Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:12 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
Aside from collective punishment being wrong...
So if Officer Bluto does wrong and the police are sued and lose how is that not collective punishment? If the taxpayers ultimately pay that bill how is that not collective punishment?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #52  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:22 AM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So they speak out against their fellow officers a lot now do they? (Hint: No they don't)
So you would take an action that would provide even more of an incentive for them to speak out against their fellow officers? Imagine you're an officer prepared to testify that Officer Jenkins' reckless action led to many unnecessary injuries. In fact, you and a few other officers are prepared to testify that Jenkins' actions were dangerous, against department policy, and unnecessary. How forthcoming are you going to be if speaking out against Jenkins is going to have a negative effect on your pension, the pension of current officers, and the pension of retired officers?

Quote:
I would rather Officer Fudd stop Officer Bluto before he/she does something awful.
As would I. But going after pensions isn't going to improve the situation. I can't think of any industry where you can go after pensions for the actions of an employee or management. But for some of you it looks like this thread is more about revenge fantasies rather than finding a solution.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.

Last edited by Odesio; 02-08-2020 at 01:23 AM.
  #53  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:04 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,184
A police officer's career should end if and when they bring disrepute to the profession.
  #54  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:08 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
1. Body cameras, all the time.

2. Anytime a police officer uses lethal force, he/she has to write up a lot of paperwork and give a thorough explaining to a review board of why.

3. Pay them more (in case any are underpaid; Mexican cops, for instance, are often corrupt because underpaid; don't know if maybe rural American cops are too)

4. Break the blue wall of silence
  #55  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:28 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
All young black men are taught this. They know it far, far better than you do.

It’s called ‘the talk’ and it disgusts me that certain young men in my country need to be trained in how to avoid being killed by police. My son doesn’t. If anything, my talk with him will center on how to use his whiteness to help protect his black friends from police abuse.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #56  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:39 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
It’s called ‘the talk’ and it disgusts me that certain young men in my country need to be trained in how to avoid being killed by police. My son doesn’t. If anything, my talk with him will center on how to use his whiteness to help protect his black friends from police abuse.
What I've told my sons is exactly what I would advise any Black person. Cooperate and be respectful when dealing with law enforcement. Stay alive to fight in court.

Please explain how your son's whiteness will protect his black friends from police abuse? I'd like to tap into this superpower that my sons and I apparently have but are unaware of.

Thanks in advance.
  #57  
Old 02-08-2020, 11:56 AM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Guy on the porch - police are wrong. Guy picking up trash - same. Clearly, these cops need better training.
(Emphasis added.)

I would agree if these cops did not know their actions were unlawful. But I believe they do know their actions are unlawful, and they simply don't care.

Additional training isn't going to change a bad cop into a good cop.
  #58  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:28 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Serious question: How many "actual crimes" could they become aware of without doing all that "pull you out of your car and search everything" routine?
It happens all the time. I’ve pulled over cars that had items in the back seat or truck bed that clearly match those that were listed in a recent burglary. I’ve pulled over cars where a parent was speeding to the hospital with their child’s broken arm or scald burn that they caused. I’ve pulled over felons with pistols on the floor. Drugs and/or paraphernalia in direct view. People who came back with warrants. And etc, etc, etc. How long do you need me to go on? I’ll see your stupid idea and raise you 38 years over 2 separate careers.

Having law enforcement officers with limited authority is grossly inefficient, unnecessarily costly to tax payers, and detrimental to public safety. I use the existence of parking checkers as evidence #1. Why are tax payers paying a separate agency to do what municipal police should be doing? Evidence #2 is state/highway patrol. Why have a separate agency doing what every Sheriffs Office in the country is already doing? The main change in policing in America I’d make is elimination of redundancy.
  #59  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:54 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
In order to solve the problem, we first have to define it. Like last night in the debate where Mayor Pete was hammered because the police in his town while he was mayor arrested blacks at 7 times the rate of whites for marijuana possession, and the implication was that such a thing could only happen because of the KKK racist cops in his town that he did not adequately rein in. That begs the question. Several possibilities:

1) Maybe blacks use marijuana at 7 times the rate of whites.
2) Maybe blacks are involved in other criminal activity at a higher rate than whites, causing police attention and Terry frisks where the marijuana is found.
3) Maybe the economic situation between whites and blacks mean that whites can use marijuana in their own home making detection unlikely but as blacks must share living space with family members due to poverty, they are forced to use marijuana in public places.

I mean, the list could go on, but instead of having any real discussion about this or any other police issue, the default, the irrefutable assumption is that it is racist police officers.
  #60  
Old 02-09-2020, 02:00 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I agree that the officer in Barstow had no right to ask to ask for identification and freely admit that I am unfamiliar with California law. There would be no QI in this case because the officer is violating well established law. In some states, including New Jersey, it is unlawful to resist an unlawful arrest. Like I said, comply. Submit to the arrest and then sue, if there is reason.

Guy on the porch - police are wrong. Guy picking up trash - same. Clearly, these cops need better training. I believe no QI in either case.
You are incorrect. Police officers have QI even if they blatantly break the law. There are many cites for this. Here's one
Quote:
On the morning of Nov. 23, 2004, Malaika Brooks was driving her 11-year-old son to school when Seattle police pulled her over for speeding. When the officers gave her a ticket and asked her to sign it, Brooks refused, believing that she had been wrongly pulled over and thinking, mistakenly, that her signature would be an admission of guilt. The officers threatened to throw her in jail, and when Brooks still declined to sign, a sergeant ordered her arrest.

