# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 432
**Author:** ![aliensshow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@aliensshow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aliensshow)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8622 "2016-08-20T01:05:05Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Why the hell are the police allowed to charge people with resisting arrest but **no other crime**? It’s such an obvious bullshit charge. To anger you. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8623 "2016-08-20T03:01:10Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [Black woman calls police because she’s worried that a police officer will assault her; officer violently arrests her for resisting arrest.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/05/social-worker-calls-911-because-shes-afraid-of-a-police-officer-he-then-violently-arrests-her/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.67a18b798a22) She’s lucky she wasn’t shot.☹ ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8624 "2016-08-22T17:28:29Z")
Now an NC state trooper [shoots and kills an unarmed deaf mute man.](http://usuncut.com/news/north-carolina-cops-kill-deaf-mute-man-using-sign-language/) Seriously, WTF? Did the cop think he was being dissed in sign language? Was he so stupid that he didn’t recognize a guy attempting to communicate? Why is shooting to kill the first option? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8625 "2016-08-23T06:07:57Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Why the hell are the police allowed to charge people with resisting arrest but **no other crime**? It’s such an obvious bullshit charge. That is nothing, compared to that [Civil Asset Forfeiture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States) crap. If the police find out you have lots of cash, they will seize it, on the premise that it is probably ill-gotten gains (because honest folk do not carry large amounts of cash), and _you_ have to _prove_ that it is clean in order to get it back (and hope your lawyer does not take 90% of it as his fee). There is a legitimate premise behind forfeiture (criminals ought not be able to use their dirty profits to hire good legal defense), but the mechanism has come to be grossly abused. The police take innocent people’s money, do not file any charges against those persons, and force them to jump through hoops to get it back. The lesson is, if you have more than $500 on you, do not _ever_ admit it to the police. Keep your cash on your person (not in your vehicle or luggage) and make them arrest and charge you in order for them to discover it. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8626 "2016-08-23T14:47:50Z")
Officer cleared by U.S. Attorney’s Office in shooting of unarmed man. Good. Here’s the story [No criminal charges for police in Jerame Reid shooting](http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/no-criminal-charges-for-police-in-jerame-reid-shooting/article_028024d2-68b3-11e6-86d6-13b9602e7a5b.html) 'Mistake, fear, (perception) or even poor judgement (do) not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute,” the agency said. The clear implication is that Days was wrong but not criminally wrong. What a crock. Days knew who Reid was. He knew that Reid had been convicted of shooting at police and done state prison time for the crime . He knew there was at least one gun in the car. He knew that Reid was forcing his way out of the car and not showing his hands in spite of being at gunpoint and multiple commands to not do so. Days had every reason to fear (otherwise known as “reasonable fear”) for his life and did the right thing. There was no mistake or poor judgement here, except on the part of Reid. In the interest of political correctness, the U.S. Attorney’s Office doesn’t have the backbone to say “The shooting was justified under the law.” Instead they say, “insufficient evidence to pursue charges”. While technically correct, the spin seems to be “The cop did wrong, we just couldn’t win in court”. What BS. When this shooting first made the news the local rag (same as in the link) had a very large, color photo of a single frame taken from the dashcam plastered on the front page. Of course, that frame shows the suspect with his hands raised just as or before he was shot. Completely misleading as to what actually happened. But, hey, why let accurate reporting get in the way of selling a few more copies of a bush-league newspaper? The media has no agenda, right? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8627 "2016-08-23T15:29:24Z")
