACLU says No, the police say Yes, the lawyer seems to be saying what I said.

Maybe the cop in the video was wrong, or the ACLU is wrong, or maybe they are both wrong.

Regards,
Shodan
  #169  
Old 06-30-2017, 03:39 PM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus View Post
Don't want to get shot by the police? Obey their commands. Whether a person can continue to present a threat to the officers & the public isn't up for debate. Comply with the officers' orders & you won't get shot.
Isn't it odd how we expect civilians to always act as if they've been trained in crisis management, yet forgive the police when they act as if they aren't?
  #170  
Old 06-30-2017, 04:03 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
Isn't it odd how we expect civilians to always act as if they've been trained in crisis management, yet forgive the police when they act as if they aren't?
It makes sense.

If the civilian messes up in any way, they die.

If the cop messes up and kills a civilian, he gets a vacation.

Of course the onus should be on the party with less power and more to lose to ensure that they follow any and all direction, including conflicting or contradictory orders, while making sure to put the person with a gun pointed at your head at ease.
  #171  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:01 AM
Hocus Pocus Hocus Pocus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: South King County, WA
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If the cop messes up and kills a civilian, he gets a vacation.
Your ignorance of the profession & hatred of those employed in it is duly noted.

They are not given "vacations." They are taken off the street until the shooting investigation is completed. Or would you prefer that officers involved in shootings continue working the streets before the investigation is completed?

They are also subject to multiple interviews regarding what happened in the shooting.

They are also usually required to see the agency mental health specialist & be cleared before returning to the streets.

During what you call a "vacation" officers will be worrying about whether they will be able to retain their job, be sued by the suspect or their family, and/or possibly face imprisonment. Wouldn't you call that a "vacation?"
  #172  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:19 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus View Post
Your ignorance of the profession & hatred of those employed in it is duly noted.

They are not given "vacations." They are taken off the street until the shooting investigation is completed. Or would you prefer that officers involved in shootings continue working the streets before the investigation is completed?

They are also subject to multiple interviews regarding what happened in the shooting.

They are also usually required to see the agency mental health specialist & be cleared before returning to the streets.

During what you call a "vacation" officers will be worrying about whether they will be able to retain their job, be sued by the suspect or their family, and/or possibly face imprisonment. Wouldn't you call that a "vacation?"
It is a little fucked up that they're suspended with pay, is the point he's trying to make. A citizen who made that mistake would be in a jail cell awaiting trial. A cop who makes that mistake often doesn't even lose pay for the time they're suspended.
  #173  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:18 AM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus View Post
Your ignorance of the profession & hatred of those employed in it is duly noted.

They are not given "vacations." They are taken off the street until the shooting investigation is completed. Or would you prefer that officers involved in shootings continue working the streets before the investigation is completed?

They are also subject to multiple interviews regarding what happened in the shooting.

They are also usually required to see the agency mental health specialist & be cleared before returning to the streets.

During what you call a "vacation" officers will be worrying about whether they will be able to retain their job, be sued by the suspect or their family, and/or possibly face imprisonment. Wouldn't you call that a "vacation?"
It is a vacation and at the end of it they normally get a commendation and points toward a promotion. If the truly bad cops were fired, jailed, and lost their pension the perception of the profession would improve. It is the slimey backroom way these things are handled that upset the public.
  #174  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:33 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 23,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
It is a little fucked up that they're suspended with pay, is the point he's trying to make. A citizen who made that mistake would be in a jail cell awaiting trial. A cop who makes that mistake often doesn't even lose pay for the time they're suspended.
I'm not sure what the alternative is, though. It's the nature of police work that occasionally a cop will, in the course of his duties, have to do something that will require investigation into whether or not he acted properly. If he did in fact only do what he had to do, it seems harsh for him to miss his salary while this is determined.
  #175  
Old 07-17-2017, 08:31 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I'm not sure what the alternative is, though.
I know what the alternative is. If the killing was unwarranted: no one in immediate danger, excessive force used, etc. then
The cop is convicted of murder and imprisoned. He pays for damages out of his pension and assets.
The cops (i.e. the blue line) that lied in the IA investigation to cover it up are fired and it is put in their employment record so their next boss sees it.
The cops that lied in court are fired and prosecuted for perjury. It is made public record so that all future judges know they lie in court.
  #176  
Old 07-17-2017, 09:02 AM
doreen doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I know what the alternative is. If the killing was unwarranted: no one in immediate danger, excessive force used, etc. then
The cop is convicted of murder and imprisoned. He pays for damages out of his pension and assets.
The cops (i.e. the blue line) that lied in the IA investigation to cover it up are fired and it is put in their employment record so their next boss sees it.
The cops that lied in court are fired and prosecuted for perjury. It is made public record so that all future judges know they lie in court.
But neither of those is an alternative to suspending the cop with pay while the investigation is going on. In other words, before it has even been determined that the cop did anything wrong.