To push Brooks to step out of her car, one of the officers pulled out a Taser and asked her if she knew what it was. She didn’t, but told the officer she was seven months pregnant. The officers chatted in front of her, casually discussing which part of her body they would tase: “Well, don’t do it in her stomach,” one of them said, “do it in her thigh.” The officers twisted Brooks’s arm behind her back and tased her three separate times—first on her thigh, then in the arm, and then in the neck—before dragging her into the street, laying her face down, and cuffing her.

Brooks sued the officers to hold them accountable for their conduct. Six federal judges agreed that the officers’ use of severe force absent any threat to their safety violated the U.S. Constitution. But those same judges dismissed her case, relying on a legal doctrine called “qualified immunity.”

That doctrine has become one of the chief ways in which law enforcement avoids accountability for misconduct and, as Brooks’s case demonstrates, even proven constitutional violations. Ordinary people—whether they’re doctors, lawyers, or construction workers—are expected to follow the law. If they violate someone else’s legal rights, they can be sued and required to pay for the injuries they’ve caused.

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are held to a much lower standard. They can be held accountable only insofar as they violate rights that are “clearly established” in light of existing case law. This standard shields law enforcement, in particular, from innumerable constitutional violations each year. In the Supreme Court’s own words, it protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” It is under this rule that officers can, without worry, drag a nonthreatening, seven months pregnant woman into the street and tase her three times for refusing to sign a piece of paper.
So police can claim ignorance of the law to escape consequences for their actions although civilians cannot.
Here's another case of law enforcement escaping accountability. From the headline "A court ruled that officers did not have enough information to know whether or not stealing violates the Constitution." So while your theory of holding cops to the law when they "violate rights that are 'clearly established' in light of existing case law.", actual decisions ignore that standard.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
What I said in post #29 was people have to follow LAWFUL orders. In the vast majority of police use of force cases, the suspects fail to do so.
There are many videos where cops attack a person without announcing their arrest and giving them a chance to submit. They unexpectedly grab the person and since they didn't submit - they call it resisting arrest.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Saint Cad - POLICE have no obligation to retreat when faced with resistance or a threat. In your hypothetical you are the aggressor and, even in "stand your ground states", I think you would be in trouble. When the police employ force they have to so "reasonably". That is, they have to state specific, objective observations that led them to employ force. "Feeling threatened", alone, won't cut it. It seems that there is a general belief out there that that's all cops have to say to "get away with killing someone". I've seen and heard it countless times but it is, simply, not true. Now, if in your scenario you are a cop, you would equally be in trouble because you have not acted lawfully - making threats for one. If you beat "the ever loving shit" out of me, you'd better have a damn good reason for employing that level of force. That certainly implies that I was defenseless at some point. Are you saying that the police should be required to retreat or try to de-escalate when faced with a threat? When the courts rule that on "at that moment", what they are trying to do is prevent Monday morning quarterbacking. "They could have parked further away. They could have stayed behind cover. They could have waited or a dog etc., etc." The USSC specifically addresses this in Graham v Connor.
You are ignoring the point. When the police escalate the situation into using force, they may be in the wrong but they are rarely held accountable for it. THAT is the issue - accountability.
  #61  
Old 02-09-2020, 04:06 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
The two cases you cited have more nuance than what you describe. First, the largest issue that doom most of these Section 1983 suits is that you bear a higher burden of proving that the actions were not only wrong, but clearly violate the United States Constitution. Both of these Plaintiffs would have easily won in state court under tort theories, but they and their attorneys got greedy and went for the higher payout (winning 1983 suits are awarded attorneys fees as well).

The speeding pregnant woman: In keeping with the spirit of the thread, all she had to do was what thousands of motorists do every day. Sign the ticket and off she goes. But she didn't. She decided arrogantly (the article says "mistakenly" but where did she get her law degree from to decide she was going to take that action?) that she was not going to sign the ticket. In many states, including my own, an arrest is required in that situation. And then she refuses to submit to the arrest.

So the cops are going to have to use some level of force to get her out of the car. They were probably talking about where to tase her in hopes that she would not want to be tased and voluntarily get out of the car. But she didn't. So what to do? Should the officers have reached in and pulled her out? Maybe they get a bullet in the face when the try that? Unless she complied after the first tase and the officers gave her two more for the hell of it (which it is not alleged) we can assume that she was still resisting the arrest.

Was that force excessive? Maybe. Probably. But that is what qualified immunity is for, not to second guess officers on the beat. And even if the officers made a mistake, I put more of the blame on the woman for first refusing to sign her citation and second for unlawfully resisting a proper arrest. At most I would say it is unfortunate, but not something I would hold as a reason why we need to eliminate QI.

The second case, the theft of the money. Again, the plaintiff wanted to constitutionalize it. And he picked the Fourth Amendment instead of the Fifth. As the property was seized pursuant to a valid warrant, it is not at all clear that a subsequent theft violates that amendment. But the plaintiff saw dollar signs. I guarantee you that officer was fired and probably prosecuted. However, the sole question for that case was "Does the cop owe the criminal money and attorneys fees?" That is not at all clear. Section 1983 is not the only remedy for police abuses.

