Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread

[Bryan_Ekers]

Surely on that list is one where the circumstances will force a more entertaining level of Smapti-justification.

[Steophan]

@grude

Another Day At The Pool Turns Violent For A Black Family After Police Are Called | HuffPost Latest News

I dunno why I even bother to post this here, for the cop bots to respond to I guess.

Who wouldn’t get angry when they are told you can’t use the pool, oh and we won’t refund your money either.

Check out the random white civilian who gets to act out his fantasies by restraining someone and the police say NOTHING. White privilege doesn’t exist folks!

I’m not sure why you bothered to post it here, as there’s nothing even slightly controversial about the police behaviour. Whether or not they deserved a refund is entirely irrelevant, as that doesn’t justify their violence.

The police using force to get people out of somewhere they have no right to be is not only not controversial, it’s one of the main parts of their job.

[Typo_Negative]

@Smapti

Nowhere does the article say the man he shot before was black. It says he was from Kazakhstan - a central Asian country with no significant African population.

You are quite correct. It does not say the man he killed before was black.

It does say that the officer who shot him was kept from frontline policing for nearly 3 years after killing an unarmed man, then insulting the family in online posting. It says he was once disciplined for posting violent remarks and Nazi images online. It further says that the department was warned by a superior officer that he was “dangerous” and likely to cause someone harm".

A sergeant in the department at the time told the Guardian that senior commanders were formally warned by one of Rankin’s supervisors weeks before his first fatal shooting that he was “dangerous” and likely to cause someone harm.

Seriously, this does not give you the slightest pause?

[Smapti]

@Typo_Negative

Seriously, this does not give you the slightest pause?

It makes him a racist jerk, sure.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that his shooting an aggressive suspect in self-defense was inherently a racist act, or an unjustified one.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

It makes him a racist jerk, sure.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that his shooting an aggressive suspect in self-defense was inherently a racist act, or an unjustified one.

It makes it a lot more likely. If a Nazi shoots a Jew, it’s a lot more likely that he shot the Jew at least partially out of Jew-hatred then when some random non-Nazi shoots a Jew.

[doorhinge]

@SciFiSam

Will you please stop misrepresenting people’s posts?

(post shortened)

Are you referring to the people who misrepresent my posts?

[slumtrimpet]

@Typo_Negative

You are quite correct. It does not say the man he killed before was black.

It does say that the officer who shot him was kept from frontline policing for nearly 3 years after killing an unarmed man, then insulting the family in online posting. It says he was once disciplined for posting violent remarks and Nazi images online. It further says that the department was warned by a superior officer that he was “dangerous” and likely to cause someone harm".

Seriously, this does not give you the slightest pause?

Thank you Typo Negative for responding on my behalf (sort of) I stand corrected, the first guy this ‘officer’ shot was not black. My bad.

And the rest of what you said is much more articulate than I could have managed.

[doorhinge]

@Fear_Itself

Yes. Cops don’t get to shoot kids that take a swing at them.

It appears that the law disagrees with you. Cops are entitled to defend themselves, as are felons.

[Fear_Itself]

@doorhinge

It appears that the law disagrees with you. Cops are entitled to defend themselves, as are felons.

Prosecutors who lack the integrity to prosecute cops is hardly a confirmation that the law condones disproportionate lethal force.

[doorhinge]

@Chimera

Good god you are a disingenuous asshole. You are the one waving around this ‘death threats’ bullshit as if it means anything at all in the context of this thread, trying for your gotcha moments, and then you come up with this little turd? :dubious:

Congratulations, you’ve earned the rare distinction of being so stupid, disingenuous and hypocritical that I will now put you on Ignore.

Please be assured that I will give your frivolous rant of all the attention that it deserves. :rolleyes:

[doorhinge]

@Fear_Itself

Prosecutors who lack the integrity to prosecute cops is hardly a confirmation that the law condones disproportionate lethal force.

Which doesn’t change the fact that everyone is entitled to the right of self-defense. Even those you find undeserving.

[eschereal]

@Bryan_Ekers

Surely on that list is one where the circumstances will force a more entertaining level of Smapti-justification.

Only so much is smaptifiable.

[Fear_Itself]

@doorhinge

Which doesn’t change the fact that everyone is entitled to the right of self-defense. Even those you find undeserving.

Even cops are not entitled to use lethal force disproportionately.

[doorhinge]

@Bryan_Ekers

I won’t put you on ignore, doorhinge. Please clarify for me the relevance of the death threats. I’m inviting you to say plainly what you mean, instead of reacting by pointing out things you DIDN’T say or mean, which is surely a tragic waste of your valuable time and talent.

Remember this - Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread

I consider the death threats made by civilians towards law-enforcement officers to be relevant to a thread titled “Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread”. YMMV.

Oh, and I will still react by pointing out things that I DIDN’T say. If that’s OK with you? And even if it isn’t. Life goes on.

[Steophan]

@Fear_Itself

Even cops are not entitled to use lethal force disproportionately.

Obviously. The problem is that, even when these incidents have been investigates and the amount of force used has been found to be proportionate, people are still saying the cops are out of order, that the incidents are “controversial” when all the controversy is manufactured by people who have made a choice to despise the police regardless of the evidence, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the police’s job is.

It is part of their job to use force. That’s why they are trained to do so, issued weapons, and legally protected against many of the consequences that others would face if they, in the heat of the moment, misjudge the amount of force necessary.

[bup]

Alleged mass-killing gunman brought down in hail of gunfire, although he wasn’t wearing the wrong bathing suit, holding a super soaker, getting his registration out of the glove compartment as he was instructed, or reaching into his (gunless) waistband).

[Fear_Itself]

@Steophan

Obviously. The problem is that, even when these incidents have been investigates and the amount of force used has been found to be proportionate, people are still saying the cops are out of order, that the incidents are “controversial” when all the controversy is manufactured by people who have made a choice to despise the police regardless of the evidence, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the police’s job is.

The problem is, police are frequently left to investigate themselves, or prosecutors decline to investigate police departments they depend on for cooperation. The only way justice will be served is if an independent prosecutor is appointed.

[Leaper]

Here’s an assertion I see online recently and at other times: if the police can arrest without incident white men who actually commit armed mass murder (and apparently, in this latest case, without even using handcuffs on the guy), surely they should be able to resolve tense situations with unarmed black suspects suspected of much less serious crimes with equal aplomb…

ETA: partially ninja’ed by bup.

[Terr]

@Leaper

Here’s an assertion I see online recently and at other times: if the police can arrest without incident white men who actually commit armed mass murder (and apparently, in this latest case, without even using handcuffs on the guy), surely they should be able to resolve tense situations with unarmed black suspects suspected of much less serious crimes with equal aplomb…

1. Do you know whether Dylan Roof resisted arrest in any way?

2. How many unarmed black suspects do you think are arrested every day “with aplomb” and without any problems?

[slumtrimpet]

@Steophan

Obviously. The problem is that, even when these incidents have been investigates and the amount of force used has been found to be proportionate, people are still saying the cops are out of order, that the incidents are “controversial” when all the controversy is manufactured by people who have made a choice to despise the police regardless of the evidence, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the police’s job is.

It is part of their job to use force. That’s why they are trained to do so, issued weapons, and legally protected against many of the consequences that others would face if they, in the heat of the moment, misjudge the amount of force necessary.

Or maybe not.
All 50 US states fail to meet global police use of force standards, report finds
Oh dear. Oops.