There are only a few alternatives :

1) Suspend them without pay while the investigation is going on. Which means that every cop who ever fires his weapon is going to be suspended for some period of time - whether the shooting was justified or not. It also means that the time allotted for investigations may be shortened- for example, my agency has to serve disciplinary charges on an employee within 30 days of a suspension without pay. There is no such deadline for a suspension with pay.
2) Leave them working while the investigation is going on . Sure, they won't get a "paid vacation" but I don't really want them to continue working while they are under investigation. Because the whole point of the investigation is that we don't yet know whether the action was warranted.
3) Suspend them with pay while the investigation is ongoing.
  #177  
Old 07-17-2017, 09:41 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
But neither of those is an alternative to suspending the cop with pay while the investigation is going on. In other words, before it has even been determined that the cop did anything wrong.
Well, what happens to civvies who shoot people if it's unclear whether or not they're guilty of murder?
  #178  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:13 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Well, what happens to civvies who shoot people if it's unclear whether or not they're guilty of murder?
The shooting is investigated. If enough evidence is found to create a reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, they get arrested. If enough evidence is found to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they get convicted. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the right to reasonable bail, the right to speak to an attorney, and the right not to testify against themselves. Which of these do you feel shouldn't apply to a police officer?

Regards,
Shodan
  #179  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:37 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Well, what happens to civvies who shoot people if it's unclear whether or not they're guilty of murder?
If it a civilian and the cop "know" you committed murder the full power of the police works against you with a focus on conviction - not investigation. If it is a cop, the full power of the police is focused on protecting them.

If you are a civilian, lying or even not talking to the cops is "obstruction" (put in quotes for how cops threaten you when you use your Fifth Amendment rights) and in court lying is perjury. If the alleged murderer is a cop, then lying and silence is protecting your own and of course cops never lie on the stand according to many judges.
  #180  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:56 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
I don't suppose you have cites from judges saying that they believe cops never lie on the stand, or instructions from the bench telling juries to give greater weight to the testimony of police vs. anyone else.

Or even numbers of people who were arrested for "obstruction" for not talking to cops.

Regards,
Shodan
  #181  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:26 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't suppose you have cites from judges saying that they believe cops never lie on the stand, or instructions from the bench telling juries to give greater weight to the testimony of police vs. anyone else.
Can't exactly cite either of those. What I can cite is a case where a woman was almost put to death exclusively on the word of a cop that was known to lie. And I can point you to the head of the Portland police union complaining about a judge not trusting the word of the police officers on the scene over a cell phone video. Which is kind of disturbing.
  #182  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:30 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The shooting is investigated. If enough evidence is found to create a reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, they get arrested. If enough evidence is found to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they get convicted. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the right to reasonable bail, the right to speak to an attorney, and the right not to testify against themselves. Which of these do you feel shouldn't apply to a police officer?

Regards,
Shodan
Which of those steps failed in the murder of Philando Castile? Which one failed in the murder of Tamir Rice? Which one failed in the murder of Terence Crutcher? Which of these steps keeps failing?

Put yourself in any one of those three shootings. You, a civilian, not an officer of the law. You pull that trigger. Do you think you're gonna be let go? Put on paid leave? Nah. Nah, best-case scenario, you're getting cuffed and thrown in jail, pending a hearing for your court date for murder charges.
  #183  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:32 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,338
I just had an interesting conversation with a close friend who has worked in a major city both as a criminal defense attorney for many years, and now for the civil rights division of the DA's office (investigating complaints against cops, for the most part). He says that the system is rigged against "little guy" defendants in almost all cases unless they're cops. He says cops are actually treated pretty fairly in general, in the sense that guilt really must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and every opportunity is provided for a way to dismiss charges. He says that ideally this should be the standard for every defendant, not just cops -- it should be hard to put away even petty criminals, when right now it's pretty damn easy. So it seems like cops coast through the justice system when complaints are made, but in his opinion they're actually treated reasonably fairly, and it seems like they coast because of how shittily the justice system treats everyone else (except rich and upper middle class whites).
  #184  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:34 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Neither of your anecdotes support your point, the second in particular.

Regards,
Shodan
  #185  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:42 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Neither of your anecdotes support your point, the second in particular.