Last edited by UltraVires; 02-09-2020 at 04:08 PM.
  #62  
Old 02-09-2020, 05:34 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Gladly. Here is a video that shows all the problems in one. A few things to notice
They do not ask the white woman to identify herself (although that could have been before the video started)
In California, you are not required to identify yourself in this situation. Also in the United States, I have the right to refuse to talk to police. So the cops had no right to grab her or her phone or manhandle her AND they certainly had no right to arrest her since she broke no crime.
In this video, the White woman claims there is a witness "Ms. Anderson" to the altercation with and the threatening behavior of the Black woman. The actions of the Black woman were so aggressive that the White woman is clearly fearful about another encounter and is unable to pick up her child from school. The police officer had every right to deescalate the situation and to document what had occurred. There was probable cause that a crime had occurred. By acquiring the identity of the Black woman, any further conflict was far less likely.
  #63  
Old 02-09-2020, 05:45 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 186
What happened in the Bronx yesterday where two New York City Police Department officers were shot within hours doesn't help police-civilian relations either.

Mayor de Blasio in NYC is not well liked by the police, as my previous thread about the Democratic Party and the police relations show.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/09/us/ny...ing/index.html

These events that happened since the early 2010s helped fuel the counterargument towards Black Lives Matter called Blue Lives Matter.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/25/us/ny...ces/index.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkvjx9CCdRo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQkadxi9f5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3MNgMqC158

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NY6kxUo9CY

Last edited by Yankees 1996 Champs; 02-09-2020 at 05:48 PM.
  #64  
Old 02-09-2020, 06:08 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So the cops are going to have to use some level of force to get her out of the car. They were probably talking about where to tase her in hopes that she would not want to be tased and voluntarily get out of the car. But she didn't. So what to do? Should the officers have reached in and pulled her out? Maybe they get a bullet in the face when the try that? Unless she complied after the first tase and the officers gave her two more for the hell of it (which it is not alleged) we can assume that she was still resisting the arrest.
Given that the cops must have already reached in (remember, they had twisted her arm behind her back already), I doubt catching a bullet in the face was a worry at that point. The fact that the judges AGREED the officers violated the woman's constitutional rights by using excessive force, I'd argue that you're horribly wrong in your "assessment".

For all your talk of nuance, you seem to miss the actual facts involved, instead choosing to substitute your own opinions.
  #65  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:25 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
Change the rules of engagement to "return fire".

If you think they are armed, hold your fire. If you are told they have a gun, hold your fire. If you see that they have a gun, hold your fire. If they point a gun at you, hold your fire. If they shoot at you, return fire . . . MAYBE! Those "dangerous urban areas" . . . they are full of PEOPLE, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the guy shooting at you. So, if your backstop is clear, you have a clear visual and are taking fire, sure, shoot back.

If that is too tough for you, no shame. But, find another job. If I can abide by these rules as a mundane part of an SOP dealing with non-Americans who likely have military grade weaponry and are associated with a foreign military with which the U.S. has had aggressive contact, then any LEO worth his salt should agree that civilian populations of his own country deserve at least that much consideration. And let's not go overboard about "danger". Cops are less likely to die on the job than miners, construction worker, commercial fisherman, even cabbies. Plus, most cops that die in the line of duty do so in traffic accidents.
  #66  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:30 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
I don't believe it reasonable to consider anyone "resisting" after getting tased. Tasers affect locomotion and awareness. You usually can't do much of anything effectively after getting zapped. This makes them great for self-defense, but once someone has been hit, I don't think their subsequent actions (or choices) are something you can fully hold them responsible for.
  #67  
Old 02-09-2020, 09:52 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,301
As a Canadian, I don’t know much about American policing. However, my impressions are that:

1. American police are underpaid. The job can be stressful and dangerous. Much of the work is likely mundane and dealing with unhappy people. Better pay would improve morale and may reduce problems and turnover.

2. Access to well-being and PTSD support varies from place to place. Both police and their families should have good access to psychological support. They deserve excellent health coverage.

3. Policing changes over time. There should be paid continuing educational support - allowing further training in fields such as social work, drug treatment, finance, accounting, cyberspace, languages, law, disaster planning or areas deemed locally or systemically relevant.

4. In general, I am not convinced American policing and judiciary are improved by overpoliticizing the process or public elections. But I don’t know a lot about this - I’m thinking of Joe Arpaio and how he might have run against a Democratic candidate, driving more extreme policy. How does it help to have a judge or sheriff identify as Democrat or Republican? Merit should matter more.

5. Police codes should be more rigidly enforced. I understand the blue line mentality given media coverage and job realities - but accountability and transparency would often encourage public confidence.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 02-09-2020 at 09:55 PM.
  #68  
Old 02-09-2020, 10:58 PM
sisu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oi, oi, oi
Posts: 2,358
Get people out of poverty would be great, legalise drugs and remove all the complex competing layers of police.

It seems that a lot of coppers are ex military, again from what I see it seems PTSD is not well looked after, this has to have an effect on behaviour.

Remove voting for Police positions, I just don't understand this.
__________________
My opinions may or may not reflect the truth.........

Last edited by sisu; 02-09-2020 at 11:00 PM.
  #69  
Old 02-09-2020, 11:39 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
Change the rules of engagement to "return fire".

If you think they are armed, hold your fire. If you are told they have a gun, hold your fire. If you see that they have a gun, hold your fire. If they point a gun at you, hold your fire. If they shoot at you, return fire . . . MAYBE! Those "dangerous urban areas" . . . they are full of PEOPLE, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the guy shooting at you. So, if your backstop is clear, you have a clear visual and are taking fire, sure, shoot back.

If that is too tough for you, no shame. But, find another job. If I can abide by these rules as a mundane part of an SOP dealing with non-Americans who likely have military grade weaponry and are associated with a foreign military with which the U.S. has had aggressive contact, then any LEO worth his salt should agree that civilian populations of his own country deserve at least that much consideration. And let's not go overboard about "danger". Cops are less likely to die on the job than miners, construction worker, commercial fisherman, even cabbies. Plus, most cops that die in the line of duty do so in traffic accidents.
What? The cops have to hold their fire when someone is pointing a gun at them? Seriously? But you would graciously allow them to return fire if shot at, assuming you would agree if that shot did not hit them right between the eyes and kill them.