He got cleared of criminal conduct, and you are complaining there was no “attaboy, good job”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8628 "2016-08-23T15:54:45Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > He got cleared of criminal conduct, and you are complaining there was no “attaboy, good job”? Yes. This was a justified shooting. The officer did his job correctly even at the risk of his own life. In return, he ought to satisfied because he isn’t going to prison for it. :rolleyes: Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8629 "2016-08-23T16:50:48Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > Officer cleared by U.S. Attorney’s Office in shooting of unarmed man. Good. No; he was not “cleared”. Why would you start your post with a lie? > [@Shodan](#): > > Yes. This was a justified shooting. The officer did his job correctly even at the risk of his own life. That may be your opinion but it certainly isn’t shared by the legal system. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8630 "2016-08-23T19:42:14Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No; he was not “cleared”. Yes, he was cleared of any charges. > [@](#): > > Why would you start your post with a lie? Because you are an idiot who does not wish to read for comprehension. > [@](#): > > That may be your opinion but it certainly isn’t shared by the legal system. If it is certain, then you can certainly provide a cite that the legal findings were that the shooting was unjustified. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8631 "2016-08-24T16:57:25Z")
> [@](#): > > An Indianapolis homeowner who called police to report an attempted armed robbery at his house was mistaken for the suspect and was shot in the stomach by the responding officer, authorities said. > > Carl Williams, a 48-year-old black man, called 911 in the early hours of Tuesday morning and told the emergency dispatcher that an armed man tried to assault his wife outside their home, then stole her car keys and drove away in the couple’s car, according to a statement from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. > > When two white police officers arrived at the property on the city’s east side, the homeowner, who was also armed and apparently prepared to confront the carjacker, emerged from his home, a law enforcement source told ABC affiliate RTV6. > > Confusing him for the suspect, officer Christopher Mills, a nine-year veteran of the force, shot Williams in the stomach, police said in the statement. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/24/a-black-homeowner-called-911-to-report-a-carjacking-he-wound-up-getting-shot-by-police/?utm\_term=.c04718938741](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/24/a-black-homeowner-called-911-to-report-a-carjacking-he-wound-up-getting-shot-by-police/?utm_term=.c04718938741) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8632 "2016-08-24T18:01:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, he was cleared of any charges.Because you are an idiot who does not wish to read for comprehension. He was not “cleared of any charges”. There was no finding of innocence. You are wrong. You are so wrong you appear to have little to no understanding of our justice system or what was written about this case. > [@Shodan](#): > > If it is certain, then you can certainly provide a cite that the legal findings were that the shooting was unjustified. No, you made the original claim so you can provide a cite that the shooting was ruled a justified shooting. You won’t tho, because there is no such ruling or determination. Most likely you’ll either try and move the goalposts, hurl insults at me and/or others in this thread and eventually slink away after futilely trying to claim some sort of victory; you know: like you usually do when you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8633 "2016-08-24T18:04:41Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/24/a-black-homeowner-called-911-to-report-a-carjacking-he-wound-up-getting-shot-by-police/?utm\_term=.c04718938741](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/24/a-black-homeowner-called-911-to-report-a-carjacking-he-wound-up-getting-shot-by-police/?utm_term=.c04718938741) “Confusing him for the suspect”… :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8634 "2016-08-24T19:13:40Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > “Confusing him for the suspect”… :dubious: Shoot the black man first, investigate _later_. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8635 "2016-08-24T19:23:43Z")
My point is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office _could_ have said “Based on our investigation it appears the use of deadly force was justified under the law in this case”. But, god forbid, you somehow back the cops in this climate. Better to say, “insufficient evidence to charge or convict” or something similar. I have seen many D.A.s, when announcing a No Bill or even a decision to not present the case to a GJ, say something to the effect that deadly force was found to be justified in a particular case. While not a legal ruling per se, it leaves little doubt that the officer did the right thing. As was the case in Bridgeton, New Jersey. An “Atta boy” isn’t necessary but “The officer acted in accordance the law” wouldn’t hurt. P.S. - An “Atta boy” wouldn’t hurt either. Not a “Good job for killing him” but a “Good job for protecting yourself, your partner and the public under very difficult circumstances. You did what you had to do.” But that’s a politically dangerous thing to do so, never mind. BTW, do any of the posters in this thread have the opinion that this was not a justified shooting? