Even Bricker and John Mace are uncomfortable with the level of police brutality happening these days. That says something. I wonder what it would take for Smapti to start changing his mind on this.
I wonder how our resident cop-sucking fascists will rationalize that?
I imagine they will have the sense to realise the distinction between what seems like a blatant abuse of power, and the other stories being discussed where the police have acted in self defence. I’ve not seen anyone here argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to record the police’s actions.
Still, presumably, some people the police interact with in the UK or Japan are armed. Including some that aren’t 12 and actually dangerous. And somehow the British or Japanese police didn’t kill anybody that year. Neither 12 yo nor hardened criminals.
Which means in my opinion that they’re not just facing a less armed populace but also that they’re much less trigger happy.
The whole video shows how insane the behaviour of the police was. First, to, my surprise, the kid actually looked like a kid. I was somehow expecting he wouldn’t.
The police car drives right on him and stops just besides him. Which is insane if they were expecting a dangerous situation. And it doesn’t look like a threatening situation at all. Maybe I’m mistaken about something, but I don’t believe I would have felt threatened the slightest bit had I randomly passed by. But of course, it’s obvious that the police doesn’t take a second to assess the situation, as anybody sensible would have done.
And then of course, they shot him immediatly, and I can’t see they could expect him to react appropriately in so short a time, assuming they were extremely clear in their instructions, which I doubt was possible from what I see.
Finally, even if the kid actually had the gun in hand and pointing it at them, I can’t see that as a legitimate reason to open fire, given that…he was fucking 12! Again, I wasn’t on the scene so I can’t tell for certain, but I have a hard time conceiving doing something else than telling the kid to put his gun down in such a situation.
Those cops aren’t below the standard I would expect for a trained cop, they’re below the standard I would expect for a random, not very bright and easily panicked, civilian
Confiscating tablets/phones is actually a pretty common behavior among cops these days. Certainly more common than shooting suspects.
Yes, and it’s completely illegal as far as I know - unlike shooting someone in self defence. My point is that it’s these things that people should be arguing against, and yet people seem to focus on entirely the wrong things.
The problem with that is that those who are inclined to side with the police will see that the arguments that, for example, Darren Wilson was wrong to shoot Michael Brown are absurd, and may well think that all the anti-police arguments are equally absurd.
There is, of course, a difference between confiscating a recording device and seizing it as evidence, but the latter should only be happening if there’s cause to arrest, and it shouldn’t immediately be accessed by the police except in an emergency.
You sound as if you think those who tend to side with the police don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation.
Also, if cops are seizing phones/tablets regularly, it’s for one reason only–they know their behavior is wrong. Since it’s so common, that implies a lot of cops know they are wrong. And yet, they feel free to seize phones. It’s clear they think they can act with impunity. What does THAT say?
Most people don’t, in my experience. This board is something of an outlier.
I would say that they know their behaviour is illegal, not that they necessarily believe it’s wrong. Which is part of the problem.
Prolly for him to experience it firsthand, and even then he’d prolly still accept the blame for the incident, at least at first.
That’s not what brandishing is. Ohio doesn’t define the word in code, but the jury instruction say brandishing
Simply having an unholstered pistol is not brandishing in Ohio. There must be an element of threat, menace, or intimidation. You’re factually wrong here.
I’m not familiar with the nuances in Ohio. In my opinion unholstering or holding a firearm in hand would be considered exhibiting in a menacing way. I’m sure the jury will decide. Are you aware of case law that supports a person carrying a firearm in hand in the manner you describe and being cleared of a brandishig charge?
I grant I could have this wrong for Ohio - in CA it would be brandishing. Surely what the kid was doing was brandishing from the video. It’s what prompted the 911 call.
I’m not familiar with Ohio case law, but I’ll point out that Ohio does not have a brandishing charge. I’m not sure what you call it exactly, but it’s a sentencing requirement that requires another crime to have been committed. You can’t be arrested for brandishing, but if you assault someone and you display or brandish a firearm, this kicks in.
In any case, I know this is the Pit, but you made the claim and all, so that’s all the effort I’m going to put into debunking it.
I think we can disagree on what it would be considered, by an observant bystander, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is factually wrong. Holding a firearm out of the holster can be brandishing. All it would take is to be exhibited (seen) in a menacing way. Reasonable people can disagree but it is not factually wrong to interpret it this way. That Ohio doesn’t have a specific brandishing charge doesn’t help me out here.
Sure, if we’re just talking layman’s definitions the bar is lower, but still requires something beyond simply holding an unholstered weapon, which is what you originally stated. So I’m comfortable calling “unholstered = brandished” as factually wrong.
The Ohio law doesn’t even care if it’s holstered or not. The idea is that if I walk into a convenience store and demand the cash out of the register, and then lift my jacket to reveal a holstered weapon, this law kicks in. I’ve used my weapon to intimidate or menace, even snugly in its holster.
This was all news to me until the Wal-Mart shooting, when the Ohio open carry nuts actually protested in the victim’s name.
Black man stopped for walking in the cold with his hands in his pockets -
The comments bag on the officer - but I’m guessing that once he is dispatched, he probably needs to make the contact. Although his discretionary ability may have allowed him to just do a drive-by, and call back to the and give an all clear.
Folks in Hanover called the cops when a (black male) friend of mine who had gotten a job at Dartmouth was moving his belongings into his new apartment. They sat in their vehicle watching him. :smack:
This is so common it is becoming a meme.
I don’t know if this has been posted already: The St Louis police dept. is butt-hurt because some of the Rams players took to the field with their hands up in a “don’t shoot” gesture.
They demand an apology :rolleyes:
What a fucking tone-deaf reaction that illustrates how very, very far they are from being able to connect with their community. On the other hand, that is exactly how things typically are in St. Louis.