It is absurd what some people think cops should have to put up with. Why is it not too much to ask the lady to sign her fucking traffic citation?
  #70  
Old 02-09-2020, 11:41 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Given that the cops must have already reached in (remember, they had twisted her arm behind her back already), I doubt catching a bullet in the face was a worry at that point. The fact that the judges AGREED the officers violated the woman's constitutional rights by using excessive force, I'd argue that you're horribly wrong in your "assessment".

For all your talk of nuance, you seem to miss the actual facts involved, instead choosing to substitute your own opinions.
No, the judges in an air conditioned office, sitting in a comfy chair behind a desk decided that they used excessive force. And that is fine, but it is a good reason for QI, so that decisions in the heat of the moment don't rise to actionable offenses. And, she should have signed her fucking traffic citation. How hard is that?
  #71  
Old 02-09-2020, 11:53 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No, the judges in an air conditioned office, sitting in a comfy chair behind a desk decided that they used excessive force. And that is fine, but it is a good reason for QI, so that decisions in the heat of the moment don't rise to actionable offenses. And, she should have signed her fucking traffic citation. How hard is that?
So the judges, who were in no danger, decided the police officers, who were in no danger, real or imagined, were not in danger, and should not have repeatedly tazed a woman who didn't get out of the car after being tazed?

Have you ever been tazed? Had to do anything requiring motor skills, like get out of a vehicle with one arm twisted behind your back?

But all that's ok, because she didn't sign a ticket.
  #72  
Old 02-09-2020, 11:57 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
So the judges, who were in no danger, decided the police officers, who were in no danger, real or imagined, were not in danger, and should not have repeatedly tazed a woman who didn't get out of the car after being tazed?

Have you ever been tazed? Had to do anything requiring motor skills, like get out of a vehicle with one arm twisted behind your back?

But all that's ok, because she didn't sign a ticket.
What force do you believe was reasonable for the officers to arrest her? Everything but the tasing?
  #73  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:08 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What force do you believe was reasonable for the officers to arrest her? Everything but the tasing?
It's possible even the first tasing was "required", for various definitions of required that more closely resemble expedient.

Multiple tasings after the first are pointless. Anything after the first is almost guaranteed to be excessive, as you're fairly incapable of doing jackshit immediately after being tased, especially while seated in a vehicle with your arm held.

What immediate danger were the police officers in that required multiple tasings, real or imagined? Fanciful ideas are irrelevant.
  #74  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:09 AM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What force do you believe was reasonable for the officers to arrest her? Everything but the tasing?
For not signing a ticket? Detain her until she realizes that she's not going home. Anything else--tazing, twisting her arm, forcibly moving her around--is unreasonable.
  #75  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:40 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
It's possible even the first tasing was "required", for various definitions of required that more closely resemble expedient.

Multiple tasings after the first are pointless. Anything after the first is almost guaranteed to be excessive, as you're fairly incapable of doing jackshit immediately after being tased, especially while seated in a vehicle with your arm held.

What immediate danger were the police officers in that required multiple tasings, real or imagined? Fanciful ideas are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
For not signing a ticket? Detain her until she realizes that she's not going home. Anything else--tazing, twisting her arm, forcibly moving her around--is unreasonable.
It is not about danger to the officer in the first instance. The police are allowed to use reasonable force to effectuate an arrest. She's sitting on her pregnant ass in the car refusing to move. She is forcing her 11 year old to witness his mother getting taken away. Some force is necessary and privileged to make the arrest. The officers do not need to wait for hours for her to decide to submit to the arrest under any circumstance.

As I said, they maybe/probably went too far, but that is QI; we don't second guess that sitting behind a desk when these officers were in the middle of a fluid situation. And even if we do second guess, we don't impose civil liability unless the offense was so egregious as to violate clearly established law.

It is her duty under the law to submit to the lawful arrest after she foolishly failed to sign the citation.
  #76  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:01 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
Change the rules of engagement to "return fire".
If you think they are armed, hold your fire. If you are told they have a gun, hold your fire. If you see that they have a gun, hold your fire. If they point a gun at you, hold your fire. If they shoot at you, return fire . . . MAYBE!


That'll go over real good during the next school shooting. Or any situation where people get hurt or killed because an officer didn't respond correctly to an obvious threat.

Once the criminal element realizes police officers are rarely shooting at them the rate of dead cops will at least duodecuple. And then what brilliant advice will you suggest?
  #77  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:54 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is not about danger to the officer in the first instance. The police are allowed to use reasonable force to effectuate an arrest. She's sitting on her pregnant ass in the car refusing to move. She is forcing her 11 year old to witness his mother getting taken away. Some force is necessary and privileged to make the arrest. The officers do not need to wait for hours for her to decide to submit to the arrest under any circumstance.

As I said, they maybe/probably went too far, but that is QI; we don't second guess that sitting behind a desk when these officers were in the middle of a fluid situation. And even if we do second guess, we don't impose civil liability unless the offense was so egregious as to violate clearly established law.

It is her duty under the law to submit to the lawful arrest after she foolishly failed to sign the citation.
So they're allowed reasonable force, but if they use unreasonable force, that's A-OK too, because heaven forbid those who are our first line in our justice system be expected to calmly evaluate a situation.