Regards,
Shodan
Why not? The first case shows a court taking an officer at his word in a life-and-death scenario, despite his word being as good as mud. The second shows that it's apparently worth commenting on and denouncing when a judge refuses to trust police officer testimony over actual video evidence. It's not exactly hard evidence, but it shows quite clearly that something is foul here.
  #186  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:13 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Which of those steps failed in the murder of Philando Castile? Which one failed in the murder of Tamir Rice? Which one failed in the murder of Terence Crutcher? Which of these steps keeps failing?
Which of the steps do you believe should have been bypassed? Should cops not be entitled to the presumption of innocence, or should there be a lower standard of evidence than "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Also, could you provide the statistics that the system "keeps failing", in the sense of not convicting police in cases where you apparently believe they should? Because in the overwhelmingly large majority of cases, police shootings are justified, and no crime or misconduct has been committed. Do you think police who are accused of crimes should not be tried before a jury of their peers?

Regards,
Shodan
  #187  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:17 PM
doreen doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why not? The first case shows a court taking an officer at his word in a life-and-death scenario, despite his word being as good as mud. The second shows that it's apparently worth commenting on and denouncing when a judge refuses to trust police officer testimony over actual video evidence. It's not exactly hard evidence, but it shows quite clearly that something is foul here.

The first has multiple issues, starting with the fact that the cop still had his job after he after all of his previous incidents of lying and other misconduct. There was also the factor that prosecutors knew of this history and did not disclose it to the defense attorney although they had a duty to. And it isn't even clear whether the alleged confession was admissible if it in fact happened, because the cop did not document reading Milke her rights in any way. The appeals court decided that these issues meant that Milke was denied a fair trial. But here's the thing- if Milke was entitled to a fair trial and due process, so is every other accused, even an accused cop. You can't say that Milke's rights were violated because the judge took the word of a cop whose questionable relationship with the truth was hidden by the prosecutors and then say essentially that cops should be arrested without waiting for the results of an investigation.


As for the second- a union leader denouncing a judge who doesn't believe one of his members doesn't mean anything. The union is going to say that even if the leaders think the cop belongs in jail. That's the purpose of a union - to protect its members. The police union doesn't exist to fight crime, the teacher's union doesn't exist to educate children... They all exist to protect the interests of their members.
  #188  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:21 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why not? The first case shows a court taking an officer at his word in a life-and-death scenario, despite his word being as good as mud.
You mean "a jury". The judges are the ones who overturned the conviction. So again, the statement that judges believe that cops never lie is not at all substantiated by this anecdote.
Quote:
The second shows that it's apparently worth commenting on and denouncing when a judge refuses to trust police officer testimony over actual video evidence. It's not exactly hard evidence, but it shows quite clearly that something is foul here.
No, it doesn't show anything - except that again, the idea that judges think that cops never lie is simply not true.

You do know, do you not, that asking if a juror will automatically believe a police officer just because he or she is a police officer is part of the standard voir dire?

Regards,
Shodan
  #189  
Old 07-17-2017, 02:30 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't suppose you have cites from judges saying that they believe cops never lie on the stand, or instructions from the bench telling juries to give greater weight to the testimony of police vs. anyone else.

Or even numbers of people who were arrested for "obstruction" for not talking to cops.

Regards,
Shodan
Maybe not arrested, although the way cops will make up laws it may happen, but they are threatened with arrest. And judges may not state out loud they believe cops never lie but they do. Not quite the same thing but a judge told me that I must be guilty because a cop wouldn't write a ticket if I weren't guilty.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 07-17-2017 at 02:31 PM.
  #190  
Old 07-17-2017, 02:57 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
And judges may not state out loud they believe cops never lie but they do.
And you know this how, exactly? The two anecdotes mentioned above indicate otherwise.

Regards,
Shodan
  #191  
Old 07-17-2017, 03:24 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Not quite the same thing but a judge told me that I must be guilty because a cop wouldn't write a ticket if I weren't guilty.
I'm not sure traffic court is the best exemplar of the ideals of the American justice system. They basically exist just to generate revenue for the city / county.

ETA: and your taking the judge's time to dispute the ticket gums up the works.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 07-17-2017 at 03:24 PM.
  #192  
Old 07-17-2017, 04:41 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 7,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Which of those steps failed in the murder of Philando Castile? Which one failed in the murder of Tamir Rice? Which one failed in the murder of Terence Crutcher?
None of them were murdered. In two cases there were trials that determined that, and in the case of Rice there was not enough evidence to go to trial.
  #193  
Old 07-17-2017, 04:56 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thailand has high gun ownership, both legal and illegal (though of course just a fraction of U.S., which has far more guns in private hands than the rest of the world combined.)

Recently, so I saw in my Facebook feed, a man threatened a Thai policeman with a knife. Here is a video record of the result. If these were U.S. police would they be severely reprimanded?
I saw that too. Frankly, I'm surprised and happy that the officer didn't get gutted like a fish.

Last edited by Clothahump; 07-17-2017 at 04:56 PM. Reason: I can't tpye
  #194  
Old 07-17-2017, 05:09 PM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
None of them were murdered. In two cases there were trials that determined that, and in the case of Rice there was not enough evidence to go to trial.