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8636 "2016-08-24T21:04:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > He was not “cleared of any charges”. There was no finding of innocence. You are wrong. You are so wrong you appear to have little to no understanding of our justice system or what was written about this case. As I’m sure you well know, no-one is “found innocent”, innocence is presumed. And, as the investigation found insufficient evidence to prove him guilty, that presumption stands. He is as innocent of murder as you or me. Your idiotic semantic argument about the distinction between “charges dropped” and “cleared of any charges” shows that you either don’t understand how the justice system works, or - more likely - you want to cast doubt on his innocence despite the lack of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8637 "2016-08-24T22:07:19Z")
So everybody who thinks that not being prosecuted is the same as innocent, raise your hand. Now, how many of you will keep them up when I say I’m talking about Hillary Clinton? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8638 "2016-08-24T22:52:25Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > So everybody who thinks that not being prosecuted is the same as innocent, raise your hand. Not been _convicted_ means someone is innocent in the vast majority of cases. It can happen that someone is found not guilty but subsequently their guilt is proven, but it’s rare. Examples would be OJ Simpson and the killers of Emmett Till. > [@](#): > > Now, how many of you will keep them up when I say I’m talking about Hillary Clinton? She’s neither been convicted, nor has there been evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt presented to the public that she’s committed a crime. She’s therefore innocent, and unless and until that changes she should be considered eligible to stand for president and, if elected, serve. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8639 "2016-08-25T15:57:31Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Why the hell are the police allowed to charge people with resisting arrest but **no other crime**? It’s such an obvious bullshit charge. This is extremely easy, common, and justifiable. Confronted by law enforcement for infraction like burned out tail light. Citizen gets huge attitude, refuses to produce ID, refuses to sign ticket, in many states that rates arrest and or impound of your vehicle. Officer pulls out his cuffs and you run or make any effort to resist being handcuffed you are now “resisting arrest”. The rest of the charges are almost beneath notice at that point. Cop could care less about the taillight now because you are trying to avoid the process of a simple fairly painless infraction, and turn it into a huge drama scene. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8640 "2016-08-25T16:26:04Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > This is extremely easy, common, and justifiable. > Confronted by law enforcement for infraction like burned out tail light. > > Citizen gets huge attitude, refuses to produce ID, refuses to sign ticket, in many states that rates arrest and or impound of your vehicle. > > Officer pulls out his cuffs and you run or make any effort to resist being handcuffed you are now “resisting arrest”. The rest of the charges are almost beneath notice at that point. Cop could care less about the taillight now because you are trying to avoid the process of a simple fairly painless infraction, and turn it into a huge drama scene. Utter crap. Once the handcuffs are out, he has already decided to arrest you. Then, and only then, can you resist arrest. In you example, someone can be arrested for refusing to sign the ticket, then an additional charge of resisting. If you are only charged for _resisting_, it’s pretty much an admission that they have no cause for the _arrest_. No valid, stand up in court cause, anyway. “Being black and giving me lip”, now known as refusing to ‘_Respect my Authoritah!_!!’, doesn’t cut it anymore. ---
**Author:** ![aliensshow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@aliensshow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aliensshow)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8641 "2016-08-25T16:48:41Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Utter crap. Once the handcuffs are out, he has already decided to arrest you. Then, and only then, can you resist arrest. > > In you example, someone can be arrested for refusing to sign the ticket, then an additional charge of resisting. If you are only charged for _resisting_, it’s pretty much an admission that they have no cause for the _arrest_. No valid, stand up in court cause, anyway. “Being black and giving me lip”, now known as refusing to ‘_Respect my Authoritah!_!!’, doesn’t cut it anymore. While I applaud you for the racial virtue-signaling, you’re completely wrong here. If you don’t want to get arrested, don’t “give lip” to the cop who’s pulled you over. So simple even a liberal can understand it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=431) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=433)