Unless you're going to go back to "SHE MIGHT HAVE SHOT SOMEONE" from earlier, and clear and present danger requires they tase someone most likely physically unable to comply with their demands.
  #78  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:39 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell
Change the rules of engagement to "return fire".

If you think they are armed, hold your fire. If you are told they have a gun, hold your fire. If you see that they have a gun, hold your fire. If they point a gun at you, hold your fire. If they shoot at you, return fire . . . MAYBE! Those "dangerous urban areas" . . . they are full of PEOPLE, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the guy shooting at you. So, if your backstop is clear, you have a clear visual and are taking fire, sure, shoot back.

If that is too tough for you, no shame. But, find another job.
If one of the requirements to be a police officer is not to shoot someone until after he gets off the first shot, then pretty soon you won't have anyone willing to be a police officer.

And you are correct, those "dangerous urban areas" are indeed full of PEOPLE. PEOPLE who are at risk of being shot if the bad guy shoots at a cop and misses.

Were you aware that, a significant portion of the time, the police shoot people who have already threatened or actually harmed other civilians? Check the Washington Post database of police shootings in 2019. 1004 people shot. 589 of them had guns and 171 had knives.

Regards,
Shodan
  #79  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:55 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post

Having law enforcement officers with limited authority is grossly inefficient, unnecessarily costly to tax payers, and detrimental to public safety. I use the existence of parking checkers as evidence #1. Why are tax payers paying a separate agency to do what municipal police should be doing? Evidence #2 is state/highway patrol. Why have a separate agency doing what every Sheriffs Office in the country is already doing? The main change in policing in America I’d make is elimination of redundancy.
Another example is top heavy police departments. The one in our small city is grossly so when compared to NYC right across the river. Though I guess the thread supposes the main problem is excessive use of force or prejudicial patterns of arrest. I don't think either of those are necessarily non problems but I tend to think both have become over-hyped and oversimplified. Anyway if higher pay for police (actually on the street) is proposed as a partial remedy for use of force/racism problems, then realistically you'd have to look at where to spend less money at the municipal level, as opposed to unrealistically assuming more would be spent. And top heavy as well as redundant organizations would be one place.

But I'll be upfront, I'm very skeptical of 'higher pay for police' as a solution. There are municipalities which have specific problems because they won't pay the going rate in their region. Whether just lifting police salaries everywhere would be accomplish anything meaningful in terms of use of force or even more so racial patterns of arrest*, I doubt that a lot more subject to some actual proof.

*where as an earlier post noted, it's cartoonishly oversimplified to portray that as if equal rate of visible (to the police) violation of the law by all groups and the police just ignore it for some groups because they're racist. There is no solution via better police work for disparate rates of arrest by ethnic and racial group. There's the bad police work 'solution' of giving explicit or implicit racial quota's for arrest. But the only productive solutions are above the level of the police, to some limited extent what the laws are (if things certain groups are much more likely to be validly arrested for under current law don't really need to be illegal), but mainly much deeper disparities in society where it's just going to corrode the police and justice system to make them the scapegoats for those disparities.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-10-2020 at 10:57 AM.
  #80  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:57 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
As a Canadian, I don’t know much about American policing. However, my impressions are that:

1. American police are underpaid. The job can be stressful and dangerous. Much of the work is likely mundane and dealing with unhappy people. Better pay would improve morale and may reduce problems and turnover.

2. Access to well-being and PTSD support varies from place to place. Both police and their families should have good access to psychological support. They deserve excellent health coverage.

3. Policing changes over time. There should be paid continuing educational support - allowing further training in fields such as social work, drug treatment, finance, accounting, cyberspace, languages, law, disaster planning or areas deemed locally or systemically relevant.

4. In general, I am not convinced American policing and judiciary are improved by overpoliticizing the process or public elections. But I don’t know a lot about this - I’m thinking of Joe Arpaio and how he might have run against a Democratic candidate, driving more extreme policy. How does it help to have a judge or sheriff identify as Democrat or Republican? Merit should matter more.

5. Police codes should be more rigidly enforced. I understand the blue line mentality given media coverage and job realities - but accountability and transparency would often encourage public confidence.
Police have a median salary of $63K. That is more than the median household income in the us, and more than the average police salary in Canada.
  #81  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:52 PM
mjmartin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1
I think a good first step would be having a dedicated, aggressive agency that specifically investigates police. The agency should be separate from any police department. The idea that a local internal affairs department, or local prosecutor is going to effectively investigate their friends, co-workers and officers that they routinely work with is naive at best. In my profession (law), there is a well funded group of experienced attorneys who work for the Office of Bar Counsel. The only thing they do is investigate reports of bad lawyers. They are evaluated solely on their ability to do so. Their authority is state wide so they are less likely to be familiar with the people they are investigating. They have broad authority to gather documents and evidence. Failure to cooperate with the investigation has negative consequences. Lying in the investigation has negative consequences. When they find that someone has failed to follow the rules, they make recommendations from further training to disbarment. It clearly does not stop all bad lawyers. But it certainly encourages good behavior from good lawyers, and reduces the likelihood that bad lawyers will be able to hide their actions forever.

If police want to keep their actions from being judged by non-police, they should be held accountable to a similar agency. No more "we have investigated ourselves and found we have done nothing wrong" from a local internal affairs department, or even worse, from a local police chief in smaller departments.