Indeed, he sounds a very dangerous young man. He had a toy pistol.
  #195  
Old 07-17-2017, 06:14 PM
Hocus Pocus Hocus Pocus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: South King County, WA
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Drake View Post
Indeed, he sounds a very dangerous young man. He had a toy pistol.
Nice job of MMQB'ing.

Are you willing to bet your life in half a second you can determine that a kid firing what looks like a real gun is actually a toy?
  #196  
Old 07-17-2017, 06:36 PM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,388
Actually yes.

Since he was 12, and was nowhere near them and they drove up in a car to shoot him, and shot him from 10 feet away whilst he was sitting down --- too far to identify any toy weapon; and he did nothing threatening or abusive, and the shooter had been previously deemed 'unfit for duty' as a police officer, and they then hung around gaping for 4 minutes before other police helped him, and his 14 year-old sister was handcuffed for approaching her brother I'm gonna think they could have negotiated with him first, if necessary from 100 feet away still in the car with a bull-horn.

Or they could have called in helicopters to protect their rush.



And he fired nothing.
  #197  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:43 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
None of them were murdered. In two cases there were trials that determined that, and in the case of Rice there was not enough evidence to go to trial.
Buddy, just because we failed to convict the killer does not mean they weren't murdered. OJ's wife did not spontaneously drop dead.

Cops shot and killed unarmed civilians for bullshit reasons. They freaked out, and decided that shooting first was the way to go. Because a child might have been reaching for a gun. Because a man turned around with his hands behind his head and started walking away. Because a man warned them about owning a gun, then tried to comply with instructions. They did not act in justified self-defense. A jury or judge or grand jury disagreed, but with all due respect, that's insane, and based more on the irrational and ridiculous standard of evidence needed to convict a cop of murder than anything else. We have direct video of cops shooting suspects without good reason to do so. I call that murder.
  #198  
Old 07-18-2017, 07:28 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Drake View Post
Actually yes.

Since he was 12, and was nowhere near them and they drove up in a car to shoot him, and shot him from 10 feet away whilst he was sitting down --- too far to identify any toy weapon; and he did nothing threatening or abusive, and the shooter had been previously deemed 'unfit for duty' as a police officer, and they then hung around gaping for 4 minutes before other police helped him, and his 14 year-old sister was handcuffed for approaching her brother I'm gonna think they could have negotiated with him first, if necessary from 100 feet away still in the car with a bull-horn.

Or they could have called in helicopters to protect their rush.
"He did nothing threatening" - except pull a gun (that had been modified to look real) from his waistband. Does that sound threatening to you? It does to me.

Maybe you're right, though - if the police had approached him from a hundred feet away
  • The further away they are, the better the chances (if you do have to shoot) of missing him and hitting someone/something else
  • Also the better chance of him escaping and continuing to threaten people
  • Also it is a lot harder to arrest someone from 100 feet away - a foot chase of an armed suspect is not usually the police's idea of fun
Quote:
...the irrational and ridiculous standard of evidence needed to convict a cop of murder than anything else.
The standard for convicting a cop is the same as for everyone else - proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers. Do you believe this standard should not apply? Should we have a different standard, for cops only or for everyone, and does it matter if the cop is black, white, or Asian?

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan; 07-18-2017 at 07:31 AM.
  #199  
Old 07-18-2017, 08:30 AM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,388
I will maintain they could have dealt with him whilst not leaving the vehicle --- just as other cops in Minneapolis recently shot dead from within the car an Australian woman who had come out in her pyjamas to complain about a sexual assault happening nearby.


The nerve of some people.
  #200  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:00 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 7,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Buddy, just because we failed to convict the killer does not mean they weren't murdered. OJ's wife did not spontaneously drop dead.
That's a different situation. The doubt there is whether she was murdered by OJ, not whether she was murdered.

In the three cases I mentioned, there is no doubt who the killers were, but in each case a jury has determined that the killings were not murder.

Not every killing is illegal, and not every illegal killing is murder. To claim they are, in defiance of the evidence and the decision of juries who've analysed that evidence, is ridiculous.

Quote:
They did not act in justified self-defense. A jury or judge or grand jury disagreed, but with all due respect, that's insane, and based more on the irrational and ridiculous standard of evidence needed to convict a cop of murder than anything else. We have direct video of cops shooting suspects without good reason to do so. I call that murder.
You are, in every point you make here, wrong. The standard of evidence needed to convict a cop is the same as to convict everyone else, and a video of a cop shooting someone without good reason would meet that standard. What we actually have are videos of cops shooting people with good reason, as decided by the only authority that matters, the legal system.

That you would call a legal killing murder just shows you don't know what that word means.
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 12:40 PM.

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