Last edited by mjmartin; 02-10-2020 at 12:54 PM.
  #82  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:29 PM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Police have a median salary of $63K.
Also keep in mind the benefits. My LEO friends are staying on because the them (medical, pension, etc.).
  #83  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:53 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
Anyone who thinks my earlier suggestion is unreasonable, shouldn't be a cop. Like I said, no shame, not everyone is tough enough. However, before there is a rush for the door, remember that policing isn't even in the top ten (maybe top twenty) of the most dangerous professions. Those people with the "them or me" attitude shouldn't be cops. Especially with the "them" that gets shot, turns out to be unarmed. Given the legal precedents that LEOs don't have a professional, legal obligation to protect the public and that it is acceptable to select against candidates who have performed too well on intelligence tests, we're just not talking about our best and brightest in society. Basically, good pay, easy work, social status, low physical risk, and virtually ZERO accountability doesn't necessarily attract bad people, but it sure as Hell doesn't keep away the worst.
  #84  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:59 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
Quote:
Check the Washington Post database of police shootings in 2019. 1004 people shot. 589 of them had guns and 171 had knives.
It is legal to have a knife or even a gun. 'Murika loves its guns. If it is legal to have guns, you can't go around shooting everyone that has a gun. How many of the officers involved had guns? If it is justifiable to shoot someone because they have a gun, bad for cops. What if it is always justifiable to shoot someone who brandishes a gun or points it at you . . . yeah, that would be bad for cops as well. It may well be inappropriate to put LEOs and civilians on equal footing like this, but that's because it is inappropriate. The LEOs are the ones with training, backup, state-issued authority. They should not be held to the same standard, but to a higher one.

We expect so little . . . and boy do we get it.
  #85  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:00 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
Anyone who thinks my earlier suggestion is unreasonable, shouldn't be a cop. Like I said, no shame, not everyone is tough enough.
Waiting for the guy pointing a gun at you to shoot first isn't a question of toughness.
Quote:
However, before there is a rush for the door, remember that policing isn't even in the top ten (maybe top twenty) of the most dangerous professions.
It appears your plan can address that, and not in a good way.

Regards,
Shodan
  #86  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:04 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
It is legal to have a knife or even a gun. 'Murika loves its guns. If it is legal to have guns, you can't go around shooting everyone that has a gun.
You can if they point it at you.

Regards,
Shodan
  #87  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:25 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
Unless it is a cop. Somehow, that isn't an assault with a deadly weapon because he felt threatened due to me having a gun, or being near a gun, or not being near a gun he just thought I had a gun. I guess I deserved it for making him think I had a gun.

Can we at least bring cop pay into parity with roughnecks and pipe-fitters? Because I grew up around that lot and they are MUCH tougher than these effete American cops who (if their post-citizen-murder accounts are believed) are afraid of EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY ALL. THE. TIME. Policing is obviously safer, easier, and you're not as scrutinized as much. But, people working in process plants and oil rigs don't mind hard work and danger. They just don't want to live on cop pay and probably don't get off on bullying people.
  #88  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:31 PM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
...these effete American cops who (if their post-citizen-murder accounts are believed) are afraid of EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY ALL. THE. TIME.
"Officer safety" is drilled into them. Over. And over. And over. I believe it makes many LEOs paranoid.
  #89  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:38 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
American police being so famously aggressive with gunfire isn't something I would expect to increase dangerous criminals' propensity to surrender peacefully. And gunfire from LEOs can and does kill civilians. There is little sense of proportionality in policing here. Not long ago police pursued robbery suspects, a hostage, and the driver of a highjacked UPS truck. They discharged hundreds of rounds, in heavy traffic, in pursuit of a large, slow-moving, vehicle trackable via GPS. Cops were hiding behind people's cars, with citizens still in them. Both robbers were killed, as well as the hostages. No police fatalities, so I assume they considered this a successful mission.
  #90  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:55 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
So you would take an action that would provide even more of an incentive for them to speak out against their fellow officers? Imagine you're an officer prepared to testify that Officer Jenkins' reckless action led to many unnecessary injuries. In fact, you and a few other officers are prepared to testify that Jenkins' actions were dangerous, against department policy, and unnecessary. How forthcoming are you going to be if speaking out against Jenkins is going to have a negative effect on your pension, the pension of current officers, and the pension of retired officers?
They already don't testify against fellow officers so nothing changes on that front. What can change would be how the officer is dealt with internally. A lot of bad police are rehired. Maybe their union and other departments would be less willing to go to bat for bad apples who keep causing their departments money. Certainly other officers would probably be more proactive in curbing bad cop's actions. Also, the culture from the top would probably be more focused on policing methods that are less likely to get the department sued.


Quote:
As would I. But going after pensions isn't going to improve the situation. I can't think of any industry where you can go after pensions for the actions of an employee or management. But for some of you it looks like this thread is more about revenge fantasies rather than finding a solution.
The problem is there is no accountability (or at least precious little). The police themselves don't, well, police themselves. Indeed, they almost always cover for each other making justice very difficult to achieve. Particularly when the DA also has their back.

Your complaint about "collective punishment" applies to the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for a bad cop's actions. Usually we see to it that the people who committed the bad act are the ones punished for it. Given the above I am not sure how else you make the police liable for their actions.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #91  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:58 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So the cops are going to have to use some level of force to get her out of the car.
I would start with this idea, which is wrong most of the time.

A big problem with how police interact with the community is that they demand compliance, and when they don't get it rapidly, they escalate to force.

There is a time and place for force, but a pregnant woman who is sitting in a car not going anywhere isn't it. When faced with intransigence but no danger, the response should be: wait.

She'll get out of the car eventually. I mean, come on. She's pregnant, so by the time the ticket has been written she probably already has to pee.

People who are having a moment of self-righteous indignation will cool down. The vast majority of them will eventually do what is being asked without any force. We should train police to just sit patiently and talk in a non-threatening way. This will require that we hire more police, since it will take them longer to accomplish their jobs sometimes. And, you know, by all means, if we want to make there be an incentive to not do this, make part of their punishment be based on the amount of time we had to wait for them. Make a highway patrolman sit on the side of the road for two hours because you wouldn't sign the damn ticket? You get 2x50 hours of community service tacked on to your ticket.

But the idea that we should train agents of the state to taze people when they're just being petulant and not actually presenting any kind of danger because we need to speed up the processing of a minor crime is horrifying.
  #92  
Old 02-10-2020, 03:21 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The speeding pregnant woman: In keeping with the spirit of the thread, all she had to do was what thousands of motorists do every day. Sign the ticket and off she goes. But she didn't.

And then she refuses to submit to the arrest.

So the cops are going to have to use some level of force to get her out of the car.
This is a conclusion, not a fact. The cops were not required, by law, physics, nor employment agreement to physically overpower a pregnant lady and electrically shock her multiple times because she didn't sign a document.

I know it sounds wacky to say maybe we shouldn't run 50,000 volts through a pregnant lady and grind her face into the pavement because she drove 32 in a 20 zone and refused to put pen to paper when told to do so, but that's my position.

It's only the unimaginative person who really doesn't give a fuck about anything but enforcing compliance that thinks these cops had no choice but to taser this lady in the neck until she passed out.
  #93  
Old 02-10-2020, 03:40 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The speeding pregnant woman: In keeping with the spirit of the thread, all she had to do was what thousands of motorists do every day. Sign the ticket and off she goes. But she didn't. She decided arrogantly (the article says "mistakenly" but where did she get her law degree from to decide she was going to take that action?) that she was not going to sign the ticket. In many states, including my own, an arrest is required in that situation. And then she refuses to submit to the arrest.

So the cops are going to have to use some level of force to get her out of the car. They were probably talking about where to tase her in hopes that she would not want to be tased and voluntarily get out of the car. But she didn't. So what to do? Should the officers have reached in and pulled her out? Maybe they get a bullet in the face when the try that? Unless she complied after the first tase and the officers gave her two more for the hell of it (which it is not alleged) we can assume that she was still resisting the arrest.

Was that force excessive? Maybe. Probably. But that is what qualified immunity is for, not to second guess officers on the beat. And even if the officers made a mistake, I put more of the blame on the woman for first refusing to sign her citation and second for unlawfully resisting a proper arrest. At most I would say it is unfortunate, but not something I would hold as a reason why we need to eliminate QI.
Except one is not required to sign a traffic ticket in Washington so your entire premise is flawed and reduces to "Cops making up laws"

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The second case, the theft of the money. Again, the plaintiff wanted to constitutionalize it. And he picked the Fourth Amendment instead of the Fifth. As the property was seized pursuant to a valid warrant, it is not at all clear that a subsequent theft violates that amendment. But the plaintiff saw dollar signs. I guarantee you that officer was fired and probably prosecuted. However, the sole question for that case was "Does the cop owe the criminal money and attorneys fees?" That is not at all clear. Section 1983 is not the only remedy for police abuses.
Except in this case the money wasn't seized and stored, the cops didn't report it on the inventory sheet so it cannot be returned to the owner. They stole it.
  #94  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:45 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
Anyone who thinks my earlier suggestion is unreasonable, shouldn't be a cop.
Says who? You? Who the hell are you? This is Great Debates, not IMHO. You offer no cites or cromulent real world experience to your absurd position and then demand that it is correct? Pfft.

Your standard would include about 99.9% of the population. Even the most ardent pacifist could find it insane to not be allowed to defend ones self against an obvious imminent lethal threat. By your standard a police officer could not stop an active shooter until such shooter was shooting at the actual officer. And then maybe, right?
  #95  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:29 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
1) Eliminating unreasonable civil asset forfeiture - basically stealing from the public in absence of any crime. This sets the tone of law enforcement that it is ok to abuse the public without any accountability.

2) Eliminate qualified immunity if the action is unreasonable. If it is reasonable fine but have you seen these stories of cops destroying houses of innocent people and stealing, raping and killing people? Qualified immunity should not be carte blanche to do whatever.
And I'm also speaking of de facto qualified immunity including protection from the DA and the force when an officer commits a crime.
And in addition, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for civilians right? If a cop makes up a law (you can't video me, you need to show ID), any actions after that cannot result in a crime like resisting arrest. Any action the cop takes based on the made up law is subject to criminal & civil sanctions like false arrest, stealing (seizing a phone, etc.)
I know the argument is how can a cop act if they don't have immunity? The problem is that a cop is immune from ANY repercusion no matter if their actions are reasonable or unreasonable. It is reasonable to expect cops to not make up laws, to not destroy innocent people's homes, or actively break the law.

3) ANY proven abuse of power results in losing the ability to be a cop ANYWHERE in the US.


That's a start.
A bit over that top, but you have some good ideas.
  #96  
Old 02-13-2020, 06:03 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
Change the rules of engagement to "return fire".

If you think they are armed, hold your fire. If you are told they have a gun, hold your fire. If you see that they have a gun, hold your fire. If they point a gun at you, hold your fire. If they shoot at you, return fire . . . MAYBE! Those "dangerous urban areas" . . . they are full of PEOPLE, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the guy shooting at you. So, if your backstop is clear, you have a clear visual and are taking fire, sure, shoot back.

If that is too tough for you, no shame. But, find another job. If I can abide by these rules as a mundane part of an SOP dealing with non-Americans who likely have military grade weaponry and are associated with a foreign military with which the U.S. has had aggressive contact, then any LEO worth his salt should agree that civilian populations of his own country deserve at least that much consideration. And let's not go overboard about "danger". Cops are less likely to die on the job than miners, construction worker, commercial fisherman, even cabbies. Plus, most cops that die in the line of duty do so in traffic accidents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
Anyone who thinks my earlier suggestion is unreasonable, shouldn't be a cop. Like I said, no shame, not everyone is tough enough. However, before there is a rush for the door, remember that policing isn't even in the top ten (maybe top twenty) of the most dangerous professions. Those people with the "them or me" attitude shouldn't be cops. Especially with the "them" that gets shot, turns out to be unarmed. Given the legal precedents that LEOs don't have a professional, legal obligation to protect the public and that it is acceptable to select against candidates who have performed too well on intelligence tests, we're just not talking about our best and brightest in society. Basically, good pay, easy work, social status, low physical risk, and virtually ZERO accountability doesn't necessarily attract bad people, but it sure as Hell doesn't keep away the worst.
I completely agree with this. Police in the U.S. escalate to deadly force far too easily. They frequently appear to looking for an excuse to shoot people, instead of looking for a reason to not use deadly force.

I think any police officer who shoots a civilian should be as thoroughly investigated as if I would be if I were to shoot someone. This includes prosecuting and jailing them if the shooting cannot be fully justified.

If this drives people away from policing, so much the better. Most of our current police seem to revel in the power trip they get by being armed in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
...By your standard a police officer could not stop an active shooter until such shooter was shooting at the actual officer. And then maybe, right?
Right. No rolleyes. Better than the current situation in which the police get to execute civilians with impunity.
  #97  
Old 02-13-2020, 06:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
Change the rules of engagement to "return fire".

If you think they are armed, hold your fire. If you are told they have a gun, hold your fire. If you see that they have a gun, hold your fire. If they point a gun at you, hold your fire. If they shoot at you, return fire . . . MAYBE! Those "dangerous urban areas" . . . they are full of PEOPLE, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the guy shooting at you. So, if your backstop is clear, you have a clear visual and are taking fire, sure, shoot back. ....
That would end up with too many dead cops.

And cops rarely have second hand shooting victims, they know their back drop.
  #98  
Old 02-13-2020, 06:38 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And cops rarely have second hand shooting victims, they know their back drop.
Nine bystanders hit in one incident alone. Two more here. A six-year-old here.
  #99  
Old 02-13-2020, 07:22 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That would end up with too many dead cops.
Is there any evidence for this? Any at all? I'm sure that American police believe this to be true, which is why they are so quick to shoot. They get bullshit training on how fast a person can supposedly run over to them with a knife, and that's why it's so important to immediately shoot people if they appear to have any weapon on their person, or even anything that looks like it might possibly be a weapon.

The pendulum has swung far, far over to the point that police now tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Their top priority is not public safety, but their own personal safety. This overwhelming concern for their own safety, combined with the power trip most police seem to have and the overreaction they typically exhibit when their authority appears to be questioned,* leads to the situation we have now. I'm a white male, and I fear the police in our country today. If I were a minority, I would be terrified of them.

We train our soldiers in occupied areas of foreign countries that it is counter-productive to shoot the civilian population. You don't win "hearts and minds" by shooting everyone who you think might be armed. It's time to train our police the same way -- then arrest, prosecute, and jail them for an unjustified use of deadly force, with none of this "qualified immunity" bullshit.

This isn't the first time I've said this. As I wrote last year:
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Police in the U.S. seem to extend this aggressive approach to virtually every interaction they have with the public.

We had a local case where a mentally ill person off of his meds had a knife in his hand while standing in the middle of a field. He refused to drop the knife. The cops had him surrounded, but nobody was within 20-30 feet of him. He posed absolutely no danger to anyone other than himself. After a few minutes of this, the police opened fire on the man and killed him.

I read about cases like this all the time. Police kill a person who poses little or no threat to them or anyone else. The police almost seem to be looking for a reason to use their guns to kill people, and the reason often simply boils down to their authority being questioned (even if it's because the person is drunk, disturbed, mentally incapacitated, deaf, etc.).

In most interactions with the public, the police seem to have elevated their own personal safety above all other considerations. And for many police officers, if there is any threat, or even a potential threat, or even a theoretical threat, or maybe simply if they decide their instruction aren't being followed, they deal with the threat the same way: with deadly force.

And they wonder why people fear and distrust them?
*This even extends to mundane interactions with the police. In my job, we are forced to hire police for traffic control for construction projects. The police get to decide how many officers are needed for a given job (which is an obvious conflict of interest), and they personally get overtime pay for doing nothing (typically either shooting the bull with the other officer, or sitting in their squad car). In order to get them to do the job they are being paid for (i.e. actually directing traffic), we had to hire a retired police officer to serve as a liaison with the police, because it is all but impossible for a civilian to get a police officer to do something they don't want to do. So if I get word that the police are sleeping in their car instead of directing traffic, I have to call our liaison, who calls the private duty police coordinator, who may or may not counsel the officer. We have been warned to never question a police officer ourselves -- nothing good would come of that.

Whether they do their job or not, we still have to pay, approximately $100/hour per officer, plus another $15/hour for a squad car, with a minimum charge of 4 hours. This is one reason why utility construction in roadways is so expensive.
  #100  
Old 02-13-2020, 07:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Nine bystanders hit in one incident alone. Two more here. A six-year-old here.
How does three anecdotes over 12 years disprove "And cops rarely have second hand shooting victims, they know their back drop."?

Or were you agreeing with me, that it rarely happens?
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 05:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017